[Senate Hearing 106-981]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 106-981
NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS B. LEARY TO BE A COMMISSIONER ON THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION; AND GREGORY L. ROHDE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-936 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
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 SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Ivan A. Schlager, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 9, 1999................................... 1
Statement of Senator Ashcroft.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 2
Statement of Senator Wyden....................................... 2
Witnesses
Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from North Dakota................ 5
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 4
Leary, Thomas B., Commissioner-Designate, Federal Trade
Commission..................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Biographical information..................................... 29
Pickering, Hon. Charles W. ``Chip'', U.S. Representative from
Mississippi.................................................... 6
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, U.S. Representative from North Dakota........ 5
Rohde, Gregory L., assistant secretary, Communications and
Information-Designate, U.S. Department of Commerce............. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Biographical information..................................... 16
Appendix
Rowe, Bob, chairman, NARUC Telecommunications Committee, letter
dated September 3, 1999, to Hon. Conrad Burns.................. 43
Stevens, Hon. Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, prepared statement.. 43
NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS B. LEARY TO BE A COMMISSIONER ON THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION; AND GREGORY L. ROHDE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John
Ashcroft, presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: Virginia Pounds,
Republican professional staff; and Jonathan Oakman, Democratic
staff assistant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Ashcroft. Good afternoon. I am grateful for your
attendance here today.
The Commerce Committee meets today to examine
qualifications of two individuals who have been nominated by
the President of the United States to serve this great Nation
in important governmental responsibilities.
This committee takes its advice and consent role very
seriously, and I will note that each of the nominees has
responded in detail to the committee's request for biographical
and financial data, and we are grateful for your having so
responded. I have had the opportunity to review your responses
to the committee's questionnaire and I know that the chairman
looks forward to moving your nominations quickly.
Our first nominee is Greg Rohde who has been nominated to
be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information and Administrator of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Our second nominee will be Thomas Leary who has been
nominated to be a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank both of the
nominees for being here today. I know that your nomination is a
great honor and that your families are very proud.
I would like quickly to welcome the family members and
special guests of our nominees who are in attendance today. I
thank you all for coming.
We will begin with a panel of our distinguished colleagues
from both the House and Senate, here to introduce Mr. Rohde and
to support his nomination. Before I do, I would ask if the
Senator from Oregon would have any remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. I would and I will be very brief, Mr.
Chairman.
I want to welcome both of the nominees. I think we have got
two first-rate individuals. I was very pleased to be a strong
and early supporter of Greg Rohde for this position. I think he
will do an outstanding job.
Just so he knows, I am going to want to explore with him a
little bit this morning how we can get the Federal
Communications Commission off the dime and actually implement
section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. As he knows, I
sat on the Communications Subcommittee for a long, long time,
and this issue, of course, is critical to the program that was
held this morning, Senator Daschle's excellent program, to get
high speed Internet access to rural communities. The Federal
Communications Commission is authorized, directed to implement
section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, and frankly, getting
the FCC to move on broadband is sort of like trying to coax a
dog off a meat wagon. It is just impossible to get them to act,
and I am very hopeful that we will see some action on that and
that is an issue I would like to explore with Mr. Rohde. But he
will be an outstanding nominee.
Then with respect to our other nominee, Mr. Thomas Leary,
Commissioner-Designate of the Federal Trade Commission, I am
going to want to talk to him about his views with respect to
bringing back some competition to the market for gasoline on
the west coast. Oregon is now paying the highest gasoline
prices in the Nation. In fact, the whole west is now getting
shellacked in terms of gasoline prices. We are facing the
prospect of another big merger in the gasoline market. The BP-
Arco merger that is being discussed in Alaska in my view would
be poison for the west coast of the United States.
I have asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate
pricing in the west. They have put subpoenas into the hands of
the major oil companies at this time, so there are some
limitations on what Mr. Leary is going to be in a position to
say, but I would certainly like to discuss some of the policy
issues with respect to gasoline pricing with him.
But my sense is we have two outstanding individuals before
us today, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to supporting them
and to hearing from them. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
It is my pleasure now to call upon the Senator from
Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nice to have a
couple of nominees before us that we can all enthusiastically
support.
Greg's mom is here. She is from Hill County, Montana.
[Laughter.]
If folks do not know what that is, that is the largest town
on the Milk River.
[Laughter.]
If that does not help you any, it is called Havre. And it
is nice to have her here today with Greg.
I also want to say that we have worked with Greg a long
time here on this committee on telecommunications issues, and I
do not know of anybody that has been any more helpful in
furthering legislation on a bipartisan basis than Greg has. I
cite the passage of the ORBIT bill and several landmark pieces
of legislation, the 1996 telecom bill, which played extremely
important roles in shaping and fashioning that legislation.
One always has to wonder why our inflation has not run away
and yet our economy continues to boom. I want to state
emphatically here today that the passage of the 1996 bill
probably has extended this economic cycle much further than we
even thought was possible, and I think maybe we will have to
take a look in our productivity and our technologies. What this
is providing is something that some of us recognized many, many
years ago, and Greg was one of those. Of course, representing a
rural State, understanding that distance is our biggest enemy
when it comes to infrastructure and the growth of rural
America, a very keen understanding, and that also was extremely
helpful in shaping that legislation.
So, we welcome him here today.
Larry Irving and I have always had a great working
relationship. We hate to see Larry move on--but we understand
that--because I think he has done a commendable job at the
Commerce Department. And I think Greg probably is stepping into
some shoes now that are going to be hard to fill, but I have no
doubt that he will be able to do that.
So, we welcome him here to this committee and I support his
nomination wholeheartedly, as I do the nomination for our
Federal Trade Commission.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me those words
because I really feel like that this is really a good
nomination. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you.
We will begin with a panel of distinguished colleagues from
both the House and Senate here to introduce Mr. Rohde and to
support his nomination. Senator Conrad from North Dakota is the
senior Senator from North Dakota. He will be followed by
Senator Dorgan who is Greg Rohde's current employer or boss.
Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, Mr. Rohde's
Congressman, and Congressman Chip Pickering from Mississippi.
He is serving his second term in the House and knows Mr. Rohde
from a time when Chip worked for Senator Lott and did Commerce
Committee work. So, it is a pleasure to introduce you in that
order unless you have arranged among yourselves to follow some
other order. Senator Conrad.
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer to my
colleague, Senator Dorgan, who is Greg's employer and I think
Greg would attest to the fact that Byron is his boss.
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Only in an unguarded moment.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, as a member of this distinguished committee,
it is unusual to get this view of the committee. I will reserve
comment for the moment, but I am really pleased to be here.
Greg Rohde, I hope, will be from this nomination the next
Assistant Secretary of Commerce running NTIA and related
functions. I am delighted to be joined by my colleagues from
North Dakota, the entire North Dakota congressional delegation.
[Laughter.]
And my friend, the Congressman Chip Pickering, who has been
willing to come today to provide testimony as well.
Greg Rohde and I have worked together for over 10 years and
worked on a wide variety of issues. Greg, as all of us on this
committee know, played a significant role in organizing the
farm team and working on the Telecommunications Act with me and
with many other members of this committee. He is talented,
dedicated, very skilled, very knowledgeable. I do not just come
to a table and endorse everybody for these kinds of positions,
but I certainly give him my unqualified endorsement. He is
going to be a real asset in this job.
He is, if you do not know, also an All-American athlete. He
was All-American at cross country as a younger man, and likely
has lost a little of that time.
[Laughter.]
But that will not disadvantage him. It did not in my office
and will not in this administration.
But I want to say that in a town of many factions and in a
town with a fair amount of partisanship, in a town where there
are many aggressive battles, it is quite remarkable to be able
to see someone be able to operate the way Greg Rohde has
operated, creating and making friends on all sides of the aisle
with all kinds of viewpoints. He has carved out I think a
reputation, justly deserved, for excellence. You would hear
Senator Lott say good things about Greg Rohde. You would hear
Senator Daschle say good things about him. We would hear
Senator McCain say good things about him. We just heard good
things from the members on the dais today. And that is not an
accident.
This appointment I think is an important step for this
country. It is an important step for those of us that care
about telecommunications policy. I just finished this morning
with some of my colleagues, including Senator Daschle, a CEO
summit on the build-out of broadband capability in our country.
It is very important. The movement of Greg Rohde to this
Assistant Secretary job will be critical to resolving some of
these issues that will be resolved by public policy. Yes, some
in the FCC, but by public policy generally working between the
administration and this Congress.
Greg's family is here today. I have known his mother as
long as I have known Greg. I must say that she overcame that
problem of being born in Montana.
[Laughter.]
She has been a wonderful citizen of North Dakota and good
friend to all of us and a wonderful mother to Greg. She is, I
am sure, as proud today as I am. We are joined not only by his
mother, but other family and his fiancee.
Let me again say that this is in the end for this committee
not about friendship at all. It is about public policy and it
is about making our country a better place in which to live.
The willingness of good men and women to offer themselves for
public service is something all of us cherish, and I think Greg
Rohde is one of those unique people who have offered themselves
to public service. This country I think will be justifiably
proud of that service.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Conrad.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Burns,
Senator Wyden.
It is good to be here to strongly endorse the candidacy of
Greg Rohde for what is really an important position not only to
this Department but I think really to the country. Greg Rohde
is simply outstanding. I think every member of this committee
knows that. I think any member who has worked with Greg Rohde
knows that. He demonstrates a professionalism and an integrity
that really are first-rate, and I think he is going to make a
very positive contribution to this position.
I have found that Greg is one of those few people that can
take these extraordinarily complex telecommunications issues
and make them understandable to people who do not work with it
frequently. I am not a member of this committee, but I have
found that he has a rare talent for explaining the key elements
of these telecommunications issues to me and to my staff. I
have always had very high regard for him.
His demonstrated performance, as Senator Dorgan's staff
member on this committee, I think is well known by the other
members of the committee.
One other thing I wanted to mention. Greg has a degree in
theology, and I think that is also going to be useful because
he has access to a higher power.
[Laughter.]
And he really is a very rare person of very high integrity,
tremendous professional skills, and I am very pleased to be
here to enthusiastically endorse his candidacy.
I thank the chairman and thank the members of the
committee.
Senator Ashcroft. Congressman Pomeroy.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH
DAKOTA
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very good to be
here. Senator Wyden, we still miss you in the House. Senator
Burns, your comments were so well taken, I will forego the
customary Montana joke.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burns. Do you want Wyden back?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pomeroy. I think if there were three things that kind
of sum up Greg's wonderful potential for this position, it
would be his knowledge, his work ethic, and his integrity. And
I cannot think of three more important attributes that you
might look to.
I can certainly speak to the knowledge part and ascribe
myself fully to Senator Conrad's remarks when he speaks of
Greg's unique ability to take the tremendous technical
sophistication of these issues and put them in a way that
someone without the background can understand. Across the North
Dakota delegation, we share the wealth, which means on more
than one occasion I have been on the phone to Greg doing
telecom remedial learning, and he has just simply been
excellent. We are all very proud of the expertise that one of
our own has now achieved on this breaking, terribly important
area.
Work ethic and personal energy unmatched. He still runs
like a rabbit, and I think that just captures the kind of
vitality that he has. A very, very hard worker, as you know.
Integrity. Unquestioned integrity. Certainly in a public
responsibility of this nature, that is very important and Greg
offers it in spades.
This is a tremendously important post for us in rural
America, and so we are particularly concerned about it and urge
your favorable consideration. I am very heartened by what I
have heard from you all today. We really care about this one
and think it is just an excellent opportunity for the country.
Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft. I am pleased now to call on Congressman
Chip Pickering from Mississippi, not someone that Greg has
worked for, but someone he has worked with. I am delighted to
have you come and present your remarks in behalf of Mr. Rohde.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Pickering. Thank you, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Burns,
Senator Wyden. It is good to be back over on the Senate side in
the Commerce Committee where I have many great memories and
experiences. I still have memories of working together to draft
the Telecommunications Act, Senator Burns, that you talked
about in 1996 and what we are seeing now as a result of that.
But one of the great experiences was working together with
staff, both Republicans and Democrats, trying to find common
ground to move that policy forward.
Today I am here--it is a privilege to be here--to talk
about Greg Rohde and to encourage and endorse his confirmation
and nomination for the position that he is being considered for
because I saw firsthand not only the dedication and the
integrity but the work ethic. He did have a great spirit about
him, and we have had not only political and philosophical but
theological conversations that hopefully will guide him as he
goes forward.
[Laughter.]
You talked about being quick as a rabbit. In
telecommunications, you need to be quick as a rabbit to survive
in a rapidly changing environment.
But it was here in this room that I learned firsthand that
public policy and constituent politics work very much in an
integrated sense of what we eventually end up doing and that we
have to be guided by our principles, but we have to be able to
reach across the aisles to find the common positions and the
common ground. And that working together is in the best spirit
and the best legacy of this committee.
Now, I do have some bad news for Greg. I thought, by going
over to the House and becoming a Member of Congress, I would
actually gain in influence, but I have learned that being a
Member is somewhat less than a Senate staffer as far as
influence.
[Laughter.]
So, Greg, my one advice is to always remember, even though
you may be the Assistant Secretary, that you still must answer
and be accountable to the Commerce Committee here in the Senate
and in the House. Your role is to implement. So, we look
forward to working with you.
[Laughter.]
It is a great privilege also to be with the entire North
Dakota delegation, and when North Dakota and Mississippi join
forces, the south and the midwest, we can do some tremendous
things. One of the things this committee is known for is
balancing the issues of rural and urban, and I can think of no
one better qualified than the advocate and one of the leaders
of the farm team in Greg Rohde of being able to promote
competition, to see that vision implemented, but also to make
sure that the technology and the advantages that come with this
new world benefit rural America. We have a true friend in Greg
Rohde in being able to accomplish that whether it is in
education, telemedicine, and all of the exciting technological
applications that we are seeing in the marketplace.
In short, I am very proud to endorse and urge the
committee's approval of Greg Rohde. We cannot have a better
person or friend from this area, from this committee, and with
a better knowledge and understanding and character to do a
great job for all of us.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time you have given me
and look forward to seeing Greg Rohde confirmed. Thank you very
much.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you very much. To all of you who
are members of the panel who have been so kind and willing to
remark favorably upon this nominee, I would now suggest that
you proceed to your next pursuit, whether it be on this panel
or not, and I would invite Mr. Rohde to come forward.
It has already been mentioned that Mr. Rohde's mother, Ms.
Gladys Rohde, from Bismarck, North Dakota, through Hill County,
Montana, has come and his brother Bryan are both here today.
Would you please stand? Brother Bryan, thank you very much. It
is nice to welcome you. Thank you very much for being here.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF GREGORY L. ROHDE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION-DESIGNATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Rohde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot tell you how
happy I am to finally find a seat in this room behind a
microphone.
[Laughter.]
There has been a lot I have wanted to say over the last
6\1/2\ years.
[Laughter.]
But Shakespeare said, ``Brevity is the soul of wit.'' I
guess after such a wonderful introduction and gracious remarks,
it might also be the essence to confirmation, so I will keep my
remarks very brief.
First of all, I want to begin by thanking Chairman McCain
and you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing. Senator
McCain and his staff have been extremely supportive, gracious,
and cooperative to me in this process. They have been so
helpful that it has caused me to wonder if they may have a
variety of reasons for wanting me to leave my present job, but
I am very grateful for their support and help.
I want to thank President Clinton for nominating me for
this post and also Vice President Gore and Secretary Daley for
their support in this nomination. If I am confirmed, I will
consider it a very high honor to serve in this administration,
and I very much would look forward to working with the
excellent staff in NTIA and the Commerce Department.
I also want to thank Senator Daschle. Senator Daschle has
been very helpful and supportive to me in this process, and I
am very grateful for that.
I am also grateful for Congressman Pickering for coming
over. As he said, Chip and I had the privilege of working
together on, among other things, the Telecommunications Act of
1996. During the development of that legislation, as everybody
in this room knows, we had a lot of battles, a lot of dust-ups,
a lot of deadlocks, and a lot of difficulties. During that
process, it was Chip and Senator Lott who were among the first
to jump into the middle of the controversy to reach out and try
to break the deadlocks and try to move the process forward. So,
I learned a great deal from Chip and his boss about
bipartisanship and I really enjoyed working with them.
I am also extremely grateful for the North Dakota
delegation, for Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, and Congressman
Pomeroy, for coming here and supporting me.
One of the little known facts about the North Dakota
delegation here in Washington is that when Senator Dorgan first
ran for Congress in the 1970's, Kent Conrad was his campaign
manager and Earl Pomeroy drove the car.
[Laughter.]
It gives you an idea of how tight this delegation is.
Senator Dorgan. I lost that race.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rohde. Yes, but you corrected the problem.
I have had the privilege of working for Senator Dorgan for
over 10 years, and not a day goes by that I do not forget what
an incredible privilege it has been not only to work with him
but also to work in the North Dakota delegation. It is an
extremely wonderful opportunity to be able to associate myself
with people like Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad and
Congressman Pomeroy and be so proud to be part of the work that
they do. As Senator Conrad mentioned, I have a degree in
theology. When I started working for Senator Dorgan, I had
never taken a political science class, I had never taken a law
class. Everything I have learned about politics and public
service has been through his excellent example and the example
of Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy.
I also want to say a couple of words about my predecessor,
Larry Irving, who I think has served at NTIA with great
distinction and with great honor. Larry has been a personal
friend of mine for the last 6 years, as well as a professional
colleague. I consider it a great honor to have the challenge to
try to build upon the legacy that he has set.
I am nothing less than thrilled at the prospect of working
at NTIA. The reason is that NTIA is really at the very heart of
Federal policymaking for telecommunications and information
services. This is an industry where the maxims are innovation,
growth, and opportunity. It is an industry like no other. It is
driving our economy. It is creating enormous efficiencies and
creating great benefits to consumers.
I grew up on the upper banks of the Missouri River in the
Dakotas, and when I was in junior high and high school, I used
to run the rural roads south of Bismarck. I remember, as I
would be training for track out there, I would run underneath
all these signs for Lewis and Clark, pointing out historic
places of the expedition. About 60 miles north of my hometown
of Bismarck is the Knife Indian River Village. In 1805,
Meriwether Lewis wintered there (and it does get cold) and
wrote his mid-trip report to Thomas Jefferson. From North
Dakota, it took 5 months for that report to reach President
Jefferson's desk in Washington, DC. Today school students in
Stanton High School, which is adjacent to the Knife River
Indian Village, can travel through cyberspace and send e-mails
to Senator Dorgan's office in Washington within an instant.
They can download volumes of data within minutes. The changes
in telecommunications have been enormous and the implications
have been incredible.
My mother, who is here today, grew up on a little farm 14
miles north of Havre, Montana, where her father homesteaded in
the early 1900's. That farmhouse had no electricity and no
phone service until the 1950's when a local cooperative secured
REA financing in order to string a wire out there to provide
telephone service and electrical service.
My mother told me that when she was a young girl, she used
to listen to a radio that my grandfather would hook up to a
battery that was the size of a microwave in order to listen to
the grain report. Although the price of wheat has not changed a
whole lot since then--it is still about $2 a bushel----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rohde [continuing]. Technology has changed
tremendously. My brother-in-law, who currently farms outside of
Grand Forks, North Dakota, now follows the market on line or on
direct satellite links that are hooked up to a local grain
elevator in Larimore, North Dakota.
The change in recent years has been dramatic. In 1993, when
my predecessor, Larry Irving, took his oath of office and began
service at NTIA, the Internet was nothing more than a research
tool used by a few thousand academics. There was no such thing
as household access to the Internet. Today over 26 percent of
American households have access to the Internet at home and
there are over 179 million users of the Internet.
And e-commerce, which was not even in the lexicon of the
most technically savvy members of this committee or anywhere
else in 1993, is a $9 billion industry today.
In 1993, there were 16 million cellular users. There was no
PCS. Today there are 60 million wireless users, and many of
those people are receiving services at about half the rates of
what they were paying just 6 years ago.
In 1993, there was no such thing as DBS. The satellites
were just being launched. Today there are over 10 million
subscribers and DBS has become a very formidable competitor to
the cable industry.
In my mind, the Commerce Committee has provided the right
framework to develop policies that are going to foster
innovation and creativity in the marketplace and ensure that
all these benefits in the telecommunications and information
industries will spread throughout all of our society. That
framework is the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
NTIA's responsibility, in my mind, is to utilize the tools
that are in that Act; the tools of universal service and
competition, to promote and foster growth and innovation and
access to all these telecommunications services. I remain
firmly committed to the dual maxims of the act of competition
and universal service as the way to deliver a coherent policy
in telecommunications.
Certainly the Act has had a number of struggles in its
implementation, and we have a long way to go before we can
declare the Telecommunications Act a complete success, but
wonderful things are happening. The competitive model producing
incredible results. The wireless industry is one example where
consumers in many markets of this country have multiple
choices. The results are that rates go down, and consumers have
choices and better service.
We have over 6,000 independent ISP's in this country which
have thrived and developed in an open, competitive market.
The long distance industry is another example. We are now
looking at competition over nickel rates, something that was
unheard of 10 years ago.
The competitive model works and it is producing incredible
results.
Even under the Telecommunications Act, we still are
struggling in many areas to transform a number of sectors of
the industry from monopoly markets into competitive ones. Local
competition is one of those areas. Still 96 percent of
Americans do not have a choice in local phone service, but we
are making some progress.
Back in 1995 when this committee was meeting in this very
room (as we developed the Telecommunications Act), there were
less than a dozen competitive local exchange carriers. Today
there are over 150, and those 150 are offering competitive
local phone service in over 90 percent of the local exchange
markets in this country. Much to my surprise, one of those
markets is, of all places, Regent, North Dakota, where citizens
there have access to a fixed wireless competitor.
These kinds of things never would have happened without the
Telecommunications Act. But, as many members of this committee
know, the Telecommunications Act was not simply about promoting
competition. It was also about preserving universal service and
building upon our Nation's commitment to universal service that
has existed for years. I remain deeply committed to developing
policies that are built on these two fundamental pillars.
The Telecommunications Act is especially important as we
move into the debates about the new generations of services,
especially when it comes to broadband capabilities and the
kinds of new services that can be offered through such
capability, such as high speed Internet access. The
Telecommunications Act is going to be our map for that future.
When Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory, the
purchase was not just simply a great bargain land deal in his
mind. Jefferson saw the West as a great new opportunity. He saw
it as America's future. His instructions to Meriwether Lewis
and William Clark, when they left Washington in 1803 on July
4th, were to explore the rivers of commerce of this new
continent. Today I see broadband as the new continent,
providing many more new rivers of opportunity for us to
explore. As we move forward and explore these new rivers of
commerce, we need to do it with our traditional American values
of openness, equal opportunity, and making sure that all
Americans can participate.
Usually at about this time, the red light goes on, but I
think maybe some of my friends in the corner did not turn the
timer on.
[Laughter.]
So, I will conclude my remarks by saying a couple of
things. One is that I want to recognize some very special
people here, and those are the folks that sit on the back bench
behind the dais. For the last six and a half years, you have
all been my friends. You have been my colleagues and you have
been my teachers. But more importantly, you have been my
friends. We have spent many, many hours, long nights, weekends,
and holidays, in this room, in our conference rooms, and our
offices. If I am confirmed and I move on, I will take many
great memories from the Senate, but one of the most important
memories I will take will be the time I spent with my friends
and colleagues here and the witness that I have had of your
great dedication to public service and to the constituents that
you represent. It has been an absolute pleasure to serve with
all of you, as well as all the members of this committee.
With that, I will be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Rohde follow:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory L. Rohde, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information-Designate, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. It is indeed an
honor to appear before this Committee today on the matter of my
nomination to be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information and Administrator of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). I have had the distinct privilege of
working with the Members of this Committee for the past six and a half
years. My work with the Committee Members and staff has been one of the
most fonnative and enjoyable experiences of my life. I have benefitted
tremendously for having witnessed daily the integrity of the Senators
of this Committee and their uncompromising commitment to the public
good. I have had a fortunate opportunity to see how well our Nation is
served by all of you and I am honored to have had the opportunity to
work here. I believe that the many things I have learned working with
the Members of this panel has prepared me well to serve as
Administrator of NTIA if confirmed.
I wish to thank President Clinton for nominating me to serve in the
Department of Commerce. I also want to thank Vice President Gore and
Secretary Daley for their gracious support of me. I am grateful for the
opportunity to serve the public in this capacity and I will I seek
through my actions and efforts to be worthy of this office and the
confidence that has been bestowed upon me.
I also want to express my admiration and gratitude to Larry Irving
who has served, with distinction as the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for more than 6 years. He is a model public servant and he
deserves the highest of praise for his dedication to the public,
particularly the ``have nots'' among telecommunications consumers, and
for the many talents he brought to that effort. He has left big shoes
to fill. NTIA and the nation will long be indebted to Mr. Irving for
the energy and passionate leadership he has provided on many
telecommunications and information issues. It will be a challenge and
an honor to build upon his legacy.
I am nothing less than thrilled about the opportunity to serve in
NTIA. Who wouldn't be? Telecommunications and information technologies
and services are evolving and growing at an unrivaled pace, creating
new avenues of opportunity in so many aspects of our lives. At the turn
of the century, natural resources such as oil fueled the engine of our
economy. Today, telecommunications and information technologies have
our economy roaring. This is a growth industry like no other, even in
our booming economy. The opportunities flowing from telecommunications
and information technologies are bounded only by our collective
imagination. According to the recent Commerce Department report The
Emerging Digital Economy II, information technologies have accounted
for more than one-third of our nation's economic growth during this
period of unprecedented expansion. Telecommunications and information
industries are creating jobs, cutting inflation, and bringing new
efficiencies to the American economy. This revolution, however, is not
just about the creation of wealth, but about enhancing the social well
being of all citizens. It is about improving the way we teach and learn
in schools. It is about extending the reach of health care. And, it is
about fostering public safety and bringing people together.
The information revolution is by no means limited to the great
expanse between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans--it is worldwide.
America is once again leading the way by championing a competitive
marketplace that is a magnet for capital investment. The economic
challenge the telecommunications revolution poses for policy makers
today is how to foster innovation and investment in the U.S.
telecommunications and information industries using a competitive model
and assert our leadership in the new global digital economy. The social
challenge is how to ensure privacy and universal access.
Technology transforms human society. Today, at the advent of the
next millennium, telecommunications and information technologies are
transforming our world at an unprecedented pace. From the time of the
ancient Greeks to the invention of the telegraph, technology and
information did not even belong in the same sentence. When Lewis and
Clark set out to explore the territory acquired under the Louisiana
Purchase, information traveled at the speed of a horse. Meriwhether
Lewis' mid-trip report to President Jefferson from the Corps of
Discovery's winter home in North Dakota in 1805 took 5 months to get to
Jefferson's desk in Washington. Today, high speed Internet access can
allow students in Stanton, North Dakota, adjacent to the Knife River
Indian Village where Lewis and Clark spent a chilly winter, to travel
across cyberspace, download volumes of data and information in an
instant, and communicate in real time around the globe.
The changes in my own lifetime have been astonishing. I was born at
the time President Kennedy launched the modern space program and began
the race to the moon. Now there is more computing power in most of the
laptop computers carried around every day by millions of people than
there was on the Apollo mission that landed on the moon 30 years ago.
Supercomputers that took rooms to house in the 1980's can now fit
inside a desktop computer that can be bought off the shelf. In 1975,
there were 50,000 PC's sold. Today, there are twice that number sold
every day. Technology is evolving so rapidly that computers and
wireless phones are out-dated the moment they appear in the store. It
is astonishing that over 75% of the revenues generated by computer
companies today come from products that did not exist two years ago.
My mother, who is here today, grew up in a small farm house outside
of Havre, Montana, where my grandfather homesteaded in the early
1900's. The house had no electricity or phone service until a local
cooperative was able to string a wire to his house 14 miles north of
Havre, with the help of REA (Rural Electrification Administration)
financing. The farm house had kerosene lamps and windmills for power.
As a young girl, my mother used to listen to the grain report on a
radio my grandfather rigged up to a large battery the size of a
microwave oven. Although the price of wheat has not changed much since
then--it is about $2 per bushel, about the same it was in the 1940's--
telecommunications technology has changed enormously. Today, my
brother-in-law who farms outside of Grand Forks, North Dakota, follows
the grain market online or through satellite feeds direct from the
market.
The rapid pace of change in telecommunications and information
technology provides unprecedented opportunities to connect people with
each other, create jobs, improve the quality of life, and rectify
social, economic, and personal challenges resulting from disabilities,
economic disadvantage, or geographic isolation. Geographic distance can
be a thing of the past with an advanced telecommunications network.
Storefront businesses on a small town's main street can become
worldwide distribution centers and small country libraries equipped
with computers linked to high speed modems will no longer be limited to
their local collections, but will enable students to access all the
great books and minds of the world with the click of a ``mouse.''
But all this bounty comes with new challenges. Technological
advances in telecommunications and information services also pose new
threats to national security, public safety, and personal privacy.
Moreover, the globalization of the new digital economy increases our
dependency on infonnation technology and electronic commerce,
challenging our nation's schools to supplement blackboards with
computer terminals so they can train a workforce for the new digital
economy.
Addressing the challenges of the information age while capitalizing
on its opportunities is the central mission of NTIA. The agency also
shares in the mission of the Commerce Department to promote commerce
and NTIA is the agency uniquely focused on the promotion of commerce
through information and communications systems. Indeed, NTIA is the
electronic commerce agency whose function is to: (1) promote
technological innovation and investment; (2) protect security and
privacy; and (3) develop technological applications to advance the
social, economic, and equal opportunity goals of our democracy.
In the era of electronic commerce, NTIA needs to advance policies
that will foster infrastructure investment and ensure universal access
to advanced telecommunications networks that make electronic commerce
possible. This mission can only be accomplished through faithful
adherence to the twin principles of competition and universal service.
Furthermore, the agency's spectrum management responsibilities must
ensure the efficient federal use of this important resource and promote
the development of new wireless technologies by the private sector.
NTIA has a primary responsibility to protect national security and
public safety in telecommunications and information networks and
technologies. The information age brings with it a new generation of
electronic terrorists, hackers, and intruders into personal privacy.
The agency's spectrum management and research functions play a critical
role in the defense and stability of our nation's telecommunications
and information infrastructure. In addition to national security
concerns, the telecommunications and information infrastructure need to
be protected so that consumers can feel as comfortable about their
personal privacy while shopping online as they are while shopping at
the local mall. Through non-regulatory support and guidance, NTIA helps
to make the Internet a user-friendly tool that consumers can trust.
We, as a nation, also need to invest in the future by creating a
technologically advanced educational system that will ensure our place
as the world's leader in the new digital economy. Shortly after the
turn of the millennium, about half of the entire workforce of the
United States is going to be employed either by information technology
producers or by businesses that are intense consumers of information
technologies. The agency's grant programs are designed to identify and
promote innovative applications of new technologies that improve
education, community development, and electronic coerce. NTIA has the
additional responsibility of advancing policies to help the U.S. retain
its global leadership in the new digital economy and enable all
Americans to participate in the benefits of the information revolution.
The agency's demonstration grant programs and its promotion of
competition and universal access form the foundation of that vision of
leadership and inclusiveness.
We are only beginning to see the potential of the dynamic force of
policies based on the new vision of competition and universal service--
the dual maxims under the Telecommunications Act. I am convinced that
an open, competitive environment will most effectively foster
innovation and investment in the telecommunications and information
industries in this country and deliver services at the lowest prices.
Spawned in large part by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, many
segments of the telecommunications industry are currently in the midst
of a transition from a monopoly environment to a deregulated
competitive one. If confirmed, I will work to advance competition and
universal access faithful to the framework created under the
Telecommunications Act.
Certainly there have been implementation struggles with respect to
some of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act and there are many
challenges that lie ahead before the Act can be declared a complete
success. The Act has spurred unprecedented consolidation in some areas
of broadcasting and telephony. Some of these alliances are going to
help foster competition in the new era where the old distinctions are
giving way to a new structure. In some cases, however, consolidation
poses new challenges to ensure a competitive marketplace and will
require creative and innovative policy responses to preserve the
important tenants of diversity and localism.
Nevertheless, the Act has given rise to many positive developments
and promises many more for the future. There were only about a dozen
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) in existence in 1995 when
the Telecommunications Act was written. Today there are more than 150
CLECs with a total market capitalization of more than $40 billion and
are competing in about 90% of all the local exchanges in the country.
While CLEC penetration is still only about 4 percent, local competition
is happening. To my surprise, there is local competition even in
Regent, North Dakota. That simply would not have been possible without
the Act.
Just prior to the enactment of the Telecommunications Act,
telecommunications services generated about $200 billion in revenues.
Today, the industry has grown to about $250 billion. The capital
markets are investing billions into telecommunications and information
companies and consumers are presented with more choices and
opportunities than ever. Information technology industries and
electronic commerce (a classification hardly in the common lexicon
until just a couple of years ago) account for more than one-third of
the growth in the gross domestic product over the past three years. The
Act has certainly played a role in stimulating the investment and
opportunity that has expanded the overall economy.
Vice President Gore characterized it best at the signing ceremony
of the Telecommunications Act when he said that the Act was ``not a
mid-course correction'' but rather ``a new flight path to an entirely
new world.'' That new world is an era of fascinating technologies,
broadband capability, and advanced telecommunications and information
services that create unprecedented opportunity for communication and
connection.
The roll out of advanced telecommunications services such as high
speed Internet access is due, in part, to the pro-competitive policy
established under the Telecommunications Act. New competitive local
exchange carriers alone have the infrastructure available to provide
broadband services to 25 million customers. The incumbents are not
showing any signs of ceding broadband delivery to the newcomers and
themselves are investing billions to provide DSL (digital subscriber
line) services to millions of customers. Cable modem service is
available to 32 million households ``which is about 30% of all homes
passed by cable'' and on average there are about 2,500 new cable modem
customers each day.
We have seen that competition is the most efficient means to spur
innovation and lower prices. While consumer choice in local phone
service or cable service is still more the exception than the rule,
continuing down the road to competition is the best path for
telecommunications policy to follow. Competition in broadcasting,
cable, satellite and other media industries will also provide the most
efficient means to curtail prices, expand choices, and create
opportunity for new ownership and diversity. The competitive model
should also be carried to the international area, where the U.S. needs
to lead the way to help create an open, competitive global environment.
I am also very mindful, however, that the information wave sweeping
across the country is not sweeping up everyone. According to a recent
Commerce Department report, Falling Through the Net, ninety-four
percent of U.S. households have access to basic phone service. But
computer access at home is only around 40% and a mere one-quarter of
all American households have access to the Internet. While the overall
numbers are impressive and indicate that we live in a Nation that
provides vast opportunity through telecommunications and information
services, it is important to note that access to these opportunities
still lags behind for people in some segments of our society. People
living in rural areas, minorities, and low-income families, for
instance, tend to have less access than others. Telecommunications
policy must, before all else, be grounded in the value of enhancing the
social and economic well being of all citizens. The telecommunications
revolution cannot become telecommunication nihilism. The growth of
telecommunications and information services must enhance value and
meaning in peoples lives and be built upon the values of our democracy,
including equal opportunity.
One of the principle tenants of the Act was a policy obligation
that ``access to advanced telecommunications and information services
should be provided in all regions of the Nation.'' The Act provided all
Americans with an assurance that they will not be left behind. If we,
as a Nation, want to ensure that access to the Internet and advanced
telecommunications and information services will be a shared benefit
throughout the Nation, we will need to implement a policy of inclusion,
such as that envisioned under the Act. In my judgment, bridging the gap
in access will require a faithful implementation of the principles of
both competition and universal service--the driving forces to
investment for advanced capability. Broadband is more than just greater
bandwidth--it is an expansion of opportunity. It is the new frontier
that can allow more Americans the chance to participate and succeed in
our democracy. Broadband access will enable small, previously isolated
communities to create thriving businesses--making location virtually
irrelevant. Broadband will help exorcize the demon of distance that has
been the scourge of rural communities in their pursuit of equity and
opportunity.
If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to advance a
strategy to stimulate broadband deployment using the pro-competitive
tools and universal service assurance provided under the
Telecommunications Act. Federal policy should strive to stimulate open,
competitive markets and at the same time establish mechanisms to
prevent certain classes of people--whether rural, minority, or low-
income--from falling behind. Ubiquitous deployment of broadband
capability will help to uncover the human capital that has historically
been buried by geographic and other barriers that can be stripped away
by new communications technologies and services. Abraham Lincoln
learned his lessons by writing on the back of a shovel with a piece of
chalk. While he managed to succeed, how many more great leaders and
contributors to our society remain hidden because of isolation from
great libraries and laboratories? If all Americans have better learning
and training tools than shovels, how many more Lincoln's, Martin Luther
King's, or an astronaut like Eileen Collins will arise? Without
ubiquity, there is less opportunity for the diversity of our nation's
human capital, which has always been the source of America's greatness.
Thomas Jefferson saw the West as America's future. To Jefferson,
the purchase of the Louisiana territory was much more than a bargain
land acquisition. It was an opportunity to unleash the national energy
to explore, establish new avenues of commerce, and build a new way of
life for a young nation. His instructions to Lewis and Clark when they
began their expedition in 1803 was to explore the ``rivers of
commerce'' of the continent. Two centuries later, broadband capability
is creating new rivers of commerce for us to explore and fulfill the
hopes and dreams of a nation that believes in the values of democracy,
equal opportunity and freedom. The consumers, producers, and policy
makers of the information age are looking towards the future, much like
Lewis and Clark did as they rowed their keelboat up the Mississippi and
Missouri rivers. While we are not certain about what lies ahead, the
idea of broadband, like the image of the Western frontier, seizes our
imagination. Somehow, we know that this previously uncharted territory
holds great promise and opportunity.
In concluding my remarks, I want to express my deep appreciation to
all the Senators who have supported me to become the Administration's
nominee for this position, including all the Senators on this
Committee. I especially want to thank Senator Daschle for all of his
support and help. And finally, no words are adequate to express my
profound gratitude to Senator Dorgan for not only supporting me as a
nominee but for the granting me the honor and privilege of working for
him for the past ten years. Senator Dorgan took a big risk ten years
ago by giving a Seminarian a chance to work in the world's greatest
deliberative body, Congress. He has been my mentor and friend ever
since and I will always treasure and call upon all that I have learned
from him.
If confirmed, I intend to work to create a cooperative, inclusive
approach to policy making within the Administration and with Congress.
As one of the many staffers who had the privilege of working on the
Telecommunications Act, I understand that a bipartisan and inclusive
process can achieve the best results and accomplish the difficult task
of crafting consensus and compromise that balance a diversity of
interests. I have truly enjoyed working with the Senators and staffers
on the Senate Commerce Committee and I hope that, if confirmed, I will
have the opportunity to continue working closely with you on
telecommunications and information service policy issues.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for scheduling this hearing. You
and your staff have been very cooperative and helpful to me in this
process and I am very grateful.
I will be happy to answer any questions from the panel.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name: (Include any former names or nicknames used.) Gregory
Lewis Rohde.
2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information and Administrator of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
3. Date of nomination: August 3, 1999.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Home: 509 15th Street, N.E. Mandan, North Dakota 58554. D.C. Residence:
222 10th Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003. Office: 713 Hart
Washington, D.C. 20510.
5. Date and place of birth: November 7, 1961 Pierre, South Dakota.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Single.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.) None.
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.) Graduate:
Bachelor of Sacred Theology, the Catholic University of America,
Washington, D.C., 1988.
Undergraduate: Bachelor of Science in Education with majors in
Philosophy and Sociology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North
Dakota, 1985.
Attended Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado, 1980 - 1982.
High School: Diploma. Century High School, Bismarck, North Dakota,
1980.
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, including
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.) Senior Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator
Byron L. Dorgan, Washington, D.C.; (February 1993 - present). Serves as
chief policy advisor for all areas of jurisdiction under the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which Senator
Dorgan is a member.
Team Coordinator for the Health Care Financing Administration Section
in the Health and Human Services Cluster for the Presidential
Transition Team of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Washington, D.C.
(December 1992 - January 1993). Drafted briefing materials for the
President, Vice President, and Cabinet nominee on all issue and
personnel matters related to the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
interviewed senior HHS and HCFA officials and constituency
organizations to prepare guidance to incoming Administration officials
on administrative and substantive issue matters within HHS and HCFA.
Campaign Manager for the Nicholas Spaeth for Governor Campaign (D-North
Dakota), Bismarck, North Dakota (January 1992 - November 1992). Managed
all aspects of the state wide campaign, including the campaign staff
directed fund raising; coordinated media strategy; worked with local,
state, and federal Democratic party officials; and represented the
candidate in public speeches and press conferences.
Legislative Assistant to Representative Byron L. Dorgan, Washington,
D.C. (May 1988 - January 1992). Served as chief policy advisor for
health care, social security, and human resource issues on the House
Committee on Ways and Means, of which Rep. Dorgan was a member.
Additional legislative areas of responsibility included education,
judiciary, environment, and transportation. Responsibilities included
drafting legislation, speeches and correspondence for the Senator;
legislative negotiations; public speaking on behalf of the Senator; and
serving as a liaison to Executive branch agencies and departments.
Instructor at Mackin Catholic High School, Washington, D.C. (September
1987 - May 1988). Served as classroom instructor for high school social
justice classes for senior students, developed curriculum; and managed
student community service projects.
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.) See above.
11. Business relationships: (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.) None.
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.) None.
13. Political affiliations and activities: (a) List all offices
with a political party which you have held or any public office for
which you have been a candidate. None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to
all political parties or election committees during the last 10 years.
None.
(c) 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. None.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
Academic scholarship to Colorado University and North Dakota State
University for track and cross-country. All-American High School
Athlete, Track, 1980.
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.) None.
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. I have only provided extemporaneous remarks, mostly in
appearances with Senate colleagues, under my current capacity as a
Legislative Assistant to Senator Dorgan.
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
Yes, I believe I was chosen because of my experience of working
directly on the issues under the jurisdiction of the agency and my
demonstrated ability to work cooperatively and in a bipartisan manner
with the executive and legislative branches of government and the
various stakeholders affected by the agency.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
As a senior legislative assistant for Senator Dorgan, I have worked
extensively in the area of telecommunications policy for the past 6 and
a half years, including working on the Telecommunications Act of 1996
and other significant areas of telecommunications legislation. In
particular, my experience in working with the Congress on key
legislative initiatives in a bipartisan manner enables me to ensure a
close, cooperative relationship between the executive and legislative
branches on key areas of telecommunications policy.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. None.
2. 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.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 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.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
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. None, other than
under my current capacity as a legislative assistant to Senator Dorgan.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) I will
consult with the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce and, if
appropriate, divest myself of conflicting interests, recuse myself or
obtain a conflict of interest waiver under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 208(b) if the
interest is not substantial.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details? 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. Pease advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
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.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include technical experts and career employees with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the committee? Yes.
4. Please explain how you will review regulations issued by your
department/agency, and work closely with Congress, to ensure that such
regulations comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. If
confirmed, I will do my best to ensure that all regulations accurately
conform to the plain reading of the law and I pledge routinely to
consult with the appropriate committees in the Congress regarding
regulations promulgated by the agency. Before final regulations are
issued I will work to ensure such regulations are accurate and
faithfully implement the letter and intent of the law.
5. Describe your department/agency's current mission, major
programs, and major operational objectives. NTIA is the Executive
Branch's principal policy and planning voice on domestic and
international telecommunications and information technology issues.
NTIA works to spur innovation, encourage competition, promote universal
service, help create jobs and provide consumers with more choices and
better quality telecommunications products and services at lower
prices.
NTIA administers the Telecommunications and Information
Infrastructure Assistance program (TIIAP), which is a competitive,
merit-based grant program that provides matching grants to bring
benefits of advanced telecommunications technologies through innovative
projects demonstrating practical applications of advanced
telecommunications and information technologies to rural and
underserved areas. NTIA also administers the Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program (PTFP), which assists, through matching grants, in
the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities
and distance learning facilities utilizing nonbroadcast technologies.
The Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) is the research
and engineering branch of NTIA. ITS supports NTIA objectives, such as
promoting advanced telecommunications and information infrastructure
development in the United States, enhancement of domestic
competitiveness, improvement of foreign trade opportunities for U.S.
telecommunications firms, and facilitation of more efficient and
effective use of the radio spectrum. ITS also serves as a principal
Federal resource for solving the telecommunications concerns of other
Federal agencies, state and local Governments, private corporations and
associations, and international organizations.
Spectrum management is a critical responsibility of NTIA and vital
to national security and public safety. The Office of Spectrum
Management (OSM) is responsible for managing the Federal Government's
use of the radio frequency spectrum. OSM establishes and issues policy
regarding: allocations and regulations governing the Federal spectrum
use, plans for the peacetime and wartime use of the spectrum;
preparation for, participation in, and implementation of international
radio conferences, assignment of frequencies; maintenance of spectrum
use databases; review of Federal agencies' new telecommunications
systems and certification that spectrum will be available; providing
the technical engineering expertise needed to perform specific
investigations; participation in all aspects of the Federal
Government's communications related to emergency readiness activitiesy
and participation in Federal Government telecommunications and
automated information systems security activities.
6. 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.
f. general qualifications and views
1. How have your previous professional experience and education
qualified you for the position for which you have been nominated. I
have been intimately involved in the issues falling under NTIA's
jurisdiction, including the development and implementation of the
landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, for the past 6 and \1/2\
years. My work, which has included participating in the Senate Commerce
Committee's oversight role of NTIA, involved working directly with the
agency's programs and functions. This experience has provided me with a
good knowledge of the agency, its employees, programs and functions.
2. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? I believe NTIA has an exciting and challenging mission to
promoting innovation and development of telecommunications and
information technologies and services. I want to help carry out that
mission. I am eager to help America prepare for the new global digital
economy and I believe this agency can be of great assistance to U.S.
consumers and industry so they may excel and benefit in the new
economy.
NTIA has a very important role to play to promote competition and
universal service in telecommunications and information services, which
are becoming more and more essential to the social, economic, and
cultural well-being of American citizens and people throughout the
world. Advances in telecommunications and information services provide
unprecedented opportunities to create jobs, connect people with each
other, improve the quality of life, and ameliorate social and personal
challenges of the past which resulted from disabilities, geographic
isolation, or economic disadvantage. I desire to utilize the talents
and resources of the agency to promote the development of
telecommunications and information services and the benefits such
services can provide to people.
3. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? First, protecting national security and
enhancing public safety are primary functions of NTIA and one of my
goals is to further these objectives through efficient management of
radio spectrum and enhancing the security of telecommunications
networks.
Second, I desire to foster job creation and innovation by promoting
competition and universal service in telecommunications and information
technologies. Information technologies account for more than a third of
the present economic boom our nation is experiencing; creating new
jobs, cutting inflation, and instituting unprecedented efficiencies.
Within a decade, about half of the entire U.S. workforce will be
employed by information technology producers or intense users of
information technologies. I intend to direct the functions and programs
of NTIA to promote the expansion and the availability of advanced
services, such as high speed Internet access, through competition and
universal service.
Third, consumers need to he comfortable using telecommunications
and information services and assured that their personal privacy is
protected. One of my goals is to improve privacy protection in
telecommunications and information services by working with the
industry and the Congress to establish the right balance between
private sector initiative and government guidance.
4. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? In more than a decade of service in the
Congress and campaign management experience, I have gained certain
valuable skills that will be help me serve at NTIA. Nevertheless, I
recognize and appreciate that there are many significant differences
between working in the Executive and Legislative branches of government
and, if confirmed, I will identify and install experienced staff to
ensure efficient functioning of the agency.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when should society's
problems be left to the private sector, and what standards should be
used to determine when a government program is no longer necessary.
With respect to telecommunications and information services, I believe
that governmental regulations should be as minimal as possible.
In my judgment, competition, not regulation, is the most efficient
and effective means to spur innovation and lower prices. Competition is
already thriving in many areas, but many other areas are still in
transition to a competitive market. Where robust competition exists in
open markets, governmental interference ought to be avoided. A
governmental role is necessary under some circumstances, such as in
areas where markets are transitioning from a monopoly-controlled
environment to a competitive one. Governmental action in these
instances must be clear, fair, understandable, competitively neutral,
and directed toward obtainable goals that are designed to foster
competition and allow market forces to work. Once an open competitive
market does exist, governmental regulations must adjust accordingly.
A governmental obligation also exists to ensure universal access in
areas where market forces fall short. Yet steps to ``preserve and
advance'' universal service ought to work in tandem with competition,
not hinder it; consistent with the balance established under the 1996
Telecommunications Act to ensure universal service and access for all
Americans and promote competition.
Finally, I believe that government can play an important role in
working with industry and consumer advocates to develop private sector
initiatives to address society's problems as the first and preferred
solution.
6. In your own words, please describe the agency's current
missions, major programs, and major operational objectives.
NTIA is the principal agency to develop amid articulate
Administration domestic and international telecommunications and
information policies. NTIA plays a lead role in working with Congress
and advocates the Administration's positions before the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and other independent regulatory
agencies on telecommunications and information issues. Policy
objectives advanced by NTIA should be consistent with the goals of
competition, universal service and diversity.
NTIA has a primary responsibility to protect national security and
public safety with respect to telecommunications networks and services.
The agency fulfills this responsibility in its management of federal
spectrum and its research and grant programs which are designed to
foster innovation and development of new technologies and applications
of new technologies in the area of telecommunications and information
services. NTIA's management of federal spectrum provides for efficient
use of this public resource for national security and public safety
purposes, while balancing these needs with the need to make spectrum
available for private sector industry innovation and development.
NTIA provides the leadership for the United States to be a world
leader in the new global digital economy. The agency works to advance
the goals of competition and universal service in telecommunications
and information services, including advanced services, and investing in
innovative applications and research. The Telecommunications and
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program (TIIAP) and the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) provide matching grants to
develop essential telecommunications and information services that
would otherwise not occur. TIIAP identifies innovative demonstration
projects in underserved areas which provide practical applications of
new technologies for educational, health, and community needs. PTFP
supports planning and construction of facilities for public
broadcasting stations in order to strengthen the ability of public
broadcasting to serve the public and distance learning facilities
utilizing nonbroadcast technologies.
Through these grant programs, the Institute for Telecommunications
Services (ITS), and the Office of Spectrum Management, the agency helps
to foster innovation and development of new technologies and
applications.
7. In reference to question number six, what forces are likely to
result in changes to the mission of this agency over the coming five
years. The rapid pace of growth and development of telecommunications
and information technologies pose new challenges to protect national
security, public safety, and personal privacy. NTIA needs to maintain a
flexible and evolving mission to continually update its functions and
programs to the rapid pace of change in technology.
Further, the globalization of markets and the growth of
telecommunications and information services impose an increasing
dependency on technology and e-commerce. NTIA needs to be a vigorous
advocate for the U.S. market in telecommunications and information
technologies and e-commerce and utilize its programs and research
functions to enhance U.S. competitiveness.
8. In further reference to question number six, what are the likely
outside forces which may prevent the agency from accomplishing its
mission? What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency and why? NTIA resources need to keep pace with
technical advances. A reduction in resources in the agency could impose
serious difficulties in carrying out the agency's mission. In my
judgment, the following are the top three challenges facing the agency
at this time:
(1) Balancing budgetary constraints with the growth in technology
is a significant challenge facing NTIA. The telecommunications and
information industries, fueled by rapid technological advancement, are
among the fastest growing aspects of our nation's economy. Among the
consequences of this technological explosion are new challenges to
protect national security, public safety, and personal privacy. NTIA's
resources need to keep pace with the industry and technologies which
relate to the agency's mission.
(2) Efficient spectrum management is a continuing challenge to the
agency as it attempts to balance the objectives of protecting national
security and pubiic safety with allocating the limited resource of
spectrum for private development. The agency and the statute are
resilient, but the agency needs to remain focused on the increasing
pressures to allocate spectrum for private development and not threaten
national security and public safety needs.
(3) Another challenge facing the agency is how to assert leadership
in maintaining the appropriate balance between deregulation/private
sector initiative and governmental involvement in the area of
protecting privacy and security over telecommunications networks and
services. While private sector-led solutions are preferable to
regulation, NTIA needs to work with industry to provide guidance and
help define what governmental actions, if any, are necessary to protect
national security and individual privacy.
9. In further reference to question number six, what factors in
your opinion have kept the department/agency from achieving its
missions over the past several years? The agency has done a good job in
carrying out its mission and the programs under its administration have
been run efficiently and mindful of the need to target taxpayer
resources to areas of greatest need. But, resources for the agency have
remained relatively level while the challenges to address rapid changes
in the industry have grown dramatically.
10. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? First and
last, the American people are the primary stakeholders. The national
security and public safety communities are major stakeholders and NTIA
also has significant implications on companies that provide
telecommunications and information services, the businesses and
consumers that rely upon those services, and the general public which
benefits through economic efficiency, job creation, and public safety
enhancement.
11. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stakeholders identified in question number ten. I
believe that it is imperative that NTIA maintain a very close
relationship with national security, public safety and consumer
organizations and all the various industry segments. Given the
deregulatory environment which is characteristic of the competitive
aspects of the telecommunications and information industries, NTIA
needs to work closely with industry and consumers to establish as many
solutions as possible that do not require federal regulation. Further,
a cooperative bi-partisan relationship with the Legislative Branch is
necessary.
12. The Chief Financial Officers Act requires all government
departments and agencies to develop sound financial management
practices similar to those practiced in the private sector.
(a) What do you believe are your responsibilities, if conflrmed, to
ensure that your agency has proper management and accounting controls?
I believe that proper financial management is essential and cannot
be compromised and it is my responsibility to ensure proper management
for the agency.
(b) What experience do you have in managing a large organization?
More than a decade of work in the Congress has prepared me to work
on complex issues in large organizations.
13. The Government Performance and Results Act requires all
government departments and agencies to identify measurable performance
goals and to report to Congress on their success in achieving these
goals.
(a) Please discuss what you believe to be the benefits of
identifying performance goals and reporting on your progress in
achieving those goals.
The benefits are good, effective management, efficient allocation
of resources, and successful completion of the agency's mission.
Reporting keeps the agency focused on the right priorities and
identifies where resources should be directed.
(b) What steps should Congress consider taking when an agency fails
to achieve its performance goals? Should these steps include the
elimination, privatization, downsizing or consolidation of departments
and/or programs? Regulations issued by your department/agency comply
with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress.
In my experience in working in Congress, I understand the
importance of working closely with the Committee and the sponsors of
legislation that becomes law to ensure that regulations and
implementation remain faithful to the letter and intent of the statute.
If confirmed, I will do my best to ensure that all regulations
accurately comport with the language and the spirit of the law and I
pledge to routinely consult with the appropriate committees in the
Congress. Before regulations are finalized I will work with the
appropriate Committees and the stakeholders to ensure such regulations
are accurate and faithfully implement the letter and intent of the law.
18. In the areas under the department/agency's jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
The telecommunications and information industries are in a period
of rapid growth and change, driven in part by the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In my judgment, it is in the best
interests of the industry and consumers to have a stable, predictable
regulatory and legal environment to allow the marketplace to excel.
Broad sweeping legislative changes at this time could disrupt the path
of growth of the industry. However, that does not suggest that
regulations implementing the statute ought not be revised or adjusted.
There have been many bumps in the road to implementing the sweeping
changes under the Telecommunications Act and many challenges lie ahead.
It seems to me that NTIA needs to work in close cooperation with the
Congress to advocate policies before independent regulatory agencies,
such as the FCC, to implement the law in a manner that is faithful to
the Act.
There are areas, such as in protecting national security, public
safety, and personal privacy, where rapidly changing technologies are
imposing unprecedented challenges. While I do not advocate any
particular legislation at this time, I do believe that it is important
that NTIA needs to work closely with the Congress in a bi-partisan
manner to monitor and assist private sector initiatives and, if
necessary, develop any appropriate legislation.
19. Within your area of control, will you pledge to develop and
implement a system that allocates discretionary spending based on
national priorities determined in an open fashion on a set of
established criteria? If not, please state why. If yes, please state
what steps you intend to take and a time frame for their
implementation.
Yes. Early in my tenure, I intend to examine the NTIA strategic
plan and meet with NTIA senior managers to ensure the agency's goals
and objectives address Congressional, Administration, and Departmental
priorities and are reflected in an appropriate distribution of
discretionary resources.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, thank you very much for your
presentation and your remarks. You have been most gracious and
we appreciate not only your service but the way in which you
present yourself.
You have had a lot of opportunity to look around. You have
observed things while we were in the process of changing
things. Managing change is perhaps the greatest of all the
privileges we have because we have the opportunity, if we do
not think things are working well, to change them.
Do you have any changes in mind for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration in the way it
would operate and what it would do?
Mr. Rohde. I think the best way to answer that is to say
that I think circumstances are quite different today than they
were in 1993 at the beginning of this administration. I believe
that we are on the cusp of some watershed events in the area of
telecommunications policy. I think, to the extent that there
are changes, they will be in terms of emphasis and focus.
Because of what is going on in the industry such as some of the
very significant decisions on 271 applications, on the debate
over broadband access, the debates over privacy, NTIA is likely
to have a greater focus on these areas and you may see a little
more activity in these areas.
Senator Ashcroft. Since you have responsibility of advising
the administration on telecommunications and information
technology, what kind of advice will you be giving them
regarding broadband and the availability of broadband? In
particular, do you see technology as solving the broadband
challenge by providing it without significantly greater
infrastructure in terms of hard line communication? Or how
would you see that working out?
Mr. Rohde. Technology is what is driving the broadband
debate. It is new technology such as digital subscriber line
service that are providing this greater capability and the
technology that is retrofitting the cable systems that is
driving the whole broadband debate. In my mind, broadband
deployment is thriving in competitive environments. I think
that competition will drive investments. However, I also
understand that there are markets in this country where
competition will not be the driving force for broadband
deployment, and that is where universal service plays a role.
With respect to the broadband debate, I think the framework
in the Telecommunications Act got it right. It is a framework
to create open, competitive markets and preserve and advance
universal service to make sure that benefits of broadband
deployment are spread throughout the country.
Senator Ashcroft. Do you see broadband as being provided
through hard wire access, or do you see that coming as part of
the wireless capacity? I think that makes a big difference
because if you can have the wireless stuff, those who own the
wires now are not in a unique position.
Mr. Rohde. I think it is going to come through both. Right
now most of what we refer to as broadband capability is coming
over wires, but there are wireless technologies out there in
the development stage that can provide broadband. There are,
for example, a number of satellite providers that already have
licenses from the FCC and are seeking licenses to deploy
wireless broadband access. So, I think broadband is going to
come through a variety of technologies.
It is important that public policy be technologically
neutral, as the Telecommunications Act requires, so that we
promote a variety of technologies to meet a variety of
circumstances.
Senator Ashcroft. There are Members of Congress and of
industry that are critical of the way that the Government uses
the spectrum that it occupies. Their belief is that Government
is holding on to spectrum that it does not need, given the fact
that technology has made spectrum use far more efficient.
As the Administrator of the NTIA, how would you address
these concerns, and in what way would you respond to Government
when it says, well, we just need all the spectrum we have had
historically? What sort of considerations would enter your mind
in your advice-giving capacity in evaluating those situations?
Mr. Rohde. First of all, I think it is important to point
out that currently about 93 percent of all the spectrum that is
used in this country is shared spectrum between the Government
and private users. About 1.4 percent is exclusively Government
use, and a little over 5 percent is exclusively nongovernment
use. The NTIA, through the instructions of the OBRA 1993 and
the OBRA 1997 acts, has already allocated over 255 megahertz to
the Federal Communications Commission to make available for
private use.
Many of the debates that we are in currently and will be in
in the future are going to involve sharing questions and
interference issues. NTIA has a responsibility to try to
resolve these in a manner that protects the national security
and public safety as well as allow for private sector
innovation and use. I think also NTIA has a number of assets it
can bring to these debates. It has a wonderful research lab in
Boulder, Colorado that can help try to resolve a lot of these
interference issues.
I think the agency has a dual responsibility. It has the
responsibility to ensure national security and public safety
with the Federal users, but it also has a responsibility to
promote the innovation of new technologies. The approach that I
want to bring to this matter is that I do not want the agency
to just say no all the time. I want it to try to work out the
interference sharing issues so that we do not have to sacrifice
public safety and national security for the sake of developing
new technologies, that these can work hand in hand.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, having worked for so long
with Greg, I have no need to inquire of his views.
[Laughter.]
I would simply say I read a press report in which there was
some speculation that if his nomination came to the Congress,
that he should not necessarily be blamed for the positions I
had taken while a member of the Commerce Committee.
[Laughter.]
So, I absolve you of all of that.
[Laughter.]
I think Greg has provided a statement that really reflects,
for all of the members of this committee, the value of his
ability and intellect that he has offered to me for so many
years. So, I do not have any questions. Thank you, Greg, and
thank you for a wonderful statement.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I said earlier, I think Greg Rohde is going to do a
terrific job in this position. I think he probably, last night,
was worried that I was going to ask about 150 questions about
the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rohde. You already know how I would respond.
Senator Wyden. And also, we all know it is Senator Dorgan's
fault, as he just said.
[Laughter.]
I only wanted to have followup on this broadband issue, and
I think you could tell from my opening statement that I would
be interested in your thoughts about how the administration
would proceed at this point with respect to carrying out
section 706 of the act.
The act, as you know, puts the focus on really getting a
broadband capability into every nook and cranny in the country,
and the reason that we had this excellent conference this
morning, put together by Senator Daschle and Senator Dorgan, is
that obviously a lot of these rural communities, from the
standpoint of communications, are being turned into sacrifice
zones. They are just being left out. My concern is that the
Federal Communications Commission just seems absolutely
unwilling to get off the sidelines and get serious about
implementing the act.
In fact, in February basically--and I quote here--they said
the deployment of broadband capability is reasonable and
timely. They said this year that everything is just hunky-dory,
and I think when we go out to rural communities in Oregon and
North Dakota and other places, they say, well, they may think
everything is reasonable and timely in Washington, D.C., but it
certainly is not in rural Oregon and other parts of the
country.
I think just by way of a friendly question, obviously, is I
would be interested in your thoughts this afternoon what you
would say to Chairman Kennard and the FCC in terms of actually
getting them off the sidelines to carry that out.
Mr. Rohde. Thank you.
Well, first of all, before I directly answer your question,
I would really like to commend you and Senator Dorgan and
Senator Daschle and others who have really entered this debate
and are really driving the aspect of the debate about making
sure that broadband comes to a lot of rural areas.
There are a lot of issues out there. There are a lot of
very significant constituencies behind aspects of this debate
that are pushing their agenda with respect to their solution
for getting broadband out there. I think the work that you and
other Democratic Senators are doing is really helping to drive
that debate in the right direction and is having a big impact
on how the Federal Communications is going to look at these
issues.
To directly answer your question, what I would say to
Chairman Kennard and my advice the administration is I think
broadband deployment is a very high priority. I think the
administration needs to be heavily engaged in this debate and I
think NTIA needs to work very closely with the FCC. The FCC
under 706 is charged with looking at ways in which to encourage
the deployment of broadband services. Also advance services are
mentioned elsewhere in the act, such as in section 254 and
section 271. As you know, the FCC is looking at universal
service reforms under section 254 right now.
So, I agree with you, Senator, that we need to be very
aggressive. We need to push very hard for the Commission to be
focused on broadband deployment. It is not the time to delay
consideration. We should not act too quickly to disrupt the
positive things going on in the marketplace, but yet decisions
need to be made now about how this broadband is going to be
deployed in a manner to accomplish the goals we want, such as
ubiquitous deployment.
Senator Wyden. I am looking forward to seeing you in this
new position.
I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Greg, congratulations on your nomination.
Mr. Rohde. Thank you.
Senator Burns. I appreciate that very much.
I want to ask you one question. As we see wireless continue
to grow in rural areas and we see competition in rural areas
where probably as near as 5 or 6 years ago we did not think
there would ever be any competition in rural areas for the
simple reason that the co-ops and the independents were there,
do you see a time when universal service becomes more of a
detriment to allowing competition into a market? Do you see a
time when the universal service will have to be looked at
again? There is a point of diminishing returns. We have seen in
the competitive areas what competition has done. Do you see
when universal service becomes a detriment?
Mr. Rohde. Well, Senator, as you know, the
Telecommunications Act called for reform of universal service,
and the instructions of the act are to ``preserve and advance
universal service.'' I know the intent of this committee--which
paid a great deal of attention to those provisions of the
bill--understood that universal service needed to be reformed
in order to accommodate a competitive model. Traditionally,
local phone service has been provided by Government sanctioned
monopolies that have been regulated largely at the State level.
Congress, in passing the Telecommunications Act, said that it
wanted to change that model and move to a competitive model. As
a result, universal service needs to be reformed in order to
accommodate competition and deal with competition..
Can universal service in instances be a barrier to entry?
Yes, it can be. That is why we need the reform. But at the same
time to the local incumbent, needs the reform as well because
if competition rolls out without any adjustments to universal
service and we have what we call cherry-picking going on, the
local incumbent who may only have a few thousand in their
subscriber base could see a substantial portion of their
revenues whittled away. So, we need to have a reformed
universal service system consistent with the act that
accommodates competition and also helps the incumbent carrier
survive competition.
Senator Burns. I ask that question because there are two or
three different models out there, but I think we have to be
very agile here in Government and to make sure that policy is
reformed.
I had the feeling, whenever we passed the 1996 Act, that
maybe some of us would like to go a little bit further, as you
well know, but it ended up to be an act that was more of a
transition law than anything else because we were taking
entities that had been under the umbrella in the regulatory
environment since 1935 and we were trying to regulate 1990's
technology with a 1935 bill. In fact, the whole world was going
off and leaving us in the dust because things are going to
happen no matter what the policy of this Government. Once you
go home, you find out how irrelevant Washington really is when
it comes to the innovative juices of how we do things in this
country.
So, that was my question because I think no matter who the
administration is, it has to be very agile and aware of when
that policy change may have to take place.
Congratulations again.
Mr. Rohde. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Burns. You bet.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Brownback from Kansas.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
not here to ask any questions but just to support the nominee.
I am delighted that he has been nominated to the post. His
work, the Senator's work they have done on universal service
has been outstanding certainly from a rural State's perspective
like mine and like what was in North Dakota. Your work in the
1996 Act in particular I want to recognize.
I think these are critically important fights and I hope,
as you go into this new position, you continue to fight for
rural interest and rural areas. That is parochial for me to
say, but I think it is very important for the country so that
we just do not create two different economies when we go to
more and more information needs that the rural areas continue
to be able to have that. We have historically done that as a
country, whether it be rural electrification or telephony or
other things, but we have got continuing needs to make sure
that we do not create two societies between rural and urban.
I applaud your past work in there and I just encourage you
to continue it.
Mr. Rohde. Thank you very much.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Thank you very much, Mr. Rohde, for your attendance here,
for your service to the committee, and for your service to the
Senate. We look forward to your service to the country.
Mr. Rohde. My pleasure. Thank you very much.
Senator Ashcroft. At this time I would like to call Mr.
Thomas Leary. I would also like to mention that Mr. Leary's
wife, Stephanie Abbott, is in the audience and welcome you.
Thank you very much for being here.
Some of you have wondered when these items might be
scheduled for an executive session and reported to the Senate.
The chairman of the committee, through his staff director, has
indicated that he plans to expedite this and to move these
nominations as soon as possible.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Ashcroft. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave,
but before I did, I wanted to offer my support for Mr. Leary's
nomination. I think he has excellent qualifications. I regret I
am not able to stay and make a longer comment, but let me say I
am pleased he is here. I am pleased he is offering himself for
service to our country and I think that service will greatly
benefit America.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Leary currently is a partner at Hogan & Hartson,
although he frequently litigated consumer fraud issues before
the Federal Trade Commission, his practice has focused
primarily on antitrust litigation. Prior to his move to
Washington, he served as an associate and then a partner at
White & Case and then Assistant General Counsel for General
Motors. He received his bachelor degree at Princeton, his law
degree at Harvard, and a Harvard degree and a Princeton
education is a thing of note.
We welcome you to the committee and may I suggest that we
just observe a moment of not silence, until the doors close,
and then I would invite you to proceed.
[Pause.]
STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. LEARY, COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE, FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION
Mr. Leary. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
just have a very brief opening statement and at the beginning I
really want to express my gratitude to this committee for the
courtesy you have extended to me in scheduling this hearing so
quickly after the summer recess.
And I also want to thank all of the people who have helped
me to get to this stage in the process, a lot of whom I know
and, frankly, a lot of whom I do not. As a Republican nominee
in a Democratic administration, as you can imagine, I have
needed a lot of help from people in both political parties. I
particularly want to express my gratitude both to Senator Lott
and to Senator McCain who have done so much for me, in addition
to the people who are here now, and also to the President who
appointed me and to the people in the White House who have been
unfailingly courteous and helpful to me.
I also am honored that my wife is here and that some of my
present colleagues and some of my colleagues-to-be are here,
including Commissioner Orson Swindle who has been good enough
to accompany me. I appreciate his presence and support.
Like other nominees, I responded to the best of my ability
to your written questions, and I would like to respond today,
as best I can, to any additional questions that you may have.
I want to make clear that, as far as I am concerned, this
commitment to be responsive does not end with this appearance.
To the extent that it is proper for me to do so, I want to be
responsive on an ongoing basis to members of this body and the
other one and to people in the administration. I think I made
clear in my written submissions that I have a very firm belief
that agency independence is not the same thing as agency
isolation, and I hope to have the opportunity to work with you
all in the future.
I have a fundamental belief in the vigor and adaptability
of the free market system.
Senator Ashcroft. May I ask you to suspend your remarks for
a minute? I would like to go and ask the folks in the hall if
they would----
[Pause.]
I apologize. Your appointment and the responsibility to
which the President has appointed you is a very serious one and
it is important that we be able to hear what you have to say
and for you to be able to say it without reference to--no
matter how joyful the celebration is.
Mr. Leary. I appreciate it, Senator.
Senator Ashcroft. I wish you would proceed. I apologize.
Mr. Leary. Let me just repeat. I want to express my
fundamental belief in the vigor and the adaptability of the
free market system, and I do not see the mission of the FTC as
being in any way inconsistent with that basic belief.
Obviously, I cannot comment on individual matters that are
now or may in the immediate future come to the Commission for
consideration, but I promise you an open mind. I think one of
the benefits of advancing years is that it becomes increasingly
easy to admit from time to time that initial impressions I have
may just be mistaken. In that spirit I want to entertain this
new challenge and I welcome your help.
That concludes my remarks, Senator.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Leary follow:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas B. Leary, Commissioner-Designate,
Federal Trade Commission
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to this
Committee for the courtesy you have extended to me in scheduling this
hearing so quickly after your return from the summer recess. I would
also like to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who
have helped me get to this stage in the process. I am familiar with
some of the efforts made on my behalf, but I am no less grateful for
the many efforts that I know nothing about.
I am pleased to respond today, as best I can, to any questions or
concerns that you may want to express. And I want to make an open
commitment to be similarly forthcoming in the future if I am confirmed.
My written submissions set out my firm belief that agency independence
is not the same thing as agency isolation, and I really hope to have
the opportunity to work with you in the future.
I have no preconceived agendas, and I promise you an open mind. One
of the side benefits of advancing years is that it becomes easier to
admit that some of my first reactions may just be wrong. I want to
approach this challenge in that spirit, and I welcome your help.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name: (Include any former names or nicknames used.) Thomas
Barrett Leary (``Tom'').
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal Trade
Commission.
3. Date of nomination: July 28, 1999.
4. Address: (List current place of residence and office addresses.)
Home: 615 E Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20003. Office: Hogan &
Hartson L.L.P. 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004.
5. Date and place of birth: July 15, 1931; Orange, New Jersey.
6. Marital status: (Include maiden name of wife or husband's name.)
Married to Stephanie Lynn Abbott.
7. Names and ages of children: (Include stepchildren and children
from previous marriages.) Thomas Abbott Leary (41), David Abbott Leary
(39), Alison Leary Estep (35).
8. Education: (List secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received and date degree granted.) Harvard Law
School--1955-58 (JD 1958); Princeton University--1948-52 (AB 1952).
9. Employment record: (List all jobs held since college, include
the title or description of job, name of employer, location of work,
and dates of employment.) Partner, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C. 1/
1/83 to Present; Assistant General Counsel General Motors Corp.
Detroit, Michigan, 9/77-12/82; Attorney-in-Charge, Antitrust General
Motors Corp. Detroit, Michigan, 10/71-9/77; Partner, White & Case New
York, New York, 1/69-10/71; Associate, White & Case, New York, New
York, 7/58/-12/68; Worker on Road Gang, Coronado, California, Summer
1956; Officer, U.S. Naval Reserve, Active Duty, U.S. and WestPac, 10/
52-8/55; Officer Candidate, Newport, Rhode Island, 6/52-10/52.
10. Government experience: (List any advisory, consultative,
honorary or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State,
or local governments, other than those listed above.) None.
11. Business relationships: (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.) Partner, Hogan
& Hartson 1983-Present; Assistant General Counsel, General Motors
Corp., 1977-82; Partner, White & Case, 1969-71;
[Note: I was a non-officer employee on the Legal Staff of General
Motors from 1971-77, and an associate of White & Case from 1958-68.]
12. Memberships: (List all memberships and offices held in
professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, charitable and
other organizations.)
Member, American Bar Association, 1959-Present; Council, ABA
Antitrust Section, 1979-83; Chairman, Antitrust Committee, ABA
Business, Law Section, 1991-94; Member, D.C. Bar Association,1983-
Present; Board Member, Lawyer Counseling, approx. 1985-Present;
Committee, D.C. Bar, (separate terms); Member, Michigan Bar
Association, 1971-82; Member, New York State Bar Association, 1958-71;
Council, New York Bar, Antitrust Section approx., 1969-71; Board
Member, National Council on Alcoholism, Detroit, Michigan, approx.
1978-82.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or
any public office for which you have been a candidate. None.
(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered
to all political parties or election committees during the last 10
years. None.
(c) 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. Two gifts totaling $500
to Republican National Committee in 1998; One gift of $500 to Bush
campaign in 1988; Following amounts to Hogan & Hartson PAC: 1999--$500;
1998--$500; 1997--$500; 1996--$500; 1995--$550; 1994--$625.
14. Honors and awards: (List all scholarships, fellowships,
honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals and any
other special recognitions for outstanding service or achievements.)
National Defense, Korean Theater, and UN Medal for service with U.S.
Navy in Far East in 1953-54.
15. Published writings: (List the titles, publishers, and dates of
books, articles, reports, or other published materials which you have
written.)
Book Chapters:
Chapter 10, Prevention of Liability for Antitrust Violations, in BNA/
ACCA Compliance Manual: Prevention of Corporate Liability (1993)
Chapter 1, Antitrust Problems in International Trade--The Congressional
Response, in Southwest Legal Foundation, Private Investors Abroad--
Problems and Solution in International Business in 1985 (1986)
Articles and Columns:
How to Avoid Negotiations on Second Requests: A Comment, Antitrust 41
(Summer 1999) (Co-authors: Janet McDavid and Philip Larson)
The Uncertain Future of Food Advertising, Frozen Food Report 16-17
(July/August 1995)
The Defense of Mergers in the Defense Industry, Antitrust 4 (Summer
1993) (Co-author: Janet McDavid)
Avoiding Corporate Punishment, Snack World 12 (October 1991)
The U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines, Preventive Law Reporter
(September 1991)
New Antitrust Legislation, Snack World 12 (March 1991)
State Indirect Purchaser Laws Should Be Preempted, Antitrust 25 (Fall/
Winter 1990)
Antitrust Planning in an Era of Uncertainty, CCH Business Strategies
para. 2450 at 15,201 (1984)
Use and Misuse of Economic Experts, 52 Antitrust Law Journal 823-31
(Summer 1983)
Is There a Conflict in Representing a Corporation and Its Individual
Employees, 36 Business Lawyer 591-95 (March 1981)
Other (Panel Comments and Letters)
Letter, McArthur Draws Sharp Response, Antitrust 48 (Spring 1989)
Panel, The Merger Transaction, 56 Antitrust Law Journal 607-55 (Fall
1987)
Panel, Antitrust Litigation, A Corporate Counsel's Perspective, 51
Antitrust Law Journal 447-58 (Summer 1982)
Panel, Practical Aspects of Internal Antitrust Investigations, 51
Antitrust Law Journal 123-51 (Winter 1982)
Panel, Do the [no-fault monopoly] Proposals Make Any Sense From a
Business Standpoint?, 49 Antitrust Law Journal 1281 (Summer 1981)
Panel, Current Issues in the Attorney-Client Relationship, 36 Business
Lawyer 597-603 (March 1981)
Panel, Experience Curve Theory, in Conference Board Information
Bulletin 28 (1980)
Panel, What Is the Real Issue?, in ABA, Industrial Concentration and
the Market System 278 (1979)
Panel, A Managerial View of Corporate Compliance, 46 Antitrust Law
Journal 481-507 (Spring 1977)
16. Speeches: Provide the Committee with two copies of any formal
speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years which you have
copies of on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Most of my speeches are based on handwritten notes, which I
do not retain. One speech delivered during the last five years was
transcribed, and I have the text of two others. (See Attachments A and
B)
17. Selection:
(a) Do you know why you were chosen for this nomination by the
President?
I understand that Senator Trent Lott asked the President to
nominate me to fill the vacant Republican seat on the Commission. I
understand that I also have been recommended by others.
(b) What do you believe in your background or employment experience
affirmatively qualifies you for this particular appointment?
For almost 40 years, I have advised clients on antitrust and
consumer deception matters. I have litigated these matters in federal
courts and have represented clients in internal deliberations at the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. I have written
and spoken publicly on these issues, and have on occasion lobbied and
prepared comments for clients with respect to pending antitrust
legislation. I am a lifelong Republican but, at the same time, have had
for many years a congenial professional relationship with the current
Democratic chairman of the Commission.
b. future employment relationships
1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers,
business firms, business associations or business organizations if you
are confirmed by the Senate? Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, explain. No.
3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after
completing government service to resume employment, affiliation or
practice with your previous employer, business firm, association or
organization? No.
4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any
capacity after you leave government service? No.
5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until
the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? Yes.
c. potential conflicts of interest
Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients or customers. As stated in response to the financial disclosure
question G1, I presently have a deferred compensation arrangement with
Hogan & Hartson. This compensation would be paid in one lump sum before
I assumed a government position, and I would have no ongoing financial
connection with the firm. I also have a vested pension based on my 11
years of service with General Motors Corp., which amounts to $1,040 per
month. The pension is not contingent on any activities I may undertake,
and I have no other relationship with General Motors.
2. 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.
3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 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. I have represented clients
in various matters before the Federal Trade Commission during the past
10 years, and am aware of--and will abide by--the applicable conflict
rules for these situations. I am not personally representing clients on
any matters now pending before the Commission, and have been screened
off from any pending FTC matters that are being handled by others in
the firm.
4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
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. During the years
1989 through 1995, I was registered as a lobbyist for The Business
Roundtable with respect to antitrust legislation generally and certain
specific bills that were under consideration at that time. My
activities focused on the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items. (Please provide a copy of any trust or other agreements.) Other
than the matters disclosed, I am not aware of any potential conflicts
of interest. I will, of course, abide by any applicable conflicts
rules.
6. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee
by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to which you are
nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics concerning potential
conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to your serving in this
position? Yes.
d. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a compliant to
any court, administrative agency, professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, provide
details. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in interest in an administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details. I was involved
in litigation from the years 1991 to 1994, as a result of a domestic
dispute with a woman to whom I had been engaged between my marriages.
Consolidated lawsuits, titled Leary v. Skarstrom, No. 91-CA12217RP, and
Skarstrom v. Leary, No. 91-CA12809, are a matter of public record in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
I was represented in these actions successively by a domestic
relations lawyer, Ms. Susan Friedman, Kuder Smollar & Friedman, 1925 K
Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202-331-7522), and by a trial
lawyer, Mr. Steven Gordon, Holland & Knight, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20037 (202-955-3000). These lawyers
have been notified that I waive all privilege with respect to this
matter, and have been instructed to answer any questions.
The actions were settled in June 1994, and general releases were
exchanged. There are no ongoing obligations of either party.
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 considered in
connection with your nomination. None.
e. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines set by congressional committees for information? Yes.
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.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the committee with requested
witnesses, to include 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.
f. general qualifications and views
1. Please describe how your previous professional experience and
education qualifies you for the position for which you have been
nominated. See response to Questions A9, A15, Al7(b), and F3.
2. What skills do you believe you may be lacking which may be
necessary to successfully carry out this position? What steps can be
taken to obtain those skills? I have had extensive dealings with the
Federal Trade Commission from the ``outside,'' but I have never worked
on the ``inside.'' There is a great deal about the day-to-day operation
of the Commission that I do not know, and the Commission has
enforcement responsibilities in some areas that I have not encountered
in my legal practice. Fortunately, commissioners are able to select
their own attorney and economic advisors, and I intend to select some
people who have had extensive experience within the agency.
In addition, I am fortunate in that a number of present and former
Commission employees are personal friends. They have been generous in
their offers to brief me on Commission processes and procedures if I
actually am confirmed.
3. Why do you wish to serve in the position for which you have been
nominated? There are a number of reasons, some related to my perception
of the public interest and some that are purely personal.
I did not initially seek the position but was urged to be a
candidate by a number of people, from both political parties, who are
interested in the work of the Federal Trade Commission. I have not been
politically active, in the sense of participation in campaigns, but I
have actively participated for many years in public debate over
antitrust policies and processes. Although my lifelong immersion in
antitrust issues is not a prerequisite for FTC service -- and many
commissioners have served and are serving very ably without it -- I
believe that my experience should help me to be an effective member of
the collegial group.
Antitrust issues, particularly as they relate to large global
mergers, will continue to be important for the foreseeable future. I
have been involved in these issues as a lawyer for individual clients,
and I would welcome the opportunity to help shape antitrust policy more
directly on the Commission. Based on my experience, I have some modest
ideas about ways to make the Commission more effective, and I would
like to help put these into effect.
On a purely personal level, I have always believed, as a private
citizen, that it is a privilege to have an opportunity for public
service. Because of family responsibilities, it would have been
difficult for me to take advantage of that opportunity earlier in my
life--but I can now, and I don't want to miss it.
4. What goals have you established for your first two years in this
position, if confirmed? The resources of both the Federal Trade
Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice are
stretched to the limit today because of the explosion of merger
activity. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which established the thresholds
for pre-merger reporting, was passed over 20 years ago and Congress
never anticipated that the agencies would have to review so many
mergers, both large and relatively small.
In addition, despite recent improvements in the pre-merger
enforcement program, some internal processes are still overly
burdensome. There is a substantial waste of both public and private
resources, and, perhaps more important, the agencies have insufficient
resources to pursue really significant matters as effectively as they
could because they are required to deal with many that are
insignificant. There is broad agreement that some reform is necessary,
but comprehensive changes are inhibited by the agencies' present
dependence on ore-merger filing fees.
As one of five peer commissioners with an equal vote, I cannot do
much without consensus. But if I am confirmed, I intend to work for
constructive change in the pre-merger reporting process. Some changes
can be achieved by the antitrust enforcement agencies on their own;
some will require congressional action. I believe that my previous
association with the business community, and consequent credibility in
that group, may help to make the needed changes workable and
acceptable.
I would also like to encourage discussion of a more efficient
allocation of enforcement tasks both between the two federal agencies
and between federal and state authorities. They have individual
strengths and weaknesses, but they have broadly overlapping
jurisdictions. Significant improvements have been made in the
allocation of responsibility, but I believe enforcement can be
rationalized in an even more systematic and efficient way. This is a
long-term project, but I would like to see it advance.
I support an even more intensive effort to enlist the help of the
business community in self-regulatory programs. There are always
dangers in this approach because concerted business initiatives aimed
at ``unethical'' practices can easily be transmuted into illegal
agreements to limit vigorous competition. The Commission, however, is
specially qualified to support these initiatives because of its in-
house expertise in both the competition and consumer deception areas.
Finally, I recognize that any government agency must, to some
degree, enlist support for its mission among the people that it
regulates. This should not be confused with ``regulatory capture'' or a
process that would temper outcomes to please particular constituencies.
I am also not primarily concerned with support for the Commission as an
institution. What I mean is support for the laws and principles that
the Commission upholds. Like other incumbent commissioners and their
predecessors, I expect to give a lot of speeches to groups affected by
the Commission's work.
It is equally important to listen. Commissioners can listen in
relatively formal settings, as they did during the hearings on Global
and Innovation Competition three years ago, but it is also important to
solicit outside opinions in a less formal way. I expect a lot of my
time will be spent listening.
5. Please discuss your philosophical views on the role of
government. Include a discussion of when you believe the government
should involve itself in the private sector, when should society's
problems be left to the private sector, and what standards should be
used to determine when a government program is no longer necessary. In
my view, the primary roles of any national government are to defend
that country's citizens against external threats and to ensure that
internal differences are settled by rules of law rather than by force.
Most people probably agree that these roles are basic; opinions differ,
however, on what the rules of law should be. My fundamental position on
this issue is that government should intervene only when free market
institutions, for some reason, fail to work the way they should. In
some situations, however, involving so-called ``externalities'' (like
environmental harm), market forces alone will not work, even in
principle.
In the last century, particularly, government regulation has
expanded dramatically, and it is still expanding. My personal view is
that there always should be a presumption against expansion of
government regulations--that it should be the last alternative
``solution,'' rather than the first. We need to recognize that public
institutions are likely to be just as imperfect as private ones and
that all regulations--even if well crafted and well implemented--are
likely to have unintended side effects. At the same time, however,
regulators cannot be paralyzed by the search for an objectively perfect
solution. There really is no such thing as pure ``public interest'';
regulatory decisions always have to strike a pragmatic balance between
competing private interests.
The issue of when it is appropriate to phase out government
regulation, and possibly entire government departments, is one that
could be addressed in a more systematic way than it has been in the
past. Government regulation imposes immense burdens on private
citizens, just like direct government expenditures. At the same time,
both regulation and direct expenditures confer substantial benefits.
For regulatory agencies, both the ultimate burdens and benefits can far
exceed the dollar appropriations for running the agency.
Direct expenditures, however, are disciplined not only by scrutiny
of individual programs but also by a bottom-line budget, which forces
the Executive Branch and the Congress to choose between competing
priorities. Regulatory burdens are not subject to this overall
discipline. It would be useful to monitor the overall regulatory burden
in a more systematic way in order to supplement existing cost-benefit
comparisons and to facilitate the termination of some old programs that
are of less compelling benefit than some newly-created programs. (I
recognize, of course, that it is not an easy task to quantify
regulatory burdens, but incremental and comparative effects, rather
than absolute numbers, are of primary importance. A methodology does
not have to be perfect, so long as it is consistent.)
These are general observations outside the immediate scope of the
position for which I am being considered, but the question seemed to
ask for them. With regard to the Federal Trade Commission specifically,
I believe that the agency imposes relatively small regulatory burdens
and can confer substantially higher benefits. This opinion may simply
reflect my occupational bias; most people tend to believe in the
importance of their chosen fields of labor. I would also support an
objective burden analysis of the work of the Federal Trade Commission.
Incidentally, the FTC, as a matter of internal practice, now
imposes time limits on regulatory decrees, and is engaged in an ongoing
program to ``sunset'' unneeded regulations.
6. In your own words, please describe the agency's current
missions, major programs, and major operational objectives. The Federal
Trade Commission traditionally is considered to have two primary
missions that are reflected in its two operating branches: the Bureau
of Competition and the Bureau of Consumer Protection. The former Bureau
focuses on ``antitrust'' issues; the latter Bureau focuses on practices
that are unfair or deceptive to consumers. In my view, however, the two
bureaus deal with two aspects of the same fundamental objective:
namely, the preservation of effective consumer sovereignty. Consumer
sovereignty is impaired if companies with market power can raise prices
above competitive levels, and it is also impaired when false
advertising distorts product choices. There are considerable advantages
to having both of these problems addressed by a single agency.
The major program on the ``antitrust'' side, as mentioned above, is
prevention of potentially anti-competitive mergers. The workload in
this area has recently tended to overshadow attention to non-merger
anti-competitive practices and competition advocacy before other
government agencies. Reform of the pre-merger notification process
could help to restore a better balance.
On the consumer protection side, the Commission increasingly sets
priorities by identifying those practices that cause the greatest
consumer injury. I understand that, in this area, the Commission also
relies to a considerable degree on consumer complaints, and that there
are recent initiatives to facilitate consumer communications via 1-800
numbers and the Internet.
7. In reference to question number six, what forces are likely to
result in changes to the mission of this agency over the coming five
years? The two separate but interrelated missions of the Federal Trade
Commission are likely to remain intact for the next five years. There
were proposals for major change in the early l970s and l980s that
failed politically, and I believe there is even less pressure for
wholesale restructuring today. In part, this is the result of sensitive
leadership at the agency during the last decade.
Redeployment of agency resources is not likely to come from outside
political direction, but rather from internal agency initiatives. As
mentioned, one likely area would be reform of merger reviews. Another
area of increasing concern is the challenge of new technology for both
the competition and consumer protection missions. Uncertainties about
the long-term effects of government intervention or, alternatively, of
benign neglect are persistent and perhaps growing. Economic and
behavioral understanding is expanding all the time, but technological
change may be moving faster.
Similarly, the rapid disappearance of trade barriers and true
globalization of commerce raise myriad issues of substantive policy and
of process. The Commission will not only have to deal with new
competitive and consumer issues but find new ways to address these
issues. The world of commerce is not only growing more uncertain, but
the stakes are getting higher and U.S. regulators are not the only
significant players. (The recently-formed International Competition
Advisory Committee has begun to study these issues in detail.)
8. In further reference to question number six, what are the likely
outside forces which may prevent the agency from accomplishing its
mission? What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
board/commission and why? The Commission is future-oriented in the
sense that its primary focus has always been on prospective
improvements in the competitive process. The greatest constraint is
therefore the inherent inability of human beings, singly or
collectively, to predict the future. Military leaders are sometimes
accused of preparing to fight the last war, and others in government
can also be overly fixated on old problems, simply because they are
familiar. The challenges identified in response to the previous
question require a formidable expenditure of effort, but money and more
people alone will not solve the problems. They require imagination and
a modest recognition that experts can always be wrong.
I believe the major challenges for the Commission are the
following:
(1) Immersion in immediate problems, in both private and public
institutions, always tends to preempt long-term planning. Overwhelmed
as they are with current burdens, the leaders of the Commission always
need to set aside some time to address the challenges of the future and
to test their views in public debate.
(2) Acquisition of the necessary economic understanding to cope
with a fast-changing world is, as mentioned, a formidable task. Any
regulator must always be open to the possibility that long-held tenets
are simply wrong but, at the same time, must be appropriately skeptical
of transitory fads and fashions. Achieving an appropriate balance is
not easy.
(3) The Commission was originally designed by Congress to have a
strong educational mission. It has made significant improvements in
recent years, but needs to find ways to even better implement that
original intent. Education of the private bar can have a particularly
potent effect on law enforcement because private counselors then, in
effect, enforce the law for you.
9. In further reference to question number six, what factors in
your opinion have kept the board/commission from achieving its missions
over the past several years? I am not prepared to say that the Federal
Trade Commission has failed to achieve its mission in recent years. On
balance, I believe it has done a pretty good job, in part because its
goals have been set prudently.
As a purely subjective matter, I give the Commission higher marks
on the antitrust side than on the consumer protection side -- not
because of a lack of commitment or imagination but because the variety
of possible consumer frauds is almost infinite and because the
perpetrators are myriad and transient.
There are no easy solutions to this problem, but it is of greater
importance than people may appreciate. The ultimate damage done by
fraud and deception is not measured simply by the losses of particular
disappointed buyers; these activities can also engender cynicism and
disillusionment about the entire commercial system, even among people
who have not been duped. Honest sellers have a stake in honest
advertising that goes far beyond protection of their particular market
position against dishonest competitors. We need to find even better
ways to enlist the help of the private sector.
10. Who are the stakeholders in the work of this agency? The
ultimate stake-holders in the work of the agency are ordinary
consumers, which is to say the general public. Both the Competition and
the Consumer Protection wings are dedicated to the preservation of open
and honest competition for the benefit of consumers.
Obviously, survival of open and honest competition depends on the
continued presence of competitors. Competition is not dependent on the
survival of a particular competitor or group of competitors, however,
so long as the opportunity exists for others to take their place.
Competitors are therefore not the primary stake-holders that consumers
are, but, in some circumstances, persistent injury to particular
competitors will cripple the competitive process.
11. What is the proper relationship between your position, if
confirmed, and the stake-holders identified in question number ten? The
Commission's consumer stake-holders are an immense and diffused group,
largely unacquainted with what the Commission does, so it is not
practical to depend solely on direct communication of their views.
Commissioners have to rely for guidance on agency expertise and the
views of various surrogates.
The agency has internal expertise both in the dynamics of a
competitive market system and in the principles of consumer protection.
It can apply this expertise in determining whether particular practices
are anti-competitive or deceptive--for the ultimate benefit of
consumers but often without their direct input.
Consumer interests are also represented by various surrogates and
it is appropriate for commissioners to consider their views in
formulating policy. Representatives of business or consumer
organizations, for example, often have useful information to
contribute.
Congress and the Executive Branch, as representatives of people/
consumers at large, also have played an important role in the
development of Commission policy. Congress can intervene directly
through the appropriation process, through the formal oversight
process, and in less formal ways. To the extent that a commissioner is
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, there may be legal constraints on
communications that can be entertained, but commissioners are otherwise
able to communicate freely with interested officials, including
representatives of other agencies with some consumer protection
responsibilities.
I personally do not believe that antitrust issues are somehow
beyond the purview of other government policy-makers. So-called
``independent agencies,'' like the Federal Trade Commission, are
designed to be insulated to a degree from partisan politics, but this
does not mean that commissioners should be indifferent to the concerns
of elected or appointed officials.
12. Please describe your philosophy of supervisor/employee
relationships. Generally, what supervisory model do you follow? Have
any employee complaints been brought against you? No employee
complaints have ever been brought against me.
I have never thought of myself as subscribing to a particular
``supervisory model,'' but I have been guided by a few basic principles
that I derived from various sources. For example, I believe in
delegation of authority and trust in the competence of those who report
to me because people perform better when they are given responsibility
and because, frankly, it makes my life a lot easier. I do not believe
in management by intimidation; in my experience, the best managers
invariably are those who lead by example and by fostering a sense of
teamwork. I learned in the military that you never, ever, criticize a
junior in the presence of that junior's own subordinates. And I learned
from my father that you should always treat subordinates with
particular courtesy because they usually are not in a position to
defend themselves if you behave otherwise.
13. Describe your working relationship, if any, with the Congress.
Does your professional experience include working with committees of
Congress? If yes, please describe. My experience with committees of
Congress has been limited to preparation of statements for
congressional hearings and occasional lobbying calls on Members or
their staff. See response to Question C(4) above.
14. Please explain how you will work with this Committee and other
stakeholders to ensure that regulations issued by your board]commission
comply with the spirit of the laws passed by Congress. My views on the
future working relationships are set out in response to Questions E4,
F-10 and F-11 above.
The principal spokesman for the Commission in its dealings with
Congress is, of course, the Chairman. As explained, however, I firmly
believe in the value of congressional oversight and will cooperate to
the maximum extent, both inside the agency and outside, if requested.
15. In the areas under the board/commission jurisdiction, what
legislative action(s) should Congress consider as priorities? Please
state your personal views.
As indicated, I believe that reform of the pre-merger notification
process should be given high priority. Although the Commission can take
a number of steps internally, some congressional action will be
required if, for example, threshold reporting levels are raised to take
account of changes in the value of the dollar (or overall size of the
economy). In addition, I believe it would be desirable to phase out the
agency's reliance on pre-merger filing fees as a funding source. I
recognize that any such step involves larger appropriation issues, but
the overall effect on the budget could be neutral.
16. Please discuss your views on the appropriate relationship
between a voting member of an independent board or commission and the
wishes of a particular president. The short answer is that an
independent agency like the FTC--with bipartisan members serving
staggered terms--is structured the way it is precisely to avoid
subordination to the wishes of a particular president. I endorse the
basic scheme without reservation. It is necessary to add, however, that
commissioners should not function in total isolation. It is obviously
inappropriate to entertain off-record communications from anyone when a
matter is in adjudication, and there are established procedures for
outside comment in administrative rulemaking. On broad policy
questions, however, a commissioner should give respectful
consideration--which is not the same thing as deference--to the views
of other people in both the executive and legislative branches.
I also believe I have an obligation to be consistent. I assume that
I have been proposed and nominated, and hopefully will be confirmed,
because my philosophical views on the relevant issues lie in the
mainstream. In my opinion, any sudden reversal of form would be a
betrayal of trust.
Senator Ashcroft. I am very pleased to have you here. The
FTC, of course, has a very important responsibility. It was a
pleasure to know that a member of the Commission has attended
you here, Orson Swindle, and we are pleased and honored to have
him here.
Have you got any ideas for the ways in which you think the
FTC could improve its performance or the changes that you would
like to see happen at the FTC?
Mr. Leary. Well, Senator, as I have discussed with some
people, I have a number of notions. I think that my top
priority for the Commission's possible constructive changes
would be reform of the premerger notification process. At the
moment, the advance notification of mergers requires
notification of mergers at a dollar level that was set over 20
years ago. It has not been indexed for inflation and it has not
been indexed for the massive growth of the economy in the last
20 years, so that the antitrust agencies, both the FTC and the
Department of Justice, are today reviewing relatively minor
transactions, which not only imposes a burden on the private
sector but, equally important, imposes a burden on the public
sector. There are a number of initiatives underway right now
for careful study of this situation with some hope for
achieving constructive change in the relatively near future,
and I am optimistic that it can be done. That would be my top
priority.
Senator Ashcroft. Is it possible that by requiring
submissions which are really not above a threshold of necessity
that we bog the agencies down and divert resources from their
focus?
Mr. Leary. That is my biggest concern, Senator. The Federal
Trade Commission, as you may know, has two wings: one, the
consumer protection wing, and the other, the so-called
competition or antitrust wing. The competition/antitrust
resources are to a tremendously large degree preempted by the
need to attend to these merger filings, and I think it
distracts from other things that the agency might usefully
accomplish.
Senator Ashcroft. I think you have mentioned changing the
pre-reporting process for mergers.
Mr. Leary. Yes.
Senator Ashcroft. One thing would be to probably delete
some of those filings which have grown by inflation into the
category but do not deserve the chance to be there. Are there
other----
Mr. Leary. There may be other categories of filings that
may ultimately prove to be unnecessary. Let me just give one
example of an idea, which I do not know to be practical or not
because I have not tested it out in debate. But one possibility
would be to have a very, very simplified process for mergers
where there does not appear to be any horizontal overlap; that
is, the two businesses are not in any respect competitors or de
minimis competitors. And maybe there is some way where a whole
class of transactions could be given a more summary treatment.
Senator Ashcroft. Let me just yield some of the time now to
other Members of the Senate who are here. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leary, I think
you heard me say earlier that my constituents have the dubious
honor or paying the highest gasoline prices in the United
States now, consistently near $1.60 per gallon. We see the
Federal Trade Commission as our last line of defense against
anticompetitive practices that are contributing to this price
situation. We are particularly concerned that with the
possibility of additional oil company mergers, that would mean
even fewer choices and even less competition for the consumers.
Now, you may be aware that the Federal Trade Commission has
been very responsive when I and Senator Boxer, who has faced
many of the same problems in California, have brought
information to the Commission's attention. We are pleased that
you are moving forward on this. It has been reported in the
press that subpoenas are in the hands of the oil companies with
respect to this matter.
What I would like to do is ask you a few theoretical
questions so as to be able to assess your views with respect to
competition in the gasoline business.
Now, I am sure you are familiar with the Robinson-Patman
statute which makes it illegal to discriminate in price between
different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality.
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that an oil company
engaged in illegal price discrimination by selling the same
grade and quality of gas at different prices to different
buyers. In fact, there was a Supreme Court case on that, the
Texaco v. Hasbrook case.
In the Pacific Northwest right now we have oil companies
charging gasoline dealers different prices for the same grade
and quality of gas. In fact, the CEO of Arco recently admitted
to me during a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee that
Arco charges purchasers different prices by using a practice
known as zone pricing. The Arco CEO, Mr. Bolan, stated that
Arco was charging purchasers different prices to meet
competitive pressure.
But this defense, the meeting competition defense, under
the Robinson-Patman Act only applies when a seller is lowering
prices to meet competition. That is certainly not what we have
going on in the Pacific Northwest. We have been seeing these
constant increases in gasoline prices for many months now,
probably the last 6 months.
My question then is, if there is a Federal law prohibiting
price discrimination and the oil companies are not lowering
prices to meet competition, what theory could possibly justify
zone pricing?
Mr. Leary. Senator, obviously, as you know, I am
constrained not to discuss any particular matter that is
presently before the Commission.
Senator Wyden. I am asking you only about theory.
Mr. Leary. As a matter of principle or matter of theory?
Senator Wyden. Right.
Mr. Leary. I agree with you 100 percent that the meeting
competition defense does not apply to meeting the competition
of somebody who is offering a higher price. That is not what
the meeting competition defense is meant to achieve.
As far as zone pricing is concerned, whether that is legal
or not depends upon whether there is an effect on competition
between the favored and the disfavored customers. In other
words, the Robinson-Patman Act--there may be some
misunderstanding about it--does not prohibit selling at
different prices to someone in California than to someone in
New York because those two people are not in competition with
one another.
The issue will be whether or not there is a competitive
nexus or a competitive effect between the dealer that gets the
high price and the dealer that gets the low price. You have to
look at what the impact is really along the demarcation line
because the people who are far apart are not going to be either
advantaged or disadvantaged by the lower price. I am
speculating now because obviously I am not familiar with the
facts of the case, but that may well be an issue here.
There are also questions under the Robinson-Patman Act
about different prices for people who take different volumes.
There are also questions about whether or not people get
different prices because they have other purchase terms that
differ, and all of those complications may be present.
Senator Wyden. Well, we certainly do not question that
California and New York are in different zones.
Mr. Leary. Right.
Senator Wyden. What we have found in our State and have
turned over invoices and documents to the Commission--you may
have heard--is evidence of this pricing discrimination on the
basis of zones where the people are located very, very closely
to each other.
Mr. Leary. That could well be true, Senator.
Senator Wyden. All right.
My second question is in my State as well there is very
limited competition in the gasoline business. We have seen a 29
percent decrease in the number of gas stations since 1990. The
independents have been virtually squeezed out. Right now four
oil companies currently control 80 percent of the retail
market.
In addition, if the proposed merger between BP and Arco is
allowed to go forward, BP and Arco would have a virtual
monopoly over oil supply on the west coast. They would control
not only 70 percent of the Alaska North Slope crude, they would
have the virtual strangle hold on the delivery system that
brings the gas to west coast markets.
Now, supporters of this sort of merger want the FTC to look
only at local retail markets where there is little overlap
between current operations such as the BP and Arco operations.
My sense is it is not that simple.
Again, I would like to know whether in theory you think
that it is appropriate for the FTC to look at the entire array
of operations, the retail operations, to determine if there are
anticompetitive concerns from a merger like this.
Mr. Leary. Again, Senator, without commenting on the
specific case, it is certainly appropriate for an agency to
look at both the supply side as well as the demand side. The
agency guidelines specifically provide for looking at supply
side concentration as well as demand side concentration.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of other
questions, and I appreciate your indulgence because this is
probably one of the top two concerns in my State and I
appreciate your letting me pursue this.
Mr. Leary, you might be aware that earlier this year I
raised concerns with the Commission about the potential merger
between Barnes & Noble, the very large retail bookseller, and
Ingrahm, the major wholesaler. Not only having a dad in the
publishing business but from a State with perhaps the largest
number of small bookstores in the country, I had a lot of
constituents up in arms about this. I asked the Federal Trade
Commission to investigate. They did and there was a staff
recommendation that the merger not be allowed to go forward.
And as you know, Barnes & Noble eventually pulled out.
Mr. Leary. Yes.
Senator Wyden. The BP-Arco situation is obviously not
identical in all particulars because there are refineries in
between the crude oil supply and the retail gasoline supply.
But again in theory, would you agree that there are similar
anticompetitive concerns raised if you would have a mega-merger
like BP and Arco controlling the crude oil supply for the west
coast and also that firm having retail operations?
Mr. Leary. Senator, again speaking as a matter of
principle, that could be a matter of concern. Yes, indeed.
Senator Wyden. One last question, if I might.
Given the spree of mega-mergers with last year BP acquiring
Amoco, Exxon and Mobil having a merger in the works that is now
under review by the Commission, the ink barely dry on BP-Amoco,
and they are already off acquiring Arco, we are seeing this
sort of communications-utilities industry after industry. What
I am hearing from my constituents is that with so many sectors
now being dominated by fewer and fewer hands, there is just
virtually no local accountability in some of these key areas as
it relates to health and communications and energy.
My question is, when the FTC looks at these mega-mergers,
should it look only at what the combined companies' share of
the market will be after the merger, or should issues like how
the merger affects customer service and other consumer
considerations be included before a merger is approved?
Mr. Leary. Senator, my answer to the question, the short
answer, is yes. I believe that service and product quality are
dimensions of competition just like price, and I might say
frequently neglected dimensions of competition, again speaking
generally.
Senator Wyden. Well, let me just tell you, I am sure you
did not expect a member of this committee to go into this kind
of detail with you this afternoon, but you can probably tell
this is an area I am very interested in, have been since the
days when I was director of the Gray Panthers at home in
Oregon. I happen to think that the Commission that you have
been nominated to serve on is one of the most important places
in the Government because it is one of the last lines of
defense for consumers in these key areas. I think Bob Pitofsky
is doing an excellent job. He has been very responsive to us,
and I think you have been very thoughtful in terms of how you
have tackled some very complicated issues that I am sure you
did not anticipate this afternoon.
I look forward to seeing you serve at the Commission and to
working very closely with you on these matters.
I want to thank Chairman Ashcroft for indulging me this
afternoon to be able to ask these questions.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, thank you, Senator Brownback.
Senator Wyden. And my colleague from my birthright, Kansas.
Senator Brownback. One of our great representatives from
Wichita, one of three or four I think that are from Wichita.
Mr. Leary, I do not have any particular questions for you.
I want to congratulate you on going into this position.
I want to draw your attention to one particular issue that
is coming up in front of the FTC, a study that they are doing
on the marketing of violence to children. We have held a
hearing in this room on that topic. I met with the Chairman
about that issue. I think it is a very important topic,
obviously, and that is why I raise it with you.
I just got back from southern California and some meetings
with entertainment industry people, and they talk there about
trying to attract a certain set of eyeballs on watching
television. Now, there they were talking about, they were
saying Madison Avenue is driving us to try to get as many
people from the age 18 to 34 and really the age of 18 to 24 and
really male is what they want watching that television. So,
that is why we put all the sex and violence on because you want
to keep them from channel surfing, so let us put that up.
I do not know the accuracy of any of those statements that
people made to me. I just know that overall that this society
has grown far too course and really vulgar and rough, and a lot
of it is put out through the microphone of a mass media or an
entertainment industry.
And if it is particularly targeted below that age 18
audience, then I think there is a reason for us to look more
thoroughly and directly and caustically and critically at the
industry that is doing that. I suspect that they are in
particular areas, video games, movies, particularly like teen
slasher movies that are movies that are set in high school,
teen idol starts on it, and yet rated R, which teens are not
even supposed to be able to go in to them. Yet, I am not sure
who all else would go to a movie or who it is really targeted
toward. There is even marketing of some of the more violent
video games in toy stores right next to places where 10- and
11-year-olds reach and shop.
If that is a targeted area by the industry, I think that is
an area of concern and one that really needs to be looked at
critically. I would just ask that you take some real time and
focus on it because this is overall a very important topic to
the American culture and society as we try to really pull back
from the abyss and move to a better place where our families
feel like the culture is a little more supportive instead of
all the time on them and trying to harm them.
Mr. Leary. Senator, I am aware of this assignment, and I
can assure you that I take it very, very seriously. My own
children are a little too old now to be directly involved in
this, but I have grandchildren coming along and I am concerned
about them, as well as children everywhere.
Senator Brownback. Well, my kids are younger, so I go to
the store. But go with your grandkids sometime to look at
records or video games just some day on a weekend just to get a
look yourself, or look in some of the magazines or see the
video games that they are playing just to take a look. Your
grandkids may be better than mine are, but you may be shocked
at what you see.
Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
I want to thank Mr. Leary for coming before the committee
today. I want to thank Commissioner Swindle for being with us
today and thank him for his participation. I want to thank all
the Members of the Senate who came to participate in this
hearing.
Let me just indicate, as I indicated earlier, that the
chairman has indicated, through his staff director, that it is
his intention to move these through an executive session as
soon as possible so that we will try and report these items
promptly.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens and the letter
of Mr. Rowe may be found in the appendix:]
Senator Ashcroft. It appears as if no other Senators have
pressing inquiries. With that, I adjourn this hearing. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens U.S. Senator from Alaska
Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see a hard working young man move
forward in his career. My former chief of staff, Greg Chapados, was the
head of NTIA during the Bush administration, so I know the pride that
Senator Dorgan must feel in seeing Greg Rohde before us today.
NTIA is an important agency and has been well led by Larry Irving
and his staff.
With the changes we are all experiencing in the world of
telecommunications, it is good to know that bright young professionals
such as Mr. Rohde will continue the excellent leadership of this
agency.
Greg, I want to thank you publicly for your tireless efforts in
support of universal service. Many of you know that Greg was
instrumental in helping to bring the Telecommunications Act of 1996
together. What you may not know is that Greg took a leadership role at
the staff level to fight for the concept of universal service. And
since the Act, he has been a true leader in ensuring that the concerns
of rural areas are considered in the various telecommunications bills
this committee considers.
Greg, your knowledge of rural issues and of universal service will
be of even more importance over the coming months. I believe the
concept of universal service is under attack and I hope you will be a
strong voice in this administration for furthering the goals we both
sought to achieve in the Telecommunications Act.
Thank you.
______
September 3, 1999
The Honorable Conrad Burns
Chairman
Communications Subcommittee
Senate Commerce Committee
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
Re: Nomination of Greg Rohde as Assistant Secretary for Communications
and Information, U. S. Department of Commerce
Dear Senator Burns:
I am delighted to support the nomination of Greg Rohde as Assistant
Secretary for Communications and Information at the United States
Department of Commerce. I request that you introduce this statement
into the record of his confirmation hearing.
As you know so well, Mr. Rohde is one of the most knowledgeable and
experienced telecommunications hands in Washington. He played a key
role in development and passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and
especially in ensuring a central role for universal servicein Section
254.
As do his colleagues on Capitol Hill, state public utility
commissioners rely on Greg's wisdom and good counsel. We appreciate his
problem-solving approach and his ability to move beyond the arguments
that bog down so many others.
It is no secret that Greg Rohde is passionate about providing
excellent telecommunications service to rural America. My work with
Greg persuades me that he is equally committed to using the
Telecommunications Act's tools to serve urban America. In the past,
I've talked with Greg about his vision, which I believe is your vision
and is the vision of the Commerce Committee. I am eager to get him ``on
the job'' at the Department of Commerce so that we can work with him on
universal service, competition, and technology, and on specific
projects such as the Section 706 federal-state conference.
There are big shoes to fill as Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information. I am confident that Greg Rohde is an
ideal choice to fill them.
Sincerely,
Bob Rowe
Chairman,
NARUC Telecommunications Committee