    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM);
     H.R. 1147, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009; AND H.R. 1133, THE
               FAMILY TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 11, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-47

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    73-746                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

        HENRY A. WAXMAN, California      JOE BARTON, Texas
                  Chairman                 Ranking Member
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RALPH M. HALL, Texas
      Chairman Emeritus                  FRED UPTON, Michigan
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MARY BONO MACK, California
      Vice Chairman                      GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    LOIS CAPPS, California               LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
    JANE HARMAN, California              SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
    TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
    HILDA L. SOLIS, California           MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    JIM MATHESON, Utah
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
    JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
        Islands
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
    BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa
    PETER WELCH, Vermont

                                      (ii)
          Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet

                             RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
                                     Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee                 Ranking Member
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    JAY INSLEE, Washington               HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
    G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina         Mississippi
    CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana          VITO FOSELLA, New York
    BARON P. HILL, Indiana               GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          MARY BONO MACK, California
    DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin         GREG WALDEN, Oregon
        Islands                          LEE TERRY, Nebraska
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
        officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Rick Boucher, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
    Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Florida, opening statement..................................     3
    Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     5
    Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Nebraska, opening statement....................................     6
    Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     6
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     7
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     8
    Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of North Carolina, opening statement.....................     9
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, prepared statement..............................   200
    Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prepared statement..............   202

                                   Witnesses

    Frank W. Krogh, Esquire, Morrison and Foerster LLP...............    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Curtis Hopfinger, Director of Government & Regulatory Affairs,
      Securus Technologies...........................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24
    David Goad, National Sheriffs' Association.......................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union.....................    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    David Donovan, President, The Association for Maximum Service
      Television, Inc................................................    52
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
    Jim Starzynski, Principal Engineer and Audio Architect, NBC
      Universal, Advanced Engineering................................    66
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Peter Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, Federal
      Communications Commission......................................    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
    Caroline Beasley, Executive Vice President and CFO, Beasley
      Broadcast Group................................................    89
        Prepared statement...........................................    91
    Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Director, United Church of Christ,
      Office of Communications, Inc..................................   115
        Prepared statement...........................................   118

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of June 10, 2009, from 100 Black Men of Omaha, Inc. to
      Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Terry...........................   206
    Letter of June 4, 2009, from Jefferson Public Radio to Mr.
      Walden, submitted by Mr. Walden................................   207
    Letter of June 3, 2009, from WVTF Public Radio to Subcommittee,
      submitted by Mr. Boucher.......................................   210
    Letter of June 9, 2009, from American Correctional Association to
      Subcommittee, submitted by Mr. Boucher.........................   214
    Editorial entitled, ``Innocent Victims the State is Gouging
      Inmates' Families,'' by Errol Louis, November 16, 2004,
      submitted by Mr. Weiner........................................   204
    Editorial entitled, ``Dial R for Ripoff Gov Must End Prison Phone
      Monopoly that Bilks Inmates' Kin,'' by Errol Louis, November
      15, 2005, submitted by Mr. Weiner..............................   205

    H.R. 1084, THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM);
     H.R. 1147, THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2009; AND H.R. 1133, THE
               FAMILY TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Communications, Technology,
                                      and the Internet,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick
    Boucher (chairman) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Boucher, Rush, Eshoo,
    Stupak, Doyle, Weiner, Butterfield, McNerney, Stearns, Walden,
    and Terry.
        Staff present: Roger Sherman, Chief Counsel; Shawn Chang,
    Counsel; Liz Eraker, Intern; Amy Levine, Counsel; Sarah Fisher,
    Special Assistant; Pat Delgado, Chief of Staff (Waxman); Amy
    Bender, Minority Detailee; Neil Fried, Senior Minority Counsel;
    Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst; and Amanda
    McGreevy, Minority Legislative Intern.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BOUCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Mr. Boucher. Good morning to everyone. Before addressing
    the matters that are pending before the subcommittee today, I
    want to note that after years of planning, the digital
    television transition will take place tomorrow. I want to take
    this moment to thank the members of the staff of the FCC, to
    thank the personnel at NTIA and the broad range of stakeholders
    ranging from the broadcasters and cable to satellite companies,
    retailers and the manufacturers of converter boxes for all of
    their effective work that will help to assure a smooth digital
    transition. While some viewers remain unprepared, the Nielsen
    Survey reported this week that fully 97.5 percent of Americans
    are now fully prepared and ready for tomorrow's transition. The
    FCC's call centers are staffed and ready to provide assistance
    to viewers who have difficulties connecting. I have every
    confidence that the transition will be uneventful for the vast
    majority of Americans.
        Today the subcommittee considers three stand-alone
    measures, the first of which is H.R. 1084, the Commercial
    Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act otherwise known as the
    CALM Act, introduced by our colleague from California, Ms.
    Eshoo, in order to address a leading consumer complaint, the
    volume of advertisements on television. All of us have had the
    experience of enjoying a favorite program only to find
    ourselves scrambling for the remote control when at the
    commercial break the volume of the television seems to double.
    I have cosponsored the CALM Act and I suspect that if enacted
    this measure will become as popular as the legislation that
    created the do not call list, and I look forward to learning
    why the phenomenon of loud commercials exist and what we can do
    as policymakers in order to address that phenomenon.
        H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act
    introduced by Chairman Rush would address the serious matter of
    the rates that are paid by prison inmates for collect calling
    services. Inmates are literally a captive audience and they
    typically have no option for using the telephone to contact
    family and legal counsel other than making their calls from a
    prison payphone and the rates that are charged for those
    services are enormous and include not only a high per-minute
    rate for the service but also per-call connection fees that can
    be as high as $4 per call. The burden of these charges often
    falls on those who are least able to afford the charges, the
    inmates who have virtually no income and the members of their
    families who frequently face their own financial hardships.
    Phone service for inmates is a necessity. It is not a luxury.
    It is often their only link to family and attorneys and
    therefore, we hope that this morning the witnesses will tell us
    what may be done to ensure that prison inmates have access to
    this very necessary service at rates that are reasonably
    affordable.
        The third bill that we are hearing this morning is H.R.
    1147, the Local Community Radio Act introduced by our
    colleagues Representatives Doyle and Terry. It would provide
    additional opportunities for low-power FM radio stations by
    allowing their operation on third adjacent channels to full-
    power radio stations. LPFM stations are typically community-
    based, nonprofits and they operate usually at 100 watts or less
    of broadcast power and have a broadcast reach of only a few
    miles. They play a truly unique role in our media firmament.
    They are more likely then their full-power counterparts to be
    owned by women or by minorities. They are an important forum
    for local clergy, for politicians, for civil rights focused
    programs and community leaders who seek to weigh in on local
    matters of public interest. They are also commonly found at our
    institutions of higher education across the United States.
    While expanding opportunities for more low-power FM stations is
    desirable, we must be certain that expanded low-power FM
    service is implemented in a way that does not jeopardize
    existing broadcast services including noncommercial, full-power
    FM stations. This morning we are interested in how low-power FM
    stations on third adjacencies can protect existing services
    including FM radio, emerging HD radio and radio reading
    services.
        I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their
    attendance here this morning. We will turn to your testimony
    shortly.
        But at this time, I am pleased to recognize other members
    of the subcommittee for their own statements and I will call on
    the gentleman from Florida, the ranking Republican on our
    subcommittee, Mr. Stearns.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Mr. Stearns. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and
    thank you for having this hearing. We have nine alert, ready-
    to-go witnesses and it is quite impressive.
        As you mentioned, we have three distinct pieces of
    legislation we are looking at. I will go with one that you sort
    of mentioned in the last which is H.R. 1133, the Family
    Telephone Connection Protection Act. As mentioned, it would
    require the FCC to regulate telephone services to inmates in
    correctional facilities. Typically, a single carrier is
    selected through a competitive bidding process to provide the
    prisoner his phone service and although services and rates vary
    by State or facility, inmates are often limited to making a
    collect call and the rates charged are frequently a bit higher
    to help pay for these collect calls nationwide.
        Supporters of this legislation argue that prison call fees
    are too high costing families too much to keep in touch with
    their relatives in jail and making it harder to rehabilitate
    criminals. Our nation's sheriffs have a unique perspective
    however since over 80 percent of the nation's local jails are
    simply under the jurisdiction of the sheriffs so it is very
    good, Mr. Chairman, we have them here to testify to give their
    side.
        This bill could lead to a prohibition on a payment of
    commissions to the correctional facilities by providers of the
    phone service. These commissions go to providing security
    measures to monitor non-privilege calls, to prevent elicit
    activities and to pay for the cost of the telephone system
    itself. Without the commissions, these correctional facilities
    will either have to ask taxpayers to front the cost of the
    phone system or completely dismantle the program.
        In addition, these commissions are a main source of funding
    for many beneficial inmate programs such as adult education,
    any recidivism programs, jail ministries and substance abuse
    programs. For example, in New York some funding from telephone
    commissions were used to provide free bus rides to the
    facilities for inmate family members. I certainly understand
    the hardship that many inmates' families have to endure
    however, and frankly as local and State budgets get tighter and
    tighter not allowing these commissions might force correctional
    facilities to eliminate many important programs.
        Mr. Chairman, the second bill under discussion is H.R.
    1147, the Local Community Radio Act. The FCC created low-power
    FM station service in 2000 to promote local programming. At the
    end of 2000, Congress restricted how close low-power stations
    may operate to full-power stations due to chiefly the
    interference concerns. As a result, fewer low-power stations
    can be authorized. This bill would simply repeal the statutory
    limits. I support the idea of allowing more low-power stations
    to be licensed however, such a sweeping policy change needs to
    balance the potential impact on full-power FM stations, namely
    interference.
        Third, adjacent protection exists for a reason, to guard
    against such interference. There is a policy already in place
    to allow low-power FM stations to operate in the FM band with
    third adjacent protection. The FCC has licensed more than 865
    low-power operators with more having been granted construction
    permits or that have applications that are pending. As we
    consider H.R. 1147, we need to fully examine the impact on
    full-power FM stations and the issue of interference. A broad
    blanket policy change may be unnecessary at this time. I hope
    to work with the sponsors of this bill as we move forward.
        And last, Mr. Chairman, we are examining H.R. 1084, the
    Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act and I will
    compliment the author of the bill with the word CALM Act. I am
    sure they worked hard to get that to come together. This bill
    would require the FCC to mandate rules within one year
    prohibiting commercials from being excessively noisy or
    strident. The issue is more complex than it appears. Many
    different entities are responsible for producing and
    distributing the content consumers see and hear today. Each
    element may be recorded and provided at different volume
    levels. Moreover, shows and movies have a dynamic sound range
    to cover everything from a quiet scene to an explosion.
    Commercials, meanwhile, tend to have a narrow sound range.
    Volume levels are typically set for the programming which can
    throw off the volume levels for commercials. Two years ago, the
    Advanced Television Systems Committee established a subgroup on
    digital television loudness. This subgroup consists of the
    leading experts on audio technology from all the major
    broadcast networks, cable, production and post-production,
    manufacturing and education in the United States of America.
    Since it was established, these audio technology experts have
    crafted a hard-fought consensus on the recommended practices
    that should be employed across the TV industry to deal with TV
    loudness concerns.
        Mr. Chairman, I trust the collective wisdom of these
    technical experts to craft a solution to the TV loudness issue.
    The subgroups hard work should not be undone by legislation.
    One suggestion would be to revise the bill simply so that the
    FCC rulemaking only commences if industry has not addressed the
    issue within a certain amount of time. So I think we have,
    perhaps, a solution to our problem which is Advanced Television
    Systems Committee and all the hard work they have done in this
    area.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing, the
    witnesses and I welcome again the opportunity to ask them
    questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Stearns, for a very
    thoughtful statement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Doyle, is recognized for five minutes. I am sorry, for two
    minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this legislative hearing that includes the bill I
    introduced with my good friend, Lee Terry, H.R. 1147, the Local
    Community Radio Act.
        You know, it is appropriate to hold this hearing this
    morning. I heard on the radio today that today is the 74th
    anniversary of the first FM broadcast. Students of that story
    know that the dominant AM broadcaster, RCA, successfully
    lobbied the FCC to move the FM band, obsoleting the inventor's
    burgeoning radios, destroying his company, leading the
    inventor, Edward Armstrong, to suicide and delaying FM's role-
    out for decades. We are almost full circle here today but this
    story starts a decade ago. In 2000, the Federal Communications
    Commission, started to create new community radio stations run
    by local schools, churches, community groups and governments.
    They did this because their missions from Congress is not to
    help entrench lobbies but to make sure as many Americans as
    possible have access to the public's airwaves to fulfill a
    basic human need, the right to communicate. Thousands of
    peoples and groups wanted these new stations and applied.
        Almost immediately, incumbent broadcasters warned this
    subcommittee that these new community radio stations would
    create and I quote ``oceans of interference harming listeners
    efforts to listen to the stations they already know and
    enjoy.'' So in response to the broadcasters' concern, Congress
    called timeout and asked for an independent study to examine
    this issue. The premise of Congress' decision to order the
    study was that if the study confirmed the FCC's findings,
    Congress would remove it's prohibition on the FCC and allow it
    to fully implement community radio.
        Well, the study came back, agreed with the FCC that these
    stations can be created without harming listeners and through
    two unanimous bipartisan votes the FCC has twice now
    recommended to Congress to do so. I am asking Congress to keep
    its part of the bargain today.
        After Congress limited community radio in 2001, several
    groups in my district, the City of Pittsburgh and some working-
    class suburbs lost their chance to go on the air. I will point
    out that late last month, Mr. Chairman, Pittsburgh's only
    minority-owned station and the city's only hip-hop and R and B
    station sold for $9 million. The new owners plan a format
    change and now no one else can connect with urban radio
    listeners in my district. It is almost like incumbent
    broadcasters wrote the line that William Shakespeare actually
    wrote in Hamlet. ``Give every man his ear but few his voice.''
        Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that more Americans get
    a chance to exercise their voice. We must pass this bill and we
    must bring low-power back to the people.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. The gentleman
    from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for two minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. I appreciate my friend, Mr. Doyle, and associate
    myself with your Shakespearean opening statement. And I would
    also like to take this opportunity to thank several that have
    worked hard for this bill like Candace Asman, Cory Hoffman and
    Pete Tridish of Prometheus Radio, Michael Bracy of the Future
    of Music Coalition, the band Okay Go and our very own witness
    today, Cheryl Leanza with the United Church of Christ.
        There are numerous benefits by low-power radio stations to
    smaller communities and what I mean by smaller communities is
    both in an urban sense in a suburban and even a rural sense. It
    gives people a voice to their particular community that they
    may not have now. And as Mike pointed out, the studies have
    shown that we can technically do low-power FM without stepping
    on the signals of the higher power stations.
        Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into
    the record the 100 Black Men of Omaha who are interested as an
    organization of providing low-power FM within the African
    American community of Omaha to provide a platform for
    discussion of community issues. I ask unanimous consent that I
    can submit that for the record.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Terry. And with that, once again thank you but I can't
    resist on 1133 to say that is this the definition of a captive
    customer.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Terry. The
    gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, is recognized for two
    minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing and thank you to the witnesses for coming forth today.
        I am a cosponsor of 1147, the Local Community Radio Act. I
    believe that it is important that the Federal Communication
    Commission provide equitable rules for low-power FM stations.
    Our smallest stations deserve to be heard to be able to provide
    community focus programming that serves all of our listeners'
    needs.
        Concerning the CALM Act, we have all experienced unpleasant
    sudden volume changes during TV programming. The problem was
    identified more than 50 years ago and many other nations are
    already adopting standards. Now, there is one experience I had
    as a young boy. I was a teenager. One of the very Sunday
    afternoons that my father allowed me to watch TV which wasn't
    every Sunday afternoon, I was watching a horror show in the den
    and he was out barbequing and the advertisement came on and he
    came running in and wanted to know what was happening because
    it was so loud he could hear all the screaming outside. It was
    somebody selling furniture. So I have experienced this. It will
    be interesting to see what we can do about it.
        So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. The gentleman from
    Oregon, Mr. Walden, is recognized for two minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate the opportunity to get the testimony today from the
    witnesses on these various bills.
        I would like to submit for the record a letter I received
    from Jefferson Public Radio with regards to H.R. 1147 and some
    issues that they are raising and I think they are very
    legitimate.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Boucher. Without objection.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Jefferson Public Radio probably has more translators
    covering a more rigorous mountain environment providing public
    broadcasting in southern Oregon then probably anywhere else in
    the country and they are concerned about the effect that H.R.
    1147 would have regarding displacement of their translators.
    They are further concerned about the language in H.R. 1147
    which would give authority to the FCC to go even further than
    the third adjacent channel relaxation in the rulemakings. And
    so these are issues that I think the committee needs to look at
    very carefully. Having been in the broadcast business for more
    than 21 years, I am not now a licensee, I share the concern of
    many who want to make sure that as you move forward on adding
    additional signals in the marketplace that there isn't
    disruptive interference especially too, looking at old
    receivers versus new receivers. There are legacy radios that
    aren't as selective as some of the new ones in terms of
    listening quality and differentiating among the signals. And so
    I think these are issues we need to look at carefully before we
    move forward.
        I finally add to the record too, just a note that I hope
    the FCC is doing proper and appropriate oversight over LPFMs.
    They are not supposed to be commercial stations and it would be
    interesting to know just kind of the oversight you are doing to
    see are they operating in some cases as if they were a for-
    profit commercial because I don't think that was the intent of
    LPFM nor is it, I am sure, the sponsors' of this legislation
    that they would merge into a full commercial operation.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the
    testimony.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Walden. The gentleman
    from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, is recognized for two minutes.
        Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going to be
    in and out all day but I did want to have a few comments
    especially on H.R. 1147. In all honesty, I am not real excited
    about that legislation that is authored by my good friend from
    Pittsburgh, Mr. Doyle. I understand why this low-power
    legislation is so important to him. It is probably because it
    reminds him of his Pittsburgh Penguin front line of Malkin and
    Crosby. That is the low-power line they have in hockey and I am
    sure if for some reason, some bad calls, my Red Wings come up a
    little bit short, I am sure Mr. Doyle will be in full-power
    telling me about it on Friday and Saturday.
        I have a minute left if you care to respond here, Mr.
    Doyle.
        Mr. Walden. Will the gentleman yield? I think you are just
    going to get interference from him.
        Mr. Stupak. It will be interference.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. I just want to say to my friend
    that on Monday I will buy the beer for you to cry in.
        Mr. Stupak. It will take more than beer, Doyle.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. The gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Rush, chairman of the subcommittee on consumer
    protection is recognized for two minutes.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really am delighted to
    be here and I am also delighted not to have some consensus in
    the previous discussion. The Blackhawks have been low-power for
    a long time now.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding today's
    hearing on these important bills.
        I would like to limit my limited time on remarks on H.R.
    1133. I introduced this bill with the sincerest concerns for
    those innocent families and close friends of those individuals
    who find themselves incarcerated in our jails and prisons. Like
    you and me, they are telephone services consumers having the
    same needs when it comes to hearing their loved ones' voices
    and maintaining regular contact with their families just as you
    and I are and many in this room are. Their personal lives,
    their households and their budget affairs are complicated by
    having to choose accepting a collect phone call from a loved
    one in prison which can cost up to five times as much as the
    same call that you and I would have to make. They have to live
    with the real life consequences of their choice which could
    mean missing a car or rent or a mortgage payment or not having
    enough money to buy groceries.
        There are typically three ways that an inmate can make and
    complete a telephone call in most State and county correctional
    institutions. Either collect, prepaid collect or prepaid by the
    inmate which in most cases is paid indirectly by the inmate's
    family through a deposit into their prison debit account. For
    collect calls, the billed party is usually in charge of billing
    calls recovery fee of so many dollars for each month that
    collect call charges are paid. Or prepaid collect accounts the
    inmate telephone services provide a collector fee usually
    between $5 and $10 in order to process credit card and check
    payments over the phone, and for a prepaid inmate call, the
    inmate telephone services providers charging in the
    neighborhood of $1 for each completed interstate telephone
    call.
        Mr. Chairman, it is patently unfair that family and friends
    of incarcerated individuals should have to pay these inflated
    amounts. Revenue sharing agreements entered in by inmate
    telephone service providers and the correctional authorities
    they service are the primary cause of this egregious disparity.
    Some States are collecting commissions from providers of inmate
    telephone services at rates that are as high as 40 to 65
    percent of gross bills inmate telephone revenues. These
    commissions continue to have the effect of substantially
    inflating rates for collect, prepaid collect and debit
    interstate and intrastate telephone calls. Simply put, they
    represent a pass through of calls from the correctional
    facility and the jails to the inmates and his or her families.
        Accordingly and most notably, my bill H.R. 1133 focuses on
    these commission arrangements. It would prohibit the payment of
    commissions to administrators of correctional institutions and
    departments of correction. It would also require the FCC to
    promulgate rules that ensure interstate rates for calls that
    incarcerated individuals make while in confinement are just,
    reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Finally, it would require
    providers of inmate telephone services to offer both collect
    calling and debit account services which is a cheaper option
    according to paid telephone service providers because it
    mitigates the risk of bad debt associated with collect calling.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this
    hearing and I am glad to have the witnesses here to testify on
    behalf of my bill. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. The gentleman
    from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, is recognized for two
    minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening this hearing and I particularly want to thank
    Chairman Rush for introducing the legislation. This is not the
    first Congress in which he has introduced this bill. He has
    done it in Congresses past and I thank him for his sensitivity
    to this issue.
        As most of you know, I served as a trial judge in my State
    for many years before coming to Congress. I sat on the highest
    trial bench in my State and presided over felony cases and very
    serious crimes. As a consequence of my work, there were many
    people that I had the unfortunate and unpleasant task of
    incarcerating. But I want to tell you from personal experience
    that the telephone system between the jails and the prisons and
    communities is really in need of revamping. It would break my
    heart when mothers and grandmothers and family members would
    call me from time-to-time and tell me that they had--these are
    poor people, who would have $300 and $400 telephone bills
    because their loved ones would call collect from the jail. And
    what does a grandmother say when her grandchild is calling her
    collect from the jail? The only thing she knows to do is to
    accept the charges.
        And so this legislation that we have before us today is
    certainly a step in the right direction. It is not the ideal
    legislation. I wish we could do more. I have always said that
    one remedy for the problem would be to create a debit card just
    like we have here in the cafeteria. Whenever I want to go get a
    meal, I go downstairs and I put this debit card in and I get my
    meal. Now, we could do this in the jails and make it very
    effective.
        The other thing that we could do would be have cell phones
    in the prisons and in the jails that would be controlled. Not
    unlimited cell phones but the prisoners could get cell phones
    for 30 minutes a day and use those cell phones and at the
    conclusion of the call, they could turn in the cell phones and
    they could be locked up and kept away from the prisoners.
        So thank you, Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having
    this hearing today. This is a step in the right direction.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Butterfield.
        We turn now to our panel of witnesses and again thank each
    of them for their attendance here this morning. Without
    objection, your prepared written statement will be made a part
    of the record and we would welcome your oral presentation. And
    in the interest of time given the large number of witnesses who
    have joined us this morning, we would ask that your oral
    statements be kept to approximately five minutes.
        I will just say a brief word of introduction about each of
    our witnesses. Mr. Frank Krogh is an attorney with the firm of
    Morrison and Foerster representing Citizens United for the
    Rehabilitation of Errants. Mr. Curtis Hopfinger is Director of
    Government and Regulatory Affairs at Securus Technologies. Mr.
    David Goad is the Sheriff of Allegany County, Maryland and
    President of the National Sheriffs' Association. And each of
    those witnesses will be testifying with respect to H.R. 1133,
    the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act.
        Testifying on the Commercial Advertisement Loudness
    Mitigation Act is Mr. Joel Kelsey, Policy Analyst at Consumers
    Union, Mr. David Donovan, President of The Association for
    Maximum Service Television and Mr. Jim Starzynski, Principal
    Engineer and Audio Architect for NBC Universal.
        Testifying on the Local Community Radio Act is Mr. Peter
    Doyle, Chief of the Audio Division of the Media Bureau of the
    Federal Communications Commission, Ms. Caroline Beasley,
    Executive Director and CFO of Beasley Broadcast Group and Ms.
    Cheryl Leanza, Policy Director of the United Church of Christ,
    Office of Communication.
        We welcome each of you and, Mr. Krogh, we will pleased to
    begin with you and you will need to turn your microphone on and
    move it as close as possible to you and we can hear you much
    better.

     STATEMENTS OF FRANK W. KROGH, ESQUIRE, MORRISON AND FOERSTER
      LLP; CURTIS HOPFINGER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT & REGULATORY
     AFFAIRS, SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES; DAVID GOAD, NATIONAL SHERIFFS'
      ASSOCIATION; JOEL KELSEY, POLICY ANALYST, CONSUMERS UNION;
     DAVID DONOVAN, PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATION FOR MAXIMUM SERVICE
    TELEVISION, INC., JIM STARZYNSKI, PRINCIPAL ENGINEER AND AUDIO
     ARCHITECT, NBC UNIVERSAL, ADVANCED ENGINEERING; PETER DOYLE,
      CHIEF, AUDIO DIVISION, MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
    COMMISSION; CAROLINE BEASLEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CFO,
    BEASLEY BROADCAST GROUP; AND CHERYL A. LEANZA, POLICY DIRECTOR,
        UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                      STATEMENT OF FRANK W. KROGH

        Mr. Krogh. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I am
    Frank Krogh, an attorney with the firm of Morrison and Foerster
    which represents the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil
    Rights and Urban Affairs in a proceeding before the Federal
    Communications Commission addressing prison inmates' long
    distance telephone service rates. We also have been
    coordinating closely in that proceeding with Citizens United
    for the Rehabilitation of Errants or CURE.
        Charlie and Pauline Sullivan, the co-directors of CURE, are
    here with me today and they have asked me to testify in support
    of H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of
    2009. On behalf of CURE, I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman
    Boucher and Congressman Rush, the sponsor of H.R. 1133, for
    their leadership in trying to solve this problem of
    unaffordable inmate telephone rates.
        The long distance telephone rates charged prison inmates
    and their families are exorbitant and make it harder for
    inmates to maintain the critical family and community
    connections that are needed for their rehabilitation. H.R. 1133
    would ensure that the FCC addresses this issue forcefully.
        As Chairman Boucher and Congressman Rush explained, prison
    inmates and their families pay some of the highest long
    distance rates in the country. The problem arises from the
    bidding process to win these exclusive service contracts. The
    competing service providers generally are expected to offer
    generous commissions to the prison administrator or state
    correctional agency or the treasury for the right to provide
    the exclusive service to the facilities for the prison system.
    The winning bidder is typically the service provider that
    offers the highest commission payment not the lowest service
    rate. So then the winning bidder then has to charge excessive
    rates for the inmate calls in order to cover these huge
    commission payments of 40 to 65 percent.
        As a result, you have got these tremendous collect call
    charges often as high as $3.95 for a service charge plus a per-
    minute charge of 89 cents. And I have even seen inmate collect
    rates of $4.28 plus 98 cents a minute as opposed to the typical
    rate available to residential subscribers or calling card
    customers of a few pennies per minute. At current rates, one
    hour of conversation a week can run up a monthly phone bill of
    $300 which is a huge financial burden for the innocent
    families, low-income families and loved ones receiving and
    paying for inmate collect calls. These rates deprive inmates
    and their family members of their most reasonable means,
    sometimes the only possible means of communication and strain
    the family and community rehabilitative ties that reduce
    recidivism, preserve families and ease prison tensions.
        The need to act on this issue has become widely recognized.
    The American Bar Association, the American Correctional
    Association and a report released in 2006 by a diverse national
    prison reform commission which included correctional officials,
    all recommend that inmate telephone rates be drastically
    reduced in order to reinforce family and community ties.
        Now, as Congressman Stearns pointed out, in some cases this
    commission revenue is used for prisoner welfare programs but
    that cannot justify the charging of unreasonable rates. You
    can't violate Federal Law on the grounds that the profit is
    going to charitable purposes. This is a regressive tax on some
    of the poorest people in America and this also means that these
    programs, these prisoner welfare programs are not free at all.
    They are being fully funded right now by the prisoners and
    their families. Those families and prisoners should have a
    choice of having fewer programs and more communication. I think
    if you gave them that choice, they would choose more reasonable
    telephone rates so they could communicate more. They should not
    be deprived of that choice through a regressive tax on their
    telephone calls.
        Now, H.R. 1133 confirms the need to reduce inmate telephone
    rates and would require that the FCC consider imposing maximum
    interstate inmate calling rates, a requirement that inmate
    telephone service providers offer a debit calling option which
    is cheaper than and lower cost than collect calling and a
    prohibition of commission payments. The ABA has endorsed the
    proposed legislation as have leading newspapers. Some of the
    remedies specified in H.R. 1133 are also proposed in the
    pending FCC petition filed by Martha Wright, the grandmother of
    a former prisoner, and other petitioners. The Wright
    petitioners have demonstrated that it is entirely feasible for
    interstate long distance telephone services to be provided
    profitably to prisoners at rates far below those prevailing at
    most prison facilities.
        For example, interstate inmate long distance rates in
    Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New York
    correctional facilities are way below typical interstate inmate
    rates. Before New York eliminated its 57.5 percent commission
    rate in 2007, the interstate collect rate for prisoners in New
    York correctional facilities was 16 cents a minute plus a $3
    connection charge, which is equivalent to 41 cents a minute for
    a 12-minute call. Now, with no commission payment, the rate is
    6.8 cents per minute plus $1.28 connection charge which is
    equivalent to 17.5 cents a minute for a 12-minute call.
        Michigan previously had an interstate rate equivalent to
    $1.16 per minute for a 15-minute collect or debit call. Now,
    the debit and collect rates are 12 cents and 15 cents per
    minute respectively, with no per-call charge. So it is quite
    possible to have much lower rates and have the service provided
    at a profit which the service providers are quite eager to do.
        Mr. Boucher. Mr. Krogh, let me ask if you could wrap up.
    Your time has expired.
        Mr. Krogh. Oh yes, I think that H.R. 1133 would ensure that
    the FCC consider the remedies proposed by the Wright
    petitioners at the FCC and reaffirms the FCC's authority to
    impose those remedies. The bill would therefore help bring
    about prison inmate telephone service reform and CURE urges its
    swift passage.
        Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Krogh follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.008

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Mr. Hopfinger.

                     STATEMENT OF CURTIS HOPFINGER

        Mr. Hopfinger. Good morning, Chairman Boucher and members
    of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak here today
    regarding inmate telecommunications and H.R. 1133.
        My name is Curt Hopfinger and I am the Director of
    Regulatory and Government Affairs for Securus Technologies.
    Securus is a Dallas, Texas based company that provides inmate
    telecommunications through our wholly owned subsidiaries to
    correctional institutions in 44 States. We serve approximately
    2,600 locations that include county, city and state-operated
    facilities. In addition, Securus is one of the leading
    providers and patent holders of technologies necessary to
    provide robust, reliable and above all secure inmate
    telecommunications.
        My remarks will be brief. My aim is to provide the
    committee with further contacts and information regarding this
    highly specialized industry and the role that inmate telephone
    communications providers play in assisting law enforcement in
    meeting the demands in the correctional setting.
        Today Securus is in a highly competitive industry. Today we
    compete with numerous providers of inmate telecommunication
    services for contracts with correctional authorities that are
    put out for public bid. It is not uncommon for as many as eight
    different correctional service providers to bid for the same
    contract. This bidding process which is governed by the
    procurement codes and regulations applicable to the area in
    which the correctional facility is located, forces all
    participants to present their very best menu of technologies,
    security feature and above all telephone call prices in order
    to secure a contract.
        As many law enforcement officials have explained to the FCC
    and elsewhere, the inmate telephone system is a critical tool
    for maintaining security both inside and outside the
    correctional environment. Today our industry provides law
    enforcement with a greater choice and quality of investigative
    tools than ever before.
        I will provide just one example of how inmate telephone
    systems have assisted law enforcement officials in preventing
    crime and protecting the public. My written testimony has
    another. This example comes from one of our counties that is
    served by Securus Technologies. Grant County has informed us
    that the Federal Bureau of Investigation routinely listens to
    the recordings of Grant County inmate calls to assist in
    finding Al-Qaeda terrorist cells. Thus, even at the county
    level, secure inmate calling platforms are providing the
    necessary tools for assisting in preserving homeland security.
        All of the features and services I have described above, of
    course come at a cost. In this specialized corner of the
    telecommunication's industry, those costs are large in absolute
    figures and also in terms of the proportion of revenue that
    these costs represent. The requirement to provide customized
    products to law enforcement and correctional institutions
    causes inmate telephone service providers to incur substantial
    costs. In addition, it prevents our industry from enjoying the
    real economies of scale like local exchange companies and long
    distance companies that serve the general public.
        I am pleased to tell you that in 2007, Securus began
    deploying a system called the Secure Call Platform or SCP which
    is a centralized system that requires less reliance on hardware
    and software at the correctional facility itself. Now that SCP
    has been deployed, our network efficiencies have improved and
    our calling rates have decreased significantly at several
    locations.
        I must however make it clear that SCP is neither
    appropriate or feasible at all correctional facilities. The
    multi-million dollar investment by Securus that made this new
    technology possible is however indicative of the fact that the
    industry is competitive and that law enforcement, inmates and
    families of inmates are in fact reaping the benefits.
        Having given you this brief background on inmate telephones
    and how they work and are deployed, I would like to say a few
    words about H.R. 1133. Securus is concerned that H.R. 1133 will
    have the unintended consequences of hindering competition,
    compromising security and actually decreasing the availability
    of telephone service for inmates. In brief, this legislation
    would make it more difficult for Securus and all inmate
    telephone service providers to compete, to innovate and to even
    maintain their existence in the inmate telephone service
    market.
        First, the legislation would require the FCC to set a
    federal rate cap. Securus is concerned that a federal rate cap
    would inevitably impose below cost rates for some facility
    locations and certainly for facility locations in high cost
    areas. In addition, a mandatory rate cap could leave such a
    slender margin of return that for many contracts few service
    providers could risk putting in a bid.
        Second, the legislation would impose facilities-based
    competition at the individual facility sites. This mandatory
    unbundling could require installation and maintenance of two or
    more redundant inmate calling platforms at every facility. This
    multi-provider scheme would lead to a host of administrative
    and security problems. In addition, it would increase the cost
    to the service providers and the facilities themselves. These
    increased costs would have to be recovered by those paying for
    inmate telephone calls.
        Third, the legislation would require an inmate telephone
    service provider to complete calls to persons regardless of
    whether the provider has any billing agreement with the called
    party or the called party's local carrier. I assure the
    committee that Securus and the industry as a whole are making
    great efforts to establish billing relationships with called
    parties whether through their local residence exchange carrier
    or via billing arrangements directly with the called parties. A
    federal mandate requiring the completion of all inmate calls
    however, will discourage both inmates and called parties from
    allowing Securus to setup billing relationships with them. The
    result would be an unprecedented situation in which a telephone
    company is forced to give away service for free.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hopfinger follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.021

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Hopfinger. Your time has
    expired. Sheriff Goad.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID GOAD

        Sheriff Goad. Good morning, Mr. Chairman Boucher, Ranking
    Member Stearns and members of the committee.
        My name is David A. Goad and I am currently the Sheriff of
    Allegany County, Maryland and President of the National
    Sheriffs' Association. The National Sheriffs' Association
    represents 3,000 elected sheriffs across the country and more
    than 20,000 law enforcement professionals, making us one of the
    largest law enforcement associations in the nation. I am
    pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you today to
    discuss our strong opposition to H.R. 1133, the Family
    Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009 and the negative
    and potentially dangerous effect this legislation will have on
    jails and prisons throughout the United States.
        As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in the
    criminal justice system. Over 99 percent of the sheriffs are
    elected and oftentimes serve as the chief law enforcement
    officer of their respective counties. In addition to providing
    traditional policing within their respective counties, sheriffs
    also manage local jails and provide court security.
    Consequently, we have a keen understanding of the needs of the
    criminal justice system as well as our local communities we
    serve.
        Currently, over 80 percent of the nation's local jails are
    under the jurisdiction of sheriffs. While operating our
    nation's jails, sheriffs must process thousands of arrests and
    are responsible for detaining tens of thousands of inmates
    nationwide on any given day. The amount of time, effort,
    resources and funding necessary to manage these jails is quite
    substantial. Furthermore, sheriffs need to work with the
    knowledge that the safety of the public, as well as their
    deputies, is always guarded and held in the highest priority.
    Therefore, it is necessary for sheriffs to have control over
    and to have the ability to monitor the activities that
    transpire within our jails including the communication that
    inmates have with their connections outside of the facility.
        The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009
    would alter a jail's inmate telephone service procedures and
    amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the FCC to
    prescribe rules regulating inmate telephone service. While the
    bill requires that these regulations do not jeopardize
    ``legitimate security and penological interests,'' it indicates
    that a reduction or elimination of revenue derived by
    corrections institutions from the receipt of commissions does
    not constitute jeopardizing or affecting legitimate security
    standards or penological interests. H.R. 1133 also indicates
    that no provider or inmate telephone services may block or
    refuse to carry a call placed by an inmate on the grounds that
    the provider has no contractual or other arrangement with the
    local carrier servicing the call recipient.
        The National Sheriffs' Association believes that this
    legislation would severely hamper the ability of all the
    sheriffs and law enforcement officials to effectively manage
    our nation's jails. Under H.R. 1133, correctional institutions
    would be required to provide inmates with a choice of carriers
    while placing telephone calls. This proposal would amount to
    nothing less than the complete dismantling of the existing
    system of inmate phone service.
        Under the current system one inmate phone service provider
    is contractually committed to monitoring and of course control
    inmate calling for security and law enforcement purposes.
    Carrier choice would cause the facility to lose control over
    the monitoring and tracking of inmate calling which frequently
    results in criminal activity and massive fraud. Moreover,
    carrier choice would severely hamper the provider's ability to
    assist law enforcement officials with ongoing criminal
    investigations and of course to monitor the phone calls of
    suspected terrorists.
        These are dangerous individuals who will continue to
    conduct criminal activities and operations on the outside via
    phone while they are incarcerated in local jails. Such
    activities could also include threats against any testifying
    witness or against any law enforcement personnel and their
    families. Consequently, the inability to monitor such calls
    could have a detrimental and potentially deadly impact. It
    could place unsuspecting individuals in danger and could
    prevent witnesses from coming forward to testify. Therefore,
    sheriffs' ability to easily and effectively monitor inmate
    telephone calls not only assists law enforcement in criminal
    investigations but significantly reduces the harm to law-
    abiding citizens throughout the community.
        During the 110th Congress and in the current 111th
    Congress, there has been strong emphasis on rehabilitating
    incarcerated offenders and ensuring their successful reentries
    into society. Local jails are attempting these efforts. However
    as sheriffs' offices budgets have been significantly reduced or
    tightened in recent years, sheriffs have been unable to utilize
    funding for anything other than personnel and necessary
    equipment and technology. Therefore, sheriffs rely on various
    services such as inmate telephone commissions to bring in
    revenue to fund and operate jailhouse treatment, rehabilitation
    and reentry programs.
        I would like to interject a few examples such as in the
    State of Maryland that has to do with this revenue advantage.
    As correctional administrators we realize a significant funding
    loss. My facility which is a 225-bed facility in Western
    Maryland has realized approximately $64,000 a year, other
    facilities such as Harford County, $170,000 and Washington
    County in the State of Maryland approximately $134,000 in lost
    revenue. Funds generated from commissions on inmate telephones
    are not a source of income for correctional administrators as
    we are only allowed to spend such funds on matters related to
    inmate welfare providing undergarments, socks and so on for
    inmates and so on. I would add that these commissions on phone
    calls are not unlike a sales tax. In this instance, the
    proceeds are entirely devoted to the betterment of the citizen
    population and in this instance, it is our inmates. I further
    wish to state that cutting such funds will have a negative
    effect on inmates in every correctional facility across the
    United States.
        Sheriffs recognize that maintenance of communications with
    family is a positive influence for the inmate's integration
    back into the larger society after release. As such, the
    National Sheriff's Association endorses fair and reasonable
    rates for inmate calls and would expect all sheriffs to require
    service providers to adhere to FCC rate guidelines.
    Furthermore, the National Sheriffs' Association continues to be
    an advocate for reentry initiatives proposed by Congress.
    However, we strongly oppose the proposals within H.R. 1133 as
    they would compromise public safety, put additional burdens on
    taxpayers and force correctional institutions to eliminate
    reentry programs and access to telephones for inmates.
        Mr. Boucher. Sheriff Goad, thank you.
        Sheriff Goad. I would like to thank you for the opportunity
    to be here today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goad follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.026

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Sheriff Goad. Mr. Kelsey.

                        STATEMENT OF JOEL KELSEY

        Mr. Kelsey. Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Stearns and
    esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you for the first time today on
    behalf of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer
    Reports.
        While I am here to offer consumer viewpoints on H.R. 1084,
    the CALM Act, I would be remiss if I did not also take this
    opportunity to highlight Consumers Union's support of the Local
    Community Radio Act. The current cost of starting up an FM
    radio station is close to $2.5 million dollars. This financial
    hurdle often places the station licenses outside of the reach
    of local hands at a time when consumers are craving more local
    information then ever before. Efforts to support the LPFM bill
    are efforts to support the families, workers and places of
    worship that are the anchors in our communities.
        The CALM Act, introduced by Representative Eshoo, addresses
    a widespread consumer complaint, the abrupt loudness of
    television advertisements. Representative Eshoo's legislation
    will go a long way towards preventing advertisements from
    screaming at consumers in their own living rooms. Specifically,
    the Act would enable the Federal Communications Commission to
    monitor the volume of advertisements in television programming
    and determine acceptable levels. This would ensure that the
    volume levels of commercial breaks are consistent with the
    volume level of the programming which it brackets.
        For years consumers have noticed that when a television
    program cuts to commercial breaks, the volume of the television
    suddenly rises to a shout, far beyond the average level of the
    television program it follows. We have often wondered are
    advertisers trying to scare us into remembering the names of
    their products.
         This abrupt, sometimes shocking change in volume during
    advertisements is not a new phenomenon. In fact, consumer
    complaints about loud commercials began streaming into the FCC
    in the 1960s. At that point, the agency contended that there
    was no way to measure the volume level of commercials but did
    conclude loud commercials were contrary to the public interest
    and should be avoided. Throughout the next two decades, the
    Commission launched several fact-finding proceedings,
    ultimately concluding that although technology to measure the
    volume of commercials now exists, the perceived loudness of
    commercials is subjective and would vary from listener to
    listener. In 1984, the FCC commented, ``As more is learned
    about loudness, it is likely that more sophisticated control
    devices will be developed and used by broadcasters. Such
    actions should begin to eliminate complaints of objectionable
    loudness.''
        25 years later, complaints continue to flood the
    Commission. In fact, in the 25 quarterly reports that the FCC
    releases on consumer complaints, 21 of them have listed
    complaints about loud commercials as among the top consumer
    grievances in radio and television broadcasting. We believe
    this widespread consumer issue, which has spanned 45 years is a
    result of more that just the arbitrary or subjective perception
    of consumers. Rather, it is a real consumer grievance that
    deserves a new approach in the new era of digital broadcasting.
        The current FCC guidance regarding loud commercials mostly
    points consumers towards equipment that they can purchase to
    stabilize the volume during transition to commercials. However,
    not every consumer can afford to purchase TV sets with smart
    sound nor should they have to. Advertisers simply do not have
    the right to scream at consumers in their own living rooms and
    consumers should not have to pay to experience peace and quiet
    in the sanctity of their own home.
        There are several complexities that accompany this action
    by the agency. In particular, there are differences in the
    compressed audio levels of television shows and commercials.
    While the audio of a television show usually matches natural
    sound more closely, the audio of a commercial has less
    distinction between loud and soft sounds resulting in
    everything seeming much louder. We recommend the FCC focus in
    on this question in particular and develop an approach that is
    consistent with the 1979 Notice of Inquiry. In that Notice, the
    agency concedes that a dynamic range of volume is desirable
    with regard to broadcasting but at some point the amount of
    deviation from that average audio level begins to conflict with
    the public's sensibilities.
        Placing a national standard on the loudness of commercials
    in not without an international precedent. In fact, the Library
    of Congress has noted that legislation addressing this matter
    has already been adopted in Australia, Brazil, France, Israel,
    Russia and the United Kingdom. In addition, the International
    Telecommunications Union has adopted standards that offer
    guidance to measure the audio levels of different programs.
        In conclusion, the CALM Act provides an elegant and
    commonsense solution to finally ending a 45-year consumer
    complaint in the United States. Consumers Union endorses the
    CALM Act as a solid step towards protecting consumers from
    unduly loud commercial advertisement, commends Representative
    Eshoo for championing this legislation and urges lawmakers to
    bring this measure forward.
        Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kelsey follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.031

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Donovan.

                     STATEMENT OF DAVID L. DONOVAN

        Mr. Donovan. Thank you, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
    Stearns and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity
    today regarding broadcasters efforts to resolve variations in
    volume between regular programming and commercials in digital
    television. And I also want to thank Representative Eshoo for
    the introduction of the CALM Act.
        MSTV is a nonprofit trade association representing
    television broadcast stations across the country. In effect, we
    are the engineering arm of the television broadcast industry
    and our mission is to ensure that American consumers have the
    highest quality, interference-free local television. We have
    been actively involved in the digital television transition
    since the 1980s. Working with the FCC, we helped develop the
    digital TV table of allotments. We helped design the digital
    converter box that is the backbone of the transition and we
    have also been actively involved in dealing with the question
    of loud commercials.
        At the outset, MSTV and the broadcast industry want the
    committee to understand that we fully recognize the problem. We
    get it. The future of our business, of digital television in
    particular depends in part, depends in large measure on
    consumer satisfaction. Unexpected changes in volume can ignore
    consumers and disrupt the viewing experience. The television
    broadcast industry has every interest in ensuring in the
    digital age that consumers are not subject to such
    frustrations. As a matter of pure economics, we do not want to
    lose viewers. Our revenue depends on viewers watching programs
    and commercials. If viewers skip advertisements or shut off
    their television altogether, we lost revenue.
        To this end, I think there is one important element why
    digital is different from analog and it is extremely important.
    The Advanced Television Systems Committee standard employs a
    Dolby 5.1 digital sound system. The dynamic range of the
    system, i.e., the highs and the lows of volume allows for
    theater-quality sound. In fact, digital television has more
    than two times the dynamic range of an average analog
    television set. Consumers who have purchased large screen
    television sets in digital now expect the in-home theater
    experience. Thus, when developing a solution for loud
    commercials, it is important not to impair the audio range of
    those sets that have been purchased.
        In many respects you now have motion picture production
    sound quality in the living room. Unfortunately, the noise in
    most of our living rooms have not changed over the years so you
    want to make sure you can enjoy the programs without having
    problems with the loud commercials.
        And the industry has made significant progress together and
    let me just talk about two things in the context of digital.
    First, the technical parameters are established by our primary
    programming providers. In this regard, the major television
    broadcast networks in effect help create a norm for the entire
    industry and ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX have each individually
    implemented policies in the context of digital, policies to
    attempt to control loud commercials in the context of digital
    television.
        Moreover, the entire industry including ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX,
    all local stations began addressing this issue back in 2007
    when the ATSC established the digital loudness subgroup. Now,
    Jim Starzynski, who has worked on that extensively, will go
    into detail. Let me just say here that the progress of that
    subgroup has been remarkable. In many respects, it has resolved
    more issues in the last two years then the government was able
    to solve in decades and we are now on the cusp of resolving
    this issue. Importantly, when ATSC adopts its recommended
    practice it will have the salutary effect of providing guidance
    for all local televisions for local advertising, local
    programming, syndicated programming, national spot but also
    influence both cable and satellite systems which have similar
    technologies.
        I would ask the committee to consider just one word of
    caution. This system has been worked on now for nearly two
    years. Engineers by and large are problem solvers. That is what
    they do and we are on the cusp of resolving this issue. Our
    concern with the bill if enacted will send to the FCC for one
    year and require a resolution within one year, in effect it
    creates or may create a jump ball in which once the lawyers get
    involved, you end up starting the process over in the context
    of a regulatory environment. And this may have the unintended
    consequence of actually delaying a solution rather than
    fostering it. Nonetheless, we think the bill is important.
    Certainly the bill has focused our attentions and helped
    accelerate the process but we are concerned that there may be
    some unintended consequences here.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today and I want to thank Representative
    Eshoo for sponsoring the bill and I am prepared to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.043

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. Mr.
    Starzynski.

                      STATEMENT OF JIM STARZYNSKI

        Mr. Starzynski. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stearns,
    thank you for inviting me to testify in H.R. 1084 and for the
    opportunity to discuss how NBC Universal and the TV industry
    generally are addressing the TV loudness issue.
        I am here today representing NBC Universal, which I serve
    as principal engineer and audio architect. I have been working
    in the TV industry for 25 years and have focused on digital TV
    for the past 12. I also serve as chairman of the subgroup on
    digital television loudness within the advanced television
    systems committee, the technical standard organization for over
    the air digital TV.
        Though digital TV greatly enhances audio quality, if not
    properly managed it also creates the opportunity for excessive
    variations in loudness. This can be especially apparent when
    transitioning from programs to commercials. The TV understands
    and shares the concerns about variations in volume levels. We
    want to give our audience the best possible listening
    experience and we know that experience is not currently
    optimal. Congress has also heightened our awareness of the
    problem and helped galvanize industry action on this issue. As
    a result, we have invested significant effort and resources in
    voluntary action to address the situation. This hearing is
    especially timely because we are on the cusp of offering a
    solution.
        Our experience at NBC Universal provides an example of a
    possible solution. Early on we recognized that the digital
    transition would require a culture change in our management of
    audio programs and commercials. Whether produced internally or
    obtained from outside suppliers, TV programs and commercials
    come from hundreds of different sources. The sheer number and
    diversity of program sources contribute to uneven volume levels
    unless properly managed. Thus, our goal of providing a cinema-
    quality sound experience also created a risk of excessive
    variation. Fortunately, the ATSC's current digital standard as
    adopted by the FCC incorporates the necessary technology to
    eliminate variation in loudness during program to commercial
    transitions. And although the ATSC standard generally applies
    only to over-the-air broadcasting, the standards and
    technologies used by cable, satellite and telecom operators are
    all closely related. Therefore, NBC Universal required our in-
    house productions, external show suppliers and advertising
    customers to provide soundtracks compatible with our in-place
    ATSC audio practices. We require all of our content to be
    produced and delivered at a consistent loudness and we set our
    broadcast equipment to properly operate at this loudness level.
    These practices are generally sufficient to ensure consistent
    audio level across NBC programs and networks.
        To address content delivered with loudness outside the
    range of our spec, WNBC-DT in New York is about to test new
    technology that will automatically normalize the loudness
    levels. This technology simply adjusts the volume of disparate
    content before transmission much like adjusting the sound with
    a remote control at home. If successful, if the test if
    successful at WNBC, we plan to apply the technology to all NBCU
    television services.
        Now, let me discuss the broader issue and the industry
    status. In April of 2007, the ATSC recognized that the emerging
    digital TV loudness problem deserved more attention across the
    industry so it created the ATSC subgroup that I chair which is
    DTV loudness experts from all over the major broadcast networks
    as well as cable, production and postproduction, manufacturing
    and education.
        Our goal was to identify the impediments to providing good
    DTV audio at consistent volume levels, then discuss and
    document solutions for those problems. This process ultimately
    led to the development of a recommended practice which
    addresses five areas concerned and those areas are the first,
    contemporary sound measurement. The second, establishing the
    correct sound monitoring environment. The third is an
    explanation of how to properly manage DTV's metadata element.
    The fourth is management of dynamic range and the fifth,
    methods to effectively control program-to-interstitial loudness
    or programs to commercials.
        This recommended practice is a comprehensive, effective and
    easy-to-read resource that covers all issues from content
    creation through distribution and transmission to the consumer
    experience. This ATSC recommended practice can become the
    roadmap for all TV professionals, no matter their industry
    segment or level of technical sophistication.
        In terms of timing, the ATSC recommended practice is in
    final review by the audio experts group and scheduled for
    submission to our parent group in July on the 22nd with release
    of a final document anticipated for September. After release of
    the finished recommended practice, the industry will be well-
    positioned to resolve concerns over TV loudness.
        Because the industry is on the cusp of taking action to
    address TV loudness concerns, legislation on this matter is,
    for the moment, inadvisable. Legislation may slow or stall
    widespread implementation of the recommended practice while the
    industry waits for Congressional and subsequent agency action.
    Further legislation might result in sub-optimal technical
    solution or require adherence to a technical standard that has
    already become obsolete.
        I understand a self-regulatory approach may not provide
    some with the same level of assurance as a legislative solution
    however I can assure you that the industry is motivated to act.
        Once again, thanks for inviting me to address this issue. I
    would be happy to take your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Starzynski follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.052

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Starzynski.
        Mr. Starzynski. Thank you.
        Mr. Boucher. Mr. Doyle.

                      STATEMENT OF PETER H. DOYLE

        Mr. Doyle. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
    Stearns and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        I am Peter Doyle and I will be presenting testimony on
    behalf of the Federal Communications Commission. I am chief of
    the media bureau's audio division. My staff and I are
    responsible for all terrestrial radio broadcast station
    licensing.
        The Commission authorized the low-power FM radio service in
    January 2000. In establishing the first new radio station in
    more than 30 years, the Commission sought to respond to a broad
    and deep interest in creating outlets for highly local radio
    stations grounded in their communities. 859 LPFM stations are
    currently licensed and operating.
        The Commission initially declined to adopt third-adjacent
    channel minimum distance separation requirements. They
    concluded that such requirements would unnecessarily restrict
    the number of LPFM stations and would not cause unacceptable
    levels of interference.
        In December 2000, Congress passed the 2001 DC
    Appropriations Act, legislation which directed the Commission
    to impose third-adjacent channel protection requirements. The
    media bureau thereafter dismissed 462 applications which could
    not be amended to comply with the Act's spacing requirements.
        In accordance with the Act, the Commission selected the
    Mitre Corporation to conduct interference tests. Mitre
    delivered its Phase I Report in June 2003. Mitre substantially
    agreed with the Commission's conclusions finding that third-
    adjacent channel LPFM transmissions would have little impact on
    incumbent full-power stations. In February 2004, the Commission
    submitted its report to Congress and recommended that Congress
    eliminate LPFM third-adjacent channel requirements.
        I would like to make two specific comments about the Local
    Community Radio Act. First, the Commission's FM translator
    licensing experience, since the delivery of the 2004 report
    further confirms the agency's initial determination that LPFM
    stations would not cause unacceptable levels of interference.
    The FM translator service has by far the most flexible rules to
    engineer in a low-power FM station in a mature radio market.
    These rules permit an FM translator to co-locate with a third-
    adjacent channel full-power station on the basis of a
    Commission approved, no actual interference methodology.
        On the other hand, a translator station must cease
    operations if a single listener complaint of actual
    interference remains unresolved. Since 2004, the audio division
    has granted approximately 4,400 new translator station licenses
    with approximately 1,800 of these relying on a no-actual
    interference processing standard with regard to a nearby or co-
    located second or third-adjacent channel station, a perfect,
    real world test of the Commission's FM interference prediction
    methodology.
        There has been no discernable increase in interference
    complaints during this licensing process, a substantial
    vindication of the Commission's technical conclusions.
    Accordingly, we remain confident that the impact from LPFM
    stations which generally operate at lower power levels then
    translator stations would be extremely modest.
        The second point I would like to make is that the failure
    to repeal current third-adjacent channel requirements could
    significantly restrict the future growth of the LPFM service.
    In 2007, the Commission announced a processing policy to
    consider second-adjacent channel spacing waivers from LPFM
    stations at risk of displacement from encroaching full-power
    stations. Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the
    Broadcasters challenge to this processing policy thereby saving
    approximately 40 stations at risk of displacement. Enactment of
    H.R. 1147 would permit the Commission to expand this processing
    policy to permit third-adjacent channel waivers.
        The audio division currently anticipates enormous applicant
    interest in the next LPFM window. It is difficult to develop
    definitive projections regarding the preclusive impact of the
    2001 DC Appropriations Act with both applicant demand and
    supply unknown until an LPFM window opens. Nevertheless, the
    audio division has done some research and has reached a few
    general conclusions. Beginning with cities of approximately
    500,000 or less, our analysis shows that current requirements
    materially limit channels for LPFM stations sometimes for
    closing use of the only channel or channels otherwise available
    for LPFM use. Channels would be widely available for
    communities of less than 50,000 if current spacing requirements
    were eliminated.
        The Commission's extensive experience in FM translator
    licensing refutes the claim that elimination of third-adjacent
    channel protection requirements would result in pervasive
    interference. The Commission has twice unanimously requested
    that Congress lift these restrictions. As chief of the audio
    division and on behalf of the division's expert engineers who
    prudently safeguard the technical integrity of the radio
    spectrum and who are responsible for ensuring interference-free
    service by over 16,000 FM stations daily, I wholeheartedly
    support that request.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.062

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Ms. Beasley.

                     STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BEASLEY

        Ms. Beasley. Good morning, Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member
    Stearns and subcommittee members.
        My name is Caroline Beasley. I am the executive vice
    president and chief financial officer of the Beasley Broadcast
    Group, a family-owned company which owns and operates 44 radio
    stations in 11 markets. I am testifying today on behalf of the
    National Association of Broadcasters where I serve as vice
    chair of the NAB radio board.
        My main message today is that full-power FM stations and
    low-power FM stations can coexist. There is a role for each to
    play within their communities and there is a process in place
    to continue licensing LPFM at the FCC. That being said, it is
    important to maintain interference guidelines that protect
    listeners to both services.
        The hallmark of full-power radio broadcasting is service to
    our communities. Broadcasters provide unequaled community
    service and contribute millions of dollars locally through
    direct fundraising, charitable giving and donated airtime. We
    air a wide range of music and entertainment, provide local
    news, act as a lifeline in times of crisis, heighten awareness
    of important issues and inform voters. In times of emergencies,
    local radio broadcasters rise to the occasion. Local
    broadcasters will break from regular programming and stay on
    the air to reach the public and share essential information.
        In 2008, as the wildfire ravaged southwest Florida, Beasley
    responded as five of our stations helped raise funds for
    families that lost homes. When an explosion occurred at a sugar
    refinery in Georgia, a neighboring Beasley station acted as a
    communications center between the public and officials dealing
    with the disaster. The station was flooded with offers of help
    and assistance for victims of the explosion. Listeners have
    come to expect this involvement from their local broadcasters
    and we will always be there for them.
        In serving our local communities, broadcasters are
    concerned about interference. Simply, a listener that
    experiences interference is a lost listener, one who will
    change the channel and stop tuning in. This is a person we may
    not reach at a critical time during an emergency. The
    engineering study commissioned by the FCC and the subsequent
    recommendations to Congress address the subject of
    interference. The common perception of the report is that
    interference is simply not a problem and the policy should be
    changed. The study however showed that interference did in fact
    result from an LPFM station operating on a third-adjacent
    channel. At various test sites, significant degradation was
    found during listening. Some full-power FM programs had static.
    Some were not heard at all and at others time a different
    program could be heard in the background. These factors were
    not present when the LPFM test station was turned off but
    subsequently occurred when the LPFM station was turned on.
        In view of these findings, the study recommended
    consideration of a formula or a way in which to mitigate the
    interference. The NAB's analysis was that harmful interference
    would be far more prevalent then the government's report and
    our objections to that report were documented at length.
    Moreover, it is significant to note that even the government's
    commission report did not recommend a wholesale elimination of
    third-adjacent channel protection. There is a process in place
    at the FCC for approving low-power FMs and to date, 865
    stations have been licenses. Under existing rules, there is
    also a great deal of capacity remaining for the licensing of
    additional low-power FM stations. Nationwide, there is room for
    tens of thousands of additional LPFMs. This is possible under
    the existing third adjacent channel protection policy.
    Interference is a real concern for local broadcasters and
    buffer protections are necessary and make sense.
        Any policy discussion to remove third adjacent channel
    protection, should carefully balance interference risks to both
    full-power and low-power FM services. Even with third adjacent
    protections in place, there are examples of harmful
    interference caused by LPFM, stations that are not adhering to
    existing technical regulations. Enforcement remains an issue
    and increasing the chance of interference through a policy
    change affects all listeners and may increase the likelihood of
    a lost listener at a time of need or emergencies.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify and
    thank you, Mr. Doyle, for the chance to discuss your
    legislation. I appreciate your interest in providing greater
    opportunity and diversity in radio and I hope we can work
    together to further that goal.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Beasley follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.086

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Ms. Beasley. Ms. Leanza.

                     STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. LEANZA

        Ms. Leanza. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you
    for keeping your attention on this long, long panel. I really
    appreciate your time. I know it is a lot of information and I
    am going to try to be brief and hopefully interesting for you.
    I want to thank Chairman Boucher and Ranking Member Stearns and
    members of the subcommittee.
        And I am here today to support the Local Community Radio
    Act of 2009, H.R. 1147. First, I want to extend my sincere
    gratitude to Congressman Doyle and Congressman Terry for their
    leadership on this issue, as well as the bipartisan group of
    legislators on this subcommittee for bringing this issue
    forward. In particular, as a quick side note want to articulate
    UCC support for the other bills that are being considered this
    morning and I have a letter with me today from 20 media justice
    organizations in support of Congressman Rush's bill.
        But I am here to talk about low-power radio. I am going to
    describe the service. I am going to describe the problem. I am
    going to give you a couple of examples. I am going to hit the
    technology for a little bit and hopefully we will get out of
    here with time to spare, at least in my five minutes, right.
        So what is low-power radio? They are small FM stations.
    They are 100 watts. They reach five to seven miles in diameter.
    They are really small. They fit in between the cracks and they
    use spectrum that is not used right now.
        We do have 800 stations on the dial. We know something
    about them and there are an incredible diversity of stations. I
    couldn't begin to describe them all to you today but encourage
    you to look at my written testimony and go back into your home
    districts and find out about what is going on there because it
    really is incredible.
        But as I said, we are not here today about the stations
    that are on the air. We are about the people who are left
    behind because although we have 800 stations on the air, there
    is one station in the top 50 markets in this country. That is
    140 million people that have virtually no opportunity to hear
    about low-power radio. Hundreds and thousands of organizations
    are waiting, waiting for Congress to act, waiting for this bill
    to pass. Organizations like Southwest Virginia Community
    College that submitted an application to the FCC. Everything
    was 100 percent right. The previous legislation passed and
    their hopes were smashed away.
        In contrast, if we pass this legislation, just about every
    community in this country would get three or four LPFM
    stations. They are all waiting for Congress to act to pass this
    bill.
        So there are a lot of stories I could tell you about low-
    power radio but since it is June and it is the beginning of
    hurricane season, I am going to talk a little bit about some
    good examples. I want to assure you that although I don't know
    who is going to win the hockey finals this season, that LPFM
    radio is going to win the Stanley Cup overall.
        Let me give you some examples, Coalition of Immokalee
    Workers is in central Florida. During Hurricane Wilma they
    saved almost 300 people through their broadcast. What is
    different about this radio station? They don't just broadcast
    in Spanish. They broadcast in indigenous languages like Mixe
    and Zapotec. This is not stuff you hear on the radio now. When
    you get information in your native language, it is much easier
    to respond in an emergency.
        Similarly in Hancock County, Mississippi, during Hurricane
    Katrina, QRZ was able to stay on the air. Why? They were small
    enough they could pick up the transmitter, move it to higher
    ground and operate the entire time using a car battery. That
    doesn't happen with regular full-power radio.
        Finally, I want to tell you about somewhere that they wish
    they had low-power radio, Citrus County, Florida. During
    Hurricane Frances, they were desperate for information, local
    information. Well certainly, there was a lot of information on
    the radio about Hurricane Frances in that region. It was all
    emanating out of Tampa and directed towards Tampa. The Citrus
    County officials were so desperate for attention that they
    actually announced in 2004 they were going to try to get a low-
    power radio station but they are still waiting. Congress needs
    to act.
        So I need to spend about 60 seconds to make three points
    about the technical issues about low-power radio because you
    keep hearing this is a great service. It is a great idea but
    there are technical problems. I understand that. I understand
    the desire to study but let me make a few points to you.
        First, we know low-power radio is safe because there are
    thousands of translator stations on the air now run by full-
    power broadcasters that are the same size, the same distance
    apart, exactly the same. In fact, some of them are closer than
    low-power radio stations and they are working fine. Mr. Doyle
    said it in technical terms. I am telling you in layman's terms,
    these are the same. They are on the air. They don't cause
    interference. The only difference between those stations and
    LPFM is who owns them. Are they a member of the NAB or are they
    not?
        My second point, we have a 2.2 million Congressionally-
    ordered independent study. Not a government study, not a
    private sector study, an independent study. It confirms all of
    the analysis of many other studies that have come before it. I
    need to say to you today, one of the organizations that I am
    representing is the National Federation of Community
    Broadcasters. They are 200 full-power, noncommercial
    broadcasters on the air. The organization is 25 years old. They
    support this service. They support the legislation. They care
    incredibly about signal integrity. They would not be here today
    supporting this legislation if there was a danger to the
    service.
        Finally, I need to point out to you that incumbents do not
    have a sterling track record when it comes to technical
    questions about new entrants, whether it was an AM radio
    broadcaster trying to keep out that newfangled FM service in
    the 1930s or it was Ma Bell telling you that it was absolutely
    impossible for you to buy a telephone in the store and hook it
    up to the network without causing the entire network to fall
    down. Incumbents protect their territory and this situation is
    no different. We can certainly study the issue to death and we
    can study it more. We can create an entire stimulus package for
    just studying this issue but thousands of stations, thousands
    of applicants around the country have been waiting and waiting
    and we have put a lot of resources into it and we know the
    answer. The record is clear.
        So in closing, I want to share a quick experience with you,
    one of my favorite parts of working on low-power radio. I often
    get the chance to ask people, what would you do if you had a
    radio station? What would it sound like if your community were
    in control and all of a sudden their eyes light up because the
    wheels in their head are turning. Oh my gosh, we would
    broadcast the local high school football game. We would find
    out what exactly is going on at city council or the school
    board and what about that river on the other side of the
    county? Is that safe? Can my kids walk in it and wade in it?
    And the music, the band down the corner that they just heard
    for the first time that they're sure is going to make it, the
    cherished songs from the homeland that they like to share with
    their children and their grandchildren. There is nothing like
    this on radio today.
        So I am bringing with you a potent example of why this
    service is so popular. These are 20,000 signatures. The public
    interest community has collected 20,000 signatures only since
    the end of February, since this legislation was introduced this
    year. This is just the tip of the iceberg. These 20,000 people
    are asking you all to move this legislation ahead and I hope
    that you will listen to them.
        Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Leanza follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.144

        Mr. Boucher. Thank you, Ms. Leanza. Thanks to each of the
    witnesses for your testimony here today.
        I have two letters that are addressed to me which I am
    going to ask unanimous consent to be placed in the record. They
    are commentary on various items of legislation pending before
    us this morning. Without objection, those will be placed in the
    record.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Boucher. And, Mr. Doyle, let me begin my questions with
    you with respect to low-power FM.
        One of the letters that I just placed in the record is from
    the public radio station that serves the western part of the
    State of Virginia. It serves my congressional district as well
    as two neighboring congressional districts and I think Mr.
    Walden had raised similar kinds of concerns to those raised in
    this letter during the course of his opening statement.
        This is a public radio station that has a main signal and
    that main signal then is picked up by a whole group of
    translators that are located in our very mountainous region and
    we have two mountain ranges in my congressional district alone.
    And for communities that are down in the valleys that are well
    away from the main signal, these translators are the way that
    public radio service gets propagated out across a very large
    area. And this is the principal public radio station for the
    entire western half of the State of Virginia. It probably
    covers something close to 30 counties. That coverage is largely
    through the translator facilities.
        The concern that has been expressed to me comes from that
    public radio station. So in this instance, it is a public
    station that is a bit concerned about opening the panorama of a
    potential for more public radio broadcasting, in this case
    truly local broadcasting. Not because they oppose it but
    because they are worried about interference. You made brief
    reference in your statement to which I listened very carefully,
    about the studies that you have done relative to translator
    facilities and I want to ask you to amplify on that a bit.
        The concern expressed to me is that the translator facility
    receiving a signal from the main broadcast tower is getting
    what is in effect a fairly weak signal because it is a long way
    away, and around that translator facility, having to pick up a
    very weak signal, if there is any local interference that
    interference can materially degrade that main signal coming
    into the translator and effectively impair the receipt of this
    public radio programming through most of the serviced
    territory. And that strikes me as a legitimate question if not
    a legitimate concern so what I am asking you is how legitimate
    is the concern and what have your studies shown about the
    ability of these translators to pick up very weak signals if
    there is any kind of interference in the area.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Yes, that is a legitimate concern. We do have a rule that
    protects what we call the input signal of a FM translator
    station and it is protected in the same way that stations
    signals are protected.
        Mr. Boucher. So this is a protection that would be specific
    to the translator itself and the area around the translator?
        Mr. Doyle. Right, right, correct.
        Mr. Boucher. No, I understand.
        Mr. Doyle. I could look up the rule section number for but
    we do have that in place.
        Mr. Boucher. What do you conclude about the potential for
    third adjacency low-power FM within the immediate area of that
    translator?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, that is exactly the qualification, within
    the immediate area of the translator there would be the
    potential for interference.
        Mr. Boucher. Right and so how do we guard against that?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, we the commission has developed a rule to
    protect stations in that situation.
        Mr. Boucher. If Mr. Doyle's bill passes, can your rule
    still stand?
        Mr. Doyle. It is complementary, yes, it would still stand.
        Mr. Boucher. It is complementary.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. I would like for you to submit for our record
    if you would, a more detailed explanation of how that rule
    works and answer directly the question of how that rule can
    coexist with Mr. Doyle's bill in the event that it is enacted.
        Mr. Doyle. We would be happy to do that.
        Mr. Boucher. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Donovan and Mr. Starzynski, you refer in your testimony
    with respect to volume controls on commercials on television
    programs to a forthcoming recommended practice. I believe you
    said that will be forthcoming in September and that your
    practice will address squarely the need to make sure that the
    volume on commercials is not excessive as compared to the
    regular broadcast programming for volumes?
        Mr. Starzynski. That is right, Mr. Chairman, yes.
        Mr. Boucher. To what extent do you anticipate that this
    practice will be adopted by television broadcasters once it is
    published and I would ask you to make that projection based on
    whatever past experience you have with similar kinds of
    standards that have been recommended to the broadcast industry,
    Mr. Starzynski.
        Mr. Starzynski. Oh OK.
        Mr. Boucher. Or Mr. Donovan, do you want, whoever.
        Mr. Donovan. I think it is a general matter when you have a
    recommended practice that has gone through the industry
    standard-setting body which is what ATSC is and in fact in many
    instances there is more technical detail in that standard than
    in others that we will refer to such as England and other
    countries.
        Mr. Boucher. I understand that it will be technically
    detailed but the question is to what extent will it be put into
    practice and adopted by the local broadcasters?
        Mr. Donovan. I think it will be. I think it clearly becomes
    the norm for the industry and the industry.
        Mr. Boucher. Is that based on past experience?
        Mr. Donovan. It is based on past experience as working
    through the ATSC and industry standards.
        Mr. Boucher. Is there any enforcement to make sure that
    that happens?
        Mr. Donovan. The enforcement becomes self-enforcing, in
    other words you have.
        Mr. Boucher. Is there any monitoring that takes place to
    make sure that it is being complied with by those who at least
    in principle adopt it?
        Mr. Starzynski. Absolutely there is monitoring that
    happens.
        Mr. Boucher. Who does the monitoring?
        Mr. Starzynski. We do it internally. I can speak for NBC
    and it happens at the point at which the content comes into the
    building so it gets monitored extensively and the thing that it
    also does is it applies a contemporary monitoring device. One,
    you may remember the FCC said we can't go farther with this a
    whole bunch of years ago because we don't have the technology
    to do it. We have it now so that technology is an international
    standard. It works very well and it can't be gamed so there is
    no issue where you may have someone trying to game the system.
    It really reads it and it works the way our ears work this
    time. It is not dealing with just the electronics. It is
    dealing with perceptual levels and we have every reason to
    apply this and to move forward with it because we agree with
    you, the problem is out there. We need to fix it.
        Mr. Boucher. All right. Well, you have confidence that your
    standard will be followed, that it will be monitored, that it
    can be effective.
        Mr. Starzynski. Yes, I do. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Boucher. Thank you for those answers.
        Let me take just a moment to address the question of
    payphone rates that are imposed in correctional institutions. I
    am exceeding my time. The chair will be very generous with
    other members in terms of their time to ask questions, also.
        Mr. Hopfinger, let me pose a question to you. You have
    heard Mr. Krogh testify that sometimes the successful bidder in
    contracts to provide these telecommunication services to
    inmates will be the bidder who offers the highest commission to
    the correctional authority, not the bidder who offers the
    lowest priced service. Is that correct and if it is correct how
    is that justified?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Well, Chairman Boucher, I would say that
    today that is not necessarily the case. As the sheriffs'
    associations and the other associations have put forth mandates
    or recommendations that rates for inmates be just and
    reasonable for the inmates and for the people that are paying
    for these calls. I will tell you in the bidding systems today
    the majority of our bids, one of the criteria is for low rates
    but low rates in anticipation with all the other safety and
    security requirements that the system is needed. And, Mr. Krogh
    mentioned a few States where the rates are lower. I will say
    that in addition to the States that Mr. Krogh mentioned, there
    are additional States where rates are in fact coming down and
    that is as a result of the way system is working today.
        Mr. Boucher. All right. Mr. Krogh, let me ask you to
    respond if you like to the answer Mr. Hopfinger just provided
    and additionally if you would, Sheriff Goad in his testimony
    talked about the fact that the commissions that are received by
    correctional authorities are often applied toward services for
    inmates just as rehabilitative services. What is your view
    about whether those services should be financed by the
    commissions on telephone calls as compared perhaps to
    government simply providing through direct appropriations the
    money necessary for those essential services?
        Mr. Krogh. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is true just turning to
    Mr. Hopfinger's comments first. It is true that in some States
    the rates have come down as a result of decisions made by
    either the State legislature or correctional authorities but
    the point is that the majority of States, you still have and
    other jails and prison systems, you still have exorbitant rates
    where the bidding system has not been reformed and so you have
    violations of in all these other States, violations of the
    Communications Act because they are charging unreasonable
    rates.
        Mr. Boucher. OK. Come to the second part if you would.
        Mr. Krogh. And in terms of the prison welfare programs, I
    really do think that there is no justification for imposing a
    regressive tax on the users of those programs which is what the
    commission rates are. If there is a necessary program, it
    really ought to be funded out of the budget.
        Mr. Boucher. Out of the government's budget.
        Mr. Krogh. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. Under which the facility is operating.
        Mr. Krogh. Yes and I think things that are more voluntary
    that are more discretionary really the problem as I said is
    that you are taking the choice away from the prisoners and
    their families as to whether they would rather have reasonable
    rates.
        Mr. Boucher. That's fine. Thank you very much, Mr. Krogh.
        Mr. Krogh. Yes.
        Mr. Boucher. My time is expired. The gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. Stearns.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kelsey, in your opening statement you had mentioned
    that Australia, Brazil, France, Israel, Russia and the United
    Kingdom have already adopted legislation to control this burst
    of sound that comes from advertisements. How has it worked, do
    you know? And first of all, how long ago did they adopt this
    legislation? How long ago did they adopt it?
        Mr. Kelsey. I believe most of the countries in the last few
    years and I highlight in particular in Australia, the trade
    group that represents the broadcasters there went a step
    further and offered technical assistance to broadcasters and
    many in Australia and UK's law in particular are very similar
    to the measure that Representative Eshoo has put forth.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. And have they been successful?
        Mr. Kelsey. I don't know that. I can get back to you, yeah.
        Mr. Stearns. Mr. Starzynski, so the argument is okay we
    have adopted legislation, we don't know if it will solve the
    problem. It is similar to what the gentlelady from California
    has authored. So the question is when would you think that you
    would have the solution here, you said September?
        Mr. Starzynski. Well, we have the recommended practice that
    will be voted on by the membership this summer and released in
    September. We think that will go well and that is through the
    ATSC and we have got a lot of technology happening as we speak.
    I cited some new technology we are putting on the air at WNBC.
    Hopefully, fingers crossed, within the next couple of days that
    will apply a technical solution to the problem without having
    the creative folks who are very concerned about the quality of
    the sound get back to us with kind of a backlash and us
    altering their sound. So technology has gotten us to a point
    where we can apply good loudness practices but not alter the
    creativity of our suppliers.
        Mr. Stearns. Well, the gentlelady's legislation has urged
    you on here and given a little bit more incentive to do it.
        Mr. Starzynski. There is no question that it has. The
    awareness level in the industry right now is tremendous.
        Mr. Stearns. And with that in mind, perhaps the way to
    solve this problem is because Mr. Kelsey is saying these
    countries adopt it but they couldn't do anything without the
    technical advice of people like yourself, so the legislation
    might pass but nothing is going to happen without you folks. So
    you folks are on the issue right now so it looks like you are
    ready with a solution and then that would be sometime this year
    you would have a solution and then we could assume that would
    be promulgated throughout the broadcast industry?
        Mr. Starzynski. That is right as I have said before.
        Mr. Stearns. And what assurance would we have that after
    you have the solution that everybody would adopt it
        Mr. Starzynski. With the level of awareness that we have
    right now and we are all--we are not disputing the fact that
    there is a problem out there. We all know it. We want to fix
    it.
        Mr. Stearns. No, no, but the question is after you have a
    solution, how soon would everybody adopt your solution and what
    assurance would we have that they would without legislation?
        Mr. Starzynski. The assurance is they definitely want to
    solve the problem and to answer your timeframe on this.
        Mr. Stearns. Yes.
        Mr. Starzynski. It is going to vary based on the
    sophistication of the broadcast group or the operator that you
    are speaking about. In terms of NBC Universal with all of our
    resources, we have been able to attack this for the past couple
    of years directly but it is taking us a little while to get
    there because we require technology to let us do it. And you
    also need to understand the proper ways to apply the standard.
    I think that the rollout will be a little bit different across
    the board as it pertains to different levels of sophistication
    in the industry only because of budgets and that kind of thing
    but the key to all of it now is we have a roadmap that will be
    in place to help everyone out with this and there is no more
    ambiguity.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. So if you were writing this legislation,
    you say okay give us a little hiatus here. How long before we
    can say okay you haven't done anything. We are going to pass
    this legislation.
        Mr. Starzynski. Oh, I hope that it never comes to that. I
    hope that what happens you find that we self-regulate this and,
    you know, somebody said this before and I think it is really
    true, engineers want to solve problems and I think the experts
    are on it and they want to solve this issue for you guys for
    all of America.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. Mr. Doyle and Ms. Beasley, the question is
    that the FCC went out and hired an independent contractor, the
    Mitre Corporation, to determine if there was harmful
    interference. If low-power FM stations don't cause harmful
    interference is what basically this independent report said,
    then the question is why do we need section five of the bill
    which requires the FCC to retain third adjacent channel
    protection for full-power, noncommercial FM stations that
    broadcasting services via a sub-carrier frequency. So I mean if
    you have an independent report that says it is no big problem,
    why would we need section five? I mean you dispute the
    independent Mitre disputed?
        Ms. Beasley. We believe that there are flaws within the
    Mitre report?
        Mr. Stearns. Do you have an independent report of your own.
        Ms. Beasley. The industry has provided a report that
    outlines the flaws in the Mitre report.
        Mr. Stearns. OK.
        Ms. Beasley. That being said if I may go on.
        Mr. Stearns. Oh sure.
        Ms. Beasley. My report, I am not an engineer but based on
    my understanding the Mitre report reviewed seven sites and we
    can just take away two of the sites if you will because one
    site was related to a reading service and one task related to
    translators so there were five other sites and there was
    significant interference found at these five sites relative to
    Walkmans and boom boxes. Now, Ms. Leanza, referred to south
    Florida stations, people, you know, going through, riding
    through hurricanes if you will. I am from south Florida. I was
    there.
        Mr. Stearns. I understand.
        Ms. Beasley. I was there when Hurricane Wilma was and as
    well as Hurricane Charley and it is important to note that
    people do not go out and they don't listen to their car radios.
        Mr. Stearns. No, I understand the case. I understand. We
    are just trying to understand if the FCC has an independent
    contractor that says there is no big problem why suddenly you
    are disputing it.
        Ms. Beasley. Well we do and it is on record that we have
    and there is a report.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. Let me just go then.
        Mr. Doyle. Excuse me, could I provide some FCC input into
    this?
        Mr. Stearns. Sure, Mr. Doyle.
        Mr. Doyle. Radio reading services are delivered on sub-
    carrier frequencies. These tend to be more fragile then the
    main transmission and in fact the Mitre report did find limited
    amount of interference to the sub-carriers that a radio reading
    service would be carried on. And the commission, on it's own in
    developing these rules imposed this requirement on low-power
    stations to ensure that this vital service would not be
    degraded by low-power stations.
        Mr. Stearns. Thank you. Mr. Krogh, I guess a standard
    question in this issue is it a constitutional right for an
    inmate to have access to a phone? Is that yes or no? I don't
    know. Does an inmate have to have access to a phone, just yes
    or no, do you know?
        Mr. Krogh. I--that really hasn't played a role in the FCC
    proceedings and so I don't really don't have a answer on that.
        Mr. Stearn. OK. And is it the right that they have to have
    rates that are low? I mean I think we would all like them have
    rates but it is, you know, generally when I go out to buy
    something it is what the market will bear and so what we are
    doing as the government is dictating that the rates have to be
    low to give inmates this right to have access to the phone. The
    families don't have to accept these collect calls. They can
    come in and see them or perhaps if they are geographically a
    long ways away perhaps they could restrict their calls because
    if you make it a lot cheaper they are going to call more and
    perhaps it might even be the same rate. So this $400, this $395
    a month you talk about, if the rates a lot cheaper, perhaps
    they are going to make more calls and they will still rack up
    to $395 so at some point somebody is going to have to make a
    consumer decision we don't want to pay this.
        Sheriff Goad, your argument is basically that you use these
    excessive funds for rehabilitation and services to help the
    inmates. In your opinion, I think the chairman touched on it,
    do you believe that the government should provide these or do
    you think that it should be done the way you are doing it?
        Sheriff Goad. Well, I think it should be done the way we
    are doing it. I think in these hard economic times we are
    constantly being cut on budgets. We find that these funds allow
    us to provide many of these indigent inmates with the services
    they need along with undergarments, socks, Bibles.
        Mr. Stearns. Your biggest argument I thought was the
    security.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes.
        Mr. Stearns. When you talked about that you are saying if
    these somehow the government stepped in and prevented you from
    having the rates that you feel are appropriate then you would
    not be able to provide the survey, the recording, the watch on
    terrorists lists and things like that.
        Sheriff Goad. Correct, criminal investigations.
        Mr. Stearns. Criminal investigations which is part of our
    national security.
        Sheriff Goad. Absolutely.
        Mr. Stearns. And depending upon the inmate, whether he is
    there for the severity of the crime would impact how much
    attention you have to do for that inmate and his telephone
    call.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir, they even circumvent some of our
    phone systems where they actually do three-way calling. They
    will call someone outside the facility, get several people on
    lines, a party call and proceed to conduct business as usual.
        Mr. Stearns. Yeah, a lot of these calls are not shall we
    say, felicitous calls. These are calls with intent to perhaps
    commit more crime or to do witness tampering and things like
    that, is what you are saying.
        Sheriff Goad. Correct, we have had intimidation of
    witnesses. We have also had other crimes.
        Mr. Stearns. You have got to have the funds to do that
    security survey in effect or we are really putting our citizens
    at danger.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Mr. Stearns. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weiner [presiding]. Just to yield myself a brief moment
    or two just to clarify a couple of things on the record.
        This notion of a free market, I don't know who can answer
    this. A free market, will that dictate that if someone has a
    calling charge, collect call charge 630 percent higher then the
    market, tell me a little bit about what the family can do to
    shop around for a lower rate when someone is making a collect
    call to them from a prison. Perhaps, Mr. Krogh, maybe you can
    explain how the free market works in this instance.
        Mr. Krogh. Well, there is no free market in prison calling.
    There is the exclusive service provider who provides all the
    call and you have no choice and so because of that if we are
    going to continue with exclusive service contracts, the rates
    have to be regulated. The FCC has broad authority to regulate
    interstate telecommunications including and there are no
    exceptions for prisoners. Section 201(b) of the Act requires
    that rates be just and reasonable with no exceptions and the
    families who are paying for these collect calls should have the
    benefit of that Federal Law as much as anyone else.
        Mr. Weiner. Right. I think that most members of this
    committee and apparently the gentleman from Florida would agree
    that we should have the free market. Let's let market forces be
    brought to bear. Let's let more than one operator. Let's let
    800 numbers function and I think that that is the point.
        Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Parliamentary inquiry. Don't we go back and
    forth?
        Mr. Weiner. Certainly, we do.
        Mr. Terry. Well, you just spoke.
        Mr. Weiner. Was that a line of questioning? I thought it
    was just a point of clarification.
        Mr. Terry. I think he asked his question.
        Mr. Weiner. If the gentleman insists, the gentleman from
    Nebraska is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you. Let me start with the three on this
    side and just work down the table. Let me just give an
    editorial comment more than a question and certainly I think
    the least sympathetic characters are the ones that are in
    prison but there is something distasteful about taking
    advantage of them, too, which I think is the underlying premise
    for this act. Mr. Hopfinger, you made a good point and that
    sheriff, that there are security concerns and technologies that
    have to be woven in here that add to the expense. I think that
    is extremely fair and a good point. I guess the issue is then
    how much of a gap is there when you add in the cost of this
    additional technologies where it is just becoming the in
    essence, I guess, the slush fund for the jails or the prisons.
    Mr. Krogh, I will give you about 15 seconds because I got a
    couple of other things.
        Mr. Krogh. Yes, I think Mr. Hopfinger has been unduly
    modest. I would like to put in a plug for Securus. Securus, for
    example, in Florida is able to provide collect calling,
    interstate collect calling for 4 cents a minute plus a
    connection charge of $1.20 which is equivalent to 14 cents a
    minute for a 12-minute call and they do that elsewhere so they
    can do it. They can cover all of the these expensive security
    functions and all the other monitoring and everything else that
    they have been talking about at those very reasonable rates.
    Plus, in Florida, they are paying out of that low rate, a 35
    percent commission. So in Florida you can have it all.
        Mr. Terry. All right. Well, I will take my time back and I
    will just say I think this does a raise a concern and my
    message back to Sheriff Goad is perhaps to communicate that you
    have been on a conservative, pro-justice side, there is
    concerns about the telephone rates.
        The next group on audio sound, it is a real concern. You
    guys know that. Mr. Starzynski, close enough. I will follow up
    on Cliff's notes, the public demands this. They want action
    from us so the message back, Mr. Donovan, is and to you, is and
    NAB and everyone else that is involved in here, the sooner the
    better. If this doesn't get cleared up, if you guys will vote
    and address this issue in September. If we come back here this
    same time next year and most of the TV stations haven't
    resolved this, this is going to pass. That is my message to
    you. In our household it is so annoying that the habit that we
    have is when the commercials come on we just hit mute, not
    because we don't want to hear the commercial but the decibel
    level goes up significantly.
        Mr. Starzynski. Right and that is not a good place for us
    to be.
        Mr. Terry. And that is not a good place. It is self-
    defeating.
        Mr. Starzynski. Right.
        Mr. Terry. Last, let us go to my major issue with Mr. Doyle
    and, Mr. Doyle, who is no relation to the author of this bill,
    just that I would.
        Mr. Doyle. That is correct. My side is not really good at
    breeding that much so we.
        Mr. Terry. Too much information but there was a suggestion
    that in the Mitre study not only was it the reading but five of
    seven of the other sites had interference? That is not my
    understanding. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Doyle. The Mitre study showed that if we threw out one
    outlier case that there was no interference at distance for LP
    hundred stations, your basic low-power station at distances
    greater than 333 meters. That interference became common under
    250 meters and severe within 100 meters of the LPFM transmitter
    site. It has never been the commission's position that there
    would be no interference but as I tried to explain in my test
    imony, we have ample experience with translators to figure out
    how to make this work.
        Mr. Terry. All right.
        Ms. Leanza. Mr. Terry, would you mind if I just?
        Mr. Terry. You have 21 seconds.
        Ms. Leanza. The area of interference we are talking on the
    ground of a low-power radio station, we are talking .0013 of
    the geographic area of a full-power radio station so tiny area.
    If you are next door to a low-power radio station in the same
    building as a low-power radio station, you might not be able to
    hear one of the radio stations. Other then that, there is not
    an issue.
        Mr. Weiner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you. Mr. Doyle, and we are
    not related for the record. So 10 years ago the committee heard
    the fears from broadcasters that if the FCC license these low-
    power FM stations on third adjacent that the dial was going to
    be drenched in oceans of interference. So when we passed the
    Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act on an appropriations rider,
    Mr. Doyle, I take it to mean that all low-power FM broadcasting
    has stopped on those third adjacent frequencies?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, yes and no. We certainly have carefully
    followed the directions from Congress and not licensed so-
    called low-power FM stations. On the other hand, what I have
    tried to explain is that FM translators are technically
    indistinguishable from low-power FM stations and that for
    example, in the chairman's own district, the station he was
    concerned about, eight translator stations operate without
    effective breach.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Right and I am looking at page
    five of your testimony where the FCC says there is 1,800 of
    these translators already broadcasting right now on the same
    frequencies that there noncommercial groups want to broadcast
    on, is that correct?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, most of these translators are actually in
    the non-reserved band, the 92 to 108 as opposed to the 88 to 92
    part where noncommercial stations simply broadcast. Most low-
    power licensing has occurred in the part of the band where
    there are not noncommercial stations. There are some but by and
    large, that is not the problem.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. But we have translators on third
    adjacent?
        Mr. Doyle. Absolutely.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. OK. So, Ms. Beasley, does your
    organization or are you personally, are you advocating for the
    elimination of these translators?
        Ms. Beasley. We do not have or use translators within our
    company so it is the NAB's position that it is my understanding
    that full-power FM stations use translators for fill-in to
    cover the mass.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. But NAB is not advocating that
    we eliminate translators and do you think these translators
    cause oceans of interference?
        Ms. Beasley. I can't speak to that because I personally do
    not, we do not have translators.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. I don't think that is the NAB's
    position. I guess, Ms. Leanza, who owns and operates the
    translators?
        Ms. Leanza. By and large, most full-power broadcasters have
    some sort of translators. It depends on what type of service
    they are providing.
        Ms. Beasley. We do not.
        Ms. Leanza. Right, not no, certainly you don't but many,
    many do. It is a widespread use. It is not an atypical, unusual
    use.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So if they don't cause
    interference and they are technically identical and these
    translators don't have some special magical power to work then
    surely these translators must be less powerful then an LPM
    broadcast.
        Mr. Doyle, full-power FM stations sometimes run up to
    100,000 watts, while a noncommercial FM station can run up to
    100 watts so I am assuming these translators must be less
    powerful then that. How powerful are these translators that
    don't cause interference when they are at third adjacent from
    another station?
        Mr. Doyle. Our rules permit a translator up to 250 watts.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. 250 watts so two and a half
    times more powerful then any LPFM station so what you are
    telling me is and I hope my colleagues will listen to this, is
    that what we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet
    but when it comes to FCC and the big broadcasters this name is
    critical. Translators that serve the interest of big
    broadcasters work just fine on these third adjacent channels
    and there is no complaints and no issues about interference but
    when a low-power station run by community groups, schools,
    churches, local governments cause interference, somehow in the
    same adjacent channel these somehow cause interference. I just
    hope once and for all we can sort of eliminate this doubletalk
    that has been taking place for years.
        I want to talk about interference, too. Now, Ms. Beasley,
    in your statement you referenced the Mitre report and you said
    that there was interference caused by low power FM stations. I
    read that study and in the most extreme circumstance it was
    found that the interference was .13 percent of the population
    inside the protected zone of a full-power station. Just for my
    note now, you find that to be an unacceptable level of
    interference?
        Ms. Beasley. What I read last night was there was
    significant degradation at these five sites when you are
    testing with boom boxes and Walkmans.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. .13 percent but you found that,
    you think that is unacceptable?
        Ms. Beasley. It is significant such that well if you can't
    get a signal, if you can't hear the programming, if there is
    static and if you are operating when there is a hurricane going
    through your area and we are providing information to the
    masses and we, yes.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So I take that as a yes, okay. I
    am curious I see that the NAB has pushed for allowing
    broadcasters to put HD radio stations next to and along with
    their analog broadcast but the engineers found that an average
    of .6 percent of the population inside the protected zone could
    have their listening effective. Now, that is not a worse case
    scenario like low-power's .13 percent. That is an average
    finding .6 percent, so that is a lot more interference then the
    low-power stations would cause even in a worse case scenario.
        So, Mr. Doyle, let me make sure I understand this
    correctly. The NAB has endorsed this .6 level of interference
    as acceptable for HD radio?
        Mr. Doyle. I don't really understand.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Has the NAB filed a request to
    multiply the power of these digital signals by 1,000 percent?
        Mr. Doyle. No, they asked to increase it by tenfold from 1
    percent to 10 percent of the analog power level. The issue
    there, Mr. Doyle, I think is different. That is a question of
    digital into analog and I am not sure that it correlates to the
    analog into analog technical dispute that is your bill is
    focused on.
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. So let me ask you one final
    question, Mr. Doyle. You are the expert at the FCC. You have
    studied this issue backwards and forwards. Twice the FCC and
    bipartisan votes have recommended that Congress lift this
    prohibition of third adjacent channel. Do you think that
    passing this bill will in anyway hurt public radio stations
    like my friend, Mr. Walden, is concerned about or this will
    cause any interference of a major proportion outside that 100-
    foot zone that you thought? I mean what basically happens so
    that finally communities like mine who can't get LPFM, can't
    get an LPFM station in the City of Pittsburgh. There are a lot
    of places in this country, 140 million people don't have access
    to this valuable service because of this rule which apparently
    doesn't seem to cause--do you see any harmful effects by
    allowing us to use third adjacent for LPFM?
        Mr. Doyle. The commission's judgment was not that there
    would be no interference. It was that the interference would be
    tightly limited to the immediate environment of the LPFM
    transmitter site and looking at the significant benefits of an
    expanded LPFM service, decided that the benefits far outweighed
    the very, very limited interference that would occur typically
    within 100 or 200 meters of the LPFM transmitters.
        Mr. Weiner. Thank you, Mr. Doyle
        Mr. Doyle of Pennsylvania. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Weiner. Mr. Walden is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle, I had a question for you. Do LPFM applicants
    have priority on frequency over existing translators?
        Mr. Doyle. LPFM has priority over no one right now. The
    priority relationship between translators and LPFM stations is
    a first-come, first-served rule so they are coequal so that
    today.
        Mr. Walden. So one can't bump the other?
        Mr. Doyle. That is correct.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Talk to me about the requirements on LPFM.
    Do they have to have a main--do they fall under the main studio
    rule?
        Mr. Doyle. They do not have a main studio rule. They must
    be local. We don't have staffing requirements for them. We
    don't have public inspection files.
        Mr. Walden. So they are--I want to go back to that. So low-
    power FM, do they have a requirement to serve their community
    like commercial broadcasters do and how do they identify their
    compliance with that if they don't have a public file or a main
    studio? What does the FCC require?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, every station must be licensed; must be
    held by a local community organization.
        Mr. Walden. Understood.
        Mr. Doyle. It must be operated on a noncommercial basis.
        Mr. Walden. And how do you monitor that point because I
    have heard from people that they are out basically selling
    advertising. Are they allowed to do that?
        Mr. Doyle. No, they are not.
        Mr. Walden. And do you take enforcement actions?
        Mr. Doyle. Not my division directly.
        Mr. Walden. Could you provide me with enforcement actions
    you have taken and complaints you have received, for the
    record?
        Mr. Doyle. We would be very happy to do so and there have
    been some related to violations of our underwriting rule so you
    are correct on that.
        Mr. Walden. I thought so. I want to go back though as a
    citizen I have the right to go into any commercial radio
    station. I assume public broadcast, as well, and look at their
    public file to see how they are addressing the issues that are
    important to their community. What is the requirement for an
    LPFM? What is my right as a citizen to go in and see what they
    have identified as their community issues and how they are
    addressing them? Do I have right to a public file?
        Mr. Doyle. When the commission created this service they
    decided that it would work best with very limited reporting and
    filing responsibilities and they do not have.
        Mr. Walden. Do they have to do community ascertainment? Do
    they have to decide what is important to their community?
        Mr. Doyle. No, but certainly.
        Mr. Walden. OK.
        Mr. Doyle. Like every other station, every eight years
    their license comes up for renewal and the public is welcome to
    comment on whether the station is operating in the public
    interest.
        Mr. Walden. And that public interest though for other
    broadcasters, that is pretty well spelled out. They have to
    serve their community, right? So you are telling me these LPFMs
    don't have to serve their community? How do I know? I mean they
    don't have to identify?
        Ms. Leanza. They have the same obligations.
        Mr. Walden. Oh, they do. So they do have a public file
    requirement?
        Ms. Leanza. There is not a public file.
        Mr. Walden. And they have a main studio requirement where I
    can go in and look?
        Ms. Leanza. But they are licensed also under the
    Communications Act. They have an obligation to serve the
    public.
        Mr. Walden. I don't think your mike is on, by the way as an
    old radio guy, or just get real close to it. So but I am trying
    to get to this point of they can come into--the public can go
    into any radio, commercial or public broadcast station and look
    in the public file. My question is do LPFMs have to have a
    public file?
        Ms. Leanza. Currently, under the rules, they do not.
        Mr. Walden. And do they have to identify what the issues of
    concern are in their community and address those issues?
        Ms. Leanza. They do generally speaking because they are
    subject to the same public interest standard that all
    broadcasts are subject to.
        Mr. Walden. So, Mr. Doyle, is that correct? They have to
    identify community interests on a quarterly basis and speak to
    how they address them or not?
        Mr. Doyle. The quarterly issues program requirement does
    not apply to low-power stations.
        Mr. Walden. So how do you ever measure them when it comes
    up to license renewal whether they have served their community?
    What is the standard you apply?
        Mr. Doyle. Well, while listeners would not have the ability
    to review a station's issues programs list, they have the same
    opportunities as listeners of any station to come to the
    commission with their concerns about the programming that they
    have heard on the station during the prior license term.
        Mr. Walden. Are the LPFMs required to have the Emergency
    Alert System capabilities too to notify their listeners in the
    event of an emergency?
        Mr. Doyle. They do have an EAS requirement.
        Mr. Walden. OK. And they are not a priority station, though
    I assume?
        Mr. Doyle. I don't think any.
        Mr. Walden. None are primaries. OK. All right.
        Ms. Leanza. But they do most of them are setup automated so
    they can transmit through that signal automatically at any
    time.
        Mr. Walden. Yeah, they are allowed to do unattended
    operation as well, right? Is there any requirement of local
    programming on those LPFMs or could they just download
    satellite programming and rebroadcast it?
        Mr. Doyle. Our licensing criteria favor those stations that
    pledge to do at least eight hours of locally originated
    programming but there is no local program origination
    requirement.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you.
        Ms. Leanza. That there is on any other station. There is
    not such obligation.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weiner. Thank you. Mr. Rush, there is less than a
    minute left on the clock on the floor. Would you like to try to
    squeeze in now or do you just want to be the first when we come
    back? We are going to recess until about 12:25. I appreciate
    your patience when we do promptly. There is nine of you. Maybe
    you can go play baseball or something. The committee is in
    recess until approximately 12:30.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Weiner. The committee has returned from recess. The
    gentlewoman from California is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. I thank the chairman. It is nice to see you in
    the chair and I apologize both to committee members and to the
    witnesses that are here today, especially those that have an
    interest in the CALM Act which I am the author of. I have three
    places that I needed to be at the exact same time today and all
    of them important, so I apologize for being late. I would like
    to submit my opening statement for the record.
        Mr. Weiner. We have got to get you one of those translator
    devices they were talking about. You can be everywhere at once.
        Ms. Eshoo. Yeah, I would like to submit my statement for
    the record and I would like to take this opportunity to thank
    not only members of the committee that are cosponsors of the
    CALM Act but also point to Chairman Boucher because he has had
    a commitment to the bill and we wouldn't be a part of this
    hearing, this bill would not be part of the hearing today.
        I think unless someone has said this, this is the bill. It
    is essentially a one-page bill. This is not complicated and
    while I don't think I need to reemphasize why the change is
    needed, it is worth saying that I think consumers have waited
    too long for this change to be made.
        I am thrilled that there is technology and the confidence
    that there is technology that will address this. I come from
    the technology capital of the United States of America, Silicon
    Valley. I have no doubt that technology can take care of this
    and the technologists need to work hand-in-hand with the FCC.
    You are ready to go. This bill passes and is signed into Law,
    then you will have a key role in that. I don't find the bill
    menacing, most frankly, because all it does is instruct the FCC
    within a year of enactment to come up with a solution.
        There were hearings in the '60s. There were hearings in the
    '70s. There were hearings in the '80s. It is now the 21st
    century. There is no reason for people to have to hit their
    mute buttons. There just isn't. I think it is a disadvantage to
    advertisers who pay a lot of money and how the broadcasters
    really keep themselves going, the programming and the networks.
        So I have to say in 16 and a half years in Congress, I have
    never had a bill that was so embraced by so many. I don't even
    get to finish my sentence about what the bill would accomplish
    but people say absolutely. Good luck. We need to do this. It is
    a great source of irritation to me. So while this is a
    profoundly sobering time in the history of our nation, I by no
    means see the CALM Act as being something that is going to
    resolve, you know, huge, daunting, national problems. It,
    frankly, is way down the list when we examine the great
    challenges that America has but I do think that it is something
    that we should and that we can take care of.
        I think consumers have had it. Newspapers have
    editorialized in different parts of the country. Consumers know
    what this is. You mention it. It is bipartisan. It is a
    bipartisan irritant. Let me put it that way. So to the
    technologists, I am very pleased that you are taking this
    seriously and than you think that the answer is around the
    corner. You can take that great message to the FCC and I look
    forward to this bill passing with huge support in both the
    House and in the other body and I want to thank everyone that
    has been involved in this and those that have supported it and
    as well as those that have questions. I think that you should
    take a deep breath, stay very calm, if you don't mind my using
    the title of the bill and that this one-page bill will bring
    some relief, a lot of relief to a lot of people across the
    country.
        With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr.
    Chairman, thank you and I am going to return to my other
    committee and look forward to great vote on this. Thank you
    very, very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
        Mr. Weiner. The chair yields himself five minutes.
        If we could return a moment to the Family Telephone
    Connection Protection Act, in the conversation between Mr.
    Stearns and I think the sheriff and maybe Mr. Hopfinger. There
    was the position posited that perhaps telephone contact with
    the outside world is problematic. There is plans to sharing of
    information that might be deleterious. That is contrary to what
    other findings that we have seen that say that frankly keeping
    connection not just inside the jail but having a connection
    outside with the world is actually salutary to their
    rehabilitation.
        Mr. Krogh, do you want to weigh in on that discussion and
    then, Mr. Hopfinger, I will give you another chance to expound
    on what you were saying.
        Mr. Krogh. Yes, the studies have uniformly demonstrated
    that maintaining these communications is very important for
    rehabilitation and especially in situations where you have got
    inmates who are very far away from their families, sometimes in
    other States. And it is crucial to have reasonable rates so
    that they can maintain these ties with the community and their
    families. And you can also have good security. Securus, as I
    mentioned, provides all of these security functions in a number
    of States and apparently they are able to do this and still
    make a profit at very reasonable rates. Florida and New Mexico
    are two examples. So there is no inconsistency between having
    reasonable rates so you have plenty of ties between maintaining
    these ties between the prisoners and their families.
        Mr. Weiner. Is there any evidence that the Federal
    Government, the Federal Penal System which has an 800 number
    for which families pay I think 7 cents a minute? Is there any
    sign that those are less safe, any signs that there is any more
    sharing of information, any more witness tampering? Is there
    any evidence at all to support the thesis that maybe having
    barriers to people making phone calls like a 600 percent
    additional cost compared to what the Federal Government
    charges? Is there any evidence at all to support the theory
    that that somehow reduces recidivism or it reduces witness
    tampering or anything like that? Is there any evidence that you
    have seen in your experience that shows that?
        Mr. Krogh. I haven't seen anything that shows that there
    are problems in the Federal system which has debit calling and
    at a fairly reasonable rate and again, if you have got--you can
    have all of the security functions so you can keep control over
    that call and still have a reasonable rate.
        Mr. Weiner. Mr. Hopfinger, do you want to take the contrary
    position?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Let me say, we concur that contact with the
    outside world by inmates is certainly appropriate. We wouldn't
    be in business if that contact didn't occur but every system
    that we install must be customized and looked at on an
    individual basis. Mr. Krogh has discussed large Department of
    Correction facilities where there are low rates. The Federal
    facilities that have a large number of inmates where there are
    low rates. Those things don't necessarily fit especially in the
    city and small county jails because just simply the volume of
    calls is not there in which to recover the cost.
        We absolutely want to provide as much service and complete
    as many calls as we can but it must be done so on a secure
    basis. Our concern with the bill is it would mandate something
    that would not fit in many of the facilities. Plus, the fact
    the bill goes well beyond talking about just rates. It mandates
    other issues that would in fact actually increased the cost to
    both our services and to the correctional facilities. So that
    is our concern.
        Mr. Weiner. Thank you. Let me just move on briefly to the
    CALM Act. I am curious why this is such a difficult
    technological fix. Certainly, that if someone wants to
    advertise on a local TV station that they are told that they
    have to provide the advertisement in a certain format. It has
    got to be on a certain size disc or a certain size tape. I am
    sure they are told that it has to be of a certain length, a
    certain duration and it has to be of a certain quality in
    order. Why can't you just say it has got to be no louder than
    X? Why don't you say as a standard for what you are going to
    accept for advertising, you have got to be in this category?
    They play the tape, if it is not you say you have got to go
    back to your shop and fix it. Tell me why that intuitive
    reaction to this problem is technologically difficult. Mr.
    Donovan, fire away?
        Mr. Donovan. I think essentially you are correct and which
    is why you are seeing policies that have been established by
    the major networks, for example, that have precisely that in
    which they would like their advertising and their programming
    to be sent to them in a certain way. You do have a variety of
    program suppliers and advertisers and what have you bringing in
    the inputs. You have local advertising. You have national spot
    advertising, syndicated programming, network programming but
    that is all, candidly, it is all being worked out. The networks
    have established a policy to do that so conceptually, you are
    right. This is something that needs to be done and is being
    done. Where it got a little bit tricky here, and I will let Jim
    go into detail on this but where it got tricky is that you want
    to make sure that while you are controlling the advertising
    aspects in terms of loudness and what have you. You don't want
    to squelch the benefits of the digital system, i.e., the Dolby
    5.1 which has tremendous dynamic range for consumers that
    bought surround sound, theater sets and what have you because
    if you just put a level right across the board, not only would
    you hit the advertising but you would also hit the program. So
    that is what has made it a little bit tricky as we move forward
    with digital which is why, I mean we have been working on this
    since 2007 and I think that Jim will tell you we are there. I
    mean you are literally several months away from actually
    working out an ATSC standard that will resolve it. But the
    concern we have now, sir, is that as I said, engineers are
    problem solvers and we are there. Once you create a--and there
    are winners and losers whenever you have these engineering
    battles. Once you create a new venue, which is okay now we are
    going to kick it over to the FCC for a rule, what you sometimes
    do and it is true in any standard setting issue that gets
    kicked over to the commission, you create a jump ball.
        Mr. Weiner. I understand that and I heard that in the
    testimony but if you look at our punch list of the reasons
    people comment opposed legislation like one of the general
    reasons is we agree, we are on it, got you covered, no need to
    pass any legislation and it doesn't--it strikes some of us who
    obviously are not technology people like you are.
        Mr. Donovan. Right.
        Mr. Weiner. That it seems like a relatively easy fix was
    coming and it never arrived.
        Mr. Donovan. And so it is here.
        Mr. Weiner. I know, I hear you. Mr. Starzynski, maybe you
    can just answer why you can't just say look, here is your
    checklist of things, the requirements you need to have and
    being excessively loud when you are selling.
        Mr. Starzynski. You have hit the critical part of the
    issue. So we publish a content specification, a delivery spec
    that goes out to all of our suppliers. It doesn't matter if
    they are program suppliers or if they are commercial suppliers.
    We ask them to hit a target level like I said in my testimony.
    The issue has been that with the digital transition and moving
    off of analog and going to digital with all this great range
    that we have been speaking about, there is the opportunity
    there to have problems with controlling your loudness if you
    don't understand the new techniques that are involved or if you
    don't own the equipment that is necessary that I spoke about
    before, which kind of changes the game in the way all of this
    is done through the ITU standard and which the gentleman from
    Consumer Reports spoke about.
        So the ATSC recommended practice goes right to the heart of
    that and it says you will use this standard to measure your
    sound and you will take those readings and you will deliver
    your content as asked in the program spec. And we all put this
    in there but I think what you are getting at is the issue is
    that, you remember I spoke a little bit before about the
    culture change. We have had a lot of folks mixing sound with
    old analog techniques for a very long time using meters that
    protected the electronics, not meters, contemporary meters like
    the ones that work like your ears do. So we get this out in the
    industry. We have got a roadmap on where we need to go with
    this. Technology is catching up on this. Things are becoming
    cheaper and the bill that is out in front of us today really
    has raised such a level of awareness across the industry that
    it is like a no-brainer that this is got to happen. We are not
    disputing that there is a problem here. We got to fix the
    problem and again and this just rains true, the engineers that
    are kind of working on this whose living is based on this, want
    to go out there and fix this and make it right for the public.
    Is that helpful?
        Mr. Weiner. It was. Thank you.
        Mr. Kelsey. Can I just quickly add, I think one of the
    things that we saw with the DTV transition is that many
    broadcasters are different and I think that the broadcasters
    that step up and adopt the standard should definitely be
    commended for changing this but, you know, a standard is one of
    the key way to make sure that listeners in Dallas experience
    the same type of viewing as listeners in New York. And so, you
    know, I would urge the committee and also the FCC.
        Mr. Weiner. We are used to a higher volume in New York but
    what can I do about that? Do you have one final you want to?
        Mr. Donovan. One final point on that is because when the
    ATSC standard was adopted it includes a number of voluntary
    components to that standard, and to Chairman Boucher's initial
    comment, question, even though they are voluntary, they are
    adopted throughout the industry. So it is not a question that
    you have to have this or something won't get done. This will
    get adopted and disseminate throughout the entire industry.
        Mr. Weiner. Thank you. And before I yield to Mr. Rush, just
    would request unanimous consent that two editorials about the
    high cost of phone service being charged to inmates by Errol
    Louis of The Daily News be included in the record. Without
    objection, so ordered not.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Weiner. Mr. Rush, you are recognized for such time as
    you may need.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Boy oh boy oh boy, I
    think I have heard it all. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by
    first of all I want to thank you for obtaining support 20 media
    justice organizations around the country in support of this
    bill. Would you please express my thanks and gratitude to all
    of them, please?
        I want to also, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    subcommittee, announce that my bill H.R. 1133 has been urged to
    be adopted by the American Correctional Association in support
    of the goals in this legislation ensuring access and reasonable
    rates for telecommunication services.
        Now, I want to, Mr. Hopfinger, you have really kind of
    stretched the issue so thin, I don't really know how to express
    how preposterous I think it is. Are you trying to tell me that
    this grandmamma who got a grandson that she been trying to
    raise in the poor community. She is on a fixed income. Are you
    trying to tell me that your company has a right to snatch her
    hard, her dollars first of all, she is on a fixed income, to
    pay for you gouging her grandson who is the inmate and somehow
    you justify it by saying that you are on the lookout for Al-
    Qaeda or Al-Qaeda operatives? Are you trying to tell this
    subcommittee that that is a part of your rationale?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Congressman, we are not trying to gouge
    anyone. Our rates try to be compensatory in offering the
    services we do and we offer those services in a manner that we
    hope protects the public and the safety of the inmates. The
    rates are higher in most correctional institutions because of
    those requirements.
        Mr. Rush. All right. All right. Sheriff Goad.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. You have indicated that you have some services
    that are paid for, a lot of programs that are paid for by these
    exorbitant rates, these excessive rates that inmates are being
    charged.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. Can you give us an idea of some of those
    services?
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir. The inmate, a lot of it is inmate
    welfare funds.
        Mr. Rush. What do you mean by that?
        Sheriff Goad. Underwear, socks, toothbrushes, toothpaste.
        Mr. Rush. In the absence of these funds, in the absence of
    this business arrangement between this company or whatever
    company they are.
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. Are you saying that your inmates would be forced
    to run around naked? Is that what you are saying?
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I would not.
        Mr. Rush. All right. Well then what alternatives are there?
        Sheriff Goad. In the past prior to some of the things that
    are in place now with the resources that we have, a lot of your
    community people provided these issues to such as underwear and
    socks and some other things to our inmates.
        Mr. Rush. And are you saying that there is no
    responsibility first and foremost by the government of Maryland
    to provide these kinds of items for the inmates?
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I would not say that.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And so then the little old grandmammas or
    these single mothers who have small children and one or two who
    might be incarcerated, are you saying then that they should be
    taking food off their table to pay for underwear that really is
    the responsibility of the State of Maryland? Is that what you
    are telling this committee?
        Sheriff Goad. No, on that note I would not say that. I
    would say that we are providing a service to the inmates and of
    course that service is not.
        Mr. Rush. What other laudable program besides making sure
    that the inmates, you know, have Michael Jordan underwear, what
    other laudable programs you got?
        Sheriff Goad. We do anti-recidivism programs. We have age
    education, basic adult education which is GED, substance abuse
    programs along with child.
        Mr. Rush. And what percentage are these commissions go
    toward those programs?
        Sheriff Goad. Most all of the commissions that we receive
    is generated back into our facility.
        Mr. Rush. OK. For your exemplary employees that you might
    have, do you have exemplary employees in your?
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. And do you give them a bonus?
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir, I do not.
        Mr. Rush. Are you aware of any State prison, board or
    prison system that gives its employees bonuses?
        Sheriff Goad. Currently, sir, I do not have that
    information.
        Mr. Rush. You don't have that information so you are saying
    then that most of the--that there are no--none of these
    commissions go toward bonuses for your employees?
        Sheriff Goad. Can I say that specifically, no sir, but I
    don't have that information in front of me currently.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Let me make sure you understand? All right.
    You are the sheriff of what county?
        Sheriff Goad. Allegany County.
        Mr. Rush. Allegany County. Is there any employees in
    Allegany County that receive a bonus?
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
        Mr. Rush. That is no, okay.
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
        Mr. Rush. OK. How does the bidding process, how did you
    select and what company do you have to give?
        Sheriff Goad. What company do we have?
        Mr. Rush. Yeah, do you use?
        Sheriff Goad. We use a company with Securus.
        Mr. Rush. Securus, okay, how did you select them, Securus?
        Sheriff Goad. We actually put out a RFB.
        Mr. Rush. And what did you make that decision based on?
    What did you make the decision based on?
        Sheriff Goad. Based on the software, their security
    equipment.
        Mr. Rush. OK. How much influence did the cost of that or
    your remuneration or your commission, what percentage had an
    influence on your--let me ask the question correctly. How much
    bearing did the cost that or the commission that you were going
    to receive, how much bearing did that have on your decision to
    hire Securus?
        Sheriff Goad. Not a large bearing?
        Mr. Rush. But some bearing, is that correct, some bearing?
        Sheriff Goad. Based some bearing, yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And if in fact you did not have this
    organization or have this kind of arrangement then you would
    be--where would you get the money to make up the hole in your
    budget? Where would you get that money from?
        Sheriff Goad. If we failed, if the resources were
    terminated we would have to go back to the county and look at
    the burden on the taxpayers.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Explain to me how you think that your program
    creating and charging these families, not necessarily the
    inmates how does that have an effect on the recidivism issue in
    your county?
        Sheriff Goad. Well, our recidivism for some in higher than
    others. Some of our recidivism is very low. I think again as I
    mentioned in my testimony, I think communication is very
    essential.
        Mr. Rush. Are you elected to office?
        Sheriff Goad. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And so in your past campaign for office have
    you ever ran on--had a part of your--how long have you been a
    sheriff first of all?
        Sheriff Goad. I am on my 15th year, my fourth term.
        Mr. Rush. So you ran three times or four times?
        Sheriff Goad. Four times.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And have you ever included in your campaign
    material for reelection that you are able to justify to your
    voters or highlight to your voters that because you have high
    cost telephone service that you have these and this
    arrangements with this company that you are able to have a
    detrimental effect on recidivism rate?
        Sheriff Goad. Have I ever? No, sir, I have not.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And so that is not a claim that you might,
    that you would promote?
        Sheriff Goad. No.
        Mr. Rush. Do your voters know that they are being gouged or
    being overly charged on these rates that that is a policy?
        Sheriff Goad. Well, I can't speculate on that but I do know
    that the majority of the public isn't familiar with our rates.
        Mr. Rush. All right. Mr. Krogh, you mentioned in your
    testimony that a few States have taken action to require that
    the cost be the dominant factor in determining which bidder
    wins an exclusive contract with the State correctional facility
    and the price includes permitted charges and connection
    charges. Do you have any other information on the effects such
    decisions have had on these services?
        Mr. Krogh. Well, generally just simply that the higher the
    rate, the less calling there is and the less communication that
    there is by the prisoners and the families often have to refuse
    calls.
        Mr. Rush. Right. Can you respond if you will to Mr.
    Hopfinger and Mr. Goad that maximum security is dependent on
    Mr. Hopfinger's company charging excessively for phone service
    for inmates and Sheriff Goad's agency organization receiving
    high commissions from the actions of Mr. Hopfinger's
    organization? Can you comment on that fact?
        Mr. Krogh. Yes, as I have mentioned, Securus and other
    service providers are able to provide these services with all
    of the required security functions.
        Mr. Rush. No, I am not talking about the security functions
    in that regard in terms of instrumentality. I am talking about
    the maximum security?
        Mr. Krogh. Well, I mean to the extent that the telephone
    service has any impact on national security one way or the
    other, they can meet whatever Securus security requirements are
    imposed on them by the correctional department or the
    authorities, they can meet those all those requirements at very
    reasonable rates and so they shouldn't be charging higher than
    that.
        Mr. Rush. Yes, so am I to believe or the members of the
    subcommittee to believe that those State and those counties
    that don't have exorbitant rates that they are somehow less
    concerned about national security than the ones who charge
    exorbitant rates?
        Mr. Krogh. No, I don't think that we can draw that
    conclusion. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has reasonable debit
    rates for prisoners. I am sure they are the state of the art in
    terms of the security, all the security functions that you need
    and these States have the reasonable rates there is a variety
    of States, Florida, New Mexico, Nebraska, New York, all of
    these States I am sure are just as they are focusing on these
    security functions especially New York as much as any other
    correctional authorities in other State and they have come to
    the conclusion they don't need to charge these exorbitant rates
    to maintain all the security functions they need.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, well let me just ask one additional
    question here. Sheriff Goad, what equipment do you use for
    monitoring and tracking inmate calls?
        Sheriff Goad. The equipment is provided through Evercom
    with Securus Communication.
        Mr. Rush. OK. And where is it located at?
        Sheriff Goad. In my facility.
        Mr. Rush. In your facility. Okay. Does that equipment
    provide you additional security measures?
        Sheriff Goad. It provides me the ability to monitor those
    inmates that I have in my facility, yes, sir.
        Mr. Rush. OK. It provides--so lacking that equipment you
    couldn't monitor your inmates?
        Sheriff Goad. No, sir.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Is there any other equipment available to you
    off the shelf?
        Sheriff Goad. I have, no, not off the shelf but I also have
    video cameras is the only other use of security equipment that
    we use but they are not audio. They are just video.
        Mr. Rush. OK. If you had multiple carriers and the inmates
    had a choice, would your ability to monitor your inmates, would
    that be hindered at all?
        Sheriff Goad. I am not a technical person but I don't know
    how that would work.
        Mr. Rush. You don't know how that would work.
        Sheriff Goad. I am not sure how multiple carriers would
    actually work if you had numerous providers.
        Mr. Rush. OK. But you don't--so you are not sure whether or
    not it would be a hindrance?
        Sheriff Goad. Right.
        Mr. Rush. Right, now is that what your answer indicates?
        Sheriff Goad. To me and again I am not a technical person.
        Mr. Rush. Right.
        Sheriff Goad. It seems to me if the more providers I had it
    would be a hindrance to us trying to provide each inmate with
    each particular provider that they so chose.
        Mr. Rush. OK.
        Mr. Weiner. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? Is
    there any reason you can't just have a series of different 800
    numbers that people can dial and then the surveillance
    equipment is all just on the hardware? I mean why couldn't you
    have a choice of five or six different 800 numbers you can
    dial?
        Sheriff Goad. Can I defer to Mr. Hopfinger?
        Mr. Weiner. Certainly.
        Sheriff Goad. Technically, I do not know.
        Mr. Weiner. I hear you now. Go ahead, Mr. Hopfinger.
        Mr. Hopfinger. Yes, what happens is when an 800 number is
    called the system loses all track of where the call actually
    terminates. All we know is an 800 number was called and then
    there is a series of numbers dialed after that. The system
    wouldn't know where that call actually terminated, who received
    that call, whether it was a call next door or across the
    nation.
        Mr. Weiner. And that failure of knowing who the inmate is
    calling provides a security risk you say?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Absolutely.
        Mr. Weiner. Got you. Thank you, Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. Yeah, and my final question, how much--so your,
    Mr. Hopfinger, your business activities is centered on
    exclusively incarcerating individuals in a jail system. That is
    your market? That is your niche in the market, is that right?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Yes, Congressman Rush. We are exclusively an
    inmate telecommunication service provider.
        Mr. Rush. OK. So you actually have a captive audience. That
    is what you, I mean, you are saying you have a captive
    audience, right?
        Mr. Hopfinger. Well, I wouldn't consider it a captive
    audience because I have a lot of other competitors out there
    that want so business so I don't get all that business.
        Mr. Rush. It is very lucrative, right?
        Mr. Hopfinger. No, sir, it is not. If you will look at our
    SEC filings, we actually operated at a loss in 2008 and most of
    the inmate telephone service providers, I met with two
    presidents last week and they are hoping for a low single digit
    return on their investment this year.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Well, thank you. I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        Mr. Weiner. I thank you, Mr. Rush, the author of the bill.
    Hopefully, we will have quieter TV commercials, we will have
    community broadcasters be able to tell everyone that
    information without interference and then I guess prisoners
    will be able to call home and brag about it less expensively.
        I ask unanimous consent to keep the record open for an
    appropriate period of time for members to submit opening
    statements and questions for the record. I thank--without
    objection, so ordered and I thank all of the witnesses for
    their patience and their excellent testimony. The committee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3746A.160