[Senate Hearing 112-802]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-802
NOMINATIONS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 4, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-230 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROY BLUNT, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK WARNER, Virginia MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
David Quinalty, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 4, 2012................................. 1
Statement of Senator Kerry....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 2
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 6
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 7
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 65
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 67
Statement of Senator Ayotte...................................... 71
Witnesses
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg, Nominee to be Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, Department of Transportation........ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Biographical information..................................... 11
Dr. Mark E. Doms, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for
Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce.................. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Biographical information..................................... 27
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn, Nominee to be a Commissioner of the
Federal Communications Commission (Reappointment).............. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Biographical information..................................... 35
Dr. Joshua D. Wright, Nominee to be a Commissioner at the Federal
Trade Commission............................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Biographical information..................................... 42
Hon. Charles E. Schumer, U.S. Senator from New York.............. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Polly E.
Trottenberg by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 81
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 83
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 84
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 87
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 87
Hon. John Boozman............................................ 88
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Mark E. Doms by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 90
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 91
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 92
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 92
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 93
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 94
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 96
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 97
Hon. tom Udall............................................... 97
Hon. Mark Begich............................................. 101
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 102
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 103
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 104
Hon. Marco Rubio............................................. 105
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joshua D. Wright
by:
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV.................................. 105
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 110
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 110
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 111
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 117
Hon. Mark Pryor.............................................. 118
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 120
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 122
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 123
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 123
Hon. John Boozman............................................ 125
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
to:
Yvonne Burke, Nominee to the Amtrak Board of Directors....... 125
Chris Beall, Nominee to the Amtrak Board of Directors........ 127
NOMINATIONS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AND
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John F.
Kerry, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. This hearing will come to order. Thank you
all very much. Welcome.
Senator Rockefeller is not feeling well today; he's not
here. He was here for the vote, but he didn't--he's not staying
for the day. And so, I'm going to open this hearing, and then I
think Senator Boxer is going to chair the better part of it
after we have opened.
But, we have a number of important nominees here today:
Polly Trottenberg is the nominee for Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, and she is very familiar to many of
us here on the Committee because of her current role at the
agency, but also 12 years of valuable service for Senators
Boxer, Schumer, and Moynihan. And as Under Secretary, she'd be
responsible for implementation of the recently passed
bipartisan surface transportation bill, the MAP-21.
Dr. Mark Doms is the nominee for Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce, and, in that
capacity, he'd have to manage the statistical agencies in the
Department, as well as the private--provide economic analysis
for the Secretary and for the administration.
Our other two nominees are pursuing confirmation for posts
at the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade
Commission, and they are extremely important consumer
protection and competition agencies---- competition/protection,
I guess is the way to say it. Their capacity and their
effectiveness is, obviously, essential to all of the goals of
this committee and the Congress.
Let me just say, quickly, that FTC investigations and
settlement negotiations have, unfortunately, become poorly kept
secrets. And I want to note, for the nominees, that neither the
commissioners nor the businesses subject to their jurisdiction
can do their jobs well if their deliberations or investigations
are manipulated or leaked for strategic advantage. I don't
think anybody is well served by that, frankly. It would be good
to see more bipartisanship at both the FTC and the FCC, and
greater efforts at collaboration, frankly. I think that
Congress's intent, and the people's interests, would be well
served if that were so.
There also will be no certainty for the markets if you
can't bridge the ideological divide in order to establish a
well-understood, easily adhered to, effective, and accepted
body of law and regulation governing competition and consumer
protection in the Digital Age that we now live in. So, I hope
the nominees here today will help us--will be committed to help
us move forward and achieve that place of common sense.
Commissioner Clyburn is seeking reappointment to the FCC.
And she has done a superb job since joining the Commission and
helping the Chairman to move along important policies, helping
the country lead to wireless communications and broadband
deployment and adoption, which is critical to our nation, and
we've fallen behind on that. She's also become a critical voice
in trying to reform the unfair pricing schemes that lead people
to prison, having to pay dramatically more money than the rest
of the population to make a long-distance phone call. It's,
frankly, obscene, and we certainly salute her work on that.
Mr. Wright is nominated to serve at the FTC. As a
conservative scholar and occasional blogger, he has injected
ideas on antitrust into the public domain, and this committee
will look forward to exploring those. His work is widely read
and well-respected.
If confirmed, Ms. Clyburn and Mr. Wright will have to
decide how best to apply our laws on consumer protection,
competition, telecommunications to the new business models,
firms, and services that the Internet has enabled.
So, that's a very significant, intellectually challenging
task, and I know every member of the Committee looks forward to
exploring with our nominees what their thoughts are on these
areas that are so important to our economy and to the
preservation of certain rights for people.
The Ranking Member, Senator Hutchison.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Kerry, for agreeing to chair this hearing. And I'm very pleased
that we are moving forward with some of these nominations. Now
that the elections have occurred, I think having these agencies
and boards and commissions, with their membership, if they are
approved, to be able to go forward expeditiously is a good
idea.
I want to say that Dr. Mark Doms, who has been nominated
for Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, would
make him the chief economist, where he actually is there at the
Department of Commerce now doing that job, with a long career
in economics, which is very important, and I think he will be
confirmed very quickly.
It is crucial that we have leadership in place at the
Department of Commerce to focus on promoting business and
creating jobs and growing our economy. Also, I would hope that
the Census, which will occur in--probably 8 years from now--
needs to begin to have a model of planning so that it will be
as efficient and effective as possible.
The Department of Transportation, the Acting Under
Secretary, Polly Trottenberg, is nominated for the permanent
position. And DOT certainly has many issues before it, and I
know that the surface reauthorization legislation that was
enacted this year has some issues that I would hope to hear how
it's going to implement those issues. And this committee has
been particularly active in opposing the European Union's
unilateral emissions trading scheme. The bill emanated out of
this committee, and has been signed by the President, so I
think a report on that would be something I would be interested
in hearing.
Commissioner Clyburn has been before our committee before
and is back up for reappointment. And her commitment to serve
underutilized rural areas is something that she said she wanted
to do when she was first appointed, and I will look forward to
hearing her progress on that.
And then, the Federal Trade Commission, Dr. Joshua Wright
has a great background for this. He, too, is an economist--he
would be the only one on that Commission, if he's confirmed--
and he does have a distinguished record of teaching at
prestigious institutions, including my alma mater, the
University of Texas. And so, I hope that we can hear from him
about how he sees the approach of the FTC, if he is confirmed
as a member.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed to hearing
from either the missing Senator Schumer or having the nominees
come forward.
Senator Kerry. Well, Senator Schumer is good at speaking
under all circumstances, but not being there, for him even, is
hard. So----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry.--we're going to have to wait. I am--I've
just received notice, he's not going to be here until 3
o'clock, so we're going to proceed. But, Senator Boxer, I know,
wants to make an introduction. Senator DeMint, I believe, wants
to make an introduction.
What I would ask is for the nominees to come up to the
table, and when Senator Schumer gets here, we'll ask him to
speak from the dais and make his comments.
Let me just say, to all our colleagues on the Committee,
and all the staff, and for those of you here visiting, I think
this will probably be Senator Hutchison's last hearing as a
member of the Committee, and in the Senate on this committee.
So, I would like to personally acknowledge her tremendous
contributions. She's been a terrific colleague on the other
side of the aisle, always open to listening and working with us
on a lot of different projects. We are going to miss her on
this committee, and the Senate, indeed, and wish her well in
whatever endeavor she undertakes, back there in that small
state of Texas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry. But, we--honestly, we are really grateful
for your service, Kay, and wish you well. Everybody here on the
Committee joins me, I know, in saying that to you. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. No, thank you for----
[Applause.]
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Well, as the nominees are coming forward--please do come
forward----
Senator Kerry. Come on up, nominees. Come on up.
Senator Hutchison.--and I will just say thank you, from my
colleagues. I've loved this committee. It was my first choice
when I got into the Senate, and I've loved serving as Ranking
Member and working with Senator Rockefeller, with all of you. I
think we've achieved, really, maybe the most successful amount
of legislation of any committee in the last 2 years. And I
think we've made great, productive moves. I hope, Senator
Kerry, that you will pass our infrastructure legislation when
I'm gone.
Senator Kerry. I've got to find--Senator Thune, you gonna
pick up that cudgel when you----
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. That's right. And I really look forward
to----
Senator Kerry. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.--seeing all of you when I am a happy
camper and you all are still here in the fights.
Senator Boxer. Senator Kerry?
Senator Kerry. Senator Boxer.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Senator Kerry, I want to join you in your
tribute to Senator Hutchison.
And I have to say--and I know that Maria Cantwell and Amy
Klobuchar will back me up on this--that, you know, having her
in the Senate--the women have a special bond right now--and I
guess we'll continue to do that until we're 50-50--because
there's just not that many of us. Even now, we're going to 20,
which is huge. But, I think many people don't know the close
relationship that the women Senators have. And I would just
point to the special relationship that developed between
Senator Mikulski and Senator Hutchison, and their work in
keeping us together and having bipartisan meetings and dinners
and so on. And, more than that, working together on
legislation.
And I guess--I've put an extensive statement in the record
about my colleague----
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to consider
nominees for key positions at the Department of Transportation,
Department of Commerce, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal
Trade Commission.
I look forward to hearing from all of the nominees, but would like
to say a few words about two who are particularly near and dear to me.
First of all, I am delighted to welcome Ms. Polly Trottenberg, the
nominee for Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy at the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Polly was my Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director from
2006 to 2008, so I can personally attest to her incredible leadership
abilities and commitment to public service.
She is smart, charismatic, and dedicated--and the DOT is fortunate
to have such a talented individual at the helm of its policy team.
Polly joined the DOT in August 2009 as Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy, and became the Acting Under Secretary last
November.
Polly's accomplishments so far include overseeing the allocation of
$3.1 billion through the incredibly successful and popular TIGER
(Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) discretionary
grant program, highlighting her ability to manage complex, nationally
significant programs.
In her current role, Polly has been coordinating implementation of
the transportation reauthorization bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century (MAP-21), in close coordination with regional, state,
and local transportation authorities.
She will play a role as DOT implements many of the critical reforms
included in MAP-21, such as the nearly ten-fold expansion of the TIFIA
(Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) loan program
and a new Federal focus on improving freight movement.
I am confident that Polly's extensive prior experience working on
transportation policy will allow her to continue making valuable
contributions to the DOT:
She was Executive Director of Building America's Future from
2008 to 2009.
She served as a top aide in the Senate for 12 years, not only
in my office but also working for Senator Chuck Schumer and the
late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
And she previously worked at the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey as well as the Massachusetts Port Authority.
I am delighted that President Obama has selected Polly for this
important position, and look forward to working with my colleagues in
the Senate to advance her nomination swiftly.
I would also like to offer my enthusiastic support for the
nomination of Congresswoman Yvonne Burke to the Amtrak Board of
Directors. Ms. Burke is not testifying today, but I would like to say a
few words about her.
Congresswoman Burke has 30 years of experience as a public official
representing the Los Angeles area, and will bring a wealth of knowledge
to this position about the transportation challenges facing communities
across our Nation.
Her experience includes:
6 years in the California State Assembly,
6 years representing the 37th District of California in the
U.S. House of Representatives, and
17 years on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
She is particularly well known for her work involving
infrastructure, economic development, the environment, and
children and families.
She has held numerous other distinguished positions, including
serving on the California State Transportation Commission, the
Board of Directors of the House Committee on Congressional
Ethics, and the California Board of Regents.
I am confident that Congresswoman Burke will make a valuable
addition to the Board, and will provide unique insights into ways
Amtrak can better serve communities across our Nation.
I look forward to hearing from all of the nominees today.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer.--but, I do want to say, unequivocally, as
far--from my perch, here, we never would have done the FAA bill
without you. We wouldn't have dislodged it without you and your
persistence. And we wouldn't have gotten the highway bill done;
even though it's a different committee, this committee had a
lot of jurisdiction in there.
So, I just--I mean, that's millions of jobs, and I just
think you have a wonderful legacy, and Texas is lucky. If you
go back there full-time, they're lucky to have you, and we will
miss you.
I have a statement I'd like to make about two nominees.
I'll withhold, if anybody wants to add to the tribute to our
colleague, if----
Senator Hutchison. Oh, I don't want to take----
Senator Boxer. Well, it's----
Senator Hutchison.--everyone's time.
Senator Boxer.--it's worth it.
Senator Hutchison. Really. No, it's not.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Well, I think----
Senator Hutchison. I really appreciate it, but----
Senator Kerry. That's why we're going----
Senator Hutchison.--thank you.
Senator Kerry.--to miss her, folks.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Let's deem that the great statements are
made, and get these nominees----
Senator Cantwell. No, no, Mr. Chairman, if I could just----
Senator Kerry. Yes, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell.--chime in.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
And I know that--I know my colleague doesn't want us to,
but we--and we had a chance at the--one of our last hearings,
to bring this up. But, Senator Boxer brings up such an
important point, and that is to always--for us to recognize the
great contribution that you and Senator Mikulski made to being
pioneers in this institution, and the fact that, not only did
you take time to do that, but you took time to bring all of us
together, to help us along the way.
And her second point, as somebody who comes from an
aviation state with over 150,000 aviation jobs, the fact that
getting the aviation bill was critically important to our
state, and thank you for your help in support of that.
I never thought that the issue of slots could be so
contentious----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell.--and so germane and mundane at the same
time. And I appreciate you weighing through what was a very
tough issue for many people.
And so, your leadership will be missed, to say nothing that
you got Senator Mikulski to a rodeo. I--we're still looking for
the pictures of that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Oh, they were great.
Senator Cantwell. And we certainly hope you won't be a
stranger here.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you all very much.
Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Well, Mr. Chairman, as long as we're on the
subject, my colleague from Texas is someone who has been very
focused on getting things done and getting results, and I think
that is a lesson all of us can learn in the challenges that
we're going to face ahead. But, she really has been very
effective for her state, very effective for her country,
because of that focus. And that means working with people who
have different points of view and perspectives, but I think it
has served her extremely well and allowed this committee to get
some things done that perhaps otherwise would not have been
done. And so, she will be greatly missed. And there are some of
us who will try and fill those big shoes, or big pumps, or
whatever the case may be----
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune.--but, we appreciate her great service here,
and we'll miss her contributions, not only on our side of the
aisle, but, I know, as has already been expressed, by members
on the other side.
So, Senator, we know you're going to do great things in
Texas, but we'll miss you around here.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you all so much.
Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Well, can I say, as we close it out and I'm
opening it up----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kerry.--it's a long way from that seat, down there.
You and I have both journeyed from the last seat----
Senator Hutchison. Right.
Senator Kerry.--up to there. And so, you know, you--a
couple of minutes here is not so bad.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you.
Senator Kerry. You're owed that, at least.
Senator Boxer. You can take it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. We've had a couple.
Senator Kerry. OK.
Senator Boxer. Now, can I talk to colleagues----
Senator Kerry. Let me just say, to all the members of the
Committee, that Senator Rockefeller is planning to mark up
these nominees, hopefully next week. And so, obviously, with
the press of business, we want to get this done. So, the
Committee is requesting members submit any questions for the
record within the next 24 hours, and it'll be closed out at
that point.
So, with that said----
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I was told I could say----
Senator Kerry. Yes----
Senator Boxer.--a couple of minutes----
Senator Kerry.--absolutely. We said you could----
Senator Boxer.--just 2--I'll put my whole statement in the
record.
But, I want to just say how proud I am that Polly
Trottenberg is here, the nominee for Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy at the U.S. Department of
Transportation. She's near and dear to my heart because she was
my Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director, and I can
personally attest to her incredible leadership abilities. She
also--she got great training from the great Senator Moynihan
and then the great Senator Schumer, who will be here shortly
and will be unable to speak--won't that be interesting.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And I just want to say that Polly joined DOT
in 2009. I was upset to lose her. But, she's been incredible--
and I won't go into everything; I'll put it in the record--but,
the TIGER Grant program that she--it's been very, very
bipartisan and very, very important to the country, and she's
cut through that issue. She--when we passed our bipartisan
transportation bill, MAP-21, she's been working, literally,
night and day to get it going, because we need those jobs. And
I just know that--after we have a chance to hear from her, and
look at her record--I just know she'll sail through.
And lastly, Yvonne Braithwaite Burke, who some of you may
know--she's a very important figure in California--she has 30
years of experience as a public official, representing Los
Angeles--6 years in the State Assembly; 6 years, the 37th
District in the U.S. House; 17 years on the L.A. Board of
Supervisors--very well known for her work. She's a
distinguished nominee.
So, these two are near and dear to my heart. I'm sure the
others are wonderful; I just know these two so well, and I
wanted to get the chance to put the statement in the record.
Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer.
So, now, Ms. Trottenberg, is it--now that you've been so
pumped up, you're going to lead off.
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. So, we'll listen to you, and then we'll just
run right down the line.
Ms. Trottenberg. OK, thank you.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. POLLY E. TROTTENBERG, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator Kerry and Ranking
Member Hutchison--you will be missed by many of us at DOT, as
well--members of the Committee. It's a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee for Under
Secretary of Transportation for Policy. I'm honored by this
nomination and the opportunity to serve our nation. And I'm
grateful to Secretary Ray LaHood for his leadership and
support.
I'd like to just quickly introduce my family--my husband,
Mark Zuckerman; my stepdaughter, Naomi; my stepson, Noah; my
niece, Mallory; my sister-in-law, Suzanne; and my nephew, Sam.
I'd also like to gratefully acknowledge the friends and
colleagues who are here today.
As Senator Boxer mentioned, I've served as Assistant
Secretary for Policy since July 2009, and I've been the Acting
Under Secretary for the past year. Prior to arriving at DOT, I
did spend the majority of my career in the U.S. Senate. As
Senator Kerry mentioned, I've had the honor of working for
Senator Boxer, Senator Schumer, and the late Daniel Patrick
Moynihan.
And thank you, Senator Boxer, for your kind remarks.
I served as Executive Director of Building America's
Future, a bipartisan group of State and local elected officials
that work to promote infrastructure investment, and I also
worked at both the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, and I got a firsthand
look at the challenges that some of our nation's busiest ports
and airports face.
In my current role at DOT, I have responsibility for
overseeing the Department's surface and aviation policy
efforts, with a focus on our strategic goals: safety, number
one; state of good repair; economic competitiveness;
livability; and environmental sustainability. And, as Senator
Boxer mentioned, the policy office is currently coordinating
the Department's implementation of MAP-21. I'd like to thank
this committee for its work on the bill, especially in the area
of safety. And, of course, I would like to thank my former
boss, Senator Boxer, for her leadership in working with Senator
Inhofe to help get that bill through Congress. We're very
appreciative at USDOT.
We've worked very diligently from the moment the bill
passed, throughout the summer and the fall, to provide State
DOTs, transit agencies, and metropolitan planning organizations
with the timely guidance they needed on MAP-21's many new
funding and programmatic provisions, starting, just a few weeks
after the passage of the bill, with getting the information out
on the TIFIA program; and we've had a big response on that.
To oversee implementation of MAP-21's freight provisions,
working with Senator Cantwell, we announced, this summer, a
Freight Policy Council. The council is bringing together,
within the Department, our senior leadership, our policy,
economic, safety, and research experts, to oversee our freight
policy work, including the development of the National Freight
Strategic Plan, which was required in MAP-21.
The policy office also works with the--has been working
with all the other surface modes and stakeholder groups to
implement the new performance measure requirements in MAP-21,
which will ultimately empower State DOTs, transit agencies,
MPOs, elected officials, and the public, to make more informed
and cost-effective transportation investment decisions. And I'd
like to particularly note Senator Warner, Senator Lautenberg,
and Senator Rockefeller, who have been big leaders on the issue
of performance measures.
Prior to MAP-21, our policy office led the Department's
efforts to develop our own surface transportation proposal.
We're grateful that Congress adopted some of our
recommendations, and we're hoping that our implementation of
MAP-21 will teach us many lessons and help shape our collective
vision for the next surface transportation bill.
On the aviation side, the policy office works with the FAA
to focus on our number one priority--safety--and on the
implementation of NextGen, which I know is a big concern to
many on this committee. We also work to promote the global
competitiveness of U.S. air carriers and ensure that small and
rural communities have access to air travel through the
Essential Air Service program.
Finally, as Senator Boxer noted, my office has overseen
four rounds of competition through the TIGER Discretionary
Grant program. We've awarded 3.1 billion to 218 transportation
projects all across the country. We've leveraged tens of
billions of dollars in additional public and private funding,
and put thousands of Americans to work.
In conclusion, if confirmed, I pledge to continue our work
with Congress and the transportation community to create a
safer, more efficient, and performance-based system that serves
our citizens and their communities while creating jobs and
economic opportunities.
I thank the Committee for its consideration, and would be
happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Trottenberg follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg, Acting Under Secretary
of Transportation for Policy, Department of Transportation
Thank you Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and
Members of the Committee. It is a privilege to appear before you today
as President Obama's nominee for Under Secretary of Transportation for
Policy.
I am honored by this nomination and the opportunity to serve our
nation and the Administration. And I am grateful to Secretary Ray
LaHood for his leadership and support.
I would like to introduce my family--my husband Mark Zuckerman, my
stepdaughter Naomi, my stepson Noah, my niece Mallory, my sister-in-law
Suzanne Pillsbury, and my nephew Sam Trottenberg. I would also like to
gratefully acknowledge the friends and colleagues who are here today.
I have been honored to serve as Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy since July of 2009 and as Acting Under Secretary
of Transportation for Policy for the last year.
Prior to arriving at DOT, I spent the majority of my career helping
shape transportation policy in the U.S. Senate. In my 12 years serving
here, I had the honor of working for Senators Barbara Boxer, Charles
Schumer, and the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
I served as Executive Director of Building America's Future, a
bipartisan coalition of state and local elected officials chaired by
former Governor Rendell, former Governor Schwarzenegger and Mayor
Bloomberg, which seeks to promote infrastructure investment. I also
worked at both the Massachusetts Port Authority and the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, where I learned firsthand about the
challenges some of our Nation's busiest ports and airports face.
In my current role at DOT, I have the responsibility of overseeing
the Department's surface and aviation policy efforts in several major
areas, with a focus on our key strategic goals: safety, state of good
repair, economic competitiveness, livability and environmental
sustainability.
The Policy Office is currently coordinating the Department's
implementation of the new bipartisan surface transportation
legislation, MAP-21. I would like to thank this Committee for its work
on the bill, especially in the area of safety, which is the
Department's highest goal. In addition, I would like to thank my former
boss Senator Boxer, for her leadership in moving this bipartisan
legislation through Congress.
We have worked diligently to provide State DOTs, transit agencies
and MPOs with timely guidance on MAP-21's many new funding and
programmatic provisions, starting this summer with a greatly expanded
TIFIA loan program. We have also worked hard to provide the public and
transportation stakeholders with many opportunities to engage and have
input into this process.
To oversee the implementation of MAP-21's freight provisions,
working with Senator Cantwell, DOT recently created a Freight Policy
Council. The Council brings together senior leadership, as well as
policy, economic, safety and research experts--to oversee the
Department's freight policy work, including development of the National
Freight Strategic Plan, as required by MAP-21.
The Policy Office is also working with the surface modes and
stakeholder groups across the country to implement the new performance
measure and performance-based planning requirements in MAP-21. We
believe these important provisions will ultimately empower State DOTs,
transit agencies, MPOs, elected officials and the public to make more
informed and cost-effective transportation investment decisions. I
would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senators Lautenberg and
Warner, for your leadership in the area of performance measurement.
Prior to MAP-21, the Policy Office led the Department's cross-modal
efforts to develop the Administration's surface transportation
proposal. We are grateful that Congress adopted many of our
recommendations. We expect that our MAP-21implementation efforts will
teach us many lessons and help shape our collective vision for the next
surface transportation bill.
On the aviation side, the Policy Office works with FAA to focus on
our number one priority, safety, and on the modernization of the air
traffic control system through the implementation of NextGen. We are
also working to promote the global competitiveness of U.S. air carriers
and ensure that small and rural communities in this country have access
to the national air transportation system through the Essential Air
Service program.
Finally, my office has also overseen four rounds of competition
through the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. We have awarded $3.1
billion to 218 transportation projects all across the country,
leveraged tens of billions of dollars in additional public and private
funding, and put thousands of Americans to work.
By applying principles of cost benefit analysis, performance
measurement and innovative project delivery, DOT has funded projects
with strong partnerships, accelerated schedules, and demonstrative
benefits for the traveling public, their communities, and the Nation.
TIGER provided the Department with valuable lessons in innovative,
multimodal project selection and we continue to work with the TIGER
grantees to track their performance and long-term outcomes.
In conclusion, if confirmed, I pledge to continue our work with
Congress and the transportation community to create a safer, more
efficient, performance-based and multimodal transportation system that
serves our citizens and their communities while creating jobs and
economic opportunities.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of my nomination and
would be happy to respond to your questions.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Polly Ellen
Trottenberg.
2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary of Transportation
for Policy, Department of Transportation.
3. Date of Nomination: June 20, 2012.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20950.
5. Date and Place of Birth: March 16, 1964; Boston, MA.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Mark Zuckerman, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy
Director of the Domestic Policy Council, The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500; children: Naomi
Zuckerman, age 22; Noah Zuckerman, age 17.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
BA in History, Barnard College, Columbia University, May 1986.
Masters in Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, June 1992
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Acting Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy and Assistant Secretary of
Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C., July 2009 to present
(managerial, related).
Building America's Future, Executive Director, Washington,
D.C., Aug. 2008-July 2009 (managerial, related).
Senator Barbara Boxer, Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative
Director, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2006-July 2008 (managerial,
related).
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Legislative Director, Washington,
D.C., Jan. 1999-Dec. 2005 (managerial, related).
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Legislative Assistant for
Transportation, Public Works, and Environment, Washington,
D.C., Oct. 1996-Dec. 1998 (non-managerial, related).
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, New York, NY, Senior
Executive Assistant to the Director of Aviation and Executive
Assistant to the Executive Director, Oct. 1994-Sept. 1996 (non-
managerial, related)
Massachusetts State Senate, Boston, MA, Policy Analyst, Joint
Committee on Commerce and Labor, State Senator Lois Pines,
Chair, June 1992-Sept. 1994 (non-managerial, related).
Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA, Research Associate,
Department of Administration and Finance, Summer 1991
(nonmanagerial, related).
Perry Davis Associates, New York, NY, Research Director, March
1988-April 1990 (non-managerial).
Freelance Writer and Editor, New York, NY and Chicago, IL,
September 1986-February 1988 (non-managerial).
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
Ex Officio Member and Chair (March 2010--March 2011) of the
U.S. Access Board, July 2009 to present.
First Vice Chair, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and
Operations Advisory Commission, Jan. 2012 to present.
Ex Officio Member, Transportation Research Board Executive
Committee, July 2009 to present.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years.
Working World TV, Founding Member, Feb. 2005-Oct. 2007.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS) Sept. 2008 to present
WTS does not restrict membership.
Women's Leadership Network Sept. 2008-Nov. 2009
WLN restricts membership based on sex.
Barnard in Washington Club Oct. 1996 to present
Barnard in Washington Club, is an alumni association for
Barnard College, a private women's college, and as such,
restricts membership based on sex.
The Road Gang March January 2009 to present
The Road Gang does not restrict membership.
Member of the Economic Policy Institute's Transportation
Infrastructure Research Project Advisory Committee Sept. 2008-
July 2009 (est.) EPI does not restrict membership.
Member of the America 2050 ``Visualizing a 21st Century
Transportation System'' Policy Subcommittee, Summer 2009 (est.)
America 2050 does not restrict membership.
In addition, over the last several years I have donated money to
various organizations that consider their contributors ``members.''
These include: Rock Creek Pool, Inc.; Friends of Rock Creek's
Environment (FORCE); WAMU 88.5 American University Public Radio;
Environmental Defense Fund; Humane Society of the United States;
Natural Resources Defense Council; Smart Growth America; Friends of the
Earth; The Nature Conservancy; Sierra Club; National Trust for Historic
Preservation; and Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt. No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
Obama for America--$794 in 2011, $800 in 2008
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee--$1,000 in 2008
John Kerry for President--$1,750 in 2004
DNC $1,000 in 2004
Emily's List--$1,000 in 2004,
Friends of Dan Maffei--$700 in 2008
Campaign volunteer work:
Gore/Lieberman, Oct.--Nov. 2000
Dutch Ruppersberger for Congress, Oct. 2002
Frank Lautenberg for Senate, Oct. 2002
Tim Bishop for Congress, Nov. 2002
Charles Schumer for Senate, July--Oct. 2004
Kerry/Edwards, Oct.--Nov. 2004
Ron Klein for Congress, Oct. 2006
Lois Murphy for Congress, Oct. 2006
Obama/Biden, Oct.--Nov. 2008
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Phi Beta Kappa, 1986.
Ellen Davis Goldwater History Prize, 1986.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Written
Research paper for America 2050--``Federal Decision-Making in
Transportation Investments: Getting the Federal Government to
do `the Math' ''--December, 2008.
As a freelance writer from 1986 to 1988 I covered real estate
and business topics. Generally my writings were not published
under my name and were used in newsletters, textbooks and
business journals. I do not have any records of them now and I
believe that all the entities I wrote for then have long since
gone out of business.
Speaking
[See p. 16 of this document for a list of Ms. Trottenberg's major
speeches.]
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
I testified at my confirmation hearing for my nomination to be
Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy before the Senate
Commerce Committee, July 8, 2009.
I testified at a hearing on ``DOT's Research and Development to
Support the Department's Strategic Goals,'' before the House Committee
on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
November 19, 2009.
I testified at a hearing on ``Doubling U.S. Exports: Are U.S. Sea
Ports Ready for the Challenge?'' before the Senate Finance Subcommittee
on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness, April 29,
2010.
I testified at a hearing on ``Building American Transportation
Infrastructure Through Innovative Funding'' before the Senate Commerce
Committee, July 20, 2011.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
For the last three years, I have served as the Assistant Secretary
for Transportation Policy and, since November 2011, I have also served
as the Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy at U.S. DOT.
The Office of Transportation Policy is the chief policy office for U.S.
DOT and is responsible for analysis, development, communication and
review of policy and plans for domestic and international
transportation issues, including surface and aviation reauthorization,
intercity passenger rail, international trade and transportation, and
other intermodal initiatives, such as the implementation of MAP-21 and
the development of DOT's proposed reauthorization language.
The office is responsible for running the TIGER Discretionary Grant
Program, the Essential Air Service Program (EAS), the Small Communities
Air Development Service Program (SCASDP), negotiates bilateral and
multilateral aviation agreements and provides leadership on
international transportation and trade policies.
I also have over 20 years of diverse policy-making and managerial
experience in the U.S. Senate, in the Massachusetts State Senate, as
well as the Aviation Department of the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, the Department of Administration and Finance at the
Massachusetts Port Authority, and in running an infrastructure non-
profit focused on transportation.
My 12 years on Capitol Hill working for three U.S. Senators, the
late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Charles Schumer and
Senator Barbara Boxer, enabled me to participate directly in all of the
major transportation legislation during that period and to work closely
with all Senate Committees of jurisdiction--Environment and Public
Works, Commerce and Science, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and
Finance, as well as the Appropriations Committee.
I also served as Executive Director of Building America's Future
(BAF), a bipartisan infrastructure coalition chaired by Governor Edward
Rendell, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg and
was able to work closely with many state and local elected officials
and get a deeper understanding of how Federal transportation policy
affects them and what states and localities are doing to innovate and
experiment.
I believe that our nation currently faces a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to build a 21st century transportation system that will
bolster U.S. economic growth and long-term prosperity, grow our freight
system capacity, foster rural mobility, and enhance the safety and the
quality of life for our citizens and communities.
I have had a lifelong interest and passion in transportation policy
and what it can do to improve the lives of ordinary Americans and our
nation's economy. I believe that my background and extensive experience
with transportation policy at the regional, state and Federal levels,
and my intimate knowledge of the legislative process, have prepared me
to serve in this role.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
As Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, I currently
oversee the Office of Transportation Policy, which has an annual budget
of approximately $20 million, over 120 employees, and in Fiscal Year
2012 awarded almost $1 billion in TIGER grants, managed the $220
million Essential Air Program, awarded $6 million in SCASDP grants. The
Policy Office works closely with the Department of Transportation's
Budget Office, Office of the General Counsel and Office of
Administration to ensure that our organizational budget and grant
dollars are subject to the appropriate management and accounting
controls.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
1. Implementation of MAP-21. Congress has passed a 27-month
surface transportation authorization that makes significant
changes to current law. Some of the new law took effect July 6
and many of the major programmatic changes take effect October
1. It will require extensive work throughout the agency to make
programmatic changes, promulgate new rules, issue guidance, and
coordinate successfully with State DOTs, transit agencies and
other transportation stakeholders.
2. Development of Successor Legislation to MAP-21. While USDOT
implements MAP-21, it must also continue its work with Congress
and the transportation community to develop a national vision
for transportation policy to put in place once MAP-21 expires
at the end of 2014. The fiscal challenges are formidable, while
the system has a huge backlog of maintenance needs as well as a
need for significant new investment in the coming years.
3. Aviation Policy. Congress has also recently passed a new FAA
reauthorization bill and now the Department's implementation is
underway, including ensuring that the NextGen satellite-based
navigation system is sustainably funded and finally underway,
working with the other Federal agencies involved--the
Department of Defense, NASA and the Department of Homeland
Security.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
As of June 30, 2012, I have $259,016 in a Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
account for retirement.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain. None.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
designated agency ethics official to identify any potential conflicts
of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will continue to be
resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I
have entered into with the Department's designated agency ethics
official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware
of any potential conflicts of interest.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
designated agency ethics official to identify any potential conflicts
of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will continue to be
resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I
have entered into with the Department's designated agency ethics
official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware
of any potential conflicts of interest.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy.
In my current role as Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy
and Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, I have helped
oversee U.S. DOT's legislative proposal, technical assistance, and
correspondence to Congress on surface reauthorization. I have also been
involved in deliberations on other departmental legislative efforts in
aviation, transit safety, and pipeline safety. I have also been
involved in the administration and execution of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, particularly the TIGER Discretionary
Grant program and the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital
Assistance Program, as well as MAP-21.
I worked in the U.S. Senate from 1996 to 2008 and so have worked on
many pieces of legislation as part of my official duties.
As Executive Director of Building America's Future, I was involved
in debates about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as
well as the next surface transportation reauthorization and FAA
reauthorization.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Transportation's
designated agency ethics official to identify any potential conflicts
of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will continue to be
resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I
have entered into with the Department's designated agency ethics
official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware
of any potential conflicts of interest.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain. No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination. None.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
Polly Trottenberg Major Public Speeches
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Sponsor Event Description Location Role
------------------------------------------------------------------------
09/08 Euromoney Challenges and New York, NY Speaker
Conference on Opportunities in
Public Private U.S.
Partnerships Transportation
Investment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/09 National Improving the New York, NY Speaker
Association of Federal Funding
City Process and
Transportation Achieving a
Officials State of Good
Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/09 Regional Plan Metropolitan Washington, Speaker
Association, Regions Forum DC
Urban Land
Institute and
NARC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/09 City & Financial Public Private Washington, Speaker
and U.S. DOT Partnerships: DC
USA Summit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/09 Railway Supply Advancing Washington, Speaker
Institute and Passenger and DC
One Rail Freight Rail in
the Nation's
Transportation
System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/09 The Road Gang Building Washington, Keynote
America's DC Speaker
Future: Vision
for the
Reauthorization
of the Surface
Transportation
Legislation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/8/09 Senate Committee Confirmation Washington, Hearing
on Commerce, Hearing: Polly DC Witness
Science, and Trottenberg,
Transportation Assistant
Secretary for
Transportation
Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/1/09 Association for Moving Forward to Washington, Keynote
Commuter Address DC Speaker
Transportation Transportation,
(ACT) Economic &
Environmental
Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/5/ The National U.S. DOT's Views Washington, Speaker
09 Complete Streets on Complete DC
Coalition and Streets Policies
the American
Planning
Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/28/ Association of Annual Savannah, GA Keynote
09 Metropolitan Conference: Speaker
Planning Planning for a
Organizations Better Future
(AMPO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/30/ Kennedy School of Fast Track to the Cambridge, Speaker
09 Government Future: The New MA
Rappaport Vision for High-
Institute for Speed Rail
Greater Boston
Harvard
University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/31/ Rail-Volution Greening Your Boston, MA Speaker
09 Future--Current
and Emerging
Opportunities
for Federal
Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/19/ House Committee DOT's Research Washington, Hearing
09 on Science and and Development DC Witness
Technology and to Support the
Subcommittee on Department of
Technology and Transportation's
Innovation Strategic Goals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/1/ U.S. DOT Transportation New Orleans, Host/Speaker
09 Reauthorization LA
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/12/ Transportation Annual Meeting: Washington, Moderator
10 Research Board Meet the U.S. DC
DOT. Leadership
Panel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/20/ U.S. Conference 78th Winter Washington, Speaker
10 of Mayors Meeting: ``The DC
Partnership for
Sustainable
Communities:
Integrating
Transportation,
Housing, Land
Use and Economic
Development''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/25/ U.S. DOT Transportation Minneapolis, Host/Speaker
10 Reauthorization MN
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/29/ The American Center for Washington, Speaker
10 Association of Excellence in DC
State Highway Project Finance,
and Congressional
Transportation Staff Forum,
Officials ``Legislative
(AASHTO) Policy Issues in
Transportation
Finance''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/19/ U.S. DOT Transportation Los Angeles, Host/Speaker
10 Reauthorization CA
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/19/ WTS--Los Angeles Women's Los Angeles, Speaker
10 Chapter Leadership and CA
Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/21/ National Energizing Washington, Speaker
10 Association of Regional DC
Regional Leadership and
Councils (NARC) Shaping
Administration
and
Congressional
Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/24/ Community Streetcar Summit: Washington, Speaker
10 Streetcar How streetcars DC
Coalition promote economic
development,
livability and
sustainability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/9/10 Penn High Speed Rail London, UK Speaker
International and America's
Planning National
Workshop Infrastructure
Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/11/ United Kingdom Comparing U.S. London, UK Speaker
10 Transport and UK
Ministry Transportation
Policies (with
Transport
Minister Lord
Adonis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/9/10 National Public Hearing: Washington, Speaker
Conference of High Speed Rail DC
State
Legislatures
(NCSL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/16/ Regional Plan 20th Annual Washington, Panelist
10 Association Regional DC
Assembly: ``The
Future of Trains
and Planes''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/29/ Senate Committee Hearing: Doubling Washington, Hearing
10 on Finance, U.S. Exports: DC Witness
Subcommittee on Are U.S. Sea
International Ports Ready for
Trade, Customs, the Challenge?
and Global
Competitiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/4/10 ITS America Surface Houston, TX Panelist
Transportation
Reauthorization
Outreach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/5/10 U.S. DOT Transportation Houston, TX Host/Speaker
Reauthorization
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/10/ Asia-Pacific Transportation Washington, Keynote
10 Economic Energy DC Speaker
Cooperation Efficiency
(APEC) Improvement
Potential in
APEC Economies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/4/10 U.S. DOT Transportation Bismarck, ND Host/Speaker
Reauthorization
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/16/ Rudin Center at High Speed Rail: New York, NY Speaker
10 New York Leveraging
University Federal
Investment
Locally
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/9/10 City of Denver, Urban Circulator Denver, CO Speaker
CO and Bus
Livability Grant
Announcement,
Denver Regional
Transportation
District
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/14/ U.S. DOT Transportation Washington, Host/Speaker
10 Reauthorization DC
Outreach Tour
with Secretary
LaHood
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/1/10 Association for How DOT is Moving Washington, Keynote
Commuter Forward to DC Speaker
Transportation address
Conference . Transportation,
Economic &
Environmental
Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/20/ Capitol Bikeshare Capitol Bikeshare Washington, Panelist
10 and U.S. DOT Launch and DC
Opening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/28/ The Associated National and Washington, Speaker
10 General Chapter DC
Contractors of Leadership
America Conference: The
Administration's
Approach to
Infrastructure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/29/ T4America National Washington, Speaker
10 Leadership DC
Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/5/ The National U.S. DOT's Views Washington, Speaker
10 Complete Streets on Complete DC
Coalition and Streets and
the American Policies
Planning
Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/29/ National How Outcomes and Washington, Speaker
10 Association of the Integration DC
Public of Programs can
Administrations create Synergy,
(NAPA) Efficiencies and
Money
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/31/ Rail-Volution Greening Your Boston, MA Speaker
10 Future: Current
and Emerging
Opportunities
for Federal
Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/15/ United States American Brisbane, Speaker
10 Studies Centre Transportation Australia
at the Policy
University of
Sydney,
Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/15/ United States City of the Brisbane, Keynote
10 Studies Centre Future: U.S. and Australia Speaker
at the Australian
University of Perspectives
Sydney,
Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/21/ Institute for BRT in the U.S.: Washington, Discussant
11 Transportation & Challenges and DC
Development How it Might be
Policy (ITDP) Enhanced
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/21/ Orange County Breaking Down Washington, Discussant
11 Transportation Barriers DC
Authority (OCTA) Initiative:
Expedite
Federally Funded
Projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/24/ Institute for 2011 Sustainable Washington, Keynote
11 Transportation & Transportation DC Speaker
Development Award Ceremony
Policy (ITDP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/25/ Transportation 90th Annual Washington, Moderator
11 Research Board Meeting: Surface DC
Transportation
Authorization--A
Discussion with
the U.S.
Department of
Transportation
Leadership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/26/ Transportation 90th Annual Washington, Panelist
11 Research Board Meeting: DC
Grabbing the
TIGER by the
Tail--Experience
s and Future
Outlook
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/26/ Transportation 90th Annual Washington, Moderator
11 Research Board Meeting: Future DC
Directions in
Transportation--
A Multimodal
Dialogue with
the U.S. DOT
Deputy
Administrators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/17/ Intelligent ITS 18th World Washington, Speaker
11 Transportation Congress Board DC
Society of of Directors'
America (ITS) Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/25/ Bipartisan Policy Grounding the Warrenton, Presenter
11 Center National Vision in the VA
Transportation Political--nviro
Policy Project nment Strategies
(NTPP) far Overcoming
Barriers and Key
Next Steps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/28/ The National Washington Alexandria, Keynote
11 Industrial Freight VA Speaker
Transportation Transportation
League (NITL) Policy Forum:
Mapping
America's Vision
for Freight
Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/30/ American Public Transportation Washington, Speaker
11 Works Sustainability DC
Association Summit:
(APWA) Transportation
Sustainability
and Surface
Transportation
Reauthorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/7/11 American Bus Government Washington, Speaker
Association Affairs and DC
Policy Committee
Meeting:
Transportation
Authorization,
Planning, and
the Evolution of
Surface
Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/8/11 Urban Institute Infrastructure Washington, Moderator
Policy Research DC
Initiative
Roundtable:
Rationale,
Choices, and
Challenges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/3/11 American Public Surface Washington, Keynote
Transportation Transportation: DC Speaker
Association Where do we
stand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/4/11 Senator Sheldon Second Annual Washington, Panelist
Whitehouse, Rhode Island DC
Rhode Island Energy &
Environmental
Leaders Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/10/ Coalition Annual Meeting: Washington, Speaker
11 America's The role of DC
Gateways & Trade freight in
Corridors surface
(CAGTC) transportation
authorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/13/ American Public The Power of Rail Boston, MA Panelist
11 Transportation as a Foundation
Association of Economic
Growth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/13/ WTS Boston Annual Awards and Boston, MA Keynote
11 Scholars Dinner Speaker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/15/ Minnesota Congressional Washington, Speaker
11 Transportation Delegation Fly- DC
Affiance in: Latest
Reception Developments
Impacting
Federal Funding
and Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/ Mineta National Policy San Speaker
11 Transportation Summit on Francisco,
Institute Transportation CA
Finance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/ Mineta Norman Y. Mineta San Keynote
11 Transportation National Policy Francisco, Speaker
Institute and Summit on CA
the Commonwealth Transportation
Club of Finance
California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/25/ Mineta 20th Annual San Jose CA Commencement
11 Transportation Mineta Speaker
Institute Transportation
Institute
Commencement
Ceremony
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/ White House White House Los Gatos, Host/Speaker
11 Office of Public Roundtable: CA
Engagement Winning the
Future with the
Jewish
Federation of
Los Gatos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/11/ White House Strong Cities Fresno, CA Speaker
11 Strong
Communities
Launch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/20/ Senate Committee Building American Washington, Hearing
11 on Commerce, Transportation DC Witness
Science and Infrastructure
Transportation Through
Innovative
Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/20/ The French- The Washington, Speaker
11 American Infrastructure DC
Foundation Nexus: Public
Transportation
in Urban and
Interstate
Schemes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/13/ Active Active Chicago, IL Speaker
11 Transportation Transportation
Alliance Alliance 25th
Anniversary
Dinner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/14/ Center for Board Meeting and Chicago, IL Keynote
11 Neighborhood Staff Address Speaker
Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/14/ WTS Chicago White House Chicago, IL Speaker
11 Roundtable:
Chicago Women in
Trades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/18/ Rail-Volution Reauthorization Washington, Moderator
11 for the Future: DC
SAFETEA-LU and
the Gasoline Tax
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/20/ The White House White House Martinsburg, Speaker
11 Business Council Roundtable: WV
and the Eastern Martinsburg
Panhandle Business
Regional
Planning &
Development
Council
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/31/ Taubman Center The Current Cambridge, Speaker
11 for State and Politics of MA
Local. Transportation:
Government The View from
Harvard Kennedy Washington
School
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/1/ The White House White House Boston, MA Speaker
11 Business Council Roundtable:
Winning the
Future with
Boston
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/4/ The White House White House Washington, Speaker
11 Business Council Roundtable: DC
and Business Forum on Jobs
Forward and Economic
Competitiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/16/ Multnomah County TIGER III Portland, OR Speaker
11 Groundbreaking
Ceremony--Sellwo
od Bridge
Replacement
Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/12/ White House National Washington, Speaker
12 Office of Association of DC
Intergovernmenta Counties
l Affairs Transportation
Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/24/ American Public Transportation as Washington, Speaker
12 Transportation a Foundation for DC
Association Economic Health:
Job Creation and
Transportation
Finance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/24/ The American AASHTO Washington, Opening
12 Association of Congressional DC Speaker
State Highway Forum: The
and Transportation
Transportation Funding Issues
Officials and
Reauthorization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/29/ The American AASHTO Washington Washington, Speaker
12 Association of Briefing: DC
State Highway Updates for
and Congressional
Transportation High Speed and
Officials Intercity
Passenger Rail
Caucus Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/8/12 The American Grassroots Washington, Keynote
Institute of Leadership and DC
Architects Legislative
Conference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/9/12 City of Irving, 5th Annual Washington, Speaker
TX Transportation DC
and
Infrastructure
Convention
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/15/ Institute for Sustainable Washington, Panelist
12 Transportation Mobility on the DC
and Development Road to the Rio+
Policy 20 United
Nations
Conference on
Sustainable
Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/24/ U.S. DOT, U.S. National Washington, Speaker
12 DOL and U.S. ED Transportation DC
Workforce Summit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/25/ Atlanta Regional Board of Atlanta, GA Speaker
12 Commission Directors
Meeting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/26/ The White Office White House Atlanta, GA Speaker
12 of Public Roundtable
Engagement, U.S.
DOT, and WTS
Atlanta
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/10/ WTS International Annual Denver, CO Keynote
12 Conference: 2012 Speaker
WTS Awards
Banquet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/11/ Northeast 2012 NASTO Baltimore, Panelist
12 Association of Conference MD
Transportation ``Regional
Officials Issues and
(NASTO) Regional
Cooperation''
Perspectives on
Federal Rail
Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/26/ National Academy 2nd Bi-Annual MTS Washington, Keynote
12 of Sciences/TRB Research & DC Speaker
Development
Conference:
Diagnosing the
Marine
Transportation
System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/28/ Urban Land Official Release Washington, Keynote
12 Institute of DC Speaker
``Infrastructure
2012: Spotlight
on Leadership''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Resume of Polly E. Trottenberg
Professional Experience
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.--July 2009-Present
Acting Under Secretary for Policy and Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy
Appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the Department
of Transportation's Policy Office. Responsible for developing
and implementing key initiatives for Secretary LaHood and the
Obama Administration on transportation policy, funding and
financing, high-speed rail, and the $2.5 billion TIGER
discretionary grant program. Manages and provides strategic
direction to key policy and research offices within the 59,000-
person Department including transportation finance, innovation,
safety, economic analysis, and the environment.
Led the effort to write the Administration's $556 billion
surface transportation reauthorization bill that was sent to
Congress. The bill included major policy reforms, including a
focus on better integrating transportation, housing,
environment and economic development, program consolidation,
innovative finance and using competition, transparency and
economic analysis to improve the performance of the U.S.
transportation system.
Member of the U.S. DOT Cabinet, Credit Council, Safety
Council, Research Council, lead author of the USDOT Strategic
Plan. Extensive experience with Federal budget and
appropriations process, Federal personnel, procurement and
contracting procedures. Has given numerous speeches, media
appearances and testified before the U.S. Congress on a variety
of transportation issues. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Top
Security Clearance.
Building America's Future, Washington, D.C.--Aug. 2008-July 2009
Executive Director
Managed a new bipartisan non-profit organization, Building
America's Future (BAF), created to advocate for increased
investment in infrastructure and major transportation policy
reform. BAF is chaired by Governor Edward G. Rendell, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and has a
membership of elected officials from across the U.S.
Responsible for organization's start up operations,
including representing the organization publicly and in the
press, fundraising, hiring, policy development, advocacy,
coalition-building and media strategy.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Washington, DC--Jan. 2006-July 2008
Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director
Chief policy advisor to Senator Boxer, responsible for
developing comprehensive legislative agenda, media and
political strategy, with focus on the Environment and Public
Works and Commerce Committees. Areas of expertise include
transportation, environment, appropriations, and economic
development.
Extensive experience on transportation legislation,
including FAA Reauthorization, Airline Passenger Bill of
Rights, Amtrak reauthorization, developed legislation to
address Coast Guard and oil spill issues in the wake of the
Cosco Busan accident in San Francisco Bay.
Twelve years legislative experience in the U.S. Senate,
specializing in bipartisan coalition-building to achieve
successful legislative outcomes. Extensive management and
leadership experience, responsible for the hiring, training,
and supervision of legislative staff.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Washington, D.C.--Jan. 1999-Dec. 2005
Legislative Director
Chief policy advisor to Senator Schumer, responsible for
developing comprehensive legislative agenda, media and
political strategy, with focus on the Banking, Housing and
Urban Affairs, Energy, Judiciary, and Finance Committees, with
focus on transportation. Assisted in the creation and
organization of all aspects of a new Senate office.
Extensive experience on transportation legislation and
policy, including SAFETEA-LU with a focus on mass transit
funding and policy, Amtrak, port and aviation issues, including
helping to bring new airline service to Upstate New York, and
transportation appropriations.
Led the development of New York's bipartisan post-September
11 legislative agenda, working closely with the Bush
Administration, including securing $21 billion in
appropriations, crafting a $5 billion business recovery tax
package and a $4.5 billion transportation infrastructure plan
for Lower Manhattan.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Washington, D.C.--Oct. 1996-Dec. 1998
Legislative Assistant for Transportation, Public Works, and Environment
Lead advisor to Senator Moynihan on the Environment and
Public Works Committee. Responsible for developing policy and
political strategy on transportation, public works, and
environmental issues. Areas of expertise included TEA-21,
Amtrak, mass transit, aviation, water resources, public
buildings, and transportation appropriations.
Developed political strategy for Northeast and urban states
to maintain environmentally sustainable highway and mass
transit programs during authorization of TEA-21. Won passage of
initiative to encourage employers to offer mass transit
benefits to employees.
Port Authority of NY & NJ, New York, NY--Oct. 1994-Sept. 1996
Senior Executive Assistant to the Director of Aviation, Gerald P.
Fitzgerald
Directed the Port Authority Board approvals process for the
Aviation Department, which operates the region's three major
airports--Kennedy, Newark, and LaGuardia. Supervised a staff of
seven who provided administrative and policy support for 1,800-
person department.
Executive Assistant to the Executive Director, Stanley Brezenoff
Provided administrative and policy analysis support to the
Executive Director in key areas, including negotiation of New
York City Airport Lease, the AirTrain Project and Port
dredging.
Massachusetts State Senate, Boston, MA--June 1992-Sept. 1994
Policy Analyst, Joint Committee on Commerce and Labor, State Senator
Lois Pines, Chair
Developed legislative initiatives for the Committee on labor
and business issues, including economic and industrial
development, defense conversion, welfare reform, job training,
unemployment insurance, consumer protection, foreign trade, and
tourism.
Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston, MA--Summer 1991
Research Associate, Department of Administration and Finance
Conducted financial analysis projects, including the
development and design of a new rate methodology and fee
structure for Logan Airport's International Terminal and
determined its financial implications for airline carriers and
Massport.
Education
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA
Master of Public Policy, June 1992.
Editor-in-Chief, Kennedy School Beacon, 1991-1992. Reporter,
1990-1991.
Columbia University, Barnard College, New York, NY
B.A. magna cum laude, in History, May 1986.
Elected to Phi Beta Kappa, April 1986.
Other Activities
Ex Officio Member and Chair (2009-2010) of the U.S. Access
Board.
First Vice Chair, Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and
Operations Advisory Commission:
Ex Officio, Member, Transportation Research Board Executive
Committee.
Member, Women's Transportation Seminar.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Ms. Trottenberg.
Dr. Doms.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK E. DOMS, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Doms. First, I'd like to say hello and thank you to my
friends and family, both here and watching online. I wouldn't
be here without their love and support.
Senator Kerry, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished
members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today as the nominee for Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce. It is an honor
to be nominated by President Obama, and, if confirmed, I look
forward to working with Acting Secretary Blank, other Commerce
leaders, and the commerce, and especially this committee, in
the years to come.
The Under Secretary position, which is housed in the
Economics and Statistics Administration, has two key functions.
The first is the management and oversight of two of the top
statistical agencies in the United States--the Census Bureau
and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The second part of the job
is to provide high-quality economic analysis to the Department,
administration, Congress, and the public.
The management and oversight responsibilities for the
Census Bureau and BEA are vitally important. As you know, the
Census Bureau is responsible for conducting the decennial
Census, the largest peacetime operation of the Federal
Government. In fact, the Census Bureau is well underway in
planning for the 2020 Census, which we hope to be the best-
managed, ever.
In addition, the Census Bureau does a vast amount of data
collection that gives businesses and Federal, State, local, and
tribal governments the vital statistics needed to manage and
grow the economy. BEA provides other economic data, such as
gross domestic product, personal income and outlays, and trade
in services.
If confirmed as Under Secretary, I will work with these
agencies to continue to provide the American people greater and
easier access to the best, most accurate information about our
economy and our communities.
The second part of the Under Secretary's job is to serve as
the economic advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, providing
indepth economic analysis on current issues. In fact, the
economic team at ESA, of which I am a part, worked closely with
others to draft the COMPETES report that was delivered earlier
this year to this committee. This report summarized the
competitiveness and innovative capacity of the United States,
and highlighted policies to strengthen our economy, especially
for the middle class. ESA also produced reports on women-owned
businesses, IP-intensive industries, and broadband adoption, to
name just a few. If confirmed as Under Secretary, I will
continue to ensure that the Department, the American people,
the administration, and the Congress have access to cutting-
edge economic analysis.
The main responsibilities for the Under Secretary closely
align with my past professional experiences. I pursued my Ph.D.
in economics as a result of my desire to bridge the gap between
data analysis and policy development. I began my professional
work in economics at the Census Bureau, observing firsthand the
challenges in collecting and using data. After leaving the
Census Bureau, I spent the bulk of my career working in the
Federal Reserve system. During that time, I observed how data
collected by our statistical agencies helps guide how we
understand the macro economy.
My most rewarding experience, however, has been serving as
the Department of Commerce's chief economist for the past 3
years, a position that reports directly to the Under Secretary.
In addition to my analytical work, I've had the opportunity to
become intimately familiar with major issues facing our agency.
These issues include: budgeting and management in a time of
fiscal restraint; data collection for a growing, increasingly
mobile population; and risk management.
Finally, in my capacity as chief economist, I've had the
great pleasure of meeting regularly with business leaders from
all parts of the country. It is one thing to observe data
trends, it is another to talk to business leaders to understand
the decisions that are the basis for those trends. These
meetings have been exceedingly rewarding, but I believe their
highest value has been in providing business leaders with a
forum where their concerns are heard by administration
officials.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I
have enjoyed working with this committee, and appreciate
meeting with members and staff about my nomination, and
learning more about your work and priorities. If my nomination
is approved by this committee and confirmed by the full Senate,
I look forward to working with you and your staff members on
all items of shared interest and concern.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Dr.
Doms follow:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mark E. Doms, Nominee for Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs, U.S. Department of Commerce
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished
members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today as the nominee for the position of Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce. It is an honor to be
nominated for Under Secretary by President Obama, and if confirmed I
look forward to working with Acting Secretary Blank and others in
leadership at the Department of Commerce. I also look forward to
working with Congress, and especially this committee, in the years to
come. I believe the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs to be a vital
agency job, and I am grateful for the privilege of being considered for
this position.
The Under Secretary job, which is housed in the Economics and
Statistics Administration (ESA), has two key functions. The first is
management and oversight of two of the top statistical agencies in the
United States, the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA). The second part of the job is to provide high-quality economic
analysis to the Department, Administration, and the public.
The management and oversight responsibilities for the Census Bureau
and BEA are vitally important. As you know, the Census Bureau is
responsible for conducting the decennial census, the largest peacetime
operation of the Federal Government. In fact, although it may seem
early to do so, the Census Bureau is well underway in planning the 2020
Census, which we hope to be the best managed, most efficient and cost
effective census ever. What may be a surprise to some, the Census
Bureau also does an Economic Census of businesses in the US, which is
currently underway. In addition, the Census Bureau does a vast amount
of data collection that gives us vital statistics that are used by
businesses, federal, state, local and tribal governments to manage and
grow the economy. BEA provides other economic data, such as Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), personal income and outlays, and trade in goods
and services.
If confirmed as Under Secretary, I will work with these agencies to
continue to provide the American people greater and easier access to
the best, most accurate information about our economy and our
communities.
The second part of the Under Secretary's job is to serve as the key
economic advisor to the Secretary of Commerce, providing in-depth
economic analysis on current issues. In fact, the economics team in
ESA, of which I am a part of, worked closely with others to draft the
COMPETES report that was delivered earlier this year to this committee.
The COMPETES report is comprehensive report on the competitiveness and
innovative capacity of the United States and highlights bipartisan
priorities to sustain and promote American innovation and economic
competitiveness.
ESA also produced reports on the middle class, women-owned
businesses in the 21st century, IP-intensive industries and broadband
adoption. What ESA does informs the Secretary on a daily basis, but
also provides a data-driven perspective on economic issues relevant in
the department's economic recovery efforts. If confirmed as Under
Secretary, I will continue to ensure that the Department, the American
people, the Administration, and the Congress have access to cutting-
edge economic analysis.
The main responsibilities for the Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs closely align with my past professional experiences. I pursued
my Ph.D. in economics as a result of my desire to bridge the gap
between data analysis and policy development. My research has mainly
focused on how forces, especially technological change, affect our
economy, most notably in the areas of productivity growth and wages.
I began my professional work in economics at the Census Bureau,
learning the intricacies of data, observing first-hand the challenges
in collecting and subsequently using data. After leaving the Census
Bureau, I spent the bulk of my career working in the Federal Reserve
System. During that time I observed first-hand how the data collected
by our statistical agencies guides how we understand the macro economy.
While at the Federal Reserve, I interacted frequently with the staffs
of Census and BEA. Also while at the Federal Reserve, I learned how to
produce a primary economic indicator, the index of industrial
production, which measures the output of our Nation's factories,
utilities, and mines.
My most rewarding professional experience has been serving as the
Department of Commerce's Chief Economist, a position that reports
directly to the Under Secretary of Economic Affairs. In addition to my
analytical work, I have had the opportunity to become intimately
familiar with major issues facing our agency and bureaus. These issues
include budgeting and management in a time of fiscal restraint; data
collection for a growing, increasingly mobile population; and
communicating to the public the commitment we have to data security,
cost control, and risk management. I believe this experience has
improved my effectiveness as a manager and strategic thinker, and will
serve the Secretary, the Administration, the Congress and the public
well.
Finally, in my capacity as Chief Economist, I have had the great
pleasure of meeting regularly with business leaders from all parts of
the country. It is one thing to observe data trends, it is another to
talk to business leaders to understand the decisions that are the basis
for those trends. These meetings have been an exceedingly rewarding
experience for me, but I believe their true value has been in providing
business leaders with a forum where their concerns are heard and
responded to by Administration officials.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I have
enjoyed working with this committee and appreciate meeting with members
and staff about my nomination and learning more about your work and
priorities. If my nomination is approved by this Committee and
confirmed by the full Senate, I look forward to working with you and
your staff members on all items of shared interest and concern. Thank
you.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Mark Edward
Doms.
2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs, Department of Commerce.
3. Date of Nomination: September 13, 2012.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released tothe public.
Office: U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave, NW,
HCHB Room 4852, Washington, D.C. 20230.
5. Date and Place of Birth: January 21, 1963; Petersburg, Virginia.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Not married.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
1992: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ph.D. in economics.
Major fields: econometrics and industrial organization.
1986: University of Maryland Baltimore County, B.A. in
mathematics and economics (Economics Alumnus of the Year,
2010).
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated,
Chief Economist, Department of Commerce, August 2009 to present
Senior Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2003-
2009
Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
1996-2002
Economist, Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris, 1995-1996
Economist, Center for Economic Studies, Department of Commerce,
19921995
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years: None.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years: None.
12.Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
None of the organizations listed below restrict membership on the
basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Association of 2006-2008, 2010 Member
Business Economist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparative Analysis of 2008-2009 Executive Director
Enterprise Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Economic 1998-2004 Member
Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Club (tutoring 1999-2000, 2012 Member
organization)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt. No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
$500, Obama for America, 7/7/2011
$250, Obama for America, 8/5/2012
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements. None.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
See attached resume for publications. Relevant speeches:
A. 2012 NABE Industry Conference: Making it in America:
Manufacturing Matters, May 30-31, 2012, Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, Cleveland, OH.
B. GlobalWlN STEM Education Panel, May 24, 2012, 122 Cannon
House Office Building.
C. The Coalition of Service Industries &The Georgetown Center
for Business and Public Policy, 101 Constitution Avenue, NW,
May 3, 2012, Digital Delivery of Cross-Border Trade in
Services: The Threats, The Remedies.
D. Manufacturing Innovation 2012, Orlando, FL, May 7, 2012,
National Manufacturing Strategy Session.
E. The NAM Economic Forum, Wednesday, October 19, 2011,
Mandarin Oriental Hotel, 1330 Maryland Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C.
F. Jobs, Inequality, and the Public Sector: Improving the
Economic Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the U.S.,
October 11, 2011, Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
G. The Manufacturing Economy: Proximity and Performance, May 6,
2011, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH.
H. The Middle East Program, Program on America and the Global
Economy, and United States Studies of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, Women and Entrepreneurship:
Perspectives from the Middle East and the United States, March
29, 2011.
I. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Georgetown
Climate Center, State and Federal Climate and Energy Policy:
Where do we go from here?, February 24, 2011.
J. 2nd Annual Conference on Microdata Access--``Responsible
Data Sharing in the 21st Century'', February 10, 2011, National
Press Club, 529 14th Street Northwest, Washington D.C. 20045.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony. None.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
For over the past 3 years, I have served as Chief Economist of the
Department of Commerce, a position that reports directly to the Under
Secretary of Economic Affairs. While in this position, I have worked
directly on, and have become intimately familiar with, all major issues
facing the Economics and Statistics Administration. These issues
include budgeting challenges, data collection, communication, cost
control, and risk management. Further, in my role as Chief Economist, I
demonstrated how the data produced by BEA and Census can be used to
inform a wide range of policy discussions, as evidenced by the numerous
reports that flowed from ESA during my tenure.
In my previous occupations (mainly with the Federal Reserve
System), I was a significant user of the data products produced by
Census and ESA, and contributed to the theories and methods of
producing data products.
The primary reasons I wish to be confirmed as Under Secretary for
Economic Affairs are first to serve my country in a constructive way
and, second, to help provide vital information to our society (through
ESA/BEA/Census) in a cost-effective way.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
Ensuring proper management and accounting controls over ESA/BEA/
Census are two of the primary responsibilities of the Under Secretary
for Economic Affairs. It is of primary importance to make sure that our
tax dollars are spent wisely.
As stated above, I have developed experience managing large
organizations over the past 2-1/2 years, especially as the previous
Under Secretary (Rebecca Blank) held various other roles in the
department. I have regularly participated in and contributed to all
significant discussions surrounding Census and BEA.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
The first challenge is to lower the per-household costs of the
2020 Census. As the decennial Census is the single largest non-
defense activity of the U.S. government, it is essential to
conduct the research and get the systems in place to stop the
per-household cost increases of previous decades.
The second challenge is to better communicate with the public
the value of government collected data.
The third challenge is to ensure that our tax dollars are
wisely spent.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1, Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
I have a 401(k) and a pension starting at age 65 with the Federal
Reserve (the pension is based on my previous years of service).
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain. None.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Commerce's
designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of
interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered
into with department's designated agency ethics official.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Commerce's
designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of
interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered
into with department's designated agency ethics official.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy. None.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Commerce's
designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of
interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered
into with department's designated agency ethics official.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain. No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination.
No other relevant information.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so?, Yes.
______
Curriculum Vitae of Mark Edward Doms
Education
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992.
B.A. in Mathematics and Economics, University of Maryland Baltimore
County, 1986.
Employment
U.S. Department of Commerce, Chief Economist--August 2009 to present
Key advisor to the Secretary of Commerce on economic issues and
development. Directs a staff of economists and policy analysts who
produce a wide variety of reports and forecasts focused on current
economic conditions and trends.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Senior Economist--San Francisco
2003-2009
Advised the Bank President and boards of directors on current economic
issues. Conducted research in the areas of consumer spending, housing,
productivity, and innovation.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Economist--
Washington, D.C. 1996-2002
Prepared projections on the economy for the Board of Governor's
Greenbook forecast, monitored economic conditions, and conducted
longer-term economic research.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economist--Paris
1995-1996
Directed an international study on the relationship between
technological change, productivity, and labor demand; encouraged
international coordination in using government microdata in research
and policy analysis.
Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economist--
Washington, D.C. 1992-1995
Conducted longer-term research on productivity growth, technology,
worker skills, and wages.
Publications--Peer Reviewed Journals
``Endogenous Skill Bias in Technology Adoption: City-Level
Evidence from the IT Revolution,'' with Paul Beaudry and Ethan
Lewis, The Journal of Political Economy, December 2010.
``Local Labor Market Endowments, New Business Characteristics,
and Performance,'' with Alicia Robb and Ethan Lewis. Journal of
Urban Economics, 67(1), January 2010, pages 61-77.
``Constructing Price and Quantity Indexes for High-Technology
Goods'', SSHRC International Conference on Index Number Theory
and the Measurement of Prices and Productivity, A. Nakamura, B.
Balk, and E. Diewert eds. (with Ana Aizcorbe and Carol
Corrado), 2006.
``Communications Equipment: What Has Happened to Prices?,''
NBER/CRIW, Measuring Capital in the New Economy, University of
Chicago Press, 2005.
``Prices for Local Area Network Equipment'', with Christopher
Forman, Information Economics and Policy, 17(3), July 2005,
pages 365-388.
``How Fast Do Personal Computers Depreciate? Concepts and New
Estimates,'' in Tax Policy and the Economy, NBER, Volume 18,
James Poterba ed., MIT Press (with Wendy Dunn, Stephen Oliner,
and Daniel Sichel).
``IT Investment and Firm Performance in U.S. Retail Trade,''
with Ron Jarmin and Shawn Klimek, Economics of Innovation and
New Technology, October 2004, 13(7), pages 595-614.
``Understanding Productivity: Lessons from Longitudinal
Microdata'', with Eric Bartelsman, Journal of Economic
Literature, September 2000, 38(3), pages 569-94.
``Capital Adjustment Patterns in Manufacturing Plants'', with
Timothy Dunne, Review of Economic Dynamics, April 1998, 1(2),
pages 409-429.
``Comparing Wages, Skills, and Productivity between
Domestically and Foreign-Owned Manufacturing Establishments in
the United States'', with J. Bradford Jensen, in Geography and
Ownership as Bases for Economic Accounting, 1998, pages 235-55,
NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, vol. 59. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
``Workers, Wages, and Technology'', with Timothy Dunne and
Kenneth Troske, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1997,
112(1), pages 253-90.
``The Effect of Technology Use on Productivity Growth'', with
Robert McGuckin and Mary Streitwieser, Economics of Innovation
and New Technology, 1998, 7(1), pages 1-26.
``Estimating Capital Efficiency Schedules within Production
Functions'', Economic Inquiry, January 1996, v. 34, iss. 1, pp.
78-92.
``The Role of Technology Use in the Survival and Growth of
Manufacturing Plants'', with Timothy Dunne and Mark Roberts,
International Journal of Industrial Organization, December
1995, 13(4), pages 523-42. (Also reprinted in Innovation,
Evolution of Industry and Economic Growth, Audretsch and
Klepperer (eds), The International Library of Critical Writings
in Economics, Series Editor: Mark Blaug, 2000.)
``Energy Intensity, Electricity Consumption, and Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Usage'', with Timothy Dunne,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, October, 1995.
Publications--Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letters
``The Outlook for Productivity Growth: Symposium Summary,''
March, 2009.
``Summer Reading: New Research in Applied Microeconomics
Conference Summary,'' September, 2008.
``The Narrowing of the Male-Female Wage Gap,'' with Ethan
Lewis, June, 2007.
``House Prices and Subprime Mortgage Delinquencies,'' with Fred
Furlong and John Krainer, June, 2007.
``Financial Innovations and the Real Economy: Conference
Summary,'' with John Fernald and Jose A. Lopez, March, 2007.
``The Rise in Homeownership,'' with Meryl Motika, November,
2006.
``Property Debt Burdens,'' with Meryl Motika, July, 2006. ``The
Diffusion of Personal Computers across the U.S.,'' December,
2005.
``IT Investment: Will the Glory Days Ever Return?,'' June,
2005.
``Productivity Growth and the Retail Sector,'' December, 2004.
``Consumer Sentiment and the Media,'' October, 2004.
``The Bay Area Economy: Down but Not Out,'' with Mary Daly,
November, 2003.
Publications--Other Works
``Regional Growth and Resilience: Evidence from Urban IT
Centers,'' with Jeremy Gerst and Mary Daly in Federal Reserve
Bank of San Francisco's Economic Review, 2009.
Review of, ``Technology, Growth, and the Labor Market,'' D.
Ginther and M. Zavodny eds., Journal of Economic Literature.
``The Boom and Bust in Information Technology Investment,''
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco's Economic Review, 2004,
pages 19-34.
``Productivity, Skill, and Wage Effects of Multinational
Corporations in the United States'', with J. Bradford Jensen,
in Foreign Ownership and the Consequences of Direct Investment
in the United States: Beyond Us and Them, Nigh Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
``Labor Supply and Personal Computer Adoption,'' with Ethan
Lewis, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper
2006-18.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Dr. Doms.
Ms. Clyburn.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIGNON L. CLYBURN, NOMINEE TO BE A
COMMISSIONER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION (REAPPOINTMENT)
Ms. Clyburn. Senator Kerry, Ranking Member Hutchison, and
distinguished members of the Committee, good afternoon and
thank you for the incredible privilege afforded me through
today's exchange.
I, too, would like to acknowledge my family and friends
here today, including my father, Congressman James Clyburn.
I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that my full
statement be included in the record.
Senator Kerry. Without objection, it will be.
Ms. Clyburn. It is hard to believe that more than 3 years
have passed between my initial appearance before this committee
and now. During that time, the FCC has undertaken some of the
most significant policy issues in its history, and I believe
the American public is better off as a result.
While it is true that the Commission has been diligent in
promoting deployment and adoption of communications services
since 2009, it could very well pale in comparison to what the
agency must do in order to adapt to the changing consumer
trends, technological advances, and innovations that are sure
to continue.
Case in point: When I first sat before you, in 2009,
believe it or not, tablet devices had not even been introduced
to the U.S. consumer. Today, 22 percent of American adults own
such a device, and that is up from only 11 percent last year.
With the communications industry evolving at such a rapid
pace, I firmly believe that, no matter what become--comes
before the Commission in the months and years ahead, we must
ensure that the agency stays true to those core basic
principles laid out in the Communications Act: consumer
protection, effective competition, and public safety. We run a
process, at the Federal Communications Commission, which allows
for numerous opportunities for public comment from initial
notice to final order. The FCC seeks, welcomes, and considers
ideas and critiques from individuals and large entities, alike.
Such input is essential, and it offers everyone, from the
average American to the most connected CEO, a seat at the
table. This openness is paramount to our mission.
One-sixth of the American economy can be directly linked to
industries the FCC regulates. Our policies have been devoted to
promoting broadband deployment and adoption while modifying
current policies and implementing new ones.
And I am proud that almost all of this work has been done
on a bipartisan basis.
The FCC is able to be heard outside of Washington, D.C.,
because funding from Congress allows us to better serve our
citizens. I am grateful to all of you for that. I have had the
opportunity to participate with some of you in townhalls and
other meetings in your respective states. Those exchanges give
us a sense of how our policies are being received outside of
the Beltway.
I am also proud of the work that we have done for citizens
who so often struggle for access to services and adequate
devices. In 2010, Congress wisely provided the Commission with
an incredible tool--the 21st Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act--and we have worked diligently to enact its
provisions. In February, Congress passed another historic piece
of legislation, enacting the spectrum management and public
safety provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012. We plan to faithfully comply with both
the language and the spirit of that statute.
In addition, I believe that our Universal Service reforms
focuses on consumers. We are ensuring that more Americans have
access to both voice and broadband service than under the
previous regime. And consistent with the goals of the Act, we
are working hard to eliminate the rural urban and rural
divides. Further, we recognized the importance of both fixed
and mobile broadband by allocating funding for both types of
services in high-cost areas.
When Congress created the FCC in 1934, it made one of the
Commission's fundamental obligations to ensure the promotion of
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communications. The devastation and service outages caused by
Derecho and Superstorm Sandy show that this obligation remains
as vital today as it did nearly 80 years ago. We may not be
able to prevent natural disasters, but we can, and must,
improve our nation's ability to respond in such crises.
It has been a privilege to serve as a Federal
Communications Commissioner for the past 3 and one-half years.
I am honored to appear before you today, and look forward to
any questions you may have.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Ms.
Clyburn follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn, Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, and distinguished members
of the Committee, good afternoon and thank you for the incredible
privilege afforded to me through today's exchange. It is hard to
believe that more than three years have passed between my initial
appearance and now.
In that time, the FCC has undertaken some of the most significant
policy issues in its history, and I believe the American public is
better off as a result. While it is true that the Commission has been
diligent promoting deployment and adoption of communications services
since 2009, it could very well pale in comparison to what the agency
must do in order to adapt to the changing consumer trends and the
technological advances and innovations sure to continue. Case in point:
When I first sat before you in 2009, believe it or not, tablet devices
had not even been introduced to the U.S. consumer. And now, according
to the most recent data for this year, 22 percent of American adults
own such a device. That amount has doubled from 11 percent in 2011.
Today, more people are relying on mobile broadband than ever before.
With the communications industry evolving at such a rapid pace, I
firmly believe that no matter what comes before the Commission in the
months and years ahead, we must ensure that the agency stays true to
those basic, core principles laid out in the Communications Act:
Consumer protection, effective competition, and public safety.
We run a process at the Federal Communications Commission that
allows for numerous opportunities for public comment. This is designed
to ensure that we never lose sight of our core tenets. From initial
Notice to final Order, the FCC seeks, welcomes, and considers ideas and
critiques from individuals and large entities alike. Such input is
essential and offers the average American and the most connected CEO a
seat at the table. Our framework affords everyone an opportunity to
participate in our deliberations and ensures that attorneys,
specialists, and well-heeled consultants are not the only ones who have
access to our regulatory process. This openness is paramount to our
mission.
I have enjoyed being a part of this engagement, as it has allowed
me to hear and absorb first-hand how the votes I cast and decisions I
make can help or potentially hurt, the communications landscape of
America. My door is open to all, and while at times that can lead to an
overwhelming calendar, the meetings I have with outside parties are the
most rewarding and intellectually-stimulating aspects of my current
role. At one moment I may hear from disabled advocates requesting
parity when it comes to accessibility concerns, and the next engage in
discussions on new types of medical services, such as Medical Body Area
Networks, which may improve treatment for seriously ill patients.
One-sixth of the American economy can be directly linked to the
industries the FCC regulates, and through smart communications
policies, we play a large part in stimulating investment, promoting
innovation, and encouraging job creation. For example, we have provided
significant Commission resources promoting broadband deployment and
adoption by modifying current policies and implementing new ones. And I
am proud that almost all of this work has been done on a bipartisan
basis. I am also thankful for the Commission's dedicated public
servants, whose hard work and sage advice enable us to achieve the best
results for the American people.
The FCC is able to be heard here and outside of Washington because
funding from Congress allows us to better serve our citizens. I am
grateful to all of you for that. I have had the opportunity to
participate with some of you in town halls and other meetings in your
respective states. Those exchanges not only give us a sense of how our
policies are being received outside of the beltway, but they help to
put a public face on an agency that at times, receives more criticism
than praise, in large part, because there are too few opportunities for
public interaction. I wish this were not so, as in recent years the FCC
has done much to improve communication opportunities for many,
including those with disabilities.
I am extremely proud of the work that we have done for citizens who
so often struggle for equitable access to services and adequate
devices. In 2010, Congress wisely provided the Commission with an
incredible, bipartisan tool: The 21st Communications and Video
Accessibility Act--and we have worked quickly to enact its provisions.
For example, the Commission is implementing rules that require certain
video programming devices to be capable of displaying closed
captioning. We have also promulgated new rules regarding captioning and
full-length video programming, deeming that when a captioned TV program
is re-shown on the Internet in segments, it must be captioned if
substantial portions of the entire program are shown in those segments.
This is a prime example of streamlined, efficient, and bipartisan
support and good faith dealing between the Commission and industry,
resulting in consumer benefits that were long overdue and greatly
needed.
In February of this year, Congress passed another historic piece of
legislation by enacting the spectrum management and public safety
provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
We plan to comply faithfully with both the language and spirit of that
statute.
In the Chairman's strategic plan, one of the outlined goals states
that a competitive framework for communication services should foster
innovation while offering consumers reliable and meaningful choice in
affordable services. We have sought to promote such competition through
our efforts on interoperability in the lower 700 MHz band, the TV White
Spaces proceeding, amending Wireless Communications Service rules to
provide 30 megahertz of spectrum for mobile broadband service, enabling
greater use of microwave licenses for wireless backhaul in rural areas,
and the data roaming rules. And I am proud to say that the American
communications ecosystem is better for it.
In addition, I believe that our reforms on universal service center
on consumers--ensuring that more Americans have access to both
telephone and broadband service than under our previous system. And
consistent with the goals of the Act, we are working hard to ensure
that there is no rural/urban divide and that we do not favor one
technology over another, by recognizing the importance of both fixed
and mobile broadband and allocating funding for both types of services
in high-cost areas.
When Congress created the FCC in 1934, it made one of the
Commission's foundational obligations ``the promotion of safety of life
and property through the use of wire and radio communications.'' The
devastation and service outages caused by Derecho and Super Storm Sandy
show that obligation remains as vital today as it did almost eighty
years ago. We may not be able to prevent natural disasters, but we can
and must improve our Nation's ability to respond in such crises. It is
essential, particularly in times of major emergencies such as during
and after a natural disaster, that communications networks keep us
connected to each other and to the emergency help that we may need. I
want to recognize the dedicated FCC Commissioners and staff who worked
hard during and after the storm, to assist providers and consumers in
getting our communication networks back up and running.
It has been a privilege to serve as a Federal Communications
Commissioner for the past three and one half years. I am honored to
appear before you today for further consideration and look forward to
any questions you may have. Thank you.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Mignon
Letitia Clyburn (Ming).
2. Position to which nominated: Commissioner, Federal
Communications Commission.
3. Date of Nomination: June 25, 2009.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
5. Date and Place of Birth: March 22, 1962; Charleston, South
Carolina.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Not applicable
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
Bachelor of Science, Banking and Finance, and Economics
University of South Carolina, August 1980-May 1984
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, July 2009 to
present.
Commissioner, South Carolina Public Service Commission, July
1998-July 2009 (Chair, 2002-2004).
General Manager, Editor, The Coastal Times Newspaper, May 1984-
June 1998.
Producer, The Coastal Times Today, public affairs program, UPN,
1991-1992.
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
South Carolina Advisory Committee, U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, (1999-2009), Served as chair when it was reconstituted.
South Carolina Energy Advisory Council (2001-2009).
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years.
The Palmetto Project, Secretary/Treasurer, Trustee, 2004-2009.
Trident Technical College Foundation, Board Member, Executive
Committee Member, 2001-2009.
Columbia College Board of Visitors, 2007-2009 SC Cancer Center
Board, 2007-2009.
Indigo Holding Company, Real Estate, President, 2001-2009.
YWCA of Greater Charleston, Board Member and President 2006-
2008.
Reid House of Christian Service, Board Member, 2001-2008.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
Reid House of Christian Service, 2001-2008.
YWCA of Greater Charleston (all women at the time), 2005-2009,
President.
Charleston Chapter of the Links, Incorporated (all women) 1999
to present.
Edventure Children's Museum, Executive Board, 1999-2005 Morris
Brown AME Church, Member, 1968 to present.
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC), 1998-2009: Audit Committee, Washington Action
Committee (Chair, two years), Utility Market Access Partnership
Committee (UMAP), Electricity Committee, Energy, Resources and
the Environment Committee.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt.
I was elected four times to serve on The Public Service Commission
of South Carolina (1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006). No debts are
outstanding. My full term of service was from July 1998 until July
2009.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $5OO or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
Friends of James E. Clyburn, $1,000, 2006; $250, 2012
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
National Council of Negro Women Scholarship (Columbia, SC).
Graduate of the South Carolina Executive Institute.
James Bonbright Award, Terry College of Business.
Lincoln C. Jenkins Award, Columbia, SC Urban League.
Community Broadband Hero Award, National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.
National Hispanic Media Coalition, Impact Award.
Women in Cable Telecommunications, Public Policy Award.
National Organization of Black Elected Officials (Women),
National Shining Star Award.
Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, Legacy Award for
Leadership.
West Ashley Democrats Marjorie Amos Frazier, Pacesetter Award.
Consumer Electronics Association, Digital Patriots Award.
College of Charleston, Distinguished Communicator Award.
Charleston, SC Branch, NAACP, Trailblazer Award.
Alliance for Women in Media, 60 at 60.
Community Service/Business Awards from: Omega Psi Phi and Phi
Beta Sigma Fraternities, Delta Sigma Theta and Sigma Gamma Rho
Sororities, Arabian Temple and Court, National Council of Negro
Women, United Negro College Fund, Moja Arts Festival, and Mt.
Zion and Morris Brown AME Churches.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
February 15, 2012, Technology Support for Small Businesses, E
Business NOW, Washington, D.C.
November 8, 2011, Transition of Universal Service from Phone to
Broadband, Massachusetts Broadband Conference, Boston,
Massachusetts.
April 14, 2011, Women in Public Safety Communications, The
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials
International Orlando, FL.
September 14, 2010, 24th Annual NAMIC Conference, 3D:
Diversity, Digital, Demographics, New York, NY.
June 14, 2010 Wireless Spectrum Needs: What is the Best Way to
Serve All of the American People? Rainbow PUSH Coalition 39th
Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.
March 9, 2010, A National Digital Literacy Corps to Meet the
Adoption Challenge, Digital Inclusion Summit, Washington, D.C.
September 21, 2009, Broadband Adoption: Traveling the
Consumer's Last Mile,'' The Joint Center for Political and
Economic Studies Washington, D.C.
November 23, 2008, Transformative Power of Broadband: Key
Issues During Challenging Times, National Foundation of Women
Legislators, Sarasota, FL.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
February 16, 2011, Appeared before the Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, United States House of Representatives.
June 24, 2010, Appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee on
``Universal Service: Transforming the High-Cost Fund for the
Broadband Era''.
March 25, 2010, Appeared before the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Communications, Technology and the Internet, ``Oversight of
the Federal Communications Commission: The National Broadband
Plan''
September 17, 2009, Appeared before the United States House of
Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee
on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, Hearing on
``Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission''.
July 15, 2009, Confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce
Committee.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
During my 11 years as a State Commissioner, my daily interactions
with investor-owned utilities and the consumers they serve reinforced
two main principles which guide the manner in which I approach
government service.
That ``on the ground perspective'' of how key decisions directly
impact people and enterprises at the state and local levels, made me
more sensitive to why it is so vital for regulators to be open-minded
and fair, and balanced, when it comes to rulemaking. Secondly,
interactions with Commissioners from other states during meetings and
through committee assignments, not only allowed for cooperative, non-
partisan engagement, but the sharing of ideas and best practices
ensured that the effects of any decision made in one jurisdiction took
into account any potential negative, or unintended impact, on the
another.
I bring those key lessons and a spirit of cooperation to the
Federal Communications Commission, through the recognition that sound
policy is not one-size-fits-all exercise. Great ideas and pragmatic
policy are more often derived through robust and inclusive engagement.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
With my leadership experience at the state commission level and
through several voluntary commitments, I learned quickly the value of
fostering an environment where transparency, open lines of
communication, adequate personnel training, and clear goals and
objectives can be found. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing my
work with the Chairman and the staff, to ensure proper management and
fiscal accountability, by being a member of a team which leads by
example.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
Universal Service and Intercarrier Compensation Reform
The Commission made history last quarter with the comprehensive
reform and modernization of the Universal Service and Intercarrier
Compensation systems. Now in place are fiscally responsible and
incentive-based means, to ensure ubiquitous affordable voice and
broadband service, on both the fixed and mobile platforms.
This rulemaking will have significant impact on legacy providers,
by linking any future funding to firm build-out requirements, and
enacting budgetary adjustments over a number of years. This may impact
a large number of providers' current economic framework, so years of
work and engagement will need to take place as these significant
reforms are phased in.
Incentive Auctions
Current estimates indicate that over 300 million wireless consumers
download more than five billion apps annually (2010 figures). Among
those are approximately 101 million smartphones users, who consume 24x
more data than their traditional mobile phone counterparts. With that
explosive growth in traffic, compounded with the growth in the use of
tablets, it is apparent that the current demand for spectrum could soon
exceed the available supply.
The need for new spectrum has become such a national priority that,
in June 2010, President Obama released a memorandum entitled
``Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution.'' The Memorandum
asserts that, to address this looming spectrum shortage, we should
promote an environment where innovation thrives, and we should take
steps to unlock the value of otherwise underutilized spectrum.
The FCC, with its authority to conduct voluntary incentive
auctions, will provide financial incentives for current licensees to
acquire and reallocate this valuable real estate for its most efficient
use. This long-term, comprehensive engagement will entail not only the
setting up and execution of the auction itself, but also spectrum
reallocation and other administrative functions. The entire process
will take between six and 13 years to complete.
Interoperability in the 700 MHz Band
In order to encourage the most efficient use of spectrum, promote
the widest possible deployment of communications services, and ensure
the opportunity for robust competition in the marketplace, the
Commission must not only find and free up spectrum, it must enable both
large and small licensees to have meaningful access to advanced
devices. In this particular band lies the only noninteroperable
commercial mobile service frequency. It must be determined whether a
unified band class would result in harmful interference in other Blocks
and if so, can it be mitigated in order to deliver more broadband
services.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
Currently, I am only enrolled in the traditional state/federal
retirement plans, 401K and interest bearing savings accounts.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
No, I do not.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
I am unaware of any potential conflicts of interest.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
I am unaware of any issue that could result in a possible conflict,
however, any potential conflict of interest, will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of the ethics agreements in which I have
entered into with the agency's designated ethics official. That
agreement has been supplied to this committee.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy.
On April 4, 2011, I delivered a speech, and subsequently issued a
series of statements, on a piece of legislation introduced in North
Carolina entitled ``Level Playing Field/Local Government Competition.''
The bill, I believed, discouraged municipal governments from directly
addressing deployment options in areas where the private sector has
failed to meet local service needs.
Earlier in my regulatory career, I served for nearly three years as
Chair of the Washington Action Committee for the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and its Legislative Task Force.
NARUC has been active in a number key legislative matters and
jurisdictional issues which intersect the Federal Communications
Commission's core functionalities. Also, in my capacity as a South
Carolina Public Service Commissioner, I was a resource to lawmakers in
South Carolina on consumer issues and key regulatory decision-making.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
During this period, I never lobbied any lawmaker, and continuously
consulted with the designated ethics official to identify any potential
conflicts of interest.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees? Yes, to the
best of my ability.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal
for their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
Resume of Mignon L. Clyburn
Education
1980-1984--University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
B.S. Business Administration
Banking & Finance and Economics
1976-1980--W. J. Keenan High School, Columbia, SC
General Diploma
Awards received
Community Service: Omega Psi Phi and Phi Beta Sigma Fraternities, Delta
Sigma Theta and Sigma Gamma Rho Sororities, Mt. Zion and Morris Brown
AME Churches, NCNW, UNCF, Moja Arts Festival, and The NAACP;
Professional: Terry College of Business, Columbia Urban League, CEA,
NATOA, WICT, and The National Hispanic Media Coalition
Work experience
2009 to Present, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C.
1998-2009, Commissioner, Sixth Congressional District
2002-2004, Chairman, South Carolina Public Service Commission,
Columbia, SC
1984-1998, Publisher, General Manager, The Coastal Times Newspaper
Charleston, SC
Community activities
Served as a trustee of: The Trident Technical College Foundation, The
Palmetto Project (secretary/treasurer), Columbia College Board of
Visitors, SC Cancer Center Board and is a member of Links, Inc.; Served
on the boards of: YWCA of Greater Charleston (president), Adventure
Children's Museum, Reid House of Christian Service, Trident Urban
League and Trident United Way as well as Charleston County Democratic
Women (president); City of Charleston Site and Design, Charleston Area
Arts Council; Women in Transition, and United Way Allocations Board;
Was a member of the City of Columbia Reform and Restructuring
Commission, Common Ground School Improvement Committee (SC Education
Oversight Committee) and SC Great Friends to Kids (Adventure)
Professional memberships
Southeastern (past chair) and National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners (Utility Market Access Partnership, Audit
Committee, Foundation Board member, Legislative Task Force and co-chair
of Washington Action Committee); SC Energy Advisory Council; served as
president of the Black Women Entrepreneurs, past treasurer of the SC
Coastal Association of Black Journalists; and a graduate of the South
Carolina Executive Institute
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Ms. Clyburn.
Dr. Wright, as I mentioned earlier, I have to leave, and I
didn't want you to think I'm leaving because we've reached you,
or something. I had a 3 o'clock; it's now past that. Senator
Boxer is now going to preside, and I thank you for your
understanding.
Dr. Wright. Thank you.
Senator Kerry. Appreciate it.
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Thank you.
Dr. Wright?
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSHUA D. WRIGHT, NOMINEE TO BE A COMMISSIONER
AT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Dr. Wright. Senator Boxer, Senator Kerry, Ranking Member
Hutchison, and members of the Committee, I'm deeply honored to
have been nominated by President Obama to serve as a
Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, and grateful to
this committee for considering my appointment.
I'd also like to recognize and express my gratitude to
Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioners Rosch, Brill, and
Ohlhausen, for being here today. If confirmed, I very much look
forward to working with them.
Finally, I'd also like to introduce some members of my
family: my wife, Anhvinh; my children, James and Ella; my
parents, Nelson and Sandy Wright; my uncle, George Cary, a
former Deputy Director in the Bureau of Competition during the
Clinton administration; my aunt, Marlene Cary, and my cousin,
Alex Cary.
I profoundly respect the Federal Trade Commission as an
institution, its role in protecting markets and consumers, and
its mission in ensuring the effective operation of markets. The
Commission has earned its reputation as the world's premiere
competition and consumer protection agency.
If confirmed as Commissioner, this would mark my fourth
opportunity to serve the agency. My experience with the
Commission began as a 20-year-old intern in the Bureau of
Economics. One year later, I served as an intern in the Bureau
of Competition. Since then, my education, research, and
professional development, as both a lawyer and an economist,
have focused largely upon the economic and legal aspects of
competition and consumer protection regulation. In 2007, I
rejoined the Commission as its inaugural Scholar-in-Residence
before returning to George Mason University School of Law.
My experiences at the Commission, and my academic work,
have focused on protecting consumers through the careful and
thoughtful application of the Commission's many tools, rigorous
legal and economic analysis, and objective evaluation of
economic data. If confirmed, I intend to apply my knowledge and
experience to the Commission's mission of promoting consumer
welfare and protecting consumers from unfair methods of
competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. I
further intend to help ensure the Commission takes full
advantage of the wealth of expertise available to it in the
form of its many talented lawyers and economists.
The Commission faces many challenges in carrying out its
broad and fundamental mission of protecting consumers. One is
to continue vigilant enforcement of competition and consumer
protection laws where obviously harmful conduct is taking
place. For example, the FTC has attacked unfair and deceptive
practices in mortgage servicing, subprime credit, foreclosure
rescue, and telemarketing robocalls, among other areas. I will
support the Commission's continued vigilance in protecting
consumers in these areas, if confirmed.
The Commission also faces pressing challenges in
implementing its consumer protection and competition law
efforts in high-tech environments. These environments present
an important arena for the Commission to bring to bear its
expertise for the benefit of consumers.
With respect to the Commission's consumer protection
mission, these efforts include not only preventing fraudsters
from preying upon consumers on the Internet, but also continue
to help consumers protect their privacy without diminishing the
benefits of competition and innovation. The Commission must
also carefully analyze mergers and other new and creative
business combinations and practices in high-tech markets to
vigorously protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct
without depriving them of the benefits of innovation.
Finally, the Commission must continue to play a leading
role in the global competition and consumer protection
communities. With over 100 jurisdictions around the world
enforcing competition or consumer protection laws, resources
spent to improve the analytical foundation of enforcement
institutions here and abroad, and to strengthen cooperation
with other enforcement institutions, are critical to further
the Commission's fundamental mission. These efforts
simultaneously develop sound policy at home as domestic
agencies communicate with, and learn from, their overseas
counterparts, and enhance our ability to exert a positive pro-
consumer influence on the institutional design and policy
decision of agencies abroad.
If I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will work with
my fellow commissioners, the agency staff, and members of this
committee to help the Commission fulfill its mission of
protecting consumers and invest in its future success.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Dr.
Wright follow:]
Prepared Statement of Joshua D. Wright, Nominee for Commissioner,
Federal Trade Commission
Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the
Committee, I am deeply honored to have been nominated by President
Obama to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and
grateful to this Committee for considering my appointment.
I profoundly respect the Federal Trade Commission as an
institution, its role in protecting consumers, and its mission in
ensuring the effective operation of markets. The Commission has earned
its reputation as the world's premiere competition and consumer
protection agency. If confirmed as a Commissioner, this would mark my
fourth opportunity to serve the agency. My experience with the
Commission began as a 20 year old intern in the Bureau of Economics.
One year later I served as an intern in the Bureau of Competition.
Since then my education, research, and professional development as both
a lawyer and an economist have focused largely upon the economic and
legal aspects of competition and consumer protection regulation. In
2007 I rejoined the Commission as its inaugural Scholar-in-Residence
before returning to George Mason University School of Law.
My experiences at the Commission and my academic work have focused
on protecting consumers through the careful and thoughtful application
of the Commission's many tools, rigorous legal and economic analysis,
and objective evaluation of economic data. If confirmed, I intend to
apply my knowledge and experience to the Commission's mission of
promoting consumer welfare and protecting consumers from unfair methods
of competition and unfair and deceptive acts or practices; I further
intend to help ensure the Commission takes full advantage of the wealth
of expertise available to it in the form of its many talented lawyers
and economists.
The Commission faces many challenges in carrying out its broad and
fundamental mission of protecting consumers. One is to continue
vigilant enforcement of competition and consumer protection laws where
obviously harmful conduct is taking place. For example, the FTC has
attacked unfair and deceptive practices in mortgage servicing, subprime
credit, foreclosure rescue, and telemarketing robocalls, among other
areas. I will support the Commission's continued vigilance in
protecting consumers in these areas, if confirmed.
The Commission also faces pressing challenges in implementing its
consumer protection and competition law efforts in high-tech
environments. These environments present an important arena for the
Commission to bring to bear its expertise for the benefit of consumers.
With respect to the Commission's consumer protection mission, these
efforts include not only preventing fraudsters from preying upon
consumers on the Internet but also continuing to help consumers protect
their privacy without diminishing the benefits of competition and
innovation. The Commission must also carefully analyze mergers and
other new and creative business combinations and practices in high-tech
markets to vigorously protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct
without depriving them of the benefits of innovation.
Finally, the Commission must continue to play a leading role in the
global competition and consumer protection communities. With over 100
jurisdictions around the world enforcing competition or consumer
protection laws, resources spent to improve the analytical foundations
of enforcement institutions here and abroad and to strengthen
cooperation with other enforcement institutions are critical to further
the Commission's fundamental mission. These efforts simultaneously
develop sound policy at home--as domestic agencies communicate with and
learn from their overseas counterparts--and enhance our ability exert a
positive, pro-consumer influence on the institutional design and policy
decisions of agencies abroad.
If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will work with my
fellow Commissioners, the agency's staff, and the members of this
Committee to help the Commission fulfill its mission of protecting
consumers and invest in its future success. I look forward to your
questions.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Joshua Daniel
Wright. Nickname: Josh.
2. Position to which nominated: Federal Trade Commissioner.
3. Date of Nomination: September 11, 2012.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: George Mason University School of Law 3301 N. Fairfax
Drive Arlington, VA 22201.
5. Date and Place of Birth: January 20, 1977; San Diego,
California.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Anhvinh Ngoc Wright, Special Education Teacher and
Behavior Analyst, Fairfax County School District; children:
James Douglas Wright (Age 5) and Ella Grace Wright (Age 3).
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
University of California at Los Angeles
Ph.D., Economics (2003)
JD (2002)
Attended 1998-2003
University of California at San Diego
BA, Economics (1998)
Attended 1995-1998
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
George Mason University School of Law
Professor of Law
University of Texas School of Law
Visiting Professor
Federal Trade Commission
Scholar in Residence
George Mason University School of Law
Assistant Professor
United States District Court for the Central District of
California
Law Clerk to the Honorable James V. Selna
Latham and Watkins
Summer Associate (2001)
Jones Day
Summer Associate (2000, 2001)
Economic Analysis Corporation
Consultant
Federal Trade Commission
Honors Paralegal, Bureau of Competition
Federal Trade Commission
Intern, Bureau of Economics
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last five years.
Federal Trade Commission
Consultant (continuation of work for Chairman Kovacic)
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last five years.
Charles River Associates
Senior Consultant
Law and Economics Consulting Group
Consultant
International Center for Law and Economics
Consultant and Board Member
Express Scripts Inc.
Consultant
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
Consultant
Arlington Economics
Consultant
Family Winemakers of California
Consultant
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Consultant
Northwestern University
Consultant
Supreme Court Economic Review (George Mason University School
of Law)
Co-Editor
American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law
Senior Editor, Antitrust Law Journal
My position as Senior Editor to the ABA's Antitrust Law Journal was
uncompensated and did not involve any fiduciary duties.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past ten
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
American Bar Association
Member, 2003 to present.
American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law
Member, 2003 to present
Federalist Society
Member, 2008 to present
American Economic Association
Member, 2004 to present
Southern Economic Association, 2006 to present
International Society of New Institutional Economics
Member, 2004 to present
Mclean Swim & Tennis Association
Member, 2010 to present
American Law & Economics Association
Member, 2004 to present
Note: None of these organizations restricts membership on the basis
of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt. No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past ten years. Also list all offices
you have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national
political party or election committee during the same period.
Mitt Romney, $2,500 (February 2012).
I have not held office or rendered services to a state or
national political party or elective committee during the same
period.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Principal Investigator, Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and
Economic Growth Civil Justice Institute Project on State
Consumer Protection (Competitive Grant Award)
Co-Principal Investigator (with Bruce H. Kobayashi), Tilburg
Law and Economics Center Grant Research Grant (Competitive
Grant Award)
Runner-up, Jones Day Swope Antitrust Writing Prize
Departmental Teaching Assistant Award, UCLA Department of
Economics
Institute for Humane Studies, Research Grant
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Books and Book Chapters
ANTITRUST LAW IN PERSPECTIVE: CASES, CONCEPTS, AND PROBLEMS IN
COMPETITION POLICY (with Andrew I. Gavil, William E. Kovacic,
and Jonathan B. Baker) (forthcoming 3rd Edition)
Co-Editor, PIONEERS IN LAW AND ECONOMICS (with Lloyd R. Cohen)
(2009)
Co-Editor, RESEARCH HANDBOOK IN THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF THE
FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS (with Lloyd R. Cohen) (2011)
Co-Editor, COMPETITION POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER UNCERTAINTY:
REGULATING INNOVATION (with Geoffrey A. Manne) (2011)
The Dramatic Rise of Consumer Protection Law, (with Eric
Helland), in THE AMERICAN ILLNESS: ESSAYS ON THE RULE OF LAW
(FR. Buckley, ed., Yale University Press, forthcoming 2012)
Benjamin Klein's Contribution to Law and Economics, in PIONEERS
IN LAW AND ECONOMICS (Cohen and Wright, eds., Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited, 2009)
Antitrust Analysis of Exclusive Dealing and Tying Arrangements
(with Alden F. Abbott), in THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF ANTITRUST
(Keith N. Hylton ed., 2010)
The Chicago School, Transaction Cost Economics, and Antitrust,
in THE ELGAR COMPANION TO TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS (Peter
Klein and Mike Sykuta, eds., 2009)
Antitrust, Multi-Dimensional Competition, and Innovation: Do We
Have An Antitrust Relevant Theory of Competition Now? (with
Geoffrey A. Manne), in COMPETITION POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER
UNCERTAINTY: REGULATING INNOVATION (2011)
Intellectual Property and Standard Setting (with Bruce H.
Kobayashi), in the American Bar Association HANDBOOK ON
ANTITRUST ASPECTS OF STANDARD SETTING (2010)
Articles and Essays (By Subject Matter)
Law and Economics
Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and
Implications for Liberty (with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 106 (3)
NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW 1033 (2012)
The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality (with Thomas W.
Hazlett), 45 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 767 (2012)
Alcohol, Antitrust, and the 21st Amendment: An Empirical
Examination of Post and Hold Laws (with James C. Cooper), 32
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 379 (2012)
The Economics of Slotting Contracts (with Benjamin Klein), 50
JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 421 (2007)
Antitrust Law and Economics
The Antitrust-Consumer Protection Paradox: Two Policies At War
With Each Other, 121 YALE LAW IOURNAL 2216 (2012)
Dynamic Competition and the Limits of Antitrust Institutions
(with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 1
(2012)
Do Expert Agencies Perform Better Than Generalist Judges?
Evidence from the Federal Trade Commission (with Angela M.
Diveley), forthcoming in JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT
(2012)
Misbehavioral Economics: The Case Against Behavioral Antitrust
(with Judd E. Stone), 33 (4) CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1517 (2012)
Abandoning Antitrust's Chicago Obsession: The Case for
Evidence-Based Antitrust, 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 301
(2012)
The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et
al., (with Bruce H. Kobayashi), forthcoming 78 (2) ANTITRUST
LAW JOURNAL 701 (2012)
Moving Beyond Naive Foreclosure Analysis, 19(5) GEORGE MASON
LAW REVIEW 1163 (2012)
Antitrust Settlements: The Culture of Consent (with Douglas H.
Ginsburg), forthcoming in CONCURRENCES (2012)
What Would Predatory Pricing Law Be Without John McGee? A Reply
to Professor Leslie, forthcoming in 85 (3) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
LAW REVIEW, POSTCRIPT (2012)
Still Rare Like A Unicorn? The Case of Behavioral Predatory
Pricing (with Judd E. Stone), 8 JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS AND
POLICY 859 (2012)
Does Antitrust Enforcement In High Tech Markets Benefit
Consumers? Stock Price Evidence From FTC v. Intel, 38 REVIEW OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 387 (2011)
The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The 2010 Merger Guidelines and
the Challenge of Judicial Adoption (with Judd E. Stone), 39
REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 154 (2011)
Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Case
Against Google (with Geoffrey A. Manne), 34 HARVARD JOURNAL OF
LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 171 (2011)
Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact
of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals (with
Michael Baye), 54 JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS (2011)
Antitrust Sanctions (with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 6(2)
COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 3 (2010)
Antitrust Formalism is Dead! Long Live Antitrust Formalism!:
Some Implications of American Needle v. NFL (with Judd E.
Stone), 2009-10 CATO SUPREME COURT REVIEW 369 (2010)
Antitrust, Economics, and Innovation in the Obama
Administration, GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (November 2009)
Can Bundled Discounting Increase Consumer Prices Without
Excluding Rivals? (with Daniel A. Crane), 6 COMPETITION POLICY
INTERNATIONAL 209 (2009)
An Evidence Based Approach to Exclusive Dealing and Loyalty
Discounts, GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (July 2009)
Antitrust Pricing War: Congress v. the Court (with Geoffrey A.
Manne), NEW FEDERAL INITIATIVES PROJECT (2009)
Overshoot the Mark? A Simple Explanation of the Chicago
School's Influence on Antitrust, 5 COMPETITION POLICY
INTERNATIONAL 179 (2009)
Antitrust Analysis of Category Management: Conwood Co. v. U.S.
Tobacco, 17 SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW 311 (2009)
Antitrust (Over-?) Confidence (with Thomas A. Lambert), 20(2)
LOYOLA CONSUMER LAW REVIEW 219 (2008)
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006
Term and Beyond, 3(2) COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 25
(2007)
The Roberts Court's Antitrust Jurisprudence: The Chicago School
Marches On, 8(4) ENGAGE 29 (2007)
Slotting Contracts and Consumer Welfare, 74(2) ANTITRUST LAW
JOURNAL 439 (2007)
MasterCard's Single Entity Strategy, 12 HARVARD NEGOTIATION LAW
REVIEW 225 (2006)
Antitrust Law and Competition for Distribution, 23 YALE JOURNAL
ON REGULATION 169 (2006)
Sui Generis?: An Antitrust Analysis of Buyer Power in the
United States and European Union (with Richard Scheelings), 39
AKRON LAW REVIEW 207 (2006)
Singing Along: A Comment on Goldberg and Muris on the Three
Tenors, 1(3) REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 4 (2005)
Vons Grocery and the Concentration-Price Relationship in
Grocery Retail, 48 UCLA LAW REVIEW 743 (2001)
Intellectual Property & Antitrust
Innovation and The Limits of Antitrust (with Geoffrey A.
Manne), 6(1) JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 153
(2010)
Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose?
(with Aubrey N. Stuempfle), 61 ALABAMA LAW REVIEW 559 (2010)
Reverse Payment Settlements and Upcoming Congressional Action
(with Geoffrey A. Manne), NEW FEDERAL INITIATIVES PROJECT
(2009)
Why the Supreme Court was Correct to Deny Certiorari in FTC v.
Rambus, GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (March 2009, Release Two)
Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An
Application to Patent Holdup (with Bruce H. Kobayashi), 5
JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 469 (2009), reprinted
in COMPETITION POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER UNCERTAINTY:
REGULATION INNOVATION (with Geoffrey A. Manne) (Cambridge
University Press, 2011)
Missed Opportunities in Independent Ink, 2005-06 CATO SUPREME
COURT REVIEW 333 (2006)
Contracts and Contract Theory
Option Backdating and Why Executive Compensation is Not All
About Norms, 2 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE LAW REVIEW 385 (2006) (with
Geoffrey A. Manne)
Behavioral Law and Economics, Paternalism, and Consumer
Contracts: An Empirical Perspective, 2 NYU JOURNAL OF LAW AND
LIBERTY 470 (2007)
Consumer Protection
Are State Consumer Protection Acts Really Little FTC Acts?
(with Henry N. Butler), 63 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 163 (2010)
The Availability of Consumer Credit (with David S. Evans), 22
(3) LOYOLA CONSUMER LAW REVIEW 279 (2010)
Three Problematic Truths About the Consumer Financial
Protection Agency Act of 2009 (with Todd J. Zywicki), 1 (12)
LOMBARD STREET (September 2009)
How the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 Would
Change the Law and Regulation of Consumer Financial Products
(with David S. Evans), 2 BLOOMBERG LAW REPORTS: RISK AND
COMPLIANCE (2009)
Others
Expanding FTC's Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority, NEW
FEDERAL INITIATIVES PROJECT (2010)
The Constitutional Failure of Gang Databases, 2 STANFORD
JOURNAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 115 (2006)
Commentary
First Microsoft, now Google: Does the government have it in for
consumers?, CNET NEWS (with Geoffrey Manne and BerM Szoka)
(July 2, 2011)
Durbin's Antitrust Fantasies, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (with Todd
Zywicki) (June 17, 2010)
The Return of ``Big is Bad,'' THE DEAL MAGAZINE (with Keith N.
Hylton and Geoffrey A. Manne) (May 26, 2009)
U.S. Antitrust Becomes More European, FORBES. COM (May 18,
2009) (with Keith N. Hylton and Geoffrey A. Manne)
Hell No, Don't Let Them Go!, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (May 8, 2008)
(with Thomas W. Hazlett)
Other Publications
The Future of Law and Economics: A Discussion (with Henry G.
Mantle)
GEORGE MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 0835 (2008)
An Antitrust Analysis of the Federal Trade Commission's
Complaint Against Intel, GEORGE MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
PAPER NO. 10-27, ICLE ANTITRUST AND COMPETITION POLICY WHITE
PAPER SERIES (2010)
A Response to Professor Levitin on the Effect of the Consumer
Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 on Consumer Credit
(with David S. Evans) GEORGE MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH
PAPER NO. 09-56 (2009)
Comment on the Proposed Update on the Horizontal Merger
Guidelines: Accounting for Out-of-Market Efficiencies, GEORGE
MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-38 (2010)
Comment on the Intellectual Property, Concentration and the
Limits of Antitrust in the Biotech Seed Industry (with F. Scott
Kieff, Geoffrey A. Manne, and Michael E. Sykuta) LEWIS & CLARK
LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER NO. 2010-9, GEORGE
MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-24 (2009)
A First Principles Approach to Antitrust Enforcement in the
Agricultural Industry (with Geoffrey A. Manne) 5 CPI ANTITRUST
CHRONICLE, LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH
PAPER NO. 2010-15, GEORGE MASON LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER
NO. 10-31 (2010)
Defining and Measuring Search Bias: Some Preliminary Evidence,
International Center for Law & Economics, GEORGE MASON LAW &
ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 12-14 (2011)
Working Papers
Tastes Great, Less Filling: The Effects of Contract Regulation
on Beer Consumption (with Jonathan Klick)
Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illnesses (with Jonathan Klick)
Antitrust Courts: Specialists Versus Generalists (with Douglas
H. Ginsburg)
The Goals of Antitrust: Why Welfare Trumps Choice (with Douglas
H. Ginsburg)
Blog Posts
I regularly contribute to a group blog at Truthonthemarket.com,
which focuses upon business law and economics. The regular contributors
of the blog are a number of law professors and economists. Since I
joined the blog in 2005, I have posted over 500 items which are each
publicly available.
Some blog posts have been republished at other websites. For
example, a number of my posts at Truth on the Market are republished at
Technology Liberation Front. I have also provided ``guest'' commentary
on legal blogs, such as Conglomerate.org and the PennReg Blog. Those
posts are available here: http://www.theconglo
merate.org/wright.html and here: http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/
regblog/2012/04/do-expertagencies-outperform-generalist-judges.html.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
May 26, 2011. Oral and Written Testimony, Hearing Before the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet on ``How Will the
Proposed Merger Between AT&T and T-Mobile Affect Wireless
Telecommunications Competition.''
March 29, 2012. Oral and Written Testimony, Hearing Before the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet on ``HR. 1946, the
Preserving Our Hometown Independent Pharmacies Act of 2011.''
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
My history with the Federal Trade Commission begins in the summer
of 1997, at age 20, when I interned in the Bureau of Economics while an
undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego. The next
summer I interned in the Bureau of Competition before beginning my
studies at UCLA School of Law. Since then my studies and professional
development have focused largely upon issues involving the law and
economics of regulation and, more specifically, the economic and legal
aspects of competition and consumer protection regulation.
When I returned to the Federal Trade Commission as its inaugural
Scholar-in-Residence from 2007-2008, I worked closely with two former
Chairpersons--Deborah Majoras and William Kovacic--and learned from
them how to effectively harness the Commission's expertise and
resources to further its competition and consumer protection missions
and to promote consumer welfare. My experience serving Commissioners,
the Bureau of Economics, and the Bureau of Competition has given me a
multi-faceted appreciation for the internal operations of the
Commission, how economics informs the Commission's application of
competition and consumer protection law, and how empirical evidence can
best be harnessed to achieve the Commission's goals and overarching
mission of protecting consumers.
In addition to my experience as a law professor specializing in
antitrust, I am also a trained economist and regularly publish research
on a variety of topics within both industrial organization and
antitrust economics. The Commission has had three Ph.D. economists as
Commissioners in the past--all during the 1980s: Jim Miller, George
Douglas, and Dennis Yao. Antitrust analysis increasingly employs
complex economic models and statistical methods to better understand
the competitive effects of business arrangements and to design policies
that better serve consumers. These increasingly sophisticated
approaches to antitrust analysis are also increasingly technical;
harnessing these methods for consumer welfare requires training to
properly understand and implement. This requires greater coordination
among the Commission, the Bureau of Competition, the Bureau of Consumer
Protection, and the Bureau of Economics to make the best use of the
Commission's high quality staff of economists.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
The Commission's primary responsibilities include setting agency
priorities and managing agency resources to achieve those goals in an
efficient manner. Proper management and accounting controls, as
critical to the Commission's overall mission, are therefore squarely in
the ambit of each Commissioner's responsibility; I will endeavor to
deploy my expertise and all available resources to ensure the efficient
operation of the agency.
I do not have experience managing a large organization.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
The Commission's first challenge is to protect consumers and to
maximize consumer welfare--the unifying obligation underlying
both its competition and consumer protection enforcement
actions. This challenge requires using Commission expertise to
identify both problems whose solution will provide consumers
the greatest return on Commission resources as well as
effective enforcement strategies to resolve those problems. The
Commission's most pressing challenge in identifying and
optimizing its enforcement efforts in the modern economy
involves competition and consumer protection in high-tech
markets; these environments are typically characterized by
dynamic competition and innovation, as well as complex business
arrangements involving intellectual property rights.
The second challenge arises in response to the fact that there
are now roughly 120 jurisdictions in the world with competition
laws, with approximately 90 of those appearing since 1990. The
Commission has a long history of investing significant
resources into facilitating cooperation and coordination among
jurisdictions and agencies both around the world and here in
the United States. These efforts are critical to ensuring the
development of sound competition policy at home--as domestic
agencies communicate with and learn from their overseas
counterparts--as well as maximizing the ability of U.S.
agencies to exert a positive and pro-consumer influence on the
institutional design and policy decisions of agencies abroad.
The third challenge facing the Commission is making the
necessary investments to ensure that it continues to develop
the human capital within the agency to maintain its well-
deserved reputation and to achieve success. That reputation is
attributable to its quality staff of attorneys, economists, and
administrative professionals. Many, if not all of the
challenges facing competition and consumer protection
enforcement efforts, benefit substantially from the
Commission's efforts to nurture and to further develop economic
expertise, especially as applied to particular high-tech
sectors, particular technologies and industries, and the law.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
I am the co-author of two law casebooks currently under revision
and will, under contracts with the book publishers, receive royalties
for any future sales after publication. If confirmed, I will sever both
arrangements.
I will continue to participate in an employee benefit plan (403(b))
through University of Texas. My former employer does not make
contributions to the plan.
If confirmed, I will take an unpaid leave of absence from George
Mason University during my government service.
I will continue to participate in an employee benefit plan (George
Mason ORP--defined contribution plan) through George Mason University.
If confirmed, my employer will not make contributions to the plan while
I am on unpaid leave of absence.
I will continue to participate in an employee benefit plan (GMU
Retirement--defined contribution plan). If confirmed, my employer will
not make contributions to the plan while I am on unpaid leave of
absence.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain.
I intend to obtain unpaid leave at George Mason University School
of Law during my government service. If confirmed, I will sever all
ongoing relationships with the following entities: Charles River
Associates; the International Center for Law & Economics; Express
Scripts, Inc.; Arlington Economics; and, the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names & Numbers.
If confirmed, I will also resign from my position on the board of
directors of the International Center for Law & Economics.
If confirmed, I will resign from my position as Co-Editor for the
Supreme Court Economic Review (George Mason University School of Law)
and as Senior Editor of the Antitrust Law Journal (American Bar
Association).
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Federal Trade Commission's
Designated Agency Ethics Official to identify potential conflicts of
interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered
into with the Commission's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that
has been provided to the Committee. I am not aware of any other
conflicts of interest.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last ten years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated.
In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with
the Office of Government Ethics and the Federal Trade Commission's
Designated Agency Ethics Official to identifi potential conflicts of
interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in
accordance with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered
into with the Commission's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that
has been provided to this Committee. I am not aware of any other
conflicts of interest. I plan to remain a member of the American Bar
Association but will resign as Senior Editor of the Antitrust Law
Journal if confirmed.
5. Describe any activity during the past ten years in which you
have been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing
the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting
the administration and execution of law or public policy. None.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance
with the terms of the ethics agreement that I have entered into with
the Commission's Designated Agency Ethics Official and that has been
provided to this Committee.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain. No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain. No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain. No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain. No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination. None.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by congressional committees?
If confirmed as a Federal Trade Commissioner, I would work
diligently with the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners to do so.
2. Will you ensure that your depai tinent/agency does whatever it
can to protect congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from
reprisal for their testimony and disclosures?
If confirmed as a Federal Trade Commissioner, I would work
diligently with the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners to do so.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
resume of joshua d. wright
Academic Appointments, Positions and Affiliations
Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Courses: Contracts I, Contracts II, Economic Foundations of
Legal Studies, Antitrust, Advanced Antitrust, Intellectual
Property and Antitrust
Professor (Courtesy), George Mason University Department of
Economics (2009-Present)
Associate Professor, George Mason University School of Law (August
2010-May 2011)
Faculty, GMU Law and Economics Center Judicial Education Program
Economic Institute for Judges (microeconomics and
quantitative methods to state and Federal judges)
Case Analysis Seminars (with the Honorable Douglas H.
Ginsburg)
Co-Organizer and Instructor, American Bar Association &
Mason Judicial Education Program Institute on Antitrust Law and
Economics
Co-Organizer and Instructor, Empirical and Experimental
Methods Workshops for Law Professors
Economics Institute for Law Professors
Assistant Professor, George Mason University School of Law (January
2005-August 2010)
Visiting Assistant Professor, George Mason University School of Law
(2004)
Visiting Professor, University of Texas School of Law (August 2008-
May 2009)
Scholar in Residence, Federal Trade Commission (January 2007-July
2008)
Senior. Fellow, George Mason University Information Economy Project
Research Director, George Mason Law and Economics Center Searle
Civil Justice Institute
Education
University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Economics
(1999-2003)
Ph.D., Economics (2003)
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law (1998-2002)
J.D. (May 2002)
Managing Editor, UCLA Law Review
University of California, San Diego (1995-1998)
B.A., Economics (June 1998)
Patrick Henry High School, San Diego (1992-1995)
Research Interests
Antitrust Law and Economics
Industrial Organization
Consumer Protection
Law and Economics of Regulation
Intellectual Property
Law and Economics of Contracts
Other Teaching Experience
Adjunct Professor, Pepperdine University Graduate School of Public
Policy (2003)
Graduate course in Law and Economics
Lecturer, UCLA Department of Economics
Undergraduate course in Law and economics
Teaching Assistant, UCLA Department of Economics
Introductory, intermediate, advanced, and graduate
microeconomics courses
Departmental Teaching Assistant Award (2001, 2002, 2003)
Honors, Grants and Awards
Principal Investigator, Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and
Economic Growth Civil Justice Institute Project on State Consumer
Protection
Co-Principal Investigator (with Bruce H. Kobayashi), Tilburg Law
and Economics Center Research Grant
Select Recent and Forthcoming Publications
The Antitrust-Consumer Protection Paradox: Two Policies At War With
Each Other, 121 YALE LAW JOURNAL 2216 (2012)
Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and
Implications for Liberty (with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 106 (3)
NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW 1033 (2012)
Do Expert Agencies Perform Better Than Generalist Judges? Evidence
from the Federal Trade Commission (with Angela M. Diveley), forthcoming
in JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT (2012)
Moving Beyond Naive Foreclosure Analysis, 19 (5) GEORGE MASON LAW
REVIEW 1165 (2012)
Dynamic Competition and the Limits of Antitrust Institutions (with
Douglas H. Ginsburg), 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 1 (2012)
Antitrust Settlements: The Culture of Consent (with Douglas H.
Ginsburg), forthcoming CONCURRENCES (2012)
Abandoning Antitrust's Chicago Obsession: The Case for Evidence-
Based Antitrust, 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 301 (2012)
The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et al.,
(with Bruce H. Kobayashi), forthcoming 78 (2) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL
(2012)
The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality (with Thomas W.
Hazlett), 45 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 767 (2012)
Misbehavioral Economics: The Case Against Behavioral Antitrust
(with Judd E. Stone), 33(4) CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1517 (2012)
The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The 2010 Merger Guidelines and the
Challenge of Judicial Adoption (with Judd E. Stone), 39 REVIEW OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 145 (2011)
Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of
Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals (with Michael
Baye), 54 JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 1 (2011)
Books and Book Chapters
ANTITRUST LAW IN PERSPECTIVE: CASES, CONCEPTS, AND PROBLEMS IN
COMPETITION POLICY (with Andrew I. Gavil, William E. Kovacic, and
Jonathan B. Baker) (forthcoming 3rd Edition)
Co-Editor, PIONEERS IN LAW AND ECONOMICS (with Lloyd R. Cohen)
(2009)
Co-Editor, RESEARCH HANDBOOK IN THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF THE FAMILY
AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS (with Lloyd R. Cohen) (2011)
Co-Editor, COMPETITION POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER UNCERTAINTY:
REGULATING INNOVATION (with Geoffrey A. Manne) (2011)
The Dramatic Rise of Consumer Protection Law (with Eric Helland),
in THE AMERICAN ILLNESS: ESSAYS ON THE RULE OF LAW (F.H. Buckley, ed.,
Yale University Press, forthcoming 2012)
Benjamin Klein's Contribution to Law and Economics, in PIONEERS IN
LAW AND ECONOMICS (Cohen and Wright, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, 2009)
Antitrust Analysis of Exclusive Dealing and Tying Arrangements
(with Alden F. Abbott), in THE LAW AND ECONOMICS OF ANTITRUST (Keith N.
Hylton ed., 2010)
The Chicago School, Transaction Cost Economics, and Antitrust, in
THE ELGAR COMPANION TO TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS (Peter Klein and Mike
Sykuta, eds., 2009)
Antitrust, Multi-Dimensional Competition, and Innovation: Do We
Have An Antitrust Relevant Theory of Competition Now? (with Geoffrey A.
Manne), in COMPETITION POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER UNCERTAINTY:
REGULATING INNOVATION (2011)
Intellectual Property and Standard Setting (with Bruce H.
Kobayashi), in the American Bar Association HANDBOOK ON ANTITRUST
ASPECTS STANDARD SETTING (2010)
Articles and Essays (By Subject Matter)
Law and Economics
Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and
Implications for Liberty (with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 106 (3)
NORTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW 1033 (2012)
The Law and Economics of Network Neutrality (with Thomas W.
Hazlett), 45 INDIANA LAW REVIEW 767 (2012)
Alcohol, Antitrust, and the 21st Amendment: An Empirical
Examination of Post and Hold Laws (with James C. Cooper), 32
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 379 (2012)
The Economics of Slotting Contracts (with Benjamin Klein), 50
JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 421 (2007)
Antitrust Law and Economics
The Antitrust-Consumer Protection Paradox: Two Policies At War With
Each Other, 121 YALE LAW JOURNAL 2216 (2012)
Dynamic Competition and the Limits of Antitrust Institutions (with
Douglas H. Ginsburg), 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 1 (2012)
Do Expert Agencies Perform Better Than Generalist Judges? Evidence
from the Federal Trade Commission (with Angela M. Diveley), forthcoming
in JOURNAL OF ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT (2012)
Misbehavioral Economics: The Case Against Behavioral Antitrust
(with Judd E. Stone), 33 (4) CARDOZO LAW REVIEW 1517 (2012)
Abandoning Antitrust's Chicago Obsession: The Case for Evidence-
Based Antitrust, 78 (1) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 301 (2012)
The Limits of Antitrust and Patent Holdup: A Reply to Cary et al.,
(with Bruce H. Kobayashi), forthcoming 78 (2) ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL 701
(2012)
Moving Beyond Naive Foreclosure Analysis, 19 (5) GEORGE MASON LAW
REVIEW 1165 (2012)
Antitrust Settlements: The Culture of Consent (with Douglas H.
Ginsburg), forthcoming in CONCURRENCES (2012)
What Would Predatory Pricing Law Be Without John McGee? A Reply to
Professor Leslie, forthcoming in 85 (3) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW,
POST-
CRIPT (2012)
Still Rare Like A Unicorn? The Case of Behavioral Predatory Pricing
(with Judd E. Stone), 8 JOURNAL OF LAW ECONOMICS AND POLICY 859 (2012)
Does Antitrust Enforcement In High Tech Markets Benefit Consumers?
Stock Price Evidence From FTC v. Intel, 38 REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATION 387 (2011)
The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The 2010 Merger Guidelines and the
Challenge of Judicial Adoption (with Judd E. Stone), 39 REVIEW OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION 154 (2011)
Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Case
Against Google (with Geoffrey A. Marne), 34 HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW &
PUBLIC POLICY 171 (2011)
Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of
Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals (with Michael
Baye), 54 JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS (2011)
Antitrust Sanctions (with Douglas H. Ginsburg), 6(2) COMPETITION
POLICY INTERNATIONAL 3 (2010)
Antitrust Formalism is Dead! Long Live Antitrust Formalism!: Some
Implications of American Needle v. NFL (with Judd E. Stone), 2009-10
CATO SUPREME COURT REVIEW 369 (2010)
Antitrust, Economics, and Innovation in the Obama Administration,
GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (November 2009)
Can Bundled Discounting Increase Consumer Prices Without Excluding
Rivals? (with Daniel A. Crane), 6 COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 209
(2009)
An Evidence Based Approach to Exclusive Dealing and Loyalty
Discounts, GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (July 2009)
Antitrust Pricing War: Congress v. the Court (with Geoffrey A.
Manne), NEW FEDERAL INITIATIVES PROJECT (2009)
Overshoot the Mark? A Simple Explanation of the Chicago School's
Influence on Antitrust, 5 COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 179 (2009)
Antitrust Analysis of Category Management: Conwood Co. v. U.S.
Tobacco, 17 SUPREME COURT ECONOMIC REVIEW 311 (2009)
Antitrust (Over-?) Confidence (with Thomas A. Lambert), 20(2)
LOYOLA CONSUMER LAW REVIEW 219 (2008)
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006
Term and Beyond, 3(2) COMPETITION POLICY INTERNATIONAL 25 (2007)
The Roberts Court's Antitrust Jurisprudence: The Chicago School
Marches On, 8(4) ENGAGE 29 (2007)
Slotting Contracts and Consumer Welfare, 74(2) ANTITRUST LAW
JOURNAL 439 (2007)
MasterCard's Single Entity Strategy, 12 HARVARD NEGOTIATION LAW
REVIEW 225 (2006)
Antitrust Law and Competition for Distribution, 23 YALE JOURNAL ON
REGULATION 169 (2006)
Sui Generis?: An Antitrust Analysis of Buyer Power in the United
States and European Union (with Richard Scheelings), 39 AKRON LAW
REVIEW 207 (2006)
Singing Along: A Comment on Goldberg and Muris on the Three Tenors,
1(3) REVIEW OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 4 (2005)
Vons Grocery and the Concentration-Price Relationship in Grocery
Retail, 48 UCLA LAW REVIEW 743 (2001)
Intellectual Property & Antitrust
Innovation and The Limits of Antitrust (with Geoffrey A. Manne),
6(1) JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 153 (2010)
Patent Holdup, Antitrust and Innovation: Harness or Noose? (with
Aubrey N. Stuempfle), 61 ALABAMA LAW REVIEW 559 (2010)
Reverse Payment Settlements and Upcoming Congressional Action (with
Geoffrey A. Manne), NEW FEDERAL INITIATIVES PROJECT (2009)
Why the Supreme Court was Correct to Deny Certiorari in FTC v.
Rambus, GLOBAL COMPETITION POLICY (March 2009, Release Two)
Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An
Application to Patent Holdup (with Bruce H. Kobayashi), 5 JOURNAL OF
COMPETITION LAW AND ECONOMICS 469 (2009), reprinted in COMPETITION
POLICY AND PATENT LAW UNDER UNCERTAINTY: REGULATION INNOVATION (with
Geoffrey A. Marine) (Cambridge University Press, 2011)
Missed Opportunities in Independent Ink, 2005-06 CATO SUPREME COURT
REVIEW 333 (2006)
Contracts and Contract Theory
Option Backdating and Why Executive Compensation is Not All About
Norms (with Geoffrey A. Manne), 2 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE LAW REVIEW 385
(2006)
Behavioral Law and Economics, Paternalism, and Consumer Contracts:
An Empirical Perspective, 2 NYU JOURNAL OF LAW AND LIBERTY 470 (2007)
Consumer Protection
Are State Consumer Protection Acts Really Little FTC Acts? (with
Henry N. Butler), 63 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 163 (2010)
The Effect of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009
on the Availability of Consumer Credit (with David S. Evans), 22 (3)
LOYOLA CONSUMER LAW REVIEW 279 (2010)
Three Problematic Truths About the Consumer Financial Protection
Agency Act of 2009 (with Todd J. Zywicki), 1 (12) LOMBARD STREET
(September 2009)
How the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 Would
Change the Law and Regulation of Consumer Financial Products (with
David S. Evans), 2 BLOOMBERG LAW REPORTS: RISK AND COMPLIANCE (2009)
Others
Expanding FTC's Rulemaking and Enforcement Authority, NEW FEDERAL
INITIATIVES PROJECT (2010)
The Constitutional Failure of Gang Databases, 2 STANFORD JOURNAL OF
CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 115 (2006)
Commentary
First Microsoft, now Google: Does the government have it in for
consumers?, CNET NEWS (with Geoffrey Marine and BerM Szoka) (July 2
2011)
Durbin's Antitrust Fantasies, THE WASHINGTON TIMES (with Todd
Zywicki) (June 17, 2010)
The Return of ``Big is Bad,'' THE DEAL MAGAZINE (with Keith N.
Hylton and Geoffrey A. Marine) (May 26, 2009)
U.S. Antitrust Becomes More European, FORBES.COM (with Keith N.
Hylton and Geoffrey A. Marine) (May 18, 2009)
Hell No, Don't Let Them Go!, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (with Thomas W.
Hazlett) (May 8, 2008)
Working Papers
Tastes Great, Less Filling: The Effects of Contract Regulation on
Beer Consumption (with Jonathan Klick)
Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illnesses (with Jonathan Klick)
Antitrust Courts: Specialists Versus Generalists (with Douglas H.
Ginsburg)
The Goals of Antitrust: Why Welfare Trumps Choice (with Douglas H.
Ginsburg)
Research Projects in Progress
Causal Inference in Antitrust Event Studies (with Jonah Gelbach and
Jonathan Klick)
Academic Presentations
Do Expert Agencies Perform Better Than Generalist Judges? Evidence
from the Federal Trade Commission
Law and Society Annual Meetings (June 2012)
George Mason University Levy Workshop in Law and Liberty
(February 2012)
George Mason University School of Law FTC Conference (October
2011)
State Regulation of Alcohol Distribution: The Effects of Post and
Hold Laws on Output and Social Harms
Southern Economic Association Meetings (November 2012)
George Washington University Department of Economics (March
2012)
American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting (May
2011)
Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (November 2010)
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (October
2010)
George Mason University School of Law Levy Workshop (September
2010)
Washington University at St. Louis Law and Economics Workshop
(September 2010)
Behavioral Economics, Law, and Liberty
Mont Pelerin Society Annual Meetings (October 2010)
George Mason University School of Law (September 2010)
Misbehavioral Economics: The Case Against Behavioral Antitrust
Canadian Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting (October
2010)
Antitrust Sanctions
American Law and Economics Association Annual Meeting (May
2010)
Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of
Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals
Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting (November 2010)
Georgetown University Law and Economics Workshop (October 2009)
Washington University at St. Louis Law and Economics Workshop
(October 2009)
American Law and Economics Association Meetings (May 2009)
George Mason University Economics Department Public Choice
Seminar (April 2009)
Stanford Law and Economics Workshop (January 2009)
University of Texas Law and Economics Workshop (December 2008)
UCLA Law and Economics Workshop (September 2008)
Northwestern University Law and Economics Workshop (September
2008)
Federalism, Substantive Preemption, and Limits on Antitrust: An
Application to Patent Holdup
Tilburg Law and Economics Center (December 2008)
George Mason/Microsoft Conference on the Law and Economics of
Innovation (May 2008)
Duke University Law School Intellectual Property Symposium
(February 2008)
The Effects of Contract Regulation in the Alcoholic Beverage
Industry
Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting (November 2007)
Antitrust, Multi-Dimensional Competition, and Innovation: Do We
Have An Antitrust Relevant Theory of Competition Now?
George Mason/Microsoft Conference on the Law and Economics of
Innovation (May 2007)
The Antitrust Law and Economics of Category Management
American Law & Economics Association Annual Meeting (May 2004)
The Economics of Slotting Contracts
Silicon Flatirons New Institutional Economics Conference (June
2009)
Peking University Conference on Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law
(October 2007)
American Law & Economics Association 2005 Annual Meeting (May
2005)
International Society of New Institutional Economics 2004
Annual Meeting (September 2004)
George Mason University Law School Levy Workshop (March 2004)
Slotting Contracts and Consumer Welfare
First Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies (October
2006)
Southern Economic Association Annual Meeting (September 2006)
Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting (July
2006)
American Law & Economics Association 2006 Annual Meeting (May
2006)
International Industrial Organization Conference (April 2006)
George Mason University Law School Levy Workshop (March 2006)
University of Texas Law School Center for Law and Economics
(January 2006)
Behavioral Law and Economics, Paternalism, and Consumer Contracts:
An Empirical Perspective
NYU Journal of Law and Liberty Symposium (October 2006)
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006
Term and Beyond
William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV (April 2008)
University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law (February 2008)
Conferences and Testimony
Panelist, Second Annual George Mason LEC Conference on Competition,
Search, and Social Media (May 2012)
Panelist, Federalist Society Debate on Google and Antitrust at
Columbia Law School (January 2012)
Panelist, AALS Annual Meeting: Behavioral Economics and Antitrust
(January 2012)
Panelist, George Mason University Law and Economics Center
Conference on The Law and Economics of Search Engines and Online
Advertising (June 2011)
Panelist, United States House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the
Internet Hearing on ``How Will the Proposed Merger Between AT&T and T-
Mobile Affect Wireless Telecommunications Competition?'' (May 2011)
Panelist, The FCC's Wireless Competition Report: A Preview (May
2011)
Panelist, George Mason University Law and Economics Center
Conference on Behavioral Economics and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (March 2011)
Panelist, The Federalist Society Program on the FTC and The
Internet (January 2011)
Panelist, The Federalist Society Program on Regulation of the
Internet (December 2010)
Panelist, Stanford/Hoover Conference on Patents, Innovation and
Business (June 2010)
Panelist, DOJ/FTC Proposed Merger Guidelines Workshop (January
2010) Panelist, LECG Consumer Protection and Antitrust Conference
(October 2009)
Panelist, Technology Policy Institute Conference on High-Tech
Antitrust (October 2009)
Panelist, SEALS Empirical Legal Research Workshop (August 2009)
Panelist, ICANN Workshop on Economic Analysis of Vertical
Separation for New gTLDs (June 2009)
Panelist, Cato Institute Program on Antitrust in the New
Administration (June 2009)
Panelist, FTC Workshop on Resale Price Maintenance (May 2009)
Panelist, Searle Center Conference on Antitrust Law and Economics
(September 2008)
Panelist, FTC at 100 Conference (September 2008)
Panelist, Federalist Society Conference on Intellectual Property
(July 2008)
Panelist, SIEPR/Hoover Institution Conference on the Modernization
of Antitrust (May 2008)
Panelist, Searle Center Research Roundtable on the Theory of the
Firm (March 2008)
Panelist, Searle Center Research Roundtable on the Law and
Economics of Innovation (January 2008)
Panelist, Searle Center Conference on The End of the Microsoft
Consent Decree (November 2007)
Panelist, DOJ/FTC Hearings on Sherman Act Section 2 and Single Firm
Conduct (November 2006)
Panelist, George Mason Law Review Fall 2006 Antitrust Symposium
(September 2006)
Professional Activities
Co-Director, Robert A. Levy Fellowship in Law & Liberty at George
Mason University Affiliate, International Center for Law and Economics
in Honor of Armen Alchian
Research Director, Searle Civil Justice Institute, George Mason Law
and Economics Center
Co-Editor, Supreme Court Economic Review (Volume 20-present)
Senior Editor, Antitrust Law Journal
Associate Editor, International Review of Law and Economics
Referee, Journal of Law and Economics, American Law & Economic
Review, Review of Law and Economics; Supreme Court Economic Review,
Review of Industrial Organization, Journal of Legal Studies, Yale Law
Journal, Harvard Law Review
Contributor, Truth on the Market (a blog dedicated to academic
commentary on law, business, and economics)
Professional Experience
Senior Consultant, Charles Rivers Associates, Inc. (October 2009-
Present)
Consultant, Federal Trade Commission (July 2008-April 2009)
Law Clerk to the Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (2003-2004)
Consultant, Economic Analysis, LLC (1998-2002)
Summer Associate, Latham and Watkins (2001)
Summer Associate, Jones Day Reavis & Pogue (2000 and 2001)
Honors Paralegal, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition
(1998) Intern, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics (1997)
Affiliations and Memberships
International Industrial Organization Society
American Economics Association
Southern Economic Association
International Society of New Institutional Economics
American Law and Economics Association
Federalist Society
California Bar Association
American Bar Association
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. Trottenberg, I just really need a ``yes'' or a ``no''
to this question. We're moving forward with MAP-21. Will you
commit to coordinating closely with regional, State, and local
transportation authorities to ensure that the Department
provides clear and consistent Federal guidance, while also
allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate the needs of
each local community?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. Clyburn, I'm going to get you a letter--I don't need an
answer now; I'm going to--we're going to hold the record open.
Nine of us just sent a letter to the Chairman of the FCC
expressing our concern about maintaining the diversity of
ownership--of media ownership. And there are a lot of committee
chairs on this: Leahy, Boxer, Harkin--actually, Bernie Sanders
circulated this letter--Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, others.
So, the question that I want you to answer is how you
believe--what your belief is about maintaining that diversity.
And we're asking that the FCC not proceed with its proposed
rule changes in media ownership without providing clear
evidence-based response to our concerns. So, rather--because
it's such a long subject, would you do us the honor and
privilege of answering that question as we keep this record
open?
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, Senator, for this ability to
express myself.
You may know, by my background, that I spent 14 years as a
general manager and publisher of a weekly newspaper in
Charleston, South Carolina, called The Coastal Times. So,
diversity in media, those types of issues----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Ms. Clyburn.--are what I lived and breathed for a number
of----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Ms. Clyburn.--years.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Ms. Clyburn. So, I commit to you my full----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Ms. Clyburn.--participation. And I also would like you to
know, in that particular proceeding, that we--by my request,
we've extended the comment period for 30 days.
Senator Boxer. Excellent.
Ms. Clyburn. And so, the public-interest groups and all
others interested will have a more robust opportunity to----
Senator Boxer. Well, I----
Ms. Clyburn.--engage.
Senator Boxer.--will pass this on to my colleagues, and we
will look forward to your response.
And, Dr. Wright, welcome. I have some issues with your --
with some of your statements, so I'm going to be very
straightforward and give you a chance to respond.
You know that the FTC's mission is to, quote, ``prevent
business practices that are anticompetitive or deceptive or
unfair to consumers, and to enhance informed consumer choice
and public understanding of the competitive process.''
Now, you have written some things that give me pause, and
concern me. As one example, you write that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau's agenda was, quote, ``aggressive
and dangerous,'' and, quote, ``that its existence is likely to
do more harm than good for consumers.''
Do you--you know, what concerns me is your criticism of the
mission. So, can you--you want to try to explain why you think
it's ``dangerous and aggressive''? Could you explain----
Dr. Wright. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer.--why you feel it's ``dangerous and
aggressive''?
Dr. Wright. Absolutely. I appreciate the opportunity to
answer the question.
In my academic writing, I had written about the earlier
version of the CFPA, prior to the--what was ultimately passed
through the CFPB. In those articles, I had analyzed what was
put forth in a series of academic articles about being the
intellectual basis for the CFPB. Much of that was to do with
what's known as the ``behavioral economics literature.'' It's
an area in which I have some expertise. I was concerned that
some of the extensions of both the theory and evidence that was
in the empirical literature in the economic space being
extended in a manner inconsistent with the body of actual
economic knowledge that we had. I expressed those concerns.
They largely had to do with----
Senator Boxer. Do you still have those concerns, that the
agenda was ``aggressive and dangerous,'' the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau's agenda--that's what I'm trying to get at--
and that ``the existence of it is likely to do more harm than
good for consumers''?
Dr. Wright. No, I don't have that----
Senator Boxer. OK. So, let's move on. You don't stand by
that anymore, those comments.
Dr. Wright. Those comments were never about the existing
agency.
Senator Boxer. OK. All right. That's important.
But, here, in 2012, you wrote that the FTC--now, you're--
you want to be part of the FTC--you wrote that the FTC's
administrative review of complex litigation in the antitrust
context does not produce better results than litigation handled
by Article III courts. You've criticized the Commission,
arguing it's been hampered by--and I quote you--``a history and
pattern of appointments evidencing a systematic failure to meet
expectations.''
So, these comments seem to indicate that you doubt the
FTC's mission. And I just always am interested in why you would
want to be a commissioner on a Commission that you say has a
pattern--``a history and pattern of appointments evidencing a
systematic failure to meet expectations.''
Dr. Wright. I'm happy to clarify those comments.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Dr. Wright. First, I believe greatly in the Commission's
fundamental mission of protecting consumers. These are issues
that I've been working on, as an academic, in practice, and at
the Commission, since I was 20 years old.
That particular article had to do with a highly contentious
issue in the competition space to do with the Commission's use
of Section 5, Unfair Methods of Competition. One justification
for using Section 5, Unfair Methods of Competition, relies on
the notion that the Commission, on average, has greater
expertise and greater facility to handle complex antitrust
cases than generalist Article III judges. That debate usually
takes place without much in the way of empirical debate. That
paper was an attempt to inject one particular empirical view by
comparing decisions of District Court judges with
commissioners, both appealed to Federal Courts of Appeal, to
evaluate how those cases--a particular subset of cases, not the
entire mission of the Federal Trade Commission--how those cases
were faring in the Federal Courts.
I think that there's a consensus view, in antitrust
circles, that the Commission's use of its Section 5 Unfair
Methods of Competition authority, to be distinguished from the
clear cases where the Commission is preventing consumer harm in
areas such as consumer protection, fraud, deception, and so
forth--that, in this one subset of areas, the Commission's
reliance on expertise was not showing up empirically, in terms
of differences with cases with District Court judges.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I'm going to ask you to follow up,
because we--I'm just going to have one more question, and then
we're going to turn to my colleagues. But, you know, I don't--I
didn't hear you explain what I asked you about. So, I--it may
be my problem; I'm not a legal expert, but--so, we'll work
together to see if we can get some more detailed answers on
that question.
Now, I don't know--I didn't hear you say you'd be recusing
yourself from certain matters--did I miss that, Brian? All
right--because of some of your work that's been paid for by
corporate interests. So, have any papers you've written been
funded by entities with matters before the FTC? Would you
submit a list of the sponsors of your work and the
organizations with which you're affiliated? And would it be
your intent to recuse yourself where you've had those
relationships?
Dr. Wright. Absolutely, I can--my--all financial
relationships through consulting or through research grant
provided by third-party entities have been disclosed to the
Commission and to the Committee. I will recuse myself, for
instance, in law enforcement matters pertaining to Google,
consistent with the President's ethics pledge, for a 2 year
period. Also, in all other appropriate cases----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Dr. Wright.--where potential conflicts are issued, I will
consult the legal ethics officials at the Commission. I take my
ethical requirements and obligations very seriously, and will
consult advice from the legal ethics officials at the FTC, and
recuse, where appropriate.
Senator Boxer. I have no doubt that you would do that, but
I would like you to do that now, and sit with them, and submit
a list to this committee. We need to know if we are looking at
someone who's going to be able to participate--I don't know the
extent to which you've been hired by these corporate folks, and
it may not be a long list. So, if you wouldn't mind, if you
could do that, before.
And I'll withhold--I have a couple of more questions, but
Senator Schumer is here, and we all anticipated your arrival.
And I want you to know, before you came, we gave the most
glowing introduction of Polly. But, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I'll be
very, very brief.
I ask unanimous consent my statement be read----
Senator Boxer. Without objection----
Senator Schumer.--into the record.
Senator Boxer.--so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Schumer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
U.S. Senator from New York
Good afternoon everyone and I want to thank you, Chairman
Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and all the members of this
committee for allowing me to speak here today. I know we are pressed
for time so I will try to keep things brief.
I am so pleased to be able introduce a former member of my staff,
and a good friend, Polly Trottenberg to this committee.
President Obama has seen Polly's work as Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy at the Department of Transportation, and he
simply could not have made a better choice than for her to continue
that work as Under Secretary for Policy.
Polly possesses the rare combination of talent, intellect,
experience, and dedication that made her not only an outstanding
legislative director and public servant, but also a tireless advocate
for the issue she cares so much about--the unquestionable need for
affordable and efficient transportation as an environmental, social,
and economic necessity.
Before coming to Capitol Hill, Polly worked for the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey in the aviation department. There she helped
to operate and manage three of the Nation's largest and most complex
airports.
She then joined Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's office where she
championed his philosophy--a cause I fight to advance to this today--
that grand transportation and infrastructure projects are key to the
economic future of New York, and to the entire country.
Then, right after I was first elected to the Senate in 1998,
Senator Moynihan, my mentor and then senior colleague, told me he was
giving me a gift--Polly Trottenberg, to be my Legislative Director.
I hired Polly immediately, and during her seven years as leader of
my legislative staff, Polly Trottenberg never let me down.
Along with her expertise in a wide range of issues required to be
an effective legislative director in the Senate, Polly always
maintained her focus on advocating for and addressing the critical
transportation needs for New York, and the country as a whole.
She lead the negotiations to bring low-cost air service to long
neglected upstate cities, and also worked day and night to secure $20
billion in critical aid to help New York City recover and rebuild after
the 9/11 attacks. Polly fought hard and always got the job done
Polly had a lot of big accomplishments, but it was her day in and
day out commitment, drive, and intellect that truly set her apart.
On Capitol Hill, Polly is known in every hall as a preeminent voice
on transportation policy.
After leaving my office, Polly went to work for my friend Senator
Boxer. And, most recently, Polly was handpicked by Mayor Bloomberg,
Governor Rendell, and Governor Schwarzenegger to be Executive Director
of Building America's Future, their action committee which highlights
the critical needs of America's transportation infrastructure.
There, Polly fought for the cause she loves--promoting the urgent
need for Congress and the President to rebuild America.
She has continued that work both as Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy and currently as Acting Under Secretary for
Policy.
From our highways, roads and bridges, from the rails to the skies,
America's transportation challenges are Polly's challenges. She
embraces them and has a laser-like focus to meet them.
These are daunting challenges for any Administration or Department
of Transportation to face, but President Obama has charted a new and
ambitious course to not only tackle them, but also to expand and grow.
Polly's unquestionable dedication, experience, and intelligence
make her uniquely qualified to craft and implement these bold
initiatives
I recommend her nomination wholeheartedly and without reservation,
and urge her swift confirmation.
I again thank Chairman Rockefeller and my colleagues for holding
this hearing and look forward to working together to address this
nation's critical transportation needs.
Senator Schumer. I just want to tell one brief story.
The week after I won election to the Senate, Senator
Moynihan, the senior Senator, called me to his office. He said,
``I want to tell you two things. First, you're the first to
know I am not going to run again for the Senate; it'll open up
the seat,'' which, later, Senator Hillary Clinton took over.
But, second, he said, ``I want to give you a gift.'' And I
said, ``What's that?'' He said, in his Moynihan way, ``Pol-ly
Trot-ten-berg.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. She had worked for Senator Moynihan for
years. He suggested she become my legislative director. One of
the best decisions I made was to have her be the legislative
director. She was, for 8 years, and was just fabulous. So, she
truly merits this position.
I thank the Committee for its indulgence and just ask
unanimous consent my entire statement----
Senator Boxer. It will be put----
Senator Schumer.--be read into the record.
Senator Boxer.--right into the record at the very
beginning----
Ms. Trottenberg. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boxer.--as if given in its entirety.
Senator Schumer. Thank you. And----
Senator Boxer. And----
Senator Schumer.--I appreciate the courtesy of you and the
members of the Committee.
Senator Boxer. Of course.
And we will get back with Senator Hutchison's questions.
Let's go to 5 minutes.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Let me start with Ms. Trottenberg. I'd like to have your
assessment, today, of the Highway Trust Fund. One of the things
that you said in your 2009 confirmation hearing is that it's
probably the greatest challenge the Department faces. What is
the status of it now? And do you have recommendations on how we
can make it more solvent so it does not go into the general
revenue?
Ms. Trottenberg. Well, as you all may know, thanks to MAP-
21, we were able to get a--approximately $105 billion 2-year
surface bill; and the trust fund pays for about 85 billion of
that, and there's about 19 billion that was added in general
fund provisions through various measures through the Finance
Committee. When we get to the end of the 2-year period of MAP-
21, the Highway Trust Fund will be close to depleted, and there
is some anxiety that the transit account within the Highway
Trust Fund may not even last the full 2 years. So, clearly,
although we're very grateful for MAP-21--and it's a terrific
boon for the transportation industry--we still need to do some
work on the long-term--shoring up the long-term funding of the
Highway Trust Fund.
Senator Hutchison. I agree with you 100 percent, and I
think Senator Boxer did a--just huge effort at passing that
bill and getting us the funding for the infrastructure that we
needed. Do you have suggestions on how you would address that
dangerous shortfall?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. I mean, the administration, in its
last budget proposal, recommended that we use some of the
savings from the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think
the President and other members of the administration,
including Secretary LaHood, have frequently offered to try and
sit down and work with Members of Congress. Obviously, finding
a solution to the long-term needs of the transportation account
is going to require the administration and the Congress, in a
bipartisan way, making some revenue decisions.
We are also, though, using some of the authorities that
Congress had granted us to at least make the dollars we have go
a lot further, with programs like TIFIA, which can leverage
private investment and, basically, bring back a return of 10-
to-1 on Federal dollars. So, we are constantly looking for ways
that we can use the programs. We have TIGER, as well, where we
leveraged a lot of public and private investment.
But, clearly, there's going to need to be a bigger solution
on the transportation front. The administration has put a
couple of ideas on the table, but--going to need to work with
Congress, I think, to find the ultimate solution.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just put on the table that
Senator Kerry and I have an infrastructure bank bill that
really is a lot like TIFIA. It tracks TIFIA. But, I think that
might be another way to attract private money that could be
leveraged, as well, so I hope that will be another option.
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. And the administration has been
supportive of your bill, and certainly of the concept of
infrastructure banks and of leveraging private investment. So,
that's an area where we certainly want to continue working with
Congress.
Senator Hutchison. Just one other question to you, and then
I'll move on, and that is, the length of NEPA environmental
approval process has been another concern raised, that you go
on and on and on. Are you looking at, not in any way lessening
the look at the environmental issues, but shortening the
process?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes, that's a great question. And
obviously, our administration is committed to having the best
environmental outcomes for transportation projects, but we have
two new sets of tools. One, MAP-21 had a lot of project-
streamlining provisions, and we have been aggressively getting
the rulemakings underway. I think a lot of them will be areas
that I know will be music to the ears of project sponsors, and
many here in Congress; having more categorical exclusions so
projects can go ahead without having to go through NEPA;
looking at a lot of ways that we can exempt projects,
basically, from the whole process, and really speed them along.
We have also, administratively, prior to MAP-21--the
President has put out an executive order and a Presidential
memorandum tasking all the permitting agencies to work together
to try and speed up the approvals of transportation projects.
And we have, now, a rapid response team with the DOT, the
Council of Environmental Quality, EPA, and other agencies, and
we try and work through projects as quickly as we can, and we
have actually posted some of them on a dashboard that you can
access on the White House Website, and we've really been able
to really speed up some major projects around the country.
Senator Hutchison. I think that's good and should be
continued.
Ms. Clyburn, I wanted to ask you about the open docket, the
Title II reclassification docket that has remained open,
despite Net Neutrality having already been issued. And if the
open Internet order is struck down in the courts, would you
support using reclassification, under Title II, to impose
common-carrier regulations on the Internet?
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you so much, Senator. And I want to join
your colleagues in congratulating you, and how appreciative we
are of your service. You're truly a role model.
As you have put forth, that determination has yet to be
made. I will--when that--when we get that clarity from the
court, I commit to you that I will have an open policy and
engagement for all considerations as it relates to that.
But, I--I'm not comfortable committing on a pathway
forward, at this time, as it relates to any decision I would
make, without all of the variables in front of me.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think there is concern, as you
know, in some parts of the Senate, about what is considered
overreach, by some, on the Net Neutrality ruling. I know that
is not the view of all of the Senate. But, my question is, What
limits, really, are you going to put on FCC actions, when the
law is perhaps --well, it certainly wasn't enacted with the
thought of Net Neutrality, and it seemed like an overreach, to
many on our side of the aisle. Is there any view, on the
Commission, that there be a more clear law before you go into
the regulation and the Net Neutrality implementation?
Ms. Clyburn. Any enhanced guidance from this body is
welcome. We live in an ever-changing communications landscape,
and that requires a whole host of engagements and on-the-go
decisionmaking, as it relates to our engagement.
So, again, any clarity that you would be willing to give
from that perspective is welcome, but we are, and will,
continue to weigh all variables in front of us, and will follow
the law to the letter.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you.
My time is up, and I'll let other members ask. I know we'll
have a second round----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Hutchison.--and I do have another set of questions.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. We will have a second round, in order of
arrival. So, we'll go Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Cantwell, Boozman,
Thune, and Warner.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Thank you, to all of you. You're all doing well today.
Appreciate----
Senator Boxer. Oh, I didn't see----
Senator Klobuchar.--hearing all these different issues.
I wanted to, first, start with you, Ms. Clyburn. And,
appreciate all the good work you've been doing, as well, at the
FCC. This is something I've talked with you briefly about
before, and I know, just this week, you got a letter on this
issue, signed by 35 Senators. It came to my mind again, just a
few months ago, when I was up in a small town in Minnesota
during a forest fire. It's a town of 900 people, the moose
capital of our state. There's a moose on the water tower. And
you can imagine how hard the small businesses have to work to
keep in business there. And in the middle of finding out that
they'd saved the town from the fire, two businesses were
focused on one thing, and that is that customers are not able
to reach their businesses because of the way this is working,
with the least-cost routing services, that calls are literally
being dropped. And they have--they've all created their own
little graphs to show me the problem. And I know the FCC has
been looking into this, but it is a major problem in rural
areas. And, well, I guess I had a few questions about this.
First of all, if the FCC has sought to sanction any
companies for these deceptive practices, if there is some work
being--going on with the complaint process, because there have
been some issues with that; they found it hard to file
complaints--I know you've been looking into this--and that some
of them are told to go to State agencies, yet I think we all
know, most of this is going on with interstate carriers. And I
am really pleading with the entire Commission to look at this
issue again; it has not been resolved.
Ms. Clyburn. I thank you so much, Senator, for reinforcing
an issue that is important to me. While it is true, I don't
think, in South Carolina, we have too many moose on water
towers----
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Oh, come on.
Ms. Clyburn. We--no. But, I assure you that the concerns
that you express, as it relates to what we call ``rural call
completion'' are as important to me as they are to you. I will
assure you that the FCC is currently conducting investigations.
Our enforcement bureau is doing that. And you will--as that
nears completion, you will hear more about that.
For the first time, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling
that was firm in the directive of those companies and what the
responsibilities are, as it relates to call completion. Also,
we have set up an online interactive site for those consumers,
as well as an--a realtime engagement for those companies, that
if they see and know that there is a problem--if there is a
problem that exists--that they are to conduct us in realtime,
and so that we can follow and follow up on those complaints.
So, I encourage all of you that have been--you know, you
have been hearing about these particular issues--to have those
companies, those rural carriers, contact us so that we can
follow in realtime and act appropriately. But, we are engaged,
and soon you will hear more about that engagement.
Senator Klobuchar. Because I'm just picturing if a major
company in a metro area wasn't able to have people call them, I
think we'd be hearing about it and doing something about it----
Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. It----
Senator Klobuchar.--and that's what's going on.
Ms. Clyburn.--impacts business and it impacts, potentially,
emergency services. So----
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Ms. Clyburn.--thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Ms. Trottenberg, I appreciate all the great words my
colleague said about you, and I had a question. Senator Warner
and I introduced the Dig Once bill, which requires that states
install broadband conduits as part of any transportation
project that is federally funded. And this proposal was
accepted by the administration by executive order this summer.
And, as Under Secretary of Transportation for Public Policy, I
would like a commitment that you'll make sure that this gets
implemented, because I really believe that one of--it's one of
these things that makes so much sense, because, otherwise,
people who have--states that have short road construction
seasons, because of snow and bad weather, we're constantly
having digging going on. And you imagine the public would
really prefer that we would just dig once and do the conduits
at the same time we did the Federal projects.
Ms. Trottenberg. Absolutely. And just--you probably know
this, Senator. Our Deputy Secretary, John Porcari, was formerly
the Maryland State DOT Secretary and was a real pioneer in
making Dig Once work in that state, so he has been very
committed to making sure we do a good job at DOT with that.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, thank you.
And then, my last question--and you may be working with
Army Corps of Engineers on this, but I just wanted to make you
aware of the transportation issues that we're having on the
Mississippi River because of the drought, where Minnesota,
itself--we haven't had as much drought as some other states--
but, our farmers and our businesses are starting to have
trouble getting their goods down--on barges--to go down the
river into Illinois and Missouri. And I just truly believe the
future for our country is exports, and we're going to have to
be able to have a transportation system, as I know you know,
that works. But, I wanted to call your attention to this, as
we're getting to some--a very dire situation on the
Mississippi.
Ms. Trottenberg. Well, thank you. And there is already a
lot of attention within DOT, the Army Corps, and at the White
House. We're well aware of what's going on, and looking at the
economic impacts, and talking about what we're able to do.
Senator Klobuchar. OK, thank you. And then, I have some
questions, Dr. Doms, about the Census, but I'll put those on
the record.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
And thank each one of you for your willingness to undertake
these very difficult assignments.
And I also would say a word about our colleague from Texas.
It would be hard to say that we agreed on a lot of policy
things, but the one thing we can agree on is that Senator
Hutchison stated her case, knew the subject, and worked very
hard to make her side the right side.
And we congratulate you for lots of good work, wish you
well in the future.
And, Ms. Trottenberg, you're so accomplished, here, as we
hear it from those who had contact with you before, that I am--
it's easy to imagine that you're going to solve all these
problems in a hurry. And we're pleased at that.
One of them--Sandy wreaked havoc on the East Coast, causing
damage never conceived of before, especially to New Jersey's
transit system, one of the more costly parts of the damage
resulting from infrastructural damage to the transportation
system. The recently passed surface transportation law included
a new emergency repair program for transit that will help
rebuild and perhaps even redesign systems after disasters like
this strike.
The question that hangs over us in New Jersey is, Do we
want to go back and repair the things as they were, or does it
call for us to take a second look and see what's going to be
most efficient, in terms of having the functioning appropriate
and our--the availability of that part of our State to those
who come in and are so much a part of our--the commerce of our
State?
What do you think you have to do, if confirmed--it is
noted, here, if confirmed; if you're not confirmed, you'll not
do anything about it--but, if confirmed, what do you do to
prioritize funding with a program like this?
Ms. Trottenberg. Yes. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. And
obviously, DOT has been working very, very closely with New
York and New Jersey and all the affected areas, and
particularly the Federal Transit Administration, I know, has
been doing a lot of work with New Jersey Transit to get service
up and running, and replace the cars that were damaged by the
hurricane.
The emergency relief program that was created in MAP-21,
unfortunately, as you know, it has not yet been funded, because
it has been caught up in the Continuing Resolution. Some of our
MAP-21 programs, although authorized, were not yet funded in
that bill.
One of the advantages of that--of funding that program,
versus going through FEMA, for example, is the--the FEMA
requirement is, basically, that you build to the existing
standard. The Transit Emergency Relief Program would enable us,
I think, to, sort of, build to 21st-century standards, to take
into account resiliency, which we're clearly going to need to
do, and I think we're hoping, as we move forward, that we can
activate that program. It will be, clearly, helping New Jersey
and New York rebuild and make their transit systems more
resilient--would be a top priority.
Senator Lautenberg. It's inevitable, or crucial to our
recovery, that that part of the problem be solved. And it--
Amtrak is planning to build a new tunnel, as you know, under
the Hudson River, to increase high-speed rail and commuter rail
service. That project will add much-needed capacity for our
packed rail lines, while also ensuring that our infrastructure
is prepared to handle the future storms.
What do you do to move projects like this forward without
delay and without waiting for the ultimate design to be
finished?
Ms. Trottenberg. That's a good question. And, as you know,
Senator Lautenberg, Secretary LaHood has termed the Gateway
Project critical. At DOT, we firmly believe it's critical for
the future mobility needs, not only of the New York
metropolitan region, but also for the whole Northeast Corridor.
The capacity constraints with the two Hudson River tunnels
are--it's a real issue. And, obviously, Hurricane Sandy has
demonstrated, we need more resiliency in that travel corridor,
as well.
We have started talking with offices here on the Hill, with
New Jersey Transit, with the MTA, the Port Authority, New York
State DOT, New Jersey DOT, and we're starting to explore. We
recognize that certain pieces of the Gateway Project, we need
to get started on right away. And we're starting to explore how
we move forward with that. Obviously, there are some budget
uncertainties at the moment. We don't yet know our fiscal 2013
budget situation. But, we're trying to look for every possible
way we can help you proceed.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, if I can just throw in
one more----
Senator Boxer. Yes, go ahead.
Senator Lautenberg.--question, here.
And--directed for Dr. Wright--and as I looked at material
that you've written and that we know about, and your concern is
for--against ``excessive regulation.'' But, how do you do--how
do you protect the safety of the consumers without having
rules? Is one a challenge to the other, and, say, less is more,
when it comes to--because yours is a regulatory responsibility,
if you have it, and---- just kind of clear the air for me a
little bit.
Dr. Wright. I'm happy for the opportunity to do so.
I do believe in rules and regulation. I also believe that
markets are a powerful institution that operate for consumers.
I believe, and have written, that regulation has the power and
ability to harness markets to work for consumers. There are
also risks that regulation can operate to the detriment of
consumers.
In my academic writing, I have taken positions, for
example, in the competition space in which I'm most familiar,
calling for greater regulation and greater sanctions in cases
involving price-fixing. What I believe, and I would say my
focus is, is not on the amount of regulation, but, rather, I
think, as most economists would approach the subject, is driven
by thinking about consumer welfare and whether or not
regulation, in any instance, operates to improve, increase, or
reduce consumer welfare. I think that would be a fair way to
characterize my approach.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. Thank
you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
So, in this order: Cantwell, Ayotte, and Pryor. Unless
anybody else comes back, that's what we'll do.
Senator?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Ms. Trottenberg, thank you so much for mentioning the
freight mobility efforts of the Department of Transportation. I
look forward to working with you on that implementation, and
very big priority for helping to create more jobs as it relates
to exports and to making sure the product is competitive,
moving out of our borders.
And, Ms. Clyburn, I know my colleague Senator Boxer
mentioned this letter on media consolidation. I sent my own
personal letter, but I'm certainly supporting Senator Sanders'
letter, as well, and feel very strongly that the Commission may
be heading toward a resolution of disapproval by Congress if it
continues down this route. I mean, this is not the Rupert
Murdoch view of, you know, the world. We are saying that, if
you want to have an independent media, they need to be
independent, not consolidated. And so, we will be loud and
boisterous about what the Commission is intending to do if it
follow--if it continues to follow this path.
Ms. Trottenberg. I appreciate your engagement.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Wright, I wanted to ask you--I know my colleagues have
asked you a little bit about your recusal comments; and you and
I had a chance to talk in my office a little about this--but,
you know, the FTC can sometimes move at a glacial pace. So,
while you're saying you would recuse yourself from things that
are, you know, a conflict before the FTC, are you talking about
all current enforcement matters before the FTC? What I'm saying
is, that 2 year period of time, there could be something that's
before the FTC right now, and, 2 years from now, it could still
be before the FTC. So, even though you've said, ``Well, I'll
recuse myself on--for a 2 year period,'' these are things that
are currently before them. So----
Dr. Wright. Yes, I appreciate the opportunity to clarify
and expand on our earlier discussion about recusal obligations.
The 2 year period comes from the President's ethics pledge.
If a case triggering any potential conflict of interest, as it
relates to Google or any other potential case that would
trigger a conflict based on disclosures I've made to the
Committee and also to the Commission, I would then go to the
ethics officials at the FTC, who are experts in exactly what
the recusal and other conflict-of-interest obligations are
beyond that period. I'm not an expert in those obligations. I
can assure you, when and if there is any obligation, under the
letter or the spirit of the recusal--excuse me, of conflict-of-
interest standards, I will recuse myself.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think I'll probably ask you a
more direct question for--in writing, because you've obviously
been involved, on behalf of some interests, and if you are--and
that time period could take longer than 2 years to resolve
those individual issues. And so, I'd--I am not going to--I'm
not going to leave it up to a trust of the--you're going to
check in, 2 years from now, with the FTC. I want to know if you
were involved in a case now involving a matter before the--
currently before the FTC, and it's not resolved within 2 years,
whether you're going to recuse yourself, yes or no; not, you're
going to consult with somebody. I want to know--so--but, we'll
get you that in writing, so you'll have a firm viewpoint of
that, and then you can give us a response.
Dr. Wright. I appreciate that.
Senator Cantwell. And then, I think Senator Boxer asked
this question, but--so, if somebody has paid you, financially,
for the type of work that you've done, will you recuse yourself
from matters in--revolving around those writings?
Dr. Wright. Yes. I have dozens, over 70, academic
publications--books, a case book--and a handful of those
writings, I've received funding either--directly or
indirectly--either for support for research or through a think
tank. All of those have been disclosed, both to the Committee
and to the Commission. In those cases--for example, in Google,
I will recuse myself, at a minimum, for the period of the 2
years, under the President's ethics pledge.
Senator Cantwell. But, that's why I'm still--I'll come back
to you on that, because I--if you've written about it and
consulted on it, it doesn't matter--if it's a case that's now
before the Commission, and it takes 3 years to resolve, I want
to know whether you're going to recuse yourself.
So, OK, I need to move on, because I don't have a lot of
time. I'm trying to help the Chair, here, run here hearing.
Can you state your views on the FTC's rulemaking, Section
811, pursuant to the energy bill of 2007, that prohibits market
manipulation, and whether you believe the FTC's rules are
accurate and appropriate in the interpretation of that
underlying statute? You and I had a chance to talk about this;
I'm not trying to get whether you know the specific section of
the code, as much as this issue which you and I have discussed.
We have given the FTC the ability to police oil markets for
antimanipulation behavior. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission has had this authority, as it relates to oil in--I'm
sorry, as it relates to electricity, natural gas markets--and
it used that authority, I believe, appropriately. The FTC has
more recently had this authority. It took, I think, until 2009
to get the rulemaking. I want to understand whether you are
solidly behind the use of those--that statute, and how you see
it being implemented.
Dr. Wright. Absolutely. Since our last discussion--and one
of the things I said is, I've traditionally been an antitrust
guy, and, as a non-antitrust rule, sort of, outside of my
initial expertise, so I did go back, I've looked at the rule,
I've read some of the comments around the rule and had some
time to learn more about it, in anticipation of having this
conversation today.
I also understand the disparity in the activity level
between, as you mentioned, FERC versus the FTC's investigations
under the rule. I understand the rule was designed to be
implemented, or designed in around a (10)(b)(5)-like fraud
standard.
I believe that protecting consumers in oil and gas markets
is very important. This is one of the markets that affects
everybody, and affects everybody in an important way. I can
commit to you that, where there are violations of the rule, I
will support enforcing the law. I do not know, because I'm not
privy to--I do understand there's an investigation underway,
but I'm not privy to any of the details of that investigation,
or why, for example, there's the disparity in activity level
between, for example, FERC and the FTC.
I can also commit to you that, if confirmed, I would talk
to the staff to try to find out what's going on with respect to
enforcement with the rule, why the numbers are different. I
could commit to talking to folks at FERC or the SEC who are,
themselves, implementing this rule in a more active manner, and
try to get a sense at what the obstacles are----
Senator Cantwell. I think my time is expired, so we'll
probably follow that up, as well, in writing, and if you----
Dr. Wright. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell.--could respond to that.
But, this is--will be a very critical and important element
of my deciding about your nomination. I don't think the FTC is
being aggressive enough, and I'm sure as not going to support
anybody to be on the FTC that isn't going to help in
implementing this new law in an area where consumers deserve
protection.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, we are going to have a second
round, if you want to stay. We're going to have another round.
Senator Ayotte.
STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Ayotte. I thank the Madam Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.
And I know that Senator Hutchison has left, but--oh, there
she is.
Senator Hutchison, I just want to thank you for your
tremendous leadership and how hard you've worked, and how
dedicated you've been to this committee. I will miss your
leadership in the Senate, and I consider you someone who we can
all aspire to serve and be like. So, thank you.
I wanted to ask Commissioner Clyburn a quick question
about--New Hampshire is one of the states that's a net donor to
the Universal Service Fund. If you look at the statistics from
2010, the last available year on your website, New Hampshire
gave about $25 million more to the fund than it received. And
when you look at the current Universal Service Fund tax that
you'd receive as a consumer, it's about 15 percent, roughly, of
the bill that the consumer receives for telecommunications
services. And during difficult economic times, this tax is not
insignificant.
What steps has the Commission taken to address the
Universal Service Fund burden on consumers, number one?
And then I have a follow-up question. What should I tell my
constituents? There are areas of New Hampshire, including in
the North Country and other more rural areas of my State, that
still don't have full broadband access; and yet, when they look
at their bills, and they see themselves paying this fee,
they're wondering, ``Well, why is my money going to Oklahoma or
Wyoming or some other State, when we have real needs that very
much impact economic development in those areas of New
Hampshire?''
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Senator.
If I were in your shoes, I would affirm to my constituents
that the FCC has moved forward on an aggressive incentive-
based, fiscally proficient regulatory framework to reform the
Universal Service Fund in order to, going forward, ensure that
the funds received by carriers will go to, not only voice-
enabled services, but broadband-enabled services. We have
reformed the Universal Service, to the point where both price
cap--in price-cap areas, as well as raised-return areas, that
they are--have their marching orders, in essence, that, again,
if they receive this fund, they have certain obligations by
certain timetables.
We have also put this fund on a budget. We have freezed the
level of support. We have made some reforms, both internally as
well as a subset in our lifeline proceeding, that has--is on
track, this year, to save $200 million to that fund.
So, you can tell your constituents that what we have done
was to--is to reform a framework that has served well over
time, but was inefficient and ill-equipped to meet the
communications needs of the day. So, targeted, streamlined,
fiscally responsible approach, where everyone is accountable
and everyone is on a budget. So, you will see--the figure you
quoted? I am confident that will--it will continue to decrease,
over time, because we put budgetary constraints in place.
Senator Ayotte. I appreciate that, and I just want to make
clear that I would like to see that. And the deficiency?
Obviously, for consumers in New Hampshire, when we have real
broadband needs I appreciate that we're moving in the direction
of reform. I would love to see you do anything possible to
expedite that, and particularly for those states that are donor
States, but yet have real needs that could be addressed by the
Universal Service Fund.
Ms. Clyburn. There are 19 million Americans that are
similarly affected, and the reforms in place, and the--what we
have done, we're well on our way to address those needs, to the
tune of 400,000 people, in short order, through a reverse
auction that we just conducted--additional persons--and 83,000
more rural mouths will be serviced, from a mobility side. So,
we're taking a one-two approach, both from a terrestrial
standpoint, as well as a mobile standpoint, to ensure that that
experience is a more robust and equitable one for your
constituents.
Senator Ayotte. Good, I appreciate that, and I look forward
to continuing to work with you on this important issue to my
New Hampshire constituents.
Ms. Clyburn. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ayotte. I see my time's up.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
So, we're going to have a second round. And I'll start off.
First of all, Dr. Doms, you're the most fortunate person on
the panel.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Just consider yourself very fortunate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And I have no questions for you, which
really is going to make you happy.
Dr. Doms. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. So, we will get back to Dr. Wright.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. He'll be happier, still, when I don't
have any questions.
Senator Boxer. Oh, I'll be happier, still.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Dr. Wright, this is an easier one for you.
This past October, California retail gas prices spiked to a
record of $4.67 per gallon, and the refineries had a very easy
explanation. They said, ``Well, we've had disruptions, we've
had fires, and the like,'' and everyone kind of believed it,
until a private sector firm stepped up to the plate--McCullough
Research--and they said--McCullough Research--and they said,
``No, we just looked at the emissions data, and there was no
flagging in refinery production, and there's no way that this
could have been the case.'' So, we called on the Federal Trade
Commission--Senator Feinstein and I and others--to investigate
the causes of the spike.
Now, you know, the job you aspire to, it means a lot to our
state, because we went through the Enron scandal and the rest,
and we're still--we still know people who just went out of
businesses, small business, because the manipulation of
electricity rates and people saying, ``Sock it to grandma,''
and all that stuff. So, we're in sort of post-traumatic stress
from that; we haven't gotten over that. And now we're asking
the FTC to aggressively look at this.
So, what do you think the FTC should do if it turns out the
private sector research firm is right and this so-called
shortage never really was there, and this has all been
manipulated?
Dr. Wright. Senator, I appreciate the question.
Let me say, first, I was born and raised in California----
Senator Boxer. I know. San Diego.
Dr. Wright [continuing]. My parents, who are here, are from
California----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Dr. Wright.--came out from California. I spent a long time
paying California gas prices. And, as an economist, I also care
a great deal about issues impacting consumer welfare that have
a large impact----
Senator Boxer. So, what would you do about this specific
thing if it turns out that there was manipulation of the data?
Dr. Wright. The Commission has a number of tools available
to it, both under its Unfair and Deceptive Practices authority,
should that be triggered; obviously, if there's collusion
through traditional competition----
Senator Boxer. Would you look at disgorgement? That made
you cough, I know; I'm sorry.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wright. Yes, it did. It did.
We also have available to us----
Senator Boxer. Would you look at disgorgement?
Dr. Wright. Absolutely, I would look at any and all
appropriate remedies as an issue that I would be----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Dr. Wright.--happy to talk with the staff about, with the
Commission----
Senator Boxer. Well, it's not ``be happy to talk to.'' We
have asked for a serious investigation. Our people are paying
$4.67 a gallon because they were told there was a shortage, and
we all accepted it. And now it turns out, if this firm is right
and we have the emissions to prove it, there was no such
shortage. And I could tell you, Senator Feinstein and I are
just up on the ceiling about this. So, it's not a question of
``talking to the staff,'' it's a question of being part of an--
a very aggressive investigation.
Let me move on to two questions that the Chairman has for
you. Chairman Rockefeller.
The FTC supports an online consumer tool called Do Not
Track mechanism. What that means is that if consumers are
visiting Websites to learn about sensitive matters, like a
medical condition or a personal financial matter, they should
have a choice to do it without having online companies tracking
them.
Do you agree that consumers should have the ability to tell
companies not to track them, and that companies should honor
that request? Yes or no.
Dr. Wright. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Good.
What is your opinion of the FTC's privacy report and its Do
Not Track recommendation?
Dr. Wright. Consistent with the last answer, I support the
Commission's view in favor of a Do No Track mechanism. I
support--the reports focus on notice and choice, and consumer
choice of key aspects of developing its approach in privacy.
With respect to specific recommendations regarding Do Not
Track legislation or other similarly----
Senator Boxer. Well, could you just give us a written
answer to that, to the exact recommendations of the Commission?
Would you do that for us?
Dr. Wright. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
And the last question. This is from Chairman Rockefeller.
Our country is still recovering from a major financial crisis
that began in 2007. Homeowners across the country saw their
homes drop in value, and faced foreclosure and displacement.
Since that time, numerous states and Federal agencies have
brought cases against banks and mortgage companies--successful
cases--for deceptive practices that led to and worsened the
crisis.
While most people say that the mortgage industry is to
blame for many of the problems that arose, Dr. Wright, you take
a very different position. This is Senator Rockefeller writing
this. In a law review article you published, you said that
foreclosures, quote, ``did not present a consumer protection
issue.'' Here's what you wrote, ``While there was undoubtedly
fraud during the housing boom, both by borrowers and lenders,
the problems that have been seen in the mortgage market are the
result of national''--oh, sorry--``rational consumer responses
to incentives, not a problem of fraud, consumer confusion, or
systematic irrationality.''
So, I just have to say, just my own opinion, is, ``Oh, boy,
just don't say that around San Diego, because people don't
agree with that.''
And, given your views, if you're faced with a crisis of
this magnitude--this is a question coming from Senator
Rockefeller--how can we trust you to be a commissioner and
address the concerns of American consumers, if you basically
say, you know, it's their fault?
Dr. Wright. I appreciate the question, and from Senator
Rockefeller, as well.
In the same article, I did say that regulators could have,
and should have, done a better job in that market at the time.
And let me say further, with respect to the Commission's
core mission of fighting fraud and deception, I am extremely
supportive. I have been in other academic writings. And, in
general, my view is that conduct that harms consumers should be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law available to the
Commission. With respect to fraud, I take the same position,
and I can assure you that, if confirmed, I will do so.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I would appreciate seeing those
papers, because this one is a little scary, when you say
foreclosures did, quote, ``not present a consumer protection
issue,'' since we know, from court cases all across the
country, that there were many people who were putting these
mortgages that were deceptive, people didn't know what they
were getting into, and the rest; and there was clear deception,
and many of the banks have stepped up and paid billions of
dollars, essentially saying, you know, ``We pushed through
these documents; people didn't realize what was happening.''
So, I just would love to see your other writings, where we
can say to Chairman Rockefeller that, ``Dr. Wright has other
papers where he takes an aggressive view in favor of
consumers.'' So, you'll submit those----
Dr. Wright. I'd be happy to do that.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. For the record?
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I have listened to the questions
from the Senator from California, and I would just ask, if
there were an investigation by the FTC, would you consider
that, even though the number of permits being issued on private
lands--and oil wells being drilled because of new technology
have increased, nevertheless, the number of permits being
issued in the Gulf of Mexico, which is the second largest
potential oil recovery in our country, second to Alaska, have
virtually stopped. The Gulf of Mexico is under a permitorium
because the number of permits being issued by the government in
the Gulf of Mexico have severely been lowered. So, if you were
going to do an investigation of what is causing the price of
gasoline to go up, would that also be a fair area to look at,
if you are determining if there is collusion or antitrust
violations or fraud, also the actual data on number of wells
being drilled?
Dr. Wright. Absolutely, Senator. To identify the
conventional sort of analysis, the Bureau of Economics and the
folks at the Commission engage in would look at all relevant
data on supply and-demand factors. This is something that
they've done in many contexts, and I would, of course, if
confirmed, support a thorough investigation of all of those
factors before coming to any conclusion.
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. I think that it is
important that the FTC follows the law, that if there is an
unfair business practice or unfair method of competition, that
there be a vigorous investigation. But, I would just also say
that it's very important that the Commission stay within the
law that it is formed to implement, not make. So, I will not
ask you a question on that, because I think that it's self-
evident.
But, you know, I think we could do a whole lot more to
bring down the cost of gasoline with the XL pipeline out of
Canada coming to the refineries, which we'd love to have 24
hour-workloads in my home state; and the Keystone pipeline is
one way to do it. So, I don't think it's a matter of--well, I
don't know, maybe an investigation would show something
different, but we've got to drill more wells if we're going to
have more gasoline; and so, I would hope that there would be a
fair hearing, if one is launched.
I would just like to say, Dr. Doms, the area that I think
you have certainly had experience with is the Census, and I
think there has been a discussion of how the last Census was
done. Can you tell us if you believe that the method used in
2010 was valid, and was it as efficient as it could be, or do
you have other thoughts about it?
Dr. Doms. OK, I appreciate the question, Senator.
In terms of the effectiveness of the Census in 2010, all
the research shows that it was the most accurate Census that
we've ever done. So, that's the good news.
In terms of efficiency, what I'd like to do is talk about
what we're doing to plan ahead for 2020, because we realize
that the costs incurred in 2010 have to be tempered, especially
in this fiscal environment.
We've been very aggressive in planting--in planning for the
2020 Census. We are working closely with the GAO. We have taken
onboard the recommendations from the National Research Council.
And we are having quarterly meetings with congressional staff
to talk about our progress to reduce the cost of 2020, going
forward; in terms of using new technologies and looking at
where the major costs were in 2010, and asking the question,
How can we reduce those costs in the future?
Senator Hutchison. Thank you. That's very good. I agree
with you, I think it was universally considered a good Census,
and anything that can be done more efficiently would be, of
course, welcome.
Last question to you. You've been the Chief Economist at
the Department of Commerce, and obviously the biggest issue we
face today is our unemployment rate and getting our economy up
and going. Do you have any thoughts, from an economist's point
of view, about what we could be doing that would spur growth in
the economy? And what would you be recommending to the
Secretary, going forward?
Dr. Doms. That's an excellent question. One of my roles
that I play that I take very seriously is that I talk to
business leaders a lot. That is something that I did in my
previous career with the Federal Reserve, and that's something
that I do now. I've spoken to business leaders from many of the
states that are represented on the dais today. What I do then
is, I take that information, and I transmit that information to
folks in the administration.
When we look at the economy today, in job creation over the
past 34 months, we've had about 5.4 million new jobs. Those are
in the private sector. The government sector has actually been
contracting. And it's going to be the private sector, going
forward, that's going to create the jobs.
So, anything that I hear from the private sector, I then
transmit to--to better form our policies.
Senator Hutchison. All right. Thank you very much.
And, Madam Chairman, I'm----
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Ayotte.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Wright, I wanted to ask your view on Section 5
Authority. Some members of the Commission have said the FTC
possesses powers under Section 5 that extend beyond our
antitrust statutes. However, when you ask them what their
interpretation is of these powers, they are not clearly
defined, in terms of the boundaries of what would go beyond the
antitrust statutes. What I'd like to understand is this: if
we're going to ask people to comply, we need people to
understand clearly what the rules are. If there are these
undefined powers under Section 5, then I think it's difficult
for businesses to understand, How do we then know what behavior
we can and cannot engage in?
So, how would you approach this? How should the FTC
approach the definition of Section 5 authority in a way that
can provide certainty to market participants?
Dr. Wright. I very much appreciate the question. And I
certainly share the concern that having a legal standard that's
amorphous or vague can impose costs on both businesses and, in
turn, upon consumers.
I'm afraid my answer is not going to settle the scope of
Section 5 for you, unfortunately.
Senator Ayotte. Well, I just noticed the Chairman in the
audience; maybe he can----
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wright. The--we may have different answers.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Wright. I don't think--let me start with, I think, a
proposition on which most people in the competition community
agree upon with respect to Section 5, which is that I don't
think that there's much debate that it does, in fact, extend
beyond the scope of the Sherman Act. For example, there is not
much debate over the use of Section 5 in engaging in
enforcement actions for invitations to collude, which fall
short of the Sherman Act 1 prescription, because there's no
actual agreement, but don't offer any benefits to consumers,
have a real risk of harming them, were the agreement to come to
fruition. And so, an agreed upon area, in an area of
application for Section 5, Unfair Methods of Competition, at
the FTC, which I support, is in the use of invitations to
collude. Beyond invitations to collude is where there's a great
deal of uncertainty about when and where, both what guiding and
what limiting principles, will apply to application of Section
5. There are a number of different views on that topic. I know
that the Commission has had a workshop on the subject. They're,
sort of, developing a record.
If confirmed, one area that I think the Commission--one
thing the Commission could do, on behalf of both businesses
seeking clarity in the area, but, most importantly, consumers
who would benefit from that clarity, is to issue a policy
statement that would articulate those guiding and limiting
principles. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
the Commission and the staff on what those Section 5 Unfair
Methods of Competition investigations are looking like,
incorporating their views; of course, working with the
Committee, as well. But, I do think a policy statement along
those lines would be to the benefit of the consumers, in the
interest of the agency's mission.
Senator Ayotte. And this type of policy statement would, in
your view, if it were agreed upon by the Commission, provide
clarity and be issued for the public consumption?
Dr. Wright. The one I have in mind would, yes.
Senator Ayotte. OK.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ayotte. Also, with regard to Section 5, there have
been instances where, in certain enforcement actions, the terms
become the de facto regulation for the entire industry, because
of the nature of the enforcement action. Sometimes the
Commission has engaged in voluntary guidelines. One example
would be the interagency Working Group on Food Marketing. So,
in these cases, what ends up happening, I think, is, by what is
issued, the guidelines that are voluntary end up becoming de
facto regulations that the industry feels that they must comply
with. So, what do you think, in terms of the issue of Section 5
with regard to applying it to a voluntary guideline situation?
Dr. Wright. That issue, and the specific example, are a bit
outside of the, sort of, typical of Section 5 uses I'm familiar
with, in the antitrust context. I am aware that the Commission
will work with groups, like the Interagency Food Working Group,
to contribute its expertise on the marketing side, or some
other expertise it has, to a self-regulatory or other sort of
regulatory process.
I, if confirmed, will have to learn more about the agency's
role in those sorts of processes, and certainly would intend to
do so.
Senator Ayotte. Good, I would appreciate that. And also, I
just think it's important for people to have clarity and for
the responsibilities to be defined on who makes the
regulations, versus the Commission action on certain areas.
So, thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Senators. And thank you, panel. You've all been
patient and articulate.
And I just wanted to, so to speak, clear the air on our
California gas issue, because Senator Hutchison and I--I don't
necessarily disagree with her. She wants to see more drilling.
I, you know, disagree with her point that that's an issue of
debate. I believe, you know, clearly, that we have the right
balance now. I believe, speaking for her, because she said it,
she would like to see more drilling. We have more drilling;
she'd like to see even more. I believe protecting the coast and
the rest of it is an economic issue. But, that's not what the
Commission's about.
What the Commission's about is, if there's manipulation and
if statistics have been played with, the Commission has the
absolute responsibility to look at it. So, I want to just put
it on the record--and then we'll stand adjourned, here--what
happened, and why Senator Feinstein and I got involved in this.
When our gas prices spiked so high, headed toward 5 bucks--
and they were going to $5; they were at $4.67--what we said--
what we were told is that there were problems at the
refineries. And we knew there was a fire at one of--and we
believed--we thought, OK, that's a fair-enough reason. But,
this private firm did something very interesting, and they
measured the emissions coming out of those refineries, so they
knew exactly how much product was being refined. And, at the
end of the day, it turned out there was no shortage. This is
our opinion, and we're very upset about it. So, what we want to
make sure is that there wasn't some kind of a collusion
situation to say there was a shortage of product, when there
wasn't.
But, the issue of drilling off the coast, or on the coast,
or more or less, is a very important debate that's going to go
on long after both of us are not here in the Senate. But, for
now, this issue has nothing to do with that. The Commission has
nothing to do with whether we drill more or less, but that they
have to protect the consumers, here. And they may find, as they
have many times, that there was no manipulation. I'm very
disappointed in the history of the Commission, to be honest
with you. They've never so much as scolded the oil companies.
So, I'm not happy with them. Even the current members, whatever
party. OK?
But, I wanted to get your answer, and I was glad--happy
with your answer, sir, because you said you felt it was
something that you would look into; and if, in fact, you found
that there was manipulation, you would take action.
I want to thank everybody. I want to say, in behalf of the
Chairman, we wish you all well, and we thank you. And we thank
your families for being here; we know that all these jobs
require sacrifice from family and loved ones.
So, thank you very much, everybody. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Surface Transportation Funding
Question 1. It's no secret that funding for our surface
transportation system is a huge challenge. The Highway Trust Fund is
broken and being held together by completely unrelated ``pay-fors''.
Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail grants are subject to
unpredictable annual appropriations. At this point, I really don't see
much difference in the way we pay for highways, transit, or trains. Yet
it's overwhelmingly clear that we are in dire need of more investment
in transportation infrastructure across the board.
Ms. Trottenberg, the Administration has been hesitant to seriously
propose any new funding mechanisms, beyond the occasional mention of
using savings from military drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
addition to the traditional gas tax approach, what other realistic
options are there to fund transportation? What creative solutions do
you propose?
Answer. Clearly finding sustainable funding for the Federal surface
transportation program is an urgent challenge confronting policymakers.
The Federal gas tax has not been raised in 19 years, and with Americans
driving less per capita and the Nation's vehicle fleet growing ever
more fuel-efficient, the Highway Trust Fund's purchasing power
continues to decline. Congress has added over $54 billion in General
Fund transfers to the Highway Trust Fund over the last few years,
including almost $19 billion for MAP-21.
The Obama Administration has proposed using the savings from the
military drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan as a source of funding for
transportation and has supported programs such as TIFIA, TIGER, RRIF
and an infrastructure bank that would help leverage additional public
and private funds for transportation. A number of other experts have
proposed variations on the gas tax such as oil import fees or VMT fees.
So far none of the proposals have drawn a critical mass of support
among elected officials and transportation stakeholders.
As such, the Administration has committed to working with Congress
to find a more sustainable funding solution. In recent history,
Congress has increased revenues for transportation only in the context
of more comprehensive bipartisan tax and deficit reduction legislation.
Given the magnitude of what is required to put the Federal surface
transportation program on a sustainable path, it will require
negotiation at the highest levels to reach agreement on a future
transportation revenue source.
Question 2. How can we create a more predictable, sustainable
funding stream for Amtrak and passenger rail in general? Should states
be able to use their Highway Trust Fund dollars for rail projects if
they desire to do so?
Answer. We face a similarly daunting challenge in funding Amtrak
and passenger rail. Currently both are funded through annual
appropriations making it difficult to plan and execute long-term
capital projects. In its FY13 Budget submission, the Administration
proposed creating a separate funding account for passenger rail.
Additionally, there should be some discussion about providing states
with the flexibility to use their apportioned highway or transit funds
for rail projects, based on local needs and priorities.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization (MAP-21)
Question 3. Ms. Trottenberg, as you know Congress passed a surface
transportation reauthorization, MAP-21, earlier this year. This
legislation contained reauthorizations of several agencies under the
Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, including those related auto, bus,
and truck safety. While this bill included a substantial number of new
requirements and reorganization of our transportation programs, the
authorization only lasts until September 2014. What are the key
challenges to implementation of MAP-21 in the shortened time-frame of
the authorization?
Answer. The Department commends Congress for its work in passing
MAP-21 with substantial bipartisan support, and we are hard at work
implementing its new provisions, including a focus on the new safety
oversight and enforcement authorities granted to FMCSA, NHTSA, FTA and
PHMSA.
We believe the provisions in MAP-21 requiring performance measures
and performance-based planning will ultimately empower State DOTs,
transit agencies, MPOs, elected officials, and the public to make more
informed and cost-effective transportation investment decisions. But
these provisions will be a real challenge to implement. They will
require transportation agencies to collect more data and to do more
analysis of those data to show how policy changes can lead to improved
performance. And they will force transportation agencies to face real
conflicts between traditional decision-making practices and practices
focused on improving performance.
Finally, MAP-21 requires DOT to undertake dozens of safety, project
delivery and performance-related rulemakings over a two-year time frame
and it the Department, working with OMB, will have to work aggressively
to meet the legislative deadlines.
Question 4. What are the key issues, beyond funding, that need to
be addressed in the next reauthorization?
Answer. We hope to build on our work in performance management in
the next reauthorization and offer states greater flexibility to meet
their performance goals in the most cost-effective way. We expect that
the implementation process will help inform policymakers for the next
reauthorization, and we do believe that there are several areas that
the next reauthorization should address. One priority is a rail title,
which we recognize Congress may also choose to address next year when
PRIIA expires. The Administration strongly supports creating a long-
term legislative framework for high-performance passenger rail,
including Amtrak, and freight rail in the U.S.
A second priority is developing a more multimodal approach to
transportation policy. The TIGER Grant Program enacted as part of the
Recovery Act was a breakthrough in allowing us to direct funding to
whichever mode of transportation could most effectively address a
transportation problem. MAP-21 makes some progress in that direction,
but we still have extensive restrictions on how funding can be
allocated. The Administration's Infrastructure Bank proposal was
significant not only for its funding innovations, but also for allowing
funding to be directed in a multimodal way.
Third, we need to make further progress on distracted driving. As
you know, curtailing distracted driving has been and will continue to
be a priority policy area for the Department. We are pleased that 39
States, the District of Columbia, and Guam have already banned text
messaging for all drivers; and that 10 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have prohibited all drivers from using
handheld cell phones while driving. Building on this momentum, the
Department will look for opportunities to encourage states to pass
additional comprehensive distracted driving laws, and will make this a
priority in the next reauthorization.
Private Financing of Infrastructure
Question 5. Ms. Trottenberg, you testified before this Committee in
July 2011 about how we can best leverage limited Federal funding to
partner with private capital and increase overall infrastructure
investment. This is an issue I, among others on this Committee, remain
strongly interested in. While we have been able to move legislation
yet, we have seen some success through programs such as the Federal
Highway Administration's TIFIA program and Federal Railroad
Administration's RRIF program. Beyond these existing programs, are
there other initiatives the Department is working on to promote private
investment into infrastructure?
Answer. We share your interest in leveraging Federal funding to
encourage broader investment of private capital in transportation
infrastructure. MAP-21 included several provisions aimed at this
objective, which we are implementing. MAP-21's expanded TIFIA program
is a powerful catalyst for increasing private investment. Since 2006,
TIFIA has facilitated eight major public-private partnerships in the
United States worth approximately $13.5 billion. The TIFIA loans in
these projects represent less than one-third of the total value and
were critical to the project sponsor's ability to attract private debt
and equity for a substantial portion of the remaining costs. A number
of the projects that have submitted letters of interest for the
expanded TIFIA program under MAP-21 will be delivered as public-private
partnerships, and will be facilitating substantial co-investment by the
private sector.
We are also implementing the provisions in MAP-21 that require the
USDOT to provide guidance on best practices for structuring public-
private partnerships and to create model contracts for the most popular
type of public-private partnerships. Private sector involvement in
these projects doesn't simply provide access to new sources of capital,
but also include involvement in the design, construction, operations
and maintenance of the projects, which may create opportunities for
innovation, accelerated delivery, and other benefits. With the
implementation of these new MAP-21 provisions, we will be helping many
of our state and local partners better understand these potential
benefits, while ensuring that the public interest is protected.
Through DOT's other competitive programs, particularly the TIGER
program, we have been encouraging our state and local grantees to
partner with the private sector to deliver their projects more
efficiently and more effectively. Many of the freight projects that we
funded in TIGER, for example, facilitate greater investment by private
freight railroads in new rail capacity. These investments include major
investments in CSX's National Gateway Project and Norfolk Southern's
Crescent Corridor project, but also include public and private sector
co-investment to mitigate some of the worst bottlenecks on our freight
rail system, like the CREATE project in Chicago, the Colton Crossing
Project in Southern California, and the Tower 55 Project in Fort Worth,
Texas. Sometimes a small injection of discretionary Federal funding can
provide the final piece of a funding package that includes private,
state, and local funding.
Of course, more can be done by USDOT and Congress to facilitate
broader private investment in our infrastructure. For example, while
the Private Activity Bonds program administered by USDOT was under-
utilized in its early years, it is increasingly used to finance major
public-private partnerships, often in concert with TIFIA, and it looks
increasingly likely that our $15 billion national volume cap will be
fully allocated, assuming market conditions remain relatively favorable
for the issuance of these bonds. Increasing the national volume cap
would facilitate broader private sector investment.
Question 6. Have you considered how the Department might be able to
move forward on some of the concepts behind an infrastructure bank or
fund without legislation? Are there steps you can take right now?
Answer. USDOT's implementation of the expanded TIFIA program under
MAP-21, and other competitive programs like TIGER, has demonstrated,
and will hopefully continue to demonstrate, the value of many of the
concepts behind the national infrastructure bank proposals.
TIFIA and TIGER both leverage substantial public and private
sector co-investment, with TIFIA historically funding no more
than 33 percent of project costs (this could potentially climb
higher under MAP-21) and TIGER historically attracting
approximately $2 of non-Federal co-investment for every $1 of
TIGER funds awarded to a project.
Both programs have broad eligibility criteria, opening up
Federal funding to a host of surface transportation projects
that are not generally eligible for formula funds, including
freight rail and port projects, but also passenger rail and
multi-modal projects.
TIFIA and TIGER both provide broader eligibility for a
variety of applicants, including private sector project
sponsors that partner with public sector agencies. This
facilitates well-developed project planning and more robust
partnerships in project funding and delivery.
These programs facilitate multi-jurisdictional projects of
national and regional significance, including multi-state
highway bridges and investments in corridors of national
significance.
As we implement these programs we are learning lessons and
developing best practices that would be transferable in the
event a national infrastructure bank were established.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Question 1. Can you describe the steps that the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) is taking to ensure that the reforms included in
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) are
being promptly implemented in accordance with the bill, including
providing any communication or direction regarding MAP-21
implementation, and lay out your plans to provide frequent updates to
the authorizing committees on such progress?
Answer. DOT maintains a centralized database to track the progress
of ongoing rulemakings in each operating administration, and we post
reports on the Internet each month informing the public of the status
of our significant rulemakings. Senior leadership of the Department
also regularly meet with each operating administration to be briefed on
the current status of their rulemakings.
Upon enactment of MAP-21, DOT immediately began developing an
implementation plan and timeline, assigning every MAP-21 action to the
appropriate office. Provisions that could be implemented immediately,
such as the expanded TIFIA program, were addressed first, while
simultaneously laying the groundwork for implementation of provisions
that were effective October 1.
The Deputy Secretary and I have spearheaded regular implementation
meetings to engage OST and modal leadership. These meetings have fast-
tracked discussion of emerging issues and facilitated efforts to
resolve any problems that might have slowed down implementation
progress. In light of MAP-21's significant programmatic changes and
tight timeframes, DOT has maintained momentum, providing leadership,
guidance and information through stakeholder meetings, webinars, and
posted a vast array of material on Departmental websites.
Many MAP-21 provisions mandate reports to Congress on specific
topics. In addition, DOT is making every effort keep Committee staff
informed as implementation efforts progress. We have regularly notified
Committee staff of upcoming informational or outreach sessions,
guidance, and Federal Register notices related to MAP-21
implementation. We have also provided informational briefings upon
request, and respond to Congressional inquiries on an ongoing basis.
Question 2. Can you please describe the Department's progress in
expanding the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) program as authorized under MAP-21? In your leadership role
over the Office of Policy, what steps have been taken to handle the
growth of the TIFIA program and the great demand from across the
country for assistance under TIFIA?
Answer. Since the passage of MAP-21, we have taken a number of
steps to implement the changes to the TIFIA program and expand the
TIFIA Joint Program Office to meet increasing demand. We estimate that
the $1.7 billion authorized for TIFIA in MAP-21 will allow the
Department to provide approximately $17 billion in credit assistance
and leverage an additional $20 to $30 billion of infrastructure
investment.
On July 31, the Department published a Notice of Funding
Availability in the Federal Register inviting project sponsors to
submit letters of interest (LOIs) for TIFIA assistance on a rolling
basis. Since that date, we have received LOIs for more than $14 billion
in credit assistance to finance over $37 billion in total project
costs. The Notice of Funding Availability also outlined important
process changes that we have implemented within the Department to
review LOIs on a rolling, first-come, first-served basis.
On a parallel track, we are working to ensure that the TIFIA Joint
Program Office has the necessary staff to review applications and
negotiate credit agreements. The TIFIA Office developed a staffing plan
that is now being implemented. We are hiring financial and legal
experts to serve in various functions within the TIFIA Joint Program
Office, including loan origination and negotiation, credit analysis and
budget, and portfolio monitoring.
In my office, my staff and I have been very involved in the
implementation of TIFIA under MAP-21, working collaboratively with
other offices within the Office of the Secretary and the Modal
Administrations to ensure that the TIFIA program has the necessary
policies and resources to respond to the growing volume of credit
requests.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Strategic Freight Plan
Question 1. One of the goals of the Freight Policy Council is the
development of a national freight strategic plan. I think you'd
probably agree that that process should include robust input from
industry, labor, state and local governments, and safety advocates. In
Washington state, we take the approach that all the modes should work
together to better our freight system as a whole--and I'm glad that is
the approach that Secretary LaHood has adopted with the Council. Will
you commit to holding designated outreach events outside of Washington
D.C. to gather input on the national freight strategic plan?
Answer. As senior DOT officials travel, we are actively seeking
opportunities to meet with stakeholders representing diverse interests
and perspectives in this area to gain insights on the national freight
strategies on freight related issues. Earlier this year, Secretary
LaHood kicked off the DOT Freight Policy Council during a visit to
Washington State in Spokane and Seattle. In September of 2012,
Secretary LaHood hosted a Freight Forum here in Washington, DC that
included over 100 participants representing public and private sectors
interested in freight related initiatives.
We are in the process of exploring opportunities for regional
Forums during 2013. As other senior DOT officials travel around the
country, they have been participating in DOT Freight Roundtables. These
roundtables are designed as small interactive sessions with
stakeholders with diverse perspectives. Just last week, we hosted three
separate Freight Roundtables in Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; and
Chicago, IL. We will continue to conduct DOT Freight Roundtables
through the spring of 2013. In addition, we are exploring opportunities
to meet with targeted interests groups representing various modal
interests, safety, environment and economic development over the next
year. We will also be actively working with State DOTs and local MPOs
to ensure their input along the way.
Question 1a. How will the Freight Policy Council ensure that all
regions of the country have input into the development of the national
freight strategic plan?
Answer. The Department recently held an on-line national dialogue
that provided an opportunity for over 1,300 participants from across
the country to exchange ideas on suggested elements for state freight
plans and freight performance measures. There was representation from
every state and 140 metropolitan areas. In addition, we also hosted a
separate on-line dialogue with over 5,000 participants on all MAP 21
performance measures, which included unique insights on freight
performance measures.
The Department has also used `webinars' as a tool, providing an
opportunity for participants to log in from anywhere in the country. In
the past several months, we have hosted two specific webinars on
Freight in America, offering over 500 participants the chance to ask
questions to presenters and also submit unique insights using real time
chat functions.
We will continue to use these tools in addition to face to face
sessions to engage stakeholders on freight movement from around the
country.
Question 1b. What is the U.S. Department of Transportation's
timeline for beginning the freight strategic planning process?
Answer. We began work on freight strategic planning issues as soon
as the legislation was signed by President Obama. The Freight Policy
Council held its first meeting in late August. The ``Chain Gang'', an
informal multi-modal working group originally formed to discuss freight
policy issues, was re-purposed and expanded to serve as the staff of
the Freight Policy Council. Now known as the MAP-21 Freight
Implementation Team (MFIT), it is chaired by the Chief Economist of
USDOT and staffed by designees from the OST Policy, FRA, FHWA, MARAD,
FMCSA, FAA, and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Preliminary guidance to the states on how to qualify projects for
the 95 percent Federal funding match provided in MAP-21 was published
in the Federal Register on October 15. The MFIT is working to develop
performance measures for the conditions and performance report on the
freight transportation system required within two years of the passage
of MAP-21. Work began in August on the comprehensive truck size and
weight study required by MAP-21. Work is also underway on the
compilation of state laws covering truck size and weight and,
specifically, exceptions to the current Federal size and weight limits.
FHWA is working with other modal agencies and OST to develop the
national freight network required by MAP-21. Guidance has been issued
encouraging states to form State Freight Advisory Committees and to
develop State Freight Plans that will inform the National Freight
Strategic Plan required by MAP-21.
Question 1c. As part of the strategic planning process, will each
freight industry sector be asked to identify freight chokepoints, major
transportation corridors and gateways, intermodal connections, and
opportunities for collaboration on infrastructure?
Answer. U.S. DOT is working with freight stakeholders in all the
freight transportation modes to identify parts of the freight
transportation system that are particularly important to the national
economy. Stakeholders will also be asked to identify bottlenecks that
inhibit the efficient performance of the freight transportation system,
and to develop appropriate measures of conditions and performance of
the freight system. We met with freight stakeholders in Washington, DC
in September, and more outreach meetings around the country are
planned. The purpose of these outreach meetings will be:
To inform freight stakeholders about the freight provisions
of MAP-21
To involve the freight community in the process of selecting
measures of condition and performance and developing a National
Freight Strategic Plan
To encourage states to form State Freight Advisory
Committees and develop State Freight Plans
Role of the Under Secretary
Question 2. How do you view the role of the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy in the implementation of the MAP-21 freight
provisions?
Answer. The Office of Policy, under the direction of the Under
Secretary, has primary responsibility for coordinating the Department's
efforts to implement the freight provisions of MAP-21. A MAP-21 Freight
Implementation Team, consisting of designees from several modal
administrations plus the Office of the Secretary, has been assembled to
address the various statutory requirements. It is chaired by the
Department's Chief Economist, working at the direction of the Under
Secretary. The Freight Implementation Team serves as staff to the
Freight Policy Council. The Under Secretary also has broad
responsibility for freight policy development and implementation within
the Department of Transportation, beyond what is required by MAP-21.
Question 2a. How does that role relate to the leadership of the
Freight Policy Council activities within U.S. Department of
Transportation?
Answer. The Freight Policy Council consists of the Deputy
Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Maritime Administration, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, and the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, along with the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy, the Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, and Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, and the General
Counsel. It is chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Staff
from the Office of Transportation Policy, under the direction of the
Under Secretary, supports the Freight Policy Council, along with
designees from the other modal administrations.
Management of Different Modal Interests
Question 3. Your position is multimodal in nature--you will be the
Secretary's top transportation policy advisor for a variety of modes,
some of which have competing interests and jurisdictions. How do you
intend to balance these different interests, especially with regard to
multijurisdictional efforts (like the Freight Policy Council)?
Answer. Multi-modalism is an Obama Administration priority, and an
important goal of mine at U.S. DOT. To promote a complete
transportation system incorporating all forms of transport, I am
dedicated to ensuring participation and collaboration between the
numerous modes represented at U.S. DOT. Policies that affect all modes,
such as safety, freight, and performance measures, require
collaborative planning and cooperative decision making. By consistently
bringing different modes to the table and working together to identify
joint areas of concern and develop appropriate solutions, the Policy
Office plays a leading role in guiding the Operating Administrations at
U.S. DOT to work together and pursue an efficient, multimodal
transportation system that balances multiple interests.
Over the past four years, we have had a steady track record of
implementing multimodal efforts throughout numerous programs and
policies. In 2009, the Department established the U.S. DOT Safety
Council, taking a collaborative approach to safety across
transportation modes. The Council brings together modal administrators,
chief safety officers, and other departmental leaders to address DOT-
wide safety challenges such as Safety Culture and safety data issues.
Also in 2009, the Policy Office announced the first TIGER
discretionary grants as part of the Obama Administration's ARRA
campaign. The TIGER program has since completed four rounds of national
competition, awarding over three billion dollars to 218 innovative
projects across the country. The TIGER effort has included every mode
since its inception, and the Policy Office manages the TIGER process
through close collaboration with the surface modal administrations for
the evaluation, selection, implementation, and tracking of TIGER
projects. Through collaborative decision making, the Policy Office
funded projects that leverage private funding, demonstrate innovative
project delivery, create economic opportunity, and greatly benefit
communities and the Nation.
In the area of freight policy, Secretary LaHood established the
Freight Policy Council in August 2012 to bring together senior
leadership and modal administrators, as well as policy, budget,
economic, safety, and research experts to oversee the implementation of
MAP-21's freight provisions, including the development of the National
Freight Strategic Plan. The Department's `Chain Gang' of freight
experts from various modes also meets to coordinate the development of
MAP-21 provisions. With input from various modes, we released Interim
Guidance outlining U.S. DOT's recommendations for State Freight Plans
and Freight Advisory Committees in October 2012, and are currently
working to designate a National Freight Network and establish the
National Freight Strategic Plan.
As the Department works to develop and implement national
performance measures required by MAP-21, the Policy Office is working
with each of the modes, stakeholder groups, and experts from numerous
fields to develop mutually-agreed upon metrics and ensure that their
adoption will lead to a more multimodal transportation system.
Moving forward, I am committed to continued collaboration across
modes in relevant policy and program arenas, to ensure a multimodal
national transportation system.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Drunk Driving
Question 1. Ms. Trottenberg, this month thousands of families will
celebrate the holidays without loved ones, without family members who
were killed by drunk drivers. What is so tragic is that every drunk
driving crash is 100 percent preventable.
The example of my home state of New Mexico offers lessons and hope
for significantly reducing drunk driving fatalities nationwide. New
Mexico uses a combination of enforcement and education efforts. One
example is New Mexico's mandatory ignition interlock law for all DWI
offenders.
Although Congress did not accept a similar interlock provision as
part of MAP 21, I am pleased that legislation I authored to develop new
technologies to reduce drunk driving crashes, the ROADS SAFE Act, did
become law.
If confirmed, will you continue to support efforts to combat drunk
driving nationwide?
Answer. Drunk driving is a nationwide tragedy, and as you point
out, it is entirely preventable. That is why reducing drunk driving has
been a priority for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and the Department for many years. The Department uses a
comprehensive strategy, which includes research, outreach, technology,
and law enforcement, to reduce the toll of drunk driving. The
Department has worked with New Mexico and other states to develop,
test, and deploy effective countermeasures, including a state impaired
driving leadership program that follows the successful New Mexico
model. Because of the complexity of the drunk driving problem, this
comprehensive approach is necessary to achieve lasting gains. However,
with more than 10,000 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities each year, it
is essential that we also keep investigating innovative new strategies
such as the technology utilized in the Driver Alcohol Detection System
for Safety (DADSS). Secretary LaHood has identified impaired driving as
a key Departmental priority and if confirmed I will work diligently to
implement the Secretary's vision.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Question 1. Last week the President signed into law Senator
McCaskill and my bipartisan European Union Emission Trading Scheme
Prohibition Act. Secretary LaHood has been a vocal opponent of the EU's
overreach with ETS. Can you explain the DOT's plans for implementation?
Answer. Senator Thune, I would like to recognize this Committee's
leadership on the EU ETS issue. The legislation you and Sen. McCaskill
authored, passed by the Congress and signed by the President, played an
important role in securing a temporary suspension of EU ETS to our air
carriers. Because of this suspension, there is no immediate need for
the Secretary to act under this legislation. In addition, we are
encouraged by the progress on addressing global emissions in ICAO and
we are working to accelerate this progress and finding a permanent
solution to EU ETS. The Department remains committed to using its full
scope of powers and influence to find workable and acceptable solutions
to this issue internationally.
Question 2. What do you see as DOT's core objectives?
If confirmed, one of your responsibilities will be
coordinating the DOT's budget development. With the fiscal
cliff, sequestration, and government wide spending cuts looming
how will your office identify areas within the DOT that can be
eliminated, reduced or reformed while still meeting DOT's
objectives?
Do you have any specific examples you can provide the
Committee?
Answer. Throughout my tenure at the Department of Transportation, I
have worked to ensure that our budget requests support the success of
our economy by investing in our Nation's most critical transportation
needs. I have worked closely with the Assistant Secretary for Budget
and Programs to develop budgetary policies and priorities that will
create jobs by investing in our Nation's transportation infrastructure,
spur innovation across our transportation systems, and improve
transportation safety--our number one priority.
For example, the President's FY 2013 Budget request proposed
several new initiatives that will improve program performance, better
connect communities, and enhance safety. At the same time, the FY 2013
President's Budget identified $154 million in administrative cost
savings including travel, advisory contracts, communications and
employee IT devices, printing and reproduction that could be redirected
towards our transportation priorities.
This is an ongoing effort. Over the past year, we have continued to
identify savings across the Department, and I will continue to play a
strong role in our investment decisions to ensure that we are most
effectively using our resources to meet our Nation's transportation
objectives.
Question 3. One of the goals of MAP-21 was ``to do more with
less.'' As DOT implements MAP 21 I think it is important that this be
remembered, especially when promulgating regulations. For instance, one
practical way to do this is considering the impact various rules and
regulations have on different parts of the Nation. For instance, while
congestion mitigation is essential is urban areas, it is less necessary
in rural areas like my home state of South Dakota. For that reason, I
think it would be ridiculous to require them to meet the same
regulatory standards. If confirmed, can I get your commitment to
remember these differences when promulgating rules and regulations and
help our state DOT's succeed in ``doing more with less.''
Answer. DOT strives to issue rules that are carefully tailored to
address specific issues, while providing performance-based standards,
rather than prescriptive, one-size-fits-all standards, allowing
regulated entities to find the ways to comply with our regulations that
best meet their needs. I commit to working closely with all different
parts of the country, from the most rural to the most urban, to ensure
that our policies at USDOT account for their very different needs and
priorities. Further, in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and various executive orders, DOT considers ways to
lessen compliance burdens on small businesses as well as State, local,
and tribal governments.
Question 4. During Mr. Huerta's confirmation I asked him for an
update on possible changes to the FAA's Part 77, also known as One
Engine Inoperative (OIE). At that time no formal changes had been made,
but discussions were ongoing. Can you provide an update on this?
As I said before, it appears to me this change would have an
enormous impact on private property rights, building heights, urban
development, and jobs. Will your office ensure that a cons-benefit
analysis, with comments from stakeholders, is done and ensure economic
impacts are considered before changes to OIE are made?
Answer. The FAA's goal in reviewing our airspace policy as it
relates to planning for a critical engine failure on take-off (One
Engine Inoperable, OEI) is to preserve the safety, efficiency and
capacity of our Nation's airports and the surrounding airspace, as we
transition to NextGen, and beyond. We are also committed to supporting
airports in their efforts to be good partners to the communities they
serve. The FAA is continuing to review this issue and will continue to
work with and seek the input of interested parties to explore balanced
public policy solutions, as well as assess their economic impacts to
airports, airlines, and local development.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Hon. Polly E. Trottenberg
Question 1. We must enhance and maintain our country's leadership
in aviation. Earlier this year, we held a hearing on the competiveness
of the U.S. Aerospace sector.
All witnesses generally agreed that the FAA and other agencies must
work with stakeholders to modernize our air transportation system, and
we know that collaboration leads to manufacturing job creation and
consumer benefits.
One witness testified that some lost business opportunities are
caused by delays in the FAA certification process. I am very concerned
about these lost jobs and the harm to our economy. Further discussion
touched on TSA's ongoing procrastination with regard to the Aircraft
Repair Station Security Rule. I have three questions:
First, what will you do to make progress on the FAA certification
delays?
Answer. I recognize the issue of certification is of key importance
in the aviation sector and the FAA has taken concrete steps to improve
the process. Section 312 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95) required the
FAA Administrator, in consultation with the aviation industry, to
conduct an assessment of the aircraft certification and approval
process.
The FAA has developed a comprehensive implementation plan, along
with a plan to measure the effectiveness of the recommendations which
the Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation
Rulemaking Committee submitted to the Director of Aircraft
Certification on May 22, 2012. Furthermore, the FAA has begun
implementation of these actions which were required to begin no later
than February 14, 2013, and which FAA monitors by other means.
The Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform (ACPRR)
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) submitted the following
recommendations to the Director of Aircraft Certification on May 22,
2012:
1. Development of Comprehensive Means to Implement and Measure
the Effectiveness of Implementation and Benefits of
Certification Process Improvements
2. Enhanced Use of Delegation
3. Integrated Roadmap and Vision for Certification Process
Reforms
4. Update Part 21 to Reflect a Systems Approach for Safety
5. Culture and Change Management
6. Process Reforms and Efficiencies Needed for Other AIR
Functions.
The FAA has already initiated many activities as part of on-going,
continuous certification process improvement efforts which are
associated with the Committee's recommendations and will begin others
to fulfill the intent of all of the recommendations.
Question 2. Second, will you proactively, through inter-agency
dialogue and other means, encourage the TSA to take action on the
Aircraft Repair Station Security Rule? If so, please elaborate.
Answer. As background, TSA was originally tasked with creating a
repair station security rule in Sec. 611 of the VISION 100 legislation,
passed in 2003. TSA was instructed to issue a final rule to
``strengthen oversight'' for all FAA certificated part 145 repair
stations, located both domestically and abroad. The agency was afforded
240 days to issue the final rule, which elapsed without such action.
Next the ``9/11 Commission Recommendation Act of 2007'' mandated
that the TSA issue the final rule within one year of enactment of the
legislation (August 3, 2007). The bill gave the TSA until August 3,
2008 to issue the final rule or no new foreign repair stations would be
afforded FAA-certification. Since TSA has not yet issued the final
rule, Flight Standards has not performed an initial certification on a
repair station outside the U.S. since August 2008. They remain in a
queue, depending on the date on which their pre-application statement
of intent (PASI) was filed and to which Flight Standards International
Field Office they applied.
FAA and TSA have been working together to be prepared for the final
rule. FAA has provided TSA access to our databases and provided
information on the number of applicants in the cue, their locations,
and the field office performing the certification.
Early in the process, TSA worked to develop the program and TSA
inspectors accompanied FAA inspectors to repair stations. In
preparation for the new security rule, the FAA has begun to meet more
frequently to discuss the procedures for notifying when an applicant is
ready for a security evaluation, how the program will be monitored and
how FAA certification will be revoked or suspended, if warranted. Going
forward, I will be tracking the progress of both agencies.
Question 3. Finally, what else would you do to promote the
importance of the aviation sector, including manufacturing, in the
Department of Transportation, in the international marketplace, and
within the U.S. Government?
Answer. I strongly support the goal of a strong, healthy and
globally competitive U.S. airline industry. At DOT we have worked to
open markets, increase business opportunities for airlines and provide
more travel options for consumers.
In the last four years we have signed Open Skies Agreements with
Japan, Brazil, and Columbia as well as countless other countries. In
Japan we have seen almost a 4 percent growth in passenger traffic. In
Brazil, the market has grown 10 percent. We have also granted anti-
trust immunity to certain airlines alliances where we found that
airlines and consumers would benefit.
DOT is also an active member of the President's National Export
Intiative (NEI). Under the NEI, we have worked to formulate and
implement strategies which will support exports of U.S. aviation goods
and services in key markets abroad, not only aircraft, but the many
components which support aviation infrastructure.
Through the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Transportation
Working Group, we are working on a business aviation initiative to
allow this sector to reach its potential in the Asia-Pacific region,
which should stimulate demand for U.S. manufactured aircraft.
Finally, we are working in ICAO to find a global approach to
addressing greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation and
solve the EU ETS dispute so that ETS does not apply to our carriers.
If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with airlines,
airports, labor, and consumers to further open markets abroad to help
the health of the industry and provide more travel options for
consumers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Mark E. Doms
Improving the Use of Economic Data
Question 1. Dr. Doms, the Economics and Statistics Administration
(ESA) is a relatively small agency but one with enormous
responsibility. Your office is the bookkeeper of the Nation's Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and the findings of the Bureau of the Census.
The data you report has an enormous impact on the lives of all
Americans. Additionally, as Under Secretary, you would serve as one of
the government's chief economists.
As we continue to recover from one of the worst recessions in our
Nation's history, good economic analysis is in particularly high
demand. We need to understand American competitiveness, especially in
our Nation's manufacturing sector. This Committee will be looking to
your office to help us understand these pressing economic questions.
Question 1a. Given the current economic climate, what can the ESA
do to better support American businesses and families? For instance,
are there ways to better analyze or collect statistical information?
Question 1b. If confirmed, how do you plan to implement any of the
changes you have articulated in your answer to the previous question?
Answer. I believe the Economics and Statistics Administration can
best support American businesses and families by continuing to provide
the highest quality analysis and statistical information about our
communities and our economy. Good data is the bedrock of sound
decision-making by our Federal and local leaders. ESA must effectively
oversee and foster the work of America's two premier statistical
agencies: the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
The Census Bureau conducts surveys to fulfill its own Federal mandate,
and administers dozens of key surveys for other Federal agencies such
as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes
of Health, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, to name a few.
The analytical work of the Bureau of Economic Analysis continues to
improve the standard of economic analysis in our world. In the wake of
the financial crisis and recession, BEA identified areas where existing
economic data, in hindsight, fell short of providing a comprehensive
view of what was happening to the economy. A series of proposals
followed, collectively known as GDP and Beyond, which will increase the
information available to policy-makers on the economic conditions of
American households and small businesses.
If confirmed, I will champion the innovations of survey design,
data collection and analytical rigor that the Census Bureau and the
Bureau of Economic Analysis pursue with an eye towards cost and
operational efficiency.
American Community Survey
Question 2. Dr. Doms, I strongly believe that good data is
absolutely essential to developing good public policy and distributing
billions of dollars of Federal funding to the right communities. This
is why I strongly support the American Community Survey, which replaced
the long form on the decennial census. This new survey provides more
timely data than a 10-year update. I was dismayed when the House cut
its funding this spring. I oppose any efforts to make the survey
voluntary--it would decrease the quality of the data and increase the
survey costs by millions. Do I have your pledge to protect the
essential American Community Survey?
Answer. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides critical
insight into the health of our great nation. I will, if confirmed,
extend every effort to demonstrate to Congress and the American people
how important ACS statistics are to helping policymakers, businesses,
and local community leaders make informed decisions.
Bureau of the Census
Question 3. The Census Bureau is an essential agency in my
judgment, and it needs to have strong support and a clear line of
authority. There are many questions about pending proposals to change
the structure of the Commerce Department. If confirmed, do you pledge
to be mindful of the Census Bureau and protect its authority and its
budget so the fundamental work of the decennial census, the American
Community Survey, unemployment data, poverty data, and all its work
will continue?
Answer. If I am confirmed, you have my commitment that I will
continue to fervently protect the authority and independence of the
Census Bureau and the critical work that it performs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Dr. Mark E. Doms
Question 1. Dr. Doms, the American Community Survey (ACS) provides
crucial up-to-date information about the social and economic needs of
communities. However, most people aren't aware that business leaders
heavily rely on the ACS for demographic and socioeconomic data, using
it as a tool for market evaluation and consumer segmentation.
While many businesses now use sophisticated and proprietary site
and segmentation products from private firms, these products are built
largely on a statistical and geographic foundation provided by the
census.
As the chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Competitiveness,
Innovation, and Export Promotion, I'm interested in helping to build a
competitive agenda to move forward and I think ensuring business
leaders have access to this crucial decision-making tool, helps move
that agenda forward.
Can you expound on the importance of and the role the ACS plays in
business decisions and building our economy?
Question 1a. Are there things the Census Bureau can do to improve
the accessibility and usability of the ACS for business leaders?
Answer. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides a high quality
statistical view of our communities and our economy. The ACS provides a
level playing field for all businesses. An individual who wants to
start a small business or those self-employed have access to the same
accurate information about their communities as a large or medium-sized
employer that can afford the services of a site selection company.
Retail businesses use the ACS to understand the characteristics of the
neighborhoods in which they locate their stores along with determining
the types of products they sell in their stores. There is no private
sector substitute for ACS data for small and rural communities. Without
the ACS, the United States business sector would face increased
difficulty and risks in making decisions that support the Nation's
economy.
The Census Bureau has launched a digital transformation that seeks
to dramatically improve the way business leaders and the public access
the estimates from the ACS. In line with the new Federal digital
strategy, the Census Bureau has already made steady improvements to how
users access official statistics. In July, the agency launched its
first application programming interface (API) enabling developers to
pull 2010 Census and American Community Survey statistics easily into
their own web and mobile applications. Since launching this open data
service, more than 1,700 developers have signed up to have access. In
addition, the Census Bureau has incorporated all of the ACS data into
several new data access and mapping tools. For instance, QuickFacts
provides users of all levels ACS statistics and business information
from the Economic Census side by side for any place in the Nation with
a population of 5,000 or more.
If I am confirmed, I will continue to support the innovative work
of the Census Bureau to provide broader, more agile Internet tools that
are compatible with the new generation of mobile devices and further
deploy search features that meet the needs of the novice and
experienced business data user.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Mark E. Doms
Question. Many low-income families struggle to make ends meet in
New Jersey because it is a high cost-of-living state. But the Federal
government does not produce an official statistic that measures
geographic variation in the cost of living. That means that New Jersey
families that cannot afford the basics may not be eligible for Federal
help. If confirmed, what would you do to make sure Federal statistics
take into account geographic variation in the cost of living?
Answer. Geographic variation in costs is an important issue and a
challenging one to resolve with respect to economic measurement. Below
I would note two statistical products that address geographic variation
specifically and which may address the concerns you have raised.
First, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has made great
progress in the design and implementation of a cutting edge regional
price parity index which will allow for the adjustment of key regional
statistics. BEA has published prototype estimates of this index for the
past two years and expects to publish a final prototype index in 2013.
We expect this new index will become an official series beginning in
2014 with adjusted regional data following.
Second, for the past two years the Census Bureau has been providing
research on a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that provides a new
way to measure the well-being of families like those in New Jersey who
live in high cost-of-living states. If confirmed, I will continue to
support the research and distribution of these new statistical products
that I believe states and local communities have already found very
useful.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Dr. Mark E. Doms
Census
Question 1. Dr. Doms, you will oversee the Census Bureau in your
role as Under Secretary of Economic Affairs. The Census is critical for
ensuring that communities have proper representation and the resources
needed for health care, law enforcement and education. What new tools
or technologies could potentially improve the accuracy and efficiency
of the 2020 Census?
Question 1a. How can the Census Bureau harness new tools and
lessons learned from the 2010 Census to improve the Census process
moving forward?
Question 1b. What are the best ways to ensure an accurate and
complete counting of Americans--especially those living in rural areas
where census participation can be low and it is difficult for census
workers to follow up with those who do not respond to census
questionnaires?
Answer. Work is already underway at the Census Bureau to develop
new methodologies for capturing interview responses and managing field
operations through the use of mobile devices. In addition, the Census
Bureau will offer an Internet response option, which provides
opportunities to increase response, improve language support, and
develop new innovations to address quality issues such as duplication
and coverage improvement.
The Census Bureau also is exploring the use of administrative
records (e.g., tax, social security information, and data from other
censuses and surveys), to inform about households that do not respond
to the census.
The 2010 Census offers a wealth of data that is informing the
design of the 2020 Census. For example, Census Bureau staff have
matched the administrative records mentioned above to the entire 2010
Census universe to provide evidence for the potential benefits and
challenges associated with using those records to support census
operations. The Census Bureau is building a Knowledge Database from
over one-hundred 2010 evaluation reports and audits developed by the
Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General, the
National Academy of Sciences, and others to help guide research and
development of the 2020 Census design.
The Census Bureau is exploring propensities to respond among rural
populations and will tailor field operations to harder to reach
populations that are less likely to respond to the census. In the 2010
Census, Census Bureau field staff interviewed every household in some
of the areas of the country that are particularly difficult to
enumerate. This included remote areas of Alaska, Northern Maine, and
the Colonias of South Texas. As the country continues its expansion of
broadband use, the Internet may offer new possibilities for better
capturing rural populations in the Census.
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Question 2. As you know, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
strives to provide timely, relevant and accurate economic data to
policy makers and the public. Do you have any thoughts on how to make
BEA data more accessible and useful to public users, potentially
through new open government tools or technologies?
Answer. BEA has recently made great strides to ensure that users
have full and complete access to data. In 2011, the Bureau launched a
new online Interactive Data System that combines easy and intuitive
access with analytical tools like charting and graphing. In fact, this
new system won the 2012 Driving Digital Government Award from the
Center for Digital Government for its innovative use of technology to
connect the public to data.
BEA has also worked with the Census Bureau on the recently released
``America's Economy'' mobile application and is also involved in a
number of other efforts to connect data users to data. Additionally,
this year the Bureau launched a blog designed to bridge the gap between
technical publications and plain language explanations of the data.
If confirmed, I will continue to support BEA's efforts to reach its
customers using leading edge communications tools.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
E-Rate
Question 1. E-Rate is a vital program for ensuring students in even
the most rural communities in our Nation enjoy the educational benefits
and opportunities that broadband provides. During your first
confirmation hearing, you committed to supporting and protecting the E-
Rate program. And, at a hearing earlier this year, you promised not to
support any effort to take funds from E-Rate, funnel funds through E-
Rate, or use E-Rate legal authority for broadband adoption or other
digital literacy initiatives. Will you renew those commitments in your
second term to protect and support the E-Rate program?
Answer. Yes.
Incentive Auctions
Question 2. I was pleased to see that the FCC recently sought
public comment on proposed rules to implement the voluntary incentive
auction provisions of my public safety spectrum legislation. As you
know, that legislation--which was generated out of this Committee--
combined innovative spectrum policy with the creation of a nationwide,
next-generation public safety network. Your colleagues on the FCC have
publicly recognized this link. They have all acknowledged the need to
make sure that these incentive auctions raise enough money to meet the
goals set forth in the legislation--including funding for the
nationwide public safety network. I know that developing these auctions
will be a complex process, but do you agree that an important
consideration for these rules must be providing sufficient funding for
public safety?
Answer. Yes. Sections 6401 and 6413 of the Act direct that certain
proceeds from the forward auction, must be deposited in the Public
Safety Trust Fund for a national first responder network and public
safety research. I believe that it is important for the Commission to
design an incentive auction that can help provide funding for First Net
and other public safety goals in the Act.
Media Ownership
Question 3. Shared services agreements enable multiple stations in
a single television market to combine key aspects of their operations,
including in some cases advertising sales, back-office functions,
newsgathering operations, and even carriage negotiations with cable and
satellite companies. These contracts are not public or commonly
reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission, though, so it is
difficult to judge their impact.
Given that broadcasters are stewards of the public airwaves, would
you agree that the Commission should review the details of all shared
services agreements (including local marketing agreements and joint
sales agreements) to make sure that they are in the public interest? If
it is found that shared services agreements are not in the public
interest or harm consumers, would you commit to considering limits on
these arrangements?
Answer. I agree that the sharing of certain services, like those
mentioned in your question, may be the only means by which broadcast
stations in smaller media markets are able to afford providing key
functionalities. There are outlets unable to singularly support the
overhead costs associated with news gathering, production, and
advertising sales, and could be facing bankruptcy if they were forced
to go it alone.
However, when the sharing of services results is a monotone,
uniformity of news dissemination, and the combining of resources is to
the detriment of original investigative reporting, the viewing public,
I believe, suffers.
The FCC's draft Order on media ownership, currently under review by
the full Commission, contemplates these concerns, and I am carefully
reviewing the language to ensure that we have the proper safeguards in
place to ensure that they are in the public interest.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question 1. Does the Chairman's Draft Order Address the 3rd Circuit
Remand on Diversity--Commissioner Clyburn, on November 14, Chairman
Genachowski circulated his draft media ownership report and order to
the other Commissioners. As reported by the press, the proposed rule on
media cross ownership is very similar to the rule ordered by the
Chairman's Republican predecessor, which the Senate in 2008 voted in
favor of overturning.
There is no compelling reason for the Chairman to weaken media
ownership rules. Last Thursday, I sent a letter to the Chairman
expressing my disappointment with the draft order. I know other
Senators have signed on to Senator Sanders's letter.
Question 1a. Commissioner Clyburn, do you believe the Chairman's
draft order on media ownership satisfies what the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals told the FCC it needed to address regarding women and
minority ownership of broadcast outlets in its remand of earlier media
ownership rules?
Answer. The draft Order you reference is currently on circulation,
so I am unable to directly answer your question. However, as indicated
by my December 3rd statement on our Form 323 report, I am working to
ensure that the FCC does everything possible to address the Court's
concerns in its remand.
Question 1b. Do believe the Commission has collected all the data
it needs to address the Court's remand?
Answer. I believe that the data-gathering improvements the
Commission has been working on related to broadcast ownership reporting
and ongoing studies concerning the critical information needs of
communities put us on a course to get the necessary ownership data in a
comprehensive and up-to-date manner. However, as I stated in my answer
to your previous question, the analysis of the data is what the
Commission needs, and I feel that the draft Order on media ownership
that we are currently considering represents the best vehicle for a
forward-looking roadmap to examine the critical information needs of
American communities and how consumers access news. I am working with
the Chairman's office, those of my fellow commissioners, and the FCC's
Media Bureau to make certain that such a path forward is included in
the draft Order.
Question 2. Will the Chairman's Draft Order Fix the Problems of the
Newspaper Industry--Commissioner Clyburn, do you believe that weakening
the media cross ownership rule, making it easier for the owner of a
daily newspaper to also own a television station or a radio station in
the same market will cure what ails the newspaper industry today?
Answer. We are mandated by Congress to review every four years
whether our current rules are necessary: (1) due to competition and (2)
in the public interest. Some smaller entities have stated that further
consolidation will help, as advertising dollars are migrating to
Internet-based news sources leaving them unable to rely on a
previously-plentiful revenue stream, while others state consolidation
leads to multi-platform bundling which leaves independent voices weaker
and unable to compete with a single property option.
However, should opportunities for limited cross-ownership be
endorsed by the agency, the Commission must implement strong factors,
tests and thresholds which must be fulfilled, should separate entities
wish to consolidate.
Question 3. State of On-line News Reporting--Commissioner Clyburn,
at the national level, do you believe that the state of online news
reporting has reached the level of sophistication where it offsets what
has been lost in recent years by the reductions in the journalism
operations of traditional media?
Answer. While some studies suggest that many of the sources
consumers rely on for their on-line news engagement originate from
traditional media companies, with advertising dollars migrating toward
a wider variety of news, opinion-editorial and ``infortainment''
(information/entertainment) sites, revenue to traditional news
companies is being diluted and the level of investigative reporting and
local coverage have declined substantially.
Question 4. Potential Impact of Incentive Auctions on Women and
Minority Ownership--Commissioner Clyburn, women ownership of full power
commercial television stations is under seven percent nationally, while
racial minorities own a little over two percent of these stations. Are
you concerned that the upcoming incentive auctions may encourage women
and minority owners of television stations to take the cash and exit
the business, further reducing the diversity of television station
ownership?
Answer. While I am personally troubled by the lack of diversity
when it comes to full power properties, the most important word in the
incentive auction authority Congress gave us is voluntary. Broadcasters
have the option to participate in this engagement if they decide it is
in their best interest. Chairman Genachowski has directed the staff to
conduct this proceeding in a manner that improves the mobile and
broadcast industries, and if minority and women broadcast owners choose
to avail themselves of the auction and exit the broadcast industry,
they are entitled to do so.
Question 5. Concern Over Impact of Progeny Waiver on Unlicensed
User in 900 MHz Band--Commissioner Clyburn, in one of your speeches you
called unlicensed spectrum one of the great spectrum policy innovations
of the 20th century that has allowed for a new wave of technologies. I
agree with your assessment.
In 1995, the FCC came out with rules for licensing spectrum for
Multi-lateration Location Monitoring Service (M-LMS) right smack in the
middle of the 900 megahertz (MHz) unlicensed band.
For over 15 years the band was unused by these licensees due to the
technology not being mature and no business model. What flourished in
the band was vibrant unlicensed innovation including Wireless Internet
Service Providers.
Almost a year ago, the FCC granted a waiver to one of these
licensees subject to demonstrating that its system will not cause
unacceptable levels of interference to unlicensed devices that operate
in the 902 to 928 MHz band.
The joint testing has wrapped up. My understanding is that the test
results show that many unlicensed devices could not co-exist with the
new service.
Given the intensive consumer and industrial use of these unlicensed
frequencies and their importance to our economy and wellbeing, I would
think the FCC will tread carefully.
I would not be surprised if this M-LMS licensee is allowed to move
forward in the 4 MHz it has licensed, other M-LMS licensees might also
consider seeking FCC permission to move forward. Then the issue of what
is unacceptable interference becomes even more important, because if it
is not done well, much of the existing unlicensed band with its large
installed base of users will effectively not be able to be used anymore
Commissioner Clyburn, can you assure me that the FCC will take all
necessary steps to ensure that if the FCC allows this new service to go
forward, the public will not suffer the loss of use of 900 MHz
unlicensed spectrum?
Answer. By way of background, Progeny is seeking to provide service
in the 900 Mhz band which is shared among many users, including many
unlicensed users. The Commission rules require that before commencing
service, Progeny conduct field tests to show how its network might
affect unlicensed operations. Under the Commission's rules, a
prospective licensee must not cause ``unacceptable levels of
interference'' to unlicensed operations. Progeny has submitted reports
of these tests that currently, are under review by Commission staff,
which has also asked for comment from all interested parties.
Question 6. 700 MHz Interoperability--Commissioner Clyburn, is it
your understanding that the FCC wireless bureau engineering staff have
indicated that there are not significant technical impediments to
interoperability in the lower 700 MHz band?
Answer. The comments in the record raise two general technical
issues with regard to interoperability in the lower 700 MHz band.
First, whether one mobile wireless network can technically support two
band classes: Band Class 12 for A Block licensees and Band Class 17 for
B and C Block licensees. Second, whether there is any merit to the
argument that, because A Block licensees are subject to potential
interference from Channel 51 operations and E Block operations, until
those interference threats are removed, an interoperability mandate
will adversely impact the customers of B and C Block licensee.
On the first issue, paragraph 41 of the March 2012 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, which the Commission unanimously voted to approve,
makes the following point. ``Since the two Band Classes overlap in
frequencies, we think it is likely that there are relatively simple,
cost effective solutions that will allow a single network to
accommodate devices from both band classes. For example, would the
Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network file (EHPLMN) update in
devices allow the LTE network to support both Band Class 12 and Band
Class 17 devices''? While I prefer to keep an open mind as I review the
record, that language suggests that the Commission believes that having
one network accommodate both band classes should not be difficult.
On the second issue, involving potential interference that B and C
Block licensees would face from Channel 51 and E Block licensees if
required to be in a network with A Block licensees, the A Block
licensees believe that they have provided the more persuasive technical
analyses. In those technical analyses, the A Block licensees tested B
Block and C Block handset devices currently available on the market and
found that they did not experience harmful interference from the
signals being emitted from Channel 51 and E Block licensees. The
technical experts of the FCC should examine those technical analyses,
as well as the analyses offered by the B and C Block licensees, and
decide this issue.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question 1. Superstorm Sandy caused serious damage to
telecommunications networks in New Jersey. These networks are vital for
connecting families and coordinating emergency service during a natural
disaster. But, as we have seen, they are also vulnerable to disruption
and outages. What is the FCC doing to make sure our communications
systems are better prepared for the next natural disaster?
Answer. The FCC staff took number of actions leading up to and
following that horrific occurrence. We:
Coordinated with the New Jersey Broadcast Association and
FEMA to ensure New Jersey broadcast personnel could have
emergency access to their broadcast facilities and priority
access to fuel supplies for their generators. This enabled
broadcasters in the hardest hit areas to stay on the air.
Worked with DHS to ensure communications service providers
(primarily wireless and cable providers) had priority access to
two New Jersey fuel depots, to meet needs for generators and
restoration crew vehicles. This was very important because,
during Sandy, reliable access to fuel supplies was a major
problem.
Identified non-English speaking stations in New Jersey and
provided the stations' emergency contact information and
coverage maps to FEMA. FEMA used this information to help
ensure non-English speaking stations could remain on the air
and provide emergency information to the non-English speaking
public.
Coordinated with the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission
to determine points of contact for major power companies in New
Jersey and passed the information to communications service
providers for coordinated restoration planning and execution.
This was especially important to communication service
providers because they rely to a great extent on the operation
of commercial power.
In addition, an international cable landing station in New
Jersey had a generator malfunction that put its continued
operation at risk. The FCC coordinated with DHS and found a
telecom carrier that was willing to loan a generator to the
landing station. As a result, the cable landing station
remained operational throughout the ordeal.
Question 2. As you know, there is evidence that New Jersey's only
licensed high-power television station, WWOR, has failed to live up to
its obligations to serve the people of New Jersey. When you appeared
before this Committee in 2009, you committed to reviewing this case
quickly and thoroughly. Yet, more than three years later, and five
years after its license expired, the FCC has taken no action on WWOR.
When can we expect movement on this issue?
Answer. It is my understanding that WWOR-TV's license renewal
application is currently pending, and is contested by several parties.
The FCC's Media Bureau issued a Letter of Inquiry regarding the issues
of concern last year, and received WWOR's response in April of 2011.
License renewal applications are normally handled at the Bureau-level
and thus not voted on by the Chairman and commissioners, but I am told
that there are other issues associated with the proceeding, including
cross-ownership, and the Bureau is working to resolve all of the issues
simultaneously.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question. As a former prosecutor, I've seen firsthand the critical
contributions public safety communications officials make to public
safety on a daily basis--helping to save lives and bring criminals to
justice.
Consumers in the U.S. are increasingly reliant on text messages,
photos and live video calls as smartphones and tablets continue to
dominate the mobile market. However, many are frustrated that these
rich means of communications cannot be used in an emergency. The
importance of emergency services is why I serve as the co-chair of the
Congressional NG911 caucus.
The FCC should be commended for the important steps already taken
to accelerate the development and deployment of next generation 911
technology, but more work needs to be done.
There has been a lot of news lately of the current 911 network
experiencing failures. One of the possible benefits of NG911 should be
more redundancy and back-up systems when traditional voice networks
fail.
What do you think the FCC can do while it looks at NG911 to ensure
we create a better and more effective back up to 911 networks in the
event of a failure?
Answer. NG911 networks will be more resilient by design than the
current architecture and offer more capabilities to enhance public
safety. It is a Commission priority, however, to ensure the resilience
of 9-1-1 services today, even as we plan for the NG911 networks of the
future.
To that end, the Commission staff has been working with diverse
advisory committees like the Communications Security, Reliability and
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) to develop best practices that will
help make 9-1-1 networks more resilient and to better plan for natural
and manmade disasters. These best practices recommend diversity of all
network elements involved in completing a 9-1-1 call. The Commission
has also routinely monitored the performance of carrier networks
serving Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) through the Commission's
outage reporting systems. During emergency events, Commission staff
work actively with carriers making these reports to assist in
identifying problems and remediating them as quickly as possible.
Some recent natural disasters, however, have demonstrated that the
resilience of current 9-1-1 networks certainly is not uniformly at
acceptable levels. When the derecho struck this area on June 29, it
left in its wake more than 2 million people who were unable to contact
9-1-1 for varying periods of time due to carrier network problems. That
is unacceptable. The Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau is preparing a report that looks at that experience and may
recommend action steps to foster greater and maintain greater
resiliency of the networks that connect people to 9-1-1 service. I am
also looking forward to the in-depth inquiry that the planned hearings
on Superstorm Sandy will facilitate, and will closely evaluate the
information we obtain.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Digital divide on Tribal lands
Question 1. The mission of the Federal Communications Commission is
to make communications services available to all the people of the
United States. However, the first people of the United States--Native
Americans--face a significant digital divide on Tribal lands.
Most people probably cannot imagine life without a telephone. Yet
today more than 30 percent of households in Indian Country do not have
access to basic telephone service. Broadband access is much worse with
probably more than 90 percent lacking broadband. These statistics do
not truly convey the hardships created by this lack of
telecommunications service. Imagine not being able to call an ambulance
when you or someone you love is in medical danger. Phones and broadband
also help keep friends and family members in touch when they are far
apart. Imagine not being able to speak with a loved one who is serving
in the military and won't be home this holiday season.
Although Tribal lands are among the least connected, this is
precisely where modern communications technologies can help the most.
By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation, broadband
can help improve economic development, education, and access to health
care.
I know you share my view of the importance of this issue, and I am
pleased that the Commission is paying particular attention to this
challenge. There is a new Office of Native Affairs and Policy to help
work with Tribes on a government-to-government basis. The recent
Universal Service order proposes a Tribal Mobility Fund to expand
wireless access. It will also require engagement with Tribes. These are
welcome steps in the right direction.
If reconfirmed, will you seek to ensure that the Commission
continues to work with Tribes and telecommunications carriers to tackle
the digital divide facing so many Native American communities?
Answer. Yes, I agree with your statements, and have been working
closely with our Office of Native Affairs and Policy, to ensure that
our reforms provide the means for much needed voice and broadband
services in Indian Country.
Accelerating broadband deployment to unserved households
Question 2. Ms. Clyburn, I know from your first confirmation
hearing in 2009 that you believe that universal service reforms should
enable all Americans, regardless of where the live in the country, to
have meaningful access to broadband.
I understand that the USF reform process is still underway and will
take several years to complete. But I am concerned that much of the
funding reserved for broadband deployment under the Connect America
Fund (CAF) phase I will go unspent while there are still many New
Mexican households that lack broadband access. In September, Senator
Bingaman and I wrote Chairman Genachowski to ask the FCC to ``work
swiftly to find a way to use all currently available Connect America
Fund (CAF) resources to meet our Nation's digital divide challenge.''
The letter also asked the Commission to ``consider proposals from price
cap carriers serving New Mexico to deploy broadband immediately to the
least-expensive unserved households.''
What more can the FCC do to help accelerate broadband deployment to
unserved communities while the Connect America Fund (CAF) phase II is
still under development?
Answer. Recognizing among other facts, that over 80 percent of the
more than 19 million Americans unserved live in price cap territories,
the Commission provided for two phases of funding to make broadband-
capable networks available to as many locations as possible in those
areas. In Connect America Fund Phase I, the Commission froze existing
high-cost support for price cap carriers and provided up to $300
million of additional, incremental support in 2012, in order to advance
deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure while it implements
Phase II. Then in Phase II, the Commission has provided for up to $1.8
billion to be spent each year, over a period of five years, to further
advance deployment of broadband-capable infrastructure and sustain
services in price cap territories through a combination of a forward-
looking cost model and competitive bidding. The Commission directed the
Wireline Competition Bureau (``Bureau''), to develop the cost model for
CAF Phase II, and the Bureau is expected to complete its work in 2013.
Of the initial $300 million in Phase I incremental support
allocated to price cap carriers to support the deployment of broadband-
capable networks to currently unserved locations, approximately $115
million was accepted. A number of carriers requested that the
Commission either waive or reconsider certain of the build requirements
in order for them to accept the full amounts available to them. The
Commission recently adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
concerning CAF Phase I, wherein we seek comment on two alternative
approaches to advancing our broadband objectives in price cap
territories, using the remaining 2012 Connect America Phase I funding.
Under the first alternative, we propose to combine the remaining
funding from the first round of the Connect America Fund into any
future rounds of Connect America Phase I funding, and to revise the
Phase I rules to expand the definition of eligible areas, adopt a
process to update to the National Broadband Map, and alter the metric
used to measure build-out. Under the alternative proposal, remaining
funds from the first round of Phase I would be added to the budget for
Phase II.
One way to accelerate broadband deployment pending Phase II, would
be for the Commission to adopt modifications to CAF Phase I so that
more unserved locations are built, while Phase II is under development.
I would support an Order that proposes such action, as long as we
continue to ensure that we meet the overall goals of our reform
discussed in the USF/ICC Reform Order, including using the limited
funds in an efficient and effective manner.
Support for low-income persons without broadband
Question 3. The Commission has issued rules to reform how universal
service funds will support building out broadband networks in rural
areas. But we know that having broadband available where you live is
not the only aspect to tackling the digital divide. People need to see
the value of having it. And they need to be able to afford to pay for
it.
The universal service Life Line and Link Up initiatives have helped
many people with low incomes get basic telephone service. In rural
Tribal areas, Enhanced Life Line and Link Up help not just with
adoption rates but also service deployment to some high cost areas
where many potential customers could not afford phone service.
In addition to the Commission's efforts, some cable and phone
companies have committed to offering reduced price broadband options
for certain low income families.
Could you share your thoughts on how the Commission can use
universal service initiatives, and also work with private companies, to
increase broadband adoption, particularly among people with low
incomes?
Answer. As you note, a number of companies have voluntarily
committed to expanding broadband availability to low-income consumers
through adoption initiatives. I applaud these efforts as one-third of
Americans have not adopted broadband at home, and for those who are
low-income, affordability is a critical factor that prevents them from
adopting. The Commission recognized this in our Lifeline Reform Order
voted earlier this year, and we took two important steps. First, we
established a broadband goal for the Lifeline program. Second, we
established a pilot program for broadband service to help the
Commission determine how to move Lifeline from a telephone-only subsidy
to supporting broadband service for low-income consumers. The Wireline
Competition Bureau is currently considering those applications to
participate in the pilot, and I expect that they soon will be making
decisions about those projects that will be selected to participate. I
anticipate that after the 12-month pilot program, the Commission will
have the information it needs to move Lifeline from a telephone-only
program to broadband.
Support for telemedicine
Question 4. New Mexico is a rural state where many rural
communities are not only underserved when it comes to in
communications, but also underserved in health services. We have some
great folks at the University of New Mexico and in our hospital systems
who are working hard to improve rural healthcare by using new
innovative telehealth technologies.
The Government Accountability Office has criticized the FCC's
management of the Rural Health Care Program. Some of the telemedicine
proposals contained in the FCC's National Broadband Plan also seem to
be on hold at the moment. I realize that the FCC is engaged in
substantive reform in areas such as universal service. But telehealth
is another area that should be a priority.
If reconfirmed, will you support efforts to improve and increase
telemedicine opportunities, especially for rural communities?
Answer. Yes, telemedicine has been a priority for me because I have
seen firsthand the life-saving benefits and cost savings telemedicine
provides to those who live and work in rural America. I am happy to
report that the FCC staff has done a tremendous job of evaluating our
rural Healthcare Pilot Program. They recently published a report on the
lessons learned including how broadband can lower the cost and improve
the quality of healthcare, among many other benefits. The Chairman has
circulated for the Commission meeting in December, an Order which takes
the lessons learned from that Pilot Program and proposes to establish a
Healthcare Connect Fund. I am happy to support this Order, as I expect
it will promote telemedicine in rural areas and will lead to
significant cost savings, and more importantly, save lives.
Importance of broadcast TV and Radio
Question 5. Today, there is a lot of excitement about mobile
broadband, which puts the power of the Internet into the palm of your
hand. I am amazed by what new smartphones and tablets like the iPad can
do.
Yet, with all the excitement about new mobile technologies, it is
easy to forget that broadcast TV and radio are truly the first
``wireless'' technologies. They continue to play a valuable role today.
Not everyone can afford cable or satellite TV. Not everyone has access
to the Internet at home.
Free broadcast TV and radio are especially important in times of
emergency. For example, when northern New Mexico faces severe winter
storms or summer forest fires, people turn to their local broadcasters
for the latest weather and safety information. Outside of emergencies,
local businesses also appreciate how advertising on local broadcast
stations can help them reach customers in their communities.
Can you share your views on the value of over-the-air broadcasting
and the importance of its role in an evolving telecommunications
landscape?
Answer. I have long proclaimed that the importance of over-the-air
broadcasting cannot be overstated. Recent research indicates that the
number of Americans relying on it increased from 46 to 54 million in
the past year, and that young adults, minorities and lower-income
families are the primary viewers. Further, there is a growing trend
toward canceling cable subscription service and using over-the-air TV
paired with over-the-top Internet content viewing, referred to as
``cord-cutting''. Although there are innumerable new alternatives to
broadcast television, by most accounts it is still the most preferred
and reliable means for the American public to access news, content and
public safety alerts.
Call completion problems in rural areas
Question 6. Ms. Clyburn, I joined with many of my colleagues in
sending a letter to Chairman Genachowski expressing concern about call
completion problems in rural areas, including in New Mexico. This is
not simply a matter of annoyance for affected telephone users. It can
mean missing a call during an emergency. I know you responded already
orally to questions about this issue during the hearing.
Could you please restate, for the written hearing record, what you
believe that FCC can do to finally resolve the problem of rural call
completion issues?
Answer. This issue has been of real concern to me due to the impact
it can have on rural economies and the public's safety if calls can't
go through. The Commission is actively engaged in finding a solution as
quickly as possible, and I continue to press our staff to work quickly,
given the significance of this issue. I have been encouraging all
carriers and customers experiencing call completion problems to use the
real-time information tools the FCC has made available to help us
determine the cause and parties involved in order to resolve individual
issues more quickly.
To the extent that this issue is about paying high access rates in
rural areas, the major ICC reform we voted last year is bringing those
rates down over time and this issue should not persist long-term. As
for the short-term problem, our USF/ICC Reform Order also confirmed
that carriers cannot block, choke, or reduce or restrict traffic in any
way, and the Bureau followed up with a second Order that clarifies that
originating carriers can be held liable for knowing that there are
completion issues and not correcting them.
Our Enforcement Bureau is actively investigating this serious
matter. The staff is collecting real-time information to spot patterns
and resolve the connection issues, but they also are investigating
particular carriers and their practices. I continue to communicate with
the Chairman's Office and our staff about rural call completion issues
frequently and will continue to do so until this issue has been
resolved.
Media Ownership
Question 7. The FCC seems to be poised to adopt media ownership
rules at a time of increasing media concentration. Congress tasked the
FCC with promoting localism and diversity in America's broadcast
system. Yet there are low levels of female and minority-owned media
outlets in New Mexico and nationwide.
What policies would help create more opportunities for women,
Hispanic and other minority-owned media outlets to flourish in New
Mexico and across the country?
Answer. Female and minority-owned broadcasters cite lack of capital
as the paramount barrier to remaining viable and acquiring properties.
Countless entities have exhausted options in terms of financing, are
out of ideas, and are in crisis (bankruptcy).
The Minority Tax Certificate, which the FCC adopted in 1978,
offered companies an incentive which resulted in notable increases of
minority media ownership. The policy allowed companies to defer capital
gains taxation from the sale of media properties to under-represented
communities. As a result, 364 tax certificates and 200 media
transactions exceeding $1 billion in value were realized until Congress
repealed the Tax Certificate Program in 1995.
I am hopeful that Congress takes another look at what worked best
with this tool, address any issues which proved problematic,
reinstitute a revised framework, and join the FCC in exploring options
to break down barriers to entry for small businesses interested in
operating in the broadcast space.
Question 7a. Would you support changes to media ownership rules
that undermine established goals of increasing ownership diversity?
Answer. No I would not.
Prison Phones
Question 8. Could you explain more about your work related to
prison phone rates, an issue which has recently received public
attention and scrutiny?
Answer. This issue has been pending before the Commission in a
Petition for Rulemaking for almost a decade. Families and friends of
prisoners have asked that the Commission ensure that they have access
to fair prices when speaking with their incarcerated loved ones over
the phone. Studies show that connections with family and friends are
important in helping lower recidivism rates, and it is typical for the
families of prisoners to pay the bulk of the cost of these calls. This
is a particular hardship because families often are low-income, and are
unable to visit their loved ones due to the time, expense, and in many
cases, the prison facilities are located great distances from their
homes.
I have met with some of the petitioners and their counsel, and have
heard stories of rates that can be as high as $4.95 to connect, plus 89
cents per minute for an interstate, long distance call. A typical 15
minute call can cost up to $17.
I have been working with the Chairman for a number of months to
move this proceeding, and am happy to report that he has circulated a
Further Notice to consider what actions the Commission can take to
address these high rates. By statute, the Commission has an obligation
to ensure interstate rates are just and reasonable, and I look forward
to working with my colleagues and all interested parties to reviewing
these rates and ensuring that we have fulfilled that obligation.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question 1. Commissioner Clyburn, in your written and oral
testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs this summer,
you said that the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service
cost model would account for Alaska's relatively higher costs of
broadband deployment. Specifically, you highlighted ``the unique
challenges of serving remote areas of Alaska'' and explained that ``we
included an Alaska specific variable to reflect different costs within
that area.'' After that hearing, I discovered that the FCC's cost model
not only doesn't accommodate Alaska's higher costs, but penalizes
Alaska by assuming it is cheaper to serve than the rest of the country.
Given this fact, would you like to correct your previous testimony?
Answer. The point I was making in my testimony is that we took
great strides in balancing numerous objectives and concerns in our
reform, including the unique circumstances of providing service on
Tribal Lands and in Alaska. In particular, the Bureau included
variables for Tribal Lands and Alaska in its regression analysis for
rate-of-return carriers' high cost loop support (an $800 million
support mechanism). Interested parties continue to raise concerns about
that analysis, and my office has been engaged with them as they discuss
their varied issues. This dialogue has been fruitful, and I understand
that the staff is preparing an Order to further address those concerns.
I look forward to reviewing that Order to ensure that we are doing all
we can to revise our reforms where necessary, while meeting the overall
goals discussed in the USF/ICC Reform Order, including using those
limited funds in an efficient and effective manner.
Question 2. Do you share the concerns regarding the USF
Transformation Order recently expressed by Commissioner Rosenworcel in
her concurring statement issued with the Commission's Fifth Order on
Reconsideration of the USF Transformation Order?
Answer. My understanding is that Commissioner Rosenworcel has some
concerns about the regression analysis for the rate-of-return carriers'
high cost loop support mechanism. My office has been engaged with the
parties as they discuss their varied issues with the analysis. This
dialogue has been fruitful, and I understand that the staff is
preparing an Order to further address those concerns. I look forward to
reviewing that Order to ensure that we are doing all we can to revise
our reforms where necessary, as we meet the overall goals of the
reforms discussed in the USF/ICC Reform Order, including using the
limited funds in an efficient and effective manner.
Question 3. Specifically, Commissioner Rosenworcel stated: ``This
agency's reforms to the high-cost universal service system are
extremely complex. I fear that this complexity can deny rural carriers
dependent on them the certainty they need to confidently invest in
their network.'' Do you agree?
Answer. See my response immediately above.
Question 4. Before the FCC issued its USF Transformation Order in
November 2011, a group of 29 Senators and myself wrote in April, 2011,
to Chairman Genachowski urging him that reform proposals must strike a
balance to protect the investments that have already occurred with the
need to overhaul the USF programs. When the Order was adopted,
Commissioner Clyburn, you issued a concurring statement in which you
said: ``we have in place a waiver process that is firm, predictable,
yet fair,'' and you added that this waiver process would ``avoid
inadvertently harming the success we have already achieved through our
legacy system.'' However I have heard from many rural carriers that the
Order has harmed these carriers and denied the certainty that any
business requires to make investments.
If you are reappointed, what changes in the Transformation Order
would you commit to pursue to make certain that the Commission's
process is fair and predictable in a way that ensures rural carriers
are not deprived of the opportunity to recover lawful investments and
expenses they have already incurred in the provision of universal
service before the new rules were adopted?
Answer. The USF/ICC Reform Order reflected a bipartisan, unanimous,
and balanced agreement on a set of complex issues that the industry and
the Commission have attempted to reform for a decade. We inserted more
fiscal discipline and responsibility in meeting America's broadband and
voice needs, but recognized that as we implement the Order, adjustments
may be necessary. In that vein, we have made several modifications over
the last year. In addition to numerous Bureau level Orders, the
Commission has issued five Orders on Reconsideration, that consider a
number of issues including giving companies more time to adjust to
certain provisions. Throughout this process, I have welcomed
constructive dialogue with the parties impacted by the reform, and
believe that these productive discussions will continue to ensure that
we will meet our overarching goals of ubiquitous, state of the art,
broadband and voice services.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Spectrum Crunch
Question 1. Ms. Clyburn, as you know, many in the wireless and
telecom industry are very concerned about the need for additional
spectrum given great consumer demand for wireless services. Some recent
economic reports have concluded that unleashing 300 MHz of spectrum for
mobile broadband by 2016 would spur $75 billion in new capital
spending, create between 300,000 to 770,000 new jobs and add $230
billion in GDP. When you look at the entire wireless ecosystem and all
of the economic benefits that are derived from this type of investment,
it is no wonder that this has been one of the few good-news stories of
the U.S. economy lately. Clearly, given the rising importance of this
segment of the economy to our overall economic health, the work the FCC
does in this domain must be done very carefully, because mistakes made
by the FCC could result in the stifling of this one dynamic area of our
economy. I believe that we need to do more to identify new spectrum and
get it into the hands of those who will invest and continue to build
robust wireless networks.
Consistent with the President's call for an additional 500 MHz of
spectrum, how do we get more spectrum to market quickly and avoid the
pitfalls of kicking the can down the road?
Answer. We will be better equipped to realize those objectives by
taking the following actions: (1) repurpose spectrum to flexible use by
removing regulatory barriers--examples WCS and AWS-4; (2) conduct
traditional auctions--like H block; (3) conduct new types of auctions--
an example being the TV bands incentive auctions; and (4) explore
innovative approaches, such as sharing using databases--for example, TV
white spaces and 3.5 GHz.
Universal Service Fund (USF) Contribution Reform
Question 2. Ms. Clyburn, an important issue with respect to
Universal Service Fund (USF) Reform that has not yet been addressed is
the industry contribution mechanism that pays for USF subsidies.
Ms. Clyburn, what are your views on concluding contribution reform
during your tenure as Commissioner? Do you believe contribution reform
should be concluded in a timely fashion, say within the next year?
Answer. As you know, since the release of the National Broadband
Plan in 2010, the FCC has been in process of reforming the Universal
Service Fund (``USF'') programs to take into account the importance of
broadband availability, both deployment and adoption, to our Nation's
citizens, including community anchor institutions. We have voted
significant reforms for the E-rate program, the high-cost program, and
most recently the Lifeline program under Chairman Genachowski's
leadership. Our reforms also address the continuing availability of
voice service that consumers rely upon every day to communicate.
Earlier this year, the Commission approved a Further Notice seeking
comment on contribution reform. We sought comment on a variety of
options, and while there is wide agreement that the Commission should
reform the contribution side of the USF equation, there is very little
agreement on how the Commission should do so. At this time, I believe
that we lack sufficient, empirical data that supports any particular
approach. I have encouraged interested parties to provide us with the
data that supports their stated positions and to collaborate in order
to build consensus, as I believe as you do, that contribution reform is
important.
In my time at the Commission, I have observed that it is often the
case that the Commission's proceedings are advanced when interested
parties are engaged, not only with the policymakers, but with one
another to find common ground. You also asked about timing. As you
know, the Chairman sets our agenda, so it's difficult for me to predict
when a Reform Order may be circulated, but I remain engaged with all
interested parties in working towards a resolution as quickly as
possible.
Long Distance Call Completion Problems in Rural America
Question 3. Ms. Clyburn and Dr. Wright, yesterday, I along with
several other Senators sent a letter to the FCC concerning the issue of
call completion problems in rural America. We have heard from many
constituents regarding the persistent problem of some long-distance
telephone call not being completed to consumers in rural areas. I am
concerned about public safety and worry that it's only a matter of time
before this situation leads to tragedy when a rural customer is unable
to complete an urgent call. This is an issue where the FCC and the FTC
may have to collaborate on investigating the issue of any providers
failing to properly complete calls to rural areas.
What has the FCC and the FTC done in relation to this issue? Will
each of you commit to working together in this area to examine all
possible causes?
Answer. This issue has been of real concern to me due to the impact
it can have on rural economies and the public's safety if calls can't
go through. The Commission is actively engaged in finding a solution as
quickly as possible, and I continue to press our staff to work quickly,
given the significance of this issue. I have been encouraging all
carriers and customers experiencing call completion problems to use the
real-time information tools the FCC has made available to help us
determine the cause and parties involved in order to resolve individual
issues more quickly.
To the extent that this issue is about paying high access rates in
rural areas, the major ICC reform we voted last year is bringing those
rates down over time and this issue should not persist long-term. As
for the short-term problem, our USF/ICC Reform Order also confirmed
that carriers cannot block, choke, or reduce or restrict traffic in any
way, and the Bureau followed up with a second Order that clarifies that
originating carriers can be held liable for knowing that there are
completion issues and not correcting them.
Our Enforcement Bureau is actively investigating this serious
matter. The staff is collecting real-time information to spot patterns
and resolve the connection issues, but they also are investigating
particular carriers and their practices. I continue to communicate with
the Chairman's Office and our staff about rural call completion issues
frequently, and I would be happy to coordinate and work with the FTC on
this matter if that agency believes it should be involved.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question. In your March 22, 2012, statement in support of the
Commission's issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
lower 700 MHz interoperability, you said ``This NPRM provides
sufficient notice about the rules the Commission might adopt if the
industry does not achieve true interoperability across the lower 700
MHz band. At a minimum, those are the goals the voluntary solution
should achieve. We need to quickly arrive at an appropriate method to
measure the progress of those efforts. If sufficient progress is not
being made, we should not hesitate to adopt these proposed rules. I
look forward to an industry solution, or the adoption of rules, by the
end of this [2012] calendar year.'' \1\ Do you still desire to see the
FCC take such action before year-end? If so, what steps are you taking
to make that happen?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/
db0321/FCC-12-31A4.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. I stand by my statement. We initiated the Lower 700 MHz
Interoperability proceeding to address this problem and expressed the
Commission's preference that the relevant wireless companies work
towards a voluntary resolution. I agree that such an approach can offer
the market greater flexibility and would limit the Commission's
involvement. But I am hearing that the industry is not any closer to a
resolution than it was in March and this troubles me greatly. In the
coming weeks, expect enhanced engagement from our Office on this front,
because we are committed to bringing greater efficiencies and
opportunities to the commercial market.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question. I understand that USF/ICC reform has a goal of dispersing
of $1.8b in 2013 to support delivering broadband to consumers in very
high cost areas served by price cap companies to bridge what is often
referred to as the ``rural-rural divide.'' However, I understand the
disbursal of those funds is dependent on the Commission's development
of an economic model. What is the status of the development of that
model, and progress toward implementing CAF Phase II? And what are the
Commission's plans for investing that money in the event the model is
not completed in time?
Answer. In its USF/ICC Reform Order, the Commission directed the
Wireline Competition Bureau (``Bureau'') to develop the cost model for
CAF Phase II (the ``Connect America Cost Model''). Here is an update on
the actions the Bureau has taken to date on development of the Connect
America Cost Model:
In early 2011, the Bureau released a Public Notice, inviting
interested parties to submit proposed forward-looking cost models. In
response, parties submitted two separate models into the record, and on
June 8, 2012, the Bureau sought comment on these models as well as ``on
a number of threshold decisions regarding the design of and data inputs
to the forward-looking cost model.'' \1\ The Bureau also hosted an in-
person workshop in September 2012 to discuss the design and mechanics
of the cost models in the record and, more recently, commenced a
virtual workshop soliciting input on a variety of topics related to the
development and adoption of the cost model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Model Design and
Data Inputs for Phase II of the Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos.
10-90 and 05-337, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6147 (Wireline Comp. Bur.
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator of the Universal Service Fund, the Universal
Service Administrative Company (USAC), has procured the services of a
contractor to assist with the public hosting, execution, and support of
the Connect America Cost Model, under policy direction from the
Commission. On December 11, 2012, the Bureau announced the availability
of version one of the Connect America Cost Model, which provides
Commission staff and interested parties the ability to calculate costs
using a variety of different inputs and assumptions. While version one
of the Connect America Cost Model is similar to the CQBAT model
submitted into the record by the ABC Coalition, it contains a number of
key differences, including an estimate of the cost of providing not
only broadband services, but also voice services.
The Bureau has emphasized that it has not adopted this version of
the Connect America Cost Model, and that the inclusion of various
capabilities does not represent a preliminary finding about the
approach that the Bureau will ultimately adopt in this proceeding. The
Bureau will continue to develop the cost model platform and inputs
before finalizing and adopting a forward-looking cost model for Connect
America Phase II as directed by the Commission in the USF/ICC Reform
Order. The Bureau anticipates that a second version of the Connect
America Cost Model will be available in the coming weeks and will
include an update to 2010 census geographies and updated SBI data. The
Bureau will shortly start soliciting input in the virtual workshop on
whether there are any other functionalities or capabilities that should
be added to the Connect America Cost Model platform.
After an opportunity for further public comment, the Bureau will
adopt an order at a subsequent date in 2013, that adopts a final
version of the Connect America Cost Model that will be used for
purposes of estimating support amounts in price cap areas. The Bureau
has encouraged interested parties to access the Connect America Cost
Model (version one and any subsequent version) to provide input on
whether it provides reasonable estimates of forward looking efficient
costs and what adjustments, if any, should be made before the Bureau
finalizes and adopts the Connect America Cost Model.
At this time, I do not anticipate that the Bureau will be unable to
complete its work on the Connect America Cost Model in 2013.
Nonetheless, should an unforeseen delay occur, then the price cap
carriers would continue to receive frozen USF support and CAF Phase I
funding, if elected, for broadband deployment. As you probably know,
the Commission has an NPRM pending to consider revisions to CAF Phase I
which potentially could lead to more carriers electing to use the CAF
Phase I money to deploy broadband to unserved consumers.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Marco Rubio to
Hon. Mignon L. Clyburn
Question. The FCC plays an important role in licensing spectrum for
telemetry, tracking, and command for U.S. space launch. I am concerned
that the FCC may impose duplicative requirements that are outside the
scope of spectrum licensing and that are already regulated by other
Federal agencies, which could significantly impact the ability for U.S.
launch services providers to receive timely, streamlined, and
consistent consideration of licensing applications. Given the growing
role of the commercial space launch sector, particularly in Florida,
and the need to restore U.S. competitiveness in the international
launch market, what actions does the FCC plan to undertake that will
streamline the regulatory licensing process to ensure the viability of
this growing sector of the economy?
Answer. While the FCC licenses spectrum for use during space
launches, other agencies such as the FAA and NASA have primary
responsibility for most issues regarding space launches. The FCC has no
intention to duplicate the efforts of these other agencies. The
spectrum that is typically used for telemetry, tracking, and command
during U.S. space launches is allocated for use by Federal agencies.
Consequently, in those situations involving commercial use of spectrum
where the FCC has a statutory responsibility regarding spectrum use by
non-Federal government entities, the Commission works closely with NTIA
to avoid the potential for harmful interference. The FCC will continue
to work with the NTIA and other Federal agencies to ensure that this
process is efficiently administered as possible.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV
to Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Economic Theory and Consumer Protection
Question 1. Dr. Wright, as an economist and law professor, you have
published papers on numerous topics related to the FTC. In these
writings, you demonstrate a clear worldview that government should
intervene to protect consumers infrequently, and only after conducting
stringent cost-benefit analyses. And on balance, you seemingly err
against consumer protections on the belief that government actions tend
to be more harmful to the public than letting some bad actors go
unnoticed.
As you can see from the work I have done in this Committee,
consumer protection is one of my absolute priorities. I regard the FTC
as the most important consumer protection agency in the United States.
I'm interested in hearing how the economic theories and cost-benefit
analysis methods you subscribe to would impact your decision-making as
a Commissioner.
Specifically, what do you see as the FTC's role in consumer
protection? Would your economic views predispose you toward certain
outcomes in consumer protection cases?
Answer. I believe the Commission is the world's preeminent consumer
protection and competition agency. I hold both of the Commission's
missions in the highest regard. I have written about the complexity in
regulating high-tech markets--and the attendant caution required--the
intellectual thrust of those concerns, usually raised in competition
law cases, is that regulators should be wary of wrongly condemning pro-
consumer behavior. These concerns are heightened when dealing with
rapid innovations, as is common in high-tech markets. These concerns
are not implicated, however, where the Commission is enforcing promises
regarding privacy protections.
Historically, I think the Commission has done an outstanding job
rigorously enforcing the consumer protection and competition laws
passed by Congress. If confirmed, my top priority will be to uphold
both the agency's consumer protection and competition law enforcement
functions. The two areas are closely related and complementary in
ensuring markets work efficiently. My views on consumer regulation (and
competition law as well) are grounded only on sound and broadly
accepted economic theory and the rigorous analysis of empirical data.
These are fundamental tools for pursuing the Commission's mandate to
protect consumers and maximize consumer welfare. These are goals I take
seriously, and, in my view, goals that are consistent with the
application of sound microeconomic analysis.
Question 2. I am concerned that a number of the FTC's top consumer
protection initiatives do not fit neatly within your economic models.
For example, the FTC has made consumer privacy a priority--something
that I have long supported--and yet it is extremely difficult to place
a dollar figure on the value of an individual's privacy. How would you
approach issues like privacy for which reliance on cost-benefit
analyses may be inadequate?
Answer. I believe the insights of microeconomic theory can and do
inform both the consumer protection and competition missions of the
agency. Economic analysis helps guide the Commission's efforts even
when a cost-benefit analysis is difficult--such as for privacy issues--
because sound economic theory and analysis can suggest the correct
inquiries for the Commission's focus and investigation. Of course,
vigorous enforcement in the privacy arena is appropriate even without
such an analysis when a practice implicates the Commission's deception
authority.
Question 3. Would you insist that cost-benefit analyses always be
performed in order for you to support a Commission initiative? What if
there were insufficient data?
Answer. As discussed above, a cost-benefit analysis is not always
required in order to support a Commission initiative. For example,
vigorous enforcement under the FTC's deception authority does not
require such an analysis. Similarly, in the antitrust arena, certain
conduct well-known to reduce consumer welfare is appropriately
addressed under a rule of per se illegality--in other words, the
conduct is appropriately condemned without a detailed analysis of its
costs and benefits. If confirmed, I can assure you that I will strive
to enforce existing law in all cases in furtherance of the Commission's
mission based upon the best evidence available.
Consumer Financial Protection
Question 4. Dr. Wright, during these difficult economic times, I
have become increasingly concerned about scams and frauds that target
struggling families. The FTC has been focusing on this area, issuing
new rules prohibiting certain debt settlement and mortgage foreclosure
rescue scams and conducting numerous enforcement actions. You have
expressed skepticism about government intervention in markets, and
about the need for consumer financial protections.
Do you agree with any of the consumer financial protection actions
that the FTC has taken in recent years? Do you believe the Commission
should have done more to protect consumers from bad mortgages with
misleading terms--bad mortgages that ultimately led to the collapse of
global financial markets?
Answer. Protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive business
practices is central to the Commission's consumer protection mission. I
strongly support the Commission's efforts in these areas, and, if
confirmed, look forward to working with the agency to continue its
proud tradition of increasing market transparency and combating unfair
or deceptive business practices. As a broad example in the consumer
protection context, I strongly support the FTC's fraud program. I fully
support many of the FTC's recent consumer protection enforcement
actions, including the FTC's recent consent order against an egregious
invasion of consumer privacy, where rent-to-own companies and a
software design firm pre-installed software onto consumer computers to
track purchasers' locations and take pictures inside consumers' homes.
This case provides an excellent example of the Commission's application
of both the deception and unfairness prongs of its consumer protection
authority.
Turning to the Commission's work regarding mortgage servicing, debt
relief, and related areas, I fully support the Commission's efforts to
curb deceptive marketing and lending practices and the Commission's
enforcement actions in these areas. The FTC should fully employ its
enforcement authority to challenge practices that exploit consumers'
vulnerabilities in the mortgage lending arena, as in other markets.
Question 5. If confirmed, where would you want the Commission to
focus its efforts in protecting American consumers from these types of
scams and frauds?
Answer. If confirmed, as discussed above, I believe the
Commission's efforts in combating deceptive practices in areas such as
mortgage servicing, debt relief, and other forms of financial fraud are
a critical area of the Commission's consumer protection mission. The
Commission should continue to vigorously combat these and other unfair
and deceptive business practices, including deceptive and online
marketing practices, for the benefit of all consumers.
Privacy
Question 6. Privacy is a critical component of the FTC's consumer
protection mission, and it has been one of my top priorities for the
agency. Given this, I am interested in learning more about how you
believe the Commission should approach consumer privacy issues.
In your testimony, you talk about the challenges the Commission
faces in implementing its consumer protection efforts in high-tech
environments. Yet a number of the FTC's privacy and data security cases
involve the very high-tech industry that you believe warrant limited
regulation and oversight. What types of privacy cases should the
Commission focus on, and why? Are there privacy actions the Commission
has brought with which you disagree? Would you support privacy cases
like those against Google and Facebook that involve the high-tech
industry? Why or why not?
Answer. The Commission often attacks deceptive practices designed
to evade consumers' legitimate expectations based upon promises firms
made regarding privacy. The Commission should remain vigilant in
enforcing businesses' promises to consumers, such as those made by
Google and Facebook. I have written about the complexity in regulating
high-tech markets--and the attendant caution required--the intellectual
thrust of those concerns, usually raised in competition law cases, is
that regulators should be wary of wrongly condemning pro-consumer
behavior. These concerns are heightened when dealing with rapid
innovations, as is common in high-tech markets. These concerns are not
implicated, however, where the Commission is enforcing promises
regarding privacy protections. I support the principles of notice and
choice embodied in proposed general privacy legislation because they
help facilitate competition and benefits for consumers; I do not,
however, have any particular recommendations or views on specific
legislation at this time without further study. If confirmed, I would
look forward to working with the Committee on these important issues.
Question 7. The FTC's privacy report recommends that companies
implement privacy by design, offer increased transparency, and provide
improved consumer choice. The report also calls on Congress to consider
enacting general privacy legislation. What are your views on the FTC's
report? Which recommendations would you support, and which
recommendations would you disagree with? Why? Do you support general
privacy legislation? Why or why not?
Answer. I support the general thrust of the FTC's privacy report in
its articulation of the principles of transparency and consumer choice.
These principles, in my view, provide a useful general framework for
thinking about privacy regulation in manner consistent with serving
consumer welfare. I have considered some of the report's
recommendations, though not all. For example, I support both the
Commission's general recommendation for privacy legislation as well as
additional authority in the area of data security. I do not have
particular recommendations to offer at this time about legislation in
those areas. If confirmed, I will confer with both my colleagues and
staff at the Commission as well as the Committee as I further develop
views in these areas based upon my experiences and learning at the
Commission.
Question 8. Where do you believe the Commission should focus its
consumer protection resources in the area of privacy? Are there areas
where you believe the Commission should limit its role? Which ones, and
why?
Answer. In many privacy cases, the Commission is using its
deception authority to enforce promises that a private company has made
to consumers. The Commission should remain vigilant in enforcing these
promises and preventing deceptive acts that harm consumers. While I
have written that agencies should be cautious in regulating high-tech
markets, the intellectual thrust of those concerns--most often raised
in the competition context--is that one should be wary of wrongly
condemning pro-consumer behavior that is difficult to understand in the
high-tech markets. This concern is not implicated when the FTC acts to
enforce promises made regarding consumer privacy protections.
For example, I support the FTC's recent enforcement action against
DesignerWare under both its deception and unfairness authority. In that
case, DesignerWare provided software designed to help rent-to-own-
stores disable a computer if it was stolen or if the renter failed to
make payments on it. The software also had a ``Detective Mode'' which
enabled the rent-to-own stores to access private and confidential
details about users, passwords, and user names for e-mail accounts and
financial institutions, social security numbers, and medical records.
That software also could log keystrokes, capture screen shots, and even
take photographs of unsuspecting users with the computer's webcam. The
Commission's complaint against both DesignerWare and the rent-to-own
stores included both unfairness and deception counts. This sort of
behavior clearly harms consumers, intrudes egregiously upon consumer
privacy, was reachable under existing law, and the Commission
appropriately furthered its mission of protecting consumers in this
case involving online privacy protections.
Where consumer harm is not apparent, I believe the Commission
should take a more cautious approach before acting. That caution does
not apply when there is clear harm--for example, when firms break
promises to consumers regarding privacy protections or when firms
engage in behavior that clearly harms consumers without countervailing
benefits where consumers cannot avoid those harms.
Question 9. During your testimony in front of the Committee, you
emphasized ``consumer harm'' as a metric for FTC action. Do you believe
that protecting consumer privacy, in and of itself, constitutes
protecting a consumer from harm? Or do you believe that consumers
should only be protected from the physical, financial or otherwise
tangible harms that stem from the misuse of personal information?
Answer. Cases involving intrusions on consumer privacy typically
involve broken promises to provide some level of privacy protection.
The Commission typically responds by invoking its deception authority
to enforce these promises. In these cases, the harm is obvious and the
promise should be enforced regardless of the level of protection
promised. In these cases, the harm to consumers through the invasion of
privacy is actionable itself, without any further harm. Under the
Commission's unfairness authority, where no promise has been made,
Congress has directed the FTC in statute to consider a variety of
factors, and the Commission in its 1984 unfairness statement identified
physical, medical, and financial harms as those it would enforce. The
Do Not Call Registry relied upon preventing intrusions into the home.
If confirmed, I would fully enforce invasions of consumer privacy which
violate this unfairness standard as enforced by the Commission.
``Do-Not-Track''
Question 10. Dr. Wright, both the FTC and I support an online
consumer tool called a ``Do-Not-Track'' mechanism. This mechanism would
allow consumers to conduct their affairs online without entities
collecting and aggregating their personal information. For instance, a
user who visits websites--to learn about sensitive matters such as a
medical condition or personal finances, for example--would have a
choice to do so without having online companies track him or her. Under
a bill I have introduced, consumers, with the single click of a mouse,
could tell online companies to not collect their information. The
companies would be legally bound to honor this request, subject to
exceptions. The FTC is tasked with promulgating implementing
regulations and with enforcement.
Dr. Wright, do you agree with me that consumers should have the
ability to tell companies not to track them and that companies should
honor that request? More specifically, do you believe that a Do-Not-
Track request from a consumer should prohibit the collection of
information about him or her, subject to limited exceptions for the
basic functionality of the service and for such things as security and
fraud prevention?
Answer. Online privacy is a critical and rapidly growing consumer
concern, which I take seriously, and will continue to take seriously if
confirmed. I support Do Not Track as an appropriate balance between
consumer privacy interests and the benefits of online advertising, and
support the FTC's coordination with the W3C to develop and implement a
consumer-friendly Do Not Track standard. Regardless, consumers should
have a Do Not Track option that is easy to identify, understand, and
use. I would, of course, also enforce any Do Not Track legislation or
other consumer privacy standards Congress saw fit to pass to supplement
these efforts.
Question 11. What is your opinion of the Do-Not-Track
recommendation contained in the FTC's privacy report?
Answer. I support Do Not Track standards that emphasize consumer
privacy and ease of consumer use. If confirmed, I would work to
implement and enforce any agency-promulgated Do Not Track standards or
agency agreements with the W3C to implement effective Do Not Track
features to maintain consumer Internet privacy.
Question 12. At the World Wide Web Consortium, also known as the
W3C, there is currently an industry effort to develop voluntary Do-Not-
Track standards. And I have introduced a bill that would establish a
legal framework for Do-Not-Track that would be enforced by the FTC.
What role, if any, do you think the FTC should play in the W3C process?
Answer. I understand the FTC has been working closely with the W3C
to develop an effective and consumer friendly Do Not Track standard,
and that there is still work to be done in that regard. I support the
FTC's actions involvement in this arena. I understand there are various
positions as to what the exact parameters of a Do Not Track standard
should be, and how it should be implemented and enforced. Whatever the
parameters may be, any final Do Not Track standard must be easy for
consumers to find, understand, and use. If confirmed, I would look
forward to working with the Committee on these issues to ensure that
American consumers are confident in their online privacy.
Question 13. Earlier this year, in conjunction with the release of
the White House's privacy report, the Digital Advertising Alliance
(DAA) announced that it would honor Do-Not-Track requests from web
browsers. The industry has articulated numerous exceptions to this
pledge, based on its own self-regulatory initiative, including
exceptions for ``market research'' and ``product development''. I
believe these exceptions are so large that they render the DAA's Do-
Not-Track pledge practically meaningless. Do you believe that these
exceptions are too big?
Answer. While I support a Do Not Track mechanism, I do not at this
time have any specific views as to these particular exemptions. If
confirmed, I will discuss the status of the industry self-regulatory
initiatives and possible concerns with them with the Commission staff,
Commissioners, and this Committee.
Question 14. If industry fails to live up to its self-regulatory
pledge or otherwise fails to agree to meaningful Do-Not-Track
compliance standards, do you believe this failure to self-regulate only
highlights the need for Federal legislation?
Answer. I concur that there is a point at which legislation will be
appropriate if self-regulatory efforts fail to generate a Do Not Track
standard.
Enforcement of Consumer Protection Rules
Question 15. At the hearing, in response to a question from Senator
Cantwell regarding the FTC's Petroleum Market Manipulation Rule, you
stated that, where there are violations of the rule, you would support
enforcement. Is this true for all consumer protection rules issued by
the FTC?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will enforce existing law.
Question 16. Given your preference for allowing the market to
operate on its own and your general inclination against regulation, do
you disagree with any issuance of consumer protection rules that the
FTC has developed in recent years? If so, please discuss. Would you
commit to enforcing violations of these rules as diligently as you
would any other rules issued by the Commission?
Answer. I have not studied all of the consumer protection rules
that have been issued in recent years. I am not aware of any specific
examples of consumer protection rules I disagree with at this time. As
noted above, if confirmed, I commit to enforcing violations of all
existing laws, including any such rules.
The FTC's Actions with Respect to Alcohol Sales
Question 17. Since the repeal of Prohibition, states have been the
primary authority when it comes to regulating the distribution and sale
of alcohol. States have enacted varied laws that presumably reflect the
attitudes and beliefs of their citizens on alcohol sales, health, and
safety.
Dr. Wright, the Office of Policy Planning has issued reports and
other public documents regarding state regulation of alcohol sales. The
FTC has a mission to promote competitive free markets, but alcohol is a
drug susceptible to abuse (particularly by minors) and is distinct from
consumer products or services. Does the FTC have an interest in using
its resources to weigh in on state laws and regulations regarding
alcohol sales and distribution? If so, why?
Answer. Where Federal or state regulators or legislators request
the Commission's input on the competitive impact of a proposed
legislation or regulation, the FTC plays an important role in
cooperating with those entities and providing information based upon
its expertise in these areas. Alcohol usage, especially by minors,
raises substantial concerns, both state and federal; many of these can
fall under the Commission's competition and consumer protection
authorities under the FTC Act and Clayton Act. For example, I support
the Commission's action against Phusion Products regarding the
advertisement of its now widely banned Four Loko product. The
Commission's decades-long involvement with alcohol sales, labeling, and
advertising has given the Commission a special understanding of
competition and consumer protection issues connected to alcohol. But as
the FTC's staff has stated, and as I have acknowledged in my own
academic writing, there are clearly other public interests at stake
besides those traditionally at the heart of the Commission's mandate--
consumer choice, low prices, and convenience.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question. Dr. Wright, at the hearing I questioned you on comments
you made regarding creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), specifically comments that the agenda envisioned for the CFPB
was ``problematic'' and that its ``existence is likely to do more harm
than good for consumers.''
When I questioned you regarding those comments, you said ``I had
written about the earlier version of the CFPA (Consumer Financial
Protection Act) prior to what was ultimately passed with the CFPB
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). . . . Those comments were never
about the existing agency.''
But your writings contradict your testimony. While it is true that
you criticized the proposed CFPA in a 2009 academic paper, in September
2011, 14 months after the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act--the bill which created the CFPB--was signed into law,
you wrote an article titled ``My Reflections on the Senate CFPB
Hearing.'' In this article you said ``the CFPB's intellectual blueprint
suggests a more aggressive and dangerous agenda.'' Why does your
testimony in response to my questioning contradict your writings?
Answer. The concerns I expressed in predicting what the CFPA or
CFPB might do were based upon several academic writings explicating its
intellectual foundations but have not come to pass. The blog post
referring to the CFPB took place before the CFPB had the opportunity to
engage in a substantial amount of activity. I believe both writings
make clear that my concern was with the intellectual underpinnings of
the CFPA, and in particular, certain applications of the behavioral
economics literature to consumer protection regulation. I was concerned
that some of the principles in the literature underlying the CFPA could
harm consumers. For example, in the article you cite, I noted the
possible dangers of the CFPB relying upon behavioral economic insights
then-formulated by several academic articles into rules such as the
proposed ``plain vanilla'' mandates, among others. Standard economic
analysis, as I discussed in my 2009 academic article, suggested
misapplication of these behavioral insights could ultimately harm the
most vulnerable consumers by reducing the availability of popular and
beneficial products to these potential borrowers. My view that consumer
protection rules should serve the best interests of consumers remains
unchanged. Further, I recognize that my comments in both the article
and blog post came before the CFPB had the opportunity to engage in
much activity. These were predictions. There is certainly substantial
work for both the FTC and the CFPB to do in protecting consumers, and I
am pleased to see that my concerns as articulated both in the post you
cite as well as with Professor Evans have not come to pass. My
criticisms about what the agency might do, based upon influential
academic writings, have not come to fruition. At the hearing, I tried
to articulate that those concerns did not apply to the work of the now-
operating CFPB. If confirmed, I will fully cooperate with the CFPB and
will enforce existing laws and regulations fully to protect all
consumers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question 1. As a former state legislator and insurance
commissioner, I am a firm believer in our system of federalism. Alcohol
regulation, in particular, is an area historically reserved to the
states under a three-tiered system of regulation.
You have written extensively as an academic about the antitrust
implications of alcohol regulation.
As an FTC commissioner, what would be your view on the proper role
of the Commission in the regulation and marketing of alcohol? And as an
FTC commissioner, do you anticipate pushing for policies that
contemplate a larger role for the FTC in promoting direct shipment of
wine or alcohol?
Answer. States have broad authority to regulate alcohol. The
Commission has developed expertise regarding the advertising and
marketing of alcohol, which implicate the Commission's consumer
protection and competition missions. I support the Commission's efforts
to curb deceptive advertising, to examine and regulate potentially
anticompetitive mergers, to promote consumer education regarding
alcohol (and the effects of underage drinking), to provide views to
other Federal agencies on alcohol labeling issues, to provide views to
state legislators on request concerning the competitive effects of
proposed regulation, and to produce economic studies of the industry. I
support continuing the Commission's mission in these areas. I do not
anticipate advocating a broader role for the agency in these areas, if
confirmed.
Question 2. What express provisions of Federal or constitutional
law give the Federal Trade Commission authority over alcohol or to
promulgate policies affecting the sale or marketing of alcohol?
Answer. The FTC Act and the Clayton Act empower the Commission to
review alcohol industry mergers. The FTC Act further empowers the
Commission to challenge anticompetitive practices within the alcohol
industry, as well as to challenge unfair or deceptive practices
involving alcohol marketing and advertising. Finally, Section 6 of the
FTC Act permits the FTC to conduct studies and issue reports.
Question 3. In light of your work as a lawyer representing a client
in the Wine Country Gift Basket litigation, will you recuse yourself
from any related issues that come before the FTC, if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will comply with the letter and spirit of
all ethical obligations involving conflicts. These rules are in place
to ensure confidence in the Commission's decisions and I take those
commitments very seriously. I have disclosed all financial
relationships with the Commission and the Committee, including
financial support received from the Family Winemakers of California in
the amicus brief referenced. President Obama's Ethics Pledge extends
the general obligation set forth under the Standards of Conduct not to
participate in any particular matter involving specific parties in
which the firm is a party to two years following appointment to the
Commission. In all future matters potentially giving rise to conflicts,
I will seek the advice and counsel of the Federal Trade Commission's
ethics officials in order to determine how to fully comply with the
letter and spirit of the law.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Recusal From Current Enforcement Actions at the FTC
Question 1. Professor Wright, it is possible that it may take the
FTC more than two years to make decisions on enforcement actions on
issues resulting from its current investigation of Google. You have
already expressed your views on the investigation in your writing and
public appearances. It makes it difficult, then, not to conclude that
you have in some measure already prejudged the outcome of the
investigation, regardless of how long it would take the Commission to
complete its investigation. Will you recuse yourself from all current
FTC enforcement matters involving Google?
Answer. I take my ethical obligations very seriously. I have
disclosed these financial relationships to the Committee and to the
Commission, including its ethics officials. If confirmed, I pledge to
recuse myself where recusal is required by existing law or President
Obama's Ethics Pledge, which imposes additional obligations. Consistent
with President Obama's Ethics Pledge, I will recuse myself from certain
FTC matters, including law enforcement matters, involving Google for a
period of two years.
Question 2. Are there any other companies or industries where you
might have to recuse yourself on FTC enforcement actions based on your
writings or based on who has provided financial support?
Answer. I have disclosed these financial relationships to the
Committee and to the Commission, including its ethics officials. Those
entities that provided financial support since I became a law professor
in 2004 are:
Microsoft Corporation
Church & Dwight, Inc.
Internet Company for Assigned Names & Numbers
Google, Inc.
Express Scripts, Inc.
International Center for Law & Economics
Family Winemakers of California
Arlington Economics, Inc.
AT&T
American Tort Reform Association
American Beverage Association
Northwestern University
George Mason University
Computer & Communications Industry Association
Charles River Associates
Liberty Fund
Law and Economics Consulting Group
Cambridge University Press
Thomson West
Some of these entities directly or indirectly funded research,
published work, or commentary prior to the reporting period of the
Senate Questionnaire or Form OGE 278. For example, Microsoft
Corporation is not included on those documents but is listed here
because it indirectly funded research prior to those reporting periods.
I have included entities that have provided direct or indirect
financial support since 2004, out of an abundance of caution.
I take my ethical obligations at the Commission very seriously.
Avoiding conflicts and appearance of impropriety is important to
maintaining the credibility of the agency and the execution of its
important mission of protecting consumers. President Obama's Ethics
Pledge, among other requirements, extends the general obligation set
forth under the Standards of Conduct not to participate in any
particular matter involving specific parties in which the former
employer or client is a party to two years following appointment to the
Commission. It also prohibits meeting or communicating with one's
former employer or client unless the meeting or communication is open
to all interested parties. I will abide by those requirements and all
other ethics laws. Further, in all future matters potentially giving
rise to conflicts, I will seek the advice and counsel of the Federal
Trade Commission's ethics officials in order to determine how to fully
comply with the letter and spirit of applicable ethics laws.
FTC Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations
Question 3. Dr. Wright, as you are aware, I am frustrated that the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seems unwilling or unable to use the new
authority and responsibility Congress gave them in 2007 (codified at 42
U.S.C. 17301-17305) which the FTC Rule defines as prohibiting ``any
person, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale
of crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum distillates at wholesale, from
knowingly engaging in any act, practice, or course of business--
including the making of any untrue statement of material fact--that
operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, or
intentionally failing to state a material fact that under the
circumstances renders a statement made by such person misleading,
provided that such omission distorts or is likely to distort market
conditions for any such product.'' Your academic work seems to indicate
that you may not support the FTC's Rule prohibiting petroleum market
manipulation.
Can you state your views for the record on the FTC's Petroleum
Market Manipulation Regulations and whether you believe they are
accurate and appropriate interpretations of the underlying statutes?
Answer. Protecting American consumers in oil and gas markets is
among the most important of the Commission's priorities, and the agency
can and should vigilantly enforce its authority in this area where
violations occur. The Market Manipulation Rule is an important tool
that helps the FTC ensure American consumers are not harmed by
manipulation of fuel prices. The statute prohibits ``any manipulative
or deceptive device or contrivance . . . in connection with the
purchase of or sale of crude oil gasoline or petroleum'' and the Market
Manipulation Rule was designed to mirror SEC rule 10b-5. It also
forbids any person from knowingly reporting false information about
petroleum or fuel to the Federal Government with the intention of
affecting government data or statistics.
I would like to emphasize that while I support enforcement of the
Market Manipulation Rule when violations occur, I do not have any basis
upon which to comment on the specific merits of any pending
investigation. I am privy neither to the Commission's work in this area
to date nor to the available evidence of any pending investigations. If
confirmed, I will carefully analyze existing evidence and vigilantly
enforce the Market Manipulation Rule when it is violated.
Question 4. As a Commissioner would you vote to strengthen or
weaken these regulations? Please be specific.
Answer. If confirmed, I will enforce all existing law, including
the Market Manipulation Rule, to its fullest extent. I understand
Congress intended the Commission to have an authority analogous to the
SEC's rule 10b-5 authority and that implemented by FERC. If confirmed,
I will support enforcement of the rule in a manner consistent with
Congress' intent.
Question 5. Do you agree with some at the FTC who consider
themselves an enforcement agency and therefore should play little to no
role in policing wholesale petroleum markets beyond waiting for market
complaints and reviewing mergers?
Answer. I view the FTC's primary role as an enforcement agency,
including all existing laws under its jurisdiction. This mission
includes enforcing the Market Manipulation Rule as well as its
traditional consumer protection and competition missions.
Question 6. Without a specific complaint, what anti-competitive
activity do you believe would justify an FTC investigation and use of
its market manipulation authority?
Answer. The statute prohibits ``any manipulative or deceptive
device or contrivance . . . in connection with the purchase of or sale
of crude oil gasoline or petroleum'' and was designed to mirror SEC
rule 10b-5. It also forbids any person from knowingly reporting false
information about petroleum or fuel to the Federal Government with the
intention of affecting government data or statistics. Where there is
reason to believe the rule is being violated I would support an FTC
investigation to further develop facts. Where evidence suggests a
violation of the rule I will support enforcement.
I would like to emphasize that while I support enforcement of the
market manipulation rule when violations occur, it would be
inappropriate for me to comment on the specific merits of any pending
investigation. I am privy neither to the Commission's work in this area
to date nor to the available evidence of any pending investigations. If
confirmed, I will carefully analyze existing evidence and vigilantly
enforce the Market Manipulation Rule when it is violated.
Question 7. In general, how would you as a Commissioner help ensure
the FTC uses its anti-market manipulation authority in the way Congress
intended--to investigate anomalous gasoline price spikes and assure
that consumers are safe from market fraud, manipulation, or other
anticompetitive behaviors?
Answer. I am committed to enforcing the Market Manipulation Rule
where violations exist. If confirmed, I will work with the Commission
and its staff to better understand the current status of any pending
investigations and evidence to which I am not currently privy. Further,
I will discuss the operation and enforcement of analogous authorities
by FERC and the SEC to better understand how they are making use of the
authority.
Question 8. Last week, the six Senators from the West Coast called
for an investigation into this year's West Coast gas price spikes that
occurred while crude oil prices were declining, inventories were
increasing, and there is evidence of possible misleading market making
information. Given these facts, would you support an FTC investigation
into this matter as an FTC Commissioner?
Answer. I would want to fully evaluate the facts and existing
evidence before making a determination about whether I would support an
investigation, if confirmed. If facts uncovered indicated a reason to
believe there is a violation of the Market Manipulation Rule, I will
support enforcement.
Question 9. Do you believe that West Coast petroleum markets should
be more transparent and less concentrated?
Do you agree that if pricing structures in these markets were
opaque that the market is probably inefficient to the detriment of
consumers?
Do you agree that if the West Coast wholesale oil market was highly
concentrated it could be subject to market power abuse?
Answer. Highly concentrated markets can be subject to abuse of
market power. Lack of transparency in pricing can also harm consumers.
I have not conducted an independent analysis of West Coast petroleum
markets and thus do not currently have a view as to whether those
markets should be more transparent or less concentrated at this time.
If confirmed, I will enforce the Commission's authority under the FTC
Act to prevent acquisitions or conduct that harm consumers and violate
the antitrust laws.
Question 10. In 2005, in the wake of Enron's role in the Western
Electricity Crisis, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) new responsibilities to prevent manipulation of
electricity and natural gas markets. In response, FERC expanded its
market oversight and investigation abilities, added dedicated staff,
and expanded collection of essential market data. The results are
striking; FERC has been able to root out a large number of cases of
fraud and manipulation in the electricity and natural gas markets that
probably would have gone undetected and cost consumers billions. To
date FERC used its 2005 anti-manipulation authority to conduct 107
investigations resulting in 52 settlements and civil penalties of $294
million and disgorgement of ill-gotten profits totaling $155 million.
Unfortunately, I have seen scant evidence of a similar effort at the
FTC despite receiving parallel authorities and responsibilities in 2007
to police wholesale oil markets using the same ``manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance'' standard established by Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.
Dr. Wright, do you believe the FTC should be more like FERC in
proactively policing wholesale oil markets?
Answer. I understand your concern that the FTC has not been as
active as FERC in exercising a similar authority aimed at preventing
market manipulation. As an outsider to the Commission, I am neither
privy to FTC information and evidence concerning any pending
investigation under the Market Manipulation Rule, nor to any
information that might explain the disparity in enforcement records. If
violations of the Market Manipulation Rule are occurring, I believe the
Commission should fully enforce the rule in those instances. If
confirmed, I will enforce the Commission's authority where there is
evidence of violations. I will also consult with FERC officials to
better understand their enforcement strategies and approaches.
Question 11. Would you support efforts to create the necessary
enforcement ethos and staff expertise and resources at the FTC as now
exists at FERC?
Answer. As an outsider to the Commission, I am neither privy to FTC
information and evidence concerning any pending investigation under the
Market Manipulation Rule, nor to any information that might explain the
disparity in enforcement records. I would support additional steps to
ensure the Commission does what is necessary to enforce the rule if
there is evidence that violations are going unenforced. I will also
consult with FERC officials to better understand their enforcement
strategies and approaches.
Question 12. How do you believe the FTC should best monitor and
collect non-public data from the wholesale petroleum markets in order
to ensure it is able to monitor and detect any anticompetitive or
illegal activity?
Answer. I do not have any specific views as to what data monitoring
and collection efforts would be appropriate in order to enforce the
Market Manipulation Rule or other law. I have not been privy to FTC
information and evidence concerning any pending investigation nor have
I had the opportunity to discuss the implications of additional
monitoring and collecting non-public data with Commission staff. If
confirmed, I will certainly do so and work with the Committee on these
important issues.
Question 13. Congress provided the FTC with a clear standard for
manipulation by relying on the large body of case law interpreting and
applying section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, do you agree the FTC should apply this law in accordance
with analogous securities law precedents?
Answer. I understand Congress intended the Commission to have an
authority analogous to the SEC's Rule 10b-5 authority. If confirmed, I
will support enforcement of the rule in a manner consistent with
Congress' intent. I have not specifically considered the issue of
whether securities law precedents should be applied in the context of
FTC application of the Market Manipulation Rule or considered what
legal issues might be implicated by such reliance. If confirmed, I will
discuss these issues with the Commission staff and Commissioners as
well as the Committee.
Level of Market Concentration in West Coast Petroleum Markets
Question 14. Dr. Wright, I know you are an anti-trust scholar so
I'm interested in hearing your views about the concentrated West Coast
petroleum market. The West Coast is an isolated gasoline market with
few pipelines connecting to other regions. The refineries within the
West Coast are almost entirely what the West Coast must rely on for
finished motor gasoline. In addition, within the West Coast, the
largest 3 companies own 53 percent of refining capacity, the largest 4
own 67 percent, and the largest 5 own 79 percent.
Given these facts, are you concerned about a greater opportunity
for the use of market power to anti-competitively influence prices?
In your opinion, and considering the above statistics, does the
West Coast wholesale petroleum market represent a highly efficient
market?
Answer. If confirmed, I will approach all potential investigations
with a reliance on economic analysis and data, and will support
vigorous enforcement to protect consumers where anticompetitive conduct
takes place. As an antitrust scholar, I take the efficient operation of
markets very seriously: markets are a primary engine of economic
growth, and anticompetitive conduct threatens the gains from markets
consumers regularly enjoy. Antitrust analysis has, however, evolved
from relying exclusively upon market shares and structure to assess the
competitive performance of markets to more direct analysis of
competitive effects. Thus, market share statistics such as those above,
while relevant data, are not sufficient to make any conclusions about
the efficiency of any market without more. I am certainly open to the
possibility that the petroleum market represents a highly concentrated
and inefficient market, but without rigorous investigation grounded in
empirical data, I cannot express an educated opinion as to whether the
petroleum market on the West Coast presents any particular competitive
concerns.
Question 15. Given the current West Coast situation, do you think
there is sufficient competition and lack of barriers of entry to
prevent the use of market power?
Could a West Coast refiner or multiple refiners arbitrarily raising
prices without losing sufficient sales to offset the increase in
profits from the elevated prices?
In June 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO-09-659)
found that less concentrated markets were statistically significantly
associated with lower gasoline prices and recommended that the FTC
undertake more regular retrospective review of the past petroleum
industry mergers, do you agree with this recommendation?
Answer. I understand gasoline markets are remarkably important to
consumers and competition issues in these markets deserve careful
scrutiny. I have not conducted an independent analysis of the West
Coast wholesale petroleum market or markets. I would need to conduct
such an analysis to address the competitiveness of these markets, an
appropriate understanding of barriers to entry, and potential for firms
to exercise market power. I also have not reviewed in detail the
aforementioned GAO study. I fully support FTC retrospective studies of
petroleum mergers.
FTC's Mission
Question 16. Mr. Wright, your writings seem to stress the costs of
FTC enforcing its statutory mission and argue that generally it would
be better for the consumer if the FTC erred on the side of less
enforcement and missing anticompetitive practices. I have also seen
examples of your writings that indicate antipathy and sometimes
hostility to toward FTC antitrust enforcement. Mr. Wright, can you
state for the record that you will support the mission of the FTC and
will not support efforts to weaken existing FTC rules?
Answer. I fully support the FTC's consumer protection and
competition missions. I will vigorously enforce the law for the maximum
benefit of consumers.
Question 17. Do you believe that FTC actions in the past have
dampened innovation and competition in the marketplace?
Answer. I believe that regulation is appropriate when a problem
generates substantial consumer welfare losses and when the regulation
can avert those losses in a cost-effective manner. I have criticized
prior enforcement matters--including some by the FTC--because I feared
the Commission had not adequately taken into account the action's
impact upon incentives to innovate. While I have expressed these views
as an academic with respect to some specific cases, I believe the
Commission has generally done an excellent job in carrying out both its
consumer protection and competition missions. The Commission is the
world's preeminent consumer protection and competition law agency,
primarily because it has taken actions that deter consumer harm in a
cost-effective manner, maximizing consumer welfare while minimizing the
risk of dampening competition or innovation.
Question 18. Your writings also seem to emphasize your belief that
the burden of proof should be placed on the consumer to show
anticompetitive behavior, and not for the FTC to proactively
investigate suspicious market activity. Can you please clarify your
views on burden of proof?
Answer. I believe the Commission's competition law mission is to
protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct that creates or
maintains market power. The plaintiff--whether an antitrust agency, a
rival firm, or class of consumers--ultimately bears the burden of
persuasion in antitrust cases. The appropriate scope of that burden in
competition cases is flexible under antitrust law. The critical inquiry
is what rule will maximize consumer welfare. Some challenged practices
have proven so likely to harm consumer welfare that they are properly
regarded as per se illegal: no proof of harm is necessary to condemn
the challenged practice. Still others are briefly examined to determine
whether they may safely be determined as per se illegal or if they
should be subjected to close empirical scrutiny of costs and benefits.
Towards the other end of the spectrum of business practices, some
arrangements between firms present the possibility of consumer harm,
but typically indicate pro-consumer arrangements, leading to higher
quality, greater product variety, and lower prices. In these cases, a
strong showing of consumer harm through rigorous empirical data is due.
The Commission should of course actively investigate all serious
threats to consumer welfare, and, if confirmed, I will support the
rigorous investigation of any business practice implicating competitive
harm leading to consumer welfare losses.
Question 19. Do you believe the FTC should monitor and collect non-
public data from the wholesale petroleum markets in order to ensure it
is able to monitor and detect any anticompetitive or illegal activity?
Answer. I have not specifically considered and I do not have any
specific views as to what data monitoring and collection efforts would
be appropriate in order to enforce the Market Manipulation Rule or
other laws in petroleum markets. I have not been privy to FTC
information and evidence concerning any pending investigation nor have
I had the opportunity to discuss the implications of additional
authority to monitor and collect nonpublic data with Commission staff.
If confirmed, I will certainly do so and work with the Committee on
these important issues.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Question 20. Dr. Wright, in response to questions posed by Senator
Boxer during your December 4, 2012 confirmation hearing, you said that
your statements calling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
``aggressive and dangerous'' were in reference to the Agency as earlier
conceived and not the current CFPB. However, it seems you made the same
statements in reference to the current CFPB on September 9, 2011. In a
``Truth on the Market'' blog post, you say that the CFPB could ``could
harm consumers and small businesses'' and that ``. . . the CFPB's
intellectual blueprint suggests a more aggressive and dangerous
agenda.''
Now that the CFPB has promulgated rulemakings to flesh out its
authorities and taken action to protect consumers in cases against
credit card companies, do you still think that the CFPB is pursuing an
``aggressive and dangerous agenda''?
Do you think that any of the CFPB's actions--including its
rulemakings, investigations, and enforcement actions--have ``harm[ed]
consumers and small businesses,'' as you thought 15 months ago may
happen?
Answer. My concerns, both as described in my paper with David Evans
and in my comments on Truth on the Market, have always been about the
potential for consumer harm growing out of an abuse of several insights
from behavioral economics. The concerns I expressed about the potential
actions of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency or a related Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau have not come to pass. For example, as I
commented in the Truth on the Market post you cite, hard-paternalism
interventions such as mandatory ``plain vanilla'' products can reduce
the availability of beneficial financial products, especially to the
most vulnerable and least well-off consumers. I remain concerned about
the potential misuse of behavioral insights to justify these
interventions. This concern arises out of a fear that some of these
regulatory proposals might ultimately harm rather than benefit
consumers. Yet these concerns have not come to fruition in the CFPB's
regulations to date, which have been largely sensible and much more
circumspect than some of the initial proposals from the underlying
legal scholarship grounding the original CFPA. There is substantial
work for the CFPB to do in protecting consumers, and, if confirmed, I
look forward to cooperating fully with the CFPB in the agencies' mutual
mission of ensuring consumers are fully protected from deceptive,
fraudulent, and unfair practices.
Question 21. To effectively enforce the FTC's consumer protection
mission under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and the FTC Act, the FTC
must extensively monitor many markets and collect large amounts of
data. In turn, the CFPB, to effectively enforce its consumer protection
mission as provided in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), must extensively monitor many markets
and collect large amounts of data.
In order to multiply the effectiveness of the consumer welfare
protection missions of both Agencies and to avoid duplication of effort
and costs, do you support a cooperative agreement between the FTC and
the CFPB? (Beyond the requirements for cooperation in collecting and
tracking complaints as explicitly required by Sec. 1013(b)(3)) of the
Dodd-Frank Act).
Specifically, do you support the sharing of all Agency collected
market data as requested by either Agency and the sharing of data by
either Agency during an investigation?
Answer. Both the CFPB and FTC share a common mission of protecting
consumers. As your question suggests, one potential drawback to dual
enforcement of a common mandate is redundant costs in compiling data
on, investigating, and prosecuting similar conduct under differing
standards. While I am not privy to either the Commission's or CFPB's
ongoing investigations, I support both the current memorandum of
understanding between the Commission and CFPB as well as broad
information-sharing and cooperation between the two agencies pursuant
to both agencies' consumer protection missions.
Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)
Question 22. Dr. Wright, in your writings you have generally
supported Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) as they currently exist and
opposed allowing pharmacies to collectively negotiate with PBMs. Do you
maintain that position? Please explain the reasoning for your answer.
Answer. I want to reiterate that I have disclosed a financial
relationship with Express Scripts, Incorporated to the Commission and
the Committee arising from consulting work provided related to the
impact of state regulation on health care costs and health outcomes.
Pursuant to President Obama's Ethics Pledge, I will not participate in
certain FTC matters, including law enforcement matters, involving
Express Scripts before the FTC for two years.
I have testified concerning the risks of antitrust exemptions,
including a proposed exemption involving independent pharmacies. I
maintain that position. Competition agencies, the bipartisan Antitrust
Modernization Commission, and antitrust scholars generally have long
been skeptical of antitrust exemptions as a method of influencing
bargaining outcomes between two private parties precisely because such
exemptions put consumers at serious risk of anticompetitive conduct. If
confirmed and confronted with a PBM business practice or merger that
fell outside the aforementioned Ethics Pledge, I would analyze it
carefully under existing law, employing rigorous empirical evidence,
and with an eye toward its ultimate impact upon consumer welfare.
Question 23. The Affordable Care Act supports confidential
reporting by PBMs (as described below) in the new health insurance
exchanges (to the commissioners of the state exchanges and to the plans
participating in the exchanges) and under Medicare Part D. While these
new reporting would not require PBMs to change their business model or
pass the savings on to their members, I would like to better understand
your views on information disclosure given your writing.
Do you support disclosing information on the percent of all
prescriptions that are provided through retail pharmacies compared to
mail order pharmacies, generic dispensing and substitution rates in
each location?
Do you support disclosing information on the aggregate amount and
type of rebates, discounts and price concessions that the PBM
negotiates on behalf of the plan and the aggregate amount of these that
are passed through to the sponsor?
Do you support disclosing information on the average aggregate
difference between the amount the plan pays the PBM and the amount that
the PBM pays the retail and mail order pharmacy?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to specifically consider the
merits of confidential reporting by PBMs as described in your question
pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. As a general matter, pricing
transparency can and often is an important element of facilitating
competition in some markets. However, mandating competitors to disclose
pricing to rivals can also raise competitive risks. FTC staff have,
with the approval of the Commission, raised these concerns in letters
to state legislatures considering mandatory disclosure obligations
involving PBMs and in other industries for those reasons. If confirmed,
my views on this issue would be informed by Commission staff,
Commissioners, and be guided by careful economic analysis and
evaluation of evidence.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question. In a 2009 paper, you claimed there was no meaningful
failure of mortgage consumer protection in the run-up to the financial
crisis because borrowers understood the risks of subprime mortgages.
But, last year, a former Chase mortgage banker in Florida--whose
team had originated more than $2 billion in mortgages in 2007--admitted
that the bank had sought out less savvy borrowers and steered them into
riskier and more expensive subprime loans in order to increase bank
profits.
Similarly, a whistleblower from Wells Fargo--the largest
residential home mortgage originator in the United States--who had been
the bank's top-producing subprime loan officer admitted that she had
steered consumers who had been eligible for prime loans into subprime
mortgages. According to her affidavit, some loan officers falsified
loan applications to steer customers into subprime mortgages. Others
lied to customers about the terms of subprime loans, including the
ability to prepay without penalty, in order to encourage them to apply
for subprime loans.
Do you still believe that consumer protections in the mortgage
market were adequate in the run-up to the financial crisis?
Answer. I have observed in my academic writing that ``some
consumers were victims of unfair and deceptive practices in securing
mortgages'' as well as ``that the regulatory agencies could and should
have done a better job of regulating that burgeoning subprime mortgage
market.'' See David S. Evans & Joshua D. Wright, The Effect of the
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2009 on Consumer Credit, 22 Loy.
Consumer L. Rev. 277, 309 n.80 (2010). I continue to believe that the
appropriate agencies bear some responsibility for failing to
appropriately regulate subprime mortgages. The overarching point behind
my critique of the CFPA Act with Professor Evans, and related
commentary discussing the potential activities of the CFPB, is not that
regulation was inappropriate. It is that good regulation--both
effective and cost-effective regulation--was appropriate: that not
every additional regulation would solve the problems with poorly
regulated subprime mortgage markets. And indeed, I believe well-crafted
and considered regulations can improve consumer welfare, as I indicated
there and elsewhere throughout my academic work. I believe the key
inquiry is how to regulate correctly to maximize consumer welfare by
preventing deceptive, unfair, and fraudulent practices while
maintaining a robust and competitive market for consumer products. If
confirmed, I will fully enforce existing laws and regulations and will
support new cost-effective regulations which will facilitate these
goals, consistent with the Commission's mission.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Pryor to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question 1. In our meeting last month, you said you take an
evidence-based approach and look only at empirical data and facts when
making decisions. I was heartened to hear that. However, a review of
your research and writings indicate that you have strong views about
antitrust enforcement, state alcohol regulation, and online privacy,
among others. How will you square your previous writings with your
pledge to take an evidence-based approach if confirmed as an FTC
Commissioner?
Answer. I reaffirm my commitment to look closely at empirical data
when making decisions. My previous writings indicate my commitment to
an evidence-based approach to consumer protection and competition law.
The primacy of empirical evidence is central to my academic research
and my approach to analyzing consumer protection and competition
issues. Reliance upon economic theory guides my opinions and writings,
especially where I express a strong view. If confirmed, I will rely
upon available data to guide decisions about enforcing existing
consumer protection and competition law in furtherance of consumer
welfare.
Question 2. FTC Chairman Leibowitz has described the FTC as a
``small agency with a big mission.'' I agree and would add to that a
very important mission: to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive,
and anti-competitive practices. Do you believe the government has a
role to play in protecting consumers? If so, to what extent?
Answer. I certainly believe the government has a vital role to play
in protecting consumers. Markets are powerful institutions for
organizing economic activity, and competition within markets provides
consumers vast and important benefits, most especially including
economic growth. Yet well-functioning markets require regulations that
promote transparency, prevent unfair and deceptive practices, and
prohibit anticompetitive behavior. The Commission has a critical role:
protecting consumers when market forces are ineffective by preventing
fraud, deception, and anticompetitive practices.
Question 3. What is your view of state regulation, state unfair and
deceptive acts, and the role of states, particularly state attorneys
general, in enforcing Federal statutes that protect consumers?
Answer. I support the state attorneys generals' efforts to prevent,
deter, and punish fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive
conduct, including enforcing Federal statutes where Congress intends.
The Commission frequently cooperates with state attorneys general in
advising states on consumer protection and other matters and routinely
provides state enforcers with access to information obtained in
investigations.
Question 4. I appreciate that you will follow the advice of the FTC
General Counsel and honor the Obama Administration's ethics policies
and will recuse yourself from FTC business where appropriate. However,
I am concerned about the possibility that limiting your recusal may be
insufficient. Please list the entities that have directly or indirectly
funded any of your research, published work, or commentary.
Answer. Senator, I have disclosed all financial relationships
within the relevant reporting period to the Commission and Committee.
The entities that have directly or indirectly funded any research,
published work, or commentary are since I became a law professor in
2004:
Microsoft Corporation
Google, Inc.
Express Scripts, Inc.
Internet Company for Assigned Names & Numbers
International Center for Law & Economics
Family Winemakers of California
Arlington Economics, Inc.
AT&T
American Tort Reform Association
American Beverage Association
Northwestern University
George Mason University
Cambridge University Press
Thomson West
Some of these entities directly or indirectly funded research,
published work, or commentary prior to the reporting period of the
Senate Questionnaire or Form OGE 278. For example, Microsoft
Corporation is not included on those documents but is listed here
because it indirectly funded research prior to those reporting periods.
I have included entities that have provided direct or indirect
financial support since 2004, out of an abundance of caution.
Question 5. Will you pledge to recuse yourself from FTC business
that involves any of those entities? If not, please explain why you do
not believe it is necessary to do so.
Answer. I take my ethical obligations very seriously. I have
disclosed these financial relationships to the Committee and to the
Commission, including its ethics officials. If confirmed, I pledge to
recuse myself where required by existing law or President Obama's
Ethics Pledge, which imposes additional obligations. These rules seek
to balance the importance of maintaining the credibility of the agency
by avoiding conflicts with the desire to ensure the agency can execute
its mission with the benefit of its full complement of appointed
officials. President Obama's Ethics Pledge, among other requirements,
extends the general obligation set forth under the Standards of Conduct
not to participate in any particular matter involving specific parties
in which the former client or employer is a party to two years
following appointment to the Commission. It also prohibits meeting or
communicating with one's former employer or client unless the meeting
or communication is open to all interested parties. I will abide by
those requirements. Further, in all future matters potentially giving
rise to conflicts, I will seek the advice and counsel of the Federal
Trade Commission's ethics officials in order to determine how to fully
comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable ethics laws.
Question 6. Given that an entity's business before the FTC can last
much longer than two years with the ongoing investigation, litigation,
settlement negotiation, appeal, and potential violation cycle, please
explain why you are limiting your recusal to Google for only two years?
Answer. I appreciate your concerns about ethics and recusal
obligations at the Commission. The Commission's mission requires a keen
eye towards not only maintaining the integrity of the agency, but also
to avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The ethical obligations seek
to balance the importance of maintaining the credibility of the agency
by avoiding conflicts with the desire to ensure the agency can execute
its mission with the benefit of its full complement of appointed
officials. President Obama's Ethics Pledge, among other requirements,
balances those competing interests by extending the general obligation
set forth under the Standards of Conduct not to participate in any
particular matter involving specific parties in which the former client
or employer is a party to two years following appointment to the
Commission. It also prohibits meeting or communicating with one's
former employer or client unless the meeting or communication is open
to all interested parties. If confirmed, I will fully comply with
President Obama's Ethics Pledge and all applicable ethics laws.
Question 7. You are a prolific author and commenter. This committee
has witnessed the negative effect that a commissioner's social
networking and blogging activities can have on an agency's ability to
execute its mission. Will you continue to engage in blogging and social
networking in your capacity as a commissioner, if confirmed?
Answer. I understand your concern that blogging and social
networking can hinder the agency's mission. I will not blog or use
social media in manner that would undermine the Commission's mission.
Conversely, these tools can be useful in educating consumers that might
not otherwise be reached about the Commission's important work. While I
have not made any decisions about whether I will blog or use social
networking in my capacity as a Commissioner if confirmed, I can assure
you that if I do so, it will be in a professional and responsible
manner aimed at furthering the mission of the agency.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Deceptive advertising that could endanger children's health
Question 1. Dr. Wright, we hear a lot these days about parents'
concerns about sports concussion. Concussions used to just be dismissed
as ``dings or ``bell ringers.'' We now recognize concussions as a form
of traumatic brain injury, and we know that multiple concussions or
blows to the head can lead to lasting brain damage.
So it is natural that young athletes, coaches, and parents are
looking for ways to play sports more safely. Unfortunately, some
companies appear to be taking advantage of these safety concerns by
using deceptive concussion prevention claims to sell children's sports
equipment.
In January 2011, I wrote Chairman Jon Leibowitz to ask the Federal
Trade Commission to consider investigating potential violations of the
FTC Act related to selling and reconditioning football helmets. In
October 2011, this committee held a hearing that examined ``anti-
concussion'' and ``concussion reduction'' claims in marketing for
soccer headbands, helmets, mouth guards, and even dietary supplements
for children's use.
This month, the Commission finalized an order settling charges that
a mouthguard marketer made deceptive claims that their mouthguards
reduce the risk of concussions. According to a news release, the
Commission sent warning letters to 18 other sports equipment
manufacturers that may be making allegedly deceptive claims that their
mouthguards, headbands, or other devices can reduce the risk of
concussions.
I know you cannot comment on what the Commission may, or may not,
be doing in regards to my request for an investigation.
However, I would like to ask if you share my view that, in general,
issues involving serious children's health concerns should be a high
priority for the FTC when it considers potential enforcement actions?
Answer. I share your views that FTC should vigilantly pursue its
consumer protection mission when serious children's health concerns are
at issue. The Commission's mission of protecting consumers is always
important. But it is even more critical when it implicates the health
and safety of vulnerable consumers, such as children. The Commission
absolutely should vigorously pursue marketing and advertising practices
which unfairly, fraudulently, or deceptively harm consumers, especially
where these practices impact vulnerable consumers, including children.
FTC authority to impose civil penalties in cases where children's
health is endangered
Question 2. Dr. Wright, at a hearing last year this committee
examined some of the sports concussion claims used to market children's
sports equipment and even dietary supplements. One of the medical
experts at the hearing, Dr. Jeffry Kutcher of the University of
Michigan, told the Committee that:
The potential harm that I see being caused by products that
claim to prevent concussion, when they do not, is far more than
simply the financial harm of paying more for something that
isn't likely to work as claimed.
Youth athletes who have already suffered a concussion--as well as
their coaches and parents-could be especially susceptible to false
claims that a product prevents head injuries. Children could end up
putting themselves at greater risk of multiple concussions and lifelong
brain damage if they return to play too soon, or if they falsely
believe in a product's claim of concussion prevention.
I introduced legislation that would allow the Federal Trade
Commission to impose civil penalties when companies uses false injury
prevention claims to sell children's sports equipment.
For limited cases such as these, do you agree that if the
Commission had civil penalty authority for violations of Section 5 of
the FTC Act, it could help deter would-be violators from endangering
children's health?
Answer. The Commission is, in general, properly empowered to
prevent deceptive business practices. The Commission's obligation to
consumers is at its apex in combating unfair or deceptive practices
imperiling the health and safety of the most vulnerable consumers, such
as children. I support the vigorous and consistent use of this
authority to prevent consumer harm, especially when products threaten
the lives of vulnerable consumers. I am willing to support additional
authority when existing authority is not sufficient to effectively
prevent or deter deceptive business practices that harm consumers.
While I have not developed an opinion on the implications of a
Commission civil penalty authority in this specific context, if
confirmed, I would look forward to working with your office and this
Committee on how to best deter unfair or deceptive conduct that harms
children, including through civil penalties like those you describe.
Working with state attorneys general
Question 3. Many American families are suffering in today's
economy. Unfortunately, people who are seeking work, struggling to make
mortgage payments, or trying to get by on a fixed income can sometimes
be more vulnerable to scams. That means you may have a lot of work to
do during your time as Commissioner.
How could the Federal Trade Commission leverage its resources to
better protect consumers?
Are there ways to work more closely with state attorneys general
and U.S. attorneys to pursue those who are deceiving consumers and
committing fraud?
Answer. As you mentioned, the Commission faces an enormous--and
enormously important--mission: protecting consumers across the economy
from unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive business
practices. It is a relatively small agency with a large mission.
Identifying methods to best leverage the agency's scarce resources to
further its mission is an important priority. Cooperating with state
attorneys general and Federal agencies, such as the CFPB, through
information-sharing and otherwise is one method by which the Commission
can leverage its resources. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the
Commission works to prevent as much consumer harm as possible in these
tough economic times.
FTC role in alcohol regulation
Question 4. New Mexico is a leader in the fight against drunk
driving and has significantly reduced alcohol-related traffic
fatalities through a combination of education, enforcement, and policy
efforts. In fact, my state has some of the strictest alcohol and drunk
driving laws in the country.
So I appreciate the Federal Trade Commission's efforts to help
ensure that alcohol advertising does not target youths and that
industry self regulatory practices are working. However, as a former
state attorney general, I would be concerned if FTC actions related to
alcohol beverage sales hampered a state's ability to protect public
safety with stricter rules, for example, to combat drunk driving.
Could you share your thoughts on the FTC's proper role in the areas
of alcohol control and assisting states in their efforts to prevent
underage drinking and drunk driving?
Answer. Alcohol usage, especially by minors, raises substantial
concerns, both state and federal; many of these can fall under the
Commission's competition and consumer protection authorities under the
FTC Act and Clayton Act. For example, I support the Commission's action
against Phusion Products regarding the advertisement of its Four Loko
product. The Commission has also supported the ``Don't Serve Teens''
program to reduce underage drinking. I support these activities. The
Commission's decades-long involvement with alcohol marketing and
advertising has given the Commission a special understanding of
competition and consumer protection issues connected to alcohol. But as
the FTC's staff has stated, and as I have acknowledged in my own
academic writing, there are clearly other public interests at stake
than those traditionally at the heart of the Commission's mandate--
consumer choice, low prices, and convenience. Where Federal or state
regulators or legislators request the Commission's input on the
competitive impact of a proposed legislation or regulation, the FTC
plays an important role in cooperating with those entities and
providing information based upon its expertise in these areas.
Online privacy
Question 5. Dr. Wright, you note in your written testimony that the
Commission's consumer protection mission includes ``continuing to help
consumers protect their privacy without diminishing the benefits of
competition and innovation.''
Could you expand on your thoughts about how to better protect
consumers' (and especially children's) online privacy while not
hampering innovation that provide consumer and social benefits?
Answer. The FTC has traditionally sought to protect children's
online privacy through the COPPA Rule, enforcement actions under
Section 5 of the FTC Act, and consumer and business education and
outreach efforts. I support continued vigilance in these efforts. I
also support updating COPPA to reflect technological progress in the
marketplace such as Internet access to smart phones and new methods of
information collection. Expanding these protections is important. I
understand the Commission is currently reviewing comments to the
proposed rule. While I have not yet reviewed these comments and do not
have any specific recommendations, I believe the Commission's goal in
updating COPPA is and should be to appropriately and carefully update
and expand these important rules in a manner that fully and vigorously
protects children while avoiding the potential collateral consequence
of deterring services that would improve children's online experiences.
Consumer Protection
Question 6. Dr. Wright, I share some of the concerns raised by my
colleagues regarding your previously expressed views of consumer
protection laws and especially, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB). During the hearing, in reply to questions from Senator
Boxer, you stated that previous concerns about the CFPB were ``never
about the existing agency.'' Additionally, in some of your writings you
cited very specific concerns, including the agency's design and narrow
focus. Could you expand on what specific changes in the CFPB have
assuaged your concerns?
Answer. My concerns regarding the CFPA and ultimately the CFPB have
always been regarding the potential for consumer harm through an
expansive misapplication of certain behavioral economics insights
leading to serious and paternalistic prohibitions on useful consumer
products. Fortunately, the CFPB as constituted has not triggered these
concerns, instead pursuing sensible and necessary consumer protections.
While I remain concerned about the potential for abuses of behavioral
economics insights to lead to large-scale consumer harm, the Bureau has
not pursued such an agenda, and, if confirmed, I look forward to
cooperating fully with the CFPB in vigorously protecting consumers.
Question 7. How do you envision cooperation between the FTC and the
CFPB growing in the future?
Answer. I expect that as the CFPB continues to promulgate rules,
investigate markets, compile data, and prosecute offenders, it will
gather a sophisticated body of research and institutional expertise
similar to what the Commission has enjoyed for decades. I hope and
believe the two agencies can mutually reinforce their shared goal of
maximizing consumer welfare by effectively regulating markets to
prohibit unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, and anticompetitive conduct. I
anticipate the two agencies will bring this mutual expertise to bear in
a variety of channels, such as, but not limited to, through informal
inter-agency cooperation, providing reports and advice during proposed
rulemakings, and by sharing relevant market data between agencies where
appropriate. If confirmed, I look forward to cooperating fully with the
CFPB in ensuring both agencies can protect consumers.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Long Distance Call Completion Problems in Rural America
Question. Ms. Clyburn and Dr. Wright, yesterday, I along with
several other Senators sent a letter to the FCC concerning the issue of
call completion problems in rural America. We have heard from many
constituents regarding the persistent problem of some long-distance
telephone call not being completed to consumers in rural areas. I am
concerned about public safety and worry that it's only a matter of time
before this situation leads to tragedy when a rural customer is unable
to complete an urgent call. This is an issue where the FCC and the FTC
may have to collaborate on investigating the issue of any providers
failing to properly complete calls to rural areas. What has the FCC and
the FTC done in relation to this issue? Will each of you commit to
working together in this area to examine all possible causes?
Answer. I am unaware of any investigations the FTC has undertaken
involving provider failure to complete calls to rural areas; I
understand this falls within the FCC's purview. If confirmed, however,
I can assure you that, consistent with the limits on FTC jurisdiction,
I will cooperate with Commissioner Clyburn and the FCC as appropriate
to address consumer harm arising from failed calls to rural areas.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question 1. My constituents have expressed numerous concerns
regarding the potential anticompetitive effects of the now-approved
merger of PBMs Express Scripts and Medco as well as continued
consolidation in the industry. They have told me that consolidation
will harm patients by reducing choice, decrease access to pharmacy
services and ultimately lead to higher prescription drug costs paid by
plan sponsors and consumers. I am very concerned about patient well-
being and quality pharmacy care for my constituents, as well as rising
health-care costs. Under your leadership, how should the FTC evaluate
and address these concerns as it reviews ongoing consolidation in this
market? Would you be willing to review consummated mergers in this
industry to assess their impact on plan sponsors and consumers?
Answer. I want to reiterate that I have disclosed a financial
relationship with Express Scripts, Incorporated to the Commission and
the Committee arising from consulting work provided related to the
impact of state regulation on health care costs and health outcomes.
Pursuant to President Obama's Ethics Pledge, I will not participate in
certain FTC matters, including law enforcement matters, involving
Express Scripts before the FTC for two years. It also prohibits meeting
or communicating with one's former employer or client unless the
meeting or communication is open to all interested parties. I will
abide by these requirements and all applicable ethics laws.
If confirmed, were a merger or consummated merger falling outside
President Obama's Ethics Pledge and assuming I may otherwise
participate (I will consult with the FTC's ethics officials as
appropriate) to come before the Commission, I would, pursuant to the
Clayton Act, review it carefully to assess its impact upon competition
and consumers under existing law.
Question 2. As you know, I come from a rural state with patients
that have relied on small community pharmacies for a very long time.
Independent pharmacies provide advice and improve health for their
patients thereby reducing costs by keeping patients out of the
hospital. You have testified against a narrow exemption from antitrust
laws for small independent pharmacies that have been pressured with
audits and low reimbursements from large pharmacy benefit managers.
Now, we have a large PBM in Express Scripts-Medco, and industry
consolidation continues. How would you address the market dominance a
few PBMs exert with respect to contracting with pharmacy providers
essential to their networks?
Answer. I want to reiterate that I have disclosed a financial
relationship with Express Scripts, Incorporated to the Commission and
the Committee arising from consulting work provided related to the
impact of state regulation on health care costs and health outcomes.
Pursuant to President Obama's Ethics Pledge, I will not participate in
certain FTC matters, including law enforcement matters, involving
Express Scripts before the FTC for two years. It also prohibits meeting
or communicating with one's former employer or client unless the
meeting or communication is open to all interested parties. I will
abide by these requirements and all applicable ethics laws.
I have testified concerning the risks of antitrust exemptions,
including a proposed exemption involving independent pharmacies.
Competition agencies, the bipartisan Antitrust Modernization
Commission, and antitrust scholars generally have long been skeptical
of antitrust exemptions as a method of influencing bargaining outcomes
between two private parties. If confirmed and confronted with a PBM
business practice or merger that fell outside the aforementioned Ethics
Pledge and assuming I may otherwise participate (I will consult with
the FTC's ethics officials as appropriate), I would analyze it
carefully under existing law, employing rigorous empirical evidence,
and with an eye toward its ultimate impact upon consumer welfare.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question 1. Does it make sense to have multiple agencies enforce
privacy obligations, or does it make more sense for one agency to have
this authority?
Answer. Overlapping enforcement authority involves a variety of
advantages and disadvantages, and privacy enforcement is no exception.
While overlapping enforcement authority can lead to agency
specialization in particular areas of privacy regulation, it can also
potentially result in duplicative enforcement expenditures as well as
conflicting regulations. I do not have any specific recommendations at
this time concerning the desirability of overlapping privacy
enforcement without having the benefit of observing the FTC in action
in this arena.
Question 2. Should there be one set of standards that applies to
entities that may be collecting, using, and/or sharing the same
information?
Answer. Data security is an important issue and I support the
Commission's efforts in this area under existing law. I share your
concerns with the costs of having different standards imposed on
different parties. Doing so often creates artificial advantages for
some firms and can have the unintended consequence of harming both
competition and consumers. However, in the context of data security
different standards for different industries can make sense. For
example, there is no reason for a small business to need the same data
protection as an international investment bank. Further, variation in
state law as applied to data security can impose significant costs on
companies who may need to comply with many different notification
regimes. A carefully crafted standard can benefit businesses and
consumers by simultaneously deterring data theft while avoiding undue
costs. I thus support the Commission's call for additional data
security legislation. If confirmed I would be pleased to work with you
and the Commission on these issues.
Question 3. Does the FTC currently have enough authority to enforce
failures to safeguard data?
Answer. I believe data security is extremely important and
essential to continued consumer confidence in the Internet economy. The
Commission has made excellent use of its existing authority in the area
of data security. The FTC's best available tool for enforcing data
security issues is its Section 5 authority. If companies make
commitments to consumers to protect their data in certain ways, and
subsequently fall short of their promises, these companies have
deceived consumers and the FTC can bring enforcement actions based upon
those promises. The FTC has also developed excellent business and
consumer education business tools on data security. I support the FTC's
call for data security legislation. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the Commission and the Committee on these important
issues.
Question 4. Do you believe that elected representatives are
exercising their authority correctly to control the distribution and
sale of alcoholic beverages?
Answer. Alcohol usage poses many challenges for both states and the
Federal government, including several which implicate the Commission's
authority over competition and consumer protection issues. States also
have a variety of other interests in regulating alcohol, including
underage drinking, health, and safety. In prior work I have recognized
that regulation of alcohol implicates ``numerous policy concerns in
addition to the consumer welfare effects at the heart of antitrust
law.'' See, e.g., Jonathan Klick & Joshua D. Wright, The Effects of
Vertical Restraints on Output: Evidence from the Beer Industry
(unpublished working paper, 2008, at p. 22). I do not have any specific
views on precisely how states should achieve the balance of these many
concerns. If confirmed as an FTC Commissioner, my primary concern will
be to carry out the Commission's responsibilities in these markets,
including vigorous policing of markets for anticompetitive practices,
evidence-driven merger review, and monitoring marketing and
advertisement for consumer protection issues. Further, the FTC's policy
authority under Section 6 of the FTC Act enables it to provide views to
other Federal agencies on labeling issues, to provide views to states
that request analyze proposed legislation, to conduct economic studies,
to report to Congress as requested, and to educate the public through
public-private campaigns discouraging teenage alcohol consumption.
Question 5. Do you believe that the Federal Trade Commission has
the authority to alter the current state alcohol distribution
structure?
Answer. States are given broad authority to regulate alcohol
distribution. The FTC has the limited authority under the FTC Act and
the Clayton Act to review mergers and enjoin those that would
substantially lessen competition. The FTC Act also gives the agency
authority to challenge anticompetitive practices in the alcohol
industry and to exercise consumer protection oversight over unfair or
deceptive alcohol marketing and advertising practices. In addition,
Section 6 of the FTC Act gives the FTC authority to conduct studies and
issue reports. State officials often request the Commission's advice on
the likely impact of a proposed state regulation on consumers or
competition. The FTC routinely issues letters providing such advice
with the approval of the Commission in order to aid state decision-
making. These letters only offer advice, however, and the state
official must make his or her own decision about what best serves the
state's constituents' needs. I do not believe the FTC's authority
extends to altering the entire current state alcohol distribution
structure.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Dr. Joshua D. Wright
Question. I have some concerns with the lack of PBM transparency
and its impact on patients, plan sponsors, and employers. Given
continued consolidation and the growing negotiation leverage that PBMs
command in the market, what role should transparency play to enhance
consumer protections?
Answer. I want to reiterate that I have disclosed a financial
relationship with Express Scripts, Incorporated to the Commission and
the Committee arising from consulting work provided related to the
impact of state regulation on health care costs and health outcomes.
Pursuant to President Obama's Ethics Pledge, I will not participate in
certain FTC matters, including law enforcement matters, involving
Express Scripts before the FTC for two years. It also prohibits meeting
or communicating with one's former employer or client unless the
meeting or communication is open to all interested parties. I will
abide by these requirements and all applicable ethics laws.
Pricing transparency can and often is an important element of
facilitating competition in some markets. However, mandating
competitors to disclose pricing to rivals can also raise competitive
risks. The Commission's staff, with the approval of the Commission, has
raised these concerns in letters to state legislatures considering
mandatory disclosure obligations involving PBMs and in other
industries.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Yvonne Burke
Vision for Amtrak Cascades and state-supported routes
Question 1. More than 845,000 people rode Washington state's state-
sponsored intercity rail service Amtrak Cascades in Fiscal Year 2012.
Concurrently, nearly $800 million of Federal high-speed rail funding is
being invested by the Washington State Department of Transportation to
improve reliability, increase capacity, and rehabilitate track along
the 466-mile rail corridor between Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver,
British Columbia. These improvements will help make Amtrak Cascades
more accessible and reliable for residents of the Pacific Northwest.
Cascades service already has an annual economic impact of more than
$130 million--as additional trips are added, this is expected to grow.
With much attention focused on plans to further develop high-speed
rail in the Northeast Corridor, how can Amtrak ensure state-sponsored
routes like Cascades aren't forgotten? Is additional authority needed
by Amtrak to provide that support?
Answer. Amtrak will be faced with difficult challenges in the next
year to balance the needs of the Northeast corridor with the growing
needs of the western states. These challenges come at a time with less
revenue and the unfortunate devastation from Superstorm Sandy. The
commitment made by states such as Washington and my home State of
California to state-sponsored routes, such as Cascades, is based upon
Federal participation and revenue support. The presence of a Board
Member from the West will assure there is a continuing reminder of the
investment made by states and the need for Amtrak to consider the
Nation's second largest passenger contingency.
Question 1a. What is your overarching vision for state-supported
routes as a part of Amtrak's network? How can you best support that
vision on the Board of Directors?
Answer. State-supported routes are an important part of the short
routes in states that have a need for meeting suburban populations. The
economy of many states depends on the availability of an alternative to
the automobile for workers to move on a daily basis to areas of
employment opportunity. These routes can in some cases jointly utilize
track and routing terminals. State-supported routes are often the
innovator in technology and meeting the convenience of passengers.
Question 1b. What is your overarching vision for long-haul routes
as a part of Amtrak's network? How can you best support that vision on
the Board of Directors?
Answer. The long-haul routes are part of the vital Amtrak network.
There is a need for expansion and upgrade of some of these routes. In
many instances there has been little if any expansion and extension of
these routes. My vision would be to see these routes receive upgrades
and have coordinated schedules with the shorter state routes to provide
a full range of transportation options for passengers.
Passenger Rail Reliability
Question 2. Passenger rail reliability is not where it should be
nationwide, especially with regards to long-haul routes like the Empire
Builder and Coast Starlight, which run through my state and are
utilized by many Washington residents. As you know, frequent and
reliable service is essential to building ridership while increasing
ticket revenue. What specific actions would you recommend Amtrak
undertake to improve:
1. Performance;
2. cost recovery; and
3. reliability?
Answer. Specific actions:
1. Performance: There are two areas of performance that I consider
the most important--they are on time performance and safety.
Obviously, there are other areas of comfort and conveniences
such as Internet availability, adequate luggage room, and food
that is meals, snacks and fast food. The courtesy of worker are
also important. I think Amtrak employees do a good job when
interacting with passengers.
2. Cost recovery: This year Amtrak did a good job with fare box
recovery, but realizes increased fares often do not translate
into increased utilization of short and longer routes. I would
make every effort to avoid an increase in fares and look at
other ways of increasing revenue. In California, we have
struggled with the benefit of greater use of advertisement on
trains.
3. Reliability: On time performance is, in my mind, part of
reliability. I realize there are sometimes accidents, weather
problems or other incidents that delay trains, but emergency
procedures that minimize these delays gives the passenger a
greater assurance and confidence.
Passenger Experience
Question 3. What would you recommend to improve passenger
satisfaction on Amtrak?
Answer. Dependability and comfort are probably what I consider
highest on the list. Obviously, the modernization of cars and seats and
good maintenance makes a lot of difference as well. Most of the people
I talk to on short lines enjoy the camaraderie they experience as
regular passengers.
Cost Control
Question 4. With the passage of Section 209 in the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), which shifts a greater
burden of cost to states for intercity passenger rail, states want to
ensure that Amtrak is controlling expenses--something I think we are
all very supportive of. Where would you recommend Amtrak cut cost to
reduce the burden on states that sponsor passenger rail?
Answer. I would like to thank Carl Seip your Legislative Assistant
for agreeing to meet with me in your office a couple of months ago and
sharing with me some of the inequities experienced with Amtrak billing
and reimbursement. It is indeed important that costs be reasonable and
justifiable. There is an expectation that Amtrak make every effort to
reduce cost where possible without negatively impacting operations and
safety.
States as Customers
Question 5. With the state-sponsored intercity rail continuing to
grow, and with states paying more under PRIIA Section 209, states are
more and more viewing themselves as customers of Amtrak. Do you agree
with this view? Do you think that Amtrak approaches states with that
attitude? What policies would you recommend that Amtrak adopt to better
reflect this cooperative partnership where states carry a larger
portion of intercity rail cost?
Answer. State sponsored intercity rail makes us partners with
Amtrak and in a sense we are customers because we utilize track, often
routing terminals and stations with Amtrak. We pay for all of these
services. I say ``we'' because I served for 16 years on a local Metro
Board and presently serve on the California Transportation Commission
that funds construction and operation of short and long lines. We try
to meet once a year jointly with the Washington Commission and Oregon
Commissions. Frankly, there have been some difficulties experienced by
our local operators but there seems to be a changing approach to local
and state partners.
I believe Amtrak should conduct regular meeting with state partners
to work out in an amicable manner on the issues of cost and schedule.
States are making large investments in new cars and Positive Train
Control (PTC) for greater safety. There must be some recognition of
these expenditures. I am not sure how these goals could be translated
into policy, but, if confirmed, I would be supportive of efforts to
move into development of policies that reflect these needs.
Amtrak Board Composition
Question 6. Considering the increasingly close partnership between
states and Amtrak, do you think it would be appropriate to have a state
representative on the Amtrak Board of Directors?
Answer. A state representative on the Amtrak Board would make a
positive contribution. This could very well be a rotating ad hoc
member. State supported services play an important role in Amtrak's
network and having that perspective appropriately represented in Board
activities is a fair position. There are a variety of ways that could
happen--through choice of Board members or other means of
participation. I would be open to working with you to determine what is
most appropriate.
PRIIA Challenges
Question 7. What do you think the top challenges have been for
Amtrak in implementing the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008? How will you help Amtrak meet those challenges as a Board
member?
Answer. With PRIIA placing all Amtrak service that is less than 750
miles in length under the funding responsibilities of the state,
questions have been raised that must be resolved, such as additional
cost for operation of lines that traditionally have been funded
primarily by Amtrak. In some cases, assumption of these costs is almost
double what has previously been the state subsidy. In addition,
inventory disposition, such as rolling stock, station and maintenance
facilities, as well as track usage, are issues that must be resolved.
If confirmed, I would try to utilize my experience in any way that
I could to assist as a member of the Amtrak Board in carrying out the
mandate of Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 in the
most effective and fair manner.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Chris Beall
Vision for Amtrak Cascades and state-supported routes
Question 1. More than 845,000 people rode Washington State's state-
sponsored intercity rail service Amtrak Cascades in Fiscal Year 2012.
Concurrently, nearly $800 million of Federal high-speed rail funding is
being invested by the Washington State Department of Transportation to
improve reliability, increase capacity, and rehabilitate track along
the 466-mile rail corridor between Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver,
British Columbia. These improvements will help make Amtrak Cascades
more accessible and reliable for residents of the Pacific Northwest.
Cascades service already has an annual economic impact of more than
$130 million--as additional trips are added, this is expected to grow.
With much attention focused on plans to further develop high-speed
rail in the Northeast Corridor, how can Amtrak ensure state-sponsored
routes like Cascades aren't forgotten? Is additional authority needed
by Amtrak to provide that support?
Answer. It is clear from the PRIIA mandate, and from the
conversations I have had with all of the Amtrak constituencies,
including Congressional sponsors, the Amtrak Board of Directors and
Amtrak management, that the state supported routes are an important
part of the Amtrak network and of the overall U.S. transportation
network. Amtrak must continue to focus on the ongoing management,
maintenance and improvement of these routes, and as a member of the
Board of Directors, if confirmed, it would be part of my responsibility
to makes sure that routes like the Cascades routes, which are part of
Amtrak's core mission, are not forgotten and that Amtrak maintains a
balanced approach to each of the priorities outlined in its legislative
mandate. This is especially important as Amtrak is a steward of state
investments made into these systems and the states must believe and
know that they are receiving appropriate value for their respective
funds.
Based on my understanding of the existing legislation and mandate
from Congress, it is within Amtrak's authority to provide support to
the state supported routes. Any changes or expansions of this mandate
should be addressed in the next iteration of the PRIIA legislation.
Question 1a. What is your overarching vision for state-supported
routes as a part of Amtrak's network? How can you best support that
vision on the Board of Directors?
Answer. I believe that Amtrak has several clearly outlined mandates
as part of its congressional mandate, including working collaboratively
with states to further the state supported routes. I believe that each
of these routes are an important part of the overall transportation
system in the U.S., that these routes should provide a high quality
customer service experience for riders and that Amtrak, and the states
should work to continuously improve performance on key operating
metrics including safety, on-time performance, and cost. If I am
confirmed as one of the member of the Board of Directors, I will work
collaboratively with other Directors and draw upon my experience
overseeing large infrastructure businesses to help Amtrak establish
priorities, policies, and systems that foster these goals and hold
management accountable for achieving these goals over time.
Question 1b. What is your overarching vision for long-haul routes
as a part of Amtrak's network? How can you best support that vision on
the Board of Directors?
Answer. I believe that the long-haul routes are another clearly
outlined mandate from Congress in the PRIIA legislation, and as such,
Amtrak has a responsibility for the ongoing operation, promotion,
maintenance and support of these routes. Similar to the state supported
routes, I believe that these routes are also an important part of the
overall transportation system in the U.S. and that the performance
metrics for state supported routes, including a high quality customer
service experience for riders, safety, on-time performance and cost are
also appropriate goals that should be monitored by the Board of
Directors. If I am confirmed as one of the member of the Board of
Directors, I will work collaboratively with other Directors and draw
upon my experience overseeing large infrastructure businesses to help
Amtrak establish priorities, policies and systems that foster these
goals and hold management accountable for achieving these goals over
time.
Passenger Rail Reliability
Question 2. Passenger rail reliability is not where it should be
nationwide, especially with regards to long-haul routes like the Empire
Builder and Coast Starlight, which run through my state and are
utilized by many Washington residents. As you know, frequent and
reliable service is essential to building ridership while increasing
ticket revenue.
What specific actions would you recommend Amtrak undertake to
improve:
1. Performance;
2. cost recovery; and
3. reliability?
Answer. There are many things that a Board of Directors can best
insure ongoing improvement in performance, cost recovery and
reliability. First and foremost, the Board of Directors must establish
key metrics in each of these areas and monitor the ongoing performance
of the enterprise against these metrics. This requires effective
accounting and information systems and the people to appropriately
manage and monitor the systems. The Board of Directors should be
rigorous but fair in the ongoing evaluation of both the people and
systems. The Board of Directors must also recognize that most
enterprises are staffed with competent knowledgeable individuals who
are often constrained by systematic limitations. To the extent that a
Board of Directors or individual Directors can help identify and remove
systematic issues that affect performance, the overall enterprise can
thrive and improve performance. If confirmed as a Director, I would
approach my role as a change to identify and help break down these
constraints to improve overall performance on each of the measures
outlined in the question.
Passenger Experience
Question 3. What would you recommend to improve passenger
satisfaction on Amtrak?
Answer. My personal experience is that I enjoy riding Amtrak most
when it operates efficiently and on time. Additionally, having multiple
departure times and alternatives provides additional flexibility and
convenience, two factors I prize as a consumer.
I believe that ongoing, effective maintenance is an absolute key to
improving availability and utilization of large infrastructure systems
like Amtrak. Effective maintenance requires an investment in systems
and people to identify and repair high risk components of the system
including track, locomotives and cars and electrical systems.
Additionally, maintenance requires an adequate and consistent capital
expenditure program so that system components that fail frequently can
be effectively replaced. I know that this has been a key focus for
Amtrak over the past five years and believe that it should be on an
ongoing focus in the future.
Cost Control
Question 4. With the passage of Section 209 in the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), which shifts a greater
burden of cost to states for intercity passenger rail, states want to
ensure that Amtrak is controlling expenses--something I think we are
all very supportive of. Where would you recommend Amtrak cut cost to
reduce the burden on states that sponsor passenger rail?
Answer. As I mentioned earlier, cost is a key parameter that must
be an ongoing focus and priority for Amtrak as it provides services to
all of its customers. One area that I believe is an important and
effective area for cost improvement is an improving safety record. Many
times safety is regarded as a cost, and the focus is largely on the
moral obligation to operate a safe workplace. While I believe strongly
that any employer must maintain a safe workplace, I have found
historically that improving safety performance can also significantly
reduce workers compensation claims and insurance costs and that it can
also be an effective strategy for cost reduction as well.
This is one of a number of cost savings ideas and experiences that
I have obtained as a director of large infrastructure businesses, and I
hope to find additional opportunities if I am confirmed and engaged as
an active member of the Board of Directors.
States as Customers
Question 5. With the state-sponsored intercity rail continuing to
grow, and with states paying more under PRIIA Section 209, states are
more and more viewing themselves as customers of Amtrak. Do you agree
with this view?
Answer. Yes, I believe that states that contribute funding to
Amtrak on the state sponsored routes must be viewed as Amtrak's
customer and that their goals must be incorporated into the ongoing
management and oversight of Amtrak by the Board of Directors.
Question 5a. Do you think that Amtrak approaches states with that
attitude?
Answer. Based on conversations with Amtrak management and
Directors, I believe that Amtrak understands the need to work with the
states on the state supported routes. If confirmed as a Director, I
would view the ongoing focus and cooperation with the state supported
routes as a key area of emphasis. The Board of Directors can be
instrumental as a group in establishing this tone and creating policies
and accountability measures that reinforce this customer service
mindset.
Question 5b. What policies would you recommend that Amtrak adopt to
better reflect this cooperative partnership where states carry a larger
portion of intercity rail cost?
Answer. In any business with Amtrak's scope and scale, accurate and
transparent reporting is a key first step toward understanding and
fulfilling state goals regarding intercity rail. I believe Amtrak is
committed as a policy matter to accurate and transparent reporting and
I would work as a member of the Board of Directors to support and
advance this goal. I believe that a policy of accurate and transparent
reporting, when combined with a key understanding of the state's goals
for intercity rail and accountability measures related to those goals,
will produce the positive results that the state partners expect from
these cooperative partnerships.
Amtrak Board Composition
Question 6. Considering the increasingly close partnership between
states and Amtrak, do you think it would be appropriate to have a state
representative on the Amtrak Board of Directors?
Answer. I believe that it is the responsibility of each individual
member of the Amtrak Board of Directors to balance the competing Amtrak
priorities and customer goals when establishing, implementing and
monitoring policies and procedures, including the goals of Amtrak's
state partners. While I believe that it is very important for Amtrak to
have diverse viewpoints and opinions on the Board, I do not as a
general rule believe that Directors should be nominated to represent
specific interests. Instead, I believe they should be appointed to
carefully consider and balance the requirements of all constituents
served by Amtrak. However, if a state representative were nominated to
the Amtrak Board of Directors, I would approach their nomination
respectfully and would work collaboratively with them to advance the
overall goals for Amtrak established by Amtrak under its legislative
mandate.
PRIIA Challenges
Question 7. What do you think the top challenges have been for
Amtrak in implementing the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008?
Answer. Amtrak has faced a number of challenges implementing PRIIA.
Addressing service levels and financial performance of its long-
distance routes is a key factor that is difficult to address while
maintaining customer service quality unless ridership is significantly
increased. This was a critical directive of the PRIIA and Amtrak has
established Performance Improvement Plans for the majority of these
routes, but the execution of these plans and the ongoing monitoring and
reporting of performance under these plans will be critical to
maintaining public confidence and increasing ridership, managing costs
and improving service levels. There is no ``silver bullet'' in this
regard and Amtrak and its Board of Directors must work at the operating
level to think of new and creative solutions to address these issues.
Question 8. How will you help Amtrak meet those challenges as a
Board member?
Answer. My background and experience making and overseeing
infrastructure investment and experience as a Director of large
organizations that provide essential infrastructure services to the
U.S. economy is directly and uniquely relevant to the ongoing oversight
of Amtrak as a Director. In total, I have over 14 years of experience
constructing, operating, financing, managing and governing large-scale
infrastructure projects and operating businesses. I have served as a
Director of large organizations that provide infrastructure services. I
currently serve as a Director of two such companies.
While many of Amtrak's goals and objectives are unique, many of
Amtrak's challenges are shared by other large infrastructure
businesses. I believe my background and experience will help me
identify creative solutions to the problems Amtrak is experiencing and
work collaboratively with Amtrak management to accomplish Amtrak's long
term goals.