U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–268 PDF 2004

U.S. PREPARATION FOR THE WORLD RADIO

CONFERENCES: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 17, 2004

Serial No. 108–180

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

GRACE WASHBOURNE, Professional Staff Member

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DAN BURTON, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

——— ———

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

TOM LANTOS, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

——— ———

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk

ANDREW SU, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 17, 2004 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Bryant, John, former Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to 1997 World

Radio Conference; Gail Schoettler, U.S. Ambassador to 2000 World

Radio Conference; and Janice Obuchowski, U.S. Ambassador to 2003

World Radio Conference ............................................................................... 96

Shane, Jeffrey N., Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; William Readdy, Associate Administrator

for Space Flight, National Aeronautic and Space Administration; Michael Gallagher, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and

Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Kathleen Abernathy, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; Ambassador David

Gross, U.S. Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State; and Lin Wells, Principal Deputy

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Networks and Information Integration,

U.S. Department of State ............................................................................. 6

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Abernathy, Kathleen, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 39

Bryant, John, former Congressman and U.S. Ambassador to 1997 World

Radio Conference, prepared statement of ................................................... 99

Gallagher, Michael, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and

Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, prepared statement of ............... 27

Gross, Ambassador David, U.S. Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 51

Obuchowski, Janice, U.S. Ambassador to 2003 World Radio Conference,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 108

Readdy, William, Associate Administrator for Space Flight, National

Aeronautic and Space Administration, prepared statement of ................. 19

Schoettler, Gail, U.S. Ambassador to 2000 World Radio Conference, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 104

Shane, Jeffrey N., Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of .................................. 8

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut, prepared statement of ........................................................ 3

Wells, Lin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Networks

and Information Integration, U.S. Department of State, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 68

(1)

U.S. PREPARATION FOR THE WORLD RADIO

CONFERENCES: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING

THREATS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Turner (vicechairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Shays, Platts, Duncan, Ruppersberger,

and Watson.

Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel; R.

Nicholas Palarino, senior policy advisor; Thomas Costa, professional staff member; Robert Briggs, clerk; Grace Washbourne, professional staff member, full committee; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Andrew Su, minority professional staff member.

Mr. TURNER. Good morning. Our hearing this morning, entitled,

‘‘U.S. Preparation for the World Radio Conferences: Too Little, Too

late,’’ is called to order.

Last June, a White House memo to all executive branch departments and agencies concluded the existing legal and policy framework for spectrum management has not kept pace with the dramatic changes in technology and spectrum use.

Today we will discuss one element of that dated policy apparatus—the internal preparations and external consultations used by

the Department of State and other Federal departments to prepare

for World Radio Conferences, the international meetings where

critical decisions are made that shape worldwide communication

policies and markets.

Spectrum is global. Spectrum is finite. Immutable laws of physics

govern the electromagnetic waves that connect the world’s governments, businesses, and citizens in new ways every day.

Any nation that cannot articulate clear positions, protect its vital

interests, and work to forge multilateral consensus on spectrum

issues puts its national security and economic vitality at risk.

Unilateralism is not an option. An analog America would not be

safe or prosperous in a digital world.

The World Radio Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, last year

challenged the United States to formulate timely, technically complex, and politically sensitive positions on a large number of agenda items. Many Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, and the FAA depend on exclusive, long-term access

2

to coveted frequencies to accomplish their missions. They have had

substantial equities at risk in the WRC outcome. A vibrant and

growing commercial sector was eager to capitalize on rapidly expanding markets for digital telephones, wireless Internet services,

substance abuse transmissions, GPS-based products, and more.

Competition and conflicts among and between governmental and

commercial users seeking to keep or gain access to prime, technically superior spectrum bands had to be resolved before the U.S.

could present a unified negotiating position to the world.

As we will hear, the process used to involve public and private

stakeholders, resolve inter-agency disputes, vet proposed positions,

solicit international support, and counter opposing regional coalitions yielded substantial success in Geneva. Important lessons

were learned about the quality and quantity of preparatory consultations, delegation training, and international outreach. But

WRC 2003 also confirmed some longstanding institutional weaknesses in U.S. spectrum policy management.

The United States has no over-arching spectrum strategy to

guide near- and long-term policy on use of this precious finite resource. Separate responsibility for commercial spectrum allocation

decisions at the Federal Communication Commission and Federal

spectrum policies at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration make conflicts between public and private

users almost inevitable and more difficult to resolve. No head of

the U.S. delegation is appointed more than 6 months before the

next WRC convenes, long after other nations have been conducting

important discussions at that level.

The next World Radio Conference is scheduled to convene in

2007. Today we ask our witnesses: will we be ready? Will the final

report of the White House Spectrum Policy Initiative address management weaknesses that can hobble WRC preparations and prospects? Will the procedures, policies, resources, and people we assemble effectively represent the vital interests of the United States

at that crucial international forum?

Our two panels of witnesses bring impressive expertise and hardwon experience to this discussion, and we are grateful for their

time and talent, and we welcome you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. TURNER. I’d like to welcome Mr. Ruppersberger, who has an

opening statement for us.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for

calling this hearing on spectrum allocation and the upcoming

World Radio Conference. It is important for us as the policymakers

to understand what role spectrum plays in our country and the

world, and the implications of not having a unified or negotiated

voice when we address spectrum allocation in an international

forum.

The need for appropriate spectrum allocation is vital to our country. Spectrum is essential for communication, for Homeland Security, and for commerce. Commercial entities rely on their spectrum

allocation to determine how best to utilize their spectrum to offer

a wide variety of service. Last, law enforcement relies on spectrum

to be able to instruct officers that they are on the scene of an accident, and it is vital so that our troops can be commanded and directed appropriately in battle. But what is the larger question and

what is at stake is American leadership in future telecommunications directions.

Our current process of preparing for the WRC is a multi-step

process that allows all the interested and vested parties some say

in what direction we should move as a country. The FCC handles

commercial, NTIA handles government, and a smaller working

group with the FCC and NTIA and the State Department meets.

Not only do they have very commercial interests, but you throw in

the needs of all of the different agencies and departments of the

Federal Government. With all these competing interests, do we as

a country lose out as a whole? I look forward to understanding

more about the process and how we can ensure America stays as

the telecommunications leader.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.

Now we recognize our chairman, Chairman Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Turner, for chairing this. I am at a Budget Committee bringing out the

budget resolution. I think this is a hugely important issue, and I

recognize that the spectrum is global, and that we need to be global

players. I really want my country to be working overtime on this

issue. And while I believe there needs to be unilateral action in

issues of war and peace at times, not necessarily the preferred way

but sometimes the only way. On this issue we have to work as

closely as we can with others to resolve our differences and make

sure that we optimize what we believe is in our Nation’s best interest. I just wanted to personally come here to thank all our witnesses and, as well, to explain my absence.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your

leadership in this issue.

I’d like to recognize Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I’ll pass at the moment.

Mr. TURNER. Our panelists today in panel one are: Jeffrey N.

Shane, the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation; William Readdy, Associate Administrator

for Space Flight, National Aeronautic and Space Administration;

Michael Gallagher, Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications

6

and Information, National Telecommunications and Information

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; Commissioner

Kathleen Abernathy, Federal Communications Commission; Ambassador David Gross, U.S. Coordinator, International Coordinations and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State; and Dr.

Lin Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary for NII Networks and Information Integration, U.S. Department of Defense.

If you would all stand to take the oath, we do swear in our witnesses in this committee.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Please note for the record that the witnesses have

responded in the affirmative.

I ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee

be permitted to place any opening statement in the record, and

that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose. Without

objection, so ordered.

I further ask unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted

to include their written statements in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

We begin our testimony today with Mr. Shane.

STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY N. SHANE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR

TRANSPORTATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; WILLIAM READDY, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLIGHT, NATIONAL AERONAUTIC AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL GALLAGHER, ACTING

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;

COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AMBASSADOR DAVID GROSS, U.S.

COORDINATOR, INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; AND LIN

WELLS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We at the Department of

Transportation are very grateful to Chairman Shays and members

of the subcommittee for first holding this very important hearing

and bringing its special perspective to the question of spectrum allocation and preparation for the WRC, and particularly we are

grateful for your invitation to us, to the Department of Transportation, to be here.

Radio spectrum decisions made at the World Radio Conferences

have a significant long-term impact on the safety, efficiency, and

effectiveness of our Nation’s transportation system and play a vital

role in helping us to plan for and meet our critical infrastructure

needs. Radio spectrum under DOT’s purview essentially serves as

an enabler for a wide variety of land, sea, air, and space transport

applications. As we work to modernize and improve our national

transportation system, we rely on uninterrupted access to clean

spectrum to support a broad range of communications, navigation,

and surveillance systems. In fact, DOT is the second largest user

7

and service provider of all radio services in the Federal Government.

For example, the Department facilitates the use of spectrum to

support effective communications links between public transportation agencies and first responders. Our intelligent transportation

system program uses wireless technologies to reduce accidents, to

ease congestion, and alert rescue vehicles. With our partners in

Canada, we operate a state-of-the-art vessel traffic system on the

St. Lawrence Seaway using automatic identification system technology to provide accurate, real-time information for navigation,

communication, and security throughout the St. Lawrence Seaway

and the Great Lakes.

GPS, of course, is a core technology—the global positioning system—operated by the Department of Defense, but it is also one

that has critical civilian applications, as everyone knows. These applications are already providing tremendous benefits in areas like

air and sea navigation, highway safety, positive train control, and

even wireless E911 positioning. That’s why DOT attaches such importance to spectrum issues, both domestically and internationally.

That’s also why we have consistently supported our U.S. delegations in their pursuit of American interests at previous World

Radio Conferences and why we are currently involved in the preparatory work that has already begun for the 2007 conference.

The Department will play an active role as the U.S. Government

works to determine which items should be addressed at the 2007

conference. We will work to identify ways in which aviation can use

radio spectrum more efficiently so that current and future needs

can be met through our existing band allocations. We also hope to

use the 2007 conference as an opportunity to explore ways to stimulate the development of standardized intelligent transportation

systems around the world.

Last December the FCC completed licensing rules on the 5.9

gigahertz band here in the United States for use by dedicated

short-range communications technologies, the spectrum enabler for

ITS systems. ITS applications will provide tremendous safety benefits to our Nation’s highways through collision avoidance systems

and other technologies, but standardizing equipment and protocols

around the world is simply the single most important thing we can

do to reduce costs and hasten the delivery of the systems to large

numbers of drivers.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting the Department of Transportation to be here. We look forward to answering questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shane follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Readdy.

Mr. READDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. It is an honor for me, as NASA’s radio frequency spectrum manager, an astronaut, and also associate administrator for

Space Flight to be here to talk to you about the World Radio Communications Conference process and explain how critically important spectrum allocation is to all of our NASA missions.

A NASA mission—understand, protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and inspire the next generation of explorers as only NASA can. Importance of reliable radio

communications for NASA’s wide array of scientific and operational

missions cannot be overstated. We depend on it every day, launching spacecraft, sending and receiving critical information to and

from our assets in space, including spirit and opportunity currently

exploring the Martian surface, for scientific observatories like

Hubble, Chandler and Spitzer, and the constellation of earth-observing meteorological communications spectrum allocations circling the globe as we speak. Also circling the globe every 90 minutes as we speak is international space station, and on board it, its

eight permanent expedition crew, Commander Michael Fole and

Flight Engineer Alexander Clary. They, too, depend on spectrum

for their navigation, telemetry, communications, health monitoring,

and ultimately their safety. And when the shuttle returns to flight

next spring, those crews will also rely on spectrum for safe and

successful execution of their missions.

As a shuttle astronaut, from the unique vantage point of space,

once you’ve seen the earth from a distance you realize there is a

single atmosphere and single ocean that surround this magnificent

planet of ours. You also realize how perishable they are, and that

they are resources we must share and conserve. So, too, it is with

spectrum. Like the air we breathe and the water we drink, we take

spectrum for granted. Spectrum is vital for existence in this technologically advanced 21st century we live in. Lives depend on reliable

communications, and in emergencies lives are also saved by effective, cooperative use of spectrum.

Just last year I was at a NOAA ceremony over at Department

of State with Ambassador Gross and Vice Admiral Lautenbacher

celebrating the success of the satellite based co-spa SAR-SAT system which had just surpassed 14,000 lives saved. NASA is very

proud of its contributions to the beacon and locating technologies

used.

As we expand our horizons beyond low earth orbit to explore

space and moon and on to Mars, that lifeline will become even

more important, more critical. We won’t leave home without it.

Some of those architectures are already in place right now, bringing us pictures from the Red Planet. Spirit and opportunity. And

since January there have been over 7 billion hits on the NASA Web

site from over 100 million different web addresses.

Our only means of communication, control of receiving and transmitting data to aircraft and spacecraft is via radio. Because space

and spectrum knows no borders, NASA must work cooperatively

with the other U.S. agencies, the private sector, and other nations,

and successful allocation of spectrum for our missions is absolutely

17

dependent on success of negotiations within the global community

that is conducted at the World Radio Communications Conferences.

I’m very proud of NASA’s excellent track record in succeeding in

the negotiations that achieve our necessary allocations for these

scientific missions, and I’d like to submit three specifically bulletins

that describe the specific successes at World Radio Telecommunications Conference 2003. The success was due in no small part to

NASA’s reputation for technical excellence in achievement that is

respected worldwide. But to be successful we at NASA also must

work very closely with the NTIA, with our colleagues from other

departments and agencies as part of the Administration, and with

our industry partners as members of the U.S. delegation.

We also hold a rather unique role due to our strong partnerships

with international space agencies around the world. As you know,

the ITU, International Telecommunications Union, is part of the

U.N. system operated on the basis of one country/one vote. Scientists have learned to speak the same language, no matter where

they are from, and often they speak with one voice. Scientific research and space exploration have universal appeal and shared interest.

Since 1958 when the National Aeronautics and Space Act was

signed, NASA has concluded over 3,000 agreements with over 100

countries and international organizations, and in this last decade

nearly 900. We’ve maintained an active participation in World

Radio Conferences since 1959.

Preparation is the key to success, and NASA is currently preparing in Geneva right now. The U.S. National Committee Study

Group Seven—Space, Science, and Services—with Mr. Dave Struba

over there with three working groups, and those meetings will generate the body of technical data that will assist World Radio Conference 2007 conferees to conduct their business. That’s the key to

success is early preparation.

Having attended and participated in the last two conferences, I

believe our successes are also based on achieving those technically

sound bases for the decisions that are made, and during those conferences we count on the strong leadership and negotiating skills

of the U.S. Ambassador and the unity and teamwork that the U.S.

delegation provides. As a Presidential appointee, the Ambassador

and head of the U.S. delegation enjoys the confidence of the administration, possesses the political sensitivities and negotiating skills

required in that critical role. We were extremely well served by the

leadership, technical expertise, and skillful negotiating talents of

Ambassador Janice Obuchowski in 2003 and Gail Schoettler in

2000.

Ongoing fruitful cooperation partnership with other U.S. Federal

Government agencies, industry, and global communications community is crucial for providing and defending critical radio spectrum for accomplishing NASA’s scientific missions and leading the

world’s civil space program.

The vision for space exploration announced by the President on

January 14th only serves to underscore NASA’s need to remain actively engaged in spectrum management today in order to preserve

spectrum for use in exploration of space now and for decades to

come.

18

Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Readdy follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to echo

Under Secretary Shane’s appreciation to this committee and to

Chairman Shays for his outstanding leadership on spectrum issues

and spectrum policy matters. It is an honor to be here this morning. It is also an honor to be here with my colleagues in the administration who are truly engaged and understand the importance of

spectrum and spectrum policy.

World Radio Conferences are month-long negotiations involving

over 2,000 delegates from nearly 150 countries. World Radio Conferences bring together politics, economics, and technical developments on an international stage to determine the spectrum available and the regulations that will govern wireless development, scientific investigation, safety, and security. The United States has

but one vote in this environment, and yet has enjoyed high level

of success working with the world community to bring forth new

services while safeguarding critical operations.

This morning I would focus on four key words that are the ingredients for success. The first is leadership. Leadership means providing guidance, vision, and setting priorities and decisively resolving conflicts. Leadership fundamentally depends upon people and

how they work together. The President made the World Radio Conference an early priority to senior White House staff. In 2003, in

turn, the Secretary of Commerce made it a priority for NTIA. We

received direction and guidance from the Secretary and from the

National Security Council and the National Economic Councils to

ensure that we stayed on task and on time.

Ambassador Obuchowski, Chairman Powell, NTIA leadership,

other Federal agencies, and the private sector embrace the need for

aggressive, early work.

World Radio Conferences run in 2- to 4-year cycles and senior

management needs to be engaged during that period to support the

hard work of the career staff who have the thankless task of preparing the extremely important details and analyses that undergird a successful World Radio Conference. Certainly one of the

questions to be answered in reviewing the work process is how to

ensure continuity of leadership in the future. We recommend establishing a steering group consisting of senior agency leadership who

will take on the responsibility for guiding World Radio Conference

activities and for identifying and resolving conflicts early to maximize the opportunity for the United States to achieve success with

its international neighbors.

The second ingredient would be balance. We are called upon to

balance our economic security with our national security, and as

the Secretary of Commerce has informed me, given the choice between the two, do both.

Spectrum is an indispensable building block for America’s future

that fuels economic growth. A constant flow of new technologies,

new services, and products characterize the global wireless market.

New startups such as Vivato and Etheros join established companies like the Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin, Intel to contribute

growth in our high technology economic, and they rely on the U.S.

Government’s ability to make spectrum available.

25

In 2003 the United States achieved outstanding successes in

more than doubling the amount of spectrum for wi-fi devices at five

gigahertz and agreeing on the common rules on a global basis for

those devices. These rules are already helping U.S. industry to

market new technologies in countries previously closed to such devices and services. The Boeing Co.’s connection service or broad

band in the sky using the 14 gigahertz band is another example

where the World Radio Conference results lead directly to economic

growth and job creation.

World Radio Conferences are also key to our national security

and our homeland security, and to scientific investigation of the

earth’s resource in outer space. Negotiations at the World Radio

Conference in 2003 safeguarded spectrum access for the next generation of GPS by overcoming a challenge to GPS modernization by

Europe. Furthermore, as we provided spectrum for wi-fi devices at

five gigahertz, we ensured that wi-fi devices around the world will

protect our critical radar systems, a perfect example of technical

expertise and cooperation to bring forth a result that meets balanced priorities.

The third ingredient is execution. Based on past experiences, we

began our preparations for this work earlier than ever, organizing

immediately after the close of the 2000 World Radio Conference.

We facilitated interaction of government and commercial entities to

form well-grounded technical and impactful proposals. We advanced the issues and concluded our preparations in enough time

to impress our priorities on America’s region and to the rest of the

world. We also put forth a delegation team of approximately 150

government and private sector experts. Behind the outstanding

leadership of Ambassador Obuchowski were career staff such as

Jim Vorhees and Alex Royblad who oversaw the NTIA and FCC

preparations. The outstanding success of the five gigahertz items

served as a microcosm of teamwork. Charles Glass at NTIA teamed

effectively with Warren VanWayser of the FCC, Jerry Connor of

the Department of Defense, John Zuzek of NASA. Industry tirelessly supported this work with the efforts of Scott Harris, Rob

Cubic, Dave Case, and others.

However, execution does not end when the doors close on the

Conference. To take advantage of the successes of the conference,

the results need to be reflected in U.S. national regulations. While

implementation was a recognized problem in the past, NTIA and

the FCC quickly established a plan for implementing the results of

the World Radio Conference. A number of the items have already

moved through FCC rulemakings, and soon we’ll consider an omnibus rulemaking covering most of the remaining World Radio Conference 2003 results. We recommend establishment of this arrangement as a permanent part of the World Radio Conference process.

A final ingredient is improvement. Regardless of past successes,

we must continue to improve our processes and adapt as the world

changes. The United States needs to be prepared to address the

evolving challenges presented by World Radio Conferences or risk

relinquishing its global leadership role in telecommunications and

technology development and deployment. We have been conducting

a review of our processes and will report on the outcome of that

assessment in the near future. We expect our recommendations to

26

cover senior level engagement, cooperation and coordination, outreach, delegation preparation, and World Radio Conference implementation.

So, in conclusion, our experience has taught us the benefits of

early and thorough preparation and the importance of our staff and

senior agency leaders working together to come to resolutions on

difficult issues and of reaching out to other countries. In particular,

we appreciate the efforts of those on this panel and those that support them and the panel that follows, the Ambassadors who have

lead the previous work delegations in recent years. We continue to

work to improve our processes and to ensure the continued success

of the United States so essential to our economic and national security. We thank you again for the leadership of this committee, and

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallagher follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Commissioner ABERNATHY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and

distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity and the honor to appear today to testify on the issue of

U.S. preparation for the World Radio Conferences.

As was mentioned, the WRC process has become increasingly important and complex over the past several years as unprecedented

progress in the development of radio communication services has

resulted in an ever-increasing demand for access to the spectrum

resources. Because of the one country/one vote system at the WRC,

successful participation requires thorough advance preparation by

the United States and then active participation at the conference.

WRC 2003 was no exception. Forty-eight agenda items were considered, and the primary focus was the deployment, growth, and

evolving use of a broad range of spectrum-based services such as

wi-fi and the provision of broadband services via satellites and airplanes.

In light of such an extensive agenda, the United States started

its preparation process immediately following WRC 2000, and we

sent an expert delegation of public and private sector participants

to the conference. This advanced preparation, as has been mentioned, was invaluable, and when combined with an ambitious

international outreach effort by the U.S. delegation led by Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, the United States returned from WRC

2003 with a long list of accomplishments.

Just to name a few, the U.S. team ensured spectrum remains

available for the introduction of new technologies, incumbent radio

communications services remained protected from interference,

new commercial ventures can be pursued, and we should see increased global competition and jobs creation. I was proud to be able

to serve on the delegation at this year’s conference, along with Ambassador David Gross, Former Assistant Secretary of Commerce

Nancy Victory, and Associate NASA Administrator William

Readdy, as well as other esteemed representatives from the Government and the private sector.

I believe that there are several reasons for the successful outcome of WRC 2003. First and foremost was the extensive coordination between FCC, NTIA, including all the executive branch agencies that it acts on behalf of, the Department of State, and then the

private sector. This early effort solidified U.S. positions which could

then be negotiated internationally. Fortunately, we all shared a

common goal: U.S. success at the Conference.

Second, the high quality and expertise of the U.S. delegation

members enabled substantive participation at the Conference at all

levels. Until you are there, it is hard to appreciate how significantly the other countries look to the United States for our technical expertise.

Third, the international outreach effort of the United States,

both before the Conference and at the WRC, allowed the United

States to garner much-needed international support.

Finally, I believe that the able leadership of Ambassador

Obuchowski was crucial to the success of the United States.

The FCC also made a significant contribution to the overall success of the U.S. delegation. Not only did FCC staff serve as U.S.

spokespersons on nearly half of the items addressed by the ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:42 Oct 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95268.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
37

ference, but the FCC was an integral part of the government and

industry team that developed the successful U.S. strategy and positions. Moreover, following the conclusion of WRC 2003 the FCC,

under the leadership of Chairman Michael Powell, and in coordination with our friends at NTIA, acted quickly to implement many of

the decisions from the Conference.

Finally, to ensure that the United States is well prepared for the

next Conference, the Commission has initiated preparation for

WRC 2007 by convening an Industry Advisory Committee which

held its first meeting this past January.

Now, the dual challenges of the ever-increasing demand for spectrum and the WRC’s one country/one vote system requires the

United States to work smarter and continually re-evaluate our preparatory process for the WRC. I know the FCC, the Department of

State, NTIA, NASA, DOD, DOT, and pretty much all the agencies

that are dependent on spectrum, are committed to improving the

effectiveness of the United States at each WRC, frankly, because

there’s no other option.

At the FCC we’ve made process improvements that include increasing the transparency of the FCC preparatory process, increasing our coordination with other Government agencies, enhancing

public participation in the development of U.S. positions, increasing

our outreach to other countries, and implementing the decisions

from each WRC quickly.

Last year, the Commission held a public meeting to evaluate the

FCC’s efforts at WRC 2003. This meeting confirmed that the private sector, and State and local public safety communities embraced the changes that we had made to date, and we’re continuing

to work toward additional process improvements so the United

States can be ever more successful at upcoming WRCs.

I see we’ve got some guests coming in.

[NOTE.—Group of midle school students entered the hearing

room.]

Commissioner ABERNATHY. We’re talking about the World Radio

Conference. This is a very important Conference. This is where the

United States decides if we are going to have spectrum for you

guys to watch TV, listen to the radio, use your computers, instant

message everyone. So this is all a big cooperative effort that has

to go on with all the countries in the world.

Now, more specifically, we need to improve our further international outreach. We’re hampered by two things that many of us

are hampered with in our daily lives. We’re hampered by a lack of

time and a lack of money. In an ideal world, the United States

would have all of its positions for an upcoming Conference determined and agreed upon months in advance of a Conference, and we

would have a budget that would then allow us to meet with as

many countries as possible to ensure that we would be successful.

But, given the real world, I do believe there are some solutions out

there that allow us to work within these constraints.

First, the FCC should continue to foster close working relationships with other regulatory administrations and regional organizations. This means opening our doors to visiting delegations and

building relationships with regulators from around the world, and

working with my colleague Ambassador Gross to ensure that we

38

have these relationships in advance of the meetings. As part of this

effort, I have agreed to chair the next ITU Global Regulators Symposium.

Second, the FCC should continue its work with the Department

of State and the other Government agencies in expanding U.S. participation in the WRC preparatory efforts in the developing countries and build on all of our global relationships through private

entities or organizations that have them already developed.

Overall, I’ve found that each WRC cycle brings additional refinements to the process, and the FCC is committed to working with

Congress and its colleagues across the Government and the private

sector to ensure that the United States can continue its leadership

position. That’s why I remain optimistic about our ability to navigate the complex ITU processes and ensure continued success for

the United States.

So thank you for your time. I look forward to answering any

questions you may have.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Abernathy follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. TURNER. Ambassador Gross.

Ambassador GROSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to everyone. I don’t think I have ever been to a more wellattended hearing than the one we have today, which underscores

the importance and the reason for having the hearing today, not

just about what we’ve done in the past but really what it means

for the future and looking forward. The issues, as Commissioner

Abernathy just talked about, for everyone just joined, has to do

with spectrum, has to do with the international aspects of spectrum and making sure you all have enough spectrum for your future, for your cell phones, for TVs, for radios, for a whole host of

things, as well as to ensure that your national security, your future

is well protected. It is the responsibility of the people at this table,

who are all Government officials, senior Government officials, to

ensure that happens.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, especially for the interest

that you have shown and the other members of the committee have

shown, and particularly the staff of the committee have shown. It

meant a tremendous amount to the delegation at WRC 2003 and

to me in particular that staff members came and spent time with

us at the WRC to see firsthand what was going on. That was important to underscore the importance of the activities that the delegation was undertaking, as well as the ongoing work. So I want to

thank them in particular for taking time out and for helping us in

that process.

Let me just spend a moment, if you would allow me to talk a little bit about my position. I am an ambassador for the United

States and my job is to coordinate and lead all international telecommunications activities on behalf of the United States. It is my

ongoing responsibility to make sure that the process, whether it is

the WRC process or other processes, runs smoothly and that our

work is done effectively and efficiently. The reason why that job is

in the U.S. State Department and not another agency is because

of the decision that was made some time ago that it is extraordinarily important that the work that we do with regard to telecommunications be done in complete harmony with our foreign policy—that is, to make sure that we get the maximum impact and

that we are well informed, both from a foreign policy perspective

as well as from a technical perspective, in these activities.

I, as many of the people up here on the panel, come originally

from the private sector, and so the concept of process improvement

is one that is near and dear to our hearts, and so this process of

looking back and then looking forward is particularly important.

There is no pride of practices, and we constantly attempt and look

very carefully trying to do process improvement so we can continue

to do a better job for the American people.

One of those aspects is the team approach, and one of the things

that I was most proud about as we went through this process after

the WRC 2000 was a recommitment to the team. Each of the agencies here at the table, as well as other agencies, came together both

personally and organizationally to act as one team to work for the

American people’s best interest. That process was ongoing, extraordinarily important, and I am very thankful to all the members for

that process.

50

That process included one of the most important pieces, and that

was the recommendation to the President of a WRC Ambassador.

Because of the nature of the Ambassadorial position only lasts for

approximately 6 months, it is incumbent upon the people at this

table and our staffs and others to work continuously on the process, as well as the issues that are going on.

As was mentioned earlier, the process for the WRC 2007 began

with the very end of WRC 2003. It is a continuing process. That

is well understood. What is perhaps not as well understood is that

process is continuous throughout our outreach on international

telecommunications. We have an ongoing series of bilats independent of the WRC process, but yet each of those bilats is educated by

and works in harmony with our upcoming WRC agenda, so we’re

dealing with China, Russia, India on an ongoing basis about a

number of issues, WRC is always a part of that process, even well

before the WRC Ambassador is appointed. Similarly, as we have

U.N. summits the WRC process is always a part of our thinking.

The ITU has many meetings, many conferences, large and small.

The WRC process is always a part of that proceeding.

It is also important to remember that the WRC is a treaty-writing, and the ITU—the International Telecommunications Union, of

which the WRC is one of the most important meetings, is also a

treaty-based organization, and we treat it as such. Ultimately,

however, what this is all about is doing the best job for the American people, bringing jobs to the American people, ensuring our national security. It requires all of us to work together. It requires all

of us to be nimble, opportunistic, and optimistic.

I am very pleased about the results that Ambassador

Obuchowski was able to get for us, as well as the almost 170 members of the delegation representing both the private sector and the

public sector. They did an extraordinarily good job, as I note that

other WRC’s Ambassadors have been able to do. In going back

through the record, I believe virtually every one, if not all, have,

in fact, brought back and achieved all of their objectives. If the test

of the work that we have done is whether or not we were effective

in getting that which the American people wanted, our process has

always been effective. Our job collectively and individually is to ensure that’s true going forward, and you have my assurance that

will be the case from the State Department.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Ambassador.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Gross follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. TURNER. We want to take this opportunity also to acknowledge that the students who have joined us are from the Kelman

Academy from Cherry Hill, NJ. They are eighth graders. We welcome you.

Dr. Wells.

Dr. WELLS. Thank you very much. Let me also echo the other

speakers here today to thank the committee for its leadership and

its interest in this.

From the standpoint of the Department of Defense, the World

Radio Conferences are strategically crucial for our country because

spectrum has become the bedrock of the communications flows that

are literally today the lifeblood of our modern national security systems. In addition to their importance for the commercial development of new technologies, a dynamic process that DOD supports,

the WRCs affect what spectrum is available for military operations.

This is not just true here but, of course, around the world.

In an era of asymmetric warfare in which the greatest threats

are often the most decentralized and the hardest to pin down,

United States and allied forces require this kind of global access to

spectrum to go wherever the enemy goes with greater stealth and

access to firepower than the enemy can employ.

WRCs then are integral to our strategic approach to network centric warfare and information superiority, and failure to prepare

properly for and execute the strategies to ensure the spectrum access will literally have life or death consequences. Because of its extensive responsibilities for defending not only the United States but

also coalition partners and allies, DOD has interests and equities

concerning multiple spectrum bands. These responsibilities and interests are often not shared or understood by other countries, even

those who may themselves be protected by the global umbrella of

wireless links maintained by the United States for itself and its allies.

In this complex world, DOD must ensure that it prepares for

each World Radio Conference and communicates its obligations

within the U.S. Government to the broader U.S. spectrum community, to allies, and ultimately to the WRC, itself.

WRC 2003 underlined the growing importance of spectrum-dependent technologies in the Nation’s defense. The conference was

convened just weeks after the liberation of Iraq. It was the first

global spectrum conference held after the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the resulting War on Terror. The timing served to

underscore the high stakes for the U.S. delegation in Geneva working to preserve a businesslike and cooperative environment for

multinational diplomacy.

The Department of Defense identified at least 30 items on the

agenda for WRC 2003, out of a record-breaking total of 48 agenda

items that touched on national security interest and Department

equities. Because of this, advanced preparation was vital to a successful outcome. Throughout the preparation phase and during the

conference, itself, DOD devoted substantial human capital and financial resources. As a result, we feel we contributed to the successful advancement of national security interests that occurred

during the conference.

67

The U.S. approach to WRCs can function well, provided adequate

preparation is followed by experienced and effective management

at each conference—a point that I think all my colleagues have

made very well. Among the many facets of this process are comprehensive technical preparation, effective and consistent outreach

and regional coordination, and selection of dedicated delegation

leadership. To a commendable extent, this is, in fact, just what

happened for WRC 2003.

The greatest contribution to WRC preparation and success that

should be incorporated now is the creation of a national level spectrum priorities. As contemplated in the President’s current spectrum initiative, establishing clearly articulated policy will lead to

more informed preparations for WRCs at early stages of each preparation phase; therefore, we are committed to furthering the goals

of the President’s initiative.

In addition, the organization of the U.S. WRC effort could be

streamlined in some areas, including the training of participants

and more involvement by senior leadership in the preparation

phase.

Let me address two points. We need to improve the quality of

U.S. document submissions and delegate training. There is a shortfall in the proper use of regulatory procedures and language in

some cases in the preparation of U.S. submissions to the ITUR

study groups. This carries over into the work process, itself. Joint

NTIA, FCC, State Department training could be targeted at improving the quality of the U.S. submissions, increasing the effectiveness of the U.S. preparations for the study groups and the

work, themselves, and we are working with our colleagues to bring

this into fruition.

The second point is I think that we should establish senior leadership structure during the preparation periods. This was done to

some extent in the run up to WRC 2003. The preparation phase,

which constitutes much of the interim between the conferences,

should be guided by a senior leadership group that is composed of

top-level officials representing all of the relevant departments and

agencies, meeting frequently to define. In effect, this group could

obviate the need to create a permanent Ambassador to the WRC,

which, of course, has time constraints in the appointments. So we

have suggested a meeting be called among the senior leadership to

initiate this process and look forward to going forward.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman, as the largest user of spectrum resources in the United States, DOD has made a profound commitment to shepherd its spectrum resources as effectively as technology will allow. That commitment extends fully to the preparations for the WRC conferences, also.

We look forward to working with this subcommittee, providing

any assistance it can and to enhance the U.S. role at future WRCs.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Dr. Wells.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wells follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate all of your perspective and testimony

and the information that you have given to us. Thanks for being

here.

There is no question that each of you, in describing the accomplishments that you have had, can cite specific results that have

been important or have been achieved and that benefit both the

U.S. national security and also our economy. We hear the words

‘‘cooperation’’ and ‘‘teamwork,’’ and that is, of course, important

with the way this is structured.

We know from the testimony and from the structure that we

have here that we do have a diffusion of authority and interest. We

note that the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunication Information

Administration share domestic spectrum management and policymaking responsibility, NTIA manages all Federal Government use

of the spectrum, and also serves as the President’s advisor in telecommunications matters. The FCC regulates and manages all commercial and private sector use of the spectrum, as well as State,

local, and government use. And in international spectrum negotiation and conferences the Department of State exercises primary authority. So that diffusion of authority and responsibility, knowledge

base, experience certainly requires the level of cooperation and

teamwork that you need for the success level that you’ve had.

But, nonetheless, that structure begs the question of what did

not go well at WRC 2003 as we look to how we can improve it.

What are some of the things that you would cite where we could

have accomplished more? Mr. Shane, we’d start with you.

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the vantage point

of the Department of Transportation, the process actually worked

very well. We have, as I explained in my remarks, a lot of equities

in spectrum, and we participated pretty thoroughly and quite

prominently, I would say, in the preparations for the WRC of 2003.

Ambassador Obuchowski was in my office a number of times in anticipation of that. She didn’t require any prompting from me. She

came on her own motion to chat about the things that we were concerned about. So I felt that it worked well.

There were some issues that came up suddenly that couldn’t

have been the subject of preparations. Those had to be discussed

very much on the fly. I think that is in the nature of the process,

and there’s just no way you can anticipate everything. In fact, I

would fault some of our trading partners for not doing a better job

of coordinating with us in advance so that we might have been better prepared for some of the things that we would have possibly

supported had we known about them in advance. But I can’t fault

the internal U.S. Government process for those lost opportunities;

I think our trading partners could have done a better job. So I am

not here to complain about the preparation for WRC 2003.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Readdy.

Mr. READDY. Well, I have to say from the NASA perspective we

achieved all our aims at WRC 2003. I’d go back to some points

made by the other panelist. It comes down to, I think, continuity

of the effort, and we are engaged continuously in establishing the

technical bases for our positions and helping our colleagues in the

other agencies and departments do that. Ambassador does have a

88

term of only 6 months because of limitations of the appointment

process. Perhaps continuity is the place where we could make the

most progress.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. From NTIA’s perspective, we share

and reinforce the statements that Under Secretary Shane and Mr.

Readdy have made that the early preparation was critical, and that

is by far the biggest focal point of whether we are going to succeed

or not in the World Radio Conference. We did it here.

I also would say that it was particularly important, having lived

through this, that it was having a timely CPM submission to

CITEL was also critical. That is a cleavage point in the process was

important, and that was a stressful exercise, but I think it is

stressful under any circumstances. I don’t think there’s anything

you can do in particular to make it better than it was.

I would point to resource issues perhaps. There were a number

of discussions where it was unclear how gaps were going to be

filled from a resource perspective. Again, it underscores the commitment of the team to accomplish the mission that we found

them, and the Department of Defense I think is to be credited with

stepping in and filling that void in a substantial way.

Those would be the responses to the question for improvement.

Commissioner ABERNATHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The good

news is that there were no failures. Were we on the edge sometimes? I mean, was this tough? Yes. And so I think the question

is: how do we ensure that there’s more stability, more reliability

going forward, because, as was mentioned, it’s only going to get

harder. You’re only going to have more countries having disagreements about how to allocate spectrum and you’re only going to

have more internal, local U.S. disputes about where should the

spectrum go. We see it all the time at the FCC. We then go to

NTIA because there’s disputes between the different departments

and between the private sector, and we end up having to pick and

choose and try and make best guesses. And so when you’re going

to a global conference where you may be tying your hands for years

to come on some of this spectrum, I think it becomes critical that

we have the kind of coordination that we had in this instance. But

one thing that was very important is that once Ambassador

Obuchowski came onboard she had such expertise that she could

jump in immediately. What if we hadn’t had someone like that? So

I think, looking at making sure the Ambassador gets appointed as

soon as possible, continuing to ensure that there is coordination between these groups—because all these groups need to be represented anyway, regardless of how you do it. Every single entity

that was at the table from the private to the government all had

very real issues. They need to be there. We need to solicit their

input. And then, once we finally land on a place for the United

States, we need to go around and make sure we’ve got international allies, many times with countries that lack sophistication

when it comes to telecommunications issues. So we are doing education at the same time we are trying to bring them on to our side.

Resources and funding—always critical, always stressful, because

none of us have a specific budget just for this. But I think the good

news is, because it is so important to every agency, at the end of

89

the day they do come forward and work together and provide what

funding they can.

Ambassador GROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would underscore and agree with all that has been said before. Looking ahead,

what we learned from WRC 2003, which there were many things

we learned, was the extraordinary importance of outreach and coalition building. As a number of people have testified this morning,

we have only one vote amongst approximately 189. We cannot go

it alone. We have no need and desire to go it alone. Rather, we

need to build on a continuing basis coalitions. We do not and we

cannot wait until the conference to build such coalitions. And so

this is an ongoing process. It is ongoing now for WRC 2007. As Secretary Wells pointed out, this WRC 2003 was held right after the

liberation of Iraq, an extraordinarily complex and difficult time in

the international community. Yet, the work that had been done

over the years of building coalitions, of building trust, of building

information flows allowed us to go forward and to build coalitions

at the meeting so that all U.S. objectives, both economic and national security related, were able to be achieved.

What we’ve learned in 2003 underscores that which we knew before, which is: coalition building is always key in these international approaches.

Thank you.

Dr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I think most everything important

here has been said. I would just reiterate the two points I made

earlier about the value of training for members of the delegation—

I think we can do better on that—and establishing continuity by

the senior leadership coordination that we’re working even now to

establish for WRC 2007. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. My next question, I’m really interested in the structure issue again. We talk about cooperation, but the issue of authority is one that I think may not be very well defined here.

The Department of State, as we know, has the statutory responsibility to provide the leadership on the U.S. international spectrum positions. So with the Department of State, how do you go

about exercising this responsibility? Do you have authority for setting timelines and schedules for the other agencies? What is your

oversight of the other agencies’ participation? What if there’s disagreement between the agencies? What if you get to the WRC and

there’s a policy shift that you want to make with the other agencies

not being supportive?

Another one that I find interesting, in listening to each of the

testimony, almost every one of the agencies talked about their

international partners, so you have each agency having international partners that affect their ability to be successful, when in

the end it is the State that is going to be the liaison internationally

on this matter. And I’d like to couple that with the reaction of the

other agencies as to the appropriateness of the State in doing this,

where obviously the technical expertise lies elsewhere.

Thank you.

Ambassador GROSS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the timeline, certain of the timelines are established by the International Telecommunications Union, itself. As a

number of people have mentioned, there are dates that are estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:42 Oct 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95268.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
90

lished for the CPM meetings. One is held immediately after the

WRC, one is held 6 months ahead of time. There are timeframes

for getting our national submission in. There are similarly timeframes for getting our submissions in for some of the regional activities such as we’ve mentioned with CITEL and the like.

Similarly, there are timeframes through the study group process

where the hard, technical work is done in between the WRCs, and

so that drives a lot of the timing, as well.

Our job is to make sure that things are done in a timely fashion.

Of course, part of the balance is also to make sure that it is done

in an open and transparent way, both within and amongst the various agencies, but also with regard to the public participants, as

well. We work very hard. We have a process, a Federal advisory

process called the ITAC process that allows for that to happen, and

I’m very pleased that, of course, all of the time commitments and

needs have been met.

With regard to oversight, we believe very strongly in a team oriented approach, and I cannot be more pleased with the responsiveness and the work that has been done by all of the agencies and

also by the private sector as part of that team. Our oversight responsibilities are extraordinarily important, and we work very

closely with the staffs, as well as with the appointed officials of

each of the agencies, to make sure that all of the needs of the country are met. We meet periodically. I see everyone at this table on

a fairly regular basis, if not a very regular basis, and these are

issues that we talk about at that time.

Also in the WRC 2003 process we had very few disagreements.

There is an advisory process that the FCC is responsible for.

There’s an advisory process that NTIA heads up. Those processes

then result in recommendations to us. But for a few important exceptions, there was harmony in that process. When there was not

harmony, it was my job, because it was before the WRC Ambassador was appointed, to bring all the parties together, to make sure

that everyone understood what the issues were, and to ensure that

positions were reached. That happened with regard to the important 5 gigahertz issue, for example, and that was successfully resolved.

So our ability to enforce and to promote harmony in those issues

where it may not be easy to achieve is an extraordinarily important

part of my responsibilities. Once the WRC Ambassador is appointed by the President, it becomes his or her responsibility as

head of delegation, and I hand those responsibilities off.

It is important to note that my role continues throughout this

process. My job is to ensure that the WRC Ambassador has the resources necessary to achieve the goals and the missions, as is, in

fact, as result of the work done by other people up here testifying

and their agencies to ensure that happens, as well.

Mr. TURNER. Let’s go to Mr. Shane with his comment on the

process.

Mr. SHANE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I’m a little compromised in

responding to this question because I am an alumnus of the Department of State. I spent 4 years there conducting aviation negotiations at a time when, as now, the Department of Transportation

retained the technical expertise for international aviation.

91

The truth is that if you look at these agencies which have all this

technical expertise, I think you’ll find that each one of us is unbelievably parochial. You would not want to vest the leadership for

a process like this in any of us. I’m not going to speak for my sister

agencies, but I’m going to speak for the Department of Transportation. We support the Department of State in this role. It conducts

this role in a whole host of other economic areas where the stakes

are very high and national interest is very high. It is terribly important that there be a facilitator, an arbiter of what the Nation

requires, sorting out a whole variety of competing claims as we formulate a position for the WRC.

I think the process works well. I must say I am attracted to the

suggestions we’ve heard from Mr. Gallagher and Dr. Wells, for a

senior leadership council, a group, a steering committee of some

kind. I think that would enhance our preparatory process. But I am

in favor of leaving the State Department in charge.

I don’t think you can overstate the value we get from the Foreign

Service, from the array of embassies around the world that provide

intelligence to the process, who are beating the bushes facilitating

that essential outreach that makes the preparatory process successful and that ultimately makes our performance at the WRC

successful.

Mr. TURNER. Well, before we go on, why don’t we just ask

blanketly, are there any other parochial members of the team that

would like to argue contrary? [Laughter.]

Dr. Wells.

Dr. WELLS. And I will yield to the Department of State for the

coordination. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, we have been blessed

with a Government of checks and balances and a distributed system of power and it has served us so well in so many areas. It

served us here well, as well, but ultimately we understand when

the position gets together and we have our national position, we

have to turn to one leader, and I think there is no dispute from

any of us that State has that role.

It helps, as you mentioned, the bilateral links. It helps us to be

able to get our national positions together as early as possible so

that we can all go forward with one voice to participate and build

the support for this one country/one vote through our bilateral

channels, but I think we all understand at the end of the day we

come back to support them.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. While turning to Mr. Ruppersberger for

his questions, I also want to recognize that Mr. Duncan of Tennessee has joined us, has been with us. Thank you.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK. First I want to get back to the WRC.

Probably to Ambassador Gross, but really the whole panel, if you’d

like—the panel is very talkative, so that’s great. You have good

opinions.

At the WRC, who is our largest competitor? Did we reach out to

them? Do our competitors have a more formalized structure that

deals with the WRC, and how do we compare to them? That will

be an interesting answer. And what can we learn from them and

how they work? Why don’t we start with you, Ambassador Gross,

and then anyone else who has a comment.

92

Ambassador GROSS. Certainly. Actually, the questions you raise

are very similar to the questions I raised when I first took this job.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Good. That’s why I asked them.

Ambassador GROSS. Our largest competitors are, not surprisingly, some of the largest countries and regions that economically

compete with us and militarily compete with us. Spectrum, of

course, equates into both of those categories very strongly. Having

said that, there’s also, and somewhat surprisingly, great commonality amongst those interests, and so what we have done is to work

very aggressively to find those common areas that meet our needs

and the legitimate needs of others.

The economic piece is often the most difficult, and I would say

that, for example, Europe often has a very different approach and

some very different views, and it takes a lot of creativity and a lot

of hard work to make sure that our views are found to be the consensus views.

How others are organized——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, what countries would it be, then? Can

you answer that specifically?

Ambassador GROSS. Actually, for many of these purposes Europe

speaks with a common voice. They work very hard—and this is one

of the lessons that we have learned. This came up particularly in

WRC 2000, where there was a lot of issues, and before that, having

to do with mobile telephones and things of that nature.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How about China?

Ambassador GROSS. China is extraordinarily important and

takes this process extraordinarily seriously, because they both have

the economic and the military aspects, as well. They recognize that.

But let me just go back to Europe for a moment because China,

of course, has the same situation that we naturally come from,

which is it is a large, single country. One of the lessons that we

have learned and one of the plays that we have taken out of someone else’s playbook is the necessity of building coalitions in your

back yard. So, for example, just as Europe has tried to work collectively and because they have so many votes by having common positions, we, too, have reached out in a very successful manner to

our countries in our region through the CITEL process. I notice

that there’s a chart here and there’s one up on the screens, as well,

that shows CITEL. I’m a little concerned because it shows CITEL

above the State Department, and I’m not sure that’s really quite

accurate. But, nevertheless, I think the purpose of that was really

to show that we work very closely with the other administrations

in CITEL, which include all of the Americas. That came to be a

very important piece of the puzzle. So what we try to do is both

do it bilaterally but also build these regional coalitions as Europe

has.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. OK. Are they a more formalized structure

than we have?

Ambassador GROSS. They have a more formalized structure, although I need to be careful here. We have a formal structure

through CITEL. I think the question is whether or not we feel freer

than some European countries to establish our own positions when

our national security, our national economic interests demand that

we reserve the right to do.

93

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I know my time isn’t up, but we have a

vote that has just been called.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Duncan, you also have questions?

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. I’ll try to be very quick, because I know we

have some votes going on. I apologize. I’ve got three subcommittee

hearings going on at the same time, so I have been in and out and

I haven’t heard all of the testimony. You’ve gone into this some on

the last question, but I assume, from the bits and pieces I’ve heard,

that, Ambassador Gross, you are the coordinator for the whole Government? Is that correct?

Ambassador GROSS. On international.

Mr. DUNCAN. Because you’ve got so many different departments

and agencies involved in this.

Ambassador GROSS. Yes.

Mr. DUNCAN. And, just so I can learn a little bit about this, I

know I’ve read Ambassador Bryant’s testimony, and he has said

somebody should be in charge of this for a couple of years at least

instead of the 6-months. Do each of the departments and agencies

have people who are working on this full time?

Ambassador GROSS. Let me first address—my job, as a statutory

matter, is to lead the U.S. international telecommunications work

that is done. That’s an ongoing process. It’s a 24/7 process. It is

independent of the WRC process.

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. So you are involved in many other things

other than the WRC.

Ambassador GROSS. Precisely. Then, as we get closer to a WRC,

we have traditionally over the past good number of years had appointed—actually, for a long period of time we have appointed

someone to lead and head that delegation, in large part, a reflection of the intense time commitment that requires, which is somewhat different than many of the other international telecommunications activities that we do. But we also have many others, IT related, U.N. related, bilaterally related, and otherwise.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this. I don’t know enough about

this conference, and I’ve got to kind of be quick because we’ve got

these votes, but how many people attend from all the countries to

this conference?

Ambassador GROSS. Over 2,000.

Mr. DUNCAN. And how big was the U.S. delegation?

Ambassador GROSS. About 170.

Mr. DUNCAN. And what would you say was the No. 1 or main accomplishment of the U.S. delegation at the 2003 conference?

Ambassador GROSS. Well, I think the main accomplishment is

that we had a whole series of accomplishments, and every single

one of them——

Mr. DUNCAN. Could you give me an example of one or two of

those?

Ambassador GROSS. Certainly. On the economic side, it was getting spectrum for 5 gigahertz for the wireless LANS. Those are wifi related, a substantial economic development and one that really

is very, very helpful for U.S. industry. I’ll leave it to Dr. Wells perhaps on the Defense, but were a number of very important Defense-related successes that we had to help national security and

to protect national security from certain threats that had gone othVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:42 Oct 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95268.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
94

erwise. We had a whole series of these types of issues and balancing issues. We had some very important—on the space side,

some very important developments that we were able to accomplish

for——

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you think that you speeded up the process of

warning about terrorist activities in that conference, or did you get

much into that?

Ambassador GROSS. I would say that behind much of the activity

was the recognition of the need for national security, whether it is

terrorist or other threats; that because the WRC was held right

after the Iraq invasion and, of course, after September 11, it was

close to all of our hearts and minds. And I will say not only for

ours, but also for many other delegations, as well.

Mr. DUNCAN. Can you give me—since you are the lead man here,

can you give me some wild, rough guess as to how much it costs

the taxpayers or the U.S. Government in preparation and actual

attendance for one of these conferences, because we prepare for it

for several years.

Ambassador GROSS. There are a couple pieces to that. With regard to the State Department, there are the costs for many of the

30-some people who work for me and in my group, many of whom

are devoted full time to the WRC process. In addition, we have out

of pocket expenses, something in the order—I think the allocation

is something in the order of between $300,000 and $400,000. But,

of course, all of the agencies at this table and many other Federal

agencies spend a tremendous amount of their resources, and I

would leave it to them to determine whether——

Mr. DUNCAN. So you can’t give me a wild guess then?

Ambassador GROSS. Wild guess? I could give you probably a helpful guess. I would rather be able to look to my colleagues for

more——

Mr. DUNCAN. Since we don’t have time, I would appreciate it if

you would contact these other agencies and see if you can come up

with some sort of a reasonable estimate.

Have you set any preparatory deadlines for developing the U.S.

positions for the 2007 conference?

Ambassador GROSS. Yes. There are deadlines established by the

International Telecommunications Union. We need to get ours in

for about 6 months in advance of the WRC 2007. In addition, we

have deadlines for CITEL, which is our regional group that drives

a lot of it. But we also have our self-imposed deadlines, and we are

working on that now. Part of the tension, I should quickly add,

though, is we have to balance very carefully our strong desire to

have our firm positions early enough to be effective in our international outreach, but not so early as to lock us into positions that

we will want to change as world events and economics and technology changes.

Mr. DUNCAN. So if we don’t——

Ambassador GROSS. It’s a continuing balancing.

Mr. DUNCAN. If we don’t change this Ambassador’s position, then

we basically have to have all our positions developed before someone is even appointed as Ambassador?

Ambassador GROSS. That’s right. And we don’t wait for that.

Mr. DUNCAN. OK. Thank you very much.

95

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Real quick?

Mr. TURNER. Real quick, go ahead.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I’ll probably throw it out and have to leave

you, and I won’t be coming back. We talked about coordination,

pulling together, and it is difficult when you have a lot of different

groups, but you need to have one boss, and by statutory that’s the

Department of State. Now I want to throw this out because I think

that in management you have to put your goals out, your mission.

You have to be held accountable for what you do and you have to

have a structure and you have to have a plan, so these questions

really I would ask and I’m probably not going to be able to listen

to the answers. How does the Department of State exercise the responsibility of leadership? Are you responsible for setting timelines

and schedules of the U.S. WRC preparatory process at the FCC

and NTIA? How does the State Department provide oversight of

the WRC preparatory process? And how do you determine the effectiveness and success of the U.S. delegation at WRC?

I think these are relevant. We talked about working together and

what our plan is, but this gets into the specifics of management,

and that’s your role. So if you could answer those. How much time

do we have; 5 minutes. We’re going to have to leave. Maybe you

could get those back to us in writing.

Mr. TURNER. Sorry. We have 5 minutes to get to the vote, but

I do want to give you the real quick opportunity, if anyone wants

to add anything in closing, comments that they’ve thought of that

they want to add to the record. Obviously, you can do that also in

writing, but if there are any closing comments you would like to

make at this point—anyone? Yes, Ambassador?

Ambassador GROSS. If I may, let me just underscore one extraordinarily important thing that was touched on but can’t be overstated, and that is the extraordinary dedication and work that the

staffs do of each of our departments in working together. They are

extraordinarily dedicated and extraordinarily good, and you find

tremendous continuity. If you look around at other delegations

around, nobody does a better job. No other administration, no other

country does a better job than the United States year in, year out,

in accomplishing these goals.

Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Ambassador, we appreciate your comments. I would

appreciate your patience as we run. We didn’t want to have you to

be held, because it looks like it might be as much as 45 minutes

before we return, so we did want to be able to dismiss this panel.

Thank you for participating.

[Recess.]

Mr. TURNER. For the record, let’s just note that I introduced all

of our panel members and that they responded in the affirmative

to the oath. We’ll begin with Mr. Bryant.

96

STATEMENTS OF JOHN BRYANT, FORMER CONGRESSMAN AND

U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 1997 WORLD RADIO CONFERENCE;

GAIL SCHOETTLER, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 2000 WORLD

RADIO CONFERENCE; AND JANICE OBUCHOWSKI, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO 2003 WORLD RADIO CONFERENCE

Ambassador BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for

inviting me to offer observations on the World Radio Conferences

and also thank the committee now as a private citizen for taking

time to get into this arcane area. It is very complicated and very

time consuming, and you’re not going to be asked any questions

about it at a town meeting, I assure you, but it is very, very important.

I was the 1997 WRC Ambassador. I had been on the Telecommunications Subcommittee here for 14 years, and I assume I

was chosen because of a presumption that I knew something about

telecommunications and perhaps had some skills that might lend

itself to the job. The fact is, though, that I was, as I learned, the

latest in a long line of WRC Ambassadors, very few of whom possessed any significant knowledge about the very complicated technical substance of international spectrum allocation, and I don’t

think any of them, like me at the time, had any knowledge of the

institutional history or the dominant personalities in the World

Radio Conference.

As a result, I was suddenly in charge of the delegation that was

being formed, I was in charge of the process of forming our agenda

for the conference, responsible to see that we succeeded at the conference, yet I knew less about the process probably literally than

any other participant in the entire process. The conference was

only months away, as I was chosen in about February, as I recall,

and I believe we had that conference in the fall, probably in October. It has been a while, but I think I am correct about that.

I rose to the occasion, I believe. Our delegation did a great job.

We had terrific people. But I think that the process does not serve

our critical national interest unless it has changed a lot since I did

it, and from listening to the previous panel it doesn’t sound like it

has changed fundamentally. I think that our interests were placed

at risk by a process that begins too late, that lacks year-round

management for long-term objectives, and is under-funded. And I

don’t want to suggest it totally lacks year-round management. It

does not totally lack that. But I do not think that we have yearround management for the outcome of the WRC.

I offer the following four recommendations to support my position.

First of all, the responsibility for the World Radio Conference, as

well as the rank of Ambassador, should be given to either a Presidential appointee or a career Foreign Service professional who

works year round in the International Telecommunications Union

process. I think that our tradition of on-the-job training should be

discontinued in favor of the same type of professional management

of spectrum allocation that is employed by other countries, including our most important rivals in this process.

Between radio conferences, there are a huge number of conferences, decisions, study groups, and other activities of the International Telecommunications Union. They have a bearing on the

97

relations between the participating nations, they have a bearing on

the relations between the dominant individuals and their long-term

policy decisions, and unless the leader of our effort is able to actually participate in the process, it’s not going to be managed with

an eye to maximizing the effectiveness and the ability of our delegation to fulfill our objectives at the subsequent conference.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an analogy that I think is

quite apt, and that is this: appointing a delegation head for 6

months is about like a congressional district electing somebody to

serve the last 6 months of a 2-year cycle and expecting them to be

able to come up here and understand the institutional history, who

the people are, and match wits with Henry Hyde and John Dingle.

It’s about the same thing. That’s what we did while I was there in

1997. I think that’s still what’s going on, based upon what the last

panel has said in its testimony.

Second, if the WRC Ambassador is to continue to be a Presidential appointee, that person should be appointed at least 2 years

before the next scheduled World Radio Conference and it should be

a full-time job. Preparation for this process is critical. I don’t think

it is possible to describe the complexity of trying to master everything from ship-to-shore radio to the most complicated satellite systems, much of the substance of which has a lot to do not only with

our critical economic interests, but with our intelligence operations,

our military operations, and a whole variety of other aspects.

Like every diplomatic effort, the mix of international interests,

personalities, and, in this case, technical issues, is extremely complicated. I think it is disconcerting to think that the newly appointed head of the U.S. delegation starts off presiding over U.S.

stakeholders, all of whom know more than he or she does and all

of whom, at the international level, are familiar with each other

from having worked with each other for many years, but the U.S.

head of delegation does not have those relationships.

Third, I know that everybody who comes here says the same

thing, but funding for this operation ought to match its critical importance. At the very least, the WRC Ambassador, if we continue

the current system that I’m advocating should change, but if we

continued it they ought to have a staff and office—it doesn’t need

to be very large, because they are well supported by the allied

agencies that testified in the first panel, but they need at least

that.

Fourth, they need the ability to travel. I was hindered in my efforts by the inability to make some trips that I thought were critical in order to deal face to face with the principal people that we

were going to be dealing with at the conference, either to convince

them of our position or to try to understand their position so we

could craft a compromise. The WRC Ambassador ought to be able

to do one-on-one communication in the same way that a Member

of Congress needs to do that with other Members of Congress.

Finally, I believe the State Department should continue to have

principal responsibility for the WRC process. Ultimately these

issues are geopolitical in nature. They are not technical issues. It

is easy to obscure the geopolitical nature of this whole process by

becoming wound up in the complex technical substance of it. We

had the situation while I was the Ambassador, for example, of

98

Israel and Palestine not wanting to do certain things together. The

way in which we dealt with them had some ramifications that were

totally different than anything involving the substance of WRC. I

had to have instructions about how to deal with that. We had at

that time the former Yugoslavia. I think one of the countries was

attempting to take the place of the former Yugoslavia, or something like that. The State Department needs to be able to give instructions with ease with regard to how those matters are handled.

Additionally, in that year we had our major rivals trying very

hard to intervene and to change some things that were extremely

important to us at the very highest level, not the smallest of which

was to change the way in which we handled global positioning systems. I had to call upon higher-ups in the State Department to deal

with this matter at higher diplomatic levels than the position that

I held. That needs to be able to happen with ease if the public interest is to be served. So I think the State Department has done

a good job in this area. I do think that this person, though, that

heads this delegation ought to be picked earlier, given resources,

and supported in the fashion that I have described.

Thank you for letting me testify.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bryant follows:]

99

100

101

102

Mr. TURNER. Ambassador Schoettler, I’m going to give you the

choice as to whether or not you proceed. You’d have about 7 minutes for all of your comments, or we could wait until after the vote.

Would you like to proceed?

Ambassador SCHOETTLER. I’ll proceed, yes. I’ll do it in less than

7 minutes.

Thank you. I appreciate the chance to be here today, because the

World Radio Communication Conference is so important to our national security and our economic competitiveness, so I’m going to,

because of the time—and you have my testimony—I’ll just summarize the recommendations that our whole delegation made. Grace,

I’ll leave with you a copy of all of the recommendations.

We had 162 members, about half each from government and industry, and I think the large delegation made our job much easier

because we were able to cover a huge number of meetings, unlike

any other delegation there. We had people with high technical

skills who were able to cover all of the various negotiations every

day. And, quite honestly, our success was due to the excellence of

our delegation. They were superb.

Second, I had terrific people assigned to me by the Defense Department. NASA, Badri Younes, who is here today, is now at DOD,

and the FCC, and they worked closely with me for 6 months managing the entire process. I can’t tell you how important that was

to the success of our delegation to have their expertise and their

ability to manage.

The State Department was outstanding. They provided me and

for all of us office space. They enabled me to travel to important

meetings around the world prior to the WRC, which was very, very

important in setting up our negotiations. So one of my major recommendations is that they have sufficient funding to do that job.

Other recommendations—engage in an extensive and vigorous

outreach program with other countries before the WRC, both within our region and elsewhere. The politics of the WRC determine

whether we win our positions or not. Commitments are made early.

And developing countries, in particular, responded very positively

to our reaching out to them, and their votes often ensured our success, again in a one country/one vote environment. I can’t over-estimate the value of reaching out to and respecting the needs of other

countries when you are the world’s powerhouse. In Istanbul in

2000, each one of our delegation members also was assigned to a

country who was there, and they maintained coordination with

them, pushed our positions, and it was invaluable.

I think the Ambassador should have suitable facilities, preferably

a suite, for hosting other delegations, both for negotiations and social events. Again, it is because the delegates to the WRC think it

is a huge honor to be invited to the U.S. Ambassador’s suite. It is

just so important and it was very critical to our success.

I think the State Department should continue to be the lead Government agency for the WRC preparation for all of the reasons that

you’ve heard. I believe it is very important for the WRC Ambassador to be a Presidential appointee and to report to a key White

House official. It gives you the chance to convene warring parties

and to solve internal problems, but it also provides great stature

nationally and internationally.

103

The WRC Ambassador should be appointed more than 6 months

before the next WRC, and I think there is a technical problem

there, but that I would urge Congress to overcome because leadership is so important.

I think the delegation should be whatever size is needed to provide Government’s unique expertise and to meet the needs of both

industry and national security. As you’ve heard before, I believe a

senior executive coordinating committee in Government under the

leadership of the White House would be very helpful in overseeing

WRC preparation.

I also believe that Government and industry should negotiate directly to resolve differences on key issues; that it isn’t a good idea

to work only through government intermediaries. That’s cumbersome and less effective. And our direct negotiations in 2000

helped our delegation to go to the WRC committed, completely committed to our proposals.

A couple of other things I will just touch on very briefly, and that

is establish a media strategy, because the Ambassador needs to be

the spokesperson and it avoids rumors.

So I’ll just leave a copy of our delegation report, and I am going

to let Janice now go, because we’ve probably got 3 minutes.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Schoettler follows:]

104

105

106

Mr. TURNER. Ambassador Obuchowski, if you are able in about

3 minutes to conclude your comments, we’ll adjourn the hearing.

Ambassador OBUCHOWSKI. Perfect.

You’ve heard of the three Tenors. We have the three Ambassadors. You can see we represent about a decade of experience and

both political parties. I’m very happy to see the continuity in commitment to the country among us. In fact, Ambassador Schoettler

made some excellent recommendations and passed them along to

me, and I hope that our delegation was able to implement them.

I also want to recognize this committee and thank you so much

for your interest and for enabling three of your senior staff people

represented today to come to Geneva. That communicated to everyone from around the world that this wasn’t about one party or one

agency; this was a unified national effort. It had a profound impact.

Most of the good points have already been covered. I subscribe

to almost everything I’ve heard. Every WRC takes on the coloring

of its time in history. Given that our WRC was convened after September 11th and after the liberation of Iraq, this was certainly a

WRC that was strongly influenced by national security considerations. At the same time, we were very proud that we had a very

strong private sector. We had many commercial accomplishments,

the most visible of which was Wi-Fi which you’ve already heard

about.

In talking about WRCs, this particular conference had 48 agenda

items and it reflected the complexity of these and the depth with

which spectrum permeates our economy. So there’s tremendous

strategic importance that agenda reflected. We’ve had great leadership over the years and great organization, even though we use a

very distributed process. But, you can always perfect things, and

so I’d like to quickly touch on a couple of recommendations that I

have in my testimony, which I will also leave, as well as our final

report—a nice, colored copy.

First, I’d like to subscribe to what CSIS said in its report. I commend that to you. They comment about the fact that this Conference represents major geopolitical and economic stakes wrapped

in technical language, and so the strategic importance of WRCs

should be emphasized.

No. 2, we need a dedicated budget arrived at in consensus with

all the agencies and then presented to the Ambassador. At that

point you can work based on a much more tighter framed organization than sort of passing the cup. It works. It seems to always work

but it is a drain of energy at the end of the day.

We also need a blueprint. A lot of the institutional history that

drives us resides in the hands of the Ambassadors and very dedicated staff. So I would suggest that we commit to either paper or

CD-ROM the things that inevitably have to happen to knit together

the delegation.

My final recommendation goes to the President’s spectrum initiative. I know that this committee has had other hearings and will

have hearings about the importance of a national spectrum policy.

We have very complicated issues on the table, and in order to drive

them in a timely fashion we do need that top-down vision. That

will, in turn, enable us to prepare our recommendations more

quickly and to drive them up through the various stove pipes of reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:42 Oct 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95268.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
107

gional preparations around the world. For example, we can then

use military bilaterals to drive some of our security recommendations, such as in Europe before there is a unified position. That

would be my final recommendation.

I do want to thank you for the honor of testifying. We’ll respond

to questions when they come in writing so you can get on to your

other work.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Obuchowski follows:]

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

Mr. TURNER. We want to thank all of you for your service and

the importance of this issue and also for your participation today.

With that, we’ll be adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

Æ