particular report, so i -- but we certainly have been encouraging steps that both pakistan and india could take to address mutual concerns and to take appropriate steps so that tensions can be reduced, cooperation can be increased, and as a result, you have a more stable region that is focused on threats -- both interests that they share and threats that they share. >> thank you. >> in a few moments, senate democrats outline a jobs bill that they hope to go down early next week. in 15 minutes, more about creating jobs by increasing experts from gary law. after that, nancy pelosi's

weekly briefing, including question on health care and "do not ask do not tell." . . . >> i tried to be entertaining, informative, and relevant in a way that offers solutions. thom hartmann is our guest

sunday night at 8:00. harry reid expects to have a vote on the jobs bill early next week with bipartisan support. democrats outline the plan in a 15 minute briefing. >> it is sad but true. to many americans will lie awake tonight because they are worried about losing their jobs, have lost their jobs, or maybe a spouse has, a son, a daughter. they are tossing and turning about when they pay the bill -- can they make the house payment? somebody is going to repossess the car. people are concerned about

having a job to go to. in many instances, any kind of a job to go to. if we are going to get our economy back on track, the only thing that will make it get back on track will be to do something about jobs. people have to go back to work. that is why we are dedicating this year to a lot of things. our number one emphasis is going to be creating jobs. it is a plan that will create the right conditions for the private sector, the right position for the private sector to hire more people, to plan for both our short-term recovery and our long-term prosperity. we believe we will do it in the right places. 96% of the jobs created in the past 10 years have been by small businesses. we have to focus on letting more entrepreneurs do their thing, and make their homes and buildings more efficient.

we will strengthen our economy and our environment at the same time. we invest in roads, bridges, and dams. we will create jobs and infrastructure. we will put more police on the beat, more teachers in the classroom. they will not only teach our kids but also make their families save for. our agenda is not about politics or by partisanship. we have a jobs agenda about putting people back to work. our motivation is to help american people get better. our motion is to help the americans who want a job to get a job. for senate democrats, creating jobs is job #1. richard durbin. >> thank you, senator reid. the majority leader asked

senator byron dorgan and myself to meet with them to talk about ideas that might spur job creation across the country. we had several large meetings and a lot of staff meetings coming together. there were a lot of good ideas that came forward. we tried to call them down into a group of good ideas -- the strongest ideas. we tried also to make it clear that some of those would be going to the finance committee that chairman max baucus chairs. others would go through other committees. i will allow max baucus and charles schumer to address this as well. in general, what we are trying to do is to move jobs -- to spark the creation of jobs among small businesses. if you will notice here, at the bottom of the first page, we talk about creating opportunities for small businesses. lending programs, for example, that we know work, that will

provide credit and opportunities, export promotion we know will create good paying jobs, credit opportunities for small business, not currently available. there is a move to make sure we try to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and improve energy efficiency at home. that is why we have a section in this that relates to ways we can help homeowners and businesses alike strive toward energy efficiency and create jobs in the process. when it comes to creating basic jobs, we have our highway trust fund. it is an important part of this conversation. we think we can do more by investing in transportation, school infrastructure, water infrastructure, rural regional economic development, and finally, as we strive to create jobs, there is going to be, unfortunately, a force at work that will cost us jobs. many state and local governments

are laying off critical people -- teachers, firefighters, and police. we're going to find ways to make sure those jobs are not lost, so that the kids in the classroom or the neighborhoods that are currently protected are not disadvantaged because of the economy. the bottom line is this. this is a good faith offering on the democratic side. we are inviting our friends on the republican side to join us. let us put these on the floor and move on them with a sense of urgency. we need to have an agenda that will pass through the senate, that will create jobs across america as quickly as possible. it is the prized trait -- is the highest priority of the people in the country. it should be the priority of the senate. >> thanks to the swift and bold actions we took last year, we helped pull our economy back from the brink of collapse. we are not on the road to

recovery. for hard-working americans still struggling to get by, unemployment at 10% at least, recovery is not coming quickly enough. more than 7 million workers have lost jobs since the start of the recession. far too many remain unemployed. this is why we must focus on job creation and do it now. i think senator harry reid, senators byron dorgan and richard durbin, and others for finding smart ways to address our unemployment crisis. we must use every tool available to create good paying jobs for american workers. i look forward to considering the first bill to get our economy moving forward again. i am optimistic as ever will gain broad support. let us work together to get americans back to work this year.

>> i think senator richard durbin has described what we have done for a couple of months, which is work through the process of finding good ideas to put people back to work. the economy has been to a perilous time. we have seen some stability but we have a lot to do to put people back on payrolls. there are several economists in this company -- in this country. there are 15 million people who decide to look for a job. they can pick up the paper and they can't see that part of our economy is showing record profits -- they can see that part of our economy is showing record profits. who is looking up for them? who is trying to find jobs to put them back to work? the answer is we have an agenda that says, "here are a series of ideas we believe can lead to small and medium-sized businesses employing more

people." we held a hearing. we had three small businesses come to that hearing, all of which were profitable and ready to expand and hire. none of them could find the capital to do it. we propose a mechanism by which we provide capital to small and medium-sized businesses that can allow them to hire new people. 60% of small and medium businesses -- 60% of their capital needs, their borrowing is done on credit cards. we can do better than that. creating jobs through energy efficiency -- 20% unemployment in construction. we can get people back to work doing something important for the country. we ask for bipartisan support of this agenda. we hope we can move as much of this agenda as is possible to put people back on payrolls. >> on monday, i met with about

20 unemployed workers in rochester and buffalo. they were of every background, every income level. some had made $30,000 a year. some had made $130,000 a year. most of them had been looking for jobs for a year, families to support. one fellow went to the top of his industry, tool and dye business. it closed. he has six people -- he has six kids at home. his wife cannot work. he is worried about losing his house. these are painful stories, repeated again and again. we heard the message of massachusetts. the message was not, "do not do health care." they said they like health care and we should do it. they said, "focus immediately on jobs." that is what we are doing today. we are calling it an agenda.

we will move immediately on some issues and then we will keep going on different issues as we move through the year. we have a laser focus on jobs because that is what the american people want and need. it is priority number one for the american people. this agenda shows the general direction in which we are headed. >> any questions? >> senator reid? i thought there were four different versions. which one do you prefer? >> i had detailed conversations with senator charles schumer and others. i am going to look to the finance committee to come up with which is the best one. >> what about the general -- your agenda is paralyzed.

we expect a jobs bill. health care is on the locks -- is on the rocks. what about that? how do you get your agenda back on track? >> first of all, i think you are imagining a lot of things that do not exist. we had a retreat yesterday. it was a tremendous caucus. it was kicked off by the president. it was really a good day. everyone felt good about it. there were people watching that who would say we have a pretty good team. we do not agree on everything. we certainly agree on the fact that we are going to move forward on this jobs agenda. that is why we are here today.

the rest of the stock is still -- this disunity in the caucus is something you are imagining. it does not exist. >> why did it take you so long to focus on jobs? >> so long? the year just started. >> why? >> that is why we are here. we will vote on a jobs bill on monday. >> you will boat on a jobs bill this coming monday? -- you will vote on a jobs bill this coming monday? >> we hope to have a bipartisan bill we will lay down on monday. if that is not the case, we will lay one down ourselves. we believe emphatically we will be able to have a bipartisan bill on monday. if not, we will come up with one ourselves. >> where will it come from? there has been a certain amount

of jockeying by the republicans? . >> we have spent significant time with max baucus and his staff. the first package will be funded. as i indicated, a number of the things we have talked about here today have been talked about in the republican caucus yesterday. i hope we can continue to move forward for a change on a bipartisan basis. we're going to do that if we can. we say about jobs we have said about health care, we have said about energy, we have said about everything. we want to work with republicans. it appears on the jobs program the want to work with us. we certainly appreciate that. >> what do you think about the tax impact of jobs creation? is there a tax package? >> not in the near future. >> are there any --

>> we are not going to, in effect, step on our message. we hope, sometime today or tomorrow at the latest, there will be a bipartisan president -- a bipartisan presentation on what we hope to have. there will be a jobs bill we will vote on on monday. >> what is your goal with how many jobs you would like to create? >> we are going to create as many as we can. one of the areas we are going to look at initially is that -- is what the congressional budget office told us will create jobs now. we have a lot of programs that will create jobs in the future. we want to move initially to those job-creating measures that will be effective the day after tomorrow, as soon as we do this.

>> what would be your goal? >> we hope to finish this before we leave here -- a week from tomorrow. >> what would be your goal? >> when do i expect to finish here? i expect to finish by next friday. >> march, april -- what are you thinking? >> i hope it can be done very quickly. i want to finish this week from friday. it is going to be pretty easy to understand. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> commerce secretary gary locke says the u.s. will insist that other countries make good on their agreement to open their markets. president obama has set a goal of doubling exports over the next five years to support

several million jobs. gary locke's comments at the national press club are an hour. >> in his 2010 state of the union address, president obama identified trade promotion as a key component of strategy for setting the country on a path toward economic growth. he set a goal of doubling exports, asserting that such action would support 2 million jobs. he followed this with a call for stronger enforcement of existing free trade agreements. the message was calculated to appeal to bipartisanship and find common ground between business and organized labor. as with any effort, it is easier said than done. growing u.s. exports to more than $3 trillion by 2015 will require a significant investment of resources by governments as well as the private sector at a time when those resources are under tremendous strain. it will take breakthroughs in

diplomacy equal to, and perhaps >, anything the world has seen since the birth of the wto. it will sustain a broad based recovery to provide the man for the goods and services the u.s. produces. translated ambitions into reality is a task that falls on the shoulders of today's speaker. gary locke came to washington, d.c. just a year ago, after decades as a county executive, lawyer, and the first chinese- american state governor in u.s. history. his responsibilities ranged from trade to overseeing the 2010 census to warning against blizzards and hurricanes. please welcome to the national press club secretary of commerce gary locke. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction.

i assure you the blizzard is not happening today, or at least not right now. enjoy your lunch and coffee and desserts. i want to thank you all for coming today. thank the press club for hosting us and recognizing some of our guests. i want to indicate that a senator was here earlier who had to leave for a vote on the hill. she left her father here who is going to report all we say and do here. the senator is a great proponent of helping the economy export around the world. in the state of the union, president obama announced a series of proposals that will put americans back to work and our nation on the path of sustainable economic growth. a key element in helping to meet that goal is a new national export initiative. that aims to double american exports over the next five

years and support 2 million jobs here at home. there have been previous endeavors by the government to elevate the importance of exports. what sets this effort apart is that this is the first time the united states will have a government wide export promotion strategy with focused attention from the president and the entire cabinet. this initiative will correct an economic blind spot that has allowed other countries to chip away at america's international competitiveness. for all of america's economic strengths, we stand out among developed countries as one of a few whose government does not have a focused and comprehensive export strategy. at a time when traditional drivers of economic growth, like consumer and business spending, are strained, we simply must

elevate exports as a key part of our economic recovery effort. that is what the national export initiative does. i am here today to tell you how. first, the national export initiative, or nei, is going to provide more funding for export promotion and more coordination between government agencies. secondly, it will make sure that advocacy objectives get wide government support and that we do a more effective job of advocating for u.s. products and services in our interactions with foreign services and government officials. the initiative would create an export promotion cabinet reporting to the president that will consist of top leaders from commerce, treasury, and state departments, the secretary of agriculture, the office of trade representatives, and the small business administration. to put it another way, prior to

the nei, export promotion may have been a some of the time focus for many agencies and departments. the nei makes it and all of the time focus. -- makes it an all of the time focus. all agencies to the cabinet will be responsible for submitting a coordinated plan to the president for how they look collectively enhance u.s. exports. the mandate is broad. it will address key issues affecting the ability of u.s. businesses to export. here are some of the steps we will be taking to improve our export promotion performance. number one is a more robust effort by the administration to expand trade advocacy. that means educating u.s. companies about opportunities

overseas, directly connecting them with new customers, and advocating more forcefully for their interests. no. 2 is providing access to credit in the wake of the financial crisis, especially for small and medium-sized businesses that want to export. number 3 is expanding trade laws to remove barriers that stop u.s. companies from getting open and fair access to foreign markets. before i detail the specifics of these efforts, it is important to talk about why president obama has put exports front and center. today, too many americans are having trouble doing things like sending kids to college and saving for retirement. the fundamental assumption that our lives will be better than our parents', and our children's

lives better than ours, has been shaken. in the last decade, most families have stagnated or declined. that was true even before the recession began. meanwhile, the same families have seen the cost of health care and tuition skyrocket, in the case of health care 155% since 1990. it is time to get back to the basics that let this country build the strongest middle class in history. from the advent of the phone to the automobile to new drug therapies to the internet, america's strength has always been its ability to create and sell products and services that help others around the world. even amid the last decade of speculative mania, exports have remained an integral part of the economy. last year, they accounted for

11% of our gdp, which is three times more than it was 50 years ago. exports support nearly 10 million jobs in america and almost 7 million jobs in manufacturing. manufacturing jobs pay, on average, 50% more than the average wage. for every $1 billion in exports, 6250 manufacturing jobs are created or supported. while the u.s. is a major exporter, we are underperforming. u.s. exports as a percentage of gdp are still well below nearly all of our international competitors. less than 1% of america's 30 million companies export. that is a percentage that is also significantly lower than all other countries. of u.s. companies that export,

58% export to only one country. with our increasingly interconnected world, where 95% of consumers reside outside our borders, there are opportunities american companies and farmers cannot afford to miss. the national export initiative will help our country to seize this opportunity. i would like to further explain the key areas where this initiative will have the most impact. in this globalized economy, companies from every corner of the world are competing like never before for business in foreign markets, especially in emerging countries like china, india, and brazil. american companies need advocates on the ground that will fight for their interests. that means leading trade missions and working to educate companies in the united states about opportunities abroad. it also means the government pounding the pavement alongside

u.s. companies to drum up business. for example, even large u.s. companies with well-developed contacts in foreign countries are finding that procurement decisions are increasingly being impacted by political factors. with massive infrastructure plans all around the world, this represents billions of dollars in potential business. let me provide a quick example of the u.s. government advocacy done right. in 2009, in april, general electric requested support for its campaign to provide the kuwaiti ministry of electricity and water with a combined cycle power plant. at stake was a $2.60 billion contract g e was battling for against european competitors. staff working in kuwait, with their colleagues in the u.s. embassy, began an intense round

of engagement on behalf of ge. there were 20 meetings, dozens of e-mail's, and dozens of telephone calls. on september 14, ge was awarded a contract to provide a 2,000 megawatt power plant in to wait. -- in kuwait. this plant will contain $1.10 billion in american export content from some 240 suppliers located in 24 states. we need to see more success stories like this one. the national export initiative will help by giving senior american officials traveling abroad a second job description -- advocate and salesperson for u.s. companies and products. ge is a multinational corporation, and their challenges are different than those of small and medium-sized

companies. many american companies do not export or export less than they could because they do not have the resources to identify promising markets or the necessary contacts in foreign countries. this is an area where the commerce department will be escalating its already substantial efforts. ita has a global network of trade specialists posted in 109 u.s. cities and 128 u.s. embassies and consulates in some 77 countries around the world. as part of the national export initiative, the 2011 budget is requesting a 20% increase for ita. with that, ita to bring on 320 new trade experts, mostly in foreign countries, to advocate and find customers for u.s.

companies, allowing its commercial service to assist more than 23,000 clients to begin to grow their export sales in 2011. the budget increase will also allow ita to put a special focus on increasing by 50% the number of small and medium-sized businesses exporting to more than one market. 58% of all u.s. companies that export export to only one market. we have to drive that number up so that those companies export to two or three markets. the budget increase will allow ita to increase their presence in emerging high-growth markets like china, india, and brazil. the budget increase will enable ita to develop a comprehensive strategy to identify market opportunities in fast-growing sectors like environmental goods

and services, renewable energy, health care, and biotechnology. ita is not waiting for extra funds to step on the gas pedal. next month, we are launching a 12 month program to help create jobs in america by identifying new markets for existing exports, increasing the number of foreign buyers at u.s. trade shows, and working with private sector partners to increase exports. finally, by getting more clean energy markets -- -- by getting more clean energy companies involved in foreign markets. we will work with companies that have a proven track record. our commercial service staff go out and find buyers and distributors for american products and services. if you are an american firm and want to sell your goods or services abroad, all you have to do is call 1-800-usa-trade.

commerce experts will do at an international search for customers or distributors overseas. they will work with you to design and implement a market entry or expansion strategy. think of it as matchmaking or speed dating for exports. we will search and find partners and customers for you until you find the right fit. that is a toll-free number -- 1- 800-usa-trade. gold key is just one of the services we offer. like many ita's efforts, we're going to focus on small and medium-sized businesses that represent the biggest source of untapped export potential in america. last year, ita helped nearly 5600 companies increase their exports. 85% of those were small and

medium-sized businesses. a new commerce department initiative this year will enable ita to connect with even more of those businesses. in the coming months, we will be launching a web site which will serve as a portal for businesses to access the full array of commerce department and other federal government services that can help businesses and entrepreneurs. for small-business owners, many of whom are not close to an international trade office, or who previously did not think they had the time or resources to partner with the federal government, this will be a particularly viable tool. the commerce department is not the only agency focused on export promotion. key to the national export initiative is the department of agriculture, which will redouble its efforts to help american farmers and ranchers sell abroad. the president has proposed an additional $54 million for the

agency to enhance its export promotion activities. that will mean more to help farmers sell specialty crops, more foreign country promotions installing u.s. commodities, and more direct assistance to farmers to develop new foreign markets and to increase market share in existing markets. helping american farmers sell more simply means more jobs. american agricultural exports totaled nearly $97 billion last year and represented nearly 9% of goods the u.s. ships abroad. agricultural exports support about 1 million jobs. these jobs are both on the farm and off, in urban and rural communities, and across communities and professions. everyone dollars billion in agricultural exports supports over 9000 jobs and generates an

additional $1.40 billion in economic activity. as we were to export to customers abroad, it is crucial to address the second priority issue we tackle. that is access to credit. although our financial says -- our financial systemñr has weathered a crisis, lending is still restricted for small and medium businesses. the president has called upon the export import ban to support financing of customers when private banks are unable to. the president has called upon the export import bank to increase its lending to small businesses from $4 billion to $6 billion next year. during the last six months alone, the bank has authorized

$1 billion in small business financing and has added small business clients, many of whom were first-time exporters. these companies are selling everything from nanotechnology based cosmetics to date palm trees to sophisticated polymers. they are exported to countries around the world. to make businesses better aware of these funding opportunities for international sales, export import is expanding its work, growing its road show to 16 cities across america, and deepening its partnership with the small business association of america. export import's increased activity will dovetail with the administration's other credit expansion efforts, including president obama's recent proposal to redirect repaid tarp funds to boost lending to small businesses.

finally, the national export initiative is going to sharpen the government focus on the barriers that prevent u.s. companies from getting open and fair access to foreign markets. the office of the united states trade representative is working toward an ambitious and balanced way to provide new market access opportunities. the office is going to be opening markets in key growth areas such as asia 0 with the trans-pacific partnership, which could set new standards in trade agreements and market access. we will improve enforcement of existing international trade law and address outstanding concerns with pending free trade agreements. the united states is the most open major economy in the world and that is not going to change. but that commitment is coupled

with an ongoing focus to ensure that competitiveness of u.s. companies in foreign markets. free trade only works in a system where all parties live up to their obligations. the united states is committed to a rules-based trading system where the american people and congress can feel confident that when we signed an agreement that gives foreign countries privileges of more access to our domestic market that we are treated the same and to the same level in their countries. that means of forcing our trade laws, combating unfair tariffs and barriers, cracking down on practices that harm u.s. companies, like the theft of our intellectual property. despite america's dependence on innovation for future growth, the current system for protecting u.s. intellectual property is fraying at the seams.

every year, american companies in fields as diverse as energy, entertainment, and pharmaceutical, lose $250 billion a year to counterfeiting and piracy. this theft -- outright theft, is especially damaging for companies selling abroad, as 50% or more of our exports depend on intellectual property like software. that is why commerce and our partners at ustr, as well as the justice department and homeland's security, are committed to remedying this problem and securing i.t. enforcement -- securing ip enforcement. this drives ambitious goals, a doubling of exports in five years supporting 2 million jobs. the broad scope and urgency of this mission demand that we

scale up our activities quickly. i am confident we have the infrastructure to do so. when i came to the department of commerce, one of my goals was to improve interagency cooperation. we revitalized the trade promotion coordinating committee, which in many ways have been ignored in recent years. the coordinating committee brings together 20 federal agencies and departments to work on export expansion efforts. it will now help operational lies -- it will now help operationalize, at the staff level, these initiatives. for all the different economic challenges our nation faces, our ultimate goal will be pretty simple. we want to help write more success stories, like the one we

saw in texas. working with the export import bank and the export assistance center in fort worth, air tractor required -- a tractor relied on growing foreign sales to survive and thrive during the recent recession. the company has seen its exports grow from 10% of its business to 45% of its business. they have doubled their work force from 100 to 200. this small company in a rural area of texas is now selling its crop dusters to countries like spain, brazil, and australia. along the way, they have relied on the export import bank to support financing for their customers that may be sales possible. today, export import has assisted with the completion of the financing of some 70 deals. if there tractor can do this there is no reason other

companies across america cannot do the same. they can grow their sales abroad, create new jobs here in america, and get our economy moving. the message a want to send to all the company's struggling to find customers or to hire people, or to increase the hours of their current workers, is this -- look abroad. there are opportunities in other lands. the national export initiative is a clear signal that president obama and his administration are committed to helping you find those opportunities. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for your time, senator. we have a stack of questions. if you are watching this on c- span, you can go to

www.press.org and submit questions. when you are speaking of your doubling of exports goal, is that a doubling across all sectors or are there some you expect to carry more of the weight, such as manufacturing or agriculture? >> that is an aggregate goal. there are opportunities in different sectors, not just agriculture. that is why the president has proposed an increase in the export promotion budget of the department of agriculture. there are opportunities in green energy and technology to help combat global warming and to provide energy efficiency and clean energy. there are a host of sectors. we know, for instance, in our exports -- exports supports some 7 million manufacturing jobs. we are not focused on one particular area. there are unique advantages of

u.s. companies, products, and services that we must capitalize. there is high demand all around the world. we need to put more effort into matching that need, that desire, that demand with great products and services by u.s. companies. >> with the goal of doubling in five years be aspirational, or do you have a sector by sector breakdown? >> we do not have a sector by sector target, but we are confident that we will reach that goal. part of that depends on the success of other efforts by president obama and the administration on strengthening our economy and rebalancing the global economy. we are confident we can reach it. we are now waiting for 2011. we're not waiting for the budget increases proposed by the president in 2011. as i indicated, the president has directed the export import bank to provide more financing

for small and medium-sized companies next year. we at the department of commerce are prioritizing our programs and funds to focus on export promotion. >> both the imf and the world bank project slow-growth of global trade over the next few years. to double u.s. exports, exports would need to grow more than 40% per year. is this a case of growth being slow early with more later, or is it going to be about growing in contrary to the world trend? >> part of the strategy of achieving the doubling of exports depends on the growing world economy getting america back on its feet economically. other agencies focus on this as part of the president's agenda. strengthening our economy and having growth will also provide export jobs.

actual commitment to advocacy, helping find companies customers for our u.s. businesses as well as working on trade barriers that our companies face around the world -- and financing, using the great work of our bank or the small business administration -- we can make loans to help companies expand and grow. the department of commerce will help them find customers and take advantage of manufacturing of products and services with finances from the sba. it is a holistic approach, using the state department and others to serve as sales people on the ground. >> how dependent is the

administration on depreciation of the dollar against east asian currency? >> our goals are without any regard to the currency issues. it is a given. we need to focus on advocacy, promotion, contacting, matchmaking, and distributors around the world. we're focusing on overcoming barriers that companies might face as well as financing. our goals are respective of the value of the dollar. -- our goals are irrespective of the value of the dollar. >> if the dollar were to fall, that would be the equivalent of giving a subsidy. would it be helpful to have a substantial decline in the value of the dollar? >> that is something you will have to take up with secretary of the treasury geithner and

others dealing with monetary policy. [laughter] we are focused on better matchmaking of the great products and services made by american companies, offered by american companies, which the great demand that is out there. there is a home or for american products and services. unfortunately, we at the department of commerce must do a better job of matching those opportunities, advocating on behalf of u.s. companies. this is true of the state department and all arms of federal agencies. we have to serve as salespeople and promoters of u.s. products and services. initiatives the president has laid out -- and the work of the export council, the national export initiative -- will be focusing on things we can control here and now. >> what would you say are the biggest obstacles to increasing exports?

>> i think that obviously it is access to credit. a company that wants to purchase more equipment is having difficulty finding financing. that is why the small business a ministration is more engaged. the president made some announcement on greater support for the small business administration. if look at it from a holistic life cycle of trade, you have to have the product in the services. that might require financial assistance. banks are slow to lend. credit is tight. that is where these sba is stepping up its efforts. we have to find customers for increased output. that is where commerce and agriculture departments come into play, as well as the state department and other agencies. we have to finance the deals. that is where export import

comes in. we are focused on greater coordination directed by the president. this is the first time ever that this has had the support of a president, a presidential lead effort. >> one concern is the difficulty in bringing foreign customers to u.s. trade shows because they cannot get visas on time. what are you doing to ease the says -- to ease visas? >> that is something the commerce department along with the state department and homeland's security have been partnering on. it is one of the early tasks of the trade promotion policy coordinating committee. we are making good progress there. it has been very collaborative. we are encouraged.

we know it is an issue. the state department knows it is an issue. trade groups have brought it to our attention. we are working to speed up the process. >> there is a business concern about bringing in foreign workers in high-tech industries. how important is immigration reform toward the goal of increasing exports? >> obviously, the greater degree to which u.s. companies can innovate and continue to engage in research and development to produce higher quality and more advanced products and services -- that will be more attractive around the world. getting skilled workers into the country that can help lead this innovation is very important.

i think brent scowcroft issued a report last year, a recommendation to presidential candidate mccain and obama. he called for the sec control as part of an export strategy -- he calls forvis visa control as pat of an export strategy and to allow foreign workers into the country. he said it was an issue of national security. the president is looking at that and addressing that. >> we had several questions about what is to be done with the exporting of u.s. jobs. do we need more punitive legislation for companies that offshore? >> the key is to focus on helping american companies export our goods and services. the president does not believe and protectionism.

he does not believe in creating more walls. that can lead to a trade war. the answer is not to restrict imports. it is to increase exports. that can be a rebalancing of the global economy. that is why american companies need to export more. the world economy should not be based on consumer driven that -- on consumer driven, debt driven consumption in the united states. companies need to start relying more on exports. we need to export in exchange. the president has issued some proposals to try to insure that companies are not simply going offshore to avoid taxation. he is trying to close a variety of tax havens where people are

moving money offshore and jobs offshore simply to avoid taxation. even people in the business community agree that these loopholes and mechanisms need to be closed and stopped. >> the administration has proposed to cut tax breaks to multinational corporations that transfer patents to foreign affiliates. a large proportion of u.s. exports are between u.s. companies and their foreign affiliates. how can you pursue tax law changes without discouraging foreign investment and the exports that depend upon it? >> i am not very familiar with that type of u.s. tax law. i would have to defer to the treasury department and the irs for an answer. >> just before the copenhagen climate change conference, there was a program announced by which the patent department would a accelerate examination of green

patent applications to more quickly bring those to market. how will the government deal with the increased risk of giving patents to ideas that should not receive them? >> we know that a lot of these innovations have the potential to create good paying jobs, a lot of good jobs. we need to get these ideas commercialized as quickly as possible. that is why we have an express line for patent applications dealing with certain sectors of green energy, not all. they are very tight areas and very narrow areas. we are on a mission within the patent and trademark office to substantially speed up the review process of all patent applications. right now, it takes more than three years before an application is granted or

denied. that is unacceptable. that is unacceptable. having patent pending is no great comfort. it is like saying you have on clear title to your house or to your business property. how are you able to get financing with unclear title to remodel or expand your home or your business? we are on a mission to reduce that process in time to a year. at the same time, we need to improve quality. issuing a patent that is subject to litigation over other issues is of no benefit either. the focus has to be on speeding up the patent review process and improving the quality. >> in korea can -- if korea can

reit -- can reach a decision on auto concerns, will it go to the president? >> there are specific issues that have to be addressed. they are being addressed by u.s. trade ambassador kirk. as soon as those issues have been resolved, including automobiles in the korea agreement, they will be brought up. >> canada is the largest customer of the united states and the top export destination for 35 states. how would the measures announced today affect the trade that crosses the border of canada every minute of the day? >> can and that is a major export destination for the united states. for many states, it is the number one export destination. we depend a lot on goods made in

canada, could we take for granted in our daily lives. -- goods we take for granted in our daily lives. we have a strong partnership, government to government. a lot of companies that export export only to canada. we need to help all american companies that export to only one country, whether canada or mexico, consider other markets. these are companies that understand border issues, customs issues, legal issues. they are ready to take on additional markets. that would be one of our areas of focus, helping those companies that already export export to an additional company. 58% of all u.s. companies that export export to only one company, most of that to canada. we want to help build on their good experiences to export to other parts of the world.

the >> on the topic of job creation, in addition to manufacturing, travel and tourism are a huge employer. what can be done to encourage more foreign visitors to travel to cities such as las vegas? [laughter] [laughter] >> what is wrong with disneyland or our national parks? we have great attraction in the united states. in my home state of washington state, climbing mount rainier. disneyland, you name it. foreign tourists are considered an export. that is classified as an export. it is an export at which we have a positive trade balance. . .

loses. the buy america provision actually does not apply to goods and services coming from other countries into the united states with which we actually have a trade agreement, and we do have those trade agreements with so many parts of the country -- of the world. and so -- but again, there's a lot of misunderstanding about the buy-america provision and we have to get that message out to a lot of our trading partners. >> what steps does the administration propose to take to counter efforts, cleaning up

environment, and there are enormous opportunities for u.s. companies, farmers, ranchers that excel in this and it can help the people all around the world raise their standard of

living and so that's what we seek. at the same time, there are great opportunities for collaboration on innovation and research and development. we also believe that focusing on enforcement of intelligence property and having a strong intelligence property regime is beneficial to other countries, because as they also begin to innovate and invent, they will also want strong intelligence property protections for their own creations and inventions. working with other countries to develop a rule of law, transparency, enforcement of intelligence property rights, not only benefits our companies but will benefit the innovation of other countries. >> the u.s. has a manufacturing goods agreements with his partners. what other countries may be possibilities forxd free trade

agreements? >> as the president indicated he very much wants to try to conclude an ambitious and balanced doha round. we recognize that a lot of the poor developing countries of the world can boetsch economically and raise the standard of living for their people if they're ablexd to sel some products and services in the united states. but at the same time we want to make sure that in other more vandalsed developing countries that there's true open fair access for american products and services and that's what the president is trying to asheevep and what the u.s. trade representative ambassador ron kirk is trying to achieve. at the same time i mentioned that in asia there's the possibility, and the president has indicated a desire to be part of the transpacific partnership, which would be a new multilateral, multicountry trade agreement where the united states is being invited

and has an opportunity, and the president has committed to participate, where we can actually set new higher standards in labor, environment, and market access that could then serve as a template and model for future trade agreements. >> our discussion today has been dominated by trade issues. a couple of questions on other topics. what areas of government oversight are you prioritizing and what programs do you feel have been most vulnerable to fraud and abuse in the past? >> i only oversee the department of commerce so -- >> we can keep with that context. >> we at the department of commerce have some 50,000 employees and other than about 130 or 150 of that that are appointed by the president, the rest are career folks. these are highly dedicated great professionals with great pride in the organization and the department of commerce runs

the gamut. we're like a holding company. we have a census. when you get your form in the middle of march, please fill it out. only 10 questions. very easy, mail it back because we want an accurate portrait of america. and we also have patent and trademark we talked about. international trade administration, helping promote exports and also the bureau of industry security, which restricts exports so that we're note infringing upon national security. to noaa and the weather service and prediction of hurricanes and monitoring the health of the oceans and our fisheries to our national institute of standards and technology, which has several nobel laureates, devising standards by which

industry can create products for use. to our economic statistics bureaus and also to ntia, dealing with telecommunications and the allocation of spectrum and providing grants for broadband high speed internet. if there's one thing that unifies us all as a common theme, we are agency promoting innovation, all to ultimately hire more people. that's what we're focusing on. job creation and business competitiveness. we're finding that we have a great group of people here but we can certainly always prioritize. we need to be much more effective, efficient in how we're doing thing, whether it's speeding up the patent process, to making sure that we keep the

cost of administration as low as possible so that we're able to pass on more dollars, whether it's for infrastructure and job creation in our communities. >> the constitution requires a census count of all people in each state. given the current political climate, would you expect any illegal immigrants to participate in the 2010 sen issues? >> the census has been tromblg from its very beginning. 17 0, the first was conducted under president george washington. the first veto by a u.s. president was by president george washington dealing with information obtained from the census and george washington at that time thought there had been an undercount. so we have these issues since the beginning of this great democracy and this republic,

but the u.s. constitution requires a count of all people in the united states. it does not say a count of only registered voters, not a count of only those who are u.s. citizens or those born here. it does not distinguish between those who are naturalized citizens or people here on a green card. all people living in the united states of america. and so that is our mission, we will do that. we know that because of immigration fears, for those who are here without proper document tation that there might be an inclination not to participate, but we urge those to participate because all the information in the census form is absolutely confidential. we do not share it with any other federal state or local agency or any other arm of government. it is confidential and it is a crime, a felony for any census

work tore divulge information. but the questions are only 10 and take only 10 minutes to answer and not a single question asking if you are in fact a voter or what your citizenship or immigration status is. we don't know whether a person is here legally or illegally. nor do we care. so fill out the question and if you don't want someone knocking on the door ash a government worker -- all the more reason to fill out the sen issues questionnaire, the form. 10 questions, 10 minutes. mail it back and again, no one will know anything. [laughter] can be >> before asking the last question, first, a note to our audience on future speakers. monday, february 8, we'll have secretary tom vilsack of the u.s. department of agriculture who was hilet the obama

administration rules on the health of america's children. on friday, february 12, we'll have admiral ted allen of the coast guard, who will discuss the state of the coast guard, and on march 5, mitt romney, former governor of massachusetts, will discuss the case for american greatness. second, we would like to present our guest, the man of the moment, with the traditional national press club mug. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> for our last question, going back to your introduction, one of your duties as commerce secretary includes blizzard warnings and my question for you is, do you believe that low

pressure coming from canada could lower temperatures to the point where the storm would be sent further south or that current weather forecasting models would go forth, leading to 24 inches of snow in the washington, d.c. area, leading to havoc and canceling a lot of people's weekend plans? >> well, just be prepared. [laughter] >> watch the news and all the information that you're getting from your weather forecasts on radio, television, newspaper -- all comes from noaa, the national weather service. thank you very much. [applause] >> and that's weather on the eight's at the national press club with commerce secretary gary locke. i'd like to thank you all for coming. i'd also like to thank menda cook and pat for organizing today's lunch. the video archive of today's

luncheon is provided by the national press club's broadcast operations center. nonmembers may purchase transcripts, a and videotapes. for more information about the national press club, please go to our website at www dont --.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> good afternoon. thank you very much for accommodating the change in schedule because we had an engagement that came up at the white house but now they've pushed it to this afternoon so we'll spend our time well but i may have to leave shortly. first of all, let me say how pleased i am to see all of you on this special day, as we gather here on the floor of the house, we're debating pay-go. pay as you go. when i became speaker of the house, i made -- i made -- our majority made pay-go the rule of the house. if you wanted to have an investment, an entitlement, etc., you had to pay for it. there was no open-ended spending. that was the rule of the house from day one for us in the

majority. it is now the law of the land. or it will be when it's passed today and sent on to the president. this is a transformative action in terms of how we slate here. if you have to pay for it, you have to subject every initiative to very tough scrutiny because you have to prioritize. it's important, it's good but you put it before something else, how will you pay for it? since early on when i became whip, i would say when mexico would come to me with ideas for legislation, i would say how are you paying for it, does it reduce the deficit and does it create jobs? that has always been our standard and now we'll have again house and senate, not just house, a dynamic where everything will be subjected to that scrutiny. and that's all part of a

three-pronged approach. as you know the president has his initiative for the freeze or cuts in the budget for next year and i'm very pleased with that. i believe we have to subject every federal dollar spent to very close scrutiny to make sure the taxpayer is getting his or her money's worth and then the president will niche -- initiate his commission addressing largely the entitlements. this is serious action on every front. whether it's how you pay for it, the review knew side as -- as you make proposals, how you cut in terms of the budget and preparation side and again, how we address the entitlements in general. so this is a happy day. you've heard me say this has a provenance on both the right and the left. the left and progressive side of the party. george miller, 1982, the democratic convention in philadelphia introduced this as a resolution and it became part of the democratic platform that

year. it wasn't until much later that it was implemented and part of the success of president clinton's budget. now we're again under president bush back into deficits and now president obama going to lead us out and this is the way to go. another point on jobs. we continue to work with the senate and with the white house on passing a jobs bill. this is of the highest priority for us. does it create jobs? that is what the recovery package was about last year and it has created and saved jobs. that was what the president's budget was in the spring, the blueprint for job creaks, tax reduction, deficit reduction and building stability for the future. we passed a bill in december. the senate is working on their bill. we'll look guard to working with them to have a bill on the president's desk as soon as possible. on the health care front we are

moving ahead still on a path to passing legislation and until we can pass a bigger bill we'll be passing next week the anti-trust legislation. for 60 years, the insurance industry has had a unique -- they and major league baseball -- the insurance industry has had an exemption from antitrust in terms of price fixing, collusion and you name it. when we pass this bill and when signed into law, it will increase competition, give consumers more choices and we believe lower cost for health care in our country. so with that -- health care, jobs, pay as you go -- yes, ma'am? >> could you tell us a little bit about any discussions you've had with senator reid about how to go guard with the jobs package?

there is some talk about whether or not there will be a series of small bills. you all passed a bill. do you foresee a number of bills coming out? >> there may be. there may be. the focus -- one of the focuses has -- depends on what happens in other arenas. right now our focus is on small business, how they get credit and how we can use the tax code to help small businesses so that we lower the cost of employment to them so that will create jobs and help them hire more people. that will be one of the main focuses as we go guard. we have to do something in terms of infrastructure, whether it's in the manner in which we did it in our bill or any suggestions they may have but we will have to have something to that effect. of course we have to have the safety net part of it, the unemployment, insurance extension, etc., but that's probably the most stilllative of all of the initiatives.

it injects money into the economy creating jobs and economists tell us that's a very important way for us to go. i won't give the front row so much of an advantage. >> defense secretary robert gates -- does he have plans to induct a review to implement repeal of don't ask -- don't item. will will the house wait until after the study is complete to act or do you expect legislation this year? >> it would be i think very positive signs to join with three chairs of the joint chiefs of staff. castilley, chairman powell. colin powell's statement in -- this week was wonderful news and validation and courageous

testimony of chairman mullen. admiral mullen. we want to to -- to be able to replace don't ask/don't tell with a policy of nondiscrame -- nondiscrimination. it would be my preference to go first with legislation but we'll have to examine and and see what the model is. it's not a question of the we're going to do. it's a question of how we can protect people as we go through with the repeal of don't ask/don't item. >> disaggregated these large packages into more digestible components. do you regret or do you think the white house regrets not proceeding with that option initially? >> are you talking about health care?

>> health care and other things. >> let's review. one year ago around this time we were moving our recovery package to the president's desk. ilingts goal was to create jobs to stimulate the economy and it has done just that. as you can see -- as the estimates tell us, two million jobs have been created or saved. it's also about the education of our children, more teachers in the classroom, about the safety of our neighborhood and our homes with. police and fire men on or of new hires. it's about consumers. all these people -- what they do is important but they're also consumers so that was really a very important initiative and it every day proves its worth with more to come. 100 days later we had the president's budget, which had a blueprint for -- i think i mentioned this already -- a blueprint for how to lower taxes for the middle class,

reduce the deficit. stabblets the economy by creating jobs around these -- three pillars. nevertheless in health care, nfts in energy. clean energy jobs and nfts in education, recognizing that's necessary for children's self-fulfillment but also for innovation, which begins in the classroom. this is all about shortstop term and long-term job creation. it had a oneness, an integrity to it. we have passed all the legislation supporting those pillars in the house and in order for this to have a vision to it, i think it had to be -- to have, all aspects of it moving forward. the health care specifically -- and i -- again, more jobs will be created by the recovery package, but many have been created or saved.

because of all the other pieces have not been passed. health care bill is a jobs bill. it will create four million jobs in the life of the bill. the clean energy jobs, i think that speaks for itself but that will take us into the future with a green revolution. industrial, technological and now a green evolution and of course innovation speaks for itself in terms of it. so i think that all goes together. so taking now health care as one piece of that because some say, are you doing those things instead of jobs? no, they are about being jobs, about being serious about major job creation so we're not up and down but solidly on a path to economic stability. on the health care front, many of the things that work when you're doing comprehensive health care reform go hand in glove. you have to have them together. for example, you can't have the

reforms that say never again will you be discriminated against because up a preexisting condition. never again will your policy be canceled if you become sick even if you've paid your premiums on time that. doesn't work on its own. it has to be part of other leverage with the insurance companies to make that happen or else it just gives the insurance companies a license to raise rates. so i think that all of these things are a very heavy lift. they all have a vision and they're consequential to the american people and to our economy and everything good has been done, whether it's social security, medicine care, now health care reform. all -- medicare, now health care reform. all have been difficult. it's never easy. so no, i would have liked things to have gone faster.

but it's important to know that if you're going to make the change you have to have the provisions that make the difference, because the problem is not going away. today we had a report from the c.m.a. that said that within 10 years america will be spending $1 in $5 on health care and that only gets worse as time goes by. it hasn't gone away for individuals and families, it hasn't gone away for businesses, who have to hire people or make them pay higher co-pays. it hasn't gone away for our economy, which has that anvil of health care costs weighing us down. it certainly has not gone away from the federal budget, which has health expenses as the fastest growing, taking us deeper into dealt. the problem has not gone away.

the solution is near at hand and in order for it to make a difference it has to be consequential and that's what that legislation is. it doesn't mean that there aren't some pieces that you can do separately and one of them is to repeal the antitrust exemption that insurance companies uniquely have in the private sector. in the repeal of that waiver for them, we will increase competition, lower costs and improve choices for america's consumers. mark, you got a question again? >> a variation of the same question. 36 years ago -- was pass is for d.c. >> 36 years ago. >> the city council on tuesday, the d.c. city council, passed a piece of legislation that requires both houses to amend the charter for the election of an attorney general, another

position. will the house vote for that this year? and also there's a bill stalled. there are no hearings for another incremental change of exspans for legislative autonomy for the district. >> i have no idea. who is the author? >> delegate norton. >> ok well, -- our focus has been, as you know, on topic a. a full vote on the floor of the house for the delegate, the member of congress from the district of columbia. since you went back 35 years, i'll go back to when i was born. my father was the chairman of this house. he was an add vo cat for home rule a long, long time ago. long before it became -- 35 years ago. this may be -- we won't go into i want. but in any event -- so this is in my d.n.a. respect for the people of the

district of columbia, that they should have more than home rule. they should have full participation in the congress of the united states. so any of these bills that are a priority for the district, let's put them on the table and see what we can pass. >> [inaudible] >> i'll have to take a look -- i'll be honest with you, mark. my focus has been on this vote. let me say that the district couldn't have a better add vo cat here as far as our leadership. we're relentless on this and now some other options that can strength tennessee hand of the autonomy of the district of columbia. >> the emphasis on health care and the emphasis on jobs and things. you took a question a -- a minute ago about don't ask/don't item. some members of your caucus say they feel tough about having to

go back to their district and talking about gays in the military when they'd rather talk about jobs and health care. is there a way you can protect them? >> anti-discrimination is a value that i think everyone in our country shares. this issue -- that's why we have to be careful about how we change it so that we end discrimination. we get rid of don't ask/don't tell, but we want to end discrimination. we've done most of our heavy lift last year. you don't want me to go through it again, do you? all the bills we passed since  one year ago. we've done our heavy lift. i don't know. we'll have to examine it. we'll take a look, sit down together and see what is the advantage of going first with legislation or would the legislation more aptly reflect what is in the review or is it a two-step process? whatever it is, we're moving

forward on it and if that means sooner or later with legislation, we'll do what's best for protecting americans who want to serve our country and to end discrimination. but ending discrimination is part of who we are. our first bill we sent to the president's desk was the lilly led better legislation to try to end discrimination against women in the workplace. it's part of who we are. but today we celebrate on the floor of the house pay as you go. remember this. this is a very important day and judge congress by its adherence to this important legislation. we owe it to our children and our grandchildren. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a hearing

on the proposed merger between comcast and nbc universal. house debate on the so-called pay ports from commerce secretary gary locke. the first national tea party convention is this weekend in nashville. our live coverage begins tomorrow night at 9:00 eastern with a panel on the future of the movement. then at 9:00 p.m. on saturday, live coverage of the keynote speech by former alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, sarah palin. >> it's really easy to complain about the issues or the people or the politicians the day i tried to be entertaining,

informative and relevant but in a way that offers solutions. >> progressive talk radio host and author of 30 books, thom hartmann sunday night at 8:00. >> up next, a hearing on the proposed merger between cable tv provider comcast and nbc universal. witnesses include the c.e.o.'s of the two corporations. the deal would reportedly be worth $30 billion. this is about three hours. >> sometimes these can be limited or completely eliminated through the imp signatures of conditions and other times they cannot. so we will inquire this morning about whether synergies will arise from the merger that will confer benefits on consumers, whether there is the potential for consumer hard throughless

end access to programming that is available today on nbc universal. and if there is the potential for consumer harm, whether the merger should be conditioned so as to guard against it. comcast is the nation's largest multichannel video programming distributor, the largest residential broad band provider and third largest home telephone service provider, as well as the owner of a number of cable channels and regional sports networks. as measured by an yull revenue, nbc universal is the nation's fourth largest media and entertainment company. it owns the nbc and telemundo television networks. television broadcast stations and many of our nation's largest television markets, cable channels and a movie studio, as well an interest in

internet service. if approved it will substantially transform the media and marketplace and it requires very careful scrutiny which boils down to three basic questions. first, assuming the combination is approved. what benefits will consumers see a year after the merger that they do not enjoy today? secondly, what, if anything, are consumers receiving today that they will not continue to receive a year after the merger is consume mated? and finally, are there conditions that regulators should consider imposing on approval to ensure that it serves consumers and if so what are those conditions? i pant want to thank our panel of distinguished witnesses for their appearance here this morning and for their testimony enlightening our deliberations. i want to remind the members of our sub copy that several of

our witnesses are scheduled to testify this afternoon in the other body and we want to make sure that we do not detain them. i would ask that members adhere very closely to our time limitations on opening statements and also during the question period and i hope this brief opening 125eu789 -- statement has set something of an example. i'm prized to recognize the ranking republican of our committee. >> good morning and thank you, mr. gentleman. i want to-year-old to the raging member of the veterans committee to has to leave. >> i thank the gentleman. i'm going to have to waive my opening statement. i think it's extremely important for all the views to be aired and i want to thank you for that. i plan to >>. >> very good. look forward to it. >> mr. chairman, obviously this

is a very important hearing. the merger between comcast and nbc universal is indeed a major transaction that could fundamentally alter the media land skip in the united states. it deserves our review. i'm glad that the c.e.o.s of both come cams and nbc uniform are here this morning and i look forward to their testimony and the testimony of the rest of the panel. comcast is the nation's largest video programming dribbletor and nbc is the nation's fourth largers media and entertainment company. nevertheless, there is, in my opinion, little to suggest that a comcast -- nbc-u. combination would seriously threaten competition in the media entertainment industrials. we all know this is highly

competitive segment of the economy and ultimately consumers stand to benefit. since nbc-u and comcast do not compete in most segments of the country, this deal will not bring about consolidation. comcast has six national cable networks. together these networks only represent about 3% of national cable network advertising and affiliate revenue. abc's network represents poll -- approximately % of network cable advertising in affiliate revenue, giving the combined entity a total of 12%, which would place it behind disney, abc, time warner and viacom. that's the same position nbc occupies today before the deal. approximately six out of every seven networks comcast carries will remain unaffiliated with

comcast or nbc. now the idea that the comcast-nbc-u combination will harm competition is something we're looking at today. i don't think it's founded under the data i've looked that. such vertical innovation will drive more competition in this already competitive market. under the prevailing economic view, a firm that does not have market power in the distribution and programming markets is no more capable of exerting market power simply because it is vertically integrated. the combined comcast-nbc u will control content representing only 12% of the national programming market. the combined entity would likely lose programming revenue as distributors and viewers

turn to other alternatives. in many cases viewers might be able to find the identical content from another distributor and perhaps even for free, over the air or the internet. and while there is debate whether the program access rules are even needed -- even need, if not harmful in light of the level of competition, section 628 would limit the combined sbidis conduct. in order to demonstrate the public ice interests, benefits that will come from in deal, comcast and nbc u have made a number of voluntary commitments. among them they've pledged to continuing offering nbc and telemundo network programming free over the year. to make more local news, public affairs, children's ethnic and other public doctor programming available over the year on cable, on demand and online and

to continue nbc news to ensure journalistic independence from each of the owners. they should be commended for these voluntary commitments. lastly i'd like to add a word of caution. proponents of internet right leglation may seek network neutrality. mandates on the deal. i think this would be inappropriate. not to get ahead of ourselves but it appears that comcast is in court and is near victory on knelt neutrality in the sense that the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia heard oral arguments last month and the court seems skeptical that the fcc had legal authority to impose theismann dates. one of the judges asked the counsel whether he want is to lose or process or

jurisdiction. unless a condition is narrowly tailored to a transaction specific harm to competition, it does not belong in this negotiation. since this deal will not increase in the programming markets, demonstration of either will be difficult. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. if comcast and nbc u are right, that this deal can better serve viewers, i think they will succeed. if they're wrong, they will fame, just at the time-warner o. -- a.o.l. merger failed eventual live. regulation is not only unnecessary but will hurt competition and consumers. >> thank you very much, mr. stearns. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. when the proposed combination of comcast and nbc was

announced last year, i said sha that this transaction had the potential to shape and reshape the media marketplace and raise fundamental questions regarding diversity, competition and the future of the production and direction of video content. i urged the f.c.c. and the department of justice to asells rigorously whether this transaction is in the public interest. two months have passed since this transaction was announced and after additional review i'm now even more certain that this new joint venture, if amoved, could trigger dramatic changes in the way consumers access video programming, in the way independent programmers dibt -- distribute their works and in the way all video distributors compete for customers. given did significance, the committee should examine its implications camely and

dispassionately. we should ask hard questions but also keep an open mind. there could be benefits that flow from this transaction and i look hearing mr. roberts and mr. zucker expand on the positive aspects. for example, will comcast be a better long-term steward of nbc news than the current owner? will comcast be more committed to the development of quality original programming in will comcast investment -- nfts necessary resources to promote local little and diversity and free over the airplane broadcasting. comcast, as the nation's largest broad band provider and a potential owner of nbc's valuable content, will help protect the intellectual property. the theft of content online is a serious issue for the creative community. it is unlawful and a serious

drain on our economy. this problem deserves more attention and better efforts by broadband providers. we also need to know what comcast will do to ensure that independent writers, directors and producers won't be -mile-an-houred -- harmed. there are many other essential questions -- the move to online video and the tv-everywhere model could shape the future of how all customers access programming. programs sooner rather than later, almost everything we do and see on our television will be just another application writing over a broadband connection. we should have -- ask how comcast will deal with it customers and its competitors as this transition progress. i believe that the best way to protect consumers is through competition but this -- will competition be sustainable with the largest broad band and

video provider controlling huge quantities of content? there may be plenty of content outside comcast-nbc, will -- be will consumers have the same opportunity to access that content as they will content from comcast? the future of free over the air broadcast television is also tested by this transaction. many are concerned this could result in the best of nbc's programming being transitioned to pay-tv service. might the olympics or the super bowl one day be available only to paying custom snirs will the comcast-nbc joint venture affect local aaffiliates and the network affiliate model? we must consider how this transaction will impact the coverage of local news and events as well as major

televised events of interest to all americans. other issues, including comcast's treatment of pay channels, how this will affect the diversity of voices in the marketplace and how independent programmers will be impacted. we need to weigh these as this process moves guard. ultimately this transaction must be scrutinized with regard to its impact on consumers, the choices they'll have in the market and the bills they will pay. this is the highest consideration required by the public interest review mandated turned communications act. in closing i ant to -- want to act chairman boucher and i look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel and i thank them for their participation. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman for

holding. i would like to waive -- >> thank you very much, mr. terry. the gentleman from missouri, mr. blount is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. foreman, thank you and our ranking member mr. sterns for holding this hearing. i have a slightly longer statement for the record but i'd just like to say -- as often the case in our economy, when you're going through a period of repositioning and shakeups and certainly this new joint venture would seem to be another evidence of what's happening generally in the economy, i actually understand and i support the necessity of businesses constantly needing to evaluate their market position, constantly figuring out how they reposition themselves to provide the best service and to do the best thing for the business they're. in at the same time, as this hearing progresses this

morning, i'm very interested in gaining a better understanding of how comcast-nbc, this new entity will avet the competitive forces and the television marketplace. this joint venture may be as far-reaching as it is intricate and i look forward to hearing about the various issues like competitive imbalance and market power that something on this level can bring with it. the chairman's points were points of interest to after owl -- all of us. i thank you again, mr. chairman for holding this hearing and i yeemed back my time. >> thank you very much, mr. blunt. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much. there are significant questions about how consumer choice and competition and innovation and investment in the media marketplace would be affected

by this planned joint venture. there will be discussion this morning and further execute any in the months to come, including the exercise of market power, higher barriers to entry and the consequences of vertical integrations associated with this proposed transaction. social -- essentially for our constituents, for our consumers across america, the issue boils down to the seven c's. will the combination of communications colossi curtail competition and cross consumeers? that is the question that must be answered as this process moves forward. while comcast and nbc universal have determined that this trance arks advances their business interests, it is essential that the public interest also be served. alsdz the author of the internet freedom preservation act to ensure network

neutrality, along with chairman waxman and congress woman eschew, i want to ensure that this does not enable the creation of disc.m.i. that toirp fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet to the detriment of consumers. i'm also concerned about how this proposed joint venture would impact the emerging online video marketplace now and in the future. as consumers increasingly utilize their online connection cans to broadband video content, control of both the content itself and the conduit raises important issues with respect to competition, choice, diverse depi -- diversity and innovation. today's hearing is an important opportunity to raise and hopefully answer these questions. i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. marky. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes.

>> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank the witnesses. i know it's difficult to get here, especially during the proceedings and all the machinations that are going on in the merger but we appreciate it. there are many different issues that we'll be dealing with today. i want to make it pretty clear -- i do not want the department of justice enacting a legislative policy. that's our job and i would be careful for members to -- another way giving up our responsibility on telecom policy by enacting policies and procedures and using this is the department of justice to do that. that's kind of where i stand. a profitable nbc universal is good for all of our constituents and i hope this venture will facilitate the creation of more popular programming choices for all americans. one of our great exports are our media. american shows and film is one

of the bay we reach cultures throughout the world. i'm not sure that's always a good reach of culture and i do question some of the things our consumers like to watch and i think it does sometimes not put the best focus on us as a culture and the greatness of our country, but i do believe that the market rules and the market does have a place for that and that does -- is a great export. i appreciate y'all being here. i know it's tough and challenging times and i look forward to working with y'all in the future. yield back my time. >> thank you very much. the gentleman lead from california is recognized for two minutes. >> garning mr. chairman and thank you for scheduling this hearing at the onset of the merger review process so that we can gauge the potential affects and way in with our concerns before the agencies begin their analysis.

the proposed merger will affect millions of people, many of them in my own district. comcast has 24 million cable subscribers and 16 million broad band subscribers demationwide. nbc universal produces and distributes brod broad swaths of entertainment programming. this combination could produce sergis. having a philosophical commitment to protect consumers is far different than having a legal obligation to do so. telecommunications megamergers as well as those in other industry sectors have the potential to create monopolistic titans. the department of justice will ensure that this merger doesn't violate our antitrust laws but the f.c.c. has a special burden. it must also ensure that that

merger protects the public interest. the mergeer is not just about the puffs and -- purchase and sale of provide ever private businesses. it involves the transfer of private property, broadcast licenses. if left unchecked, this merger has the potential to place a chokehold on the transfer of information on the internet to consumers today and well into the future. if anything, this proposed merger, i think demonstrates why we need net neutrality across the board. so thank you, mr. chairman for holding this important hearing for us to weigh in before the other agencies do and i look forward to hearing the diverse viewpoints of the witnesses here dood. i especially would like to welcome the representatives from comcast whose father established the company some 47 years ago. i think it's 47 years ago.

d.c. really an amazing american story. that in four-plus decades that a company that was born with a great idea is what it is today and so i congratulate you and i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i preernt you having this hearing and thank you for your testimony today. i think it's an incredibly important issue. as the proposed merger i hope is fully reviewed by the f.c.c. and department of justice, the one concern that i have mr. chairman, is that there are no timelines for either approval or rejection. so it is my hope, given that i'm out of expense and i think what is at stake that they'll not only be diligent but they'll be quick in their

decision, and i'm sure they can accomplish both. i just hope they know what's at stake for a long timeline. i think that's probably not help to feel anybody whatever their outcome is. the other issue that i hope we get discussed at some length is the retransmission consent agreements. the law and regulations governing them were created nearly 20 years ago and this committee should take a look to see if there are any changes that need to be made. there's so much at stake when you palk -- talk about market control and power and who controls what. a lot at stake for the american public. so i hope we'll have that opportunity to discuss it. for my friends at nbc i have an opening for a constituent humorist specialist. if koenen could call we could probably work that out. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much.

did gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your courtesy and i commend you for having this hearing. i believe it's important that we should go into these matters with a great deal of care and i'm hopeful we'll get the answers for which we have need. if we may not have quite enough time this morning to hear from all of our interests, i suggest that we get the answers this committee needs and also observe that it may be necessary for us to hear from the regulatory agencies, which i believe we can do in a way that would not constitute a problem or potential violations of the pillsbury rule. i do extend a warm welcome to our witnesses today, especially my old friends brian and ralph roberts, as well as colleen abdullah, whose companies provide cable service to my district. i also want to thank comcast

for corporation in the recent resolution to have -- issue. i want you to know my appreciation in that matter. the competitive insent activities behind did proposed venture are quite unambiguous. in a world of fragmented viewing audiences creemented by prolive ration of video service providers, comcast and nbc universal's proposed partnership does make quite a lot of sense. . @ a%u sn)@ @ comcast to become a more competitive player in the multi-channel video marketplace. at the same time, by virtue of the magnitude of the transaction, the comcast nbc-u proposed joint venture raises legitimate concerns about the new interests vis-a-vis existing competitors and consumers, control of content, and its

distribution of the general media consolidation. we will be interested in how this will impact on govern, the industry, and also on the consuming public. moreover, as i've heard a lot about internet video and how it may well be the future of television, i look forward to hearing from the witnesses about online video, how they see it developing, and whether this deal would impact it and how. to summarize, while i understand the motivation behind the joint venture proposal pending the committee's consideration, i have concerns about its effect on the public interest. in particular, im going to be asking witnesses to respond to questions about commitments from comcast and nbc universal to comcast and nbc universal to ensure the following in the future. editorial neutrality on network news. this is something with which we have some small problems with in this country. local access to free over

over-the-air broadcast television, a matter of great concern to me for many years. fair access for content distributors and consumers to programming provided by an online video services and collective bargaining rights of employees. this is by no means a complete list of concerns. but i think it is a good place to start. i would add, also, my desire to hear from the federal regulators about this matter. i believe we need to have their input in order to have a proper understanding of the circumstances. while i understand they cannot comment on the pending merger, their input on facts and the general principles would be most helpful in helping us and the public to understand the situation before us. in closing, i look forward to a frank discussion with our witnesses today. mr. chairman, i commend you for this hearing and i thank you for

your courtesy. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much, chairman dingell. the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, is recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome back two of my colleagues from the committee. they're sitting side by side out in the audience. i hope you're on the same side. you may be on opposite sides on this, but we're glad to have my two good friends back. glad to have all our friends at the witness table and as far as i'm concerned, it's good to see nbc and comcast sitting side by side. that doesn't break my heart. i think it's important and appropriate that we hold this hearing, mr. chairman. this type of a merger should be examined by this committee and subcommittee and should be reviewed by the people of the united states. having said that, i hope today's

hearing is level he have headed and really focused on the issues and the details of the merger and not on some "what if" discussion about what might happen if this and that were to occur. as we all know, back in december, comcast and general electric announced this merger or this -- i guess you would say sale -- to combine the broadcasting, cable programming, movie studio, theme park and online content of nbc universal with the cable programming and certain online content of comcast. as i understand it, comcast is going to purchase 51% of nbc universal. general electric will still retain 49%. since the merger -- or since the sale has been announced, we've heard some of the usual predictions that this is the end

of the media world as we know it. put me down as skeptical on that. i don't think that's going to happen. i hope good things happen for the viewers and the folks that provide the content to the media. but let's let the market make those decisions. we should allow companies to take risks. we should allow companies to seek out niche markets. we should allow companies to use their natural competitive advantages to serve up material for the marketplace of various interests. it's a testament to our system that even in these uncertain economic times there are people, some of them are at this table, that are willing to take such market risks. there are some analysts that have expressed doubts about the economic case for the comcast/nbc deal, precisely because day don't see that a competitive advantage will

materialize from this combination. o instead of condemning such an effort, we should stand back and watch it and hopefully be willing to applaud, if, in fact, good things happen for the markets at both nbc and comcast serve at the current time. there don't appear to be in major overlaps in the markets. there do appear to be some synergies from the two companies coming together. there's certainly no anti-trust implications in the classic sense, because it's my understanding that the justice department is not going to review it for antitrust under the classic anti-trust review. to the extent that concerns exist, comcast has said that it will make a number of voluntary commitments to help assuage these anxieties. they plan to honor and extend the current program access rules. they will continue to offer nbc

and telemundo network programs free over the air rather than turn them into cable networks. and they also plan to add new independently owned channels to their cable lineup. furthermore, more local news, more public affairs, children's, ethnic, and other public interest programming is planned to be made available over the air on cable channels through on-demand service and on online. so, again, mr. chairman, thank you for holding the hearing. thank all of our witnesses. look forward to an interesting exchange today. >> thank you very much, mr. b d bard barden. the gentleman from tennessee, mr. gordon, is recognized for two minutes. he is no longer with us. the gentleman from washington state, mr. ensley, recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. we're here to talk about control of america's most precious

asset, and that, of course, is tina fey. and that's one of the reasons we are so interested in this issue. i do want to suggest something, though, as we look through these issues, the potential upsides for consumers and the potential concerns for consumers, and i think there are both those potentials. i would suggest that we need to look at it a little bit through the lens of democracy, not just commercial activity. and i would just throw in a little jefferson, who said, where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe. and i think in today's electronic world, the modern corollary is that where content is freely available and every man and woman able to watch, all is safe. and i think there is a democracy issue here that ought to be considered and we'll look forward to everyone giving us their views in that regard. in that regard, i think there are three fundamental questions i hope the witnesses will address.

one, in the new world, where we are developing internet-based systems, such as hulu and itu s itunes, networks like comedy central, where people are going online where we do not have programming rules, how do we intend to ensure access to americans in that sort of jeffersonian ideal? we know that the cable industry is realizing the market dynamic in this, as evidenced by the recent announcement of tv everywhere and i would hope the witnesses will tell us, how can we assure that access to important content in that new system? second, although this merger is only between two companies, i would ask the witnesses to tell us if they think we ought to look at our transmission access rules in general on how they're working or not working. are there ways that we can make them more usable to both parties

to try to determine how to make it work for both parties in a way that is not so costly and gives consumers more credibility or more confidence in the system. and third is cost, which is an obvious one. rates have gone up, i'm told, three times the rate of inflation. consumers will have obvious concerns about that. we hope, obviously, y'all will address that. but we look forward to this hearing from all parties and thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. inslee. the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you and ranking members stearns and the distinguished panel for being here today. i think this is an important hearing as well. as i see it, the proposed transaction between comcast and nbc is an example of vertical integration within the media marketplace. the proposal is a marriage of upstream and downstream companies that do not compete against one another. i'm sure we'll hear opinions that attempt to label this transaction as horizontal integration. while i respect the right of

everyone to have their own opinion, we are not entitled to our own set of facts. in that vein, i remain unconvinced of how the combination of two entities, where one concentrates on the distribution of content and the other concentrates on the development of content can be determined to be anything other than a case of vertical integration. i'll admit, there are certain aspects of the transaction that are of particular interest to me. for instance, i would like to hear how independent programmers are going to be impacted by this deal. i'm sure others have certain questions as well and they are entitled. however, if we use this hearing as an opportunity to cast blame and air grievances about every problem we perceive in the communications or media marketplace, we will have wasted everyone's time. additionally, and perhaps more importantly, this transaction should not be used as a vehicle to advance a specific policy agenda that is unrelated to the matter at hand and cannot be implemented on the industry as a whole. it is my hope that these types of regulatory shenanigans have no place at the new fcc.

at the moment, i have no reason to associate that type of behavior with this chairman or commission. with that, i yield back my time and i thank you again mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. bono mack. the gentle lady from california, ms. matsui is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you, witnesses, were being here today. like other mergers or joint ventures, there will be a real impact on consumers and the marketplace. and this one is no different. comcast is a dominant cable provider in my hometown of sacramento, providing service to over 200,000 households. this joint venture will only enlarge the footprint in sacramento. over the last few days, i've received numerous e-mails from my constituents wanting to know what this deal would mean for them. they want to know if it means higher cable rates, they want to know if they'll be able to continue to receive independent programming they are used to, without any unwarranted interference or preference. they want to know what it would

mean for the distribution of online video. and they want to ensure it continues to be open to all and is preserved so that they can view their favorite programs when they choose. they want to know the ramifications of this joint venture, what it may cause within the industry. will there be a domino effect, whereby comcast competitors are likely to combine or merge with others in order to compete in the marketplace, creating a media and entertainment environment where only a few will be heard? additionally, the people of sacramento rely on local affiliate stations for local news and information. would this merger put local nbc affiliates not currently owned by nbc itself at a competitive disadvantage from a programming standpoint? i recognize that comcast has made a series of proactive commitments on some of these subjects. i look forward to further exploration of these and other concerns today and in the weeks and months ahead. ultimately, i believe that this

proposed merger should not leave consumers without less choice, lower quality, less diversity, and higher programming costs. as the fcc and department of justice review the proposed merger, it is my hope that they consider every aspect, particularly its impact on consumers, competition, and innovation. i thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this hearing today. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much, ms. matsui. the gentlelady from tennessee, ms. blackburn, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome all of our guests today and i certainly am looking forward to a discussion with you as we move through the day. i've read through your statements, and i will tell you, it is absolutely puzzling and amusing to me that such intelligent people, when given the same set of statistics and the same information and the same data can arrive at such

vastly different opinions. and such conclusions, as to how this union would affect telecommunications moving forward. so i think we're

that we have there. we're very concerned about what this would do to access and to content. for those of you who hold an opposing view on the antitrust violations and want to hear from you as to how you have read the same set of material and data and arrived at other outcomes from that. arrived at other outcomes from that. so looking forward to the discussion. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> thank you, ms. blackburn. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i agree with ms. blackburn that we are going to have a lively debate. i hope that the panel will spend some time addressing one issue that chairman waxman raised. and that's the issue of content protection and how this transaction may affect how we deal with protecting the copy

rights of content innovators. we know the statistics, each year, our nation's content is losing hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to online piracy. and up until now, however, the largest distributors of that n content have largely been separate entities. and this new merger will change that dynamic fundamentally. this represents the nation's largest broadband combiner with the fourth largest entertainment company. but often content providers and distributors aren't on the same page with respect to a strategy for combatting online piracy. and often this lack of cooperation has simply to do with the desperate economic goals of all the parties that are involved. however, the ramifications of this issue are too great to ignore. and i think the current event surrounding us today, namely the fcc's open internet rule making and today's examination of this new business relationship provides us with an opportunity to explore what steps need to be

taken to ensure that we continue to deal with the theft of content that's hurting some of our nation's most innovative job creators. i look forward to this hearing today and i look forward to hearing a discussion about how the combination of these two new entities may change comcast's approach to dealing with the unlawful content flowing across its network. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance. >> thank you, mr. murphy. the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome all of our witnesses, but particularly to a good friend who's sitting behind ryan, and that is his dad, ralph, who i see here in the audience. it's good to see you and i appreciate all that you've done. today, we're examining the proposed merger of comcast and nbc. and i am encouraged by the many voluntary commitments being made by comcast as a part of this merger. and i welcome the evaluation of the merger and the potential impact on the video programming and the broadband marketplace. however, i hope and expect a quick review in approval.

now, all parties involved will be best served if this is a prompt process. i believe that the merger is in the public interest and should bring greater competition to the programming and distribution markets. one of the most interesting points about the deal is that comcast and nbc have very little overlap. the combined company will be a more diverse company, will be in a better position to succeed during these very difficult economic times. and that would not necessarily be the case if another entity purchased nbc from ge. i would like to stress that the merger shouldn't be used as an opportunity to push unrelated policy agendas or extend unnecessary regulations that don't extend to the broader market. for example, i would strongly oppose any efforts to impose network neutrality conditions as part of the deal. doing so would be highly inappropriate. i yield back the plans of my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, mr. upton. the gentlelady from florida, ms. caster, for two minutes.

>> good morning, and thank you, chairman bucher for holding the hearing. >> i'll yield my time so i have more time for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to say the biggest concerns about the merger were well rr ticklated by the chairman of the full committee and others. so given that, the questions of the venture come down to a couple of things. will a merger enhance or will it impede competition? will it enhance or will it impede access? will it enhance or will it impede diversity of programming? and finally, how will it impact the costs on the consumer. hopefully we can g into answer these questions this morning and i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you, mr. mcnerney. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. malonson is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll waive my opening statement.

>> thank you. the gentleman from ohio, mr. space, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for convening this hearing today. i believe this is the first kind of our subcommittee in this congress. and we'll be discussing some critical issues that may influence the future of video programming and distribution for some time to come. i represent a very rural district in southeastern ohio. it's part of five broadcasting markets and many of my constituents, in fact, much more than the national average, rely upon free over the air broadcasting for emergency information, for news, for weather, for sports. and with the national broadband plan set to come out next month and the debate about spectrum on everyone's minds, there's certainly many challenges facing the free over-the-air broadcast model. but a strong, vibrant broadcast television industry is important to my constituents, so i'm very interested to hear what our

witnesses have to say today regarding the future of free over-the-air television. i'm also interested in learning more about how the joint venture will impact the continued expansion in the deployment of broadband, which is an issue of high priority for me personally and my constituents as well. so i would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their testimony. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. space. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this very important hearing. thank the witnesses for their testimony today. mr. chairman, this historic coming together of two unique media powerhouses represents the potential for expanded entertainment opportunities and an increase in choice for our television viewers. the proposed joint venture between these two companies creates a new nbc-u, a leading communications and entertainment company. this is a transaction that should receive a fair but intensely thorough review by the justice department and the fcc. i am hopeful that both doj and

the fcc will see that the vertical integration of comcast and nbc universal will ultimately prove to be in the public interest, whereby competition and innovation will be fostered. it is vitally important for nbc to maintain their editorial independence, with respect to how they report the news, as well as other content that will be viewed by millions of americans. i am confident that nbc will continue to operate with the same neutrality that we see today. it is in the best interest of comcast and nbc to report the news with objectivity, because as we all know, if people do not like what they are watching, they can simply change the channel. as was the case with the xm sirius merger, i remain committed to ensuring that minority programming has a home and a voice. i'm committed to see the diversity of programming across a spectrum of audiences and viewpoints and across all media platforms. comcast already has a strong

record in program diversity. i thank you for that. having entered into a venture with radio one to create tv one and the continued recognition of the value of diverse programming is always welcome. i also believe that comcast's approach of leveraging diverse content across multiple media platforms to increase the programming's reach and its prospect for success have proven effective. finally, i would like to commend these two companies for their proactive outreach to members of this body. thank you for the visit that you had with my office recently. with that, my time is expired and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. butterfield. the gentleman from arizona, mr. sh shadegg, is recognized for two muns. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. i would also like to thank the witnesses for spending time with us this morning. as a supporter of the free market and competition, i also support this joint venture. i support the right of two companies, big or small, to enter into a contract and to negotiate a deal that has the

potential to inspire innovation and benefit consumers. although the authority to approve this joint venture lies within the hands of the fcc and the department of justice, by having this hearing, we are opening up the debate of this merger to the public. i applaud this form of transparency. in addition, i believe our discussion and the investigation by the fcc and doj should be thorough and complete. however, it is critical that opponents to this joint venture do not deliberately slow the process down, as that will prove to be costly and unfair to the parties involved. it would be a disservice to all consumers if lengthy investigations and unfair treatment deterred businesses from entering into negotiations. the purpose of anti-monopoly laws is to make sure one company does not dominate a market with unfair practices. when this joint venture is complete, nbc-u will be 100% an american-owned company. we should not discourage this. although, there are some concern that this merger will eliminate competition, i think otherwise. i believe it will inspire

competition. this is the innovation that our country needs and it will create the jobs our country needs. i would like to thank nbc and comcast for their many voluntary public interest commitments in the course of this process. these commitments show that not only are they not attempting to take advantage of their competitors, but instead respect many of the long-standing agreements that are in place. these commitments along with the fact that comcast will not have a larger market share by joining forces with nbc -- a larger market share by joining forces with nbc is evidence that this joint venture will not hinder competition, but will benefit consumers. i look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today and playing an active role in the debate vond ugh this merger. i thank you, mr. chairman can, for holding this meeting. >> thank you very much, mr. shadegg. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for convening today's hearing to consider this matter that is before us.

comcast and ge, these matters have argued in recent filings with the fcc, and presumably with the department of justice that their union is a classic model of vertical integration. they contend the proposed combination will also advance key congressional policy goals of diversity, localism, innovation, and competition. to underscore their claims, comcast and nbc have offered up a number of voluntary commitments. they say these commitments will expand consumer choice, ensure over-the-air broadcasting, enhance programming opportunities, ensure competition on multiple content delivery platforms and maintain nbc's journalistic independence as a provider of news. unfortunately, mr. chairman,

what they have not said or they have not committed to and what is not making news is how this deal will promote meaningful opportunities for minorities to become fcc licensed and owners of programming assets. how will minority viewers, existing minority licenses, and programs be affected by this combination? how will minority suppliers and advertisers be integrated into the joint ventures procurement and purchasing channels. and what will these two fortune 500 -- fortune 100 companies do to ensure greater diversity in hiring, training, and retaining minority employees at both management and non-management levels of the proposed joint venture. these there types of integration and diversity to which i hope

comcast and ge would pay more attention to and make further commitments. although the potential rewards for the public are significant, the collective risks to minorities in collusion and diversity as this transaction is currently structured are just as important. as we continue to discuss the merits and effects of this proposed combination in the coming months, you can be assured that these will be my key areas of focus. i look forward to the hearing and perspectives of our witnesses and i want to welcome each and every one of the witnesses and i thank you for participating this morning. mr. chairman, with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. rush. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak, is recognized for two minutes. >> i'll waive for extra time for questions. >> the gentleman from vermont, mr. welsh, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. being from vermont, a rural

state, at the end of the line, our customers who are primarily going to be concerned ability their bill and about their access and about what programs they get. and the question i will be very eager to get commentary on, particularly from comcast is what will be the relationships that the larger provider has with the smaller carriers. there seems to be a bit of an there is a conflict where the larger carriers are dependent on local carriers to provide content to the customers. it is in the interest of a larger carrier, whether it is comcast to get the best price possible. it is in the interest of the consumer to pay the lowest price possible. the local carrier and we have these in for mahon is caught in between. . . ve these in vermont, is caught

in between. and my concern is that there be mechanisms that provide for fair negotiation and interaction between the smaller carrier and the larger carrier as well. because at the end of the day, it's the consumer who gets whacked on this. and it's a very, very serious and it's a very, very serious issue, obviously, for the customer, but also for the media companies that are involved. and that needs more attention than it's been getting. it's not specifically related to the merger, but it's a moment of opportunity for us to examine this. and it's very important to individual vermonters and individual americans who really do need the services that are being provided by all of you. so thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. welsh, and thanks to all members for their statements. we have a series of recorded votes spending on the floor of the house. five of them in total. which will take us somewhere between one-half hour and 45

minutes, we would estimate, to complete. and so pending the completion of these votes, the subcommittee stands in recess. i would ask our witnesses to remain close at hand, and as soon as we can return, we shall do so and proceed with your opening statements. hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] çóxd # the subcommittee will

reconvene. our apologies for the lengthy delay. it is a matter over which we have little control. i am pleased now to welcome our panel of witnesses and i'll say a brief word of introduction about each. mr. brian roberts is the chairman and chief executive officer of the comcast corporation. mr. jeff zucker is the chief executive officer of nbc universal. ms. abdoulah is the president of cable and telephone. mr. michael tiorile is the chairman of the nbc tv's affiliate board, the president and chief operating officer of the dispatched printing company. dr. mark cooper is the director of research at the consumer federation of america. mr. adam tha dwrchlt er is the president of the progress and

freedom foundation. we welcome each of you. thank you for your testimony. without objection, your prepared written statement will be made a part of our record. we would welcome your oral summary and ask that you keep your oral summary to approximately five minutes. mr. roberts, we will be pleased to begin with you. you need to turn your microphone on and pull it as close as you can so we can hear you well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. is that okay? it's a privilege to come here today to talk about comcast planned joint venture with ge regarding nbc universal. as has been mentioned, my father, ralph is sitting just behind me started the company almost a half century ago. ralph built the company from a single small cable system in tube l tupelo, mississippi, to where we are today. with this combination, we are taking the next step in our

improbable journey. this is indeed an important moment in our history. let me briefly summarize the transaction. under our agreement, comcast will become majority owner of nbc universal. we will create a new venture that combines nbc used broadcast tv, cable programming, movie studio and theme park businesses with comcast limited video programming channels. comcast will hold 51% of the venture and will manage it while 49% will remain with ge. the transaction puts two great american communications companies under one roof. it will help to preserve traditional broadcast television, a business that faces serious challenges. it will also help to accelerate a truly amazing digital future for consumers. together, comcast and nbc universal it help deliver the multiexperience that americans want. well be a more creative and

innovative company that will meet customer demands. our success will stimulate our competitors to be more innovative too. this should be good for consumers, innovation and competition. to leave no doubt about the benefits of the new nbcu, we will have more public commitments to how we will bring viewers more local programming, children's program, more diverse programming on more flat forms. we have made commitments to reassure our competitors that we will compete fairly in the market pla marketplace. let me offer two examples. the program access rules have never applied to retransition consent negotiations. we volunteers to have them apply to our retransmission negotiations for nbc stations. second, we want independent programers with quality content to know that we are determined to help them reach and audience. so we have committed to add at

least two new independently owned cable channels to our systems every year beginning in 2011. the combination of nbc and comcast will have no significant overlap between the assets of the companies. it's primarily vertical, which generally poses fewer antitrust concerns. that also means no massive layoffs, no closures of facilities, nothing to produce hundreds of millions of dollars of, quote, synergies. this same lack of overlap is why washington can, because we will grow these great american businesses over the long term and make them more successful, not cut them. congress has recognized the benefits of vertical integration before and adopted rules in 1992 to address potential risks. at that time, there was almost

no competition to cable and more than half of the channels were owned by cable companies. congress created program access and program carriage rules to ensure that a company which owns both, cable content and distribution, cannot treat competitors unfairly. those rules have worked in the past and will continue to work. in the last week, some have suggested that our prior legal challenge to certain portionses of the program access rules is inconsistent with our commitments and connection with this transaction. while we have argued and believe that today's marketplace is sufficiently competitive to do away with the program access rules, we didn't pursue this transaction with the intention of not following those rules. we don't intend to behave any differently. we are willing to discuss with the fcc making the program access rules binding on us even if they were to be overturned by the courts. in the past decade, comcast has come to washington twice to seek

merger approvals. when we acquired cable systems from at&t and indelphia. each time, we explained how consumers would benefit. in each case, i believe we have delivered. we spent billions of dollars upgrading cable systems to make them state-of-the-art, created video on demand which our customers have used 14 billion times. from a standing start four years ago, we now give millions of americans their first real phone choice. once again, we have described how consumers will benefit. i want to assure you that we will deliver. mr. chairman, we are asking for the opportunity to make one of the great icons of american broadcasting and communications part of the comcast family. we promise to be reliable stewards of the national treasures of nbc and nbc news. it is a breathtaking and humbling moment in our history. we hope we have your support. thank you. >> thank you, very much, mr.

roberts. mr. zucker. mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. as the president and ceo of nbc universal, i am proud to lead an iconic media company shaped by two great american brands, nbc and universal. i am grateful for the opportunity to tell you how the proposed venture between comcast and ge will help nbc universal thrive and also benefit our local communities, our employees, and the american consumers who enjoy our content. in today's intensely competitive, unpredictable and dynamic media markets, this deal is critical to realizing these benefits. the marketplace that i live in is a media free for all. a media donny brook, whether you look at the overall media marketplace, the cable charnlgs broadcast networks or the internet. there will be more change in our

space in the next five years than there has been in the last 50. this deal will not change the fundamental competitive dynamic or the extraordinary rate of technological change but it will help nbc universal compete in the new media world. why is this transaction good for nbc universal, for the u.s. economy, and for the consumers we serve? my answer can be captured in two words, investment and innovation, both of which i believe are essential if we are to remain a vigorous competitor in the 21st century media market and a growing source of high-wage jobs in an economy starved for employment. first, investment. the creative programming that lies at the heart of our business is neither easy nor inexpensive. it will require investment this year of nearly $4.5 billion. every year, we invest another $1

billion in news gathering and news production. an investment of half a billion dollars annually makes tel a mundo the leading in spanish programming. comcast's desire to expand our business and invest in programming will benefit nbc universal, the american consumer and the u.s. economy. also, with regards to investment, comcast's written commit to over-the-air broadcasting has been widely unappreciated. in addition, comcast has expressed a willingness to play a constructive role in the business negotiations between broadcast stations and mvpds. those two positions could play a pivotal role in finding a sustainable new business model for the struggling broadcast business. second, innovation. we believe comcast history of delivery, innovation and technological vision will help us better serve the 21st century

consumer. we must find a sustainable business model to meet consumer demands for access to programming any time, anywhere. we need to be more nimble in taking advantage of more dinlg at that time distribution capabilities, on demand, on line, mobile and beyond. this venture with comcast positions nbc u to being a leading innovator to deliver contact where they want it, when they want it and how they want it. in this extraordinary competitive industry, sustained investment and innovation will be the keys to remaining a vigorous competitors. this is not your father's media market. less than 40 years ago, three companies enjoyed 90% of alltel vision viewing. oh, how simple it was. today, the world could not be more different. each of the five largest 3450me companies in america now only account for between 5% and 10%

of all viewing. a multitude of smaller competitors account for half of all viewing. television is also a shrinking portion of the media market. people choose not only between broadcast and cable television but the internet, xbox, iphone and playstation. this transaction will not change the tidal wave of competition inundating today's media market. the big winner is the consumer. more investment leads to more and better content and more innovation leads to more access, any time, in he where. let me clothes by saying how grateful i am for ge's excellent stewardship of nbc universal. they have invested more than $22 million since 2000 and built it

i could not be more excited about the future of this company. this deal will give us the resources and the tools to adapt in an unpredictable media world. and meet the needs of twenty first century consumers. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward answering any questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you very much mr. zucker. >> i am very proud to be here. is it on? hi. i am very proud to represent the american cable association. we are a broad band competitor in five markets in the midwest. 1 million of the households that we attach directly compete with comcast in michigan and illinois. i know customers appreciate having competitive choice. they do not choose us because of the low-cost provider, because we differentiate ourselves based on a service experience that we

provide. customers have recognized this. we have received 10 jd power awards. just recently, they awarded us the first place provider of internet, phone, and cable and "consumer reports." tomer service. just recently, they awarded us the first place provider of internet, phone and cable in the consumer reports. i don't tell you about this recognition to brag but to illustrate that when we have direct influence and control over operations, we can be very customer s customer centrick and focus on what the customer needs and wants. as a buyer of content, we face a different set of challenges. we buy most of our content from a handful of large content providers who have significant market power and leverage. the prospect of having comcast

nbcu as the largest vertical integrate tore of content at my direct competitor does concern me. it concerns me because the combined company will have powerful abilities and incentives to possibly hurt a competitor like us and increase our costs. i have these concerns because of current behave yoe haf y behavi. video content is key. so content negotiations are critical for us. the behave yors we experience today during those negotiations are things like price value. not all content is created equal. content providers who have large market power come to the table with their network offerings packaged in a take it all or take it or leave it kind of fashion.

meaning that low value networks, not highly viewed or wanted by customers are associated with or packaged with the high value networks that we need to buy in order to compete. the issues are several. we end up using channel space customers don't want and aren't viewing. channel space we could give to independent networks. it consumes our valuable bandwidth that we would rather allocate to advance services we know customers want, hd, video on demand, interactive and faster online speed. then, this carriage ability. content providers with large, significant market power can withhold or delay launch timing by slow rolling the negotiations. one example of this is for online content. the concept of tv everywhere, which basically involves packaging cable networks and allowing them to be viewed by

your broadband customers. i think comcast brands their x finity. we went to comcast and the other networks and asked for rights to access that programming for our broadband customers. to date, we have been denied that access. a cable example. we were negotiating with a network that comcast has a significant investment in. during that negotiations, the network refused to include the rights to their advanced programming that they were developing. the bottom line is this, we're not here to whine or ask for special advantages, because we are the smaller guy. i believe in competition as my peers hear have said. it breeds creativity, innovation and a clear focus on the customer. i think our jd power and consumer report ratings val daid date that. we ask for a thorough and thoughtful consideration of specific conditions that may be

imposed so that we can continue to preserve and promote the competitive choice that we provide and that congress sought in the '92 and '96 acts. the types of conditions we would ask for are the following, the terms and conditions for access for content, whether it is cable, online or otherwise, should be the same terms and conditions that are available to comcast. then, business is business. if there is a time when discriminatory behave yor occurs and market power and leverage is exerted inappropriately, i really ask for a remedy structure that is meaningful and accessible for companies like wow. the current retransmission consent and program access complaint procedures do not help us. an outside arbitration process does not help us. the reasons are, they are time-consuming, very costly. they don't ensure continued carriage while you are in dispute.

especially, they place the burden of proof on the complainant who doesn't have the access to the data, since there is absolutely no pricing transparency. to protect the competition and consumers from this combination, regulators must impose different and better remedies for us. we look forward to participating in that process. thanks for having me. >> thank you very much, ms. abdoulah. mr. fiorile. >> chairman boucher and members of the subcommittee, my name is michael. fiorile. i speak to you today as nbc chairman of the affiliate board representing some 200 independently owned local television stations. for more than 60 years, the affiliates and nbc have worked together as partners. the result has been free and universally available local and national news, weather sports, emergency information and some of the highest quality programming. the question today is whether or not the benefits of this

partnership produces for local viewers in your districts, will thrive if and when comcast owns nbc? the nbc affiliates board has been very pleased to hear comcast's response to this key question. steve burke, the chief operating officer at comcast, has assured us on more than one occasion, that the company's intent is to grow our partnership, providing free and over the air television service through the affiliates. in fact, also, comcast's desire to maintain nbc 10's owned and operated television stations in some of our country's large eflt cities is very important to us and we support that. ownership of these stations will provide comcast with a direct stake in serving local television viewers, just as the affiliates have. this is a very positive start but at this point, it is, in fact, just a start. the fact that never before has a major cable operator controlled one of the four major broadcast networks is here. the stakes for free local

television service and for viewers are too high to leave this to statements alone. in the weeks ahead, the affiliates board and comcast have work to do. together, we hope to design and agree upon clear, specific, and enforceable conditions defining what it means in practice for comcast to deliver on its promise to jun hold the network affiliate partnership for free local television service that has served viewers so well for so long. we have comcast's word on these principles and now we look forward to getting to specifics such as those that have been proposed in the application. first, there must be protections in place to prevent the erosion of the nbc network through migration of popular nbc news, sports and entertainment content and talent to cable channels or other pay services. for example, consider the prospect, if you will, if nfl football games currently

broadcast for free by nbc affiliates migrating to a comcast sports channel or consider "nbc nightly news" moving to a pay channel. that would be an immediate and a significant loss to affiliates and to all of our viewers. the public and the affiliates also need assurances that comcast will continue to invest in new and compelling sports, news, and entertainment programming for the nbc network. secondly, comcast must not interfere with the nbc affiliate's right to serve our local communities as the first point of ability of network programming. this long-standing principle serves the network, the affiliates and consumers by maintaining the broadcast medium with it's unique reach and acce accessability to viewers as a strong platform provided free to all americans. thirdly, this transaction raises questions about retransmission consent. as you know, thanks to this committee, and others in congress, retransmission consent

is a market-based mechanism that clearly works. it supports stations investment in local and national programming. the comcast/nbc transaction could threaten this essential economic foundation of nbc affiliates localized services. it puts the station supplier of network programming and the single largest distributor under one roof. simply put, comcast should not use its control of the nbc market to undermine affiliate signals on comcast systems. one way to address this concern is to keep network affiliation negotiations with the nbc network and to keep retransmission consent negotiations with comcast cable separate in the future as they are today. we are also considering other ways to preserve retransmission consent because of it's vital role in the underpinning of local services that we provide

to communities. so you've heard briefly about three principal areas of concern to the affiliates. given your oversight role, we would hope and would encourage you to encourage the fcc to adopt the necessary conditions to protect consumers continued access to free quality local television. like the commitments comcast has volunteered in it's it's applications, they need to be part of the fcc order and need to be binding. they are off to a promising start in flushing out the principles which both of us consider important. we believe this can strengthen the affiliates and nbc in serving for many years to come. we know that comcast shares these goals. i thank you for the opportunity to be here today. >> thank you, mr. fiorile.

dr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the community to offer a public interest analysis of a merger unique in the history of the video market and will go a long way towards determining whether or not the future of video viewing in america is more competitive and consumer friendly than the past. there is another side to the story. comcast straddles the dominant video distribution platform of the 20th century as the nation's large ef largest cable service provider. in its cable franchise service territories the market share of comcast in these two vital distribution platforms exceeds 50%. allowing it to acquire one of the nation's premiere video content producers will radically alter the structure of the video marketplace. triggering a bevy of anti-competitive effects that will result in higher prices and fewer choices for consumers. allowing comcast to acquire nbc will increase the likelihood that the ugly business model of

the cable cartel will be strengthened and extended to the internet. there are huge horizontal problems with this merger. broadcasters and cable companies have a natural competitive rivalry we witness every day. they argue about the price, channel location, and carriage of content. the rivalry is so intense that each side has attempted to enter the rival's market in an effort to diminish their market power. they are known as disruptive entrants in each other's markets. this merger would eliminate that primary line of conflict between two of the most important of these potential entrants. these two companies compete for audiences and advertisers in a dozen of the nation's most important local markets, serving about 1/5 of the nation's population. there are more people in the

markets where comcast and nbc compete head to head through nbc o&os than there are in markets where nbc o&os own stations and comcast is not present. there is more population that they compete for directly than they do not. these two companies compete in the video programming market where comcast regional sports and news production compete with nbc' news and sports production. three quarters of the regional sports networks that comcast has rolled out are located in the markets where they compete directly with nbc for eyeballs and advertiser dollars. if that ain't competition, there is no such thing as competition. that's horizontal competition. these two companies compete in cyberspace where nbc has funded an alternative distribution platform,