ARRL BOARD CONFIDENTIAL This information is NOT for disclosure beyond ODV The attached cartoon appeared in the New Yorker a few weeks ago perhaps best illustrates what transpired over the past few days that culminated in today’s subcommittee hearing on HR-1301 and 3 other bills. (See attached) We are somewhere in that mess of lines. Last week Chris and I visited 30 offices over a two day period. It was during that time that we found out that Mr. Walden’s subcommittee was going to hear testimony on H.R.-1301 as well as 3 other bills currently before the subcommittee. However, we learned of this in a strange way. We were first told that the bill was being marked-up before the full committee. Then we were told that was not the case, but instead a hearing would be held in which testimony would be given. We found out that testimony was given by invitation only and that ARRL was not invited. We were told that we could submit a letter in support of the bill that would be entered in the record. Chris prepared a lengthy “letter” that would have actually served as testimony from Kay had we been given a chance, and it was entered into the record. CAI had a letter submitted as well. Like our letter, it is now a matter of public record and is attached. Needless to say, we were very confused as to what was happening. We were completely dependent on the Congressional staff to shepherd the bill, which was frustrating as they were busy preparing for the hearing and were only sporadically able to give us time to get information to us. We were concerned about the possible impact that ranking member Congresswoman Eshoo might have on the hearing as we learned that she had issues with the bill. Her legislative director would not give us the time of day, despite the fact that we had been trying to see Ms. Eshoo for months. Although Ms. Eshoo had cosponsored a similar bill in the past, it appeared that our friends at CAI may have gotten to her as she suddenly was concerned about HOAs authority vis-a-vis “private contracts” as well as “covenants and easements.” To step back a little, we also met with Chairman Upton’s office last week to ascertain if there were any problems or issues that we should be aware of in advance of either the full Committee mark-up, as Mr. Upton is the Chairman of the full Commerce Committee, or in advance of the hearing. We were told that the hearing was pro-forma and a result of a policy instituted at the request of Congressman Pallone (D-NJ) who is the ranking member of the full Commerce Committee. He is insistent that all bills before the subcommittee first have a hearing, then get marked-up by the subcommittee before it gets marked-up by the full committee. Then the discussion took a turn as Mr. Upton’s staffer said that the Chairman will not move a bill forward if there is real animosity or hostility among the members. What was confusing here is that he seemed to imply that we read between the lines. I asked if there was any reason for us to be concerned about that we were told no, but to keep that in mind. ????? There was a lot of back and forth between TKG, the Congressional staff, and us. At times it felt like we were bipolar suffering with extreme highs and equally extreme lows. And then late Monday, Chris talked to Josh Baggett, Rep. Kinzinger’s Legislative Director. Josh explained that indeed it was merely a hearing, there would be no voting, it was pro-forma, and not to worry. At most, he told us, Rep. Eshoo would express concerns about the bill. While we found that to be very reassuring, it is Washington and anything could happen. As the hearing began, Chairman Walden spoke on behalf of the bill as part of his opening remarks. Rep. Eshoo did indeed express concerns about the bill in language that clearly came from CAI’s workbook. We also received a public endorsement from the Harold Fell, the witness from Public Knowledge, an FCC watchdog organization. Nearly all the hearing was devoted to the other bill before the Committee. Shortly before the hearing ended, Congressman Kinzinger made some comments regarding the bill as sponsor. And then the meeting ended with no other comments about the bill whatsoever. All things considered, this went very well for us. A mark-up is expected next month. We hope to avoid a similar situation as happened with Senator Nelson (D-FL) at the Senate Commerce Committee mark-up, who voted against the bill despite our best efforts to the contrary. We understand that Committee staff and Congressional staff will be meeting shortly with CAI. Chris will also be meeting with them separately next week as well. This is not the first time we’ve met with CAI. Chris met with their representative in December. They are unwilling to support reasonable accommodation which is the crux of the bill. We doubt that will change in the near future. A meeting is scheduled next week with David Grossman, minority party Subcommittee staffer for Ms. Eshoo, in an attempt to dissuade her from towing the CAI line. Chris and I look forward to your questions. See you in Hartford. Safe travels. 73 de Mike N2YBB