 Good morning, Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of the committee. Before I start, I want to send wishes for a full and fast recovery to Sandra Lujan. It's been an honor getting to know him during this process, and I look forward to seeing him on this dais again. I'd like to reintroduce myself before I address two matters that have been raised in recent weeks. I've been a public interest lawyer for over 30 years, working towards one goal, ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable, open, and robust communications networks, be they broadcasting, cable, or broadband. During that time, I've lined up on the same side and other times in opposition to every regulated industry. I'm an advocate for the public, that's what I do. If I'm confirmed, I would be the first public interest advocate to sit on the FCC. Yet unlike the numerous nominees for FCC seats that have worked for commission regularities, represented them as clients, or served on their boards, I've been subject to unrelenting, unfair, and outright false criticism and scrutiny. This is despite the fact that I've had over 250 organizations and policy experts, and 350,000 citizens voice their support, including in letters to this committee and in op-eds. Many are Republicans, and people you'd never think in a million years would support me. My parents' television counsel just supported me this morning. For a fifth FCC commissioner seat, not the chair who controls the agenda, that's probably a record. At the same time, I realize this isn't all about me. It's about someone wanting to stop the FCC from doing its important work, ensuring that everyone in America has robust broadband, regardless of who they are, what their income is, or where they live, as mandated by the bipartisan infrastructure law. It's about stopping the FCC from ensuring that the media is diverse and serves the needs of local communities. It's about stopping the FCC from ensuring that our networks are resilient when the next disaster hits, so that the public stays connected and safe. And it's about stopping the work Congress, including all of you and your predecessors, have charged this important agency with doing. A deadlocked agency helps nobody save for a few huge corporations. But most importantly, it hurts the American people who need the FCC to make hard decisions. Now I'll address some of the questions that have been raised around the confidential low-cast settlement agreement and my voluntary and temporary recusal from some matters involving retransmission consent and TV broadcast copyright. First the low-cast settlement. As press reports have made clear, I have no financial liability stemming from the lawsuit. Indeed, I never did from the day I joined the Sports Fans Coalition Board. This wasn't a settlement agreement that I negotiated, SFCNY negotiated, and with the full and eager consent of the network plaintiffs set the amount to be paid as $700,000 plus SFCNY agreeing to turn over low-cast used equipment to them. Why didn't I mention this number in my response to Senator Wicker's question for the record? Because the confidential settlement agreement barred me, as well as the network plaintiffs and SFCNY from mentioning the terms of the agreement in writing. This was a fact that whoever leaked the agreement to the oppress conveniently omitted. Also omitted was the fact that the enforceable term sheet setting forth the particulars of the settlement was signed on October 12th, two weeks before I was nominated for this position. That term sheet is expressly referred to in the settlement agreement. On October 12th, when the settlement between the networks and SFCNY was signed by the representatives, I had no idea whether or not I was going to be nominated or if I was going to be nominated at all. And the parties didn't know either. I took very seriously my duty to keep the terms of the settlement agreement confidential, but others did not, and exploited my inability to defend myself. Now freed from the public disclosure of this information, despite a court order confirming all the terms of the settlement agreement, including the duty not to discuss them with the press. I'm here to answer the baseless rumors that have swirled around this issue. Second, I'll address my voluntary recusal, which I undertook because of concerns raised at December 1 hearing and QFRs by members of this committee about my involvement with low cast. The recusal is narrowly tailored and tied to my personal participation in a 12-year-old petition for rulemaking the organization I'm representative filed seeking changes to the retransmission consent regime, a docket that remains open. There's precedent for such a voluntary recusal. In 1998, then-Chairman Canard recused himself from a fairness doctrine-related docket when he discovered that he had signed a pleading in that docket as an NAB intern. So this is not unprecedented. I know that industry is saying that, but that's not true. As experts have noticed, my recusal is voluntary, temporary, extremely narrow, and concerns business unlikely to come before the full FCC. But in no way does it open the door to every other industry seeking a recusal for every position I in public knowledge have ever advocated. Such a result would be perverse and would prohibit anyone, probably prohibit anyone, not just public interest advocates and academics, who has taken any public position on telecommunications and media policy from serving on the FCC. A federal district court judge recently rejected a similar wide-ranging request in a case involving an effort to accuse a senior government official. He said, it's natural that the president would select a candidate based on her past experiences and views, including on topics that are likely to come before the commission during her tenure and how the administrator will implement the administration's priorities. Courts must tread carefully when reviewing cases in this area, lest we eviscerate the proper evolution of policymaking, were we to disqualify every administrator who has opinions on the correct course of his agency's future action. I have and will continue to answer each and every one of your questions with complete honesty and to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Son. And again, thanks for being here. I do think that the timing of the recusal after the hearing made it something that we should talk about and certainly support, again, you being here and your willingness to do that. Let's just dive into some of this specific. You were on the board of this company, correct? But you didn't negotiate the settlement. No, I did not. It was a nonprofit corporation. And I did not negotiate the settlement. It was negotiated by Sports Fan Coalition New York. I was never a party to the litigation. And from the very day I joined that board, because there was something called a case narrowing agreement, which I'm happy to talk about, I was never financially on the hook for a dime. OK. And as far as the timing of how and when they negotiated, you also had no knowledge about that. And was that driven by a court process where the court had outlined? This was now in a negotiated settlement. And so the court had said, we want a timing of this negotiated settlement by a certain date. Right. So the court entered an injunction on September 15. And we had 30 days to decide whether to appeal or to settle. And obviously, I was involved as a board member in the decision to settle as opposed to appeal. And I was the first to low-caste settlement, 12-year-old petitioner, and I did not negotiate that I've ever advocated. So in an effort to accuse a senior government official, he said, it's natural that the president will implement the administration's priorities. Courts must tread carefully when reviewing cases in this area lest we eviscerate the proper evolution of policymaking, were we to disqualify every administrator who has opinions on the correct course of his agency's future action. I have and will continue to answer each and every one of your questions with complete honesty and to the best of my knowledge. Thank you.