U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–242 PDF 2011

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM USE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 6, 2011 

Serial No. 112–69 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

(II)

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 6 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 47 

WITNESSES

Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Administration, United States Department of Defense ............................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

(1) 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPECTRUM USE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Walden, Terry, Stearns, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Bass, Gingrey, Scalise, Latta, Guthrie, Matsui, Barrow, 

and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Neil Fried, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; 

Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Legislative 

Clerk; Jeff Mortier, Professional Staff Member; David Redl, Counsel, Telecom; Nicholas Degan, FCC Detailee; Stephen Cha, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Jeff Cohen, Minority FCC Detailee; 

Sarah Fisher, Minority Policy Analyst; and Roger Sherman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. We are going to call to order the Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology. 

To date we have held three hearings on how good spectrum policy can promote wireless broadband, spur economic development, 

create jobs, and generate significant revenue for the American taxpayer. Today’s hearing addresses one of the hardest pieces of this 

spectrum puzzle: how to more efficiently use government spectrum 

and free additional resources to meet consumers’ growing wireless 

broadband needs. 

Now, this is not a new challenge for NTIA, the Nation’s Federal 

Government spectrum coordinator. The spectrum in the AWS-1 

band, the spectrum used by T-Mobile and others to provide highspeed wireless broadband services, was government spectrum as 

recently as 2007. Relocating the government users and uses in that 

spectrum and making it available for commercial operation has 

been a Herculean task, but one that raised $13 billion for the U.S. 

Treasury and furthered U.S. leadership in the wireless broadband 

space. 

Looking toward the future, the NTIA has already undertaken the 

first steps to make additional spectrum available for commercial 

use. In its 5- and 10-year plans, the NTIA has identified a number 

2 

of government spectrum users and uses that hold the potential for 

relocation or greater spectral efficiencies. 

I thank the Assistant Secretary Strickling and his staff at the 

NTIA for taking these important first steps to bringing additional 

spectrum resources to the market. 

Among the many bands that the NTIA is examining, perhaps the 

most anticipated is the spectrum from 1755 to 1780 megahertz. 

This spectrum, currently used for a myriad of government systems, 

has long been targeted for its potential as a commercial band. 

Now, this band is immediately adjacent to the existing commercial wireless broadband operations, and is also in use for this purpose abroad. Reassignment of this spectrum, domestically, for commercial services would bring international harmonization and 

economies of scale to the challenging task of expanding wireless 

broadband speed and availability. 

The spectrum in 1755 to 1780 megahertz, however, is by no 

means the magic bullet to solving the spectrum challenges that this 

country does face. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan and the administration have both set ambitious goals for making 500 megahertz of additional spectrum available for commercial services. The 

NTIA has the extremely difficult task of maximizing government 

spectrum efficiency, sharing, and use to do its part in meeting this 

goal. 

The NTIA is going to have to ask some hard questions of government spectrum users: Is your spectrum use required or could the 

goal be accomplished using commercial systems? 

Can your agency’s use be combined with other government uses? 

Could your agency’s uses be more efficiently accomplished with 

less spectrum? 

Could your agency use be moved to other less commercially desirable spectrum without sacrificing utilities? 

These questions and others will form the basis for the more robust and agile Federal spectrum use that will in turn create the 

commercial opportunities to fuel wireless broadband innovation, job 

creation, and revenues for deficit reduction. 

I thank the Assistant Secretary for his testimony today. Look forward to a lively discussion of these issues. 

I would tell my counterparts on the committee, the Assistant 

Secretary has a very good flow chart he is going to put up, so we 

are going to actually extend him a longer opening time for his testimony so that he can work through this slide presentation that he 

and his staff have put together. 

With that, I would turn now to the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Matsui, who is filling in for Ms. Eshoo today as our ranking 

subcommittee member. Ms. Matsui, we welcome your comments. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

To date we have held three hearings on how good spectrum policy can promote 

wireless broadband, spur economic growth, create jobs, and generate significant revenue for the American taxpayer. Today’s hearing addresses one of the hardest pieces 

of the spectrum puzzle: how to more efficiently use government spectrum and free 

additional resources to meet consumers’ growing wireless broadband needs. 

This is not a new challenge for the NTIA, the nation’s federal government spectrum coordinator. The spectrum in the AWS-1 band-the spectrum used by T-Mobile 

3 

and others to provide high-speed wireless broadband services-was government spectrum as recently as 2007. Relocating the government users and uses in that spectrum and making it available for commercial operation has been a Herculean task, 

but one that raised $13 billion for the U.S. Treasury and furthered U.S. leadership 

in the wireless broadband space. 

Looking toward the future, the NTIA has already undertaken the first steps to 

making additional spectrum available for commercial use. In its 5- and 10-year 

plans, the NTIA has identified a number of government spectrum users and uses 

that hold the potential for relocation or greater spectral efficiencies. I thank Assistant Secretary Strickling and his staff at the NTIA for taking these important first 

steps to bringing additional spectrum resources to market. 

Among the many bands that the NTIA is examining, perhaps the most anticipated 

is the spectrum from 1755–1780 MHz. This spectrum, currently used for myriad 

government systems, has long been targeted for its potential as a commercial band. 

This band is immediately adjacent to existing commercial wireless broadband operations and is also in use for this purpose abroad. Reassignment of this spectrum 

domestically for commercial services would bring international harmonization and 

economies of scale to the challenging task of expanding wireless broadband speed 

and availability. 

The spectrum in 1755–1780 MHz, however, is by no means the magic bullet to 

solving the spectrum challenges this country faces. The FCC’s National Broadband 

Plan and the Administration have both set ambitious goals for making 500 MHz of 

additional spectrum available for commercial services. The NTIA has the extremely 

difficult task of maximizing government spectrum efficiency, sharing, and use to do 

its part in meeting this goal. The NTIA is going to have to ask some hard questions 

of government spectrum users: Is your spectrum use required or could the goal be 

accomplished using commercial systems? Can your agency’s use be combined with 

other government uses? Could your agency’s uses be more efficiently accomplished 

in less spectrum? Could your agency’s use be moved to other, less commercially desirable spectrum without sacrificing utility? 

These questions and others will form the basis for the more robust and agile Federal spectrum use that will in turn create the commercial opportunities to fuel wireless broadband innovation, job creation, and revenues for deficit reduction. I thank 

the Assistant Secretary for his testimony today and I look forward to a lively discussion of these issues. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. And I would like to also thank Administrator Strickling for 

being with us here today. 

According to estimates, there are over 300 million wireless subscribers in the United States. That number is growing as the current economic and social climate have an increasing number of consumers opting for only cell phones over traditional land lines. As 

we all know, there is real concern over the current allocation of 

spectrum in the marketplace. There are some estimates that by 

2014 the demand for spectrum will exceed supply. 

It is our job to remain focused on getting the spectrum out there, 

and we should move as quickly as possible. We all agree that we 

should repurpose Federal spectrum for commercial use. In our 

search for additional spectrum, government spectrum is a valuable 

critical resource. The administration deserves credit for realizing 

the importance of allocating additional spectrum in the marketplace to meet future demand. 

I also commend NTIA Administrator Strickling and his agency 

for taking this task very seriously. When we finally get to 

repurposing specific bands and auctioning, I believe we will need 

to do so in a way that allows the government to clear important 

users in a timely, transparent, and feasible manner. 

4 

In my opinion, the best approach is to ensure that agencies have 

adequate resources and notice to undertake the substantial task 

which will oversee highly valuable spectrum. But once we provide 

those resources, we need to assure commercial bidders that they 

will get access to spectrum they purchase in a timely and predictable fashion. 

In regards to auctioning, the FCC should have the flexibility to 

structure and conduct incentive auctions that will truly maximize 

the economic and social values of the spectrum. 

I also believe that comprehensive spectrum policy moving forward should offer our innovators and entrepreneurs an opportunity 

to be creative and have a forum to develop advanced technologies 

and applications. To help spur greater innovation, I am working on 

spectrum legislation that supports and further advances American 

leadership and existing unlicensed technologies. 

It is important that we continue to promote policies that lead to 

greater innovation in the ever-evolving telecommunications and 

technology sectors. As we know, technology changes rapidly. What 

is new today may not be new tomorrow and may be obsolete by 

next week. Having enough spectrum in the marketplace will offer 

American innovators an opportunity to continue to explore and create new products and ideas. 

I also believe that spectrum should be preserved for the advancement of technologies, including Smart Grid and health IT capabilities. Moving forward, spectrum availability will be key to ensuring 

competition, improved public safety, spur innovation, and meet 

growing demand for wireless services. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing 

today. And I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentlelady. 

Today we hold our fourth hearing on spectrum policy and the 

vital role it plays in our economy. Over the past decade, technologies relying on spectrum have put so much demand on the limited spectrum that is currently available that we face a spectrum 

crunch in the next decade, unless we act soon. Today I look forward 

to discussing ways that we can make more spectrum available for 

commercial purposes. 

As part of this effort, I recently introduced H.R. 911, the Spectrum Inventory and Auction Act, which would help avoid the looming spectrum crunch by arranging for a comprehensive spectrum 

inventory and voluntary auction of spectrum licenses. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony, Administrator 

Strickling, and working with you and this committee to address our 

spectrum goals. 

I thank the ranking member for the time, and I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. Does the gentlelady yield back the remainder of 

her minute? 

Ms. MATSUI. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back the remainder of her 

time. I turn now to the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Terry. 

5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

today. I share the goal set forth in the National Broadband Plan 

of finding all government spectrum that is currently being used inefficiently and reallocating it for commercial use. 

I believe that we may need to revisit the Commercial Spectrum 

Enhancement Act in order to update it to allow for better communication sharing, quicker relocations, additional public disclosure, 

and easier sharing of spectrum between the government incumbent 

and the commercial licensee during relocations. 

Additionally, as the purpose of this hearing is to examine how 

government is best utilizing wireless spectrum, I would like to specifically address how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is doing so, 

particularly in the area of flood management and prevention. This 

is a topic of great importance to me, especially now as my district 

and many other communities up and down the Missouri River are 

literally under siege by devastating floodwaters. 

My office has found that recently the Corps determined that it 

could give up significant portions of the wireless spectrum it was 

utilizing for these purposes, due to increases in efficiency and technology advancements. This a great step in the right direction and 

is to be commended. 

I wonder, however, if we can achieve a win-win, both with regard 

to increased reliability and spectrum efficiency by further examining our flood monitoring systems and ensuring the best, most reliable, and most efficient technology is being deployed. 

And I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Strickling. 

And who would like to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Stearns, I think. 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Stearns, I yield to you. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank our distinguished colleague. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Spectrum use in this country is very important. I think it is important to realize that while incentive auctions can potentially free 

up a large chunk of spectrum, there are other spectrum holders to 

examine as we consider legislation to address the looming spectrum 

crisis. One such holder is the Federal Government itself, obviously. 

The government has a variety of spectrum holds, and while some 

of this is necessary for national security, I think much of it could 

be used more effectively. So I look forward to learning from our 

witnesses today about government spectrum sharing and the time 

frame for making available already freed-up government spectrum 

to commercial users. 

I also look forward to examining and working with the committee 

on the spectrum legislation that I understand will be available 

shortly, and continue to believe that this issue can be a win-win 

for all parties involved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. Does anyone else seek recognition on Mr. Terry’s 

time? Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to 

welcome our witness, and just very briefly say we are looking forward to what you have to say. We are all concerned about the 

6 

availability of commercial spectrum or spectrum for the innovation 

and the use in that space. 

As I have over the past week met with so many innovators that 

call Tennessee, and middle Tennessee specifically, home. We hear 

this. We are innovating, we are creating. Will the spectrum be 

there to allow us to push these new innovations forward? 

So thank you for being here, and yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman yields 

back. 

Let’s turn now to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 

Waxman, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

In our previous hearings on the subject, two things have become 

clear. First, there is a strong bipartisan consensus that we need to 

find additional spectrum for wireless broadband. And second, there 

is bipartisan support for creating a nationwide broadband network 

for public safety. 

One topic we have not had an opportunity to explore yet is the 

role of Federal spectrum in achieving these goals. And today we 

will examine Federal spectrum use and whether there are opportunities to reallocate Federal spectrum for commercial purposes. I am 

hopeful that we will be able to use this hearing and the excellent 

testimony we have heard in all of our hearings as the basis for consensus spectrum legislation. 

I would like to welcome Assistant Secretary Lawrence Strickling 

back to the Energy and Commerce Committee as the Administrator 

of NTIA, the agency tasked with managing Federal spectrum assignments. Mr. Strickling will play a critical role in maximizing the 

efficient and effective Federal use of spectrum. Under his leadership, the NTIA is leading the administration’s effort to identify and 

reallocate spectrum to meet our dramatically increasing demands 

for wireless broadband. This is a huge project, and NTIA’s dedicated professionals deserve enormous credit for accomplishing what 

they have to date. 

Although Federal spectrum has a great potential to help us address our growing broadband needs, we must utilize a balanced approach in getting there. Companies that bid on Federal spectrum 

for commercial purposes need to know when they will have access 

to this critical and expensive resource. The reallocation of Federal 

spectrum must be transparent, timely, and certain so companies 

can bid accordingly. If we provide the proper mix of transparency 

and certainty, the amount companies are willing to pay will increase and the taxpayers will benefit. 

We also need to consider new ways to put Federal spectrum towards commercial use. Using technology to allow for spectrum 

sharing deserves careful and immediate consideration. 

At the same time, we need to remember that Federal spectrum 

is currently being utilized for important purposes involving national security, public safety, and important agency operations. We 

cannot expect agencies and users to simply turn off a switch and 

7 

turn over their spectrum. We need to provide adequate resources 

and time to make complicated and expensive reallocation efforts 

successful. 

I look forward to hearing from Mr. Strickling and learning more 

about the administration’s spectrum initiative, challenges with reallocating Federal users, and how we can balance the need for 

more information about Federal spectrum use with our national security concerns. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Strickling. And thank you Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back the time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman from California. And for our 

members who joined us a bit into the hearing, Mr. Strickling is 

going to be allocated 10 minutes for his statement today. He has 

a slide presentation, I think some of you have as well, that he 

would like to walk through. And I thought it would be beneficial 

for the subcommittee to extend a little longer time to him as he is 

our only witness today. 

So, Mr. Strickling, we are delighted to have you here. We appreciate the work you are doing. We look forward to your testimony 

and to the answers to your questions. So please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAWRENCE E. STRICKLING, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. STRICKLING. Thank you, Chairman Walden, and in particular 

thank you for the consideration of giving me some extra time for 

my opening remarks. 

I also want to thank Vice Chairman Terry, Congresswoman Matsui, Ranking Member Waxman, and all the members of the committee for attending this hearing today regarding the use of spectrum by Federal Government agencies. 

I am pleased to join you today to describe NTIA’s ongoing and 

critical work in managing Federal agency use of spectrum and to 

update you on our efforts to identify and reallocate spectrum to 

meet the Nation’s rapidly growing demand for commercial wireless 

broadband service. 

Through his National Wireless Initiative, President Obama has 

set forth a bold vision for spurring innovation, expanding economic 

growth and job creation, and preserving America’s global technology leadership. For NTIA, a critical component of the National 

Wireless Initiative is the President’s directive to us last June to 

work with the FCC to identify and make available AN additional 

500 megahertz of spectrum for fixed and mobile broadband use 

over the next 10 years. This effort will double the amount of spectrum available for commercial wireless broadband. 

As directed by the President, NTIA released two reports last 

year. The first was our 10-year plan and timetable, identifying 

2,200 megahertz of spectrum for evaluation, and detailing the process we and the FCC would follow to evaluate these bands for possible reallocation to commercial broadband service. 

In addition, we released a fast-track evaluation report on four 

bands of spectrum that we evaluated to determine if any of those 

bands could be reallocated for commercial use while leaving the exVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:58 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-69 070611\112-69 CHRIS
8 

isting Federal agency operations in place. By doing so, we would 

be able to make this spectrum available within 5 years. 

We concluded that 115 megahertz of spectrum in two bands 

could be reallocated within 5 years while accommodating the existing Federal agency uses, which were NOAA weather satellites and 

Department of Defense radar systems. 

In our work, both to manage Federal agency spectrum use on a 

day-to-day basis, as well as to look for 500 megahertz of spectrum 

to reallocate to commercial service, we face a number of challenges. 

First, compared to commercial services, Federal agencies do not 

have a lot of spectrum in the prime bands between 225 megahertz 

and 3.7 gigahertz. In that range, Federal agencies have exclusive 

use of only about 18 percent of that spectrum as compared to commercial and non-Federal users who control 30 percent of this spectrum on an exclusive basis. The remaining 51 percent is shared between Federal and non-Federal users. 

Second, Federal agencies use this spectrum assigned to them to 

perform critical missions assigned to them by Congress. These missions can range from the NOAA weather satellites, to FAA air traffic control systems, to Department of Defense drone missions. And 

when a Federal agency needs spectrum to perform one of its missions, we only assign the agency the minimum amount of spectrum 

it needs, and only within the geographic area within which it needs 

the spectrum. In virtually no case do we provide an agency exclusive use of an entire band of spectrum. With 60 agencies holding 

around 244,000 individual frequency assignments, Federal agencies 

must share spectrum with each other, and in many cases with commercial users. 

Third, the variety and complexity of spectrum uses by Federal 

agencies complicates our day-to-day assignment processes, as well 

as challenges us when we evaluate a band for reallocation. Federal 

spectrum management is much more complicated than in the commercial world. 

Generally, any particular commercial band is devoted to a uniform set of commercial users providing similar services, using comparable systems and technology. In the case of cellular and similar 

land mobile radio services, the commercial operator typically has 

the exclusive right to use a given frequency within a geographic 

area, and this general uniformity among commercial providers 

makes it easier to design and implement efficiency enhancements. 

The Federal Government, on the other hand, operates a variety 

of systems within a specific band that may have little in common 

from a technological perspective. A single Federal band, for example, could include operations as diverse and technologically unrelated as high power radars, satellite communications, drone operations, and covert law enforcement surveillance operations. 

To illustrate these points, I would like to go through a slide presentation we have prepared for today’s hearing. And I think you 

have copies of it on your desks. This presentation is based on the 

studies we are currently performing on the 1755 to 1850 megahertz 

frequency to determine if any or all of that spectrum can be reallocated to commercial wireless broadband service. We began this 

study in January, and expect to complete the detailed evaluation 

by September 30 of this year. 

9 

Over 20 Federal agencies operate in this band, utilizing over 

3,300 individual frequency assignments. 

Before we get to the specifics of that band, I would like to start 

with the slide up here on the screen relating to the commercial use 

of spectrum. What this shows is how the FCC has divided up the 

United States into cellular market areas. 

Now, if we could go to the next slide. When the FCC conducts 

an auction of spectrum, it can offer spectrum in geographic areas 

as small as those individual cellular market areas, or, as shown 

here, in the case of the AWS-1 auction, it can combine the cellular 

market areas into larger regions for bidding. 

In the case of the 90 megahertz auctioned by the FCC for AWS1 the FCC organized the spectrum into 6 blocks, 20 megahertz at 

the cellular market area level, 30 megahertz at the level of basic 

economic areas, roughly the size of a State, or a little smaller, and 

40 megahertz at a regional level such as depicted here. Within each 

of these regions the winning bidder has exclusive control of the 

spectrum. It decides what technology to deploy and how to build 

out its system, and it does not have to share its spectrum on a primary basis with anyone else. 

So let’s now segue to the Federal agency use of the 1755 to 1850 

band. Most of the 3,300 assignments in this band are for point-topoint fixed microwave licenses, which we have depicted here on 

this first chart. Agencies such as the Departments of Energy, 

Homeland Security and the FAA use these links to transmit data 

supporting such operations as energy grid control, border monitoring and air traffic control. While these users are the most numerous, they are also the easiest to relocate as technology does 

exist today to establish these links in other spectrum bands. 

But as I go to the next slide, we will overlay on the fixed microwave licenses, military bases where training is conducted with mobile tactical radios which use spectrum in this band. These radios 

are the military version of mobile, point-to-point, and cellular systems. And over the last several years, the Department of Defense 

has had to increase the number of training locations in order to 

provide for training of National Guard and Reserve units prior to 

their deployment to Afghanistan, Iraq and other locations. 

Next slide. 

Here we overlay military satellites operated by the Department 

of Defense. In particular, what we see here are the Earth stations 

that use frequency in this band to control these satellites. Due to 

the high power of these systems, these Earth stations impact the 

spectrum within the yellow shaded areas of the map. 

Remember that satellites generally have a useful life of over 20 

years, so once a satellite is launched, there is no opportunity to 

change out its radio. And what that means is that as long as the 

satellite is in active use, there will need to be ground stations from 

the East Coast to the West Coast, as the satellite passes over the 

country, to control the operations of the satellite. 

And as we did with the NOAA weather satellites we evaluated 

in the fast track report, we can carve out exclusion zones around 

these Earth stations in which no commercial service would be allowed. 

10 

But it doesn’t end there. And if we go to the next slide, this overlays training sites for bomb squads working with robots controlled 

through wireless technology. And keep in mind that while the 

agencies train at the locations depicted on this map—and I am 

checking the color, I guess they are in black on the map—in fact, 

they must be able to deploy this equipment anywhere in the country without radio interference. 

The next slide shows the Department of Defense operations regarding training on the use of precision guided munitions. The 

large diameter of the circles showing the spectrum use is due to the 

fact that these munitions are delivered from tactical aircraft flying 

at high altitude, and the radio spectrum is impacted from the aircraft to the horizon. Therefore, the higher the aircraft operates, the 

larger the impact on spectrum use on the ground. 

The next slide, we now overlay spectrum use by the Department 

of Defense for air combat training systems. These systems communicate data on pilot and aircraft performance to evaluators who can 

provide immediate feedback to pilots at the completion of their 

training runs. The transmission devices are installed on most tactical aircraft. And as with the previous slide on precision guided 

munitions, the area of impact is determined according to the high 

altitude at which these planes operate. 

Turning to the next slide, a number of agencies are now flying 

unmanned aerial vehicles or drones in this band. Much of this use 

is for military training but, increasingly, other agencies are utilizing drones for border security and disaster relief. These orange 

circles reflect where training is conducted today, but with the expanding use of drones, they could be deployed anywhere in the 

country. 

Next slide. 

The Department of Defense develops and tests missile and aircraft technology. To support that effort, researchers must download 

large amounts of data from airborne devices during testing. This 

data is critical to monitor performance and to analyze malfunctions. And again, these systems operate at high altitudes and can 

impact communications over very long distances, as shown in the 

light blue circles. 

And finally, the last side. 

Many law enforcement agencies conduct surveillance operations 

in this band. These operations produce data and video that could 

be critical evidence in court but, just as important, we need these 

links to monitor and safeguard undercover agents that may be in 

harm’s way. These systems operate throughout the country, whenever and wherever needed. Accordingly, we have shaded the entire 

country gray, although given all the other uses in the band, you 

can only see the gray shading up there in the northern Midwest. 

So that concludes the slide presentation. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

would respectfully request that the slide deck be inserted into the 

record of this hearing. 

Mr. WALDEN. Absolutely. Without objection. 

Mr. STRICKLING. And I hope these slides give you a flavor for the 

challenge we face at NTIA to manage Federal agency spectrum assignments and to evaluate various frequencies for possible reallocation. 

11 

And let me close my opening remarks with some suggestions for 

possible legislation in this area, particularly dealing with the relocation of Federal operations. 

Before we can recommend reallocation of any spectrum to commercial wireless broadband service, we first need to determine the 

cost of relocating Federal systems or modifying them to allow sharing with commercial users. We then need to compare that cost to 

the expected revenue from any auction of that spectrum to make 

sure that the auction revenues exceed the costs of reallocation. 

We must also determine to what new spectrum the Federal agencies can relocate their operations, and determine whether there is 

space in those bands to accommodate these operations once they 

are moved. But even after we have completed that analysis and 

have recommended reallocation of a band, we face the practical 

problem of the agencies actually relocating their operations in a 

reasonable time frame. 

The single most important step that Congress can take to facilitate the reallocation of spectrum is to provide the Federal agencies 

the resources and flexibility they need to plan for and undertake 

relocation and sharing activities. Specifically, agencies need resources for upfront planning, prior to holding an auction, to determine costs and determine the timeline for relocation. The current 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act only allows for reimbursement of agency expenses to relocate after an auction has concluded. 

Additionally, the CSEA should be amended to allow for reimbursement of agency expenses undertaken to facilitate sharing of 

spectrum with commercial entities. 

And finally, as I hope my presentation made clear, given the diverse uses of spectrum by Federal agencies, we need flexibility in 

terms of setting schedules for relocation that take into account the 

particular technology and resource needs of each agency. With your 

support, we will meet the President’s goal of reallocating 500 megahertz to meet the growing needs for commercial wireless broadband 

service. 

Thank you, members of the committee. I look forward to working 

with you on these important issues. And I now would be happy to 

answer your questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. Well, thank you very much, Secretary. We appreciate your comprehensive testimony and your good work and counsel in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickling follows:] 

12 


72242.001
13 


72242.002
14 


72242.003
15 


72242.004
16 


72242.005
17 


72242.006
18 


72242.007
19 


72242.008
20 


72242.009
21 


72242.010
22 


72242.011
23 


72242.012
24 


72242.013
25 


72242.014
26 


72242.015
27 


72242.016
28 


72242.017
29 


72242.018
30 


72242.019
31 


72242.020
32 

Mr. WALDEN. Nobody doubts that these systems are critical. The 

question is, can they be relocated? So just from a technical standpoint, can you relocate and open up this band? 

Mr. STRICKLING. We choose this band because there is technology 

available for these systems that can be utilized in other bands. 

Nonetheless, it is not an easy process to do so. So, for example, the 

satellites, those satellites, we can’t move them. And as a practical 

matter, we can’t move the Earth stations. But we can operate, 

going forward, in an environment where we build exclusion zones 

or craft exclusion zones around those ground stations so that there 

will be no commercial operations taking place in those areas. 

Unfortunately, as you can tell from the slide on the Earth stations, there are some very population-dense areas in which some of 

these Earth stations are located, including the Washington metropolitan area. So that reduces the overall attractiveness of a band 

if you have to carve out some of these areas to protect the satellite 

operations. 

Our expectation is, though, that for the bulk of these operations, 

should we choose to recommend—and we have not made a decision 

to recommend this yet because the studies are continuing—that we 

could get the operations out of this band within the 10 years, other 

than the satellites. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. And then you talked about some of the 

changes you think need to occur in the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, including dealing with agency expenses and all, to 

do the relocation. Did the President’s budget include any money for 

that effort? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I believe it is included. The money for that 

would come out of the proceeds of the auctions that would take 

place, so the proposal from the administration for incentive auctions would generate a certain amount of revenue, a portion of 

which would be used to fund the agencies for the relocation efforts. 

Mr. WALDEN. And when you talked about the time frame in the 

1755 to 1780 megahertz spectrum available for commercial services, was that that 10-year window you were talking about? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, we will make a recommendation on that 

band at the end of September of this year. If the recommendation 

is to reallocate a portion of that band—and let me also say that we 

are looking at the full 95 megahertz from 1755 to 1850. Industry 

has indicated a particular interest in 1755 to 1780, which would be 

25 megahertz. We are looking at 95 because the problem this country faces is bigger than what is going to be solved by doing 25 

megahertz. So we are looking at the whole band to figure out what 

portion, if any, of it could be reallocated. And, again, the idea 

would be that, but for the satellites and perhaps some other systems, that as we continue to learn about them, would be made 

available within 10 years. 

Mr. WALDEN. Of the 115 megahertz that NTIA identifies as fasttrack spectrum, only 15 megahertz is below the 3-gig threshold. 

Now many in the industry, I am told, believe that spectrum 3-gig 

is poorly suited for providing mobile wireless broadband services. 

How does the identification of this spectrum help meet the President’s goal of finding spectrum for wireless broadband? 

33 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, first off, what you stated is an accurate 

statement of today’s market conditions. However, even in the band 

that we are talking about, 3550 to 3650, that band is used for 

WIMAX in other parts of the world, including Europe. So there is 

technology being developed to work in that band. 

But we have a long time horizon here. We are looking at 10 

years. And what may be less attractive to industry today may well 

be very attractive to it in 10 years. And more importantly, by identifying this spectrum and, in effect, putting it in the bank, it sends 

signals to the manufacturing community and others to perhaps be 

thinking about developing the technology that would work in that 

band. 

Mr. WALDEN. And that leads to another point which is, how do 

we send the right signals to government agencies to free up spectrum that they could either use more efficiently or don’t really 

need? 

Now some countries have sort of levied a fee, I guess, on government spectrum. I am not advocating that. But I guess the question 

is, if you’ve got it, who wants to give it up? And yet there is this 

big need. Have you thought that through on how we can incent? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, first off, I would take issue with the idea 

that there is a lot of spectrum in the hands of Federal agencies 

that they use inefficiently. Again, because of the nature of what I 

just showed you, an agency comes to us with a very specific request 

to use spectrum in a given location at a given frequency. Now, the 

actual bandwidth they take would be dictated by the equipment 

that they intend to use to perform their mission. And certainly, 

there could be advances in the efficiency of that equipment over 

time. But then agencies have to have the resources to be able to 

pay for those technology upgrades to be able to use the spectrum 

more efficiently. 

But in general, because of the way in which we assign spectrum—and you can see how we have piled use upon use on top of 

each other in order to cram all these uses in—there are not a lot 

of opportunities for agencies to do what you suggest. 

More importantly, these agencies only get individual assignments. We never give them an entire band to work within. So the 

idea that they have gotten more spectrum than they need, so that 

they could find an opportunity to be more efficient with it, really 

doesn’t make sense in this context; whereas, it might if we had 

been assigning full bands for exclusive use by some of these agencies. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank you for your answers. I will turn now to 

the gentlelady from California for questions. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Strickling, I want to ask you a few questions about the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009 that passed out of this 

committee on a bipartisan basis last Congress. I understand that 

the administration has several concerns about the bill. As the committee evaluates the spectrum legislation that would direct the 

FCC to auction several Federal and non-Federal spectrum bands, 

it is critical that we do what we can to assure greater transparency 

and speed in the relocation process. By helping bidders understand 

when they will have access to available spectrum, we hope we can 

34 

create incentives for wireless broadband providers to participate in 

such auctions and increase the value of the spectrum being sold. 

I know the administration had had concerns with an across-theboard deadline for transition planning and relocation. What would 

you recommend to help provide greater certainty for entities purchasing the spectrum that the relocation process would be timely 

and efficient? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think the single most important thing that 

could be done is what I mentioned in my testimony. The agencies 

need adequate, upfront planning resources and personnel. 

When we did the relocation under AWS-1, which took over—well, 

it started back in 2007 and it is continuing to this day, although 

81 percent of the Federal systems have been relocated as of now 

and the agencies are pretty much on schedule. But we went back 

to industry in a notice of inquiry in 2009 and asked them for their 

evaluation of how the relocation had done. And the one thing that 

just emerges time and time again in the industry comments is that 

the agencies didn’t have the best timetable for moving. They didn’t 

have the best information for what it would cost. 

This is entirely a resource issue because the agencies didn’t, you 

know, have to do this. In addition to the missions that Congress 

has given them to perform, this isn’t part of their day-to-day direct 

work. They are now being told, in addition to what it is we want 

you to do in terms of law enforcement—protecting the country—we 

now also need you to create a work stream to figure out how you 

are going to get out of this band, how you are going to move into 

a different band, all with no degradation in the performance of the 

mission that they actually are organized to perform. This is hard 

work and it is hard for agencies to do without adequate resources. 

So, more than anything else, giving agencies the resources they 

need would be what we need to improve relocation in the future. 

Ms. MATSUI. So those would be part of the incentives that you 

have addressed earlier on, as far as upfront planning of resources 

and adequate time for relocation? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Things of that nature. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. As you know, S. 911 would require several 

bands of spectrum currently allocated for Federal use to be auctioned by 2014. That legislation looks at spectrum between 1755 to 

1850 megahertz, and leaves 15 megahertz of contiguous Federal 

spectrum in the 1675 to 1710 megahertz band, and the 100 megahertz between 3550 to 3650 megahertz. Can you comment on 

whether you support the auctioning of these bands? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Certainly, we have already recommended the 

reallocation of 1695 to 1710 and 3550 to 3650. Those were the 

products of our fast track report last year. It is now in the hands 

of the FCC to determine when and how best to auction those. 

As the Chairman noted in his comments, 3550 to 3650 is not a 

band that industry is breaking down the door to get ahold of, so 

it may not make sense to auction that spectrum right now. I think 

for 1695 to 1710, the FCC is looking to determine what other spectrum it might pair it with in an auction. And I think they are also 

35 

interested in seeing the results of our analysis of 1755 to 1850 before making a final decision on what to do with that band. 

With respect to the big band, 1755 to 1850, we are still in the 

middle of analyzing that band, and it would be premature for me 

to say today whether we think all or any portion of this can and 

should be reallocated and auctioned. 

Ms. MATSUI. So for those bands identified, are there ways to 

identify and estimate the costs associated with relocating incumbent Federal users? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is very much part of the process we are 

engaged in right now to get those estimates from the agencies that 

are in that band. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Mr. Strickling, I want to quickly ask you this. 

You mentioned in your testimony, GAO recently released a report 

on NTIA spectrum management functions and oversight. How difficult is it for NTIA to coordinate Federal spectrum use and oversee 

how each agency and department is utilizing its spectrum resources? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, we have a very skilled and dedicated set 

of public servants in our Office of Spectrum Management, and we 

do the best we can with the resources we have. So we feel we can 

perform our current mission. But I hasten to add that we don’t do 

this by ourselves. Federal spectrum management involves the active engagement of every Federal agency that uses spectrum. I 

mean, we are not at NTIA in a position to design radar systems 

or to second-guess the Department of Justice as to what kind of 

covert law enforcement gear it needs to use on its undercover 

agents. So we have to depend on the agencies to do quality work 

and have the resources themselves to use the most state-of-the-art 

technology that they can use. 

And I think the GAO report in its proper context should be read 

to be a call for resources, not just for NTIA but for all of the agencies that are employed in this effort to have the resources they 

need to do this work as best we can. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Strickling. I see my time 

is overrun. 

Mr. WALDEN. I turn to the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, 

for questions. 

Mr. TERRY. Now, in your testimony or questions with Mr. Walden, Chairman Walden, you mentioned that you didn’t think that 

any government agencies were using the spectrum inefficiently. 

But we are trying to figure out ways that we can get them to be 

more efficient, maybe new technologies that are coming out, just 

maybe a different plan of how to use this. 

Can you run through some of the discussions, or how you are 

working with these government agencies to try and adapt to more 

modern technology so we can free up technologies? 

Mr. STRICKLING. That is a difficult question. First off, I will say 

that our rules require that before an agency come to us and ask 

for an assignment of Federal spectrum, they have to exhaust efforts to use commercial spectrum. So as a result, the total amount 

of Federal spectrum assigned to land mobile radio is less than 30 

megahertz, because if a Federal agency needs to use cellular 

phones, they generally buy commercial. And that is one of our 

36 

rules. So that is one way that we can minimize Federal spectrum 

use is by requiring agencies to use commercial when they can. And 

that is in our rules. 

The question of are they using the most modern technology, it is 

really a tough issue for each of these agencies as they have to balance all of their agency imperatives against the cost of upgrading 

a particular equipment against being able to perform some other 

part of their mission. We can’t second-guess them on that. We 

would not refuse a Federal agency a spectrum assignment saying, 

well, you are not using this piece of equipment over here that is 

more efficient, if they say to us, well, we can’t afford that right 

now. We have to go with what we have got. 

There has also been a reluctance within the administration to 

provide for upgrades of technology to some of the agencies. So for 

example, we have talked about the AWS relocation from 1710 to 

1755. Well, some of those operations were moved out of that band 

into 1755 to 1850. So we are now looking again at the same systems in the evaluation we are doing now that were targeted and 

ticketed for relocation as part of the review that was done several 

years ago for AWS-1. 

Had some of those agencies had the opportunity to upgrade to 

different kind of technology, a digital technology and a totally different band, we wouldn’t be having to go through this again. But 

some agencies were restricted in terms of what technology they 

could acquire when they relocated, and so we are now having to 

look at them a second time within 10 years because of that. 

Mr. TERRY. And I think you raise an interesting point regarding 

how the agencies can keep up with technologies. And so I guess it 

begs the question of, are you aware of maybe any White House initiative or just overall initiative of working with these individual 

agencies—Defense Department is a big user, as your map 

showed—to start thinking ahead of how we can use it, these newer 

technologies now, instead of missing the boat and then being stuck 

with the older technologies which is, frankly, inherent to government anyway. But is anyone out there on the executive side, the 

agency side, saying hey, we need to do a holistic big-picture look 

at how we use this spectrum and how we have actually a management plan to upgrade and move more people or use it more efficiently? 

Mr. STRICKLING. All right. Yes is the answer to your question. 

Mr. TERRY. Who is doing it? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am sorry? 

Mr. TERRY. Who is in charge of that? Is that yours or is it—since 

it has so much of the Defense Department in there, who is doing 

it? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, I think the current thinking on it is being 

driven out the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White 

House. And as part of the National Wireless Initiative I think some 

provisions were suggested about creating some dollars that could 

be used to do research and perhaps even be used as grants to other 

agencies to allow them to do some of this cutting-edge research on 

new wireless technologies. 

The Department of Defense has over 600 people, employees and 

contractors, in their Joint Spectrum Center, and they do spend 

37 

time working on these issues. Other agencies aren’t as fortunate, 

and they are smaller users of the spectrum and have less ability 

to conduct research of their own. They are really dependent on 

what the industry provides for them. 

Mr. TERRY. Last question, real quick. Any lessons from T-Mobile 

spectrum relocation in the AWS? You have 1 second. 

Mr. STRICKLING. The relocation of AWS—with permission, I will 

run past your time. We actually think the relocation of AWS-1 

worked pretty well in terms of agencies living up to the commitments they made at the time of the auction. I have already pointed 

out that perhaps with better—with more resources, they might 

have had better estimates. 

But where the problems arose with T-Mobile was over the early 

entry provisions, which were voluntary negotiations between T-Mobile and certain of the agencies, to see if they might be able to get 

out of their band in certain locations sooner than they had committed to as part of the official auction process. And yes, there were 

issues where T-Mobile felt that agencies weren’t moving as fast as 

their business imperative would like. But again, these were all voluntary discussions between the company and the agency. 

We intervened where we could to help things along because, 

again, we all have an interest in seeing more of this spectrum used 

for commercial purposes. But it still came down to what ability the 

agencies had to get out faster than they said they were going to. 

Mr. WALDEN. I now turn to the gentleman, Mr. Barrow, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the chairman. 

Administrator Strickling, you talked earlier about requiring government users to make—to avail themselves of commercial facilities when available, and I can certainly see the utility of that from 

both points of view. 

Some commercial wireless servers are willing to share spectrum 

with government users on a nonexclusive basis. And yet, I gather 

some government agencies are kind of reluctant to move away from 

a system of exclusive allocation and control of certain spectrum to 

some sort of a shared-use type of regime. 

What is your view, do you have any idea of the potential of something like this, a system where at least for some parts of our spectrum, the commercial user got dibs on the spectrum when the government users don’t need it; when the government user needs it, 

they get dibs on the same spectrum? Is there any kind of way— 

what do you see as the potential for something like that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, it has to develop. I mean, we are running 

out of options of taking bands, clearing them totally, and making 

them available exclusively for commercial providers. And actually 

the reluctance to do sharing, we see much more on the commercial 

side in terms of the willingness of commercial providers to share 

with the existing government uses. It is more that than the other 

way around, that somehow the Federal users are reluctant to 

share. I mean, again, Federal users will become customers of the 

commercial providers when they offer services that meet their 

needs. So we have to be devoted to finding more ways where the 

commercial and the government operations can coexist in the same 

band. 

38 

These exclusion zones we talked about for the satellite systems 

is one example of that. In the 3550 to 3650 range, there the commercial use, once it develops, will have to coexist with Naval radar 

systems. And these systems are very powerful. If a ship is along 

the coast line and turns those radar systems on, they will blow out 

whatever commercial service might be, you know, on the land side 

of that system. And so we, again, carve out exclusion zones to accommodate the possibility that the radars might be in use anywhere along the coast line, even though we know that at any given 

point in time, few if any areas will be impacted by these radar systems. But this is all part of the overall spectrum management, that 

we have to be engaged in finding these opportunities for coexistence. 

Mr. BARROW. I certainly understand the commercial users’ reluctance to give up and to share use of what has been allocated to 

them. But with regard to the flip side, the part that has been allocated to government use, are you aware of any reluctance on the 

part of government users to share spectrum where that can be 

done with deference to the priority of use for the government 

users? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am not aware of it. But again, it assumes that 

the Federal users’ assignment contains extra spectrum that they 

could share with someone else. That is not our philosophy as we 

assign spectrum for use. So the situation hasn’t really presented 

itself in real life yet. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back his time. I recognize the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Strickling, in your opening statement I think you indicated 

that you need additional funding for spectrum planning and for reallocation management; is that true? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I am suggesting that this is what the Federal 

agencies need, yes, if we want to improve the process by which we 

do these. 

Mr. STEARNS. The answer is yes or no. You are saying the NTIA 

needs more funding; isn’t that true? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I have not said the NTIA needs more funding, 

although I will say that, given some of the legislation that is out 

there that would impose new responsibilities on us, yes, we would 

need additional resources to perform additional tasks beyond what 

we are doing today. 

Mr. STEARNS. We looked at the President’s 2012 budget and I 

didn’t see any new funding request there, so if you needed it, I am 

just curious why you didn’t—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. At the time that budget was prepared, these 

new tasks hadn’t been identified to us that are currently in some 

of the legislation that are pending. 

Mr. STEARNS. You note in your written testimony that the President proposed doubling in the next 10 years the amount of spectrum available for commercial use. How many, how much megahertz can we expect to come from this repurposed Federal spectrum? 

39 

Mr. STRICKLING. Of the 500 megahertz, the FCC had indicated 

it could deliver roughly 280 to 300 megahertz, and so that would 

assume, then, that the Federal side would provide at least 200 

megahertz, and that is the assumption we have been working on. 

Mr. STEARNS. One of the things that—the last time we in this 

country did government spectrum allocation and asked users to vacate bands that were reallocated for commercial use, I think the 

auction was by the FCC in 2006; is that correct? 

Mr. STRICKLING. The AWS auction was about $13 billion to $14 

billion, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. But isn’t it true that even today we are still trying 

to get people to relocate out of the spectrum? I mean, hasn’t this 

taken an inordinate amount of time to accomplish that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. As I indicated earlier, I think 81 percent of the 

agencies have relocated. All the agencies that said they would relocate within 3 years have relocated. 

Mr. STEARNS. I mean, what you are talking about is something— 

the auction was in 2006, and I think they started in 2007; yet here 

we are this amount of time later and you are still talking about reallocation of people out of the spectrum. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. STRICKLING. In certain bands, that is correct. 

Mr. STEARNS. Why has it taken too long, and what have you 

learned from that that could assure the American public that when 

you reallocate again, that people actually leave? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, people are leaving on the schedules they 

committed to at the time of the auction, and in fact, we have tried 

to be pretty tough on the agencies. Last year, I had three agencies 

ask for extensions of time beyond the deadlines they had committed to, and we rejected those requests. Now, we did suggest to 

the agency that if they could work out an accommodation with the 

licensee, that that would be oK with us, and that, in fact, is what 

the those agencies did. 

But in some of these cases, we are talking about a relocation of 

a point-to-point microwave that isn’t interfering with, wouldn’t 

interfere with the commercial entity if it started service or it could 

be in an area that the commercial entity hasn’t started to build out 

in yet. There is plenty of AWS spectrum that the licensees have not 

started to build out yet. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you think you have learned so that it would not 

be this slow again? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I guess I am taking some issue with the—— 

Mr. STEARNS. An amount of time. 

Mr. STRICKLING. It is on schedule. It is on the schedule the agencies committed to. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Here is my last question if I can get it out 

here. 

While you state in your testimony that NTIA does not have the 

expertise in the multitude of agency missions to direct how agencies should utilize spectrum to meet their needs, it seems to me 

that the government agencies lack incentives to use spectrum as efficiently as possible, and what has NTIA done to address this 

issue? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, that goes to the question I had earlier. 

First and foremost, we require agencies to buy commercial where 

40 

they can because if they are developing radio systems for particular 

missions, it is correct that we don’t second-guess that. 

I have no ability to determine that the radio systems that control 

an unmanned aerial drone are properly sized or scaled to perform 

the function that the Department of Defense has decided it needs 

that particular drone to perform. We have to accept that on face 

value, and that is true I think for a whole variety of these systems 

that are being designed and developed to allow agencies to perform 

their missions. 

Mr. WALDEN. I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I will hold for my comments. 

Mr. WALDEN. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Tennessee, 

Ms. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank 

you for being here, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me ask you just a little bit. I want to go back. You talked 

a little bit about the cost-benefit analysis and making certain that 

agencies have the resources to undertake these issues. I want to 

highlight one item with you that I think some of our colleagues 

may kind of share this concern. 

I recall a hearing about 6 years ago where I asked one of our 

agencies why they had not moved to a template for managing their 

financial resources in a timely manner, and the response to me 

was, well, they didn’t have a timeline because they knew they had 

a continuing appropriation. And I think that this highlights quite 

succinctly what we see as a resistance from some spectrum managers in the government to get with the program and to get this 

done. 

We know we are facing a spectrum shortage in the commercial 

market. We know that by the end of the decade, there are going 

to be 1 trillion devices that are attached to the broadband. Now, 

if we are going to create jobs and if we are going to keep the focus 

on jobs and if we are going to see a resurgence in the technology 

area and if we are going to continue to be the exceptional 

innovators, it means people have got to get with the program, and 

that as you are able to pack that broadband down and you are able 

to layer and use that spectrum, we want to know that, first of all, 

they are doing that efficiently and that you-all have some benchmarks and requirements. 

Do you have stated benchmarks and requirements for them? 

What is your plan specifically on where they are to use commercial 

product, not just in cell phones but in other areas? What are you 

giving them? What are you doing to deal with some of the Federal 

agency managers that are resistant and are kicking the can down 

the road? 

You know, people get tired with Congress kicking the can down 

the road when it comes to dealing with the debt, and we are looking at spectrum that can be auctioned to help with that. We are 

also looking at putting this spectrum in the marketplace to create 

jobs and products that you need, whether it is in financial services 

or whether it is in health IT, whether it is in entertainment. I have 

talked to innovators in all of these areas, and what we want to 

41 

know is that you are serious about this and not saying, well, we 

have got a continuing appropriation. 

And you know, Federal Government doesn’t create jobs; private 

sector does. We know that. We want to know that you all appreciate that and that you have got a plan that you are making requirements and that you have a timeline. So can you articulate 

that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes, ma’am, I think you are making some very 

good points. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. STRICKLING. First and foremost, let me say that our search 

for 500 MHz is probably as important an undertaking as any in 

terms of dealing with the imperatives that you described in your 

question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Do you think you can go above the 500 MHz? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think it is too soon to tell that. We have a candidate list between us and the FCC of 2,200 MHz of spectrum 

to—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. In total? 

Mr. STRICKLING. In total, to look at, which includes some bands 

that are currently possibly underutilized on the commercial side, 

because if we are going to demand efficiency, I think both we and 

the FCC agree it should be demanded from both government users 

and—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And I agree with that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. —commercial users. Beyond that, on this issue 

of kicking the can down the road, one recommendation the GAO 

did make to us that we are moving to implement is this question 

of the 5-year review. Once an agency gets an assignment, they 

don’t have it in perpetuity. It has to be reviewed—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If I can just make a comment on that, and I 

appreciate that they have got a 5-year review, but you know, when 

you are looking at the life cycle of a technology product in the marketplace, you have got 18 months. And so the exponential growth 

of this is enormous, and I think that what we need to know is that 

they are not slow walking because they have got 5 years. They 

need to pick the pace up because things change about every 18 

months, and I know, sir, that you appreciate that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. And keep in mind that while what you are 

saying is true of the commercial world, many of these Federal systems do have long lives. I mean, as I mentioned, the satellites have 

got life spans of 20 to 25 years that have to be taken into account, 

but in any event, you are making some very good points and we 

are taking those in into account as we look to improve the process 

by which we conduct these periodic reviews of assignments. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Excellent. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentlelady yields back. I turn to the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Strickling, 

welcome back. It is good to have you here, and I did appreciate 

your testimony. 

If done right, you believe, as we believe, that reallocation is really a win-win for both the government and for the economy and for 

the communications sector; would that be fair to say? 

42 

Mr. STRICKLING. We need to get to that point. I will tell you my 

impression from Federal agencies is they haven’t quite yet seen 

what the win is for them, but I think that some of the suggestions 

that we have made for improving the CSEA in terms of allowing 

some upgrade in technology by Federal agencies would go a long 

way toward making it a true—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I guess that is what the whole crux of the 

hearing is, how do we instead of being the big hammer, how do we 

work with the agencies, how do we move them into the commercial 

use when that is a very credible opportunity and option, except for 

if it is national security or stuff? That is clearly why we are having 

the hearing is, how do we get them moved because the great thing 

I have said numerous times about this subcommittee is that this 

is where jobs are created, and as Marsha Blackburn said, if we 

have a spectrum crunch, we lose this opportunity to really take advantage at a time in this country when we need to be creating jobs. 

So I have always focused on, in my analysis of looking at the 

FCC, as—and ties to Lee Terry’s question is, who is managing the 

whole thing when you have got satellite, cellular, microwave, bits 

and pieces. I think the FCC is a stovepipe. I don’t think there is 

one entity looking how this all merges together and then you get 

stuff like this. 

I think process equals policy, and I think we have, because of the 

way we are organized, questionable process because of being 

stovepiped in sectors and not over—it is an editorial opinion, but 

it is one that I think that is why I am a erase, get the white board, 

erase the organizational structure and rewrite it based upon a new 

technological age. We can’t balance the Federal budget, so I can’t 

expect us to do that, but I do think that is where the debate needs 

to be, and you guys need to help intervene in how do we do this. 

I heard your comments on T-Mobile, I think the flip side would 

be they were trying to incentivize or release the spectrum, but the 

goalpost kept moving. So if there is more money given to an agency 

to help them move and then you don’t see movement, then it kind 

of stems to that point of how do we—I mean, how do we get them 

to do it without a big hammer? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, first off, I am not sure what your comment 

about goalpost moving was. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would say that money was offered—asked by 

some agencies, maybe companies stepped forward to do that, and 

then the timelines aren’t met. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Actually, T-Mobile would have loved to have 

been able to have contributed dollars to help agencies move, and 

it is not allowed under the law. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is an issue of, why not? I mean, if we are trying to reform the system and they are willing to come front to help 

them do that, then why not? 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think that would be a great question for the 

committee to take a look at. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That would be a policy—— 

Mr. STRICKLING. It is a much broader policy issue than just spectrum. It comes to the whole question of businesses making gifts to 

government and the circumstances under which that would—— 

43 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I have a military background, so I appreciate 

especially our men and women in uniform and making sure they 

have a legitimate use in communication and all the new gears, but 

if we can marry the two, I think we would both win, which I think 

was the opening part of my comment. 

Let me just end on this. You propose, in essence, some lengthy 

time frames for reallocating government encumbered operations 

but you also state that you can accommodate requests for additional government users in as few as 9 days. And the question 

would be, why can’t NTIA accomplish the moves in shorter time 

frames? Is it availability of equipment or what is the holdup? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Right. So the 9 days is when we get a request 

to assign spectrum to an agency. Presumably that agency already 

has the equipment it needs. It is simply seeking an authorization 

to install equipment in a particular geographic location. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I guess I say we shouldn’t—I mean, you are 

assuming and I have learned a long time that maybe we shouldn’t 

assume; maybe we ought to know if they have the equipment to be 

able to use if you can grant that in 9 days. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Now, when they need to move, when we are 

talking about taking all of the microwave circuits that all of these 

agencies have and moving them out of 1755 to 1850, now we are 

talking about an acquisition by all of these agencies of new equipment and, in effect, going in and taking out the old equipment, installing new equipment. 

In some cases, these circuits are in very inaccessible locations. 

All told, we have tens of thousands of these circuits overall in our 

assignment database. I think we have roughly between one and 

2000 in the 1755 to 1850 band, and so it is question of resources 

and time, and that is just for the microwave, which was one of the 

pictures I used in my slide deck. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I think a good example of that is DTV conversion and how long that took and how complicated that was is another example. 

Mr. STRICKLING. And if I could point out, even when the commercial side tries to relocate, they don’t do it very quickly themselves. 

I mean, we have just been through with Sprint/Nextel was involved 

in roughly 2 GHz, getting electronic news organization to move. 

That was a process that started I think back in 2006, 2007, and 

it is still not done. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. But they lose market share. They lose stock price. 

If they don’t move, there is a big hammer on them. 

Mr. WALDEN. Different incentive process. 

Now, look to the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, for 

his time. 

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this 

hearing. I apologize for being a little late today. I will pass on questions at this time. 

Mr. WALDEN. Then I would turn to the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, for five. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the hearing. 

Mr. Strickling, appreciate you coming here, too. 

44 

The fast-track evaluation report had recommended a total of 115 

MHz be made available for commercial use within 5 years. Can you 

kind of expand upon if there are any measurable goals, any kind 

of concrete things that y’all have put in place to achieve that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Well, yes. We believe that that spectrum can be 

reallocated at commercial use within 5 years. It is, though, up to 

the FCC to make that happen. We have sent—I think in January 

this year we sent a formal request to the FCC to proceed with that 

reallocation. They will have to conduct a proceeding to lay out the 

terms of how that spectrum will be made available. They will have 

to conduct whatever auction would be undertaken should they 

choose to auction it, and so that is really out of our control at this 

point. 

Mr. SCALISE. So from NTIA’s perspective, there is nothing else 

that y’all can do to see that that is met? It is up to the FCC at 

this point; there is nothing else measurable that you can do? 

Mr. STRICKLING. They have the authority. We will support them 

in any way we can, but yes, it is theirs now. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. Thanks. In your testimony, you talk about the 

GAO report that had been critical of some of the agency’s spectrum 

management plan as it relates to at least NTIA and how it is going 

about things, and you talk in there about some of the things that 

you think need to be done to improve. I guess if an agency could 

just tell you that they still need their spectrum, then that is good 

enough, that is all you can go buy, and it seems like you are indicating there should be a higher bar that an agency has to prove 

that it still needs that spectrum, as opposed to saying they just 

want it. And we all see how Federal agencies, nature of the beast, 

once they get something, whether it is a budget request or something else, when you try to chop it away, they say they can’t do 

without it, and all of the sudden, you take something away, and 

they manage to do with what they have. 

And so if about agency tells you and you are managing their plan 

but that you might have some limitations, if they tell you, well, I 

still need that, right now is it that all that you can go by is their 

attestation that that is something they need as opposed to maybe 

requiring a higher bar to prove that they still need it because in 

some cases, maybe they have got it and they just don’t want to let 

it go and they could let it go if there was some higher requirements. If you can kind of touch on the GAO criticism and then your 

response, it seems like you were indicating some policy changes 

that could be made to improve that. 

Mr. STRICKLING. Yes. The GAO suggested that we should perhaps consider requiring, you know, sworn to statements from the 

agency either requesting a new assignment or seeking to continue 

an existing assignment and directed us to—or suggested we should 

consult with the agencies that form the IRAC with us to manage 

all of this spectrum. We are in the process of doing just that to determine which of their recommendations make sense to implement 

and how quickly we can implement them. 

I will say that it is in the incentive of an agency to give us accurate information, because when the next agency comes in line and 

is interested in using spectrum and the same band and roughly the 

same location, it is very important that the first agency not suffer 

45 

interference from that second use. So, because of the need to protect against interference between agencies, I think every agency 

has a pretty strong incentive to give us accurate information. 

Nonetheless, the recommendations from the GAO seemed useful 

to us, and we are working with the other agencies to go forward 

and implement certain of them. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. And I am going to get your take, as you look 

at all Federal agencies’ use of spectrum, there is a lot of review 

right now by the FCC and others regarding LightSquared and how 

these issues with some of the other users of the spectrum near 

theirs can possibly be worked out. Is it something that is reconcilable from your view as it relates to Federal agencies? Especially, 

is this something that you see a reconcilable solution short of some 

kind of major sort of interference with FCC and how are you working with them on that? 

Mr. STRICKLING. With respect to the LightSquared situation, the 

FCC in its waiver order from last January or February indicated 

it would only move forward and allow LightSquared to commence 

commercial operations after consulting with us and after reviewing 

a wealth of testing that has been conducted over the last several 

months. Those testing reports are just coming in now. My folks are 

in the process of evaluating those to determine at what point 

LightSquared might be allowed to go into commercial operation 

and under what condition. 

I think the one conclusion everyone, including LightSquared, has 

reached so far is that their original operational plan is not going 

to be one that they can pursue because of the interference it will 

cause to GPS receivers, and we are in the process now of evaluating the test data to determine what are the options for a different form of operation by LightSquared. 

Mr. SCALISE. Do you know when you will have those recommendations? 

Mr. STRICKLING. Do I know when we will have those recommendations? The FCC has put the test reports it has received 

out for public comment. I am not sure what the close date is for 

that. Our people, my experts, are looking at the data now. We will 

certainly want to inform our conclusions from whatever public comment there is on that. So I think we are still a month or two away. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. I 

yield back. 

Mr. TERRY [presiding]. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

And Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being with us today. 

I think that in listening to the questions from my colleagues on 

the committee, I think you are also hearing the same thing, that 

we are all very, very interested in this topic and especially when 

it comes to the question as to creating more jobs. And we all see 

what broadband can do and if we get these things out to market 

faster, and we have to make sure that, you know, bands are going 

where they are going to be going. 

On the second page of your testimony, if I can just start there, 

you state that, ‘‘First, valuable spectrum that is currently underutilized will be freed up through voluntary incentive auctions,’’ and I 

46 

have got legislation out there to do just that. But one of the things 

in talking with folks in the private sector that we all want to make 

sure that they are fairly compensated if someone does give up that 

spectrum, and sometimes, they fear, you know, if they do, there 

might be a little strong-arm tactics sometimes out there—that it is 

truly voluntary, and I was wondering if you could touch on that 

voluntary incentive auctions as you see them. 

Mr. STRICKLING. I think along the lines that you suggested, the 

administration position is that these auctions, that the FCC does 

need this authority to conduct incentive actions and that they 

would be voluntary auctions. 

Mr. LATTA. And let me also go on with this, and I know that Mrs. 

Blackburn brought this up about, especially on the private sector 

side, and also, I believe it was Mr. Stearns that also had a line of 

questions about how long it is going to take you to take that freedup spectrum and get it out so that the private sector can be utilizing it. 

You know, the cost to private industry that I am worried about— 

I know that other Members are worried about—is that if we are 

going to have this, how much time do we have to get this out to 

market, so you are not creating something today that—my greatest 

fear is when I buy a new computer at home, I never look in the 

paper to see what these things are on sale for because usually the 

week after I buy it, they are 50 percent off. And I think the same 

thing is happening in technology out there, that things move so 

quickly. And again, if you could just elaborate a little bit more how 

we can assure business out there that we can get this spectrum to 

them, so they can utilize it, so they can, you know, get it developed 

with, you know,—I don’t care if it is the laptops or you name it, 

that or as in your testimony, you list the different areas that folks 

would be using, smartphones, tablets and laptops, but we want to 

make sure they can be developing it today knowing that within 18 

or 20 months, it could be out there. 

Mr. STRICKLING. It is a very good question. The first thing I 

would refer you to is the AWS-1 auction that was conducted back 

in 2007, I believe. A lot of that spectrum still has not been built 

out by the people who bought it at auction, even though they have 

the full ability to do so. So we are taking a long time horizon at 

this. We can see the growing demand. We can see that there is 

going to be a continuing need for more spectrum. 

Our spectrum that we are identifying now, again, some of it can 

be made available within 5 years. Our overall target is that whatever we recommend needs to be made available within 10 years. 

We think that that gives it a good progression for industry to see 

where the additional spectrum is going to be coming from to meet 

their needs, but keep in mind that there is a lot of underutilized 

commercial spectrum out there right now. 

Mr. LATTA. And with my time remaining, I want to ask you this, 

especially with the WiFi technology as it is becoming more popular 

and being embedded in more and more devices. WiFi is also considered technology that service providers are turning to in an effort 

to try to offload data traffic from their crowded networks. You 

know, what plan does the Federal Government have right now, if 

47 

any, to evaluate whether more spectrum can be made available, especially for WiFi at the 5 GHz range? 

Mr. STRICKLING. The 5 GHz range is an interesting band to talk 

about because that is a band in which the WiFi is sharing spectrum with radar systems, including Federal Aviation Administration wind sheer radars. When that sharing was approved, the manufacturers of the WiFi equipment were given radar characteristics, 

you know, that the FAA was using to ensure that their equipment 

would not interfere with these radar systems. In fact, we have 

found instances where that is happening, where there is interference, and when you are dealing with wind sheer radars, you 

don’t want to get into a situation where something might happen 

to disable those systems. They are very important to the safety of 

human life in terms of the planes that could be affected by wind 

sheer. So we are learning a lot about sharing as a result of this. 

For example, the FAA now would like to modernize its radar systems so they will now have different characteristics that will affect 

those WiFi sets in a different way than the original designs. Yet 

how do you get the WiFi industry to go in and modify its designs 

to accommodate an upgrade in the modernization that our FAA 

feels is necessary to take, again, to protect human life in airplanes? 

So we are dealing with a whole variety of these issues and trying 

to learn from them because this is the wave of the future. We are 

going to have to find more and more of these opportunities where 

the commercial use can coexist with the government use, and we 

have to find ways to minimize and prevent harmful interference 

from taking place. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expire and I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS [presiding]. Thank you. Well, we have another— 

Charlie, have you thought of a question? 

All right. Well, that concludes—that was your last chance to keep 

Mr. Strickling here for 5 more minutes. So then that concludes all 

of the questioning, Mr. Strickling. 

Thank you for being up here. It has been a very informative 

hearing. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Today’s hearing is the latest in a series on how good spectrum policy can expand 

wireless broadband, promote an interoperable public safety broadband network, create needed jobs, and reduce the deficit. This hearing will focus on the use of spectrum by the federal government. 

The U.S. Government is the largest single user of spectrum in the country. Everything from RADAR systems to remote environmental sensors are examples of government wireless spectrum use. The questions for us today are ‘‘how can we ensure 

that the government uses spectrum in the most efficient way possible and what 

spectrum can be cleared for reassignment and auction to commercial uses?’’ 

I applaud Assistant Secretary Strickling and his staff at the NTIA for beginning 

this difficult task and identifying spectrum for potential reassignment in its 5- and 

10-year spectrum plans. This is a good start to the process, and I look forward to 

working together with the NTIA and my friends on the other side of the aisle as 

we explore opportunities to make the most of the spectrum. Spectrum policy can 

play a critical role in creating jobs and reducing the deficit; reassigning spectrum 

from government uses to the commercial sector is a tough but critical step in this 

process. I thank Assistant Secretary Strickling for his testimony today and look forVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:58 Feb 03, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 112\112-69 070611\112-69 CHRIS
48 

ward to hearing his approach to the challenges and opportunities of spectrum reassignment. 

Æ