U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

23–502 2017

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON SEVEN 

COMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 13, 2016 

Serial No. 114–132 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

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 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

Ranking Member 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(IV) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 30 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 31 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 133 

Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York, prepared statement .................................................................................... 134 

WITNESSES

Hank Hunt, parent of Kari Hunt ........................................................................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Melissa Smith, Treasurer, Kelsey Smith Foundation and parent of Kelsey 

Smith ..................................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Steve Souder, Director, Fairfax County, Virginia 911 Center ............................. 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Nathan Wessler, Staff Attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology 

Project ................................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 174 

Abigail Medina, Trustee, San Bernardino City Unified School District ............. 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Katie McAuliffe, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform and 

Executive Director, Digital Liberty .................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 79 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

B.A. Finley, Criminal Investigations Division, Johns Creek Police Department, Johns Creek, Georgia ................................................................................ 102 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 105 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181 

Scott Bergmann, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, CTIA—The Wireless 

Association ............................................................................................................ 109 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 183 

Dan Holdhusen, Director of Government Relations, Good Samaritan Society ... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 130 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 2031 .................................................................................................................. 4 

H.R. 3998 .................................................................................................................. 8 

H.R. 4111 .................................................................................................................. 15 

H.R. 4167 .................................................................................................................. 17 

H.R. 4190 .................................................................................................................. 20 

H.R. 4884 .................................................................................................................. 24 

H.R. 4889 .................................................................................................................. 27 

Statement of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............................................................................................ 135 

Page

V 

Statement of the Lifeline Connects Coalition, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............. 137 

Statement of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ............................................................................................ 140 

Statement of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 

submitted by Ms. Eshoo ...................................................................................... 142 

Statement of the National Congress of American Indians, submitted by Ms. 

Eshoo ..................................................................................................................... 144 

Statement of Public Interest Groups, submitted by Ms. Eshoo ........................... 149 

Statement of Senator Greg Smith, submitted by Mr. Walden ............................. 152 

Statement of Hon. Louie Gohmert, submitted by Mr. Walden ............................ 158 

Statement of Mr. Pai of the Federal Communications Commission, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 161 

Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, submitted 

by Mr. Walden ...................................................................................................... 168 

Statement of Messrs. O’Rielly and Pai, Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Walden ............................................. 169 

Statement of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, submitted by Mr. Walden ..... 171 

Statement of 60 Plus Association, submitted by Mr. Walden .............................. 172 

Statement of Frontiers of Freedom, submitted by Mr. Walden ........................... 173 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON SEVEN 

COMMUNICATIONS BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in room 

2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus, 

Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, 

Johnson, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Welch, Yarmuth, 

Clarke, Loebsack, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Gene 

Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Telecom; 

Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Chief Counsel, Telecom; 

Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Gregory Watson, Legislative 

Clerk, Communications and Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority 

Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff 

Director and Chief Health Advisor; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC Detailee; Ryan Skukowski, Minority Policy Analyst; and Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of 

Communications, Outreach and Member Services. 

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. I know we are shy one witness 

whom we are trying to locate. Apparently there are some issues 

getting into the building today with everybody in town. So we are 

going to proceed with the testimony of our witnesses and our opening statements, and we have somebody out looking for Ms. 

McAuliffe, and hopefully this will time out. Well, with seven bills 

on the agenda we felt it important to move forward. 

So, and maybe we can close those doors too, if somebody on the 

staff can—yes, thank you. Well, good morning. Today’s hearing will 

examine seven important bills all seeking to improve the way our 

communication laws work and better reflect modern technology and 

consumer expectations. Two of these bills deal with important public safety issues and how to improve emergency response when it 

matters most. First, the Kelsey Smith Act sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder gives law enforcement the tools to locate victims 

2 

in emergencies using location data from their cell phone providers. 

By creating a very narrow set of circumstances in which law enforcement can access these type of data, the bill seeks to protect 

the privacy of users while still allowing access when the situation 

demands it. 

This bill utilizes existing technology to help law enforcement better respond when someone is in serious danger. It is important to 

note, however, that the legislation does not place the burden of liability on cell phone carriers. The decision is in the hands of law 

enforcement, and carriers should be able to hand over the data 

without fear of a lawsuit. 

I intend to offer an amendment at subcommittee markup that 

will make sure that a carrier’s customer service representative isn’t 

faced with making a decision about whether complying with a request from law enforcement opens the company or individual up to 

liability. 

The Kelsey Smith Act is already law in 22 of our states including 

in my own state of Oregon, where it passed in 2014. So the bill we 

are looking at today mirrors much of the language in the Oregon 

statute giving law enforcement the ability to act quickly when 

every second counts, but only, only in narrow circumstances of a 

true emergency. 

It is important to note that this legislation as being proposed 

here today passed unanimously through both the Oregon House 

and the Oregon Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic 

governor demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue, but it is 

good policy. 

Another important piece of public safety legislation before the 

committee today is Kari’s Law, which requires that multi-line telephone systems typically found in hotels, offices, and schools have 

a default configuration to dial out to 911 without any additional 

prefix required. To quote FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, 

you may only call 911 once in your life, but it will be the most important call you ever make. 

As Kari’s father will testify today, children are taught from an 

early age to dial 911 in an emergency. There should be no question 

that when they do so they will reach the emergency dispatcher. 

The simple fix that this bill provides, one that has been already implemented by many MLTS users, has the potential to prevent another tragedy like the one that happened to Kari Hunt. 

I would like to especially thank Kari’s father, Mr. Hunt; Kelsey’s 

mother, Mrs. Smith, for agreeing to testify today. While your losses 

must be very difficult to discuss in public, your testimony is certainly important in our process here as a resource for the subcommittee as we work on this legislation. So we are very thankful 

that you are willing to be here. 

We are also going to look at a bill from Representative Austin 

Scott which caps the Lifeline portion of the Universal Service 

Fund. In many ways I wish we didn’t have to take up this piece 

of legislation, take this step we are doing today. Capping the fund 

is well within the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and something that they came close to doing in the most 

recent Lifeline reform order. Unfortunately that did not happen. As 

a result we are left with a so-called budget for the fund, a provision 

3 

that requires the FCC to take note when annual Lifeline spending 

exceeds $2 billion and have the staff explain why that spending is 

so high. That is it. The FCC can basically blow right through its 

‘‘budget’’ by as much as it desires. 

I don’t think this is the way government should be handling the 

American people’s dollars with cavalier disregard for basic fiscal 

discipline. I want to be clear, we do not support eliminating the 

Lifeline subsidy. This is an important program for those that are 

truly eligible. We are not opposed to the mission of Lifeline. Universal connectivity is a core principle in this country, particularly 

for those who need it most like children from low-income families. 

What we cannot support, however, is a fund that lacks external 

controls and is susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse. And we have 

seen in the past how rapidly this fund can expand. I believe it is 

our duty and a duty to our constituents to make sure that their 

money is only spent responsibly. 

So the reforms that the FCC has adopted over the past few 

years, including some adopted this month, are certainly positive 

steps toward a more accountable fund. But until there are better, 

more effective guardrails in place there is nothing to prevent the 

FCC from spending and spending and spending, placing an even 

greater burden on American household budgets who have to assume those costs. Real budgets that can’t simply keep spending 

other people’s money is what we need. 

In addition to these three bills, we will look at a bill to encourage 

innovative solutions to the spectrum crunch, a problem that we 

have been spending a great deal of time on in our subcommittee. 

We will look at Ranking Member Pallone’s bill to improve post-disaster communications. That is something that he is unfortunately 

all too familiar with after Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc across 

his district and all of New Jersey. 

We will also consider a bill to allow skilled nursing facilities to 

improve their broadband connectivity, and finally, we will look at 

a bill to increase penalties for criminals who spark an unnecessary 

and dangerous law enforcement response by falsifying caller ID. 

So I would like to thank all the sponsors on both sides of the 

aisle for bringing these bills to our subcommittee, and I want to 

thank the witnesses that we have before us today. 

[The bills H.R. 2031, H.R. 3998, H.R. 4111, H.R. 4167, H.R. 4190, 

H.R. 4884, and H.R. 4889 follow:] 

4 


23502.096
5 


23502.097
6 


23502.098
7 


23502.099
8 


23502.100
9 


23502.101
10 


23502.102
11 


23502.103
12 


23502.104
13 


23502.105
14 


23502.106
15 


23502.107
16 


23502.108
17 


23502.109
18 


23502.110
19 


23502.111
20 


23502.112
21 


23502.113
22 


23502.114
23 


23502.115
24 


23502.116
25 


23502.117
26 


23502.118
27 


23502.119
28 


23502.120
29 


23502.121
30 

Mr. WALDEN. With that I would yield back the balance of my 

time and recognize the distinguished ranking subcommittee member from California, Ms. Eshoo. 

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you, 

and thank you to the panelists for being here today especially on 

the two bills that the chairman raised first in his opening comments. We appreciate it. We are advancing several bipartisan bills 

today that are going to make progress in a number of critical areas. 

I am disappointed that the subcommittee has once again chosen 

to target the FCC’s Lifeline program. The name of the program is 

highly instructive, Lifeline. And we know, I think, better than the 

rest of the entire Congress that because of the issues that we deal 

with that wireless mobile services today are essential in our dayto-day lives for everything across the board. Whether it is commerce, employment, employee, shopping, education, you name it, 

we are all dependent upon it and so are poor people in our country. 

So I think that this bill imposing an arbitrary cap on the Lifeline program of $1.5 billion and eliminate the program’s support for 

voice-only mobile services within two years and prohibiting Lifeline 

from being used to subsidize the sale of lease of a mobile phone is 

damaging to a part of our population that needs these services just 

as much as we do, just as much as our children do. 

Really not any different, if not even more, and if it were enacted 

into law, a CURB Lifeline Act would deny millions of low-income 

Americans access to basic communication services and that includes, as I said, so many of the functions that we undertake in 

life every day. According to the Universal Service Administrative 

Company, only 33 percent of eligible households, or approximately 

13 million American households, participated in the Lifeline program as of October 2015. This means that more than 26 million 

households qualified for the program but didn’t participate. 

So capping the Lifeline program would prevent these eligible 

households from accessing the Lifeline service if they apply after 

the budget cap has been reached. And just mentioning about a 

budget, we don’t have a budget. We are not doing a budget. So 

now, if a household happens to fall on hard times, a cap on Lifeline’s budget would arbitrarily punish these Americans. And I just 

think that this is eminently unfair and I think that our committee 

can do much, much better than this. 

So I am disappointed. I hope Mr. Chairman that you and our colleagues will work with us to see if we can’t come up with a better 

way of addressing this. I know that there has been things that 

have gone wrong with the program. There is something that has 

gone wrong with every program in the country and it is up to Congress to reform and as well as the executive branch to do what they 

need to do. 

Just last week, the FCC fined a Lifeline provider $51 million for 

enrolling ineligible and duplicate customers, the largest fine that 

the Commission has proposed against a Lifeline provider. So we 

are not opposing to going after bad actors when taxpayer dollars 

are involved in it. 

31 

So I hope that we can work together on this, because I think it 

is a historic moment for those who understand that expanding 

broadband to low-income households is going to help lift our country up. We know, and even in the presidential campaign that there 

is a great debate about inequality in our country. This increases 

the inequality. This creates an even larger gap. This doesn’t do 

anything to lessen that gap. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. 

Again, thank you to the witnesses and to the sponsors of legislation, the bills that are before us, and with that I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. I recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, the—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Can I ask for unanimous consent to place the opening statement—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Of Ms. Matsui in the record? And also 

several letters from business, from National Congress of American 

Indians—well, there are—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection. 

Ms. ESHOO. I think, five letters here I would like to submit for 

the record. 

Mr. WALDEN. We have reviewed them. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Without objection, they will be entered into the 

record at the appropriate location. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WALDEN. We will now recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, the vice chair of the full committee Ms. Blackburn, for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

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

welcome to our witnesses. Mr. Hunt, I want to especially welcome 

you and thank you for your willingness to share your story. We are 

appreciative. 

I want to also mention Ms. Matsui’s Spectrum Challenge bill. 

This is something that I am pleased that we are going to discuss 

today. I think it does really focus the efforts on spectrum efficiency, 

and I am appreciative of that. We need to discuss spectrum efficiency. 

I also had noted the CTIA report which talks about the 350 

megahertz of spectrum that are going to be needed by 2019. And 

whether it is that report or looking at the Cisco estimates of how 

many wireless devices, the Internet of Things, the utilization expansion of spectrum, that is something we need to be thoughtful 

as we make decisions and approach this. We don’t want to get into 

a spectrum crisis or a spectrum crunch. We note to each of you that 

us being diligent and doing the due diligence, if you will, on this 

issue is going to be important. 

32 

So we are going to look forward to discussing that further. I will 

yield, Mr. Chairman, to any members on our side that—Mr. 

Pompeo is seeking time. I yield the remainder to Mr. Pompeo. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I want to talk about an 

important piece of legislation that was originally offered by Representative Yoder, my colleague from Kansas, on which I was an 

original cosponsor. 

It has now been close to eight years since Kelsey Smith, an 

amazing young Kansas woman, was abducted from a shopping center parking lot in broad daylight. This horrible crime was captured 

on security camera outside the Target store she was visiting that 

day to purchase an anniversary gift for her boyfriend. 

Her abduction wasn’t done under the cover of night and there 

was no question about the urgency of the situation. And it was at 

this moment the clock started ticking. Three hours is what law enforcement tells you is the critical window to increase the chances 

of returning an abducted child alive. A hundred and eighty minutes 

is not a lot of time, and I am sure that for a parent praying for 

the safe return of their child, their son or daughter, each second 

that slips by is pure hell. 

In this case it took four days, four days to identify the location 

of Kelsey. It is just Kansas common sense that law enforcement 

should have a way to quickly find the location of a wireless telecommunications device if a person has been determined to be at 

risk of death or serious physical harm due to being kidnapped or 

reported missing. This bill, the Kelsey Smith Act, does just that. 

At the same time it maintains privacy protections for all the other 

information including calls made, received, and text messages. The 

only thing that would be disclosed is the location, the all-critical location of that cell phone. 

Mr. Chairman, 22 states have done this. It is truly a shame that 

we have not been able to pass this legislation at the federal level. 

It is tragic indeed. But Kelsey’s legacy is not one of tragedy. Great 

things have happened all across the country. There was a 6-yearold boy saved in your state, Ms. Blackburn, in Tennessee, from a 

suspected rapist because the state had implemented the Kelsey 

Smith Act. It is a legacy of countless others who live today because 

of her work and the work of her parents, one of whom will be testifying before us this morning. 

I strongly support this legislation and encourage my colleagues 

to join me in urging for its swift passage, and with that I yield 

back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman might want to yield to Mr. Latta 

who is seeking time as well. 

Mr. POMPEO. Yes, it is Ms. Blackburn’s time. I will yield to Mr. 

Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas for 

yielding. And I thank the chairman for holding today’s hearing and 

on these seven bills which is aimed at advancing public safety reform and outdated FCC programs. 

And if I could just start, in my 11 years that I was in the Ohio 

General Assembly I chaired the Judiciary Committee and I chaired 

the Criminal Committee in the State House. And I appreciate the 

33 

family for being here because I know, listening to the testimony for 

11 years I unfortunately saw the most horrific and the most tragic 

events that occurred in the state of Ohio, and I appreciate you all 

for being here. 

And again, the horrific tragedies that brought forth the Kelsey 

Smith Act and Kari’s Law Act both have tangible solutions and will 

help save lives. In case of emergency situations we need to ensure 

assistance is easily accessible and provide law enforcement the necessary information to locate individuals in order to prevent serious 

physical harm. 

Again, I commend these families for sharing their stories and 

seeking to protect others by urging changes in the law. I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and hope today’s discussion generates ideas that will provide public safety and accountability at the Commission. And with that Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman, and I will now recognize 

the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for opening comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member Eshoo, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. 

I would like to start by acknowledging that the families of Kari 

Hunt and Kelsey Smith are in the hearing room and testifying 

today, and I understand that a terrible tragedy has befallen your 

families and would like to thank you for your courageous activism 

on these issues. 

Many of the bills we are discussing today deal with public safety 

issues, which is particularly timely since this is National Public 

Safety Telecommunications Week. Telecommunications plays a critical role in public safety, and ensuring people have access to communications services can make all the difference during an emergency. 

We learned firsthand in New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy 

that calling for help is difficult when the power is out, and when 

the cell towers are also down it is nearly impossible. We need to 

be better prepared because no one should be left with silence on 

the other end of the call when they dial 911. 

I would like to thank Chairman Walden for adding three Democratic bills to today’s hearing including my bill, the Securing Access 

to Network in Disasters called the SANDy Act. The bill has a number of straightforward proposals that, like the other bills introduced by my Democratic colleagues, should garner bipartisan support. 

The SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all communication providers, broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications 

serve in emergencies, but most notably the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their particular wireless network goes down. 

I look forward to hearing more about all the other bills on today’s 

agenda. Unfortunately, I must express serious concerns about one 

34 

bill, H.R. 4884, which would cap the Lifeline program. In some 

ways it makes sense that a Lifeline bill is teed up with the other 

public safety bills we are considering today because our phones 

truly are lifelines. They are the essential lifesaving devices that we 

keep with us every day. 

But unlike the other bills that we are considering today that propose ways to improve public safety, this bill to curb the Lifeline 

program would take essential lifesaving devices away from the people who need help the most. Millions of low-income Americans rely 

on this program to provide them with the basic communication 

services that most of us take for granted like the ability to call 911. 

The provisions of H.R. 4884 would gut the Lifeline program by 

setting a cap, forcing a rapid phase-out of voice services, and preventing the subsidy for being used towards equipment like 

handsets. Each of these provisions alone would be bad enough. 

However, taken together these provisions will rip phones out of the 

hands of millions of Americans. 

If Republicans truly want to control the costs in the Lifeline program, their blunt force bill is the wrong approach. There is a better 

way. Let us work together to address inequality, to improve the 

economy, to find more people jobs, and the best way to lower the 

cost of the program is to lift people up not to take away their connection to a better life. 

I look forward to today’s discussion, and I yield the remainder of 

my time to Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the ranking member. I want to talk 

about the Lifeline program. For over 30 years millions of low-income Americans have been able to access phone service strictly because of the Lifeline program. Families that are Lifeline-eligible 

are low income. That means for a family of four an income of 

$32,800 a year. 

So for these people, the current subsidy is $9.25 a month and 

that is just for the phone section. H.R. 4884 will limit the number 

of families that are eligible for this program, and for these families 

the Lifeline program makes an enormous difference. It allows 

Americans to apply for jobs. It allows seniors to manage health 

care. It allows loved ones to stay connected. And it gives families 

and individuals access to 911. 

Mandating a cap on the Lifeline program, eliminating standalone 

mobile service and prohibiting funds from being used for devices 

would have a devastating impact on families of low-income Americans. A better way to control costs of the Lifeline program is to lift 

people up out of poverty. Let us work together to close the wage 

gap, increase the minimum wage, and start infrastructure projects 

that will put these folks to work. 

So I think there is a much better way to go about this than capping a very critical program like Lifeline, and I yield back to the 

ranking member. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Eshoo. And thank you to all of 

the witnesses for being here today. I’d like to start by acknowledging that the famiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-132 CHRIS
35 

lies of Kari Dunn and Kelsey Smith are in the hearing room and testifying today. 

I understand that a terrible tragedy has befallen your families. I would like to 

thank you for your courageous activism on these issues. 

Many of the bills we are discussing today deal with public safety issues, which 

is particularly timely since this is National Public Safety Telecommunications Week. 

Telecommunications plays a critical role in public safety, and ensuring people 

have access to communications services can make all the difference during an emergency. We learned firsthand in New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy that calling for 

help is difficult when the power is out. And when the cell towers are also down, 

it is nearly impossible. We need to be better prepared because no one should be left 

with silence on the other end of the call when they dial 911. 

I’d like to thank Chairman Walden for adding three Democratic bills to today’s 

hearing, including my bill, the Securing Access to Networks in Disasters, called the 

SANDy Act. The bill has a number of straight-forward proposals that-like the other 

bills introduced by my Democratic colleagues-should garner bipartisan support. The 

SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all communications providers— 

broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications—serve in emergencies, but most notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their 

particular wireless network goes down. 

I look forward to hearing more about all the other bills on today’s agenda. Unfortunately I must express serious concerns with one bill—H.R. 4884, which would cap 

the Lifeline program. 

In some ways it makes sense that a Lifeline bill is teed up with the other public 

safety bills we are considering today. Because our phones truly are lifelines—they 

are the essential lifesaving devices that we keep with us every day. 

But unlike the other bills we are considering today that propose ways to improve 

public safety, the bill to curb the Lifeline program would take essential lifesaving 

devices away from the people who need help the most. Millions of low-income Americans rely on this program to provide them with the basic communications services 

that most of us take for granted—like the ability to call 9111. The provisions of H.R. 

4884 would gut the Lifeline program by setting a cap, forcing a rapid phase-out of 

voice services, and preventing the subsidy from being used towards equipment like 

handsets. Each of these provisions alone would be bad. However, taken together, 

these provisions will rip phones out of the hands of millions of Americans. 

If Republicans truly want to control the costs in the Lifeline program, their blunt 

force bill is the wrong approach. There is a better way. Let us work together to address inequality; to improve the economy; to find more people jobs. The best way 

to lower the costs of the program is to lift people up, not to take away their connection to a better life. 

I look forward to today’s discussion. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. Before I turn to our 

witnesses I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record the following documents: a written statement from State 

Senator Greg Smith on the Kelsey Smith Act; a letter from Representative Gohmert supporting Kari’s Law; a letter from FCC 

Commissioner Ajit Pai supporting Kari’s Law; a letter from the 

Good Samaritan Society supporting H.R. 4111;, and a letter supporting H.R. 4884, the CURB Lifeline Act, from Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Sixty Plus Alliance, and Frontiers of Freedom. 

Without objection, those will also go into the record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. WALDEN. We are now prepared to turn to our extraordinary 

panel of witnesses, and again we appreciate very much your being 

here. We look forward to all of your comments. As a precursor, you 

have to push a little button on the base of that microphone and you 

have to pull it fairly close for us all to hear it. 

And so we are going to start with Mr. Hank Hunt, father of Kari 

Hunt. Mr. Hunt, thank you again for being here. We are sorry for 

the tragedy that has befallen your family. We look forward to your 

testimony. 

36 

STATEMENTS OF HANK HUNT, PARENT OF KARI HUNT; MELISSA SMITH, TREASURER, KELSEY SMITH FOUNDATION 

AND PARENT OF KELSEY SMITH; STEVE SOUDER, DIRECTOR, 

FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA 911 CENTER; NATHAN WESSLER, 

STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE ACLU SPEECH, PRIVACY AND 

TECHNOLOGY PROJECT; ABIGAIL MEDINA, TRUSTEE, SAN 

BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND KATIE 

MCAULIFFE, FEDERAL AFFAIRS MANAGER, AMERICANS FOR 

TAX REFORM AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DIGITAL LIBERTY 

STATEMENT OF HANK HUNT 

Mr. HUNT. Well, thank you. I hope I pushed that hard enough. 

Mr. WALDEN. Perfectly. 

Mr. HUNT. Good morning. I want to thank the committee for inviting me here and having us here for our testimony. 

As the chairman said, on December the 1st, 2013, I lost my oldest daughter to a vicious murder. She was stabbed to death by her 

husband with their children present. This is a little over 2 years 

ago and I still ask that if I stumble, understand, and if I hesitate, 

just bear with me. 

As this attack began, her 9-year-old daughter did what she was 

taught to do. She grabbed the phone and she called 911. It didn’t 

work. She said she heard static. She tried again. There was nothing. She tried again and again, four times in total, nothing. When 

I arrived at the police station an hour or so after the event happened, my granddaughter sat on my lap and with a very defiant 

expression looked at me and she said, I tried but it wouldn’t work, 

Papa. It was then I realized this had happened at a hotel, and this 

hotel requires an extra digit for an outside line and they utilize a 

multi-line telephone system, MLTS. 

And after I laid my daughter to rest I became determined that 

that was going to stop. I wasn’t sure how to do it, but figured I 

would just take it as it came. We don’t teach our children to dial 

an access number. It isn’t always the number 9 either. Some hotels, motels, office buildings, utilize the number 7 or the number 

8. 

Even more confusing, I stayed at a hotel in Waco, Texas that instructed its guests on the face of the phone to call 6821 in case of 

an emergency. I don’t know who answers that. I didn’t try it. I 

wasn’t brave enough. I am now. I will test 911 at any hotel I go 

to, and the one I am staying at now you cannot call 911. 

I started a Change.org petition. It is all I knew to do. And as 

naive as I guess I am at my age, I was wanting to get a hundred 

signatures, and I was going to march into my congressman’s office 

with a hundred signatures and create a law. On my way here I 

checked that petition again and we are at 550,000 almost. We are 

closing in on that. That I believe was the magic number because 

here I am. And being one that can be nervous a lot, when I approached my congressman about it—I finally got an invitation—I 

was surprised to be welcomed, and the interest that has been taken 

in this issue has been overwhelming and very pleasing. 

Kari’s Law seeks three things: direct dialing of any phone anywhere, anytime without a prefix/post-fix number being required for 

a call to be connected; onsite notification, having a central point 

37 

where all calls made to 911 from any phone on any particular 

MLTS will also alert someone on that site that a 911 call has been 

placed; and number three, no interference or redirection of a 911 

call. Some hotels when you dial 911 it directs it to the front desk. 

That front desk clerk will answer that 911 call and then decide 

whether or not it should be taken further to a local PSAP, a public 

safety answering point. It is a very simple procedure which I have 

found very little to no cost to implement, since almost if not all 

MLTS systems are already capable of being programmed to do so. 

In the majority of cases it is simply a reprogram by keyboard. 

I have learned a lot in the past 864 days since my daughter 

passed away. People want this law. People will be greedy and may 

try to make a buck off of it. It needs to be done. It needs to be 

taken care of. It has been said the telecom industry will police 

itself without any laws or regulations requiring it to do so. Over 

the past 10 years they have been policing themselves, problems 

still exist. Red lights and stop signs do not save lives. It is the actions of the driver who is obeying the law. Laws are created when 

ethics fail and if that is what is required, then so be it. 

I want to thank Avaya Corporation, Conveyant Systems, Verizon 

Corporation, National Emergency Number Association and several 

other companies, and most of all the 911 community for taking the 

responsibility to resolve this matter. A special thanks to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai who after being approached by Mark Fletcher, 

chief architect of public safety for Avaya Corporation, took a 

stance, and since his involvement numerous hotel chains have corrected this problem on their own. I want to mention Marriott Corporation for taking the lead. They have done that and they require 

it at any of their hotels, even the franchises, and on their monthly 

inspections that is part of their inspection. 

I will say this. Without the determination of Mark Fletcher we 

wouldn’t be here today talking about this. I knew no way of how 

to get this done, and he contacted me approximately a week later 

and after discussion with him we took it forward. Kari’s Law has 

been passed in Suffolk County New York, Illinois, Maryland, the 

State of Texas, and just recently the State of Tennessee, with legislation similar to Kari’s Law being passed in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. 

In order for this to be consistent across the country we seek a 

federal act requiring the three things that Kari’s Law asks. Efficient 911 can be deployed free with Kari’s Law. It is a simple act, 

direct access, onsite notification, no interception. If we can’t do this, 

if it can’t be done, if it seems to be impossible, but then I feel that 

we need to remove those instructions from every police car, fire 

truck and ambulance in our country. 

I appreciate the time you have allowed me here and I will entertain any questions you might have. 

[The statement of Mr. Hunt follows:] 

38 


23502.040
39 


23502.041
40 


23502.042
41 


23502.043
42 


23502.044
43 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. We appreciate your testimony, and your passion on this issue is very understood. We will 

now go to Ms. Melissa ‘‘Missy’’ Smith, treasurer of the Kelsey 

Smith Foundation and mother of Kelsey Smith. Ms. Smith, thank 

you for being here today. We are sorry for the tragedy your family 

has endured as well. We look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MELISSA SMITH 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Walden. I would like to thank 

you and the other members for inviting me to come and speak 

today, and I would like to thank Congressman Yoder, Emanuel 

Cleaver, Representative Pompeo, and Representative Lynn for 

sponsoring this. I would also be remiss if I didn’t thank former 

Congressmen Tiahrt and Moore who started this process when 

Kelsey was murdered. 

Kelsey Smith, she is the reason this legislation began in Kansas 

7 years ago and to date has passed in 22 states. I am the mother 

of Kelsey Smith. Her story made national and international news 

when she was kidnapped in broad daylight from a Target store just 

9 days after graduating from high school. 

What does a parent go through when a child is missing? You do 

not eat because you don’t know if your child is eating. You do not 

sleep because you don’t know if your child is sleeping. What took 

so long to find Kelsey? One word, Verizon. Let me be perfectly 

clear. In no way do we hold them responsible for Kelsey’s death. 

They had nothing to do with that. 

What is this law and why is it needed? Federal law states that 

providers may release the location information. This law states 

they shall. We spend a lot of time, money and resources training 

our police. We do not spend that same time, money and resources 

training a customer service rep to answer a call at 2 o’clock in the 

morning as to what a life emergency is. 

What about privacy? We are not asking for the call information. 

We are just asking where is that device. I don’t care who you are 

texting. I don’t care the numbers you are calling. I don’t care what 

pictures you are taking. Where is that device? Once that information was released, within 45 minutes Kelsey’s body was found. 

What about police misconduct? We hear about that also. There 

has not been one instance of a reported case of police misusing this 

law. Does it work? Yes, it does. In Kansas, a suicide was prevented 

when a child left a note for their parents and they traced her phone 

and found her in time. An elderly stroke victim was found in time. 

That wasn’t a way we had anticipated Kelsey’s law being used, but 

he could only call his wife and they were able to find him and get 

him the medical attention he needed in time. And then last year, 

and this one makes me tear up, there was a baby found in 40 minutes. That baby was found alive; it had been carjacked—because 

my baby wasn’t found alive. 

Much legislation is about numbers, so let me give you some. 

355.4 million wireless subscribers in the United States in December 2014. That is from the CTIA summary report. Forty-seven percent of U.S. households in 2014 were wireless only. Two of our 

daughters don’t have a land line. 4,176, that is the number of 17 

44 

to 24 year olds murdered in the United States in 2007. Twenty 

thousand dollars, that is what it cost us to bury Kelsey. 

One hundred and twenty five is the number of detectives involved in her case. Eighteen different law enforcement agencies including the federal, county, and city agencies, multiple municipalities, two states, all tied up for four days. How much money and resources were spent on that of which I am very thankful because my 

daughter came home. Forty five minutes, that is how long it took 

to locate Kelsey once that engineer got to the tower. 

One, Kelsey, the reason this legislation began in 2009. Zero, that 

is the cost of implementing this law. It doesn’t cost anything. There 

are not many times a legislator can pass a law, save a life and it 

doesn’t cost you. Priceless, the value of the lives saved using the 

Kelsey Smith Act. 

When this law passed in Kansas I said to Senator Rob Olson at 

the time—he was the original sponsor who helped me with this— 

that maybe my baby laid out there for 4 days because God knew 

her mother had the mouth to get this done. And according to C.S. 

Lewis I will end with this. ‘‘Experience: that most of brutal of 

teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.’’ Please learn from 

our experience. 

Thank you. And I will answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Smith follows:] 

45 


23502.045
46 


23502.046
47 


23502.047
48 


23502.048
49 


23502.049
50 


23502.050
51 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Ms. Smith. We will now turn to Mr. 

Steve Souder, the director of the Fairfax County, Virginia 911 Center. Mr. Souder, thank you for being here. We look forward to your 

comments. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER 

Mr. SOUDER. Good morning. And Chairman Walden and Ranking 

Member Eshoo and distinguished members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to speak at today’s hearing. My name 

is Steve Souder and I am the director of the Fairfax County Department of Public Safety Communications, a community in which 

some members of this committee may reside. 

Over the course of the more than 50 years in 911 public safety 

communications, I have served in four public safety communications centers in the National Capital Region and have been fortunate to be the director of three. I have also been fortunate to participate in the national efforts to improve public safety communications, most recently as chair of the Federal Communications Commission’s Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture, which addressed important issues for the 911 community such as, but not 

limited to, cybersecurity, technical architecture in today’s century, 

and of course the ever-prevalent funding. 

I am honored to be here today to discuss the important legislation affecting public safety communications before this subcommittee and to answer any questions that you may have. My remarks will focus on H.R. 4167, Kari’s Law. We just heard Mr. Hunt 

speak about this issue and I was welled with emotion as I heard 

him describe his ordeal. 

911 has earned the public’s trust as the go-to number when there 

is something wrong. Simply 911, we all know it. It is, as others 

have said, on the side of every fire truck and police car, in the front 

page of every phone book in the United States of America. It does 

not say that in order to make a 911 call you have to use any kind 

of code, prefix or subtext. It is not required. 

911, the most recognized number in the United States of America, the number that all of us would go to if anything happened in 

our own communities, and a number which is called 240 million 

times a year, 240 million times a year. No matter where you are 

when you expect and can call 911, it will work. That is the expectation. That was the expectation of Brianna when she called on behalf of her mother that it would work. And that is why, when she 

sat on her grandfather’s lap and said, Daddy, or Granddad, it 

didn’t work, that should not be the fate of any other person ever 

again. 

Many of you are familiar with the tragic story of Kari Hunt. Kari 

was assaulted by her ex-husband in a small hotel in Marshall, 

Texas, in 2013. Her 9-year-old daughter, Brianna, did exactly what 

she had been taught to do. She called 911. But because the hotel’s 

phone system required a prefix to make outside calls, her repeated 

attempts to get help never went through. This is a situation that 

exists across the country where multiple line telephone systems are 

employed, including in hotels, colleges, corporate campuses, and indeed government buildings. 

52 

I commend and appreciate Hank Hunt’s efforts in this regard 

and I would like to also recognize FCC Commissioner Pai who has 

been mentioned previously for joining with him, Mr. Hunt, to advocate the hotel industry and multiple line telephone system manufacturers to make the changes required to enable direct dial to 911. 

Indeed, Commissioner Pai has reported that many national hotel 

chains have already changed their multiple line telephone systems 

to enable direct access to 911 including their owned and their franchised properties. This shows that it is possible to do so very easily 

and virtually without any cost. 

Kari’s Law, introduced by Representative Gohmert, has bipartisan support and would be an important step in addressing this 

problem by requiring that all new multiple line telephone systems 

be configured by default to directly dial 911 without requiring any 

additional digit code or prefix. This would be a substantial improvement for 911 calls from MLTS systems, and it is also an opportunity to address important issues such as the delivery of accurate location information. 

When those 240 million 911 calls are made annually, they are 

answered by a 911 call taker or dispatcher that sits at a console 

in one of America’s 6,100 911 centers. And as that call taker answers that 911 call, the very first question they ask is where is 

your emergency? They don’t ask what. They don’t ask why. And 

they don’t ask how. They ask where, because of the location of the 

emergency is absolutely the single most important piece of information the call taker has to acquire. 

In addition to direct 911 access, MLTS phones traditionally lack 

another key feature: accurate information location. Example, before 

this meeting I walked down the hallway and there was an office 

door opened, and I asked the attendant there if I could use their 

phone. I had my uniform on. She said can I help you? And I said 

I would like to call 911. She said OK, and I dialed 911 and I got 

the very efficient U.S. Capitol police. I also dialed 9911 and I got 

the Capitol Police. I thanked her very much. When I asked the 

Capitol Police operator that had answered if they knew where this 

phone call was coming from, they said they knew the telephone 

number, meaning that I was calling from, but they would have to 

reference another list to identify in what office that telephone number terminated. 

I walked into the hallway. I then used my own cell phone and 

I dialed 911. It was answered by the Metropolitan Police Department’s 911 center not far from where we sit today. I asked the gentleman that answered that call what location it showed that I was 

calling from. He said Number 50 Independence Avenue, Southwest. 

That is the location that we are at today. The Rayburn House Office Building stretches for two city blocks. It is at least four floors 

above ground and two floors below ground. And I asked, was there 

any indication on what we commonly call in the business the ANI 

or the ALI screen as to where at Number 50 Independence Avenue 

I was located, and he said no, sir. 

If I were having a heart attack or someone was having a heart 

attack and I called on their behalf, can you imagine the challenge 

that would exist in trying to locate one person in this building that 

53 

is this large that provides no more accurate information than simply the address? 

This leaves the public in danger and public safety answering 

points, PSAPs, the first responders, expending significant resources 

to locate and provide emergency assistance to the scene. In order 

to ensure that every caller gets the help they need, every multiple 

line telephone system should transmit a dispatchable address 

where the call is actually coming from, such as the room number, 

the office number, so that responders can quickly locate the calling 

party. 

Additionally, while the bill eventually makes direct dial the default for all new multiple line telephone systems, there will still be 

a large number of embedded base of telephones that wouldn’t support 911 dialing by default. Depending upon equipment cycles 

these systems may not be replaced for many years to come, allowing continued consumer confusion and most tragically delayed response. 

Whether a person can direct dial 911 should not depend upon 

where he or she is located, such as a hotel room or a dormitory, 

or how old the telephone is that they are calling from. Kari’s Law 

is a great first step in what will hopefully lead to additional efforts 

to fully solve the 911 problems associated with multiple line telephone systems. 

Again I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the 

subcommittee for your work to improve public safety communications. I would especially like to thank Representative Eshoo as one 

of the four founding members of the Next Generation Congressional 911 Caucus, and I would also take the privilege of asking 

Mr. Pallone—I see that he has now left the dais—from my home 

State of New Jersey because he referenced a very important week 

in the 911 world and that is this week, National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. The week that is set aside by the Congress 

and signed by the President to recognize those most unsung heroes 

in our profession, the 911 call takers and dispatchers that serve the 

community and citizens that you men and women represent. Thank 

you. 

[The statement of Mr. Souder follows:] 

54 


23502.051
55 


23502.052
56 


23502.053
57 

Mr. WALDEN. You are welcome. Thank you for your testimony. 

That may also be a reason we are having all these bills up today, 

so thank you. I will now go to Mr. Wessler. Nathan Wessler is the 

staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology 

Project. 

Mr. Wessler, welcome. We look forward to your comments on 

these pieces of legislation, and please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF NATHAN WESSLER 

Mr. WESSLER. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of the ACLU concerning H.R. 4889. Although we 

agree with the important goals of this legislation, we oppose it in 

its current form because it lacks sufficient safeguards against 

abuse. 

The tragedy that gave rise to this legislation today is truly, truly 

terrible. In emergencies where the safety of a person is in imminent jeopardy, we all want to ensure that law enforcement can 

quickly access cell phone location information to avoid this kind of 

a tragic outcome. Allowing companies the discretion to provide 

these records in an emergency is an effective mechanism for ensuring access while preventing the abuse that could jeopardize the 

safety of others. 

In 2015, just two service providers alone, AT&T and Verizon, 

processed more than 81,000 emergency requests for information. 

These and the other service providers maintain large law enforcement compliance teams that operate around the clock responding 

to requests at any hour in order to help avoid tragedies like the 

one that gave rise to this bill. This process has been refined and 

improved in recent years. 

The same features of cell phone location information that make 

it useful to law enforcement, the ability to track people’s movements over time and to precisely pinpoint their locations, also trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment. As the Supreme 

Court has recognized and lower courts have reaffirmed, government access to cell phone location information can invade reasonable expectations of privacy by laying bare some of the most sensitive aspects of our lives when we are at home, where we spend 

the night, which doctors or psychiatrists we visit and more. 

For that reason, any legislation allowing law enforcement access 

to location records in an emergency must include strong protections. Those protections are important to prevent false invocations 

of emergencies by police who want to avoid obtaining a court order 

or a warrant in a normal criminal investigation. 

Our written testimony includes examples of such abuse including 

cases where police obtained unfettered access to cell phone location 

information, but later admitted under oath that no emergency actually existed, and a case where police in California reportedly coerced a kidnapping victim into saying that she had been—sorry, coerced a person into saying she had been kidnapped falsely, and 

then sent a false emergency request for location information to the 

purported kidnapper’s cellular service provider. Law enforcement 

agencies including the Department of Justice and the Reno, NeVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-132 CHRIS
58 

vada Police Department have themselves admitted to issuing emergency requests where no emergency in fact existed. 

Protections will also empower service providers to turn away requests from criminals and stalkers who attempt to impersonate law 

enforcement. Effective privacy safeguards can coexist with speedy 

emergency request procedures without interfering with law enforcement’s important job of protecting the public. 

The ACLU has three recommendations for the committee. First, 

the committee should preserve a system where service providers 

have discretion to turn down a warrantless request when it appears the emergency is false, or when the requester does not appear to actually be a law enforcement official. Making disclosure 

mandatory can facilitate abuse by removing this important safety 

valve. 

Second, if the committee moves forward with a mandatory disclosure requirement it should add protections. Law enforcement 

should be required to obtain after-the-fact approval from a judge so 

that there is a neutral decision maker ensuring that the claimed 

emergency is genuine. In cases where police are found to have violated the law, there should be remedies including suppression of illegally obtained evidence and a civil remedy for those affected. And 

law enforcement should be required to provide notice to the person 

whose location information was obtained in order to allow that person to seek redress if police violated the law or to learn if someone 

may have impersonated an officer illegally to obtain sensitive information. 

These protections are modest. They are well established in other 

statutes including the Wiretap Act, the Pen Register statute, the 

USA Freedom Act, which governs certain requests for information 

in national security investigations, and state laws dealing with cell 

phone location records in places like Indiana, California, and Colorado. The version of the Kelsey Smith Act introduced in the last 

Congress also included some of these protections. 

Finally, the current bill allows emergency requests when law enforcement have a reasonable belief that there is an emergency. 

This standard should be raised to probable cause which is the 

standard that was used in the version of this legislation in the last 

Congress. A probable cause standard will help ensure that sensitive location records are obtained only when there is a good reason to believe an emergency exists. 

I look forward to answering any questions and to working with 

the committee to ensure access to location records in emergencies 

while simultaneously safeguarding Americans’ privacy and preventing abuse. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Wessler follows:] 

59 


23502.054
60 


23502.055
61 


23502.056
62 


23502.057
63 


23502.058
64 


23502.059
65 


23502.060
66 


23502.061
67 


23502.062
68 


23502.063
69 


23502.064
70 


23502.065
71 


23502.066
72 


23502.067
73 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Wessler, we appreciate your input on this issue 

as well. We will now turn to Ms. Abigail Medina, trustee of the San 

Bernardino City Unified School District. Good morning, welcome, 

and we look forward to your comments. 

STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL MEDINA 

Ms. MEDINA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden, 

Ranking Member Eshoo, and committee members. My name is Abigail Medina. I am a mother of five children, two of whom are in 

college; a wife of over 20 years; and currently vice president of the 

San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education. I 

am here to express the value of Lifeline to the many families it 

helps, especially in my community of the city of San Bernardino in 

which it has endured bankruptcy, poverty, and most recently the 

December 2nd mass killings. 

As a resident of San Bernardino, my family too struggles financially. When my husband was laid off, I worked in the fields Monday through Friday leaving my family behind in order to pay to 

help reconnect our electricity bill. Every penny counted. I remember searching through our furniture for the cent that would complete a dollar. 

My husband heard about Lifeline from a family friend who saw 

our struggles. You see, having affordable utility services helped us 

keep afloat, and while we worked to improve our situation having 

phone service also helped us when my husband would receive a call 

for a job. And also in emergencies, especially since we had children 

at home, we could make that call. 

These seem like little things and many people don’t realize how 

important these services are until we have none. These days many 

need the internet to look for work. Children need to do research online for homework assignments. Many of our families are experiencing the widening technology in homework and access gaps. 

Sixty four percent of all Americans believe that expanding 

broadband access should be a national priority, and the FCC’s recent Lifeline decision will help expand access in low-income communities. 

Lifeline internet services will allow many families to better their 

situation. In fact, research shows that the expanding internet access helps to grow the gross domestic product and personal incomes; that children would have a better and greater educational 

opportunity especially to do homework assigned on the internet 

that many but not all children today can complete; and that teens 

and others would have a greater opportunity to get health care advice online and save money on expenses. 

And I also want to mention that college students are also struggling, because if they, my children who are in college, if they have 

their internet disconnected or they are cut off they have no access 

to do their homework assignments, which many are online. 

So I ask you today to think of the many families, especially families in San Bernardino, the city of San Bernardino, and the many 

communities throughout the nation who need help to find a way to 

succeed. I stand before you to oppose capping the Lifeline program 

so that no eligible family is turned away from this important necessity. Thank you. 

74 

[The statement of Ms. Medina follows:] 


23502.068
75 

Mr. WALDEN. We appreciate your input on the legislation. Thank 

you for being here. We will now go to Ms. Katie McAuliffe who is 

the federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform and executive director of Digital Liberty. Welcome. We are glad you are 

here. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KATIE MCAULIFFE 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of all taxpayers, 

or in this situation rate payers. My name is Katie McAuliffe, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform. Americans for 

Tax Reform advocates on behalf of taxpayers for a system in which 

taxes are simpler, flatter, and more visible and lower than they are 

today. 

I am happy to lend a voice of support for H.R. 4884, Controlling 

the Unchecked and Reckless Ballooning of Lifeline Act of 2016, also 

known as CURB Lifeline Act of 2016. This legislation provides the 

necessary safeguards to enhance methods for stopping waste, fraud 

and abuse while also ensuring those most in need of Lifeline receive support as intended. It also protects ratepayers from footing 

the bill on waste, fraud and abuse. 

Before delving into the CURB Act I wanted to congratulate you 

and all Congress on passing the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom 

Act. This is a great way to encourage internet access for consumers 

while also keeping costs low. 

The fees for the Universal Service under which Lifeline is a part 

will still be included as a line item on ratepayers’ bills. However, 

Permanent Internet Tax Freedom does not stop fees from being assessed on bills, on voice and data service at this point. The fees of 

the Universal Fund will still be included as a line item on ratepayers’ bills. 

Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund that has long been 

in need of reform. It was established in 1985 in the form of a fixed 

dollar subsidy to the carriers for eligible low-income subscribers for 

Americans to afford basic phone service. In 2012, spending hit an 

all-time high and the Federal Communications Commission moved 

to target rampant waste, fraud and abuse with a $400 million 

spending decrease between 2012 and 2013 alone. 

The FCC has shown it is capable of controlling its budget. Spending in the Lifeline program is set to drop a total of $670 million 

by the end of this year, with spending dropping from $2.2 billion 

to $1.5 billion. The FCC recently voted to expand the Lifeline subsidy to cover broadband as well as voice service. As we saw, when 

a new service is added spending goes up not necessarily because of 

need or increased availability, but more likely because of fraud and 

abuse. 

In its new order, the FCC reestablished the $9.25 subsidy to carriers to use for Lifeline eligible subscribers and set the quality 

standard for broadband at 3G with 500 megabytes of data for wireless and speeds of 1 up and 1 down. It creates a new verification 

process for the eligible applicants and sets a budget of 2.5 billion 

that can be reevaluated should spending hit 90 percent of the $2.5 

billion fund. 

76 

While I will agree that the expanding of the verification process 

the FCC will do a better job of targeting fraud and abuse unless 

the third party verifier incurs a waste on its own, the order does 

not do all it can. A powerful tool for controlling waste and fraud 

is to set a hard budget. While Americans for Tax Reforms would 

prefer there were no subsidies lashed to ratepayers that is not the 

option before us today. When faced with no budget or a $1.5 billion cap as proposed in 

H.R. 4884, Congress has the authority and responsibility to set a 

firm cap. All other programs under the Universal Service Fund do 

have budget caps. I would like to suggest that the $1.5 billion cap 

is solid legislation on two points. 1.5 billion is an ample budget and 

the budget is necessary to control waste, fraud and abuse. 

So in closing, the affordability gap. All other preferences aside, 

Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports a budget cap on the 

Lifeline fund, especially in the current environment. The stated 

goal for including broadband as part of the subsidy is to bridge the 

digital divide and close the broadband affordability gap. While perhaps broadband may become more affordable for some, the order 

does not focus on those who need access the most, those who have 

no broadband access at all. 

In 2014, the NTIA found that 48 percent of non-adopting households cited lack of need or lack of interest as a reason for not subscribing to broadband at home. The Pew Charitable Trust found in 

2015 that 70 percent of non-adopters were uninterested in subscribing to broadband in the future. Many smartphone-only users 

say that the reason they do not have broadband at home is because 

the smartphone lets them do all that they need to do online, underscoring the device’s utility without a home high-speed subscription, 

and 59 percent say they have other options for internet access outside the home. 

Another survey conducted jointly by the FCC and Connected Nation found that 37 percent of non-subscribers were willing to adopt 

broadband at a reasonable price. The remaining 68 percent of nonsubscribing households cited non-price associated reasons. Among 

the 37 percent willing households, price as an adoption factor was 

highest for those making below $15,000. It was about 50 percent. 

Upon reaching the $35,000 marker for a family of four, 32 percent 

cited cost as a primary factor as a non-subscriber. 

So cost can be interpreted in different ways depending on how 

a question is asked, but more so in terms of what else is available. 

I don’t believe this hypothesis has been tested, but it is possible 

that those who cite cost as the primary reason for not subscribing 

may actually mean they don’t see the point in spending that cost 

at home when broadband is so readily available elsewhere. 

In America we are fortunate that broadband availability via 

wireline or wireless covers 99 percent of the population with an 88 

percent in-home adoption rate. We used to go to internet cafes and 

pay by the minute to get online. Then there were hotspots or private wireless networks, then there was usually a cost. Now access 

is freely available everywhere. If not a local coffee shop, restaurant, 

or McDonald’s, there is access in public libraries and schools. This 

leads us to a position where monetary cost has significantly decreased as the prominent deterrent for having access at home for 

77 

non-subscribers. Even as early as 2013, consumers demonstrated 

the cost factor was decreasing as a barrier to connecting the 

unconnected. In 2013, the FCC’s 14 experimental broadband Lifeline offerings, wireline and wireless broadband providers signed up 

less than 10 percent of the predicted number of new subscribers. 

This, the only real world experiment with Lifeline applied to 

broadband, showed it is exceedingly difficult to encourage the disconnected to subscribe via discounts. To participate in the pilots, 

subscribers had to certify they met income requirements and had 

not had a broadband subscription for at least 6 months. For one 

carrier, just over half of the applicants were rejected because they 

had broadband sometime within the previous 6 months. 

If the goal is connecting the disconnected to reduce the digital divide, then the subsidies applied to broadband were not as effective 

as expected and shown in this experiment. From this data it is 

likely that subsidies given based on income criteria will mostly go 

to those who already subscribe to broadband rather than connecting the disconnected. In his paper, Learning from the FCC’s 

Lifeline Broadband Pilot Projects, Scott Wallstein concluded if this 

is the case, then the Universal Service Fund becomes an inefficient 

general welfare fund rather than a mechanism that encourages 

connectivity. 

In controlling waste, fraud and abuse—the Lifeline program has 

a long history of abuse. Congress should use its oversight to rein 

in spending that encourages abuse on the backs of ratepayers. A 

budget of $2.25 billion that can be reevaluated when 90 percent of 

the fund has already been spent does not adequately provide the 

proper incentives to stop abuse. The Federal Communications Commission has taken measures to stop rampant abuse in the program. 

The Lifeline annual recertification process established in the 

2012 Lifeline Reform Order to verify that a subsidy recipient did 

meet the Lifeline requirements, and households were not receiving 

multiple subsidies significantly cut spending in the program. As a 

result, 29 percent of all 2012 Lifeline subscribers were de-enrolled, 

and between 2012 and 2013, waste, fraud, and abuse of the program was cut by nearly $400 million. As a whole, since 2012 abuse 

has been cut by nearly 670 million, and spending of the fund reduced from $2.2 billion to about 1.5 billion. 

As broadband is included, the National Eligibility Verifier adds 

another layer of abuse protection, though I cannot speculate as to 

whether this entity will incur more government waste. Another 

reason a budget cap is important is not only to curb carrier abuse, 

but also to prevent government waste of dollars that should be directed towards helping those in need. 

This shows promise, and the Commission under Congress’ direction should not stop there. While there are penalties both monetary 

and otherwise, they serve as only a mild deterrent. Importantly, 

the ones actually defrauded, the ratepayers, do not receive restitution. Setting an actual budget that must be adhered to is key to 

protecting ratepayers, while still providing support to those in need 

of access. 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. McAuliffe? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Yes. 

78 

Mr. WALDEN. Are you about finished? I have let you go an extra 

5 minutes. 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Oh, I am about done. 

Ms. ESHOO. About 10 minutes, she has —— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, it is supposed to be 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Oh, then I will just stop right there. Yes, we 

will stop there. 

[The statement of Ms. McAuliffe follows:] 

79 


23502.069
80 


23502.070
81 


23502.071
82 


23502.072
83 


23502.073
84 


23502.074
85 


23502.075
86 


23502.076
87 


23502.077
88 


23502.078
89 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Thank you very much. Yes, I gave everybody 

a little flexibility today, but we were doubling down, so no problem. 

I am going to start with the questions. And Ms. Smith, Mr. 

Wessler had some comments from the ACLU about potential abuse 

and all, and I would like to get your take and Mr. Souder’s take 

on that. What do you think? What have you seen in states? I was 

going to inquire in my own state of Oregon if they have seen any 

abuse. And aren’t there other statutes that would govern a fraudulent claim of emergency when none existed? 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not heard of any 

reports. I did read his examples. But if a law enforcement officer 

is going to commit a fraudulent claim, I do believe we have laws 

that already address that and they could be prosecuted. My husband was a police officer for almost 20 years and was a police officer when Kelsey went missing. And does it happen? Sure, but the 

same can be said about cell phone providers not releasing that information. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Souder, what is your experience in this realm? 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for the question. Personally, and the 

folks that I work with around the National Capital Region where 

we all live, we do not see any abuse of that at all. It is used very 

judiciously, and only where it is absolutely incredibly important 

that it be used. And there are ample, ample situations where by 

it being used for the right reason at the right time, many lives 

have been saved or have been saved from being more injured than 

they had already been. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Wessler, I have a question for you. On the Oregon statute it says it passed unanimously, the House the Senate, 

and signed by a Democratic governor. What was ACLU’s position 

on that? 

Mr. WESSLER. I am sorry, Congressman. I don’t know that. Each 

of our state affiliates handles state legislation separately. I work 

for our national office. 

Mr. WALDEN. Could you find out for me? 

Mr. WESSLER. I can. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am not an attorney. I know better though than 

to ask a question I don’t know the answer to. 

Mr. WESSLER. Absolutely. And Congressman, if I can just say 

quickly that—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. 

Mr. WESSLER [continuing]. There have been a variety of protections put into place in different versions of the Kelsey Smith Act 

enacted by states around the country. In states like Indiana and 

Colorado, for example, there are requirements for after-the-fact judicial review, probable cause requirements. In California, a comprehensive cell phone privacy act had similar protections. 

Mr. WALDEN. So Mr. Souder, can you speak to the after-the-fact 

judicial review and what that effect would have on a 911 dispatcher or your system? 

Mr. SOUDER. As someone mentioned earlier, you may only call 

911 once in your life, but it is the most important phone call you 

may make. 

Mr. WALDEN. That was one of the Democrat members of the 

FCC. 

90 

Mr. SOUDER. I think that is the foundation from which we really 

look at the whole industry of 911 and the delivery of service. Providing help to those that need it in the quickest, most efficient way 

is absolutely the most important thing. I can’t imagine how awkward our job would be if restrictions were placed on it greater than 

those that are on it already. It would clearly distract from the entire intent of 911. 

Mr. WALDEN. OK. Ms. Smith, anything you want to finish up 

with? 

Ms. SMITH. I just wanted to say we have protocols in that in 

place that the police would have to verify that they are the police. 

And it is not like a police officer can just call up and say to 

Verizon, hey, give me this information. There are steps that have 

to be taken and there are protocols. And I just find it somewhat 

amusing that the ACLU has said we don’t want this mandated, but 

yet in his testimony there are several mandates that he would like 

put in place. You can’t really have it both ways. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. In the essence of time I am going to end 

my questioning and now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Eshoo, for questions. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to each one of the 

witnesses, thank you for your testimony. Moving, instructive, helpful, and—well, that is a lot because that is what a hearing is for. 

Mr. Souder, thank you for your wonderful work. It has been part 

of the joy of my public service to have become involved with all of 

the first responders across our country, so thank you for what you 

have done to advance that collective work. 

I think that we all agree with it, when you dial 911 from a hotel, 

an office, anywhere that you shouldn’t have to have some kind of 

prefix. I mean, I never taught my children any prefix. It was just 

what did Mommy tell you? Tell me the number again, say it again, 

from their earliest consciousness. And we all embrace this. 

Now location accuracy for our systems is very, very important because once you reach a 911 call center the people answering the 

phones have to know where you are to dispatch first responders. 

I think it is the other bookend. No prefix and location. And I think 

that if one is missing, then the other really has an overall effect 

on the emergency. 

And the reason why I ask this is because Kari’s Law is very, obviously very important. It is born out of tragedy which is instructive to us, but I am concerned that it doesn’t have any, it doesn’t 

speak to location technology. Do you have the same unsettled sensibility as I do on this? 

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Smith, would you like to say anything, because 

I would like to follow on you, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. HUNT. The reason it is not included in Kari’s Law is because 

of the expense. In order to have a dispatchable phone number you 

have to have one for every phone in every building that will tell 

you the room number, the floor number and as such, whereas those 

phone numbers aren’t bought, they are leased. They are a monthly 

recurring charge per phone. This is a cost that is unnecessary with 

onsite notification. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, let me ask you, do you think the cost matches 

the urgency of the tragedies that you are living through and others 

91 

are living through? I mean, where do you cut off cost? Do you think 

some people, there is a cost attached so sorry about you, but—I just 

think it is part of the emergency system. 

Mr. HUNT. When a building has 5,000 phones in it and each one 

has to pay an extra two dollars per phone a month that can put 

a company under. Onsite notification, had my daughter experienced onsite notification, someone from that hotel would have 

known that call was made and had gone to that room, we would 

hope. Therefore—this gentleman told the courts that it took him 5 

minutes to kill my daughter. 

Ms. ESHOO. Let me get back to—if I might, I only have five minutes not ten. I want to get back to Mr. Souder. Does it concern you 

that Kari’s Law requires that these problems be fixed on only new 

phone systems purchased two years after enactment? 

Mr. SOUDER. Very personally, I want to be sure that we are looking at this in the context of the provisions of the Kari proposed law 

as well as the broader implications of location technology when 

it—— 

Ms. ESHOO. What is your opinion of it? I am just asking. 

Mr. SOUDER. My opinion very definitely is that Kari’s Law is 

very well written, but it has to be tied with the location that the 

call is coming from, yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you. It is an important thing to 

get on the record. 

Ms. McAuliffe, did you write your own testimony? It seemed like 

you weren’t sure about what you were reading. 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Oh, no. I wrote my own testimony. 

Ms. ESHOO. You wrote it, OK. Do you think that the budget cap 

can lead to more wasteful spending in the program? And this is the 

issue that I want to raise. If those that are eligible for the service 

but don’t need it, then decide to apply for the subsidy out of fear 

that the service is going to run out of money, what kind of an effect 

do you think that is going to have? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. So are you referencing something kind of similar to when—— 

Ms. ESHOO. No, it is just a straightforward question. I mean, if 

you can’t answer it I will go to someone else because I don’t 

have—— 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. No, I don’t think that would be an issue. 

Ms. ESHOO. Why? Based on what? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. I don’t think it would be an issue that a bunch 

of people would rush out and try to get the subsidy because it was 

capped. 

Ms. ESHOO. And that is a sensibility of yours? I mean, have—— 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. You done any research on it? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. No, I have not. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very 

much again to our witnesses, especially the family members for 

providing your testimony today because I know how difficult it is 

for you to have to give it to us today. But it is very important that 

92 

we hear your stories so those stories aren’t repeated by other families across our country. 

And also, Mr. Souder, I would like to thank you for what you did 

a little bit earlier before you came into our hearing room about 

making 911 calls from here, because I have heard that problem before that it is not very easily, especially in a building this size, to 

find out where someone is. And I appreciate that. 

But Mr. Hunt, if I could just maybe ask you a question in regards to encouraging the fact especially from the MLTS vendors is 

that every single one of their phones can be configured to allow for 

that dialing of that 911. And moreover, the reprogramming system 

for the phones not set up for direct dialing from the factory is relatively easy and inexpensive. In other words, there is no technical 

reason why every phone in the U.S. cannot be set up to allow for 

that direct 911 dialing. 

Despite this, and again as we have heard in the testimony today, 

there are thousands of hotels, schools, and office buildings across 

the country that do not have that direct dial program into their 

MLTS systems. What else could we doing out there besides when 

we are looking at the law or the bill before us to incentivize institutions to adopt that direct 911 dialing? 

Mr. HUNT. Well, I think that the biggest fear that some companies have right now is liability. In some cases they can be held liable for not providing a proper atmosphere. People as we have said 

earlier, 911 is ingrained in our children and even in adults, and 

that is an expected result that you should get by dialing those 

numbers. When a phone prevents you from doing that you have no 

idea which direction to take it in, and therefore you have immediate danger to life. 

At this point right now most companies will do it on their own. 

We have been having very good luck with the hotels and motels 

that are doing that as I said earlier and—— 

Mr. LATTA. Could I interrupt for one second? Now how did you 

reach out to different hotels and maybe the other providers out 

there? 

Mr. HUNT. We had the backing of the American Hotel and Lodging Association. And once Commissioner Pai released his questionnaire to the top ten CEOs of the hotel corporations, word spread 

quite a bit. The industry itself seems to be taking a proactive role 

in it, but that is hotels and motels. We are talking about colleges, 

schools, office buildings. And in reference to being able to locate a 

person you can have all the information in the world, but if that 

firefighter doesn’t know where that room is it does them no good. 

When we got here today, even though we had a map on the wall 

and the room number we had no idea. We had to ask someone. 

Someone pointed it out and it ended up being fairly easy to find. 

But the numbers in some cases, numbers that are in between 

two others are in this direction and then the opposite numbers are 

this way and they should be next to each other, in my brain. But 

it was difficult to find without asking someone. And onsite notification, in our opinion, is a solution to that. 

If you don’t have onsite notification and the room is locked what 

are they going to do, break the door down? If it is a dire situation 

then I can understand that. But if it is even a misdial you can have 

93 

someone come and unlock the door for you, unlock the front door 

if it is after hours. They can get you there, but once the firefighters 

or police officers are in but gets to that location they need someone 

to direct them quickly without having to go through a map or a directory. Cubicle 2C3F could be an exact location, but that would 

probably mean nothing to a firefighter who is trying to get to someone who is injured. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I see my time is 

about to expire. I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. The gentleman yields back. Before I recognize Mr. 

Yarmuth, I think, next, I have a letter I would like to enter into 

the record, with unanimous consent, from Commissioners Mike 

O’Rielly and Ajit Pai, which I think we already have seen. Without 

objection. 

Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. 

Yarmuth, for questions. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank all the witnesses, particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith. 

Thank you for your courage in coming here today. I join my colleagues in expressing my sorrow for your loss, and thank you for 

your dedication to improving this situation and heading off any potential incident like occurred to you. 

I am going to spend most of my time talking about Lifeline because I am very concerned about any legislation that would reduce 

access to what in my district and I know many districts across the 

country are very critical. My district is urban. It is Louisville, Kentucky. We don’t qualify for the high cost fund or the rural health 

care fund under USF. 

Our schools and libraries use the E-rate providing access to the 

internet, but once those facilities close there is nowhere for most 

kids to go to complete their homework assignments or to just connect to the world as we know is as valuable part of education these 

days as what you find in school. 

The Kentucky Department of Education Technology Readiness 

Report indicates that more than one in four households with children in my district lack internet access. And I was at a school a 

couple years ago, a middle school, and asked the principal that because 95 percent of the kids were on free and reduced lunch. And 

I asked her, what would you estimate the percentage of your kids 

who have access to the internet at home? She said 10 percent. I 

said, well, that 90 percent, those kids are done. I mean, they are 

lost. And the thing about that particular situation is most of the 

kids at that school were bussed miles and miles away, some as 

many as eight or nine miles. 

So just, and I am going to get to a question for Ms. McAuliffe, 

because this notion that there are other places for students to go 

or families to go including McDonald’s seems a little bit cavalier to 

me. I mean, how many blocks would you say it would be OK to 

have a second or third grader walk to get their homework done so 

they could find a McDonald’s or in case a library was open? And 

are the parents going to take them and are the McDonald’s going 

to welcome them and, because they are not going to be able to afford to buy anything there. 

94 

It just seems to me such a cold-hearted approach to saying that 

these kids, I mean, and I see these kids in our schools every day 

and I know that there are no alternatives for them that are reasonable. You take a 9 or 10-year-old kid and say, oh, the McDonald’s 

is ten blocks away. Go walk there at 8 o’clock at night and get your 

homework done. Do you think that is really a reasonable alternative for people in this country, for kids in this country? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Well, what I was referring to is the people who 

are completely unconnected, and the people who have decided they 

will never connect ever. So for people like that, yes, they probably 

do go to public places. They have someplace else to access. But for 

people who have completely no access, I think that is what the program should be targeted to. 

So that 90 percent of students that you were talking about who 

don’t have access at home, Lifeline should be targeted directly towards them and to those low-income families rather than serving 

as a subsidy for people who are already subscribing. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, you threw a lot of numbers out in your testimony. I didn’t quite get that point from listening to your testimony. 

I am concerned also about this notion that—and I think all of us 

agree that we ought to do everything we can to end fraud, waste, 

and abuse in any government program. It is absolutely essential. 

And I think we, as Democrats, I wrote an op-ed piece about this 

last week. We as Democrats ought to be the most aggressive in 

that because we want to prove the government can work and it can 

be effective, so we ought to be the ones who talk about that all the 

time. 

But I do have just a theoretical question about why a cap is 

something that promotes a reduction in fraud and abuse. Logically, 

there doesn’t seem to be any connection. I can see from the agency’s standpoint if you cut their funds they are going to probably be 

more efficient so maybe there is not as much waste. But the fraud 

and the abuse in this system, do you have any evidence that cutting a budget actually reduces fraud and abuse? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Cutting the budget has more incentives for pursuing that. And I think combined with the National Eligibility 

Verifier that those two working in concert is a great incentive to 

keep everything targeted to the people who need it most. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Well, the verifier is going to be in place so—— 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Right. 

Mr. YARMUTH [continuing]. We don’t have to legislate that. But 

are there any, do you have any evidence that cutting a budget has 

reduced fraud and abuse in any particular program? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. I would say abuse. 

Mr. YARMUTH. OK. Well, if you could submit any evidence you 

have I would like to see that. 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Right. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thanks very much. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman for his questions. We will 

now go to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 

the witnesses today. Ms. Smith, thank you especially to you for 

coming today to talk about your daughter and all the work you 

95 

have done that has been absolutely tireless. And so we heard some 

concerns expressed by one of the folks who gave testimony this 

morning about the possible abuses of this law. You talked about it 

being in 22 states. Can you tell me, how would you respond to the 

concerns about privacy that were raised today? 

Ms. SMITH. Only at the level when I testified would there be an 

ACLU member trying to oppose the legislation. That is the only 

time we have heard about privacy issues. You won’t hear it from 

a parent of someone that is missing. 

Mr. POMPEO. I also haven’t heard it from law enforcement. I 

have talked to law enforcement throughout the state as I travel 

around. We have had it in Kansas now for a good long period of 

time. I haven’t heard them, I haven’t heard the senior officers expressing any concerns about their officers abusing the power and 

the process they have. Are you aware of any of that? 

Ms. SMITH. I am not. 

Mr. POMPEO. Ms. Smith, some of the state versions have a limited liability exception for carriers providing some protection to 

them. Are you comfortable with that provision as some of the states 

have it if we put that in the federal version? 

Ms. SMITH. I believe most of the states have it. Previous federal 

versions have that also. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. Mr. Wessler, thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. 

Wessler, you identified in your written testimony, I think in your 

oral testimony as well maybe it was just three, but in the written 

testimony four examples. We now have 22 states that have had 

this on the books for cumulatively dozens and dozens of years. Are 

those the four examples that you think provide the case for arguing 

against allowing cell phones geolocation data be made available in 

emergency situations? 

Mr. WESSLER. Thank you, Congressman. Those are examples 

that appear in case law specifically, where judges have actually 

had an opportunity to review police’s conduct and point to that. We 

also point to some systemic examples including a 2010 report by 

the Department of Justice Inspector General showing systemic violation of emergency request procedures by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation for telephone records. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right. That is not exactly what—I have read that. 

That is not exactly what it says. Two of the four examples, just so 

the record’s right, two of the four examples—I have now read the 

court cases—looked like they were plain old mistakes, which I will 

concede law enforcement makes from time to time just like I do. 

So it seems to me that the case for protecting human life and finding people who are in dire need of assistance from law enforcement 

far outweighs what now is, by my count, one example of case law 

that shows some form of a potential abuse of practice over the 

course of years and years and years. 

Mr. WESSLER. And Congressman, I think that point is actually 

to the importance of one of the very modest protections we ask for 

which is notice to the person whose location is obtained after the 

fact. Not before, obviously not to interfere with the investigation, 

but notice is included in federal statutes like in the Wiretap Act 

and in state statutes and is really key mechanism so that people 

can know if it was an inappropriate request. If somebody is tracked 

96 

down who was truly in danger then they will have no complaint, 

and we want law enforcement to have that access. But notice, 

after-the-fact judicial review, and remedies can coexist with emergency access. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back what 

little time I have left. Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back, 

and the chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

witnesses, and particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith. Thank you so 

much for being here and participating. Your loss is a reminder to 

all of us that we need to make sure that our public safety laws are 

updated and modernized to account for changing technologies and 

which is one of things we on the committee take very seriously. 

In the last session of Congress in this committee we passed a 

modified version of Kelsey’s Law by voice vote, I believe. I think 

it passed unanimously, which provided some of the provisions that 

Mr. Wessler was talking about. I know as a parent, I have four 

children, I would want that call and information to happen immediately. I think that is important. 

I don’t, quite frankly, see a problem with after-the-fact review. I 

think that creates a disincentive whether it be law enforcement or 

anyone else from misstating who they are or what they are. I think 

the most important thing is when something like this happens, locate that person immediately. Nothing should stop that. 

But I wonder, Mr. Souder, if the action occurs immediately so 

that we hopefully save a life or get law enforcement to that situation as quick as possible, what harm do you see with after-the-fact, 

having some sort of review to make sure that the emergency was 

really an emergency and that the individual whose information or 

location was given out is notified that that was done? And obviously if that is someone who was missing and located, they are not 

going to have a problem with that. But if it was used for some 

other nefarious purpose that they would know this and have some 

redress. Do you see a problem with that? 

Mr. SOUDER. I do not. And internally, meaning within the 911 

center and the law enforcement agencies that we work very closely 

with, we have a multitude of safeguards to ensure that when a request is received there is legitimacy to it, when information is provided it is provided in a secure manner, so all of those things internally are already in place. But you are talking after the fact. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. I don’t see any problem with it. I would only ask 

that the 911 center not be tasked with doing that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. No, I understand what you are saying. I mean, 

I think there is a solution to this. We want to do this and we want 

to see it happen. And I think that as long as we are not impeding 

the immediate location, information to where that location is because that should be paramount before any of this other, but that 

after the fact, to make sure that we have some safeguards in place 

that would be a disincentive for anyone to fraudulently say I have 

an emergency here when it isn’t because there is going to be some 

after the fact review of it, seems to me to be a reasonable solution 

97 

to a problem which doesn’t imperil the families or the victims, and 

at the same time provides some safeguards against any—and I am 

sure that these instances are rare anyway, but the fact that if 

there is documentation that they have existed in some instances, 

this seems to be the reasonable compromise between the two. 

Mr. Hunt, I have got to tell you, I think most people don’t even 

give it a thought that there is prefixes before 911. I was just sitting 

here thinking, I think all of us just thought, boy, you just grab any 

phone and dial 911 and you are getting connected. And when you 

think about it, I mean, even on our phones in the Capitol, if you 

are going to an outside line you have to hit that 9 first before you 

dial. 

And it just seems to me in this age of technology this should be 

a simple fix and that no matter which phone you touch when you 

hit 911, because you are right, as parents that is what we tell our 

kids from the very beginning. That is the one number we drill into 

their heads that when something like this happens that is what we 

do. 

So I really hope we can address both of these problems, and I 

think they go hand in hand by the way that this should be done. 

And I certainly, Mr. Chairman, are looking forward to working 

with you and members of this committee to find a solution to this 

very serious problem that—and I think it is within our ability to 

get this done and hopefully passed into law. 

And so I thank both of you for coming, and Mr. Souder, I thank 

you too for the great work you guys are doing. And your reputation 

and the work of your agency in Fairfax is well known and we certainly appreciate it. And Mr. Wessler, I think some of the things 

you mentioned especially the after-the-fact stuff just to me makes 

sense. That is a safeguard we can—and still make sure these families, when there is a victim. 

I have to tell you with regards to the Lifeline program, I know 

the Americans for whatever, Americans for Tax Reform, is that 

your group? I know you claim to speak for taxpayers. I guess you 

speak for some; you certainly don’t speak for all. To cap this program to especially to take away poor people’s ability to call 911, because this bill you speak of has a two-year phase-out of voice-only 

services and I just wonder what happens to the people on this program in two years when we phase out voice-only to this. They are 

going to have buy—I know this isn’t favored by the industry. It is 

not favored by consumer groups. It is not favored by anybody I am 

aware of except maybe your organization. 

And I would say to you too, when you talk about the waste and 

fraud in this program, people immediately think, yes, that is just 

poor people defrauding the program. The fraud is coming from the 

phone companies that are trying to sell these products, trying to 

sell two and three and four phones to people and saying it is OK, 

it is within the rules. I mean, most of the fraud we have seen in 

this Lifeline program isn’t coming from the poor, it is coming from 

telephone solicitors that are trying to make a commission selling 

these products. 

So I think it is a terrible idea to cap the program. The FCC is 

working on a reform package. The phase-out is five years instead 

of two. It seems eminently reasonable to me, and I hope this comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:16 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-132 CHRIS
98 

mittee will not pursue this legislation 4884. I think it is counterproductive. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back 

and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for five 

minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the 

entire panel, particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith, for your testimony today. I am going to start off with the Lifeline. 

Ms. McAuliffe, since Florida is a net payer into the—and I represent Florida as the chairman said. Since Florida is a net payer 

into the Universal Service Fund it only underscores the importance 

that cutting down on fraud and waste, abuse again within the system, is imperative. We and the FCC must continue to improve and 

adapt the program to modernize reality so that only eligible customers receive Lifeline credits. 

Can you describe the effect that an uncapped budget as currently 

constructed affects payer states like Florida, and how would a firm 

budget at any level around a million and a half or two billion dollars better protect against waste and unbalanced Lifeline disbursement? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Sure. So in terms of a firm budget it kind of 

keeps things more in line because Florida is what, 300, over 300 

million payee or into Lifeline, and that is money that could come 

back to Florida to help Florida residents who need that. So in having a budget to kind of quell this waste, fraud and abuse will make 

sure that the money stays more towards where it goes. And kind 

of in reference to the mobile-only, all I am testifying here is about 

having a firm budget and that that is very important to have that 

cap. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very good, thank you, next question. It is apparent for you, again Ms. McAuliffe. It is apparent that the rampant 

fraud and abuse within the Lifeline program five years ago has 

been addressed to some extent. Do you agree with that? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I do note that since 2012 abuse has been cut by 

nearly $670 million. That is significant. And yet we see instances 

just last week where a company can bypass federal safeguards to 

enroll 99.8 percent of their subscribers using stolen identifications 

or even the lack of identification for eligibility. The ratepayers are 

the ones that truly suffer in my opinion. 

What is the best way for us to add teeth to these eligibility requirements so it can act as an actual deterrent? Can we completely 

cut some companies out of the program at a certain level for noncompliance? Can we cut them out? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. There should be and I believe there are, there 

are deterrents and abilities to cut companies’ participation if they 

are acting in an abusive way. And I think the National Eligibility 

Verifier will go, will definitely help with that since it won’t be the 

carriers self-certifying, it will be a third-party agency certifying 

that the people there submitting are a part of it. 

And I think the level that you have, 135 percent of the poverty 

line, which is about $32,000 for a family of four, I think that won’t 

be an issue with the $1.5 billion budget cut because that is about 

99 

where we are right now. So anyone who is currently participating 

in Lifeline will still be able to continue participating. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And that is so very important obviously. 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Hunt, your testimony today to the committee 

is truly admirable and we appreciate it so much. I cannot imagine 

how your loss must affect you every minute of the day, but your 

perseverance and determination with Kari’s Law is remarkable. 

Thank you so very much, sir. It is common sense legislation as far 

as I am concerned. We have got to get this done. 

Mr. HUNT. Thank you. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Shifting to Director Souder, thank you for being 

here as well. In your experience, where do these multi-line telephone systems present the biggest challenges to their users? Would 

the notification system that alerts a central site to the exact location of the emergency as required under Kari’s law cut down on response times in nursing homes and other elder facilities, and also 

what about schools? 

Mr. SOUDER. Schools would be included in that group of multitelephone line subscribers as well. We are very fortunate in our region that there is a large level of compliance, but this is a very 

large nation and there are many hotels throughout the states, and 

I cannot speak to how many of them are voluntarily being compliant. But clearly I would hope that if this law is passed it will be 

a significant incentive so that this problem that does exist in many 

places will be rapidly addressed and not waiting until the incumbent telephone equipment has lived its life cycle which could then 

even be many years away. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Again thank you, sir, for your advocacy. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question 

of Ms. Smith? Well, if we don’t have time—— 

Mr. COLLINS [presiding]. No, not a problem. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK, thank you. Ms. Smith, your testimony today 

obviously is equally heartbreaking. Your loss is unconscionable. In 

today’s modern age of telecommunication anything short of immediate, again short of immediate, in my opinion, is frustrating. It 

should be immediate. 

I commend you for working so diligently for so long across our 

entire country in pursuit of this change. As you note, this law is 

already saving numerous lives that might otherwise be lost. That 

in and of itself is extraordinary, so thank you so very much. Can 

you elaborate a bit who this law, as enacted by almost half of the 

country, I think 22 states, is benefiting the most? Who is it benefiting the most? How could this affect residents in my state of Florida? And I understand we do not have a law on the books. 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman. Unfortunately your state 

has not passed it yet. Who does it benefit the most? The lives that 

have been saved. I testified to an elderly gentleman who had had 

a stroke and could not talk, but he could dial his wife’s phone. He 

was recovered. There was a suicide attempt. The young lady had 

left a note and she was tracked and found in time. There was a 

baby, and this made news last year in our area, who was carjacked. 

Her parents’ car was carjacked and that baby was found in less 

100 

than 40 minutes and the police stated it was absolutely because of 

Kelsey’s Law. Those are the people that benefit. 

And an additional benefit, I believe the very first time Kelsey’s 

Law was ever used in Kansas there was a young lady murdered 

and she was taken to another state. But she came home, and her 

father does not believe she would have come home, she wouldn’t 

have been found had it not been for Kelsey’s Law. Those are the 

people that benefit from this law. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chair. Mr. Souder, we have three 

public safety bills on our first panel. Although two of these bills 

seek to strengthen public safety, I am worried that one may undermine public safety for millions of low-income Americans. This 

would be the CURB Lifeline Act which makes so that low-income 

families may not have access to cell phones. In your experience, 

how important is it for low-income Americans to be able to use 

their mobile devices for 911 emergencies? 

Mr. SOUDER. No different than it is for you or I. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How would cutting off 911 services for low-income Americans impact public safety? 

Mr. SOUDER. We would have unfortunately less calls to respond 

to, although it wouldn’t impact at all the need. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Pretty blunt answers there. 

Ms. Medina, thank you for testifying. What impact would a rigid 

funding cap on Lifeline have on current and future subscribers? 

Ms. MEDINA. Well, I live in San Bernardino, the city of San 

Bernardino where there is a high population of poverty, and not 

only that crime. It would impact significantly because many families can’t afford, and currently right now we have a limited amount 

of internet access. 

And when you look at, when they were mentioning earlier regarding McDonald’s and other places, when you have safety issues 

in your community you can’t easily just walk to the neighborhood 

McDonald’s or other locations. And we have had recently, unfortunately, two youths, one 14 and one 12, die while walking to a gasoline station which is around the corner. 

So we have incidents in many communities throughout the nation that you can’t have, it is not easy to have access especially 

after school and walking to different locations. So it definitely 

makes a huge impact on our communities. 

Mr. WESSLER. Congressman, if I could just add to that. A hard 

cap also doesn’t take into account the potential for economic crises 

and downturns or natural disasters. It sets the cap at a limit they 

may make sense this second, but economic circumstances of families can change very fast and this could leave people in really dire 

straits. 

Ms. MEDINA. And I do want to mention when you look at caps 

it sets limitations on how many families you can serve, and that 

is the bottom line. You could have either a hundred families that 

could receive the service, but when you have a cap and you can no 

longer service them then what happens to them? 

101 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. As part of the CURB Lifeline 

Act, support for standalone mobile voice service would be cut off for 

many families. Standalone mobile service has become a simple 

focus of the program while a majority of the program’s participants 

connect over mobile phones. Can you explain why being able to 

make voice calls using mobile phones would make the most sense 

for low-income Americans? 

Ms. MEDINA. Emergency, I mean it has to do with emergencies. 

When I have my five children, if I am not home and they have to 

access, my teenagers have to access to call me they have that access to call. And also with finding work, my husband was laid off 

at one point and how do you find work? And you have to receive 

a call when you apply, and as well as internet access as well when 

you do the applications. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK, thank you. Well, I think we all want to 

make sure that low-income families have access to emergency services. 

Ms. McAuliffe, in your testimony you stated that broadband 

internet access is freely available nearly everywhere. You mentioned restaurants, McDonald’s, but many low-income Americans 

have multiple jobs, a lot of these establishments are closed when 

they have any kind of free time. How can these Americans still access the internet to do essential things like help their kids with 

homework and apply for better jobs? 

Ms. MCAULIFFE. Sure. And that is true that those time frames 

are difficult. And one of the things about the new order is that it 

does bring in broadband access and a lot of people are choosing to 

access on mobile devices. So that also links in the cost of voice service has gone down so much, so when you bundle both the voice and 

the data service together—right now we are at the 1.5 billion—it 

wouldn’t cut anyone out, but it would actually add a service so you 

would end up with voice and an internet connection rather than 

neither. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I don’t think that is realistic because the 

subsidy is $9.25 a month, which doesn’t really even pay for mobile 

service much less mobile plus bundled services, so I would be careful about what that means. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COLLINS. I want to thank you for your questions and thank 

the panel for your testimony today. That has been very useful. And 

we have a second panel coming up, so with that thank you for your 

time and you are dismissed. We will call the second panel up. 

Thank you. 

(Pause.) 

Mr. COLLINS. If we could have the witnesses grab a seat we will 

get going here. All right, we will just wait a second for Detective 

Finley to join us. 

OK, now that the panel is here we can get moving on the second 

panel. During this panel discussion we are going to be talking 

about H.R. 2031, the Anti-Swatting Act of 2015; H.R. 3998, Securing Access to Networks in Disasters, or SANDy Act; H.R. 4111, the 

Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015; and H.R. 4190, the 

Spectrum Challenge Prize Act of 2015. So with that the witnesses 

each will have 5 minutes for their testimony. The lights there will 

102 

let you know green is good, yellow means start to wrap up, and red 

means we are going to cut you off. 

With that Detective Sergeant Finley, we will begin with you. 

Welcome, and thank you for your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF DETECTIVE SERGEANT B.A. FINLEY, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION, JOHNS CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHNS CREEK, GEORGIA; SCOTT BERGMANN, 

VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA—THE 

WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; AND DAN HOLDHUSEN, DIRECTOR 

OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY 

STATEMENT OF B.A. FINLEY 

Mr. FINLEY. Can you hear me OK, Mr. Collins? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sometimes you do have to lean close to the 

microphone. 

Mr. FINLEY. All right. 

Mr. COLLINS. We appreciate that. 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you for your time, sir. Again, thank you, Mr. 

Collins, Ranking Member Eshoo. Thank you to all the members. 

Again, my name is Detective Sergeant Finley from the Johns Creek 

Police Department in Johns Creek, Georgia. A 20-year veteran of 

law enforcement, I am currently the supervisor of a criminal investigations unit in my department. The majority of the crimes I investigate are internet and cyber related crimes, and over the last 

couple of years I have had quite a bit of experience and success investigating swatting, hoax 911 calls in which spoofing technology 

was utilized. 

But first, let me say it is an honor and a privilege to be here 

today, be in front of this committee and provide testimony on these 

important issues. And some of the things that I will speak of today 

are, quite a few of them are listed in my written stuff and I won’t 

go over each and every one of those. But I will just give you a couple of examples of some of the things I have been involved in. 

In 2014, I was the lead investigator in a multi-state and international swatting investigation that involved a serial swatting suspect who had swatted 40-plus cities here in the United States and 

Canada. He had terrorized multiple families all over the United 

States and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

wasted time and resources by local and federal law enforcement officers responding to these fake incidents. He used VoIP technology 

as well as anonymizer Web sites, spoofing technology, multiple 

emails, and social media profiles to hide himself. 

During this same time period, I was investigating another swatting hoax 911 incident involving an individual who lived up in the 

Northeast portion of the United States and in his hoax he was 

using several layers of spoofing technology. He actually had a 

spoofing phone app. He actually created his own spoofing Web site, 

and then ran that through a nationally known spoofing company. 

He also incorporated the VoIP services as well, and as you can 

imagine it took quite some time to sort through all of this to find 

him out of this multi-layer spoofing. He also used some voice-disguising software on that which made it even more difficult to finally uncover who he is. 

103 

But in a lot of these situations we talk them out or you hear on 

the news about the incident that was called in, how many law enforcement were involved, how many ambulances and all that other 

stuff, and a lot of people, I think, forget about the actual victim, 

what happens to them. And sometimes I don’t think they really understand that they suffer some intense emotional distress and trauma as well. 

In one of these incidents that I investigated, a male caller had 

called our 911 center and he said that all right, he said I killed the 

mom, I killed the dad, I killed the little boy in the house and I have 

got the little girl right here and I need $30,000 or I am killing her 

too. The only people that were present in the home that day were 

a nanny and a babysitter. There were two small children in the 

home at the time of the swatting call. Mom and Dad were both 

gone. They both found out by friends calling them and telling them 

that they had seen their house on the news and that something 

horrible had happened there. 

So imagine as a parent that you get a call and you rush home 

thinking it is your entire family that has been killed. And as you 

get there you see multiple police vehicles lining up and down the 

street, police officers in this cul-de-sac pointing rifles at your home, 

EMS crews and stretchers are out on the street with ambulances 

and stretchers standing by for resulting casualties. 

I was there that day and I saw that mother as she was running 

through her neighbors’ yards trying to get to the home. She was 

in a panic. She was totally distraught and had a look of horror on 

her face. We had to physically restrain her and tell her that her 

children were fine and that they were sitting in the back of our fire 

chief’s vehicle. And to see the raw emotion pour out of that woman 

that day as she embraced her children and just sobbed out loud it 

affected everyone there. 

That is when you realize the impact that these swatting hoaxes 

can have on these victims, and it truly makes you angry to know 

that someone did this for fun and it motivates you to want to go 

find out who this person is and find them. It also makes you wonder what type of person would derive some type of enjoyment out 

of doing this to people. 

Some of the other crimes I investigated involve the spoofing, except one of them is quite popular this time of year and that is the 

IRS scam where people call and then they will use the local IRS 

number to appear on your phone and say that hey, we are from the 

IRS. You owe us money. We are either going to lock you up or deport you or whatever, and people readily pay this money because 

they are scared to death of the IRS. 

Another scam is the arrest warrant scam where they call up and 

say you have a warrant for your arrest. We are going to take you 

to jail if you don’t pay this amount of money. People that don’t 

have normal contact with law enforcement don’t realize that we 

don’t call you and tell you we have warrants for your arrest. We 

show up at your house to come get you. 

But these are just a few examples of the criminals that utilize 

spoofing technology to facilitate their crimes. I hope it has given 

you a little bit of a better understanding of what goes on in these 

situations. They are not harmless pranks as some might describe 

104 

them. When you see the toll it takes on some of these families that 

have gone through some of these situations you will understand. 

We do need good legislation to deal with this issue. As our technology increases so will these incidences. It is important to note 

that these criminals will always update their techniques to use the 

most recent technology to help further their criminal enterprise. 

They will always use and abuse any new technology to help them 

exploit companies or people. And at the end of the day the American people are going to look to both of us for help. They are going 

to look to you to make the good laws and they are going to look 

for me to enforce them. 

I thank you for your time today and for the honor and privilege 

of being here before this institution and talking to you guys, and 

I will be happy to entertain any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Finley follows:] 

105 


23502.079
106 


23502.080
107 


23502.081
108 


23502.082
109 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you for sharing that testimony. There are 

things we can’t conceive of and this happens to be—— 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. In that category, so we may have some 

other questions afterwards. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FINLEY. Not a problem, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Bergman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you to the chair, and thank you to Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide CTIA’s influence on four 

of the initiatives that you will consider today. CTIA appreciates 

this subcommittee’s continued interest in wireless policy in efforts 

to keep Americans safe and connected while encouraging innovation and investment in the world’s most vibrant wireless marketplace. 

CTIA has a long history of working closely with this committee 

to address public safety and emergency preparedness. From the 

adoption of 911 to wireless emergency alerts and FirstNet we have 

partnered with you to help keep Americans safe. In that vein, we 

appreciate Ranking Member Pallone’s introduction of H.R. 3998. 

The district he represents suffered great damage from Superstorm 

Sandy. 

Mr. COLLINS. Excuse me. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, sir. The district he represents suffered great damage from Superstorm Sandy, and lessons from that 

experience spurred the SANDy Act. I am pleased to report that 

H.R. 3998 and corresponding interest from Chairman Wheeler and 

the FCC have encouraged meaningful dialogue about steps to improve disaster preparedness. 

Carriers are making progress toward a framework that would address many elements in the bill, including identifying new ways to 

help consumers be prepared when disaster strikes, making sure 

that critical public safety personnel can contact wireless providers, 

engaging local governments to enhance their readiness, and giving 

providers flexibility to help one another restore service. Given this 

progress, we do not consider new legislative or regulatory actions 

necessary, but we absolutely commend Representative Pallone for 

his leadership. 

Turning to H.R. 4190, CTIA supports the Spectrum Challenge 

Prize Act. CTIA’s members invest heavily in research and development to improve spectral efficiency, but with demand for mobile 

broadband continuing to rise more progress is needed. A challenge 

program such as that proposed by Representative Matsui may 

incentivize breakthroughs that can benefit consumers and our 

economy. 

CTIA believes that a comprehensive approach to wireless policy 

should focus on efficiency and also on identifying additional spectrum and streamlining processes for deploying network architecture. CTIA commends Chairman Walden and the subcommittee for 

your work to expedite the deployment of communications infrastructure on federal properties and the approval of H.R. 1641, the 

110 

Federal Spectrum Incentive Act. We would also highlight the FCC’s 

important efforts to make available spectrum above 24 gigahertz 

which offers promise as we move towards 5G services. We welcome 

your help in ensuring that the Commission adopts rules this summer to bring high-band spectrum to market. Collectively, these initiatives will help the U.S. retain its world leadership in advanced 

wireless services. 

Moving to the Lifeline bill, CTIA’s views are informed by two 

main points. First that all Americans should have access to high 

quality communication services, and second that Universal Service 

policies should recognize consumers’ increased preference for wireless services. While CTIA appreciates the subcommittee’s interest 

in ensuring a more efficient Lifeline program, we are concerned 

that a cap will inherently exclude low-income consumers that Lifeline is intended to support. CTIA is also concerned that eliminating 

support only for mobile voice services would reverse longstanding 

consensus that USF policy be technology neutral. 

The subcommittee may wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to transition the entire USF program to a general revenues model. Wireless consumers today bear almost half of the annual $8 billion USF contribution burden, while 75 percent of that 

support goes to non-wireless services. A general revenues approach 

would give this subcommittee the opportunity to consider funding 

levels, affordability, and inter-industry subsidies implicated under 

the current approach. 

Finally, CTIA supports H.R. 4889, the Kelsey Smith Act, with 

the addition of one critical provision. We urge the inclusion of clear, 

unambiguous language to ensure that any carrier complying with 

the act is protected from civil or administrative liability. Adoption 

of appropriate liability safeguards will ensure that carriers that 

comply with law enforcement requests have the necessary protection to aid in the response to critical life-threatening emergencies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:] 

111 


23502.083
112 


23502.084
113 


23502.085
114 


23502.086
115 


23502.087
116 


23502.088
117 


23502.089
118 

Mr. COLLINS. Appreciate your testimony. Now Mr. Holdhusen, 

you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN HOLDHUSEN 

Mr. HOLDHUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Collins and Ranking Member 

Eshoo and other members of the subcommittee. I am here today 

and have the honor to appear before you to support bipartisan legislation H.R. 4111, the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015. 

This was sponsored by subcommittee members Lance, Loebsack, 

and Cramer. I respectfully ask that my written testimony be submitted. 

My name is Dan Holdhusen and I am the director of government 

relations for the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. 

The society is the nation’s largest not-for-profit faith based senior 

care and services organization. It was founded in 1922 and is 

headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

We offer a broad spectrum of senior services including not only 

skilled nursing care, but also home health, respite care, assisted 

living, post-acute care, senior apartments and affordable housing, 

and hospice care. Currently, the society serves more than 240 locations across the country in 24 states, caring daily for more than 

30,000 people and employing more than 23,000 staff members. 

On behalf of the society and the American Health Care Association, which is the nation’s largest association of long term and postacute care providers, I would like to express our strong endorsement of the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act. If enacted, this 

bill would offer substantial and critical support for not-for-profit 

and public providers of skilled nursing care that operate in rural 

and frontier areas across the country. 

The society currently operates 168 skilled nursing facilities, also 

called SNFs, of which 122 or about three-quarters of those are in 

the Universal Service Administrative Company defined rural areas. 

In fact, we have facilities in many of your districts, including Oregon, Iowa, North Dakota, Ohio, Kentucky, and Kansas. These 

SNFs play a critical role in the delivery of care in rural and frontier areas of our country and are significant and growing pioneers 

in telehealth services. 

Like many providers serving an aging population, the society is 

a provider of skilled nursing care in many rural areas of the country. As such, we are dependent on the growing use of technology 

to deliver needed care and services to locations that do not have 

the benefit of nearby health clinics or rural hospitals. 

The use of broadband networks is critical to accommodate the delivery and exchange of data, images, web streaming, electronic 

medical records, and other health information that is vital to ensure that the day-to-day care needs of residents and patients are 

met. Further, an important resource for assisting with the funding 

of these broadband networks is the Universal Service Fund that is 

administered by the FCC. 

Although the majority of our health care partners in rural areas 

of the country are afforded the privilege of accessing Universal 

Service Fund to assist with funding broadband investment, skilled 

nursing facilities are not. It has been our long held belief that Congress fully intended to make rural, not-for-profit, long term care 

119 

SNFs as eligible health care providers under Section 254 of the 

1996 Telecom Act. In fact, on several occasions we have provided 

both informal and formal comments to the FCC expressing these 

strong held views. 

With the passage of this bill, the FCC will have the direction it 

needs to continue to develop the Healthcare Connect Fund and implement the health care broadband experiment program so that 

SNFs can benefit along with other covered health care providers. 

In conclusion, we are extremely grateful for your leadership on 

this important issue that deeply impacts some of society’s most vulnerable populations, our nation’s seniors, and we strongly urge the 

committee’s swift adoption of the bipartisan bill, especially given 

that the bill was recently scored by the CBO as resulting in a net 

reduction in the deficit. We hope to get this bill across the finish 

line soon and to have access to these funds within a year of enactment. 

Again, we are particularly thankful to the number of members, 

namely Representatives Lance, Loebsack, and Cramer for their 

support of this bill. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

strongly support the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act and I 

stand ready to respond to any questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Holdhusen follows:] 

120 


23502.090
121 


23502.091
122 


23502.092
123 


23502.093
124 


23502.094
125 


23502.095
126 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Well, thank you very much, and I apologize for being out. We have two other, or two subcommittees meeting in one hearing room today and so we have multiple things 

going on, so I appreciate you all being here today. 

And if I could start with the first question to Sergeant Finley, 

one of the things the bill does is require that the perpetrator reimburse law enforcement agencies involved in responding to a swatting call for the cost of the response. I have a two-part question, 

if I may. 

The first is looking back at some of the cases you have worked 

on could you give us a range or idea of the kind of dollars we are 

talking about? And then absent any reimbursement like this bill 

would allow, who bears the burden and what impact does that have 

on a police department like yours? 

Mr. FINLEY. Well, sir, to answer part of the second question first, 

I guess it would depend upon the amount of personnel that was out 

there, obviously on the initial one the response to it. 

But the part that takes up the most time obviously is the postinvestigation side of this in trying to find out who this person is, 

because they are not quick investigations. They are long, labor intensive, because there are so many different things that you have 

to follow down and a lot of these places that provide these services 

are not even in the United States. They are in other foreign countries. And even though we may have mutual law enforcement treaties with those, me as a municipal police officer trying to call a guy 

in Moscow at the Russian Federation and to give me records for 

something that went through a VPN that he owns is probably not 

going to happen, the fact if he even keeps records. 

So it depends, I guess, on some situations. Some of the swatting 

incidents that I have been involved in after the fact have been well 

up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One that I spoke with 

some officers around the New York area, they had an individual 

that called in about a boat that was sinking off the coast out there 

that not only involved the NYPD, it involved the New Jersey State 

Police, I think the United States Coast Guard, Homeland Security. 

They had at least, I think, eight different aircraft out there for 

about 4 hours. If you know anything about aircraft, it takes quite 

a bit of money to operate one of those and the air crew that are 

on there, not to mention all the boats that were in the water doing 

grid searches for about a 16-mile block looking for this individual, 

only to find out that they were out there for, I think, right at 9 

hours to find out that this was a hoax. 

The big thing is we are all in law enforcement and in all first 

responders we are there to help people. And when you call us and 

tell us bad things are happening, we are going to come there and 

help. And it is very frustrating when we get to these locations and 

find out that we mobilized all of this equipment, brought all of 

these people down here, because there is a big thing obviously that 

it takes us away from other things. 

And we don’t know any more over the way the country is going 

and the world is going, we don’t know if these things are real or 

not. You call and give us a fraudulent call and say there is an active shooter somewhere, we know that just from past experiences 

in the last few months there is no shortage of crazy people. There 

127 

is no shortage of people who want to come over here and do harm 

to our country and to our people. 

So it is very frustrating when we have to expend these types of 

resources to go to these different locations only to find out that 

there is nothing there. 

Mr. LATTA. Can I interrupt for one second? 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, sir, you can. 

Mr. LATTA. And let me ask, when you say like the Russian Federation, how often do you get a call or calls that would come from 

a foreign country like that that you would be investigating? 

Mr. FINLEY. There are quite a few individuals that we have got 

from foreign countries. I have been involved with one, he was from 

Canada. Even though it is right next door it is a foreign country. 

They are not real big on responding to any legal processes that 

come from the United States into Canada unless it originates with 

the RCMP up there and their jurisdiction and/or their local police. 

So you have to involve all the legal attaches from their country 

to our country, federal government here and the federal government there. It is a long arduous process. But the relationships I 

have made with the guys in the FBI Atlanta Cyber Program as 

well as the United States Secret Service down in my area, they 

routinely find individuals in other countries and we have to partner with them to go in and get these people into custody. 

And a lot of times we end up doing the prosecution in the home 

country because it is going to be cost-prohibitive for us to go and 

get this person and bring them back down into the United States. 

We can work with them and say, look, we are going to do the same 

for you if you will do the same for us. And it is just a long process 

to do that. 

But I mean, to put a dollar amount on it I cannot tell you. I have 

probably spent a thousand something hours investigating just on 

the two of the cases that I had that were running simultaneously. 

One was a kid up here in the northeast United States, the other 

one in Canada. I mean that is not to count, you count the other 

43 agencies that I linked into and all the time that I spent coordinating with the other 43 agencies, because I ended up being the 

go-to guy in the United States for all of them to send their information to and funnel that through the FBI Atlanta office up to the 

RCMPs. 

So we were the clearinghouse, so to speak. We sat down with 40- 

some odd cases and went through each and every one of them to 

try to find out that the top 10 best cases that we had to send up 

here on this individual, because he literally was just an internet 

terrorist. There was no other word for him but he was an internet 

terrorist. The things that he did we could talk for the rest of the 

afternoon, and the horrible acts that he did to young people, to 

young ladies especially was his target. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. If I could ask the gentlelady for her indulgence, since we have three members right now would you mind 

if we did just second questions, the follow-up, if we could do five 

each and then come back and do five again? Would that be acceptable? 

Ms. ESHOO. What time do you think we are going to finish? 

Mr. LATTA. We will be about 15 minutes or so. 

128 

Ms. ESHOO. No, that is fine. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. OK, the chair recognizes the gentlelady, the 

ranking member of the subcommittee, from California. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. You did an excellent job. To Mr.—how do you pronounce 

your name, Holdhusen? 

Mr. HOLDHUSEN. Holdhusen, yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Holdhusen. Thank you for your work. It is never to 

be taken for granted what nonprofit and church organizations, 

charitable organizations do in our country. It is nothing short of remarkable, so thank you to you for your work. And I think that the 

bill that you are here in support of is a good one. It is going to help 

people, and that is what I came to Congress to do, so not to hurt 

anybody but to help people. 

To Mr. Bergmann, the recently adopted FCC Lifeline reform 

order phases out, as you know, the support for voice-only services 

by ’22. Does your association support that provision? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So we supported evolution of Lifeline to 

broadband services. What we thought was critical was to have a 

sufficient transition timeline so that the nine million or more lowincome consumers who have mobile voice services today can make 

that transition. 

Ms. ESHOO. But what is the difference between the legislation we 

are considering today and the recent FCC action with respect to 

the phase-out of voice-only services, because there is a difference. 

Mr. BERGMANN. So what we pushed for was a longer transition 

period which is what the FCC adopted. We certainly appreciate 

their sensitivity with that transition so that as that program 

evolves from voice to broadband low-income consumers can make 

that transition. 

Ms. ESHOO. And to Sergeant Finley—— 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. You are a great witness, you really are. 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. ESHOO. Your professionalism is right out there in front, and 

the passion that you bring to your professionalism, and I think that 

it is very important. 

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you so much. 

Ms. ESHOO. In the cases where there are minors that are inflicting this great harm on people, how do you think the legislation 

deals with the fine that is attached to it? 

Mr. FINLEY. Well, as far it goes—— 

Ms. ESHOO. What is the best way for us to do that? It doesn’t 

seem to me realistic that we are going to extract what should be 

extracted in terms of a penalty. And my sense is that from what 

you said that there are a lot of young people that are doing this. 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, ma’am. There are some adults that actually do 

this. It depends on where they are at and when they graduate from 

17 to 18 years old, depending on what they classify as an adult. 

But the biggest issue with anybody that is a juvenile, prosecuting 

them in the federal system is almost impossible or they are not 

going to do it. I mean, short of some kind of heinous crime, terrorism or mass homicide, they are not going to be prosecuted in 

federal court. 

129 

Ms. ESHOO. But couldn’t we structure this so that there is responsibility either on the part of the individual or the family? 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, ma’am, we very well could. 

Ms. ESHOO. In terms of the fines? 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, there is quite a few states that do have state 

legislation on swatting. 

Ms. ESHOO. What is the best one? 

Mr. FINLEY. You want to know who is the best one, I will go 

ahead and tell you. I think Georgia is because I just helped write 

the one for the state of Georgia. 

Ms. ESHOO. OK, great. 

Mr. FINLEY. We are waiting on our governor to sign it right now. 

But it all depends. The biggest thing is they have to have some 

type of recourse for the victim, obviously the heartache and whatever it put them through. But one thing that I found even when 

we were doing our law in Georgia, one of our victims was there at 

the state capital when we were doing some subcommittee hearings, 

and it was a year and a half later. And she was standing in the 

hall and we started talking about it and she just broke down and 

started crying. 

Ms. ESHOO. Over what she had done? 

Mr. FINLEY. And I am thinking to myself, she loves the police. 

She loves everything, but when her kids are outside in the street 

if one of our cars comes down the street that is doing neighborhood 

patrol she freaks out and thinks, oh my gosh, are they coming to 

my house? Because unfortunately for her in their situation, they 

used to live in a location where a person that they were actually 

targeting was this family had nothing to do with it. And one of 

them, they did the initial swatting at the house and then the kid 

in Canada came back and did a follow-up eight days later. So two 

times within a couple weeks their family was influenced by this. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, do you have any advice for us on—— 

Mr. FINLEY. Well, this law does a good job. It does some really 

good stuff and it does handle a lot of spoofing, but what happens 

when they don’t spoof? What do we do then? What if they don’t use 

spoofing technology in this? How are we going to address that situation? I know there is some other, there is a—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, there an awful lot of laws that are—— 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Written in reaction to less than good 

things taking place, so I guess that is when we would address it. 

Mr. FINLEY. Absolutely. 

Ms. ESHOO. But one bill, I don’t think, is going to do that. I think 

that is what you’re instructing us. 

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, ma’am. There is actually, Congresswoman 

Clark from Massachusetts, she has an interstate swatting bill that 

covers a lot of things I think that may be missing in this respect, 

OK. And—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, maybe we should take a look at that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. FINLEY. Those are two very good things that are—her and 

I, we were down at South by Southwest a couple months ago 

speaking on the same issue and talking about some of that at the 

130 

inaugural Online Harassment seminar because she deals with a lot 

of the same issues. And quite honestly, I—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, that is very helpful to us though. I think that 

we should review and see what Congresswoman Clark has in her 

bill that maybe we can merge them, or strengthen one because of 

the other. 

Mr. FINLEY. Well, she will give you some good testimony because 

she got swatted a couple of months ago. 

Ms. ESHOO. All right. 

Mr. FINLEY. That is what I told her office. I said anytime you 

stick your neck out and do any of this stuff just know that you are 

going to be a target. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, thank you to the three of you. You cover very 

important sectors of our country from law enforcement to communications to charitable organizations. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time has expired and the chair would now recognize the gentleman from North 

Dakota for five minutes. 

Mr. CRAMER. The light is green, but it is clearly not on. How 

about if I slide down here? Will that work? How is that? That is 

not working either. How about if I talk really loudly? Oh, here we 

go. I bet this one will work. 

All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of the 

outstanding witnesses. It really was great testimony. I agree with 

the ranking member. 

Mr. Holdhusen, thank you especially for being here on behalf of 

our bill, for your incredible testimony. But first let me say thank 

you for the incredible work of the Good Samaritan Society in North 

Dakota, South Dakota, throughout the Midwest. As you know, I am 

very familiar with your facilities and many of your residents over 

the years, and I appreciate your good work. 

And getting to the point of this bill, I appreciate very much that 

you referenced in your testimony the fact that the score came back 

as a net gain, if you will, for the taxpayers. But even at that, even 

with that sort of static scoring system in Congress, I don’t think 

it adequately captures what in my mind is the real cost/benefit 

analysis. 

Anytime we provide greater access, whether it is through critical 

access hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health care, the 

use of technology to increase access certainly is good for the residents and the patient, certainly helpful to those that are providing 

it, but I think sometimes we don’t adequately address or speak of 

the other benefits of that not just to the residents and the health 

care provider but to the taxpayers. 

Is there any type of an example you could think of that I could 

use as a cost/benefit analysis where perhaps access to the technology provides somebody the opportunity whether it is in preventive, a preventive measure or maybe an emergency that is captured 

that wouldn’t otherwise be addressed, because I just think there is 

a lot more to this story even than we know today. 

Mr. HOLDHUSEN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. Indeed, 

there are many stories even beyond anecdotal and we are beginning to amass empirical data that identifies that. I can give you 

one very concrete example and that is with what we call our 

131 

LivingWell@Home program. It allows a couple of major objectives. 

One is, and most importantly it is patient- or individual-centric, it 

allows individuals to stay in their living environment independently for as long as possible. 

It is a motion sensor technology that captures different data 

points and sends it through broadband, which is why this bill is 

important, and it goes to a place where in a remote location where 

the preconditions can be identified and identify things that will, 

from a practical point of view, begin to bend the cost curve, eliminate or reduce the number of emergency room visits, eliminate rehospitalizations which are very, very costly to the system. 

In addition, kind of the social benefits beyond that is it provides 

not only the opportunity to be independent for much longer, but 

also security of families. We can live states away, rely on technology to follow as a consumer, my mother who now lives three 

states away, and identify many things that are going on in her particular life. 

So there are social aspects. In particular, we look at the individual-centric to allow individuals to stay in their homes much 

longer, and then the cost savings associated with identifying preconditions which avoid those hospitalization, gets in front of the 

health conditions prior to the time that they actually exist and 

then begin to cost the care system much more money. 

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I will not run the risk of screwing 

up a really good answer, so I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. And I was going to actually give you an extra minute since you were having problems with 

your mic there so, but the gentleman yields back. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of 

the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask my 

questions of Mr. Bergmann. I mentioned in my opening statement 

that Hurricane Sandy hit my district particularly hard and I have 

spent the last three years studying what went wrong and how we 

can do better next time. And the result of that work is a bill I introduced last year called the SANDy Act which is one of the bills 

we are considering today. It would ensure, it would help ensure 

that people have essential access to communications networks 

when they need them the most. 

In your testimony you note that telecom carriers are making 

progress towards a framework that will address many of the elements included in my bill, and I thank you for your work and appreciate the industry’s commitment to working with us to help 

solve these problems. In my experience, regulations are not always 

necessary when an industry steps up and commits to solving a 

problem voluntarily. 

So that said, I am interested in hearing exactly where the industry is headed on these issues. Could you explain what steps industry is taking to address some of these issues in my bill and how 

long you think it would take to reach a resolution? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So thanks so much for the question, and thank 

you, Congressman, for your leadership on this issue. We know how 

132 

important it is and the introduction of the SANDy Act I think really did spur meaningful industry conversations. 

As you have noted, we have been hard at work to develop a consensus framework on how to improve preparedness for consumers, 

for communities, and then for caregivers as well, too. I am confident that the wireless industry has been a good partner in this 

effort and will continue to be so, and it is certainly very helpful 

that we will be able to coordinate with your office to have that effort bear fruit very soon. 

Mr. PALLONE. But you don’t want to talk about any specifics now 

that the industry is working on? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure, absolutely. So I would sort of put things 

into a couple different buckets, working to make sure that consumers have all of the information that they need and that they 

are prepared in advance of disaster situations, making sure that 

local governments as well, too, are educated and ready so that municipal governments can respond. I would say also, making sure 

that critical public safety personnel have the ability to contact 

wireless providers in the case of a disaster and then finally, making sure that providers themselves can work together where appropriate to make sure that we can restore service quickly. Those are 

the four areas that are really a focus for us. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now what about the 911 call centers? Are you 

working with local governments and 911 call centers to make sure 

that public safety officials can contact carriers during an emergency? Do you want to talk about that at all? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure. Obviously, as you have heard throughout 

the day as consumers rely on wireless service more and more to 

reach public safety, by some estimates over 70 percent of 911 calls 

coming from wireless phones, we think that is absolutely critical. 

And communication between PSAPs and providers is very much 

something that we are thinking about as well too. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now let me go to the Lifeline bill which I have 

been critical of. We have heard a lot about needing to control the 

costs of the program, and I have said that one way to fix this is 

to adopt policies that help people find well paying jobs so they don’t 

need to subscribe to the Lifeline program. But are there any other 

ways to help control costs or improve the program without taking 

phones away from people who need them? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure. So for a number of years CTIA has worked 

closely to try to improve program administration. Going back to 

2012, industry worked voluntarily to help develop the duplicates 

database to make sure that the same subscriber didn’t get more 

than one Lifeline subscription. But I think the most critical reform 

there is the adoption of a national verifier. That is something that 

CTIA has pushed hard for for a number of years and something 

that I think that all parties can agree is critical to making sure 

that Lifeline services get to the people who need it, but only to the 

people who are eligible to receive it. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask more 

thing. I know CTIA has talked a lot about making sure we enable 

next generation wireless technology, and I believe we should examine and have a leverage of benefits of new technology to help address priorities like addressing inequality. Can you tell us how next 

133 

generation wireless technology could help the people stuck on the 

wrong side of this inequality gap? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So as we think about what the next generation 

of wireless will be and folks are looking toward 5G, there will be 

tests here in the U.S. this year. There is a development of standards. I think some of the most exciting applications of 5G in the 

Internet of Things are around the policy priorities that are so important to this community and this committee, things like improving health care, improving education. 

Smart cities is one of the key focuses for 5G technology, so making sure that we are able to launch autonomous vehicles that can 

cut down on congestion, reduce energy loss. Trying to have that 

hundred times increase in the number of devices that are connected is why you see mayors across the country lining up to become the first smart city. 

So that is some of what we are looking forward from 5G, and we 

certainly appreciate this committee’s help and support delivering 

spectrum, speeding infrastructure deployment to help us get there. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. And seeing no other 

members here to ask questions, I would just like to first thank our 

witnesses for being with us today. And I know that the gentleman 

from Oregon, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentlelady 

from California, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and also 

the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranker of the full committee, 

we thank you for your testimony today. It was very, very informative. And if there is nothing else to come before the subcommittee 

today, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased we are discussing my Spectrum Challenge 

Prize Act of 2015 today. 

Spectrum has become an increasingly valuable resource due to the growing demands of our modern mobile economy it is the invisible infrastructure of the 21st 

century. 

My Challenge Prize legislation which I introduced with Senator Tom Udall would 

encourage wireless innovation by creating a federal spectrum challenge prize. 

The spectrum challenge competition would help incentivize innovators and entrepreneurs to develop technologies that eclipse the current state-of-the-art. 

Challenge prizes have a long track record of spurring innovation from early navigation efforts to more recent driverless car technology. 

The U.S. has always been a global leader in wireless technologies, but we need 

to continue to innovate in order for our wireless economy to continue to grow. 

The Spectrum Challenge Prize Act creates a new opportunity for the federal government and the private sector to work collaboratively in the pursuit of a spectrum 

efficiency breakthrough which is ultimately a victory for American consumers. 

While I’m pleased we are considering my Spectrum Challenge Prize bill, I’m disappointed that my Republican colleagues are using today’s hearing to attack the 

Lifeline program. 

Two weeks ago, the FCC took a major step forward in our efforts to close the digital divide. Lifeline will support broadband connectivity and help low income households get and stay connected to the communications services they need to participate in the 21st century economy. 

Just as we are celebrating this progress for struggling families across the country, 

our Republican colleagues bring up legislation to take us backwards. A cap on Lifeline only artificially restricts the number of people this program can help. 

134 

Mr. Chairman cutting off Lifeline means cutting off economic opportunity for low 

income Americans. I urge my colleagues to reject any legislation that places a cap 

on Lifeline. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELLIOT L. ENGEL

Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, for convening today’s 

hearing and for your consideration of my bill, H.R. 2031, the Anti-Swatting Act. 

‘‘Swatting’’ refers to the act of provoking law enforcement to respond to a phony 

emergency. The act gets its name from the SWAT teams that are often deployed 

to respond to these hoaxes. 

Though swatting might sound like a prank, its consequences are no laughing matter. 

According to the FBI, a single SWAT team deployment can cost thousands of taxpayer dollars. Swatting also risks injury to the unassuming victims who are present 

when law enforcement arrives at an alleged crime scene, as well as to the officials 

who respond to these hoaxes, anticipating danger. On top of that, swatting wastes 

law enforcement’s precious time, keeping them from responding to actual, lifethreatening emergencies. 

I introduced the Anti-Swatting Act to address these very serious risks. 

The Anti-Swatting Act would expand on the Truth in Caller ID Act, which Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton and I introduced and was signed into law in 2010. 

My bill would increase penalties for people who falsify their caller ID information 

to mislead law enforcement. This technological trick called ‘‘spoofing’’ allows swatters to make law enforcement believe they are calling in an emergency from a different phone number or location. My bill would also force swatters to reimburse the 

emergency services that squander valuable funds responding to their invented emergency. 

The goal of my bill is to dissuade potential swatters from wasting law enforcement resources and—most importantly—from putting their neighbors and emergency response teams in harm’s way. 

I introduced the Anti-Swatting Act last year, following a string of swattings in my 

district. Incidents have also occurred in Tennessee, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina—the list goes on. It is my hope that this bill will keep additional communities 

from falling victim to these despicable crimes. 

135 


23502.001
136 


23502.002
137 


23502.003
138 


23502.004
139 


23502.005
140 


23502.006
141 


23502.007
142 


23502.008
143 


23502.009
144 


23502.010
145 


23502.011
146 


23502.012
147 


23502.013
148 


23502.014
149 


23502.015
150 


23502.016
151 


23502.017
152 


23502.018
153 


23502.019
154 


23502.020
155 


23502.021
156 


23502.022
157 


23502.023
158 


23502.024
159 


23502.025
160 


23502.026
161 


23502.027
162 


23502.028
163 


23502.029
164 


23502.030
165 


23502.031
166 


23502.032
167 


23502.033
168 


23502.034
169 


23502.035
170 


23502.036
171 


23502.037
172 


23502.038
173 


23502.039
174 


23502.122
175 


23502.123
176 


23502.124
177 


23502.125
178 


23502.126
179 


23502.127
180 


23502.128
181 


23502.129
182 


23502.130
183 


23502.131
184 


23502.132
185 

Æ 


23502.133