U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57–494 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 21, 2023 

Serial No. 118–51 

( 

Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 

energycommerce.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

Chair 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas 

JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice 

Chair 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., TEXAS

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

RUSS FULCHER, Idaho 

AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas 

DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee 

MARIANNETTE MILLER–MEEKS, Iowa 

KAT CAMMACK, Florida 

JAY OBERNOLTE, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware 

DARREN SOTO, Florida 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

KIM SCHRIER, Washington 

LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

NATE HODSON, Staff Director 

SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director 

TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia, Vice 

Chair 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., TEXAS

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

TROY BALDERSON, Ohio 

RUSS FULCHER, Idaho 

AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas 

DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee 

KAT CAMMACK, Florida 

JAY OBERNOLTE, California 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

(ex officio) 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

Ranking Member 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DARREN SOTO, Florida 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota 

LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 10 

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

Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Washington, opening statement ..................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

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

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES

Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission ....... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 131 

Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ............... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 149 

Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ............ 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission ........ 43 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 152 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent. 

List of documents submitted for the record ........................................................... 97 

Letter of June 20, 2023, from Brad Thaler, Vice President of Legislative 

Affairs, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, to Mr. 

Latta and Ms. Matsui .......................................................................................... 98 

Statement of American Television Alliance, June 21, 2023 ................................. 100 

Letter of June 20, 2023, from Scott Purcell, Chief Executive Officer, ACA 

International, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Matsui ...................................................... 102 

Letter of July 21, 2023, from Evan Marwell, Founder/Chief Executive Officer, 

EducationSuperHighway, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Matsui .................................. 105 

Letter of May 10, 2023, from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 

Rights, et al., to Hon. Patty Murray, Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee, et al. ......................................................................................................... 109 

Blog post of June 20, 2023, ‘‘How Successful Is the Affordable Connectivity 

Program?,’’ Common Sense ................................................................................. 116 

Letter of June 20, 2023, from Senator Roger F. Wicker, et al., to President 

Biden ..................................................................................................................... 119 

Letter from Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge, to Joel 

Taubenblatt, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission .......................................................................................... 121 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in the 

John D. Dingell Room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. 

Robert E. Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg, 

Carter, Dunn, Curtis, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, 

Pfluger, Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio), 

Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), Clarke, Veasey, Eshoo, 

Ca ́ rdenas, Craig, Fletcher, Dingell, Kuster, Kelly, and Pallone (ex 

officio). 

Also present: Representatives Johnson and Lesko. 

Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Slate Herman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sean Kelly, Press 

Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member 

Services Director; Tim Kurth, Chief Counsel, Innovation, Data, and 

Commerce; Giulia Leganski, Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; John Lin, Senior Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Carla Rafael, Senior Staff Assistant; Michael 

Taggart, Policy Director; Evan Viau, Professional Staff Member, 

Communications and Technology; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy 

Analyst; Jennifer Epperson, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; 

Dan Miller, Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael Scurato, 

Minority FCC Detailee; Johanna Thomas, Minority Counsel; and 

Keegan Cardman, Minority Intern. 

Mr. LATTA. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order, 

and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

And, again, good morning and welcome to today’s oversight hearing of the Federal Communications Commission. I want to begin by 

welcoming the Commissioners back to the subcommittee. It has 

been over a year since the Commission last testified before us, and 

to say we have a lot to cover in today’s hearing would be an understatement. 
2 

The FCC is an independent agency charged by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. Its responsibilities include administrating the Universal Service Fund, the USF, holding spectrum 

auctions, and regulating broadcast licenses. During the COVID–19 

pandemic, Congress added to the list by charging the FCC with administering the Affordable Connectivity Program, the ACP, the Energy Connectivity Fund, and the COVID–19 Telehealth Program 

totaling billions of dollars. 

Closing the digital divide is a key priority for this committee. 

Last month, the FCC released an updated version of its National 

Broadband Map, which showed that 8.3 million homes and businesses still lack access to high-speed broadband. This map, produced in accordance with the bill I led, the Broadband DATA Act, 

is significantly better than previous maps, but concerns with a 

preproduction draft that overstated coverage in some areas and 

missed communities in others highlight the need for oversight of 

the effort. 

This oversight is especially important because the National Telecommunications Information Administration plans to use this latest map to make allocations to States for $42 billion in the BEAD 

Program on June 30. With a huge amount of money at stake, we 

need confidence these maps are accurate so States get the right allocation and connect all their unserved and underserved residents. 

As I mentioned, the FCC administers the USF, the ACP, the 

ECF programs. Congress’ significant investment in broadband 

raises questions about the future of the USF. For example, what, 

if any, should the USF fund once the Infrastructure money is 

spent? How should Congress address duplicative programs like 

ACP and Lifeline, and who should contribute to the USF? I hope 

today’s discussion will answer these questions. 

Unfortunately, we also know these programs are ripe with waste, 

fraud, and abuse. The FCC Inspector General has issued two 

advisories related to enrollment fraud in ACP and its predecessor 

program, the Emergency Broadband Benefit, two programs creating response to the COVID–19 pandemic. And earlier this year, 

the Government Accountability Office found the FCC did not have 

the adequate antifraud controls for the program. It is my hope that 

the Commission takes these findings seriously and implements the 

right oversight and controls to prevent additional fraud from taking 

place. 

Finally, we need to fully fund the supply chain reimbursement, 

or the Rip and Replace Program, which Congress created to help 

small providers remove unsecure equipment from the networks. 

This committee unanimously passed H.R. 3565, the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act, to immediately address the shortfall and 

restore the FCC’s spectrum auction authority, which expired on 

March the 9th. Providers are required to begin the process of removing the equipment by July the 15th, and they need the certainty they can get reimbursed for their efforts. This is a serious 

problem, especially for rural America. 

Without these funds, small carriers could be forced to shut down 

their networks, leaving their customers without a connection. We 
3 

cannot let this happen and need the full House and Senate to act 

on this legislation immediately. 

I look forward to discussing the important issues before the Commission and thank the Commissioners for being with us today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. LATTA. And I now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for her 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 

to welcome the Commissioners who are here today. 

On March 9th of this year, the Commission’s auction authority 

expired. The very next day, this subcommittee held a hearing. Ironically, the title of that hearing was ‘‘Defending America’s Wireless 

Leadership.’’ As I said at that hearing, allowing this authority to 

lapse was a failure. To add insult to injury, it was a completely 

avoidable failure. 

I think I can speak for the members of this subcommittee when 

I say allowing this rolling lapse to continue is unacceptable. The 

stakes are simply too high. In May, the Energy and Commerce 

Committee once again passed a bill to reestablish FCC auction authority. We assert the statutory role of civilian agencies and fund 

vital national security initiatives. Until we pass that bill, economic 

and national security imperatives remain in limbo. 

One of the most pressing is our unfinished work ripping and replacing vulnerable Chinese gear in our networks. I say that because, without additional funding, the FCC will be forced to prorate 

reimbursements on July 17th. As an original cosponsor of the Secure and Trusted Networks Act, I can say with confidence Congress 

didn’t mandate the removal of some of this gear, we mandated the 

removal of every last piece. We did that because it is a clear and 

immediate national security threat. 

Passing the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act would also remove any uncertainty about the FCC’s ability to grant 2.5 

gigahertz licenses that are sitting unused. Companies with service 

footprints across the country are eager to put this spectrum to use. 

T-Mobile alone is waiting for the FCC to approve more than 7,000 

licenses with a collective value of more than $300 million. 

For these reasons and more, I am hopeful the House will vote on 

the bipartisan Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act as soon as 

possible. It will then be up to the Senate to join us in this effort. 

And I sincerely hope they do. 

But there is much more we need to discuss today because the 

FCC’s authority is vast and there is a lot of important work ahead 

of us. Most importantly, we need to stay committed to keeping 

American families connected. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 

established the Affordable Connectivity Program, or ACP, to help 

families afford a broadband connection. Whether that is for the 

first time or when you need a little extra help making ends meet, 

the ACP program is working. 

This program now helps more than 18 million households pay for 

the internet service, and like the law that created it, it remains 

steadfastly bipartisan. 

Republican Governors across the country are witnessing this program in action and praising its effectiveness. Governor Ivey of Alabama called the ACP ‘‘a great resource for Alabamians to get help 
11 

paying for the internet.’’ Governor Lombardo of Nevada said, ‘‘We 

need to make sure all Nevadans have a chance to connect, which 

is why we are committed to helping families access high-speed 

internet through the ACP.’’ And just yesterday, Senator Wicker led 

a group of eight Republican Senators urging the White House ‘‘to 

ensure the continuity of funding for this program.’’ 

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. LATTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

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

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

This bipartisan support reflects ACP’s successes. It keeps families connected, provides new customers for broadband companies, 

and it grows the economy. 

Now with that, I want to thank Chairwoman Rosenworcel and 

the Commissioners for being here today, and I look forward to our 

discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the 

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, the Chair of 

the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON 

Mrs. RODGERS. Good morning, everyone, and thank you, Chairman Latta. 

Welcome back to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners 

Carr and Starks and Simington. There is a lot on the agenda today. 

Since the last time you were before this committee in March of 

2022, the FCC spectrum auction authority has expired for the first 

time ever. The FCC stood up its Space Bureau and the Office of 

International Affairs, multiple versions of new broadband maps 

have been released, FCC Inspector General advisories have identified waste, fraud, and abuse in multibillion-dollar programs that 

were created to keep Americans connected during COVID, and a 

major merger under review that cleared the Department of Justice 

languished for more than 400 days at the FCC, a new record. This 

merger review was denied by FCC bureau staff rather than considered at the full Commission level. This is an unprecedented move 

by the Commission. 

Your agency also plays a key role in managing our Nation’s airwaves, a vital task. In order for the U.S. to lead in the next-generation technologies, the commercial industry must have access to 

spectrum. This committee has prioritized providing the FCC with 

the tools it needs to manage our Nation’s airwaves effectively. 

Unfortunately, a key tool used by the FCC, the authority to issue 

spectrum licenses, expired earlier this year for the first time ever. 

I have been working with my colleagues in the House for over a 

year and with colleagues in the Senate to extend this authority. 

Earlier this year, the committee unanimously passed H.R. 3565, 

the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act, to extend the FCC’s 

auction authority for 3 years, fund the shortfall in the Rip and Replace Program, and support our first responders through upgraded 

9–1–1 networks. We are continuing to work on advancing this legislation out of the House, through the Senate, and onto the President’s desk to sign. 

This committee is also prioritizing closing the digital divide, and 

the FCC has a key role to play in that effort. I am pleased that 

the Commission has released two versions of the broadband maps 

since our last oversight hearing. These maps are significantly better than the previous FCC maps, and we need to make sure that 

the FCC gets this right in order to ensure every person can participate in today’s economy. 

Forty-two billion dollars has been allocated to this effort, and we 

must be able to trust that these maps are correct and that this 

money is going to unserved communities. This money cannot be 

wasted, which we are unfortunately seeing in some of the other 

FCC programs. Since 2021, the FCC Inspector General has released two advisories warning of fraud in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, or ACP. Congress provided over 17 billion 
15 

for this program to help low-income individuals afford broadband. 

This fraud undermines confidence in the program and the FCC’s 

ability to administer it. This is especially concerning as Congress 

considers the future of ACP. 

The FCC also has been active in the media marketplace. In 

March 2022, Standard General announced its proposed acquisition 

of Tegna, which manages 64 television stations in 51 U.S. markets. 

The transition passed review unchallenged by the Department of 

Justice. 

Then in an unprecedented manner, the FCC delegated the decision to the Media Bureau, which was directed to punt this decision 

to an administrative law judge. It takes the administrative law 

judge an average of 799 days to complete the hearing process. Delegating this decision to an administrative law judge hearing effectively kills this deal. 

You were all confirmed by the Senate to take votes on these 

types of decisions. The Chair’s decision to delegate this manner 

to—matter to career officials is really of question today. This hearing—this oversight hearing of the Commission reaffirms our commitment to ensuring agencies under the jurisdiction of this committee are held accountable, uses the resources allocated to them 

responsibly, and stays on mission. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Carr, Starks, and 

Simington, I thank you for being here, and I look forward to our 

discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mrs. RODGERS. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back the balance of 

her time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New 

Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for 

an opening statement. 

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

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Latta. 

This is the second oversight hearing of the FCC since Chairwoman Rosenworcel has taken over. And, unfortunately, it is also 

our second hearing with only four Commissioners before us, and we 

need an FCC that is at full capacity with five Commissioners, and 

I still hope that the Senate will finally make this happen soon. 

Fortunately, the lack of a full Commission has not stopped the 

FCC from tackling important issues. The impressive bipartisan 

work reflects positively on Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s leadership 

and on the ability of all four of you to work together, compromise, 

and largely put the needs of people over partisan politics. 

And thanks to the Commission’s bipartisan efforts to rapidly 

stand up the Emergency Broadband Benefit and its success of the 

Affordable Connectivity Program, millions of American families 

have seen their internet bills reduced by $30 a month, and 75 if 

they are on Tribal lands. And these are significant savings that are 

helping more than 18 million families afford the monthly cost associated with broadband service. 

It is not surprising that the Affordable Connectivity Program has 

received bipartisan praise from Governors, State officials, and experts nationwide. We must come together to ensure that the program continues to receive the funding that is necessary to make 

the internet more affordable for millions of American families. 

Now, the program is also going to play an important role in ensuring that our historic broadband deployment investments don’t 

end up building infrastructure that goes unused because people at 

the other end can’t afford it. So last month the Commission released the latest version of the National Broadband Map, a product 

of the bipartisan Broadband DATA Act that we moved through this 

committee a few years ago. 

The map is critical to the implementation of the $42 billion 

Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Accurately mapping unserved and underserved communities is going to allow the Biden administration to 

use these historic investments to expand high-speed internet access 

to communities that have been left behind far too long. 

For years, Democrats and Republicans have complained about 

the lack of accurate broadband maps, and so I applaud your—you 

on advancing this effort. Although the maps have taken center 

stage, as we get closer to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment State allocations, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the 

agency to deliver and continue to improve what is surely the most 

granular broadband map we have ever had. The goal is to close the 

digital divide in these communities so that they can grow their 

economy for the future. 
22 

I would also like to commend the FCC for its work on implementing the Martha Wright-Reed Act to end predatory phone rates 

being charged to incarcerated people and their families. The Commission also adopted rules promoting broadband competition in 

condos and apartment buildings to help lower costs and provide additional options, a first-of-its-kind broadband nutrition label giving 

consumers more transparency into internet access plans. These are 

all proconsumer rules that provide consumers the tools they need 

to make the internet more affordable. 

Of course, there is still more work to be done. For instance, despite some significant steps forward with my TRACED Act, 

robocalls remain not only annoying but dangerous. Your requests 

for additional authority have not gone unheard, and I am determined to continue working to put an end to this problem once and 

for all. So I will be introducing legislation in the coming months 

to fix loopholes that allow these calls to continue, update the authorities of our expert agencies, and empower consumers. 

Similarly, you have told us that we are facing a shortfall in the 

Rip and Replace Program. Removing Huawei, and ZTE, and other 

suspect equipment is a critical national security issue, and I assure 

you that we are working hard to make sure that program doesn’t 

come up short. And the agency’s lapsed spectrum authority that 

the Chairwoman mentioned not only deprives the Commission of a 

core agency function, but it impacts a massive sector of our economy and jeopardizes our global wireless leadership. So I am proud 

of the bipartisan action that this committee has taken to rectify the 

situation, and we will not rest until we get that process back on 

track, and we must restore the FCC’s spectrum auction authority. 

And, finally, I remain concerned about the last administration’s 

reversal of net neutrality authority. This reversal leaves consumers 

without protection when it comes to bad behavior by broadband 

providers. Broadband is the central communications technology of 

our day, and yet we don’t have a broadband regulator, and that 

means consumer protections are falling by the wayside, so we need 

to fix that. 

But, again, thank you, thank all four of you for joining us today, 

and all the work that you have done successfully and on a bipartisan basis. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 
23 
24 
25 

Mr. PALLONE. And with that, Chairman Latta, I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back, and that 

will end our opening statements from our Members. 

Our witnesses today include the Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel, 

the Chair of the FCC; the Honorable Brendan Carr, the Commissioner; Honorable Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner; and also Honorable Nathan Simington, Commissioner of the FCC. 

I would like to note for the witnesses that the timer light will 

turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining and will turn red 

when your time has expired. I also just want to make a quick point 

again that we do have another subcommittee running upstairs, so 

we are going to have Members shuffling back and forth throughout 

the morning. Health started at 10:00, and we, of course, started at 

10:30. 

I would also just like to take a point of personal privilege to recognize our former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 

from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for being with us today, who always is 

looking down from us. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LATTA. So your presence is always felt. But welcome back. 

Chairman Rosenworcel, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, CHAIRWOMAN, AND 

BRENDAN CARR, GEOFFREY STARKS, AND NATHAN 

SIMINGTON, COMMISSIONERS, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Good morning, Chair McMorris Rodgers, 

Ranking Member Pallone, Chair Latta, and Ranking Member Matsui, as well as members of the subcommittee. 

Since I appeared before you last, a lot has happened at the Federal Communications Commission. With the pandemic behind us, 

it has become clear that broadband is no longer just nice to have, 

it is need to have for everyone everywhere. Network security is 

needed by everyone everywhere. Effective public safety communications are needed by everyone everywhere, and every consumer 

should be the beneficiary of innovation from competitive markets 

with services that are open, reliable, affordable, and fair. 

We are meeting this moment at the Commission by turning down 

the noise and ramping up the work. Let me explain how. 

First, we set up the Affordable Connectivity Program. It is the 

largest broadband affordability program in our Nation’s history, 

and it now helps nearly 19 million households get online and stay 

online. 

Second, we are fighting for consumers by promoting competition. 

We develop broadband labels that look just like the nutrition labels 

you see at the grocery store. Every carrier will need to use them 

so that every one of us can compare services plans. And we proposed all-in pricing to stop junk fees on cable and satellite bills. On 

top of that, we took action to help those who live in apartment 

buildings by ending sweetheart deals that landlords sometimes cut, 
26 

making residents stuck with one broadband provider and shutting 

them off from competition. 

Third, we built the National Broadband Map. It is the most accurate broadband map in our Nation’s history, and it is designed to 

be iterative. That means it is always improving. 

Fourth, we are helping connect the most vulnerable. We are 

using the Safe Connections Act to improve access to communications for survivors of domestic violence. We are using the Martha 

Wright-Reed Act to finally address the sky-high rates for communications for families of the incarcerated. And this month we took 

action to make the video conferencing platforms that became so 

popular during the pandemic accessible to those with disabilities. 

Fifth, we are doubling down on efforts to stop scam robocalls and 

robotexts. That means we have required new technologies in our 

networks, we are using new and creative enforcement tools, and we 

have new allies. Under my watch, we have developed partnerships 

with 44 State attorneys general to fight robocalls and robotexts. 

And to the six remaining, I am coming for you because nobody likes 

this junk. 

Sixth, we are helping connect people to emergency services. Next 

month is the 1-year anniversary of the Commission setting up 9– 

8–8. That is the easy-to-remember, three-digit hotline to reach out 

to for suicide prevention and mental health assistance. Under my 

watch, we have also made it available for texting, not just phone 

calls, and it is making a difference. Last month, nearly twice as 

many people used this number as the old 10-digit hotline number 

from a year earlier. 

Seventh, we are doing a lot to keep our networks safe. We have 

published the first-ever list of communication services that pose an 

unacceptable risk to national security. We are working with carriers to remove insecure Chinese equipment from their networks. 

And we are laser-like focused on consumer security with the firstever Privacy and Data Protection Task Force at the Commission. 

Eighth, we are working to make our networks more resilient. We 

have seen snow in Texas, hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, and 

wildfires out West, and every one of those events puts communications at risk. In response, we have developed a mandatory disaster 

response initiative, for the first time requiring roaming and mutual 

aid from carriers so that, when the unthinkable occurs, our calls 

are all more likely to go through. 

Ninth, we have launched the Space Bureau. The space economy 

is growing fast, and also growing are the number of satellite applications before the Commission. We are reorganizing to support this 

growth and ensure that in the new Space Age, the United States 

leads. 

Tenth, but not last, we are building the wireless future. We have 

held two midband spectrum auctions, identified more than a thousand megahertz of spectrum for new use in the 12 and 13 gigahertz 

band, and are organizing for our 6G future with networks that feature dynamic access technologies, machine learning, and artificial 

intelligence. But we need your help, because for the first time in 

three decades, the agency’s spectrum auction authority has expired. 

We need it back, because using this tool, the Commission has 

distributed wireless licenses in 100 auctions and raised more than 
27 

$233 billion for the United States. This is the tool that has made 

us the worldwide leader in wireless. We need this tool back because 

we do not intend to cede that title to anyone else 

I want to thank my colleagues who have been an integral part 

of all of these efforts, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your statement. 

Commissioner Carr, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR 

Mr. CARR. Thank you. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

invitation to testify. 

I want to start by commending this body for its continued leadership on initiatives that will increase Americans’ access to affordable, high-speed broadband. One example is the Satellite and Telecommunications Streamlining Act. So I want to applaud the bipartisan leadership that Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone 

have demonstrated in moving that bill forward. The legislation 

would strengthen America’s space-based leadership while promoting competition in encouraging businesses to base their operations here in the U.S. 

I also want to applaud Members for their work on the American 

Broadband Deployment Act as well as the recently passed bipartisan Federal Land Reforms bill that would accelerate broadband 

infrastructure builds. Streamlining infrastructure rules is vital to 

the Nation’s effort to close the digital divide, so I would encourage 

swift passage of those smart bills. 

At the Commission, I have welcomed the chance to work with 

many of you and my FCC colleagues to advance the public interest. 

I would like to highlight a few of those areas today. 

First, extending U.S. leadership in wireless has been one of my 

top priorities. My first few years in this job, I was pleased with the 

fast actions the FCC took on spectrum. All told, those spectrum initiatives opened up more than 6 gigahertz of licensed spectrum for 

5G in addition to thousands of megahertz of unlicensed spectrum. 

But there is more that we can and should be doing on spectrum. 

For one, the FCC itself should formally identify target bands that 

are underutilized. I set out some ideas on this front in a spectrum 

calendar that I previously released. For another, Congress should 

act to restore the FCC spectrum auction authority, which lapsed 

for the first time ever. At bottom, a swift acceleration in FCC spectrum action is vital, as studies increasingly show that the U.S. will 

soon face a significant spectrum shortfall. 

Turning from spectrum to infrastructure, we need to make even 

more progress on permitting reform. At the FCC, we should bring 

fresh urgency to this effort, including by examining whether we 

should extend some of our decisions on small cells and 5G builds 

to fiber and other high-speed offerings. The Government should 

also look at modernizing our approach to broadband bills that cross 

Federal lands. Getting approval from all of the Federal agencies 

that manage those lands has long been an impediment, particularly 

for reaching rural communities. In fact, we often hold State and 

local governments to tighter timelines than the Federal Government itself, and I think this needs to end. 

And permitting reform is especially vital as we sit here today because the Commerce Department is poised to allocate about $42 

billion to States for the expansion of high-speed internet. Without 

permitting reform, those dollars simply will not go as far as Congress intended. 
34 

Now, the influx of those Federal dollars also highlights the ongoing shortage of broadband workers, the tower crews and telecom 

techs needed to build out internet infrastructure. Bolstering this 

workforce will not only accelerate internet builds, it will create 

thousands of good-paying jobs. And that is why I launched a jobs 

initiative that looks to community colleges and technical schools as 

pathways into the industry. 

And just recently I had the chance to join Commissioner Starks 

at Virginia State University, an HBCU, for a broadband and 5G 

workforce training event, and it was a good example of the types 

of initiatives that can play a key role in meeting our workforce 

challenge. 

In addition to supporting the buildout of high-speed networks, 

the FCC has also been busy working to safeguard our networks 

from entities that threaten our national security. We need to keep 

making progress here too. To do so, the Federal Government 

should take action on several additional fronts. 

For one, the FCC should build on our actions in the Section 214 

context by opening a new proceeding to examine whether we 

should prohibit regulated carriers from directly interconnecting 

with entities that have been deemed a national security risk. 

For another, the FCC should publish a list of every entity with 

an FCC license or authorization that has sufficient ties back to a 

foreign adversary, including Communist China. I would imagine 

that this is a fairly lengthy list at this point. This action would 

help ensure that a range of stakeholders can provide any relevant 

information about national security threats that those entities may 

pose. One bill that would accomplish this is the bipartisan FACT 

Act that Congresswoman Stefanik and Congressman Khanna have 

introduced, so I support those efforts. 

In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:] 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much for your statement. 

Commissioner Starks, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY STARKS 

Mr. STARKS. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, and Ranking Member Pallone, 

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today. 

The last time that I appeared before this body, I remarked that 

we stood at an inflection point in our communications history. I 

continue to believe that is the case. Broadband has emerged as a 

lynchpin of opportunity in our modern economy, creating a new 

sense of urgency to connect all Americans everywhere. At the same 

time, wireless networks continue to evolve to new and vastly more 

capable technology generations, driving the need for ubiquity and 

greater access to scarce—to the scarce commodity that we call spectrum. 

Amidst our great interconnectedness, we also face new threats 

from bad actors and foreign adversaries. Now more than ever, our 

network security is national security. In the age of online job 

boards, telehealth, and the homework gap, millions of Americans 

remain without a home broadband connection. For far too many of 

them, affordability is the key reason why. 

In response to the problem, Congress established the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, the ACP, which we have implemented. As of 

June 12th, 18.68 million households were enrolled in ACP. That 

figure includes more than 100,000 households in 36 States, 10,000 

households in all 50 States, and at least a hundred households in 

several thousand rural ZIP Codes, including more than 80 percent 

of nonmetro counties. 

Our wireless networks continue to transform the way we live, 

work, learn, build, and communicate. At the end of last year, U.S. 

mobile carriers launched 5G networks in more than 500 American 

cities, surpassing China’s count for the very first time. To ensure 

that this pace of innovation in wireless continues and that it benefits all Americans, our networks need to grow in their capability, 

in their coverage, and in the choice that they offer consumers. 

As we expand access, increase our connective capabilities, we 

have even more reason to ensure that our networks remain secure. 

In 2019, I called for the United States to find it, fix it, fund it— 

that is, to identify insecure equipment in our U.S. telecommunication networks, remove that equipment, replace it with equipment 

from trusted resources. 

Through your actions in the Secure and Trusted Communications 

Act, we are now in the process of implementing that Rip and Replace programming, and we must continue to work together to address this ongoing threat and finalize that remediation process. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I look 

forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Starks follows:] 
41 
42 
43 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you for your testimony. 

Commissioner Simington, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NATHAN SIMINGTON 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Thank you. Chairman Latta, Vice Chair Carter, 

Ranking Member Matsui, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before you today. 

In my opening remarks at last year’s oversight hearing, I discussed my three policymaking priorities within the Commission: securing wireless devices against cyber attacks, putting in place orbital debris rules that will ensure that Earth orbit is a natural resource that is as available to future generations as it is to us, and 

improving receiver performance to make it faster and cheaper to 

newly commercialized or repurposed spectrum. 

Many have attempted to characterize the Commission as deadlocked, at least until another confirmation can jolt us back to life, 

but the facts reveal the opposite: a Commission totally committed 

to the public interest and faithful implementation of congressional 

mandates. I am pleased to say, for example, that we have made 

great progress in all three areas that I have listed. 

On the security front, we have banned untrustworthy Chinese 

Communist Party-controlled equipment from our networks and continue to explore how to further incorporate cybersecurity standards 

in our equipment authorization rules. 

Regarding orbital debris management, we instituted a requirement that low Earth orbit satellite operators safely de-orbit their 

satellites within 5 years of the end of their mission. And I would 

like to thank committee Chair McMorris Rodgers and Ranking 

Member Matsui for their work on the proposed Satellite Streamlining and Spectrum Coexistence Acts, respectfully, both of which 

I very much support. 

Concerning receivers, the Commission issued a policy statement 

detailing how receiver performance is essential for making the best 

use of scarce and valuable spectrum and how it can be integrated 

into future spectrum policymaking. This pushes back against the 

practice of forcing inefficient, lighter use of new licenses to protect 

old backward receivers that ought to be replaced. And so I look forward to modifying FCC processes to allow the Commission to put 

these principles into action in future rulemakings. 

In my remarks today, I want to focus on three other important 

issues facing the FCC. 

First, I can’t emphasize enough how vital it is that the FCC spectrum auction authority is renewed. The auction system for commercializing spectrum has been a resounding success and, in fact, 

earned its architect a Nobel Prize in economics. It has ensured that 

valuable spectrum gets put to the highest and best use, and it has 

kept the United States the global leader in wireless communications. It has been copied by countries around the world. 

The private sector’s thirst for spectrum to serve public demand 

is unquenchable, and any amount of Greenfield spectrum made 

available for new commercial use can represent many millions of 

dollars’ worth of innovation and productivity gains for the American economy, not to mention revenues for the U.S. Treasury. The 

FCC should also proceed with its work on improving reception and 
44 

coexistence to retain Congress’ confidence that our work on spectrum commercialization is driving efficiency and modernization, not 

just uptake. 

I know there are some contentious issues surrounding the renewal of the FCC’s authority, and I just want to thank Congress 

for its diligent work on resolving them while committing to get 

more out of spectrum that is already commercialized. 

Second, the Commission should adopt rules allowing all exercises 

of delegated authority to be timely reviewed by the full Commission. The FCC Chair has broad discretion in delegating matters to 

career officials and political appointees, which restricts those matters from the review, comment, and voting of the full Commission. 

This weakens, in my opinion, congressional oversight by removing 

accountability from Senate-confirmed officials. 

In light of the questions raised in recent litigation about the 

scope of administrative discretion, I still believe that it is in Congress’ interest for administrative agencies to retain discretion on 

issues that are too granular for Congress to effectively address. 

However, this is likely to be challenged in the courts or by Congress itself if we abuse this discretion by taking issues away from 

the Commission and giving them without timely recourse to the 

staff. 

Third, funds for the Affordable Connectivity Program are due to 

expire next year, and the question of whether and in what form to 

reauthorize it is before you. Commission staff did a diligent and 

praiseworthy job implementing the provisions of the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, and I want to thank them for that. Unfortunately, considering our experience with the Universal Service 

Fund Lifeline Program, I fear that waste, fraud, and abuse will be 

a continuing issue with this program and, indeed, cases have already been uncovered. It is crucial to implement fullproof procedures for verifying eligible individuals who actually need the service at the receiving end of the benefit. 

I welcome ACP uptake to get Americans online and able to access needed resources for modern life. However, if Congress wants 

the program to endure, the FCC should look into the factors going 

into adoption to ensure that ACP dollars are indeed driving adoption and uptake, not merely acting as a subsidy for broadband service that consumers would have purchased anyway. I look forward 

to engaging with you and your colleagues in the Senate as you consider whether and in what form to renew this program. 

Chairman Latta, Vice Chair Carter, Ranking Member Matsui, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I want to thank 

you again for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared Mr. Simington follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you for your opening statement, and we 

also want to thank the Commissioners again for being with us 

today. 

And at this time, we will begin questions from the members of 

the subcommittee, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Last month, the FCC released a second version of the Broadband 

DATA Act maps. The first version of this map, while better than 

previous FCC maps, had significant issues. Madam Chair, what 

has changed since version 1 and how confident are you in the accuracy of the most recent version so that NTIA can use it to make 

the State allocations? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. We have produced the most accurate broadband maps in our Nation’s history. 

The old maps we had were light years behind what we have now 

today. We have got 114 million households we have identified by 

latitude and longitude, and we have recognized that there are 8.3 

million households that have no service. 

But we are going to continue to work, not just with our colleagues at NTIA, but also with State broadband authorities across 

the country, get their input, get their facts, and make sure that 

that data keeps on getting better all the time. And we would certainly be happy to share those changes with you because it is our 

goal to produce these maps twice a year under the law. And like 

I said in my opening statement, they will always be improving. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, what is your assessment of the current map? 

Mr. CARR. Chairman Latta, first of all, thank you for your leadership on the Broadband DATA Act. We had bipartisan recognition 

for years that our old maps were not fit for purpose for what we 

needed them to, and the Broadband DATA Act you helped get 

across the finish line ensured that we are where we are today, 

which is that the first version of the map that came out 6 months 

ago or so, there was a lot of concern with it, but I think all the 

feedback that I am seeing and my own analysis of this map shows 

that it is improved. 

And as the Chair said, it is going to be an iterative process. We 

need to continue to work with State broadband offices, including to 

make sure that they are using that map not just for the initial allocation decision that Commerce will make but as they decide where 

the funding can go, because this map can also play a key role in 

preventing overbuilding and make sure we are targeting unserved 

areas. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. 

Madam Chair, since your elevation to the Chair of the Commission, the FCC has adopted most items by a 4 to 0 vote. As an independent agency responsible for technical expertise in administrating the Communications Act, it is refreshing to see the Commission acting in a bipartisan way without straying too far outside 

of your authorizing statute or exerting regulatory overreach. 

Tomorrow, the Senate is considering the nominees that would restore the Commission to its full strength of five Commissioners. 

Should a fifth Commissioner be confirmed, do you commit to continuing to pursue an agenda that will maintain the strong bipar-
50 

tisan agreement and practice regulatory restraint similar to actions 

taken by the Commission under a 2–2 split? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I am proud of the work we have been 

able to accomplish as a four-member agency. Like I said in my 

opening statement, we have turned down the noise and we have 

ramped up the work. But I also recognize that Congress intended 

this body to have five members, so I look forward to that day coming sooner rather than later but will continue to operate in a collegial way with every one of my colleagues no matter who they are 

and no matter how many we have. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, since 2020, Congress has provided significant funding for broadband deployment affordability, distance 

learning, and telehealth. The USF also funds these activities. How 

do you view the future of the USF and in light of these new programs? 

Mr. CARR. Chairman, thanks for the question. For years, maybe 

even decades, the FCC’s Universal Service Program was the lion’s 

share of all Federal support for broadband builds, for digital divide 

efforts. And now we are seeing a lot of efforts across many other 

agencies as well. There was a GAO report recently that said that 

we now have something like 130 programs spread across 15 agencies. 

So I think the time is ripe right now to make sure that we have 

a coordinated approach to all these different broadband programs, 

and I think that can start with a big think about how does the USF 

fit within those other programs. There is some good legislation that 

would do that, including from Members here, Congressman 

Walberg, Congresswoman Kuster, the PLAN Act, which would ensure better coordination across all of that. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. Let me follow up, Commissioner 

Carr. On July the 17th, participants in the Rip and Replace Program would be required to submit their first claims for reimbursement. This committee has acted twice, but unless Congress acts before July the 17th, this program will not be fully funded. What will 

happen if Congress fails to act, and what are the implications to 

national security and also for rural America? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, if we don’t fully fund Rip and Replace quickly, 

there is going to be very serious real-world consequences. The insecure gear is going to come out, but the challenge is having the 

funding for these small providers to replace it. And so in some extreme circumstances we could even see small rural ISPs and other 

sort of wireless providers, that might be the only option in an area, 

could potentially go out of business. Otherwise, entities could stay 

in business, but they would have holes in coverage, which itself is 

a public safety challenge. So I do think we need to make good on 

our commitment to all of these providers to fully fund Rip and Replace. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, and it is definitely essential. And I know we 

have had a lot of discussions, not only on this subcommittee and 

full committee and also with you as the Commissioners, but we 

have got to get this thing done. And I am looking forward to making sure that as we move things out of the House and get it over 

to the Senate that they can bring these things up. 
51 

My time has expired, and I will submit my extra questions I had 

that I wasn’t able to get to for the—later to be answered. And I 

will now recognize the gentlelady from California, the ranking 

member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The ACP is helping more than 18 million households afford a 

broadband connection. Whether that is for the first time or getting—after getting laid off, the ACP is working. 

Madam Chair, can you briefly describe the relationship between 

the ACP and broadband deployments through the BEAD Program? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. I think that relationship is really important. After all, Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with both of these programs. They work 

hand in hand. The BEAD Program supports deployment, and the 

Affordable Connectivity Program supports subscribership. These 

two programs need to go together. That is how we make sure that 

we solve the digital divide in this country. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Commissioner Starks, briefly, could you describe the geographic 

footprint of the ACP and its effect on both rural and urban communities? 

Mr. STARKS. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

I think both of these programs, we see that there are a significant 

number of ACP enrollees in BEAD spaces, and in fact BEAD and 

the buildout commitments that folks are going to have to make, 

providers are going to have to make, they have to offer an affordable option as well. And so I also agree that the footprint that is 

going to be expanded through BEAD is also going to be very important as it has a synergy with ACP. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. 

As an original cosponsor of the Rip and Replace bill, I believe we 

must be unwavering in our commitment to get every single piece 

of vulnerable Chinese gear out of our networks. Madam Chair, 

could you describe the consequences if Congress fails to address the 

$13 billion shortfall in Rip and Replace funding by July 17th? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. Like my colleague Commissioner 

Carr said, we need to get this equipment out of our Nation’s networks, and the small carriers that have it are going to face a tough 

choice. They are either going to file with us and request support 

to remove it but only get paid about 40 cents on the dollar, or they 

will leave this equipment in their networks. That is a really unacceptable choice, and I think that we need to work with Congress 

to make sure we fully fund this program and get this insecure 

equipment out of our Nation’s networks. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. I am sure to many I sound like a 

broken record, but I believe it is a national security and economic 

imperative for the U.S. Government to speak with one voice on 

spectrum governance. Madam Chair, in the runup to the WRC, do 

you believe a protracted lapse in auction authority has implications 

for our standing in the international community? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, absolutely. We need to go to the World 

Radio Conference this year with full spectrum authority. We need 

to lead at that conference and lead the world on these matters. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. 
52 

Commissioner Simington, I want to thank you for your work 

highlighting the role of receivers in promoting more effective use 

of our limited spectrum. I also appreciate your support for my 

Spectrum Coexistence Act, which would require the Federal Government to take a close look at its existing receiver technology. 

Commissioner Simington, briefly, what is the role of receivers in 

promoting more efficient spectrum use, and do you think it is valuable for the Government to scrutinize its own technology? 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Thank you, Congresswoman, and I greatly appreciate—I’m sorry, Ranking Member Matsui, and I greatly appreciate your comments. 

So the roles of—role of receivers in spectrum is—you know, is 

that there is a two-way transmission path—you transmit and you 

receive—and therefore the quality of receivers has a great bearing 

on what can be transmitted and what can be transmitted adjacently. Therefore, in planning spectrum, everyone takes receiver— 

anticipated receiver quality and performance into account implicitly. 

The danger is and the reasons that the FCC has been reluctant 

to touch this issue before is that the Federal Government could impose overly rigid standards or perhaps deviate from the harmful interference standard that is long established as not only our law but 

also as the international approach in favor of an engineering standard that would then become precedential and inappropriate and 

would serve as a straightjacket to lock us into a particular developmental pathway. 

Ms. MATSUI. OK, thank you. 

Today—I want to talk about robocalls. Today Chairman Lujan 

and I introduced the FCC Legal Enforcement Act to give the FCC 

new authority to go after scammers. Consumers across the country 

are inundated with these calls, and I believe it is imperative we 

help enforce and keep up with these fly-by-night operations. Chair 

Rosenworcel, can you talk about the limitations of the existing 

process and how this bill would help the FCC crack down on 

scammers? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for your efforts. We have been 

working to try to get rid of these junk calls and texts on overtime. 

In fact, like I mentioned, we have 44 State attorneys general now 

working with us on this. We have issued more than $700 million 

in fines, but the FCC is not institutionally allowed to go collect 

those fines in court. I would like to have the power to do so. I recognize that some of these folks are fly-by-night companies, but I 

want to be able to hold them accountable in a court of law, so I 

appreciate your legislative efforts. 

Ms. MATSUI. Well, thank you very much, and I hope we get rid 

of those robocalls. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, the Chair of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, a question to each of you. I will start with the Chair. H.R. 

3565, the Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023, would restore FCC’s general auction authority, fund the shortfall in the Rip 
53 

and Replace Program, and lead to improved processes for making 

spectrum available for commercial use. Do you support the legislation? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Absolutely. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Commissioner? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, it is vital that we restore auction authority. The 

legislation does that, and I want to thank you for the leadership 

in doing that. 

Mr. STARKS. Yes, thank you for the leadership as well. I strongly 

support the restoration of the FCC’s auction authority development 

of a spectrum pipeline. I think it is vital for security. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Thank you. I am very pleased the House has 

prioritized the reauthorization of the FCC’s auction authority, and 

I hope a comprehensive bill moves forward quickly through both 

houses of Congress. I believe nothing is more important than ensuring the FCC’s auction authority is reinstated expeditiously and 

that a robust spectrum pipeline plan is secured in order to preserve 

U.S. technology leadership. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you. 

To the Chair, just a few months ago the Commission officially 

stood up the Space Bureau and voted its first item on the satellite 

communications licensing. While I was disappointed that the announcement came as a surprise, I am glad that we have a shared 

goal of ensuring that the FCC processes satellite licenses effectively 

and efficiently. I appreciate your support of our legislation, the 

SAT Streamlining Act, which would provide direction to the FCC’s 

Space Bureau to establish a streamline statutory framework for 

the FCC to license satellite communications. 

How does the new Space Bureau advance the goal of making the 

United States an international leader on satellite spectrum policy? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I appreciate the priority you have 

brought to this issue here at the committee, and I want to make 

clear that we share it at the agency. We reorganized to set up a 

Space Bureau because we have so many more satellite applications 

before us, and the Untied States is in a position to lead, but we 

are going to have to process them more rapidly and more thoughtfully. 

We have already done work on orbital debris, we have done work 

to change the processing rounds for satellites and low Earth orbit, 

and we are the first country in the world to start to contemplate 

the combination of terrestrial and satellite systems in a single network future. So I think we have launched with a lot of activity and 

energy, and we will be happy to keep you apprised of our progress. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you. Senator Cruz and I sent you a letter, 

Madam Chair, in April requesting information related to the 

Standard General application to acquire Tegna. In your response, 

you declined to answer most of our questions. Since the transition 

is no longer before the FCC to be litigated, I hope you can answer 

our questions today. 

This merger would have created the Nation’s largest minorityowned and woman-led broadcast company in the United States’ history. There were reports that you knew by delegating this to be— 

to an administrative law judge that it was destined to fall apart. 
54 

As the Chair of the FCC, the Commission has control over the 

transfer of broadcast licenses, so why was the hearing designation 

order issued by the Media Bureau under delegated authority rather 

than through a full Commission vote? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. To be clear, this is still a restricted proceeding, so there are some limitations, but I will try to answer your 

questions. The Commission has lots of precedent for doing this at 

the bureau letter—level. Be happy to share those cases with you. 

In addition, the parties to this transaction took the agency to 

court not once but twice and alleged that we were not following the 

law, but the DC Circuit in both cases found that the FCC’s efforts 

to send this to an administrative law judge fully complied with the 

Communications Act. This is a provision that has been in the law 

since the 1930s, and if, of course, this committee has difficulties 

with it, we would work with you to change it and adjust it. But to 

be clear, our efforts and our process was held up in court on two 

separate occasions. 

Mrs. RODGERS. I would like to ask the other Commissioners if 

you believe this acquisition should have received a full Commission 

vote, beginning with Commissioner Carr. 

Mr. CARR. Yes, Chair Rodgers, I mean, look, as you noted, this 

would have created the largest minority-owned female-led broadcasting group. We have tried at the FCC through lots of administrations to bolster minority ownership in media, and here we would 

have gone from the single digits in terms of ownership by minorities of full power stations to into the teens for the first time ever. 

I think we deserve to give these parties an up or down vote on the 

merits after a year-plus-long review. 

It is a problem here, but also more broadly I think it is a troubling signal to anybody looking to invest in local journalism, which 

we need as a country, that at any point in time a trap door could 

open up and they can’t get to a decision on the merits. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you. 

Mr. STARKS. Yes, thank you for the question. From my perspective, the transaction in full never came before me as a Commissioner. I didn’t have the opportunity to view the full record. But, 

you know, as the Chairwoman said, twice this came before on the 

question of process, and the law, and our—how we handled the 

transaction was upheld by the DC Circuit. 

Mrs. RODGERS. OK. Commissioner Simington? 

Mr. SIMINGTON. I am not going to disagree with the characterization of the process as following the law as currently written. On the 

other hand, I don’t know that this addresses the concerns that you 

have raised with the adequacy of that process and with the confidence that we can have that this process will result in full Commission review going forward. 

So as I stated in my opening remarks, I think it would be useful 

for the FCC to adopt or for Congress to propose to the FCC means 

of ensuring that every such transaction is able to receive timely review at the Commission level. 

Mrs. RODGERS. Thank you. Thank you. 

And my time is expired. I think bottom line, I want to reinforce 

the importance of the full Commission doing—fulfilling your re-
55 

sponsibilities versus being delegated to the Media Bureau. But 

more to come. 

I’ll yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Latta. 

I think we would all agree that robocalls are pervasive and can 

be dangerous, and I authored the TRACED Act to impose commonsense restrictions on these calls, and I recently announced that I 

will be introducing legislation to—in part to fix loopholes caused by 

the Supreme Court that allowed these calls to continue, unfortunately. 

So let me ask Chairwoman Rosenworcel about, you know, what 

we can do about robocalls. What additional tools can Congress give 

the FCC to combat abusive robocalls? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for your work on this. Unfortunately, the scam artists behind these calls are nimble, so we are 

going to have to change our practices and change our approach 

fairly regularly. 

Two things I think would make a difference. The first, as I mentioned to Congresswoman Matsui, is making sure we have the authority to go to court and collect these fines. And the second thing 

is something I know that you have talked about, which is correcting a loophole that was created by the Supreme Court in the 

year before last where they froze the definition of auto-dialer in 

1991 so that many of the scam artists can use equipment that get 

outside of the purview of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

I would like to fix that so we can go after more of these bad actors, and it is my understanding you are willing to introduce legislation to do so, so we would be happy to help. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Now, I welcome recent actions to 

refocus the agency on consumer privacy and data security. This 

committee has on a bipartisan basis been working aggressively to 

enact a privacy bill, but in the absence of a national standard, it 

is important that agencies like the FCC are stepping up to protect 

consumers’ data. The committee is also currently investigating the 

shady world of data brokers, and I repeatedly pushed then-Chairman Pai to act in 2019 after reports exposed the sale of extremely 

sensitive wireless location data to bad actors like bounty hunters. 

The FCC existing rules prevent the sale of this data in most situations, and I was encouraged when the Commission finally took bipartisan action, yet I am troubled that efforts to finalize these enforcement actions have remained pending for nearly a year. 

So can I ask each of you, beginning with the Chairwoman—and 

just say yes or no—have you voted to approve the pending forfeiture orders? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Commissioner Carr? 

Mr. CARR. I have been discussing with my colleagues some ideas 

for paths forward in those. So, for instance, the sale of the sensitive 

data continues. It has shifted from the carriers over to sort of other 

third parties. And my focus is how do we use this enforcement proceeding to potentially get at that ongoing conduct. And so that is 
56 

what I have sort of put forward, and I would welcome the chance 

to do that in these enforcement items, and I would be happy to 

move quickly on it. 

Mr. PALLONE. So then you haven’t voted to approve the pending 

forfeiture orders? 

Mr. CARR. Right. I am hoping we can move forward in a way—— 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. 

Mr. CARR [continuing]. That addresses a broader problem—— 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. No, I am just trying to get through this. 

So let me go to Commissioner Starks. 

Mr. STARKS. Yes, I have voted the items. 

Mr. PALLONE. And Commissioner—I can’t even read. Oh, 

Simington, I’m sorry. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. That is fine. Like Commissioner Carr, I remain 

troubled by the movement of the data brokers into GPS pings instead of CPMI, and I have not yet voted on these items. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK, thank you. 

Now let me go back to the Chairwoman. Can you talk more 

about this sensitivity of precise location data and why it is so important for the Commission to confirm these orders as soon as possible? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. Our geolocation data is a record of who 

we are, it is where we go and everything we do. And at the FCC, 

we have the gold standard. We tell carriers they cannot sell that 

data to anyone. That was a policy adopted during the last administration. And to the carriers who violated it, I just want to be able 

to hold them to account. That is why I would appreciate my colleagues voting on the enforcement action that I have put before 

them. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Last question. During Superstorm 

Sandy, I saw the consequences of a total breakdown of communication networks, and I have worked to make sure people can stay 

connected when it matters the most. So the FCC recently mandated the wireless resiliency framework that I helped create, and 

this is going to make a difference and save lives. 

So let me just ask the Chairwoman: Can you provide me with a 

status update on that effort? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. Appreciate the work you did following 

Superstorm Sandy. You set up a template for the Commission and 

carriers to develop a voluntary framework to help restore communications after a disaster. 

Following Hurricane Ida, Commissioner Carr and I went down to 

Louisiana, spent time with public safety there, and concluded that 

that framework could no longer be voluntary, it needed to be mandatory. It is now in place, and we are going to keep tabs on it to 

make sure it works. We will have no shortage of hurricanes and 

storms and wildfires, and which we do so, but it is really important 

that we keep up to date with these policies and make sure that 

every carrier works together to sustain communications in a disaster. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I was going to ask Commissioner Carr 

to comment, but my time is out, so thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. WALBERG [presiding]. Thank the gentleman, and now I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis. 
57 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and I 

appreciate all your testimony here. 

Chairwoman, just like with the FTC oversight hearing, I have 

been anxiously waiting for the FCC’s return to the Hill for its due 

oversight hearing. And right before the agency is set to testify, it 

magically starts to respond to congressional letters—imagine 

that—announce grant awards, and in this case break news on the 

establishment of a new privacy task force. 

Over the past few years, considerable time and effort on the Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee, which I chair, has 

been occurring on a bipartisan data privacy bill, so we are working 

on that. I expect you are familiar with previous versions, of course, 

of the efforts, which include having the FTC regulate common characters’ collection, use, and transfer of consumer information as opposed to the FCC. 

So the question is, Madam Chairwoman, should our takeaway on 

your privacy task force be that the FCC wants to regulate on top 

of what the FTC regulates on data privacy protections? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Consumers care deeply about communications privacy, that is why Congress provided the FCC with authority to address communications privacy in section 222 of the law, 

section 631 of the law, and section 337 of the law. We are using 

those provisions to help protect consumer privacy right now. We 

are not waiting for new laws, we are going to use them as much 

as we can to protect consumers as much as we can. 

The bottom line is that we have data breach laws that need to 

be updated in the communications sector, we have SIM-swapping 

fraud we need to get on top of, and we have the enforcement of 

geolocation fines that needs to take place. I don’t think we should 

apologize for using the law as we have it before us and protecting 

consumers’ privacy. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, you know, I know you just stated and you 

cited some sections of statutes. Again, elaborate a little. Can you— 

which sections of the statutes you rely on to provide with the authority to regulate data privacy. I know you just stated that 

but—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Customer proprietary network information 

and customer network information is regulated under section 222 

of the law. There are comparable provisions for cable services and 

satellite services in other sections of the law. These have been in 

place for decades. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And I think it is incumbent on the agency to 

use them in a modern way, and that is what we are doing. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Next question. As you know, spectrum 

auction authority has expired. Leading up to that end date, no one 

truly knew how that expiration would impact the process of auctions that were completed, and winners were simply waiting for the 

issuance of licenses. Now we know the Commission has taken a 

limited view on these license-issuing authorities. 

Given that the hurricane season has begun, I am most concerned 

about the—ensuring that we can have resilient connections and 

have the ability to get networks back online as quickly as possible 

if they go down during a natural disaster. And as you know, the 
58 

hurricanes affect my State of Florida, and we have a lot of rural 

areas in my district. 

With auction authority having expired, why haven’t you utilized 

temporary basis authorities for the use of the 2.5 gigahertz spectrum, which would better allow for spectrum utilizations in the 

aftermath of a hurricane or other natural disaster? If you could answer that. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, first, I appreciate what you are saying 

about Florida. Following Hurricanes Ian and Fiona, I went and 

spent time with public safety authorities in Florida in Lee County 

and talked to them about some of these issues, so I realize how important it is for restoration. 

But the FCC’s authority to grant spectrum licenses expired. The 

law is super clear. It says, you shall have the authority to grant 

licenses and it expires on March 9th. Any special, temporary authority is subject to that broader authority, and so we are right 

now tying ourselves in knots trying to figure out how to get these 

licenses out. And the precedent we have here is complicated because issuing these licenses now could violate the Antideficiency 

Act, which is a criminal statute. 

And just so you know, the last time that the FCC was alleged 

to have violated the Antideficiency Act involving spectrum policy, 

we had all sorts of staff in the agency get investigated by the GAO. 

They had to hire their own counsel. I don’t want to have any of 

that nonsense happening again. 

But I would happily work with you and everyone else on this 

committee to do whatever we can to make sure we get that spectrum auction authority back and definitely make sure we get it 

back before hurricane season gets fully underway. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, I look forward to working with you. Please 

follow up. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize the 

gentlelady from New York, Ms. Clarke. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank the chairman and ranking member for holding this important oversight hearing, and to our esteemed Chairwoman and Commissioners for participating today. 

The Federal Commissions—excuse me, the Federal Communications Commission’s mission of promoting connectivity and ensuring 

a robust and competitive market is often challenged by the breakneck pace of technological innovation. That task is further complicated under a split Commission by the rise of hyperpartisanship 

infecting our national discourse on topics once thought too mundane to draw the attention of politically motivated idealogues. 

In light of these challenges, I want to commend Chairwoman 

Rosenworcel and the entire Commission for your hard work and 

success in these difficult times. It has not gone unnoticed. 

In addition to being a crucial component of unlocking much of 

the historic broadband investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the FCC’s work to release its latest update to the National Broadband Map represents yet another significant step towards closing the digital divide and moving our Nation towards a 

more equitable future. The upcoming disbursement of the 

Broadband Equity Adoption and Deployment, BEAD, Program 
59 

funds will undoubtedly serve to bring more Americans online and 

unleash innovation across the country. 

When we last hosted the Commission for a hearing in March of 

last year, the Affordable Connectivity Program had already provided 10 million households assistance to afford broadband. And 

today I am proud to see that the ACP now supports over 18 million 

households, including nearly 1.4 million in New York City—in New 

York State. 

Beyond actions to keep us connected, the Commission has also 

done important work to keep Americans safe. From standing up 

the 9–8–8 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, examining internet routing 

vulnerabilities, administering Rip and Replace efforts, and adopting a first of its kind broadband consumer label, the work done by 

the FCC makes clear its commitment to public safety and national 

security. 

The Commission has also been hard at work implementing critical legislation passed out of this committee last Congress, including the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications 

Act, which will be the focus of my first question. The Martha 

Reed—excuse me—the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable 

Communications Act directs the FCC to ensure that charges for 

communications services at correctional facilities are just and reasonable. For incarcerated people and their families, this is a civil 

rights issue, and studies show that connectivity is so important for 

reducing recidivism rates and creating better postrelease outcomes. 

Chairwoman, can you provide us an update on the implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act and tell us how this legislation 

can allow the Commission to more fully address the predatory 

rates and other challenges faced by incarcerated people and their 

loved ones? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question and thank you 

for your work on this. For far too long, the rates that have been 

charged for phone calls from our prisons and jails have just been 

usurious, and the families that are forced to pay them, it is totally 

unfair, and it means that they can’t stay in touch with their loved 

ones, and as you suggested, that increases the risk of recidivism. 

The FCC for over a very long time, starting with the work of my 

former colleague, Mignon Clyburn, tried to address these rates, and 

we kept on getting our handiwork sent back to us by the courts. 

That is why the work in the Martha Wright-Reed Act is so important. It gives us authority to oversee intrastate rates for the first 

time and advance communications. 

We started a rulemaking to do that, and it is my goal to be able 

to address this and fix this wrong by next summer, and we are 

working hard to do just that. 

Ms. CLARKE. Outstanding. As has been noted, programs such as 

the ACP and the Emergency Connectivity Fund, which covers the 

cost of connected devices for students and school staff and have 

rightly been seen by many as a rousing success, bringing highspeed broadband access to millions, the ACP, in particular, has 

been a significant progress in closing the digital divide and garnered bipartisan praise. Just yesterday, eight Senate Republicans 

wrote to the—to President Biden to express support for keeping 

ACP funded. 
60 

Chairwoman, as a vocal proponent of the ACP, can you please explain for this committee why continued sustainable support for the 

ACP should remain a priority for Congress and what is the risk if 

we allow funding for the ACP to run out? And other Commissioners, you can feel free to respond as well. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. It is really clear that you don’t have a fair 

shot in the 21st century if you don’t have access to broadband at 

home. And as a result of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we 

have got lots of funds to help with the deployment in largely rural 

areas, but we are also going to need funds and efforts to address 

affordability. The ACP is the best program we have ever developed 

to do that, and we have got to make sure it continues. 

Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back and ask the other 

Commissioners, if you have any comments, please respond to us in 

writing. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize myself for 

questioning. 

I also want to thank the FCC for having the Commissioners here 

together. I thank you for your help recently with Michigan with our 

broadband maps. The agency’s prompt response—and it was 

prompt—helped the State uncover and fix some discrepancies that 

could have lost us hundreds of millions of dollars for broadband deployment, so thank you. The maps still have a ways to go—as you 

have said, always improving, Madam Chair—but I am confident 

that with improved coordination and planning we can get rural 

Michigan and other places connected. 

Commissioner Carr, good to see you here. I hope you have just 

gotten down from a 2,000-foot tower or something that you are 

known to climb. I am not certain why, but glad you take your job 

seriously. 

On the note of Michigan being connected and others’ rural connections, how would a national broadband strategy, like the one 

created by my PLAN for Broadband Act, improve outcomes for 

rural deployment? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, I think your legislation is incredibly important. 

It is good to see you. I enjoyed the visit we did a year or so ago 

in your district. And I think what your legislation tackles is this 

current challenge of for the first time in a lot of ways we have 

enough funding to end the digital divide. The question is, do we 

have the right policies and are we coordinated correctly to actually 

get it done? And with this GAO report that showed that we have, 

you know, broadband spending over 130 different initiatives, 15 different agencies, we need a national coordinating strategy, and that 

is the exact piece that your bill would put in place. I think it is 

vital that we get that done. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, we will work at it. From your lips to our 

chairman’s ears. Commissioner Carr, this committee has been 

working diligently to address the pervasive threat of TikTok, especially after discovering that their CEO lied throughout his testimony here in March. I have heard some people make First Amendment arguments for why we shouldn’t ban TikTok in the United 

States. Can you give us your perspective on the issue? 

Mr. CARR. I have heard that argument as well, and I don’t think 

that it is particularly strong. If you look at the Supreme Court 
61 

precedent, they have drawn a very clear distinction between regulatory action based on the content of speech as opposed to the conduct of an actor. There is a famous Supreme Court case, Arcara 

Books, that had to do with a bookstore that was engaged in criminal conduct out of the bookstore. The Government shut down the 

bookstore because of that. The proprietor said, ‘‘You can’t shut 

down my bookstore, that is First Amendment-protected activity,’’ 

and the court was clear that the action had nothing to do with 

speech or content, it was based on conduct. 

So too here with TikTok. The action would not be based on the 

content of TikTok’s speech or, for that matter, anybody’s speech. It 

would be based on the conduct that represents a clear national security threat. And for that reason, I think the First Amendment argument against taking action on TikTok is not particularly strong. 

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate the perspective. 

Madam Chair, turning to spectrum, the FCC recently sought to 

comment on expanding the commercial use of the upper 12 

gigahertz band. What steps is the FCC taking to coordinate with 

NTIA to ensure that any Federal agencies that may have concerns 

register those concerns in a timely manner versus after any potential future auction takes place? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We are working very closely with NTIA on 

this issue right now. As you know, we have a spectrum coordination initiative with them, and it is designed to prevent there from 

being any late-breaking difficulties with existing Federal incumbents. And as a result, I think we are in the clear for this, but I 

am looking forward to the record that develops. We just started a 

rulemaking on this subject. 

Mr. WALBERG. I look forward to it as well in as timely a way as 

all of you are addressing our questions today. Thank you. 

Madam Chair and Commissioner Carr, how is the FCC approaching AI, and how can it be used in the telecommunications networks? Simple, simple subject. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question, 

and I will try to give you my 30-second response. If I can for a 

minute, I want to be an AI contrarian because I think it can do 

tremendous things for communications. That if we introduce machine learning and pattern recognition on our wired and wireless 

networks, we are going to be able to radically increase our efficiency. We will take what feels scarce and make it abundant. 

And I just announced yesterday that we will be working with the 

National Science Foundation to hold a forum to discuss just that. 

So I am not discussing AI writ large, I realize that is before a lot 

of other actors, but with respect to communications, I think it is 

full of potential, and I want to start to understand its use and start 

to incorporate it into our thinking about 5G and 6G networks and 

fiber facilities. 

Mr. WALBERG. That is the creative tension, isn’t it? 

Commissioner Carr? 

Mr. CARR. I would say if you look back at the last few decades, 

there has been really two technology developments that have stood 

out: the internet and mobile. And I think AI is poised to be the 

third. That is how significant it is going to be. We want to encourage it, promote it. We don’t want to smother it in the cradle, but 
62 

we need to make sure that going forward it advances in a way that 

is consistent and promotes our values. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

My time is expired. I yield back. 

I now recognize Representative Fletcher for her time of questioning. 

Mrs. FLETCHER. Thank you very much, and thanks to Chairman 

Latta and Ranking Member Matsui for convening today’s hearing 

to discuss the many important topics under the FCC’s jurisdiction, 

and thank you to Chairwoman Rosenworcel and the Commissioners 

for being here and answering these questions today. This has been 

a very useful hearing so far, and I really want to continue on some 

of the topics that we have touched on and that we have touched 

in our prior hearings. 

In the last committee hearing we had last week, I talked about 

the importance of reliable emergency communications for all of the 

diverse communities in my district, and I really want to continue 

that conversation with you all today because I think it is critically 

important. There are more than 140 languages spoken in my district and in the Houston area in Harris and Fort Bend Counties. 

In one neighborhood in my district alone, the Gulfton neighborhood, there are more than 50 languages spoken. 

And, unfortunately, last month, there was a critical incident, 

there was a shelter in place issued in our district and, unfortunately, many of the members of the community couldn’t—didn’t get 

the emergency alerts, didn’t get—didn’t even know about this 

chemical fire in the area or know to shelter in place because the 

wireless emergency alerts in the City of Houston’s subscriptionbased alert system are available only in English and Spanish. 

I know and was very pleased to see that the FCC has adopted 

a notice of proposed rulemaking in April and is engaged in that 

process to require wireless providers to translate alerts into the 13 

most commonly spoken languages in the United States. And, 

Chairman Rosenworcel, I know and understand that as part of this 

notice that you sent letters to the nine largest providers of WEAs 

requesting information on how alerts can offer more multilingual 

access and, of course, we have visited about how you are looking 

to those who have done it successfully to figure out how we can implement effective programs. 

So can you share some of the information you have learned, some 

of the challenges that you see that are out there, and some of the 

ways that we on this committee and in the Congress can help give 

you the tools you need to address this critical issue? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. Wireless emergency alerts have extraordinary potential. All of us have those devices in our palm, our 

pocket, or purse at any time, so when they buzz with emergency 

information, we can act on it. Right now, they are sent out in 

English and Spanish, but as you mentioned, there are a lot of people who might not get the information they need because it is not 

in the language they understand. 

So we have done a few things. As you mentioned, I have written 

to the largest wireless providers and asked about this technology 

and what changes might need to be made. I reached out to the New 

York Attorney General who has been working with us because the 
63 

New York Emergency Management Department actually has some 

protocols to get it out in 13 languages. And then we started a rulemaking. 

So my hope is we are going to get a robust record and we are 

going to figure out how to move forward and make these available 

to more people in more languages, but over time we might also 

need assistance from you because FEMA runs the integrated system that helps send out these messages, and I want to make sure 

we are all working and rowing in the same direction. 

Mrs. FLETCHER. Thank you. You know, in—one of the issues that 

that raises, you mentioned FEMA, and I know that one of the challenges that you noted in response to the letter we sent back in February is that there are more than 1600 Federal, State, local, Tribal, 

and Territorial governments that are responsible for these alerts as 

well in coordination with and at times working with FEMA, at 

times obviously working on their own, and that these generally are 

usually just in English and Spanish. 

I know that you have provided guidance to these entities in sending non-English and non-Spanish alerts, but I am wondering, 

again, sort of what we can do that is helpful and whether the FCC 

has the authority it needs to address the alerts through the rulemaking, whether there are additional authorities that you need, or 

what the things—what things Congress can do really to help also 

support these entities and ensure that they have the resources to 

send out the alerts in languages other than English and Spanish 

to those who need it. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Those are all the right questions, they are 

the ones that we have asked in our rulemaking, and as soon as we 

get comments in, I would be happy to make sure that my staff sits 

down with yours and identifies pathways forward and what might 

take additional congressional action. 

Mrs. FLETCHER. Terrific. Well, thank you so much for that. I appreciate your work on this issue. And I just want to stress that it 

is of great importance to me and my communities I know as it is 

to my colleagues here on this committee. 

So because I typically run overtime, I am going to yield back 

with some time left. I thank you. You all have covered my other 

questions I had prepared. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, 

and the Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Georgia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

hosting this committee, Mr. Chairman, this is extremely—this 

hearing, this is extremely important, and thank all of you Commissioners for being there—for being here today. 

Commissioner Carr, I would be remiss if I did not thank you 

again for coming to my district a couple of years ago and seeing 

firsthand the struggles that we have in South Georgia in rural 

areas and the need for more broadband and high-speed internet in 

our district and in South Georgia in general, so thank you again. 

Since I have been on this committee, one of my top priorities has 

been closing the digital divide, particularly in the rural areas. I 

know I have said it numerous times before, and you have probably 
64 

heard it, but there are two Georgias: There is Atlanta and everywhere else, and I represent everywhere else, and that is a struggle 

sometimes for us, particularly when it comes to broadband. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel, I wanted to ask you, last May the 

FCC proposed rules for an enhanced A–CAM Program that would 

have increased speed requirements for participants, and I actually 

wrote a letter to you asking you to take action, and I am very 

pleased that—to see the announcement last Friday that you are 

moving forward with this proposal on circulation. Can you describe 

the proposal for me, please? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. The rural carriers in this country who 

serve communities like those in South Georgia have long depended 

on the FCC’s Universal Service Fund. Some of those carriers depend on a model to get financial support, others depend on a legacy 

system. But those systems were going to be coming to an end in 

a few years, and they had less than robust standards for the speeds 

that needed to be delivered. 

So what we have done is we have updated the speeds and we 

have extended the time period for support. I have put that before 

my colleagues, and it is complex, but I think it is a good model and 

a good way forward to continue to support rural carriers providing 

broadband. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, thank you, and thank you for addressing the 

issue of rural carriers and the issue of the rural areas. I really do 

appreciate that. 

Let me ask you, last year when you testified before this subcommittee you stated that, and I quote, ‘‘We should make sure that 

when we are developing programs from Federal funds we condition 

those funds on having a reasonable and streamlined process for 

things like permitting and right-of-ways.’’ Do you still agree with 

that statement? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Mr. CARTER. OK. Are you familiar with the American Broadband 

Development Act that I proposed and that streamlines the permitting process at the Federal, State, and the local levels, and just 

wondering if you are in support of that? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. A little bit. If I look at what has come before 

the agency, I will tell you this, that I think our biggest permitting 

problem now is on Federal lands. Uncle Sam owns about one-third 

of the real estate of this country, and the standards for response 

back to those who want to build on those lands—we allow Federal 

actors to take a lot more time before they get back to someone who 

wants to build than we do State and local entities. 

Mr. CARTER. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. At this point, I think we have got to focus on 

that because I think that is a huge gap in our system, and it is 

where I would focus efforts were I to sit in your shoes. 

Mr. CARTER. Right, right. And we certainly have Federal lands 

in South Georgia as well, so that is of concern to us. 

One last thing. Chairwoman. On April 24th, the FCC granted 

several waivers sought by auto manufacturers to use the 5.9 

gigahertz band for Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything—I believe it is 

called C–V2X technology—so that they can immediately deploy the 

technology. However, some parties like Georgia didn’t receive a 
65 

waiver to begin this deployment. What—when can we expect the 

FCC to take action on the remaining waiver requests to ensure 

that the spectrum can be used by entities like Georgia who have 

requested a waiver? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. This makes clear that new cellular 

technologies can be used by auto manufacturers in the upper 30 

megahertz of the 5.9 gigahertz band. We have given a waiver to 

some actors. We are adjusting that waiver because there’s been 

some technical concerns about power levels. Once we get that just 

right, we are going to be able to move on to the rest of them. We 

are working with our colleagues at NTIA to do so. 

Mr. CARTER. Great, great. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Thank you all. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I appreciate it. The gentleman yields back the 

balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

California’s 29th District for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for having this important committee hearing and also 

to Chairwoman and FCC Commissioners as well, thank you so 

much for your time and your expertise today. 

One of Congress’ core responsibilities is oversight. Hearings like 

the one today allows us to monitor the progress being made to address the challenges America is facing in the broadband access 

media ownership spectrum allocation, the time it takes to participate in spectrum auction, and the actual assignment of those—that 

spectrum, and many, many other matters. One issue of particular 

interest to me is the implementation and expansion of the 9–8–8 

Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Since it was launched in July of last 

year, millions of Americans have been connected to trained counselors in a time of crisis. Last month alone, more than 400,000 contacts were routed to trained professionals with an average answer 

time of 35 seconds. 

There is no doubt in my mind this program has saved lives, but 

we must continue to work systematically to build out and improve 

this lifesaving program. For example, right now, calls, texts, and 

chats sent to 9–8–8 are connected to crisis centers based on the 

area code of the caller. This sometimes routes people in crisis to 

centers thousands of miles from their physical current location and 

potentially jeopardizes their ability to access the nearest and best 

care. 

Chairwoman, in your opinion, what obstacles remain before the 

FCC can guarantee phone calls, text messages, and chats sent to 

9–8–8 are routed to the participating crisis center closest to the geographic area from where the call, the message, or the chat is originated from? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you for the question. And as you mentioned, in the nearly year since 9–8–8 has been available, it has become a tremendous resource for anybody who is contemplating suicide or suffering from mental health crisis. We got it up and running using the area code, so an area code from Washington, DC, 

will go to someone who can respond in Washington, DC, without 

regard to where the person is. 
66 

Now over time we want to be able to make those connections 

more local and more effective, but we want to be very careful when 

we do this because there are privacy and confidentiality reasons to 

be careful here. And so what we did is we held a forum with carriers to try to discuss geolocation last year, and we are now working with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration 

to try to make sure that they are talking to the carriers as well. 

It is my hope we are going to have an announcement or a pilot, 

try to find a way forward, so that wherever you are when you reach 

out for help, we can send resources to you because who you will 

be talking to will be somebody who is nearby. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So to clarify to people listening, the technical answer to that is within reach. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think—— 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So it is not like we have a problem with the technical aspect, we just have to make sure we do it in a way that respects all the tangibles that—in order to do it right, safely, and 

protecting people’s privacy. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Exactly. I don’t want us to just solve this as 

a technical matter, I want the mental health authorities to sit with 

us and help us manage privacy and safety and security every step 

of the way. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. As it should be. Thank you very much, Chairwoman. 

An area of importance to me and my constituents is the continuity of Affordable Connectivity Program. I want to address some 

of the comments that have been made here today because I think 

there is some misunderstanding about the purpose of the program. 

Commissioner Simington, you wrote in your testimony that we 

should consider, quote, ‘‘more precise targeting of the program to 

those who it was designated to serve,’’ end quote. This seems like 

a strange suggestion to me because Congress, on a bipartisan basis, 

set out clear eligibility criteria in the law—that is, who the program was designed to serve. The suggestion that this program 

should be narrowed to only those who would not otherwise have 

broadband seems to me to ignore the reality of family budgets and 

the sacrifices many families often need to make to afford necessities that so many of us take for granted. 

The fact remains that for far too many American households, in 

both Democratic and Republican districts, the monthly cost of an 

internet connection is not affordable enough to them. 

So my question to you, Chairwoman Rosenworcel, is, in your advanced raising awareness of this program, I am sure you have met 

many families in rural, urban, and suburban areas and on Tribal 

lands benefiting from ACP. Can you describe for us how this program serves those families and their communities and why it 

would be so shortsighted to help only people who have never been 

online? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I agree. There is a study out there that 

shows that households that earn $50,000 or less, half of them are 

at regular risk, month-to-month risk, of being disconnected from 

the internet. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Wow. 
67 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That means they won’t have a shot at success in modern life. We need to make sure the Affordable 

Connectivity Program speaks to those families as well as those who 

have never been online. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK, thank you very much. 

My time having expired, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman’s time has expired, and he yields 

back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida’s 2nd 

District for 5 minutes. 

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

The FCC has certainly become well known to Americans due to 

its roles in TV, radio, and cable, now space as well. Commercial, 

academic, and military use of space-based architecture has seen 

unprecedented growth in the last couple of decades, and therefore 

it is essential that the FCC also move at the speed of business. 

I was very pleased to see the creation of the Space Bureau of the 

FCC this April. This is designed to handle all matters relating to 

satellite and spectrum approval, orbital launch, communications, 

and preventing debris—space debris, and that is a great start. It 

is exciting to see the Commission focus on improving the processes 

for using space. 

Unleashing American commercial space innovation is critical to 

our global competitiveness, including our competition with China. 

When it comes to winning the race to 5G and the benefits of nextgeneration networks, I fear we are falling behind on securing the 

licensed spectrum pipeline to compete on the global stage, particularly against China. 

Chinese operators already have more access to midband spectrum than U.S., operators and the CCP is expanding aggressively. 

It has been estimated that may soon have four times as much commercial license midband as U.S. It is concerning if China can efficiently deploy their 5G architecture and develop software that rides 

on top of these next-gen networks, and I worry that our rivals will 

leverage that innovation against us in all sectors. 

In December of ’21, the FCC acknowledged the growth of the 

space economy and noted a swath of new satellite applications. 

They committed to improving their satellite review processes. And 

while the creation of Space Bureau and an MOU between it and 

the NTIA looked to be very positive, I see some challenges remain. 

I think you noted actually, Madam Chair, at the end of 2022, 

roughly 64,000 satellite applications were pending FCC approval. 

Madam Chair, by the end of this calendar year 2023, how do you 

think that will look, and what are we going to do to expedite the 

review of these applications? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, when I got to the agency, the first 

thing I did was take a look and say, ‘‘Where do we have a volume 

of work and we don’t have the people to address it?’’ And what became apparent to me is that, when it comes to satellites, the 

United States is in a position of leadership. We are launching more 

into our skies than any other country. But at the same time, we 

are going to have to update our practices for reviewing those satellites and reviewing those constellations. 

That is why we started the Space Bureau, that is exactly what 

is going on now. That is why we started a proceeding to streamline 
68 

our assessment of those applications, and it is why we are looking 

into the far future and thinking about how terrestrial and satellite 

networks will combine so that we can get rid of mobile dead zones 

and we can do new and creative things with combined access to 

satellite and ground-based systems. 

Mr. DUNN. Well, thank you for that. Additionally, the FCC’s December press release mentioned the Commission would consider 

quickly issuing public notices on applications from U.S. companies 

when filing at the FCC. However, these companies are telling me 

they still have applications that sit with the Commission for extended periods of time before action is taken. In fact, some have 

noted that their applications were filed months ago but they 

haven’t been published for even—even for as much as a public comment at this point. 

Can you identify the current FCC process that is a bottleneck 

contributing to this delay? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, I think historically the agency has had 

this practice of making sure every duck is in a row, every piece of 

paper is filed, everything is before us before we put these applications on public notice. When I came in, I decided that that process 

takes too long and is insufficiently transparent. So we started a 

rulemaking to identify how to say exactly what needs to be filed 

so that we can put all of those applications on public notice more 

expeditiously and then resolve the application faster. So we have 

an outstanding rulemaking on just what you are describing, and I 

think we are going to be able to make progress. 

Mr. DUNN. I have to believe that these companies are pretty talented and if you give them clear instructions that they can follow 

clear instructions. And please work with us here to help you in any 

way that we can. We want that process to speed up. We want it 

to be good, but we want it to speed up. 

Commissioner Carr, in the remaining few seconds, do you agree 

that the United States needs to secure meaningful pipeline of licensed spectrum for 5G to keep pace with consumer data usage 

and, importantly, to compete with the CCP? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, thank you, Congressman. I agree, it is vital both 

for efforts to bridge the digital divide here but moving spectrum 

forward, getting action on that is vital to our geopolitical interest. 

For one example, we talked about this World Radio Conference 

that is coming up. Communist China and other unallied nations 

are engaged in constant mini battles in that setting to develop 

services in particular spectrum bands that are consistent with their 

interest and their values, and we are trying to push back. 

When we have a big pipeline of spectrum and we have auction 

authority, it puts the wind at the back of those that are negotiating 

for U.S. and our interest. So spectrum authority and spectrum action is vital to our geopolitical interest and security. 

Mr. DUNN. Well, Congress will help you in any way we can with 

that, it is a very important effort. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. 
69 

I would like to start today by recognizing the Chairwoman for 

her attention and urgency to implement the Safe Connections Act. 

Last Congress, I led this legislation with my colleagues, Representative Eshoo and Walberg, to require phone companies to allow survivors of domestic violence to quickly separate their phone lines 

from shared plans with an abuser. A cellphone is a critical lifeline 

enabling survivors to stay connected to support networks and to access assistance from hotlines or emergency services. As the founder 

and cochair of the bipartisan Task Force to End Sexual Violence, 

I was proud to see this legislation signed into law to protect this 

lifeline for survivors. 

Chair Rosenworcel, can you share any updates on your agency’s 

work to implement this law? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you so much for your work on this law 

along with Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Walberg. It is 

really important. One in four women in this country will face domestic violence, one in nine men. And so before we even put pen 

to paper, what I did at the FCC was talk to experts in domestic 

violence. 

Ms. KUSTER. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Because what I learned was the minute that 

somebody decides to get a new phone is the minute they decide to 

leave their abuser. It is really important. And that means the FCC 

has a really valuable role to play, and you gave us tools to do that 

in the Safe Connections Act. 

So we are working right now to identify what policies need to be 

put in place to make sure that someone can get out of their family 

plan fast, securely, and privately, also putting policies in place to 

make sure that that individual can sign up for Lifeline or the Affordable Connectivity Program, and making sure that call logs do 

not reference domestic violence support systems so that people can 

call them safely and securely. 

Along the way, we have worked with the carriers that take all 

those calls and made sure that they are working with the National 

Domestic Violence Hotline, because if somebody calls and wants to 

get off their family plan because they are leaving a domestic abuse 

situation, we want to make sure they don’t get any old person who 

is answering the phone at the call center. We are going to make 

sure those individuals are actually trained to deal with this situation and can provide additional help and support. 

So you have put in place a very good thing, and I am confident 

that by next summer we are going to be able to act on it and have 

rules in place. 

Ms. KUSTER. Great, thank you. This program will take needed 

steps to eliminate barriers for survivors and provide support as 

they rebuild their lives. 

Now, the Safe Connections Act also includes a provision to assist 

survivors who may be facing financial hardship and are unable to 

afford their phone plan, as you referenced. I understand the FCC 

is currently considering whether to dedicate the Affordable 

Connectivity Program to provide emergency communications support to survivors who have separated their phone plans. Unfortunately, as you know, the ACP is expected to exhaust its funding 

sometime next year. 
70 

Chair Rosenworcel, if Congress were to fail to authorize renewed 

funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program, how could this affect survivors under the Safe Connections Act? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. If Congress were to fail to appropriate new 

funds for the Affordable Connectivity Program, we would undermine the biggest broadband affordability program this Nation has 

ever created, we would cut families off, and we would also cut off 

survivors who rely on this program to stay connected and rebuild 

their lives. 

Ms. KUSTER. Great, thank you very much. The ACP is already 

serving as a lifeline to the more than 18 million households that 

currently rely on this program to remain connected. In New Hampshire, over 30,000 households, including nearly 17,000 in my district, have signed up for the ACP, and more households are signing 

up every day. 

As cochair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, I understand that addressing affordability is a crucial step toward closing the digital divide for rural households. Congress has already invested over $42 

billion through the BEAD Program to build broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities. This is a once-ina-generation investment in our Nation’s broadband infrastructure, 

but this investment will be wasted if Americans can’t afford to pay 

for broadband services. The ACP helps to bridge this affordability 

gap. 

Now I have also seen studies that estimate that the ACP can reduce the cost of broadband infrastructure in rural areas by up to 

25 percent per household. That is not an insignificant cost savings. 

If we want Federal dollars to go further in reaching our shared 

goal of closing the digital divide, we cannot let the ACP lapse just 

as the BEAD Program is set to begin. 

Chairman Rosenworcel, would you agree? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I agree. I think the ACP Program and the 

BEAD Program work hand in glove. They work together—one a tax 

deployment, the other a tax subscribership. By working together, 

we are going to solve our digital divide. 

Ms. KUSTER. Great, thank you so much. I appreciate your leadership at the agency. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member 

Matsui, for bringing together this hearing, and to our FCC Commissioners for giving your time to be here today. 

As we all know, access to broadband has become a critical need, 

not just a want. The lack of broadband access has hit hard, particularly in my district in Pennsylvania 13. As our rural residents and 

farmers face increasingly unmanageable digital divide, we need to 

ensure that all Americans are able to connect to the internet, regardless of what town or what community or what geographic divides are presented to them. Chairwoman Rosenworcel, NTIA was given $42.45 billion for 

broadband equity access and development, the BEAD Program, 

which is aimed to give grants to communities to build broadband 

networks, specifically in unserved areas. Would you please discuss 
71 

how your agency is working with NTIA to ensure that this program 

is successful in the rural areas that I serve? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Absolutely. Like you mentioned, we are making a historic commitment to closing the digital divide in this country. Forty-two billion dollars to make sure networks reach rural 

communities is a big deal. We have got to make sure it is spent 

in the right places. That is why we have developed our Nation’s 

broadband map, which is the most granular accounting of where 

service is and is not in our Nation’s history, and quite literally 

every day we are on the phone and working with NTIA to make 

sure they understand that map, understand its nuances, understand the trends we are seeing, because we want all of our data 

to inform their allocation in the BEAD Program. 

Mr. JOYCE. And to that point, the allocation date for BEAD funding is June 30th, it is right around the corner. Currently, my State 

of Pennsylvania still has around 5,000 challenges that were submitted by the initial January deadline that have yet to be adjudicated. Would you please describe how the FCC adjudicated these 

challenges submitted during the challenge process, and will you be 

able to adjudicate those remaining 5,000 Pennsylvania challenges 

prior to this upcoming June 30th deadline? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. So the most important thing to know is that 

we take in challenges every day, every month, every year, and then 

under the law there are certain time periods in which we can resolve them. FCC rules give 60 days for a carrier to look at those 

challenges, 60 days to resolve them with the customer, and then 

Congress threw another 90 days on top of that in the Bipartisan 

Infrastructure Law. So this is the timeframe in which we resolve 

availability challenges. 

Now that being said, every time we can resolve them earlier, we 

do so, and every time we resolve challenges, we update our map 

very, very shortly thereafter, and we call our colleagues at NTIA. 

With respect to what you are talking about in Pennsylvania, I 

would be happy to have my team follow up with you offline so you 

know just where everything stands in the process. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. That June 30th deadline with those 5,000 

continued unadjudicated issues to be resolved, I thank you for that 

followup. 

We know that the FCC’s campaign to advertise the ACP has 

begun. We also know that the program will run out of funding 

early next year. Chairwoman Rosenworcel, is it responsible to do 

this before Congress decides the future of the program? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Working with my colleagues on a bipartisan 

basis, we committed to doing more outreach with this program. 

That was also a recommendation from the GAO. So we set aside 

a small amount of money to do it, and then we followed Federal 

contracting procedures and grant procedures to get those dollars 

out. We are putting a premium on everyone who has received funds 

using them as soon as possible to make sure that there is no conflict with an appropriation or a coming appropriation from Congress. 

Mr. JOYCE. Commissioner Carr, I congratulate you for your 

boots-on-the-ground approach as we look to roll out additional rural 

broadband. You are acutely aware of how the lack of internet ac-
72 

cess negatively affects rural Americans. Students and their learning have been left behind, businesses suffer without access to expanding e-commerce, farmers are unable to utilize precision agriculture to more effectively produce food for America, and patients 

and doctors cannot access the ability to heal from home with telemedicine. 

Commissioner Carr, do you feel that the FCC recognizes the impact of the digital divide on rural America, and are all steps being 

taken to address this from the FCC perch? 

Mr. CARR. I do think so. I think we fundamentally agree that we 

have to do more to end the digital divide and—we have done a lot, 

but there is more to be done on infrastructure, as I mentioned. I 

think there is a lot more we can do on sort of meat-and-potato infrastructure reforms. Again, we have all of these BEAD dollars 

coming out the door, $42 billion. If we don’t streamline permitting 

and we are just spending this additional money, we are effectively 

jumping on the gas and the brakes at the same time. 

So we need to address Federal lands. That probably requires 

some congressional action. We need to take a look at railroad crossings, which continue to be a big barrier to broadband builds. There 

is some legislation here that could do that. And I think we should 

take some of the shot clocks and fee reforms that we apply to small 

cells and look at applying those to wired infrastructure. If we can 

do that at the FCC, which I think we can, we could accelerate 

these rural builds even faster. 

Mr. JOYCE. I see my time is expiring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and again, thanks to all the witnesses for being here today, and I 

yield. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California’s 16th District 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our ranking member, Congresswoman Matsui. 

Welcome, Chairwoman Rosenworcel and the Commissioners of 

the FCC. It is always great to see you and have you here in this 

hearing room. I was—as I was listening to others, I was reminiscing over all of the FCCs that have come here during my tenure, 

and it is a long and important effort. Chairwoman Rosenworcel, for 

as long as I can remember, you have been in my view the leading 

voice about the need to close the digital divide and the homework 

gap, and I would argue that the availability of midband spectrum 

is an important tool to achieve these goals. 

Now, this last Sunday marked a hundred days since the FCC 

spectrum auction authority expired. We all know that spectrum is 

the gold—18-karat gold, not 12 or 14—18-karat gold of the 21st 

century. Nothing moves without it. Yet the Commission is sitting 

on a vast amount of midband spectrum in the 2.5 gigahertz band 

spectrum that was won at auction. A carrier paid over $300 million 

for that last August. 

That is going to come up to a year pretty soon, and I don’t know 

if that money is earning interest, where it is. It is stunning to me 

that someone pays for something, they don’t get it, but the person 

or the entity they paid it to still gets to keep it. 
73 

These licenses that haven’t been issued, and more importantly 

the real point is, is they are not being put to use. We know that 

four FCC general counsels wrote to the FCC in March about this, 

Public Knowledge wrote to the Commission in January to express 

their concerns over the licenses. In fact, Public Knowledge as a 

part of Harold Feld’s letter said—I’ll quote—‘‘As always, when licenses are at issue, this is not simply a matter that impacts a single company. Licenses are issued to serve the community of license, 

and the delay in issuing these licenses denies those communities 

all the important services that come with them.’’ 

Public Knowledge also went on to ask the Commission to issue 

a public notice to publicly state whether it has, in fact, concluded 

that it does not have the authority to issue the licenses at issue. 

They also went on to request the Commission to consider alternatives, the STAs, the special temporary authority. 

I wrote to the Commission, wrote to you and the Commission, I 

believe it was May 15th, stating essentially the same case. I know 

that I wrote with Congressman Soto on I believe it was June 

16th—that is very recent so you wouldn’t have, I don’t think, had 

a chance to answer. T-Mobile has written. Public Knowledge has 

written. But there is no response on STAs and no official statement, requiring the public to rely on reports, you know, in press 

and public statements and all of that. 

So I am—you know that this has been a source of not only aggravation to me but real worry, and I think writ large that it sets a 

chill in many ways on auctions that have been so extraordinarily 

successful over the last 2 years. So I want to ask you, Chairwoman, 

if you will give consideration to the STAs? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. So I want to make clear that this situation 

is totally unfair. I have said that to the CEO of the company involved. It is also unprecedented, because for 30 years we have had 

this authority. Congress has always renewed it. 

Ms. ESHOO. I know it is unprecedented. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Ms. ESHOO. So are the Commission’s actions or inactions. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Let me also explain this. This is an area 

where the law is extremely clear. It says, our authority to issue licenses shall expire on March 9th. This is not ambiguous language. 

Ms. ESHOO. I only have 17 seconds left. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Listen, a special temporary authority—— 

Ms. ESHOO. I want to ask you—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. Only exists to the extent that 

that underlying authority is there. 

Ms. ESHOO. I want to ask you if you will consider STAs and if 

you will commit to providing the public transparency that is really 

due because this is a huge issue? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We are going to continue to look at every law 

that we can to see if there is a way forward here. My other concern 

is violation of the Antideficiency Act. 

Ms. ESHOO. But I don’t hear you saying yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, what we are doing right now is studying the laws to make sure we don’t violate the Antideficiency Act, 

which is a criminal law. And as I mentioned earlier today, the last 

time it was alleged that the FCC violated the Antideficiency Act in 
74 

a situation involving our spectrum authority, the GAO investigated 

and the staff of the agency had to hire their own counsel to defend 

themselves. Like I said before, I don’t want any of that nonsense. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, my time is expired. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. That is why we are going to be exceptionally 

careful. 

Ms. ESHOO. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time is expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas’ 4th 

District for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14th District. You kind 

of shorted me there. It is a—— 

Mr. LATTA. I apologize. 

Mr. WEBER. It is all good. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Fourteen. 

Mr. WEBER. In April, the World Radio Communications Conference, WRC, Advisory Committee submitted its recommendations 

to the FCC which it had put out for public comment, but it is kind 

of unclear what has happened since. As the FCC prepares to work 

with the Department of State in preparation for the WRC, transparency is going to be the key to our private-sector partners. 

So, Chairwoman Rosenworcel, in 30 seconds or less, does the 

FCC adopt a view for each item, and is that something the Chair 

decides or does the Commission vote on it? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. On our World Radio Conference recommendations? 

Mr. WEBER. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. It has generally been the practice that we 

work with the industry to develop them through the World Radio 

Conference Advisory Committee and then we work with other countries in our region to develop consensus—— 

Mr. WEBER. Do you vote on whether to use—to submit those as 

the Commission, or is that something you just decide? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I have to go back and check, but I don’t believe that has been the practice of the agency, but I make clear to 

my colleagues where we are going before we head to the World 

Radio Conference—— 

Mr. WEBER. Do they make clear to you whether they agree? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I think we have a good relationship, 

and I expect them to provide me feedback—— 

Mr. WEBER. OK. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. Whenever they feel like—— 

Mr. WEBER. I’m just checking. 

Commissioner Carr, I am going to go to you. The United States 

is currently in the process of defining our wireless future by working to advance our spectrum policy interest at the WRC. Unfortunately, at the same time we are advocating for certain spectrum 

bands to be made available, the FCC lacks the authority to conduct 

auctions, as we all are painfully aware, or what was it the Chair— 

the woman from California said: aggravated and worried. 

So, Commissioner Carr, do you think this undermines our credibility? 

Mr. CARR. I think having auction authority going into WRC is of 

vital importance. Again, we are having lots of little mini debates 
75 

in that context. The CCP-allied entities want certain spectrum 

bands to be used for certain purposes. Our allied nations want to 

go a different way. When we have auction authority and can sit at 

that table, it is a wind at the back of our negotiator. So it isn’t the 

U.S.’s geopolitical interests to have spection authority and to be— 

spectrum auction authority and be moving forward, moving spectrum bands out. 

Mr. WEBER. You are going to help us place that through the Senate? 

Mr. CARR. Happy to do it. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. I thought so. Let me do a followup. You mentioned earlier that we need to reinstate auction authority and pass 

H.R. 3565 to ensure that China doesn’t write our wireless future. 

It is almost as if they are not our friends. How involved is the FCC 

in security assessments of foreign actors’ motivations when engaging in global institutions such as the ITU for the U.S. and its allies 

to vacate or make certain bands available that countries like China 

will not permit at home? Did you catch all that? 

How involved is the FCC in security assessments, in security assessments of foreign actors’ involvements when you are engaging 

with those global institutions such as the ITU? Chairwoman, 

maybe we will come to you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. OK. 

Mr. WEBER. I see you writing. Go ahead. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, as a result of Congress passing laws 

like the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act and the 

Secure Equipment Act, we are now working with our national security authorities on these matters like never before. We have established relationships with them. We keep them abreast of how we 

are developing our recommendations and progress with the World 

Radio Conference. 

Mr. WEBER. So you are confident those will be in place and 

America will get the best deal possible, the safest and the best? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, I am. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Commissioner Carr, I will come back to you. 

When the Commission makes a spectrum decision, literally billions 

of dollars are spent by private industry—I think we have touched 

on this—to make the equipment and deploy the networks that 

bring the value of that decision to Americans in their homes and 

also on the move. But lately, some have been calling for the FCC 

to reverse its allocation decisions. 

So I am concerned about the impact on investment if the FCC 

were to do an about-face after they have already made up their 

mind. I am concerned about the investment and what that will do 

to investors. Do you share that concern? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, we certainly need to, you know, provide certainty, 

and once we authorize and allocate spectrum, we have billions of 

dollars of investment. We should not be coming in behind after the 

fact and pulling the rug out from under us. It is bad in that instance, and it is bad to attract the investment that we need to U.S. 

shores to continue to bridge the digital divide. 

Mr. WEBER. Is there a timeframe in there? In other words, you 

know, if you did it immediately, maybe not too bad, but if you did 
76 

it a year or two later—is it the longer the time is, the worst retraction, so to speak, or reversal would be? 

Mr. CARR. Right, exactly. There is longer sort of reasonable investment-backed expectations the longer the FCC would wait before taking such an action. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. Well, I am going to—time is up. I am going 

to yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 

Chair now will recognize the gentlelady from Illinois for 5 minutes. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Chair Latta and Ranking Member Matsui, for holding this important hearing, and I have been in another 

committee, so excuse me for not being here for very long. 

I want to thank the Commissioners for their testimony and all 

the work the FCC is doing to expand access to broadband infrastructure and lowering internet costs for Americans. 

For my constituents back home in Illinois, there is no dispute 

that expanding access to affordable high-speed internet services is 

one of the most beneficial things that can happen in a community. 

The impact of broadband expansion on economic outcomes is significant, resulting in improved life outcomes stemming from higher 

property values, increased job and population growth, and lowering 

unemployment rates. And my district is, as you know, urban, suburban, and rural. 

One such program helping to accomplish this is the Affordable 

Connectivity Program, or ACP. In Illinois, it is estimated that over 

550,000 households are enrolled in this program, which saved Illinoisans 16.6 million on their internet service. In my district, the 

2nd Congressional District, it is estimated there are about 61,000 

enrollees in the program, saving my constituents about 1.8 million 

on their internet bills. These are real savings for real people. 

Chair Rosenworcel, I have seen studies that estimate the existence of ACP can reduce by 25 percent the per-household subsidy 

needed to build in rural areas. In fact, multiple Republican Senators wrote to President Biden just yesterday in support of additional ACP funding. If we want government to go further in reaching our shared goal of closing the digital divide, why is it important 

that Congress and this committee work to maintain funding for 

ACP, and when must the FCC begin preparing for the possibility 

that program will run out of money or will need funds? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. The Affordable Connectivity Program is a big 

deal. It is the largest broadband affordability program in our Nation’s history, and the thing is, if we are going to give out funds 

like we are in the BEAD Program to help deployment in rural 

areas, we have got to make sure that people are going to show up 

and subscribe. So these programs work hand in glove, the BEAD 

Program and the ACP Program. We need to make sure the ACP 

Program continues so that the BEAD Program can also thrive. 

We anticipate that the funds could end for this program, as they 

have been appropriated so far, by as early as April of next year, 

so we have got to start planning now and working with Congress 

now to make sure that this big, historic program to help close the 

digital divide and keep everyone online and all the good it is doing 

can continue. 
77 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you for your response. I am Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust and have done a lot of 

work around maternal mortality and morbidity, so yesterday’s announcement from the FCC on how the agency is exploring the role 

of broadband connectivity and maternal health outcomes could not 

have come at a better time. As we know, broadband connectivity 

also leads to improved health outcomes. 

Can you talk about the importance of this data to help this country take strides to improve maternal mortality rates? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. The U.S. is the only industrialized country 

with a rising level of maternal mortality. And for women who live 

in rural areas and Black and Latino women, the numbers are even 

higher. It is unfair, it is not right, and we have got to fix it. 

So we are doing our part to contribute by looking at the data for 

broadband deployment and overlaying it with facts about maternal 

mortality. We know there are telemedicine and telemonitoring solutions for women in pregnancy and we want to make sure that they 

are available, and so our hope is that by pushing this data out, 

which is a combination of FCC data and data from the CDC and 

other places, we are going to get people to study it to tell us what 

patterns there are out there and what kind of telemedicine programs can help us address this crisis. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. I am one of the cochairs of the Data Mapping to Save Moms’ Lives Act. 

Now quickly turning to spectrum, can you—by letting auction authority lapse, is the U.S. at risk of losing our global leadership position with respect to technology and innovation? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Unfortunately, yes. We are going to have to 

get that authority back because when we have spectrum in the 

pipeline and we have auction authority, nobody innovates or creates like the U.S. when it comes to wireless services. 

Ms. KELLY. And even with the current lack of auction authority, 

are the FCC and NTIA continuing to work with government users 

like DoD to identify new spectrum for deployment to ensure commercial access for 5G, IoT, and other technologies? Quickly. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We continue to talk to NTIA about those 

matters on an almost daily basis. 

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair 

now recognizes the gentlemen from Georgia’s 12th District for 5 

minutes. 

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

today, and I want to thank you committee—witnesses for being 

here. It has been 15 months since this subcommittee last held an 

FCC oversight hearing, so we have lots to go over today, and I 

know lots has been said so far. 

Commissioner Carr, it has been over 3 months since the FCC 

spectrum auction authority expired. I have a lot of constituents 

waiting to be provided 5G service with that 2.5 gigahertz spectrum 

band that you mentioned in your testimony. Can you explain what 

is going on with the licensing of the spectrum band? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, actually, I think the FCC’s authority to issue 

those 2.5 gigahertz licenses is clear, and I think the statutory anal-
78 

ysis is very straightforward. Our Section 309(j) authority to conduct new auctions has expired. Our Section 309(a) authority to 

issue licenses, including licenses won at previous auctions, has not 

expired. In fact, if you look at the FCC decision to issue licenses 

won at auctions, we cite our 309(a) authority, which again is continuing, not our 309(j) authority. 

In fact, there was a very similar case basically directly on point, 

a 2003 case, Ranger Cellular, where our then-lottery authority expired, including language that said ‘‘shall issue,’’ but our 309(a) authority continued and the FCC issued those licenses. Our general 

counsel went to the DC Circuit and said, effectively, it doesn’t 

make any sense to read that the statute having to do with our 

then-lottery authority having expired prevented us from issuing licenses. 

And so this is why I think you say four FCC general counsels 

write a letter from various administrations saying that we can 

move forward with our licensing of that spectrum. I am a former 

general counsel, so maybe there’s five now that agree with that 

view. And if we did so, it would effectively light up spectrum for 

50 million Americans, and in many cases this is spectrum that the 

radios, the antennas are already up there. So with the flip of a 

switch we can bring 50 million Americans across the digital divide 

or get them better service, I think that is something that we should 

take right now. 

Mr. ALLEN. So let me understand. How do we get that done, and 

how do we have a sense of urgency about getting this done? How 

do we fix this? 

Mr. CARR. Well, it would require an action by the Commission. 

It is one that I support, but I’ll let my colleagues sort of speak for 

their views. 

Mr. ALLEN. OK. Is it possible for the United States to lead the 

world in 5G and 6G if we do not have a robust midband spectrum 

pipeline like the major economies that we compete with? 

Mr. CARR. We have to make more progress on midband. When 

I first started at the Commission, the first 4 years, we moved a lot 

of midband spectrum out the door. We need to sort of double down 

and get back on moving midband spectrum at the same pace that 

we did there. I put forward some ideas on how we could do that. 

I have a spectrum calendar out there, including some midbands. 

We need to move a little faster on that. 

Mr. ALLEN. In 2021, Democrats created a 7.1 billion Emergency 

Connectivity Fund to support distance learning. Is there still a 

need for this fund given schools have returned to in-person instruction and the E-rate program is already in place? 

Mr. CARR. Well, most directly, we still have a lot of funding left 

over, my understanding, in ECF at the moment. 

Mr. ALLEN. So is that funding still needed or should it be clawed 

back? 

Mr. CARR. Well, fundamentally, we should take a broader relook 

at all of these programs, including, to your point, the Move Back 

to School, and see what continues to be necessary. But ECF right 

now is ongoing because the funding remains. 

Mr. ALLEN. Chair Rosenworcel, why hasn’t the FCC implemented 

the Inspector General’s recommendation to request the last four 
79 

digits of an applicant’s Social Security number as a fraud prevention tool? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, we invite any applicant for the ACP to 

put in their Social Security number information, but as you might 

know, when Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, it 

also made eligible for the ACP households with a student on the 

Free and Reduced Lunch Program and the Women, Infants, and 

Children Program. Both of the programs do not require a Social Security number, so what we have done in the alternative is say, 

well, you have got to prove that you are who you say you are, so 

you can submit, for instance, a military ID or a passport or something like that in the alternative. 

Mr. ALLEN. So the ACP applicants should provide the last four 

digits of their Social Security number? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. There—you have to prove you are who you 

say you are. So you can provide a Social Security number, but you 

could also provide a taxpayer identification number or a military 

ID, like I just described. 

Mr. ALLEN. OK. Well, good. I have got a couple more questions, 

I will submit those, but I am out of time, so I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman. He yields back. The Chair 

now will recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Matsui, for holding this important hearing, and to all of you 

for—I know your favorite thing—to come before the Energy and 

Commerce Committee. 

As COVID–19 pandemic highlighted, the work that you all do is 

vital to our economy, our emergency services and communications 

networks, and national security. Broadband and spectrum access 

remains essential for every American to participate in rapidly innovating medical services, educational opportunities, crucial protections, the digital economy. 

So I want to focus on a number of important issues. I know you 

have talked about some others, but I am always worried about 

emergencies, domestic abuse, and things like that. Many of my colleagues today have mentioned the expiration of the FCC spectrum 

auction authority. Tied to the lapse in the FCC spectrum auction 

authority are critical investments in the Next Generation 9–1–1. 

These delays are having a significant impact on our ability to upgrade 9–1–1 capabilities and modernize our emergency services infrastructure, including innovations that could have a profound impact on vulnerable individuals. 

Chairman Rosenworcel, how would advancements made through 

investments in NG 9–1–1, such as texts to 9–1–1, assist in protecting survivors of domestic violence and strengthen steps the 

FCC is taking to implement the Safe Connections Act? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I really appreciate you asking this question. 

It is vital that we upgrade 9–1–1 in this country. The 6,000 public 

safety answering points that are out there that take our 9–1–1 

calls, many of them are still operating in the analog era. We want 

to make sure that they have all the technologies that we would expect them to have in the digital age. So if you call, you should be 

able to reach out and have a discussion, you should be able to text, 
80 

you should be able to send pictures and information, your 

healthcare records should be available. 

All of those things are possible with Next Generation 9–1–1. 

They are going to make it easier for more people to safely reach 

out for help in crisis. So that is why I think the Spectrum Reauthorization Act’s spending on a nationwide upgrade for 9–1–1 is so 

important. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. Recent reporting has indicated that a 

number of websites offering mental health crisis resources across 

the country that are tied to the National 9–8–8 Suicide and Crisis 

Lifeline have shared data with Meta due to information collected 

by pixels on their web pages. In many cases, users tap on a dedicated call button on these websites that will immediately reach 9– 

8–8 or a local line for mental health services. But the use of this 

site or button also triggers these pixels which then transfers data 

to Facebook sharing intimately personal information about the user 

during this time of need. 

These pixels and other external ID factors can then be used to 

match web users to their Facebook accounts or other profiles for 

advertising. I think we can all agree that anyone reaching out to 

these services for help wants to remain anonymous and should be 

able to remain anonymous. 

Madam Chairwoman, how is the FCC working with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and 

other organizations associated with the National 9–8–8 Suicide and 

Crisis Lifeline to ensure that personal information of Americans 

utilizing this service remains anonymous and protected through 

whatever medium they use to seek aid? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We have developed a very close relationship 

with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration because I want to make sure that privacy and confidentiality 

are part of all of our policies. But the situation you described is totally unacceptable. I am not clear that it violates the Communications Act, but I am fairly confident it violates some law maybe involving healthcare, and so we will go back to our enforcement bureau—— 

Mrs. DINGELL. You really do need—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. And identify what is going on 

and see what we can do to help you fix that. And if it is not us, 

we want to be able to direct you to the right people to do it. 

Mrs. DINGELL. It is a major issue. I had a suicidal young person 

who then got public and it became worse. 

Lastly, I am cochair of the 5G and Beyond Caucus and the AV 

Caucus, so I would like to focus a few questions on promoting the 

new technologies of the future and help close the digital divide. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel, do you see the advent of fixed and mobile 5G as a tool for connecting communities and promoting developing technologies, like autonomous vehicles, is this a good development for consumers? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. OK. The rest of the Commissioners, because you 

should have a chance to talk, do you agree with the Chairwoman, 

is this a good development for consumers, yes or no, and why? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, I do. Yes. 
81 

Mr. STARKS. Yes, I agree as well. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Yes, I agree, and it will also help them in their 

working lives as we expand the ability of 5G to enhance industrial 

production and keep us competitive. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thanks again to all of you for being here today 

and for your service to the American people. 

And while we are talking about the FCC, Congress needs to do 

its job and fund the Affordable Connectivity Program that continues to be a critical lifeline for families, and we need to ensure 

it remains funded. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio’s 12th District for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BALDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here today. 

My first question is for Commissioner Carr. The FCC is an immensely important agency regulating media, auction, and relocate 

spectrum and helping get Americans connected, amongst many 

other things within their purview. During a recent markup, this 

committee passed Mr. Carter’s H.R. 3557, the American Broadband 

Deployment Act. I included an amendment in that bill that would 

help streamline the permitting process for deployments over or 

under rail crossings. 

Commissioner Carr, outside of congressional action, what can the 

FCC do to streamline the permitting process for deployments 

across rail crossings? 

Mr. CARR. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your leadership. I 

think the legislation that you have introduced has identified a real 

serious problem. I have tried to spend a lot of time in this job on 

the road meeting with the telecom crews that build out fiber and 

other connections, and right from the get-go they said that railroad 

crossings is just a really difficult issue in terms of the timelines of 

getting approval and the cost. And I think our jurisdiction to do 

something about that is—would be very stretched, so I think that 

we really need something like your legislation to pass. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK, thank you very much for that answer. 

Madam Chairwoman, the FCC under the Trump administration 

took a number of steps to streamline the permitting process with 

their rulemakings, specifically when it comes to wireless deployment. Do you plan on retaining these rules and interpretations 

once the FCC returns to its full complement of Commissioners? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. To the extent that they have been upheld in 

court, yes. But I do want to also acknowledge this: That we have 

got to streamline permitting procedures, but we have got to be 

mindful that most people don’t like Washington telling them what 

they can and can’t do in their own backyards. And we are going 

to have to figure out a way to cooperatively work with communities 

to get this network infrastructure deployed, and I don’t want those 

relationships to be hostile, friction-filled, or aggressive. We are 

going to have to work with local municipalities to make sure nextgeneration network infrastructure gets out there. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK. I look forward to that, thank you. 
82 

Back to you, Commissioner Carr. I wanted to follow up with you 

on the permitting process. What lasting impact has the Pai Commission’s action on broadband deployment? 

Mr. CARR. I think it has been incredibly successful. If you just 

look at small cells, for instance, back in 2016 new small cell builds 

in this country had effectively flatlined. We had something like 708 

new cell sites go up. I think some of the data I saw from 2019, for 

instance, show that we had 64,000 new cell sites go up. 

So infrastructure reform really matters, and it paid off during 

COVID–19. We had robust, resilient networks because of those infrastructure reforms. Flash forward to Europe, their top regulators 

were asking their streamers to degrade the quality of their video 

content because they were afraid that the continent’s networks 

were going to break. 

Our networks perform very, very well, and I think at least part 

of that is due to the infrastructure reforms that were—that led 

from 2017 forward. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK, thank you very much. My next question is 

for Commissioner Carr and Commissioner Simington. You have 

been sitting there pretty quiet. Shifting gears to spectrum. Coordination between the FCC and the NTIA is crucial when the FCC is 

deciding on spectrum action. Congress has made several efforts at 

increasing coordination between the FCC and the NTIA, be it 

through my bill, the Spectrum Coordination Act, or through the recent spectrum auction reauthorization bill approved by this committee. 

Commissioners Carr and Simington, can you tell me how coordination with the NTIA has improved throughout your time serving 

on the Commission? 

Mr. CARR. Well, it is always a challenge. At the end of the day, 

NTIA is intended to represent a lot of Federal users, and the entire 

spectrum process in this country works better when Federal users 

filter their views into NTIA and then NTIA, with authority, can 

represent the views of Federal users to the FCC and then we do 

what Congress intended, which was we make the final decision on 

whether this spectrum band can work here or what power level. 

The challenge we have seen—this isn’t unique to this administration, we saw in the last administration—is once the FCC’s experts 

call the ball, we see a lot of collateral attacks on that decision from 

Federal agencies. So I think what would be good through legislation or otherwise is reinforcing Congress’ decision that the FCC is 

the central authority for making spectrum allocation decisions and 

that NTIA needs to be empowered to really speak for the Federal 

agencies with one voice. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK. Mr. Simington, you have 20 seconds. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Thank you. I used to serve at the NTIA. The 

NTIA is a very sophisticated organization scientifically, but it is a 

small organization. It has much—it has 200 people as opposed to 

tens of thousands at some other agencies. If other agencies freelance and don’t operate through the NTIA and don’t treat the NTIA 

as a convening center for their views, then the FCC will then be 

unable to coordinate with anyone. 

Mr. BALDERSON. OK, thank you both very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
83 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member. 

I have listened to my colleagues’ comments and questions. I have 

some that were originally questions, and I would just like to now 

comment on your responses and reemphasize that they are important to me as well. 

The first is the 9–8–8 number and the issue with responding to 

the area code versus the actual location, so let me just weigh in on 

that also being important. 

The second is this issue of 2.5 gigahertz spectrum and the industry not feeling like the FCC has been responsive in answering the 

questions. I know you have answered that, so I am not going to ask 

you to answer that again, but I just want to weigh in on the importance of also communicating with industry and helping them understand your position. 

The third, Chairwoman, I noted your recent letter to Senator 

Grassley recognizing the agency’s lack of jurisdiction in the online 

video marketplace and rightly demonstrating regulatory restraint. 

I just want to echo those sentiments and caution the Commission 

from taking action that would attempt to shoehorn an old TV regulation into the growing MVPD marketplace. 

Now to a question or two. Madam Chair, the FCC Inspector General and Government Accountability Office has issued reports 

about fraud and the lack of antifraud controls in the Affordable 

Connectivity Program. The Inspector General has made some recommendations for improving the program’s oversight. What steps 

has the FCC taken in response to those reports and safeguards program—and safeguarding the program from waste, fraud, and 

abuse? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Thank you. We are doing everything we can 

to make sure that this program runs with—that it is strong and 

it is run with structural integrity. Remember, Congress asked us 

to set up the Affordable Connectivity Program in 60 days. In 60 

days the people sitting before you built the biggest broadband affordability program ever. And so, when the Inspector General 

makes recommendations, we take a look at them and we identify 

what we can implement and how fast we can implement. 

We have put new fraud controls in, we have changed our vendors 

for different language and translation services, we have also made 

adjustments to make sure that all of the—that there are no commissions for those who reach out and try to sign people up for these 

services. We have taken a lot of their recommendations and put 

them to work. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, did you have any response on that? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, look, we have to obviously stay very vigilant on 

this. One idea that I have thought about is attempting to formalize 

the process of the FCC Commission’s consultation with the Inspector General. I have spoken to the Inspector General before we have 

moved forward, and the Chair and her team have as well, but that 

is not formalized. 

I think one idea maybe going forward is to, when we have big 

spending initiatives above some threshold, or maybe all of them, 
84 

we consult with the Inspector General and we put their recommendations in the FCC order and we can respond to it. Hopefully, we are agreeing with them, but we can at least respond to 

what the IG said. 

If we formalize that process, I think maybe that could help us 

catch a little bit more of this on the front end. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I do want to acknowledge that in our draft 

Affordable Connectivity Program order, we shared it with the Inspector General to take in those kind of recommendations. 

Mr. CURTIS. Thank you, thank you. 

Let me switch gears a little bit. I represent a large rural district. 

They are very concerned about rip and replace, as all of us are. The 

funds are not there for them to complete their work. I am just curious, to all of the Commissioners, have you heard from providers 

that will be shutting down their networks if they don’t receive the 

full reimbursement, and what are you hearing, and what solutions 

do you have? Madam Chair? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We are going to need help from Congress to 

make sure we fully fund this program so that we can take this insecure Chinese equipment out of our Nation’s networks. Right now 

those small carriers that rely on this program have a really hard 

choice. They can rip that equipment out of their networks but be 

paid a limited amount of money to do so, or they could leave it in 

and make sure that those networks are not secure, and it is not 

something that we are going to be able to tolerate in the United 

States. 

Mr. CURTIS. Not a good choice. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We are going to need your help on this. 

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. Anybody else want to weigh in on that? Good. 

All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas’ 33rd District for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to first of all really thank the panel for coming in and 

talking about their vision for connectivity, for digital connectivity, 

particularly here in the United States, and the Affordable 

Connectivity Program is what I really wanted to focus on today. 

One of the reasons why is because it is such a great example of 

a program that is working. Whether it is an urban district like the 

one that I represent or in a rural district like many of our Republican colleagues represent, it is tremendous what it is doing to 

change families’ lives and what a positive impact that is has made 

in 18 million households across this country. 

People that weren’t connected before finally have an opportunity 

to do that, and being able to do it affordably and not have to make 

the choice between whether or not they should be connected with 

the rest of the world or whether or not they, you know, have to, 

you know, pay other bills. And so it has just been a great program. 

And, Chairwoman Rosenworcel, I want to commend you and the 

Commission on setting up ACP and its predecessor, EBB, so quickly and particularly under challenging circumstances that we faced. 

But it wasn’t a set-it-and-forget-it situation, and I know that lots 
85 

of improvements have been made to the program and, unfortunately, the media always talks about the waste and the fraud, and 

that is what gets the headlines. And so the 18 million people that 

I talked about earlier whose lives have been positively changed because of this program, to me the system is working as it is supposed to be working and people are connected that weren’t before, 

and that is what we have to keep in mind. 

Can you talk to us, Chairwoman, about the improvements and 

integrity measures that you have made and implemented to ensure 

that ACP is on firm footing? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, first of all, thank you. I know that you 

played a big role in getting the predecessor to this program, the 

Emergency Broadband Benefit, set up, and then Congress took a 

look at that work and decided to continue it, and that is why we 

have the Affordable Connectivity Program today. 

Like I mentioned a second ago, we had to set it up in 60 days. 

Congress gave us 60 days. That is a little bit like building a plane 

when it is in the air. But we did it, and we have 18 million, 19 

million households that rely on it now. 

So every time we identify a problem, we are swift to make 

change. For instance, the Inspector General identified a problem 

with subscribers in community-eligible participation schools. Over 

the course of 2 to 3 days, we shut down that pathway, required additional documentation, did a reverification of everyone who had 

previously applied under that requirement, I mean—and we sent 

any problematic findings off for enforcement and investigation. I 

think that is exactly what you want. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. You run a problem, you make sure it has 

structural success and integrity, and you do that by taking in any 

criticisms and acting on them in a fast and expeditious way. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. No, no, I think that is absolutely right. And 

you mentioned also in your testimony that current projections suggest that ACP funds could run out within a year, and there are 

currently, again, 18 million Americans enrolled. If that happens 

and this program does wind down, what processes are in place to 

prevent consumers from certainly losing the discount and facing 

unexpected bills, and when would providers need to start informing 

customers in our districts that this benefit is no longer available? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. These are very good questions, and we are 

taking a look at all of them right now. First things first, we want 

to make sure that Congress continues to fund this program. We 

built the biggest broadband affordability program in our Nation’s 

history, so let’s keep the good stuff going, and we would like to 

work with you to do that. 

But come this fall, we will have to make hard decisions about 

what kind of choices will need to be made to wind this program 

down if Congress does not provide an additional appropriation, and 

we are taking a look at all of those issues right now. 

Mr. VEASEY. Yes. Well, thank you very much. Well, I—it is—like 

I said earlier, it has made a big difference, from kids being able to 

do their homework in a more efficient manner, people being able 

to explore starting, you know, a new business one day. And as this 

digital economy continues to grow, we want to make sure that 
86 

lower-income communities can participate because it can change 

lives. I appreciate your testimony today. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman yields back. Just to remind Members, 

votes will be called at 1:15. And the Chair now recognizes—let’s 

see, who do we have—OK, the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 

minutes. 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all 

for being here today. 

And I guess my first question is to Commissioner Carr. You 

know, I am excited about the potential benefits and economic development that can happen in my district with 5G. For example, the 

fixed wireless broadband is quickly growing, and I have a mountainous region in East Tennessee, and that has incredible potential 

for unlocking smart manufacturing, precision agriculture, and a 

whole lot more. 

So how can the FCC ensure that wireless carriers have the right 

type of spectrum and other tools they need to get the 5G services 

to the people I serve? 

Mr. CARR. We need to—thank you for the question. You know, 

we need to obviously continue to push spectrum out there. I think 

obviously the 2.5 gigahertz is one band that we could allow carriers 

to light up immediately. We also have to be sensitive, not just the 

FCC but Commerce Department, on the BEAD Program, that we 

allow a range of technologies to compete. At the end of the day, 

when Congress passed IIJA, the infrastructure act, they did so 

making clear that they wanted to be technology neutral. 

So we want a ton of fiber in this country, but there are pockets 

where fixed wireless could bridge the digital divide almost overnight, and so we need to leave room for those technologies to compete as well. 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER. I know there was, you know, some legislation. I talked to our Senators, you know, fiber is probably what 

people would prefer but if you can’t get it and you need to get up 

and going because there’s many rural areas where—I have two distressed counties where they have to, you know, drive to Walmart 

or McDonald’s to download their lessons. We need something. 

So—and this goes to Chairwoman. As the FCC handles more 

space-related applications and actions at the staff level, it is important that there is a process in place for the elevation of certain decisions to the Commissioner level. Some of the decisions are on controversial matters that arguably should be made by the Commissioners who can be held accountable. And I guess my question to 

you is, can you please explain what the current practice is for elevating decisions for Commissioner-level review? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. There is a mix of different precedential authorities here. For instance, if the Commission has previously acted 

on these issues or comparable issues, we can assign them to bureau 

authorities. There are other times where the Commission actually 

delegates certain tasks to the bureaus. 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Mm-hmm. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. There is a lot of stuff that comes before the 

FCC on any given day. 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Yes. 
87 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And we have to figure out how to process it 

expeditiously, so that takes a mix of Commission- and bureau-level 

action to do so. 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER. OK, thank you for that answer. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Idaho for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for 

being here today. 

I would like to speak about spectrum just a little bit, in particular shared licenses. And with less and less greenfield and clear 

spectrum available, where is the Commission when it comes to pursuing shared license options to ensure Federal users like DoD, private users can utilize these bands at even faster speeds? And I 

would like to get everybody’s input, if I may, so Chairwoman 

Rosenworcel, if you could begin, please. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think that is a really smart question because we are not making more airwaves, we have got to get creative about how we use them. And I think one of the best exercises 

of that creativity has been our work in the 3.5 gigahertz band, 

where we have created a hierarchy of rights where there is a military right that they can preempt at any time, but we created secondary rights and sold off licenses, and beneath that we made the 

spectrum more broadly available for unlicensed and Wi-Fi purposes. I think that’s a model of creativity and we have got to study 

models like that and see if we can export them into the future because identifying greenfield spectrum, just like you mentioned, is 

going to get harder and more difficult. 

Mr. FULCHER. Chairman Carr? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, I agree with the Chair. At the end of the day, we 

need to provide a mix of different spectrum bands, not just, you 

know, where it is—low, mid, high—but exclusive use, shared, unlicensed. We have to strike the right balance there. 

Mr. FULCHER. OK. Chairman Starks—or Commissioner Starks. 

Mr. STARKS. Yes, thank you for the question. I completely agree 

with my colleagues. You know, the additional thing that I would 

say, obviously, the physics of it matters, where you are in particular bands. The FCC has outstanding engineerings—engineers 

that we work with, and they certainly keep us well-informed. 

Mr. FULCHER. Commissioner Simington? 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Thank you. My colleagues have already said a 

number of very, very smart things, and I am going to more or less 

agree with all of them. I would note also that in Chinese deployments of 5G, they often operate in private networks, of which 

China has a very high density compared to the United States indoors and at relatively low power levels, thus providing support for 

manufacturing and other industrial facilities, so that is something 

we should explore as well. 

Mr. FULCHER. OK, thank you for that. And that is kind of a leadin for where I wanted to go next, and we will just go in reverse 

order, if we may, because I would like to get all of your input on 

this as well, and it has to do with the mix of licenses, if you will. 

So as Congress seeks to support FCC’s spectrum auction authority, where do you see the value to Americans when it comes to this 
88 

mix—shared license, unlicensed, and exclusive licensed spectrum? 

What is the value to Americans in that mix? So Commissioner 

Simington can start, please. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Absolutely. So full-power exclusive-use licenses 

allow for the most detailed network engineering, and companies 

that are going to try to cover large amounts of terrain with sophisticated network engineering need the certainty that they have control of that band in order to deploy the huge capital costs of covering an entire country with, for example, wireless telephony. 

On the other hand, unlicensed spectrum has—is where the WiFi industry came from. It allows anyone to get in and start innovating, and having a mix of unlicensed spectrum available allows 

for an explosion in diversity of services, sometimes ones that start 

with very low investment but can grow. 

And, finally, as far as shared spectrum, shared spectrum is often 

the model that we are looking at when there are a number of services that have different operational characteristics and can share 

the same band or that are operated at different times and can be 

synchronized—can be offset in time so that there is heavy traffic 

in one direction when that is what is needed and then at other 

times they turn off. So, for example, the radar comp rate. 

Mr. FULCHER. OK. 

Mr. SIMINGTON. We need them all. 

Mr. FULCHER. Great, thank you. Commissioner Starks? 

Mr. STARKS. I agree with my colleague there, Commissioner 

Simington. The two things that I would additionally add is we are 

also advised by the Technical Advisory Council, which frequently 

gives us great ideas, but in particular the thing that I would foot 

stomp is Wi-Fi has produced billions and billions if not trillions—— 

Mr. FULCHER. Right. 

Mr. STARKS [continuing]. Of additional dollars of economic impact to the United States and to Americans everywhere. 

Mr. FULCHER. Right, got it. Commissioner Carr, once again it is 

the—regarding the mix of licenses, the value to Americans. 

Mr. CARR. Yes, I agree with the comments that my colleagues 

made. Mr. Simington put it very well. You know, we made—in the 

near term, we have made a lot of progress on unlicensed. For instance, we opened up about 1200 megahertz of spectrum and six 

gigahertz. Obviously we can always open up more, but we need to 

continue to put emphasis on some of the licensed spectrum as well, 

given some of the recent unlicensed progress we have made, and 

I think that will get us back to a more balanced approach. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think my colleagues have all made good 

points. The bottom line is that good spectrum policy requires a mix 

of licensed and unlicensed services and exclusive and shared-use 

propositions. 

Mr. FULCHER. Great. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And we constantly have to be recalibrating to 

make sure we are making the right balance in our skies. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you. Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, I 

do have more questions, but I am out of time, so I am going to send 

those to you in writing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
89 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

our witnesses for being here today. 

With regard to all of the commentary surrounding spectrum, I 

just want to say ditto. I know that so many of my colleagues up 

here today have touched on this issue, so it—there is no need for 

me to go into that. But I just want to open up with saying I think 

very few Americans really understand how much their everyday 

life is impacted by the work of the FCC, and so thank you to you 

all for everything that you have done and will continue to do. 

And I am just going to jump right into the Cable Act. So, as you 

all know, in 1992 Congress passed the Cable Act to promote competition and provide consumers with expanded video choices. 

Today, the robust media marketplace has expanded far beyond 

cable TV, providing consumers for many options to watch videos 

and beyond. Now with the possibility of a fifth Commissioner joining your team, I would caution the FCC in taking any action that 

would apply outdated, burdensome regulations to a flourishing 

marketplace. 

So, Chairwoman, and correct me if I am saying this wrong, 

Rosenworcel? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Nice. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. All right. Under former Chairman Pai, the FCC 

eliminated many unnecessary rules on the media industries. Do 

you commit to not reinstate any of the rules eliminated in the 

media modernization order? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think there were more than 30 rules that 

were eliminated, or at least 30 proceedings on it. To be candid with 

you, I would rather go back and look at them than give you a uniform answer now. But many of them were outdated, and it was an 

effort to adjust them and modernize them for the times. As you acknowledged, the ways we watch have changed, and I think that is 

a fair thing to recognize. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. So just to go back to that, so you have no plans 

to institute new rules or regulations in this space? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We don’t have anything before us at the 

agency involving those issues right now. And I am not certain if 

you are referring to something specifically. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Nope. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. OK. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. I appreciate that. And also while I have got you, 

the FCC is required to conduct its quadrennial review of media 

ownership rules every 4 years, and I believe that the most recent 

review is overdue. When can we expect to see that review from 

you? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We are working on it. We also started the— 

last year’s quadrennial review in December, and I know that this 

issue is also before the court in a mandamus petition, though the 

court has not actually asked us to respond to it yet. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Thank you. 

Commissioner Carr, anything to add? 

Mr. CARR. Yes, I do think we need to get going on a lot of those 

proceedings, including the quadrennial review. There is a lot of, 
90 

you know, progress you can make. At the end of the day, you know, 

our guide star here has to be continuing to create an environment 

that is going to lead to investment in local journalism, local TV, 

local radio. When you look at newspapers across this country, 

something like 2200 closed down over the past 15 years, and I am 

worried that newspaper could be the future for local radio, local 

broadcast. 

It doesn’t have to be that way, but we can’t impose regulations 

that are going to make it more difficult for local broadcasters to 

thrive. They have an incredibly important business model, a lot of 

upside. We just can’t saddle them with too much regulation. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. I agree. I am very much a proponent of less government is better government, so I appreciate that. 

And I know that this issue has also been hit on a few times 

today: robocalls. I, like every American, despise the robocalls, the 

scammers, but scammer text messages, in particular. I know, 

Chairwoman, you and I have discussed a couple of ways we can address some of the robocall issues, but can you tell me one specific 

thing that you need from us in Congress to stop the scammer text 

messages? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Sure. As we all know, the scam artists are 

moving from calling us to texting us. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Yes. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. And it is extraordinarily annoying and really 

dangerous because people click on that junk really easily and find 

that some bad actor can then go, you know, drain their bank accounts or cause them real harm. One of the things that I would 

like us to be able to do is to take the TRACED back consortium 

that this committee made available in the TRACED Act, which is 

a group of carriers that actually identify junk calls on the line. I 

would like to take that technology and apply it to texting. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Wonderful. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. We might need your help to do that. I am not 

clear whether or not we can make that happen under the TRACED 

Act, but it is absolutely something that has been successful for 

scam calls. I would like to now apply the same approach in the 

texting context. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Wonderful, thank you for that, and we will definitely follow up on that. 

And, finally, I know we are going to make a wild jump here into 

prisons, so stay with me. The contraband cellphone issue in our 

prison system is a very serious issue. I represent several of these 

prisons, both State and Federal, in my district, and all of the major 

crimes committed have begun with a conversation, and 9 times out 

of 10 it is facilitated with a cellphone. 

So what can the FCC do specifically to encourage the adoption 

of technologies like managed access systems to prevent the illegal 

phones in our prison systems? 

Mr. LATTA. If you could answer that in about 10 seconds. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Last year we adopted—— 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL [continuing]. Updated rules for managed access systems that were intended to streamline the process so that 
91 

more correctional authorities can avail themselves of those systems. 

Mrs. CAMMACK. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Yep, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields 

back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas’ 11th 

District for 5 minutes. And, again, we will probably be called here 

in about 3 minutes. 

Mr. PFLUGER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being 

here. Chairwoman, it was nice to speak with you as well. It is good 

to see everybody here today. 

I represent the fourth-most underserved district in the country, 

and the other districts that are, you know, 1, 2, and 3 are adjacent 

to me, so I would really like to speak on behalf of not just my own 

district, Midland and Odessa, San Angelo, the rural areas, the national security area that we talked about energy production, agriculture, but also places like Lubbock, places like Amarillo, and a 

lot of West Texas throughout the Permian Basin. 

I have—you know, just kind of looking back at the funds that 

have been distributed, and I just ran into my predecessor, Mike 

Conaway, in the halls walking here, and he brings me back to 

2009, you know, and the conversations when he was chairman of 

the Agriculture Committee a couple of years later with the amount 

of funds that have been put towards getting access in rural America. And, you know, it is hard to think about 6G when we are still, 

you know, waiting for 25/3 service in my own district. 

And, you know, I think that one of the things we have to focus 

on is the competition—commercialization and the competition with 

China, it is very important, so obviously 6G is important. But when 

it comes to the maps and when it comes to prioritizing rural needs, 

whether it be precision agriculture or the production of energy, 

Chairwoman, can you maybe give us some assurance that, you 

know, before doing 6G that we are going to have, you know, actual 

service, just broadband service just in general in places like my district? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. So with respect to wireless, we have talked 

a lot about maps for wired but not wireless. And, in fact, we are 

actually developing the Nation’s most accurate wireless maps right 

now too. For the first time ever, we are getting all of our carriers 

to give us data based on the same metrics and same systems and 

the same assumptions. 

So what we are trying to do is identify where there is service, 

where you will get bars today and where you won’t. And once we 

get that down, we will be able to also identify what areas are going 

to need support for wireless service everywhere. 

One of the cool new tools we have is the FCC’s Speed Test App. 

If you put it on your phone in an anonymized way, you can check 

the speed you are getting on your phone, but it will report right 

back to us and tell us where you are standing and what kind of 

speeds you get. So we are actually taking advantage of some 

crowdsourced information to make sure our in-house mapping initiative for wireless is even more correct and even more accurate. 

Mr. PFLUGER. Is that mapping process taking into account community interaction and commercial partners as well? 
92 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, on the wired side, we have done a lot 

of community outreach because a lot of States have—and even localities and municipalities have broadband task force and 

broadband offices. So we are developing those ties right now because I don’t think we are going to be able to produce all this data 

in Washington without asking people to check and tell us what is 

happening in the communities where they live. 

Mr. PFLUGER. OK, great. 

Commissioner Carr, anything to add to that? 

Mr. CARR. No, I think as we have discussed, you know, we have 

really an unprecedented influx of Federal dollars designed to end 

the digital divide, and so it is not a funding challenge at the problem in terms of the buildout of infrastructure, it is a policy implementation. We have got to focus on the places of this country that 

have zero megabit over zero megabit. I want everybody to get the 

latest and the greatest, whether it is 6G, whether it is a hundred 

megabit service, but have to focus first and foremost on the places 

that are still on dial-up, still on, you know, almost nothing, because 

if we focus there, we can make a big difference with the funding 

that we have right now. 

Mr. PFLUGER. Yes. The Chairwoman? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes, I just want to make a plug for another 

map that we have which is called the Broadband Funding Map. 

Congress asked us to create it, and most people don’t even know 

that it exists, but it is a map of all these programs that we are now 

presently funding, not just at the FCC but at the Department of 

Commerce, the Rural Utilities Service, the Department of Treasury. We are trying to take in every single program and produce 

data on a single map so you can see what the Government has 

funded, and you can go check and see what is happening in those 

areas, and you can also identify areas that we might have missed. 

I think that that map is just as important as our National 

Broadband Map, and it is one that I would certainly want this committee to be aware of as you look at our progress. 

Mr. PFLUGER. Well, thank you. And when we look at those maps, 

you know, again, I am going to highlight the national security issue 

of providing food for this country and providing energy, and I want 

to make sure that as we spoke about on the phone that there is 

no bias that is inflicted by this agency, by the FCC when it comes 

to climate agendas and things that we have seen that—there are 

biases that are out there, but providing broadband, providing coverage to the Permian Basin and the surrounding areas is very important. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, the votes have now been called. The gentleman 

from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you to the Commissioners for a very interesting hearing. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel, you said some things that I thought 

were really spot on in your testimony. You said that broadband 

isn’t nice to have, it is need to have. You also said you don’t have 

a fair shot in the 21st century unless you have broadband at home, 

which I completely agree with, and that is why I think it is so important that you have created the broadband availability map to 
93 

really highlight the need to extend infrastructure in parts of the 

country that don’t have it. 

In perusing that map, I couldn’t help but noticing that there is 

a huge hole in coverage right over my district, both in fixed and 

in mobile broadband. And I know that a lot of our conversation at 

the hearing today has centered around affordability of broadband, 

but my point would be it doesn’t matter how affordable broadband 

is if you don’t have access to it, and many of my constituents don’t. 

My constituents have kind of a unique problem in that so much 

of my district is in public ownership, either National Forest or Bureau of Land Management land. Many of my communities are completely landlocked. I have got one city that is completely surrounded by BLM. I have got another city that is completely surrounded by National Forest. And problems arise when we try to 

permit the extension of broadband infrastructure through public 

lands. 

And, Commissioner Carr, I know that you, in answering Congressman Joyce’s question on this, you got into this a little bit. So 

we are supposed to have a shot clock of 270 days on the permitting 

of broadband infrastructure through Federal land, but our agencies 

right now commonly ignore that shot clock. So the question then— 

I’ll start with you, Commissioner Carr. The question is, what can 

be done about that? 

Mr. CARR. It is a challenge. We have tackled this—you have 

tackled this through legislation multiple times, Congress has, and 

we have a shot clock right now on these entities, and it is not being 

abided by. I think it kind of has to go maybe to the top of these 

agencies and really bring it to the leadership’s attention that Congress is serious about these deadlines, imposing some consequences 

for missing the deadlines, because right now there isn’t one. 

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Consequences like what? 

Mr. CARR. You know, it could be sort of consequences for funding, 

perhaps, something that would be enough to get the attention of 

leadership, because these are—you know, they are good-meaning 

public servants but their missions are directed on totally other 

issues and their career isn’t advanced by moving quickly on 

broadband permitting, so we have to find some way of aligning the 

incentives, whether it is carrots or sticks, as my colleague says, to 

make sure that they are abiding by those shot clocks. 

Mr. OBERNOLTE. I completely agree. I have introduced a bill, 

H.R. 3340, the GRANTED Act, that would simply say if you have 

a permit that has met all of the other requirements but the shot 

clock has expired through the inaction of a Federal agency for the 

permitting of infrastructure across public land, then the approval 

is deemed granted. 

Mr. CARR. Yes. 

Mr. OBERNOLTE. And I think that would incentivize Federal 

agencies to not ignore the shot clock. And I know it is a heavyhanded approach, but I don’t know how else to get their attention. 

Maybe we will look at also tying it to maybe some funding, but, you 

know, something needs to be done. I completely agree with you. 

Chairwoman Rosenworcel—which, in your defense, is not worse 

than Obernolte—one of the things that has really changed about 

the way that consumers get information, particularly video services 
94 

over the last few years, is the advent of streaming services, and I 

know you are very aware of the—how the industry has transitioned 

there. So questions have arisen recently about whether or not the 

FCC has the jurisdiction to regulate these new online video marketplace distributors as—in the same manner that you have regulated them that—in nonstreaming formats in the past. 

So do you believe that the FCC has that jurisdiction, and do you 

intend to regulate streaming services the same way that you do 

other MVPDs? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I think the answer is that our authority extends only to what Congress provided us in the 1984 Cable Act and 

the 1992 Cable Act, and I think it is fair to assume that none of 

us in this room were contemplating the kind of streaming services 

we have today when Congress passed those laws. 

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Right. Thank you, that is a pretty clear answer. 

I know we have some people waiting to go on, and we have votes, 

so I want to thank you all for your dedication to extending 

broadband into rural districts like mine, and it is very much appreciated. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PFLUGER [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

our panelists being with us today. Chairman Rosenworcel and the 

rest of the Commission, good to see all of you. 

The committee has passed my legislation, the ALERT Parity Act, 

to formalize the way the FCC licenses supplemental coverage from 

space when providing emergency alerts and 9–1–1 service. While 

there have been several partnerships announced that seek waivers 

of the FCC’s rules for more advanced services, this burgeoning 

topic also raises several interesting questions about spectrum use. 

One such question pertains to the geographic areas required to 

offer supplemental coverage from space. I want to make sure that, 

whatever the FCC does, my constituents in rural eastern Ohio are 

not left out because rural carriers don’t have the spectrum over the 

entire U.S. So first question, Chairwoman, would the FCC’s proposed supplemental coverage from space rules exclude smaller carriers from bringing these services to the rural communities they 

serve? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. The short answer is no, but the longer answer is this. As we try to combine terrestrial services and satellite 

services, we are going to have to deal with a lot of potential interference issues. That is why our lead proposal in our rulemaking on 

the single network future focuses on spectrum where a single carrier holds all cochannel licenses in an area. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. I—— 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. But we also proposed ideas for how other carriers could work together to help avoid that interference and participate in this growing area of spectrum. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right, so will you commit to working with 

our committee to ensure that the FCC’s actions in this space are 

not unnecessarily rushed and that they strike the appropriate balance of encouraging innovation while also providing certainty? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Yes. 
95 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, great. Chairwoman Rosenworcel, again, one 

area of geopolitical competition with China is in the space sector. 

Similar to how China has sought to leverage their terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure, they are also working to build out 

satellite broadband to directly compete with the United States. 

Regulatory certainty is something that would help to ensure that 

U.S. maintains its lead in this critical sector. For instance, right 

now there are applications that sit for months at the FCC before 

any action is taken. 

If we want to continue to be the global leader on technologies 

like satellite internet, I strongly believe we need to move much 

faster. Can you explain to us why the FCC has not been putting 

out applications for comment on a more timely basis? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. I agree, when I came to the agency, I noticed 

that we had a tremendous amount of satellite applications before 

us. I reorganized the agency, created a Space Bureau. I increased 

those who review those applications by 50 percent, and we set up 

a rulemaking to try to identify what criteria are necessary so that 

we could put them all out on public notice faster. So we are in the 

process of streamlining this, and I think we are on the way to 

being successful at just that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, you have answered my other question. 

So, I think with that, I am going to yield back an entire 1 

minute, 27 seconds. 

Mr. PFLUGER. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko. 

Mrs. LESKO. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

being here today. 

Radio amateurs voluntarily and without compensation regularly 

provide important public services, especially emergency and disaster-related support communications when commercial infrastructure has been destroyed by a hurricane, forest fire, or similar disaster. In 2013, radio amateurs petitioned the FCC to delete an obsolete rule that limits the speed with which they can transmit digital messages. 

Although the Commission agreed in 2016—in a 2016 notice that 

the obsolete rule should be deleted, and although it also waives the 

rule when hurricanes or other disasters threaten, the rule still exists. We are the only country in the world that has a data limit of 

this type. As you may know, I have twice introduced a bill that directs the Commission to replace the data limit with a bandwidth 

limit. This would allow radio amateurs to engage in modern data 

communications and increase efficient use of their spectrum. 

Chairwoman and any other members that want to answer, when 

can we expect the Commission to act on this matter, or will it be 

necessary for me to pass my legislation to get the Commission to 

act on this, what I think is a simple matter? 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, I appreciate you giving voice to amateur radio. It is important for hobbyist use, but as you mentioned, 

it can be also used in emergencies, and we have seen lots of demonstrations of people doing just that and really helping out. 

So we had this petition a while ago, and it is about amateur 

radio rule and how it is a shared use so that we have some restrictions on how amateur radio hobbyists can use it. Some of those in-
96 

volve the symbol rate, some involve a bandwidth restriction, and 

there is a lot of conflict in our record about how we should update 

those. But as you mentioned, we last did a rulemaking on this, and 

I think it was 2016 or 2017, and I think we should refresh that 

record so that we can move ahead and maybe get to this issue before you have to introduce some additional legislation. 

Mrs. LESKO. Do you have a estimated timeline on that, because 

I have hundreds of amateur radio people that would be ecstatic—— 

Mr. PFLUGER. Microphone. 

Mrs. LESKO. Oh, sorry. Do you have any estimated timeline on 

this, because, as you know, there are hundreds in my district alone 

of amateur radio operators, and I have gone to some of these emergency training events where they help hospitals, and I think they 

are very vital. And this seems, from what they described to me, to 

be a simple and logical change, and I was wondering what your estimated timeline is on this. 

Ms. ROSENWORCEL. Well, the thing is that the record that we 

have on it is stale and the old record—there was a lot of divide 

about exactly what changes should be made to the bandwidth restrictions here. So I think we are going to have to update that and 

then get back to you. I wish I could give you an estimate without 

updating it, but I think the right thing to do is to update that 

record. 

Mrs. LESKO. And do any of the other Commissioners have a comment on if we should do this? 

Mr. SIMINGTON. Yes, Congresswoman, I had a number of friends 

in the Amateur Radio Relay League who sent me copies of your introduced legislation with, you know, big smiley faces on them and 

such. It is—you know, I think this is a very—been very well-received by the community. 

Obviously, the whole concept of a bowed rate is a little bit outdated. I don’t want to be precipitated on how best to reflect the— 

how best to update the record, and I think the Chairwoman is proposing the right approach, but this is certainly something we 

should take seriously. 

Mrs. LESKO. Well, if you did what is complementary to my legislation, you would have thousands of people that would be very 

happy. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. PFLUGER. The gentlelady yields back. 

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents 

included on the staff hearing documents list. 

Without objection, that will be an order. 

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

Mr. PFLUGER. I remind Members that they have 10 business 

days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to 

respond to the questions promptly. Members should submit their 

questions by the close of business on July 5th. 

Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 

Æ