`[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]








           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











    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]











     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
57-494 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
			                       

                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                         ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                 Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia,   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    Vice Chair                       MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                DARREN SOTO, Florida
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                     officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             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

 
           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, 
Cardenas, 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.
    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 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:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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 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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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 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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    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.
    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:]
 
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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, 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 first-ever 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 $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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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.
    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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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 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:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    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 bipartisan 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.
    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.
    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 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 
minority-owned 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. 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 responsibilities 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 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.
    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 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 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 
high-speed 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.
    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 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 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 subscription-based 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 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 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 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. Cardenas. 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.
    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. Cardenas. So to clarify to people listening, the 
technical answer to that is within reach.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I think----
    Mr. Cardenas. 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. Cardenas. 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. Cardenas. Wow.
    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. Cardenas. 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 next-generation 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 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.
    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.
    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-in-a-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 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 access 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.
    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 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 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 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.
    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 analysis 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 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, 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.
    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 next-generation network 
infrastructure gets out there.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. I look forward to that, thank you.
    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.
    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, 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 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 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.
    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 
lead-in 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 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 
Wi-Fi 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.
    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, 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 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?
    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 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 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.
    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 involve 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:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]`