[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON SEVEN COMMUNICATIONS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 13, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-132
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-502 WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ANNA G. ESHOO, California
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri JERRY McNERNEY, California
BILLY LONG, Missouri BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CHRIS COLLINS, New York officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 1
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 30
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 31
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 133
Hon. Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New York, prepared statement................................ 134
Witnesses
Hank Hunt, parent of Kari Hunt................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Melissa Smith, Treasurer, Kelsey Smith Foundation and parent of
Kelsey Smith................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Steve Souder, Director, Fairfax County, Virginia 911 Center...... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Nathan Wessler, Staff Attorney at the ACLU Speech, Privacy and
Technology Project............................................. 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Answers to submitted questions............................... 174
Abigail Medina, Trustee, San Bernardino City Unified School
District....................................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Katie McAuliffe, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax
Reform and Executive Director, Digital Liberty................. 75
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Answers to submitted questions............................... 178
B.A. Finley, Criminal Investigations Division, Johns Creek Police
Department, Johns Creek, Georgia............................... 102
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Scott Bergmann, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, CTIA--The
Wireless Association........................................... 109
Prepared statement........................................... 111
Answers to submitted questions............................... 183
Dan Holdhusen, Director of Government Relations, Good Samaritan
Society........................................................ 118
Prepared statement........................................... 130
Submitted Material
H.R. 2031........................................................ 4
H.R. 3998........................................................ 8
H.R. 4111........................................................ 15
H.R. 4167........................................................ 17
H.R. 4190........................................................ 20
H.R. 4884........................................................ 24
H.R. 4889........................................................ 27
Statement of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
submitted by Ms. Eshoo......................................... 135
Statement of the Lifeline Connects Coalition, submitted by Ms.
Eshoo.......................................................... 137
Statement of the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet
Council, submitted by Ms. Eshoo................................ 140
Statement of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, submitted by Ms. Eshoo......................... 142
Statement of the National Congress of American Indians, submitted
by Ms. Eshoo................................................... 144
Statement of Public Interest Groups, submitted by Ms. Eshoo...... 149
Statement of Senator Greg Smith, submitted by Mr. Walden......... 152
Statement of Hon. Louie Gohmert, submitted by Mr. Walden......... 158
Statement of Mr. Pai of the Federal Communications Commission,
submitted by Mr. Walden........................................ 161
Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society,
submitted by Mr. Walden........................................ 168
Statement of Messrs. O'Rielly and Pai, Commissioners of the
Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. Walden..... 169
Statement of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, submitted by Mr.
Walden......................................................... 171
Statement of 60 Plus Association, submitted by Mr. Walden........ 172
Statement of Frontiers of Freedom, submitted by Mr. Walden....... 173
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON SEVEN COMMUNICATIONS BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Shimkus,
Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger, Bilirakis,
Johnson, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Eshoo, Doyle, Welch,
Yarmuth, Clarke, Loebsack, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary;
Gene Fullano, Detailee, Telecom; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel,
Telecom; Grace Koh, Counsel, Telecom; David Redl, Chief
Counsel, Telecom; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; Gregory
Watson, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; Jeff
Carroll, Minority Staff Director; David Goldman, Minority Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany Guarascio,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Jerry
Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC
Detailee; Ryan Skukowski, Minority Policy Analyst; and Andrew
Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and
Member Services.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. We are going to call to order the subcommittee
on Communications and Technology. I know we are shy one witness
whom we are trying to locate. Apparently there are some issues
getting into the building today with everybody in town. So we
are going to proceed with the testimony of our witnesses and
our opening statements, and we have somebody out looking for
Ms. McAuliffe, and hopefully this will time out. Well, with
seven bills on the agenda we felt it important to move forward.
So, and maybe we can close those doors too, if somebody on
the staff can--yes, thank you. Well, good morning. Today's
hearing will examine seven important bills all seeking to
improve the way our communication laws work and better reflect
modern technology and consumer expectations. Two of these bills
deal with important public safety issues and how to improve
emergency response when it matters most. First, the Kelsey
Smith Act sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder gives law
enforcement the tools to locate victims in emergencies using
location data from their cell phone providers. By creating a
very narrow set of circumstances in which law enforcement can
access these type of data, the bill seeks to protect the
privacy of users while still allowing access when the situation
demands it.
This bill utilizes existing technology to help law
enforcement better respond when someone is in serious danger.
It is important to note, however, that the legislation does not
place the burden of liability on cell phone carriers. The
decision is in the hands of law enforcement, and carriers
should be able to hand over the data without fear of a lawsuit.
I intend to offer an amendment at subcommittee markup that
will make sure that a carrier's customer service representative
isn't faced with making a decision about whether complying with
a request from law enforcement opens the company or individual
up to liability.
The Kelsey Smith Act is already law in 22 of our states
including in my own state of Oregon, where it passed in 2014.
So the bill we are looking at today mirrors much of the
language in the Oregon statute giving law enforcement the
ability to act quickly when every second counts, but only, only
in narrow circumstances of a true emergency.
It is important to note that this legislation as being
proposed here today passed unanimously through both the Oregon
House and the Oregon Senate and was signed into law by a
Democratic governor demonstrating that this is not a partisan
issue, but it is good policy.
Another important piece of public safety legislation before
the committee today is Kari's Law, which requires that multi-
line telephone systems typically found in hotels, offices, and
schools have a default configuration to dial out to 911 without
any additional prefix required. To quote FCC Commissioner
Jessica Rosenworcel, you may only call 911 once in your life,
but it will be the most important call you ever make.
As Kari's father will testify today, children are taught
from an early age to dial 911 in an emergency. There should be
no question that when they do so they will reach the emergency
dispatcher. The simple fix that this bill provides, one that
has been already implemented by many MLTS users, has the
potential to prevent another tragedy like the one that happened
to Kari Hunt.
I would like to especially thank Kari's father, Mr. Hunt;
Kelsey's mother, Mrs. Smith, for agreeing to testify today.
While your losses must be very difficult to discuss in public,
your testimony is certainly important in our process here as a
resource for the subcommittee as we work on this legislation.
So we are very thankful that you are willing to be here.
We are also going to look at a bill from Representative
Austin Scott which caps the Lifeline portion of the Universal
Service Fund. In many ways I wish we didn't have to take up
this piece of legislation, take this step we are doing today.
Capping the fund is well within the authority of the Federal
Communications Commission and something that they came close to
doing in the most recent Lifeline reform order. Unfortunately
that did not happen. As a result we are left with a so-called
budget for the fund, a provision that requires the FCC to take
note when annual Lifeline spending exceeds $2 billion and have
the staff explain why that spending is so high. That is it. The
FCC can basically blow right through its ``budget'' by as much
as it desires.
I don't think this is the way government should be handling
the American people's dollars with cavalier disregard for basic
fiscal discipline. I want to be clear, we do not support
eliminating the Lifeline subsidy. This is an important program
for those that are truly eligible. We are not opposed to the
mission of Lifeline. Universal connectivity is a core principle
in this country, particularly for those who need it most like
children from low-income families.
What we cannot support, however, is a fund that lacks
external controls and is susceptible to waste, fraud, and
abuse. And we have seen in the past how rapidly this fund can
expand. I believe it is our duty and a duty to our constituents
to make sure that their money is only spent responsibly.
So the reforms that the FCC has adopted over the past few
years, including some adopted this month, are certainly
positive steps toward a more accountable fund. But until there
are better, more effective guardrails in place there is nothing
to prevent the FCC from spending and spending and spending,
placing an even greater burden on American household budgets
who have to assume those costs. Real budgets that can't simply
keep spending other people's money is what we need.
In addition to these three bills, we will look at a bill to
encourage innovative solutions to the spectrum crunch, a
problem that we have been spending a great deal of time on in
our subcommittee. We will look at Ranking Member Pallone's bill
to improve post-disaster communications. That is something that
he is unfortunately all too familiar with after Superstorm
Sandy wreaked havoc across his district and all of New Jersey.
We will also consider a bill to allow skilled nursing
facilities to improve their broadband connectivity, and
finally, we will look at a bill to increase penalties for
criminals who spark an unnecessary and dangerous law
enforcement response by falsifying caller ID.
So I would like to thank all the sponsors on both sides of
the aisle for bringing these bills to our subcommittee, and I
want to thank the witnesses that we have before us today.
[The bills H.R. 2031, H.R. 3998, H.R. 4111, H.R. 4167, H.R.
4190, H.R. 4884, and H.R. 4889 follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. With that I would yield back the balance of my
time and recognize the distinguished ranking subcommittee
member from California, Ms. Eshoo.
HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you, and thank you to the panelists for being here today
especially on the two bills that the chairman raised first in
his opening comments. We appreciate it. We are advancing
several bipartisan bills today that are going to make progress
in a number of critical areas.
I am disappointed that the subcommittee has once again
chosen to target the FCC's Lifeline program. The name of the
program is highly instructive, Lifeline. And we know, I think,
better than the rest of the entire Congress that because of the
issues that we deal with that wireless mobile services today
are essential in our day-to-day lives for everything across the
board. Whether it is commerce, employment, employee, shopping,
education, you name it, we are all dependent upon it and so are
poor people in our country.
So I think that this bill imposing an arbitrary cap on the
Lifeline program of $1.5 billion and eliminate the program's
support for voice-only mobile services within two years and
prohibiting Lifeline from being used to subsidize the sale of
lease of a mobile phone is damaging to a part of our population
that needs these services just as much as we do, just as much
as our children do.
Really not any different, if not even more, and if it were
enacted into law, a CURB Lifeline Act would deny millions of
low-income Americans access to basic communication services and
that includes, as I said, so many of the functions that we
undertake in life every day. According to the Universal Service
Administrative Company, only 33 percent of eligible households,
or approximately 13 million American households, participated
in the Lifeline program as of October 2015. This means that
more than 26 million households qualified for the program but
didn't participate.
So capping the Lifeline program would prevent these
eligible households from accessing the Lifeline service if they
apply after the budget cap has been reached. And just
mentioning about a budget, we don't have a budget. We are not
doing a budget. So now, if a household happens to fall on hard
times, a cap on Lifeline's budget would arbitrarily punish
these Americans. And I just think that this is eminently unfair
and I think that our committee can do much, much better than
this.
So I am disappointed. I hope Mr. Chairman that you and our
colleagues will work with us to see if we can't come up with a
better way of addressing this. I know that there has been
things that have gone wrong with the program. There is
something that has gone wrong with every program in the country
and it is up to Congress to reform and as well as the executive
branch to do what they need to do.
Just last week, the FCC fined a Lifeline provider $51
million for enrolling ineligible and duplicate customers, the
largest fine that the Commission has proposed against a
Lifeline provider. So we are not opposing to going after bad
actors when taxpayer dollars are involved in it.
So I hope that we can work together on this, because I
think it is a historic moment for those who understand that
expanding broadband to low-income households is going to help
lift our country up. We know, and even in the presidential
campaign that there is a great debate about inequality in our
country. This increases the inequality. This creates an even
larger gap. This doesn't do anything to lessen that gap.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today.
Again, thank you to the witnesses and to the sponsors of
legislation, the bills that are before us, and with that I
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for her comments. I
recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, the----
Ms. Eshoo. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry.
Mr. Walden. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Can I ask for unanimous consent to place the
opening statement----
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Of Ms. Matsui in the record? And
also several letters from business, from National Congress of
American Indians--well, there are----
Mr. Walden. Without objection.
Ms. Eshoo. I think, five letters here I would like to
submit for the record.
Mr. Walden. We have reviewed them.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Without objection, they will be entered into
the record at the appropriate location.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. We will now recognize the gentlelady from
Tennessee, the vice chair of the full committee Ms. Blackburn,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say
welcome to our witnesses. Mr. Hunt, I want to especially
welcome you and thank you for your willingness to share your
story. We are appreciative.
I want to also mention Ms. Matsui's Spectrum Challenge
bill. This is something that I am pleased that we are going to
discuss today. I think it does really focus the efforts on
spectrum efficiency, and I am appreciative of that. We need to
discuss spectrum efficiency.
I also had noted the CTIA report which talks about the 350
megahertz of spectrum that are going to be needed by 2019. And
whether it is that report or looking at the Cisco estimates of
how many wireless devices, the Internet of Things, the
utilization expansion of spectrum, that is something we need to
be thoughtful as we make decisions and approach this. We don't
want to get into a spectrum crisis or a spectrum crunch. We
note to each of you that us being diligent and doing the due
diligence, if you will, on this issue is going to be important.
So we are going to look forward to discussing that further.
I will yield, Mr. Chairman, to any members on our side that--
Mr. Pompeo is seeking time. I yield the remainder to Mr.
Pompeo.
Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Ms. Blackburn. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I want to talk about
an important piece of legislation that was originally offered
by Representative Yoder, my colleague from Kansas, on which I
was an original cosponsor.
It has now been close to eight years since Kelsey Smith, an
amazing young Kansas woman, was abducted from a shopping center
parking lot in broad daylight. This horrible crime was captured
on security camera outside the Target store she was visiting
that day to purchase an anniversary gift for her boyfriend.
Her abduction wasn't done under the cover of night and
there was no question about the urgency of the situation. And
it was at this moment the clock started ticking. Three hours is
what law enforcement tells you is the critical window to
increase the chances of returning an abducted child alive. A
hundred and eighty minutes is not a lot of time, and I am sure
that for a parent praying for the safe return of their child,
their son or daughter, each second that slips by is pure hell.
In this case it took four days, four days to identify the
location of Kelsey. It is just Kansas common sense that law
enforcement should have a way to quickly find the location of a
wireless telecommunications device if a person has been
determined to be at risk of death or serious physical harm due
to being kidnapped or reported missing. This bill, the Kelsey
Smith Act, does just that. At the same time it maintains
privacy protections for all the other information including
calls made, received, and text messages. The only thing that
would be disclosed is the location, the all-critical location
of that cell phone.
Mr. Chairman, 22 states have done this. It is truly a shame
that we have not been able to pass this legislation at the
federal level. It is tragic indeed. But Kelsey's legacy is not
one of tragedy. Great things have happened all across the
country. There was a 6-year-old boy saved in your state, Ms.
Blackburn, in Tennessee, from a suspected rapist because the
state had implemented the Kelsey Smith Act. It is a legacy of
countless others who live today because of her work and the
work of her parents, one of whom will be testifying before us
this morning.
I strongly support this legislation and encourage my
colleagues to join me in urging for its swift passage, and with
that I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman might want to yield to Mr. Latta
who is seeking time as well.
Mr. Pompeo. Yes, it is Ms. Blackburn's time. I will yield
to Mr. Latta.
Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate the gentleman from Kansas for
yielding. And I thank the chairman for holding today's hearing
and on these seven bills which is aimed at advancing public
safety reform and outdated FCC programs.
And if I could just start, in my 11 years that I was in the
Ohio General Assembly I chaired the Judiciary Committee and I
chaired the Criminal Committee in the State House. And I
appreciate the family for being here because I know, listening
to the testimony for 11 years I unfortunately saw the most
horrific and the most tragic events that occurred in the state
of Ohio, and I appreciate you all for being here.
And again, the horrific tragedies that brought forth the
Kelsey Smith Act and Kari's Law Act both have tangible
solutions and will help save lives. In case of emergency
situations we need to ensure assistance is easily accessible
and provide law enforcement the necessary information to locate
individuals in order to prevent serious physical harm.
Again, I commend these families for sharing their stories
and seeking to protect others by urging changes in the law. I
look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and hope
today's discussion generates ideas that will provide public
safety and accountability at the Commission. And with that Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman, and I will now recognize
the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for opening comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member
Eshoo, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the families of
Kari Hunt and Kelsey Smith are in the hearing room and
testifying today, and I understand that a terrible tragedy has
befallen your families and would like to thank you for your
courageous activism on these issues.
Many of the bills we are discussing today deal with public
safety issues, which is particularly timely since this is
National Public Safety Telecommunications Week.
Telecommunications plays a critical role in public safety, and
ensuring people have access to communications services can make
all the difference during an emergency.
We learned firsthand in New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy
that calling for help is difficult when the power is out, and
when the cell towers are also down it is nearly impossible. We
need to be better prepared because no one should be left with
silence on the other end of the call when they dial 911.
I would like to thank Chairman Walden for adding three
Democratic bills to today's hearing including my bill, the
Securing Access to Network in Disasters called the SANDy Act.
The bill has a number of straightforward proposals that, like
the other bills introduced by my Democratic colleagues, should
garner bipartisan support.
The SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all
communication providers, broadcasters, cable, and
telecommunications serve in emergencies, but most notably the
bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service
even if their particular wireless network goes down.
I look forward to hearing more about all the other bills on
today's agenda. Unfortunately, I must express serious concerns
about one bill, H.R. 4884, which would cap the Lifeline
program. In some ways it makes sense that a Lifeline bill is
teed up with the other public safety bills we are considering
today because our phones truly are lifelines. They are the
essential lifesaving devices that we keep with us every day.
But unlike the other bills that we are considering today
that propose ways to improve public safety, this bill to curb
the Lifeline program would take essential lifesaving devices
away from the people who need help the most. Millions of low-
income Americans rely on this program to provide them with the
basic communication services that most of us take for granted
like the ability to call 911.
The provisions of H.R. 4884 would gut the Lifeline program
by setting a cap, forcing a rapid phase-out of voice services,
and preventing the subsidy for being used towards equipment
like handsets. Each of these provisions alone would be bad
enough. However, taken together these provisions will rip
phones out of the hands of millions of Americans.
If Republicans truly want to control the costs in the
Lifeline program, their blunt force bill is the wrong approach.
There is a better way. Let us work together to address
inequality, to improve the economy, to find more people jobs,
and the best way to lower the cost of the program is to lift
people up not to take away their connection to a better life.
I look forward to today's discussion, and I yield the
remainder of my time to Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the ranking member. I want to talk
about the Lifeline program. For over 30 years millions of low-
income Americans have been able to access phone service
strictly because of the Lifeline program. Families that are
Lifeline-eligible are low income. That means for a family of
four an income of $32,800 a year.
So for these people, the current subsidy is $9.25 a month
and that is just for the phone section. H.R. 4884 will limit
the number of families that are eligible for this program, and
for these families the Lifeline program makes an enormous
difference. It allows Americans to apply for jobs. It allows
seniors to manage health care. It allows loved ones to stay
connected. And it gives families and individuals access to 911.
Mandating a cap on the Lifeline program, eliminating
standalone mobile service and prohibiting funds from being used
for devices would have a devastating impact on families of low-
income Americans. A better way to control costs of the Lifeline
program is to lift people up out of poverty. Let us work
together to close the wage gap, increase the minimum wage, and
start infrastructure projects that will put these folks to
work.
So I think there is a much better way to go about this than
capping a very critical program like Lifeline, and I yield back
to the ranking member.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Eshoo. And thank
you to all of the witnesses for being here today. I'd like to
start by acknowledging that the families of Kari Dunn and
Kelsey Smith are in the hearing room and testifying today. I
understand that a terrible tragedy has befallen your families.
I would like to thank you for your courageous activism on these
issues.
Many of the bills we are discussing today deal with public
safety issues, which is particularly timely since this is
National Public Safety Telecommunications Week.
Telecommunications plays a critical role in public safety,
and ensuring people have access to communications services can
make all the difference during an emergency. We learned
firsthand in New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy that calling for
help is difficult when the power is out. And when the cell
towers are also down, it is nearly impossible. We need to be
better prepared because no one should be left with silence on
the other end of the call when they dial 911.
I'd like to thank Chairman Walden for adding three
Democratic bills to today's hearing, including my bill, the
Securing Access to Networks in Disasters, called the SANDy Act.
The bill has a number of straight-forward proposals that-like
the other bills introduced by my Democratic colleagues-should
garner bipartisan support. The SANDy Act would recognize the
critical role that all communications providers--broadcasters,
cable, and telecommunications--serve in emergencies, but most
notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to
wireless service even if their particular wireless network goes
down.
I look forward to hearing more about all the other bills on
today's agenda. Unfortunately I must express serious concerns
with one bill--H.R. 4884, which would cap the Lifeline program.
In some ways it makes sense that a Lifeline bill is teed up
with the other public safety bills we are considering today.
Because our phones truly are lifelines--they are the essential
lifesaving devices that we keep with us every day.
But unlike the other bills we are considering today that
propose ways to improve public safety, the bill to curb the
Lifeline program would take essential lifesaving devices away
from the people who need help the most. Millions of low-income
Americans rely on this program to provide them with the basic
communications services that most of us take for granted--like
the ability to call 9111. The provisions of H.R. 4884 would gut
the Lifeline program by setting a cap, forcing a rapid phase-
out of voice services, and preventing the subsidy from being
used towards equipment like handsets. Each of these provisions
alone would be bad. However, taken together, these provisions
will rip phones out of the hands of millions of Americans.
If Republicans truly want to control the costs in the
Lifeline program, their blunt force bill is the wrong approach.
There is a better way. Let us work together to address
inequality; to improve the economy; to find more people jobs.
The best way to lower the costs of the program is to lift
people up, not to take away their connection to a better life.
I look forward to today's discussion.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. Before I turn to our
witnesses I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record the following documents: a written statement from
State Senator Greg Smith on the Kelsey Smith Act; a letter from
Representative Gohmert supporting Kari's Law; a letter from FCC
Commissioner Ajit Pai supporting Kari's Law; a letter from the
Good Samaritan Society supporting H.R. 4111;, and a letter
supporting H.R. 4884, the CURB Lifeline Act, from Taxpayers
Protection Alliance, Sixty Plus Alliance, and Frontiers of
Freedom.
Without objection, those will also go into the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Walden. We are now prepared to turn to our
extraordinary panel of witnesses, and again we appreciate very
much your being here. We look forward to all of your comments.
As a precursor, you have to push a little button on the base of
that microphone and you have to pull it fairly close for us all
to hear it.
And so we are going to start with Mr. Hank Hunt, father of
Kari Hunt. Mr. Hunt, thank you again for being here. We are
sorry for the tragedy that has befallen your family. We look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF HANK HUNT, PARENT OF KARI HUNT; MELISSA SMITH,
TREASURER, KELSEY SMITH FOUNDATION AND PARENT OF KELSEY SMITH;
STEVE SOUDER, DIRECTOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA 911 CENTER;
NATHAN WESSLER, STAFF ATTORNEY AT THE ACLU SPEECH, PRIVACY AND
TECHNOLOGY PROJECT; ABIGAIL MEDINA, TRUSTEE, SAN BERNARDINO
CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND KATIE MCAULIFFE, FEDERAL
AFFAIRS MANAGER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, DIGITAL LIBERTY
STATEMENT OF HANK HUNT
Mr. Hunt. Well, thank you. I hope I pushed that hard
enough.
Mr. Walden. Perfectly.
Mr. Hunt. Good morning. I want to thank the committee for
inviting me here and having us here for our testimony.
As the chairman said, on December the 1st, 2013, I lost my
oldest daughter to a vicious murder. She was stabbed to death
by her husband with their children present. This is a little
over 2 years ago and I still ask that if I stumble, understand,
and if I hesitate, just bear with me.
As this attack began, her 9-year-old daughter did what she
was taught to do. She grabbed the phone and she called 911. It
didn't work. She said she heard static. She tried again. There
was nothing. She tried again and again, four times in total,
nothing. When I arrived at the police station an hour or so
after the event happened, my granddaughter sat on my lap and
with a very defiant expression looked at me and she said, I
tried but it wouldn't work, Papa. It was then I realized this
had happened at a hotel, and this hotel requires an extra digit
for an outside line and they utilize a multi-line telephone
system, MLTS.
And after I laid my daughter to rest I became determined
that that was going to stop. I wasn't sure how to do it, but
figured I would just take it as it came. We don't teach our
children to dial an access number. It isn't always the number 9
either. Some hotels, motels, office buildings, utilize the
number 7 or the number 8.
Even more confusing, I stayed at a hotel in Waco, Texas
that instructed its guests on the face of the phone to call
6821 in case of an emergency. I don't know who answers that. I
didn't try it. I wasn't brave enough. I am now. I will test 911
at any hotel I go to, and the one I am staying at now you
cannot call 911.
I started a Change.org petition. It is all I knew to do.
And as naive as I guess I am at my age, I was wanting to get a
hundred signatures, and I was going to march into my
congressman's office with a hundred signatures and create a
law. On my way here I checked that petition again and we are at
550,000 almost. We are closing in on that. That I believe was
the magic number because here I am. And being one that can be
nervous a lot, when I approached my congressman about it--I
finally got an invitation--I was surprised to be welcomed, and
the interest that has been taken in this issue has been
overwhelming and very pleasing.
Kari's Law seeks three things: direct dialing of any phone
anywhere, anytime without a prefix/post-fix number being
required for a call to be connected; onsite notification,
having a central point where all calls made to 911 from any
phone on any particular MLTS will also alert someone on that
site that a 911 call has been placed; and number three, no
interference or redirection of a 911 call. Some hotels when you
dial 911 it directs it to the front desk. That front desk clerk
will answer that 911 call and then decide whether or not it
should be taken further to a local PSAP, a public safety
answering point. It is a very simple procedure which I have
found very little to no cost to implement, since almost if not
all MLTS systems are already capable of being programmed to do
so. In the majority of cases it is simply a reprogram by
keyboard.
I have learned a lot in the past 864 days since my daughter
passed away. People want this law. People will be greedy and
may try to make a buck off of it. It needs to be done. It needs
to be taken care of. It has been said the telecom industry will
police itself without any laws or regulations requiring it to
do so. Over the past 10 years they have been policing
themselves, problems still exist. Red lights and stop signs do
not save lives. It is the actions of the driver who is obeying
the law. Laws are created when ethics fail and if that is what
is required, then so be it.
I want to thank Avaya Corporation, Conveyant Systems,
Verizon Corporation, National Emergency Number Association and
several other companies, and most of all the 911 community for
taking the responsibility to resolve this matter. A special
thanks to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai who after being approached
by Mark Fletcher, chief architect of public safety for Avaya
Corporation, took a stance, and since his involvement numerous
hotel chains have corrected this problem on their own. I want
to mention Marriott Corporation for taking the lead. They have
done that and they require it at any of their hotels, even the
franchises, and on their monthly inspections that is part of
their inspection.
I will say this. Without the determination of Mark Fletcher
we wouldn't be here today talking about this. I knew no way of
how to get this done, and he contacted me approximately a week
later and after discussion with him we took it forward. Kari's
Law has been passed in Suffolk County New York, Illinois,
Maryland, the State of Texas, and just recently the State of
Tennessee, with legislation similar to Kari's Law being passed
in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
In order for this to be consistent across the country we
seek a federal act requiring the three things that Kari's Law
asks. Efficient 911 can be deployed free with Kari's Law. It is
a simple act, direct access, onsite notification, no
interception. If we can't do this, if it can't be done, if it
seems to be impossible, but then I feel that we need to remove
those instructions from every police car, fire truck and
ambulance in our country.
I appreciate the time you have allowed me here and I will
entertain any questions you might have.
[The statement of Mr. Hunt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. We appreciate your
testimony, and your passion on this issue is very understood.
We will now go to Ms. Melissa ``Missy'' Smith, treasurer of the
Kelsey Smith Foundation and mother of Kelsey Smith. Ms. Smith,
thank you for being here today. We are sorry for the tragedy
your family has endured as well. We look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF MELISSA SMITH
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Walden. I would like to
thank you and the other members for inviting me to come and
speak today, and I would like to thank Congressman Yoder,
Emanuel Cleaver, Representative Pompeo, and Representative Lynn
for sponsoring this. I would also be remiss if I didn't thank
former Congressmen Tiahrt and Moore who started this process
when Kelsey was murdered.
Kelsey Smith, she is the reason this legislation began in
Kansas 7 years ago and to date has passed in 22 states. I am
the mother of Kelsey Smith. Her story made national and
international news when she was kidnapped in broad daylight
from a Target store just 9 days after graduating from high
school.
What does a parent go through when a child is missing? You
do not eat because you don't know if your child is eating. You
do not sleep because you don't know if your child is sleeping.
What took so long to find Kelsey? One word, Verizon. Let me be
perfectly clear. In no way do we hold them responsible for
Kelsey's death. They had nothing to do with that.
What is this law and why is it needed? Federal law states
that providers may release the location information. This law
states they shall. We spend a lot of time, money and resources
training our police. We do not spend that same time, money and
resources training a customer service rep to answer a call at 2
o'clock in the morning as to what a life emergency is.
What about privacy? We are not asking for the call
information. We are just asking where is that device. I don't
care who you are texting. I don't care the numbers you are
calling. I don't care what pictures you are taking. Where is
that device? Once that information was released, within 45
minutes Kelsey's body was found.
What about police misconduct? We hear about that also.
There has not been one instance of a reported case of police
misusing this law. Does it work? Yes, it does. In Kansas, a
suicide was prevented when a child left a note for their
parents and they traced her phone and found her in time. An
elderly stroke victim was found in time. That wasn't a way we
had anticipated Kelsey's law being used, but he could only call
his wife and they were able to find him and get him the medical
attention he needed in time. And then last year, and this one
makes me tear up, there was a baby found in 40 minutes. That
baby was found alive; it had been carjacked--because my baby
wasn't found alive.
Much legislation is about numbers, so let me give you some.
355.4 million wireless subscribers in the United States in
December 2014. That is from the CTIA summary report. Forty-
seven percent of U.S. households in 2014 were wireless only.
Two of our daughters don't have a land line. 4,176, that is the
number of 17 to 24 year olds murdered in the United States in
2007. Twenty thousand dollars, that is what it cost us to bury
Kelsey.
One hundred and twenty five is the number of detectives
involved in her case. Eighteen different law enforcement
agencies including the federal, county, and city agencies,
multiple municipalities, two states, all tied up for four days.
How much money and resources were spent on that of which I am
very thankful because my daughter came home. Forty five
minutes, that is how long it took to locate Kelsey once that
engineer got to the tower.
One, Kelsey, the reason this legislation began in 2009.
Zero, that is the cost of implementing this law. It doesn't
cost anything. There are not many times a legislator can pass a
law, save a life and it doesn't cost you. Priceless, the value
of the lives saved using the Kelsey Smith Act.
When this law passed in Kansas I said to Senator Rob Olson
at the time--he was the original sponsor who helped me with
this--that maybe my baby laid out there for 4 days because God
knew her mother had the mouth to get this done. And according
to C.S. Lewis I will end with this. ``Experience: that most of
brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.''
Please learn from our experience.
Thank you. And I will answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Ms. Smith. We will now turn to Mr.
Steve Souder, the director of the Fairfax County, Virginia 911
Center. Mr. Souder, thank you for being here. We look forward
to your comments.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SOUDER
Mr. Souder. Good morning. And Chairman Walden and Ranking
Member Eshoo and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to speak at today's hearing. My
name is Steve Souder and I am the director of the Fairfax
County Department of Public Safety Communications, a community
in which some members of this committee may reside.
Over the course of the more than 50 years in 911 public
safety communications, I have served in four public safety
communications centers in the National Capital Region and have
been fortunate to be the director of three. I have also been
fortunate to participate in the national efforts to improve
public safety communications, most recently as chair of the
Federal Communications Commission's Task Force on Optimal PSAP
Architecture, which addressed important issues for the 911
community such as, but not limited to, cybersecurity, technical
architecture in today's century, and of course the ever-
prevalent funding.
I am honored to be here today to discuss the important
legislation affecting public safety communications before this
subcommittee and to answer any questions that you may have. My
remarks will focus on H.R. 4167, Kari's Law. We just heard Mr.
Hunt speak about this issue and I was welled with emotion as I
heard him describe his ordeal.
911 has earned the public's trust as the go-to number when
there is something wrong. Simply 911, we all know it. It is, as
others have said, on the side of every fire truck and police
car, in the front page of every phone book in the United States
of America. It does not say that in order to make a 911 call
you have to use any kind of code, prefix or subtext. It is not
required.
911, the most recognized number in the United States of
America, the number that all of us would go to if anything
happened in our own communities, and a number which is called
240 million times a year, 240 million times a year. No matter
where you are when you expect and can call 911, it will work.
That is the expectation. That was the expectation of Brianna
when she called on behalf of her mother that it would work. And
that is why, when she sat on her grandfather's lap and said,
Daddy, or Granddad, it didn't work, that should not be the fate
of any other person ever again.
Many of you are familiar with the tragic story of Kari
Hunt. Kari was assaulted by her ex-husband in a small hotel in
Marshall, Texas, in 2013. Her 9-year-old daughter, Brianna, did
exactly what she had been taught to do. She called 911. But
because the hotel's phone system required a prefix to make
outside calls, her repeated attempts to get help never went
through. This is a situation that exists across the country
where multiple line telephone systems are employed, including
in hotels, colleges, corporate campuses, and indeed government
buildings.
I commend and appreciate Hank Hunt's efforts in this regard
and I would like to also recognize FCC Commissioner Pai who has
been mentioned previously for joining with him, Mr. Hunt, to
advocate the hotel industry and multiple line telephone system
manufacturers to make the changes required to enable direct
dial to 911. Indeed, Commissioner Pai has reported that many
national hotel chains have already changed their multiple line
telephone systems to enable direct access to 911 including
their owned and their franchised properties. This shows that it
is possible to do so very easily and virtually without any
cost.
Kari's Law, introduced by Representative Gohmert, has
bipartisan support and would be an important step in addressing
this problem by requiring that all new multiple line telephone
systems be configured by default to directly dial 911 without
requiring any additional digit code or prefix. This would be a
substantial improvement for 911 calls from MLTS systems, and it
is also an opportunity to address important issues such as the
delivery of accurate location information.
When those 240 million 911 calls are made annually, they
are answered by a 911 call taker or dispatcher that sits at a
console in one of America's 6,100 911 centers. And as that call
taker answers that 911 call, the very first question they ask
is where is your emergency? They don't ask what. They don't ask
why. And they don't ask how. They ask where, because of the
location of the emergency is absolutely the single most
important piece of information the call taker has to acquire.
In addition to direct 911 access, MLTS phones traditionally
lack another key feature: accurate information location.
Example, before this meeting I walked down the hallway and
there was an office door opened, and I asked the attendant
there if I could use their phone. I had my uniform on. She said
can I help you? And I said I would like to call 911. She said
OK, and I dialed 911 and I got the very efficient U.S. Capitol
police. I also dialed 9911 and I got the Capitol Police. I
thanked her very much. When I asked the Capitol Police operator
that had answered if they knew where this phone call was coming
from, they said they knew the telephone number, meaning that I
was calling from, but they would have to reference another list
to identify in what office that telephone number terminated.
I walked into the hallway. I then used my own cell phone
and I dialed 911. It was answered by the Metropolitan Police
Department's 911 center not far from where we sit today. I
asked the gentleman that answered that call what location it
showed that I was calling from. He said Number 50 Independence
Avenue, Southwest. That is the location that we are at today.
The Rayburn House Office Building stretches for two city
blocks. It is at least four floors above ground and two floors
below ground. And I asked, was there any indication on what we
commonly call in the business the ANI or the ALI screen as to
where at Number 50 Independence Avenue I was located, and he
said no, sir.
If I were having a heart attack or someone was having a
heart attack and I called on their behalf, can you imagine the
challenge that would exist in trying to locate one person in
this building that is this large that provides no more accurate
information than simply the address?
This leaves the public in danger and public safety
answering points, PSAPs, the first responders, expending
significant resources to locate and provide emergency
assistance to the scene. In order to ensure that every caller
gets the help they need, every multiple line telephone system
should transmit a dispatchable address where the call is
actually coming from, such as the room number, the office
number, so that responders can quickly locate the calling
party.
Additionally, while the bill eventually makes direct dial
the default for all new multiple line telephone systems, there
will still be a large number of embedded base of telephones
that wouldn't support 911 dialing by default. Depending upon
equipment cycles these systems may not be replaced for many
years to come, allowing continued consumer confusion and most
tragically delayed response.
Whether a person can direct dial 911 should not depend upon
where he or she is located, such as a hotel room or a
dormitory, or how old the telephone is that they are calling
from. Kari's Law is a great first step in what will hopefully
lead to additional efforts to fully solve the 911 problems
associated with multiple line telephone systems.
Again I want to thank you for the opportunity to address
the subcommittee for your work to improve public safety
communications. I would especially like to thank Representative
Eshoo as one of the four founding members of the Next
Generation Congressional 911 Caucus, and I would also take the
privilege of asking Mr. Pallone--I see that he has now left the
dais--from my home State of New Jersey because he referenced a
very important week in the 911 world and that is this week,
National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. The week that is
set aside by the Congress and signed by the President to
recognize those most unsung heroes in our profession, the 911
call takers and dispatchers that serve the community and
citizens that you men and women represent. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. You are welcome. Thank you for your testimony.
That may also be a reason we are having all these bills up
today, so thank you. I will now go to Mr. Wessler. Nathan
Wessler is the staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and
Technology Project.
Mr. Wessler, welcome. We look forward to your comments on
these pieces of legislation, and please go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF NATHAN WESSLER
Mr. Wessler. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, members
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of the ACLU concerning H.R. 4889. Although we
agree with the important goals of this legislation, we oppose
it in its current form because it lacks sufficient safeguards
against abuse.
The tragedy that gave rise to this legislation today is
truly, truly terrible. In emergencies where the safety of a
person is in imminent jeopardy, we all want to ensure that law
enforcement can quickly access cell phone location information
to avoid this kind of a tragic outcome. Allowing companies the
discretion to provide these records in an emergency is an
effective mechanism for ensuring access while preventing the
abuse that could jeopardize the safety of others.
In 2015, just two service providers alone, AT&T and
Verizon, processed more than 81,000 emergency requests for
information. These and the other service providers maintain
large law enforcement compliance teams that operate around the
clock responding to requests at any hour in order to help avoid
tragedies like the one that gave rise to this bill. This
process has been refined and improved in recent years.
The same features of cell phone location information that
make it useful to law enforcement, the ability to track
people's movements over time and to precisely pinpoint their
locations, also trigger the protections of the Fourth
Amendment. As the Supreme Court has recognized and lower courts
have reaffirmed, government access to cell phone location
information can invade reasonable expectations of privacy by
laying bare some of the most sensitive aspects of our lives
when we are at home, where we spend the night, which doctors or
psychiatrists we visit and more.
For that reason, any legislation allowing law enforcement
access to location records in an emergency must include strong
protections. Those protections are important to prevent false
invocations of emergencies by police who want to avoid
obtaining a court order or a warrant in a normal criminal
investigation.
Our written testimony includes examples of such abuse
including cases where police obtained unfettered access to cell
phone location information, but later admitted under oath that
no emergency actually existed, and a case where police in
California reportedly coerced a kidnapping victim into saying
that she had been--sorry, coerced a person into saying she had
been kidnapped falsely, and then sent a false emergency request
for location information to the purported kidnapper's cellular
service provider. Law enforcement agencies including the
Department of Justice and the Reno, Nevada Police Department
have themselves admitted to issuing emergency requests where no
emergency in fact existed.
Protections will also empower service providers to turn
away requests from criminals and stalkers who attempt to
impersonate law enforcement. Effective privacy safeguards can
coexist with speedy emergency request procedures without
interfering with law enforcement's important job of protecting
the public.
The ACLU has three recommendations for the committee.
First, the committee should preserve a system where service
providers have discretion to turn down a warrantless request
when it appears the emergency is false, or when the requester
does not appear to actually be a law enforcement official.
Making disclosure mandatory can facilitate abuse by removing
this important safety valve.
Second, if the committee moves forward with a mandatory
disclosure requirement it should add protections. Law
enforcement should be required to obtain after-the-fact
approval from a judge so that there is a neutral decision maker
ensuring that the claimed emergency is genuine. In cases where
police are found to have violated the law, there should be
remedies including suppression of illegally obtained evidence
and a civil remedy for those affected. And law enforcement
should be required to provide notice to the person whose
location information was obtained in order to allow that person
to seek redress if police violated the law or to learn if
someone may have impersonated an officer illegally to obtain
sensitive information.
These protections are modest. They are well established in
other statutes including the Wiretap Act, the Pen Register
statute, the USA Freedom Act, which governs certain requests
for information in national security investigations, and state
laws dealing with cell phone location records in places like
Indiana, California, and Colorado. The version of the Kelsey
Smith Act introduced in the last Congress also included some of
these protections.
Finally, the current bill allows emergency requests when
law enforcement have a reasonable belief that there is an
emergency. This standard should be raised to probable cause
which is the standard that was used in the version of this
legislation in the last Congress. A probable cause standard
will help ensure that sensitive location records are obtained
only when there is a good reason to believe an emergency
exists.
I look forward to answering any questions and to working
with the committee to ensure access to location records in
emergencies while simultaneously safeguarding Americans'
privacy and preventing abuse. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Wessler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Mr. Wessler, we appreciate your input on this
issue as well. We will now turn to Ms. Abigail Medina, trustee
of the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Good
morning, welcome, and we look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL MEDINA
Ms. Medina. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden,
Ranking Member Eshoo, and committee members. My name is Abigail
Medina. I am a mother of five children, two of whom are in
college; a wife of over 20 years; and currently vice president
of the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of
Education. I am here to express the value of Lifeline to the
many families it helps, especially in my community of the city
of San Bernardino in which it has endured bankruptcy, poverty,
and most recently the December 2nd mass killings.
As a resident of San Bernardino, my family too struggles
financially. When my husband was laid off, I worked in the
fields Monday through Friday leaving my family behind in order
to pay to help reconnect our electricity bill. Every penny
counted. I remember searching through our furniture for the
cent that would complete a dollar.
My husband heard about Lifeline from a family friend who
saw our struggles. You see, having affordable utility services
helped us keep afloat, and while we worked to improve our
situation having phone service also helped us when my husband
would receive a call for a job. And also in emergencies,
especially since we had children at home, we could make that
call.
These seem like little things and many people don't realize
how important these services are until we have none. These days
many need the internet to look for work. Children need to do
research online for homework assignments. Many of our families
are experiencing the widening technology in homework and access
gaps. Sixty four percent of all Americans believe that
expanding broadband access should be a national priority, and
the FCC's recent Lifeline decision will help expand access in
low-income communities.
Lifeline internet services will allow many families to
better their situation. In fact, research shows that the
expanding internet access helps to grow the gross domestic
product and personal incomes; that children would have a better
and greater educational opportunity especially to do homework
assigned on the internet that many but not all children today
can complete; and that teens and others would have a greater
opportunity to get health care advice online and save money on
expenses.
And I also want to mention that college students are also
struggling, because if they, my children who are in college, if
they have their internet disconnected or they are cut off they
have no access to do their homework assignments, which many are
online.
So I ask you today to think of the many families,
especially families in San Bernardino, the city of San
Bernardino, and the many communities throughout the nation who
need help to find a way to succeed. I stand before you to
oppose capping the Lifeline program so that no eligible family
is turned away from this important necessity. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Medina follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. We appreciate your input on the legislation.
Thank you for being here. We will now go to Ms. Katie McAuliffe
who is the federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform
and executive director of Digital Liberty. Welcome. We are glad
you are here. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF KATIE MCAULIFFE
Ms. McAuliffe. Thank you. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of all
taxpayers, or in this situation rate payers. My name is Katie
McAuliffe, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform.
Americans for Tax Reform advocates on behalf of taxpayers for a
system in which taxes are simpler, flatter, and more visible
and lower than they are today.
I am happy to lend a voice of support for H.R. 4884,
Controlling the Unchecked and Reckless Ballooning of Lifeline
Act of 2016, also known as CURB Lifeline Act of 2016. This
legislation provides the necessary safeguards to enhance
methods for stopping waste, fraud and abuse while also ensuring
those most in need of Lifeline receive support as intended. It
also protects ratepayers from footing the bill on waste, fraud
and abuse.
Before delving into the CURB Act I wanted to congratulate
you and all Congress on passing the Permanent Internet Tax
Freedom Act. This is a great way to encourage internet access
for consumers while also keeping costs low.
The fees for the Universal Service under which Lifeline is
a part will still be included as a line item on ratepayers'
bills. However, Permanent Internet Tax Freedom does not stop
fees from being assessed on bills, on voice and data service at
this point. The fees of the Universal Fund will still be
included as a line item on ratepayers' bills.
Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund that has
long been in need of reform. It was established in 1985 in the
form of a fixed dollar subsidy to the carriers for eligible
low-income subscribers for Americans to afford basic phone
service. In 2012, spending hit an all-time high and the Federal
Communications Commission moved to target rampant waste, fraud
and abuse with a $400 million spending decrease between 2012
and 2013 alone.
The FCC has shown it is capable of controlling its budget.
Spending in the Lifeline program is set to drop a total of $670
million by the end of this year, with spending dropping from
$2.2 billion to $1.5 billion. The FCC recently voted to expand
the Lifeline subsidy to cover broadband as well as voice
service. As we saw, when a new service is added spending goes
up not necessarily because of need or increased availability,
but more likely because of fraud and abuse.
In its new order, the FCC reestablished the $9.25 subsidy
to carriers to use for Lifeline eligible subscribers and set
the quality standard for broadband at 3G with 500 megabytes of
data for wireless and speeds of 1 up and 1 down. It creates a
new verification process for the eligible applicants and sets a
budget of 2.5 billion that can be reevaluated should spending
hit 90 percent of the $2.5 billion fund.
While I will agree that the expanding of the verification
process the FCC will do a better job of targeting fraud and
abuse unless the third party verifier incurs a waste on its
own, the order does not do all it can. A powerful tool for
controlling waste and fraud is to set a hard budget. While
Americans for Tax Reforms would prefer there were no subsidies
lashed to ratepayers that is not the option before us today.
When faced with no budget or a $1.5 billion cap as proposed
in H.R. 4884, Congress has the authority and responsibility to
set a firm cap. All other programs under the Universal Service
Fund do have budget caps. I would like to suggest that the $1.5
billion cap is solid legislation on two points. 1.5 billion is
an ample budget and the budget is necessary to control waste,
fraud and abuse.
So in closing, the affordability gap. All other preferences
aside, Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports a budget cap
on the Lifeline fund, especially in the current environment.
The stated goal for including broadband as part of the subsidy
is to bridge the digital divide and close the broadband
affordability gap. While perhaps broadband may become more
affordable for some, the order does not focus on those who need
access the most, those who have no broadband access at all.
In 2014, the NTIA found that 48 percent of non-adopting
households cited lack of need or lack of interest as a reason
for not subscribing to broadband at home. The Pew Charitable
Trust found in 2015 that 70 percent of non-adopters were
uninterested in subscribing to broadband in the future. Many
smartphone-only users say that the reason they do not have
broadband at home is because the smartphone lets them do all
that they need to do online, underscoring the device's utility
without a home high-speed subscription, and 59 percent say they
have other options for internet access outside the home.
Another survey conducted jointly by the FCC and Connected
Nation found that 37 percent of non-subscribers were willing to
adopt broadband at a reasonable price. The remaining 68 percent
of non-subscribing households cited non-price associated
reasons. Among the 37 percent willing households, price as an
adoption factor was highest for those making below $15,000. It
was about 50 percent. Upon reaching the $35,000 marker for a
family of four, 32 percent cited cost as a primary factor as a
non-subscriber.
So cost can be interpreted in different ways depending on
how a question is asked, but more so in terms of what else is
available. I don't believe this hypothesis has been tested, but
it is possible that those who cite cost as the primary reason
for not subscribing may actually mean they don't see the point
in spending that cost at home when broadband is so readily
available elsewhere.
In America we are fortunate that broadband availability via
wireline or wireless covers 99 percent of the population with
an 88 percent in-home adoption rate. We used to go to internet
cafes and pay by the minute to get online. Then there were
hotspots or private wireless networks, then there was usually a
cost. Now access is freely available everywhere. If not a local
coffee shop, restaurant, or McDonald's, there is access in
public libraries and schools. This leads us to a position where
monetary cost has significantly decreased as the prominent
deterrent for having access at home for non-subscribers. Even
as early as 2013, consumers demonstrated the cost factor was
decreasing as a barrier to connecting the unconnected. In 2013,
the FCC's 14 experimental broadband Lifeline offerings,
wireline and wireless broadband providers signed up less than
10 percent of the predicted number of new subscribers.
This, the only real world experiment with Lifeline applied
to broadband, showed it is exceedingly difficult to encourage
the disconnected to subscribe via discounts. To participate in
the pilots, subscribers had to certify they met income
requirements and had not had a broadband subscription for at
least 6 months. For one carrier, just over half of the
applicants were rejected because they had broadband sometime
within the previous 6 months.
If the goal is connecting the disconnected to reduce the
digital divide, then the subsidies applied to broadband were
not as effective as expected and shown in this experiment. From
this data it is likely that subsidies given based on income
criteria will mostly go to those who already subscribe to
broadband rather than connecting the disconnected. In his
paper, Learning from the FCC's Lifeline Broadband Pilot
Projects, Scott Wallstein concluded if this is the case, then
the Universal Service Fund becomes an inefficient general
welfare fund rather than a mechanism that encourages
connectivity.
In controlling waste, fraud and abuse--the Lifeline program
has a long history of abuse. Congress should use its oversight
to rein in spending that encourages abuse on the backs of
ratepayers. A budget of $2.25 billion that can be reevaluated
when 90 percent of the fund has already been spent does not
adequately provide the proper incentives to stop abuse. The
Federal Communications Commission has taken measures to stop
rampant abuse in the program.
The Lifeline annual recertification process established in
the 2012 Lifeline Reform Order to verify that a subsidy
recipient did meet the Lifeline requirements, and households
were not receiving multiple subsidies significantly cut
spending in the program. As a result, 29 percent of all 2012
Lifeline subscribers were de-enrolled, and between 2012 and
2013, waste, fraud, and abuse of the program was cut by nearly
$400 million. As a whole, since 2012 abuse has been cut by
nearly 670 million, and spending of the fund reduced from $2.2
billion to about 1.5 billion.
As broadband is included, the National Eligibility Verifier
adds another layer of abuse protection, though I cannot
speculate as to whether this entity will incur more government
waste. Another reason a budget cap is important is not only to
curb carrier abuse, but also to prevent government waste of
dollars that should be directed towards helping those in need.
This shows promise, and the Commission under Congress'
direction should not stop there. While there are penalties both
monetary and otherwise, they serve as only a mild deterrent.
Importantly, the ones actually defrauded, the ratepayers, do
not receive restitution. Setting an actual budget that must be
adhered to is key to protecting ratepayers, while still
providing support to those in need of access.
Mr. Walden. Ms. McAuliffe?
Ms. McAuliffe. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Are you about finished? I have let you go an
extra 5 minutes.
Ms. McAuliffe. Oh, I am about done.
Ms. Eshoo. About 10 minutes, she has ----
Mr. Walden. Yes, it is supposed to be 5 minutes.
Ms. McAuliffe. Oh, then I will just stop right there. Yes,
we will stop there.
[The statement of Ms. McAuliffe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. OK. Thank you very much. Yes, I gave everybody
a little flexibility today, but we were doubling down, so no
problem.
I am going to start with the questions. And Ms. Smith, Mr.
Wessler had some comments from the ACLU about potential abuse
and all, and I would like to get your take and Mr. Souder's
take on that. What do you think? What have you seen in states?
I was going to inquire in my own state of Oregon if they have
seen any abuse. And aren't there other statutes that would
govern a fraudulent claim of emergency when none existed?
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not heard of any
reports. I did read his examples. But if a law enforcement
officer is going to commit a fraudulent claim, I do believe we
have laws that already address that and they could be
prosecuted. My husband was a police officer for almost 20 years
and was a police officer when Kelsey went missing. And does it
happen? Sure, but the same can be said about cell phone
providers not releasing that information.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Souder, what is your experience in this
realm?
Mr. Souder. Thank you for the question. Personally, and the
folks that I work with around the National Capital Region where
we all live, we do not see any abuse of that at all. It is used
very judiciously, and only where it is absolutely incredibly
important that it be used. And there are ample, ample
situations where by it being used for the right reason at the
right time, many lives have been saved or have been saved from
being more injured than they had already been.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Wessler, I have a question for you. On the
Oregon statute it says it passed unanimously, the House the
Senate, and signed by a Democratic governor. What was ACLU's
position on that?
Mr. Wessler. I am sorry, Congressman. I don't know that.
Each of our state affiliates handles state legislation
separately. I work for our national office.
Mr. Walden. Could you find out for me?
Mr. Wessler. I can.
Mr. Walden. I am not an attorney. I know better though than
to ask a question I don't know the answer to.
Mr. Wessler. Absolutely. And Congressman, if I can just say
quickly that----
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Wessler [continuing]. There have been a variety of
protections put into place in different versions of the Kelsey
Smith Act enacted by states around the country. In states like
Indiana and Colorado, for example, there are requirements for
after-the-fact judicial review, probable cause requirements. In
California, a comprehensive cell phone privacy act had similar
protections.
Mr. Walden. So Mr. Souder, can you speak to the after-the-
fact judicial review and what that effect would have on a 911
dispatcher or your system?
Mr. Souder. As someone mentioned earlier, you may only call
911 once in your life, but it is the most important phone call
you may make.
Mr. Walden. That was one of the Democrat members of the
FCC.
Mr. Souder. I think that is the foundation from which we
really look at the whole industry of 911 and the delivery of
service. Providing help to those that need it in the quickest,
most efficient way is absolutely the most important thing. I
can't imagine how awkward our job would be if restrictions were
placed on it greater than those that are on it already. It
would clearly distract from the entire intent of 911.
Mr. Walden. OK. Ms. Smith, anything you want to finish up
with?
Ms. Smith. I just wanted to say we have protocols in that
in place that the police would have to verify that they are the
police. And it is not like a police officer can just call up
and say to Verizon, hey, give me this information. There are
steps that have to be taken and there are protocols. And I just
find it somewhat amusing that the ACLU has said we don't want
this mandated, but yet in his testimony there are several
mandates that he would like put in place. You can't really have
it both ways.
Mr. Walden. All right. In the essence of time I am going to
end my questioning and now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Eshoo, for questions.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to each one of the
witnesses, thank you for your testimony. Moving, instructive,
helpful, and--well, that is a lot because that is what a
hearing is for.
Mr. Souder, thank you for your wonderful work. It has been
part of the joy of my public service to have become involved
with all of the first responders across our country, so thank
you for what you have done to advance that collective work.
I think that we all agree with it, when you dial 911 from a
hotel, an office, anywhere that you shouldn't have to have some
kind of prefix. I mean, I never taught my children any prefix.
It was just what did Mommy tell you? Tell me the number again,
say it again, from their earliest consciousness. And we all
embrace this.
Now location accuracy for our systems is very, very
important because once you reach a 911 call center the people
answering the phones have to know where you are to dispatch
first responders. I think it is the other bookend. No prefix
and location. And I think that if one is missing, then the
other really has an overall effect on the emergency.
And the reason why I ask this is because Kari's Law is
very, obviously very important. It is born out of tragedy which
is instructive to us, but I am concerned that it doesn't have
any, it doesn't speak to location technology. Do you have the
same unsettled sensibility as I do on this?
Mr. Souder. Ms. Smith, would you like to say anything,
because I would like to follow on you, if you don't mind.
Mr. Hunt. The reason it is not included in Kari's Law is
because of the expense. In order to have a dispatchable phone
number you have to have one for every phone in every building
that will tell you the room number, the floor number and as
such, whereas those phone numbers aren't bought, they are
leased. They are a monthly recurring charge per phone. This is
a cost that is unnecessary with onsite notification.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, let me ask you, do you think the cost
matches the urgency of the tragedies that you are living
through and others are living through? I mean, where do you cut
off cost? Do you think some people, there is a cost attached so
sorry about you, but--I just think it is part of the emergency
system.
Mr. Hunt. When a building has 5,000 phones in it and each
one has to pay an extra two dollars per phone a month that can
put a company under. Onsite notification, had my daughter
experienced onsite notification, someone from that hotel would
have known that call was made and had gone to that room, we
would hope. Therefore--this gentleman told the courts that it
took him 5 minutes to kill my daughter.
Ms. Eshoo. Let me get back to--if I might, I only have five
minutes not ten. I want to get back to Mr. Souder. Does it
concern you that Kari's Law requires that these problems be
fixed on only new phone systems purchased two years after
enactment?
Mr. Souder. Very personally, I want to be sure that we are
looking at this in the context of the provisions of the Kari
proposed law as well as the broader implications of location
technology when it----
Ms. Eshoo. What is your opinion of it? I am just asking.
Mr. Souder. My opinion very definitely is that Kari's Law
is very well written, but it has to be tied with the location
that the call is coming from, yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. Thank you. It is an important thing
to get on the record.
Ms. McAuliffe, did you write your own testimony? It seemed
like you weren't sure about what you were reading.
Ms. McAuliffe. Oh, no. I wrote my own testimony.
Ms. Eshoo. You wrote it, OK. Do you think that the budget
cap can lead to more wasteful spending in the program? And this
is the issue that I want to raise. If those that are eligible
for the service but don't need it, then decide to apply for the
subsidy out of fear that the service is going to run out of
money, what kind of an effect do you think that is going to
have?
Ms. McAuliffe. So are you referencing something kind of
similar to when----
Ms. Eshoo. No, it is just a straightforward question. I
mean, if you can't answer it I will go to someone else because
I don't have----
Ms. McAuliffe. No, I don't think that would be an issue.
Ms. Eshoo. Why? Based on what?
Ms. McAuliffe. I don't think it would be an issue that a
bunch of people would rush out and try to get the subsidy
because it was capped.
Ms. Eshoo. And that is a sensibility of yours? I mean,
have----
Ms. McAuliffe. Yes.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. You done any research on it?
Ms. McAuliffe. No, I have not.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
very much again to our witnesses, especially the family members
for providing your testimony today because I know how difficult
it is for you to have to give it to us today. But it is very
important that we hear your stories so those stories aren't
repeated by other families across our country.
And also, Mr. Souder, I would like to thank you for what
you did a little bit earlier before you came into our hearing
room about making 911 calls from here, because I have heard
that problem before that it is not very easily, especially in a
building this size, to find out where someone is. And I
appreciate that.
But Mr. Hunt, if I could just maybe ask you a question in
regards to encouraging the fact especially from the MLTS
vendors is that every single one of their phones can be
configured to allow for that dialing of that 911. And moreover,
the reprogramming system for the phones not set up for direct
dialing from the factory is relatively easy and inexpensive. In
other words, there is no technical reason why every phone in
the U.S. cannot be set up to allow for that direct 911 dialing.
Despite this, and again as we have heard in the testimony
today, there are thousands of hotels, schools, and office
buildings across the country that do not have that direct dial
program into their MLTS systems. What else could we doing out
there besides when we are looking at the law or the bill before
us to incentivize institutions to adopt that direct 911
dialing?
Mr. Hunt. Well, I think that the biggest fear that some
companies have right now is liability. In some cases they can
be held liable for not providing a proper atmosphere. People as
we have said earlier, 911 is ingrained in our children and even
in adults, and that is an expected result that you should get
by dialing those numbers. When a phone prevents you from doing
that you have no idea which direction to take it in, and
therefore you have immediate danger to life.
At this point right now most companies will do it on their
own. We have been having very good luck with the hotels and
motels that are doing that as I said earlier and----
Mr. Latta. Could I interrupt for one second? Now how did
you reach out to different hotels and maybe the other providers
out there?
Mr. Hunt. We had the backing of the American Hotel and
Lodging Association. And once Commissioner Pai released his
questionnaire to the top ten CEOs of the hotel corporations,
word spread quite a bit. The industry itself seems to be taking
a proactive role in it, but that is hotels and motels. We are
talking about colleges, schools, office buildings. And in
reference to being able to locate a person you can have all the
information in the world, but if that firefighter doesn't know
where that room is it does them no good. When we got here
today, even though we had a map on the wall and the room number
we had no idea. We had to ask someone. Someone pointed it out
and it ended up being fairly easy to find.
But the numbers in some cases, numbers that are in between
two others are in this direction and then the opposite numbers
are this way and they should be next to each other, in my
brain. But it was difficult to find without asking someone. And
onsite notification, in our opinion, is a solution to that.
If you don't have onsite notification and the room is
locked what are they going to do, break the door down? If it is
a dire situation then I can understand that. But if it is even
a misdial you can have someone come and unlock the door for
you, unlock the front door if it is after hours. They can get
you there, but once the firefighters or police officers are in
but gets to that location they need someone to direct them
quickly without having to go through a map or a directory.
Cubicle 2C3F could be an exact location, but that would
probably mean nothing to a firefighter who is trying to get to
someone who is injured.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I see my time is
about to expire. I yield back.
Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back. Before I recognize
Mr. Yarmuth, I think, next, I have a letter I would like to
enter into the record, with unanimous consent, from
Commissioners Mike O'Rielly and Ajit Pai, which I think we
already have seen. Without objection.
Now I would like to recognize the gentleman from Kentucky,
Mr. Yarmuth, for questions.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank all the witnesses, particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith.
Thank you for your courage in coming here today. I join my
colleagues in expressing my sorrow for your loss, and thank you
for your dedication to improving this situation and heading off
any potential incident like occurred to you.
I am going to spend most of my time talking about Lifeline
because I am very concerned about any legislation that would
reduce access to what in my district and I know many districts
across the country are very critical. My district is urban. It
is Louisville, Kentucky. We don't qualify for the high cost
fund or the rural health care fund under USF.
Our schools and libraries use the E-rate providing access
to the internet, but once those facilities close there is
nowhere for most kids to go to complete their homework
assignments or to just connect to the world as we know is as
valuable part of education these days as what you find in
school.
The Kentucky Department of Education Technology Readiness
Report indicates that more than one in four households with
children in my district lack internet access. And I was at a
school a couple years ago, a middle school, and asked the
principal that because 95 percent of the kids were on free and
reduced lunch. And I asked her, what would you estimate the
percentage of your kids who have access to the internet at
home? She said 10 percent. I said, well, that 90 percent, those
kids are done. I mean, they are lost. And the thing about that
particular situation is most of the kids at that school were
bussed miles and miles away, some as many as eight or nine
miles.
So just, and I am going to get to a question for Ms.
McAuliffe, because this notion that there are other places for
students to go or families to go including McDonald's seems a
little bit cavalier to me. I mean, how many blocks would you
say it would be OK to have a second or third grader walk to get
their homework done so they could find a McDonald's or in case
a library was open? And are the parents going to take them and
are the McDonald's going to welcome them and, because they are
not going to be able to afford to buy anything there.
It just seems to me such a cold-hearted approach to saying
that these kids, I mean, and I see these kids in our schools
every day and I know that there are no alternatives for them
that are reasonable. You take a 9 or 10-year-old kid and say,
oh, the McDonald's is ten blocks away. Go walk there at 8
o'clock at night and get your homework done. Do you think that
is really a reasonable alternative for people in this country,
for kids in this country?
Ms. McAuliffe. Well, what I was referring to is the people
who are completely unconnected, and the people who have decided
they will never connect ever. So for people like that, yes,
they probably do go to public places. They have someplace else
to access. But for people who have completely no access, I
think that is what the program should be targeted to.
So that 90 percent of students that you were talking about
who don't have access at home, Lifeline should be targeted
directly towards them and to those low-income families rather
than serving as a subsidy for people who are already
subscribing.
Mr. Yarmuth. Well, you threw a lot of numbers out in your
testimony. I didn't quite get that point from listening to your
testimony. I am concerned also about this notion that--and I
think all of us agree that we ought to do everything we can to
end fraud, waste, and abuse in any government program. It is
absolutely essential. And I think we, as Democrats, I wrote an
op-ed piece about this last week. We as Democrats ought to be
the most aggressive in that because we want to prove the
government can work and it can be effective, so we ought to be
the ones who talk about that all the time.
But I do have just a theoretical question about why a cap
is something that promotes a reduction in fraud and abuse.
Logically, there doesn't seem to be any connection. I can see
from the agency's standpoint if you cut their funds they are
going to probably be more efficient so maybe there is not as
much waste. But the fraud and the abuse in this system, do you
have any evidence that cutting a budget actually reduces fraud
and abuse?
Ms. McAuliffe. Cutting the budget has more incentives for
pursuing that. And I think combined with the National
Eligibility Verifier that those two working in concert is a
great incentive to keep everything targeted to the people who
need it most.
Mr. Yarmuth. Well, the verifier is going to be in place
so----
Ms. McAuliffe. Right.
Mr. Yarmuth [continuing]. We don't have to legislate that.
But are there any, do you have any evidence that cutting a
budget has reduced fraud and abuse in any particular program?
Ms. McAuliffe. I would say abuse.
Mr. Yarmuth. OK. Well, if you could submit any evidence you
have I would like to see that.
Ms. McAuliffe. Right.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thanks very much. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentleman for his questions. We
will now go to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pompeo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the witnesses today. Ms. Smith, thank you especially to you for
coming today to talk about your daughter and all the work you
have done that has been absolutely tireless. And so we heard
some concerns expressed by one of the folks who gave testimony
this morning about the possible abuses of this law. You talked
about it being in 22 states. Can you tell me, how would you
respond to the concerns about privacy that were raised today?
Ms. Smith. Only at the level when I testified would there
be an ACLU member trying to oppose the legislation. That is the
only time we have heard about privacy issues. You won't hear it
from a parent of someone that is missing.
Mr. Pompeo. I also haven't heard it from law enforcement. I
have talked to law enforcement throughout the state as I travel
around. We have had it in Kansas now for a good long period of
time. I haven't heard them, I haven't heard the senior officers
expressing any concerns about their officers abusing the power
and the process they have. Are you aware of any of that?
Ms. Smith. I am not.
Mr. Pompeo. Ms. Smith, some of the state versions have a
limited liability exception for carriers providing some
protection to them. Are you comfortable with that provision as
some of the states have it if we put that in the federal
version?
Ms. Smith. I believe most of the states have it. Previous
federal versions have that also.
Mr. Pompeo. Right. Mr. Wessler, thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr.
Wessler, you identified in your written testimony, I think in
your oral testimony as well maybe it was just three, but in the
written testimony four examples. We now have 22 states that
have had this on the books for cumulatively dozens and dozens
of years. Are those the four examples that you think provide
the case for arguing against allowing cell phones geolocation
data be made available in emergency situations?
Mr. Wessler. Thank you, Congressman. Those are examples
that appear in case law specifically, where judges have
actually had an opportunity to review police's conduct and
point to that. We also point to some systemic examples
including a 2010 report by the Department of Justice Inspector
General showing systemic violation of emergency request
procedures by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for telephone
records.
Mr. Pompeo. Right. That is not exactly what--I have read
that. That is not exactly what it says. Two of the four
examples, just so the record's right, two of the four
examples--I have now read the court cases--looked like they
were plain old mistakes, which I will concede law enforcement
makes from time to time just like I do. So it seems to me that
the case for protecting human life and finding people who are
in dire need of assistance from law enforcement far outweighs
what now is, by my count, one example of case law that shows
some form of a potential abuse of practice over the course of
years and years and years.
Mr. Wessler. And Congressman, I think that point is
actually to the importance of one of the very modest
protections we ask for which is notice to the person whose
location is obtained after the fact. Not before, obviously not
to interfere with the investigation, but notice is included in
federal statutes like in the Wiretap Act and in state statutes
and is really key mechanism so that people can know if it was
an inappropriate request. If somebody is tracked down who was
truly in danger then they will have no complaint, and we want
law enforcement to have that access. But notice, after-the-fact
judicial review, and remedies can coexist with emergency
access.
Mr. Pompeo. Great, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back
what little time I have left. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
and the chair recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the
witnesses, and particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith. Thank you
so much for being here and participating. Your loss is a
reminder to all of us that we need to make sure that our public
safety laws are updated and modernized to account for changing
technologies and which is one of things we on the committee
take very seriously.
In the last session of Congress in this committee we passed
a modified version of Kelsey's Law by voice vote, I believe. I
think it passed unanimously, which provided some of the
provisions that Mr. Wessler was talking about. I know as a
parent, I have four children, I would want that call and
information to happen immediately. I think that is important.
I don't, quite frankly, see a problem with after-the-fact
review. I think that creates a disincentive whether it be law
enforcement or anyone else from misstating who they are or what
they are. I think the most important thing is when something
like this happens, locate that person immediately. Nothing
should stop that.
But I wonder, Mr. Souder, if the action occurs immediately
so that we hopefully save a life or get law enforcement to that
situation as quick as possible, what harm do you see with
after-the-fact, having some sort of review to make sure that
the emergency was really an emergency and that the individual
whose information or location was given out is notified that
that was done? And obviously if that is someone who was missing
and located, they are not going to have a problem with that.
But if it was used for some other nefarious purpose that they
would know this and have some redress. Do you see a problem
with that?
Mr. Souder. I do not. And internally, meaning within the
911 center and the law enforcement agencies that we work very
closely with, we have a multitude of safeguards to ensure that
when a request is received there is legitimacy to it, when
information is provided it is provided in a secure manner, so
all of those things internally are already in place. But you
are talking after the fact.
Mr. Doyle. Yes.
Mr. Souder. I don't see any problem with it. I would only
ask that the 911 center not be tasked with doing that.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. No, I understand what you are saying. I
mean, I think there is a solution to this. We want to do this
and we want to see it happen. And I think that as long as we
are not impeding the immediate location, information to where
that location is because that should be paramount before any of
this other, but that after the fact, to make sure that we have
some safeguards in place that would be a disincentive for
anyone to fraudulently say I have an emergency here when it
isn't because there is going to be some after the fact review
of it, seems to me to be a reasonable solution to a problem
which doesn't imperil the families or the victims, and at the
same time provides some safeguards against any--and I am sure
that these instances are rare anyway, but the fact that if
there is documentation that they have existed in some
instances, this seems to be the reasonable compromise between
the two.
Mr. Hunt, I have got to tell you, I think most people don't
even give it a thought that there is prefixes before 911. I was
just sitting here thinking, I think all of us just thought,
boy, you just grab any phone and dial 911 and you are getting
connected. And when you think about it, I mean, even on our
phones in the Capitol, if you are going to an outside line you
have to hit that 9 first before you dial.
And it just seems to me in this age of technology this
should be a simple fix and that no matter which phone you touch
when you hit 911, because you are right, as parents that is
what we tell our kids from the very beginning. That is the one
number we drill into their heads that when something like this
happens that is what we do.
So I really hope we can address both of these problems, and
I think they go hand in hand by the way that this should be
done. And I certainly, Mr. Chairman, are looking forward to
working with you and members of this committee to find a
solution to this very serious problem that--and I think it is
within our ability to get this done and hopefully passed into
law.
And so I thank both of you for coming, and Mr. Souder, I
thank you too for the great work you guys are doing. And your
reputation and the work of your agency in Fairfax is well known
and we certainly appreciate it. And Mr. Wessler, I think some
of the things you mentioned especially the after-the-fact stuff
just to me makes sense. That is a safeguard we can--and still
make sure these families, when there is a victim.
I have to tell you with regards to the Lifeline program, I
know the Americans for whatever, Americans for Tax Reform, is
that your group? I know you claim to speak for taxpayers. I
guess you speak for some; you certainly don't speak for all. To
cap this program to especially to take away poor people's
ability to call 911, because this bill you speak of has a two-
year phase-out of voice-only services and I just wonder what
happens to the people on this program in two years when we
phase out voice-only to this. They are going to have buy--I
know this isn't favored by the industry. It is not favored by
consumer groups. It is not favored by anybody I am aware of
except maybe your organization.
And I would say to you too, when you talk about the waste
and fraud in this program, people immediately think, yes, that
is just poor people defrauding the program. The fraud is coming
from the phone companies that are trying to sell these
products, trying to sell two and three and four phones to
people and saying it is OK, it is within the rules. I mean,
most of the fraud we have seen in this Lifeline program isn't
coming from the poor, it is coming from telephone solicitors
that are trying to make a commission selling these products.
So I think it is a terrible idea to cap the program. The
FCC is working on a reform package. The phase-out is five years
instead of two. It seems eminently reasonable to me, and I hope
this committee will not pursue this legislation 4884. I think
it is counterproductive. And Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
indulgence.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for
five minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank
the entire panel, particularly Mr. Hunt and Ms. Smith, for your
testimony today. I am going to start off with the Lifeline.
Ms. McAuliffe, since Florida is a net payer into the--and I
represent Florida as the chairman said. Since Florida is a net
payer into the Universal Service Fund it only underscores the
importance that cutting down on fraud and waste, abuse again
within the system, is imperative. We and the FCC must continue
to improve and adapt the program to modernize reality so that
only eligible customers receive Lifeline credits.
Can you describe the effect that an uncapped budget as
currently constructed affects payer states like Florida, and
how would a firm budget at any level around a million and a
half or two billion dollars better protect against waste and
unbalanced Lifeline disbursement?
Ms. McAuliffe. Sure. So in terms of a firm budget it kind
of keeps things more in line because Florida is what, 300, over
300 million payee or into Lifeline, and that is money that
could come back to Florida to help Florida residents who need
that. So in having a budget to kind of quell this waste, fraud
and abuse will make sure that the money stays more towards
where it goes. And kind of in reference to the mobile-only, all
I am testifying here is about having a firm budget and that
that is very important to have that cap.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good, thank you, next question. It is
apparent for you, again Ms. McAuliffe. It is apparent that the
rampant fraud and abuse within the Lifeline program five years
ago has been addressed to some extent. Do you agree with that?
Ms. McAuliffe. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. I do note that since 2012 abuse has been cut
by nearly $670 million. That is significant. And yet we see
instances just last week where a company can bypass federal
safeguards to enroll 99.8 percent of their subscribers using
stolen identifications or even the lack of identification for
eligibility. The ratepayers are the ones that truly suffer in
my opinion.
What is the best way for us to add teeth to these
eligibility requirements so it can act as an actual deterrent?
Can we completely cut some companies out of the program at a
certain level for noncompliance? Can we cut them out?
Ms. McAuliffe. There should be and I believe there are,
there are deterrents and abilities to cut companies'
participation if they are acting in an abusive way. And I think
the National Eligibility Verifier will go, will definitely help
with that since it won't be the carriers self-certifying, it
will be a third-party agency certifying that the people there
submitting are a part of it.
And I think the level that you have, 135 percent of the
poverty line, which is about $32,000 for a family of four, I
think that won't be an issue with the $1.5 billion budget cut
because that is about where we are right now. So anyone who is
currently participating in Lifeline will still be able to
continue participating.
Mr. Bilirakis. And that is so very important obviously.
Ms. McAuliffe. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Hunt, your testimony today to the
committee is truly admirable and we appreciate it so much. I
cannot imagine how your loss must affect you every minute of
the day, but your perseverance and determination with Kari's
Law is remarkable. Thank you so very much, sir. It is common
sense legislation as far as I am concerned. We have got to get
this done.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Shifting to Director Souder, thank you for
being here as well. In your experience, where do these multi-
line telephone systems present the biggest challenges to their
users? Would the notification system that alerts a central site
to the exact location of the emergency as required under Kari's
law cut down on response times in nursing homes and other elder
facilities, and also what about schools?
Mr. Souder. Schools would be included in that group of
multi-telephone line subscribers as well. We are very fortunate
in our region that there is a large level of compliance, but
this is a very large nation and there are many hotels
throughout the states, and I cannot speak to how many of them
are voluntarily being compliant. But clearly I would hope that
if this law is passed it will be a significant incentive so
that this problem that does exist in many places will be
rapidly addressed and not waiting until the incumbent telephone
equipment has lived its life cycle which could then even be
many years away.
Mr. Bilirakis. Again thank you, sir, for your advocacy.
Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one
question of Ms. Smith? Well, if we don't have time----
Mr. Collins [presiding]. No, not a problem.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you. Ms. Smith, your testimony
today obviously is equally heartbreaking. Your loss is
unconscionable. In today's modern age of telecommunication
anything short of immediate, again short of immediate, in my
opinion, is frustrating. It should be immediate.
I commend you for working so diligently for so long across
our entire country in pursuit of this change. As you note, this
law is already saving numerous lives that might otherwise be
lost. That in and of itself is extraordinary, so thank you so
very much. Can you elaborate a bit who this law, as enacted by
almost half of the country, I think 22 states, is benefiting
the most? Who is it benefiting the most? How could this affect
residents in my state of Florida? And I understand we do not
have a law on the books.
Ms. Smith. Thank you, Congressman. Unfortunately your state
has not passed it yet. Who does it benefit the most? The lives
that have been saved. I testified to an elderly gentleman who
had had a stroke and could not talk, but he could dial his
wife's phone. He was recovered. There was a suicide attempt.
The young lady had left a note and she was tracked and found in
time. There was a baby, and this made news last year in our
area, who was carjacked. Her parents' car was carjacked and
that baby was found in less than 40 minutes and the police
stated it was absolutely because of Kelsey's Law. Those are the
people that benefit.
And an additional benefit, I believe the very first time
Kelsey's Law was ever used in Kansas there was a young lady
murdered and she was taken to another state. But she came home,
and her father does not believe she would have come home, she
wouldn't have been found had it not been for Kelsey's Law.
Those are the people that benefit from this law.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair. Mr. Souder, we have three
public safety bills on our first panel. Although two of these
bills seek to strengthen public safety, I am worried that one
may undermine public safety for millions of low-income
Americans. This would be the CURB Lifeline Act which makes so
that low-income families may not have access to cell phones. In
your experience, how important is it for low-income Americans
to be able to use their mobile devices for 911 emergencies?
Mr. Souder. No different than it is for you or I.
Mr. McNerney. How would cutting off 911 services for low-
income Americans impact public safety?
Mr. Souder. We would have unfortunately less calls to
respond to, although it wouldn't impact at all the need.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Pretty blunt answers there.
Ms. Medina, thank you for testifying. What impact would a
rigid funding cap on Lifeline have on current and future
subscribers?
Ms. Medina. Well, I live in San Bernardino, the city of San
Bernardino where there is a high population of poverty, and not
only that crime. It would impact significantly because many
families can't afford, and currently right now we have a
limited amount of internet access.
And when you look at, when they were mentioning earlier
regarding McDonald's and other places, when you have safety
issues in your community you can't easily just walk to the
neighborhood McDonald's or other locations. And we have had
recently, unfortunately, two youths, one 14 and one 12, die
while walking to a gasoline station which is around the corner.
So we have incidents in many communities throughout the
nation that you can't have, it is not easy to have access
especially after school and walking to different locations. So
it definitely makes a huge impact on our communities.
Mr. Wessler. Congressman, if I could just add to that. A
hard cap also doesn't take into account the potential for
economic crises and downturns or natural disasters. It sets the
cap at a limit they may make sense this second, but economic
circumstances of families can change very fast and this could
leave people in really dire straits.
Ms. Medina. And I do want to mention when you look at caps
it sets limitations on how many families you can serve, and
that is the bottom line. You could have either a hundred
families that could receive the service, but when you have a
cap and you can no longer service them then what happens to
them?
Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. As part of the CURB Lifeline
Act, support for standalone mobile voice service would be cut
off for many families. Standalone mobile service has become a
simple focus of the program while a majority of the program's
participants connect over mobile phones. Can you explain why
being able to make voice calls using mobile phones would make
the most sense for low-income Americans?
Ms. Medina. Emergency, I mean it has to do with
emergencies. When I have my five children, if I am not home and
they have to access, my teenagers have to access to call me
they have that access to call. And also with finding work, my
husband was laid off at one point and how do you find work? And
you have to receive a call when you apply, and as well as
internet access as well when you do the applications.
Mr. McNerney. OK, thank you. Well, I think we all want to
make sure that low-income families have access to emergency
services.
Ms. McAuliffe, in your testimony you stated that broadband
internet access is freely available nearly everywhere. You
mentioned restaurants, McDonald's, but many low-income
Americans have multiple jobs, a lot of these establishments are
closed when they have any kind of free time. How can these
Americans still access the internet to do essential things like
help their kids with homework and apply for better jobs?
Ms. McAuliffe. Sure. And that is true that those time
frames are difficult. And one of the things about the new order
is that it does bring in broadband access and a lot of people
are choosing to access on mobile devices. So that also links in
the cost of voice service has gone down so much, so when you
bundle both the voice and the data service together--right now
we are at the 1.5 billion--it wouldn't cut anyone out, but it
would actually add a service so you would end up with voice and
an internet connection rather than neither.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I don't think that is realistic because
the subsidy is $9.25 a month, which doesn't really even pay for
mobile service much less mobile plus bundled services, so I
would be careful about what that means. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Collins. I want to thank you for your questions and
thank the panel for your testimony today. That has been very
useful. And we have a second panel coming up, so with that
thank you for your time and you are dismissed. We will call the
second panel up. Thank you.
(Pause.)
Mr. Collins. If we could have the witnesses grab a seat we
will get going here. All right, we will just wait a second for
Detective Finley to join us.
OK, now that the panel is here we can get moving on the
second panel. During this panel discussion we are going to be
talking about H.R. 2031, the Anti-Swatting Act of 2015; H.R.
3998, Securing Access to Networks in Disasters, or SANDy Act;
H.R. 4111, the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015; and
H.R. 4190, the Spectrum Challenge Prize Act of 2015. So with
that the witnesses each will have 5 minutes for their
testimony. The lights there will let you know green is good,
yellow means start to wrap up, and red means we are going to
cut you off.
With that Detective Sergeant Finley, we will begin with
you. Welcome, and thank you for your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF DETECTIVE SERGEANT B.A. FINLEY, CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION, JOHNS CREEK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOHNS
CREEK, GEORGIA; SCOTT BERGMANN, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; AND DAN HOLDHUSEN,
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY
STATEMENT OF B.A. FINLEY
Mr. Finley. Can you hear me OK, Mr. Collins?
Mr. Collins. Yes, sometimes you do have to lean close to
the microphone.
Mr. Finley. All right.
Mr. Collins. We appreciate that.
Mr. Finley. Thank you for your time, sir. Again, thank you,
Mr. Collins, Ranking Member Eshoo. Thank you to all the
members. Again, my name is Detective Sergeant Finley from the
Johns Creek Police Department in Johns Creek, Georgia. A 20-
year veteran of law enforcement, I am currently the supervisor
of a criminal investigations unit in my department. The
majority of the crimes I investigate are internet and cyber
related crimes, and over the last couple of years I have had
quite a bit of experience and success investigating swatting,
hoax 911 calls in which spoofing technology was utilized.
But first, let me say it is an honor and a privilege to be
here today, be in front of this committee and provide testimony
on these important issues. And some of the things that I will
speak of today are, quite a few of them are listed in my
written stuff and I won't go over each and every one of those.
But I will just give you a couple of examples of some of the
things I have been involved in.
In 2014, I was the lead investigator in a multi-state and
international swatting investigation that involved a serial
swatting suspect who had swatted 40-plus cities here in the
United States and Canada. He had terrorized multiple families
all over the United States and was responsible for hundreds of
thousands of dollars in wasted time and resources by local and
federal law enforcement officers responding to these fake
incidents. He used VoIP technology as well as anonymizer Web
sites, spoofing technology, multiple emails, and social media
profiles to hide himself.
During this same time period, I was investigating another
swatting hoax 911 incident involving an individual who lived up
in the Northeast portion of the United States and in his hoax
he was using several layers of spoofing technology. He actually
had a spoofing phone app. He actually created his own spoofing
Web site, and then ran that through a nationally known spoofing
company.
He also incorporated the VoIP services as well, and as you
can imagine it took quite some time to sort through all of this
to find him out of this multi-layer spoofing. He also used some
voice-disguising software on that which made it even more
difficult to finally uncover who he is.
But in a lot of these situations we talk them out or you
hear on the news about the incident that was called in, how
many law enforcement were involved, how many ambulances and all
that other stuff, and a lot of people, I think, forget about
the actual victim, what happens to them. And sometimes I don't
think they really understand that they suffer some intense
emotional distress and trauma as well.
In one of these incidents that I investigated, a male
caller had called our 911 center and he said that all right, he
said I killed the mom, I killed the dad, I killed the little
boy in the house and I have got the little girl right here and
I need $30,000 or I am killing her too. The only people that
were present in the home that day were a nanny and a
babysitter. There were two small children in the home at the
time of the swatting call. Mom and Dad were both gone. They
both found out by friends calling them and telling them that
they had seen their house on the news and that something
horrible had happened there.
So imagine as a parent that you get a call and you rush
home thinking it is your entire family that has been killed.
And as you get there you see multiple police vehicles lining up
and down the street, police officers in this cul-de-sac
pointing rifles at your home, EMS crews and stretchers are out
on the street with ambulances and stretchers standing by for
resulting casualties.
I was there that day and I saw that mother as she was
running through her neighbors' yards trying to get to the home.
She was in a panic. She was totally distraught and had a look
of horror on her face. We had to physically restrain her and
tell her that her children were fine and that they were sitting
in the back of our fire chief's vehicle. And to see the raw
emotion pour out of that woman that day as she embraced her
children and just sobbed out loud it affected everyone there.
That is when you realize the impact that these swatting
hoaxes can have on these victims, and it truly makes you angry
to know that someone did this for fun and it motivates you to
want to go find out who this person is and find them. It also
makes you wonder what type of person would derive some type of
enjoyment out of doing this to people.
Some of the other crimes I investigated involve the
spoofing, except one of them is quite popular this time of year
and that is the IRS scam where people call and then they will
use the local IRS number to appear on your phone and say that
hey, we are from the IRS. You owe us money. We are either going
to lock you up or deport you or whatever, and people readily
pay this money because they are scared to death of the IRS.
Another scam is the arrest warrant scam where they call up
and say you have a warrant for your arrest. We are going to
take you to jail if you don't pay this amount of money. People
that don't have normal contact with law enforcement don't
realize that we don't call you and tell you we have warrants
for your arrest. We show up at your house to come get you.
But these are just a few examples of the criminals that
utilize spoofing technology to facilitate their crimes. I hope
it has given you a little bit of a better understanding of what
goes on in these situations. They are not harmless pranks as
some might describe them. When you see the toll it takes on
some of these families that have gone through some of these
situations you will understand.
We do need good legislation to deal with this issue. As our
technology increases so will these incidences. It is important
to note that these criminals will always update their
techniques to use the most recent technology to help further
their criminal enterprise. They will always use and abuse any
new technology to help them exploit companies or people. And at
the end of the day the American people are going to look to
both of us for help. They are going to look to you to make the
good laws and they are going to look for me to enforce them.
I thank you for your time today and for the honor and
privilege of being here before this institution and talking to
you guys, and I will be happy to entertain any questions you
may have.
[The statement of Mr. Finley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Collins. Thank you for sharing that testimony. There
are things we can't conceive of and this happens to be----
Mr. Finley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Collins [continuing]. In that category, so we may have
some other questions afterwards. Thank you very much.
Mr. Finley. Not a problem, sir.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Bergman, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you to the chair, and thank you to
Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to provide CTIA's influence on
four of the initiatives that you will consider today. CTIA
appreciates this subcommittee's continued interest in wireless
policy in efforts to keep Americans safe and connected while
encouraging innovation and investment in the world's most
vibrant wireless marketplace.
CTIA has a long history of working closely with this
committee to address public safety and emergency preparedness.
From the adoption of 911 to wireless emergency alerts and
FirstNet we have partnered with you to help keep Americans
safe. In that vein, we appreciate Ranking Member Pallone's
introduction of H.R. 3998. The district he represents suffered
great damage from Superstorm Sandy.
Mr. Collins. Excuse me. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Bergmann. Thank you, sir. The district he represents
suffered great damage from Superstorm Sandy, and lessons from
that experience spurred the SANDy Act. I am pleased to report
that H.R. 3998 and corresponding interest from Chairman Wheeler
and the FCC have encouraged meaningful dialogue about steps to
improve disaster preparedness.
Carriers are making progress toward a framework that would
address many elements in the bill, including identifying new
ways to help consumers be prepared when disaster strikes,
making sure that critical public safety personnel can contact
wireless providers, engaging local governments to enhance their
readiness, and giving providers flexibility to help one another
restore service. Given this progress, we do not consider new
legislative or regulatory actions necessary, but we absolutely
commend Representative Pallone for his leadership.
Turning to H.R. 4190, CTIA supports the Spectrum Challenge
Prize Act. CTIA's members invest heavily in research and
development to improve spectral efficiency, but with demand for
mobile broadband continuing to rise more progress is needed. A
challenge program such as that proposed by Representative
Matsui may incentivize breakthroughs that can benefit consumers
and our economy.
CTIA believes that a comprehensive approach to wireless
policy should focus on efficiency and also on identifying
additional spectrum and streamlining processes for deploying
network architecture. CTIA commends Chairman Walden and the
subcommittee for your work to expedite the deployment of
communications infrastructure on federal properties and the
approval of H.R. 1641, the Federal Spectrum Incentive Act. We
would also highlight the FCC's important efforts to make
available spectrum above 24 gigahertz which offers promise as
we move towards 5G services. We welcome your help in ensuring
that the Commission adopts rules this summer to bring high-band
spectrum to market. Collectively, these initiatives will help
the U.S. retain its world leadership in advanced wireless
services.
Moving to the Lifeline bill, CTIA's views are informed by
two main points. First that all Americans should have access to
high quality communication services, and second that Universal
Service policies should recognize consumers' increased
preference for wireless services. While CTIA appreciates the
subcommittee's interest in ensuring a more efficient Lifeline
program, we are concerned that a cap will inherently exclude
low-income consumers that Lifeline is intended to support. CTIA
is also concerned that eliminating support only for mobile
voice services would reverse longstanding consensus that USF
policy be technology neutral.
The subcommittee may wish to consider whether it would be
appropriate to transition the entire USF program to a general
revenues model. Wireless consumers today bear almost half of
the annual $8 billion USF contribution burden, while 75 percent
of that support goes to non-wireless services. A general
revenues approach would give this subcommittee the opportunity
to consider funding levels, affordability, and inter-industry
subsidies implicated under the current approach.
Finally, CTIA supports H.R. 4889, the Kelsey Smith Act,
with the addition of one critical provision. We urge the
inclusion of clear, unambiguous language to ensure that any
carrier complying with the act is protected from civil or
administrative liability. Adoption of appropriate liability
safeguards will ensure that carriers that comply with law
enforcement requests have the necessary protection to aid in
the response to critical life-threatening emergencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look
forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Collins. Appreciate your testimony. Now Mr. Holdhusen,
you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN HOLDHUSEN
Mr. Holdhusen. Thank you, Mr. Collins and Ranking Member
Eshoo and other members of the subcommittee. I am here today
and have the honor to appear before you to support bipartisan
legislation H.R. 4111, the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act
of 2015. This was sponsored by subcommittee members Lance,
Loebsack, and Cramer. I respectfully ask that my written
testimony be submitted.
My name is Dan Holdhusen and I am the director of
government relations for the Evangelical Lutheran Good
Samaritan Society. The society is the nation's largest not-for-
profit faith based senior care and services organization. It
was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.
We offer a broad spectrum of senior services including not
only skilled nursing care, but also home health, respite care,
assisted living, post-acute care, senior apartments and
affordable housing, and hospice care. Currently, the society
serves more than 240 locations across the country in 24 states,
caring daily for more than 30,000 people and employing more
than 23,000 staff members.
On behalf of the society and the American Health Care
Association, which is the nation's largest association of long
term and post-acute care providers, I would like to express our
strong endorsement of the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act.
If enacted, this bill would offer substantial and critical
support for not-for-profit and public providers of skilled
nursing care that operate in rural and frontier areas across
the country.
The society currently operates 168 skilled nursing
facilities, also called SNFs, of which 122 or about three-
quarters of those are in the Universal Service Administrative
Company defined rural areas. In fact, we have facilities in
many of your districts, including Oregon, Iowa, North Dakota,
Ohio, Kentucky, and Kansas. These SNFs play a critical role in
the delivery of care in rural and frontier areas of our country
and are significant and growing pioneers in telehealth
services.
Like many providers serving an aging population, the
society is a provider of skilled nursing care in many rural
areas of the country. As such, we are dependent on the growing
use of technology to deliver needed care and services to
locations that do not have the benefit of nearby health clinics
or rural hospitals.
The use of broadband networks is critical to accommodate
the delivery and exchange of data, images, web streaming,
electronic medical records, and other health information that
is vital to ensure that the day-to-day care needs of residents
and patients are met. Further, an important resource for
assisting with the funding of these broadband networks is the
Universal Service Fund that is administered by the FCC.
Although the majority of our health care partners in rural
areas of the country are afforded the privilege of accessing
Universal Service Fund to assist with funding broadband
investment, skilled nursing facilities are not. It has been our
long held belief that Congress fully intended to make rural,
not-for-profit, long term care SNFs as eligible health care
providers under Section 254 of the 1996 Telecom Act. In fact,
on several occasions we have provided both informal and formal
comments to the FCC expressing these strong held views.
With the passage of this bill, the FCC will have the
direction it needs to continue to develop the Healthcare
Connect Fund and implement the health care broadband experiment
program so that SNFs can benefit along with other covered
health care providers.
In conclusion, we are extremely grateful for your
leadership on this important issue that deeply impacts some of
society's most vulnerable populations, our nation's seniors,
and we strongly urge the committee's swift adoption of the
bipartisan bill, especially given that the bill was recently
scored by the CBO as resulting in a net reduction in the
deficit. We hope to get this bill across the finish line soon
and to have access to these funds within a year of enactment.
Again, we are particularly thankful to the number of
members, namely Representatives Lance, Loebsack, and Cramer for
their support of this bill. I thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to strongly support the Rural Health Care
Connectivity Act and I stand ready to respond to any questions.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Holdhusen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta [presiding]. Well, thank you very much, and I
apologize for being out. We have two other, or two
subcommittees meeting in one hearing room today and so we have
multiple things going on, so I appreciate you all being here
today.
And if I could start with the first question to Sergeant
Finley, one of the things the bill does is require that the
perpetrator reimburse law enforcement agencies involved in
responding to a swatting call for the cost of the response. I
have a two-part question, if I may.
The first is looking back at some of the cases you have
worked on could you give us a range or idea of the kind of
dollars we are talking about? And then absent any reimbursement
like this bill would allow, who bears the burden and what
impact does that have on a police department like yours?
Mr. Finley. Well, sir, to answer part of the second
question first, I guess it would depend upon the amount of
personnel that was out there, obviously on the initial one the
response to it.
But the part that takes up the most time obviously is the
post-investigation side of this in trying to find out who this
person is, because they are not quick investigations. They are
long, labor intensive, because there are so many different
things that you have to follow down and a lot of these places
that provide these services are not even in the United States.
They are in other foreign countries. And even though we may
have mutual law enforcement treaties with those, me as a
municipal police officer trying to call a guy in Moscow at the
Russian Federation and to give me records for something that
went through a VPN that he owns is probably not going to
happen, the fact if he even keeps records.
So it depends, I guess, on some situations. Some of the
swatting incidents that I have been involved in after the fact
have been well up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
One that I spoke with some officers around the New York area,
they had an individual that called in about a boat that was
sinking off the coast out there that not only involved the
NYPD, it involved the New Jersey State Police, I think the
United States Coast Guard, Homeland Security.
They had at least, I think, eight different aircraft out
there for about 4 hours. If you know anything about aircraft,
it takes quite a bit of money to operate one of those and the
air crew that are on there, not to mention all the boats that
were in the water doing grid searches for about a 16-mile block
looking for this individual, only to find out that they were
out there for, I think, right at 9 hours to find out that this
was a hoax.
The big thing is we are all in law enforcement and in all
first responders we are there to help people. And when you call
us and tell us bad things are happening, we are going to come
there and help. And it is very frustrating when we get to these
locations and find out that we mobilized all of this equipment,
brought all of these people down here, because there is a big
thing obviously that it takes us away from other things.
And we don't know any more over the way the country is
going and the world is going, we don't know if these things are
real or not. You call and give us a fraudulent call and say
there is an active shooter somewhere, we know that just from
past experiences in the last few months there is no shortage of
crazy people. There is no shortage of people who want to come
over here and do harm to our country and to our people.
So it is very frustrating when we have to expend these
types of resources to go to these different locations only to
find out that there is nothing there.
Mr. Latta. Can I interrupt for one second?
Mr. Finley. Yes, sir, you can.
Mr. Latta. And let me ask, when you say like the Russian
Federation, how often do you get a call or calls that would
come from a foreign country like that that you would be
investigating?
Mr. Finley. There are quite a few individuals that we have
got from foreign countries. I have been involved with one, he
was from Canada. Even though it is right next door it is a
foreign country. They are not real big on responding to any
legal processes that come from the United States into Canada
unless it originates with the RCMP up there and their
jurisdiction and/or their local police.
So you have to involve all the legal attaches from their
country to our country, federal government here and the federal
government there. It is a long arduous process. But the
relationships I have made with the guys in the FBI Atlanta
Cyber Program as well as the United States Secret Service down
in my area, they routinely find individuals in other countries
and we have to partner with them to go in and get these people
into custody.
And a lot of times we end up doing the prosecution in the
home country because it is going to be cost-prohibitive for us
to go and get this person and bring them back down into the
United States. We can work with them and say, look, we are
going to do the same for you if you will do the same for us.
And it is just a long process to do that.
But I mean, to put a dollar amount on it I cannot tell you.
I have probably spent a thousand something hours investigating
just on the two of the cases that I had that were running
simultaneously. One was a kid up here in the northeast United
States, the other one in Canada. I mean that is not to count,
you count the other 43 agencies that I linked into and all the
time that I spent coordinating with the other 43 agencies,
because I ended up being the go-to guy in the United States for
all of them to send their information to and funnel that
through the FBI Atlanta office up to the RCMPs.
So we were the clearinghouse, so to speak. We sat down with
40-some odd cases and went through each and every one of them
to try to find out that the top 10 best cases that we had to
send up here on this individual, because he literally was just
an internet terrorist. There was no other word for him but he
was an internet terrorist. The things that he did we could talk
for the rest of the afternoon, and the horrible acts that he
did to young people, to young ladies especially was his target.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. If I could ask the gentlelady for her
indulgence, since we have three members right now would you
mind if we did just second questions, the follow-up, if we
could do five each and then come back and do five again? Would
that be acceptable?
Ms. Eshoo. What time do you think we are going to finish?
Mr. Latta. We will be about 15 minutes or so.
Ms. Eshoo. No, that is fine.
Mr. Latta. OK. OK, the chair recognizes the gentlelady, the
ranking member of the subcommittee, from California.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses. You did an excellent job. To Mr.--how do you
pronounce your name, Holdhusen?
Mr. Holdhusen. Holdhusen, yes.
Ms. Eshoo. Holdhusen. Thank you for your work. It is never
to be taken for granted what nonprofit and church
organizations, charitable organizations do in our country. It
is nothing short of remarkable, so thank you to you for your
work. And I think that the bill that you are here in support of
is a good one. It is going to help people, and that is what I
came to Congress to do, so not to hurt anybody but to help
people.
To Mr. Bergmann, the recently adopted FCC Lifeline reform
order phases out, as you know, the support for voice-only
services by '22. Does your association support that provision?
Mr. Bergmann. So we supported evolution of Lifeline to
broadband services. What we thought was critical was to have a
sufficient transition timeline so that the nine million or more
low-income consumers who have mobile voice services today can
make that transition.
Ms. Eshoo. But what is the difference between the
legislation we are considering today and the recent FCC action
with respect to the phase-out of voice-only services, because
there is a difference.
Mr. Bergmann. So what we pushed for was a longer transition
period which is what the FCC adopted. We certainly appreciate
their sensitivity with that transition so that as that program
evolves from voice to broadband low-income consumers can make
that transition.
Ms. Eshoo. And to Sergeant Finley----
Mr. Finley. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. You are a great witness, you really
are.
Mr. Finley. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo. Your professionalism is right out there in
front, and the passion that you bring to your professionalism,
and I think that it is very important.
Mr. Finley. Thank you so much.
Ms. Eshoo. In the cases where there are minors that are
inflicting this great harm on people, how do you think the
legislation deals with the fine that is attached to it?
Mr. Finley. Well, as far it goes----
Ms. Eshoo. What is the best way for us to do that? It
doesn't seem to me realistic that we are going to extract what
should be extracted in terms of a penalty. And my sense is that
from what you said that there are a lot of young people that
are doing this.
Mr. Finley. Yes, ma'am. There are some adults that actually
do this. It depends on where they are at and when they graduate
from 17 to 18 years old, depending on what they classify as an
adult. But the biggest issue with anybody that is a juvenile,
prosecuting them in the federal system is almost impossible or
they are not going to do it. I mean, short of some kind of
heinous crime, terrorism or mass homicide, they are not going
to be prosecuted in federal court.
Ms. Eshoo. But couldn't we structure this so that there is
responsibility either on the part of the individual or the
family?
Mr. Finley. Yes, ma'am, we very well could.
Ms. Eshoo. In terms of the fines?
Mr. Finley. Yes, there is quite a few states that do have
state legislation on swatting.
Ms. Eshoo. What is the best one?
Mr. Finley. You want to know who is the best one, I will go
ahead and tell you. I think Georgia is because I just helped
write the one for the state of Georgia.
Ms. Eshoo. OK, great.
Mr. Finley. We are waiting on our governor to sign it right
now. But it all depends. The biggest thing is they have to have
some type of recourse for the victim, obviously the heartache
and whatever it put them through. But one thing that I found
even when we were doing our law in Georgia, one of our victims
was there at the state capital when we were doing some
subcommittee hearings, and it was a year and a half later. And
she was standing in the hall and we started talking about it
and she just broke down and started crying.
Ms. Eshoo. Over what she had done?
Mr. Finley. And I am thinking to myself, she loves the
police. She loves everything, but when her kids are outside in
the street if one of our cars comes down the street that is
doing neighborhood patrol she freaks out and thinks, oh my
gosh, are they coming to my house? Because unfortunately for
her in their situation, they used to live in a location where a
person that they were actually targeting was this family had
nothing to do with it. And one of them, they did the initial
swatting at the house and then the kid in Canada came back and
did a follow-up eight days later. So two times within a couple
weeks their family was influenced by this.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, do you have any advice for us on----
Mr. Finley. Well, this law does a good job. It does some
really good stuff and it does handle a lot of spoofing, but
what happens when they don't spoof? What do we do then? What if
they don't use spoofing technology in this? How are we going to
address that situation? I know there is some other, there is
a----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, there an awful lot of laws that are----
Mr. Finley. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Written in reaction to less than
good things taking place, so I guess that is when we would
address it.
Mr. Finley. Absolutely.
Ms. Eshoo. But one bill, I don't think, is going to do
that. I think that is what you're instructing us.
Mr. Finley. Yes, ma'am. There is actually, Congresswoman
Clark from Massachusetts, she has an interstate swatting bill
that covers a lot of things I think that may be missing in this
respect, OK. And----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, maybe we should take a look at that, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Finley. Those are two very good things that are--her
and I, we were down at South by Southwest a couple months ago
speaking on the same issue and talking about some of that at
the inaugural Online Harassment seminar because she deals with
a lot of the same issues. And quite honestly, I----
Ms. Eshoo. Well, that is very helpful to us though. I think
that we should review and see what Congresswoman Clark has in
her bill that maybe we can merge them, or strengthen one
because of the other.
Mr. Finley. Well, she will give you some good testimony
because she got swatted a couple of months ago.
Ms. Eshoo. All right.
Mr. Finley. That is what I told her office. I said anytime
you stick your neck out and do any of this stuff just know that
you are going to be a target.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, thank you to the three of you. You cover
very important sectors of our country from law enforcement to
communications to charitable organizations. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired and the chair would now recognize the gentleman from
North Dakota for five minutes.
Mr. Cramer. The light is green, but it is clearly not on.
How about if I slide down here? Will that work? How is that?
That is not working either. How about if I talk really loudly?
Oh, here we go. I bet this one will work.
All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of
the outstanding witnesses. It really was great testimony. I
agree with the ranking member.
Mr. Holdhusen, thank you especially for being here on
behalf of our bill, for your incredible testimony. But first
let me say thank you for the incredible work of the Good
Samaritan Society in North Dakota, South Dakota, throughout the
Midwest. As you know, I am very familiar with your facilities
and many of your residents over the years, and I appreciate
your good work.
And getting to the point of this bill, I appreciate very
much that you referenced in your testimony the fact that the
score came back as a net gain, if you will, for the taxpayers.
But even at that, even with that sort of static scoring system
in Congress, I don't think it adequately captures what in my
mind is the real cost/benefit analysis.
Anytime we provide greater access, whether it is through
critical access hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home
health care, the use of technology to increase access certainly
is good for the residents and the patient, certainly helpful to
those that are providing it, but I think sometimes we don't
adequately address or speak of the other benefits of that not
just to the residents and the health care provider but to the
taxpayers.
Is there any type of an example you could think of that I
could use as a cost/benefit analysis where perhaps access to
the technology provides somebody the opportunity whether it is
in preventive, a preventive measure or maybe an emergency that
is captured that wouldn't otherwise be addressed, because I
just think there is a lot more to this story even than we know
today.
Mr. Holdhusen. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. Indeed,
there are many stories even beyond anecdotal and we are
beginning to amass empirical data that identifies that. I can
give you one very concrete example and that is with what we
call our LivingWell@Home program. It allows a couple of major
objectives. One is, and most importantly it is patient- or
individual-centric, it allows individuals to stay in their
living environment independently for as long as possible.
It is a motion sensor technology that captures different
data points and sends it through broadband, which is why this
bill is important, and it goes to a place where in a remote
location where the preconditions can be identified and identify
things that will, from a practical point of view, begin to bend
the cost curve, eliminate or reduce the number of emergency
room visits, eliminate rehospitalizations which are very, very
costly to the system.
In addition, kind of the social benefits beyond that is it
provides not only the opportunity to be independent for much
longer, but also security of families. We can live states away,
rely on technology to follow as a consumer, my mother who now
lives three states away, and identify many things that are
going on in her particular life.
So there are social aspects. In particular, we look at the
individual-centric to allow individuals to stay in their homes
much longer, and then the cost savings associated with
identifying preconditions which avoid those hospitalization,
gets in front of the health conditions prior to the time that
they actually exist and then begin to cost the care system much
more money.
Mr. Cramer. Mr. Chairman, I will not run the risk of
screwing up a really good answer, so I will yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. And I was going to
actually give you an extra minute since you were having
problems with your mic there so, but the gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranking member of the full committee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask my
questions of Mr. Bergmann. I mentioned in my opening statement
that Hurricane Sandy hit my district particularly hard and I
have spent the last three years studying what went wrong and
how we can do better next time. And the result of that work is
a bill I introduced last year called the SANDy Act which is one
of the bills we are considering today. It would ensure, it
would help ensure that people have essential access to
communications networks when they need them the most.
In your testimony you note that telecom carriers are making
progress towards a framework that will address many of the
elements included in my bill, and I thank you for your work and
appreciate the industry's commitment to working with us to help
solve these problems. In my experience, regulations are not
always necessary when an industry steps up and commits to
solving a problem voluntarily.
So that said, I am interested in hearing exactly where the
industry is headed on these issues. Could you explain what
steps industry is taking to address some of these issues in my
bill and how long you think it would take to reach a
resolution?
Mr. Bergmann. So thanks so much for the question, and thank
you, Congressman, for your leadership on this issue. We know
how important it is and the introduction of the SANDy Act I
think really did spur meaningful industry conversations.
As you have noted, we have been hard at work to develop a
consensus framework on how to improve preparedness for
consumers, for communities, and then for caregivers as well,
too. I am confident that the wireless industry has been a good
partner in this effort and will continue to be so, and it is
certainly very helpful that we will be able to coordinate with
your office to have that effort bear fruit very soon.
Mr. Pallone. But you don't want to talk about any specifics
now that the industry is working on?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure, absolutely. So I would sort of put
things into a couple different buckets, working to make sure
that consumers have all of the information that they need and
that they are prepared in advance of disaster situations,
making sure that local governments as well, too, are educated
and ready so that municipal governments can respond. I would
say also, making sure that critical public safety personnel
have the ability to contact wireless providers in the case of a
disaster and then finally, making sure that providers
themselves can work together where appropriate to make sure
that we can restore service quickly. Those are the four areas
that are really a focus for us.
Mr. Pallone. Now what about the 911 call centers? Are you
working with local governments and 911 call centers to make
sure that public safety officials can contact carriers during
an emergency? Do you want to talk about that at all?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. Obviously, as you have heard throughout
the day as consumers rely on wireless service more and more to
reach public safety, by some estimates over 70 percent of 911
calls coming from wireless phones, we think that is absolutely
critical. And communication between PSAPs and providers is very
much something that we are thinking about as well too.
Mr. Pallone. Now let me go to the Lifeline bill which I
have been critical of. We have heard a lot about needing to
control the costs of the program, and I have said that one way
to fix this is to adopt policies that help people find well
paying jobs so they don't need to subscribe to the Lifeline
program. But are there any other ways to help control costs or
improve the program without taking phones away from people who
need them?
Mr. Bergmann. Sure. So for a number of years CTIA has
worked closely to try to improve program administration. Going
back to 2012, industry worked voluntarily to help develop the
duplicates database to make sure that the same subscriber
didn't get more than one Lifeline subscription. But I think the
most critical reform there is the adoption of a national
verifier. That is something that CTIA has pushed hard for for a
number of years and something that I think that all parties can
agree is critical to making sure that Lifeline services get to
the people who need it, but only to the people who are eligible
to receive it.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask more
thing. I know CTIA has talked a lot about making sure we enable
next generation wireless technology, and I believe we should
examine and have a leverage of benefits of new technology to
help address priorities like addressing inequality. Can you
tell us how next generation wireless technology could help the
people stuck on the wrong side of this inequality gap?
Mr. Bergmann. So as we think about what the next generation
of wireless will be and folks are looking toward 5G, there will
be tests here in the U.S. this year. There is a development of
standards. I think some of the most exciting applications of 5G
in the Internet of Things are around the policy priorities that
are so important to this community and this committee, things
like improving health care, improving education.
Smart cities is one of the key focuses for 5G technology,
so making sure that we are able to launch autonomous vehicles
that can cut down on congestion, reduce energy loss. Trying to
have that hundred times increase in the number of devices that
are connected is why you see mayors across the country lining
up to become the first smart city.
So that is some of what we are looking forward from 5G, and
we certainly appreciate this committee's help and support
delivering spectrum, speeding infrastructure deployment to help
us get there.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And seeing no other
members here to ask questions, I would just like to first thank
our witnesses for being with us today. And I know that the
gentleman from Oregon, the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, and also the gentleman from New Jersey, the
ranker of the full committee, we thank you for your testimony
today. It was very, very informative. And if there is nothing
else to come before the subcommittee today, we will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased we are discussing my
Spectrum Challenge Prize Act of 2015 today.
Spectrum has become an increasingly valuable resource due
to the growing demands of our modern mobile economy it is the
invisible infrastructure of the 21st century.
My Challenge Prize legislation which I introduced with
Senator Tom Udall would encourage wireless innovation by
creating a federal spectrum challenge prize.
The spectrum challenge competition would help incentivize
innovators and entrepreneurs to develop technologies that
eclipse the current state-of-the-art.
Challenge prizes have a long track record of spurring
innovation from early navigation efforts to more recent
driverless car technology.
The U.S. has always been a global leader in wireless
technologies, but we need to continue to innovate in order for
our wireless economy to continue to grow.
The Spectrum Challenge Prize Act creates a new opportunity
for the federal government and the private sector to work
collaboratively in the pursuit of a spectrum efficiency
breakthrough which is ultimately a victory for American
consumers.
While I'm pleased we are considering my Spectrum Challenge
Prize bill, I'm disappointed that my Republican colleagues are
using today's hearing to attack the Lifeline program.
Two weeks ago, the FCC took a major step forward in our
efforts to close the digital divide. Lifeline will support
broadband connectivity and help low income households get and
stay connected to the communications services they need to
participate in the 21st century economy.
Just as we are celebrating this progress for struggling
families across the country, our Republican colleagues bring up
legislation to take us backwards. A cap on Lifeline only
artificially restricts the number of people this program can
help.
Mr. Chairman cutting off Lifeline means cutting off
economic opportunity for low income Americans. I urge my
colleagues to reject any legislation that places a cap on
Lifeline.
Thank you and I yield back.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Elliot L. Engel
Thank you, Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo, for
convening today's hearing and for your consideration of my
bill, H.R. 2031, the Anti-Swatting Act.
``Swatting'' refers to the act of provoking law enforcement
to respond to a phony emergency. The act gets its name from the
SWAT teams that are often deployed to respond to these hoaxes.
Though swatting might sound like a prank, its consequences
are no laughing matter.
According to the FBI, a single SWAT team deployment can
cost thousands of taxpayer dollars. Swatting also risks injury
to the unassuming victims who are present when law enforcement
arrives at an alleged crime scene, as well as to the officials
who respond to these hoaxes, anticipating danger. On top of
that, swatting wastes law enforcement's precious time, keeping
them from responding to actual, life-threatening emergencies.
I introduced the Anti-Swatting Act to address these very
serious risks.
The Anti-Swatting Act would expand on the Truth in Caller
ID Act, which Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton and I introduced and
was signed into law in 2010.
My bill would increase penalties for people who falsify
their caller ID information to mislead law enforcement. This
technological trick called ``spoofing'' allows swatters to make
law enforcement believe they are calling in an emergency from a
different phone number or location. My bill would also force
swatters to reimburse the emergency services that squander
valuable funds responding to their invented emergency.
The goal of my bill is to dissuade potential swatters from
wasting law enforcement resources and--most importantly--from
putting their neighbors and emergency response teams in harm's
way.
I introduced the Anti-Swatting Act last year, following a
string of swattings in my district. Incidents have also
occurred in Tennessee, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina--the
list goes on. It is my hope that this bill will keep additional
communities from falling victim to these despicable crimes.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]