    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 25, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-69

    [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

    27-889                         WASHINGTON : 2018
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana                 Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                          MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     Chairman
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              RAUL RUIZ, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee           JERRY McNERNEY, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota               officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     4
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     9

                                   Witnesses

    Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   140
    Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission..    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   154
    Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   158
    Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission....    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   164
    Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   167

                               Submitted Material

    Op-ed by Chairman Pai entitled, ``The FCC Wades Into the
      Newsroom,'' Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2014, submitted
      by Mr. Doyle...................................................    92
    Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman
      Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle....................................    94
    Letter of October 24, 2017, from ConsumersUnion to subcommittee,
      submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................    96
    Statement of Chairman Pai, submitted by Mr. Doyle................   102
    Working paper of the Mercatus Center entitled, ``How FCC
      Transaction Reviews Threaten Rule of Law and the First
      Amendment,'' submitted by Mr. Pallone..........................   103
    Letter of October 25, 2017, from the LPTV Spectrum Rights
      Coalition to Mrs. Blackburn....................................   133
    Letter of October 16, 2017, from Members of Congress to Chairman
      Pai............................................................   135

               OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta,
    Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores, Brooks,
    Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch,
    Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Butterfield,
    Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Also Present: Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Tonko.
        Staff Present: Ray Baum, Staff Director; Kelly Collins,
    Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications
    and Technology; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator, Communications
    and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and
    Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
    Technology; Brighton Haslett, Counsel, Oversight and
    Investigations; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth,
    Senior Professional Staff, Communications and Technology;
    Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Alex
    Miller, Video Production Aide and Press Assistant; Evan Viau,
    Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; Hamlin Wade,
    Special Advisor, External Affairs; Sean Farrell, Professional
    Staff, Communications and Technology; Jeff Carroll, Minority
    Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom Fellow; Evan
    Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; David Goldman, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Tiffany
    Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health
    Advisor; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis,
    Minority Staff Assistant; Lori, Maarbjerg, Minority FCC
    Detailee; Jessica Martinez, Minority Outreach and Member
    Services Coordinator; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim
    Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Minority
    Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and
    C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.

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

        Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will now come to order. And the chair recognizes
    herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
        And I do want to welcome each and every one of you,
    obviously a hearing of interest as we have a full room in front
    of us. And it is our first hearing in 2017 with a fully formed
    Federal Communications Commission.
        As often seems to be the case, the Senate takes their dear,
    ever-loving time to get things done, but I am pleased to see
    that the Commission is back up to speed. And I will tell you, I
    am pleased that we have five members of this Commission, and
    they have different points of view to bring to the discussion
    on all things telecom related. And I think that that is healthy
    for the telecommunications and technology industry.
        And we are here today to conduct oversight of the agency,
    which is this subcommittee's primary role. It is very important
    that we fulfill these obligations, because we have given the
    FCC a critical mission and critical task to fulfill. From the
    Commission's disaster response efforts, to its work supporting
    the deployment of rural broadband, to its efforts to streamline
    and modernize the regulatory environment impacting some of
    America's greatest creators and innovators, you are all doing
    important work, and we appreciate what you do.
        One of the FCC's many jobs is to regulate broadcasters who
    accept and fulfill unique public interest obligations due to
    their use of valuable public spectrum. While we were in the
    final stages of planning for this routine oversight hearing,
    some of my colleagues asked that the committee hold an entire
    hearing about comments by the President on Twitter regarding
    certain broadcasters' work. So I fully expect them to question
    the Trump tweets.
        And, Chairman Pai, since we have a very full slate of
    issues, my hope is that you will address that concern so that
    we can focus on the work and responsibilities of the
    Commission.
        The Commission has conducted entirely appropriate oversight
    of broadcast licenses. There is no indication it has any
    interest in regulating political content, unlike some in our
    chamber who have urged the FCC to adopt a new fairness doctrine
    mandating that broadcasters provide equal time to the
    opposition if they allow anyone to express any type of
    political opinion on air.
        The outrage over the President's Twitter musing stands in
    sharp contrast to the silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of
    conservatives, sexual assault victims, and potentially anyone
    who posts something they just don't like for whatever reason,
    all this on a platform so powerful and far-reaching that you
    could argue that it is the modern day public square. And some
    on Twitter have even called to suspend the President's account.
    And after my recent experience, I will say I wouldn't put it
    past some people.
        The latest Twitter scandal is an attempt to distract from
    the Commission and the American people from the FCC's real
    work, which is delivering on a mission to unleash American
    innovation.
        So, Chairman Pai, no matter what questions are said, I hope
    that we are going to stick to keeping our eye on the ball and
    making certain that we address things like media ownership
    rules, the Lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural
    broadband, and restoring a free and open internet. That is
    something that we want to see done by the end of this year.
        And at this time, I yield 1 minute to the vice chairman of
    the subcommittee, Mr. Lance.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn

        Good afternoon and welcome to our first hearing in 2017
    with a fully formed Federal Communications Commission. As often
    seems to be the case, the Senate has taken its time, but I'm
    pleased to see the Commission back up to speed with five vastly
    different opinions about everything telecom-related. We're here
    today to conduct oversight of the agency, which is this
    subcommittee's primary role.
        It is very important that we fulfill our oversight
    responsibilities, because we have given the FCC a critical
    mission and critical tasks to fulfill. From the Commission's
    disaster response efforts, to its work supporting the
    deployment of rural broadband, to its efforts to streamline and
    modernize the regulatory environment impacting some of
    America's greatest creators and innovators, you are all doing
    important work, and we appreciate it.
        One of the FCC's many jobs is to regulate broadcasters, who
    accept and fulfill unique public interest obligations due to
    their use of valuable public spectrum. While we were in the
    final stages of planning for this routine oversight hearing, my
    Democratic colleagues asked the Committee to hold an entire
    hearing about comments by the President on Twitter regarding
    certain broadcasters' work.
        So I fully expect them to use this opportunity to try to
    turn this hearing into the Trump Tweet hearing. Chairman Pai,
    since we have a very full slate of issues, my hope is that you
    will address that concern so we can focus on the work of the
    Commission.
        This Commission has conducted entirely appropriate
    oversight of broadcast licensees. There is no indication it has
    any interest in regulating political content, unlike some of my
    Democratic colleagues who have urged the FCC to adopt a new
    Fairness Doctrine, mandating that broadcasters provide equal
    time to the opposition if they allow anyone to express any type
    of political opinion on air.
        The outrage over the President's Twitter musings stands in
    sharp contrast to the silence as Twitter cuts off the voices of
    conservatives, sexual assault victims, and potentially anyone
    who posts something they just don't like for whatever reason.
    All this on a platform so powerful and far-reaching that you
    could argue it serves as a modern day public square.
        Some left wingers on Twitter have even called for the
    company to ban the President's account. After my recent
    experience, all I will say is I wouldn't put it past them. The
    latest Twitter ``scandal'' is an attempt to distract both the
    Commission and the American people from the FCC's real work:
    delivering on its mission to unleash American innovation.
        Chairman Pai, no matter what loaded YES OR NO questions may
    be posed today, or what insinuations are made about a would-be
    plot by the FCC to crack down on political speech, I urge you
    not to be distracted. Keep your eye on the ball. We are waiting
    for important reforms to address the media ownership rules, the
    Lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural broadband
    and restoring a free and open Internet, and we want to see them
    by the end of this year.

        Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Chair. And welcome to
    Chairman Pai and the now full complement of commissioners. What
    a good-looking group. Thank you for appearing before us today.
        Since our last oversight hearing in July, the Commission
    has continued its important work on issues such as disaster
    relief and recovery in the communities affected by the recent
    hurricanes, commercial spectrum availability, fraud prevention
    in closing the digital divide. The Commission is also moving
    forward in the process to roll back the misguided Title II
    reclassification of ISPs from the previous administration.
        Here on the subcommittee, we have recently taken a
    bipartisan step forward in reauthorizing the FCC for the first
    time since 1990. I applaud the chairman and ranking member for
    their leadership in reasserting this vital oversight tool. I
    also thank Commissioner O'Rielly for joining me in the district
    I serve in August for a 5G industry roundtable. I commend his
    leadership at the Commission pursuing innovation-friendly
    spectrum and infrastructure policies that will be important in
    our efforts to win the race to 5G.
        Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this
    hearing. And thank you to all the witnesses for appearing
    before us today. Let me just say that I really enjoy our time
    here together, as I am sure all of you do. And I would
    encourage the chairman to continue to hold these get-togethers
    far more often.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Absolutely.
        Mr. Doyle. Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back. Your
    work on the homework gap has been missed.
        Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your confirmation. I
    hope that as you establish your agenda, that you remember that
    the guiding principle of the FCC is to act in the public's
    interest. It is a standard that I will hold you to as well.
        Chairman Pai, many people around the country, including
    myself, and many of colleagues are deeply alarmed by your
    response to the President Trump's threats against the media,
    and specifically his tweet threatening NBC. In 2014, you wrote
    in The Wall Street Journal that the government has no place
    pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
    You took 6 days to respond to the President's tweet. And when
    you did, you did not directly address the President's threat at
    all or its chilling effects on the media.
        While the President and the administration can dispute the
    veracity of any story, even ones that are demonstrably true,
    they cannot attack the free institutions that enable our
    democracy. As Senator Flake said yesterday, it is time for our
    complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.
        Besides this issue, the Commission's agenda under your
    leadership has already had a profoundly negative effect on our
    country. From increasing cost on small businesses, driving up
    the cost of calls to family members in prison, and claiming
    that wireless broadband is competitive, even when people in
    rural America know it is not, it seems that in every fork of
    the road you have chosen the path that leads to higher consumer
    cost, fewer choices, and less innovation. And if it sounds as
    if the worst is yet to come, news reports suggest that you
    unveil plans tomorrow to vastly alter the media landscape in
    this country, clearing the way for more media consolidation,
    including the Sinclair-Tribune merger.
        Yesterday, the Commission eliminated the main studio rule
    that had ensured for 77 years that local news was gathered and
    reported locally. What good would a studio and reporters in New
    York have done for broadcast stations in Houston or Florida
    after the hurricanes? What good is local news if it isn't
    local? Other news reports suggest you will announce an order to
    repeal the FCC's open internet order around Thanksgiving.
        Madam Chairman, I sincerely hope that, if this true, that
    we have a chance to talk to the Commission in advance of a vote
    on that order. The idea that such a significant order that
    would affect so much of our economy would be voted on without
    oversight is unconscionable and would be a dereliction of this
    committee's duties. If the chairman is intent to act, I believe
    that his actions should be done under the scrutiny of Congress
    and in the light of the public.
        That concludes what I want to say. And I am going to yield
    the remaining part of my time to Ms. Eshoo.
        Ms. Eshoo. I thank the gentleman for yielding his remaining
    time to me.
        I want to associate myself with our ranking member's
    comments, particularly to what the President said that was a
    direct assault on the First Amendment and, with all due respect
    to you, Mr. Chairman, your delayed and rather tepid response to
    that. I want to place verbally in the record the First
    Amendment of the Constitution of our country.
        It was written, adopted by----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you--December 15, 1791. It is as new and
    as important today as the day that it was adopted.
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
    religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging
    the freedom of speech or of the press--they were very clear.
    They were very clear--or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
    grievances.
        I hope you will choose to enlarge on the public statement
    that you put out.
        And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back to the ranking
    member.
        Mr. Doyle. And I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize the Chairman of the full Energy
    and Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden, who has been in the chair
    all day along with the hearing downstairs.
        The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

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

        Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to
    welcome especially Commissioner Carr. Welcome aboard. We are
    glad to have you here for the first time in this capacity. And
    welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel. It is sure good to see
    you on the Commission. And we look forward to continuing our
    work with you and the other members. Chairman Pai, thank you
    too for being here and for your leadership.
        I couldn't agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this
    Commission has some very, very important work to do. The United
    States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this
    year, including wildfires that have devastated literally
    hundreds of thousands of acres in my home state. And we know
    the tragedies all across the West from these fires. These
    catastrophic weather events have shown the importance of
    maintaining the most reliable and modern communication systems
    possible. And we certainly owe the work many of us were engaged
    in on FirstNet and going clear back to 2012, and we need to
    make sure that works as planned.
        I look forward to hearing updates on the agency's
    contributions to the overall Federal relief efforts underway in
    these areas as well as those impacted by Hurricanes Irma,
    Harvey, and Maria, although some of the affected areas are
    almost back up to speed, which is great, thanks to a lot of
    hard work on both industry and government. We know we are
    facing enormous challenges elsewhere in restoring essential
    services, in places like Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as
    well as others here on the mainland.
        We appreciate the Commission's efforts to streamline
    permitting, advance funding, and provide much needed assistance
    in these situations. We also appreciate the Commission's work
    to keep us informed through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on
    FCC hurricane response efforts that we requested and that
    Chairman Pai's team quickly provided at the beginning of this
    month. Thank you for doing that.
        As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a
    number of key items to emerge from the Commission. In no way
    does this committee expect our oversight to delay the
    Commission's important work. Rather, hearings like this are
    vital to keeping open the lines of communication and exposing
    commissioners and committee members alike to different
    perspectives, yielding better understanding and better
    decision-making. But we expect the Commission's work to go
    regardless, just as it did under the previous administration.
        The subcommittee continues its work as well having just
    finished a markup on an FCC reauthorization bill for the first
    time in many years. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides
    of the aisle for their work on this effort as we continue to
    move toward full committee markup soon.
        Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and
    opportunities presented by the repacking process that the
    Commission has embarked upon. I commend the Commission's
    continuing efforts to release funding and work with every
    broadcaster to ensure their needs are being met as this
    transition evolves in a timely manner. Your input has been and
    will continue to be extremely important to this committee as we
    look at options to solve the remaining issues. And we certainly
    know there are some out there.
        Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a
    forum to rehash, once again, the arguments for dumping cutting
    edge broadband internet service into the stale, musty bucket
    that is Title II. In any case, if anyone was wondering, my
    position hasn't changed on that, and I don't sense others have.
        This Commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the
    previous Commission's partisan maneuver, which upended stacks
    of Commission precedent, disregard reams of legislative history
    to achieve the results that were demanded by then President
    Barack Obama. It is up to the Commission to set the optimal
    regulatory conditions to fuel broadband investment and
    deployment. And I hope to see a new bar set in this regard
    before the end of the year.
        Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the
    net neutrality debate. I think you hear a little of that
    passion here on both sides. And I have been continuing my
    efforts to negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues
    to engage the various affected parties in productive
    discussions toward that end, my colleagues in the minority
    have, unfortunately, seemed largely uninterested at this point.
    I would love to see that change, by the way. The door remains
    open.
        We are willing and able to codify net neutrality
    protections and establish a Federal framework in statute for
    providing certainty to all participants in the internet
    ecosystem. I don't think we need Title II to do that. We have
    the same end goal: Preserving the internet as a free, open,
    dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive our
    economy, while also doing everything we can to extend its
    benefits to every American. We should be able to work together
    to clear this issue off our plates.
        With that, again, I thank the Commission for being here
    today. We are glad to see you fully constituted and confirmed.
    And as you can imagine, we have a lot of issues to hear from
    you on and to have good discourse back and forth. So thanks
    again.
        And with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to welcome Commissioner
    Carr for the first time, and welcome back Commissioner
    Rosenworcel as this subcommittee continues in its long
    tradition of active oversight of the FCC.
        I couldn't agree more with Chairman Blackburn that this
    commission has some very important work to do. The United
    States has weathered a large share of natural disasters this
    year, including the wildfires that have devastated hundreds of
    thousands of acres in Oregon and across much of the West. These
    catastrophic weather events have shown the importance of
    maintaining the most reliable and modern communications
    systems, particularly in emergencies.
        I look forward to hearing updates on the agency's
    contributions to the overall federal relief efforts underway in
    these areas as well as those impacted by Hurricanes Harvey,
    Irma, and Maria. Although some of the affected areas are almost
    back up to speed, thanks to a lot of hard work on the part of
    both industry and government, we are facing enormous challenges
    in restoring essential services in other areas.
        We appreciate the commission's efforts to streamline
    permitting, advance funding, and provide much needed
    assistance. We also appreciate the commission's work to keep us
    informed, through a bipartisan, bicameral briefing on FCC
    hurricane response efforts that we requested and that Chairman
    Pai's team quickly provided at the beginning of this month.
        As 2017 draws to a close, we find ourselves waiting on a
    number of key items to emerge from the commission. In no way
    does this committee expect our oversight to delay the
    commission's important work.
        Rather, hearings like this are vital to keeping open the
    lines of communication and exposing commissioners and committee
    members alike to different perspectives, yielding better
    understanding and better decision making. But we expect the
    commission's work to go on regardless, just as it did under the
    previous Administration.
        The subcommittee continues its work as well, having just
    finished a markup of an FCC reauthorization bill for the first
    time in many years. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides
    of the aisle for working with us to see this effort through,
    and continuing that work as we move toward full committee
    markup.
        Last month, we held a hearing on the challenges and
    opportunities presented by the repacking process the commission
    has embarked upon.
        I commend the commission's continuing efforts to release
    funding and work with every broadcaster to ensure their needs
    are being met as this transition evolves in a timely manner.
    Your input has been, and will continue to be, extremely
    valuable as this committee explores initiatives to solve for
    the issues that still remain.
        Some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a
    forum to rehash once again the arguments for dumping cutting-
    edge broadband Internet service into the stale, musty bucket
    that is Title II. In case anyone was wondering, my position on
    this has not changed.
        This commission should not be dissuaded in any way by the
    previous commission's partisan maneuver, which upended stacks
    of commission precedent and disregarded reams of legislative
    history to achieve the result demanded by President Obama.
        It is up to the commission to set the optimal regulatory
    conditions to fuel broadband investment and deployment, and I
    hope to see a new bar set in this regard before the end of the
    year.
        Ultimately, Congress is the appropriate forum to settle the
    net neutrality debate. And I have been continuing my efforts to
    negotiate a compromise. Although my staff continues to engage
    with the various affected parties in productive discussions
    toward that end, my colleagues in the minority have been
    largely uninterested. I would love to see that change.
        We are willing and able to codify net neutrality
    protections and establish a federal framework providing
    certainty to all participants in the Internet ecosystem, and we
    don't need Title II to do it.
        We have the same end goal: preserving the Internet as a
    free, open, dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive
    our economy, while also doing everything we can to extend its
    benefits to every American. We should be able to work together
    and clear this issue off our plates.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Anyone seeking the remainder of the chairman's time?
        No one else. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member
    Doyle, for holding this hearing today. And I appreciate that
    you are maintaining the subcommittee's tradition of oversight
    of the FCC. I know some people here today would prefer you
    wouldn't.
        Congressional oversight is especially important now because
    the FCC is on a path to take up a number of controversial
    issues in the next few months. Nonetheless, it is curious that
    this hearing is scheduled for today in particular, just one day
    before Chairman Pai is expected to make public at least one
    proposal that enriches a single company above others, and that
    would clear out any last obstacles to Sinclair broadcasting's
    purchase of Tribune Media Company. This will be the single
    largest owner of television broadcast station, and they would
    be buying the second largest.
        So Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply
    coincidence that his actions are all timed to benefit Sinclair.
    But if that was the case, why can't the members of this
    committee see the latest proposal that he plans to circulate
    tomorrow before the Commission came before us? And now Chairman
    Pai has refused repeatedly to respond to my questions about
    allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. And this kind
    of evasiveness with Congress does not help put anyone's
    concerns to rest. These moves are just another example of how
    this FCC values large companies over small ones and always puts
    companies before consumers.
        The most glaring example of this, of course, is Chairman
    Pai's commitment to eviscerate net neutrality protections by
    the end of this year. Net neutrality protects consumers,
    protects small businesses, and protects free speech. And I hope
    that the FCC is spending this time reviewing the millions of
    comments that had been filed, including comments from the
    Democratic members of this committee. And I also hope the FCC
    considers the thousands of consumer complaints that have been
    made public since the comment period closed. These complaints
    demonstrate that consumer problems with broadband providers is
    much farther reaching than the FCC's proposed rulemaking lets
    on.
        Now, together, these items have the potential to
    drastically remake the way Americans communicate. And in taking
    on these issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate itself
    from the political pressures from the President. Chairman Pai
    has claimed that he has restored independence to the FCC, yet
    he refuses repeatedly to put any distance between himself and
    President Trump, whether it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or
    even protecting a free press. And that evasiveness does not
    inspire confidence.
        I have said many times, and I think I have told some of the
    Commission members, that I remember earlier this year when Sean
    Spicer was at a press conference and he said that the President
    would have the FCC repeal net neutrality before the FCC even
    addressed the issue. So, again, it just seems that everything
    is, whatever the President wants, and there is really no
    independence at all on net neutrality or the other issues. And
    the FCC has a long tradition of bipartisanship. But,
    unfortunately, that is simply not the case today. Hardworking
    American consumers and future Congresses are sure to take a dim
    view of the current partisan politics at the FCC, and it is
    time to restore that bipartisan tradition.
        But, again, I thank the chairman and the commissioners for
    all being here today. And I would like to yield a minute each
    to Mr. McNerney and Matsui. I guess I will start with McNerney.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Doyle for
    holding this hearing today. I appreciate that you are
    maintaining this subcommittee's tradition of oversight of the
    FCC--I know some people here today would prefer you wouldn't.
        Congressional oversight is especially important now because
    the FCC is on a path to take up a number of controversial
    issues in the next few months. Nonetheless, it's curious that
    this hearing is scheduled for today in particular--just one day
    before Chairman Pai is expected to make public at least one
    proposal that enriches a single company above others, and that
    would clear out any last obstacles to Sinclair Broadcasting's
    purchase of Tribune Media Company. This would be the single
    largest owner of television broadcast stations buying the
    second largest.
        Chairman Pai has claimed repeatedly that it is simply
    coincidence that his actions are all timed to benefit Sinclair.
    But if that was the case, why can't the members of the
    Committee see his latest proposals that he plans to circulate
    tomorrow before the Commission came before us? And now Chairman
    Pai has refused repeatedly to respond to my questions about
    allegations about his relationship with Sinclair. This kind of
    evasiveness with Congress does not help put anyone's concerns
    to rest.
        These moves are just another example of how this FCC values
    large companies over small ones and always puts companies
    before consumers. The most glaring example of this, of course,
    is Chairman Pai's commitment to eviscerate net neutrality
    protections by the end of the year.
        Net neutrality protects consumers, protects small
    businesses, and protects free speech. I hope that the FCC is
    spending this time reviewing the millions of comments that have
    been filed, including comments from the Democratic members of
    this Committee. I also hope the FCC considers the thousands of
    consumer complaints that have been made public since the
    comment period closed. These complaints demonstrate that
    consumers' problems with broadband providers is much farther
    reaching than the FCC's Proposed Rulemaking let on.
        Together, these items have the potential to drastically
    remake the way Americans communicate. And in taking on these
    issues, the FCC must find a way to insulate itself from the
    political pressures from the President. Chairman Pai has
    claimed that he has restored independence to the FCC. Yet he
    refuses-repeatedly-to put any distance between himself and
    President Trump, whether it is net neutrality, Sinclair, or
    even protecting a free press. That evasiveness does not inspire
    confidence.
        The FCC has a long tradition of bipartisanship, but
    unfortunately that is simply not the case today. Hardworking
    American consumers and future Congresses are sure to take a dim
    view of the current partisan politics at the FCC. It's time to
    restore that bipartisan tradition.
        I thank the Chairman and Commissioners for appearing before
    us today. And with that, I yield back.

        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the ranking member for
    yielding.
        I have noticed a troubling trend in the FCC's recent
    actions. The very core of the FCC's mission is in the public
    interest. In fact, the words ``public interest'' appear over
    100 times in the Communications Act. But by taking steps to
    limit access to information and content, the Commission has
    gone against what I think is the public's interest. This is
    evidenced by the Commission's current efforts to dismantle net
    neutrality protections. It is further evidenced by the steps
    the Commission has taken to undercut localism from reinstating
    UHF discount to eliminate the main studio rule. These and other
    actions signaling favorable treatment for Sinclair.
        And then there was the chairman's initial silence regarding
    the President's threat to revoke broadcast licenses on the
    basis of viewpoints, followed by the chairman reluctantly
    making a statement, but one that was too late and insufficient.
    I am disappointed in these actions and the effect that they
    will have on the information my constituents and Americans
    across the country have access to.
        With that, I yield to Ms. Matsui.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. Thank you for yielding.
        In order to expand broadband deployment across this
    country, it is critically important that we accelerate our work
    to free up spectrum for commercial use. Additional spectrum is
    necessary both to expand wireless coverage across rural America
    and build capacity across all of America. We must also focus on
    locking more spectrum frequencies that will allow new and
    innovative technologies to grow. This means everything from
    precision agriculture, public safety communications, telehealth
    services, the Internet of Things, and connected devices. All of
    this to rely on access to spectrum's invisible infrastructure
    of the 21st century.
        Access to the spectrum would depend on the FCC conducting
    auctions that will allow additional low-, mid-, and high-band
    spectrum to be delivered to commercial users. That is why
    Congressman Guthrie and I introduced the Spectrum Auction
    Deposits Act yesterday. Without this fix, future auctions may
    be put on hold indefinitely. And I look forward to working with
    Chairman Pai, the committee, and Congressman Guthrie to work
    together to enact this into law.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        And I see no other members requesting time, so this
    concludes our opening statements.
        I would like to remind members that, pursuant to the
    committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made a
    part of the record.
        We want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be
    here today and for preparing for the hearing, submitting your
    testimony. We do appreciate this. Today's witnesses will have
    the opportunity to give opening statements, followed by the
    questions that are going to come from our members.
        Our witness panel for today's hearing: The Honorable
    Brendan Carr, Commissioner Clyburn, Chairman Pai, Commissioner
    O'Rielly, Commissioner Rosenworcel. We appreciate that you all
    are here for this.
        And as the tradition of this subcommittee, we will go in
    the order of seniority. So, Chairman Pai, you will be first,
    followed by Commissioner Clyburn, and then Mr. O'Rielly, Mr.
    Carr, and Ms. Rosenworcel.
        So, Chairman Pai, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

       STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
           COMMISSION; MIGNON CLYBURN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
      COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER,
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER,
      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND JESSICA ROSENWORCEL,
            COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI

        Mr. Pai. Thank you. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
    Doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this
    hearing today. I appreciate this opportunity to update you on
    the FCC's work to advance the public interest.
        That work has been substantial. In my written statement, I
    outlined progress in four key areas: Promoting public safety,
    bridging the digital divide, modernizing our regulations, and
    combatting unwanted robocalls. Additionally, I commended the
    subcommittee for its work on reauthorizing the FCC.
        Of particular importance is the provision just mentioned by
    Congresswoman Matsui that would allow the deposits placed by
    bidders in spectrum auctions to be sent to the Treasury.
    Without this measure, the FCC won't be able to launch a large
    spectrum auction for the foreseeable future.
        But this morning, I would like to address an area of
    concern for all members and for me: The First Amendment. I have
    said again and again and again that the First Amendment must be
    at the heart of our work. That is why I oppose the prior FCC's
    critical information needs study, an ill-conceived initiative
    which would have involved sending government funded agents into
    newsrooms to second-guess editorial judgment. And that is why
    just last month I spoke at the Newseum about the importance of
    the First Amendment.
        My record on these issues is clear. And these issues are
    not new. President Kennedy targeted The Washington Post and NBC
    directly telling one of my predecessors that a particular story
    was outrageous and to, quote, ``do something about it.'' More
    recently, some have said that the FCC should reject a
    transaction involving the transfer of FCC broadcast licenses
    because of editorial judgments. And six members of this very
    committee, including the current ranking members of the
    committee and subcommittee, once demanded that the FCC
    investigate a broadcaster based solely on the content of a
    documentary that they didn't like and that hadn't even aired.
        Let me be clear. I stand on the side of the First
    Amendment. I firmly believe that journalists should heed to
    their viewers, their listeners, and their readers, not the
    dictates of officials in Washington, D.C. But don't just trust
    my words. For if you believe, as I do, that the Federal
    Government has no business intervening in the news, then we
    must stop the Federal Government from intervening in the news
    business. And that is why this afternoon I shared with my
    fellow commissioners an order that will reform our media
    ownership rules and help pull the government, once and for all,
    out of the newsroom. We will vote on this order at our November
    16 meeting.
        The marketplace today is nothing like it was in 1975.
    Newspapers are shutting down. Many a radio and TV stations are
    struggling, especially in smaller and rural markets. Online
    competition for the collection and distribution of news is even
    greater than it ever was. And just two internet companies claim
    100 percent of recent online advertising growth. Indeed, their
    digital ad revenue alone this year will be greater than the
    market cap of the entire broadcasting industry. And yet the
    FCC's rules still presume that the market is defined entirely
    by pulp and rabbit ears. As one newspaper has put it, making
    the argument that the current rules are outdated is easy. That
    radical right wing rag was The New York Times in 2003.
        Now, if this order is adopted, the FCC will belatedly
    recognize reality and match our rules to the modern
    marketplace. First, the order will, once and for all, eliminate
    the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership rule. As President
    Clinton's first FCC chairman has explained, under current
    conditions in the media business, the FCC's rule is perverse.
    And the Third Circuit has said that it remains at, quote,
    significant expense to pro-competitive arrangements.
        Second, the item will eliminate the radio-television cross-
    ownership rule, which is unnecessary into today's marketplace
    given the Commission's separate local radio and local
    television ownership rules.
        Third, it will revise the local television ownership rule
    to eliminate the eight-voices test and incorporate a case-by-
    case review of the top-four prohibition. This better reflects
    the competitive conditions in local markets.
        Fourth, it will eliminate the attribution rule for
    television joint sales agreements, finding that JSAs serve the
    public interest by allowing broadcasters to better serve their
    local markets.
        Fifth, it will retain the disclosure requirement for shared
    services agreements involving commercial television stations.
        And, sixth, it will finally, finally, establish an
    incubator program to encourage greater diversity in and new
    entry into the media business and seek comment on what the
    details of that program should be. And unlike under the prior
    administration, I have ordered that the text of this decision
    be made publicly available tomorrow, 3 weeks before we vote on
    it. That too is news that is fit to print.
        Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the
    committee, thank you once again for holding this hearing, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the chairman.
        Commissioner Clyburn, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MIGNON CLYBURN

        Ms. Clyburn. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
    members of the subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you for
    the opportunity to once again appear before you today.
        We are 9 months into a new administration, making it
    appropriate, I believe, to reflect on the tremendous change
    that has taken place when it comes to our outlook on consumers,
    competition, and viewpoint diversity. Beyond the Washington
    acronyms, inside of the beltway jargon and flashy press
    headlines, are a series of actions, I fear, that are
    jeopardizing the FCC's role as the referee on the field
    protecting consumers and small business interests.
        Now, I ask you not to take my word about this. In my hand
    are 80 mostly handwritten letters I have received in the recent
    months. They express concern ranging from open internet and
    proposed mergers to inmate calling and a lack of affordable
    broadband in their communities. Amid the many policy changes,
    what may have gone unnoticed are the enforcement actions that
    we have failed to take against the Nation's largest regulatees,
    where they have violated the public trust and the Commission's
    rules.
        In March, for example, millions of consumers were unable to
    call 911 for 5 hours. Similar outages in the past few years
    resulted in the Commission collectively fining companies more
    than $30 million. These past fines were a recognition that we
    depend on 911 being available during times of greatest need.
    How did the current FCC handle this year's outage, one of the
    largest fines ever? No penalty and no report that addressed the
    question of whether the Commission's rules were violated.
        Now, I am all for taking enforcement action whenever the
    public's trust has been violated. But what is clear is that the
    majority's focus is on targeting individuals and small
    businesses, where we are least likely to collect any fines.
        Turning to policy. It is a source of great disappointment
    that as we approach the holiday season, 2.7 million children
    continue to wait for this agency to make good on its word to
    bring about real reform when it comes to the inmate calling
    regime. In April, the FCC majority welcomed Industry
    Consolidation Month by reinstating the technologically obsolete
    UHF discount. The result: Opening the door for a single
    broadcast station group to reach more than 70 percent of the
    television households. In that same month, we paved the way for
    huge rate hikes on business data services, formerly known as
    special access, that will not only negatively impact small
    businesses but rural hospitals, schools, libraries, and police
    departments as well. Instead of looking out for millions of
    little guys, the Commission's majority once again chose to
    align with an interest of a handful of multibillion dollar
    providers.
        In August, we began an inquiry that may actually put us on
    a path of lowering the bar for what we now consider to be high-
    speed broadband. As I travel across this country, the refrain I
    hear is that service is too expensive and speeds are too low.
    We should be aiming to lead the world in having the fastest,
    most robust broadband, not heading in the opposite direction by
    green-lighting broadband service at excruciatingly slow snail-
    like speeds.
        Now, last month, we took another worrisome turn with the
    adoption of our latest mobile competition report. Ask those
    that I have met in rural America who are struggling with 2G and
    3G service. What they want is reliable wireless connectivity.
    What they have is lackluster noncompetitive service, simply
    put.
        Our reports' findings do not match the experiences on the
    ground and in the communities across this great Nation. And if
    I am to believe the reports that I am hearing and reading, in
    just a matter of days, as you have heard, the chairman will
    circulate a series of items that include rolling back the best
    elements of our media ownership rules. If true, the already
    consolidated broadcast media market will become even more so,
    offering little to no discernible benefits for consumers.
        Our actions, most often the ones that fail to make the
    headlines, have real everyday consequences. And while I keep
    and will keep doing everything in my power to make sure that we
    do not dial back any further when it comes to consumer
    protections, just, reasonable, and fair phone rates for all of
    our citizens, media ownership opportunities, and digital
    inclusion, I remain fearful, in part, because the rhetoric is
    not in line with the actions. I have submitted a longer
    statement for the record.
        But once again, allow me to thank the subcommittee for
    providing me the opportunity to testify today. I look forward,
    I believe, to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Clyburn follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Mrs. Blackburn. Commissioner Clyburn, you always look
    forward to the questions, and we are delighted you are here.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY

        Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to be before the
    subcommittee once again as it conducts further oversight of the
    Federal Communications Commission.
        Before I discuss certain policy and other matters, I would
    like to address the recent tweets by the President of the
    United States raising matters within the purview of this FCC.
    Let me be clear, I do not speak for the President, and I have
    never met him. However, I think it is fair to say that the new
    President and his administration have received what can be most
    kindly called unbalanced coverage from various media sources.
    But you don't have to take my word for it or corresponding
    studies showing the same. Former President Carter stated over
    the weekend: I think the media have been harder on Trump than
    any other President, certainly that I have known about.
        With that said, I do not believe that the Commission's
    licensing decisions should be influenced or decided by
    politics. Similarly, like my objections to the cozy
    relationship between the past administration and the
    Commission, I continue to support the FCC as an independent
    agency. Moreover, I strongly believe in the Constitution of the
    United States, which includes the First Amendment, and have
    sworn to support and defend it as part of my oath of office.
    But this is somewhat immaterial, because the beauty of the
    Constitution is that it is the highest law of the land, and the
    rights that it affirms and provides supersede my belief or any
    action by the Commission. It serves to protect us all, even the
    unwitting bystander or active hostile.
        Turning to substantive matters. A top priority of mine is
    to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is being put to the
    most efficient use possible. My overall goal of this work is to
    position the United States and our wireless carriers for
    overall success in the coming years. We know that
    internationally several nations seek to corner the market on
    next generation wireless technologies, commonly known as 5G, to
    reap the economic benefits and dictate the world's wireless
    future. I intend to ensure that the United States' ingenuity
    and technological development are not unfairly hampered by
    others' quest for this premier position.
        Moreover, as the insatiable demands of consumers for more
    mobility and broadband offerings continue, the Commission has
    the arduous task of reclaiming, reallocating, clearing, and, in
    some cases, facilitating spectrum sharing. A prime location for
    such efforts is the mid-bands, including a 3.5, 3.7 to 4.2, and
    3.1 to 3.5 GHz bands. In terms of unlicensed spectrum, the time
    has come to determine whether the DSRC remains the best use of
    the 5.9 GHz band. If it no longer makes any sense, the
    Commission could combine the 5.9 GHz with the rest of the 5 GHz
    band and potentially the 6 GHz band to expand current
    unlicensed operations and promote continued growth.
        Once spectrum is made available, additional auctions will
    be needed to assign licenses. But as Chairman Pai testified,
    the Commission faces difficulty in securing a financial
    institution to meet the statutory requirements to hold our
    upfront auction payments. Without a willing partner or a change
    in law, the Commission believes that it is unable to announce a
    schedule for future spectrum auctions, much less hold an
    auction itself.
        While the subcommittee has included a technical fix within
    its larger reauthorization bill, it is possible that this
    larger legislation may take additional time. Accordingly, I
    want to thank Representatives Guthrie and Matsui for
    introducing the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act of 2017, a stand-
    alone bill for this purpose, and express my support for moving
    this rifle shot approach as soon as possible.
        In terms of process reform, I believe that the Commission
    is more open and transparent now than it has been since I
    started following its activities. However, I continue to
    believe that additional changes to the Commission's procedures,
    both formal and informal, are necessary and prudent. On that
    note, the Commission's perpetual struggle over the excessive
    use of delegated authority continues. To rectify this, I have
    put forth what I consider to be a balanced plan to accommodate
    the competing interests of permitting commissioners to vote and
    resolving matters expeditiously. I would be pleased to work
    with the subcommittee on this and any other process reform
    ideas.
        I thank the members of the subcommittee for holding this
    hearing, and I look forward to answering any questions you may
    have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. And so far, he
    is winning the prize for most time yielded back.
        Mr. Carr, you are recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR

        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to appear before
    you today. This is a particular honor for me because this is my
    first opportunity to testify since I was sworn in as a
    commissioner in August. For the 8 months before that, I served
    as the general counsel of the FCC, after joining the agency
    originally as a staffer back in 2012.
        In my 5 years at the Commission, I have enjoyed working
    with you and your staffs on policies that promote the public
    interest. I want to commend you in particular for your efforts
    to enact bipartisan legislation, such as Kari's Law, the
    Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act and, most
    recently, the markup of an FCC reauthorization bill.
        Having served in various roles in both the majority and the
    minority at the FCC, these experiences have instilled in me an
    appreciation for the importance of bipartisan consensus and
    working toward common ground. I commit to carrying that forward
    in my time on the Commission.
        In my testimony, I want to focus on the ways the FCC can
    continue to incentivize broadband deployment. This is
    particularly important as we make the transition to 5G, a shift
    that will require a massive investment in both wired and
    wireless infrastructure. But if we get the right policies in
    place, this transition could mean $275 billion in network
    investment, 3 million new jobs, and half a trillion added to
    the GDP.
        As I see it, there are at least three keys to getting
    there: Spectrum, infrastructure, and ensuring we have the
    skilled workforce in place to deploy these NexGen networks.
    First, we need to get more spectrum into the market. I am
    pleased the FCC is pressing forward on this front. We have a
    proceeding underway that is looking at broad swaths of spectrum
    between 3 and 24 GHz. And the chairman has announced that we
    will vote later this year on opening up additional bands above
    24 GHz. These are really great steps towards maintaining the
    United States' leadership in the global race to 5G.
        Second, we must modernize the Federal, State, and local
    regimes that currently govern broadband infrastructure
    deployment. 5G is going to require a 10- to 100-fold increase
    in the number of cell sites in this country. The current regime
    is simply not tailored to support this type of massive new
    deployment. It costs too much, it takes too long. So we need to
    find ways to drive the unnecessary regulatory costs out of the
    system, and we need to speed the timeline for obtaining
    regulatory approvals. Doing so will be particularly important
    for rural America.
        One recent study shows that regulatory reform can shift the
    business case for entire communities. Streamlining alone could
    make it economical for providers to deploy 5G to nearly 15
    million more homes than under the existing and more burdensome
    regime. The lion's share of those would be in less densely
    populated parts of the country.
        Third, we need the skilled workforce necessary to get this
    transition across the finish line. Last month, I participated
    in a roundtable hosted by the Wireless Infrastructure
    Association outside of Baltimore. A broad range of stakeholders
    from wireless companies to independent infrastructure providers
    all talked about the shortage of skilled workers that can
    deploy the small cells, distributed antenna systems and other
    infrastructure necessary for 5G.
        Now, while there is no direct regulatory role for the FCC
    here, I think we need to focus additional attention on this
    issue and potential solutions, including the role that
    apprenticeship and other job training programs can play. And to
    that end, I will be participating at an event next month at the
    Department of Labor on workforce development.
        One last point. While technology continues to evolve, one
    constant is the FCC's obligation to promote public safety. This
    has been highlighted in a most devastating of ways over the
    past 2 months with the hurricanes that have overwhelmed
    communities across the country and now currently with the
    wildfires that we see. The FCC has been working hard since well
    before the first hurricane made landfall. And Chairman Pai has
    kept the agency focused on the immediate task of supporting
    restoration efforts, including by forming a hurricane recovery
    task force that is coordinating the agency's work. Right now,
    the FCC is focused on the emergency situations in Puerto Rico
    and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while continuing to assess
    restoration efforts across the country. I will see some of
    those firsthand on Friday when I visit Houston to hold a
    roundtable with broadcasters, meet broadband providers, and
    visit a 911 call center. I will be taking stock of the progress
    that has been made and the ways the FCC can continue to support
    those efforts.
        So, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of
    the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
    testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Commissioner Carr. You did well
    in your first appearance.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
    and the other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today. This is my first appearance
    before you since returning to the FCC. I had a little vacation
    courtesy of your friends in the United States Senate.
        Of course, a little distance provides some perspective. And
    in my time off, one thing became abundantly clear: The future
    belongs to the connected. No matter who you are or where you
    live in this country, you need access to modern communications
    to have a fair shot at 21st century success. But the fact of
    the matter is that, today, too many Americans lack access to
    broadband. Let's put a number on it. Right now, 34 million
    Americans lack access to high speed-service. That number
    includes 23 million Americans living in rural areas. That is
    just not acceptable. We need to do better.
        But, of course, statistics alone don't tell the whole
    story. To get a picture of just what it means to be consigned
    to the wrong side of the digital divide, consider kids and
    homework. Today, 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires
    internet access. But data from the FCC show that as many as one
    in three households do not subscribe to broadband. Where those
    numbers overlap is what I call the homework gap. And according
    to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, the homework gap is
    real, and it affects 12 million children all across the
    country.
        I have heard from students in Texas who do their homework
    at fast-food restaurants with fries just to get a free WiFi
    signal. And I have heard from students in Pennsylvania who make
    elaborate plans every day to get to the homes of friends and
    relatives just to be able to get online. I have also heard from
    high school football players in rural New Mexico who linger in
    the school parking lot late at night in the pitch-black dark
    because it is the only place that they can get a reliable
    connection. These kids have grit, but it shouldn't be that
    hard, because, today, no child can be left offline.
        Developing digital skills is essential for education and
    for full participation in the modern economy. So I hope that
    adds a human dimension to what it means to not have access to
    broadband.
        Now, let me tell you what we can do about it. If we want to
    get serious about addressing our broadband problems, we need to
    know exactly where those problems are most pronounced. We need
    better mapping. Nearly 9 years ago, in the American Recovery
    and Reinvestment Act, Congress had a good idea. It created a
    national broadband map identifying where deployment has and has
    not occurred. But if you check that map online now, you will
    last see that it was updated 3 years ago. And I don't have to
    tell you, in the internet age, 3 years is an eternity.
        You cannot manage what you do not measure, so I think it is
    time for a national broadband map that offers an honest picture
    of both wired and wireless broadband across the country. And,
    of course, we can build this map with all sorts of datasets
    here in Washington. But I think it would be great if we had a
    clearer picture on the ground. I am a big believer in the
    wisdom of crowds, so I think we should put it to the public. If
    any of your constituents have not been able to get service or
    live in an area that lacks it, help us make that map and write
    us at broadbandfail@fcc.gov.
        I set up this account to take in the public stories and
    ideas, and I will share everything that comes in with the
    chairman and my colleagues, because I think it is time to make
    every one of those broadband fails into something better:
    broadband success.
        Finally, I want to point out that, with broadband, speed
    matters. The FCC has a statutory duty to annually assess the
    state of broadband deployment. Today, our national standard is
    25 megabits. But the agency has sought comment on scaling this
    back to 10 megabits. That is crazy. We won't solve our
    broadband problems by lowering our standards. We need to
    correct this course immediately and start setting bigger goals
    if we want to do bigger things.
        Let me close by thanking you for having me at this hearing
    today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. We thank everyone for the testimony. And
    this concludes our testimony portion, and we are going into the
    Q&A portion. And I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Chairman Pai, I am going to come to you first. I want to
    stay with that freedom of speech theme. During the last
    administration, the Commission had proposed a multimarket study
    of critical information needs, and you had made the comment
    that you thought it thrust the Federal Government into the
    newsrooms across the country. And Chairman Upton, Chairman
    Walden, and many members on this subcommittee, including
    myself, sent Chairman Wheeler a letter calling the study what
    we thought would be unconstitutional, and urging him to put a
    stop to the attempt to engage the FCC as the news police.
    Fortunately, Chairman Wheeler did heed our call.
        And I want to know if he put a stop to it, but can you tell
    us more about that project? How close was it to actually
    happening? How much money got spent on that project?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Chairman Blackburn,
    and thank you for your advocacy several years ago. The critical
    information needs study was a study that was conceived in the
    prior FCC. It spent approximately $900,000, as best I can
    discern it. And the project involved sending government-funded
    researchers into newsrooms to ask questions about why they were
    or were not covering eight different categories of news that
    the government thought were important, asking questions to news
    directors and the like about perceived bias, and asking a whole
    host of other intrusive questions.
        It seemed to me that this was not compatible with the
    agency's obligations under the First Amendment. And so I wrote
    up an op-ed about it. And I am grateful that Chairman Wheeler
    ultimately scrapped that study, but not before, as I said, a
    great deal of money had been expended and a rubicon of some
    sort had been crossed.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now, when Chairman Wheeler pulled the
    plug on it, the FCC said that some of the questions may not
    have been appropriate and that the Commission would be
    modifying the draft study. So what is the current status on
    this?
        Mr. Pai. That study will not proceed and--period.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. I just want to ask, for each of you on
    the Commission, is there anybody on this current Commission
    that would support such a study?
        Ms. Clyburn. Well, Madam Chairman, one of the things that I
    take issue with is how that was couched. I was a part of that
    study, which started out being a study of studies, looking at
    what the Commission gathered in terms of information about the
    entire media ecosystem. And as a result of us not having
    information, we have been kicked back several times to the
    court about not having justification, not having information,
    not having data. When it comes to certain policies, the court
    has spoken. We don't have the information needed. We are making
    decisions by putting a finger up in the wind and seeing where
    the political winds are flowing and going in terms of
    information, in terms of our decision-making.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Ms. Clyburn. And that is why we have a UHF discount that
    has no justification. And that is because we have no
    information that we are gathering. We are just making decisions
    based on political----
        Mrs. Blackburn. So you would support the FCC being in the
    newsroom?
        Ms. Clyburn. I will support the FCC not being in the
    newsroom, because I am a First Amendment prophet. I had a
    newspaper for 14 years, and dare not anybody come into my
    newsroom and tell me what to print. That is not what I am
    saying.
        Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Let me ask you all this. In
    2009, Anita Dunn, the White House communications director said
    of Fox News: We are going to treat them the way we would treat
    an opponent. We don't need to pretend that this is the way that
    legitimate news organizations behave. This overall attitude
    culminated in the exclusion of Fox News From access in numerous
    large and small ways.
        As deputy press secretary Josh Earnest wrote in an email to
    a Treasury official, and I am quoting: We are demonstrating our
    willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant
    interviews.
        Did any of this raise First Amendment concerns with any of
    you?
        Yes or no. Commissioner Carr, start with you, and go right
    down the line.
        Mr. Carr. I think it underscores the need for the
    Commission to just stay focused on every action that the agency
    takes being consistent with----
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. We are going to learn to do yes and no.
        OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. I am trying to grasp what are you saying. All
    I know is I am very consistent on First Amendment principles.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. So exclusion from asking questions or
    being included, would that bother you?
        Ms. Clyburn. Exclusion----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Excluding a news outlet, would that bother
    you?
        Ms. Clyburn. Excluding a news outlet from--that is not how
    I conduct myself.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. All right.
        Chairman Pai?
        Mr. Pai. I agree with Commissioner Carr.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Chairman Blackburn. Yes. OK. Follows instructions well.
        All right. Chairman Rosenworcel?
        Mr. Rosenworcel. Tension between administration----
        Chairman Blackburn. Yes or no. You have got to learn to do
    it.
        Mr. Rosenworcel. Tension between administrations are as old
    as the republic.
        Mrs. Blackburn. All right.
        Mr. Rosenworcel. Nothing strikes me about what you have
    just described as being particularly new or unique.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. That is unfortunate.
        All right. Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, in the spirit of Chairman Dingell, I
    have a number of questions that I want to ask you with--just
    requiring yes or no answers. And I would appreciate you doing
    that as rapidly as possible.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. You got it. You used to work on this
    committee.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. And you helped draft legislation that prevented
    one entity from owning broadcast stations that reach more than
    39 percent of the national population, correct?
        It is a yes or no.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you.
        In response to a question for the record from me, did you
    state that you believe only Congress can change the cap via the
    passage of legislation?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. At that time that you worked on this
    legislation, did you understand that a UHF station signal, the
    ones above channel 13, could not travel as far as VHF signals?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Were you aware at that time that the FCC did not
    count the entire reach of UHF stations against the 39 percent
    national ownership cap?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. And in a twist of fate, since the DTV in 2009,
    digital UHF stations can now reach a larger audience than VHF
    stations, right?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. The UHF discount now allows a single entity to
    own stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national
    population, correct?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Even though there is no technical reason for
    this discount anymore, right?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. So the UHF discount just allows companies to
    reach close to 80 percent of the national audience, right?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Do you believe the Congress intended to create a
    loophole in the law?
        Mr. O'Rielly. That is a no.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Did you state in a response to me that, even though you
    think only Congress can change the national cap, this entire
    issue may need to be litigated through the judicial process to
    determine which position is accurate?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Did you also say that you suspect your position
    will ultimately prevail at the end of the day?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, always.
        Mr. Doyle. Does that mean you believe the court will find
    that only Congress can adjust the 39 percent national cap?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Both parts, yes, national cap and the UHF
    discount.
        Mr. Doyle. But did you also state that you will support
    whatever action is necessary to see that the issue gets its day
    in court?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Doyle. So are you saying that you are willing to vote
    to raise the cap, even though you think Congress prohibited the
    FCC from taking that action?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I am saying that I need to see what the item
    is. I don't want to----
        Mr. Doyle. It is a yes or no question.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, yes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        If the 39 percent cap is statutory, as you and I both
    believe, will you oppose any attempts by companies to
    contravene congressional intent?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I believe that they comply with the law.
        Mr. Doyle. Specifically, if the Sinclair-Tribune merger
    resulted in a combined entity reaching more than 39 percent of
    the national audience, that would contravene congressional
    intent, correct?
        Mr. O'Rielly. No.
        Mr. Doyle. Why not?
        OK. Thank you. I will let you get by on that one.
        So if that is the case, though, if it did contravene the 39
    percent, would you oppose the merger?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I don't talk about any pending merger before
    the Commission.
        Mr. Doyle. If the Sinclair merger goes through and the
    courts determine that you were right, that Congress prohibited
    companies from exceeding the cap, should the FCC undo the
    merger?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I don't talk about any pending mergers before
    the Commission.
        Mr. Doyle. Well, let me just say, I think this is a
    dangerous path, because your response to my questions for the
    record and some of your answers here today suggest that you may
    take steps to evade the law by approving a merger, even though
    you and the majority of the Commission agree that it would
    violate congressional intent. And I hope that you will
    reconsider that.
        Let me ask Commissioner Rosenworcel if she has anything she
    wants to add to the line of questioning that I have had
    regarding that merger.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you. I believe that 39 percent is
    the figure that Congress chose to put in the law and that this
    Commission needs to abide by it.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record five documents. One is the chairman's 2014 Wall
    Street Journal op-ed, his response; a letter also that he sent
    regarding a letter that a number of members sent regarding the
    President's threats against the media; a letter from Consumers
    Union; and the statement for the record that Commissioner
    O'Rielly had sent back to me.
        Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. I see my time is just about
    expired, so I will yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, it has.
        And, now, Chairman Walden, you are recognized.
        Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Yes or no, Commissioner O'Rielly, do you wish
    communications issues were as simple as yes or no?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you.
        Now, moving on. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I am glad you
    raised the ARRA issue. I was on the committee at the time when
    the stimulus bill came through. And I fought like the dickens
    to get the maps done before the money went out the door, and I
    failed in that effort. And so the money went out the door, then
    they drew the maps.
        What I am trying to figure out is why are the maps 3 years
    old? Does the FCC not have a responsibility to keep those up to
    date?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. I agree with
    you. I think we should be keeping them up to date. I think the
    fact that we spend billions of dollars on Universal Service
    Fund every single year without having a full sense of where
    service is and is not is a problem.
        Mr. Walden. I fully agree.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. And it is my understanding that the funds
    that were used to support that map at the Department of
    Commerce ceased to be available when the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act came to an end, and I think that the FCC has
    been collecting data through its own 477 process. But it is
    not----
        Mr. Walden. And how valuable is that 477?
        Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. Compatible with the data from
    the Department of Commerce.
        Wherever you are sitting on this issue, it just seems to me
    that with better data we are going to make better decisions----
        Mr. Walden. Thank you.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. And that is the point I----
        Mr. Walden. I actually agree with that and hope you all can
    figure out what the best reporting improvement mechanism is to
    get to those data points, because we shouldn't be overbuilding
    or wasting the ratepayers' money.
        Mr. Chairman, did you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Pai. I would be happy to. That is precisely why,
    several months ago, I asked the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees for a reprogramming of funds to enable us to
    discharge that important function. And I am glad to report that
    each committee agreed with that recommendation and that task is
    now underway and certainly welcome Commissioner Rosenworcel's
    support for it.
        Mr. Walden. Ms. Rosenworcel.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I just want to point out that that sounds
    terrific, but it is my understanding that that is only for
    wired broadband. And I think an adequate map at this point has
    to include both wired and wireless.
        Mr. Pai. Certainly, if the committees give us additional
    reprogramming funds, we would love to pursue it. We cannot act
    in the absence of congressional authorization from our
    appropriators, as this committee well knows.
        Mr. Walden. Very good. Maybe we can get everybody on the
    same page on this one. We stand ready to work with you on it.
        Chairman Pai, we have spent a lot of time together over the
    years before this committee, and one of my concerns has been
    that the FCC did not always operate in an open and transparent
    way. I argued for making some of the proposed orders public and
    have it actually circulated so Commissioners could read it, the
    public could read it.
        Have you done anything to improve that process down there?
        Mr. Pai. I believe I have, Chairman Walden. I announced a
    pilot project in the second week I was in office that, for some
    of the upcoming meetings, we would be publishing at least 3
    weeks in advance the actual text on the internet of these
    orders----
        Mr. Walden. Had that been done before?
        Mr. Pai. It had never been done, and I had been told not
    only was it potentially unlawful for it to be done, but it was
    also unwise for it to be done. And I think the success of the
    pilot program has disproved each one of those claims of fear.
        And, just yesterday, I announced that--or 2 days ago,
    rather, that this would be a permanent project, that we would
    be doing this on a permanent basis for every meeting that the
    FCC will hold into the future so long as I have the privilege
    of leading the agency.
        Mr. Walden. There was an issue about delegated authority
    and Commissioners wanting to be able to take it off delegated
    authority. Have you made any changes on that one?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely. One of the things that Commissioner
    O'Rielly and I noticed in the minority is that if one of us or
    both of us requested that an item that was reportedly going to
    be done on delegated authority--if we requested that item be
    considered by the full commission, my predecessor would
    typically ignore that. And so I said, if there are two
    Commissioners who want to handle something on the full
    commission level, we will do that. And that is what we have
    done.
        Mr. Walden. Good.
        Main studio rule----
        Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Walden. I think I am the only one on the panel that
    actually had to comply with that, as an FCC licensee for more
    than two decades.
        Obviously, you believed it outlived its purpose. I believed
    it outlived its purpose. It made no sense. We very seldom, if
    ever, had anybody come into the main studio for the purpose of
    looking at the public file. That is now online, I believe,
    right?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely right.
        Mr. Walden. And so I am trying to get to this issue of why
    some people think it was like the holy grail of local
    communication. Because I don't see it that way; I didn't see it
    that way. We acquired three other stations in another market.
    It would have been nice to be able to consolidate in overhead
    and put the money, like we did, into more news gathering and
    into the proramming and all of that. People still knew where we
    lived, and we knew where we lived. And so I commend you for
    getting rid of that rule.
        I think there are a whole bunch of other antiquated rules
    that are legacy, that make no sense in today's internet
    communication world, that other providers and competitors in
    the market have no obligation to comply with. I don't see
    Twitter with their local community rule in any community they
    serve or any of these others. I realize they are not licensed.
    But, obviously, there is a lot of debate going on now about how
    all these communication mechanisms work in today's environment.
        My time is gone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Commissioners, for all the good work you do. We
    look forward to having you back up here on a regular basis.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chair for the hearing.
        And I thank you, Commissioners, for your work. It is not an
    easy job. And it is interesting to see the different viewpoints
    that you all have.
        Mr. Chairman, I recently had a chance to visit The Huddle,
    which is a coworker space in my district where startups go
    together to bring innovative ideas and working hard to get
    their businesses off the ground. But they are very worried
    about the impact that doing away with net-neutrality
    protections will do to their businesses.
        If net-neutrality protections are weakened, as you propose,
    can you commit to me that small businesses and jobs will not be
    hurt in my district? Please answer with a ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, I don't know that particular
    company, but, obviously, we support a free and open internet
    that allows small businesses like that to thrive.
        Mr. McNerney. Commissioner Clyburn, do you think that that
    will hurt small businesses?
        Ms. Clyburn. I think, if we shift gears, that they would
    not have the certainty that they need.
        And I think that what doesn't get enough attention is the
    impact on universal service. And we can talk about that later,
    but the Chairman is not speaking clearly about what the impact
    on universal service would be if we shift from Title II.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, there has been a series of
    reports on the Sinclair-Tribune merger. I am very concerned
    about the impact that this merger would have.
        The FCC has a critical role to play in the merger approval
    process. From your perspective, how do you think the Commission
    has handled the review of this merger and the related
    proceedings?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
        Frankly, I am concerned. I think any broadcaster reaching
    more than 70 percent of United States households would be
    unprecedented.
        I am also concerned that, if you look at the series of
    media policy decisions that has been made by this Commission,
    they all seem to serve Sinclair Broadcasting's business plans,
    from reinstating the UHF discount, to changing the 39-percent
    rule that was enacted by Congress, to possibly foisting on all
    of our households a new broadcast standard for which they own
    many, many patents.
        I think it has reached a point where all of our media
    policy decisions seem to be custom-built for this one company.
    And I think it is something that merits investigation.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That is a pretty strong statement.
        Mr. Pai, should the FCC be doing more to ensure local
    officials have local resources and know how to use the WEA, the
    Wireless Emergency Alerts?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. That is part of the
    reason why I supported the proposal last year to work
    cooperatively with local officials and stakeholders to see if
    we can strengthen that system.
        Mr. McNerney. So we can count on your support in terms of
    producing resources and education?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely. Our public safety bureau and I
    personally are committed to making sure that that system is as
    robust as it can be.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Pai, last September, the FCC adopted a further notice
    of proposed rulemaking that addresses increasing the accuracy
    of the WEA geotargeting. The final round of comments was due on
    January 9. When does the Commission plan to move on that?
        Mr. Pai. We don't have a particular timeframe, Congressman.
    I will note two things, however: First, the reason that we have
    that geotargeting proposal is because my office last year urged
    the full Commission to include it. And that is part of the
    reason why I was pleased to support it.
        The second thing is that we are still working very
    cooperatively with local officials, with stakeholders, and
    others to figure out the right way forward. So, while I can't
    give you a specific timeframe, I do want you to know that this
    is under active consideration, and we are going to do the best
    we can to make sure that the system, as I said, is robust.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, would you commit to giving the
    committee a quarterly report on the progress of that?
        Mr. Pai. I would be more than happy to do so.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Chairman Pai, during our last FCC oversight hearing, I
    asked you if you would commit to turning over to this committee
    any reports, requests, memoranda, and server logs related to
    the alleged May 7 DDOS attacks on the FCC's electronic systems.
        You said that you had hoped to consult with IT staff and
    attorneys to see if there were any applicable technical or
    legal prohibitions against you sharing information with this
    committee. You then committed to sharing the requested
    information with the committee to the extent that you could do
    so.
        So far, no one from your staff has followed up with my
    office regarding this matter, and we still have not received a
    single document in response to the request.
        Do you recall consulting with the IT staff about this
    issue?
        Mr. Pai. I do remember meeting about this issue after the
    hearing. If you don't mind, I will take a look at it. My
    understanding was that we had gotten in touch, perhaps not with
    your office but with the committee. But I will double-check to
    make sure, and we will get you the information that you need.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, I will follow up on that, then, and
    make sure we get that information.
        Mr. Pai. OK.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Lance, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
        Good afternoon to members of the Commission.
        And, regarding the First Amendment, let me say that I think
    you, Chairman Pai, and all members of the Commission, are
    devoted to the First Amendment, as, of course, we are in
    Congress. I am proud that New Jersey was the first State to
    ratify the Bill of Rights in 1791.
        You mentioned President Kennedy, Chairman Pai, in The
    Washington Post. Before you were born and, I would imagine,
    before any member of the Commission was born and when I was a
    little boy, John Kennedy canceled his subscription to the
    Herald Tribune, the great Republican newspaper in New York, and
    my late father, who was involved in public policy in New
    Jersey, sent him a subscription to the Herald Tribune. And we
    have in our family files a very sarcastic and curt letter back
    from Pierre Salinger saying we should stay out of the
    subscription business of the White House.
        And so, from my perspective, all presidents, on occasion,
    criticize various news agencies. I don't find it necessarily
    attractive. My reading of American history is that this is done
    by various presidents. And I have great confidence in you,
    Chairman Pai, and in members of the Commission in this regard.
        Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Lance. To Commissioner Carr and to Commissioner
    Rosenworcel, congratulations on your confirmation.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, you recently applauded the
    AIRWAVES Act, introduced by Senators Gardner and Hassan, for
    identifying more spectrum that can be made available for
    wireless broadband.
        How would the AIRWAVES Act arm the FCC with tools to keep
    pace with consumers' significant demand for bandwidth and for
    the race to 5G?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question and the
    delightful family story.
        Mr. Lance. I hope I haven't bored you.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. The best part of the AIRWAVES Act is
    something incredibly simple: It is full of deadlines. It
    chooses certain spectrum bands, and then it tells the agency
    that it has to auction them on a very clear calendar. I think
    that calendar is useful for all aspects of the wireless
    ecosystem, and I think it is vitally important.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Pai, last month, I believe without warning, Google
    blocked Amazon's new Echo Show devices from showing any YouTube
    videos. As of November 2016, YouTube was by far the leading
    internet video portal in this country, with 79 percent market
    share. Netflix was ranked second, with 8 percent. The same
    study found that users age 25 to 34 years spent an average of
    178 minutes each week watching online video. So access to
    YouTube is a deal-breaker for videos devices like the Echo
    Show.
        From your perspective, Chairman Pai, should the FCC be
    involved in any way in this matter?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, our internet regulations do not apply
    to edge providers or to conduct of the kind you are describing.
    So, as a matter of law, they simply don't, at this point.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you. And I think that this is a serious
    matter, and I don't know exactly the venue we should pursue.
        But is there any other member of the Commission who would
    like to comment on this?
        Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will yield back a minute and a
    half.
        Mrs. Blackburn. We are rolling. You might get the prize.
        Mr. Lance. I hope so.
        Please, everyone else, may I have the prize?
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Now we are into a competition. I have
    Goo Goos in the office. We will see who wins.
        Mr. Ruiz, you are recognized.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn. And, yes, I vote
    to give him the prize.
        This hearing is timely for a number of reasons, but, in
    particular, I would like to focus on the FCC's role in the
    ongoing recovery effort in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
        By way of background, I have training in humanitarian
    disaster relief from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. I am
    an emergency medicine physician. And I was on the ground in
    Haiti as the medical director for the largest internally
    displaced camp in all of Port-au-Prince after the earthquake in
    2010. So I have seen firsthand the challenges that arise in a
    humanitarian crisis and the importance of communication systems
    and coordination amongst agencies, local governments, and NGOs
    in the field.
        Two weeks ago, I flew down to Puerto Rico to see the
    conditions for myself and to do a needs assessment based on my
    training and experience. And I found two things that I would
    like for you to carry back and figure out how we can work
    together to improve. One is a lack of clarity of leadership as
    to which agency is really running the show and taking the
    leadership on the ground. And two is a lack of coordination
    amongst agencies, NGOs, the local governments, out in the
    field, not necessarily in San Juan.
        And so my first question is for Chairman Pai.
        Has the FCC been in the room during these conversations in
    leadership? What is your footprint in Puerto Rico, and what are
    your efforts in coordinating with the other agencies on the
    ground?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and thank
    you for your attention to this issue, including personal
    attention in the island itself.
        I have spent a lot of time over the last several weeks
    involved in Puerto Rico and the recovery efforts. I have
    regularly consulted with FEMA, with Puerto Rican officials,
    with wireless companies, with tower companies----
        Mr. Ruiz. ``Regularly'' means what? Are you invited to
    weekly, daily briefings?
        Mr. Pai. So we get daily briefings on some of the situation
    there----
        Mr. Ruiz. Do you have people on the ground full-time?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ruiz. Do they go to those meetings in San Juan?
        Mr. Pai. My understanding is that they do liaise with----
        Mr. Ruiz. Just follow up with that. Do they go down into
    the periphery and the municipalities as well?
        Mr. Pai. The FCC staff I have spoken with have described to
    me how difficult it was, in some cases----
        Mr. Ruiz. It is.
        Mr. Pai [continuing]. To go from place to place.
        Mr. Ruiz. Very difficult.
        Mr. Pai. Because, in some cases, the roads weren't even
    cleared----
        Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
        Mr. Pai [continuing]. So it was very difficult.
        Mr. Ruiz. So that is good to hear, that you personally are
    involved in getting calls for sure.
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
        Mr. Ruiz. And, in this case, we have some lessons learned
    that could save lives.
        I have also made some calls with telecommunication carriers
    that have run into a myriad of barriers, including--and please
    take notes here--one is a lack of security available to keep
    their engineers and equipment safe so they can make the repairs
    necessary to restore service; two, inconsistent coordination
    with power providers that could have freed up critical
    generators for use elsewhere on the island; and, three,
    failures in the backhaul infrastructure that have prevented
    towers from coming online even when they are powered and
    repaired; and, four, logistical delays that kept temporary
    satellite trucks, which were utilized, for example, in Texas
    and Florida to provide temporary wireless service, literally
    waiting on the boat for days.
        So, while a disaster of these proportions is hopefully a
    rare occurrence, Hurricane Katrina and Sandy have shown us that
    hope is not a luxury that we can rely on.
        Two weeks ago, I submitted a proposal to have the FCC
    create a list of best practices for telecommunications
    infrastructure and preparedness in hurricane and disaster-prone
    areas. I hope we can work together on this proposal to find a
    commonsense solution that fosters improved coordination and
    more efficient response efforts in the future.
        So, Chairman Pai and to the other Commissioners, will you
    work with me on this important issue?
        I will go down the line.
        Mr. Carr. Yes.
        Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely.
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
        Mr. Ruiz. Wonderful. I appreciate your willingness to work
    on this critical issue.
        Finally, Commissioner Rosenworcel. You have been outspoken
    on the need for FCC action in response to Hurricanes Harvey,
    Irma, and Maria. What more do you think the FCC can do to help
    with recovery efforts right now as well as better prepare for
    future disasters?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question and your work
    on this subject.
        I think we just need to take a playbook from what we did
    with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy. We held hearings.
    We held hearings and talked to people on the ground in
    locations that are different than Washington, D.C. We came up
    with ideas, we put them in reports, and then we changed our
    rules to make sure that we are better prepared the next time.
        While I appreciate that we have a task force, I am
    confident that all good ideas do not reside in our building on
    12th Street. And so I think we should be getting out, holding
    hearings, issuing reports, and then changing our rules to be
    better prepared in the future.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I appreciate you all being here. Opioids, NDAA conference,
    and then here, so I apologize for missing some of the opening
    statements. It has been a busy day.
        And I just caught the last end of the comments from you,
    Commissioner Rosenworcel. And Chairman Pai was out to my
    district, and I appreciate that, visiting on an issue that many
    of you know that I have been working on, 911, going back to
    when we officially made it the national cellular number, all
    the way until next generation. And the interesting thing about
    the trip was that it was multiple counties, rural counties,
    working together to move forward.
        And then we had a roundtable. And the roundtable, from my
    point, the people who talked about vesting in the program, they
    said the good and the bad. People who hadn't yet joined talked
    about why, but why they are thinking about it.
        So I know you have made--and this is to the Chairman.
        I know you have made a lot of trips to rural America. I
    would like to know what some of your takeaways are, other than
    just the next-generation 911, but other issues that have been
    raised in your travels.
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and for
    the hospitality you and your folks showed in Harrisburg.
        The key takeaway I have from the trips I have taken, over
    4,000 road-miles in small towns across the country, is that the
    digital divide is real and that it leaves human capital on the
    shelf, particularly in rural towns that don't have internet
    access. And that is why I am deeply committed to doing
    everything that I can and hopefully the FCC doing everything it
    can to bridge that divide.
        We have seen the payoff in places like Harrisburg, where,
    as you mentioned, 15 rural counties, predominantly lower-
    income, are able to band together and create a next-gen 911
    system that enables everybody to be safer than they were
    before.
        We have seen the potential in education, where rural
    communities that have high-speed internet access are able to
    give their kids distance-learning opportunities and better
    educational opportunities overall.
        We have seen the change in telemedicine. I personally
    visited a small town in southwestern Virginia that has been
    able to cut the sepsis rate by 34 percent by using advanced
    technologies like remote monitoring.
        And we have seen the power in precision agriculture. I have
    been in feed lots in Allen, Kansas, and farms in Maryland and
    other places that tell me that the notion of an analog tractor
    is long gone. Right now, technology is the key driver for
    agricultural growth.
        So, to me, it just reaffirms the mission of this agency, so
    long as, again, I have the privilege of leading it, that the
    digital divide has to be our top priority.
        Mr. Shimkus. So let me follow up on the Universal Service
    Fund issues that have been addressed. A lot of House Members
    have talked about how it is insufficient. Letters have gone
    back and forth. My colleague Congressman Cramer and, I know,
    Congressman Peterson from Minnesota has also taken an interest
    in this.
        What do you have in the forefront of your plans to address
    the funding issue on the Universal Service Fund?
        Mr. Pai. It is a difficult question, Congressman.
    Obviously, some of the bigger-picture initiatives that we have
    been able to get across the finish line, like the Mobility Fund
    Phase II and CAF Phase II, have been more successful in terms
    of getting off the ground.
        In terms of the budget issue for the rate of return for
    carriers you are talking about, unfortunately, we are in a
    pickle. Last year, the Commission made a decision--over my
    dissent, I would add--that I forecasted at the time would leave
    us with a shortfall. And here we are, and the shortfall is
    here.
        So one of the things that I have suggested to my staff is
    that we should think about getting a notice of proposed
    rulemaking out by the end of the year, to think about some of
    these budget issues, to be able to tee up before the end of the
    next budget cycle, which I understand ends at the end of June
    2018, to be able to address this issue in a timely way so that
    rate-of-return carriers and, more importantly, rural consumers
    have the certainty they need in order to participate in the
    digital age.
        Mr. Shimkus. And with my 54 seconds left, does anybody else
    want to--I don't want to leave out the other Commissioners.
        Commissioner Clyburn?
        Ms. Clyburn. What you are not hearing is a call for
    contribution reform. And that is the elephant in the room--no
    party pun intended----
        Mr. Shimkus. No, that is fine.
        Ms. Clyburn [continuing]. That nobody is talking about. And
    if we don't have a rational conversation about that, we are
    going to stay in a pickle.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes, I appreciate that.
        Commissioner O'Rielly?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Two parts. One is, I do believe there is an
    opportunity to use some of our reserves for rate of return to
    balance out both the legacy and the model side to provide--we
    are not going to provide all the money they are requesting, but
    I think there is some opportunity to increase the budget. They
    have nothing to do with the reforms that we adopted last year,
    which are mostly guardrails to prevent bad behavior.
        And then, two, in terms of contribution reforms, since I
    happen to be the chair of the Joint Board on Universal Service,
    we are trying to move forward on that, but there is a great
    difference of opinion on some of those things, so we have had
    to sideline that for the time being.
        Mr. Shimkus. Well, my time has expired. I think there is
    still a great difference of opinion among a lot of Members of
    Congress too. So I appreciate the challenges, and I appreciate
    you being here.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Loebsack, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I do agree with my friend Mr. Shimkus that we have to
    deal with the funding issue. The question is going to be how
    are we going to do it.
        First, Commissioner Rosenworcel, great to see you back.
    Appreciate that. I haven't seen you since you were actually in
    Newton and Baxter, Iowa----
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
        Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. Way back in 2016. And people
    there were very happy to hear you talk about the homework gap
    issue and, just generally speaking, these rural broadband
    issues.
        I saw that at a recent field hearing you did highlight the
    need for better data collection. And now you have this
    crowdsourcing proposal. After you mentioned that, I quickly
    went to your Twitter account and checked it out to see what was
    going on there, because I do want you to talk about that a
    little bit more.
        But, before I do that, I am grateful that the subcommittee
    took up my Rural Wireless Access Act and we did move it
    forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have to get that out of the
    full committee.
        It is great to talk about making sure that we have better
    data. I remember, Chairman Pai, when we talked last, you had
    mentioned going through northwest Iowa, going from southwest
    Minnesota to northwest Iowa--or maybe it was the other way--and
    you had a lot of problems, obviously, with cell service. As
    someone who has 24 counties in Iowa, I am fully aware of this
    problem, as are all my constituents.
        But my bill, hopefully we are going to get it out of full
    committee, get it on the floor, and get this thing enacted at
    some point, and hopefully sooner rather than later, to make
    sure that you folks have statutory authority, as much as
    anything, to do the things that you are talking about today.
        But can you elaborate a little bit on your crowdsource
    proposal?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure.
        Listen, for a long time, the way that the FCC collected
    data about broadband is we found, if there was one subscriber
    in a census block, we presumed that it was available throughout
    the block.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we all know that that is not a
    fair assumption anymore, and we are leaving too many households
    behind.
        We also have been collecting data and shapefiles from
    wireless carriers, and sometimes they get it right, but
    sometimes, as you probably know, you can drive through places
    and find that you have no bars and no ability to make a call.
        We are going to have to work hard to have more precision in
    our maps to target our policy efforts, and I think we should be
    asking the public for help. I think they know better than
    anyone else where they live, where they get service and they
    don't. And I feel like it is time to start incorporating public
    comment into our maps if we want to make them effective and
    accurate.
        Mr. Loebsack. I appreciate that. It is democratizing the
    process, and that is----
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Exactly.
        Mr. Loebsack [continuing]. Very important. I think we can
    all agree with that. Thank you.
        For all the witnesses, at the recent repack hearing that we
    held, American Tower's witness said in his testimony that there
    was a shortage of qualified tower crews. There are some of us
    who have some ideas about how we can address that issue.
        Do you agree with that assessment, and do we have enough
    crews to get the job done in 39 months? If not, what will
    happen to broadcasters who can't complete the transition in
    that time?
        To any of you folks who would like to address that issue.
        Yes, go ahead, Commissioner.
        Mr. Pai. Well, I will simply say that we try to structure
    the phases such that we would be able to accommodate variations
    in terms of weather and availability of crews and the like.
        If we get information that there is a bottleneck like that
    that might stand in the way of the 39-month deadline being able
    to be met, we will certainly work with Congress and with
    stakeholders to take the appropriate action.
        Mr. Loebsack. Anyone else want to comment?
        Mr. O'Rielly?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have raised this issue a number of
    times with different industry groups to see where we were, and
    I was concerned that there was a shortage of crews. And we have
    seen an increase of the number of crews, some of those
    sponsored by the wireless companies who would like to take
    advantage of those licenses on an early basis.
        So it has been relatively positive, but I think the
    Chairman is exactly right. We have to get through some of the
    phases and see where we are.
        Mr. Loebsack. Any of the other Commissioners want to speak
    on that issue? No?
        It is a workforce development issue too. We have to get the
    right number--we have to get the people trained so they can do
    that. And I have talked to my friend Mr. Shimkus about that
    too. We have to move forward on that.
        While we are on the subject of the Universal Service Fund--
    and, Commissioner Pai, you know that I have written to you
    about moving the resources to the U.S. Treasury and some of the
    concerns I have about that, making sure that the funds actually
    are used as they are supposed to be used.
        Would you like to address that issue? Because I think that
    is a legitimate issue. If we move the funding, you know, to the
    U.S. Treasury instead of from the bank, then I think that is
    going to be a really difficult issue that we have to resolve.
        Go ahead, if you want.
        Mr. Pai. Thank you, Congressman. And I appreciate your
    concern.
        The issue, as I understand it, from a financial
    perspective, is twofold. Number one, from a legal perspective,
    it is safer for Federal funds of this kind to be stored with
    the United States Government as opposed to a private account.
        Secondly, given some of the issues that arise when these
    funds are kept in a private bank account--for example, if there
    is somebody who owes money to the IRS and that person is also
    at the same time getting money from the FCC, the Federal
    Government is limited in its ability to have an offset, so to
    speak. Keeping the money in that Treasury account allows
    essentially the Federal taxpayer to be whole, that we are not
    sending money out the door in a way that, at the end of the
    day, Congress might not want.
        And so we have been exploring with Treasury and with others
    the way to move forward on this. But, obviously, we are happy
    to take any input on ways to accommodate multiple interests.
        Mr. Loebsack. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you look like you
    wanted to say something.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I appreciate what my colleague just said.
    I think we have gotten conflicting advice over the years on
    this from OMB and GAO.
        But I just want to make this point: We get about $50
    million in interest income every year from the accounts as they
    are held today. $55 million can go far for rural broadband----
        Mr. Loebsack. That is right. Exactly.
        Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. For connecting schools and
    students. We are choosing to forgo those dollars. I don't think
    that makes sense.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right. Thank you.
        Mr. Pai. If I may, Congressman, if, God forbid, something
    were to happen to those funds when they were in a private bank
    account and all the billions of dollars of Universal Service
    Funds somehow went away, we would be accountable to Congress.
    And you would be asking me, as the leader of this agency, why
    did you jeopardize taxpayer funds by keeping them in a private
    bank account when thousands, if not millions, of Americans are
    depending on those funds? That is a tough tradeoff I have to
    make.
        Mr. Loebsack. I think it is a----
        Ms. Clyburn. That is why we need to put this out for
    comment.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. It is a difficult issue.
    We have to deal with it.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. You are welcome.
        And, Mr. Latta, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
    today's hearing.
        And thanks very much to the Commissioners for being with us
    today. As always, it is great to see you all.
        And just following up on my friend from Illinois, I really
    appreciate, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Rielly, for you
    coming out to my district, because I think you take an
    interest. And, in this one case, when the Chairman was out with
    the very small rural telecoms that you met with. And it wasn't
    really a roundtable; we were actually sitting around a square
    table. But there were quite a few people there that day that
    you addressed, and they appreciated it. And, Commissioner
    O'Rielly, for coming out and talking to our smaller
    broadcasters in the area, I appreciated that. So it is good
    that you are listening to the folks back home.
        Chairman Pai, if I could start my questions with you. Like
    you, I believe modernizing regulations is critical to spur
    innovation. For instance, I would like to see the FCC
    streamline procedures for small entities to seek regulatory
    relief. The current waiver regime has a one-size-fits-all
    construction. It is disproportionately burdensome on small
    entities and, when needed, diverts the resources from
    infrastructure investment to regulatory compliance.
        Do you believe there is a need for a more efficient and
    expedited process that allows small entities to seek relief
    from these unnecessary regulations?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I appreciate the question. And I do
    think, consistent with my views, that we should try to minimize
    the regulatory burdens on smaller providers, that that is an
    approach that has merit.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, what are your thoughts?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I agree. I think it has incredible merit.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, in your statement on the
    Commission's adoption of the mid-band spectrum, NOI, you noted
    that the 6 gigahertz band is adjacent to the unlicensed 5
    gigahertz band. Would you elaborate on the potential benefits
    if the 6 gigahertz band is made available on an unlicensed
    basis?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So we have to deal with incumbency issues
    within 6 GHz, but I think that there will be tremendous benefit
    by combining it with 5 GHz. Wider channels provide opportunity
    for greater speeds, latency reductions, and consumer experience
    will go through the roof.
        We have a shortage of WiFi spectrum or unlicensed spectrum
    going forward, and we need to address that. There are
    estimates, by 2025, we will need somewhere between 500 MHz and
    1 GHz of additional unlicensed spectrum. Six GHz makes a great
    platform for that solution.
        Mr. Latta. So when you are talking about especially how
    badly congested that 2.4 to 5 GHz bands--are already available
    to the unlicensed community. So the congestion is how bad,
    would you say?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So I don't have an exact measurement, but
    when I talk to folks in the industry, they barely will use 2.4.
    Five gigahertz is obviously popular, but that is becoming
    extremely more popular, and so we are running out.
        That is why I have spent a great deal of time on 5.9 and my
    colleague and I have worked really hard on 5.9. But then 6
    gigahertz, being right next door, is a great platform.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Voice-activated virtual assistants, like Siri, Alexa, and
    Google Assistant, are becoming an increasingly popular consumer
    gateway to the internet. Someday soon, they might even become
    the consumer-preferred interface with the internet, leaving the
    age of the desktop Google search behind.
        You get Yelp results in Siri, OpenTable in Google, TuneIn
    radio from Alexa. These interactions are occurring through
    private partnerships among these companies to have their apps
    interact. However, it creates a situation where, by definition,
    the consumers' access to other internet content is limited or
    completely blocked. It is the question of who answers Siri's
    question when you ask Siri something.
        Chairman Pai, can the FCC do anything about this?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, under our current internet
    regulations, we cannot. Those do not apply to edge providers.
        Mr. Latta. And, Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel, do
    you think this is a concern for the open internet?
        Ms. Clyburn. Again, our jurisdiction is very limited. I
    think there is an impact, an influence, but, in terms of our
    ability, it is very limited to negligible.
        Mr. Latta. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I would agree with both my colleagues that
    our jurisdiction does not extend to that.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back, but he is not in
    the running for a prize.
        OK. Ms. Eshoo, you are recognized.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And welcome to you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the
    Commissioners.
        Commissioner Carr, congratulations to you.
        Commissioner Clyburn, it is always an honor to have you
    here at the committee, get to know you.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, terrific to keep the Irishmen
    together here. You're a set of bookends.
        And to Commissioner Rosenworcel, it is really terrific to
    have you back.
        And I think that it all represents a win for the American
    people, hopefully.
        Mr. Chairman, I have been debating something inside of
    myself, so I am just going to make a statement. I don't want to
    go on and on about it, but I need to say something. To bring
    together President Kennedy with Donald Trump I don't think is
    palatable. And I am just going to leave it there.
        You know, Mr. Chairman, that I have raised deep concerns
    about RT. Our intelligence community has determined, with high
    confidence--that is the highest level of agreement between all
    of the agencies--that they interfered in our democracy. The
    intelligence community described them as the Kremlin's
    ``principal international propaganda outlet.''
        I wrote to you May 8, urging you to consider applying
    broadcast transparency requirements to state-sponsored media
    outlets like RT so the American people would know whether
    foreign governments are behind the content they are reviewing.
    I found your response to be ambiguous, and, most frankly, I
    don't think you answered my questions. And it is curious that I
    get a response to my letters at about 6:30 in the evening the
    night before the day we are going to have a hearing with you.
        I think that this is a very serious issue. The intelligence
    community and all of the Members of the House participated in
    that briefing. It was a classified briefing, but there was also
    an unclassified report that was put out, and that unclassified
    report was replete with RT.
        Now, I don't know what I need to do to either impress upon
    you that this is a serious issue and that you take it
    seriously--so I want to ask you, will you commit to us that you
    will apply or consider applying broadcast transparency
    requirements to state-sponsored media outlets like RT? And if
    not, why not?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, you are welcome.
        Mr. Pai. As I understand the law, there is no
    jurisdictional hook at this point, no transfer of a license,
    for example, that allows the FCC to assert jurisdiction. If----
        Ms. Eshoo. But what about those that have a license and
    carry them? Doesn't the FCC have any say-so in that? Or is
    this--as the intelligence community said, that they are a
    principal international propaganda outlet. So are they just
    going to operate in the United States no matter what?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, again, under the Communications Act
    and the Constitution, the First Amendment, we do not have,
    currently, a jurisdictional hook for doing an investigation of
    that kind.
        If you are privy to, obviously, classified or unclassified
    information that suggests that there might be another agency
    that has obviously a direct interest in the issue, we are
    obviously happy to work with them. But, at the current time, as
    I have been advised, neither under the First Amendment nor
    under the Communications Act do we have the ability to----
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, the First Amendment applies to free speech
    in our country. It doesn't mean that the Kremlin can distribute
    propaganda in our country through our airwaves.
        I don't know if you are looking hard enough. Maybe if
    Commissioner Carr were still the general counsel, he could
    advise you better. But I am not going to give this up.
        I want to move to something else, and that is this issue on
    media consolidation. Three years ago, Mr. Chairman, the
    Commission voted unanimously to prohibit two stations in a
    market from jointly negotiating retransmission consent. And you
    were part of that unanimous vote.
        Now, by eliminating the duopoly rule, which reports
    indicate you are preparing to do next month, you would permit
    two of the top four stations in a market to merge.
        So how do you explain this?
        Mr. Pai. Well, those reports are inaccurate. As I outlined
    in my opening statement and as you will see tomorrow when we
    publish in unprecedented fashion the actual text of this
    document, we were doing a case-by-case review in particular
    markets----
        Ms. Eshoo. So this will apply to Sinclair?
        Mr. Pai. It applies to any broadcaster that seeks to enter
    into an agreement that otherwise would be in violation of the
    top-four prohibition. So some----
        Ms. Eshoo. With 73-percent dominance of a market, how does
    that fit? Where does that fit?
        Mr. Pai. So some had argued we should just get rid of the
    top-four prohibition----
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, he can answer the question.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes.
        Mr. Pai. Some had argued that we simply get rid of the top-
    four prohibition. My recommendation to our staff was to draft
    it so that there would be a case-by-case review. We would not
    get rid of it. We would review, if there were particular facts
    that a particular broadcaster would bring to us and that
    presents a compelling case that that combination would be in
    the public interest, then we will take a look. But, otherwise,
    the prohibition applies.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Time has expired.
        Ms. Eshoo. I wish I had more time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, everyone, for being here.
        And, Commissioner Carr, welcome.
        And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome back.
        We look forward to working with you guys over the course of
    this term.
        First, Chairman Pai and Commissioner O'Rielly, thanks for
    letting us know about the auctions and the inability for the
    financing fix that you need. I know that the chairman in the
    overall authorization bill is taking care of this. But also,
    yesterday, Congresswoman Matsui and I did drop a bill to
    specifically fix the issues so we can move forward, hopefully,
    on the auctions moving forward.
        I had a question. In 2013--and I was one of the households
    affected by this--there was a carriage dispute between CBS and
    Time Warner Cable, and CBS blocked Time Warner Cable internet
    customers from viewing its shows online through its cbs.com
    website. So I couldn't get any of CBS or Showtime or any of
    that on TV. If you went to the website, because Time Warner
    Cable was our cable provider and internet service provider, you
    couldn't go to cbs.com--it was blocked--or Showtime to watch
    any of those shows that were coming out. And that is when some
    new ones were coming out that August, so we were trying to find
    that.
        But some Members of Congress did bring this up, and I think
    Chairwoman Clyburn was acting Chairwoman at the time and said
    that she didn't believe the agency had the jurisdiction to
    intervene in this situation.
        And, Chairman Pai, do you think if it happened now, do you
    think the FCC would have the opportunity to intervene in a
    similar case?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I think the legal authorities have
    not changed. To the extent that the FCC gets a complaint that a
    party is acting in bad faith in the context of a retransmission
    dispute, then we would be able to adjudicate it. But absent
    such a complaint or additional authority from Congress, we
    couldn't take further action.
        Mr. Guthrie. But, currently, the Title II open internet is
    still in effect. How would that affect it?
        Mr. Pai. Oh, yes. To be clear, I should have added, as
    well, then, our internet regulations would not apply to that
    kind of content, to the extent you are talking about the
    blocking of online distribution of----
        Mr. Guthrie. Because it only applies to the service
    provider, not to the content provider?
        Mr. Pai. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Guthrie. So I brought your name up there, Commissioner
    Clyburn, to comment on that. So, being an advocate for the
    Title II--and I think Commissioner Rosenworcel, when she was on
    the Commission, as well--should it be expanded, where it
    doesn't just affect internet service providers but you should
    also have jurisdiction on the content side as well? If it is
    good for one, should it be good for the other is my question.
        Ms. Clyburn. Well, I am not in a position to comment at
    this time. I just know what is in front of me and what the
    rules of the roads are at this time.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Same answer, I guess?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. No. To be clear, that behavior was
    problematic. From a consumer perspective, that stinks, right?
        Mr. Guthrie. Yes. I was a consumer.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. But I would point out that what we are
    talking about when we talk about telecommunications service and
    telecommunications under Title II is about the provision of
    service by a provider of broadband, and the jurisdiction does
    not extend to the content providers, as you described.
        Mr. Guthrie. Yes, that was my point. Yes. Thanks a lot.
        So I have some questions on spectrum. I am cochair with
    Congresswoman Matsui on the Spectrum Caucus. So Congresswoman
    Matsui and I sent a letter last summer--this is to Commissioner
    Pai, Chairman Pai--last summer regarding a pending license
    modification petition for the L band satellite-terrestrial
    network.
        What is your ideal timeline for getting information from
    the other agencies you are working with? Do you think the end
    of the year is reasonable, or will you need more time?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, we don't have a specific timeframe in
    mind at this point. What I can say is that it is a matter that
    is under active consideration and that we are collaborating
    with other agencies and private stakeholders to see if we can
    reach a resolution.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
        And for all the Commission, given the efforts of the
    Spectrum Caucus, I strongly support a further deep dive by the
    committee on wireless issues. And so, just getting your
    opinion, going down the committee, for auctions, could you each
    give me what you think is the top spectrum issue that we should
    be focusing on this upcoming calendar year for moving forward
    on auctions? What do you think is the top issue for the
    committee?
        All of you who would like to answer that. Commissioner Carr
    first.
        Mr. Carr. Sure. Thanks.
        Obviously, we have the hurdle right now in terms of our
    authority to conduct the auctions in terms of the money. And so
    the top focus that I have over the next year is going to be
    infrastructure deployment on the wireless side. I think we have
    a lot of progress that we can make there to help maintain our
    leadership.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Ms. Clyburn. And for me, it is to ensure multiple
    providers, no matter what size, and if they have the ability to
    participate. So it would be contours, the size of the bidding
    areas.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That is a good answer. Thank you.
        Mr. Pai. In the tried and true tradition of pandering to my
    questioner, I think the Guthrie-Matsui legislation is the
    number-one issue. We cannot have any spectrum auctions,
    certainly of any significance, without that fix. It is a
    bottleneck for the agency.
        Mr. Guthrie. Yes, I think you may be about next, so that
    was a good pandering.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, about 10 seconds.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with my colleagues there,
    infrastructure and freeing more spectrum.
        Mr. Guthrie. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. All right. I agree with my colleagues
    there, but I also want to quickly read you a list: 470 to 512
    megahertz, 3.5 gigahertz, 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz, 6 gigahertz,
    28, 37, 39, 24, 32, 42, 47, 50, 70, 80, and 95 gigahertz are
    all under consideration at the Commission right now.
        What we need, instead of that blitz of spectrum, is a
    calendar that makes clear we have some bands that we are going
    to auction earlier than others so that the wireless ecosystem
    and financial markets can organize around it.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That is helpful.
        Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        My questions are to Chairman Pai. And I want to discuss
    your reaction to the President's attacks on the press. And I
    have a number of questions, so if you could keep your answers
    to yes or no, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said,
    ``Network news has become so partisan, distorted, and fake that
    licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked''?
        Mr. Pai. Is that from a tweet?
        Mr. Pallone. That is a quote. Yes. The question is, are you
    aware of that quote?
        Mr. Pai. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, are you aware that the President said, ``It
    is frankly disgusting that press is able to write whatever it
    wants to write and that The New York Times, NBC News, ABC, CBS,
    and CNN are the enemy of the American people''? That he said
    that, are you aware?
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Now, do you think that these types of statements are
    appropriate for the President of the United States to make?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I am going to speak to my own views
    and my own words. And my views are that I stand with the First
    Amendment. I am not going to characterize the views of anybody
    else.
        Mr. Pallone. But, Mr. Chairman, you did say on another
    other occasion, and I quote, that the American people are being
    misled about President Obama's plan to regulate the internet,
    right? You said that.
        Mr. Pai. Because that was a direct compromise of the
    agency's independence on a particular pending issue where the
    agency was already heading in a different direction.
        Mr. Pallone. But if you are not shy about speaking out
    against President Obama, let me ask you this: Would you condemn
    attacks on the press if they had come from President Obama?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, I always focus on the facts and the
    law. That is our job, in terms of licensing----
        Mr. Pallone. Well, I just think it is a double standard
    here.
        Before coming to the FCC, you worked for then-Senator Jeff
    Sessions, correct?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Pallone. Are you aware that, when asked if he would,
    and I quote, jail reporters for doing their job, he said he
    cannot make a blanket commitment to that effect?
        Mr. Pai. I am not aware of that. I hadn't heard that.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, he said it.
        When you spoke at the Mercatus Center last week, did you
    say, ``Under the law, the FCC doesn't have the authority to
    revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of
    a particular newscast''?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, I did.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you understand why reporters might be
    concerned when the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FCC
    leave open the threat of punishment and even jail time?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, again, I wasn't familiar with General
    Sessions' statements, and I am certainly not familiar with the
    perceptions of journalists. All I will simply say is that this
    FCC stands on the side of the First Amendment, and that
    includes the ability of journalists to gather news as they see
    fit.
        Mr. Pallone. But the problem is that the people raising
    this issue, Mr. Chairman, are concerned that your silence or
    your overly lawyered responses contribute to a culture of
    intimidation that can chill free speech. And so, that is why I
    am trying to clear the air, because I am concerned about the
    impact of either silence or an overly lawyered response.
        At the Mercatus Center, you said that you would not act
    based on a particular newscast. Would you revoke a license
    based on multiple newscasts?
        Mr. Pai. No.
        Mr. Pallone. OK.
        Now, I have here a working paper--I don't know if it is in
    the record, Madam Chairwoman, so I am going to have to ask if
    we can enter it into the record.
        Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pallone. I have a working paper produced by the
    Mercatus Center. In this working paper, the Center suggests the
    FCC is able to threaten free speech through other mechanisms,
    like license transfers.
        Do you commit that your Commission will not threaten
    broadcasters' license transfers based on the content of the
    reporting?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will
    not launch investigations into companies based on the content
    of the reporting?
        Mr. Pai. Sorry. Can you repeat that?
        Mr. Pallone. Do you commit that your Commission will not
    launch investigations into companies based on the content of
    the reporting?
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Do you commit that your Commission will
    not take any acts of retribution against companies based on the
    content of the reporting?
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone. OK. Well, let me look. I appreciate working
    that out, because I think that is important.
        So, finally, Chairman Pai, when you first took office, you
    committed to me that you would be responsive to Congress even
    if a request came from Democratic Members. Now, I have heard
    complaints from my colleagues that your responses to a number
    of their letters have also been nonsubstantive and evasive. You
    have even avoided multiple times answering my questions about
    allegations involving your relationships with Sinclair
    Broadcasting, including refusing to even answer my letter.
        So let me just say, we are going to look into your
    continued evasiveness on some of these important issues,
    including Sinclair. And I just want you to know that I am not
    happy, and I am not going to tolerate the agency not responding
    to us, because I don't really feel they have, with regard to
    Sinclair and so many other issues. That is just my opinion.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
    much.
        Before I begin my questioning, Chairman Pai, I know you
    inherited a backlog of petitions related to the
    Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act. This is an area of
    real concern to many individuals across various industries. I
    look forward to your response and future action to this topic.
        I will move on here.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, during the last oversight hearing, I
    had a discussion with Chairman Pai regarding interference
    complaints and pirate radio operations. I know that this is an
    important area. I know you care about it, very much, to resolve
    it.
        Can you share the differences between repercussions pirate
    radio operators face as compared to robo-callers?
        Mr. O'Rielly. So I will give you an example of a couple
    different items, enforcement actions that were taken by the
    Commission.
        In terms of pirate radio, we just did one for--and the NAL
    was $144,000 for pirate radio operating in Florida. In terms of
    a robo-call, it was $82 million. And in terms of a cramming
    call, cramming behavior and slamming, it was $3.9 million. So
    $3.9 million, $82 million, $144,000. The difference between the
    two--or between the three is amazing.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Wow. Wow.
        OK. Related to this topic, again, for you, Commissioner, do
    you or any of the Commissioners here on the panel know of any
    instances where pirate radio operators interfere with public
    safety or military use frequencies?
        We will start off with you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
        Mr. O'Rielly. So, technically, it wouldn't be pirate radio
    because that is someone operating within the AM or FM band, but
    they have violated the sanctity of public safety. Just
    recently, we had an enforcement action of someone in New York
    that was violating the New York public safety system, and they
    were fined, or they had an enforcement action against them.
    They are still in prison at the time, but we will see if we get
    that money.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Anyone else?
        OK. I will go on to the next question.
        Chairman Pai, I regularly advocate for seniors and, again,
    improved quality of life for seniors. I think you know that. 5G
    technology promises great benefits for our growing elderly
    population.
        What can the FCC do to advance specific telehealth
    technologies like remote patient monitoring to allow seniors to
    remain independent and age in place?
        Mr. Pai. That is a great question, Congressman, and it is a
    growing need as our population ages. I don't want to steal her
    thunder, but Commissioner Clyburn has been the leader on this
    issue in pioneering the Connect2Health Initiative, but I----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Oh, I would like to give her an opportunity
    as well.
        Mr. Pai. And I don't want to throw it in her lap, but she
    has been a leader on it.
        Ms. Clyburn. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK.
        Ms. Clyburn. One of the things that we are proud of, as the
    Chairman has endorsed, is the Connect2Health Task Force, as he
    mentioned. And one of the things that it is doing is looking at
    that intersection of broadband, technology, and health.
        And another thing that it is doing is very helpful. It has
    developed a broadband mapping tool that looks at what is going
    on on a county-by-county basis in the United States and looking
    at where broadband is available, where healthcare providers are
    or are not, and is informing communities as to how best to
    approach different business models, different initiatives that
    might be needed in particular areas.
        And so we are really on--as quiet as it is kept, even
    though people in the ecosystem know about it, we are front and
    center on providing a means for people to be informed so they
    can make better critical decisions.
        And this will help us also on our Healthcare Connect Fund,
    which we need to talk about enhancing that. Because, in order
    to make all of these things more ubiquitous, allowing people to
    age in place and address their needs, connectivity is key,
    affordability is key. And I am looking forward to working with
    you as we progress.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I, too.
        Everyone on board with this? Anyone want to make a comment?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, just to the last point maybe, that we
    have to balance all those things with all our budget overall.
    And so, we talk about expanding services; we have to figure out
    how we can pay for all of that. And that gets----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Of course.
        Mr. O'Rielly [continuing]. Back to the conversation on
    contributions.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
        Chairman Pai?
        Mr. Pai. I will simply add to Commission Clyburn's able
    disquisition on the issue that I think the importance of remote
    monitoring, in particular, cannot be overstated. If you are an
    older person who has difficulty coming into a hospital or you
    have just had surgery and you have just returned home, the
    worst thing that can happen for you is to get an infection or
    some sort of illness that will require you to come back.
        And so I have seen for myself in Staunton, Virginia, how a
    hospital center is using remote monitoring, as I said earlier
    in response to a question, to decrease the sepsis rate by 34
    percent, disproportionately, I think, among older individuals.
    And that is something, if you can intervene quickly, thanks to
    this technology----
        Mr. Bilirakis. Absolutely.
        Mr. Pai [continuing]. Everyone is better off. The
    healthcare system is better off because you are not spending
    money on an in-hospital regimen of treatment.
        And so it is something that I am really excited about. And
    I am glad that Commissioner Clyburn has been a pioneer on this
    issue.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Wonderful. Wonderful. Thank you very much.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Dingell, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no voice. Too
    much talking.
        It is great to have all of you here. The Dingell names have
    a long connection with the FCC, sometimes good, sometimes not.
    But I want to first start on the important topic of privacy and
    how it relates to the ATSC 3.0.
        I am really worried about privacy, and I think you all need
    to be too. This new broadcast standard allows for interactive
    TV, personalized ad placements, and for granular collection of
    data about who is watching what.
        Chairman Pai, if someone is looking to take advantage of
    this personalized content, they would like to give up
    information about themselves, would they not?
        Mr. Pai. So, sorry, would they be----
        Mrs. Dingell. So, if someone wants to use it, they are
    going to have the tell the provider what personal information
    about themselves?
        Mr. Pai. The individual consumers?
        Mrs. Dingell. Yes, the consumer.
        Mr. Pai. Well, it depends on the particular--these are
    nascent services. I don't know----
        Mrs. Dingell. Yes, the personalized content. So, as we are
    looking at this ATSC 3.0, it is going to be more personalized
    content.
        Mr. Pai. Right. Yes. I see where you are--yes.
        Mrs. Dingell. So how is the FCC considering privacy
    concerns as the Commission is looking at this new standard?
        Mr. Pai. A great question, Congresswoman.
        Right now, we are looking at just the technical standard,
    should we be able to proceed with this new next-generation TV
    standard and, if so, what should the technical parameters be. I
    would imagine that, as those privacy concerns and others like
    that come to the fore, that the agency is going to be looking
    at that too.
        Mrs. Dingell. I think it is really important.
        My staff wouldn't let me ask some of the other questions I
    wanted to ask today. But I don't think people realize that,
    when we will have televisions watching us, that there is
    reverse, as people are using all of these great new gadgets,
    how much information is being collected about them.
        And who has responsibility for letting people know that
    kind of data is being collected?
        Mr. Pai. Right. I think, in the first instance, the Federal
    Trade Commission has generally been the cop on the beat of
    privacy----
        Mrs. Dingell. They have, but so much of this is with the
    FCC. I think you all have a responsibility to really look at
    some of this.
        And do you think that this new data that is generated will
    be kept in house by the provider, or do you think it is going
    to be sold to third parties?
        Mr. Pai. Again, here, it is a nascent--the standard hasn't
    even been adopted, so we are not sure how any particular
    service----
        Mrs. Dingell. But should this be part of looking at a
    standard?
        Mr. Pai. As the services materialize, Congresswoman, we
    will certainly be monitoring all those kinds of concerns.
        Mrs. Dingell. OK.
        The last time you were here, in July, you agreed to follow
    up with this committee on the steps you were taking to mitigate
    DDOS attacks. What updates can you share with us?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, we have provided a detailed
    response to the committee, and I would be happy to provide that
    to you with some of the particulars in that regard.
        But what I can say is that our IT staff is always vigilant
    to make sure that we have the protocols in place to make sure
    that our IT systems are up and running. And I have appreciated
    the chance to work with this committee, as well as our
    appropriators, to get the funding to make sure that continues
    to be the case.
        Mrs. Dingell. I will leave you off the hook and ask
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you think that the public-interest
    standard requires that you look at the effect of Commission
    actions on small businesses and consumers?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely. Small businesses create two-
    thirds of the new jobs in the economy. The Commission should
    always be thinking about the impact on small business, and I
    think the public-interest standard incorporates that.
        Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
        A lot of us have already asked this question, so I am just
    going to make an observation and see if you all agree or
    disagree with me.
        Mergers of the scale of the Sinclair-Tribune are not always
    popular, but I can't ever remember when everybody was so
    opposed to the idea. Can any of you think of a merger that has
    met this type of united opposition?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. No.
        Mrs. Dingell. Commissioner Clyburn?
        Ms. Clyburn. I can say that, within my last 8-plus years,
    this is the most energized that I have seen diverse parties.
        Mrs. Dingell. And anybody else that wants to say something.
        Mr. O'Rielly. I will jump in here. I used the word
    ``energize.'' But I would say that I have seen it before, and
    that is the reason we have a 39 percent cap. It was a result of
    a transaction that caused a lot of uprest between the
    relationship between the network and an affiliate. And that is
    the reason the Congress stepped in at the time and addressed
    it.
        So in terms of the excitement or energy, I have seen the
    energy level far beyond what it is today in that----
        Mrs. Dingell. But the broad spectrum of people opposing is
    unusual.
        I may yield back my 9 seconds, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the
    commissioners for being here today.
        I have heard some buzzwords that caught my attention. Full
    Chairman Walden talked about the complexity of the telecom
    environment and how difficult your job is, and I agree with
    that. Commissioner Clyburn talked about how the technology is
    necessary to create opportunities for Americans, particularly
    in rural America. And it took me back a little bit, and I have
    been thinking about this for the last several months, how
    important your job is.
        If we look at the hundred years of American history, from
    1868 to roughly 1970, we started out in 1868 at the most
    divided point that our Nation has ever been in, at the end of a
    brutal and bloody Civil War. We healed our internal wounds to
    go in to fight off tyranny in Europe in two world wars,
    mobilizing from scratch both times, practically. Did the same
    thing in Korea. And at the same time in that hundred-year
    period, from 1868 to 1970, we saw one of the most explosive,
    innovative periods in human history: the light bulb, the
    combustion engine, the automobile, the mass production of
    automobiles, the assembly line process, the industrialization
    of Western cultures, the airplane, powered flights, space
    travel, landing a man on the Moon, organ transplants,
    telecommunications and computing technologies, nuclear power.
    That, I think, the case could be made that that was one of the
    most innovative periods in human history.
        I talk about that a lot to people that I represent back in
    Ohio, because then I follow it with a question. What have we
    done since 1970? You know what answer I get most often? The
    internet, telecom. And why is that the case? I believe that is
    the case because it is the one area that the Federal Government
    couldn't figure out how to regulate. If you go back to the
    1970s, that is when the EPA came into being, that is when the
    Department of Energy came into being, that is when the
    Department of Education came into being. All of a sudden back
    in the 1970s, Washington kind of thought that the American
    people had it wrong for all that time.
        Instead of telling the American people what we should be
    innovating on and what we should be focused on to create
    opportunities for the American people, Washington started
    talking about how to innovate, where to innovate, when to
    innovate, why to innovate, and in many cases, picking the
    winners and losers and determining who should be able to
    innovate.
        So I throw that out there just as a thought provoker to you
    folks. Your job is so vitally important. We can't throw water
    on the campfire of American innovation and ingenuity. And I
    would submit that if we really want to create opportunities, if
    we would just look at our own Nation's history and realize that
    if Washington would just get out of the way, in many regards
    that the American people are more than capable of creating
    their own opportunities through innovation and ingenuity. And I
    think that is an important thing for you folks to remember. And
    I see the attitude of the Commission today, and I think that is
    what you are trying to do. So I applaud that.
        Let me ask you one quick question here, and it is a yes or
    no question, so it will be easy, especially for Commissioner
    O'Rielly. He is good at this. In 2013, it was reported that the
    Justice Department had spied extensively on Fox News reporter
    James Rosen in 2010, collecting his phone records, 2 days'
    worth of his personal emails, and tracking his movements to and
    from the State Department. So in the 32 seconds that I have
    remaining, each of you, starting with Mr. Carr, Commissioner
    Carr, did this raise First Amendment concerns for you at that
    time? Yes or no.
        Mr. Carr. I think what I said is that it reinforces----
        Mr. Johnson. Come on now, follow Mr. O'Rielly.
        Mr. Carr [continuing]. The importance of the Commission, as
    everyone has said, being committed to the First Amendment in
    everything that we do at this agency.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Ms. Clyburn. That is an interesting question. I will say it
    raised personal and privacy and other concerns.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
        Mr. Pai. I agree with Commissioner Carr.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. You are good.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. That is a disturbing tale. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        First of all, welcome. I am glad to see all of you here,
    and I especially want to welcome back Commissioner Rosenworcel
    and welcome Commissioner Carr.
        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Ms. Matsui. As co-chair of the Congressional Spectrum
    Caucus with my good friend, Representative Guthrie, we are very
    focused on the opportunity to unleash new spectrum that will
    help us get to 5G. We have introduced legislation that provides
    financial incentives to Federal agencies to reallocate unused
    or underutilized spectrum holdings.
        Commissioner O'Rielly, will you commit to working with us
    to try to strike an appropriate balance for the 3.5 gigahertz
    band that will be the foundation for 5G deployment?
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I am not in charge of the 3.5. The
    chairman was nice enough to have me take some of the lead. But
    we are going to work as an agency to dispose of our item that
    we adopted yesterday. So I will work with, of course, the
    committee in any capacity and take its views into account in
    terms of my vote.
        But in terms to your point that you raised, which is the
    incentives for Federal agencies to clear bands, I have also
    made the point that it is not just incentives; we need the
    carrot and the stick. So we need some more of the stick. And so
    I think that those two pieces have to go hand in glove. And I
    would be happy to work with you on putting some of the stick
    into your legislation.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel, so I think we
    talked about this before. Would you like to add a comment or
    two?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. I believe carrots work better than
    sticks. And I think when it comes to spectrum policy, what we
    need to do is make Federal users internalize the cost of their
    holdings. They need to be able to report at some level what the
    value of what they have today is, and then we need to figure
    out how to give them incentives so that they see gain and not
    just loss from reallocation.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I can see a carrot and a stick here working
    very well together. So thank you.
        Today, everyone needs a broadband connection, we all know
    that, in every part of the country. And I have over 20,000
    constituents utilizing the Lifeline program to obtain access to
    broadband. This is a real program that is helping low-income
    families access communications that are essential in our
    digital academy. The National Lifeline Eligibility Verifier
    will be a significant step toward this goal, but will not be
    fully up and running until 2019. Now, in August, I wrote to the
    Commission to request steps that the FCC is taking to implement
    the verifier.
        Chairman Pai, I received your response last night. Could
    you give me an update on getting the National Verifier fully up
    and running, and commit to providing me and the committee with
    regular updates in the future?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I will take the second piece first.
    Yes, the quarterly reports will be forthcoming, and I think our
    staffs have talked about that going forward.
        In terms of the first point, which is the update, we are on
    track. I have been advised to, in December of 2017, for what is
    called a soft launch of the National Verifier, with a full
    launch in early 2018. The first states that will be considered
    for the National Verifier, there are six of them, it is
    Colorado, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
    And in 2018, USAC will roll out at least an additional 19
    states in the National Verifier. And USAC has been working with
    other stakeholders under our oversight, with your consumers
    groups and carriers and others, to make sure that that verifier
    works and actually serves consumers' needs.
        And so we would be happy to work with you continuously on
    this issue. And I thank you for flagging it for our attention.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I appreciate that.
        Commissioner Clyburn, can you talk about what is needed at
    the FCC to ensure the Lifeline program remains an option for
    low-income households to access the communications or broadband
    moving forward?
        Ms. Clyburn. We need to have the mechanism to encourage
    providers to get involved and to provide more opportunity. If
    you know, back in February, we stopped nine providers that did
    nothing wrong from gaining access and for offering
    opportunities. And some of them had to even discontinue
    service. So we need to give the states the power and the
    ability they need to include to have Lifeline providers
    particularly for broadband. And we need to get out of the way.
    The FCC is not getting out of the way and allowing these
    reforms that have been--the contours that have been laid out to
    happen. So we are in the way of Lifeline becoming a phenomenal
    program.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, at this point.
        Thank you very much. And I will yield back some of this
    time, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Awesome. Not in the running for the prize,
    but getting close.
        Mr. Flores, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to welcome
    Commissioner Carr, Commissioner Rosenworcel to the Commission.
    It is great to have you here for your first testimony today.
        We all know that reliance on mobile networks is growing at
    a breakneck pace. My question is this: What more does the FCC
    and Congress need to be doing to ensure that we keep up with
    consumer and business demands for mobile?
        So I will start with you, Commissioner Carr.
        Mr. Carr. Thanks for the question.
        Mr. Flores. Just short answers, if you can.
        Mr. Carr. Yes. My principal focus right now is
    infrastructure deployment. We have to streamline the rules. The
    current regime, we have relatively few small cell deployments.
    We are going to need to get to millions of cell sites pretty
    quickly here, so we have got to streamline the process.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. We need to focus on the areas where we have 2
    and 3G service. That is why I was pushing so much for the
    Mobility Fund Phase II. And we need to talk about
    affordability, which is why I am pushing for a Lifeline
    program.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Chairman Pai.
        Mr. Pai. I agree with my colleagues. I would also add that
    spectrum, of course, is a critical input from 600 megahertz all
    the way up to 95 gigahertz.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And I think Commissioner Rosenworcel went
    through that list, although I couldn't write that fast.
        Commissioner O'Rielly.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Three things. Infrastructure, which means
    preemption. Two, it is spectrum, which we have talked about.
    And, three, it means deciding what to do on those hardest-to-
    reach individuals we don't have a plan for today.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Rosenworcel.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I will give you one thing, which is we
    should set a time for auctioning the 28 gigahertz band, make it
    our first millimeter wave band so that we can lead the world in
    5G and millimeter waves.
        Mr. Flores. And so the first priority is that auction. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I believe so, yes.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you.
        I want to go back to the First Amendment conversations we
    have had today. Yes or no answers will be appropriate for this
    one. In 2013, the Justice Department revealed that they had
    been secretly combing through the work, home, and cell phone
    records of almost 100 Associated Press reporters and editors in
    what appeared to be a fishing expedition for sources of leaks,
    as well as an effort to frighten off whistleblowers. Did this
    action raise First Amendment concerns for you, Commissioner
    Carr?
        Mr. Carr. This is what drives some of the importance of us
    committing to the First Amendment and always acting consistent.
        Mr. Flores. OK. That is a yes.
        Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. Not sure how to answer that at this point.
        Mr. Flores. Yes or no would be easy.
        Ms. Clyburn. Yes or no. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Flores. Chairman Pai.
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. That sounds troubling.
        Mr. Flores. All right. I appreciate the work you all have
    been doing for AM revitalization, particularly your orders from
    February and September. Let's continue along that line for a
    minute. In general, what is the status of your efforts to
    revitalize AM radio?
        We will start with you, Chairman Pai.
        Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. So the
    translator window has been a success. A great many folks have
    applied for an FM translator, and we are in the process of
    processing those. I would anticipate by the end of the year we
    will have several hundred of those that will be processed. And
    going forward, we are thinking about some of the bigger-picture
    issues that are of interest to broadcasters. And we are trying
    to sort through the record and see if we can find a consensus
    on some of those issues.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And you answered my second question in that
    regard as well.
        What can this committee do to be helpful to encourage a
    revitalization of AM radio?
        Mr. Pai. Certainly, we will take all the support from
    whatever corridor we can get it. I can tell you, as my
    colleagues will probably agree, that I have never been shy
    about the issue of AM revitalization. So you don't need to
    encourage me. But I will say that it is important to talk about
    the importance of the work that AM broadcasters do in their
    communities every day. And I know you visited some of these
    stations. I have too. And to me they are not just call signs.
    WRDN and KZPA and KKOW. These are folks who really are keeping
    the lights on and keeping their communities informed.
        Mr. Flores. In my community it is WTAW and KWTX.
        I assume the entire Commission's on board with that?
        OK. Everybody shook their heads yes. That is good.
        Mr. Pai. That is across the board, I hope.
        Mr. Flores. Across the board. That is what I meant. It
    seemed to me like that was one area where we had good
    cohesiveness among the Commission.
        For all of you, I understand that other countries are
    moving rapidly to make mid-band spectrum available for 5G
    services. Particularly China, Japan, and South Korea are all
    making spectrum available to win the global race to 5G. My
    question is this, for each of you--two questions. One is, in
    the United States, are we risking falling behind those other
    countries if we don't catch up on making mid-band spectrum
    available for 5G?
        Commissioner Carr?
        Mr. Carr. I think we are in good shape right now with the
    high-band spectrum that we have opened up. But as your point
    says, we have got to keep the pedal down and keep moving
    forward. And we have a number of proceedings right now that the
    chairman has teed up that will let us do that. So I am
    confident about where we stand right now.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. I agree. And our spectrum management policies
    have to be all of the above to make sure we get the optimal use
    with the optimal players.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Chairman Pai.
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. High-band spectrum is great and it is part of
    the equation, but we have to address the mid-bands. 3.5, 3.7 to
    4.2, 3.1 to 3.5, we have to take action on those going forward.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I am not the only one with a list.
        Mr. Flores. That is right. That is good.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we are at risk of falling behind.
    And I think we need something simple. We need a calendar for
    which bands are moving at what time.
        Mr. Flores. OK. I would like to work with you on that some
    more, if we can, on the calendar.
        So thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I thank
    our Ranking Member Doyle. I thank our commissioners, Chairman
    Pai. And Commissioner Carr, welcome.
        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Rosenworcel----
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Perfect.
        Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Welcome back. Of course, it is
    good to see you, Commissioner Clyburn.
        I wanted to just talk about how important today's hearing
    is. There is so many pressing matters and changes happening
    under the FCC's authority, on a daily basis it seems. And I can
    say that it has been quite instructive and interesting just
    listening to today's proceedings and your answers regarding
    these issues and the significance in facilitating announced
    changes.
        So I want to talk about a couple of things that are
    currently on my mind. And as co-chair of the Multicultural
    Media Caucus with colleagues Rep. Cardenas and Rep. Chu, we are
    extremely interested in the recent media ownership changes.
        As you have indicated, Chairman Pai, the Commission is
    poised to take up an item to modify the local TV ownership rule
    at the next Commission meeting. This important rule provides
    for diversity of voices and ownership at the local level by
    limiting ownership of more than one TV station to the largest
    markets. So hypothetically, Commissioner Pai, if the Commission
    were to modify the local TV ownership rule next month by
    adopting a case-by-case approach, who do you think should have
    the burden of proof? Those seeking more consolidation or those
    seeking to maintain diversity of ownership?
        Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, as always is the case, if a
    prohibition remains and the party is seeking a relaxation of
    that prohibition on a case-by-case bases, the petitioner would
    bear the burden of proof that that application was in the
    public interest.
        Ms. Clarke. So let me ask Commissioner Clyburn and
    Rosenworcel. Do you have any substantive or process concerns
    with the potential modification of local TV ownership rules?
        Ms. Clyburn. Well, one of the things that we were demonized
    for was trying to look at the media ecosystem. I don't think we
    have the tools and the data needed to make these wholesale
    changes. There are 67 women-owned broadcast stations, 12
    African-American-owned stations. Clearly, our policies must be
    out of sync because that is not diversity and inclusion in any
    stretch of the way.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
        Listen, media ownership matters. What we see on the screen
    says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities,
    and as a Nation. And right now, when you look at the ownership
    structure, it does not reflect the full diversity of this
    country. I am worried that with more consolidation, that is not
    going to get better; it is going to get worse.
        Ms. Clarke. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Can I just comment and say----
        Ms. Clarke. Certainly.
        Mr. O'Rielly [continuing]. The situation we have today is
    under our current rules, and those rules have been in place for
    so long, they haven't worked. We ought to try something new.
        Ms. Clarke. Here's the question: You are saying that it
    hasn't changed. We are not certain whether what you are
    proposing will make it even worse.
        Mr. O'Rielly. It is really hard to get much worse.
        Ms. Clarke. You think so? I know that that is not the case.
        Mr. O'Rielly. The numbers are so low. I mean, 12. The
    numbers are really low, and it has been----
        Ms. Clarke. Right.
        Mr. O'Rielly. And there are a lot of reasons why they are
    going to go even lower, because----
        Ms. Clarke. And what you are saying is your new proposal is
    going to transform that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. No. I am saying that the current----
        Ms. Clarke. No. What I am asking you is your new proposal
    is going to transform that?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I think it is given----
        Ms. Clarke. Is that what you are saying?
        Mr. O'Rielly. I am saying----
        Ms. Clarke. Are you saying here today that this new
    proposal is going to transform that? Yes or no.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it is not my proposal and----
        Ms. Clarke. I am just asking.
        Mr. O'Rielly. But, in general, I am hopeful that it
    provides a better opportunity----
        Ms. Clarke. You are hopeful. OK.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Because the current situation isn't working.
        Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Pai.
        Mr. Pai. Yes. The answer is yes.
        Ms. Clarke. You think it will?
        Mr. Pai. Absolutely. Part of the reason why we don't have
    more diversity is because the Commission, several years ago,
    the prior majority, rejected my suggestion for an incubator
    program and other diversity proposals. Part of the reason why
    we don't have diversity is because the prior administration let
    the diversity committee lapse, so we haven't had input from
    stakeholders. I reconstituted that diversity committee several
    months ago, and specifically tasked one of the working groups
    with promoting more diversity in the broadcast business. Part
    of the reason we don't have more diversity is because the prior
    administration outlawed JSAs.
        I have met with Pervis Parker----
        Ms. Clarke. Are you saying that this is going to be a pilot
    project or is this going to be a wholesale change?
        Mr. Pai. We are seeking comment on the scope of the
    incubator program, but we will----
        Ms. Clarke. Are you saying this is going to be a wholesale
    change or a pilot program?
        Mr. Pai. The incubator program?
        Ms. Clarke. Yes.
        Mr. Pai. If we get the public input we need, this is going
    to be a real program.
        Ms. Clarke. OK. Let me move on to my next question, because
    I only have 18 seconds left. And I would like to ask--and we
    can talk about that further.
        I have been working with Congresswoman Plaskett with
    respect to the U.S. Virgin Islands. And specifically, is the
    FCC engaged to assist Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
    regain the telecom capabilities in the wake of last month's
    hurricane season? And what must we learn from these hurricanes
    and their impact on existing communications infrastructure?
        Mr. Pai. Yes, Congresswoman, is the answer to your
    question. I have personally called the Congresswoman's office
    and offered our assistance as well. In addition, I make sure
    that I have talked to some of the stakeholders, just as I have
    in Puerto Rico, stakeholders, tower companies, wireless
    companies and others, who might have had infrastructure
    affected in the U.S. Virgin Islands. I also conveyed to FEMA
    and to others that, to the extent there are power issues in the
    U.S. Virgin Islands, we would love for those communications
    power requirements to be elevated in terms of getting that
    infrastructure onto the island. And, obviously, there are
    hospitals and schools and other things that are competing for
    attention, but communications networks are critical too. So we
    are working on it.
        Ms. Clyburn. And as the chairman would also tell you that
    we forwarded a universal service--we green-lit universal
    service money so people have hard dollars to rebuild their
    telecommunications systems.
        Mr. Pai. And I proposed just yesterday doing something
    similar for E-rate, for schools and libraries to be able to
    help those in need.
        Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, I yield back. And thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. You are welcome.
        Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today,
    and welcome the two newest FCC commissioners.
        5G deployment is important to my district where the
    majority of the residents have multiple wireless devices and
    are increasingly using IoT technology. Further, investment in
    5G deployment has the potential to create over 2,300 jobs in my
    district. A recently released survey found that 5G will improve
    business operations and competitiveness, which further
    demonstrates the need to deploy this technology.
        Since joining the subcommittee at the beginning of the
    year, I have focused on issues related to the sitings of 5G
    infrastructure. Earlier this month, the Governor of California
    vetoed a bill that would have established uniform standards
    across the state for the installation of 5G equipment. The bill
    would have limited the ability of local governments to block
    antenna placement. It would have also capped installation rates
    on public properties such as traffic lights. But California
    isn't the only state where siting is an issue. I would like to
    get your thoughts on some of the issues 5G deployment is
    facing.
        Chairman Pai, can the FCC take immediate action to work
    with states and localities to streamline the siting process?
    And if so, could you briefly discuss what the Commission can do
    to address these issues?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. The
    answer is yes. And we teed up earlier this year in our wireless
    infrastructure proceeding a number of different tools that we
    could use to help streamline that approval process. And I am
    hopeful that together we can move on that relatively soon.
        Mrs. Walters. All right. Great.
        And, Commissioner Carr, congratulations on your
    confirmation.
        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Mrs. Walters. Your testimony mentioned the importance of 5G
    and the need for infrastructure to deploy this technology. Are
    you concerned that local zoning requirements throughout the
    country, not just in California, are impeding the deployment of
    the infrastructure necessary for 5G services?
        Mr. Carr. I am concerned. I was disappointed to see the
    veto of that small cell bill. Again, we are going to see a
    massive new deployment of small cells. The current regime is
    not tailored to support that type of deployment. If we are
    going to get 5G across the finish line, this could be the real
    bottleneck is these infrastructure deployment rules. So I am
    glad that we actually have a number of steps teed up at the
    Commission, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
    get them across the finish line.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
        And this third question I have, and you touched a bit on it
    just a few minutes ago. But, Chairman Pai, as you know,
    wireless networks in Puerto Rico were devastated by Hurricane
    Maria. Networks in east Texas and Florida were impacted by
    Hurricanes Irma and Harvey. And the fires in my home state have
    damaged wireless infrastructure in California. And I commend
    you for speeding the availability of USF funds to carriers in
    Puerto Rico to accelerate rebuilding of these critical
    communication networks.
        Will the FCC contemplate similar efforts to support
    reconstruction in other states impacted by this fall's natural
    disasters?
        Mr. Pai. We are certainly open to hearing that case and to
    taking action if appropriate.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. All right. Thank you.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. And the winner is. All right. Way to go,
    Mimi.
        All right. Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Welcome to the full
    Commission. It is really tremendous to see you at full
    strength. Congratulations on your confirmation.
        Mr. Carr. Thank you.
        Mr. Welch. It is very good to have you back, Commissioner.
    It wasn't a swift process, but it had an end result.
        And, Mr. Chairman, congratulations to you as well.
        Mr. Pai. Thank you.
        Mr. Welch. Net neutrality we have talked about some. And we
    know the debate here, in my view, was that the actions of the
    previous Commission made a lot of sense. But my understanding
    is that your Commission is opening that up. You have heard
    millions of comments. The apprehension among the industry has
    largely been that there may be a new Commission at some point
    that is overbearing, but they won't necessarily agree to put in
    a statute. There are assurances that they give privately and
    publicly that they won't do anything to interfere with net
    neutrality. So there is a skepticism on their part about the
    durability of the current practice, which worked well.
        But isn't it fair for consumers to have some skepticism
    that when CEOs change in these companies, when shareholders
    start demanding a bigger return, that there won't be the
    pressure to do things that advantage the company at the expense
    of the folks who need solid net neutrality?
        Chairman Pai?
        Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. Obviously,
    we are now engaged in the question of what is the regulatory
    framework best calibrated to preserve the free and open
    internet----
        Mr. Welch. Here's my question, though. Why not have it be
    embodied in a statute? They are saying to us, as I assume they
    are saying to you, that they want to maintain that neutrality.
    But that is who is in those executive offices now. There will
    be other people there later. So do you consider that to be a
    valid concern on the part of those of us who want to make
    certain that we preserve net neutrality?
        Mr. Pai. Congressman, all I can say is what I said in the
    wake of the 2014 D.C. Circuit Court decision myself, which is
    that the proper course, I think, is for Congress to ultimately
    decide what the rules of the road are going to be. That is
    obviously----
        Mr. Welch. I don't have a lot of time.
        So, Commissioner O'Rielly, you looked like you wanted to
    say something. Quickly.
        Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think, if I heard you correctly, you
    said embody it into statute. And I would say, yes, that is the
    law, and you have an opportunity in this committee to craft a
    law and then decide whether we should go forward. And I think
    that is what members of this committee were contemplating for a
    number of months.
        Mr. Welch. But we haven't seen the statute. The majority
    has to act on that.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I support net neutrality. Our internet
    economy is the envy of the world. It is built on a foundation
    of openness. I think our current rules support that openness.
    They have been sustained in courts, and they are wildly
    popular. I am at a loss that we would decide to take them away.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you. A lot of us are from rural
    America, Republicans and Democrats up here. In fact, Mr. Latta
    and I started a rural broadband caucus. A real concern we have
    is not only deployment. We are so lagging behind. It is the
    speed. And there has been some movement toward reducing what is
    considered to be the adequate speed. That would be very
    damaging to us in rural America.
        Commissioner Clyburn, do you want to comment on that?
        Ms. Clyburn. I think any talk about slowing things down--
    sub 253 is problematic. It is problematic for keeping and
    ensuring that rural America catches up. You haven't caught up,
    and that is problematic. So that is why this talk of loosening
    these standards, of lowering speeds is just very problematic to
    me, and that is not the direction we need to go.
        Mr. Welch. Commissioner Rosenworcel, you were in
    Burlington, Vermont, I appreciate your visit, talking about the
    homework gap. Burlington is not where we have the issue. That
    is an urban area. They have high speed. But a lot of Vermont is
    much like a lot of rural America; it is slow. And rural America
    in rural Vermont is on its heels economically. We have to have
    this tool to have any shot at getting back in the game. Your
    view on it lowering the standards.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Oh, I think lowering the standard is
    crazy. I believe you have to set audacious goals if you want to
    do big things. And deciding that we can get 100 megabit speed
    to everyone in this country is worth the effort, including
    rural America.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Chairman Pai, you have got a real history of
    rural America, so----
        Mr. Pai. Yes.
        Mr. Welch. I am hoping that you are not going to be in
    favor of changing the definition for rural America.
        Mr. Pai. A few different points, Congressman. First, the
    actual proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. There is no
    proposal other than that. Secondly, I am a little puzzled by
    the criticism, because when the prior majority actually had the
    pen and had the ability to do something for folks in rural
    America, in December of 2014, they decided to allocate billions
    of dollars of funding for 10 megabit per seconds connectivity
    in rural America. According to them now, that is not broadband.
        Last year, when we reformed the Lifeline program, I
    specifically suggested that we increase the speeds to 25
    megabits per second to say, well, if the FCC is saying this is
    broadband, poor consumers should get broadband. The prior
    majority specifically rejected that suggestion. And so I think
    it is a little hollow now to somehow just be grandstanding on
    this issue----
        Mr. Welch. My time is up. I won't argue with you about
    that, but you are in the chair now.
        Mr. Pai. That is why a proposal is to maintain the 253
    standard.
        Mr. Welch. So does that give us assurance that there is not
    going to be any suggestion to lower that standard?
        Mr. Pai. Congress charged us with taking a look at what is
    connectivity. And as a part of that, we have to seek comment on
    what is the impact of mobile broadband? What do consumers use
    the internet for? Are there some applications that they require
    10 megabits per second or some other standard? That is
    basically what we are trying to do. But the lead proposal is to
    maintain that standard.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Olson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair, and welcome to our witnesses.
    And a special welcome, Commissioner Rosenworcel. I spent a few
    weeks with my dad in ICU. It is not a pleasant time to have a
    loved one, a parent, in the hospital, so thank you so much for
    coming. We are praying for you.
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you.
        Mr. Olson. My first question and comments are for Chairman
    Pai. Thank you so much for coming down to Houston to see the
    devastation of Hurricane Harvey firsthand. You saw it with your
    own eyes. Hit us twice, came back. Fifty inches of rain in
    parts of the district, parts of the county. We did very well,
    but we can do much better.
        I would just like to ask you, what do you see with respect
    to forwards of communication networks throughout the region
    during Hurricane Harvey? What are the steps the FCC is taking
    to support the restoration and recovery efforts back home?
        Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman, and your
    leadership on this issue. I know you have been active in trying
    to inform your constituents about where they could get help.
        A few different things. Number one, the FCC is working very
    proactively to make sure that we assist state and local
    partners in Texas. And I personally, as you mentioned, visited
    and offered my assistance.
        A few different things that we could do going forward.
    First, I was quite taken by a point that I learned at the
    Harris County 911 center, which is that part of the reason why
    the networks were relatively reliable compared to, say, Florida
    and Puerto Rico was because--despite the fact that 33 trillion
    gallons of water, as you know, were dumped on the Houston
    surrounding area, was because of the backhaul they had that was
    fiber-based as opposed to copper-based. And despite the fact
    that there was a huge amount of weight placed on those
    networks, because they were fiber, they were relatively more
    resilient. If it had been copper, it might have degraded or
    just disintegrated altogether.
        The second thing is that we all need to work together. We
    are all in this together. And I heard time after time that
    state and local partners and the industry relied on our
    disaster information reporting service, which was very helpful.
    And they also found it useful to have a point of contact at the
    FCC that they knew could provide assistance. So a lot of things
    that we are excited about going forward in terms of our
    disaster response. And we are going to apply some of that in
    Puerto Rico, and have already.
        Mr. Olson. And thank you.
        How about what is called the network resiliency framework?
    That, as you know, is the wireless industry initiative to
    better prepare and respond for times of emergency. Do you think
    this framework helped restore coverage faster than other recent
    natural disasters?
        Mr. Pai. There is no question. I heard firsthand from
    wireless providers when I was in Texas about how useful that
    had been. The other piece that I should mention that was very
    useful is that, as I understand it, the Governor's office,
    Governor Abbott's office, provided some of these wireless
    companies with information as to where the flooding was. And
    some of the companies were able to overlay that information on
    where they saw their cell networks up or down. And they were
    able to target in some places, OK, we see there is huge
    flooding here, but there are people actually on the network. We
    need to get help there. And so that overlay is the kind of
    serendipitous, I think, benefit that, going forward, we will be
    able to take advantage of in other jurisdictions.
        Mr. Olson. Anything we could learn from Harvey? Anybody
    want to comment on those? I know he was down there. He saw it
    firsthand, but----
        Ms. Rosenworcel. I would just want to mention, the wireless
    network resiliency that you cited was the industry coming
    together in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. And, in fact, we
    have it in place because we learned from that past disaster.
    And it is my hope that we will learn comparably from this one.
        Mr. Olson. Great. Well, I am about out of time here.
        Commissioner Carr, I believe you are going to Texas,
    Houston, see for yourself?
        Mr. Carr. Yes. On Friday I will be in Houston meeting with
    broadcasters to hear about what the FCC can continue to do to
    support the recovery efforts down there.
        Mr. Olson. Great. They are thrilled to hear that.
        One thing I have to warn you about. Can you say y'all?
        Mr. Carr. I will work on it.
        Mr. Olson. And can you say ``beat L.A.''?
        Mr. Carr. Yes.
        Mr. Olson. Well played.
        And, Commissioner Pai, I know you are a baseball fan, a
    huge baseball fan of pro baseball. And as I sort of alluded to,
    the L.A. Dodgers are playing my Houston Astros in the World
    Series. Yesterday, we had a rough day. Didn't quite do as well
    as I wanted. But that morning, all over Capitol Hill, signs
    popped up about that game, especially, this sign popped up on
    the door of the majority leader from California.
        In having jurisdiction over Federal communications, let's
    make sure that is not some Federal offense you are looking at.
    I neither confirm nor deny my involvement in those operations.
    And one thing too, Commissioner Pai, just what is your
    prediction? Astros in five, six, or seven games?
        Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, first I want to reiterate. I
    stand in favor of the First Amendment and your right to plaster
    everybody----
        Mrs. Blackburn. And the gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Olson. I like the word ``plaster.''
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mrs. Brooks, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you and
    congratulations to all of those who have recently gotten
    confirmed.
        Just recently, I joined with my colleague across the aisle,
    Debbie Dingell, to form a 5G caucus. And we had our first
    briefing with congressional staff yesterday, led by CTIA. And I
    am learning more and more about 5G. This is not something that
    I think is commonly understood among the citizens of our
    country. And a slide was put up during the presentation that
    talked about the global race being on for 5G. And, quite
    frankly, because we have often been the leaders in innovation
    and technology in the world, I was a bit surprised to see it
    appears that China and Europe and others may be further along
    in 5G deployment than in the United States.
        Now, obviously, some of those countries, particularly
    China, for instance, don't have the division in governments
    between Federal, state, and local jurisdictions the way that
    our great democracy does. But how are we taking that into
    account, and what should our role be in Congress? And what can
    the FCC and our role in Congress do to better partner with our
    state and local governments? Because I think we are struggling,
    quite frankly, particularly in state legislatures, either
    educating or understanding what this race is about and how we
    are, I think, falling behind.
        Chairman Pai, would you like to start as to what we could
    be doing differently and better? Because I think we all, from
    what I can tell from your responses today, we are in agreement
    here that we all need to do a lot more and a lot better. But
    what does it mean for us, A, to fall behind, and what should we
    be doing? And I am pleased, Indianapolis, that I represent the
    northern part of, is a 5G test site. But I think we are way
    behind these other countries.
        Chairman Pai.
        Mr. Pai. I have an answer, Congresswoman. And before I
    start, thanks for the hospitality you showed me in Noblesville
    back in the district.
        With respect to the first, I think there is a significant
    opportunity cost that attaches to American inertia on this
    issue. If we don't lead, there are plenty of other continents
    and countries that are more than happy to take that lead. And
    one of the things I have learned in this role as I liaise with
    my counterparts in other countries, is that they are quite
    eager to capitalize on what they see is a lesson of the 4G
    revolution, which is that America was forward-thinking in terms
    of spectrum and infrastructure. And as a result, not that long
    ago, we had 4 percent of the world's population and 50 percent
    of the world's 4G LT subscriptions. Europe and China, among
    others, they don't want that to happen with 5G. And so they are
    trying to be very aggressive in terms of spectrum and, in some
    cases, infrastructure as well.
        I think it is important for the FCC, but not just the FCC,
    to think very creatively about this issue. Working with
    Congress and with state and local governments, as Commissioner
    Carr first pointed out in his testimony, we really need to have
    a serious conversation about what is the appropriate regulatory
    framework for 5G. Is it this trifurcated or even quadfurcated
    system of regulation, or is there a more streamlined approach
    that we need to consider? I recognize the equities are
    difficult here. But at the end of the day, if national
    competitiveness in the wireless world is our priority, then we
    have to make some very difficult decisions.
        Mrs. Brooks. And I appreciate the need for a calendar, the
    need for the discussions with state legislatures. But what is
    the FCC doing--and I'm sorry that I might have missed part of
    that--relative to educating state legislatures and local
    communities? Because in our state, which did pass some
    legislation this last session, it was a fight between local
    jurisdictions and the state legislature. And so what can we and
    the FCC be doing, I think, to maybe educate, in large part, or
    have these really tough discussions? I don't know if
    Commissioner Carr----
        Mr. Carr. Sure. There is a number of steps that the FCC is
    taking and can continue to take on this. We have an advisory
    committee where we have representatives from local government
    on that that we can help have these discussions. But to your
    broader point, this is critically important. The U.S., that we
    heard, led the world in 4G. The regulatory structures we have
    right now are going to be the bottleneck that hold us back. But
    I am confident that, right now at the Commission, we have the
    momentum to move forward to try to streamline some of those,
    and it is going to make a real difference. As I have said in my
    testimony, we can shift entire communities from being
    uneconomical for the private sector to deploy to to becoming
    economical simply by streamlining the deployment rules.
        Mrs. Brooks. Can, briefly, someone say why it is important
    that we win this? Anyone?
        Mr. Pai. Well, risk capital is fickle. It will go to any
    country in the world where it thinks that innovation will find
    a home and that an investment will yield a return. And that
    doesn't necessarily have to be the United States in the 21st
    century.
        Ms. Clyburn. I think if our policies are flexible that we
    include the needs of all communities, the voices of all
    communities, that we will win this race.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Doyle for----
        Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair, can I ask unanimous consent to
    waive Mr. Tonko onto the committee today?
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Tonko. So ordered.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Blackburn and Ranker
    Doyle, for you conducting what I think is a very important
    hearing. And welcome to all of our commissioners, and thank you
    for your service on what are very critical issues for the
    growth of our economy.
        Commissioner Rosenworcel, I recently introduced the Access
    Broadband Act to create an office of internet connectivity and
    growth within the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration. Under this bipartisan legislation, that office
    would coordinate broadband deployment programs across our
    governments, among other things, to make sure we are all
    working together, pulling in the same direction.
        In your time at the FCC, do you believe that our agencies
    could do better coordinating with the various programs that
    serve broadband interests?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
        Yes, more coordination is always going to make scarce
    dollars go further. And I think that is particularly true with
    respect to the FCC and the folks who are just up the road from
    us at the Agriculture Department, at the Rural Utilities
    Service, which runs grant and loan programs for rural broadband
    too. The more coordination, the better.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Any other comments from any of our commissioners?
        Commissioner Clyburn.
        Ms. Clyburn. And also, when we are green-lighting those
    devices, we need to work closely with other agencies, in
    particular when we talk about telehealth and telemedicines.
    There are so many synergies that can be realized if we leverage
    those relationships we have inside of government.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Anyone else?
        If not, my bill would also task this office with tracking
    just how many consumers each of these programs serve so that we
    have a better sense of how many people are being connected, the
    cost of these programs, and where the consumers live.
        So, Chairman Pai, today, does the FCC know definitively how
    many Americans it helps to serve through the Connect American
    Fund?
        Mr. Pai. We have an estimate, but it is not as definitive
    as the metric that I think your legislation contemplates.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. Is there any way you can commit to
    providing my office or this subcommittee, the committee in
    general, with that information before the end of the year?
        Mr. Pai. So that information being the number?
        Mr. Tonko. Right.
        Mr. Pai. We would be more than happy to provide any
    information that we have that bears on that question.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        And, Commissioner Rosenworcel, if put in the right context,
    do you believe that the information would be valuable for
    policymakers, not just as it relates to the Connect America
    Fund but for all of the government's broadband programs?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Absolutely. We can't manage what we don't
    measure. And if we get better broadband data, that can inform
    all of our communications policy. But as Commissioner Clyburn
    has acknowledged, it can inform things like healthcare policy
    too. So I think it is imperative.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. Thank you.
        I have found that sometimes people without high-speed
    broadband at their homes may not understand all the benefits
    that broadband can bring, and so education becomes important.
    That is why the Access Broadband Act includes educational
    components to help people learn what broadband can do for them
    and the difference it can make in a community, and what it
    means toward a stronger bit of economic recovery.
        So, Commissioner Clyburn, do you believe that there is
    value in the educational component of what we are attempting to
    do here?
        Ms. Clyburn. You talk about the educational component in
    terms of us, you know----
        Mr. Tonko. Broadband awareness and what it provides.
        Ms. Clyburn. Absolutely. Again, the commissioner talks
    about not measuring what--whatever you said is true. But
    sincerely, if you don't have the exposure, you don't know what
    is possible. You don't know what is possible for you to better
    age in place if you have connectivity, if you are not aware of
    the options and opportunities that you have. So there are so
    many things from an educational standpoint. We mentioned
    health. In terms of keeping in touch and knowing what is going
    on in government in real time. Those are the types of things
    that can better empower individuals only with connectivity,
    only with the awareness. And I think all of us have a role to
    play in ensuring that the public is informed so they can be
    better enabled to live those lives more fully.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And finally, I know that
    there was some exchange with our colleague from Vermont. But
    the Commission is considering lowering its definition of
    broadband, or could. To be honest, it is hard to make sense of
    this proposal when I receive calls from my constituents day in
    and day out asking for faster broadband speeds. They don't want
    the FCC to lower the definition of broadband. They want a
    faster internet access.
        So while we did hear some of that exchange, are there other
    comments you would want to make about that definition of
    broadband to speed, definition?
        Mr. Pai. Two different points, Congressman. First, as I
    said, the proposal is to maintain the 253 standard. The second
    point I will add is that if you look at some of the decisions
    we have made in terms of our Universal Service Fund, we have
    been always trying to push the envelope. And that is why in the
    very first vote that happened after I became chairman was to
    deliver $170 million in funding to unserved parts of upstate
    New York so that they can have the connectivity that folks in
    big cities often take for granted.
        Mr. Tonko. Anyone else?
        With that, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Engel for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with
    funding for the repack. I understand that the FCC has reduced
    its total cost estimate for the repacking process downward,
    from approximately $2.1 billion to $1.86 billion. Many have
    told me, though, that they think the amount is likely higher.
        So, Chairman Pai, do you think that Congress should provide
    additional funding for the repacking process?
        Mr. Pai. Thanks for the question, Congressman. And that
    number could fluctuate up or down. It is not set in stone at
    this point.
        What I said to the other committees on the Senate side was
    that, to the extent that we don't have the ability to be on the
    $1.75 billion that is in the relocation fund, that additional
    funding from Congress will be necessary in order to meet that
    gap that, otherwise, broadcasters would have to pay out of
    their own pocket in order to fill.
        Mr. Engel. Let me also ask you this, Mr. Chairman. If
    Congress provides additional funding, do you believe that low-
    power TV stations and TV translators should also be eligible
    for that funding?
        Mr. Pai. That is obviously a decision for Congress to make
    in the Spectrum Act. Congress decided not to give those
    entities rights in terms of reimbursements. So if Congress
    changes that determination, then certainly the FCC would be
    duty-bound and would happily administer it.
        Mr. Engel. So you don't personally have a position on that?
        Mr. Pai. Well, I have been talking to a lot of these low
    powers and translators, and they are in a tough situation. And
    so I can tell you I have been pushing for them since September
    28, 2012, when we issued the notice of proposed rulemaking on
    this issue that whatever consideration the FCC can give them,
    and Congress too, would be welcome.
        Mr. Engel. Because there is another group that we have
    heard from, FM radio stations, who are impacted by the
    transition, but not included----
        Mr. Pai. Correct.
        Mr. Engel [continuing]. In the initial reimbursement fund.
        Mr. Pai. And we have heard those concerns too that, under
    the Act, they aren't entitled. But to the extent they are
    piggybacking, essentially, on infrastructure that is owned by
    the television broadcaster, then here too Congress, I think,
    could step in and provide some relief.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you.
        Let me ask Commissioner Clyburn, how important is it to
    ensure that there is money for consumer education in this
    transition?
        Ms. Clyburn. Oh, my goodness. It is just so obvious, you
    know, in terms of, you know, looking at what impact, if any.
    Hopefully, negligible that would happen in this--as we move
    toward relocating and making our ecosystem more efficient. The
    public needs to be aware that the low power--the stations and
    those who are not protected but impacted, they need to be
    informed. And we need to continue to do what we can to protect
    them to make sure they don't have to do relocation twice. All
    of these things are very important for us to be at the
    forefront of ensuring that the transition is smooth as
    possible.
        Mr. Engel. Yes. I don't think anybody would really
    disagree.
        Let me talk a bit about cybersecurity. And, Commissioner
    Rosenworcel, I am going to ask you a question. We have seen
    from high-profile data breaches at companies like Equifax and
    Yahoo, that consumers are having everything exposed, from
    social security numbers to login names and passwords. So do you
    think that the FCC has the necessary authority to address
    cybersecurity?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question.
        I do. I believe the very first sentence of the
    Communications Act references our obligation to make sure that
    we make available communications for the purposes of national
    defense and for the protection of safety of life and property.
    I believe that encompasses what is modern, which is
    cybersecurity. At the same time, I recognize that our cyber
    aggressors will always move faster than any regulation. And so
    the task is can we bring people together so that we can come up
    with good best practices and implement them widely to make sure
    our networks are more secure.
        Mr. Engel. Did the Congressional Review Act rescinding the
    FCC's broadband privacy rules have any effect on the FCC's
    cybersecurity authority?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. That is a good question. I think the
    primary problem right now with cybersecurity is that my
    colleagues don't agree with me. In addition, I think there is
    the fact that our Communications Security, Reliability,
    Interoperability Council used to be tasked with coming together
    and identifying good practices for cybersecurity. But in its
    current iteration, that is not part of their agenda.
        Mr. Engel. And finally, how did the CRA impact the security
    of consumers' private information?
        Ms. Rosenworcel. Only time will tell. But I am worried
    about that as well.
        Mr. Engel. OK. Thank you.
        Ms. Clyburn. Let the record reflect I cosigned.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        For everyone's awareness, they are going to call votes in
    about 15 minutes. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is seeking to be UC'd
    to the committee for the purpose of asking a question. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        You are recognized.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, for
    giving me the opportunity to join you today.
        The internet has revolutionized the lives of millions of
    Americans and is vital to an individual's economic potential in
    the 21st century. Unfortunately, many in eastern Washington
    live with a digital divide that is limiting employment,
    educational, health, and economic opportunities.
        Ensuring that hardworking families in eastern Washington
    have reliable access to broadband technology is a top priority
    of mine, and we must use every tool in the toolbox to provide
    greater opportunity. That is why I am excited in the
    opportunity the build-out from the broadcast incentive auction
    can provide to rural America. Many individuals and families in
    the most rural parts of my district struggle to get a signal
    for a cell phone, let alone connect to the internet. I am
    encouraged by the commitment the private sector has made in
    purchasing this spectrum and the practical effect it will have
    in eastern Washington.
        Deployment of infrastructure and technology as a result of
    the auction will support millions of jobs and generate billions
    in economic opportunity in rural America. An increased
    broadband will help the U.S. continue its leadership in
    technology and innovation by providing an on-ramp for 5G
    network deployments. That is why I led a letter with
    Congresswoman Eshoo and a bipartisan group of 54 of our
    colleagues urging the FCC to continue supporting the current
    timeline for the repack resulting from the auction. This issue
    is too important. Ensuring that the repack remains on schedule
    will mean that many in eastern Washington will gain reliable
    broadband access in a matter of months, not years.
        I want to thank the FCC for putting a renewed emphasis on
    closing the digital divide, and I am encouraged by the
    engagement of the Commission in looking for new innovative ways
    to deliver broadband to the 35 million Americans without
    access. I believe we have a great opportunity working together
    in a bipartisan manner to provide every American the
    opportunity they deserve, regardless of where they live. So I
    look forward to you making that a reality.
        So at this time, I would like to submit to the committee
    this letter that Congresswoman Eshoo and I lead with the 54
    colleagues.
        Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Before I go, I would also like to
    ask you, Chairman Pai, on Title II, until the last FCC chairman
    acted late in the previous administration to upend really
    decades of bipartisan work in fostering broadband
    infrastructure, providers of this service were subject to a
    light regulatory touch. As you have made the rounds throughout
    the country, are you concerned about achieving the level of
    broadband investment necessary to deploy broadband deeper into
    rural areas if the U.S. does not go back to the light
    regulatory touch model? And can you tell us what is on the
    horizon to remove this uncertainty over investment for folks
    that just want fast and reliable internet service?
        Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and for
    the way you captured, I think, both the peril and the promise
    of bringing connectivity to folks in eastern Washington.
        We are, as I mentioned earlier, engaged in open proceeding
    to figure out what is the best regulatory framework that is
    calibrated to both promote the free and open internet and
    preserve as much infrastructure investment as possible,
    especially in parts of the country that don't have it. And so
    we have taken a fair amount of public comments at this point,
    and we are studying the record and trying to figure out the
    appropriate way forward.
        And what I can tell you is that we want to make sure, not
    just in this proceeding, but in every proceeding, that we have
    first and foremost in our minds closing the digital divide.
    There are far too many Americans, as you pointed out, who are
    on the wrong side of that divide. Those are individuals who
    don't have the opportunities that others have. Those are
    families that don't have the chance to thrive. Those are
    communities that are increasingly going to wither on the vine.
    And ultimately, it is the country that is weaker as a result of
    leaving human capital on the shelf. And that is why the first
    day I was in office I said this would be our top priority. And
    it is going to remain so, so long as I draw a paycheck at the
    FCC.
        Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Great. Well, I thank you for that
    commitment.
        And with that, I will yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        There being no further members wishing to ask questions of
    the panel, you all have been generous with your time for the
    over past 3 hours, and I thank you all for being here today.
        As we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
    following letters into the record: The five documents offered
    by Mr. Doyle, Mercatus Center paper offered by Mr. Pallone, the
    letter from the LPTV Coalition, and the McMorris-Eshoo repack
    letter. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind
    members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
    questions for the record. And I ask that witnesses submit their
    responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the
    questions.
        Seeing no further business before the subcommittee today,
    without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]