[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                          ACCOUNTABILITY AND 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 SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 5, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-81
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce    
                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
44-366 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                           
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            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                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                        MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                                 Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York             Ranking Member
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         PETE OLSON, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Chair                            TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TONY CARDENAS, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, prepared statement..............................    89

                               Witnesses

Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission............    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   144
Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   173
Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission....    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   182
Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   189
Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    40
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   201

                           Submitted Material

Letter of January 30, 2019, from Karen Zacharia, Chief Privacy 
  Officer, Verizon, to Mr. Walden, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  Latta, submitted by Mr. Latta..................................    90
Letter of April 5, 2019, from Timothy P. McKone, Executive Vice 
  President, Federal Regulations, AT&T Services, Inc., to U.S. 
  Senator Ron Wyden, submitted by Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. 
  Latta..........................................................    98
Letter of April 5, 2019, from Maureen Cooney, Head of Privacy, 
  Sprint, to U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, submitted by Mr. Latta......   100
Letter of February 15, 2019, from Anthony Russo, Vice President, 
  Federal Legislative Affirs, T-Mobile US, Inc., to U.S. Senator 
  Ron Wyden, submitted by Mr. Latta..............................   102
Letter of December 4, 2019, from Harold Feld, Public Knowledge, 
  et al., to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. McNerney..   107
Blog post of December 5, 2019, by J. David Grossman, Executive 
  Director, GPS Innovation Alliance, submitted by Mr. Loebsack...   116
Letter of December 4, 2019, from Ms. Matsui, et al., to Ajit Pai, 
  Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Ms. 
  Matsui.........................................................   119
Letter of December 3, 2019, from Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal 
  Communications Commission, to Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. Doyle   121
Letter of December 4, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Intelligent Transportation Society of 
  America, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle....   122
Letter of December 5, 2019, from Ann Wilson, Senior Vice 
  President, Government Affairs, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers 
  Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle   125
Letter of December 3, 2019, from Tim Harrington, Executive 
  Director, Ultra Wide Band Alliance, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   127
Letter of October 28, 2019, from AAA, et al., to Ajit Pai, 
  Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   130
Letter of December 5, 2019, from Steve Gehring, Vice President of 
  Vehicle Safety and Connected Automation, Association of Global 
  Automakers, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   131
Letter of December 5, 2019, from Safety Spectrum Coalition to Mr. 
  Pallone and Mr. Walden, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................   134
Letter of December 5, 2019, from the Association of American 
  Railroads, et al., to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. 
  Doyle..........................................................   136
Statement of the National Safety Council, December 5, 2019, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   141

 
 ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Mike Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke, 
Loebsack, Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui, 
Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Pallone (ex officio), Latta 
(subcommittee ranking member), Shimkus, Olson, Kinzinger, 
Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Walberg, Gianforte, 
and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Blunt Rochester.
    Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff 
Director; Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press 
Secretary; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Tiffany 
Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief 
Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry 
Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Senior Policy Analyst; 
Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Executive 
Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief 
Counsel; Andrew Souvall, Director of Communications, Outreach 
and Member Services; Rebecca Tomilchik, Staff Assistant; 
Margaret Fogarty Tucker, Minority Legislative Clerk/Press 
Assistant; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Kate 
O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff Member, 
Communications and Technology; and Nate Wilkins, Minority 
Fellow, Communications and Technology.

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

    Mr. Doyle. Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 
Subcommittee on Communication and Technology's hearing on 
``Accountability and Oversight of the Federal Communications 
Commission.''
    I am glad to welcome our witnesses back before the 
subcommittee. I know it has been 7 months since we had you 
before us, and I know that you have all missed the warm, 
welcoming atmosphere of our hearing room, but despite that 
passage of time, many issues that were of concern to us then 
still remain unresolved today. For example, I asked about the 
investigation into phone carriers selling the real-time 
location of nearly every American.
    Mr. Chairman, you told me that, even after more than a year 
had passed, we still couldn't tell whether this practice had 
stopped, couldn't say whether the impacted individuals had been 
notified, couldn't tell us if Members of Congress and law 
enforcement had their locations sold or tracked.
    And in June of this year, you told Senator Blumenthal that 
you were wrapping up this investigation and would have 
recommendations shortly. That was 6 months ago, and we still 
don't have them. Chairman Pallone and I wrote to the Chairman 
in November asking for an update, and we got a response 
yesterday saying that he now expects an answer from the 
enforcement bureau by the end of January, and the Chairman says 
he will share those results with us as soon as practicable. We 
will be interested to learn when that will be, Mr. Chairman.
    Looking at your announcement yesterday about your new new 
plan with Mobility Fund II, it seems that you have finally 
realized that the data you collected is garbage and that you 
need to go back and do this all over again. Everyone has been 
telling you that for years, and instead of acting decisively, 
folks in rural America will have to wait even longer to get 
broadband as you finally collect the data that you need.
    At our last hearing 7 months ago and the hearing 9 months 
before that, Members brought up these same concerns, and here 
we are with you just yesterday announcing that you were kicking 
off another lengthy rule-making process to try again to fix 
this process. And stamping your new plan ``5G'' doesn't change 
the fact that communities where these funds are desperately 
needed had been waiting years and will have to wait even longer 
because of a bungled process.
    And to add insult to injury, you aren't even taking action 
against the carriers that submitted the faulty or fraudulent 
data in the first place. What is the incentive in the future to 
provide accurate data if they know they are going to get a 
pass? Where is the justice for the people in the communities 
who have suffered because of this?
    Mr. Chairman, I would remind you, you are charged with 
protecting and serving the American people, not the telecom 
industry.
    Shifting gears and on a more holiday-spirited note, I am 
pleased about Chairman Pai's recent comments regarding the T-
band. This spectrum is used by first responders around the 
country and, as reports have shown, the value of selling this 
band will not even come close to covering their relocation 
costs.
    In Allegheny County alone, where I live, it would cost 
upwards of $250 million for public safety to relocate to other 
spectrum. I think that, once and for all, we need to repeal 
this mandate. It makes no sense to me or many on this committee 
to go forward with it.
    And finally, regarding C-band. I am pleased that you have 
finally come around to see the benefits of a public auction. 
For all the discussion about the need for speed in this debate, 
you unfortunately have been moving at a glacial pace. Questions 
of the Commission's legal authority remain and threats of 
lawsuits on those grounds still hang heavily over the 
Commission.
    I along with subcommittee Vice Chair Matsui, Mr. Johnson, 
and Mr. Gianforte have introduced a C-BAND Act, and similar 
legislation has been introduced in the Senate. I believe 
Congress must move to pass legislation authorizing an auction 
in this band and resolve the Commission's authority to ensure a 
fair and transparent auction and capture auction revenue so 
that it may be used to pay for the deployment of rural 
broadband Next Generation 9-1-1 and closing the digital divide.
    We all know if we want to address these challenges, the 
Federal Government needs to provide funding for it. The C-band 
auction represents our last, best chance to do that in the 
foreseeable future, and I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues on the committee and in the Senate to address this 
issue promptly and swiftly.
    We need real solutions to address these problems, real 
protections for the American people, and accountability from 
our Federal regulators in industries that they oversee. I want 
to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I look forward 
to your testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

    Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on 
Communication and Technology's hearing on ``Accountability and 
Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.'' I'm glad 
to welcome our witnesses back before the ssubcommittee.
    I know it's been 7 months since we had you before us and I 
know that you've all missed the warm, welcoming atmosphere of 
our hearing room--but despite that passage of time, many issues 
that were of concern to us then still remain unresolved today.
    For example, I asked about the investigation into phone 
carriers selling the real-time location of nearly every 
American. Mr. Chairman, you told me that even after more than a 
year had passed we still couldn't tell whether this practice 
had stopped; couldn't say whether impacted individuals had been 
notified; and couldn't tell us if Members of Congress and law 
enforcement had their locations sold or tracked.
    And in June of this year you told Senator Blumenthal that 
you were wrapping up your investigation and would have 
recommendations shortly. That was 6 months ago, and we still 
don't have them!
    Chairman Pallone and I wrote to the Chairman in November 
asking for an update, and we got a response yesterday saying 
that he now expects an answer from the Enforcement Bureau by 
the end of January! And the Chairman says the he will share 
those results with us as soon as practicable.
    We'll be interested to learn when that will be, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Looking at your announcement yesterday about your ``new new 
plan'' with Mobility Fund 2, it seems that you have finally 
realized that the data you collected is garbage and that you 
need to go back and do this all over again.
    Everyone has been telling you that for years, and instead 
of acting decisively, folks in rural America will have to wait 
even longer to get broadband as you finally collect the data 
that you need.
    At our last hearing, 7 months ago--and the hearing 9 months 
before that!--Members brought up these same concerns, and here 
we are with you just yesterday announcing that you are kicking 
off another lengthy rule-making process to try again to fix 
this process.
    And stamping your new plan ``5G'' doesn't change the fact 
that communities where these funds are desperately needed have 
been waiting years--and will have to wait even longer because 
of a bungled process.
    And to add insult to injury, you aren't even taking action 
against the carriers that submitted the faulty or fraudulent 
data in the first place. What's their incentive in the future 
to provide accurate data if they know they're going to get a 
pass?
    Where is the justice for the people and communities who 
have suffered because of this?
    Mr. Chairman, I would remind you that you're charged with 
protecting and serving the American people, not the telecom 
industry!
    Shifting gears, and in a more holiday spirit here, I am 
pleased about Chairman Pai's recent comments regarding the T-
band. This spectrum is used by first responders around the 
country, and as reports have shown, the value of selling this 
band will not even come close to covering their relocation 
costs.
    In Allegheny County alone, where I live, it could cost 
upwards of 250 million dollars for public safety to relocate to 
other spectrum. I think that once and for all we need to repeal 
this mandate. It makes no sense to me or many on this committee 
to go forward with it.
    And, finally, regarding C-band, I am pleased that you have 
finally come around to see the benefits of a public auction.
    For all the discussion about the need for speed in this 
debate, you've unfortunately been moving at a glacial pace.
    Questions of the Commission's legal authority remain, and 
the threat of lawsuits on those grounds still hang heavily over 
the Commission. I, along with Subcommittee Vice Chair Matsui, 
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Gianforte, have introduced the C-BAND Act, 
and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
    I believe Congress must move to pass legislation 
authorizing an auction in this band and resolve the 
Commission's Authority, to ensure a fair and transparent 
auction, and capture auction revenue so that it may be used to 
pay for the deployment of rural broadband, Next Generation 9-1-
1, and closing the digital divide.
    We all know that if we want to address these challenges the 
Federal Government needs to provide the funding for it.
    The C-band auction represents our last, best chance to do 
that in the foreseeable future, and I stand ready to work with 
my colleagues on the committee and in the Senate to address 
this issue promptly and swiftly.
    We need real solutions to address these problems, real 
protections for the American people, and accountability from 
our Federal regulators and industries that they oversee.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here today; 
I look forward to your testimony.

    Mr. Doyle. And with that, it is my pleasure to recognize my 
good friend Mr. Latta, the ranking member on the Subcommittee 
for Communications and Technology, for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to 
the Commission for being with us today. It is great to see you 
all. I also appreciate that you are all so willing to be 
accessible and travel across the country to see how the FCC's 
regulations are affecting companies and consumers.
    This past year, Commissioners O'Rielly and Carr both came 
to my district to speak on rural broadband and learn about 
telehealth and precision agriculture and see how a fixed 
wireless operator serves a local sheriff's office.
    And a few years before, Chairman Pai came to a town of less 
than 700 people to meet with a packed room of telephone 
providers to discuss rural call completion. Hearing and seeing 
firsthand what is happening outside of DC helps to put our work 
in perspective. Again, I appreciate the work all of you do and 
thank you for being here again with us today.
    At the hearing in May, Chairman Doyle and I expressed the 
need for rural solutions to address illegal robocalls that are 
made to the American people. Yesterday we passed bipartisan/
bicameral legislation out of this chamber that provides strong 
consumer protections to combat robocalls.
    But this problem will only be solved with a multipronged 
approach, and I want to thank Chairman Pai and the rest of the 
Commissioners for their work thus far in pushing the industry 
to curb fraudulent robocalls.
    I also want to thank the Commission for injecting some 
urgency into the 5.9 gigahertz band. I have long recognized the 
value of this spectrum for advancing vehicle safety, and 
wireless innovation and the Chairman's proposal starts the 
discussion to modernize the band. The ongoing uncertainty in 
the band has hindered investment and deployments of safety 
technologies and hampered the expansion of Wi-Fi services.
    Our focus should be putting an end to that uncertainty, 
propel automobile safety, and unlock unlicensed use to help 
meet consumer demand for Wi-Fi services.
    I look forward to hearing more about how we can ensure both 
interests are advanced while protecting incumbents. It is clear 
that Wi-Fi is important to our economy and our overall 
communications landscape, which is why I am also interested to 
see that the FCC is looking at the 6 gigahertz band for 
additional unlicensed opportunities.
    At the same time, we must be aware of the critical services 
already in the 6 gigahertz band. I fully expect and encourage 
the Commission to continue its robust, technical analysis and 
testing as they do with every band to ensure incumbents are 
afforded their appropriate protection levels from harmful 
interference.
    It is important that industry and the FCC work together to 
find a consensus position that allows the spectrum to be used 
as efficiently as possible. The Commission has made many 
advances in reducing regulatory redtape from a fixed and 
wireless broadband infrastructure, and more work remains. In 
July, I led a letter with 9 of my colleagues on this 
subcommittee encouraging the FCC to clarify its rules regarding 
the statutory 5 percent cap on franchise fees, which some 
franchise authorities have stretched to include in-kind 
contributions that may deter investment in broadband 
infrastructure.
    Part of the solution could be found by improving the 
underlying maps, and I am pleased that this committee reported 
favorably H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act, to the House 
floor, which I worked on with my friend, the gentleman from 
Iowa, Mr. Loebsack.But the maps are only the beginning to 
closing the digital divide.
    Last year, Mr. Loebsack and I included our Precision 
Agriculture Connectivity Act in the farm bill. This provision 
will spur broadband deployment on rural, agricultural lands to 
help farmers better utilize connected equipment. I was pleased 
to see that the Commission recently announced the creation of a 
task force as mandated by our legislation to offer advice and 
recommendations on how to best achieve this very important 
goal.
    I look forward to continuing to work with the industry and 
the Commission to further address the connectivity issues.
    On the mobile broadband side, there is more work to be done 
as our Nation competes with China and others for 5G leadership. 
It is vital that we continue to look for opportunities in mid-
band to extend the reach of 5G across the entire country, 
especially in rural communities. I hope to hear more about the 
Commission's plan today for helping to speed buildout and 
prioritize the development in rural America.
    I also welcome any ideas the Commission may have on how 
Congress can better promote broadband deployment in competition 
in unserved and underserved areas.
    Again, I thank you all for being here to testify, and 
before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I would also ask unanimous 
consent to submit four letters for the record from carriers 
regarding ending their contracts to share location information.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Good morning. Thank you all for testifying today. I 
appreciate that you're always accessible and willing to travel 
across the country to see how the FCC's regulations are 
affecting companies and consumers. This year alone 
Commissioners O'Rielly and Carr both came to my district to 
speak on rural broadband, learn about telehealth and precision 
agriculture, and see how a fixed wireless operator serves a 
local sheriff's office. And, a few years ago, Chairman Pai came 
to a town of less than 700 people to meet with a packed room of 
telephone providers to discuss rural call completion. Hearing 
and seeing firsthand what's happening outside of DC helps to 
put our work in perspective. Again, I appreciate the work all 
of you do and thank you for being here today.
    At the hearing in May, Chairman Doyle and I expressed the 
need for real solutions to address illegal robocalls made to 
the American people. Yesterday, we passed bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation out of this chamber that provides strong consumer 
protections to combat robocalls. But this problem will only be 
solved with a multipronged approach, and I want to thank 
Chairman Pai and the rest of the Commissioners for their work 
thus far in pushing industry companies to curb fraudulent 
robocalls.
    I also want to thank the Commission for injecting some 
urgency into the 5.9 gigahertz band. I have long recognized the 
value of this spectrum for advancing vehicle safety and 
wireless innovation, and the Chairman's proposal starts the 
discussion to modernize the band. The ongoing uncertainty in 
the band has hindered investment and deployments of safety 
technologies and hampered the expansion of Wi-Fi services. Our 
focus should be on putting an end to that uncertainty, propel 
automobile safety, and unlock unlicensed use to help meet 
consumer demand for Wi-Fi services. I look forward to hearing 
more about how we can ensure both interests are advanced while 
protecting incumbents.
    It's clear that Wi-Fi is important to our economy and our 
overall telecommunications landscape, which is why I am also 
interested to see that the FCC is looking at the 6 gigahertz 
band for additional unlicensed opportunities. At the same time, 
we must be aware of the critical services already in the 6 
gigahertz band. I fully expect and encourage the Commission to 
continue its robust technical analysis and testing as they do 
with every band to ensure incumbents are afforded their 
appropriate protection levels from harmful interference. It's 
important that industry and the FCC work together to find a 
consensus position that allows the spectrum to be used as 
efficiently as possible.
    The Commission has made a lot of advances in reducing 
regulatory redtape to promote fixed and wireless broadband 
infrastructure, and more work remains. In July, I led a letter 
with 9 of my colleagues on this subcommittee encouraging the 
FCC to clarify its rules regarding the statutory 5 percent cap 
on franchise fees--which some franchise authorities have 
stretched to include in-kind contributions that may deter 
investment in broadband infrastructure.
    Part of the solution could be found by improving the 
underlaying maps, and I'm pleased that this committee favorably 
reported H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act, to the House floor, 
which I worked on with my friend from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack. But 
the maps are only the beginning to closing the digital divide. 
Last year, Mr. Loebsack and I included our Precision 
Agriculture Connectivity Act into the Farm Bill. This provision 
will spur broadband deployment on rural, agricultural lands to 
help farmers better utilize connected equipment. I was pleased 
to see that the Commission recently announced the creation of a 
Task Force, as mandated by our legislation, to offer advice and 
recommendations on how to best achieve this important goal. I 
look forward to continuing to work with industry and the 
Commission to further address connectivity issues.
    On the mobile broadband side, there is more work to be done 
as our Nation competes with China and others for 5G leadership. 
It is vital that we continue to look for opportunities in mid-
band to extend the reach of 5G across the entire country, 
especially in rural communities. I hope to hear more about the 
Commission's plan today for helping to speed buildout and 
prioritize deployment in rural America.
    I also welcome any ideas the Commission may have on how 
Congress can better promote broadband deployment and 
competition in unserved and underserved areas.
    Thank you again for testifying, and I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 5 
minutes of his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. Congress mandated 
that the Federal Communications Commission do its work in the 
public interest. That means its actions, policies, and rules 
should put consumers first. Unfortunately, this FCC under 
Chairman Pai continues to turn its back to consumers in favor 
of big corporate interests.
    Time and time again, this Commission has ignored the voice 
of the people and has taken a different path laid out by 
billion-dollar companies. The prime example of this was the 
FCC's action turning control of the internet over to large 
corporations by eliminating strong net neutrality safeguards 
that protected a free and open internet. That was just the 
beginning.
    As part of an effort to expedite the roll-out of 5G 
service, the FCC stripped away vital protections that helped 
safeguard important religious and cultural Tribal sites. 
Luckily, the courts struck down that effort. And it didn't end 
there. The FCC similarly attempted to strip away protections 
that promote diversity in the ownership of media companies, but 
again the court struck down the FCC's actions. And, just when 
you think this Commission couldn't slip any further down, the 
FCC intentionally undermined the ruling of that court by 
approving more consolidation after the fact.
    More and more challenges just like this are coming. In 
catering to corporate interests, the FCC has repeatedly 
stretched the law to the point of breaking, and this has 
resulted in delays and unsuccessful initiatives that benefit no 
one. Beyond that, this Commission is stalled when it comes to 
holding those mega corporations accountable for violating the 
slim safeguards that remain.
    We are, for example, still waiting for a conclusion of the 
FCC's investigation into the widespread disclosure of real-time 
location data by wireless carriers. That investigation started 
over a year ago, and that is unacceptable. Effective deterrence 
requires swift and decisive action, and the FCC has 
demonstrated neither.
    In other instances, it is as if this Commission has 
intentionally gone after vulnerable Americans. The Commission 
is proposing to cut off support to connect schools and 
libraries, rural healthcare, broadband deployment, and support 
for low-income Americans by capping the Universal Service Fund. 
This is shameful, and it preys on Americans that need our help.
    And if these failures weren't bad enough, the FCC's actions 
or lack thereof have put the American people in danger. We are 
increasingly experiencing hurricanes and wildfires, but the 
Commission is all talk and no action in the wake of these 
disasters. I have repeatedly asked this FCC to take steps to 
improve the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework, 
but nothing happens.
    And finally, the ongoing Government Accountability Office 
investigation into the FCC's electronic common filing system is 
producing disturbing results.
    I can't speak more specifically to its findings because the 
report is currently marked for limited or official use, but I 
ask Chairman Pai to dedicate the resources needed to quickly 
address the issues that GAO has found. And I just think it is 
time for the FCC to get back on track and put consumers first.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Congress mandated that the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) do its work in the public interest. That means 
its actions, policies, and rules should put consumers first. 
Unfortunately, this FCC, under Chairman Pai, continues to turn 
its back to consumers--in favor of big corporate interests.
    Time and time again, this Commission has ignored the voice 
of the people and has taken a different path laid out by 
billion-dollar companies. The prime example of this was the 
FCC's action turning control of the internet over to large 
corporations by eliminating strong net neutrality safeguards 
that protected a free and open internet.
    But that was just the beginning. As part of an effort to 
expedite the rollout of 5G service, the FCC stripped away vital 
protections that help safeguard important religious and 
cultural Tribal sites. Luckily the courts struck down this 
effort.
    And it doesn't end there. This FCC similarly attempted to 
strip away protections that promote diversity in the ownership 
of media companies. But again, the court struck down the FCC's 
actions. And just when you think this Commission couldn't slip 
any farther, the FCC intentionally undermined the ruling of 
that court, by approving more consolidation after the fact.
    More and more challenges just like this are coming. In 
catering to corporate interests, the FCC has repeatedly 
stretched the law to the point of breaking. This has resulted 
in delays and unsuccessful initiatives that benefit no one.
    Beyond that, this Commission has stalled when it comes to 
holding those mega corporations accountable for violating the 
slim safeguards that remain. We are, for example, still waiting 
for a conclusion of the FCC's investigation into the widespread 
disclosure of real-time location data by wireless carriers. 
That investigation started over a year ago. This is 
unacceptable. Effective deterrence requires swift and decisive 
action--the FCC has demonstrated neither.
    In other instances, it is as if this Commission has 
intentionally gone after vulnerable Americans. The Commission 
is proposing to cut off support to connect schools and 
libraries, rural healthcare, broadband deployment, and support 
for low-income Americans by capping the Universal Service Fund. 
This is shameful, and it preys on Americans that need our help.
    If these failures weren't bad enough, the FCC's actions, or 
lack thereof, have put the American people in danger. We are 
increasingly experiencing hurricanes and wildfires, but the 
Commission is all talk and no action in the wake of these 
disasters. I have repeatedly asked this FCC to take steps to 
improve the Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative Framework, 
but nothing happens.
    Finally, the ongoing Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
investigation into the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System 
is producing disturbing results. I can't speak more 
specifically to its findings because the report is currently 
marked for limited or official use. But I ask Chairman Pai to 
dedicate the resources needed to quickly address the issues GAO 
has found.
    It is time for the FCC to get back on track and put 
consumers first.

    Mr. Pallone. And with that, I would like to yield the 
balance of my time to Mr. Lujan.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank the Commissioners for making themselves available today 
for being in front of the committee and all the staff.
    We all know that this country continues to face a deep and 
persistent digital divide. Unfortunately, I do not believe, 
Commissioner Pai, that this Commission under your leadership 
has done enough to bridge that divide. And a concern that just 
occurred yesterday: Despite bipartisan agreement that the 
United States of America must fix our Nation's broadband map, 
we know that the mapping system that the FCC has to accurately 
capture where there is connectivity and where there is not, is 
broken. It is not accurately collecting that information.
    And then to find out that wireless carriers submitted false 
information, false mapping information, inaccurate information, 
what that means is wireless carriers submitted misleading 
coverage information to the FCC, and I am concerned that it is 
being swept under the rug.
    When consumers go buy their mobile phones, they have a 
beautiful brochure that is put in front of them, and it shows 
coverage areas of where they live. Those coverage areas are 
supposed to show where there is connectivity.
    Many people, especially in rural areas, buy their mobile 
phones based on those maps, because they may need to make a 
phone call to save someone's life. They have elderly parents 
that need connectivity, that there is no other family around. 
Why in the world would they not be held accountable, especially 
when there is bipartisan agreement from this Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans, saying we need to fix this problem?
    I hope we hear more about that and how that can be 
connected, and then on top of that, Chairman Pai, it was 
announced that the FCC was going to rush repackaged USF funding 
based on this flawed data. These dollars are precious. We need 
to make sure that we put those dollars where they matter most 
and where we can get connectivity, especially to rural America. 
Thank you for the time.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Good 
morning to the Chairman and to the Commissioners. Thanks for 
your service to America. I know we have disagreements on some 
of these policy issues, but we do appreciate the meetings we 
have had, the discussions we have had, the service that you are 
providing.
    You all heard me all along talk about the need for 
broadband in rural America. As Chairman Pai saw firsthand when 
he joined me in Eastern Oregon last year, far too many 
Oregonians still lack access to reliable broadband internet 
service. They are not alone.
    Millions of Americans who live in rural America face the 
same sort of internet dead zones. The Universal Service Fund is 
an important component in building and maintaining rural 
broadband service, and as policymakers our primary goal is to 
ensure that Federal resources are allocated responsibly.
    In that vein, we have to have accurate broadband maps to 
properly identify those places. We all express that in 
different terms with different emotion. I started way back 
when, when the Obama stimulus was going through this committee 
and the money was going out the door before the maps determined 
where underserved and unserved areas were. I even had an 
amendment to fix that, and it went down, unfortunately. So here 
we are, an administration or so later, or two, and--anyway.
    This committee recently passed two bipartisan mapping bills 
aimed at improving data collection and mapping efforts at the 
FCC, but there are some actions of this Commission that do have 
some concern for us. We learned from the press release 
yesterday that the FCC's establishing a new $9 billion fund, 
with a billion specifically for precision agriculture.
    Sounds good, and I support buildout for 5G in rural areas, 
but I have no details on this plan. I do have a lot of 
questions. I am also unclear as to where the $9 billion came 
from, and while still waiting for maps to accurately be 
updated. As you all know, we are the committee of oversight for 
the Federal Communications Commission. We take our job 
seriously, and I know you know that.
    And you take yours seriously, but we expect to have a 
little more notice, little more communication on some of these 
big announcements. And so that would, I think, be helpful and 
probably alleviate some of the questions that will come today.
    Since we obviously need to be crystal clear about our 
intentions for the FCC action from this committee, I would also 
like to note the importance of ensuring that Federal programs 
outside of the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction 
remain consistent with the committee's goal of promoting 
private investment in broadband infrastructure deployment.
    Sometimes various programs trying to achieve the same goal 
are not always in sync, as you all know. Last Congress, we 
appropriated more than $600 million toward broadband funding 
programs. As that money begins making its way out the door, I 
welcome an update from the Commissioners here today as to how 
the FCC is consulting with other agencies as required by 
legislation last year.
    Switching gears, I would like to turn to spectrum issues 
that have recently raised quite a bit of attention. The FCC 
announced that they would pursue a public auction of spectrum 
in the C-band. As the law stands now, any proceeds from an FCC 
auction would go to the Treasury for deficit reduction rather 
than going toward bipartisan priorities like facilitating the 
national transition to Next Generation 9-1-1. I think it is 
important to legislate and look to my colleagues on the other 
side to work with us on this issue in the coming weeks.
    As we have these discussions, we must work with the current 
licensees, potential bidders, and others so this auction moves 
quickly and we preserve U.S. wireless leadership. I have sought 
for years to find consensus solutions to spectrum challenges, 
as Chairman Pai well knows.
    One of these issues I have been focused on is how to 
address certain challenges facing our public safety officials 
in telecommunications as we continue moving into a digital 
world, including finding a solution to the T-band auction. At 
the same time, it is also imperative that we put a stop to 9-1-
1 fee diversion, so that States stop using fees paid by 
consumers to support 9-1-1 services as slush funds for 
unrelated programs.
    At the last FCC oversight hearing and other times over the 
last several years, I have floated proposals as how to delay or 
repeal the T-band auction process and welcomed thoughts on how 
to reconcile these related issues. I have not been taken up on 
that offer, so I must say that I find it interesting that, just 
last week, Chairman Pai called on Congress to repeal the T-band 
auction mandate, which was not coordinated nor discussed with 
me or my staff despite our efforts to find a solution.
    So, with the deadline fast approaching, I would like to 
take this opportunity to again repeat my call to affected 
parties to work with us and my colleagues to find a consensus 
solution on this issue. I realize it is a real one we need to 
address, but there are other issues.
    I led the effort to implement the 9-1-1 Commission findings 
that set up First Net and did the auction in 2012. And I know 
these issues pretty well, and we've got to take care of our 
first responders and we will, but there are other issues 
associated with this set of issues that we also need to 
address, and we need to work together on these.
    Mr. Chairman, with that I will yield you back 6 seconds, 
and thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Good morning, and welcome back to all of the Commissioners 
for our second FCC oversight hearing this year. It has been a 
busy year at the FCC under Chairman Pai's leadership, and I 
want to thank you for working so diligently on behalf of 
American taxpayers and consumers.
    You have all heard me, along with many of my colleagues on 
this subcommittee, talk about the need for broadband in rural 
America. My constituents from Bend to John Day and many others 
in rural parts of our country want access to the Internet.
    The Universal Service Fund helps achieve this goal by 
providing funding for the deployment and maintenance of 
broadband service in rural areas. As policymakers, our primary 
goal is to ensure that Federal resources are allocated 
responsibly.
    And, in that vein, we must have accurate broadband maps to 
properly identify those places. This committee recently passed 
two bipartisan mapping bills aimed at improving data collection 
and mapping efforts at the FCC. But recent actions taken by 
this Commission are concerning.
    We learned from a press release yesterday that the FCC is 
establishing a new, $9 billion fund, with $1 billion 
specifically for facilitating deployments facilitating 
precision agriculture needs. While I support investing in 5G 
for rural areas, I have no details on this plan and have many 
questions because the Chairman's office did not reach out to me 
OR my staff to explain how they intend to use this money. I am 
also unclear as to how the FCC found $9 billion for this 
purpose--all while still waiting for the maps to be adequately 
updated. To be clear--this committee has oversight authority 
over the FCC, and I have serious concerns that we are not being 
informed of their actions until hours before an oversight 
hearing takes place. We will take appropriate measures to make 
sure that the FCC is exercising regulatory humility and 
respecting THIS committee's oversight role in its actions.
    Since we obviously need to be crystal clear about our 
intentions for FCC action from this committee, I'd also like to 
note the importance of ensuring that Federal programs outside 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction remain 
consistent with the committee's goal of promoting private 
investment in broadband infrastructure deployment. Sometimes, 
various programs trying to achieve the same goal are not always 
in sync. Last Congress, we appropriated more than $600 million 
toward broadband funding programs. As that money begins making 
its way out the door, I welcome an update from the 
Commissioners here today as to how the FCC is consulting with 
other agencies as we required by legislation last year.
    Switching gears, I'd like to turn to spectrum issues that 
have recently raised quite a bit of attention. The FCC 
announced that they would pursue a public auction of spectrum 
in the C-band. As the law stands now, any proceeds from an FCC 
auction would go to the Treasury for deficit reduction, rather 
than going toward bipartisan priorities like facilitating the 
nationwide transition to Next Generation 9-1-1. I think that it 
is important to legislate and look to my colleagues on the 
other side to work with us on this issue in the coming weeks. 
As we have these discussions, we must work with current 
licensees, potential bidders, and others so that this auction 
moves quickly, and we preserve U.S. wireless leadership.
    I have sought for years to find consensus solutions to 
spectrum challenges. As Chairman Pai knows well, one of the 
issues I have been focused on is how to address certain 
challenges facing our public safety officials and 
telecommunicators as we continue moving into a digital world, 
including finding a solution to the T-band auction.
    As an author of the legislation that created FirstNet in 
2012 via the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, I am familiar with 
the commitments and the tradeoffs that have been made to make 
sure that public safety has access to their critical 
communications needs.
    At the same time, it is also imperative that we put a stop 
to 9-1-1 fee diversion so that States stop using fees paid by 
consumers to support essential 9-1-1 services as slush funds 
for unrelated programs.
    At the last FCC oversight hearing, and other times over the 
last several years, I have floated proposals as to how to delay 
or repeal the T-band auction process and welcomed thoughts on 
how to reconcile these related issues. I have not been taken up 
on that offer, so I must say that I find it interesting that 
just this week Chairman Pai called on Congress to repeal the T-
band auction mandate, which was not coordinated nor discussed 
with me or my staff, despite our efforts to find a solution. 
So, with the deadline fast approaching, I would like to take 
this opportunity to again repeat my call to affected parties to 
work with me and my colleagues on finding a consensus solution.
    I look forward to hearing testimony from the Commissioners 
on these and many other important topics, and with that I 
yield.

    Mr. Doyle. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair would 
like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    So it now gives me great pleasure to introduce our 
witnesses for today's hearing. The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman 
of the Federal Communications Commission. Welcome, Mr. 
Chairman. Honorable Michael O'Rielly. Welcome, sir. Honorable 
Brendan Carr. Welcome. Honorable Jessica Rosenworcel, welcome. 
And last but certainly not least, the Honorable Geoffrey 
Starks. Welcome to all of you. We thank you for joining us 
today. We look forward to your testimony.
    I will be recognizing each witness for 5 minutes, but 
before we do that, we will explain the lighting system in front 
of you. There is a series of lights that will initially be 
green at the start of your opening statement. It will turn 
yellow when you have 1 minute left. Please begin to wrap up 
your testimony at that point. When the light turns red, your 
time has expired.
    Chairman Pai, welcome. We now recognize you for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, AND MICHAEL O'RIELLY, BRENDAN 
CARR, JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, AND GEOFFREY STARKS, COMMISSIONERS, 
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                     STATEMENT OF AJIT PAI

    Mr. Pai. Thank you. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, 
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this 
hearing. I appreciate this opportunity to apprise you of the 
FCC's work to advance the public interest.
    I would like to focus my statement this morning on two 
important issues that we will be taking up at our meeting next 
week. The first, unfortunately, hits home with millions of 
Americans. It involves my proposal to establish 9-8-8 as the 
three-digit number dedicated to suicide prevention and mental 
health assistance.
    Under my proposal, anyone who calls 9-8-8 would be routed 
to the established National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, where 
they could be assisted by trained counselors. This proposal has 
a tragic backdrop. Suicide rates in the United States are at 
their highest levels since World War II. In 2017, more than 
47,000 Americans died by suicide. That is a 33 percent increase 
since 1999. And more than 1.4 million adults attempted suicide. 
At-risk populations are disproportionately affected. For 
instance, every single day, 20 veterans die by suicide and more 
than half a million LGBTQ youth will attempt suicide this year 
alone.
    I believe 9-8-8 could help. It has an echo of 9-1-1, a 
number we all know. An awareness of this resource should make a 
real difference when those in crisis need a lifeline, and I 
believe that we can get 9-8-8 up and running more quickly than 
other three-digit numbers. Of course, more calls will mean more 
demand for crisis centers, which in turn will require more 
resources. And that is why it is so important that this effort 
has bipartisan congressional support.
    In particular, I would like to thank Congressmen Chris 
Stewart and Seth Moulton for leading on this issue in the 
House. My proposal also has diverse support outside Congress, 
including from the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Health 
and Human Services, the National Council for Behavioral Health, 
and the Trevor Project. They agree that a simple number, 9-8-8, 
could make the difference between life and death. Working 
together, I am confident that we can and we will save lives.
    The second issue I would like to discuss is my proposal to 
reform the 5.9 gigahertz band. Here is the background. In 1999, 
the FCC allocated 75 megahertz of spectrum in this band for a 
technology called Dedicated Short Range Communications, or 
DSRC.
    DSRC was intended to enable ubiquitous automotive 
communications, but it hasn't borne fruit. After two decades, 
DSRC has evolved slowly at best. It is not widely deployed and 
so this spectrum, this public resource, has remained largely 
unused. This is unacceptable, and that is why I am proposing an 
alternative approach that would allow consumers to benefit from 
improved automotive safety technologies and more unlicensed 
innovation.
    With respect to unlicensed innovation, I am proposing to 
permit unlicensed operations in the lower 45 megahertz portion 
of the 5.9 gigahertz band. This would be a big benefit for 
American consumers. The best evidence of that is Wi-Fi's 
growing popularity. Since launching in 1999, the same year the 
FCC allocated this band for DSRC, Wi-Fi has become a staple of 
everyday life, but this has raised a challenge: We need more 
unlicensed spectrum.
    Allowing unlicensed operations in the lower 45 megahertz 
portion of the 5.9 gigahertz band would help meet that 
challenge. With respect to automotive safety, the upper 20 
megahertz of this band would be allocated for cellular, 
vehicle-to-everything, or C-V2X, a new cellular-based 
technology which would allow direct communications between 
vehicles and, well, everything from other vehicles to light 
poles to pedestrians. C-V2X is also expected to support new 
applications as we transition to 5G, and it is backed by 
automakers like Ford, Audi, BMW, Daimler, and Tesla. And we 
aren't closing the door on DSRC.
    Japan has a single 10 megahertz channel for DSRC that is 
actively used for collision avoidance, and so I am proposing 
that we seek public input on whether to allocate the remaining 
10 megahertz of spectrum in the upper part of the 5.9 gigahertz 
band for DSRC or C-V2X. Advocates of each technology could make 
their cases.
    I appreciate the bipartisan support for reforms to the 5.9 
gigahertz band, in particular, Ranking Member Latta, Committee 
Vice Chair Clarke, and Representatives Eshoo, Long, Matsui, and 
McNerney. And there is also diverse third-party support, 
including from Tech Freedom, Public Knowledge, Citizens Against 
Government Waste, the 5G Automotive Association, Ford, and the 
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.
    Now these two issues: Three-digit number for suicide 
prevention and the 5.9 gigahertz band are just two examples of 
how the Commission is advancing the public interest with strong 
bipartisan support. There are many others such as our actions 
last month to protect the security of our networks and improve 
the ability of first responders to quickly locate wireless 9-1-
1 callers that I don't have time to discuss right now. I would 
be happy to answer any questions you might have about them or 
any other issues.
    Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the 
subcommittee, thank you again for holding this hearing. Look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chair now recognizes Commissioner O'Rielly for 5 
minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY

    Mr. O'Rielly. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Doyle, 
Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to join the subcommittee as it 
conducts further oversight of the Commission.
    With your indulgence, I would like to raise three topics 
for consideration. First, I will begin with the World Radio 
Communication Conference 2019, WRC19, in Egypt, which I just 
attended 2 weeks ago. Suffice it to say, despite meeting some 
of our Nation's spectrum policy goals, WRC19 raised fundamental 
concerns that call into question the value of this 
international spectrum conference. Several countries, in 
particular Russia, France, and China, clearly sent delegations 
to Egypt with directives to thwart the United States and other 
forward-leaning countries.
    From my viewpoint, this was done in part for larger 
geopolitical purposes and to protect domestic industries from 
U.S.-based competition. Admittedly, international spectrum 
harmonization's incredibly valuable, especially in the 5G 
universe, but it must not come at the expense of U.S. interests 
and our like-minded allies. We are not without options if 
certain member nations continue to disrupt progress towards a 
next-generation wireless world. For instance, the U.S. could 
explore the formation of a G7-like organization or loose 
coalition of leading wireless nations as an alternative to the 
ITU.
    Second, when it comes to spectrum policy more generally, 
the WRC process reaffirms my belief that, for the U.S. to lead 
in 5G wireless services, we must avoid any delay in finalizing 
needed spectrum allocations, especially mid-bands.
    In fact, I would argue that we must pursue speed ahead of 
other social objectives. To do otherwise is to give other 
countries a head start in the ability to dictate the progress 
of our wireless future. In terms of specific spectrum bands, I 
believe that the premier opportunities reside at the 3.7 to 4.2 
C-band and the 3.1 to 3.5 5-gigahertz band.
    Given that the Chairman has announced a C-band auction for 
2020, we must do all that we can within legal constraints and 
respecting current licensees to complete this auction as soon 
as possible. For the 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz band, the Commission 
is initiating proceeding in December on a fairly narrow aspect 
of relocating commercial incumbents.
    Remaining effort, which involves moving DOD radars and 
opening the rest of the band to sharing, needs to be addressed 
in the very near future. This will require some heavy lifting, 
and the subcommittee's assistance in this matter would be 
invaluable.
    Finally, the subcommittee's help is also requested in 
addressing 9-1-1 fee diversion. I reported many times to this 
subcommittee on the progress the Commission is making to reduce 
the number of fee-diverting States and I can say to date we 
have successfully removed several from the last published list 
of diverters.
    With remaining States, we have those gaming the process, 
changing the labels of various fees, or downright ignoring our 
calls to end their thievery. As Mr. Walden recently suggested, 
tying fee diversion to a T-band plan may be one strong option 
to consider and would add that establishing further statutory 
prohibitions on diverters is much needed as well.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify, and I will welcome 
any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner O'Rielly.
    Mr. Carr, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR

    Mr. Carr. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to 
appear before you.
    When I testified 7 months ago, I outlined the bold steps 
the FCC is taking to accelerate the buildout of 5G and other 
internet infrastructure. I am pleased to report that the 
Commission's reforms are delivering results. Internet speeds 
are up 56 percent compared to just 2 years ago. The digital 
divide narrowed by about 20 percent last year alone. Providers 
built out more miles of high-speed fiber than ever before, and 
America now has the world's leading 5G platform.
    The very first commercial 5G service launched here in the 
U.S. more than a year ago. The private sector brought 5G to 14 
communities last year, quickly expanded that to over 30 in the 
first part of this year, and now one provider alone has 
committed to building 5G to 99 percent of the U.S. population.
    Small sub-builts have jumped from 13,000 in 2017 to about 
60,000 in 2018 to a total of 200,000 by the end of the year. 
These figures show the momentum America now has for 5G. Of 
course, numbers alone don't tell the full story. If 5G builds 
were limited to the wealthiest neighborhoods of America's 
biggest cities, we couldn't claim our policies are working.
    We reach the finish line when every community has a fair 
shot at Next Gen connectivity. And that is why I have spent a 
lot of my time on this job outside of DC in the communities we 
can't leave behind in the transition to 5G.
    While there is much more to do, I am proud of the results 
that modernized infrastructure rules are already delivering. 
Take Houston's Second Ward, a neighborhood that hasn't always 
shared in the prosperity and investment of neighboring 
communities. I spent time there with Mayor Sylvester Turner. I 
talked to the broadband providers who were right then trenching 
fiber and powering up new small cells, infrastructure builds 
that are boosting capacity in a community where for many their 
wireless connection is their only onramp to the internet.
    Or take Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a community many people 
wouldn't associate with the leading edge of 5G. Yet a few 
months back, Mayor Paul TenHaken showed me the 5G cell sites 
that are already going up.
    And this is great news because 5G opportunity can't be a 
unique privilege of living in a big city. That is why we focus 
on ensuring that rural America is not left behind, not left out 
of the jobs, the healthcare, and the innovations that are going 
to ride on a 5G network.
    To further extend U.S. leadership, we need to expand the 
skilled workforce that can build out this infrastructure. 
Industry could fill another 20,000 tower climbers to complete 
this 5G build, and these are good-paying jobs, ones you can 
raise a family on, and they don't require an expensive 4-year 
degree.
    So, earlier this year, I announced a jobs initiative that 
looks to community colleges as a pipeline for these 5G jobs, 
and after I met with officials at a community college in South 
Dakota, they have recently announced that they are launching 
their own program just next month. The new jobs and the builds 
that this will enable create the platform for innovative new 
services.
    Telehealth is a great example, as I saw earlier this year 
with Ranking Member Latta at ProMedica Hospital in Toledo. That 
is where Dr. Jumaa showed us how a video app right on his 
smartphone now let's him to see and treat stroke patients from 
almost anywhere. It is shaving precious minutes and saving 
lives, and it is an example of a new trend in telehealth with 
apps that can be accessed right on a patient's own device. 
Quality care can now be delivered directly to patients. It is 
the healthcare equivalent of moving from Blockbuster to 
Netflix.
    The FCC should support this new trend, particularly for 
low-income Americans and veterans, and that is why I have led 
the FCC's work to stand up a new $100 million connected care 
program which can do just that. I would like to move to an 
order in that proceeding in 2020, and I look forward to working 
with all stakeholders in doing so.
    In closing, I want to thank you again, Chairman Doyle, 
Ranking Member Latta, members of the subcommittee, for the 
chance to testify. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF JESSICA ROSENWORCEL

    Ms. Rosenworcel. Good morning, Chairman Doyle, Ranking 
Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to be here today.
    A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal published an 
article entitled ``The People Left Behind in a Broadband 
World.'' It began by describing a parking lot in southeastern 
Ohio. It is right next to the county library, and every evening 
long after the library has closed its doors, the lot is dotted 
with cars with passengers lit up by the light of their laptops 
and cell phones. You see, the library keeps the Wi-Fi on even 
after it has shut its doors. It means students who need 
internet access to do their school work can get their 
assignments done while sitting in the cars of their family and 
friends because so many of them do not have access to broadband 
at home.
    Today, 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires 
internet access, but FCC data repeatedly show that 1 in 3 
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. It 
affects 12 million students in every State all across the 
country. You see it in communities everywhere. Kids lingering 
in those library parking lots during afterhours or sliding into 
booths at fast food restaurants to do their homework with a 
side of fries, or just urging their parents to shuffle them to 
the homes of friends and relatives just to cobble together the 
connectivity they need for nightly school work.
    The homework gap is the cruelest part of the digital 
divide, but there are things we can do to solve it. The FCC 
could start a homework gap proceeding to identify solutions and 
new ways our universal service policies could help.
    We could explore how these programs could equip school 
buses with Wi-Fi and turn ride time, especially in rural areas, 
into connected time for homework, just as legislation before 
this committee recommends.
    And we could even go bigger and establish a national fund 
to solve the homework gap from a portion of the funds raised 
from the future auction of our airwaves. This fund could be 
used to make sure there are wireless hot spots for loan in 
every school library across the country. It would give every 
student a fair shot to do their homework and keep up in class, 
and it could solve the homework gap virtually overnight. We can 
do this if we set up a fund from the revenues raised by new 
licenses in the C-band.
    To this end, I am glad that the Chairman has announced that 
we will have a public auction of these airwaves, and I think 
the next step should be exploring how we can solve the homework 
gap using some of the revenues from this auction.
    If we did this, we could ensure no child is left offline, 
and I think we should because right now I think, in too many 
FCC policies, we are leaving too many people behind. We just 
approved the largest wireless transaction in our Nation's 
history, allowing two of the four national carriers to combine.
    We all know what happens to consumers when market 
concentration increases following a merger. In the airline 
industry, this kind of consolidation brought us more baggage 
fees and smaller seats. Why do we think it is going to be 
different this time? On top of this, we are taking the wrong 
road in the race to 5G auctioning off high-band airwaves when 
the rest of the world has focused its efforts on mid-band 
spectrum.
    We are at serious risk of falling behind. Moreover, we have 
real work to do if we really want to secure our 5G networks and 
coordinate across the government, because we do not have a 
national 5G security strategy and experts agree we need one. 
And when it comes to the resiliency of our existing networks, 
we need to recognize that wildfires and hurricanes are becoming 
more common and that communications outages that accompany them 
are becoming more severe, but we have not updated our FCC 
framework for disaster response, and we need to.
    Finally, the FCC is issuing all kinds of press releases 
about how we are going to update our universal service policies 
with new funds for rural broadband and wireless, but how are we 
going to do this when our maps are so inaccurate we can't say 
with certainty where service is and is not?
    Commonsense says we need maps before money, and data before 
deployment, but I fear that is not how we are going to proceed. 
These things need to be fixed, so I am glad you are holding 
this oversight hearing today. We have problems to solve, we 
have resources that are constrained, and communities that have 
real difficulty navigating the digital age.
    I still believe communications technology can help. I 
believe, with the right FCC policies in place, we can help 
solve the homework gap and so many other challenges that are 
before us.
    Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions 
you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
    Commissioner Starks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY STARKS

    Mr. Starks. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member 
Latta, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member Walden, and members 
of the subcommittee, it is a privilege, of course, to appear 
before you here today.
    Since I began and in the 7 months since I last appeared 
before you, I have repeatedly stressed the critical importance 
of reliable, affordable broadband service to communities 
throughout America, and that is why I want to begin with 
outlining how the digital divide is hardening into the state of 
internet inequality and how the FCC needs to improve the 
Universal Service Fund programs to address this issue. Millions 
of Americans in the hardest-to-serve areas are getting left 
behind.
    I have proposed a four-point plan to address rural 
broadband. First, the FCC must fund rural broadband with fixed 
maps. We have heard this here today already. The FCC recently 
proposed a $20.4 billion plan, the 10-year Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund, known as RDOF. Critically, 16 billion, nearly 
three-quarters of that fund, will be spent over 10 years based 
on the Form 477 data and maps that nearly every stakeholder 
agrees is badly flawed. We should have proceeded with a smaller 
initial budget and shorter service terms while we fix that data 
and mapping and then proceeded with the bulk of the support 
over longer terms. Unfortunately, the RDOF structure adopts a 
ready-fire-aim approach that favors speed over funding.
    Second, to address rural connectivity, we must incentivize 
providers to bring future-proof broadband to our communities. A 
close review of the RDOF proposal finds that many communities 
that will be deemed eligible are currently unserved already 
received FCC high-cost funding.
    How did this happen? That is why I have called for a data-
driven, 10-year look back on how our high-cost programming has 
performed in bringing broadband to our hardest-to-reach areas.
    Sometimes you have to look back in order to move forward, 
and what we cannot have is a world in 10 years from now, we 
wake up with another $20 billion spent and we still don't 
understand with precision which communities remain unserved and 
how we can accurately finish the job to connect them.
    Third, we must hold our auction winners accountable. Sadly, 
more than a dozen winners from our last Universal Service Fund 
auction have already defaulted on their bids to provide that 
necessary service to rural areas. We need to be absolutely sure 
that the carriers who receive USF funding will deliver the 
connectivity to the communities that need it the most.
    Finally, to address rural broadband. We must advance a more 
affordable way for our poorest rural Americans to connect to 
the internet. The FCC should require USF auction winners to 
offer an affordable broadband service option. We should examine 
the experience of a number of ISPs, including Comcast, Cox, 
AT&T, and Spectrum, that do provide low-cost offerings for the 
internet, around $15 or less to families participating in low-
income Federal programs.
    Connecting all Americans isn't enough if those connections 
are not secure. And so back in May I raised the alarm that we 
need to focus on the problem of untrustworthy Chinese equipment 
that is in our networks. I say we need to find this insecure 
equipment, fix the problem, and fund it. Find it, fix it, fund 
it.
    Last month my colleagues and I unanimously voted not only 
to prohibit USF funds from purchasing this untrustworthy 
Chinese equipment but also critically to address what to do 
about the equipment that already stands in our networks.
    There are additional security risks that must be addressed. 
One in particular that I focused on is election security. 
Reporting indicates that at least six States and Washington, 
DC, still use voting machines that transmit results over 
cellular networks, meaning that results can be blocked, altered 
by criminals, or our adversaries that can use fake cell towers 
and hack untrustworthy routers. Because of these risks, I have 
met with the major wireless carriers to discuss and have them 
tell me how they are protecting our network security. The 
important goal here that we must have is every vote to be 
counted accurately each and every time.
    Finally, we must make sure that all Americans share in the 
benefits of 5G. That technology has the opportunity to drive 
solutions, real solutions, on issues that matter most in our 
world, not just for today, but for our shared tomorrow. The 
future of work is one of these.
    5G will allow massive IoT networks using automation and 
artificial intelligence to achieve unprecedented productivity 
and efficiency, but that transformation will also displace 
millions of workers, and in particular, research from McKenzie 
shows that this revolution will disproportionately impact 
communities of color and women. That is due to their 
overrepresentation in roles as truck drivers, machinists, food 
service workers, and office clerks. Government needs to partner 
together with private sector to encourage and develop programs 
to use 5G better.
    Lastly, I will highlight the issue of climate change. It is 
an issue that we are seeing that our folks and companies are 
deploying in infrastructure deployments to account for climate 
change for their disasters and purposes of network resiliency, 
but 5G electric grid efficiency is going to play a critical 
role going forward.
    Thank you for having me here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Starks follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Commissioner.
    We have concluded our openings. We are now going to move to 
Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask 
questions of our witnesses, and I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    So Chairman Pai, I am glad that you have come to see that a 
public auction is in the best interest of the country and is 
the best approach. I want to ask all of the Commissioners to 
respond to my question by raising your hand if you agree. I 
will make a statement. If you agree with it, raise your hand.
    Could the Commission under its current authority use 
spectrum auction revenue from the C-band to pay for rural 
broadband development?
    Could you use it to pay for deployment of Next Generation 
9-1-1?
    Could you use it to close the homework gap?
    Would Congress need to pass legislation to authorize 
revenue from an auction of the C-band in order to do any of 
those things?
    [Witnesses raise their hands.]
    Exactly. This is why we need to move quickly to pass 
legislation to address these issues, and I stand ready to work 
with all members of this committee and the Senate who wish to 
do the same. This is an opportunity we dare not miss.
    I also want to ask all the Commissioners to respond to my 
question by raising their hand if they agree. This is sort of a 
little different approach to Mr. Dingell.
    The FCC's broadband deployment data is significantly 
lacking and deeply flawed. Do you agree with that statement?
    [Witnesses raise their hands.]
    These flaws are so bad that some of it, as the Chairman has 
said in the case of the Mobility Fund II data, we will need to 
redo it. They need to be redone.
    [Witnesses raise their hands.]
    When you have bad data as you did in Mobility Fund II, you 
can't make good decisions. You agree with that?
    [Witnesses raise their hands.]
    Mr. Chairman, will you commit to collecting new, accurate 
data, as it seems you have realized you need to do in Mobility 
Fund II for other proceedings?
    Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, appreciate the question. We have 
done that with the digital opportunity data collection which we 
adopted on August 1 with respect to fixed broadband.
    With respect to the 5G funds, since that is a Greenfield 
bill we will be exploring with a notice to proposed rule making 
early next year the way to move forward given the experience we 
have had with MF2, and that is why I agreed with the staff's 
recommendation we should close down the challenge process.
    The maps we had were simply inaccurate, and we cannot go 
forward, as you pointed out aptly, making a good decision on 
the basis of bad data.
    Mr. Doyle. Let me ask Commissioner Rosenworcel and 
Commissioner Starks. Does it seem to you that the Chairman's 
decisions about when he needs accurate data and when he doesn't 
is rather arbitrary? Because I can't find any rhyme or reason 
for why he accepts that he needs good data for these renewed 
Mobility Fund II data, but in other proceedings, such as this 
new forbearance proceeding regarding competitive services and 
the next round of Connect America Fund grants, the Commission 
seems to be ignoring the lack of accurate data in its 
decisionmaking. Would you like to both comment on that?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I agree with you, Chairman. I think you 
are right, and I think it is this simple: We need maps before 
money, and data before deployment.
    Mr. Starks. I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman, and it 
took us over a year to say that the Mobility Fund II data was 
broken, which seems shocking to me. This is--I am disappointed 
as well in an enforcement capacity that we are not going to 
hold folks accountable for those misrepresentations.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you told Senator 
Blumenthal in June of this year that you were wrapping up your 
investigation into location sharing by mobile carriers and you 
would be responding to the incident in the near future.
    Now it's December, and we still haven't seen anything, and 
I know yesterday your office did email me a response to my 
request for an update saying you would try to share the results 
of your investigation as soon as practicable. Could you tell us 
more specifically when we are going to get that information?
    Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in the letter, 
after consulting with the career staff of the enforcement 
bureau, they have told me that they would be in a position to 
provide those recommendations to me, to wrap up that part of 
the investigation, by the end of January, which is why I said 
as soon as possible thereafter I would be happy to share with 
you and other interested members of the committee what those 
results would be.
    Mr. Doyle. Commissioner Rosenworcel and Starks, do you have 
anything to add to that?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. It has been well over a year since we 
learned that there is a black market out there for where we are 
with our wireless phones.
    For a few hundred dollars, anyone could buy where we are 
within a few hundred meters. That is dangerous for our national 
and personal security, and it is crazy that wireless companies 
sold this data to skip tracing firms, who then sold it to bail 
bondsmen, who then sold it to bounty hunters.
    And here we are months and months later, and I still don't 
know what happened and the Chairman's office has refused to 
even provide us with any information about letters of inquiry 
or what we are investigating.
    I think that this is something that you need to follow up 
on, because this goes to the security of every one of us who 
holds on to a mobile phone.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I see my time has expired. Do you 
agree with that statement, Commissioner?
    Mr. Starks. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. I now yield 5 minutes to 
the ranking member.
    Mr. Latta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and again, to the 
Commission, thanks for being here today.
    Chairman Pai, if I could start my questions with you. I 
applaud the work you and the Commission are doing to make 6 
gigahertz available for unlicensed use, but I am concerned 
about how it might impact the utilities in my district who rely 
on that band for fixed wireless services.
    Does the Commission have the technical knowledge to craft 
rules that ensure that incumbent users are being protected?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Ranking Member Latta, 
and the answer to that question is yes, led in part by our 
sterling chief engineer and the other talented staff of our 
Office of Engineering and Technology.
    We are doing the necessary technical analysis to understand 
the extent to which the sharing of that 59-25 to 71-25 band 
with unlicensed operations would be consistent with the 
important functions that spectrum serves for the electric 
utilities and others that you identified.
    Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate that. And will you commit to 
ensuring that the incumbent users are protected when you make 6 
gigahertz available for unlicensed use?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. I have said consistently 
that we will make sure that we balance both those interests. We 
want to preserve those important incumbent uses and we also 
want to look at unlicensed and other operations.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. Let me follow up with another 
question. Recently you put forward a new proposal for the 5.9 
gigahertz band which would make 45 megahertz of spectrum 
available for unlicensed use while the remaining 30 megahertz 
would be split between two different auto safety technologies, 
the DSRC and the C-V2X.
    Would the proposal allow automakers to continue using the 
5.9 gigahertz band to send safety messages and provide other 
critical life-saving services?
    Mr. Pai. It would, Congressman. In fact, I would argue that 
my approach would deliver the most significant automotive 
safety benefits to the American public in decades, and the 
reason is that it would allow cellular vehicle to everything, 
in particular in that upper 20 megahertz part of the band, to 
progress.
    Under the current rules, C-V2X cannot go forward at all. We 
are stuck with the DSRC approach. And so my goal is to enable 
automotive safety technologies like that to thrive. And at the 
same time, we want to recognize, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, the DSRC should have a fair shot in making its case, 
and given the fact that the Japanese employ a 10 megahertz 
channel, that is why I included, as part of my proposal, 
seeking comment on whether DSRC or C-V2X should have an 
additional 10 megahertz.
    So that is a 30 megahertz-wide channel that would be 
allocated to automotive safety, driving tremendous benefits for 
American consumers, and this where, as I pointed out, a lot of 
automakers are focusing a lot of their energy as well.
    Mr. Latta. Let me ask a quick followup on that. Have you 
talked with the Department of Transportation on that?
    Mr. Pai. Extensively, Congressman, for many, many months. I 
personally and my staff and the staff of the Engineering and 
Technology Office, among others, have been consulting with them 
extensively.
    We have revised our proposals substantially to accommodate 
the interest, and in fact the approach that I published on the 
internet a couple of weeks ago reflects that compromise, that 
we aren't singling out--we aren't--we are essentially focusing 
on a balanced approach that would give automotive safety 
technology an exclusive home and unlicensed operations an 
exclusive home, and we feel like that is the best of both 
worlds.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. Because, again, has the FCC--I think 
you talked a little bit about this--has the FCC performed or 
evaluated any engineering studies to determine the impact on 
the incumbent uses of this band once opened for the unlicensed 
use?
    Mr. Pai. That is a good question. That is part of the 
reason why the approach I suggested is the best one. Under the 
previous administration, the contemplation was that we would 
share the entire band between DSRC and unlicensed operations. 
In order to test the feasibility of that, extensive testing was 
required.
    And that testing has taken a long, long time. Under my 
approach with spectral separation, by creating an exclusive 
home where automotive safety could thrive, they don't need to 
worry about unlicensed operations interfering with them. 
Similarly, on the unlicensed side, because they have that 45 
megahertz exclusive home in the lower part of the 5.9 gigahertz 
band, there is no problem in terms of the interference with 
automotive safety.
    And so essentially it's saying, look, everybody gets a 
different bite of the apple, so to speak, and those bites don't 
have to conflict.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. Commissioner Carr, I know earlier 
this year that you were a key driver in the FCC's launch of a 
$100 million pilot program to support telemedicine. I have 
always been an advocate for telehealth. In fact, last month 
this committee passed my bill aimed to address maternal 
mortality disparities which include utilizing connected 
technologies. Would you please give me an update on how the 
pilot program is going?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. We moved to the next 
phase earlier this summer. The common cycle on that has closed. 
My hope is that we would move forward quickly in 2020 with an 
order that would stand up formally that pilot program.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, my time has 
expired.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Chairman. And I thank the 
Commission for your work in the initiatives you described this 
morning.
    Mr. Chairman Pai, this summer I sent you a letter urging 
you to start a proceeding to take a first look at 5.9 and make 
it available for unlicensed use, and I appreciate your proposal 
and I am pleased to see that. You have also put a proposal to 
make the 6 gigahertz band available for unlicensed use, and I 
am hoping the Commission can move forward very quickly on this 
as well, and that has been echoed by members of the Commission.
    Chairman, please answer yes or no. Will you commit to 
moving forward in a timely manner to make the 6 gigahertz band 
available for unlicensed use and protect the incumbents?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Congressman, with the caveat that obviously 
we are going to be driven by the technical analysis, and I 
agree with the timely action on that basis.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, if our Nation is to have a 
successful 5G strategy, how critical is it that we make more 
spectrum available for unlicensed use? And why is the 6 
gigahertz band important for that purpose?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. You are right, unlicensed is absolutely 
critical. When we talk about 5G, we can't just talk about 
licensed airwaves. We have got to talk about unlicensed too. We 
know that about 70 percent of 5G traffic is going to be 
offloaded onto Wi-Fi at some point, so we have got to find 
places in our airwaves for that unlicensed activity to grow. 
The 6 gigahertz band is near existing unlicensed. We will have 
economies of scale, and it offers big, wide channels. We will 
have big capacity. This is where we get gigabit Wi-Fi. It is 
where we need to go next.
    Mr. McNerney. Thanks for that answer.
    Chairman, during the recent California wildfires, hundreds 
of cell towers went down when the power was turned off in 
Contra Costa County, which is part of my district. We had 88 
cell towers go down from power outages. This means that people 
couldn't call 9-1-1 or let loved ones know their status and so 
on.
    Mr. Chairman, please answer yes or no again. Will you 
commit to conducting a formal investigation into why cell 
towers went down during the power outages, including 
examination of backup generators and what coordination existed 
between carriers and utilities?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, we are already doing that. Our Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau has already reached out to 
the affected communications providers to understand what went 
wrong, looking at updating the wireless resiliency framework.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. As a part of this investigation, 
then, will you commit to holding a hearing in northern 
California to hear from the stakeholders involved?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I would happy to explore that with 
you and with other affected stake--areas in California.
    Mr. McNerney. So will you commit to doing this within 6 
months?
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, again, what should the FCC be 
doing going forward to make sure the cell towers don't go down 
during power outages?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thanks. It is a terrific question, because 
we are having these once-in-a-century weather events now every 
year. We have got to start planning and learning from them. We 
need a new playbook for disaster. Within 6 weeks after one of 
these outages, we should have an initial report every time. We 
should make sure we update our policies regarding cell towers 
and outages. We used to have backup policies at cell towers. We 
discussed them extensively after Hurricane Katrina, but the 
Office of Management and Budget took our rules and authority 
away. We have got to revisit that.
    We have also got to update the wireless resiliency 
framework at the agency, which has been the subject of GAO 
criticism, and we have got to update our network outage 
reporting to make sure it reflects what is happening when 
people lose service.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a record--a letter 
from 24 public interest organizations.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so moved.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Starks, the Lifeline program is critical 
for so many of my constituents, especially during emergencies 
like the wildfires. I am troubled by the FCC's repeated efforts 
to undermine the program. It is concerning that we have seen a 
decrease in enrollment despite a large number of households 
that qualify. What should the FCC be doing to promote the 
program and increase participation?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, Congressman, thank you so much for the 
question. Lifeline is the only program that we have right now 
that is designed for our most vulnerable low-income folks and 
for their communications, and times of emergency is exactly 
when they do need those connections. Issues with regard to the 
verifier and our ability to connect with some of the States 
electronically, as opposed to doing the manual review, has been 
part of the function of us having diminishing numbers, but I do 
have concerns that we need to do better by the most vulnerable.
    Here in DC, I visited most recently in Miriam's Kitchen, a 
homeless shelter, and spoke with a number of folks who have had 
trouble getting their Lifeline phones, and I know we need to do 
better.
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I have about five more 
questions. Can I have about 5 more minutes?
    Mr. Doyle. No, you can't. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee for 5 minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Walden. Well, thank you for giving me his extra 5 
minutes, Mr. Chairman. I like that.
    Chairman Pai, as we learned late yesterday via the press 
release, the FCC plans on dealing with this whole issue with 
the faulty Mobility Fund II data, which was slated to provide 
$4\1/2\ billion over the next decade to bring 4G LTE to rural 
America, by instead proposing a move forward to the new 
Mobility Fund II reinvented as 5G. Two weeks ago, this 
committee unanimously reported out bipartisan legislation which 
would direct the FCC to review its mobile coverage maps to fix 
the exact issue your investigation sought to review: inaccurate 
broadband maps built on faulty data. Now, it appears instead 
the FCC has decided to move ahead, not only with the initially 
proposed $4\1/2\ billion, but with an additional $4\1/2\ 
billion in new funding.
    And so I have got a couple of questions for you. How does 
the FCC plan to ensure these funds are distributed to 
appropriate places when you don't yet have accurate maps? I 
think we would all agree on that. And do you plan to distribute 
these funds once you have accurate data as legislated by 
Congress, or move forward before knowing what locations 
actually need the funding?
    And the third kind of unrelated to this is the new NPRM on 
forbearance. Is that going to rely on bad maps too, as you are 
dealing--maybe you can't address that because it is an NPRM, 
but at least these other two we would like to know more about.
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. So, with 
respect to the question of proceeding on the basis of maps, 
that is part of the reason why I agreed with the career stats 
recommendation to suspend the MF challenge process and 
ultimately the proposal to terminate that proceeding altogether 
and to move to a 5G fund. The entire point of the 5G fund is 
that we are in the early stages. Deployment is relatively 
scant, especially in rural areas it is virtually nonexistent. 
So the problem of inaccurate mapping with respect to 4G LTE 
does not map, pardon the pun, onto the 5G environment.
    Secondly, with respect to the budget, that is one of the 
things we are looking at as well, and I will be rolling this 
out in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making that I propose to my 
fellow Commissioners in early 2020, is understanding some of 
the puts and takes with respect to the budgets, the mapping, 
making sure we have the right eligible areas, et cetera. Those 
are the things we want to tee up early on in the Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making to get public input.
    The other thing I would note is that we are hopeful that 
past is prologue. So, for example, with the Connect America 
Fund Phase II, in part because of the reverse auction and 
intraarea and interarea competition, we are able to 
substantially drive down the amount of funding that was 
required from $5 billion to $1.5 billion. Our hope is that we 
will be able to do the same here.
    And with respect to forbearance, I couldn't agree more. 
When you and I were in eastern Oregon, we met with some of 
those affected providers. And that is why in the context of our 
pending UNII proposal, I took a very balanced approach, mindful 
of that. And some of the comments I have had heard from 
Chairman Doyle is not to throw the baby out with the bath water 
but to understand that, in some of these rural areas, the 
incumbent infrastructure is being used by some of the 
competitors in a way that promotes the public interest, and 
that is why we took a very measured approach on that.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. I think we will see how all this plays out 
in the comments that come in, but I was given a map the other 
day that shows Burns, Oregon, as an urban area, and it is not. 
They would even admit it is not.
    Mr. Pai. It is not Pendleton. It is not----
    Mr. Walden. It is not. And so there are some things there I 
think we have to look at, and there are some dark fiber issues 
that I think deserve some review. So anyway, we can deal with 
that.
    At the last oversight hearing, Commissioner O'Rielly and I 
had an exchange about delaying the T-band auction for States 
that stop diverting fees. And I appreciate your comments--I had 
to go up to the other hearing on climate change. I asked every 
member of this panel if they disagreed with what we were trying 
to accomplish with that proposal, and nobody--nobody--objected.
    So, Commissioner Rosenworcel, you and Commissioner O'Rielly 
coauthored an op-ed on the issue. New York State allows these 
fees to be put in a slush fund, my term, and used for their pet 
projects, my term, unrelated to 9-1-1 services. That is a fact. 
What are your thoughts on New York's diverting of fees, 
specifically? What impact does New York's fee diversion have on 
their public safety operation?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. Look, fee 
diversion is terrible. It is bad. We should use every resource 
we have at the Commission and working with you on this 
committee to stop it. It is just an outright lie when your 
phone bill says those numbers are going to support 9-1-1. They 
don't go there.
    Mr. Walden. I actually think it is postal fraud, because if 
you did that or I did that in a business and ran it through the 
mail system and then used the fund for a different purpose, I 
think I would--anyway.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. And I would say it is especially cruel. We 
have about 6,000 9-1-1 call centers in this country, with about 
100,000 people answering those phones from those days, the 
worst day of your life----
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. Every day. They pick them up, 
and they need about $12 billion to update to Next Generation 9-
1-1, which will make them effective and all of us safer. We 
have got to start somewhere, and stopping fee diversion is the 
right place to start.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you. Perfect timing. My time is up.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will have some other questions 
for all of you. Thanks for your service again to the country.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, and Ranking Member 
Latta for convening this oversight hearing today. And I want to 
thank all of our witnesses for being in attendance. It is 
always great to see you. I can't believe it has been 7 months. 
Hopefully, we won't go 7 months again. It will be less than 
that before we see you again.
    I do have a lot of material I want to try to get to today, 
so I am going to jump immediately to questions. First, for you, 
Commissioner Rosenworcel, I am sure you are aware of the work 
that this committee has been doing on broadband mapping, and I 
am proud that we recently passed the Broadband DATA Act through 
this committee unanimously on voice. And that will soon head to 
the House floor, hopefully, where I believe it will receive 
strong bipartisan support again.
    And I know you have long been a proponent of using 
crowdsourcing, for example, to get better maps. I agree it is 
important to have multiple points of reference, multiple points 
of data too. And I am proud that we have a robust challenge 
process also in this bill to ensure that everyday consumers and 
State and local and Tribal governments are able to challenge a 
map that says they have service when they don't. I like it when 
you say it is common sense.
    Additionally, I am glad that this bill includes quality-of-
service metrics, the bill that Mr. Latta and I put forth, 
because it is important to know what sort of internet service 
is available, not just whether it is available but what kind of 
service as well. So with the FCC working on its own mapping 
proposal, I want to ask you about advantages or disadvantages 
you think this proposal, our proposal, has compared to the FCC 
proposal or other legislative proposals.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question, and thank you 
to this committee for its bipartisan work on maps. It is really 
important. We have got to fix the situation we have where our 
data is so inaccurate, we don't know if we are sending funds to 
the right place or not.
    I think the best part of the legislation that this 
committee produced is it is all about public participation. We 
are going to take in crowdsource data. We are going to take in 
information from people and communities who know where there is 
service and there isn't, and we are going to test it against 
what people file with us in Washington. I think the best 
broadband map is not, in fact, going to be developed by us in 
Washington, but it is going to be a citizens' map we all 
develop, and your legislation speaks to just that.
    Mr. Loebsack. I do appreciate that, and thank you for your 
response. This committee, as you know, has focused a lot of 
time on making sure that we get the accurate maps and that they 
are granular. And I just want to follow up, I guess, on what 
Ranking Member Walden asked about as well, give you a chance to 
respond.
    Given the FCC's announcement of a high-dollar fund, I am 
concerned that the Commission hasn't yet taken the steps to 
ensure that the maps are accurate enough, that this sort of 
funding will, in fact, close the digital divide. So do you 
think programs like the newly announced fund will make a 
meaningful impact for rural Iowans? What are your thoughts 
about that, just to follow up on the question that Mr. Walden 
asked?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. Sure. It could, but we have got a 
basic problem. We need maps before money and data before 
deployment.
    Mr. Loebsack. I like that phrase, by the way, ma'am.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. We are just pumping out press releases 
about funds, but we are not explaining where we are going to 
send them and based on what information, and that is a problem.
    Mr. Loebsack. And we all have stories we could tell. I 
don't have enough time to go through mine, obviously.
    Commissioner Starks, I invite you to offer your insight on 
the mapping work of this committee or the recently announced 5G 
fund.
    Mr. Starks. Yes. I too am, of course, as I think somebody 
from Kansas, I am eager to see that we get the latest 
technology and connectivity out to even our most rural 
citizens, but I have deep concerns and questions from what was 
announced yesterday. Where is the money coming from? Is this 
the same type of data that was relied upon on MF, which we all 
know had to be taken down? And very much related to the 
announcement from yesterday is a real issue of holding folks 
accountable where they have data that is incorrect.
    One additional thing that I wanted to highlight is there 
was information yesterday that was redacted from the report 
that was issued by the Chairman. I am working with the Chairman 
and with the staff, because I think there is critical consumer 
protection information in there that is not confidential, and 
so I am extremely hopeful that information will be lifted soon 
so that the American public can know what is going on.
    Mr. Loebsack. I think we need to focus on the fact that we 
don't want to waste taxpayer dollars as well. We have got to 
have good data. Otherwise, this could be a waste of taxpayer 
dollars, the money that we do send out.
    One last question, if I may, Ms. Rosenworcel, you know, 
about our precision ag bill that Mr. Latta and I worked 
together on, and the Commission was set up. What do you think 
needs to be the first focus of the task force, I should say, to 
ensure that we are tackling this problem in the right way?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Terrific. I think the Chairman has set it 
up so the task force has its first meeting next week, which is 
exciting. I spent some time in Iowa, and I saw what it looks 
like when we connect cows at every corner of an agricultural 
field. So here is my concern. We are going to produce so much 
data from our farms, they are going to have to upload that to 
the cloud.
    Traditionally, our broadband standards have been 
asymmetrical in that they are at much higher speeds that come 
down and much lower speeds sending it back up. I mean, that is 
based on the idea we watch video, and we just use broadband for 
consumption activity. But farms are going to start to get in 
the business of creation activity.
    Mr. Loebsack. Right.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. We have got to figure out how we have more 
symmetrical speeds to serve our agriculture future.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. And I know I have run over, Mr. 
Chairman, but as cochair of the GPS Caucus, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the record a blog post from the GPS 
Innovation Alliance dated today, December 5, for the record, if 
I may.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State 
of Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair for that very warm 
introduction of my own State of Texas.
    Happy holidays to the entire FCC. I have to open with a 
confession to Chairman Pai. A few years ago, with an example 
from Chairman Carr, we both committed to climb a communications 
tower. In August of 2018, you did that in Colorado. I believe 
the tower was 131 feet tall. I haven't forgotten my commitment 
to you to climb a tower, but my problem is I am from Texas, and 
in Texas, bigger is always better. So I have been trying to 
climb a tower that is 20 times your tower, a 1,971-foot tower 
in Missouri City, Texas. If I can make this happen, you are 
welcome to join me, as you are too, Mr. Carr, and the 
Commissioner, 2 miles up a tower.
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I certainly welcome the invitation, 
but at the risk of getting an ``OK, Boomer'' response from 
Commissioner Carr, I will say that I would have to view it from 
the ground just to be safe.
    Mr. Olson. Well, Commissioner Carr, thanks for mentioning 
the Third Ward in Houston, a great example of how big-city 
America's third-largest city has the same problems with 5G as 
rural America, so thanks for mentioning Houston, Texas, and 
Mayor Sylvester Turner.
    My first question for you, Mr. Pai, I know that the 
Commission, under your strong leadership, has focused 
considerable resources on ensuring that the essential mid-band 
spectrum is made available to fuel 5G and keep us competitive 
internationally. Can you describe the steps you have taken as 
Chairman during your administration to expedite the use of this 
critical spectrum resource?
    Mr. Pai. Appreciate the question, Congressman. When I came 
into office, we were starting from scratch in terms of mid-band 
spectrum. And one of the things we have done as part of our 5G 
fast plan is to move aggressively on low-, mid-, and high-band 
spectrum. With respect to mid-band spectrum in particular, we 
have started the process of freeing up the 2.5 gigahertz band, 
the so-called EBS band for wireless service, including a Tribal 
window. The 3.5 gigahertz band will be auctioned on June 25 of 
2020. Made an announcement recently about the public auction of 
the C-band, critical mid-band spectrum.
    In addition to that, as part of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, 
they have committed to deploying their mid-band spectrum assets 
quickly for the benefit of American consumers. And, although it 
doesn't necessarily rely on spectrum in particular, the small 
cell reforms we have done to encourage the deployment of these 
next generation networks, the architecture of those networks, 
has been vital as well.
    And so it is curious when those who criticized us for not 
acting quickly on mid-band are missing the fact that we are, in 
fact, moving quickly. But in many cases, in fact, on all of 
those, we faced opposition even from the Commission.
    Mr. Olson. The next question is to Commissioner O'Rielly. 
You have been adamant about the need to make the C-band 
spectrum available as quickly as possible via that auction. Can 
you explain why speed is important, especially with your trip 
overseas, and how a delay can hurt our national security?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So I believe that C-band is the most ideal 
place for mid-band spectrum for 5G services. Internationally, 
they have already identified and are making that available in 
either auctions or licenses to their providers. So they are 
using the same identical bands that we would like to make 
available, and what I have argued is we cannot wait and delay 
for that process. The equipment manufacturers are making 
equipment for those purposes, and we will be delayed as a 
Nation, and our providers will harm from that if we do not move 
forward on C-band as soon as possible.
    Mr. Olson. And how does that hurt our national security?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, in terms of the growth parts, economic 
security comes with economic growth, and also, national 
security, because the growth in international has been from one 
particular country, China. And China is spreading its equipment 
through multiple different means, and I don't want to--in a 
public setting, I don't want to go there, but they are using 
all kinds of tools to expand their network throughout the globe 
as best they possibly before we can get onto the playing field.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you.
    Final question for you, Commissioner Carr. You talked about 
finding qualified talent in areas of emerging technology for 
the FCC. Can you touch on what has been done within your 
Commission to get the people you need with the qualification 
you need to move forward and how Congress can help you get 
those people? I know you talked about community colleges, local 
colleges, but what resources have you gotten, and how can we 
help get the resources you need to go forward?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
Congressman Loebsack has a bill that would go a long way in 
providing funding for more of these training programs. I have 
been working directly with community colleges. I started in 
Graniteville, South Carolina, at Aiken Tech and looking to 
expand their program as a model. As I mentioned, we have had 
some success already with at least one additional community 
college. I am now working directly with them, and the FCC as a 
committee is also looking at these workforce issues. I think 
that is going to be a fruitful avenue as well.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you. Go Navy. Beat Army.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
    I would like to acknowledge the Commission's recent action 
in spectrum policy, including maintaining FCC leadership for 
the public C-band auction and proposing to expand wireless use 
into the 5.9 gigahertz band, so long as it can be done safely.
    Making more mid-band spectrum available is important for 5G 
deployment, but also for eventually closing the digital divide 
in rural America. And, Commissioner Carr, I appreciate your 
statement earlier on the facts as far as that closure. I don't 
see that at all anywhere in rural America that I have been, and 
I am in rural America all the time. So our staff will get ahold 
of your office and try to come up with how those numbers were 
put together. The divide is only getting wider as we implement 
5G into the entire process.
    A lack of broadband access means life and death in rural 
America, and Chairman Pai, you had mentioned that. It also 
means it is not just rural Americans, it is all Americans that 
travel across our country. All 320-some million of us 
eventually travel across an area that has very little ability 
to have broadband. It impacts the opportunities for children in 
rural America compared to those in urban centers. It impacts 
business development. It has a profound impact on healthcare.
    My district is home to 12 Tribal nations, which is the most 
of any congressional district. I will go back because Mr. Lujan 
would be upset with me, as the most population, not the most 
Tribes. Unfortunately for Indian Country, the FCC's latest 
Tribal broadband report showed that 36 percent of Tribal 
households lacked access to any broadband, which is simply 
unacceptable in today's age. This is compared to 8 percent of 
non-Tribal households without any access. That is your report.
    The RAY BAUM'S Act directed the FCC to complete a 
proceeding to address barriers to Tribal access found in the 
report within 30 months. Chairman Pai, we are now almost 2 
years since this part of the Act was signed into law and over 6 
months since the Tribal broadband report was released. With 9 
months left to meet its statutory deadline, would you explain 
why the Commission has yet to begin a formal proceeding to 
specifically address these barriers from the report, and when 
do you think it will be done?
    Mr. Pai. Appreciate the question, Congressman. The staff 
is, in fact, working on that report, but in the meantime we are 
taking serious and meaningful steps to address particularly 
that issue, the lack of Tribal broadband, including a Tribal 
broadband factor, for example, in our universal service program 
creating a rural Tribal window for a 2.5 gigahertz spectrum so 
Tribes exclusively can use that public resource to benefit 
their people----
    Mr. O'Halleran. We will talk about that offline, but I just 
wanted to know that specific area.
    Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks, has 
the Chairman's office reached out to either of you about what 
the proceeding will look like before the upcoming statutory 
deadline?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. The answer is no.
    Mr. Starks. Not to me either, Congressman.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Let me go back to Chairman Pai, then. Why 
is that the case, Chairman Pai?
    Mr. Pai. Well, Congressman, we are always happy to have 
conversations. This is an issue that the staff is working on, 
that particular report. I, myself, have not seen their 
recommendations thus far, but we would be happy to 
incorporate--this is a bipartisan issue. I am the first 
Chairman to get across the table a Tribal access proposal, 2.5 
gigahertz. These are bipartisan issues that I think bind the 
Commission together.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Whenever I have been in a leadership role, 
I have made sure that those that have to work with me are 
informed on a continual basis of any processes moving forward.
    As you all know, I care deeply about the educational 
broadband service spectrum option and ensuring Tribal 
governments have ample opportunity to take advantage of the 
Tribal proprietary window. I appreciate the Commission's recent 
announcement that this priority window will now be extended for 
180 days to ensure all Tribes have the consultation and 
resources to participate in the auction. This is extremely 
important that the Tribes have these resources. However, prior 
to this announcement, I have heard concerns from Tribes that 
the overall outreach affects efforts from the FCC's Office of 
Native American Policy were insufficient to fully educate them 
on the auction process and many other matters.
    Chairman Pai, will you commit to holding more in-person and 
educational workshops for this proceeding beyond those 
announced in the next few weeks?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I will, and we are.
    Mr. O'Halleran. And I see my time is up. And thank you very 
much, everybody.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank 
you all for being here. I very much appreciate it.
    I know we have talked about this, but I do have a few 
questions. You announced, Mr. Chairman, just before the 
Thanksgiving break, that you will proceed with a public auction 
to repurpose 280 megahertz in the C-band. While there was a lot 
of debate about how the FCC was going to proceed on this band, 
there was one principle that seemed to be universal: that these 
proceedings need to occur quickly and efficiently. I was open 
to either mechanism, as long as we held to the principle of 
doing things quickly, plus one other principle: that 
substantial revenues raised be raised for the Treasury and 
hopefully for things like rural broadband development and 
similar programs.
    But given that most stakeholders estimate a public auction 
will take longer than a private sale, Mr. Chairman, what can 
Congress do to help speed this up? Do you need new authorities? 
Do you need temporary people, appropriations for auction 
software? What are the things we need to be aware of?
    Mr. Pai. I certainly appreciate the question, Congressman, 
and with respect to some of the public interest benefits that 
have been identified by members of the committee, we would need 
legislation. Three years ago, for example, I was the first to 
propose a rural dividend, a portion of the proceeds being 
allocated for rural broadband. That would require legislation, 
so we certainly welcome the committee's input on that.
    With respect to the structure and conduct of the auction, 
there are certainly resources that we have to muster. There are 
issues that we have to work out. I believe we do have authority 
currently to be able to do the necessary leg work in order to 
conduct the auction quickly, which is one of the things that we 
want to prioritize as well. But should that change, I will let 
you know in the immediate future.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Yes. Just--if you could, with any of that, 
just keep us updated.
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
    Mr. Kinzinger. I think we would be eager to help.
    On the supply chain security front, I want to again thank 
the Commission for its unanimous vote back in May to prohibit 
China Mobile from interconnecting with U.S. networks on 
national security grounds. And I also appreciate the 
Commission's ongoing proceedings to prohibit taxpayer dollars 
from being used to buy dangerous telecom equipment. You all may 
have seen that before Thanksgiving break, this committee 
favorably reported legislation that I and Chairman Doyle 
authored to facilitate information sharing from the Federal 
Government to the private sector. The goal is to better inform 
smaller and more rural carriers about the risks that certain 
foreign equipment can pose to our networks so that they don't 
purchase or install it.
    Commissioner Carr, do you believe smaller and rural 
carriers have adequate access to classified information on 
network threats?
    Mr. Carr. I hope they would. I spent some time outside of 
DC, including in rural Montana, meeting directly with some of 
the small providers that are impacted and hearing directly from 
them, but I am happy to engage in more discussions with them as 
needed.
    Mr. Kinzinger. And do you think we should be doing more and 
that this legislation would go in helping that information 
flow?
    Mr. Carr. I am very supportive of the work that we need to 
do to make sure we have secure networks. And, if there is 
additional information as to your bill, that would be very 
helpful to get us there.
    Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Great. We will follow up, and you can 
follow up as well with any additional help you guys need.
    And, to continue with some of these security concerns, 
Chairman Pai, are there cybersecurity or physical security 
concerns if information and communications technology companies 
allow noncleared or unvetted personnel access to software 
development kits or application programming interfaces for 5G?
    Mr. Pai. There are tremendous dangers, and not just to the 
economy of our country, but to our very national security. 5G 
networks, unlike their predecessor networks, will be software 
defined as opposed to hardware driven. And that is part of the 
reason why the attack surface is so much greater, and 
especially when you consider that 5G will involve Internet of 
Things deployments, billions more connected devices driving 
transportation, healthcare, education, agriculture, you name 
it. We have to be right across all of these different vectors, 
and that is part of the reason why we have taken 5G security so 
seriously, part of the reason why I personally have been 
speaking to our allies abroad. I have visited Bahrain, Germany, 
other countries to help them understand the risk profile and 
the need for us to collaborate on a risk-based framework.
    To me, the challenge that China presents is one of the top 
national security issues for this country, and 5G is at the 
leading edge of that challenge.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Thanks. And is there a common standard to 
use vetted personnel, you know, AI or machine learning to 
analyze source code that will be distributed or used in patches 
for software updates for 5G?
    Mr. Pai. There is no standard, as I understand it, and part 
of the problem, in addition to that, is the fact that a lot of 
these software-driven networks are going to be managed over 
time. You are going to get software updates just as people get 
software updates on their phone. In real time, will governments 
have the ability to monitor every single line of source code 
that is being updated by an untrusted vendor? I think we know 
the answer to that question, which is part of the reason why we 
need to think of security as a forethought as opposed to an 
afterthought and have that risk-based framework that all allied 
countries agree on.
    Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you. And again, to the 
Commission, you know, we like to sometimes find everything that 
divides us in this business. This is one area we are very 
united, so thank you all for your hard work.
    And I yield 2 seconds back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Eshoo, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, and welcome to the 
full Commission.
    I guess there is an advantage to be one of the last Members 
to question, and my observation is the following: We keep 
talking about the same things that have not been resolved, so I 
want to start with Chairman Pai. This whole issue of the 
letters of inquiry, you heard my displeasure in our exchange 7 
months ago. Can you send the letters of inquiry to me?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, my understanding is that the 
Enforcement Bureau traditionally does not do that.
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, I am not talking about tradition and 
understanding. So I am asking you a direct question. Will you 
send the letters of inquiry to me?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I have to consult with the 
Enforcement Bureau career staff, but again, my understanding--
--
    Ms. Eshoo. You keep talking about the career staff. Yes or 
no. Will you send the letters of inquiry to me?
    Mr. Pai. I will see what we can do, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Eshoo. That is a very--that is not an answer. All 
right. I am going to move on, because that is essentially a no.
    California has obviously been in the news for something 
that is really sorrowful, these massive wildfires. And as 
California undergoes the pain of this--the aftermath, the loss 
of life, the loss of homes, the loss of property--there is also 
the loss of a telecommunications system. California is not the 
only State that has undergone or will undergo these weather 
catastrophes. We have tornadoes. We have hurricanes. We have 
flooding.
    Now, it was raised that we have no backup plan. In 
California, 874 cell towers were out. Emergency services people 
cannot communicate with one another. I had a letter from 
seniors that are a couple, Mr. and Mrs., and said, what do we 
do? We have no way to contact 9-1-1 if there is a medical or 
fire emergency, and we can't contact the utility. How are we 
going to call the fire department or emergency services?
    So what is your answer to them?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I feel----
    Ms. Eshoo. What is your answer?
    Mr. Pai. I am sorry.
    Ms. Eshoo. What is your answer? And by the way, have you 
been to California? Have you visited?
    Mr. Pai. I have.
    Ms. Eshoo. Have you met with emergency services people?
    Mr. Pai. I have.
    Ms. Eshoo. And when was that?
    Mr. Pai. I can't recall the specific date.
    Ms. Eshoo. This year?
    Mr. Pai. I can't remember if it was this year or not.
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, let me know, all right?
    Mr. Pai. OK.
    Ms. Eshoo. Yes. What is your answer to these people, and 
what is the backup plan, A? And B, I would like to know why OMB 
shut that down. I don't understand what OMB has to do with 
this, but it would be interesting to know.
    Mr. Pai. With respect to the second question, 
Congresswoman, the Office of Management and Budget----
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, answer the first one. What is the plan?
    Mr. Pai. So, with respect to the first question, this is 
part of the reason why I have stressed--even before the 
wildfire situation you described, I have stressed the need for 
power companies to share information with telecommunications 
providers. In this case, they did not do that. That is one of 
the reasons why the Public Safety and Homeland Security----
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, you know what, if you asked for that 
information, they did not give it to you. It is your 
responsibility, just as it is mine, to follow up with people. 
You have to be gum stuck to someone's shoe on behalf of the 
American people. We are not just States in America. We are the 
United States of America, so we need a policy that is going to 
serve everyone. There needs to be a plan on this. This is about 
life and death. We are not talking about, I don't know, some 
small potatoes somewhere.
    And so it is disturbing to me that there isn't a plan, you 
can't articulate one, you don't remember when you have been in 
California, you don't remember the last time you spoke to 
anyone, and--so let me move on.
    On Lifeline, I have been a broken record. This is a program 
that President Reagan put into place. I have spoken to each one 
of you individually about it. I consider this a moral issue. A 
moral issue. And why? Because we are talking about veterans. We 
are talking about the elderly. We are talking about domestic 
violence victims. We are talking about people that have or are 
experiencing homelessness.
    Now, I don't know what any of these people have done to any 
one of the Commissioners, but to have a program that has an 
unfathomable 45 percent in the last 3 years, that is what it 
has fallen by. Are you gladdened by that? Is that something, 
Mr. Chairman, that you can take out there and brag about on the 
road? I don't think so. And somehow, I don't know how I can 
ever get to people to understand that people are being hurt by 
this. None of us went into public service, whether elected or 
appointed, to hurt people. But you know what? In this 45 
percent in the last 3 years, people have been hurt. People have 
been hurt.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. And 
thank you to all of you here this afternoon. Well, not 
afternoon quite yet. Pretty soon.
    Chairman Pai, as you know, a portion of my district is part 
of a peninsula.
    I don't know what is going on here.
    [Disturbance in room.]
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman will suspend.
    Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Pai, as you know, my district in the Tampa Bay 
area of Florida is part of a peninsula. And during an 
emergency, this creates unique challenges as the bridges off 
the peninsula are closed in high winds and up to 1 million 
Pinellas County residents are sent north to a limited number of 
west-east evacuation routes. So Pinellas County is off the 
coast, the Gulf of Mexico. Luckily, we are close to approval of 
an additional evacuation route that will ease congestion, and 
it is called the Ridge Road, the Ridge Road Extension Project, 
which we feel we are going to get the permit this month to 
extend the road from west to east.
    But separately, in 2016, the FCC modernized the wireless 
emergency alert system requiring providers to better geotarget 
alert messages. This will also alleviate the road congestion 
from unnecessary evacuations. Have all providers complied with 
this requirement? And how will the full implementation of 5G 
enable even more specific geotargeting of emergency alerts?
    Mr. Pai. With respect to the first part of your question, 
Congressman, I am pleased to say that the providers who 
participate in the wireless emergency alert system were ready 
to proceed with geotargeting along the lines you suggested. 
Unfortunately, because FEMA had not yet set up that system for 
testing, we extended that deadline for another couple of weeks. 
The providers needed 4 weeks of testing. So my understanding is 
that we--that system will be up and running in the very near 
future.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Good. I hope it happens, you know, in early 
spring.
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bilirakis. You know why----
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. With the hurricanes and all the 
natural disasters.
    Commissioner Carr, last year, I had the pleasure of hosting 
the Pasco County emergency services center. One of the issues 
discussed at the time was the desperate need for system 
upgrades. And thank you very much for coming down to my 
district.
    And obviously, Chairman Pai, we welcome you back as well. I 
am sure this is something that you hear about with the 9-1-1 
centers all across the country, especially as many wish to move 
to NextGen services. What options is the Commission looking at 
to take advantage of technology improvements to help emergency 
service centers save lives? And what do you--and how much money 
would it take to upgrade the country to NextGen 9-1-1 services?
    So, in other words, if you can give me a round figure, it 
is so very important, obviously. So this is a public safety 
issue. If you could respond, please, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your 
leadership on these important public safety issues. I enjoyed 
spending time with you at the Pasco County 9-1-1 center.
    In terms of the general figure, the estimates I have seen 
range between $9 to $12 billion to upgrade the system to 
NextGen 9-1-1, and doing so is important for the reasons you 
pointed out. We need to have accurate, up-to-date, modern 
information at these call centers.
    And one step we recently took at the FCC was something we 
call the Z access, vertical location information, so that for 
the very first time, those 9-1-1 call centers and then, in 
turn, public safety responders will know the vertical height of 
a 9-1-1 caller to accelerate response time. So that is part of 
a, I think, broadly speaking, upgrade to NextGen technology 
that we need to keep supporting. So thanks for your work on 
this.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, you have long advocated for better 
use of spectrum in both the licensed and unlicensed spaces. The 
Commission is now working on repurposing--and you alluded to 
this, I think other Commissioners as well have alluded to 
this--on repurposing the 5.9 band, which was largely unused for 
nearly 20 years. Can you talk about the benefits of freeing up 
this spectrum that has gone unused for so long? And are the 
incumbents left with enough spectrum to engage in safety 
technologies? If you could elaborate on that, sir, I would 
appreciate it.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure. Well, the answer to your second 
question is yes. I believe it does address their needs compared 
to the 75 megahertz that currently is allocated. I think we can 
do it. And then one of the reasons I like the Chairman's 
proposal so much is because it looks very similar to the things 
I have been advocating for a little bit of time. So I think it 
falls in line with things that I have been, you know, pushing 
for, and I think that we are on the same page on that. And I 
think the Commission is on the same page.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel and I have been working on this 
issue for quite a while. She articulated the reasons or the 
benefits that can come from having 5.9, and even when we do 6 
gigahertz, hopefully early next year, with the combination of 
those two bands and the existing 5 gigahertz band we have 
already operational, wide channels, 160 megahertz, the 
capacity--I mean, I have seen upwards--and I know Commissioner 
Rosenworcel also mentioned 70 percent. I have heard and seen 
upwards estimates of 80 percent of our commercial wireless 
traffic will be carried on unlicensed spectrum going forward, 
and that is what we are talking about.
    It is the benefits to consumers and benefits to the 
underlying network itself, and that is unimaginable in terms of 
the--you know, we talk about how much cost for this band or 
that band and what we can spend the money on. We are talking 
about trillions in benefits to the economy over a timeframe.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank 
the five of you for your testimony today. I say all the time 
that you must have a special calling to do public service, and 
thank you. I thank all of you for your service.
    Chairman Pai, Congress has tasked the FCC to regulate our 
Nation's telecommunications policy in a fashion that promotes 
diverse forces. You know that. I know that. My research over 
the last few days shows that, despite that mandate, minority 
broadcast ownership has never risen above 3.1 percent. Women's 
ownership has never exceeded 6 percent. And so my question to 
you is--and I want a yes or no answer--would you call that rate 
of ownership for minorities and women acceptable?
    Mr. Pai. No.
    Mr. Butterfield. Of course not. Thank you.
    Last month, Mr. Chairman, the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruled for the fourth time that the Commission has 
failed to adequately facilitate and promote women's and 
minority media ownership. In light of that ruling, sir, will 
you commit to addressing the critically low rates of media 
ownership by minorities and women? Can you make that 
commitment?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, two parts to the answer. Number one, 
we have been making that commitment. I personally as a person 
of color and a person who believes in broadcasting think this 
is a priority.
    Mr. Butterfield. Will you double down on it? Will you 
double down on it?
    Mr. Pai. Well, yes, but the problem is, Congressman, one 
part of the decision that the Third Circuit struck down was our 
incubator program, the sole purpose of which was to get 
minorities, women, disadvantaged communities into the broadcast 
business. And that is part of the problem with the Third 
Circuit's decision, is they have gutted our primary diversity 
initiative----
    Mr. Butterfield. Let me take you in this direction, then. 
From 1978--and I have been doing a little research over the 
last few days. From 1978 to 1995, the FCC provided a tax 
incentive to those who sold their majority interests in a 
broadcast station to minorities. While in place, that program 
boosted the number of minority-owned stations from 40 to 323. 
And so, yes or no, would you call that program effective?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I would have to look again at the 
report that the Congress did when it repealed that program in 
19--the mid-1990s to understand whether it was effective or 
not. But what I can say is we are not waiting. I mean, I know 
that is a decision for Congress to make.
    Mr. Butterfield. To go from 40 to 323, I mean, no one can 
dispute that that is an effective program.
    Mr. Pai. It has declined.
    Mr. Butterfield. All right. Let me go--and my time--this 
time goes very fast.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, earlier this year, I introduced a 
bill that would put the FCC's tax certificate back in place and 
expand it to include women. Could you speak to the impact that 
reviving the tax certificate program would have for women and 
minority broadcast ownership?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. It is a terrific idea, Congressman, 
because there is no other policy tool we have had in history 
that has been as effective at diversifying the ownership of 
these properties. It matters. What we see on the screen says so 
much about who we are as individuals, as a community, as a 
Nation. I think that restoring the tax certificate is a 
terrific idea.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. In rural areas, many expecting 
moms simply do not have access to the medical resources 
necessary to receive the treatment that they need. The results 
are deadly, and we are talking about it more and more now. The 
problem hits women of color especially hard. How can we use 
telemedicine to address the lack of maternal access to care? 
Yes, maternal.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I am the only woman here, so I am 
probably the only mom, and I am going to speak to that, which 
is we should take this $100 million pilot project and address a 
national crisis. The United States is the only industrialized 
country with a rising rate of maternal mortality, and we now 
know that there are tools in telemedicine and connected care 
that can help. So when we do adopt that program that my 
colleague, Commissioner Carr, has worked on, I would like to 
see one maternal healthcare program in every State in this 
country, because we have got to figure out how we solve this 
problem. It is a crisis, and we need to fix it.
    Mr. Butterfield. I share your views on that, Commissioner. 
Thank you for your response.
    And let me conclude with Commissioner Starks. Commissioner, 
our 2016 election was targeted by Russian cyber hackers who 
sought to interfere with our election process. Is the 
Commission doing anything about it to secure our election 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Starks. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and 
thank you for your leadership on this issue. I continue to look 
forward to working with you.
    We do know that intelligence confirms that foreign actors 
tried to impact our 2016 elections. In fact, we know that all 
50 States and their voter registration rolls were attempted to 
be hacked, and we do know that at least seven States--Illinois, 
Florida, Michigan, Maryland, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and DC--
still use voting machines that connect to our regular cellular 
networks. That means that they are susceptible to being hacked 
by what we commonly call IMSI catchers. And so this is 
something that I am specifically focused on.
    I think it is--the FCC is tasked with focusing on our 
national security. I cannot think of any higher purpose than 
protecting our elections and protecting our democracy.
    Mr. Butterfield. Our democracy is at stake. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman Pai and 
to the rest of the Commission, thanks for all that you are 
doing. I mean, these issues are complex, and the world is 
moving at light speed in our telecom arena, and so I appreciate 
what you are doing.
    Chairman Pai, I would first like to thank you personally 
for your recent decision to hold a public auction on C-band. I 
think it was the right decision to make. Following along with 
what Mr. Kinzinger said earlier, is there anything we can do to 
help you execute that auction?
    Mr. Pai. Certainly, Congressman. My pitch would be to call 
of my--a reprise of my 2016 proposal to allow the FCC to 
allocate a portion of that funding. My proposal was for rural 
broadband deployment, because as you know all too well in your 
district, there are many parts of the country that could 
benefit from that funding, but we can't allocate that funding--
--
    Mr. Johnson. You don't have to hit me with that hammer too 
hard. So I appreciate it. We will certainly be looking at that 
issue as well.
    What about regulations that might be roadblocks? Anything 
we need to help you break down?
    Mr. Pai. As I was mentioning in my exchange with the 
Congressman, I believe we have current authority to take the 
necessary steps. But should that change, I am actively working 
with the staff now, and we will keep you apprised very quickly 
to enable you to meet the chairman's admonition that this 
committee and this Congress needs to move quickly to act one 
way or the other.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, let's move to the 6 gigahertz 
debate. You know, we have got to ensure that--and there has 
been a lot of discussion already, but we have got to ensure 
that any decision does not create interference issues for 
critical infrastructure, communications, or the ability for our 
first responders to do their jobs. So how is the FCC ensuring 
that we can address unlicensed spectrum needs without creating 
interference for incumbents in the band?
    Mr. Pai. That is the key question, Congressman, and that is 
why I have consistently said in this proceeding that we are 
going to be driven by one thing and one thing alone, which is 
the technical analysis that will enable us to figure out the 
appropriate balance between the incumbent uses and unlicensed 
operations. And so, for example, one can imagine one use case 
where it is a power plant in Pittsburgh, and it is an 
unlicensed user in 6 gigahertz band in Los Angeles operating 
indoors at low power. I think we can agree there would not be 
interference there. If they are right next to each other and 
they are both blasting waves in the same spectrum, I think we 
can agree there might be a problem there. So where do we draw 
that line? That is one of the things our engineers are looking 
at.
    Mr. Johnson. Can we get a commitment from you, Mr. 
Chairman, to engage in a continued dialogue with all the 
stakeholders as you move through this process, including the 
wireless providers, the utilities, and the first responders, to 
make sure we don't mess up?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman. I would even go one step 
further. We are working with other Federal partners to make 
sure that we hear their input as well.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Chairman Pai?
    I am sorry. Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I was just going to say, one thing you could 
be helpful on the 6 gigahertz item is that, you know, there are 
many people arguing--you talked about, like, the utilities, if 
they could come away from some of the hyperbole. It has been 
incredibly difficult to get some of the technical analysis the 
Chairman talks about. We want to get to the math. Instead, they 
are talking, you know, at a level trying to prevent any 
consideration.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, as you guys have heard me say many times 
before, I am a big believer when you put the stakeholders 
around the table, and you all have a vested interest, you come 
away with the right decisions for the right reasons. So I would 
encourage you to continue that engagement.
    Today, we have heard a lot of concerns about the FCC's 
flawed maps. For the past 2 years, Congress has appropriated 
funding to NTIA to create an accurate broadband map. You know 
my frustrations. I have shared that with you guys. To what 
extent has the FCC plugged into NTIA's broadband mapping 
efforts?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Congressman. Our staff 
has been working with them. In particular, our Rural Broadband 
Auctions Task Force, among others, I understand are liaising 
with their counterparts at the Department of Commerce.
    Mr. Johnson. I still don't understand why this is so 
difficult. I am probably--there is obviously some naivete on my 
part. I don't know what that is, because I have got 40 years in 
the IT spectrum, so I don't know why this is such a damn 
difficult problem, but it is continuing to be so.
    Do you guys plan to--does the FCC plan to utilize their 
mapping data, NTIA's, once it is made available, when you are 
making funding decisions on how to roll out rural broadband?
    Mr. Pai. That is one of the things that we are looking at, 
Congressman, and we will be working with them and with you on 
that.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Chairman O'Rielly--I mean, Mr. O'Rielly, 
Commissioner O'Rielly, before we move on, I want to thank you 
personally for taking the time to come to my district. As you 
know, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund holds immense 
opportunity for rural broadband, as do the proceeds from the C-
band auction. So we have got some real opportunities here to 
make some significant progress on rural broadband expansion, 
and I appreciate your help and diligence to do that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank 
the Commissioners for being here today. I know it is somewhat 
arduous, but we appreciate your being here and your public 
service.
    I just want to say, first of all, given my track record on 
the calling for public auction of the C-band, I was pleased to 
see the Chairman's recent commitment to free up 280 megahertz 
of spectrum through the public auction. I do believe it is the 
best path forward to allocate valuable federally owned assets 
and maximize returns to American taxpayers, including for rural 
broadband development. It is so important. Now that we have 
moved past competing proposals to reallocate the spectrum, I 
also urge you and all of you to expeditiously establish a 
successful auction.
    I am probably going to sound like a broken record here, but 
being from California, I have to say this about the resiliency 
in wildfires. The FCC's Wireless Resiliency Cooperative 
Framework is a wireless industry commitment to improve 
emergency communications during disasters.
    In April, the FCC solicited comments on improving the 
framework, specifically in response to reports from 2017 and 
2018 hurricane seasons. This work would help protect property 
and save lives in States where hurricanes present a regular 
threat. However, in States like California, where wildfires are 
rapidly increasing in regularity and severity, there is an 
urgent need for targeted recommendations to promote network 
resilience.
    Chairman Pai, yesterday I sent you a letter with my 
colleagues, Representative Eshoo and Thompson, urging you to 
include wildfire-specific recommendations in the framework. 
Will you commit to me to include wildfire considerations in the 
framework moving forward?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, I haven't had a chance to review 
your letter, but what I can say is the framework includes all 
types of disasters within it. It is not particular--or doesn't 
exclude wildfires in particular.
    Ms. Matsui. There hasn't been a particular emphasis on it, 
and this is an occurrence that is happening----
    Mr. Pai. Right.
    Ms. Matsui [continuing]. Too regularly now in California.
    And I would like to have unanimous consent to put the 
letter into the record, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Matsui. OK. The FCC also solicited framework comments 
on January 3 of this year on coordinating with power companies. 
Poor coordination with power companies caused widespread 
confusion and severely jeopardized public safety in California.
    Chairman Pai, has the FCC made improvements to the 
framework based upon this investigation? If not, when will it 
be completed?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau staff is looking at that framework. In the 
meantime, they are also doing aggressive outreach to 
communications companies, and I personally have repeatedly, 
even before the wildfires, emphasized that power companies and 
telecom companies need to cooperate. One of the problems here, 
though, we don't have jurisdiction over energy companies. We 
cannot compel them to do something. And I would welcome the 
subcommittee's action on this because, at the end of the day, 
if you are a consumer and your district is affected by 
wildfire, you don't care whether it is the telecom company or 
the power company that has dropped the ball. All you know is 
you don't have 9-1-1 service.
    Ms. Matsui. Exactly. But we also believe there is a loud 
voice that the FCC can provide here to this committee and the 
FCC putting special emphasis on this, because without 
meaningful action from the FCC, I am worried that we fail to 
learn the valuable lessons that could save lives in the future.
    The wildfire season has gotten longer and longer. It starts 
earlier and ends later, and the devastation is unbelievable. 
After the wildfires come, if there is a lot of rain, floods. So 
it is a process that has become escalating. So I urge you to 
really put special emphasize on that.
    Mr. Pai. OK. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
    I introduced the Secure and Trusted Communication Networks 
Act, with Chairmen Pallone and Walden and Congressman Guthrie, 
to prohibit FCC funding from being used to purchase equipment 
from companies like Huawei and ZTE. The bill would also create 
a program to have communication providers remove vulnerable 
equipment from their networks and replace it with newer, secure 
equipment. Helping small and rural wireless providers replace 
vulnerable network equipment is a necessary step to boost 
national security, and I am continuing to push for floor 
consideration of this bill.
    While the FCC recently voted to prohibit FCC funding from 
being used on Huawei or ZTE equipment, it did not commit to 
replacing existing equipment. Commissioner Starks, do you 
believe there is a need for Federal Government to support 
smaller carriers to identify and replace existing Huawei or ZTE 
equipment?
    Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, 
Congresswoman, and thank you for your leadership on this. I 
think it is imperative that we focus on those small rural 
carriers that do have this untrustworthy equipment.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you.
    And I see I ran out of time already, so I yield back my 2 
seconds. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 
being here today. And, Chairman Pai, I appreciate your work, 
your work ethic and commitment to freeing up additional 
spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, for the commercial 
marketplace, and in particular, the mid-band spectrum.
    Many of us are excited about your agenda this month, such 
as moving forward with your plan to use the 5.9 spectrum for 
unlicensed use in Wi-Fi. Moving forward, there is more that 
needs to be considered as the Commission strives to make the 
equal amount of spectrum available for both licensed and 
unlicensed use.
    Before I get into some of that, the old country comedian 
Jerry Clower used to have a pretty good bit on coon hunting. 
And they were out coon hunting one night in Mississippi, and 
they had what they thought was a coon treed. So one of their 
buddies took off his shoes and climbed up the tree with a sharp 
stick to knock the coon out of the tree and have the dogs get 
it down on the ground. He got up there, and it wasn't a coon, 
it was a lynx. So ensued this big fight. And they were 
screaming, and they were--the lynx and the guy were at it in 
the tree. And so he noticed one of his buddies down on the 
ground had a pistol, and he hollers down, he said, ``Shoot up 
here amongst us.'' And the guy hollered up, and he said, ``I 
can't shoot up there. I might hit you.'' He said, ``Shoot up 
here amongst us. One of us has to have some relief.''
    [Laughter.]
    And there has been something going on with L-band for 4 
years now, and the folks on each side of the equation, I mean, 
they want some relief. They are ready for you to shoot up there 
amongst them and give them some relief. So can you tell me 
where we are on L-band, when that decision after 4 long years 
is coming down?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, that was quite the windup, so I 
appreciate the question.
    Mr. Long. That is how you wrote it.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Pai. One of the things that I have done is to instruct 
our staff to draft a proposed resolution of this issue. We have 
directed that proposed resolution into the Interdepartment 
Radio Advisory Committee, the IRAC, the interagency process to 
get the considered views of the executive branch. The executive 
branch requested extra time to provide that recommendation----
    Mr. Long. When did they request extra time? How long ago 
was that?
    Mr. Pai. The deadline is tomorrow. The new deadline is 
tomorrow.
    Mr. Long. When did they request extra time?
    Mr. Pai. I believe it was 4 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago. Four 
weeks ago.
    Mr. Long. So they are not going to meet the tomorrow 
deadline?
    Mr. Pai. I am not sure. I believe--I hope they will. I 
certainly hope they will, but I would be happy to get back to 
you on that. But one of the things that we are looking to do is 
to get their views so we can move forward.
    Mr. Long. I hope you can go to them and, you know, tell 
them after 4 years, that is enough time. We need to get this 
thing wrapped up. So anyway.
    OK. Given the recent decision on the C-band, are you 
committed to conducting the public auction in 2020?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Congressman, we are aiming to commence the 
auction by the end of 2020.
    Mr. Long. OK. And will you commit to ensuring that 
satellite incumbents adhere to previous estimates and 
commitments by requiring initial clearing within 18 months and 
total clearing within 36 months of an FCC order?
    Mr. Pai. That is one of the things we are working on now, 
and I would anticipate that in the proposal that we will 
introduce to the Commission for its consideration early next 
year, that is one of the things that we are going to be focused 
on. As I have consistently said, it is important to get this 
spectrum allocated quickly and to get it into the hands of 
wireless operators----
    Mr. Long. And as you know, a part of the controversy on 
which way to go with the auction, and being an auctioneer of 30 
years experience, I believe in the auction method. I think that 
is the fairest and most transparent way to move forward and the 
way to get the most money into the Federal Government. And most 
of the auctions you have done have brought way above what the 
first estimates were that they would bring. So I would hope 
that you can get this done in a timely fashion, because I think 
it is vital for getting 5G out there. And I still think if we 
change your name from Ajit Pai to a 5-jit Pai, we would----
    Mr. Pai. I have been called worse.
    Mr. Long [continuing]. We would get things done, so--but 
anyway, I appreciate your efforts in trying to get that, you 
know, moved along and auctioned and cleared and all that 
because I think that is a big, big hurdle. And the way things 
go in Washington, DC, such as the L-band dragging on 4 years, 
you know, I hope--very hopeful that you can speed the process 
along, because I think that, you know, it is incumbent on you 
all to try and get that done.
    Mr. Pai. I couldn't agree more, Congressman. And just to be 
clear, this committee, this Congress, would have to act in 
order for us to be able to designate you as the auctioneer of 
the C-band spectrum, so hopefully that can be incorporated into 
the package.
    Mr. Long. All right.
    [Speaks in auctioneer fashion.]
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. Well, Billy, I wasn't sure where you were going 
with that story, but you tied it up there in the end, brother.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you.
    It is good to have everybody here, and everybody's reports 
were terrific. We are all getting along. We got a new Chairman 
up here. I will ask my first question. Is he doing OK? You got 
a bill of health here. You are doing good.
    It actually is really reassuring on the spectrum auction. 
We are all delighted that I think the Commission supports the 
Chairman's decision here to have a public auction. You know, 
that is something where I give Mr. Doyle a lot of credit, and 
my Republican colleagues a lot of credit as well, because there 
is real opportunity here with the shared sense of purpose that 
both Republicans and Democrats have to try to get broadband out 
to rural America. So I just want to say that decision is 
important, but there are two things that have to be part of 
that in the implementation. One is, are we going to use the 
proceeds for a dedicated fund?
    Because there is unity here about wanting to get broadband 
out to the Dakotas, to rural New York, and Vermont. And it is 
so hard, as you know, around here, on a very practical basis, 
to get money. And some of my Senate colleagues have introduced 
legislation to have the proceeds be in a dedicated fund. We 
don't know how that money would be spent exactly, but it would 
be dedicated to rural broadband.
    I know, Commissioner Rosenworcel, this is something that is 
of interest to you. Maybe you could speak on it, then I would 
ask the Chairman to address that as well.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. A lot of Members have asked a 
version of this question, what can you do to help us with the 
C-band? I am going to say there are two things. The first, we 
are going to have to figure out how to properly incentivize 
those existing satellite licensees to return their spectrum. I 
think there are legitimate legal questions about what authority 
we have today under title 3 of the Act. We may need your help 
to make that authority more clear.
    And the second thing we have to do goes straight to what 
you just said. You have billions of dollars that may come in as 
a result of this sale. Let's figure out how we can use those 
billions of dollars from the sale of public airwaves to solve a 
public problem.
    We have a huge problem with rural broadband in this 
country, and I will point out we have a huge problem with the 
homework gap.
    Mr. Welch. Right.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Kids everywhere who can't do their 
homework. We could solve it with this legislation from you, and 
I hope we do.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you.
    Chairman.
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I couldn't agree more on the need for 
Congress to take action here, and I would reiterate my call 
from 2016 for Congress to create what I have called the rural 
dividend. And just to give you context, when I made that 
proposal in 2016, at the time, the FCC had conducted something 
like $100 billion worth of auctions. Think about if that extra 
$10 billion back in 2016 had been allocated for rural 
broadband. That would be a massive game changer for folks in 
rural Vermont.
    Mr. Welch. Well, I just want to say that, you know, we have 
got this--Mr. Gianforte has been a leader on this as well.
    Go ahead, Mr. O'Rielly.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I was only going to add that if a fund is 
created, if money is allocated in terms of the bill that you 
talk about, that you consider using the FCC's distribution 
model, notwithstanding the mapping problem, because you have 
existing other Federal agencies who have been distributing 
dollars against in competition with us that has been 
problematic. So I hope the committee will consider that.
    Mr. Welch. Well, that is a very practical suggestion.
    The second part of this--and we have got to get this right 
now. You know, if we create a fund in your--I am hearing some 
support for a fund, because if we don't have a fund, it is 
going to be very difficult for us to actually deliver for rural 
America. That money will go somewhere else.
    The second thing is, can we have standards that future-
proof the speed and the quality of the broadband that goes out 
there? Right now, I think it could be 25/3. And, Chairman Pai, 
you don't think 25/3 is adequate for rural America, do you?
    Mr. Pai. That is part of the reason why it is part of the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. We have looked to increase the 
available--all the way up to gigabyte speeds.
    Mr. Welch. Here is a question. Why don't we just eliminate 
that, because we know that is dumbing down? Why don't we just 
get rid of 25/3 and not pretend that it is even close to being 
adequate?
    Because here is the fear I have. There will be a lot of 
excitement in our rural communities if they are going to get 
broadband. I mean, we have got no G in parts of Vermont, OK. 
And if people are given that opportunity to get something that 
is really of inferior quality but it is better than zero, they 
will want it. OK? We have got to establish a standard, and I 
just ask for some comments from you.
    Mr. Carr, you were out there I think you said in Iowa, I 
know. And were you in South Dakota too?
    Mr. Carr. Yes.
    Mr. Welch. Yes. What are your thoughts about establishing a 
high standard as opposed to a low standard that is going to 
perpetually make rural America a second-class citizen?
    Go ahead, Mr. O'Rielly.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I appreciate and do want to get as much speed 
and capacity to everyone in America, but I will tell you that 
when we have raised the speeds in the past, the dollars tend to 
flow to the easiest places to serve, and the places that 
haven't been served will continue to be ignored.
    Mr. Welch. If we get some standards. I mean, this is, I 
think, a request that you guys have to play a role in this to 
make certain that it is not--it is done for the benefit of 
rural citizens, not for the entrepreneurs who want to make the 
easy quick money.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. We need audacious goals----
    Mr. Welch. My time is up.
    Ms. Rosenworcel [continuing]. Right now for broadband. I 
completely agree with you, Congressman.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Pai, since the FCC began reviewing the potential 
for a greater use of 6 gigahertz in 2017, so much has changed 
in the communication space. And, as we have already heard, we 
are expecting over 90 5G deployments by U.S. carriers by the 
end of this year, I believe. With these deployments comes a 
clear need for more of the mid-band spectrum we have been 
talking about.
    Have you thought at all about licensing some of the 1,200 
megahertz of spectrum in the 6 gigahertz band instead of 
opening it all up to unlicensed use?
    Mr. Pai. Appreciate the question, Congresswoman, and I can 
tell you that our focus has been on unlicensed operations in 
the 6 gigahertz band. But I am continuing to take meetings 
among other stakeholders from folks who support that approach, 
and we will move ahead with an open mind.
    Mrs. Brooks. And would some of those groups be emergency 
communications, utilities folks, and those groups?
    Mr. Pai. Suffice it to say, there is a wide variety of 
stakeholders that encompasses some of those constituencies.
    Mrs. Brooks. OK. Well, I think there is a way we have to 
make sure that this prime mid-band spectrum can benefit all 
players in the space, and so let's make sure we get that right.
    I come from Indiana, a huge automotive State, and I want to 
commend the Commission for proposing the Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making on the 5.9 gigahertz band. It has been--the 
spectrum has been underutilized for too long, and it is time to 
consider new uses. I also cochair the 5G Caucus and recently 
visited with the 5G Automotive Association, and I have to tell 
you, one of the greatest concerns when we talk to constituents 
about autonomous vehicles is everyone remains concerned about 
safety. That is the number one issue.
    But I am encouraged that the draft proposal would allow, 
and I have learned more and tried to learn more about the C-
V2X, which I really didn't know much about, and I certainly 
think the American citizens know little to nothing about. To 
have access to the spectrum band, I think it does have 
tremendous potential, what I am hearing, to reduce highway 
fatalities. I understand there is a 5G version of this that 
needs to be considered for an additional portion of the 
spectrum band.
    But regardless of how the Commission proceeds, I want to 
make sure that consumer safety is first and paramount. And so, 
as Commissioners, can you tell me how you are prioritizing road 
safety, because people still are very concerned about, as the 
automotive industry is moving forward and we need to and want 
to move forward, how are we prioritizing road safety and 
automobile safety? And how can we ensure that it will be 
protected regardless of how it is all allocated, Commissioner 
Pai, and other comments?
    Mr. Pai. Critical question, Congresswoman, and that is part 
of the reason why it is so important to follow the balanced 
approach that I have outlined, allocating the upper 20 
megahertz of the 5.9 gigahertz band for C-V2X, which will allow 
those safety applications; taking public comment on the next 10 
megahertz for DSRC or C-V2X. But even beyond the 5.9 gigahertz 
band, this Commission under my leadership has demonstrated its 
commitment to vehicular safety.
    In 2017, 2 years ago, I proposed that we allocate portions 
of the 76 to 81 gigahertz band, a massive 5 gigahertz of 
spectrum there for vehicular radar, and that is now being used 
for some of these safety-type applications that you are talking 
about. And so it is not just the 5.9 gigahertz band. This 
Commission is committed to making sure that automotive safety 
in technologies moves ahead.
    Mrs. Brooks. And how are we working with the automotive 
industry, Commissioner Rosenworcel?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. I just want to say I think the 
Chairman has done a good job of setting up the discussion for 
the 5.9 gigahertz band. He has acknowledged the needs of auto 
safety and the needs of unlicensed, and my hope is that, going 
forward, we can find a way to accommodate both.
    Mrs. Brooks. And how are we working with industry that is 
developing these technologies to make sure that we are--you are 
being informed sufficiently, Commissioner O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think we have been working on this 
issue for quite a while, and I have talked to and worked with a 
number of the auto industry. The auto industry itself has 
migrated their views over the timeframe and have moved away 
from DSRC. One thing that can be helpful that I have been 
unable to do in this process is actually commit with the words 
you used, that whatever portion of it remains be actually used 
for safety. When I pushed the auto companies to commit to using 
actual safety, they are, ``Oh, hey, I don't know. I don't want 
to commit.'' That is a problem there. If they are going to have 
a band that is dedicated for safety, it ought to be used for 
safety, not advertising, not parking spots, and all these other 
ideas that are out there.
    Mrs. Brooks. OK. Thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
    Before I ask a question, I just want to express agreement 
with Ranking Member Walden. I too have serious concerns about 
the FCC providing little notice to the committee before taking 
significant actions, like the $9 billion 5G fund that was 
announced yesterday. And that proposal raises many questions 
that need to be answered, including how the money will be spent 
without good maps of mobile deployment.
    In addition, it is troubling that our Members only seem to 
get answers to our letters to you hours before an oversight 
hearing. And so there is bipartisan agreement that you need to 
do better, and I expect so as we go forward.
    But I wanted to ask some questions about resiliency, which 
is, you know, so important in my district, because we were 
probably most impacted by Superstorm Sandy, and we worry about 
all these hurricanes and storms that hit us repeatedly now with 
climate change getting worse. I have repeatedly urged the FCC 
to meaningfully improve the resiliency of communications and 
networks in the wake of disasters, but I fear my concerns, 
which are shared by millions of Americans, are falling on deaf 
ears. And because of that, I think it is time for Congress to 
step in to address this issue.
    Since 2018, the FCC has issued two reports with 
recommendations on how to improve our network resiliency. And 
as part of an investigation, I requested the controller general 
issue a report in 2018 on network resiliency, with 
recommendations of which the FCC agrees. So we are talking 
about two FCC reports, one controller general report, three 
total. And I just wanted--I am kind of assuming that all of you 
had an opportunity to review these reports, but just to be 
sure, if anyone hasn't reviewed these reports, all three, would 
you just raise your hand? I assume you have, so I don't expect 
anybody to raise their hand, but----
    That means you all have. OK.
    Do any of you disagree with the recommendations in the 
reports, if implemented, you know, that the recommendations 
that they have, if implemented, could meaningfully improve our 
Nation's communications network? And you can just raise your 
hand if you disagree with the report's recommendations, 
essentially. I don't expect anybody to raise their hand.
    All right. So I think that is good. And I appreciate that 
we are generally in agreement when it comes to using those 
reports as a baseline. But let me ask Commissioner Rosenworcel, 
I know you are all focused on this issue, so beyond the 
recommendations in these reports, what more do you think we 
should be considering?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you. We need to update the wireless 
resiliency framework. Two years ago, the GAO told us that they 
don't know how to measure it, they don't know how to enforce 
it. We have got work to do. Since that time, we have issued 
four public notices asking for comment about it. I think we 
should stop asking for comment and we should start fixing it.
    Mr. Pallone. I certainly agree. As you know, the Trump 
administration is well known for undermining civil servants and 
ignoring experts if it benefits big corporate interests. And in 
October, the FCC approved the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. 
However, serious questions have been raised about the 
transparency of the review process and whether expert analysis 
was ignored. And I have publicly said that I am quite concerned 
about these allegations.
    So again, Commissioner, you voted against this merger and 
raised concerns about the process. Would you want to explain 
your process concerns a little bit?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. This is the largest merger of 
wireless companies in our Nation's history. We are all going to 
pay more for our wireless bills going forward as a result. And 
here is the problem: Before we even had any engineering, legal, 
or economic analysis before us, the majority of our Commission 
announced that they were going to support it. And then. as the 
Department of Justice reorganized the entire transaction, they 
took a lot of meetings on it, but they denied the public an 
ability to actually come in and comment about it, and then 
rewrote the original draft from our expert staff from front to 
back on major competition issues.
    On this committee, I think you should ask for a copy of 
that original draft, because there are such glaring differences 
between it and what we issued publicly. And I think that 
sunlight's the best disinfectant. Congress, the courts, and the 
public should know what was changed and why.
    Mr. Pallone. Oh, we will certainly follow up on that.
    But let me ask Commissioner Starks, because I only have 30 
seconds. I know you have some process concerns related to this 
merger. Can you elaborate as well?
    Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In particular, 
when the Chairman announced that there was going to be the 
largest investigation of Lifeline violations ever, I said that 
we should pause our review of the transaction, actually study 
what happened, let the investigation run its course. And, in 
particular, as a former enforcement official, I wanted to know 
more before we allowed the transaction to go forward.
    As it turns out, there was a Wall Street Journal article 
just yesterday that was published that there are, in fact, 
potentially now more Lifeline investigations that we are down 
to Sprint. And so it certainly confirms that there needed to be 
more time, more investigation of what went forward.
    One other thing that I would highlight for you is, when you 
are talking about an enforcement action like that, there are 
really two phases of it. The first is going to be a clawback, 
because the U.S. Government must be made whole. And so, for 
whatever improper, ineligible Lifeline recipients Sprint 
received money for, all that money should come back. The second 
phase is going to be a penalty phase. Previously, we have 
issued penalties where there are improprieties with the 
Lifeline fund. I will expect significant action on both fronts.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gianforte for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you four 
Commissioners and Chairman for being here today.
    I want to start by thanking you all for your work on 
helping us end illegal robocalls. We passed the House 
yesterday, and it is a significant milestone. I also want to 
thank you for next week's anticipated action around 9-8-8.
    Mr. Chairman, you highlighted that in your opening 
comments, and I commend you for that, for a national suicide 
hotline. Unfortunately, Montana has the highest suicide rate in 
the country, with about 164,000 Montanans that have some form 
of mental health condition. Unfortunately, mental healthcare is 
not available to many Montanans. In fact, more than 600,000 
Montanans out of a population of just over a million, 60 
percent, live in an area where there is a shortage of mental 
health professionals.
    Ideally, everyone would have access to preventative mental 
healthcare, but Montanans know how difficult this is to achieve 
in our rural communities.
    While we work to expand telehealth services so Montanans 
have access to critical care, this crisis of access to mental 
healthcare is why this 9-8-8 is so important. So thank you for 
your anticipated action there. We will continue to push.
    Commissioner Carr, I want to thank you for coming to 
Montana and seeing firsthand the challenges we face. You 
mentioned while you were there that--commending you, you have 
been to now well over 30 States around the country--but you 
said our cell phone coverage is actually the worst you have 
experienced anywhere in the country. So I appreciate you coming 
and feeling some of the pain with us.
    And I appreciate the Commission's emphasis on improving our 
maps, which is the path forward to fix this problem. In mapping 
legislation that is moving through Congress, a lot of emphasis 
has been put on a workable challenge process to correct some of 
these mistakes.
    Commissioner Carr, could you just talk a little bit about 
how/why a challenge process is so important in developing sound 
maps and making good decisions?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for your 
leadership on rural broadband. As you mentioned, I did the 
drive from Missoula up to Great Falls, one of the most 
beautiful drives I have done, but basically zero bars the 
entire way up there. So I was stuck talking to one of my FCC 
colleagues the whole time. I don't want to repeat that.
    But the mechanism has to be right because we have to make 
sure that no matter what community you are in, you are seeing 
the investments needed to give you connectivity, whether to 
your point, mental health services, or I know you are working 
on an initiative that lets people telework, to work from home. 
Be a great economic boost to rural communities where there is a 
lower cost of living, people want to live, so connectivity 
makes a big difference there as well.
    Mr. Gianforte. So would a challenge or validation process 
improve the accuracy of the maps?
    Mr. Carr. We absolutely have to have a mechanism in place 
to make sure we are not sending money to places where the 
private sector is already on its own building out and can 
sustain those builds without funding.
    Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you.
    Chairman Pai, I would like to thank you for listening to my 
concerns around the best way to repurpose the C-band, and 
applaud your announcement in moving forward with a public 
auction. As you continue to move forward on clearing other mid-
band spectrum for 5G, I would like to raise my concerns--and 
this has been raised by a number of other members; I just want 
to add my voice here--to make sure incumbents are at the table, 
particularly electric utilities and railroads that are 
currently using some of the spectrum.
    Can you commit that they will have a seat at the table as 
you have these discussions?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Congressman, they will.
    Mr. Gianforte. OK. Great.
    Ranking Member Walden raised an issue earlier with the 
recent FCC NPRM that proposes a definition of urban, which is 
at a population of 2,500. The beauty of standards is we have so 
many of them. We operate in--we are an agricultural State. The 
farm bill is a piece of legislation that affects all of our 
agricultural producers. In the farm bill, they have a 
definition of rural as 50,000 people.
    Can you just--is there a way we can sync these two so we 
don't have multiple standards? I am hearing concern from back 
home that with a really low bar of 2,500 population, that this 
would exclude many communities from the back hall and the 
resale that they need under this curricula. Can we just sync it 
up with the farm bill and make it 50,000?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I am very sympathetic to that issue, 
coming from what I thought was a rural town of 11,000 in 
Kansas, but then going to places like Wisdom and St. Ignatius 
in your State, I understand how rural it is. And so I do think 
there is an important priority for the FCC but all Federal 
agencies to have a consistent definition to the maximum extent 
possible.
    Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you.
    And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
appreciate very much all of your service, ladies and gentlemen, 
to the people of our great country, and you have tremendous 
responsibilities on your shoulders. And I am going to start off 
by applauding you a little bit, and then we are going to get 
into some different questions.
    As Americans continue to depend on technology more and more 
every day, the decisions you make regarding our public airwaves 
have an incredible impact and shape our lives. Several of my 
colleagues and I sent a letter in October in support of a 
public auction of C-band spectrum to help America's development 
of 5G technologies. I was really glad to receive your response 
a couple of weeks ago announcing that the Commission will be 
proceeding with a public auction that will give the American 
people the transparency and accountability they deserve in such 
a crucial process that will help maintain America's standing as 
a global leader in innovation and technology.
    I also applaud the Commission's continued efforts in the 
unlicensed spectrum arena to make more room for our increasing 
WiFi needs so we can continue to try to close the homework gap, 
run businesses, and stream our favorite entertainment.
    I would like to pivot to a different topic now. Over a year 
ago, the FCC unanimously approved a hearing designation order 
in the Sinclair-Tribune merger. In that document, the 
Commission stated, quote, ``There are substantial and material 
questions of fact as to whether Sinclair affirmatively 
misrepresented or omitted material facts with the intent to 
consummate this transaction without fully complying with our 
broadcast ownership rules,'' end quote.
    Earlier this year, the FCC's administrative law judge 
stated in her ruling that, quote, ``Honesty with the Commission 
is a foundational requirement for a Commission license,'' end 
quote. And she referred to section 1.17 of the FCC rules when 
she wrote, quote, ``Mandates that FCC licensees deal truthfully 
with the agency, not only by refraining from misrepresenting 
information, but also by not omitting material information that 
is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is 
made from being incorrect or misleading,'' end quote.
    And then, about 5 months ago, it was reported in the press 
that the Media Bureau had started an investigation into 
Sinclair. I know my colleagues and I would be happy to know 
more about this investigation, but I want to focus on what the 
administrative law judge said, that honesty before the agency 
is foundational to holding a broadcast license.
    This is important as broadcast license renewals are set to 
start next year, and the American public should be aware and 
have all the information about broadcasters that we have given 
their public airwaves to.
    So my first question is to you, Chairman Pai, if you could 
please give me a short yes-or-no answer. Do you believe that 
lying to the agency, the FCC, is a serious issue?
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. And yes or no, do you agree with 
the administrative law judge that honesty is foundational to 
hold a license?
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Do you believe an entity that has 
lied to the agency should be held accountable if they have lied 
to the agency?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, consistent with law and regulation and 
precedent, yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Yes. Thank you. Should an entity that has 
lied to the agency be eligible to hold a license?
    Mr. Pai. Sorry. Could you repeat that?
    Mr. Cardenas. Should an entity that has lied to the agency 
be eligible to hold a license if they have, in fact, lied in 
the past or recently, et cetera----
    Mr. Pai. No.
    Mr. Cardenas [continuing]. Material to your----
    Mr. Pai. If it is material to the holding of a license, 
yes.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK, OK. Thank you.
    Pretty straightforward questions, but you are not evading. 
I am just saying I just want to be clear----
    Mr. Pai. That is why I asked for a clarification.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, do you agree with those questions 
and answers?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I am not entirely sure. Did the Chairman 
say that, if they are dishonest in front of the agency, they 
should or should not be able to hold a license?
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you for that clarification. So, for 
example, as many entities that hold licenses, they may have an 
application in 2018 or 2016 or 2017, if for some reason they 
have materially--it was found that they materially lied to the 
FCC and they hold other licenses and, for example, they are up 
for relicense, et cetera, renewal, should that be a material 
fact in determining whether or not they have the integrity and 
should be given the responsibility to hold those licenses as 
well?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, it is obviously a fact-specific 
inquiry for any license renewal. I will simply reiterate what 
the administrative law judge said, in essence, which is: 
honesty good, dishonesty bad. It is a pretty simple----
    Mr. Cardenas. And bad meaning that it is a trust that they 
have by holding a license, being granted a license and, 
therefore, if they have been bad actors to the degree that they 
actually lied to the organization that bestows that license 
upon them, then perhaps they should not be given that 
opportunity again. It is precious. It belongs to the people.
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, I think I have made clearer than most 
of my predecessors that candor before the Commission is a 
serious value that we cherish, and I know this committee cares 
about as well.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Flores 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I also want to thank the Commissioners for your 
service, and thank you for being here today.
    Chairman Pai, let me start with you. I think it is 
important, as you and I have discussed, that we preserve 
adequate spectrum for intelligent auto safety. I was glad to 
see in your recent NPRM with respect to 5.9 that you are saving 
part of that spectrum for a C-V2X potentially for DSRC. I do, 
however, share some concerns from the transportation industry 
about the uncertainty of DSRC's future and the significant 
investment research that has been put into this technology so 
far.
    So two quick questions on this. The NPRM seeks a comment on 
designated 10 megahertz of the spectrum for DSRC. Do we have 
any analysis so far to show that this would be enough to 
continue adequate research for this standard?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, part of the evidence would be the 
fact that the Japanese, among others potentially, have 
allocated 10 megahertz channel for DSRC. Part of it also 
involves making sure that we have enough of an exclusive home 
for C-V2X, which is where most of the automakers have shifted 
their focus.
    Mr. Flores. Right.
    Mr. Pai. And so we--that is part of the reason why I wanted 
to make sure we had an open conversation about that 10 
megahertz portion, to let everybody make the case based on the 
merits, not based on a particular political appeal.
    Mr. Flores. OK. Thanks. And I understand that both the FCC 
and NHTSA were in a three-phase process to test interference 
between unlicensed devices and DSRC. How do you--now that we 
have added C-V2X into the mix, how do you see that testing 
process evolving?
    Mr. Pai. Congressman, this is part of the reason why I 
think, with my colleagues' assent, that this approach really is 
the right one for automotive safety. Under the previous 
administration's framework, DSRC would be sharing the spectrum, 
the 75 megahertz, with unlicensed, and extensive testing would 
be required over a whole bunch of different use cases. By 
spectrally separating the two, by creating an exclusive home 
for automotive safety, C-V2X, and potentially DSRC on one hand, 
unlicensed on the other in a completely separate part of that 
band, we can avoid the problems that all of this extensive 
testing would require. You don't need extensive testing to note 
you have an exclusive home in one part of the band.
    And so our hope is that this finally removes the 
uncertainty, allows some of the great automotive safety 
technologies to be developed, and actually put into use for the 
benefit of American consumers. I think this part of what gets 
lost often, this is a public resource that was devoted for the 
purpose of automotive safety. And that is why I would argue, 
and I hope my colleagues would agree, that the step we are 
poised to take next week I believe truly would be the biggest 
benefit for automotive safety American consumers have seen in 
history.
    Mr. Flores. Well, I appreciate your feedback, and I also 
appreciate how thoughtful you all have been in putting this out 
there for the public to look at. I look forward to seeing what 
the comments are in this regard.
    Shifting gears a little bit, Commissioner O'Rielly, you 
have made supportive comments in the past on modernizing the 
merger reviews at the FCC to more efficiently consider 
applications. I plan on reintroducing legislation from the last 
Congress to codify the FCC's current practice of using an 180-
day shot clock for the Commission to consider a merger 
application. This commonsense provision would give more 
certainty to the industry and our consumers.
    Can you speak to the importance of having a more efficient 
review process for applications at the FCC?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. I believe whatever decision we 
ultimately come to, it should be done in a timely manner. The 
time that we spend in number of transactions go lengthy is 
money that is being spent on lawyers and bankers and not in 
terms of deployment and facilities and network and services, 
and that is a problem. We can speed up our process if there 
needs to be an escape valve, that is one thing, but to have 
open-ended timeframes, and this Chairman has done a wonderful 
job in speeding it up compared to the past. There is still some 
room to improve, though, and anything that Congress can do to 
add to that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Flores. That is helpful feedback.
    Are there any other lessons that the FCC has learned that 
we should be aware of as we consider legislation like this to 
codify the 180-day shot clock?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I think the shot clock is going to apply in 
many different situations, not just in merger transactions.
    Mr. Flores. OK.
    Mr. O'Rielly. And I actually have a number of different 
ideas in improving the Commission, if you have some time.
    Mr. Flores. I look forward to working with you on that. So, 
yes, shoot those over to us and we will get it incorporated. 
Thank you.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Doyle [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our ranking 
member, and I thank all of our Commissioners for their 
presentations before us today.
    I would like to start with the idea that every citizen in 
our Nation, regardless of their income, their race, their 
national origin, their gender, have to be concerned about in 
the next couple of weeks, actually, and that is the 2020 
Census. For the first time in the enumeration of our Nation, we 
are going to be doing this online.
    And I want to start with you, Commissioner Rosenworcel. 
During your visit to my district, that is Brooklyn, and our 
discussion on your broadcast, we visited the topic of broadband 
deserts a few times. For the first time, broadband deserts have 
taken on another dynamic or dimension. One of our most basic 
rights true and fundamental to our democracy is the 
apportionment of our representation. That is because for the 
very first time, again, we will be conducting this primarily 
online. However, we know that millions of people are at risk of 
being undercounted because they lack access to the internet, 
and many communities across this Nation have been hard to count 
even without that dynamic.
    So my question is, do you see risk in this approach, and 
what can we be doing to make sure that everyone is counted, 
Commissioner Rosenworcel?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. Thank you for the question. There is 
enormous risk in this approach. We all know sitting at this 
table that we have a digital divide in this country. We have 
got broadband deserts in urban America and rural America. So 
now we have this constitutional duty to count every citizen, 
and the administration has decided it is digital first. They 
are going to tell everyone to respond online. We are hiring 
125,000 fewer people to knock on doors.
    I will tell you right now, I am worried we are not going to 
be able to count people who are on the wrong side of the 
digital divide, both in urban America and rural America, and it 
will have constitutional consequences. And I think that this 
Commission has to help the folks at the Census and the 
Department of Commerce to make sure we get it right, because we 
get one chance every 10 years and we have to get it right.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you for that. And I hope that, you 
know, we are focused on this because, indeed, we get one shot 
at this, and it happens once every 10 years.
    Commissioner Starks, I am concerned the FCC is not 
complying with existing law. Specifically, the FCC has not 
followed its statutory mandate to collect equal employment 
opportunity data for broadband licensees and cable operators. 
Although the FCC recently sought comment on the EEO 
enforcement, it has made no moves to implement the law.
    Can you describe for us your views on this decision and 
what steps the FCC should take to remedy this longstanding 
failure to comply?
    Mr. Starks. Yes. Thank you for the question, Vice Chair 
Clarke. From behind the camera to in front of the camera to who 
makes decisions of what local news and what our news really 
looks like, I believe diversity is imperative, that we solve 
this issue. We have a statutory duty to collect this diversity 
information from our broadcasters, and we have fallen down on 
that duty. And I have requested that we specifically satisfy 
that. There are constitutional questions that have been raised. 
I was eager to take on those constitutional questions. I 
thought it should be part of the comment period. I am 
frustrated that folks have constitutional issues with asking a 
constitutional question. That really cannot be the case. And so 
I am eager, now that the comment period has ended, that we move 
forward quickly to make sure that we satisfy our statutory 
obligations here.
    Ms. Clarke. Absolutely. As cochair of the Smart Cities 
Caucus, I understand the importance of mid-band spectrum. It is 
being held as the Goldilocks of frequencies. In that vein, I 
have some quick questions for each Commissioner and the 
answers, of course, are yes or no.
    With regard to the relationship between 5G and C-band 
spectrum, do you agree that mid-band spectrum is critical for 
the U.S. leadership for 5G, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Yes, all three bands are going to be critical.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes.
    Mr. Starks. Yes.
    Ms. Clarke. If C-band spectrum is not made available as 
soon as possible, will the U.S. fall further behind China on 5G 
deployment?
    Mr. Pai. Congresswoman, we are not behind China in terms of 
5G deployment.
    Ms. Clarke. I didn't ask that.
    Mr. Pai. I believe it is critical.
    Ms. Clarke. I said, if it is not made available soon, will 
we fall behind China?
    Mr. Pai. We could, yes.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. No, I don't think we will. We are in a 
leadership----
    Ms. Clarke. No. I said, if it is not done soon, could we 
fall further behind China?
    Mr. Carr. No. China is not going to beat us to 5G.
    Ms. Clarke. That is aspirational. I love that about you.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I am going to disagree with my colleague 
over here. We are falling behind the rest of the world. We are 
resting on our 4G laurels. Mid-band spectrum is one of the ways 
to help fix it. We have got to auction some of it in 2020.
    Mr. Starks. Yes, and we need to move as quickly as 
practicable on getting the C-band.
    Ms. Clarke. I appreciate your answers.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair would request unanimous consent to waive Ms. 
Blunt Rochester onto the committee.
    Without objection.
    And now the Chair recognizes Ms. Blunt Rochester for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you also to the Commissioners. I am sorry I wasn't able 
to be here at the beginning of this really important hearing. I 
was in another subcommittee, the one on Environment and Climate 
Change, discussing building a 100 percent clean economy. And it 
is really pivotal and very much tied to what you are talking 
about here and the work that you do.
    I also have gotten permission to start a future of work 
bipartisan caucus in the Congress, because it is one of these 
issues that we need to come together on, and so, again, your 
work is pivotal here. I want to thank you for that, for your 
service, and also just say how incredibly important it is to my 
colleagues and I to understand the decisions that you make and 
also the strategy, particularly as it involves Americans and 
our economy.
    Like most of my colleagues probably today, many of them 
probably brought up the issue of broadband access, just like 
Ms. Clarke did, and I am concerned that some of the actions 
that you have taken--I am encouraged that some are dealing with 
broadband access, but I also am concerned that we are not as 
far as we need to be. And I specifically want to just share an 
issue that is personal for me.
    In Delaware, the coverage maps, your current coverage maps, 
suggest that the entire State of Delaware has at least one 
provider that provides at least 25 megabytes per second, yet 
from my own personal experience, just driving up and down my 
State, whether it is on my farms, whether it is in the city, we 
have patches where there is not access, and so this is a 
priority. And, while I appreciate the willingness to adopt the 
shapefile approach to resolve some of these issues, it seems 
not as precise, particularly when you are measuring through 
census tracts, and for a small State like Delaware that has 
great impact.
    So I wanted to ask a question, you know, about the--sort of 
the rejection of the proposal to utilize location fabric. The 
location fabric approach, which is more granular, I understand, 
and also had bipartisan support, was endorsed, I think, 2 weeks 
ago. And could you--I will start with Commissioner Pai. Could 
you just share why the FCC rejected that proposal that would 
have been a little bit more--provided more realistic coverage?
    Mr. Pai. Appreciate the question, Congresswoman, as well as 
the concern that you have raised. I have seen that for myself 
during a recent trip to Delaware. Driving from Wilmington to 
Seaford, I noticed the bars start to drop in--there are rural 
parts of Delaware.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And in the urban parts as well.
    Mr. Pai. And even in the urban areas as well, so that is 
one of the reasons why we are focused on making sure we have 
more accurate data.
    With respect to the question that you have raised, part of 
the reason why I am proud that the agency spoke with a 
bipartisan voice on August 1 when it adopted a new digital 
opportunity data collection and upgraded the system is that we 
included not just the shapefile approach that you are talking 
about, but also crowdsourcing, to understand from consumers 
where they live, where access is, and, more importantly, where 
it is not, so we can have better data-driven decisions.
    And there are a lot of things that make this issue very 
complicated, but I think at the end of the day, we want to 
understand not just from providers, but from consumers, where 
is broadband, to get as granular as we possibly can, while 
making sure that we understand the challenges that are out 
there in terms of broadband deployment.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I want to also turn to Commissioner 
Rosenworcel to just kind of get your interpretation of this as 
well. I have a lot of very technical things that I can ask here 
on this page and people's eyes will glaze over, but bottom 
line, I would like to get your perspective.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I work on these issues all the time. I 
know what you mean about eyes glazing over. We have got to get 
the most granular and accurate data possible. That is the 
bottom line. So if we are going to start with shapefiles, 
great. But if we can improve it with a broadband location 
fabric, that is where we are going to need to go next.
    And I would point out that I think this committee in its 
Broadband DATA Act included both, so that is important. And 
just as important is that we get the perspective of people 
driving up and down the roads of Delaware who can tell us where 
they get bars and which houses where they don't get service. We 
are going to have to bring in crowdsourcing and public 
knowledge to really refine this to the next level.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And Commissioner Starks?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, I agree as well. And you are exactly right 
on the issue of census tracts. I think that was a tremendous 
problem. We need it as granular as possible. And so I have also 
been somebody who said that for our maps, the shapefiles are a 
good place to start. Getting it more granular at the address 
level is what I have long called for, because that is--people 
actually live at their addresses, turns out. And so we need to 
make sure that we are getting it as detailed as possible so 
that we can have the connectivity that people need.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. To the other Commissioners?
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Sorry. I will hear from you following, 
but thank you so much for your work. And thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your leadership.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
    Seeing no more Members ready to testify, the Chair requests 
unanimous consent to enter the following into the record: a 
letter sent to me by Chairman Pai dated December 3, a letter 
from ITS America, a letter from the Motor and Equipment 
Manufacturers Association, a letter from the Ultra Wideband 
Alliance, a letter to the FCC from safety advocates, a letter 
from Global Automakers, a letter from Safety Spectrum 
Coalition, a letter from nine public safety railroads and 
public transit oil and gas and utility organizations, and a 
statement from the National Safety Council.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Doyle. I would like to thank the witnesses for their 
participation in today's hearing.
    I remind all Members that, pursuant to committee rules, 
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for 
the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I 
ask each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that 
you may receive.
    And before I adjourn, I want to wish all the members of the 
Commission a happy holiday season. Good to see you all back, 
and to everyone in the audience too. Happy holidays.
    The committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo

    Chairman Doyle, thank you for holding this important 
hearing to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) is meeting its responsibilities consistent with the 
public interest and the laws Congress has passed. Since our 
last oversight hearing on May 15th, under the leadership of 
Chairman Ajit Pai, the FCC has prioritized the needs of 
companies over those of the American people. Two issues are 
particularly egregious examples of this trend.
    Over 18 months ago, we first learned that wireless carriers 
were selling the real-time location data of Americans to data 
brokers, which then sold the data to bounty hunters, stalkers, 
and other bad actors. The FCC said it is investigating the 
matter. However, despite repeated requests for more information 
about this investigation, Chairman Pai has been silent on the 
matter. At the last oversight hearing, I asked Chairman Pai why 
he was withholding information about the investigation from his 
fellow Commissioners. He incorrectly stated that he hasn't 
withheld any information. FCC Commissioners should have 
received more information when they asked for it months ago. 
Now, it's time for this subcommittee to be briefed on the 
matter in full, as many of us requested in a letter recently.
    I'm also extremely worried about Lifeline. Over 38 million 
Americans are eligible for subsidized phone and broadband 
through this program. Yet, less than 20 percent of eligible 
Americans actually take advantage of Lifeline. Worse, in the 
last 3 years, enrollment has fallen from 12.76 million in the 
third quarter of 2016 to 6.92 million last quarter. That's an 
unfathomable decline of 45 percent.
    This is not incidental. It's caused by what appears to be a 
systematic assault on the program. The FCC ``hard launched'' 
the National Verifier program in States before having access to 
the needed State databases for SNAP and Medicaid. When several 
States petitioned to delay hard launches of the National 
Verifier, the FCC denied these requests. When Lifeline 
providers requested changes to the National Verifier Carrier 
application programming interface (API), we're told the FCC has 
been unwilling to work with the providers. Furthermore, the FCC 
is ignoring pleas from wireless carriers, public interest 
groups, and Lifeline providers to reconsider the Commission's 
escalation of minimum service standards and the associated 
decrease of subsidies for voice-only services. This puts an 
unacceptable economic squeeze on Lifeline providers, which may 
need to exit the market or limit their offerings. It's hard to 
see these developments as anything but intentional efforts to 
weaken an important social safety net program our country 
needs.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]