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

       STRENGTHENING COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO HELP AMERICANS IN CRISIS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-105

    [GRAPHIC(S) 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

    52-379 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023

                        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...........................................     2
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, prepared statement....................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                   Witnesses

    Sue Ann Atkerson, LPC, Chief Executive Officer, Behavioral Health
      Link...........................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Daniel Henry, Regulatory Counsel and Director of Government
      Affairs, National Emergency Number Association.................    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
        Answers to submitted questions \1\
    Allen Bell, Distribution Manager, Georgia Power Company..........    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Anthony Gossner, Fire Chief, City of Santa Rosa, California......    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Answers to submitted questions \1\
    Matthew Gerst, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA..........    46
        Prepared statement...........................................    48
        Answers to submitted questions \1\
    Joseph Torres, Senior Director of Strategy and Engagement, Free
      Press and Free Press Action....................................    62
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
        Answers to submitted questions \1\

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 451, Don't Break Up the T-Band Act of 2019, submitted by
      Doyle..........................................................   115
    H.R. 1289, Preserving Home and Office Numbers in Emergencies Act
      of 2019, submitted by Doyle....................................   117
    H.R. 3836, Wireless Infrastructure Resiliency during Emergencies
      and Disasters Act, by Doyle....................................   123
    H.R. 4194, National Suicide Hot-line Designation Act of 2019,
      submitted by Doyle.............................................   125
    H.R. 4856, Reliable Emergency Alert Distribution Improvement Act
      of 2019, submitted by Doyle....................................   131
    H.R. 5918, Reports After Activation of Disaster Information
      Reporting System; Improvements to Network Outage Reporting,
      submitted by Doyle.............................................   142
    H.R. 5926, RESILIENT Networks Act, submitted by Doyle............   149
    H.R. 5928, FIRST RESPONDER Act of 2020, submitted by Doyle.......   168

    ----------
    \1\ The Witnesses did not answer the submitted questions for the
      record by the time of publication.
    Letter of February 27, 2020, to Mr. Doyle, et al., by W. Graig
      Fugate, FEMA Administrator 2009-2017, submitted by Mr. Doyle...   177
    Letter of February 25, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by
      Derek K. Poarch, Executive Director and CEO, APCO,
      International, submitted by Mr. Doyle..........................   179
    Letter of February 26, 2020, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, by
      Harold A. Schaitberger, General President, International
      Association of Fire Fighters, submitted by Mr. Doyle...........   181
    Letter of February 27, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from
      Mental Health Liaison Group, submitted by Mr. Doyle............   182
    Letter of February 26, 2020, to Mr. Doyle, et al., by Gordon H.
      Smith, President and CEO, National Association Broadcasters,
      submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   184
    Letter of February 25, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by
      Clarence E. Anthony, CEO and Executive Director, National
      League of Cities, submitted by Mr. Doyle.......................   187
    Letter of February 26, 2020, to Mr. Pallone, by Jessica C. Hogle,
      Vice President, Federal Affairs and Chief Sustainability
      Officer, PG&E Corporation, submitted by Mr. Doyle..............   189
    Letter of February 27, 2020, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, by
      Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom--The Broadband
      Association, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................   191
    Letter of December 9, 2019, to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. McCarthy, from
      National's Public Safety Leadership Organizations, submitted by
      Mr. Doyle......................................................   194
    Letter of October 3, 2019, to Mr. Dodaro, by Mr. Pallone, Jr.,
      submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   202
    Letter of February 27, 2020, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, by Chris
      Stewart and Seth Moulton, Member of Congress, submitted by Mr.
      Doyle..........................................................   205

       STRENGTHENING COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO HELP AMERICANS IN CRISIS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2020

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Doyle
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
    Loebsack, Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo, Matsui, Schrader,
    Cardenas, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Latta (subcommittee
    ranking member), Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores,
    Brooks, Walberg, Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
        Also present: Representative Engel.
        Staff present: A J Brown, Counsel; Parul Desai, FCC
    Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, Counsel, Evan Gilbert, Press
    Assistant; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-
    Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Zach
    Kahan, Outreach and Member Service Coordinator; Jerry Leverich,
    Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Junior Professional Staff Member;
    Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Alivia Roberts, Press
    Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Policy
    Analyst; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Michael
    Engel, Minority Detailee, Communications and Technology; Peter
    Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief
    Counsel, Communications and Technology; and Evan Viau, Minority
    Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology.
        Mr. Doyle. The committee will now come to order.
        The Chair will now recognize himself 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

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

        I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today
    to discuss a range of legislative proposals intended to address
    challenges facing the American people and those responsible for
    helping them in times of crisis. The bills before the
    subcommittee today include Chairman Pallone and Mr. McNerney's
    RESILIENT Networks Act; Ms. Eshoo's WIRED Act; the READI Act
    introduced by Mr. McNerney, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr. Olson; Mr.
    Engel's Don't Break Up the T-Band Act; Ms. Matusi's and Ms.
    Eshoo's Emergency Reporting Act; Mr. Thompson's PHONE Act; Mr.
    Moulton and Mr. Stewart's National Suicide Hotline Designation
    Act; and Ranking Member Walden's FIRST RESPONDER Act.
        [The Bills, Resolutions, and Amendments en bloc follow:]
        Mr. Doyle. In the last few years, resiliency has taken on a
    new meaning. Our Nation has faced a surge of extreme weather
    events from Super Storm Sandy in New Jersey and New York to
    severe hurricanes in Puerto Rico, the Gulf, and the southern
    eastern United States.
        Puerto Rico, in particular, has been hit hard with multiple
    hurricanes. In this most recent earthquake, thousands of people
    lost their lives and they are still struggling to reconnect
    critical infrastructure. The Federal Government simply has not
    done enough. We must do better for the people there.
        In California, people have seen their State ravaged by some
    of the first wildfires in history. These fires haven't just
    burned down homes, they have destroyed whole communities. In
    the Midwest, communities have experienced record flooding and
    crop losses.
        More and more exception weather events that used to occur
    once in a generation are becoming a regular occurrence. Human-
    caused climate change is driving the shift in our weather
    patterns and, while we work to combat even worse effects in the
    future, we need to deal with this new normal now.
        Our Nation's communications infrastructure is a lifeline to
    those facing exigent circumstances and it needs to be ready to
    take on the challenges we know it will face, whether that be
    fires, floods, Category 5 winds, or 9-1-1 call centers outages,
    a public safety emergency in a major city, or a personal crisis
    that could cost someone their life. In each case, communication
    networks that are ready and resilient to the challenges we know
    they will face can be the difference between life and death.
        It is my hope that, as we examine legislation before us
    today, we can come together and find common ground because,
    while each of our districts has some unique challenges, we can
    all acknowledge that our communities are safer and stronger
    when folks can communicate with each other and access the
    resources they need in an emergency.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

        I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today
    to discuss a range of legislative proposals intended to address
    challenges facing the American people and those responsible for
    helping them in times of crisis.
        The bills before the subcommittee today include Chairman
    Pallone and Mr. McNerney's RESILIENT Networks Act; Ms. Eshoo's
    WIRED Act; the READI Act introduced by Mr. McNerney, Mr.
    Bilirakis, and Mr. Olson; Mr. Engel's Don't Break Up the T-Band
    Act; Ms. Matusi's and Ms. Eshoo's Emergency Reporting Act; Mr.
    Thompson's PHONE Act; Mr. Moulton and Mr. Stewart's National
    Suicide Hotline 49 Designation Act; and Ranking Member Walden's
    FIRST RESPONDER Act.
        In the last few years, resiliency has taken on a new
    meaning. Our Nation has faced a surge of extreme weather events
    from Super Storm Sandy in New Jersey and New York to severe
    hurricanes in Puerto Rico, the Gulf, and the southern eastern
    United States.
        Puerto Rico, in particular, has been hit hard with multiple
    hurricanes. In this most recent earthquake, thousands of people
    lost their lives and they are still struggling to reconnect
    critical infrastructure. The Federal Government simply has not
    done enough. We must do better for the people there.
        In California, people have seen their State ravaged by some
    of the first wildfires in history. These fires haven't just
    burned down homes, they have destroyed whole communities. In
    the Midwest, communities have experienced record flooding and
    crop losses.
        More and more exception weather events that used to occur
    once in a generation are becoming a regular occurrence. Human-
    caused climate change is driving the shift in our weather
    patterns and, while we work to combat even worse effects in the
    future, we need to deal with this new normal now.
        Our Nation's communications infrastructure is a lifeline to
    those facing exigent circumstances and it needs to be ready to
    take on the challenges we know it will face, whether that be
    fires, floods, Category 5 winds, or 9-1-1 call centers outages,
    a public safety emergency in a major city, or a personal crisis
    that could cost someone their life. In each case, communication
    networks that are ready and resilient to the challenges we know
    80 they will face can be the difference between life and death.
        It is my hope that, as we examine legislation before us
    today, we can come together and find common ground because,
    while each of our districts has some unique challenges, we can
    all acknowledge that our communities are safer and stronger
    when folks can communicate with each other and access the
    resources they need in an emergency.
        With that, I would like to yield a minute to my good friend
    Mr. McNerney. And then after his minute, a minute to Ms. Eshoo.

        With that, I would like to yield a minute to my good friend
    Mr. McNerney. And then after his minute, a minute to Ms. Eshoo.
        Mr. McNerney. Well I thank the chairman for holding this
    hearing and for yielding a minute to me.
        This year, we are witnessing the driest February on record
    in much of Northern California, which is where my district is
    located. As experts warn about the possibility of early and
    more intense wildfire season, it is imperative that we help
    individuals stay connected during these natural disasters.
        This situation is, in part, why I have introduced H.R.
    5926, the RESILIENT Networks Act with Chairman Pallone. This
    legislation would make critical improvements to the reliability
    of our communications network.
        I have also introduced H.R. 4856, the READI Act, with my
    colleagues, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Olson. This legislation would
    help ensure that we have a robust wireless emergency alerting
    system.
        Additionally, I have asked the chairman of the FCC to hold
    a hearing in Northern California to examine the cell tower
    outages that occurred during the recent wildfires. Chairman Pai
    committed to me that he would hold this hearing. I look forward
    to hearing from him about the details of when and where it will
    be held.
        And now I yield to my colleague, Ms. Eshoo.
        Ms. Eshoo. I thank the gentleman and I thank you, Chairman
    Doyle, for not only yielding time but for also holding this
    very important meeting.
        On October 28th of last year, 874 cell towers were out in
    California, caused by wildfires and power shut-offs. My
    constituents were worried sick that they wouldn't be able to
    call 9-1-1 during emergencies, receive emergency alerts, or
    download public safety information. Our wildfires are getting
    more intense because of climate change and PG&E, the major
    utility, estimates that shut-offs will impact nearly two
    million Californians this year.
        So without real changes, I really worry that our telecom
    problem will, once again, worsen the impacts of these disasters
    and it is why I have introduced the WIRED Act, which clarifies
    that States can require carriers to take measures to make
    wireless infrastructure more resilient to disasters, such as
    requiring backup power. We have to have this and the
    ambiguities in the law today are cleared away by this
    legislation.
        I am grateful that we are also considering Congresswoman
    Matsui's bill, which I am proud to be an original co-sponsor
    of.
        And I look forward to a very productive hearing. I thank
    all the witnesses.
        And Mr. Chairman, thank you for grouping these bills and
    having the hearing so that they can move on. These bills,
    collectively, are going to make a real difference in the lives
    of Californians and others across the country.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta, the ranking member for
    the subcommittee, 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 I really
    appreciate you holding today's hearing. And good morning and
    welcome to today's hearing to discuss a variety of public
    safety-related legislation.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for sharing their
    experiences with us on dealing with the day-to-day challenges
    associated with the concepts of these legislative proposals. So
    thanks again for being here.
        Public safety communications provide an important lifeline
    to consumers and, as we make advances in technology, we must be
    careful to make sure transitions are done thoughtfully, are
    transparent, and have public input.
        While many of the bills before us have good intentions to
    improve the resiliency of our emergency communications systems,
    we must ensure that these bills receive proper attention so
    their goals are achieved.
        First, the subcommittee is examining H.R. 1289, the PHONE
    Act, which will provide a moratorium on number reassignment
    after a natural disaster. I believe we can all agree that
    consumers should lose their phone number after their home is
    destroyed from a fire or a hurricane but the remedy we use to
    protect consumers must be manageable for companies that provide
    voice service to tens of millions of consumers. Without taking
    that into account, we could cause more confusion for Americans
    already reeling from disasters.
        If there is a concern with the Commission's current process
    for obtaining a waiver of the Aging Rule, that is something we
    should study.
        I believe that these and other challenges can be overcome
    and I am committed to working with my friends in the majority
    to see if there is a path forward. However, I caution you
    against moving such important legislation without due
    consideration under regular order.
        I am pleased that we are considering the FIRST RESPONDER
    Act, which repeals the T-Band auction mandate, while addressing
    the issue of 9-1-1 fee diversion by States, as well as my
    colleague from New York's bill, Don't Break Up the T-Band Act.
    These bills address critical bipartisan issues that, if not
    addressed, put the entire 9-1-1 and public safety system at
    risk.
        We will also discuss H.R. 4194, the National Suicide
    Hotline Designation Act. Last Congress, this committee
    unanimously passed the National Suicide Hotline Improvement
    Act, which tasked the FCC with studying whether to designate an
    n-1-1 three-digit short code for a National Suicide Prevention
    Lifeline. Chairman Pai has announced his intention to move
    forward on designating 9-8-8 and I applaud this decision.
        And I was pleased to host the chairman recently in Toledo,
    Ohio at a visit of the Rescue, Mental Health, and Addiction
    Services, a National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Crisis Center.
    At the Center, we learned the number of hotline calls that
    needed answering in Ohio increased by 70 percent from 2016 to
    2018. With suicide rates growing at an alarming rate across our
    Nation, we need to make sure that the prevention services are
    there and they have never been needed more than they are needed
    today.
        We must ensure resources like 9-8-8 are available for at-
    risk Americans to get the help they need.
        And Mr. Chairman, with that, I appreciate you holding
    today's hearing and thank our witnesses for being here to
    testify today. And I will yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing to discuss a
    variety of public safety-related bills. I want to thank our
    witnesses for sharing their experiences with us on dealing with
    the day-to-day challenges associated with the concepts in these
    legislative proposals.
        Public safety communications provide an important lifeline
    to consumers, and as we make advancements in technology we must
    be careful to make sure transitions are done thoughtfully, are
    transparent, and have public input. While many of the bills
    before us have good intentions to improve the resiliency of our
    emergency communications systems, we must ensure these bills
    receive proper attention so that their goals are achieved.
        First, the Subcommittee is examining H.R. 1289, the PHONE
    Act, which would provide a moratorium on number reassignment
    after a natural disaster. I think we can all agree that
    consumers shouldn't lose their phone number after their home is
    destroyed from a fire or hurricane. But whatever remedy we use
    to protect consumers must be manageable for companies that
    provide voice service to tens of millions of consumers. Without
    taking that into account, we could cause more confusion for
    Americans already reeling from disaster. If there is a concern
    with the Commission's current process for obtaining a waiver of
    the aging rule, that is something we should learn more about. I
    believe these and other challenges can be overcome, and I am
    committed to working with my friends in the Majority to see if
    there is a path forward. However, I caution against moving such
    important legislation without due consideration under regular
    order.
        I am pleased that we are considering the FIRST RESPONDER
    Act, which repeals the T-Band auction mandate while addressing
    the issue of 9-1-1 fee diversion by states, as well as my
    colleague from New York's bill, Don't Break Up the T-Band Act.
    These bills address critical, bipartisan issues that if not
    addressed put the entire 9-1-1 and public safety systems at
    risk.
        We are also here to discuss H.R. 4194, the National Suicide
    Hotline Designation Act. Last Congress, this Committee
    unanimously passed the National Suicide Hotline Improvement
    Act, which tasked the FCC with studying whether to designate an
    "N-1-1" 3 digit short-code for the national suicide prevention
    Lifeline. Chairman Pai has announced his intention to move
    ahead on designating 9-8-8. I applaud this decision, and I was
    pleased to host the Chairman recently in Toledo, Ohio to visit
    Rescue Mental Health and Addiction Services--a National Suicide
    Prevention Lifeline crisis center. At the center, we learned
    the number of hotline calls that needed answering in Ohio
    increased by 70% from 2016 to 2018. With suicide rates growing
    in nearly every state, the need for prevention services has
    never been greater. We must ensure resources, like 9-8-8, are
    available for at risk Americans to get the help they need.
        I look forward to reviewing all the bills under
    consideration and hearing from our panelists. Thank you, and I
    yield back.

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

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today, the subcommittee is considering a number of
    important bills to improve communication networks, particularly
    in times of emergency. The fact is that climate change is
    causing more frequent and more severe disasters; and a
    functioning communications network can be the difference
    between life and death in these situations. And we have a
    responsibility to ensure our networks are prepared for this
    stark reality.
        One of the bills we are considering today is the RESILIENT
    Networks Act, which I introduced with Representative McNerney.
    This legislation picks up where the SANDy Act left off and will
    ensure that communication networks are prepared for the worst
    when disaster strikes.
        When networks go down, it is critical that providers share
    information about outages and restoration efforts with 9-1-1
    Call Centers and first responders. They need access to outage
    reports to better keep us safe.
        And I want to thank the Association of Public Safety
    Communications officials for letting us know about the need to
    address this issue. And I would like to request unanimous
    consent to enter a letter from APCO into the record, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        So the bill the RESILIENT Networks Act also makes certain
    that providers have pre-planned roaming agreements and mutual
    aid agreements in place ahead of time. This coordination can
    mean the difference between life and death. When a storm or
    wildfire strikes, it is essential that people can still make
    calls to 9-1-1 or to loved ones. Service is also critical to
    receiving emergency alerts that providing life-saving
    information.
        In an instance where one carrier's network is working and
    another goes down, having a plan in place beforehand to
    seamlessly transition subscribers onto the working network is
    common sense and can save lives.
        Perhaps the most frustrating challenge of all is outages
    that happen during the recovery phase, after storms or
    disasters have passed. Far too many networks go down due to
    accidental cuts into the networks when restoration efforts are
    well underway. And our bill directs the FCC to examine ways to
    stop these preventable outages and I look forward to seeing the
    result of their analysis.
        I am also pleased that the National Suicide Hotline
    Designation Act is listed for consideration today and thank
    Representative Stewart Moulton and Eddie Bernice Johnson for
    their leadership on this issue. Every day the National Suicide
    Prevention Lifeline saves lives. And reports from the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, and the FCC,
    say that making 9-8-8 the dialing code for the Lifeline will
    save more lives. This bill will make it easier for people
    experiencing a mental health crisis to access help.
        In my State of New Jersey, a hundred young people aged 15
    to 24 died by suicide in 2017, the highest number and rate
    since the 1990s. Tragically, rates are climbing across the
    board at the national level, too. The statistics are
    particularly alarming for LGBTQ youth, who are four times more
    likely to attempt suicide than their peers.
        According to the Trevor Project's National Survey, 30
    percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide
    in the past year, including more than half of transgender or
    nonbinary youth, and it is vital that we do all we can to turn
    these trends.
        And finally, I wanted to thank our Ranking Member Walden
    and Representatives Engle, Eshoo, McNerney, Matsui, and
    Thompson for their important work on other bills being
    considered today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Today the Subcommittee is considering a number of important
    bills to improve communications networks, particularly in times
    of emergency. The fact is that climate change is causing more
    frequent and more severe disasters, and a functioning
    communications network can be the difference between life and
    death in these situations. We have a responsibility to ensure
    our networks are prepared for this stark reality.
        One of the bills we're considering today is the RESILIENT
    Networks Act, which I introduced with Representative McNerney.
    This legislation picks up where the SANDy Act left off and will
    ensure that communications networks are prepared for the worst
    when disaster strikes.
        When networks go down, it is critical that providers share
    information about outages and restoration efforts with 9-1-1
    call centers and first responders. They need access to outage
    reports to better keep us safe. I want to thank the Association
    of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) for letting us
    know about the need to address this issue. And I'd like to
    request unanimous consent to enter a letter from APCO into the
    record.
        The RESILIENT Networks Act also makes certain that
    providers have pre-planned roaming agreements and mutual aid
    arrangements in place ahead of time. This coordination can mean
    the difference between life and death.
        When a storm or wildfire strikes, it is essential that
    people can still make calls to 9-1-1 or to loved ones. Service
    is also critical to receiving emergency alerts that provide
    lifesaving information. In an instance where one carrier's
    network is working and another's goes down, having a plan in
    place beforehand to seamlessly transition subscribers onto the
    working network is common sense, and can save lives.
        Perhaps the most frustrating challenge of all is outages
    that happen during the recovery phase, after storms or
    disasters have passed. Far too many networks go down due to
    accidental cuts into the networks when restoration efforts are
    well underway. Our bill directs the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) to examine ways to stop these preventable
    outages, and I look forward to seeing the results of their
    analysis.
        I am also pleased that the National Suicide Hotline
    Designation Act is listed for consideration today, and thank
    Representatives Stewart, Moulton, and Eddie Bernice Johnson for
    their leadership on this issue. Every day, the National Suicide
    Prevention Lifeline saves lives-and reports from the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the FCC say
    making 9-8-8 the dialing code for the Lifeline will save more.
    This bill will make it easier for people experiencing a mental
    health crisis to access help.
        In my state of New Jersey, 100 young people aged 15 to 24
    died by suicide in 2017--the highest number and rate since the
    1990s.
        Tragically, rates are climbing across the board at the
    national level too. The statistics are particularly alarming
    for LGBTQ youth, who are four times more likely to attempt
    suicide than their peers. According to the Trevor Project's
    National Survey, 39 percent of LGBTQ youth seriously considered
    attempting suicide in the past year, including more than half
    of transgender or nonbinary youth.
        It is vital that we do all that we can to turn back these
    trends.
        Finally, I want to thank Ranking Member Walden and
    Representatives Engel, Eshoo, McNerney, Matsui, and Thompson
    for their important work on other bills being considered today.
        I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Rep. Matsui.

        And I wanted to yield the remainder of my time to
    Representative Matsui, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding
    and Chairman Doyle for holding this important, timely hearing.
        The natural disasters we will examine at today's hearing
    were, just a few years ago, irregularities, unavoidable but
    uncommon events. Today, these once-in-a-generation storms and
    fires have become all too common occurrences.
        In 2019 alone, wildfires in California damaged or destroyed
    732 structures and burned almost 260,000 acres. Worst of all,
    three lives were lost. As destructive as these fires were, we
    know that they are not an anomaly. Wildfire season is getting
    longer. Wildfire incidents are becoming more common and their
    intensity is increasing.
        In the face of this evolving threat, we must adopt a
    holistic approach, one that addresses environmental, economic,
    and human factors that contribute to our changing climate.
        Additionally, as we will discuss at this hearing, we need
    to take immediate steps to ensure our networks can perform as
    intended during emergencies. The shortcomings are network
    performance were laid bare by Hurricane Maria, the Thomas Fire,
    and Superstorm Sandy. This committee has an obligation to move
    quickly and collaboratively to advance legislation that will
    help prepare our country for the natural disasters of tomorrow.
    That is why I worked with my colleagues, Representative Eshoo,
    Thompson, and Huffman, to introduce the Emergency Reporting
    Act. This bill would establish a standardized emergency
    reporting process at the FCC and improve standards that require
    mobile carriers to report network messages to 9-1-1 Centers.
        The FCC needs to do a better job in response to crises. My
    bill will ensure that the FCC conducts field hearings, issues
    reports, and makes policy recommendations on all major
    disasters, regardless of their location so no community would
    again be left wondering: What can we do to better prepare for
    the next one?
        It would also improve the flow of information to 9-1-1
    Centers when there are network outages in their service
    territory that prevent consumers from completing 9-1-1 calls or
    when the emergency calls do not include vital information like
    location or number data.
        While existing outage reporting requirements exist at the
    FCC, the notification threshold is high and can lead to
    situations in which 9-1-1 Centers are left in the dark by
    service outages in their territory, jeopardizing public safety.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the
    full committee for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Good morning.
        Mr. Walden. And I want to welcome our witnesses and guests
    today.
        I just want to say on these wildfires; we have been facing
    this in the northwest for a long time. I was just looking it
    up. In 1910 was the giant fire in Idaho that burned, I think,
    something like three million acres and took 86 lives, mostly
    firefighters on the front lines.
        So this is something some of us have been dealing with for
    a long time. Yes, it is getting worse. Yes, climate change is
    impacting it. But we have got to do work to get our forest back
    in balance and get the excess fuel loads out and we need your
    help to do that on both sides of aisle. We have got legislation
    to do that in the Resilient Forests Act. And then we need to
    replant. And we have a Trillion Trees project that I think can
    make a real difference for the ecology, and trees for our lungs
    and the world's lungs, and can take and return oxygen to the
    environment. We need to do that, too.
        And we need to make our networks resilient. I was in the
    radio business for 20 years. I have covered a lot of fires. I
    have worked closely with emergency personnel. I have been on
    the scene of fires and accidents. And I have been out making my
    own generator work at my radio station when it would go out. I
    have turned tower lights on in the middle of the day so rescue
    helicopters in fog could land at the nearby hospital. This is
    really important work but we have to get it right and that is
    why we look forward to working with you on the RESILIENT Act
    but we need to get it right.
        You know the RESILIENT Networks Act put forth by the
    chairman, I appreciate his work on it. I know it has been a
    focus of his and others for a long time, especially since
    Superstorm Sandy.
        Now we did include his SANDy Act and the RAY BAUM'S Act in
    the last Congress, when I chaired the committee. This addressed
    the complicated issues we examined and we did it in a
    bipartisan and timely way.
        The RESILIENT Networks Act attempts to address concerns
    related to making sure wireless networks are restored in a
    timely and efficient manner during times of emergency but this
    bill has not seen--been through the kind of examination I
    think, Mr. Chairman, it really deserves and needs. It is a very
    important topic and we have got to get it right.
        I commend the chairman for taking initial steps to examine
    these issues in depth. In October of 2019, Chairman Pallone
    requested a GAO study to investigate and evaluate the failures
    in response to restoring communications in Puerto Rico after
    the devastating hurricane to see what happened during that
    crisis and what can be improved. Without objection, I would
    like to offer his letter for the record, Mr. Chairman. We have
    not yet seen the results of this----
        Mr. Doyle. So ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]

        Mr. Walden. Thank you--the study which may inform how
    Congress could address the issues contemplated in the RESILIENT
    Networks Act. So we should--we asked for the information so we
    could learn what to get right and I wish we would wait to act
    until we get that.
        The FCC is also taking steps to address these issues. In
    fact, the Commission is voting tomorrow on an item to provide
    State and Federal agencies with access to outage data. In many
    cases, having access to wireless communications during a
    natural disaster can save lives. So Mr. Chairman, it is
    important that we get this policy right.
        As we will hear today, the wireless industry has made some
    great strides, over the last several years, to expand their
    Wireless Resiliency Cooperative Framework, which is a voluntary
    process to enhance coordination in times of an emergency. This
    Framework must remain flexible so we can allow best practices
    and lessons learned to evolve without creating unnecessary
    barriers to restoration. Every disaster is different. I have
    seen that firsthand. So communications providers and their
    partners need sufficient flexibility to adapt to specific
    situations.
        States are also at the forefront in a lot of this work, as
    we have seen with wildfires out west in Oregon or the tragic
    ones in California. As you know, State regulators have
    jurisdiction over electric distribution. We must be mindful of
    how they are addressing this issue so we do not disrupt those
    efforts with heavy federal regulations and we must also be
    mindful to not extend the Federal Communications Commission's
    jurisdiction to include the electric distribution or
    transmission system, where they have no relevant expertise. But
    we cannot talk about the importance of the resiliency of the 9-
    1-1 system, while turning a blind eye to the flagrant and
    obvious attempts to undermine the system's integrity and, dare
    I say, resiliency.
        That is why I am also pleased to discuss the FIRST
    RESPONDER Act today. Over the last several years, I have sought
    to find a consensus solution to the T-Band auction mandate that
    was included in the 2012 Spectrum Act and address related
    issues, including the efficient use of public safety spectrum
    and diversion of 9-1-1 fees.
        The FIRST RESPONDER Act would repeal the T-Band auction
    mandate and include strong provisions to address the shameful
    acts by some States of diverting 9-1-1 fees intended for the
    maintenance and upgrade to Next Generation 9-1-1. While some
    States may not have a clear understanding of what is a 9-1-1
    expenditure, other State politicians have made a more conscious
    decision to diver 9-1-1 fees to spend the money on pet projects
    unrelated to public policy.
        So the FIRST RESPONDER Act addresses both concerns and
    gives well-intentioned States clarity on how to prevent 9-1-1
    fee diversion in the future but also would take steps to
    investigate whether criminal penalties or other tools could end
    the shameful practice of fee diversion by the worst offenders.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will just conclude by saying
    we should also keep in mind the role of ham radio operators. I
    may be one of the few in the Congress. It is actually an
    amateur radio operators but I have seen them play a key role in
    emergency situations, too, when everything else fails.
        So with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        We have a number of bills before us today that aim to
    advance public safety communications, and it is my hope that we
    can work in a bipartisan manner to reach consensus. But much
    work remains to be done before many of these bills are ready
    for full consideration by the subcommittee.
        To start, we will be discussing the RESILIENT Networks Act
    put forth by the Chairman. I appreciate his work on this issue,
    and I know this has been a focus of his for a long time, going
    back to his work during Superstorm Sandy. In fact, we included
    his SANDy Act in RAY BAUM'S Act last Congress, which addressed
    complicated issues that we examined in a bipartisan manner over
    several years. The RESILIENT Networks Act attempts to address
    concerns related to making sure wireless networks are restored
    in a timely and efficient manner during times of emergency, but
    this bill has not seen the thorough examination necessary for
    such an important topic.
        I commend the Chairman for taking initial steps to examine
    these issues in depth. In October 2019, Chairman Pallone
    requested a GAO study to investigate and evaluate the failures
    in response to restoring communications in Puerto Rico after
    the devastating hurricane to see what happened during that
    crisis, and what can be improved. Without objection, I would
    like to offer this letter for the record. We have not yet seen
    the results from that study, which may inform how Congress
    could address the issues contemplated in the RESILIENT Networks
    Act.
        The FCC is also taking steps to address these issues. In
    fact, the Commission is voting tomorrow on an item to provide
    state and federal agencies with access to outage data. In many
    cases, having access to wireless communications during a
    natural disaster saves lives, so Mr. Chairman, it is important
    that we get this policy right.
        As we will hear today, the wireless industry has made great
    strides over the last several years to expand their Wireless
    Resiliency Cooperative Framework, which is a voluntary process
    to enhance coordination in times of an emergency. This
    framework must remain flexible, so we can allow best practices
    and lessons learned to evolve without creating unnecessary
    barriers to restoration. Every disaster is different, so
    communications providers and their partners need sufficient
    flexibility to adapt to specific situations. States are also at
    the forefront of a lot of this work, as we have seen with
    wildfires out west in Oregon or California. As you know, state
    regulators have jurisdiction over electric distribution. We
    must be mindful of how they are addressing this issue so we do
    not disrupt those efforts with heavy federal regulations. And
    we must also be mindful to not expand the Federal
    Communications Commission's jurisdiction to include the
    electric distribution or transmission system--where they have
    no relevant expertise.
        But we cannot talk about the importance of the resiliency
    of the 9-1-1 system while turning a blind eye to flagrant and
    obvious attempts to undermine the system's integrity, and dare
    I say resiliency. That is why I'm also pleased to discuss the
    FIRST RESPONDER Act today. Over the last several years, I have
    sought to find a consensus solution to the T-Band auction
    mandate that was included in the 2012 Spectrum Act, and address
    related issues including the efficient use of public safety
    spectrum and diversion of 9-1-1 fees.
        The FIRST RESPONDER Act would repeal the T-Band auction
    mandate, and includes strong provisions to address the shameful
    acts by some states of diverting 9-1-1 fees intended for the
    maintenance and upgrade to Next-Generation 9-1-1. While some
    states may not have clear understanding on what is a 9-1-1
    expenditure, other state politicians have made a more conscious
    decision to divert 9-1-1 fees to spend the money on pet
    projects unrelated to public safety. The FIRST RESPONDER Act
    addresses both concerns: it gives well-intentioned states
    clarity on how to prevent 9-1-1 fee diversion in the future,
    but also takes steps to investigate whether criminal penalties
    or other tools could end this shameful practice by the worst
    offenders.
        I thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify today, and to
    share their thoughts on these proposals. I look forward to
    hearing from each of you on these very important topics.
        I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        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 I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
    hearing: Ms. Sue Ann Atkerson, CEO of Behavioral Health Link;
    Mr. Daniel Henry, Regulatory Counsel and director of Government
    Affairs, National Emergency Number Association; Mr. Allen Bell,
    Distribution Manager, Georgia Power Company; Mr. Anthony
    Gossner, Fire Chief, City of Santa Rosa, California; Mr.
    Matthew Gerst, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs for CTIA; and
    last but not least, Mr. Joseph Torres, Senior Director of
    Strategy and Engagement, Free Press and Free Press Action.
        We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
    We look forward to your testimony.
        At this time, the Chair will recognize each witness for 5
    minutes to provide their opening statements but, before we
    begin, I would like to explain the lighting system. In front of
    you is a series of lights. The light will initially be green.
    The light will turn yellow when you have 1-minute remaining.
    Please wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will
    turn red when your time has expired and, if you keep talking, a
    trap door will open under your seat and whisk you away.
        So with that admonishment, Ms. Atkerson, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENTS OF SUE ANN ATKERSON, CEO, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LINK;
      DANIEL HENRY, REGULATORY COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
      AFFAIRS, NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION; ALLEN BELL,
     DISTRIBUTION MANAGER, GEORGIA POWER COMPANY; ANTHONY GOSSNER,
    FIRE CHIEF, CITY OF SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA; MATTHEW GERST, VICE
    PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA; AND JOSEPH TORRES, SENIOR
    DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND ENGAGEMENT, FREE PRESS AND FREE PRESS
                                 ACTION

                     STATEMENT OF SUE ANN ATKERSON

        Ms. Atkerson. Thank you and good morning, Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Can you pull your microphone up closer to you,
    please? Yes.
        Ms. Atkerson. Sure. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
    Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the committee.
    Thank you for inviting me today and for your leadership in
    strengthening the country's suicide prevention and crisis care
    services.
        By designating 9-8-8 as the dialing code for suicide
    prevention services, the bipartisan National Suicide Hotline
    Designation Act, H.R. 4194 is a historic step toward saving
    more American lives and I should know. My name is Sue Ann
    Atkerson and I have spent more than 25 years working to prevent
    suicide. I am the CEO of Behavioral Health Link in Atlanta,
    Georgia and COO for RI International based in Phoenix, Arizona.
    BHL provides a 24/7 community-based call center hub and mobile
    outreach and RI International offers facility-based crisis
    services in eight States. Working together, these programs
    deliver a full continuum of best-practice crisis service care.
        I have three points to share today: one, suicide is a
    leading cause of death in the United States; two, faster access
    to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline will save lives;
    and three, funding and specialized services are essential for
    success.
        Before I go into detail on these, I want to share a story
    that illustrates why we are all here today: Misha Kessler. The
    9-8-8 code is precisely what Misha Kessler, a now mental health
    advocate from Ohio, needed when he experienced suicidal
    ideation as a sophomore at George Washington University. During
    a particularly difficult time, he planned to jump out of his
    sixth-floor dorm window to his death. Without other options,
    Misha ended up in an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
        Misha's experience would likely have been different, had 9-
    8-8 existed. His 9-8-8 call would have been redirected to the
    Lifeline, where local call centers deescalate 98 percent of
    calls, getting people the help they need immediately.
        The sooner we can intervene to help a person in crisis, the
    more lives we can save. That is why the 9-8-8dial code and a
    fully-funded Lifeline is so important.
        I will begin with some background on the suicide epidemic.
    Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death of Americans
    overall and the second leading cause of death for people ages
    10 to 34. We lost nearly 50,000 Americans to suicide in 2018.
    Of particular relevance to the chair and ranking member,
    Pennsylvania ranked fourth in the Nation for suicide deaths and
    Ohio ranked fifth.
        Some populations are particularly vulnerable to suicide.
    LGBTQ youth, for example, are four times more likely than their
    heterosexual peers to contemplate suicide and the incidence
    rates for transgender youth have skyrocketed in recent years.
        Secondly, faster access to the Lifeline will save lives.
    Research shows that the time between a person deciding to act
    and attempting suicide can be as short as five to ten minutes.
    That means there is a critical period for intervention similar
    to the so-called golden hour of a stroke, meaning that time is
    of the essence.
        Fifty-three years ago, the FCC established 9-1-1,
    transforming emergency care in this country by making access to
    trained medical professionals available to anyone, anywhere,
    anytime. Today, Americans in mental health distress often turn
    to our medical system. Landing in overcrowded emergency rooms
    that are often ill-equipped to address psychiatric needs can
    lead to delays in accessing appropriate care. When they do get
    treatment, it comes at a very high cost, not only to the
    patient but also to taxpayers, in the form of emergency medical
    services and law enforcement resources.
        Adopting 9-8-8 will allow direct immediate access to
    trained mental health professionals, whose rapid intervention
    often results in lifesaving actions.
        Lastly, funding and specialized services are essential to
    success. The Lifeline network of accredited crisis centers must
    be fully funded and well-equipped to handle specialized needs
    of callers as call volume increases. Estimates indicate the
    potential for calls to double in the first year, reaching
    upwards of five million.
        Full funding of the Lifeline is critical to success and we
    will, undoubtedly, need a braided funding approach. This
    includes giving States the authority to levy fees, such as a
    service charge revenue through wireless carriers. We also need
    to strengthen partnerships between the Lifeline and specialty
    suicide prevention resources. In fact, the Senate companion
    bill 2661 directs SAMHSA to create an implementation plan for
    specialized services for LGBTQ youth and other at-risk
    populations, which could include training crisis counselors and
    integrated voice response to route calls to specialized
    organizations. We encourage the House of Representatives to
    adopt this language.
        In conclusion, it is the consensus of the mental health
    community, including the operators of the Lifeline, that
    Congress should pass H.R. 4194. Providing faster access to a
    fully-funded Lifeline network, with specialized services for
    our most at-risk populations, will save American lives.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Atkerson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Henry, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DANIEL HENRY

        Mr. Henry. Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
    Walden, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
        My name is Daniel Henry. I am Regulatory Counsel and
    Director of Government Affairs for NENA, The 9-1-1 Association.
    With over 16,000 members across the United States, NENA is the
    leading professional association in the 9-1-1 space.
        Thanks also to the members of the Congressional NextGen 9-
    1-1 Caucus, including co-chairs Representatives Eshoo and
    Shimkus, as well as many other members of this committee,
    including Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle. We appreciate
    your support.
        Built in the days of copper landline trunks, 9-1-1 now
    answers around 80 percent of its 300 million annual calls from
    mobile phones, most of them smartphones with advanced location
    and data-sharing capabilities. Unfortunately, America's 9-1-1
    system is still years behind the smartphone revolution.
    Modernizing it faces four perennial challenges: decentralized
    governance, inadequate and inconsistent funding, human
    resources challenges, and evolving technology.
        Public Safety Answering Points or PSAPs vary widely from
    community to community, as noted. Each of these settings has
    its own unique needs, conventions, technology, and funding
    models. It would be impossible to impose a single cookie cutter
    model for 9-1-1 in every jurisdiction in the United States.
        With varied governance comes varied funding means. While 9-
    1-1 fees are traditionally levied as line items on subscriber
    phone bills, funding models also vary. In some cases, they are
    uniform statewide fees. In others, counties levy the fees.
    Regardless of how the money is collected, adequate funding
    streams are required for both technology upgrades and for daily
    operations of 9-1-1.
        What constitutes an allowable 9-1-1 expenditure also varies
    from one State to the next. While one State may define anything
    within the walls of the PSAP as 9-1-1 spending, another may
    extend that definition to all kinds of public safety equipment.
        More challenging still is some States' practice of
    diverting funds collected through 9-1-1 fees to unrelated
    issues. According to data collected by the FCC, in 2018 alone,
    five States diverted a total of $187 million in consumer-paid
    9-1-1 fees. Most people would agree that, when we pay a 9-1-1
    fee, that money should go to 9-1-1. Raids on 9-1-1 funds must
    cease, both to maintain today's level of service and to
    accelerate the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1.
        Our 9-1-1 system also plays a critical role during
    disasters as a primary intake of information to public safety.
    During Hurricane Harvey, for instance, Houston 9-1-1 processed
    75,000 calls during the course of a single weekend, more than
    four and a half times its normal call volume. In the aggregate,
    these calls become crowd-sourced intelligence for public safety
    providing thousands of details in real time and helping
    authorities stay safe and do their jobs.
        The 9-1-1 system also serves as an early warning system for
    ``blue-sky'' outages, as was the case in December 2018 when a
    major nationwide outage was brought to light only by sharply
    dropping 9-1-1 call volumes. Threats to connectivity are
    exacerbated in this legacy 9-1-1 environment, where specialized
    9-1-1 trunks and selective routers create single points of
    failure in the network. It is, thus, imperative that these
    facilities be supported by more reliable frequently, tested
    sources of backup power and connectivity.
        It is also crucial that telecommunications providers and 9-
    1-1 work hand-in-hand to tackle outage reporting and analysis,
    so that they may work together to address current outages and
    prevent future ones.
        Many of these challenges will be alleviated by the
    transition to Next Generation 9-1-1, whereas legacy 9-1-1 is
    based on voice-only 20th century technology. NG is a standards-
    based IP-powered system of systems that brings 9-1-1 into the
    21st-century. To enhance resiliency, NG 9-1-1 will allow for
    seamless rollover of operations when PSAPs experience an outage
    or are overwhelmed with calls. It will allow PSAPs to connect
    to 9-1-1 networks through multiple cost-effect pathways and it
    will make our 9-1-1 systems more secure and more resilient
    against cyberattacks. Finally, it will allow for faster
    upgrades and solutions to problems and innovations as they
    arise in the marketplace.
        The fiscal burden of this transition cannot be borne solely
    by States and localities alone. The National 9-1-1 Office
    estimates the NG transition will cost around $12 billion
    nationwide, above and beyond the day-to-day operating costs of
    our current 9-1-1 systems. Industry and public safety have
    worked together for over a decade to develop the technical and
    operational standards, governance models, and best practices
    for Next Generation 9-1-1. It has been tested in numerous real-
    world environments. In short, 9-1-1 is ready for this
    transition.
        We are deeply grateful, Mr. Chairman, that you and your
    committee have called this hearing to consider several pieces
    of legislation to improve America's 9-1-1 systems. We believe
    that significant improvements can be made soon in practically
    every community's 9-1-1 systems and that Congress' investment
    will deliver priceless returns.
        We at NENA look forward to working with you and with all
    stakeholders to ensure the continued success of 9-1-1 and an
    accelerated transition to NG9-1-1.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Henry follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Bell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF ALLEN BELL

        Mr. Bell. Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
    Walden, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
        My name is Allen Bell and I serve as a Distribution Support
    Manager for Georgia Power. I am also a member of the FCC's
    Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee and serve on its
    Disaster Response and Recovery Working Group. I have nearly
    three decades of experience working disaster response and
    recovery, and communications issues in the electric power
    industry, including serving 15 years on Georgia's 8-1-1 Board.
        Georgia Power is the largest subsidiary of Southern
    Company, one of the nation's largest generators of electricity.
    We serve nine million customers in six States and our
    communications service provider, Southern Linc, operates over a
    127,000 square mile territory covering Georgia, Alabama,
    southeastern Mississippi, and the Panhandle of Florida.
        The electric power industry invests more than $110 billion
    a year to modernize the grid. Georgia Power just had more than
    a billion dollars in grid investment approved by the Georgia
    Public Service Commission.
        I appreciate Chairman Pallone and Congressman McNerney's
    leadership by introducing the RESILIENT Networks Act. This is a
    serious issue that is currently being addressed by a number of
    voluntary cross-sector efforts. While these efforts should be
    given the opportunity to be seen through before congressional
    action, I applaud several of the bill's provisions.
        In particular, DOE should be included in recommending best
    practices for coordination between the two sectors because
    there are only two electric utility representatives on the
    BDAC. Communication providers should take responsible measures
    to integrate backup power into their networks and Emergency
    Operation Centers already exist to provide appropriate
    coordination during times of emergency between industry and
    Government stakeholders.
        Among the voluntary efforts the BDAC Disaster Response and
    Recovery Working Group is in the process of finalizing a report
    that will identify best practices for coordination before,
    during, and after a disaster. Additionally, at the request of
    the FCC, the Edison Electric Institute and the CTIA are
    establishing a Cross-Sector Resiliency Forum.
        With respect to H.R. 5926 it is crucial to acknowledge that
    most disasters are local, State, or regional events. Therefore,
    the goal should be to drive all coordination and information-
    sharing through State or county EOCs. The unintended
    consequence of a Federal master directory is that it could have
    the opposite effect.
        Another concern with H.R. 5926 is the consideration of
    applying the one-call notification system to fiber lines at the
    Federal level. Rather than duplicate efforts that are already
    in place in most states, I would recommend assigning fiber
    optic locators to electric and debris removal crews during
    storm restoration and evaluating construction practices for
    critical communication networks to ensure fiber lines are not
    laid adjacent to electric poles.
        Southern's extensive experience with powerful storms, such
    as Hurricane Michael, demonstrates that hardening, redundancy,
    and preparedness are keys to improving resiliency. Our primary
    focus is a safe and quick restoration of power. For some
    electric customers, including nursing homes and hospitals,
    electric service restoration and be a matter of life and death.
    Even while undertaking these restoration efforts, we still
    coordinated regularly with communications providers at the
    EOCs. All critical infrastructure providers have a
    responsibility to use these existing multi-stakeholder
    processes to improve the resiliency of their systems.
        One reason for Southern Linc's ability to maintain and
    quickly restore operational cell sites is our use of
    generations and fuel cells. While having an onsite generator at
    every site may not be feasible, wireless carriers should
    consider having generators at their most critical sites.
        Another key factor is Southern Linc's use of redundant
    backhaul and transport links for its site. Another key: During
    and immediately after large-scale storm or disaster damage to
    communications fiber is inevitable and should be planned for in
    advance.
        In conclusion, we are committed to working with all
    stakeholders to strengthen infrastructure resilience and to
    promote safe, effective disaster response and service
    restoration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Bell.
        Mr. Gossner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ANTHONY GOSSNER

        Mr. Gossner. Good morning, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
    Latta, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Anthony
    Gossner. I am the Fire Chief for the City of Santa Rosa.
        On behalf of Mayor Schwedhelm, Vice Mayor Flemming, and the
    entire City of Santa Rosa, I would like to express my
    appreciation for the opportunity to appear before this
    committee today to discuss the vital role wireless
    communications and technology play in public safety and
    emergency situations.
        A little over two years ago, the City of Santa Rosa, the
    largest city in Sonoma County and the county seat, experienced
    what was then the worst wildfire in California's history.
    Beginning on the night of October 8th, 2017, multiple fires
    broke out through California's North Bay. In Sonoma County,
    what were initially five major fires merged into three -- the
    Tubbs, the Nuns, and the Pocket Fires, collectively known as
    the Sonoma Complex. In the span of a few hours, life profoundly
    changed for tens of thousands of people in Santa Rosa and
    throughout Sonoma County.
        A total of 24 people lost their lives to the fires in
    Sonoma County, an estimated 100,000 evacuated from their homes,
    and 43 emergency shelters opened, serving close to 4,162 people
    at the peak of the operations in Sonoma County.
        Property losses were estimated at $13 billion. More than
    3,000 homes, approximately five percent of the city's housing
    stock, were destroyed, compounding an already severe housing
    deficit in the county. And for many fire survivors in our
    community, after losing their homes and personal possessions,
    lost their ability to communicate with family members, friends,
    doctors, and others because they lost their landline-associated
    phone numbers.
        We thank Congressman Thompson for introducing the PHONE
    Act, which will provide a temporary hold on telephone number
    reassignments after a Federally-declared major disaster and
    ensure that disaster survivors going through the long and
    painful process of rebuilding; they will have one less thing to
    worry about.
        The City of Santa Rosa strongly supports the PHONE Act and
    respectfully requests that this committee pass it quickly,
    making this critical need available to our communities this
    fire season and before another natural disaster strikes.
        We know that telecommunications infrastructure is not only
    vital to our residents during and after recovery but it is also
    critical in how public safety officials respond to wildfires,
    hurricanes, tornados, and so many other disasters.
        The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
    reported that 341 cell sites were offline during the October
    2017 northern California wildfires and a combined 489 cell
    sites were offline during the Camp and Woolsey fires in
    November of 2018. This prevented wireless users in the impacted
    areas from being able to call 9-1-1, receive an emergency
    alert, or use their cell phones to find the safest evacuation
    route.
        Prior to and during the 2019 Kincade fire in Sonoma County,
    PG&E deenergized major portions of northern California. In
    Sonoma County, one-quarter of the area's 436 cell phone towers
    were not functioning. And in nearby Marin County, more than
    half of the area's 280 towers were out of service due to this
    strategy.
        While wireless infrastructure cannot stop a wildfire, it
    can and should be hardened to withstand these impacts of
    similar disasters. Therefore, the City strongly supports the
    Wireless Infrastructure Resiliency during Emergencies and
    Disaster Act, the WIRED Act. Sponsored by Congresswoman Eshoo
    and co-sponsored by Congressman Huffman, the bill gives the
    States the flexibility and authority to require wireless
    companies to deploy hardened infrastructure so that wireless
    networks are more resilient to disasters.
        During the Tubbs fire, roughly 70 cell towers were knocked
    out of service within the first several hours of the fire due
    to damage, loss of power, or loss of terrestrial
    communications. Based on our experience, mandating reasonable
    requirements, like installation of fail-safe battery backup at
    cell towers, increasing the number of sites with backup
    generators, and sufficient fuel to operate for a maximum of 72
    hours, requirements for reciprocity between cell providers so
    that, in the event of cell sites going offline during a
    disaster, sharing of cellular networks will hopefully be able
    to maintain at least a minimum level of emergency messaging and
    support, retrofitting existing cell tower sites, and enhanced
    vegetation management, and defensible space standards near cell
    towers could significantly improve our response capabilities.
        In addition to hardening the telecommunications
    infrastructure, our alerting system plays a significant role in
    protecting people. Even as our recovery is still ongoing, the
    City has taken critical steps, including commissioning an
    After-Action Report to identify problems and implement
    solutions that will make the City more resilient in future
    disasters.
        Our plan incorporate mitigation principles into future
    infrastructure projects and improves altering systems available
    for public notifications, alert, warning, and advisories. The
    alerting systems now available to the City include IPAWS--and I
    won't go into detail due to lack of time; SoCo Alert, which is
    an opt-in system; Hi/Lo Sirens, which are included on all of
    our police and fire apparatus; Nixle, which is an information
    service; and altering and outreach campaigns, which the City
    has created a robust system to disseminate throughout the City.
        The City would also like to acknowledge the work FEMA is
    doing to update IPAWS to implement enhancements to the WEA
    System and has been working closely with the City of Santa Rosa
    and other local governments to deploy Next Generation of WEA
    technology, which will increase the maximum character from 90
    to 360 characters; and support Spanish Language wireless
    emergency alerts; add two new alert categories, in addition to
    the presidential, AMBER and Imminent Threat; and enhance geo-
    targeting reaching 100 percent of the target area with more
    than one-tenth of a mile overshoot and other improvements.
        For these reasons and many others that I won't get into due
    to time, this is why we support the RESILIENT Networks Act. The
    City of Santa Rosa is working closely with the whole community,
    including Government and nonprofit private sector partners to
    ensure our residents, and first responders, emergency managers
    have the proper planning, equipment, and personnel to prevent
    and respond to the next disaster.
        Again, thank you for providing me the opportunity to
    testify today and I look forward to answering any of your
    questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gossner follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Gerst, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF MATTHEW GERST

        Mr. Gerst. Chairman Pallone, Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
    Walden, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee,
    on behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, thank you for
    holding this important hearing and your longstanding leadership
    of public safety issues.
        Each member of this subcommittee has felt the impact of
    disaster. And in particular, I want to thank Chairman Pallone,
    who was instrumental in forging a framework in the aftermath of
    Superstorm Sandy. That framework has encouraged wireless
    providers to share resources and support each other's
    customers, all to maintain service and accelerate the recovery
    from recent disasters for millions of Americans.
        Today, we are stronger than we were after Sandy and there
    is more we can do together to reinforce our networks, our
    responses, and our performance.
        Americans are relying on wireless services more than ever.
    We reach for our wireless devices to call or text 9-1-1. We use
    mobile apps to organize rescues. And wireless emergency alerts
    ring the warning bells that spur us to action. That is why
    wireless providers prepare, respond, and invest in resiliency.
        Over the last decade, the wireless industry has invested
    $253 billion to build redundant, diverse, and densified
    networks. So even if some cell sites go down, providers have
    fortified large-coverage cell sites to support critical
    communications. And providers enhance and restore wireless
    coverage with cell sites on the backs of trucks, that we call
    COWs, and dedicated teams ready to repair networks and heal
    communities with chargers and a helping hand.
        These investments in resiliency have paid dividends.
    Ninety-five percent of cell sites maintained service throughout
    Hurricane Harvey. Eighty-one percent of cell sites withstood
    the intensity of Hurricane Michael. Ninety-six percent of cell
    sites were online while millions of Californians were without
    power last year. And just last month, sixty-eight percent of
    cell sites withstood a 6.4 magnitude earthquake that knocked
    out power across Puerto Rico.
        Now these numbers do not diminish the challenges in the
    hardest hit areas. And wireless providers have applied lessons
    learned, like burying fiber to avoid damage during hurricane
    recovery efforts in Florida; hardening towers and cell sites to
    withstand high winds in Puerto Rico; elevating equipment to
    avoid flooding in Texas; and diversifying backup power
    solutions with cabinet-sized batteries and truck-sized
    generators in California.
        The investments that wireless providers make in time,
    material, and people to prepare and respond to wildly diverse
    emergencies have made our networks and our Nation stronger but
    coordination and communication are also essential to rapidly
    respond and restore services. In light of recent experiences in
    Florida and California, wireless providers and electric
    utilities are taking steps to enhance coordination.
        Today, I am pleased to announce that CTIA and the Edison
    Electric Institute recently agreed to convene our member
    companies to identifying near-term actions that can improve
    information sharing and preparedness. We will focus on lessons
    learned over the last year of hurricane and wildfire events and
    we will keep this subcommittee apprised of our progress.
        Now even as our networks are getting stronger, storms and
    disaster events are too. This subcommittee is right to ask:
    What more can be done to enhance wireless services during
    emergencies? We support the goals of Chairman Pallone and
    Representative McNerney's RESILIENT Networks Act. By
    recognizing that wireless networks are nationwide, that
    emergency events are local, the bill directs the FCC to set
    clear expectations for roaming, mutual aid, backup power, and
    information sharing during disasters.
        We look forward to working with the subcommittee to improve
    the bill's focus on policies that further situational awareness
    among public safety stakeholders.
        We support Representative McNerney's READI Act, which can
    help ensure that wireless emergency alerts remain a trusted
    tool by encouraging alert originators to avoid false alerts and
    harness new capabilities.
        And we support Ranking Member Walden's FIRST RESPONDER Act
    because State and local governments shouldn't undermine public
    trust and safety by diverting any of the $2.6 billion in 9-1-1
    fees that they collect from wireless consumers every year.
        We also support this subcommittee's effort to make it
    easier to access the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by
    implementing 9-8-8. Call centers need sufficient funding to
    help people in crisis and we need an effective and equitable
    way to do that.
        In closing, we will continue to invest in resiliency and
    enhance our coordination to make our network stronger. And we
    will work this subcommittee to set reasonable and flexible
    expectations that ensure wireless is there when Americans need
    it most.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gerst follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Torres, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JOSEPH TORRES

        Mr. Torres. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, Chairman
    Pallone, Ranking Member Walden, and esteemed members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the
    life and death issue of ensuring that communications networks
    properly serve all people in the United States, especially in
    times of crisis.
        I am the Senior Director of Strategy and Engagement at Free
    Press and Free Press Action. I am here today on behalf of 1.4
    million members in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
    Puerto Rico.
        Over the past couple of years, since Hurricanes Irma and
    Maria struck Puerto Rico in 2017, Free Press has worked with
    allies to ensure that lawmakers and regulators are crafting
    policies to rebuild communications in Puerto Rico and to hear
    directly from Puerto Ricans impacted by the disaster.
        I am Puerto Rican and I grew up in New York City. Like so
    many Puerto Ricans growing up in the States, I often traveled
    as a kid to the Islands to visit my grandmother. Four of my
    Free Press colleagues also have their personal connection to
    Puerto Rico.
        Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 storm, knocked out power and
    nearly the entire communications network on the Islands. This
    impacted recovery efforts. FEMA said it struggled to gain
    situational awareness and assess the status of critical
    infrastructure, in part, due to Puerto Rico's communication
    outages.
        The president of Puerto Rico's Association of Emergency
    Managers told the Associated Press the biggest crisis after
    Maria was communication and that it unleashed an endless number
    of problems. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people died as a result of
    Maria, making it one of the worst tragedies in U.S. history. An
    inability of Puerto Ricans to communicate was a factor in the
    death toll.
        My colleagues and I worked with Puerto Rican activists,
    when we traveled to Puerto Rico in 2018, to learn how the
    communication collapse impacted the people's lives. Residents
    of Vieques and Comerio told us how the lack of communication
    limited their mobility, left them without knowing where to
    search for food, water, medical care, and how to reach loved
    ones, or get information about mudslides. This is why a
    coalition of Puerto Rican groups and leaders, and racial
    justice and public interest groups have called on the Federal
    Communications Commission to conduct an independent
    investigation into all the factors that contributed to the
    communication crisis. Well, so far, the FCC has failed to do
    so.
        In contrast, the FCC did investigate the communication
    disruptions in the Florida Panhandle following Hurricane
    Michael, also a Category 4 storm. The Commission found that the
    lack of coordination among wireless and landline service
    providers, power crews, and municipalities prolonged the
    restoration of service. We applauded the Commission for
    conducting the investigation but we also are troubled by the
    disparity in treatment when it comes to Puerto Rico. We believe
    that the longest-known communications blackout in modern U.S.
    history warrants and investigation.
        Earlier this month, in a letter to Representative Yvette
    Clarke, Chairman Pai praised the telecom carriers for applying
    the lessons they learned after Hurricane Maria to rapidly
    restore service in areas of Puerto Rico impacted by the recent
    earthquakes but the lessons the Chairman alludes to have yet to
    be made public.
        Meanwhile, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel criticized the
    Commission last September for not having a clear picture of how
    telecom companies, who have received Federal funding from the
    FCC, have spent that money and for not knowing the precise
    status of communication facilities on the Islands. She called
    this approach an invitation for waste.
        We urge the committee to use its oversight power to ask
    Chairman Pai to publicly share the lessons the carriers and the
    Commission have learned from Hurricane Maria. Puerto Ricans
    deserve to know the truth about what happened. They deserve a
    comprehensive investigation into all the factors that
    contributed to the communication crisis in Puerto Rico. They
    deserve to know the FCC's response and they deserve to know the
    industry's response. Learning about what happened in Puerto
    Rico is critical to adopting policies to prevent this from
    happening again, not just in Puerto Rico but everywhere else in
    the country. The intensities of the storms and extreme weather
    is only increasing damage due to climate change and hurricanes
    like Maria may become the norm. This is why Free Press Action
    is pleased that this committee is considering eight bills that
    address various telecom issues, such as resilience, because
    improving our communications networks following disaster is a
    matter of life and death.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Torres follows:)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        We have now concluded our openings. We are going to move to
    member questions. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask
    questions of our witnesses.
        I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gossner, when your department responded to the fires in
    the communities you serve, what were the challenges you and
    other first responders faced when the communication networks
    went down for the people who live there?
        Mr. Gossner. For us, this was a no-notice event, right? So
    it happened very quickly and it impacted a large group of
    people in both Napa and Sonoma Counties.
        One of the things that we tried to use was SoCo Alert,
    which is a wireless technology to notify our constituents out
    there to get out of the way. Due to the towers going down, we
    had up to 70 towers go down early on in the process, the system
    did not reach everyone, which made us, the Fire Department and
    law enforcement, both City and Sheriff, go door-to-door. We had
    to actually active get people out of the way. We could not
    really fight the fire because we were too busy moving people
    out of the way.
        There were a few instances where we had to put equipment on
    bigger buildings with a lot of people in it, to make sure that
    they survived, but the majority of the crews were out hustling
    trying to get people out of their houses and just trying to get
    them out of the way.
        And when you have a fire of that magnitude, by the time it
    hit us, it was you know five miles wide with winds 60-70 miles
    an hour. It is very difficult to evacuate an area as quickly as
    it needs going door-to-door.
        So it was, without the towers, without the ability to send
    the wireless alerts, it really hampered our ability to notify
    the community to tell them to get out of the way.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes, we all on this committee want to thank you
    and your heroic first responders for what you did. That was--it
    is just hard to imagine the devastation that fire brought on
    that community.
        Mr. Torres, why was it so devastating when communication
    services went down in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria and
    what did the people lose access to? And also, given the
    earthquake that just hit the Island, do you think the Islands'
    communication networks were any better prepared?
        Mr. Torres. We would like to know whether that is true or
    not because the FCC has failed to investigate what happened. We
    don't know whether--like Commissioner Rosenworcel said, we
    don't know the state of communication facilities. The fact that
    31 percent of the wireless outages in Puerto Rico following
    the--it shows that there still needs--resiliency still needs to
    be hardened in Puerto Rico even after Maria.
        But we, yes, we just--we are concerned. Even the inklings,
    the little break comes that the telecom carriers have said
    after Maria, telling to their investors, there is questions
    whether they are going to invest. One company said they are not
    sure they are going to reinvest. They are going to replace
    wired lines. They are going to get people wireless instead of
    giving--replacing the wired line.
        So there are questions. That is the little bit of evidence
    we have that leaves us concerned that perhaps companies are not
    going to do everything they can on all different areas of
    Puerto Rico to restore service the way it originally was prior
    to it.
        Mr. Doyle. Ms. Atkerson, in your testimony, you talked
    about why it is so important for suicide crisis call centers to
    have the resources they need to respond to meet the current
    needs and to deal with the potential influx of calls, when a
    national three-digit number is implemented. Can you talk about
    what we risk if these call centers do not have the resources to
    respond to the calls?
        Ms. Atkerson. Sure, absolutely. And just by way of
    background, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is
    currently a network of about 170 local call centers scattered
    in States across the country. And at this time, the funding for
    those centers is primarily comes from State funding--or I am
    sorry--county and other local funding sources.
        There are some States that answer the majority of their
    calls in-State. When a call center isn't adequately equipped,
    those calls can be routed to one of the six national backup
    centers, when a particular call center, depending on changes in
    volume, becomes overwhelmed. That is not ideal for a number of
    reasons. We like when people--when the calls can be answered in
    the State in which the caller is. They have a better knowledge
    of the local resources can connect them more quickly to needed
    services.
        So at this time, there are already States that are
    struggling to keep up with the volume. When we see an
    implementation with 9-8-8, we do expect to see a pretty drastic
    increase in the volume of calls. And the concern is that, if
    these call centers aren't adequately through a more braided
    approach, including Federal appropriations, the existing State
    options, giving States the authority to collect fees from local
    carriers and their other local sources, that more and more
    calls will have to be answered out of State.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for questions.
        Mr. Latta. And again, Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for
    holding today's hearing. Again, thanks to our witnesses for
    being here. We really appreciate your testimony.
        And I would like to follow up, Ms. Atkerson, if I may, on
    what the chairman was just talking about because, again, as I
    mentioned, I had Chairman Pai in my district in the last week.
    We were at the Rescue, Mental Health, and Addiction Services,
    which is one of the many Lifeline call centers across the
    country. And again, our goal is to make sure we get this
    deployed as rapidly as possible because, as mentioned, once we
    get the implementation out there, it is likely to at least
    double the number of calls that we had in 2018. So we want to
    make sure that this is done right and get it done so we can be
    on that front line to make sure that we are helping people and
    also saving lives.
        But if I could just follow up, as we talk about the
    legislation calling for that implementation deadline in one
    year, what would happen if 9-8-8was implemented in one year and
    the call centers weren't adequately prepared to handle that
    influx of calls, especially when we are looking at that massive
    number that could come in?
        I know when I was in Toledo with the Chairman, just seeing
    how exponentially each year it has been going up. So what would
    happen if we didn't have that ready to go?
        Ms. Atkerson. And you are correct about that. The Lifeline
    actually experiences year-over-year increases of 50 percent--or
    15 percent in their calls to the Lifeline without the 9-8-
    8legislation. So when we see this drastic uptick in calls, the
    primary concern is that callers will--the calls will go
    unanswered. They will have long wait times and hang up or, if
    those calls go unanswered in the State in which they are
    located, that those will roll to one of these six national
    backup centers, which, again, is not ideal because those folks
    don't have the local knowledge of the support and resources and
    can't connect the caller to emergency services, if needed.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with one more. What type of
    flexibility, if any, should we have out there during this
    transition period?
        Ms. Atkerson. Flexibility in?
        Mr. Latta. For making sure you know make sure we can get
    this done correctly and if you have to have some flexibility in
    the implementation.
        Ms. Atkerson. Sure. And not being a communications expert,
    I do want to say that we fully support the FCC's recommendation
    around the timeline and encourage--we support Congress to work
    closely with the FCC, mental health providers, other key
    stakeholders, people with lived experience, and the crisis call
    centers themselves in coming up with an implementation plan
    that is thoughtful but also rapid.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gerst, if I could turn to you, would you provide an
    update on how the FCC is expanding the voluntary Wireless
    Resiliency Framework to include electric utilities and provide
    better coordination with 9-1-1 call matters?
        Mr. Gerst. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        So I just want to first start by acknowledging the stories
    we heard and the way that people rely on wireless services
    during emergencies. It is one of the first things you grab when
    an emergency happens, whether you are calling 9-1-1, whether
    you need to receive a wireless emergency alert, whether you are
    trying to connect with friends or family. And those services,
    9-1-1, wireless emergency alerts, they depend on the wireless
    networks being there and wireless depends on power being there
    to maintain its services as well.
        We have taken steps to make sure that we can maintain our
    services in the event of significant power outages but we need
    to enhance our collaboration and coordination. And that is what
    the FCC has been encouraging us to do.
        We do work with the power companies in a number of
    different places. As Mr. Bell said, we work in State Emergency
    Operation Centers. We work at tabletop exercises in-between
    hurricane and wildfire seasons so that we can try to enhance
    our coordination.
        And we just announced today that the Edison Electric
    Institute and CTIA are going to be bringing our member
    companies together in a different way because we know that,
    even with all those efforts, we have still had challenges after
    Hurricane Michael in California.
        So we do think that there is more work that can be done and
    we are hopeful that this new collaborate effort, this voluntary
    collaborative effort will help to enhance our capabilities.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Bell, would you like to follow up on--in my last 30
    seconds on that?
        Lower your mic, please.
        Mr. Bell. The Disaster Recovery Group and the BDAC will be
    issuing a report, hopefully, by the end of March. We are
    meeting to finalize that this afternoon on ways that the two
    industries can work together.
        The communication industry has changed over the years. It
    used to be there were very large bundles of copper that fell on
    the ground and they worked, even when they were falling on the
    ground. And typically, the electric utility would go in first,
    and the telephone company would follow, and we wouldn't have to
    be there at the same time.
        Today, fiberoptic cable carries a whole lot more--has a
    whole lot more capacity than those do and so a break in a fiber
    optic cable can cause a very significant problem. So the
    communication industry is there at the same time we are and
    that is one of the issues we are working through is how do we
    coordinate that effort.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And Mr. Chairman, I yield back and thank you for your
    indulgence.
        Mr. Doyle. I thank the ranking member.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman for holding this
    hearing. I thank the witnesses this morning. I appreciate your
    testimony, especially Mr. Gossner. I appreciate your work in
    Santa Rosa and in helping us here in our legislative process.
        As Fire Chief of the City of Santa Rosa, is wildfire season
    something that you are worried about only during May to October
    or has it become a year-round concern?
        Mr. Gossner. It is definitely becoming a year-round
    concern. We do have a wet season in northern California but I
    will tell you that our fire seasons start earlier, so a month,
    month and a half earlier and they are lasting a month to two
    months longer. So while it is not completely year-round, when
    it is not active firefighting, we are preparing for the next
    season. So we consider it a year-round endeavor.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        In your written testimony, you noted the benefits of
    installing more fail-safe battery systems at cell towers and
    increasing the number of sites with backup generators. Can you
    expand a little bit on how this will help your first responders
    during emergencies?
        Mr. Gossner. Yes, this allows us to communicate with all of
    our constituents within the city and then it helps with
    constituents in the county. We work really close with Sonoma
    County emergency managers so we are always trying to--how do we
    make sure we meet our expectations, and their expectations that
    they are notified as quickly as they can?
        So when you harden a tower, you are not going to be able to
    harden it against everything but you can harden it to withstand
    a little bit of a heat threat. You can harden it to stand--
    withstand some earthquake. You can harden these resources and
    have backup batteries or generators that when there is a power
    outage, due to a power shutoff or for whatever reason, they are
    up and running and we are able to communicate to our members
    the needs that they are going to have to take or the actions
    that they are going to have to take.
        On a no-notice fire, where it takes out numerous cell
    towers, you can't get the message out and it is deadly, right?
    So it is one thing I will tell you, we had the Kincade fire in
    2019 but we had notice of that fire and we were able to
    evacuate the City of Healdsburg, the City of--the Town of
    Windsor, and a large portion of Sonoma County because we had
    the ability and time to do it, and we had the resources to do
    it. Back in 2017, we just didn't because there were too many
    cell towers that were down.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Gerst, during the wildfire season this past fall, there
    were hundreds of cell towers that went down in Contra Costa
    County, which is part of my district. We lost 88 cell towers.
    Since that time, when the wildfires took place, what additional
    investments have members made in backup power capabilities?
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
    first, again, thank you for your leadership in the RESILIENT
    Networks Act and the READI Act.
        And I want to acknowledge the challenges that your
    constituents probably faced in the last power-down issues in
    California, and we are committed to doing better. Two of the
    ways that we are going to do that is by enhancing our
    coordination and collaboration with the electric utilities.
    That is the main reason for our announcement today with the
    Edison Electric Institute. We have to do something differently
    there.
        The second thing we are going to do is evaluating our
    backup power capabilities. We have hundreds of thousands of
    cell sites throughout the country. We have thousands of cell
    sites, as you know, throughout California. Each one of them, we
    have to look at a case-by-case basis of what backup power
    solutions we can have available to us. We are talking about
    different types of battery sizes, right? We are not talking
    about the batteries you can go to CVS and get. We are talking
    about cabinet-size batteries. We are talking about truck-size
    generators. And those all come with different challenges in how
    we deploy them.
        We are committed to looking at existing cell sites, new
    cell sites, and diversifying the solutions because, if this is
    going to be the new normal, we need to maintain service.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, good. The RESILIENT Networks Act would
    ensure that we have the necessary backup power during times of
    emergency and I hope we can move quickly on this piece of
    legislation.
        Mr. Gossner, again, in your written testimony, you note
    that when it comes to targeting a WEA alert, knowing that
    towers--knowing where the cell towers are located is critical.
    Did the City of Santa Rosa have access to information about
    cell tower locations during recent wildfires?
        Mr. Gossner. We have general information. So we don't--when
    I say that, we did some testing. And if you have a--I will just
    use Verizon and AT&T handset, one might go off and the other
    one won't because we are hitting a certain tower in that
    geofencing. What we really need is where are those towers and
    how, during an emergency those towers need to cross-communicate
    so they hit everyone, not based on your carrier but based on
    the emergency.
        And so that is, the geofencing wall, it is very big right
    now and they are going to tighten it down. When I say big, it
    spills over a great deal and notifies communities that aren't
    even near the impacted area when you try to target it. So the
    geotargeting is great, as long as all of the cell towers are,
    within the system, working as they are supposed to and they
    communicate with each other in time of need. We can't have one
    cell tower activated and the other one not because of your
    carrier. It is an emergency.
        And you know it is a touristy area, too. So you have got
    people from other areas.
        Mr. McNerney. I go there.
        Mr. Gossner. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. So at any rate, Mr. Chairman, before I yield
    back, I would like to present a letter for the record from PG&E
    about the RESILIENT Act.
        Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes my good friend from Houston, Mr.
    Olson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair and welcome to our six
    experts. Texas 22 is the southwest suburbs of Houston, Texas.
    Right now, we have one million people in Texas 22. That makes
    it the largest congressional district in America and that
    growth means problems when a disaster hits, like a hurricane.
        We have many monikers about my home area. It is the home of
    the Imperial Sugar Company. It is called the Energy Capital of
    the World. It is called Space City, U.S.A. And it is also
    called part of Hurricane Alley. And we will get hit by a
    hurricane again. It is not a matter of if but when.
        We have suffered the worst natural disaster in our
    country's history, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900; 12,000
    people were killed with no chance to know it was coming their
    way. We had Hurricane Carla in 1961, the most intense Gulf
    hurricane ever. We had Hurricane Alicia in 1983. It wiped out
    the Texas Medical Center. We had Hurricane Ike in 2008, which
    rebounded. The storm surge came back down Galveston Bay and hit
    Galveston on the back side. And as you all know, we had Harvey
    hit us twice in 2017.
        A working communication network saves lives during
    disasters. The system during Harvey was much better than during
    Hurricane Ike. We had real-time information about tornadoes
    that popped up, about roads that were impassible, about routes
    to get away from your home that may be flooded, where gas
    stations were open, grocery stores were open. That information
    saved lives.
        So my question is for you, Mr. Gerst, if you want to add in
    Mr. Henry, is I support a robust disaster information reporting
    system for carriers, broadcasters, and cable providers so they
    can report their operational status during these emergencies
    but currently, the system is voluntary and certain information
    is kept confidential. Why is that the case for the
    communications industry, in particular?
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you very much for the
    question and acknowledging the challenges that increasing
    severity and intensity of these storms are going to present,
    particularly for your area.
        We were actually very proud of the experience of Hurricane
    Harvey in terms of the availability of services. Ninety-six
    percent of cell sites were up, 300 wireless emergency alerts,
    96,000 9-1-1 calls made, people organizing themselves for
    rescues.
        In other emergencies--in all emergencies, it is important
    for first responders and public safety stakeholders to have
    information about the status of communication networks so that
    they can better prioritize where their resources are going to
    go. That data about cell tower information, though, is both
    competitively sensitive and, potentially, a national security
    threat in terms of how it is exposed. We are committed to
    working with the FCC, with this committee, and with
    stakeholders to identify ways to expand access to that
    information in a way that can protect that information.
        Just tomorrow, we expect that the FCC is going to be
    opening up a new public meeting that will be talking about that
    exact issue and we look forward to a robust record developing
    there. And we think that there will be some new information
    gained by engaging with stakeholders there. But we are
    absolutely committed to enhancing information sharing with
    public safety stakeholders.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you. Mr. Henry, any comments on the
    question, sir?
        Mr. Henry. Yes. And first, thank you for the question and
    for the opportunity--excuse me--to discuss this. We share
    sentiments with CTIA on this that we really do need a more
    robust information flow going to and from public safety.
        I think the only thing that I would like to add on to this,
    and you know Houston is the perfect example: 9-1-1 is public
    safety and public safety is, at the end of the day, Homeland
    Security.
        Mr. Olson. Yes.
        Mr. Henry. And public safety can be trusted with this
    information, whether it you know--be you know competitively
    sensitive or sensitive in the sense of national security.
        You know when the threat to national security is a city
    being wiped out by a natural disaster, that is as much of a
    concern as anything else. Public safety has established
    standards and practices for dealing with sensitive information.
    We do it every day and don't have any sort of hesitation about
    being able to keep that visible to only eyes that need it.
        Mr. Olson. I do have to thank your industry for what you
    did during Hurricane Harvey because I was there for Hurricane
    Ike and people didn't have information. They got on the roads
    when they should not have. Probably 50 people died and that is
    a big standard of deaths in terms of how well we are doing. And
    Brazoria County, right there on the Gulf of Mexico, had zero
    deaths during Hurricane Harvey. And the entire county was
    basically flooded from the Gulf halfway up to Pearland, Texas.
    So thank you for making that happen.
        A big transition--and this is for you, Ms. Atkerson. Back
    home, my church had--I am involved with a small bible study
    group that gets together every Monday after the weekly service
    to just talk about this service and lessons learned.
        This past week was a very different meeting. We spent the
    entire hour, bumped it up to an hour and a half talking about a
    very tragic situation. One of our members, he works at a local
    store down there in Sugar Land, a co-worker lost his son to
    suicide this past week. She had lost a second son to suicide a
    few years ago and I cannot believe the pain she is going
    through.
        And my question is this--I support this bill that gets 9-8-
    8going because we don't know if these boys could have had a
    number to call when they were in their crisis, can they reach
    out, could they, what happened? We will never know but how--do
    you have any advice I can tell her from you what is going to
    happen with this system and how she can utilize it to make sure
    she is not--this never happens again, that these kids, who are
    about they think the ultimate thing to do to take their lives,
    have a vehicle to vent and get some help to stop those suicidal
    thoughts?
        Ms. Atkerson. Yes, absolutely. And I am very sorry to hear
    about the loss in your community. This is, obviously, a very
    difficult topic. Just one suicide death is estimate to affect
    at least six other people or more. And so we see a tremendous
    ripple effect and the numbers just continue to increase, as you
    all know, year after year in this country. It is a tragedy.
        One of the challenges has been that there hasn't been a
    comparable system to what we have for medical emergencies. We
    don't have an easy--most of us can't remember a time when we
    just didn't have 9-1-1 available to us, no matter where we are
    in this country to rapidly access medical care.
        Sadly, the same kind of three-digit rapid response has not
    been available for people in a mental health crisis. And as you
    are saying firsthand, people in a suicidal or mental health
    crisis, it can be just as life-threatening as a stroke or a
    heart attack. So transitioning the National Suicide Prevention
    Lifeline from a difficult to remember ten-digit hotline that
    still many, many people in this country don't have memorized or
    just imagine how difficult it is to try to think about what
    that number is if you are a mother with a child that is
    suicidal trying to remember a ten-digit number versus you know
    9-1-1 or 9-8-8.
        So what I can say is, going forward, the urgency, this is a
    moral imperative for us to pass this legislation so that 9-8-
    8can be easily recognizable and accessible to all of our kids,
    family members, parents, to anyone in this country anytime.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Olson. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our
    ranking member for this very enlightening hearing today. I want
    to thank our witnesses for bringing your expert testimony to
    bear.
        This is an extremely important hearing today. As a New
    Yorker, I can reflect on my experiences in the aftermath of
    both the 9/11 terrorist attack and, years later, Superstorm
    Sandy to refresh my memory on how important network resiliency
    is to my constituents and to all Americans.
        Today I want to first discuss the Americans who the Trump
    administration has too often treated with disdain and
    overlooked, the citizens in Puerto Rico. They have experienced
    a series of natural disasters that have become more frequent
    and more severe due to climate change.
        To echo Mr. Torres' statements in his written statement,
    quote, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but, tragically, their
    voices have been largely absent from this crucial debate and
    the restoration and rebuilding processes have suffered as a
    result, end quote.
        The earthquakes that rocked Puerto Rico left the territory
    without power and led to 31.7 percent of cell sites down and
    left approximately 260,000 cable and wireline subscribers
    without service. My colleagues, Congressman Ruiz, Soto, and I
    read a letter to the FCC to raise concern about the fragility
    about the communication infrastructure on the Islands.
        So my first question is actually to you, Mr. Torres. The
    FCC is supposed to measure whether broadband is being deployed
    in a timely fashion across the United States and it is supposed
    to know when and where the networks go out in times of
    disaster.
        Can you discuss how the lack of real-time information on
    the network outages impacted people on the Islands and their
    loved ones in the rest of the United States trying to reach
    them?
        Mr. Torres. Sure, I will give you two examples. One is the
    most recent example, the earthquakes. There was a person, a
    well-known activist tweeting can anyone--on Twitter because she
    didn't have communications. She didn't have a mobile--can
    anyone let me know if there is a tsunami coming? Because they
    didn't--they weren't aware whether there was a tsunami warning
    because there was a lot of fear in Puerto Rico that a tsunami
    potentially was going to happen.
        The second example I give is from the Public Safety
    Workshop that the FCC held a couple of years ago after Maria in
    the hurricane season 2017. And so this is a regional emergency
    communications coordinator of FEMA who said the voluntary--
    testifying to the FCC at a hearing--at a workshop--the
    voluntary word needs to go, when it comes to like wires
    resiliency. We have a commercial entity selling themselves as
    public-safety grade. If you are going to make a profit saying
    you are a servant to the community with public safety grade
    communications, then you need to be able to prepare an answer
    in response as to where communications are available. The point
    was being made, at that workshop, that they are not getting
    information fast enough at the FCC. And because of issue of it
    is voluntary, it is proprietary, they are saying by the time we
    are getting information, especially in the case of Puerto Rico,
    it was already up. It was sending people to places to repair
    cell sites and all that and they were already repaired in some
    cases. They didn't--it was wasting time to be able to serve
    other places.
        So we have examples of people on the ground worried about
    tsunami warnings. We have a FEMA official concerned they are
    not getting real-time data fast enough. So we need--so Puerto
    Ricans needed, and everywhere else needs data information much
    more quickly to first responders.
        Ms. Clarke. So can the FCC do more to gather and
    disseminate information about communication network reliability
    during and immediately after such storms?
        Mr. Torres. Say that one more time.
        Ms. Clarke. Yes. I am saying can the FCC do more to gather?
        Mr. Torres. Absolutely. First of all like we don't believe
    there should be voluntary. It should be mandatory that they
    participate. And also you know the Wireless Resiliency
    Framework like is voluntary and we don't believe it should be
    voluntary. We need it to be more rigorous oversight over these
    companies because they have to be held--folks have to be held
    accountable for not responding.
        It is a life and death issue. So like this gentleman said,
    the FEMA official, that it can't be voluntary. There has to be
    some sort of process of accountability.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. Mr. Gerst, would you want to respond
    to that?
        Mr. Gerst. Sure. First let me start by saying, Congressman,
    thank you for the question.
        Maria was a devastating event for everyone. Our companies
    had to go to unprecedented lengths to restore services there.
    In fact, one of our member companies had their generator
    actually powering the airport, at one point, just to get
    supplies into Puerto Rico. But we have invested in Puerto Rico
    and I think the results show that we have moved from wood poles
    to steel poles. We have invested in backup power. And after the
    earthquake, 68 percent of cell sites were up.
        I know there is a close relationship between first
    responders in New York and Puerto Rico. And in fact, I have
    talked to a few who say that, after the earthquake, nothing
    worked in Puerto Rico except the wireless service. So it wasn't
    everywhere and we need to do more but we have learned lessons
    and applied them in Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bell, you know while ensuring network resiliency is
    certainly an important overarching goal, I want to be sure that
    the electric and communications industries aren't faced with
    one-size-fits-all requirements that fail to consider the
    realities on the ground.
        Can you walk us through how your industry engages with
    State Emergency Operation Centers during emergencies and how
    that coordination could inform priorities for restoration
    efforts? For example, how the fact that it is harvest time in
    one area or geographical factors in a particular area where an
    outage might come into play factor into prioritization?
        Mr. Bell. Certainly. Thank you for the question.
        It is actually our primary contact at the Emergency
    Operations Center is a member of my staff. And as soon as the
    center opens up, he goes over there and is there you know for
    the duration of the storm working on shifts, as we can. And
    there is where the communication takes place.
        We get priorities from things that we may not be aware of
    and to go through them. In some cases, there was an example in
    Hurricane Michael where we actually got a call from the Florida
    Emergency Operations Center that an ILEC in Florida thought
    there was a hold on a pole in Georgia put on by the Georgia
    DOT. And so it was just a whole cascade of events that someone
    on the ground could not figure out how do I find out if I can
    go ahead and proceed with this. All the people who are right
    there in the Emergency Operations Center are able to determine
    no, everything is clear with that; you can keep going and get
    the people back to work in the field.
        So it is--in Hurricane Michael as well, one of the critical
    issues is not something you would normally think of. It was
    actually at peanut harvest time. And a lot of the damage that
    came through Georgia came through one of the largest areas
    where we grow peanuts. And so a lot of the focus was was to get
    the infrastructure back in place so those peanuts could be
    processed while still working on the rest of the storm and
    making sure all the other critical infrastructure is being
    done.
        Mr. Johnson. So it is a pretty real-time dynamic kind of
    thing.
        Mr. Bell. It is absolutely real-time.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Mr. Gerst, you referenced many of the mobile cell units in
    your testimony from COWs or Cells on Wheels to COLTs or Cells
    on Light Trucks. I am curious if there are regulatory obstacles
    that make it difficult to move those assets from region to
    region or State to State.
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        Yes, we have many tools at our disposal that we attempt to
    use to maintain service and these are things that we have used
    applying lessons learned from previous storms. And some of the
    things we have incorporated into our Cooperative Framework,
    including things like mutual aid, where we will actually repair
    each other's cell sites, and you know coordinating with local
    governments.
        But yes, we have--where we do have outages, we have the
    ability to bring in temporary cell sites and we actually call
    them a barnyard of solutions because there are cells on the
    back of trucks but we call them COWs, and COLTs, and GOATs. But
    we are starting to actually even use drones now, where you can
    add coverage where a cell site might have gone down and call it
    the Flying COW.
        Mr. Johnson. Are there Government regulations that make it
    difficult for you to do that kind of move from region to region
    and State to State, though?
        Mr. Bell. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, there are challenges
    but we are engaged with the State Emergency Operations Center
    and, typically, we can address those issues and get those
    resources in those areas. Certainly the SANDy Act helped by
    making sure that communications were prioritized as being part
    of that effort.
        So yes, there are challenges but we are working with local
    governments on that.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Ensuring continuing--ensuring previously
    established procedures and coordination amongst wireless
    providers, backhaul providers, and power companies before a
    disaster strikes is critical to effective restoration efforts
    when power and communication systems go down. The FCC's
    Disaster Response and Recovery Group is currently looking at
    these types of issues and hopes to submit best practice
    recommendations to the FCC soon.
        So Mr. Bell, can you talk a bit about this group, its work,
    and its importance?
        Mr. Bell. Well yes, and I will commend Commissioner Pai for
    establishing the BDAC. It is a much better way for us to
    resolve issues like this. The old way was they would put out a
    request for comment; you would submit your comments and hope
    that somebody actually read them and try and advocate on them.
    Here----
        Mr. Johnson. Because my time is running out----
        Mr. Bell. OK.
        Mr. Johnson [continue]. Can you add to your answer? Would
    it be prudent for Congress to review this group's
    recommendations for best practices before contemplating
    legislative action?
        Mr. Bell. Absolutely. Absolutely.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. All right, well thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask Mr. Gossner a question. In Texas, we have
    had some issues with wildfires in the past as well and I don't
    know that that was something that has been in the news a lot
    around California, particularly your area. And I wanted to know
    what you thought about the access to batteries.
        I know that, for instance, cell phone companies that may
    have--that are trying to replenish batteries that only can last
    a few hours can have trouble getting to certain areas if they
    are in evac zones or if certain roads have been blocked off or
    cut off. What sort of lessons should we learn about being able
    to have access to those areas in the time of wildfires? Is
    there anything differently that can be done as far as being
    able to give them the access that they need so people can have
    their cell coverage restored in a more faster fashion?
        Mr. Gossner. Yes, thank you.
        I think you know part of it is they have to understand the
    environment they are going into. So I don't know who they are
    talking to. From our perspective, if we need to get power back
    up into a certain area and we can allow them, we will.
    Sometimes we send a crew with them to make sure it is safe.
    Sometimes their crew don't want--doesn't want to go into it
    because they don't feel safe.
        So there is multiple factors that drive why some towers get
    back up and some don't but those are all real discussions we
    have to have now and figure that out so, when we entertain
    these ideas in the future, we can work through the process
    quickly and figure out is this a critical tower or is it not a
    critical tower. If it is a critical tower, we have got to make
    every effort to get those up and running so we can provide the
    communication and then build out from there.
        But there is multiple reasons why crews can or cannot go in
    on both sides of the fence. So it is literally face-to-face
    sitting down. How do we work through this?
        Mr. Veasey. Right. Right, exactly.
        One of the things that I read about the California
    incidents that interested me was, you know obviously, the use
    of internet. And I was reading that the internet landlines
    almost all, you know a lot of them mostly failed, but that the
    traditional-based copper landlines did not fail. Do you think
    that there needs to be some sort of a--just to maybe sort of
    make people think about using more traditional products that
    live in these more rural areas that are hard to reach, where
    they may be more affected by wildfires?
        I know that we are very reliant, obviously, up on the
    newest technology but do you think, under these sorts of
    circumstances, that maybe, until a lot of these problems can be
    addressed, that we need to like maybe look back at more
    traditional landline products?
         Mr. Gossner. Yes, traditional landlines do last longer
    than the voiceover internet protocol-type lines. They are not
    failsafe but they do last longer.
        What I am being told today is that they are trying to
    transition out of copper altogether because the wireless
    technology, and the cable, the fiber optics is so much more
    powerful and better.
        Mr. Veasey. Right.
        Mr. Gossner. So they are trailing away from the copper.
    Copper doesn't need power to maintain that connectivity, where
    everything else does.
        So I will tell you in Sonoma County--I am going to get
    these numbers a little bit wrong but Sonoma County ten years
    ago, there were 350,000 people that had copper lines. Today, it
    is about 170,000 because everyone is making the transition to
    wireless. That is another reason why these towers need to be
    hardened. Everything needs to be to that standard, where we can
    rely on these components much more than we can now.
        Mr. Veasey. This is fascinating.
        What about as far as translation for people that live in
    these areas? Obviously, things need to be, especially in a
    State like Texas, or even California, obviously things would
    need to be translated into Spanish, for instance. Is there
    sufficient information out there as far as translation is
    concerned? Do you feel that that is being adequately addressed?
        Mr. Gossner. It is being addressed. I don't know if I would
    say it is adequately being addressed. I will tell you, though,
    that WEA 2.0 and 3.0 addresses that. So the 360 characters also
    adds a translation for Spanish, where the initial WEA product
    did not, right, 90 characters and there was no Spanish
    translation.
        So they are working towards that but, again, it is a
    process and it is a slow process.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate
    your time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for holding
    this important hearing.
        When I first came to Congress, I was co-chair--or I was
    chair of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response,
    and Communications. And I just want to thank all of you for
    your work because I think we all know that in a time of
    disaster, this supercomputer we hold is often kind of our only
    lifeline and it is so important that we figure out how to make
    sure that we are as resilient as possible in times of disaster.
        Mr. Gerst, I am co-chair of the 5G Caucus and so I want to
    ask a little bit about 5G, as the country is transitioning to
    the Next Generation of technology, what this transition means
    for the resiliency of wireless networks. And clearly, there is
    a different architecture. Companies are deploying these small
    cells, naturally densifying networks, having actually maybe a
    lot more. Can you tell me how this important conversion, what
    resiliency is going to be impacted by the rollout of the 5G
    across the country?
        Mr. Gerst. Absolutely, Congresswoman. Thank you for your
    question and thank you for your leadership on 5G issues, making
    sure that the U.S. is the global leader and 5G is a priority
    for everyone I know, including you.
        5G is going to bring incredible opportunities--the high
    capacity/low latency capabilities, particularly for public
    safety. And public safety can use those capabilities actually
    in the field for innovations that Mr. Henry could probably talk
    to you about.
        But you know from our perspective, we need hundreds of
    thousands of new cell sites to make that happen to get to that
    level of service for 5G. And the way that we build networks now
    is we do build them in redundant, diverse, and densified ways.
    So even if some cell sites go down, we do try to maintain
    coverage for emergency communications. By adding hundreds of
    thousands of new cell sites that 5G is going to bring, we
    absolutely believe it will help to improve resiliency.
        And we think that the RESILIENT Networks Act is a forward-
    looking bill. It talks about 5G, and how it might improve
    resiliency, and we appreciate that.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on 5G
    resiliency or capabilities?
        OK, I will move on, then.
        Mr. Henry, how does the practice of diverting 9-1-1 fees
    affect the ability to ensure 9-1-1 systems keep pace with
    technological changes and the ability to engage in effective
    long-term planning? Because we need to ensure that 9-1-1
    services, obviously, provide the best emergency service as
    possible, so can you talk to us a bit more about--you talked
    about the number of States that we know that do divert and
    yet--and the practice that our States have to maintain to make
    sure that communities aren't diverting?
        Mr. Henry. Sure and thank you for the question.
        I guess top line, 9-1-1 fee diversion hurts not just the
    public but it also hurts public safety. It hurts in the sense
    that the folks making budget decisions about 9-1-1 are often
    not the people operating the PSAPs and they are not the people
    that are directing a State's 9-1-1 budget planning and
    policies.
        One of the big effects that we have seen over the decade or
    so that FCC has been keeping records on these things, is that
    diversion often happens in sort of fits and spurts. And so the
    9-1-1 authority in the State, or you know the 9-1-1 governance
    structure in a State, may be surprised by a diversion of funds
    from the top of the State level.
        And so the aggregate effect of that is that you know you
    have always got to prepare for you know a budgetary tornado to
    come through and wipe out a good chunk of your funding for 9-1-
    1. You get into a damage control mode, instead of a continuous
    improvement and a continuous innovation mode, where you are
    preparing for the next thing. You are constantly, instead,
    preparing for the next disaster, whether that be a literal
    disaster or a budgetary disaster.
        Mrs. Brooks. What percentage would you say of the 9-1-1
    capabilities now are text capabilities?
        I know our State has texting capabilities in 9-1-1. Is that
    very common now in many of the other States?
        Mr. Henry. It is, I wouldn't say very common; probably 30
    to 40 percent coverage. And of course, the difficulty with that
    is that you don't find out that you can't text 9-1-1----
        Mrs. Brooks. Right.
        Mr. Henry [continue]. Until you find out you can't text 9-
    1-1.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention, in response to our
    colleague Ms. Clarke's question about the FCC doing more to
    garner or to gather and information and disseminate data during
    disasters. The FCC is planning on acting tomorrow on a second
    further notice of proposed rulemaking to do just that, I have
    been informed by staff. I just thought I would share that we
    should look for further proposed rulemaking tomorrow.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Eshoo for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
    the witnesses for your testimony.
        If I were to summarize all the various things that have
    been said, there are two things that stand out: what kind of
    system we have and how much more we need to do to optimize the
    system that we have. And when there are cracks in the system,
    people's lives are at stake.
        I want to read two of many messages I received from
    constituents during the PG&E shutoffs last October, which
    resulted, of course, in the loss of cellular communications. A
    family from a rural area of my district--yes, Silicon Valley,
    does have some very beautiful rural areas--quote, when PG&E
    cuts the power off, those of us who live in rural areas are not
    only left without electricity, we are left without
    communications. Cell phones don't work. Landlines don't work.
    Generators don't keep the Wi-Fi on. Why are we being left out
    to dry? We have no way to call 9-1-1 in an emergency and no way
    to get alerts if there is danger and we need to evacuate.
        Another constituent wrote: During the second more recent
    outage, we had broadband and phone for only 15 hours. It then
    failed, leaving us with no means of communication. That is a--
    that is a scary term: no means of communication in the United
    States of America.
        This is a serious safety concern. This is not just an
    annoyance. If there were to be a fire in our highly vulnerable
    tinder-dry area, we wouldn't be able to report it, wasting
    precious time while it spreads. The same is true if there were
    any sort of medical emergency.
        So these people are understandably: A) they are vulnerable;
    B) they are afraid. And they are justifiably upset and so am I.
    So, we have to help them.
        Chief Gossner, I want to salute you, as others have, for
    your absolutely superb leadership. You, your department, and
    the people of Sonoma County and Santa Rosa have been through
    actual hell--lives lost, devastation, homes lost, hope lost.
        And when I went up to visit and to hear from the entire
    team, it will always remain with me, grown men weeping and
    these were first responders who were going door-to-door to try
    and save people's lives because they had no communication
    system whatsoever.
        Now, we have a problem in--it is an ambiguity, actually, in
    Federal law relative to what States can and cannot do. And I
    thank you for your support of the WIRED Act. It is very
    important.
        Mr. Gerst, I know that CTIA hasn't--doesn't have any
    position on this but I ask you to really take a hard look at
    the legislation. And the reason I am asking you to is rather
    obvious. You used the word resiliency--I tried counting and
    then I lost count but that is an operational word. And if
    States cannot have a say in setting resiliency, sometimes it
    happens, a lot of times it doesn't and we have to clear the
    weeds out of this. States should have a hand in that and
    really, that is what the legislation does. So, I appreciate the
    work that CTIA is doing.
        Mr. Torres, you gave beautiful and profoundly sad
    testimony. What I would like to ask you is if there is one
    thing that you want us to do, what is it?
        Mr. Torres. It is for this committee to use its oversight
    powers.
        Ms. Eshoo. But for what? What item is the top thing for you
    being at the bench today?
        Mr. Torres. I was advocating a couple of things. One,
    advocate Puerto Ricans. Just, we want to know why. So just if
    we know what happened----
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, I think that there should be a letter
    circulated to all members of this subcommittee, signed by
    everyone on a bipartisan basis, to make sure that what is
    needed there, and the assessment that is not public be made
    public.
        Mr. Torres. Well I think, as I mentioned before, the fact
    that it has been mentioned already, I believe it is 60 percent
    of households are wireless only and it is only going up, right?
    But yet, according to GAO, the length of outages from 2009 to
    2016 has doubled when it comes to wireless, right? And so the
    fact that this is a growing problem.
        And so it is a fact that there is DIRS, right, to make sure
    it is mandatory, but also the Wireless Resiliency Framework. It
    is just we don't believe it should be voluntary. And so there
    has to be an oversight to make sure that first responders--
    first of all, that the networks are resilient but then first
    responders are actually and other folks are able to respond to
    disasters.
        So it should not be voluntary.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Walden, welcome back. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Thank you. I was downstairs at the other
    hearing.
        So, I appreciate all your testimony and the comments. I
    know you have covered most of the ground.
        I think back in my own experience and, again, in small
    market radio, and covering fires, and seeing some of these
    disasters. And you know I have had--I had five transmitters. I
    had three antenna sites. I had some that were under threat of
    fire that were up on top of a ridge top. And I am trying to be
    balanced here in saying how do you--how do we mandate a
    resilient network in the face of a conflagration-like tragedy?
    You had to deal with it in Santa Rosa. I drove through there
    and I mean it is just it is unbelievable in Paradise and those
    areas, as we see the video.
        And so I want to be thoughtful about this. I know as a
    broadcaster, we had all these interconnections. We had radio
    connections to our law enforcement. We could talk. We could
    listen to each other. That was one of our EAS stations. We had
    backup on that. But sometimes, when these disasters happen,
    there is no--I mean you are just done, right? I mean you rely
    on ham radio operators. You create your own networks.
        But I am just curious with some of the voluntary work a
    couple of you talked about. Can you speak to that a little bit
    more, the things you have just announced in the last--I guess
    today maybe even, Mr. Gerst, Mr. Bell?
        Mr. Gerst. Thank you, Congressman and Ranking Member. Thank
    you for the question. And I appreciate your experience--vast
    experience on these issues.
        You know with the increasing severity and intensity of
    these storm events, we are constantly having to reevaluate----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Gerst [continue]. How we make our networks resilient.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Gerst. We have, since Superstorm Sandy, through the
    Cooperative Framework, taken significant steps working amongst
    competitive wireless providers, enabling them to support each
    other's customers----
        Mr. Walden. Right. Makes sense.
        Mr. Gerst [continue]. Enhancing collaboration with
    utilities.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Gerst. So yes, we are doing all these things on a
    voluntary basis but, even with all those things, we do think
    new tools could be helpful here. So I would like to explore
    that.
        Mr. Walden. Like what?
        Mr. Gerst. Well we think you know, certainly, having the
    FCC set expectations at a national level, both for wireless and
    having the--and including the power industry, would be helpful
    because one of the things we have learned with the Framework
    with all these voluntary commitments is that a lot of the folks
    at the local level, and you may have experienced this, bring
    their own expectations to what you are supposed to be doing in
    an emergency.
        And by having a national framework around what we are
    supposed to be doing, could help make sure that everybody knows
    what wireless providers are supposed to do, what electric
    providers are supposed to do and that could help to enhance the
    resiliency----
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Gerst [continue]. While still giving us the flexibility
    to work at the local level.
        Mr. Walden. All right, Mr. Bell.
        Mr. Bell. Currently, in FEMA you know there are the
    emergency support functions, each one. And if you were to look
    up or Google, you know best practices in disaster recovery, you
    would find volumes of information on best practices that are
    out there.
        I think what we need to improve on is the communication
    industry has their volumes and the electric industry has their
    volumes. And as the two industries get more and more
    intertwined, there has to be a whole lot more communication
    between the two. And I think that is what this will provide the
    opportunity to do is to start making sure that we are----
        Mr. Walden. You are talking to each other and have a common
    plan.
        Mr. Bell. Absolutely. We are not working in silos.
        Mr. Walden. Yes, that is important.
        I know I have heard over the years there were some people
    that thought you ought to have a generator and a propane tank
    at every cell site. Is that practical?
        Mr. Bell. It is not practical but I will tell you that----
        Mr. Walden. Should we mandate it?
        Mr. Bell. We are one of the few utilities in the country
    that actually has our own telecom provider. And it is for that
    very reason we want to be able to know that they will be there
    when we have a problem. And they proved their worth in
    Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Michael. We were able to use
    them throughout the storm and they do have backup generators.
        Mr. Walden. At every site?
        Mr. Bell. It is expensive--yes.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Gerst?
        Mr. Gerst. Sure, Congressman. You know backup power is a
    great tool in the toolbox for resiliency.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Gerst. But we have hundreds of thousands of cell sites
    so we have to look at it on an individual case-by-case basis.
    We have got huge boomer towers out there, just like yours----
        Mr. Walden. Yes.
        Mr. Gerst [continue]. And we have got towers and antennas
    on the sides of buildings. And we are going to need hundreds of
    thousands of more sites for 5G that is going to be coming. In
    each one of those cell sites, we have to consider what the
    backup power solution is going to be because we are so
    dependent on power. And that includes--you know these are
    batteries that are the size of cabinets, you know, generators
    the size of trucks, right, and we have to consider space,
    noise, local regulations, and air quality requirements, even in
    the type of fuel that we are using----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Gerst [continue]. Because we sure don't want to have
    the type of fuel that would be caught up in a fire.
        Mr. Walden. Right, explosive. Right.
        Mr. Gerst. So it is a big challenge but a reasonable and
    flexible approach we think would be helpful here.
        Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Sure.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank the witnesses for being here today for this very
    important hearing.
        The Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, has an
    obligation to assist State and local governments to prepare
    for, respond to, and learn from disasters. However, the
    Agency's response to significant emergencies has been
    inconsistent. As the number and severity of natural disasters
    increase, it is critical that the FCC responds adequately and
    swiftly.
        My Emergency Reporting Act would require the FCC to
    standardized its emergency response by conducting field
    hearings, issuing reports, and making policy recommendations
    whenever disasters strike. Our current approach of relying on
    Members of Congress to call on the FCC to act is no longer
    sustainable. We need to set a baseline level of responsiveness
    to ensure local officials have the support they need to secure
    our communication networks in the face of rapidly changing
    climate.
        Mr. Torres, can you describe the shortcomings of the FCC's
    existing emergency reporting structure and how standardizing
    the Agency's emergency response approach might improve network
    resiliency?
        Mr. Torres. Yes, as I mentioned already before, that there
    isn't--one example, again, Puerto Rico, it wasn't coming fast
    enough. The information that the first responders needed didn't
    come fast enough.
        And it is critically important because, as I failed to
    mention when the Congresswoman Eshoo was here, that currently
    the FCC, there is no--they have no measurements. The wireless
    resiliency network doesn't have any way to measure the metric
    of whether the Framework is going to work.
        Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
        Well, when conducting field hearings, my bill requires the
    FCC to not only consider consulting public safety experts,
    academics, and industry representatives but, also, individuals
    affected by the emergency.
        Why is this perspective necessary to truly understand the
    full impact of the disaster?
        Mr. Torres. It is important to hear from people on the
    ground because you get a perspective on what the needs are of
    everyday people, particularly as we--more folks are wireless
    only. There is a sense of urgency that is needed in order to
    respond to disasters that are happening all the time.
        Ms. Matsui. Right.
        Mr. Torres. And more importantly, it is going to inform--it
    is going to help to inform policy going forward. It is
    critical. It is critical that we have them.
        Ms. Matsui. Sure. OK, my Emergency Reporting Act would also
    require the FCC to initiative a rulemaking to develop improved
    standards requiring communication network operators to notify
    9-1-1 centers when they are experiencing outages that prevent
    consumers from completing 9-1-1 calls or when emergency calls
    do not include vital information like location or number data.
        Mr. Henry, have you heard of instances in which consumers'
    9-1-1 calls do not include location or number data and what
    challenges do 9-1-1 centers have--face in dispatching help in
    these cases?
        Mr. Henry. Sure and thank you for the question.
        Outages or outages in either any, or a location, or a phone
    number delivered to a PSAP are common enough that you can speak
    to almost any telecommunicator and they will tell you about an
    experience----
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Mr. Henry [continue]. With that, where there is no call-
    back number or there is no location.
        If there is no location, then the call taker must hope that
    the person calling 9-1-1 is able to communicate verbally their
    location, which means that they both have to know their
    location and they have to be able to speak.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. And Chief Gossner, I imagine the Santa Rosa
    Fire Department experience situations in which limited
    information of a resident's 9-1-1 call has prevented effective
    response. Is that correct?
        Mr. Gossner. That is correct.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. While the FCC has notification obligations
    for network outages, the threshold remains high and 9-1-1
    centers are often left in the dark about service outages in
    their territory, jeopardizing public safety.
        Mr. Henry, do you believe a more effective network outage
    notification threshold would help improve the flow of
    information to 9-1-1 centers?
        Mr. Henry. Absolutely, 9-1-1 and all of public safety would
    benefit greatly from network outage reports that are better
    tailored to their needs.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I recently sent a letter to Chairman Pai,
    urging him to include wildfire-specific recommendations in the
    Wireless Resiliency Framework. While the FCC has solicited
    comments on improving the Framework in the context of
    hurricanes, Chairman Pai would not commit at our oversight
    hearing to doing the same for wildfires.
        I am glad to see the RESILIENT Networks Act, introduced by
    Chairman Pallone and Representative McNerney, takes steps to
    mandate elements of the Framework. In addition, I believe there
    is an opportunity to require the FCC to finish long-overdue
    efforts to modernize the Framework, including recommendations
    specific to wildfires and other disasters.
        Mr. Torres and Chief Gossner, do you believe that wildfire-
    specific recommendations would help local responders better
    prepare for communications outages associated with wildfires? A
    yes or no, please.
        Mr. Torres. Yes.
        Mr. Gossner. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, fine.
        Thank you and I yield back my time.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panel for being here.
        Representing Michigan's Energy District, I appreciate the
    fact and am proud, at times, when I have seen consumers' energy
    trucks, and crews, and DTE heading south and east during
    disaster situations to provide mutual aid and knowing the fact
    that, as that develops, if there ever is an emergency, a
    national disaster in Michigan, which we think of as a place
    that is heaven all year round, great weather wherever you find
    it, that the industry is growing in their understanding of
    working together to improve coordination.
        Mr. Bell, can you describe for us today some of the multi-
    stakeholder groups that electric utilities and communications
    providers participate in to develop best practices to reduce or
    eliminate outages?
        Mr. Bell. Well, obviously, there is the BDAC. We have
    addressed that already. They are specifically addressing that
    very issue and there are multiple stakeholders in there.
        In Georgia, there is a group called the Georgia Utility
    Coordinating Council. It is made up of all utilities and their
    main focus is how utilities can best work on the right-of-way,
    whether it be constructability or damage prevention. And then
    of course, there is Georgia 8-1-1, that is made up of multiple
    utilities, including both electric and communication, that is
    specifically focused on damage prevention, whether it be in
    normal construction or you know what is referred to as
    extraordinary circumstances, when a hurricane occurs.
        So and Georgia has those, as well as most States around the
    country have some sort of collaboration, where the focus is how
    can the utilities work together you know to have both a safe
    and reliable infrastructure.
        Mr. Walberg. And this information is passed on aggressively
    to other parts of the country as well?
        Mr. Bell. Yes, there is a lot of sharing, best practice
    sharing through different organizations. You know the Common
    Ground Alliance will have a conference in a couple of weeks out
    in California and most of the--just all the States, including
    Canada and Australia will be represented out there. The very
    purpose is to share best practices on that type of information.
        Mr. Walberg. Mr. Gerst, do you have anything to add to
    that?
        Mr. Gerst. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Yes, Mr. Bell is right that there are places where there is
    best practices being developed and shared, and we rely on them
    extensively, and but we--given the experiences we have had,
    particularly in Hurricane Michael in that race to restore
    service, where we were tripping over each other trying to get
    power and wireless services up, or even in the recent events in
    California, we recognized that we need to do something a little
    bit different now. And that is why we have announced this
    effort with the Edison Electric Institute, where we are going
    to, for the first time, bring leaders in our member companies
    together. That is not something that has happened before in
    that way, the way that we are talking about, and we are going
    to try to identify some near-term actions. That may yield best
    practices but at least establishing those lines of
    communication are going to be helpful.
        But ultimately, we may need even further more tools. We
    don't yet know exactly how those will work out but we do expect
    that you know making sure that we have lines of communication
    that folks in the state and local level know what resources are
    available and it is consistent in terms of resiliency is going
    to be very helpful.
        Mr. Walberg. OK.
        Mr. Gerst, I understand the FCC's rules currently
    prescribed--prescribe an aging process for numbers that would
    provide a grace period for customers affected by wildfires or
    other disasters.
        Rather than drastically reinvent the system under the PHONE
    Act, are there ways that the FCC could modify its existing
    rules that would make sure that residential subscribers who
    have been displaced by natural disaster would not lose their
    landline telephone number that was assigned to them?
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you for the question because,
    in an emergency, we know that people reach for wireless device
    and that is the first thing, one of the first things they grab
    when they leave their house to evacuate. And the benefits of
    mobile wireless is that they can take both their service and
    their telephone number with them. So this isn't really an issue
    affecting the wireless industry or wireless consumers.
        The FCC has very robust policies in place to make sure we
    don't exhaust the pool of telephone numbers that we have and
    how we allocate them. And it also enables competition by making
    sure that folks aren't hoarding numbers in a way. So this is
    something that we would be happy to work on and work with your
    office on.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Hurricane Michael
    hit Florida, that very next day I had contacted one of my
    colleagues, Congressman Dunn, who represents the Big Bend area,
    via text to assure him that our staff would help him with any
    casework that would come up because his office was inundated.
    He received that text about three months later, unfortunately.
    And we were able to get a hold of him because of a satellite
    phone a few days later. But it shows that cell phone service
    can interrupt just basic interactions between offices as we are
    dealing with these issues.
        In Puerto Rico, it was even worse after Hurricane Maria and
    Hurricane Irma. We had mayors given sat phones that didn't
    work. They were required to fill out applications on the
    internet for FEMA relief and had no internet. And it went on
    for months and months. It was just dumbfounding that that could
    still happen nowadays but it really alerted me to the fact that
    we have a resiliency issue that we need to work together on to
    fix.
        I wanted to start with Mr. Gerst and Mr. Torres. Issues
    like are addressed in the WIRED Act and the READI Act, will
    those help us avoid situations of breakdowns like we saw in
    Puerto Rico and Florida with regard to cell phone service or
    communications?
        And I will start with you, Mr. Gerst, and then go to Mr.
    Torres.
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        The events of Hurricane Maria were devastating for
    everyone. As I noted before, our member companies had to go to
    considerable lengths just to restore services. It took months
    to get back to some level of normalcy. It took some of our
    member companies working directly with the local governments to
    try to get resources in. In fact, at one point, one of our
    member company's generators was powering the airport to
    actually just get supplies into the Island.
        We do think that our member companies have invested in
    Puerto Rico to make it stronger and that was evidenced last
    month, when the earthquake hit, knocking out power across the
    Island; 68 percent of the cell sites stood up. And the reason
    they were up is because we are invested in steel poles and we
    are invested in diverse backup power solutions.
        So we do think that there is more that we can do to try to
    work together to invest in both Puerto Rico and to address some
    of the challenges we saw in Hurricane Michael, where we were
    all racing to try to restore service between utilities and
    wireless, and we need to enhance our coordination capability.
        One of the things that we appreciate about the RESILIENT
    Networks Act is that it does focus on collaboration as one of
    its primary goals to try to bring its stakeholders together at
    the national level. And so we do think that that could be very
    helpful.
        Mr. Soto. And we do understand it is not your burden to
    bear alone, which is why we have these bills together to try to
    help out.
        Mr. Torres, it would be great to hear from you about how
    critical the WIRED Act, the READI Act, and other legislation
    before us is to help----
        Mr. Torres. We support both Acts. We believe they will
    help. We also support the RESILIENCE Act. But for us, there has
    to be more. More needs to be done.
        As I mentioned before, the Wireless Framework is only a
    couple of years old, right, and it is voluntary. We already
    have folks from FEMA saying, testifying that it is too slow.
    And so what we need, as I mentioned in my testimony with Puerto
    Rico, we need to know what happened. I am hearing the CTIA
    saying the improvements they have made. We don't know what--if
    the improvements were made. We don't know. We have to take it
    from the word of industry. We don't have any official
    Government report. So we need reporting to know what happened
    and make sure that, as Commissioner Rosenworcel said: Is the
    money being spent to address the actual situations?
        Mr. Soto. And I think the reporting is very important and I
    think you will get a lot of common ground.
        I wanted to turn to Mr. Bell, our neighbors to the north in
    Georgia, which you rarely probably hear. What gaps did you see
    when Hurricane Michael both hit our State and your State and
    what can we do to help?
        Mr. Bell. I think it is the first time we realized or the
    first major storm we had, where communication and the electric
    industry had--were as intertwined as they are.
        There was a lot of confusion in the beginning about fiber
    cuts and that is because, on a normal storm, a Category 1
    storm, it is electric tree crews that are out there clearing
    the trees and the debris. But when you have a storm the
    magnitude of Michael, it is not us. It is the local government
    and the DOT that is clearing the roads.
        And so the assumption was the electric utilities were
    cutting fiber and that wasn't the case but no one was talking
    to the DOT and the local governments any critical fiber. There
    was a communication between the electric and the
    communications.
        So it is something I think we all learned from that and
    will use moving forward, for sure.
        Mr. Soto. OK, thank you. My time has expired.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Gerst, there is an increasing prevalent problem with
    the use of contraband cell phones in prisons with intent to
    commit crimes behind bars. I worked on this issue in the
    Florida legislature as well. Even though they are prisoners,
    there are many cases where public safety is truly at risk, such
    as crimes aiding in physical and sexual violence against the
    public.
        Can you discuss what steps the wireless industry has taken
    to help address this problem and what challenges exist to crack
    down on this contraband?
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you for your question and
    thank you for your leadership and attention to this very
    important issue.
        You know we don't want our wireless devices to be misused,
    in the way that you are being described, and so we have fully
    embraced working directly with State Departments of
    Corrections, working with the Bureau of Prisons, working with
    the FCC to find solutions to this growing problem.
        There is no one way to solve this issue. It takes a mix of
    technology and processes to address the issue. We have actually
    worked and tested various solutions that could help the State
    officials identify where these devices are used and then help
    us to stop them but we probably need some more teeth to really
    make it a deterrent for the use of these contraband devices.
        And so we do think that, for example, putting the FCC as
    the cop on the beat to do something there could be helpful but
    we certainly appreciate your leadership and attention to this
    issue.
        Mr. Bilirakis. And again, I am willing to sit down again
    with you, and all of you, to find a solution to this problem
    because we are going to file some legislation. So any input you
    have, please don't hesitate.
        And then you know, again, I would like your support on
    these issues but, of course, you have to look at the final
    draft before you make a decision.
        In closing, I want to highlight the importance of the
    McNerney-Bilirakis READI Act to the people of my district, on
    the coast into Florida. Actually, I am in the Tampa Bay area,
    the coastal area of Tampa Bay. This bill can save lives by
    ensuring FEMA emergency messages get to at-risk people during a
    hurricane or flood. And I thank the chairman for the READI Act
    inclusion at this legislative hearing.
        And if anyone would like to comment on that particular
    piece of legislation, I would be happy to listen.
        Mr. Gerst. Again, Congressman, thank you very much for your
    leadership and your support of that bill.
        From our perspective, wireless emergency alerts have
    quickly become one of the most effective alerting tools in the
    country, and we need to ensure that consumers continue to trust
    the information that they are getting from the wireless
    emergency alerts, and make sure that alert originators, who
    send the alerts to warn us to get us to evacuate from these
    areas, have the tools and the training that they need to be
    able to use it most effectively.
        The READI Act can help do that by encouraging alert
    originators to develop best practices, to avoid false alerts,
    to harness the new capabilities we just rolled out in wireless
    emergency alerts. As Chief Gossner mentioned, there is all new
    capabilities that just came online last year, thanks to hard
    work from the FCC, from the wireless industry, and from FEMA.
    And so we are looking forward to continuing to improve and keep
    wireless emergency alerts a trusted source.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it very much.
        And anyone else? I don't have much time. Anyone else?
        Well, thank you very much and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate this opportunity for us to have this public hearing
    so that the public can understand a little bit more as to why
    all of these issues are so important to individuals and family
    members across our country.
        First, I want to thank you, Mr. Gossner, and all of you for
    your expertise, but Mr. Gossner and thousands of firefighters
    and first responders in California and across the country who
    are on the front lines every day, risking their lives to
    protect everybody from devastating fires and other disasters.
        I am glad we have an opportunity today to discuss the
    importance of technology in wireless communications in
    emergencies and natural disasters, and also to explore ways to
    strengthen America's telecommunications infrastructure to
    ensure public safety.
        Last year, during its 7,860 wildfires, California
    experienced significant cell phone service interruptions during
    these disasters. In one county, over half of the 280 cell phone
    tower sites lost service, as well as some landlines experienced
    connectivity failures. These fires threaten not only American
    lives but homes, businesses, and wildlife. As climate change
    worsens, these wildfires will only continue to grow in
    intensity, frequency, and ferocity, as they have in recent
    years. We need to bolster our telecommunications infrastructure
    to ensure their resiliency during emergencies.
        I welcome today's thoughtful discussion and my first
    question is to you, Mr. Gossner. For many of us, it is obvious
    why we want to be able to communicate during a natural disaster
    but I worry that some don't necessarily understand the
    importance of doing all we can to keep our networks up and
    running.
        Can you explain a little more about why it is so vital for
    public safety officials to be able to communicate with the
    public during a natural disaster?
        Mr. Gossner. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        It is imperative that we build a system that is resilient
    enough that can withstand a certain amount of damage so, when
    that emergency is starting to unfold, we are able to
    communicate with the public and give them the information that
    they need to either evacuate, or shelter in place, or whatever
    it may be.
        There are times when it is community members talking to
    community members through different social media platforms.
    Those go down as well.
        It really gives us the ability to notify folks that there
    is impending danger. And that is really what this is. We will
    never be able to build a system that stays 100 percent all the
    time. I don't think that is what we are asking. But we need to
    build some resiliency, some capacity that those towers will
    last for enough time to notify the folks that we need to notify
    to get out of harm's way. And that is really what we are
    looking for is to build in that resiliency so we can make those
    notifications.
        Mr. Cardenas. And there are various ways to do that,
    correct, I am sure. To the general public, redundancy sounds
    redundant. It sounds like who would want to be involved in
    redundancy, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. But
    when it comes to issues like this, isn't redundancy something
    that is critical to making sure that, when something bad
    happens, there are alternative routes or alternative
    opportunities to make sure that people can still communicate?
        Mr. Gossner. Yes, so for me, it is not only redundancy but
    it is hardening the entire network. You have got bare cables
    doing up into a framework of a tower. Insulate those in the
    Wildland Urban Interface so that they can withstand some heat.
        Simple things--I think are simple. Maybe they are not so
    simple but they seem reasonable. And like I say, we are not
    going to build something that is going to last forever but we
    need to be able to provide assurance to the community that we
    can get them the alerts that they need to get out of harm's
    way.
        Mr. Cardenas. Can you briefly discuss what it was like for
    residents in Santa Rosa who were without phone or internet
    service during the wildfires that devastated their community?
        Mr. Gossner. Yes, it was complete pandemonium. You know it
    ranged from all of the emotions you can expect. And not only
    could we not communicate, that meant we had to go in there and
    knock on doors, and use sirens, and get everyone out, and then
    you had to get everyone out while the fire was chasing you
    through the community.
        So when you lose connectivity during--this is a no-notice
    event, which is different than a hurricane. We all kind of know
    when a hurricane is coming, for the most part, so you can
    prepare a little bit differently. But this is one of those no-
    notice events that is very impactful to the community and
    public safety when it is happening in your neighborhood. And it
    is happening up and down the State, as we have witnessed
    since--for a long time, right?
        So I go back to the Valley Fire in 2015 in Lake County and,
    from that, you can name--tick off the fires in the State of
    California, both northern and southern.
        Mr. Cardenas. The responsible thing for us to do as
    Congress, in my opinion, is to make sure that the RESILIENT
    Networks Act actually gets through the process and signed into
    law so that locals can actually reap the benefits of this
    important legislation.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gianforte for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you Chairman Doyle. I especially want
    to thank you for including H.R. 4194, the National Suicide
    Hotline Designation Act of 2019 in today's hearing. This is a
    critical piece of legislation that can help Americans facing a
    crisis.
        Our Nation truly faces an epidemic of suicide and
    Montanans, tragically, are all too familiar with it. Montana
    has the highest suicide rate in the nation. Unfortunately,
    mental health care is not available to many Montanans. In fact,
    more than 600,000 Montanans live in an area where there is a
    shortage of mental health professionals.
        Last year, I held two mental health and substance abuse
    roundtables in Montana. Providers and experts described the
    need for more resources to address mental health care and
    prevent suicide. We need a multipronged approach to combat this
    tragic situation.
        Ideally, everyone would have access to preventive mental
    health care. Folks who live in rural and frontier communities
    face overwhelming obstacles to receive mental healthcare. That
    is why the 9-8-8is so important.
        The goal of the National Suicide Hotline is to ensure
    people know about and have access to the services they need in
    the face of a crisis. Our bill provides this essential service
    for anyone facing a mental health crisis and helps our
    communities grow healthier and stronger.
        In addition to this bill, I have also introduced a bill
    with Representative Beyer to conduct a national suicide
    prevention campaign. We need to ensure that those struggling
    with depression, anxiety disorders, and other mental illnesses
    don't feel stigmatized. Everyone needs to know that it is OK to
    ask for help and, in the case of an emergency, where they can
    find it.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this
    important piece of legislation and I look forward to seeing the
    National Suicide Hotline Designation Act signed into law.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
        The committee now welcomes one of our most esteemed members
    of the full committee to the subcommittee. Mr. Engel, you have
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for the opportunity to participate.
        I want to speak about an issue of critical importance that
    has flown under the radar for quite some time, which is the
    preservation of a lifesaving radio spectrum known as the T-
    Band. For decades, the T-Band has supported vital public safety
    radio communications among our first responders. It allows
    police, firefighters, and EMS providers to communicate even
    when cell towers, electricity, or the internet are down. It
    functions deep underground in tunnels and inside concrete
    buildings.
        But now, thanks to a provision of law passed back in 2012,
    the FCC is required to relocate an auction the T-Band spectrum
    for use by the private sector in 2021. This would endanger
    crucial public safety communications where in my district in
    Bronx, New York, and Westchester, New York, as well as in major
    metropolitan areas across the United States.
        It would also force police, firefighters, and EMS providers
    to spend billions of dollars, change their systems, and buy new
    equipment.
        According to the National Public Safety Telecommunications
    Council and the GAO, roughly $6 billion would be needed to
    relocate public safety users off the T-Band. The cost to the
    New York area alone would be $1.4 billion.
        In December 2019, FCC Chairman Pai underscored the
    importance of this issue by writing, and I quote him: The
    Agency has extensively analyzed the T-Band and concluded that
    moving forward is not viable. I am calling on Congress to
    repeal the T-Band mandate. I am hoping that Congress can
    resolve this matter without delay. Unquote.
        The GAO agreed, reporting to Congress that the T-Band
    mandate is unworkable and could deprive first responders of
    their current ability to communicate by radio.
        The urgent need to address the issue is clear. To further
    emphasize the point, I would like to submit some letters to the
    record, including a letter dated December 9, 2019 from the
    International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International
    Association of Firefighters, the National Sheriffs Association,
    the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
    Public Safety Telecommunications Council, the Greater Boston
    Police Council, the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable
    Communications System, and others; a letter dated November 13,
    2019 from the New York State County Executives Association; a
    letter dated October 8, 2019 from the New York State
    Association of Counties; a letter dated August 2, 2019 from the
    Police Commissioner of the City of New York; a letter dated
    July 2019 from public safety officials in Harris County, Texas;
    and a letter dated June 24, 2019 from the U.S. Conference of
    Mayors and the National League of Cities. I have more letters
    but I will stop for now.
        To resolve this issue, I introduced the bipartisan Don't
    Break Up the T-Band Act. My legislation would repeal the 2012
    provision of law that is at the heart of this problem and would
    allow law enforcement, fire officials, and EMS providers to
    continue using the T-Band spectrum to operate their radios for
    day-to-day lifesaving operations.
        Mr. Chairman, for including my legislation in this hearing.
    I understand that our ranking member, Mr. Walden, has also
    introduced legislation, the FIRST RESPONDER Act, to address
    this issue. I look forward to working with Mr. Walden and the
    rest of our colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to
    harmonize our legislation and resolve this issue.
        Today's hearing also includes other bills that are of
    critical importance to improve communication networks in times
    of emergency. Included among them is the RESILIENT Networks
    Act, which picks up where the SANDy Act left off, and will
    ensure that communications networks are prepared for the worst.
        Let me ask Mr. Gerst. Let me ask you this question. My city
    was New York City. It was devastated by Superstorm Sandy. The
    destruction was immeasurable. Can you tell me what lessons the
    wireless industry learned from the storm and whether we are
    better prepared today than we were back in 2012? In your view,
    will legislation in front of our subcommittee today help
    prepare us for future storms and rising seas?
        Mr. Gerst. Congressman, thank you so much for the question.
        Yes, Superstorm Sandy was sort of a touchdown moment for
    our industry and led to the development of the Wireless
    Resiliency Cooperative Framework, including through the
    leadership of Chairman Pallone. That Framework, its pillars
    were increasing coordination and collaboration between wireless
    providers who were competitive but they have done things since
    Superstorm Sandy like sharing resources, repairing each other's
    towers, and making sure each other's customers can use service
    on each other's networks.
        We have also increased local coordination through new best
    practices from the local governments and we have enhanced our
    consumer education tools all under the Framework because of
    Superstorm Sandy.
        In my testimony, I go through a number of different
    examples of how we think our networks are stronger and we know
    that there is more that can be done. That is why we are
    supporting the goals of the RESILIENT Networks Act. It has some
    of the very similar pillars as our Framework. It has enhanced
    collaboration and coordination. It has making sure that
    wireless providers are using--have reasonable and flexible
    expectations around roaming, mutual aid, and backup power, and
    it is forward-looking in terms of how can 5G advance
    resiliency.
        So we are making steady improvements on resiliency in the
    wake of Superstorm Sandy.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. The Chair requests unanimous consent to enter
    the following into the record: A letter from APCO; a letter
    from Craig Fugate former FEMA Administrator; a letter from
    IAFF; a letter from Mental Health Liaison Group; a letter from
    NAB; a letter from the National League of Cities; a letter from
    U.S. Telecom; a letter from Reps Moulton and Stewart on H.R.
    4194; a Chairman Pallone letter to the GAO about the 2017
    hurricane season.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. I want to thank the witnesses for their
    participation in today's hearing.
        I want to remind all members that, pursuant to committee
    rules, they have ten business days to submit additional
    questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
    have appeared. And I would ask that each witness respond
    promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
        At this time, the committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]