[Senate Hearing 116-351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-351

                  WINNING THE RACE TO 5G AND THE NEXT
                      ERA OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
                          IN THE UNITED STATES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 6, 2019
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                             
                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
42-443 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023              
                
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 6, 2019.................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
    National Cancer Institute information........................    67
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    41
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    43
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    45
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    47
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    49
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    51
    Letter dated October 11, 2018 to President Donald J. Trump 
      from Edward J. Markey, United States Senator; Sherrod 
      Brown, United States Senator and Catherine Cortez Masto, 
      United States Senator......................................    53
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    56
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    57
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    59
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    61
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    63
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    64

                               Witnesses

Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA......................     5
    Prepared statement of Meredith Attwell Baker.................     6
Steven K. Berry, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Competitive Carriers Association...............................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Shailen P. Bhatt, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Intelligent Transportation Society of America..................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security 
  Review Commission..............................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
Kim Zentz, Chief Executive Officer, Urbanova.....................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    34

                                Appendix

Letter dated February 20,2019 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
  Cantwell from Morgan Reed, President, ACT | The App Association    79
Response to written questions submitted to Brad Gillen by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    81
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    82
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    82
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    83
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    85
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    86
Response to written questions submitted to Steve Berry by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    87
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    88
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    88
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    89
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    91
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    91
Response to written questions submitted to Shailen P. Bhatt by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    91
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    92
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    92
Response to written questions submitted to Michael Wessel by:
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    94
    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    94
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    95
Response to written questions submitted to Kim Zentz by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    96

 
                  WINNING THE RACE TO 5G AND THE NEXT
                     ERA OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
                         IN THE UNITED STATES

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in 
room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Moran, Lee, 
Fischer, Gardner, Sullivan, Young, Blackburn, Scott, Cantwell, 
Tester, Udall, Blumenthal, Schatz, Baldwin, Markey, Peters, 
Sinema, and Rosen.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. We have three minutes of Executive Session 
work to do, but we don't have a quorum just yet, so the Ranking 
Member and I have decided to proceed with opening statements.
    And unless someone else walks in, in the next--let's just 
start off, then we'll vote on the business we have to tend to.
    We are delighted to welcome everyone to the first Senate 
Commerce Committee hearing of the 116th Congress. I'm glad to 
convene this hearing with my colleague Ranking Member Cantwell. 
I look forward to working with her and all members of this 
Committee to advance a legislative agenda that creates jobs, 
promotes innovation, protects consumers, and strengthens our 
Nation's technological leadership throughout the world.
    We start today with a discussion on 5G, the fifth 
generation of wireless communications technology. 5G is one of 
the most important technological developments facing the United 
States in the 21st century. The anticipated impact it will have 
on the future of our Nation's economy, and its global 
competitiveness is significant.
    Current estimates project that 5G will create more than 3 
million new jobs, generate $275 billion in investment, and add 
$500 billion to the U.S. economy. In addition, 5G promises to 
usher in a new era of connectivity that has the potential to 
propel our Nation into the fourth industrial revolution we are 
told. By bridging the connection between the physical and 
digital worlds, 5G will ultimately transform how we use 
technology and spur the development of applications and 
services beyond anything we can fully conceptualize today.
    So what does this mean for Americans? In relation to 
existing wireless, 5G will provide significantly faster 
connections. This means that health care providers, such as the 
University of Mississippi Medical Center, can extend the reach 
of life-saving telemedicine and support more cutting edge 
medical services. As a result, people around the country will 
enjoy increased access to a better quality of care at reduced 
costs.
    For the agricultural industry, 5G will enable the use of 
more precision agriculture technologies. This will allow our 
Nation's farmers and growers to be more competitive, maximize 
resources, and boost crop yields for a growing global 
population.
    For the transportation sector, 5G will enable greater 
mobility, access, and, most importantly, safety on our Nation's 
roads.
    The consumer benefits of 5G are limitless. In fact, the 
excitement surrounding this new technology stems from its 
potential to generate economic and social benefits across every 
industry and every sector. The ability to support other 
groundbreaking technologies, such as artificial intelligence 
and virtual reality, makes 5G even more valuable and 
revolutionary.
    In order to fully realize all of these benefits, the United 
States must win the global race to 5G. China and others have 
seen the benefits America gained from leading the world in 4G, 
so they are challenging the U.S. for dominance in 5G. By some 
important measures, they have significant advantages. Failing 
to win the race to 5G would not only materially delay benefits 
for the American people, it would forever reduce the economic 
and societal gains that come from leading the world in 
technology. Achieving U.S. leadership in 5G will require 
dedicated and coordinated efforts by all levels of government 
and industry.
    We have an excellent and knowledgeable panel of witnesses 
today, and they are: Mr. Brad Gillen, of Washington, D.C., 
Executive Vice President of CTIA; Mr. Steve Berry, of 
Washington, D.C., President and CEO of the Competitive Carriers 
Association; Mr. Shailen Bhatt, of Washington, D.C., President 
and CEO of Intelligent Transportation Society of America; Mr. 
Michael Wessel, of Washington, D.C., Commissioner, U.S.-China 
Economic & Security Review Commission; and Ms. Kim Zentz, of 
Spokane, Washington, CEO of Urbanova.
    There is a quorum, and I'm about to finish my statement, so 
we'll see what the Ranking Member would like to do at that 
point.
    During today's hearing, I hope our witnesses will address 
many of the critical issues that this Committee will need to 
consider. What are the opportunities and impediments to the 
prompt allocation of spectrum, mid-band in particular, that are 
critical to 5G deployment? Which of our infrastructure laws and 
regulations need to be modified to achieve fast deployment of 
5G? How do we ensure that while we do all of this, we guarantee 
that our networks are secure? What best practices and resources 
do our Nation's law enforcement and security agencies need to 
protect that security?
    So I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on how to move 
the United States ahead in 5G to ensure that all Americans, 
including those in rural areas, can experience its benefits now 
and for generations to come.
    Madam Ranking Member, would you like to make your opening 
statement now?
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman, I will delay my statement 
and move that Agenda Item Number 1, the Budget Resolution for 
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
be reported favorably.
    [Recess to proceed to the Executive Session.]
    The Chairman. The distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Committee is now recognized for whatever opening statement she 
would like to make for whatever time she would like to consume.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for holding this important hearing today on 5G. I welcome all 
the witnesses who are here today, especially our witness from 
Spokane, who is going to talk about smart city innovation.
    But we are here to talk generally about how the United 
States maintains its competitive advantage in 5G and how we use 
this new technology to help us in growing our digital economy. 
Already in the State of Washington, a lot of 5G investments are 
being made to continue the growth of what our country knows is 
a trillion dollar opportunity and a continuation of the 
innovation economy. So I'm all in for 5G.
    We know that, along with various applications that you 
already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, on artificial intelligence and 
quantum computing, that we will really reshape our economy for 
the future, that the innovation that 5G will help us unleash 
will help us in many, many important aspects of our national 
agenda, national defense, and important partnerships for the 
future.
    But the push for 5G, we need to make sure we're not blind 
to some of the very important policy issues. Put simply, 5G 
networks must be secure, and that starts with having a 
cybersecurity strategy that focuses on shoring up our defense 
against hackers and state-sponsored actors of cyberterrorism.
    Protecting national security means making sure that 
America's economy is strong and that we remain a global leader. 
Cybersecurity is one thing I wish I would have heard more from 
the President on last night. We know that with artificial 
intelligence and quantum computing, that applications made 
possible 5G, can transform innovation, change our modern 
warfare, creating military advantages through integrated 
military operations, but we need to make sure that this network 
is safe. So the more that we rely on these networks to drive 
productivity and efficiencies and sustainability, whether it is 
our businesses or our military applications, we need to make 
sure that the promise of a 5G network does reach that level of 
security.
    So a few things I think we need to think about. First, we 
must be certain that there is a secure supply chain backing up 
our 5G system. We cannot tolerate a leaky valve or a back door 
into these networks. Second, the administration should provide 
us with a real quantifiable 5G threat assessment so that we can 
work fully to make sure that our network is secure. And, three, 
we need to have a serious conversation about what level, if 
any, of foreign components we are going to allow into the 5G 
network.
    I know that there are state-sponsored actors who have 
hacked our networks, and I want all of us to work more closely 
together to call out on an international basis those wrong 
actors and work together to try to prevent them in a broader 
coalition. We need to make sure that we are all hands-on-deck. 
I want the FCC to use its existing authority to make sure these 
networks are safe and secure and to know that Congress is 
watching.
    So I know if we roll up our sleeves, get serious about the 
cyber issues, and continue to make the right investments, that 
the innovation economy and the race to win in 5G, the United 
States will do very, very well.
    More importantly, we need to continue to talk about the 
great applications that 5G will empower. That is why I'm so 
happy today that we have a witness from the smart cities and 
innovation area to talk about exactly what this can do for our 
local governments. Local governments are always cash strapped, 
so to know that they can make smart technology infrastructure 
upgrades that can help save money in the future is something I 
think is very important.
    I especially want to welcome Kim Zentz, the CEO of 
Urbanova, who is on the panel today and to talk about how that 
cutting-edge collaboration between Washington State University, 
the city of Spokane, and a group of innovators are already 
exploring ways to leverage technology and data analytics to 
move our cities toward a more sustainable future. This is 
something that I know many of my colleagues on this Committee 
have already sponsored legislation related to this.
    Mr. Chairman, I know that we'll have a chance at a future 
hearing to talk about again how we access rural broadband and 
do a better job, but as we're talking about 5G, I think that we 
need to put as much enthusiasm into the discussion of what will 
5G investments do for us in the area of rural and underserved 
areas like Tribal communities into broadband.
    And, last, Mr. Chairman, I should just mention, since you 
mentioned the value of the mid-band and how important that was, 
that as we talk about how we move forward on capitalization of 
this effort, that valuable mid-band spectrum licensed to 
satellite providers years ago is a very valuable commodity, and 
I think we need to make sure that the U.S. taxpayer is involved 
in getting the best out of that as possible.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from 
our witnesses and look forward to what our colleagues have to 
say about this issue during the Q&A.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    Now I'll call our witnesses forward at this point to take 
their places at the table. I think it's clear from the Ranking 
Member's opening statement that there is much bipartisan 
consensus around this issue, and I particularly appreciate her 
bringing the witness from Spokane to talk about the problems 
facing local governments.
    We have our witnesses at the table now. We'll just begin on 
my left and proceed to the right and recognize every witness, 
each witness, for 5 minutes, for no more than 5 minutes, for an 
opening statement.
    Mr. Gillen, you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA

    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Member 
Cantwell, and members of this Committee.
    I am not Meredith Baker. With Meredith's apologies and on 
behalf of the wireless industry, I thank this Committee for 
their continued leadership and focus on 5G. Since your hearing 
in July, our industry and our Nation have made giant strides in 
ensuring U.S. leadership in state-of-the-art and secure 5G. 
Most notably, we have seen the initial launch of 5G. Consumers 
in 10 states, including Mississippi, Mr. Chairman, the 
consumers in 10 states are the first to experience 5G, which 
will ultimately be 100 times faster and 5 times more responsive 
than your service today.
    Accenture has projected 3 million new jobs and $500 billion 
to the economy thanks to 5G. Those numbers somewhat undersell 
5G's promise. Pick a challenge in your state you want to solve, 
from health care to transportation to my complete lack of a 
voice, 5G has the potential to help solve it and to foster new 
smarter communities throughout your states. 4G made our lives 
easier. 5G offers the promise to make our lives safer and 
better.
    We have never been more excited about what's next as we 
start to see companies invest in their own 5G vision. Ford has 
announced that all new Ford cars starting by 2022 will have 5G 
built in. Disney and the New York Times have launched their own 
new 5G ventures. Rush Hospital in Illinois is poised to be the 
first 5G-connected hospital. But it isn't just big names. Like 
4G before it, many 5G innovations will come from startups. Ten 
years ago, no one imagined Uber or countless other companies 
that are dependent upon and relied upon the 4G platform.
    Our job is to build the wireless networks that support the 
envisions of 5G entrepreneurs both big and small, and we will. 
The wireless industry invested in this Nation over $25 billion 
just last year, and our networks will be safer thanks to 5G 
standards with security baked in.
    While more and more Americans will experience 5G this year 
and next, we are just scratching the surface. How far we go, 
and how quickly we get there are closely tied and dependent 
upon our Nation's spectrum policy. Spectrum is the invisible 
building block for everything that we do.
    There are three types of spectrum, three legs to our 5G 
stool. Low-band spectrum, it goes miles, it's what your 
wireless service relies on today and what you're most familiar 
with. High-band spectrum, it packs a punch. It will be really 
important for bandwidth-intensive applications, but only 
travels a block or two. The FCC, to their credit, just 
successfully concluded the first of three planned high-band 
options. That leaves mid-band. We are very encouraged to hear 
both the Chairman and the Ranking Member allude to mid-band and 
its importance. Meredith likes to call it the ``Goldilocks of 
spectrum'' that mixes both capacity and coverage just right.
    Our key global rivals will have four times the amount of 
mid-band spectrum as we will next year, four times. The good 
news is that the FCC and the administration identified the 
right target bands to help us catch up. We'll need to act now 
to free up hundreds of megahertz of spectrum, and if we do, 
research this week revealed it will generate over $250 billion 
to our economy. The good news is we can do that thanks to this 
Committee's AIRWAVES Act. Senator Gardner, Hassan, and other 
bipartisan cosponsors, we thank you for your leadership, and we 
urge the swift reintroduction of AIRWAVES to provide a 
multiyear auction schedule.
    As this Committee has rightfully made clear, for us to win 
the 5G race, 5G also cannot be a New York- and L.A.-only 
solution. One of the best parts of AIRWAVES is that 10 percent 
of the proceeds of future spectrum auctions will go to build 
networks in unserved areas. This rural dividend will help 
shrink the digital divide, ensuring more communities benefit 
more quickly from advanced wireless. The Committee can ensure 
our Nation's 5G and spectrum leadership with passage of 
AIRWAVES this year. I'd remiss if I did not also applaud the 
Committee's other spectrum-related work, including SPECTRUM NOW 
and the Government Spectrum Valuation Act. These provisions 
would drive government users to be more efficient stewards of 
their own spectrum.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Baker follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 
Committee, on behalf of CTIA and the U.S. wireless industry, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today.
    CTIA applauds this Committee's bipartisan focus on advancing U.S. 
spectrum policy, and securing U.S. global leadership in the mobile 
marketplace. From the perspective of the wireless industry, it is 
fitting that your first hearing in the 116th Congress is discussing 5G 
and what it means for our country, our economy, and American consumers.
    The good news is thanks to significant policymaker and industry 
collaboration in the past year the United States is well-positioned for 
success. To deliver on the full promises of 5G, we need to redouble our 
national efforts to promote 5G-friendly policies. The main building 
block required is spectrum and we need more of it--specifically mid-
band spectrum--to maintain our global leadership role in wireless.
5G is Being Deployed Right Now
    Thanks in large part to the leadership of this Committee and 
ongoing efforts at the FCC, the first American 5G deployments are 
happening today. American network and technology companies are 
investing aggressively to ensure that equipment, handsets, and devices 
are ready for American innovators and consumers to leverage the power 
of the new 5G platform.
    Since I last testified before this Committee in July, CTIA's 
members have taken significant steps forward. All national carriers 
have announced 5G deployment plans. The rollout of the next generation 
of wireless is occurring right now in 10 states in places like Harrison 
County, Mississippi, Atlanta, Raleigh, Indianapolis, and Sacramento. 5G 
will be coming this year to Nashville, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, Kansas 
City, Houston, and D.C., among dozens of other cities.
    Additionally, 5G devices and equipment are being introduced 
alongside the 5G network, including mobile device chipsets for mobile 
devices and connected cars, advanced laptops, and VR and AR equipment. 
Qualcomm announced that over 30 new 5G devices will be introduced in 
2019, while Intel has plans to make a 5G wireless modem chip available 
in the second half of this year. These advanced chip-sets are key to 5G 
speeds and connectivity. Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon announced their 
upcoming Samsung 5G phone, which will offer dual-connectivity for both 
4G and 5G networks, and T-Mobile confirmed it rolled out 5G network 
equipment in 30 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and 
Dallas.
    U.S. wireless providers will invest some $275 billion in 5G-related 
networks--creating three million new jobs and adding $500 billion to 
our economy, according to Accenture. As you can imagine, the U.S. is 
not the only country to recognize the transformational impact of 5G. 
There is international consensus: the nations that lead on 5G will 
capture millions of new jobs and billions in economic growth.
5G Will Usher in a More Secure Era of Technological Innovation
    5G is the next generation of wireless, and these new networks will 
offer speeds up to 100 times faster, enable 100 times the number of 
devices, and be five times more responsive than today's 4G networks. 5G 
will be more than just fast, it will also be the most secure generation 
of wireless service.
    Today's 4G LTE networks have the most advanced security features to 
date, and 5G will further improve upon them. As 5G networks start to be 
deployed, wireless providers are leveraging new and advanced measures--
after years of research, investment, and contributions to standards 
bodies--to secure the networks. The Federal Communications Commission's 
(FCC) September 2018 Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) report highlights the security 
advances and innovations offered by 5G. The wireless industry is 
committed to working with Congress and the Department of Homeland 
Security to ensure a secure platform for tomorrow's innovation.
The Positive Impact of 5G on Other Industries
    Coupling 5G capabilities and security, I'm excited by the 
possibilities offered by 5G to drive transformational improvements in 
health care, agriculture, education, transportation, and nearly every 
industry in America.
    From making healthcare more accessible and making us more energy 
efficient to expanding the ways we educate our children, 5G will 
revolutionize how we live our lives. The promise to add connectivity to 
smart communities will be powered by 5G.
    As we start to see new 5G networks and devices launch, there is a 
growing list of companies and industries investing in their 5G future. 
Let me share with you some recent examples where we are already seeing 
5G solutions be put into practice:
    Rush University Medical Center in Chicago is creating the first 5G-
enabled hospital in the U.S., where 5G will support telemedicine, smart 
scheduling, and enhanced patient care through artificial intelligence 
and augmented reality training sessions for doctors. Dr. Shafiq Rab of 
Rush Hospital has said, ``We strongly believe 5G is a game-changing 
technology that when fully implemented will help us . . . provide the 
highest quality patient and staff experience.'' Jeremy Marut, the 
hospital's chief enterprise architect explained, ``5G will give us the 
speed, the low latency as well as the ability to connect many more 
devices.''
    Samsung announced their 5G ``Innovation Zone'' in Austin, Texas, a 
testbed to provide a real-world understanding of how 5G can impact 
manufacturing and help create Smart Factories. Some of the new 
technologies they are exploring include 4K video as a sensor to improve 
plant security and detection response, industry IoT sensors to monitor 
for environmental and equipment conditions, AR and VR for employee 
training, and enhanced location services for plant safety.
    Verizon launched the Verizon 5G EdTech Challenge, a nationwide 
challenge calling for enterprise organizations, start-ups, research 
groups, and universities to create education solutions that leverage 5G 
connectivity to solve for challenges in under-resourced middle schools 
throughout the U.S. Dr. Ken Perlin is developing ChalkTalk, a 5G 
augmented reality learning tool that renders multimedia objects in 3D.
    5G is fundamentally changing our entertainment experiences. For 
instance, AT&T Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys, will offer fans 
mobile 5G services with faster speeds and potential services like AR 
and VR to enhance the fan experience, while Walt Disney Studios is 
exploring the possibilities of 5G connectivity for media and 
entertainment at Disney's StudioLab. ``We see 5G changing everything 
about how media is produced and consumed,'' says Walt Disney Studios 
chief technology officer Jamie Voris.
    As we get closer to fully autonomous vehicles, 5G will be a key 
ingredient. Ford announced its plans to connect every new vehicle sold 
in the U.S. to 5G which will allow vehicles to send and receive 
information about their surroundings. This real-time interactivity will 
ease congestion and boost the safety of drivers on the road.
    The City of Peachtree Corners, Georgia is also taking advantage of 
5G by building a 1.5 mile intelligent vehicle test track within a 500-
acre technology park where new intelligent mobility technologies can be 
tested. ``Creating an environment for developing smart mobility 
technology will be a tremendous asset for our city . . . Our young city 
is living up to its `innovative and remarkable' tagline as future 
intelligent mobility technologies are developed here in Peachtree 
Corners,'' says Mayor Mike Mason.
    More broadly, 5G promises to unlock the promise of smart cities. 
Accenture has projected benefits of $160 billion. Specifically, 
Accenture's Managing Director Tejas Rao concluded that ``5G-powered 
smart city solutions applied to the management of vehicle traffic and 
electrical grids alone could produce an estimate of $160 billion in 
benefits and savings for local communities and their residents. These 
5G attributes will enable cities to reduce commute times, improve 
public safety, and generate significant smart-grid efficiencies.''
    The exciting news is that we are beginning to see cities adopt 
these solutions. Recently, Las Vegas officials started an innovative 
partnership to test a smart lighting solution aimed at improving public 
safety and enhancing energy efficiency. By outfitting existing 
streetlights with routers and connecting them to existing wireless 
networks, the city can monitor energy usage and outages in real time. 
This saves money and gets the lights repaired more quickly after an 
outage, helping with public safety. The platform can also be used to 
monitor air quality and temperature.
    These are all just a sample of the initial investments in 5G from 
the past few weeks and we are just scratching the surface as to how 5G 
will make our lives better and safer.
5G Spectrum Policy Is Key to U.S. Leadership
    Although I am pleased to report on these positive 5G developments 
across the U.S., we cannot take our foot off the accelerator. To fully 
realize the technological breakthroughs we are talking about, we need 
more spectrum, and we need it as soon as possible.
    CTIA commends this Committee, the FCC, and the Administration for 
the ongoing work in identifying and repurposing spectrum for 5G. With 
your support, the wireless industry has invested hundreds of billions 
of dollars in private capital in acquiring and building out spectrum.
    But the need for additional spectrum remains pressing. A 
predictable pipeline of spectrum will do much to advance U.S. 5G 
interests, and help us match the efforts foreign governments are taking 
to allocate spectrum for 5G services. This Committee, the FCC, and the 
Administration have identified all the right bands. Now we need to 
finish the job fast.
    The future of 5G is going to require a mix of spectrum, including 
low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. Low-band offers robust spectrum 
waves that travel long distances, high-band spectrum has big capacity 
but travels short distances, while mid-band is a nice complement of 
both capacity and coverage. To offer 5G across all areas of our 
country, we need a healthy mix of all three.
    CTIA commends Chairman Pai and the FCC Commissioners for their 
commitment to promoting American leadership in 5G and the significant 
steps taken to address our Nation's lack of access to high-band 
spectrum. The FCC recently completed its first successful auction of 
high-band spectrum, the 28 GHz band, and Chairman Pai has announced the 
auction of four additional high-bands of spectrum by the end of this 
year. Additionally, Congress and the FCC are to be applauded for 
pushing low-band spectrum into the marketplace through the broadcast 
incentive auction, and last year, Congress directed the FCC to identify 
30 MHz of low-band spectrum for wireless services by 2022.
    Mid-band Spectrum is Key. Where the U.S. needs to make quick 
progress in the near term is on mid-band spectrum. Policymakers and 
industry worldwide have coalesced around the importance of mid-band 
spectrum, which basically refers to fact that this spectrum is located 
in the middle of the frequency bands currently in use for mobile 
services, roughly 3 to 24 GHz.
    Mid-band spectrum will be a workhorse band for 5G--it represents 
the ``sweet spot'' of spectrum innovation. That's because it leverages 
both capacity and coverage opportunities--meaning it can handle the 
increased traffic that 5G will bring, and this spectrum travels 
distances, which is helpful in more rural settings. Mid-band spectrum 
has great potential to facilitate the deployment of 5G services because 
it will accommodate the wide bandwidths necessary to facilitate the 
faster connections and low latency that 5G technology promises.
    For this reason, freeing up mid-band spectrum will create a 
positive impact on the economy. Analysis Group recently estimated the 
economic impact of U.S. policymakers freeing up mid-band spectrum. Its 
key finding: 400 MHz of mid-band spectrum will drive $274 billion in 
GDP and 1.33 million new jobs. This report underscores what we already 
know: that Congressional directives to auction spectrum have 
significant positive economic and societal benefits.
    Because this mid-band spectrum is critical to 5G and economic 
development, other nations are moving quickly to allocate its use to 
wireless services. A study last year found the U.S. 6th among countries 
in mid-band spectrum allocations. Japan, South Korea, Spain, and the 
United Kingdom have all auctioned or assigned mid-band spectrum since 
April 2018. Several other countries, including Australia, Germany, and 
Japan, have confirmed that mid-band spectrum will be assigned by June 
2019. Recently, China announced that its three existing state-owned 
operators will receive a total of 460 MHz of mid-band spectrum for 5G.
    The U.S. is making progress on mid-band, and Chairman Pai deserves 
credit for working hard to catch up with foreign governments. The FCC 
recently finalized rules for the 3.5 GHz band for mobile broadband, 
which will result in 70 MHz of licensed spectrum to be auctioned soon. 
We also welcome the FCC's proceeding to evaluate repurposing up to 500 
MHz of mid-band spectrum between 3.7 and 4.2 GHz, known as the ``C-
Band.'' And last year, under the leadership of NTIA Administrator Redl, 
the Commerce Department initiated a review of the 3.45 GHz band, which 
is another critical piece of mid-band spectrum that could open new 
possibilities for 5G services in the U.S.
    There is real bipartisan support behind swift U.S. action on mid-
band spectrum. Commissioner O'Rielly noted it became apparent that 
``the world was eyeing mid-band spectrum as a component for 5G 
deployment. Thus, it became vital for the United States to have 
available a serious mid-band play to complement our spectrum work in 
the low and high bands.'' Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel also said it 
well in her statement supporting the FCC's inquiry into opening more 
mid-band spectrum: ``[W]e need to get started. Right here, right now.''
    This forward momentum is critically important, but we need to 
continue to press for additional action. The reality is wireless 
carriers in many countries have access to mid-band spectrum, and U.S. 
operators do not today. In December 2018, Analysys Mason released a 
report focused on mid-band spectrum plans in key foreign countries for 
5G. It found that by the end of 2020, an average of nearly 300 MHz of 
mid-band spectrum will be available per country. The FCC's 3.5 GHz item 
will open up 70 MHz of licensed mid-band spectrum, but to lead the 
world in 5G, the U.S. focus needs to be on securing hundreds of 
megahertz of mid-band spectrum. We have the right policy proposals, now 
we need to focus on following through and getting assets in the hands 
of our innovators swiftly with a clear schedule of auctions. The best 
available option is the 3.7 GHz band of spectrum under current FCC 
review.
Key Congressional Role in 5G Spectrum Policy
    Congress has the ability to shape U.S. spectrum policy and take the 
steps we need to deliver on the full promise of 5G. This Committee 
should also be fully apprised on key efforts internationally and in the 
Administration to advance U.S. spectrum interests.
    AIRWAVES. Last year CTIA strongly supported the Advancing 
Innovation and Reinvigorating Widespread Access to Viable 
Electromagnetic Spectrum (``AIRWAVES'') Act, which establishes a much-
needed pipeline of future spectrum auctions critical to U.S. global 
leadership in 5G. During the 115th Congress, the bill--authored by 
Senators Gardner and Hassan--enjoyed broad bipartisan backing in both 
the Senate and the House and attracted widespread praise from a diverse 
array of organizations, including the Consumer Technology Association, 
Connected Nation, the African American Mayors Association, and Public 
Knowledge.
    Critically, the AIRWAVES Act set a timeline for auctioning a series 
of key low-, mid-, and high-band frequencies over the next five years. 
By recognizing that we need different types of spectrum to unlock the 
full complement of 5G services, the AIRWAVES Act identifies our core 
challenge: the lack of access to sufficient mid-band spectrum. AIRWAVES 
remedies the mid-band deficit by providing access to the same spectrum 
bands that are being made available throughout Asia and Europe. By 
matching up our mid-band spectrum with global bands, we unlock 
economies of scale and reduce the costs--and time--to deploy.
    Congressional deadlines, like those in AIRWAVES, have always been 
an essential tool to enable U.S. spectrum leadership by ensuring timely 
access to new spectrum. This five-year auction schedule will allow 
wireless providers to plan and build their 5G networks to maximize 
efficiency and robustness.
    CTIA is hopeful that an updated version of the AIRWAVES Act will 
find its way into law in the 116th Congress. Passing the AIRWAVES Act 
is the most important step this Committee can take to ensure that our 
Nation has the spectrum resources it needs to move full speed ahead 
with our 5G deployments and ensure American leadership. We stand ready 
to assist in any way we can towards that goal.
    Other Key Legislation. Last Congress we strongly supported the 
Supplementing the Pipeline for Efficient Control of The Resources for 
Users Making New Opportunities for Wireless (``SPECTRUM NOW'') Act, 
introduced by Sens. Wicker, Schatz, Udall, and Moran. This bipartisan 
legislation helps government agencies more efficiently and effectively 
manage spectrum resources. SPECTRUM NOW allows use of the approximately 
$8 billion in existing Spectrum Relocation Fund monies to support 
research into the feasibility of Federal spectrum users either 
relocating or sharing spectrum with non-federal users. We are hopeful 
this legislation will be reintroduced and move forward in this new 
Congress.
    National Spectrum Strategy. Last October, the Administration issued 
a Presidential Memorandum and is currently developing a comprehensive 
National Spectrum Strategy. CTIA strongly supports this effort and 
appreciates the recognition that spectrum impacts our ``economic, 
national security, science, safety, and other Federal mission goals now 
and in the future'' and that the ``[n]ation requires a balanced, 
forward-looking, flexible, and sustainable approach to spectrum 
management.''
    This Presidential Memorandum indicates the urgency--shared by the 
U.S. wireless industry--that spectrum should be quickly identified and 
made available to ensure our 5G leadership. Many nations are vying to 
lead on 5G, and the U.S. cannot wait. These are all important steps, 
and we urge the FCC and the Administration to commit to a clear auction 
schedule as soon as practicable. Congressional support and 
encouragement for a proactive, 5G-centric spectrum strategy would be 
beneficial, and would be strongly bolstered by passage of an updated 
AIRWAVES Act.
    World Radio Conference. Maintaining U.S. leadership in wireless 
will also require that its actions on the international stage support 
5G leadership here at home. As the U.S. government prepares for the 
upcoming 2019 World Radio Conference, the overarching goal should be to 
ensure that our efforts are directed at promoting 5G deployment across 
the U.S. Specifically, Congress should encourage the Administration to 
ensure that its positions reinforce our 5G leadership and do not 
undermine access to critical spectrum bands that have already been 
identified for 5G use in the U.S.
Deploying the Wireless Infrastructure to Leverage 5G Spectrum
    5G services will require much denser networks to utilize new 
spectrum assets. To handle growing mobile data demands and unlock new 
5G applications, wireless providers will need to install hundreds of 
thousands of small cells--small antennae the size of backpacks--in the 
next few years. Estimates have projected we will need over 800,000 
small cells by 2026. To put that into perspective, our industry has 
over 150,000 cell towers in operation today, built over 35 years. Those 
installations are ongoing right now bolstered by reforms by 21 states 
and the FCC to modernize siting rules to reflect the needs of 
tomorrow's wireless networks as opposed to 200-foot cell towers. The 
FCC and the states have provided updated guidance to cities' approval 
processes for small cell applications. We thank Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Schatz for 
their joint effort last Congress to develop the STREAMLINE Small Cell 
Deployment Act which included many process reforms similar to those 
adopted by the FCC in its recent decisions. We also appreciate efforts 
by Chairman Wicker and Senator Cortez Masto for their leadership on the 
SPEED ACT, and Senator Moran for his work on the RAPID Act.
Delivering Mobile Broadband to More Americans
    I'm proud of our industry's commitment to building mobile service 
across America, driven by over $226 billion investment in our networks 
since 2010 alone. Just since December 2016, we were able to cover more 
than 318,000 additional rural consumers with LTE services. 
Nevertheless, there are communities across the country that still do 
not have access to the benefits of wireless, and we need Congress's and 
the FCC's help to ensure these unserved areas get connected.
    One of the most promising proposals for reaching more Americans is 
the ``rural dividend'' provision included in the AIRWAVES Act. That 
provision sets aside 10 percent of the proceeds from new spectrum 
auctions for deployment of wireless networks in rural America. If this 
provision had been in place during the AWS-3 and broadcast incentive 
auctions, the rural dividend would have made available an additional $6 
billion to build out wireless in rural America and unserved 
communities. CTIA urges this provision to be included in a new AIRWAVES 
Act.
    This Committee has also placed renewed focus on the role the FCC 
and Administration can play in expanding access to broadband services. 
The FCC's Mobility Fund will provide nearly $500 million in annual 
support, which can also provide much-needed universal service funding 
dedicated to wireless coverage across the country. Additionally, 
ensuring that broadband mapping is accurate will help better inform 
broadband infrastructure planning.
    The wireless industry also wants to see the promise of 5G realized 
in underserved communities, including communities of color. The 
Brookings Institution recently released a report authored by Dr. Nicol 
Tuner Lee that examined the connection between 5G, the Internet of 
Things, and communities of color.
    With 54.9 percent of households now being wireless-only homes, in 
her paper Dr. Turner Lee notes that ``for communities of color. . .5G 
represents increased economic opportunity through improved access to 
social services, such as health care, education, transportation, 
energy, and employment.'' Dr. Turner Lee advocates that a robust supply 
of low-, mid-and high-band spectrum is required to broaden capacity and 
coverage in all communities to ``promote both ubiquity and some level 
of digital equity for marginalized populations and their communities.''
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. CTIA looks forward 
to working with you to promote 5G deployment and urges swift 
reintroduction and adoption of the AIRWAVES Act.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Berry, you are recognized.

  STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. BERRY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
           OFFICER, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Wicker, 
Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify about how to preserve and 
expand broadband opportunities in rural America as the next 
generation of wireless technology evolves.
    CCA is the Nation's leading association of competitive 
wireless carriers composed of nearly 100 carrier members 
ranging from small rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 
customers to regional and nationwide providers serving millions 
of customers, and also the vendors and the suppliers.
    We're on the verge of a new era, and it's hard not to get 
excited about the potential of 5G wireless networks. Just as 
applications that are literally household names today seemed 
unimaginable in the days of 3G. 5G networks will spur 
innovation and will come in a variety of flavors, including 
mobile, fixed, fiber, and converged technologies and solutions. 
5G precursors, such as narrow-band Internet of Things, will 
provide new business opportunities while expanding 
connectivity, and rural America stands to benefit the most from 
enhanced connectivity.
    But the very existence of 5G is not inevitable, 
particularly in rural America. While the 5G buzz always grabs 
the headlines, rural areas are at a crossroads. Decisions made 
by policymakers today can either launch innovation, economic 
growth, education, and public safety benefits across all of 
America, or they will broaden the digital divide. I am pleased 
that this Committee is already at work to ensure that all 
Americans have access to the latest broadband technologies.
    The race to 5G will not be won if rural America is left 
behind. I prefer to look at the 5G race as a cross-country team 
event. The first to cross the finish line may get more points, 
but the race is not over until the entire team finishes, and 
rural America is a key member of that team, and we must ensure 
the connectivity gap is bridged. 5G network deployments will 
build upon today's 5G and 4G coverage areas.
    We cannot close the digital divide if we do not know where 
and the size of the country's existing coverage gap. As a 
nation, we need to know where broadband coverage exists and 
where it does not. I thank this Committee for its steadfast 
leadership to fix the coverage maps. CCA and our members are 
committed to work with Congress, the FCC, and other 
stakeholders to accurately identify coverage in rural America.
    Armed with better data, there are three policy priorities 
to expand connectivity. First, Congress must reinvigorate 
Universal Service Fund policies to ensure that the 5G services 
become widely available. The Mobility Fund is critically 
important to preserve and expand 4G services, but if Congress 
believes that all Americans living in rural, Tribal, low-income 
communities deserve the same digital opportunities as their 
peers, the fund must be sustainable. USF contribution policies 
must be updated for a 5G world.
    Spectrum. 5G wireless demands spectrum access. All carriers 
must have this opportunity to access low-, medium-, and high-
band spectrum to serve their customers and support innovation 
and applications. I commend the Committee for its dedicated 
efforts to allocate spectrum for wireless use. Also, let us not 
forget that we need to keep the 600 megahertz incentive auction 
repack process on schedule and continue to provide mid-band 
spectrum opportunities for carriers, including 3.5, the C-band, 
the L-band, and ensure that millimeter-wave spectrum is also 
accessible to all, including the small carriers serving rural 
areas.
    Third. Infrastructure deployment policy must support 5G 
services. Streamlined physical infrastructure deployment is a 
vital part to close the digital divide and to complete the 
generational upgrade of 5G wireless, and for many rural 
carriers, permitting and siting approval for macro cells on 
Federal lands is a particular important issue.
    Finally, the telecommunications industry is on the 
precipice of a significant new investment to power 5G services. 
It's critical that government and industry define a clear 
pathway for enhanced security and a process to provide 
resources to secure networks and sustain national security 
priorities.
    Yes, 5G holds great promise for everyone. However, 
policymakers must ensure that rural areas are not left 
sidelined from a connected future. Let's make sure that rural 
America remains in the race as part of the 5G Team USA.
    Thank you for the attention, and thank you for this 
hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Steven K. Berry, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Competitive Carriers Association
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about how to 
preserve and expand broadband opportunities in rural America as the 
industry evolves to the next generation of wireless technology.
    I am testifying on behalf of Competitive Carriers Association 
(``CCA''), the Nation's leading association for competitive wireless 
providers. CCA is composed of nearly 100 carrier members ranging from 
small, rural providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional 
and nationwide providers serving millions of customers, as well as 
vendors and suppliers that provide products and services throughout the 
mobile communications ecosystem.
    The communications industry is on the verge of new era of 
technology, and it is hard not to get excited about the potential 
benefits and capabilities of 5G wireless networks and the services they 
will power. Just as applications that are household names today seemed 
unimaginable in the days of 3G, the potential of 5G networks will 
welcome a new chapter for innovation and expand connectivity. 5G 
networks will be deployed in a variety of ways. Fixed 5G services will 
introduce new fixed competition without disturbing streets and land. 5G 
precursors, such as Narrowband Internet-of-Things (``NB IoT''), will 
provide new business opportunities while expanding low-power 
connectivity for sensors, tracking, and other uses, that can later be 
upgraded to more advanced services. Mobile 5G services will power the 
latest telehealth, precision agriculture, distance learning, autonomous 
vehicles, augmented and virtual reality, and public safety services. 
The possibility of a connected world is groundbreaking and exciting.
    But the unfortunate reality is that the very existence of 5G is not 
inevitable, particularly in rural America. While the 5G buzz grabs the 
headlines, rural and hard-to-serve areas are at a crossroads. Decisions 
made by policymakers today can either launch new innovation, economic 
growth, and education and public safety benefits across all of America, 
or they will broaden the digital divide, leaving rural America behind. 
I am pleased that, at the start of this Congress, the Committee is 
already at work to ensure that all Americans have access to the latest 
broadband technologies. The race to 5G will not be won if rural America 
is left behind.
Reliable Coverage Maps are Necessary for Policies to Spur 5G Deployment
    Tomorrow's 5G network deployments will build upon today's 4G 
coverage. Unfortunately, too many areas throughout the country lack 4G 
coverage, or indeed any network coverage at all. We cannot close the 
digital divide if we do not know the size of our country's existing 
coverage gap. More reliable data is necessary to determine where 
broadband coverage exists, and I thank this Committee for its steadfast 
leadership pushing to fix the coverage maps.
    Based on your own experiences, members of this Committee know that 
coverage has been overstated--in some cases, substantially overstated. 
Coverage areas in the Federal Communication Commission (``FCC'')'s 
recent mobile coverage map are unreliable. Based on this mapping data, 
the FCC is set to distribute $4.53 billion in support to preserve and 
expand mobile broadband over the next ten years. To ensure funding goes 
to areas in need, CCA members have spent millions of dollars, untold 
hours of staff time, and significant additional resources to challenge 
overstated coverage in advance of the Commission's funding decisions. 
Fortunately, shortly after the challenge window closed last Fall, the 
FCC announced that, based on a preliminary review of more than 20 
million speed tests, it too, noted increased concerns that current data 
is fatally flawed. The FCC accordingly launched an investigation into 
the proceeding, and CCA stands ready to work alongside the Commission 
and this Committee to ensure that future information collections 
provide an accurate and reliable foundation upon which to base critical 
funding decisions.
    Connectivity for millions of Americans living in rural areas 
depends on using reliable, real-world coverage data to determine policy 
positions. Congress must remain engaged as the investigation into 
flawed data continues, and work beyond current FCC efforts to produce a 
map that more closely reflects your constituents' experiences. CCA and 
our members are committed to continuing to work with Congress, the FCC, 
and other stakeholders to ensure that the parameters for identifying 
actual coverage in rural America will properly drive advanced network 
deployments instead of cementing the coverage status quo.
Universal Service Policies Must Support a 5G Future
    Congress created the Universal Service Fund (``USF'') to ensure 
that all consumers, including those in rural areas, would have access 
to reasonably comparable telecommunications and information services as 
those provided in urban areas. I strongly urge Congress to reinvigorate 
this policy as 5G services become widely available. As discussed above, 
the FCC has allocated $4.53 billion to support the deployment of 4G LTE 
network service over the next 10 years through Mobility Fund Phase II 
(``MF II''). As we've seen, a ``generation'' often finds its peak in 
its tenth year. While MF II is critically important to preserve and 
expand 4G services, absent additional support, rural America risks 
falling further behind in the digital divide as carriers serving rural 
areas constantly work to catch up to comparable urban services.
    The USF program devised in the 1996 Telecom Act, groundbreaking as 
it was, was predicated on a 2G telecom industry--not 4G and certainly 
not 5G. Policymakers must recognize that the contribution base for all 
USF programs is insufficient and unsustainable. If Congress continues 
to believe that Americans living in rural, Tribal, and low-income 
communities deserve the same digital opportunities as their peers, USF 
contribution policies must be updated to account for a 5G world.
5G Wireless Demands Spectrum Access
    Spectrum is the lifeblood of the wireless industry, and is a finite 
resource only available from the government. All carriers must have 
access to spectrum at low-, mid-, and high-bands to serve their 
customers and provide the capacity necessary to support innovative 
applications. All spectrum is a public resource, owned by American 
citizens. Spectrum licenses can be obtained only through auction from 
the FCC or from private market transactions approved by the FCC and 
other government actions. I commend the Committee for its ongoing work 
to reallocate spectrum for wireless use, and ask for continued focus on 
this critical issue, especially if the United States is to catch up to 
spectrum allocations available for wireless use in other countries that 
strive to assume global leadership for 5G networks. Ensuring that every 
carrier must have an opportunity to bid, buy, and access critical 
spectrum resources is key to competition and expanded broadband 
service, especially in rural America.
Low-Band Spectrum
    Low band spectrum, or spectrum below 1 GHz, has propagation 
characteristics that carry signals across long distances and through 
impediments such as walls or trees. This spectrum is particularly 
important for coverage in rural areas with lower population densities 
and vast areas to connect. It provides the base layer of coverage for 
today's networks, and 5G services deployed on low-band spectrum will 
have similar coverage advantages with upgrades to both latency and 
speeds.
    The Committee deserves credit for enacting the first-ever incentive 
auction in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. 
Provisions in the Act established a process by which television 
broadcasters could voluntarily elect from a range of options to 
relinquish, move, or share their spectrum assignment in exchange for a 
portion of the auction proceeds, using a market-based mechanism to 
reallocate the spectrum needed to keep up with insatiable demands for 
wireless access. Revolutionary in its inception, the incentive auction 
was a resounding success, netting billions of dollars for broadcasters 
and the Treasury for deficit reduction.
    While the auction was a success, work is continuing to deploy this 
spectrum to serve consumers. We are 21 months into the ``repack'' 
process, in which remaining broadcasters are moved in the band to clear 
the way for the carriers that bid over $19 billion to gain access to 
the frequencies to serve consumers. Nearly a year ago, Congress 
allocated an additional $1 billion on top of the original allocation of 
$1.75 billion to cover relocation costs for broadcasters and to keep 
the repack time-frame on schedule, and to fund consumer education as 
the process moves forward. Congress should closely monitor the repack 
process and ensure that spectrum is expeditiously cleared for winning 
bidders to put to use as soon as possible and no later than the July 
2020 deadline.
Mid-Band Spectrum
    Mid-band spectrum balances distance travelled with speed 
capabilities, making it particularly well suited for providing the 
latest generation wireless services in rural America. CCA members 
appreciate the compromise adopted by the FCC last year in the 3.5 GHz 
band and eagerly await its auction. Looking ahead, the C-Band spectrum, 
particularly the 3.7-4.2 GHz portion of the C-Band, shares favorable 
characteristics of mid-band spectrum, while presenting the opportunity 
for the larger blocks of spectrum that enhance network capabilities. 
Additionally, incumbent satellite users have identified capacity that 
can be reallocated for wireless use. It is critically important that 
policymakers adopt policies that both reallocate as much of this 
spectrum as possible to support 5G networks and ensure that competitive 
carriers and those serving rural America have a meaningful opportunity 
to gain access to this spectrum. Although it is encouraging to see some 
momentum in the C-Band proceeding, another mid-band proceeding seems to 
have stalled within the Department of Commerce. Policymakers should 
complete work on the L-Band to provide competitive carriers with 
another source of prime mid-band frequencies to help deploy advanced, 
next-generation networks.
High-Band Spectrum
    High-band spectrum makes up for lower distance propagation by 
enabling ultra-fast speeds. I am pleased that the FCC is moving forward 
with several millimeter wave spectrum auctions, including the recently 
concluded auction for the remainder of the 28 GHz band, and the 24 GHz 
band auction set to begin on March 14, 2019. These bands present 
opportunities for significantly larger swaths of spectrum, a force 
multiplier for the wireless services that will ride on them. The FCC 
must ensure that all carriers can access these important spectrum bands 
for 5G services, particularly after the largest two carriers were 
permitted a significant head start in these bands through private 
market transactions. As additional high-band spectrum allocations are 
considered for wireless use, policymakers should preserve the 
opportunity for licensed use and provide certainty on service rules, 
such as power levels, needed to spur research and development to use 
this spectrum to serve consumers.
Infrastructure Deployment Policies Must Support 5G Services
    The right policies to deploy, maintain, and upgrade physical 
infrastructure are a vital part of both closing the digital divide and 
completing the generational upgrade to 5G wireless technologies. 
Unnecessary costs and delays for deploying new infrastructure are 
exponentially more problematic for deployments in rural America. While 
CCA commends steps taken so far, work remains to ensure that carriers 
have certainty as they navigate the approval process. For rural 
carriers, additional certainty regarding permitting on Federal lands is 
particularly important.
    New macro-towers are necessary to expand existing coverage and 
provide 5G services. 5G also will require significant network 
densification by deploying scores of small cells. Small cells are not 
only for big cities, as I have seen firsthand how carriers serving 
rural areas are using small cells to better serve their customers. For 
5G deployments in particular, it is important to note that 
infrastructure deployment is not limited to cell towers and small 
cells. 5G networks will exist on a high-fiber diet, with estimates as 
high as 8 miles of fiber per square mile to provide 5G service in urban 
areas. Forward-thinking infrastructure deployment policies will ensure 
that backhaul does not become a choke point in the latest wireless 
networks. It is increasingly clear that 5G will be a mix of several 
converged technologies and different methods of communication.
5G Networks Must be Secure
    CCA and its members fully support efforts to protect and harden 
networks from cybersecurity and other national security threats. As 
carriers continue to deploy next-generation wireless services, 
policymakers should continue to provide guidance to all carriers 
regarding risks and potential threats. It also is imperative to ensure 
that all carriers have access to equipment that is secure, particularly 
for smaller and rural carriers that lack economies of scale.
    With the telecommunications industry on the precipice of 
significant new investments in equipment and software to power 5G 
services, it is critically important that Federal authorities charged 
with national security decisions provide clear, unambiguous directions 
regarding the national security needs for all communications networks. 
With this direction, government and industry can define a clear pathway 
for enhanced security and a process to provide adequate resources to 
secure networks and sustain national security priorities.
    5G services promise an immediate and expansive impact on the lives 
of Americans living in rural areas; however, absent smart and swift 
action from policymakers to close the digital divide, those in rural 
areas will be sidelined from a connected future. With today's latest 
networks, telehealth services are providing monitoring and treatment 
options that are increasing healthcare offerings, lowering costs, and 
saving lives. Precision agriculture technologies are increasing yields 
and using fewer resources, while transforming farmers into agricultural 
engineers. Distance learning over broadband is allowing any student to 
travel the world in their studies, expanding their educational 
opportunities far beyond the traditional classroom. The potential of 5G 
networks can supercharge these technologies and unlock unprecedented 
economic, educational, health, and safety opportunities in rural 
America, if policies are in place to make sure networks are being 
deployed by carriers serving rural, regional, and nationwide customer 
bases.
    Congress should prioritize preserving and expanding wireless 
broadband services in rural America, through reliable coverage data, 
sufficient USF, expanded spectrum access for all carriers, streamlined 
infrastructure deployment policies, and secure 5G networks. Thank you 
for your attention to these issues and for holding today's important 
hearing. I welcome any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
    Mr. Bhatt, you are recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF SHAILEN P. BHATT,

             PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

         INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF AMERICA

    Mr. Bhatt. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, 
members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Shailen 
Bhatt, and I'm honored to be here representing the Intelligent 
Transportation Society of America. ITS America's members are 
public agencies, private sector companies, and research 
institutions united in our vision of a better future 
transformed by intelligent mobility, one that is safer, 
greener, and smarter. This hearing comes at a critical time 
because 5G connectivity has the potential to deliver a 
transportation system that is safer, offers more choices, and 
provides more accessibility.
    You know, in the mid-90s, I used to sell computers, and we 
had 2-gigabyte hard drives, and I would tell everybody that 
this will hold all the information you ever need. I was wrong. 
Today, autonomous vehicles give off 4,000 gigabytes of data 
every 90 minutes. The world is awash in a sea of big data. 5G 
has the speed and the bandwidth to take all the data from all 
of those cars and all the transportation users, process it, 
change it into actionable information, and communicate it back 
at a speed that will enable us to reduce crashes, improve the 
choices we make, and operate our systems more effectively. 
That's why we believe 5G connectivity will be transformational 
for transportation.
    Let me start with safety, which has been our number one 
priority. First and foremost, it is critically important that 
we preserve the spectrum that has been dedicated for 
transportation safety critical communications in the 5.9 
gigahertz band for Vehicle-to-Everything technologies, or V2X. 
This allows us to communicate with all users of the system. And 
to be clear, I'm referring to all V2X technologies, DSRC as 
well C-V2X.
    In 2018, there were 2 million crashes on U.S. roadways that 
resulted in either an injury or a death. About 30 percent of 
those are due to impaired driving, and according to NHTSA, V2X 
communications can address about 80 percent of nonimpaired 
crashes. So that means more than 1.2 million crashes could have 
been eliminated or mitigated last year alone. So those numbers 
are one thing, but this is about real lives.
    There's a family of five from Michigan that was killed in 
Kentucky by a wrong-way driver, a crash that killed five young 
children on their way home from Disneyland in Florida--Disney 
World, excuse me--and last year a twin brother and sister in 
Indiana killed by a pickup truck that ran through a stop bar on 
a school bus. These are all crashes that are completely 
preventable today with V2X technology, and it only gets easier 
with 5G and other next-generation wireless technologies. These 
technologies will also allow these vehicles to act as real-time 
sensors, which means we will know instantly about the state of 
our system. It will allow us to protect the most vulnerable 
users of the system: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists. 
This is the number one area in which we are seeing an increase 
in fatalities across the system. With high-speed communication 
among devices and vehicles, we can create a much safer 
environment in which everyone can see all users. For all of 
these reasons, 5G and other next-generation wireless 
technologies will be transformational and critical for the U.S.
    It's also going to change the way we experience 
transportation. As we move from the 20th century model of 
moving cars to the 21st century model of seamlessly moving 
people, data, and freight, the same data that helps us operate 
our system more safely will also help us operate it more 
efficiently. This new connectivity and the level of data we can 
exchange at a high rate of speed is an underpinning of our 
Mobility on Demand efforts. It means we can give people real-
time information that will allow them to make more intelligent 
transportation choices.
    Now, while many people think of Mobility on Demand as 
strictly an urban phenomenon, a telecom network, much like a 
road network, allows you to connect communities. As you build 
out the system providing more telecommunication capabilities, 
this will only enhance and strengthen remote communities. This 
merging of road and telecom infrastructure to provide broadband 
and technology solutions to rural communities is something I've 
worked on in Delaware and Colorado and Kentucky, and something 
I believe is important moving forward.
    There's a whole new horizon of how to use data AI and 
analytics to operate our system. I'd like to share just one 
quick example. In the Denver area when you drive, you will get 
information on mobility choices, but as you drive into the 
mountains, you will get real live information on the weather. 
On I-70, this is critical because the weather can change 
drastically from one mountain pass to the other. We can get 
people real information about, Is there snow? Have people 
deployed an airbag?
    5G connectivity is incredibly exciting. While there are 
many examples around the country of public and private sector 
organizations working on this, we must recognize we are in a 
global race, and I'm glad that the Committee has seen that. I 
spoke last year at the Beijing Auto Forum, and the folks in 
China were very clear on their intent to dominate the 
automotive and information technology sectors in the coming 
years. ITS America is looking at ways to keep pace with the 
evolving nature of competitive threats, cybersecurity risks, 
and the threats to U.S. infrastructure.
    I'm very appreciative of this hearing so that the United 
States can maintain our leadership role and provide safer and 
more inclusive communities.
    Thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatt follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Shailen P. Bhatt, President and Chief Executive 
         Officer, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
Testimony
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the Intelligent 
Transportation Society of America's (ITS America) perspective on 
``Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in 
the United States.''
    My name is Shailen P. Bhatt, and I am the President and CEO of ITS 
America. Before joining ITS America last January, I served as Executive 
Director for the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). In that 
role, I oversaw the launch of the RoadX program, which is focused on 
deploying innovative technology solutions--including connected 
vehicles--and teaming with the private sector to shape the future of 
transportation. While at CDOT, I also served as the national Chair of 
the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Deployment Coalition and the Chair of the 
National Operations Center of Excellence. Before CDOT, I served as 
Cabinet Secretary with the Delaware Department of Transportation and 
Deputy Executive Director of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. I 
also had the pleasure of serving as Associate Administrator at the 
Federal Highway Administration under U.S. Department of Transportation 
Secretary Ray H. LaHood.
    It is an honor to testify on behalf of ITS America and our members 
who have been researching, developing, testing or deploying intelligent 
transportation technologies. Founded as an official advisory board on 
road technology to the U.S. Department of Transportation, ITS America 
represents state and city departments of transportation, metropolitan 
planning organizations, automotive manufacturers, technology companies, 
engineering firms, automotive suppliers, insurance companies, and 
research and academic universities. Our Board Chair is Malcolm 
Dougherty, Senior Vice President and Practice Lead, Transportation, 
Michael Baker International, and former Director of the California 
Department of Transportation, and our Vice-Chair is Jennifer Cohan, 
Secretary, Delaware Department of Transportation.\1\ Our members come 
to one table--ITS America--to shape the next generation of 
transportation and infrastructure driven by intelligent transportation 
technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The ITS America Board is represented by the following 
companies: AAA, AECOM, Arizona Department of Transportation, California 
Department of Transportation, California PATH UC Berkeley, Conduent, 
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Crown Castle, Cubic, Delaware 
Department of Transportation, District of Columbia Department of 
Transportation, Econolite, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, 
Gridsmart, HELP, Inc., HNTB, Iteris, Kapsch TraffiCom North America, 
MCity, Michael Baker International, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission, National Renewable Energy Lab, New York City 
Department of Transportation, Panasonic North America, Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation, Qualcomm, Southwest Research Institute, 
State Farm Insurance, Toyota, Texas Transportation Institute, Utah 
Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of 
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ITS America is united around a shared vision of a better future 
transformed by intelligent mobility that is safer, greener, and 
smarter. Our mission is to advance the research and deployment of 
intelligent transportation technologies to save lives, improve 
mobility, promote sustainability, and increase efficiency and 
productivity.
    For nearly 30 years, ITS America has been educating policy and 
decision makers at every level of government and in the private sector 
on policy that supports intelligent transportation technologies. Our 
focus is policy that accelerates seamless mobility technology, 
connected and automated vehicle technology, and smart infrastructure; 
policy that breathes new life into our transportation infrastructure by 
expanding investments in technologies that support smart communities; 
and policy that encourages new models and modes of transportation 
including micro-transit, rideshare, carshare, bikeshare, and unmanned 
systems. That said, our first and foremost priority has been, and 
continues to be, safety.
    I want to take a moment and commend the Committee for its 
leadership, which made deployment of intelligent transportation 
technologies an eligible activity in the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST Act). With FAST Act funding, commitments from 
state and local governments, innovative partnerships with the private 
sector and research institutions, we see firsthand how the deployment 
of technology is saving lives; reducing crashes; extending the life of 
transportation infrastructure; improving capacity; reducing the rate 
and growth in congestion; moving more people in fewer vehicles; 
improving travel times and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Mobility: Introduction
    In the mid-90s, I used to sell computers with a 2 GB hard drive. I 
told people that a hard drive could handle all the data they would ever 
need. I was wrong. It is estimated that an autonomous vehicle will 
generate four terabytes (TB) of data in about an hour and a half of 
driving.\2\ The world is awash in a sea of big data. Fifth-generation 
wireless technologies (5G) have the speed and bandwidth to take all the 
data from cars and all transportation users, process it, transform into 
actionable information, and communicate it back at levels of speed that 
will enable us to reduce crashes, improve the choices we make, and 
operate our systems more effectively. That is why we believe 5G 
connectivity will be transformational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Winter, K (2017). For Selfdriving Cars There's Big Meaning 
Behind One Big Number: 4 Terabytes. Intel Newsroom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as transportation was critical to the development of our 
economy in the 20th century, 5G will transform the way we experience 
transportation today. 5G and other next generation technologies will 
enable transformative transportation benefits in a wide range of areas. 
With data speeds of 100Mbit/s or more, ultra-low latency of a few 
milliseconds or less, extremely high reliability, and massive capacity, 
5G, and other next generation technologies can spur the development of 
mobility innovations that will revolutionize the way people, goods, 
services, and information move in the 21st century. It could allow 
greater freedom of movement for those who have limited mobility access, 
such as people with disabilities and older adults, and can positively 
affect both the safety and operations of our transportation system. 
Moreover, most importantly, 5G and other next generation technologies 
can finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of fatalities on our 
roadways.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies: 
        Safety
    Safety is the top priority of the Nation's transportation system, 
and 5G and other next generation technologies can help us transform the 
current tragic state of affairs. According to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA), 37,133 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 
2017, which roughly breaks down to just over100 fatalities per day. 
Every year there are more than six million crashes, two million of 
which result in either an injury or, in the worst case, a fatality. 
Assuming around 30 percent of those are impaired crashes, that leaves 
1.4 million crashes, of which Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) communications can address--more than a million 
fatality or injury crashes eliminated or mitigated every year. V2V and 
V2I communications are allowing us to finally address the scourge of 
lives lost and ruined on our Nation's roads.V2V deployments available 
today include systems that provide emergency braking. Another benefit 
of connected vehicles is their ability to be the ``eyes and ears'' of 
other vehicles. Non-Line-of-Sight awareness means that drivers and 
vehicles will be able to see around corners and receive information 
about hazards in the roadway, even if they cannot see the hazard.
    In addition to V2V communications, there are other examples of 
connectivity that benefit the transportation system. Vehicle to 
Infrastructure (V2I) communications helps move traffic more efficiently 
with demand responsive traffic signaling and allow emergency response 
vehicles to preempt signals. The concept of V2I is to provide the 
vehicle and the driver information about infrastructure operations--
weather and pavement condition, how signals are directing traffic, and 
even the location of potential hazards at intersections and other 
critical road safety hotspots. V2I applications include red light 
violation warnings, reduced speed zone warnings, curve speed warnings, 
and spot weather impact warnings. V2I soon may also support other 
applications that will disseminate the condition of the infrastructure, 
such as bridge integrity, and may even collect data from cars that 
describe pavement condition. According to NHTSA, V2I technology helps 
drivers safely negotiate intersections and could help prevent 41 to 55 
percent of intersection crashes. Another connected vehicle safety 
application that helps drivers with left turns at intersections could 
help prevent 36 to 62 percent of left-turn crashes, according to NHTSA. 
In addition to the lives saved, just these two applications alone could 
prevent up to 592,000 crashes and 270,000 injuries each year.
    Public sector agencies can also reap the benefits of V2I 
deployments. Increasingly, vehicles will rely on digital formatting of 
roadway information to process roadway rules. ITS America member 
Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada recently became 
the first in the world to put roadway information into a digital 
format. As connected and automated vehicles drive over the actual 
roadway, they can pick up differences between the ``digital'' road and 
the actual road. This could eliminate the need for agencies to manually 
examine roadways for striping or automatically report potholes instead 
of waiting for enough drivers to incur tire damage before fixing them. 
These vehicles will also give an up-to-the-minute snapshot of the 
system--how it is performing, are there any incidents, live weather 
conditions, etc.
    Millions of dollars have already been invested in this effort, 
including incorporating connected vehicle technologies into 
infrastructure by states and cities. Eighty-four communities in the 
United States are deploying or planning to deploy connected vehicle 
technology. Of that number, 54 sites are operational, and 30 are in 
development. Nearly every state has at least one connected vehicle 
deployment. V2I deployments include expansions of the Safety Pilot 
Model Deployment in Ann Arbor (MI), large pilot deployments in New York 
City, Tampa (FL), and Wyoming, and the Smart City Challenge in Columbus 
(OH).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    5G and other next generation technologies will enable us to deploy 
safety solutions to protect vulnerable users of the system, which will 
be transformational. Vehicle to Pedestrians (V2P) is an extremely 
important component of communications. In Colorado, where the largest 
increase was in vulnerable users of the system, fatalities increased 
from 484 in 2014 to nearly 700 in 2017. By allowing vehicles to 
communicate with these users through sensors or vehicle to device 
communication, we can significantly reduce the number of pedestrians 
killed on our roadways.
    Finally, Vehicle to Network (V2N) will be critical to operating the 
system more efficiently. Weather data or traffic conditions can be 
broadcast to the network allowing for better planning and dynamic 
routing.
    These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, 
which hold the promise to provide numerous economic, environmental, and 
societal benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption, 
and increased access for older adults and people with disabilities. 
Older Americans and people with disabilities are demographics that are 
impossible to ignore. According to the U.S. census, residents age 65 
and over grew from 35.0 million in 2000 to 49.2 million in 2016, 
accounting for 12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population, 
respectively; and nearly one in five people have a disability. They 
also represent a significant demand for transportation services, and 
with explosive growth in travel, should fully automated vehicles 
succeed in expanding mobility access. V2V, V2I, V2P, and V2N--
collectively referred to as Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)--have 
incredible potential to dramatically improve the safety, accessibility, 
and operational performance of our road infrastructure and vehicle 
safety.
    5G and other next generation technologies will help unlock the full 
potential of self-driving technology by serving as an additional source 
of data about infrastructure, traffic, construction, and emergency 
vehicles that will solve for some of the more challenging road 
interactions. 5G enables location data platforms (``maps'') to support 
the wide availability of fully autonomous vehicles by providing large 
capacity and ultralow latency data transmissions. Today, auto OEM's are 
already using existing LTE networks to share sensor data on roadway 
conditions across auto brands through the use of neutral location 
platforms--human driver in Car A learns, for example, of icy road 
conditions ahead through sensor data collected by windshield wipers, 
temperature gauges and stability controls in Car B. In a future 5G 
environment, these types of data transmissions--and many, many others--
will be massively crowdsourced and available in milliseconds, which--in 
an environment where cars are driven by machines--will lead to safer 
vehicles and a more efficient transportation systems.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies:
  Saving the Spectrum for Transportation Critical Safety Communications
    ITS America strongly supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band 
for V2X. We also support Congressional oversight of the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure all phases of testing for the 
5.9 GHz band are completed before the FCC rules on whether the spectrum 
can be shared between V2X operations and unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi. 
Continued Congressional oversight is beneficial to ensure that the FCC 
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
continue to recognize the safety benefits of the 5.9 GHz band.
    Any unlicensed use in the band should be done without harmful 
interference to the incumbent technology or other intelligent 
transportation systems technologies. With all the advancements and 
technology deployments, we are finally on the cusp of turning the 
corner to reduce deaths, but we need the spectrum to do that. These 
safety innovations require dedicated spectrum to ensure they work every 
time without signal interference.
    The new world of connected vehicles is creating a massive amount of 
data that must be exchanged at low latencies. As more and more vehicles 
on the roadway begin broadcasting data with other vehicles, bicyclists, 
pedestrians, and smart infrastructure, 5G and other next generation 
technologies will be critical to ensure that the network can handle the 
data loads.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies: 
        Mobility on Demand
    5G connectivity will be critical as we move from the 20th century 
model of moving cars to the 21st century model of moving people, data 
and freight. The same data that helps us operate the system in a safer 
manner also helps us operate it more effectively.
    New forms of mobility are being deployed even as others are being 
developed. A century ago with the invention of the car, Departments of 
Roads were created to deal with this new form of transportation. Those 
agencies became Departments of Transportation, having grown to include 
other modes of transportation. Now those same agencies need to evolve 
again to provide seamless mobility. Long-existing silos among cities, 
states, counties, and transit agencies are disappearing. The next 
generation of mobility is a collaboration of the public and private 
sectors. More choices exist now, but for travelers to fully realize the 
benefits of this new world of mobility, it must be easier to choose 
which option best meets their needs.
    The way we travel in cities, suburbs, and rural areas are changing 
rapidly due to wireless communications and other technology 
innovations. New mobility concepts and solutions, from bike-and car-
sharing systems to demand-responsive bus services, are providing 
travelers with flexible and convenient transportation options. From 
private, shared, and public transportation options, or a combination 
thereof, people want a transportation ecosystem where they can 
research, book, and pay for all parts of their daily journeys--no 
matter the form of transportation--on a seamless mobile platform 
accessible on request.
    Developing the policy conditions for Mobility on Demand (MOD) to 
flourish will better enable consumers to identify and use the 
transportation options that best meet their mobility needs at any time. 
In addition, MOD promotes societal benefits such as a less congested, 
less costly, and more sustainable transportation system. Leveraging the 
insights gained from MOD data, new business models can be developed to 
enhance mobility and address unmet transportation needs. The rapid 
development of 5G connectivity can offer new opportunities for MOD. 
Increased data throughput will bring many new possibilities for MOD, 
including better coverage, availability, and reliability. This will 
allow MOD to better reach underserved areas such as first mile/last 
mile and transit deserts.
    Augmented Reality (AR) is another example of where the delivery of 
underlying real-time data could be enhanced by 5G connectivity to make 
MOD more useful. AR can be used to create interactive maps to help 
people navigate transit systems. By using the camera in a traveler's 
mobile device and superimposing digital information on what the camera 
is capturing, AR can make it easier for the user to make more informed 
decisions based on up-to-date information. Holding a mobile device on 
top of a subway map, for example, would allow you to see real-time 
movement of trains and buses near your location.
    In cities, MOD offers convenient, affordable, and (in the case of 
bikeshare and rideshare) sustainable alternatives to driving within 
congested environments. For suburban areas, MOD offers first mile/last 
mile accessibility, alleviating/reducing the need for locals to park at 
a station or drive into the city.
    MOD is seen too often as an urban/metro transportation solution, 
but it also presents opportunities for rural areas as well. It provides 
benefits to those living in rural or more remote communities by 
connecting them to a bus, train, or transit/commuter station. Fleet 
operated ride-hailing services, for instance, could help older adults 
age in place and improve general accessibility to long-distance 
transportation, car-pooling, groceries, and medical centers. Examples 
of rural MOD could include bikeshare (docked or dockless) and scooter 
share deployments on college campuses, in both rural and urban 
settings. New and improved transit and paratransit services also can 
help rural America.
    Tompkins County, NY, is an excellent example of a rural community 
pushing carshare (Ithaca Carshare), rideshare (ZimRide), and 
transportation network companies (TNC) (Lyft/Uber) services, and it 
received funding through Shared Use Mobility Center MOD On-Ramp 
Program. MOD examples could also include Waze Carpool/Scoop (app-based 
carpools), microtransit such as VIA, micromobility services like Lime, 
maybe even delivery services like DoorDash/UberEats/PostMates.
    ITS America created the Mobility on Demand Alliance in 2018 to help 
determine what the future of mobility should look like, striving for a 
world that is safer, greener and smarter. The Mobility on Demand 
Alliance brings public, private, and academic sector stakeholders 
together to promote the benefits of MOD and address obstacles hindering 
its development. Focused on fostering an environment for a scalable, 
repeatable MOD model that allows for metropolitan and regional 
differences, the ITS America Mobility on Demand Alliance will: 1) 
address common challenges including defining terminology, data access, 
payment systems, accessibility and equity issues, privacy/
cybersecurity, and legislative/regulatory outlook; 2) facilitate 
metropolitan and regional MOD efforts; and 3) educate policymakers and 
the public about the benefits of Mobility on Demand.
    Regardless of where you live, MOD services and seamless integration 
of mobility platforms have the potential to better enable users to 
understand their transportation options and make personalized, 
efficient, and cost-efficient travel decisions.
Mobility on Demand Use Cases
    Regional Bikeshare Programs: Increasing Mobility Within a 
Community: The City of Reno, City of Sparks, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, 
University of Nevada-Reno, and Washoe County have worked together with 
the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County and Lime 
(formerly LimeBike) to launch Nevada's first dockless bikeshare 
program. This one-year pilot will eventually include nearly 1000 
LimeBike bicycles and is the first bikeshare to launch on a Native 
American reservation. Bikes can be borrowed anywhere within the Reno-
Sparks service area via the LimeBike app. Rides cost $1 per half hour 
for standard users, and  cents50 per half hour for students, seniors, 
and low-income individuals. This collaborative effort aims to provide 
the Truckee Meadows region with a healthy and sustainable alternative 
for mobility.
    Rideshare to Bus Stops: Filling Transit Gaps: Capital Metro (TX) 
has partnered with Austin-based rideshare service provider, RideAustin, 
to offer on-demand transportation to select bus stops following cuts to 
bus service in the Exposition area of west Austin. Through this six-
month pilot program, individuals who live or work in an area that has 
lost bus service can request rides via the RideAustin app to/from one 
of two local Capital Metro bus stops. These rides are free of charge, 
so those who participate in the program do not have to pay any more 
than their usual bus fare to complete their commute. Capital Metro 
hopes that this partnership will help to efficiently fill transit gaps 
by serving as an innovative, effective solution to first/last mile 
needs.
    Connecting Residents to Jobs and Healthcare: Delaware Transit 
Corporation (DART) has a contract with ITN-Southern Delaware to 
subsidize trips for older adults (55+) and those with visual 
impairments in Sussex County, Delaware, which is predominately rural. 
Their service is available 24/7 and provides eligible customers with 
access to local trips and to the DTC's (DART) transit network. This 
network includes three transit hubs in Sussex County (Rehoboth, Lewes, 
and Georgetown) that connect people to the largest towns and cities, 
including Dover and Wilmington. Wilmington provides connections to 
Amtrak and Greyhound. DTC will subsidize $5 a trip up to $12,000/year.
    DART also offers three Flex Routes in Sussex County. These routes 
run a fixed route but also allow customers to call up to two hours in 
advance to schedule a deviation up to one mile from the fixed route. 
The deviation costs an additional $1 (base fare is $2) and helps close 
the first and last mile challenges or the rural area that lacks a 
pedestrian network. The fixed route alignments include key state 
facilities, shopping, medical offices, residential areas, and major 
employers.
    Utilizing Ridesourcing for Special Needs: Connecting Users with 
Critical Services: Chesterfield County has partnered with Uber and 
Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia to launch a pilot program 
providing free, treatment-related transportation to individuals trying 
to overcome opioid addiction. Through this program, those undergoing 
treatment through the county's Mental Health Support Services 
Department who do not own a personal vehicle can take an Uber, free of 
charge, to any pre-approved location. Participants can reserve rides 
from 6 am-6 pm, Monday through Saturday, by calling Goodwill. Goodwill 
contacts Uber and oversees trips taken. Rides can also be reserved in 
advance. The pilot was funded through a state grant and aims to make it 
easier and more affordable for recovering participants to seek 
treatment.
    Improving/Supplementing Paratransit Service: The Regional 
Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) in Las Vegas has 
partnered with Lyft to launch a six-month paratransit pilot program. 
Through this program, Southern Nevada Transit Coalition (SNTC) 
paratransit riders can opt-in to receive Lyft rides instead of their 
standard SNTC paratransit service. Unlike the existing service, 
participants can book Lyft rides not only in advance but also on-
demand. The first $3 of each ride is covered by the customer, and RTC 
subsidizes the next $15. Rides can be booked via the Lyft app or by 
calling RTC Customer Care. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are also 
available. This pilot aims to provide an efficient, flexible, cost-
effective travel option for RTC paratransit customers.
    Mobile App/Multimodal Integration: Making Trip Planning and Travel 
More Seamless: The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) has 
selected the Transit app as the official trip planning application of 
Pinellas County, FL. The Transit app offers an easy-to-use, multi-modal 
platform, through which users can access real-time information 
regarding PSTA's transportation options and arrival/departure times. 
The application also integrates information on MOD services, so that 
transit riders can, for example, check local bikeshare availability or 
request an Uber ride as needed, from within a single app. As part of 
this partnership, PSTA will officially advertise the Transit app, and 
the Transit app will share anonymous data regarding users' trip 
behavior, which can help to inform PSTA planning and operations better.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Transportation Technologies: 
        5G, the Cloud, and Transportation
    In addition to the ability for 5G and other next generation 
technologies to enable and improve on V2V and V2I communications, the 
low-latency of 5G allows for computing on the edge and in the cloud. 
This provides a list of advantages to municipalities, states, and 
private companies that include cost savings, improved security, 
seamless data sharing, reduced congestion, reduced energy usage, and 
reduction of fatal crashes. Cloud computing continues to be the most 
secure means for enterprises to secure and safeguard data. Centralized 
monitoring, anomaly detection, and dedicated cyber intelligence 
resources continue to provide a more robust security platform than most 
organizations can provide for themselves. In addition to security, 
access to the cloud provides the ability for more robust applications 
and more complex analytics. Data can be mined and shared across 
platforms and regions, allowing rapid analytics that merges 
infrastructure, vehicle, and other sources in real-time.
    The introduction of 5G cellular could speed live video and other 
sensor feeds from automated vehicles over cellular networks by orders 
of magnitude. As a result, remote automated vehicle operations centers 
could receive more accurate and detailed sensor feeds and real-time 
maps resulting in more immediate updates. Like V2X, 5G deployment will 
not necessarily determine when we might see large scale commercial 
automated passenger taxi/bus or parcel/freight delivery launches, but 
they could improve service and reliability levels. Such ``tele-
operation'' could also reduce costs or autonomous systems. Similarly, 
5G might evolve to support improved control and navigation of aerial 
drones.
    The cloud also allows for transportation organizations and 
companies to seamlessly share data and develop more robust traffic 
modeling, traffic planning, and emergency response modeling. This can 
optimize traffic patterns, both within cities and among regions, 
resulting in less congestion, reduced travel time, and most 
importantly, fewer fatal crashes. In addition to the public benefits, 
private industry can use this data to personalize mapping based on 
behavior and need. For example, a commuter can find the quickest and 
safest route to work while picking up a cup of coffee and collecting 
dry cleaning. Although this may seem trivial, these types of 
applications lead to quicker user adoption.
A Better Future Transformed by Intelligent Mobility: Conclusion
    I would be remiss if I did not strongly urge Congress and the 
Administration to identify long-term and sustainable funding for the 
Highway Trust Fund before the FAST Act expires in 2020 to ensure the 
law is reauthorized on time. Maintaining our infrastructure is vital. 
Funding for research examining the transition to a connected and 
automated vehicle environment and a ``connected infrastructure'' is 
also important. This kind of research requires funding.
    To keep pace with these advances in technology that are 
transforming transportation, ITS America supports a FAST Act 
reauthorization that prioritizes Federal policy and programs that make 
intelligent transportation deployment the rule rather than the 
exception and provides Federal funding, financing, and grants that 
encourage the rapid deployment of intelligent transportation 
technologies on a large scale.
    To increase investments in intelligent transportation technologies, 
we urge Congress to leverage existing FAST Act programs and create new 
emerging technology grants in an infrastructure package. Intelligent 
transportation technologies, including vehicle-to-infrastructure 
communications, are eligible uses of most FAST Act highway program 
funds. Specifically, we support increased funding for the Intelligent 
Transportation Systems Program, Advanced Transportation and Congestion 
Management Technologies Deployment Program, Technology and Innovation 
Deployment Program, and for the Surface Transportation Block Grant 
program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program--flexible 
programs that often fund intelligent transportation deployment 
activities.
    An infrastructure bill provides a unique opportunity to create 
formula and grant funding programs for emerging technologies that 
support congestion relief in metropolitan and urban cores as well as 
heavily traveled regions and freight corridors. Eligible projects would 
include capital and operational investments that improve system safety 
and performance such as priced-managed lanes; transportation demand 
management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking, 
freight delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to 
support the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, including 
V2V and V2I infrastructure communications technologies.
    Transportation is now the largest source of carbon emissions in the 
United States, and carbon emissions from cars and light trucks account 
for almost one-sixth of the Nation's total emissions. ITS America 
supports policies in the transportation infrastructure sector that will 
help reduce transportation emissions. Given that automakers are 
committing to alternative fuel vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, ITS America supports standalone legislation and language in 
the reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure package that 
would provide increased Federal funding, financing, and grants to 
rapidly build out alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure and new 
technologies such as inductive charging to speed the deployment of 
electric vehicles.
    Last year, I spoke at the Beijing Auto Forum. An official from the 
Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology made clear that 
China's goal was to dominate the information technology sectors and 
automotive manufacturing in the next five years. In the 20th century, 
people came here to marvel at our infrastructure and technology. If we 
want that to continue in the 21st century, we must be leaders in the 5G 
and artificial intelligence space. We must maintain our leadership in 
this space.
    In conclusion, the future of mobility is happening today with ITS 
America members. From Mobility on Demand to connected and automated 
vehicles and infrastructure to delivery drones to the Internet-of-
Things to When-I-Want-It/Where-I-Want-It-Logistics, our members are 
researching, developing, testing, and deploying technology that will 
create a better future.
    Changes are happening today that will fundamentally affect how 
people interact with transportation in the months and years ahead. ITS 
America is helping states, cities, the private sector, and researchers 
as we work toward our vision of a better future transformed by 
intelligent mobility--one that is safer, greener, and smarter.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am 
happy to answer any questions you may have.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bhatt.
    And I appreciate all members sticking with the time, and 
thank you for pointing out, all three of you so far, that we 
need to be the leader in 5G globally.
    Mr. Wessel, welcome.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WESSEL, COMMISSIONER, U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC 
                 AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION

    Mr. Wessel. Thank you, Chairman Wicker. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear here today.
    My name is Michael Wessel, and I am a Commissioner on the 
U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, but as the 
normal Washington disclaimer, I am speaking for myself, 
although my comments are informed by my service on the 
Commission and our work on this issue.
    China's innovation efforts are broad and deep. China wants 
to be a global innovation leader and is doing all that it can 
legally and illegally to achieve its goals. 5G will be the 
backbone of tomorrow's economy and infrastructure. Technologies 
as diverse as IoT, autonomous vehicles, cellular 
communications, and battlefield communications will be built on 
5G foundations.
    The National Intelligence Council released a report on the 
expected impact of 5G, and this is global figures, finding it 
will enable $12.3 trillion in global economic output and 
support 22 million jobs by 2035.
    China wants to dominate 5G. They are poised to invest at 
least $400 billion at this point into its development. China is 
actively promoting its own, rather than global, technological 
interests through involvement in international standards-
setting organizations, such as the International 
Telecommunications Union, where they chair more committees than 
any other country.
    China's government has said its principal domestic 
suppliers, Huawei and ZTE, will each be allocated one-third of 
the market, leaving foreign competitors to scramble for the 
remaining third. China is integrating its 5G plans with its 
Belt and Road Initiative strategy to create a digital Silk 
Road. We have no comparable plans here in the U.S.
    During questions I'd be happy to discuss Huawei and China's 
leading firms, but the leaders of our six major law enforcement 
and intelligence agencies have testified as to their concerns, 
which are now being embraced by many other countries. As the 
director of the National Counterintelligence and Security 
Center said, it's important to remember that Chinese company 
relationships with the Chinese government, aren't like private 
sector company relationships with governments in the West. 
China's 2018 national intelligence law requires Chinese 
companies to support, provide assistance, and cooperate in 
China's national intelligence work wherever they operate.
    I worry about China's approach and its implications for us 
for a number of reasons.
    First, I approach this, as I know everyone here does, as 
someone who has always taken pride in America's technological 
leadership and do not want to cede it to any other country, 
especially when that leadership results from state-directed 
policies and support.
    Second, I care about the production and jobs that will be 
created during the development, deployment, and servicing of 5G 
networks. The competition is not being waged on a level playing 
field.
    Third, and most fundamental, I worry about our Nation's 
security: economic, critical infrastructure, and traditional 
security interests. Chinese theft of our intellectual property, 
some facilitated and allegedly directed by the state, has cost 
us hundreds of billions of dollars while advancing China's 
economic development and strength.
    Financial networks, smart cities, power plants, dams, 
chemical production facilities, air traffic, and so many other 
sectors are supported by the Internet and will be increasingly 
dependent on 5G with the dispersion of IoT devices. If Chinese 
companies provide the equipment, control over the source code, 
the updates, and servicing, it creates extreme vulnerabilities.
    Equally important, our warfighters and our defense sector 
are increasingly dependent on the electronic spectrum for 
command and control, logistics, and other needs. China's 
military doctrine relies on ``asymmetric warfare,'' where they 
have identified the electronic and space domains as critical to 
their countering any U.S. capabilities in a potential conflict. 
Access to or control over significant parts of the 
telecommunications systems and the connectivity it can create, 
substantial and potentially unacceptable vulnerabilities.
    Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wessel follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael Wessel, Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic 
                     and Security Review Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee. 
I want to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to 
discuss the development and deployment of fifth generation--5G--
cellular mobile communications. This is a critical issue for U.S. 
economic and national security interests.
    My name is Michael Wessel and I am appearing before you today as a 
Commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 
(Commission), where I have served since its creation in 2001. But, as a 
disclaimer, I am speaking for myself, although my comments are informed 
by my service on the Commission and our work on this issue.
    The Commission was created by Congress in 2001 in conjunction with 
the debate about the grant of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) 
to China, paving the way for its accession to the World Trade 
Organization. The Commission was tasked with monitoring, investigating 
and submitting to Congress an annual report on the national security 
implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between 
the United States and the People's Republic of China, and to provide 
recommendations, where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and 
administrative action.
    The grant of PNTR ended the annual debate about whether to extend 
most favored nation status to China. But as it passed PNTR, Congress 
created the Commission because it did not want to forego the annual 
review of our relationship with China. Since the creation of the 
Commission, our mandate has been extended and altered as the U.S.-China 
relationship evolved.
    The Commission is a somewhat unique body: We report to and support 
Congress. Each of the four Congressional leaders appoint 3 members to 
the Commission for 2-year terms. In 8 of the last 11 years, we have 
issued unanimous reports. In the 3 years where it was not unanimous, 
there was only one dissenting vote. In many ways, the evolving 
challenges and opportunities posed by the relationship with China have 
united us in our analysis.
    Last year the Commission held a hearing on Next Generation 
Connectivity looking at both 5th generation (5G) connectivity and the 
Internet of Things (IoT) and included a chapter in our annual report on 
these issues. The prepared testimony and transcript of our hearing, as 
well as our Annual Report, are available online at the Commission's 
website www.uscc.gov.
    The Commission has been tracking and analyzing China's high-tech 
development--and its impacts on the United States--for many years and 
found remarkable continuity and coordination in Chinese government 
policy. Indeed, in the Commission's 2004 report, the key findings with 
regard to high technology were:

   The Chinese government has a coordinated, sustainable vision 
        for science and technology development. Many Chinese high-
        technology developments have been spurred by policies the 
        Chinese government has instituted to accelerate the growth of 
        industries in this sector, which the government believes can 
        help lift the whole economy.

   The Chinese government uses foreign investment, tax 
        policies, subsidies, technology standards, and industry 
        regulation to accelerate the Nation's technological growth. It 
        uses government procurement and proprietary technology 
        standards to advance its technology growth policies. These 
        policies make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a 
        level playing field in this area of U.S.-China trade.

   Global production networks dominate China's high-tech export 
        environment. Foreign investment into China has provided 
        capital, management, and technology to Chinese production in 
        various technology sectors. Taiwan firms are key investors and 
        intermediaries in China's high-tech production networks.

   U.S. trade and investment with China has played, and 
        continues to play, a key role in China's technological 
        advancement. U.S. advanced technology and technological 
        expertise is transferred to China, through both legal and 
        illegal means, via U.S. invested firms and research centers in 
        China, Chinese investments in the United States, bilateral 
        science and technology (S&T) cooperative programs, and the tens 
        of thousands of Chinese students and researchers at U.S. 
        universities and research institutes who return to China after 
        completing these programs.

   Large-scale piracy--at levels of over ninety percent--
        continues to characterize intellectual property rights (IPR) 
        protection in China and is a major concern for U.S. exporters 
        of high-tech goods and services. While the government has 
        instituted laws to strengthen IPR protection, the enforcement 
        of those laws has suffered from a lack of government 
        coordination and from local protectionism and corruption.

    In our report the following year, the Commission noted 3G--a 
precursor to the technology which is the subject of today's hearing--
was identified by China's government as a key interest:

   China has its own globally approved 3G standard, TD-SCDMA 
        for use in mobile telecommunications. It was developed by the 
        Chinese Academy of Technology and Siemens and is supported by 
        the Chinese companies Huawei and Lenovo. China is developing 4G 
        mobile technology.

    China's government pursues an aggressive development path to become 
a high technology leader but its approach emphasizes Chinese 
technologies, and the companies that develop them, as the core of any 
future standards. China's approach is the result of long-term planning, 
policy implementation and funding. In other words, government 
direction--supported by policy, politics, and generous subsidies--is 
driving China's tech development.
    We should not assume that China will adopt ``Western ideals'' or 
business practices and take China's government at their word when they 
promise ``reform'' or a version of that. We need to determine what our 
interests are and assess them against what China has actually done over 
the years and what it says it wants to do.
    I will leave it to my industry colleagues to discuss the technical 
issues relating to 5G and some of the implications. But, China has a 
well-defined and advanced approach to becoming a world-class player in 
this technology. China is poised to have a significant share of the 
global market in this and many other technologies.
    China is now a leading technology power. In 2017, the U.S. ran a 
trade deficit in Advanced Technology Products (ATP) of $135.4 
billion,\1\ and our deficit for 2018 is expected to beat that when the 
full year trade statistics are released. For the narrower category of 
information and communications products, for October 2018 year-to-date 
figures (the latest available), the U.S. exported $3.365 billion and 
imported $130.303 billion. China has produced the faster supercomputer 
on earth. It is advancing quantum computing with rapid gains in 
cryptography and communications. It is excelling in artificial 
intelligence (AI) and a variety of other sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Robert Scott and Zane Mokhiber, The China Toll Deepens, 
Economic Policy Institute, October 23, 2018, p. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our failure to sell more in China is a direct result of their 
protectionist and predatory practices, including a goal, as identified 
in numerous policy documents, to develop indigenous capabilities to the 
exclusion of foreign players. As the Commission's 2018 Report indicated 
(summarized):

   Chinese IP requirements: Since 2007, China's Multi-Level 
        Protection Scheme, which covers around 140,000 information 
        systems,\2\ requires Chinese IP in core IT technology and 
        components and annual testing, certification, and 
        authentication for the top three of the five tiers of IT 
        users,\3\ effectively excluding foreign competitors unless 
        there is no domestic equivalent.\4\ Article 34 of the draft 
        guidelines would expand this scheme to cloud computing 
        platforms, big data systems, industrial control systems and 
        mobile networks, AI, and IoT devices.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The ranking is based on technology innovation, brand influence, 
ecosystem openness, and input from industry experts and end users. IoT 
One, ``2018 Top 500 Industrial IoT Companies.'' https://www.iotone.com/
iotone500. For more information on China's efforts to develop its 
semiconductor industry, see U.S.-China Economic and Security Review 
Commission, Chapter 1, Section 3, ``China's 13th Five-Year Plan,'' in 
2016 Annual Report to Congress, November 2016, 155-161.
    \3\ The Multi-Level Protection Scheme separates information systems 
into five levels based on impact. Damage to a Level 1 (the lowest) 
information system could result in harm to legal rights of citizens, 
legal persons, or other organizations without harming national 
security, social order, or public interest. Damage to a Level 5 (the 
highest) information system results in very serious harm to national 
security. Level 3 and above encompasses finance, banking, tax, customs, 
commerce, communications, health, education, and social services. Nick 
Marro, ``The 5 Levels of Information Security in China,'' China 
Business Review, December 6, 2016; Adam Segal, ``China, Encryption 
Policy, and International Influence,'' Hoover Institution, No. 1610, 
November 28, 2016.
    \4\ China's Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Public 
Security Draft for Comment for Multi-Level Protection Scheme on 
Internet Security, June 27, 2018. Translation. http://www.mps.gov.cn/
n2254536/n4904355/c6159136/content.html; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over 
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4, 
2018, 9-10.
    \5\ China's Ministry of Public Security, ``Ministry of Public 
Security Draft for Comment for Multi-Level Protection Scheme on 
Internet Security, June 27, 2018. Translation. http://www.mps.gov.cn/
n2254536/n4904355/c6159136/contnt.html; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over 
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4, 
2018, 11.

   High restrictions on foreign ownership and investment: Under 
        China's 2016 Telecommunications Regulations, foreign firms can 
        own up to 50 percent of Chinese telecommunications and cloud 
        computing providers.\6\ China's 2016 Telecom Services Catalogue 
        requires foreign telecommunications and cloud computing firms 
        wishing to sell in the Chinese market to form joint ventures 
        with Chinese firms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ BSA, ``RE: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to 
Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation (Docket No. 
USTR-2017-0016),'' September 28, 2017; Scott Thiel, 
``Telecommunications Laws of the World: China,'' DLA Piper, May 25, 
2017.
    \7\ BSA, ``Special 301 Submission,'' February 8, 2018; Gidon 
Gautel, ``Establishing a Data Center in China,'' China Briefing, July 
26, 2017; Norton Rose Fulbright, ``China's New Telecom Catalogue Comes 
into Force on March 1, 2016,'' February 2016; Renee Barry and Matthew 
Reisman, ``Policy Challenges of Cross-Border Cloud Computing (May 
2012),'' Journal of International Commerce and Economics 4:2 (November 
2012).

   China-specific technical standards: The Mercator Institute 
        for China Studies (MERICS) found ``China sometimes formulates 
        national standards in strategic industries that deliberately 
        differ from international standards in order to impede market 
        access for foreign technology and to favor Chinese technology 
        on the domestic market.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Jost Wubbeke et al., ``Made in China 2025: The Making of a 
High-Tech Superpower and Consequences for Industrial Countries,'' 
Mercator Institute for China Studies, December 2016, 56.

   Restrictions on data storage and transfer: Under China's 
        Cybersecurity Law, U.S. firms face significant restrictions on 
        data storage and cross-border transfers--essential services for 
        IoT devices. U.S. firms such as IBM, Apple, and Microsoft are 
        required to form joint ventures with Chinese partners in order 
        to operate.\9\ In addition, foreign firms must rely on domestic 
        partners and government-approved encryption technology, 
        potentially placing foreign IP and data at risk.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Samm Sacks and Manyi Kathy Li, ``How Chinese Cybersecurity 
Standards Impact Doing Business in China,'' Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, August 2018; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over 
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4, 
2018; Nick Marro, ``Decoding China's Approach to Data Security,'' 
Diplomat, December 10, 2016; Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, ``Cross-
Border Data Flows Enable Growth in All Industries,'' Information 
Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 2015.
    \10\ Samm Sacks and Manyi Kathy Li, ``How Chinese Cybersecurity 
Standards Impact Doing Business in China,'' Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, August 2018; Lance Noble, ``Marshalls over 
Markets: China Tightens Cybersecurity,'' Gavekal Dragonomics, June 4, 
2018, 9.

    Huawei and ZTE, deemed ``national champions'' by the Chinese 
government, are global players in the communications field--from 
handsets to routers to switching to full network deployment and 
operations. And, as is well known, much of the production of telecom 
and IT products for leading firms is produced in China, or has 
components produced there.
    Of course, not everything is a zero-sum game. Should we be 
concerned about where the products and services supporting and utilized 
in our 5G networks are produced and which companies produce them? 
Should we have similar concerns about what other countries around the 
globe do in this regard?
    Does that matter to us? I believe it does, in many ways.
    The lead front-page article in the New York Times Sunday edition 
two weeks ago was entitled ``U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in New Arms 
Race: Seeking to Restrict Beijing's Control Over `Central Nervous 
System for Internet' ''.\11\ The stakes are, indeed, enormous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The New York Times, U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in New Arms 
Race: Seeking to Restrict Beijing's Control Over `Central Nervous 
System for Internet', January 27, 2019, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5G will be the backbone of tomorrow's economy and infrastructure, 
including critical infrastructure; our telecommunications, e-commerce, 
and manufacturing sectors, along with many military and intelligence 
assets, will all depend on it. Technologies as diverse as the IoT, 
autonomous vehicles, cellular communications, and battlefield 
communications, will be built on 5G foundations.
    The National Intelligence Council (NIC) released a report on the 
expected impact of 5G, finding it ``will change the technological, 
social, and economic processes for a wide variety of industries by 
2020.'' \12\ By 2035, the NIC report predicted, $12.3 trillion in 
global economic output will be enabled by 5G tech, and its value chain 
will create $3.5 trillion in output and support 22 million jobs by 
2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Next Generation Wireless Technologies to Change Industries, 
National Intelligence Council Report, September 12, 2017. NICR 2017-55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China's government clearly sees the future economic and security 
potential of 5G and is poised to invest at least $400 billion into its 
development. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The communications 
and IT sectors are identified for preference and promotion as part of 
the Made in China 2025 industrial policy program, which means every 
province, local, and municipal government is marshalling its resources 
in response to the central government's directives.
    China is also actively promoting its technological interests 
through its involvement in international standards-setting 
organizations, which will write the rules for interoperability and 
operations. It's part of their official government and Chinese 
Communist Party plans. China's government has already announced that 
its principal domestic suppliers--Huawei and ZTE--with each being 
allocated one-third of the market, leaving foreign competitors to 
scramble for the remaining third.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Eric Auchard and Sijia Jiang, China's Huawei Set to Lead 
Global Charge to 5G Networks, Reuters, February 23, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China has aggressively participated in standards-setting bodies 
such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) where they 
play a significant role, as well as chair several committees.\14\ For 
several years, they have sent large delegations to these meetings 
hoping to drive standards that will advantage their own indigenous 
firms. This is contrary to the approach taken by many countries and 
industry delegations at the ITU and other international standard bodies 
who are seeking, first, to develop the standard that will create the 
most robust technologies and then seek to identify the best suppliers 
to meet those standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2018 
Report to Congress, 115th Congress, Second Session, November 2018, p. 
454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    China is integrating its 5G plans with its Belt and Road Initiative 
(BRI) strategy. The 2015 Belt and Road Initiative White Paper,\15\ 
which was jointly issued by China's National Development and Reform 
Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Commerce, 
calls for cross-border optical cables and communications trunk line 
networks, planning transcontinental submarine optical cable projects, 
and improving spatial and satellite information passageways to expand 
information exchanges and cooperation. The Chinese government is also 
actively seeking to loop its BRI partners into its ``super-fast 
broadband network infrastructure'' built in line with the Internet Plus 
plan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt 
and 21st-Century Maritime, Silk Road, March, 28, 2015, http://
en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669
367.html.
    \16\ China needs to develop e-commerce, industrial networks, 
Internet banking: Ren, July 27, 2015, China Daily, http://
english.gov.cn/news/top_news/2015/07/17/content_2814751488577
72.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is no comparable approach from our Federal government. While 
a document leaked from the National Security Council identified the 
idea for the development and deployment of a Federal 5G Internet, that 
approach appears to have been quickly abandoned based on industry 
opposition. Our country's current approach is market-led and market 
driven.
    The Administration and Congress have adopted a number of security-
related limitations to advance our interests. Just this past summer, 
Congress, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2019 adopted strict limitations on the procurement or renewal of 
contracts that include Huawei and ZTE equipment in government 
networks.\17\ In the past, a variety of other measures have been put in 
place to limit the exposure of critical information and networks to 
Chinese cyberespionage. For example, the FY 2013 Appropriations bill 
prohibited Commerce, Justice, NASA and the National Science Foundation 
from acquiring information technology systems that were produced, 
manufactured or assembled by entities owned, directed or subsidized by 
the Chinese government.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Public Law 115-232, Sec. 889--Prohibition on Certain 
Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment.
    \18\ 2013 Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) 
(Sec. 516).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Huawei, as one of China's leading firms in this area, has received 
substantial attention. Today's hearing, of course, is about 5G, but it 
would be impossible to discuss that technology, and concerns vis-a-vis 
China, without commenting on Huawei. But Huawei must not be the only 
focus of the discussion of China's impact on 5G here in the U.S. and 
around the globe as there are many other vulnerabilities that must be 
addressed. Documented problems, such as China Telecom's redirection of 
Internet traffic through China, have been identified.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ China's Maxim--Leave No Access Point Unexploited: The Hidden 
Story of China Telecom's BGP Hijacking, by Chris Demchak and Yval 
Shavitt, Military Cyber Affairs, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Huawei Technologies is the most well-known Chinese 
telecommunications equipment company with operations and activities in 
the U.S. and has been cited as an advanced persistent threat to U.S. 
interests. In 2012, the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence identified strong concerns about Huawei and ZTE. The 
report concluded that ``the risks associated with Huawei and ZTE's 
provision of equipment to U.S. critical infrastructure could undermine 
core U.S. national-security interests.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues 
Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE, HPSCI, 
October 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In early 2015, the FBI circulated a Counterintelligence Strategic 
Partnership Intelligence Note focused on national security risks 
associated with Huawei. That memo has been made public and included the 
following risk overview:

        With the expanded use of Huawei Technologies Inc. equipment and 
        services in U.S. telecommunications service provider networks, 
        the Chinese Government's potential access to U.S. business 
        communications is dramatically increasing. Chinese Government-
        supported telecommunications equipment on U.S. networks may be 
        exploited through Chinese cyber activity, with China's 
        intelligence services operating as an advanced persistent 
        threat to U.S. networks. Huawei has been identified publicly 
        for selling or attempting to sell U.S. intellectual property to 
        export restricted countries (Iran/Cuba), making it a clear 
        threat through its targeting of U.S. economic and proprietary 
        information. China makes no secret that its cyber warfare 
        strategy is predicated on controlling global communications 
        network infrastructure.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Counterintelligence Strategic Partnership Intelligence Note 
(SPIN), Huawei, Federal Bureau of Investigation, February, 2015. 
(SPIN--15-002)

    According to press accounts U.S. Tier 1 telecom providers were 
counseled by officials of the U.S. government that utilization of 
Huawei equipment could create significant cybersecurity concerns and 
might jeopardize contracts with the U.S. government. Subsequently, each 
company reportedly decided not to procure equipment from the company 
for utilization on their networks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Lublin, Joann and Raice, Shayndi, Security Fears Kill Chinese 
Bid in U.S., The Wall Street Journal, November 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2018, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NGA and the Director 
of National Intelligence publicly testified as to their concerns about 
utilizing products or services from Huawei. FBI Director Wray stated,

        We're deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company 
        or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't 
        share our values to gain positions of power inside our 
        telecommunications networks . . . it provides the capacity to 
        exert pressure or control over our telecommunications 
        infrastructure. It provides the capacity to maliciously modify 
        or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct 
        undetected espionage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 
February 13, 2018.

    China's Huawei has been aggressive in trying to counter claims that 
it is a security risk. It claims that it is a private, employee-owned 
company and that we shouldn't worry. But, in recent months, a number of 
other countries--those who are part of the Five-Eyes relationship and 
others--have joined in questioning the security of Chinese-company 
produced equipment and whether it should be utilized in existing or 
future networks.
    As William R. Evanina, the director of the National 
Counterintelligence and Security Center was quoted in the New York 
Times,

        It's important to remember that Chinese company relationships 
        with the Chinese government aren't like private sector company 
        relationships with governments in the West. . .China's 2018 
        National Intelligence Law requires Chinese companies to 
        support, provide assistance and cooperate in China's national 
        intelligence work, wherever they operate.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ The New York Times, U.S. Scrambles to Outrun China in a New 
Arms Race, Sunday, January 27, 2019.

    No Chinese commercial entity can refuse to cooperate with China's 
security services. In 2017, China's government implemented a draconian 
Cybersecurity Law--despite the outcry from foreign governments and 
industry that it would raise serious concerns about the impact on the 
business activities of Chinese companies. The accompanying set of 
laws--National Intelligence Law of 2017, Counter-Terrorism Law of 2016, 
National Security Law of 2015 all raise concerns about Chinese entities 
freedom to act without government interference, coercion and direction.
    Other countries have come to similar conclusions, based on their 
own assessments. For example, last July the United Kingdom's Huawei 
Oversight Board raised its concerns in a report to that country's 
national security advisor--despite 4 years of work with Huawei:

        ``Due to areas of concern exposed through the proper 
        functioning of the mitigation strategy and associated oversight 
        mechanisms, the Oversight Board can provide only limited 
        assurance that all risks to UK national security from Huawei's 
        involvement in the UK's critical networks have been 
        sufficiently mitigated. We are advising the National Security 
        Adviser on this basis.'' \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC) Oversight 
Board Annual Report 2018, A report o the National Security Advisor of 
the United Kingdom, July 2018.

    I worry about China's approach, and its implications for us, for 
several reasons.
    First, I approach this as someone who has always taken pride in 
America's technological leadership and do not want to cede it to any 
other country, especially when that leadership results from state-
directed policies and support.
    Second, I care about the production and jobs that will be created 
during the development, deployment and servicing of 5G networks. As the 
National Intelligence Council report indicated, $12.3 trillion in 
economic value will be created along with 22 million jobs. I want the 
bulk of that value and the jobs to advantage our economy and our people 
or at least know that the competition is being waged on a level-playing 
field.
    Third, and most fundamental, I worry about our Nation's security--
economic, critical infrastructure and ``traditional'' security 
interests. On the economic side, we have read too many stories about 
Chinese cyberespionage, some facilitated and allegedly directed by the 
state, to steal our intellectual property. The fruits of that 
cyberespionage is estimated to have cost us hundreds of billions of 
dollars while advancing China's economic development and strength.
    Financial networks, smart cities, power plants, dams, chemical 
production facilities, air traffic and so many other sectors are 
supported by the Internet and will be increasingly dependent on 5G with 
the dispersion of IoT devices. If Chinese companies provide the 
equipment, with control over the source code, the updates, and 
servicing, it creates extreme vulnerabilities.
    Equally important, our warfighters and our defense sector are 
increasingly dependent on the electronic spectrum for command and 
control, logistics and other needs. China's military doctrine relies on 
``asymmetric warfare'' where they have identified the electronic and 
space domains as critical to their countering any U.S. capabilities in 
a potential conflict. Access to or control over significant parts of 
our telecommunications systems and the connectivity that will be an 
increasingly important component for our defense systems can create 
substantial and, potentially, unacceptable vulnerabilities.
    In its 2018 Annual Report, the Commission identified the following 
key findings, regarding this critical area:

   The Chinese government has strengthened its strategic 
        support for the IoT (physical devices embedded with sensors 
        that can collect data and connect to each other and the broader 
        internet) and fifth-generation wireless technology (5G) 
        networks. The government has laid out comprehensive industrial 
        plans to create globally competitive firms and reduce China's 
        dependence on foreign technology through: significant state 
        funding for domestic firms and 5G deployment, limited market 
        access for foreign competitors, China-specific technical 
        standards, increased participation in global standards bodies, 
        localization targets, and alleged cyber espionage and 
        intellectual property theft. This state-directed approach 
        limits market opportunities for foreign firms in China and 
        raises concerns about the ability of U.S. and other foreign 
        firms to compete fairly both in China's domestic market and 
        abroad.

   5G networks are expected to quicken data speeds by 100 
        times, support up to 100 times more IoT devices, and provide 
        near-instant universal coverage and availability. U.S. and 
        Chinese companies are engaged in a fierce competition to secure 
        first mover advantage and benefit from the trillions in 
        economic benefits 5G and subsequent technologies are expected 
        to create.

   IoT devices collect enormous amounts of user information; 
        when aggregated and combined with greater computing power and 
        massive amounts of publicly available information, these data 
        can reveal information the user did not intend to share. U.S. 
        data could be exposed through unsecure IoT devices, or when 
        Chinese IoT products and services transfer U.S. customer data 
        back to China, where the government retains expansive powers to 
        access personal and corporate data.

   The Chinese government is leveraging its comparative 
        advantage in manufacturing and state-led industrial policies to 
        secure an edge in the IoT's wide-ranging commercial and 
        military applications. U.S. firms and the U.S. government rely 
        on global supply chains that in many cases are dominated by 
        China. While not all products designed, manufactured, or 
        assembled in China are inherently risky, the U.S. government 
        lacks essential tools to conduct rigorous supply chain risk 
        assessments. Federal procurement laws and regulations are often 
        contradictory and are inconsistently applied.

   International 5G standards will be set by 2019, facilitating 
        large-scale commercial deployment expected by 2020. The Chinese 
        government is encouraging its companies to play a greater role 
        in international 5G standards organizations to ensure they set 
        global standards; such leadership may result in higher revenues 
        and exports from internationally accepted intellectual property 
        and technology and more global influence over future wireless 
        technology and standards development.

   China's central role in manufacturing global information 
        technology, IoT devices, and network equipment may allow the 
        Chinese government--which exerts strong influence over its 
        firms--opportunities to force Chinese suppliers or 
        manufacturers to modify products to perform below expectations 
        or fail, facilitate state or corporate espionage, or otherwise 
        compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of 
        IoT devices or 5G network equipment.

   The lax security protections and universal connectivity of 
        IoT devices create numerous points of vulnerability that 
        hackers or malicious state actors can exploit to hold U.S. 
        critical infrastructure, businesses, and individuals at risk. 
        These types of risks will grow as IoT devices become more 
        complex, more numerous, and embedded within existing physical 
        structures. The size, speed, and impact of malicious cyber 
        attacks against and using IoT devices will intensify with the 
        deployment of 5G.

    The Commission made two recommendations for Congress to consider:

     Congress require the Office of Management and Budget's 
            Federal Chief Information Security Officer Council to 
            prepare an annual report to Congress to ensure supply chain 
            vulnerabilities from China are adequately addressed. This 
            report should collect and assess:

   Each agency's plans for supply chain risk management and 
        assessments;

     Existing departmental procurement and security 
            policies and guidance on cybersecurity, operations 
            security, physical security, information security, and data 
            security that may affect information and communications 
            technology, 5G networks, and IoT devices; and

     Areas where new policies and guidance may be needed--
            including for specific information and communications 
            technology, 5G networks, and IoT devices, applications, or 
            procedures--and where existing security policies and 
            guidance can be updated to address supply chain, cyber, 
            operations, physical, information, and data security 
            vulnerabilities.

   Congress direct the National Telecommunications and 
        Information Administration and Federal Communications 
        Commission to identify (1) steps to ensure the rapid and secure 
        deployment of a 5G network, with a particular focus on the 
        threat posed by equipment and services designed or manufactured 
        in China; and (2) whether any new statutory authorities are 
        required to ensure the security of domestic 5G networks.

    The impending rollout of 5G here in the U.S. and across the globe 
requires that we address these vulnerabilities quickly and 
aggressively. In my view it is better to err on the side of safety, as 
5G will be the backbone of communications in the future. We cannot 
afford to ignore the actions and activities that China has engaged in 
with regard to predatory and protectionist policies, what their public 
pronouncements have identified are their plans and what actions they 
have engaged in in the cyber realm.
    We also have to be realistic about the global nature of production 
and what the limits are on our policies and actions. But, the price of 
inaction is unacceptable. We must protect our interests where we can 
and manage and mitigate the risks where we must.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wessel.
    Ms. Zentz, welcome.

   STATEMENT OF KIM ZENTZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, URBANOVA

    Ms. Zentz. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Wicker 
and Ranking Member Cantwell. I am deeply grateful for this 
invitation to address the Committee and members of the 
Committee. And I'm even more enthusiastic to add the 
perspective of the mid-size city or the mid-market city to this 
important conversation.
    What is Urbanova? We say that we are--some call us a 
radical collaboration. I'll get into who our partners are in a 
minute. But we harness data to gain insights, empower people, 
and solve urban challenges in new ways. So what we are doing is 
leveraging the vibrant urban advantages of Spokane, Washington, 
to find new ways to make communities better for people.
    Spokane's University District is where we have our proving 
ground. It's about 770 acres, which is about the same size as 
Central Park in New York City. It is our living laboratory for 
scalable and replicable solutions that can be applied in mid-
size cities anywhere, but our outcomes are focused on safer 
neighborhoods, healthier citizens, smarter infrastructure, a 
more sustainable environment, and ultimately a stronger economy 
because we believe and we have a stake in the ability of mid-
size cities to lead on issues like this.
    So I've mentioned our partners. It's really important to 
have partners--it has been mentioned here today that it's a 
team sport, and we couldn't agree more. You really need to take 
the time to have everyone at the table, and Urbanova is 
especially fortunate to have a vast multidisciplinary, 
multisector set of partners. Those partners are led by Avista 
Corporation, by Itron, the City of Spokane, Washington State 
University, McKinstry, The University District, which is our 
public development authority for that district, Gallup, and 
Verizon Smart Communities.
    The human capital and resource situation in mid-size cities 
is different than it is for the larger metro areas. It is the 
place of infinite demands and highly, highly restricted 
resources. So I would assert to you that mid-size cities, or 
maybe even all cities, but the mid-size cities are the ones I'm 
familiar with, have always been smart. This isn't a new concept 
that they're smart. They're able to capitalize on years of 
decisionmaking in low resources and in high citizen engagement 
and hands-on, ground-level intelligence that make their cities 
run day in and day out.
    With the introduction of new tools, like 5G enables, and 
like other smart city applications that don't require 5G, mid-
size cities are able to work in a way that the larger metros 
can't. They can be more nimble. They can be more ambitious. And 
because of that, they have more power to try things before it's 
time to scale them up across the city, and that's what our 
providing ground brings to the table.
    There are needs, though, and I would encourage the Congress 
to continue to focus on ways to bring innovative financing, a 
coordinated and cooperative policy environment, support for 
workforce training and development programs, and development of 
coherent standards and interoperability frameworks across 
jurisdictions because it's not just the cities that need to be 
working in a team fashion, it's really all of the jurisdictions 
that all intersect to make cities more livable.
    In the accelerated run to 5G and other connected city 
deployments, it must not be overlooked that the city's primary 
asset is its locally owned and controlled rights of way. 
Collaborative right-of-way management that include city's 
oversight to ensure public safety, equitable and inclusive 
space allocation, and spectrum management is essential. The 
only way to ensure that we have a secure network when we're all 
done is to make sure that we begin at the beginning of the 
supply chain. It has to begin there and it has to translate all 
the way down to where people live in the cities, and that smart 
cities and these technologies--the technology part is the easy 
part, the harder part is the behavior part, and what must be 
kept in mind is that cities are first and foremost about people 
and that the applications must be simple and easy to explain.
    So I encourage you to consider, to continue to consider, 
the advantages that mid-size cities can bring as we move in 
this rapid pace of acceleration that will change the face of 
America forever.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Zentz follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Kim Zentz, Chief Executive Officer, Urbanova
    Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
honorable members of the committee. I am Kim Zentz, Chief Executive 
Officer of Urbanova, a nonprofit based in Spokane, Washington dedicated 
to harnessing data to gain insights, empower people and solve urban 
challenges in new ways.
    I am both grateful for the invitation to address your committee and 
enthusiastic to lend the perspective of mid-market metro areas to the 
discussion of the country's next era of technology innovation in smart 
and connected communities.
Key Points
   5G and other smart and connected community enablers offer 
        the promise to improve social, economic and environmental 
        equity and resilience in communities of all sizes.

   Collaboration across all sectors and jurisdictions is 
        required for success.

   Mid-sized cities are the perfect laboratory to demonstrate 
        improved outcomes and health for residents, businesses and 
        visitors.

   Impeccable end to end security and privacy practices are our 
        collective responsibility to each other.
About Us
    Urbanova leverages the vibrant urban advantages of Spokane, 
Washington to find new ways to make communities better for people. 
Spokane's 770-acre downtown University District (about the size of 
Central Park in New York) is the living laboratory for scalable, 
replicable solutions that aim for outcomes measured by enabling 
healthier citizens, safer neighborhoods, smarter infrastructure, a more 
sustainable environment and a stronger economy.
    How do we do this? Urbanova was formed based on established long-
term relationships and new partnerships with category-leading 
innovators who share a belief and a stake in the promise of mid-sized 
cities. Communities and their decision makers need experience and 
evidence upon which to make technology-enabled decisions for the future 
of their residents, businesses and visitors. Urbanova's community-scale 
proving ground and global reach partners provide a transparent way for 
decision makers to examine the strengths and potential pitfalls of 
smart city solutions before scaling them citywide.
    Successful smart city projects are not just about technology and 
equipment, in fact, technology can be the ``easy part''. Equal measures 
of planning for integration with existing systems (interoperability) 
and managing change for the people who operate and depend on them are 
also required. That is why the Urbanova partnership includes the City, 
the regional utility, the research university, technology, services, 
global analytics, telecommunications and behavioral science leaders to 
ensure that we are examining opportunities holistically.
    While I certainly do not speak for any one of Urbanova's partners, 
we are especially fortunate to count Avista Corporation,\1\ Itron,\2\ 
the City of Spokane,\3\ Washington State University,\4\ McKinstry,\5\ 
The University District,\6\ Gallup \7\ and Verizon Smart Communities 
\8\ among our invested partners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Avista Corporation is an energy company involved in the 
production, transmission and distribution of energy as well as other 
energy-related businesses. Avista Utilities is the operating division 
that provides electric service to 383,000 customers and natural gas to 
348,000 customers. Its service territory covers 30,000 square miles in 
eastern Washington, northern Idaho and parts of southern and eastern 
Oregon, with a population of 1.6 million.
    \2\ Itron enables utilities and cities to safely, securely and 
reliably deliver critical infrastructure services to communities in 
more than 100 countries. Its portfolio of smart networks, software, 
services, meters and sensors helps customers better manage electricity, 
gas and water resources for the people they serve. Itron is dedicated 
to creating a more resourceful world.
    \3\ The City of Spokane, home to more than 220,000 people, is 
located in the heart of the Inland Northwest. Its 2,000 employees 
strive to deliver efficient and effective services that facilitate 
economic opportunity and enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
    \4\ Washington State University was founded in 1890 as Washington's 
original land-grant university. WSU's 11 colleges drive a preeminent 
research portfolio and provide transformational student education 
experiences on campuses throughout the state as well as graduate and 
professional programs that attract top minds from more than 90 
countries.
    \5\ McKinstry is a national leader in designing, constructing, 
operating and maintaining high-performing buildings. From new 
construction and ongoing operations to adaptive reuse and energy 
retrofits, the company provides a single point of accountability across 
the entire building lifecycle. McKinstry focuses on people and outcomes 
to ensure the built environment serves owners, operators and occupants 
alike.
    \6\ The University District is a development association that also 
oversees the public development authority for Spokane's University 
District. The University District uses its unique connectivity to 
create shared community wellness and vibrancy by developing the 
infrastructure and programming that enable a globally-recognized hub of 
education, innovation, research, and health care.
    \7\ Gallup delivers analytics and advice to help leaders and 
organizations solve their most pressing problems. Combining more than 
80 years of experience with its global reach, Gallup knows more about 
the attitudes and behaviors of employees, customers, students and 
citizens than any other organization in the world.
    \8\ Verizon Smart Communities' purpose is to improve the quality of 
life for people living in cities around the world and increase the ways 
and efficiency in which cities operate. It's not just about smart 
technology, connectivity or applications; it starts with a focus on the 
people and their basic wants and needs. We partner with each city to 
design infrastructure, systems and processes that elevate the way they 
provide services in new and cost-effective ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of the Mid-sized City
    It's been said that the 21st century is the century of the city as 
the shift to urban areas continues to gain steam. Already, half of the 
world's population resides in cities of 500,000 or fewer residents. No 
matter how you count it, there are more than 3,000 communities in the 
United States with population greater than 10,000 and less than a 
million.
    Cities of this type tend to be big enough for ambitious ideas to 
gain traction and small enough to form the necessary coalitions to 
embrace change and act fast. With the ever increasing access to 
broadband services, already technology and talent are flocking to areas 
of the country with fewer headaches and challenges to daily life than 
those hindering quality of life in the very large metros. Furthermore 
mid-sized cities are actively willing to share lessons learned and 
insights with each other. Urbanova and Spokane hope to be a destination 
for cities on learning tours as we gain additional insights from on-
the-ground project experiences.
    However, the human and capital resource situation in mid-sized 
cities is substantially more challenging. In order to realize the vast 
benefits of smart infrastructure, thoughtful city leaders are in need 
of innovative financing mechanisms, a coordinated and cooperative 
policy environment, support for workforce training and development 
programs and development of coherent standards and interoperability 
frameworks across jurisdictions.
    In the accelerated run to 5G and other connected city deployments, 
it must not be overlooked that the city's primary asset is its locally 
controlled rights of way (ROW). Collaborative right of way management 
that includes cities' oversight to ensure public safety, equitable and 
inclusive space allocation and local spectrum management is vitally 
important to keep in perspective.
Smart City Enablers
    With the adoption of breakthrough enablers like 5G infrastructure 
and devices, cities like Spokane have the opportunity to capitalize on 
years of intelligent operations, creative problem solving, integrated 
planning/asset management and responsive citizen engagement to 
systematically adopt durable solutions to the pain points identified by 
the citizens--the ones with the lived experience in neighborhoods. City 
leaders are and will always be focused on ensuring that public benefits 
remain at the forefront of government operations. Approaching 
challenges holistically--employing tools like crowd sourcing prior to 
designing solutions and using decision criteria that ensure the 
outcomes are measured in terms of improving economic, social and 
environmental equity and resilience will be the expectation. There is a 
tangible opportunity to move public engagement from an episodic to a 
continuous experience.
    As consumers and citizens we are living in a time of unprecedented 
acceleration of change--socially, economically and environmentally. 
Additionally we are experiencing the increasing availability of choices 
to meet every subset of our needs. As solutions informed by massive 
amounts of data become the norm, we have adjusted our expectations that 
everything become more personalized, more participatory, more 
predictive, and more preventive. Communities will increasingly have 
more comprehensive inputs to fully understand complex, personalized and 
localized systems. At Urbanova we think of this opportunity akin to 
``mapping the city genome'' so that communities are no longer faced 
with one-size fits most prospects when charting the course of the 
future for residents, businesses and visitors.
    5G promises to accelerate the smart city applications that rely on 
high speed, high bandwidth and low latency. This includes a spectrum 
from widespread self-driving mobility to AI-powered image recognition 
shifting city services and industries into the realm of real-time, 
authentically data-driven operations. The efficiency and effective use 
of edge computing and edge intelligence opens the door to use cases 
that dramatically improve operational metrics.
    In addition, even smart city applications that do not depend upon 
the high speeds delivered with 5G will benefit from the experience 
gained as cities, businesses and people adjust to doing things with a 
greater degree of inputs from a greater number of devices. The 
behavioral changes will take longer than the adoption rate and 
infrastructure modifications needed to realize the full benefits of 5G.
Economic Benefits
    The promise of smarter and more connected communities is 
fundamentally a leveling of the playing field. In their 2018 Book: The 
New Localism--How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism, Bruce Katz 
and Jeremy Nowak assert: ``This new locus of power--this new localism--
is emerging by necessity to solve the grand challenges characteristic 
of modern societies: economic competitiveness, social inclusion and 
opportunity; a renewed public life; the challenge of diversity; and the 
imperative of environmental sustainability.'' And ``Power now belongs 
to the problem solvers.'' Those problem solvers, equipped with high-
speed, secure broadband services will live where the quality of life 
suits their needs.
    In Urbanova's Spokane University District proving ground, we're 
fortunate to have a confluence of six higher education institutions 
(including two medical schools) co-located in an area adjacent to our 
thriving downtown and a medical district which serves as the medical 
hub for the multi-state region of the Intermountain Northwest. This 770 
acre area is poised for intelligent, connected commercial and 
residential development. For example, Washington State University's 
Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine was founded in 2015 and is a 
community-based medical school dedicated to rural and underserved 
populations. Students are immersed in team-based delivery techniques 
which prepare clinicians to improve health and wellness for individuals 
and populations.
    Mid-sized cities have the greatest potential to lead an economic 
future that bridges the urban-rural divide. Communities which are 
presently less densely populated will benefit from the lessons learned 
and intelligence gathered by nearby cities experiencing growth. In 
fact, a 2017 report published by the National League of Cities noted 
that more than half of the people who live in rural areas also live in 
counties that are part of a metropolitan area.
Security and Privacy
    Virtually every service provided by a city, utility or other 
service provider is done so only with and at the consent of the people 
served. In the case of technology-enabled services the potential is and 
always will be dependent upon the faith people have in the service to 
improve some aspect of collective or individual well-being. Apple CEO 
Tim Cook, speaking in Brussels late last year said: ``. . . At its core 
technology promises to learn from people individually to benefit us all 
. . . For artificial intelligence to be truly smart it must respect 
human values--including privacy. If we get this wrong, the dangers are 
profound. We can achieve both great artificial intelligence and great 
privacy standards. It is not only a possibility--it is a 
responsibility.''
    Essential security and privacy practices are not significantly 
different from one communication transport infrastructure to another--
be it Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, DSL, etc.
    The security of telecommunications networks begins at the origin of 
the supply chain for each piece of equipment. The key area of support 
for secure and successful realization of the potential of 5G 
deployments is ensuring that suppliers are motivated to make verifiably 
secure products. Procurement language must support evaluation before 
purchase and sufficient time must be built into schedules for trust-
but-verify functionality prior to commissioning.
Conclusion
    Communities empowered by the insights provided by quantitative and 
qualitative data can capitalize on their unique strengths to 
continuously improve the health and well-being of residents while 
businesses grow and thrive and visitors return. Thoughtfully deployed 
5G networks help make this tangible future a reality for all.

    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. And let me thank 
all five members of our panel. Very, very informative and 
thought-provoking testimony.
    We'll begin with a 5-minute round.
    Mr. Gillen, last year Meredith Baker testified before this 
Committee and said we were in danger of falling behind other 
countries in the race for 5G saying that the United States at 
that time was behind both China and South Korea, and that we 
were ranked sixth in availability of critical mid-band 
spectrum. We now have information that we still rank sixth in 
availability of mid-band spectrum. Are we behind other 
countries in the overall race to 5G? Where are we? And is there 
still time? And what do you recommend to this Committee in 
terms of statutory policy?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
question, and it's the exact right focus. Where are we globally 
on this important technology? Others see what 4G leadership has 
meant to the United States and want to take that for the 
industries of tomorrow with 5G. As you alluded to, a report we 
did last year had us neck and neck with South Korea and China 
in the race to 5G.
    I think to the credit of both industry and government, 
there has been a great response in the United States to update 
how we're going site and actually place new 5G networks. And 
we've seen investment from all four national carriers and 
throughout the supply chain of responding to the threat from 
China. We actually have a study out commissioned now, so 
hopefully in a few months I can give you the latest rankings, 
but we feel a lot better that we're in a position to compete 
globally and to lead the world as we all want to be.
    In terms of policy, as you alluded to, the key one for us 
right now is we've done a great job in high band spectrum. We 
went from zero auctions to three auctions planned. We need to 
do the same thing on mid-band. The other countries have 
approximately 300 megahertz that are going to be available. 
We're only going to have about 70 megahertz, and fixing that 
delta is key. We think the AIRWAVES Act is a great vehicle to 
do that.
    The Chairman. OK, help us with this. This is not the 
Olympics where you cross the finish line and there's all the 
evidence there. How do we know when we've won? And when will we 
know who has won the race to 5G?
    Mr. Gillen. I think we'll know in a few years. I think the 
one thing you will--reason you won't see is where----
    The Chairman. A few years and not a few months.
    Mr. Gillen. Correct. Yes. This is a long generational 
buildout we're going to have and a long generational of 
investment. I think we'll know when we see where investment is 
going. When you look at where new AI and robotics investments 
are going, whose 5G platform are they building on? Why do 
companies build their R&D facilities here? Because we led the 
world in 4G, and you had to be here to have the most advanced 
networks.
    So when we see where that investment is going--Is that 
Chinese based? Is that U.S. based? Where is that?--we'll have a 
sense of where we stand in that race.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Berry, specifically what do you advocate in terms of 
changes in Universal Service Fund policies?
    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Universal Service was 
based on 24 years ago, a concept that you should have similar 
reasonable services in rural America, and it was based on 
interstate voice calls. We would call that--sort of--equivalent 
to a 2G type of technology, although it was wireline. So we've 
come a long way from that period in time to where we are now. 
And as Brad just said, there is going to be an enormous amount 
of new innovative services and uses of spectrum, and we're 
going to have to update our view of what is a contribution to 
the USF fund.
    I think you have to also look at the other key critical 
elements. Spectrum, you have to have spectrum. You have to have 
that available in rural areas so that smaller geographic areas 
can bid, and win, and utilize, and integrate that spectrum. And 
I think you have to have infrastructure policies that allow you 
to excel on siting in rural America. All of those things are 
going to be important if you're going to have a Universal 
Service Fund that keeps America, rural America, in the race.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Bhatt, how would the school bus accident have been 
prevented with the implementation of 5G?
    Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And so if you look at 
the number of school bus near misses every year in America, 
it's an astounding number. And so with vehicle-to-vehicle 
technology, you could have a signal coming from the school bus 
alerting all vehicles that are equipped with the technology, 
and as we drive forward, we'll get more and more of these 
vehicles equipped, so that instead of relying on a driver 
response to seeing those flashing lights and obeying those 
flashing lights, the vehicle itself knows that it can't go by 
there, it can't pass a school bus. And so there are all sorts 
of applications, but particularly with school bus safety, I 
think that's one we'd love to see more deployment.
    The Chairman. So there is going to be a device in the 
school bus, and you anticipate that every--every vehicle 
manufactured after a certain date will have the capability of 
actually sensing that and stopping regardless of how 
inattentive the driver might be.
    Mr. Bhatt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So what you're starting to 
see now is more and more connectivity within the vehicles. So 
you have vehicles talking to vehicles. You have in Colorado now 
they are working on a connected vehicle pilot on I-70. So you 
have roadside units that are talking to the vehicles, so if a 
vehicle deploys its airbag----
    The Chairman. So we can do that now under 4G.
    Mr. Bhatt. You can do that under 4G, but what 5G allows is 
even faster connectivity. The latency, as the latency comes 
down, you get direct vehicle-to-vehicle connectivity. You also 
get greater penetration. And this is also involving broadband. 
So there are multiple layers of connectivity here.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And again thank you to the witnesses. I want to try to hit 
on two issues if I could, and I know they sound, you know, at 
two ends of the spectrum, but I think that's what we need to 
address.
    Mr. Wessel, you mentioned a couple of things. One, I think 
your written testimony is far more extensive than your remarks, 
so thank you for that. But I noticed in your testimony you say 
in 2018, the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NGA, and the 
Director of National Intelligence publicly testified to their 
concerns about utilizing products or services from Huawei.
    So I don't know where you are on this question of what we 
do to build out the network on security. You can give me your 
thoughts on that. But I'm also interested in your ITU comments 
because you are talking about an international standards body 
setting, and they're already over there dominating the 
standards body. Why aren't we leading the way in saying no one 
should be able to have backdoor networking, you know, as part 
of the system and leading a larger vocal concern about anybody 
who has used these tactics, you know, as state actors to 
participate in the standards-setting forum at all? Your 
comments on that.
    Mr. Wessel. Well, it's a great question, and thank you, and 
one that I've thought a lot about. And after our hearing last 
year at the Commission on 5G, IoT, and similar issues, we met 
with some of our governmental participants: NIST, FCC, and 
others. The U.S. goes to many of these standards-setting 
bodies, as it does on world health and many others, looking at, 
How do we define the best approach that's going to help the 
global commons? We don't look at it as how are we going to 
advance the interests of individual interests within our own 
country or government?
    China, for many years, has taken a very different approach 
and has accelerated its work at the ITU and in other bodies and 
has been able to direct the approaches to try and advance the 
technologies that they are producing: Huawei, ZTE, and others. 
So it is a clear industrial policy that you can relate back to 
the five-year plans, China 2025, and others.
    Senator Cantwell. But we should be--we should be clear that 
we think violations of this kind of, you know, state actor 
activity shouldn't--that the ITU standards-setting body, we 
should come up with a framework that helps people understand 
that we can't have people who are participating in these 
activities sitting on standards boards and trying to influence 
this outcome.
    Mr. Wessel. I agree with you 1,000 percent.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
    Ms. Zentz, I know Mr. Bhatt mentioned transportation, which 
is a great aspect, but one thing that struck me about the 
entire smart cities effort and interest, and you mentioned some 
of your partners, Avista and others, is this issue of real-time 
savings on water. You know, irrigation is such a big aspect of 
the Washington economy, and our farmers and resources are being 
challenged by the changes in climate. What do you think that 
application could do for helping us in real-time information 
about water usage?
    Ms. Zentz. Thank you for that question. Yes, indeed, water 
is, in fact, our most precious resource. And it's interesting 
to note that it's not priced as our most precious resource at 
the consumer level, and it's not managed as our most precious 
resource by leveraging data in real time.
    So there are applications where you--with the proper 
information, people can understand how you manage water like 
inventory. And so with the data, with the data-informed 
information for those who are operating our water resources, be 
they for irrigation or for potable water for citizens, then 
applications that are related to 5G and other methods of 
getting data to the operators help us substantially reduce the 
water that is wasted and is not used properly.
    Senator Cantwell. Is anybody else doing this right now 
better than we are, or are we pioneering this aspect?
    Ms. Zentz. You mean globally?
    Senator Cantwell. Yes. I look--I mean, I know Israel is 
very efficient on water usage, but I don't know if it's because 
they're using data or using other things----
    Ms. Zentz. Right.
    Senator Cantwell.--that they've advanced. But----
    Ms. Zentz. I don't know that there is any one country that 
substantially leads the way, but the United States has a way 
to--a ways to go to catch up because of those economic signals 
that I mentioned earlier. We've got to put those economic 
signals in real terms in front of the end user because that's 
where you have the opportunity to conserve and make more use of 
the resources.
    Senator Cantwell. I agree. Thank you so much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wessel, on Senator Cantwell's question, 
is the horse already out of the barn in some areas of the 
United States with regard to these Huawei-ZTE IoT devices, and 
in some areas globally?
    Mr. Wessel. There is certainly some deployment, and Huawei, 
as I understand it, has about 9 percent of the essential 
patents. But this--the horse is not fully out of the barn. We 
also have some deployment management issues that are going to 
be coming over the next several years, and there are a lot of 
risk mitigation strategies we can engage in. And, again, as the 
administration is doing with many of our global partners, Five 
Eyes plus, trying to ensure the security of those systems. That 
will help drive a market-based approach that hopefully western 
suppliers will have greater opportunity to participate in the 
rollout.
    The Chairman. Do you think the proper authorities are on 
this issue now?
    Mr. Wessel. I think that as you're hearing us doing, is we 
are, you know, focusing on these issues. This administration 
has--has given attention to it, but it is such a broad and deep 
problem, something I learn about new every day on new threat 
vectors, et cetera, that much more needs to be done.
    The Chairman. I hope so.
    Now we have Senator Fischer followed by Senator Schatz.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To the extent, Mr. Bhatt, that 5G becomes the vehicle-to-
infrastructure solution, I've heard concerns that a slow 5G 
buildout in rural Nebraska and other rural areas of this Nation 
could put them at a disadvantage compared to urban areas. I 
think we all recognize that. If connected passenger and freight 
vehicles ultimately depend on 5G, a slow buildout will mean 
that rural communities will face significant economic losses. 
During the buildout of 3G and 4G, rural areas were a lower 
priority for carriers due to their population density. And we 
saw a lower return on investment for those carriers, which 
played into that as well.
    It's my understanding that a 5G buildout will focus on 
network densification, requiring a much greater use of antenna 
locations, and that's going to further slow development in 
those rural areas. How do you think rural states can work 
together with carriers in order to address this?
    Mr. Bhatt. Thank you, Senator. And as I mentioned, I was 
the Secretary of Transportation at Delaware, I was the Director 
in Colorado, and I was the Deputy in Kentucky, and----
    Senator Fischer. You move around a lot.
    Mr. Bhatt. I can't hold a job. Somebody else will be here 
testifying for ITS America in a week.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bhatt. But those urban-rural issues are incredibly 
important. And how do you make sure that people can remain in 
the communities that they've grown up in and make sure, in 
particular, that they can engage in this global marketplace? 
And I think that what you're seeing is the transportation 
network that was originally built first connected those 
communities, and now you're starting to see broadband.
    So in Wyoming, I-80 has a connected vehicle pilot, because 
freight is an important component, and is using broadband lines 
that are deployed to connect vehicles and the system and 
provide more safe information. And I think that it's going to 
be critical that all of our partner states, cities, 
municipalities, work with private sector companies to make sure 
that we don't have a digital divide, and there are 
infrastructure opportunities in the next infrastructure bill or 
the reauthorization where we can continue some of these 
partnerships.
    Senator Fischer. Do you look at those public-private 
partnerships as a solution? Do you think that this technology, 
as we see it with pilot projects now, but in the future, do you 
think it's going to be able to make it just with states or 
cities being able to get the infrastructure in to do this? I 
mean, it's hard enough maintaining highways that we have now 
without adding more technology to them. So do you think a 
public-private partnership is an answer to that? And how is 
that going to work? They're used in some states now with 
infrastructure construction, but I think it's going to be 
needed in the future when we look at the deployment here of 5G.
    Now that I've led you into your answer, how do you view 
that?
    Mr. Bhatt. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Fischer. I didn't mean to do that. But----
    Mr. Bhatt. So----
    Senator Fischer. How is that going to work when certain 
states are leery of a public-private partnership when you look 
at infrastructure?
    Mr. Bhatt. Senator Fischer, I think you're exactly right. 
If you look around the country, the vast majority of P3s that 
are deployed are in areas where there is a lot of traffic or 
there is a bridge, and it's a certain point. But I think that 
you can also look at areas where an innovative P3 is using 
availability payments. So as an example, in Delaware, we had 
challenges with rural paratransit, where it would cost the 
state $50 to provide a ride because it was just an expensive 
ride, and not everybody needed that level of service, but you 
could make an availability payment available to say, hey, for 
$20, if a private sector partner wanted to come in and deliver 
that ride, it created more opportunities.
    So I think that between public sector infrastructure 
investment, and there's a FAST Act reauthorization that will be 
a good opportunity to spur that private sector innovation, and 
then a firm, I think, steadfastness from Federal, State, and 
local partners that says the rural component here is important, 
I think we'll be able to achieve those outcomes.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you.
    Mr. Berry, when we look at the potential that's out there 
for precision agriculture and the Internet of Things and being 
able to have that growth, especially looking at agriculture, 
manufacturing, how can policymakers help with that to achieve 
those benefits in rural areas, those 5G benefits in rural 
areas, so we can overcome the density challenges and we don't 
deepen the digital divide?
    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. One of the things I should 
have mentioned with Senator Wicker, and obviously you are very 
well aware of the fact that we don't have the data. Ms. Zentz 
was talking about data and transfer of data. We don't have the 
information on where broadband exists in rural America. How can 
you build on a solution if you don't know, you know, where 
you're starting? So that's one thing I think policymakers can 
do, is say we want actionable information on where these 
services exist, so then you know how you can build a system 
that will give you real time, 4G, 4G LTE, VoLTE, 4G Advance is 
going to be the precursor and NB-IoT is going to be the 
precursor to 5G. You can't get there unless you have coverage.
    So that's the first thing we should do, and for the life of 
me, I don't understand why we can't figure it out, everyone 
here knows that they are lacking in coverage areas throughout 
their states. And yet the FCC indicated they were going to stop 
and look at the USF program, and then 5 days after they 
announced that, they issued a report saying there was 100 
percent coverage in the United States. We have to do better, 
and that's where I think we start because I think we've got a 
great lineup of good ideas here for the private sector to 
engage in, in the 5G world.
    Senator Fischer. Right. I think all of us here on this 
Committee, if we just had different gadgets in our car, we 
could drive around our states as we visit community and 
constituents, and we could tell you where it works and where it 
doesn't.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
    Senator Schatz, and to be followed by Senator Blackburn.

                STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 
of the testifiers.
    I want to follow up on the line of questioning from Senator 
Fischer. And it seems to me, Mr. Berry, that we continue to not 
talk about the reason that we're not expanding broadband 
coverage, and that is that the FCC is chicken to do 
contribution reform. That's the problem. And every time we have 
a problem with coverage in rural America, whether it's my state 
or the Chairman's state or anybody's community, we wave a wand 
called USF and we say this should be a new eligible use, but 
it's a shrinking pie. And it's a shrinking pie of the 
individuals who, as we all know, use landline telephones, and 
then they subsidize broadband and other connectivity for the 
rest of the country.
    And so I worry that as we race to get 5G in as many places 
as we can, we don't have 4G in many places, we don't have 
broadband connectivity in many places. And we want to win every 
race, but we don't want to admit that this takes resources. And 
so 10 percent of this, you know, of an auction, none if it's 
enough, none of it's enough. It is just enough for all of us to 
claim that we're doing something about it, but if we really 
want to think about it in the scale that is necessary, the way 
we think about, say, rural electrification or the railroads or 
the highways connecting our country, then we need more money 
for that purpose, and the idea that we're going to keep 
charging people with landlines to subsidize an ever-growing 
list of stuff that we all love seems to be that we're--we're 
whistling past the graveyard here.
    Mr. Berry, can you comment on that?
    Mr. Berry. Senator, I couldn't agree more, that the 
investment opportunity or the economic opportunity that comes 
from a small investment is--I mean, Brad's study and CTIA's 
study show the economic growth that's potentially available in 
the United States. We were going to have to address that issue, 
but you've got to start with the data. If you get the data 
right and you know where to target the money--we're getting 
ready to make a $4.53 billion mistake if we deploy our 
resources in a way without knowing where they should go.
    And then you have to look at the second phase of it, which 
I think you most appropriately pointed out, and that is those 
that are making a lot of money off of filling up the data--
filling up the pipelines and providing data and information 
across these networks, and everyone agrees that not only rural 
America, but urban-suburban America, deserve the same type of 
service, it costs money, it costs resources. And we need to 
figure out who also should contribute in a contribution reform 
mechanism. I said to a friend the other day that for the last 
24 years U.S. consumers, just consumers, you and I, have made 
almost $150 billion of investments in the USF fund. Corporate 
America hasn't done so, and many of those are earning trillion 
dollar benefits without the economic contributions. I think we 
have to address it.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Let me just change the topic back to the Huawei 
conversation.
    Mr. Wessel, in your testimony, you describe this problem as 
both a sort of cybersecurity challenge as well as a competitive 
issue for the United States, and in your exchange with Senator 
Cantwell, you focused, it seemed to me, primarily on the sort 
of competitive aspects, race to 5G, how what we're doing 
relates to our global competitiveness. Can you flesh out, 
however, the cybersecurity concerns related to the supply 
chain, and whether it's Huawei or any other company, where we 
don't know for sure that we're cyber secure?
    Mr. Wessel. I'd be happy to. And my prepared testimony, as 
you said, dealt with that more, and after our six intelligence 
and law enforcement experts or leaders talked about this last 
week, they have more expertise than I do, although I'm 
certainly informed by the work with them and their people.
    The supply chain risks, the cyber risks, are paramount 
there. As I indicated in the national intelligence law 
discussion, Chinese companies are required to comply with 
government decisions wherever they operate. So Huawei and 
others saying that they're going to protect data in a foreign 
market, as they just have talked about with Germany, or Merkel 
has described that as a condition, they cannot do that based on 
their own country's law, and we all know how China is 
aggressive in the use of detention, et cetera. And I think 
they're more likely to comply with what the politburo tells 
them to do than they are concerned about being brought before a 
court of law in Germany.
    Senator Schatz. And so let me just finish up because I'm 
over time.
    Mr. Wessel. Yes.
    Senator Schatz. As the Committee considers this particular 
issue, I think we do want to divide this question. The 
competitiveness issue is, listen, if somebody has got 7 percent 
of our market in a free market, in a global market, we can live 
with that, but if somebody that poses a cybersecurity risk to 
us has 7 percent of the IoT market, that has to be brought down 
to zero, or the cybersecurity risk has to be brought down to 
zero with some good safeguards.
    So I just want to make sure we don't think we're in just 
some generic race like automobiles. This has to do with our 
personal privacy, our business secrets, our intellectual 
property, our global competitiveness. It's a little bigger than 
whether some company can deploy, say, telehealth, you know, 7 
months before us. Both are important, but they're not the same.
    Mr. Wessel. This goes to traditional national security 
issues that the military intelligence personal security when 
you look at some of the applications you can have.
    Let me quickly, if I can, though, also just----
    Senator Schatz. With the Chairman's permission.
    The Chairman. Quickly.
    Mr. Wessel. Quickly, the rural issue you're raising also 
has to be looked at here because the cost pressures, as 
everyone has identified, has driven a number of rural areas to 
utilize Huawei and ZTE Chinese equipment because of the cost 
benefits, and the result of that has put us potentially into 
have a two-tiered security issue that jeopardizes even more of 
the rural areas that has to be addressed.
    Senator Schatz. OK. Thank you.
    The Chairman. There's a reason China has given that 
technology away at a cut-rate price.
    We now have Senator Blackburn, and she will be followed by 
Senator Udall.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to you all. And you're exactly right, there 
is a reason they're giving it all away, and it's they want 
their data, our data, and they want the data mining, they want 
the access. Huawei and ZTE, as we well know, are well known for 
embedding that spyware and malware into their equipment, and 
it's why several years ago at Energy and Commerce over in the 
House, Mike Rogers and I had the amendment to block them from 
selling to our U.S. Government and our military.
    Mr. Berry, before I get going, thank you for raising the 
coverage issue. The 477 maps, we've talked about it many times, 
are a problem. NTIA needs to take over this mapping 
responsibility and clean it up before we get going on this. And 
we have to close the digital divide; it's imperative. And we're 
not going to do that unless we know where we need to go, so 
important to do that.
    I want to come a different way at some of this with China. 
And the Chairman and I both serve on Armed Services, and one of 
the things that I have done as we've looked at some of these 
telecom issues and technology issues, the integration of that, 
is being concerned about fostering the right type environment 
in our country for the commercial sector and the Department of 
Defense to be able to share information. And I think it's 
vitally important as we look at what is going on with 5G and 
the applications that are there and as we consider spectrum 
availability and as we look at supply chain.
    And, Mr. Gillen, I want to come to you. If you will just 
couch this a little bit and then Mr. Wessel quickly to follow 
him, on how we can benefit and how we best have that 
information shared between our commercial sector and Department 
of Defense. And the reason I'm asking this is because when you 
look at China, you never know where their commercial industrial 
complex ends and their military complex begins, and we've all 
seen it. And we know that they are reverse engineering, we know 
that they are stealing our intellectual property. So let's 
approach this issue with standards, concerns with the ITU, and 
look at the supply chain, the spectrum availability for 5G and 
how we have encouraged that information share.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. I completely agree the need 
to be strong partners with the national security community and 
the Department of Homeland Security to know where the risks 
are. I would say from when this Committee started talking about 
this issue in 2012, just to give some context, the Chinese 
vendor market share was roughly 4 percent in 2014. It's now .2 
percent--2.2 of 1 percent. Globally, it's now 38 percent. And 
so I think it is one of those that the more information we have 
as to how it would help keep consumers safe, the more we can 
act on it in terms of our own supply chain.
    Senator Blackburn. OK. Mr. Wessel.
    Mr. Wessel. Just quickly, your service on the Committee, 
you understand all of the new drone technologies, situational 
awareness, the use of AI, big data, et cetera. You point to the 
key issues. How do we not only protect our networks but the 
data that has the value in those networks? And that is, you 
know, increasingly not just a Boeing or Northrop, it goes to a 
much broader cross-section of issues. China is involved in 
electronic reconnaissance of our critical infrastructure, has 
been for years, and all that data empowers them should there be 
any kind of a challenge or conflict that we have to deal with.
    Senator Blackburn. What can the role of Congress be in 
fostering greater information sharing? Is there antitrust 
liability exemptions, for example, that we should consider? 
Because we know we're in a race on this, and we also appreciate 
setting the standards are important. Any thoughts there? No. No 
one has an additional thought.
    Mr. Wessel. I'd be happy to get back to you after giving it 
some more thought.
    Senator Blackburn. Please do. I think that it is something 
that we need to be thoughtful about, but we also need to 
realize that greater competitive challenge that is in front of 
us.
    And, Mr. Gillen, I appreciated your comments about the mid-
band spectrum. ``Goldilocks'' might be a pretty good term for 
that utilization. And I appreciate that the FCC just completed 
its first millimeter-wave auction, and they're looking at the 
beginning of the second, and I know that we are lagging behind 
in this mid-band spectrum. If we start with pulling more of 
that mid-band and putting it into auction, making it available, 
we are going to see the benefits of that via the economies of 
scale that are going to be out there and are associated with 
some of that global harmonization. We appreciate that. And I 
know that there are interference and public interest concerns. 
But at some point we are going to need to acknowledge that if 
we just sit on it and maintain status quo, we are going to lose 
the 5G race. Just a thought or two about what happens in the 
near term, in the mid-term, if we fail to move forward with 
making spectrum available and getting it out to auction 
quickly, specifically in the mid bands?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
leadership on this issue for quite some time. I think the 
consequence of not getting spectrum, particularly in mid-band, 
is all the great things we were talking about on this dais can 
come to fruition or can't come to fruition in the time-frame 
that we all want them to be. So for us, it really is a matter 
of mid-band is that missing piece to provide the connectivity 
we need, and as you said, it's time for decisions.
    Senator Blackburn. OK. Mr. Berry, anything to add?
    Mr. Berry. Yes. I absolutely agree with your recognition 
that mid-band is critical to deployment in the 5G world. 3.5, 
the C-band, as we call it, the 3.7, the 4.2, and the L-band. 
The L-band issue has been languishing for 7 years, no decision. 
We have to do better on that.
    It's going to also send signals to the OEMs, to the 
manufacturers, that the devices and the capabilities and the 
dingles and, you know, all the unique technology that comes 
along with riding on spectrum is a signal that, hey, get ready 
because we're going to need it. If we don't have the spectrum 
identified and have it ready to go to market, it will be 
literally years before the devices are available off the shelf.
    Senator Blackburn. Yes.
    Mr. Berry. So we have to think ahead, and you're absolutely 
in the right place.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, spectrum is the sweet sauce, so 
thank you all very much. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Udall and then Senator Moran.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thank you to 
the panelists today, and I look forward to our work together in 
this Congress on this issue. Today's hearing on making sure the 
U.S. leads on 5G and technological advances is critical to the 
future of our mobile network and even more importantly, to both 
national security and privacy interests. We have known about 
the potential surveillance threats that Huawei and ZTE pose for 
networks for nearly a decade, but, frankly, we have not done 
enough to prevent their equipment from being used or to 
encourage other manufacturers to work with all network 
providers. If we ban this equipment on our networks, like we 
are encouraging other countries to do, such as the European 
Union, there is a significant cost, at least in the short term.
    Mr. Berry, national security concerns about Huawei and ZTE 
have been well documented over the past decade, including a 
2012 report from the House of Representatives Intelligence 
Committee that identified the risk, and I'm quoting here from 
that report, Huawei's and ZTE's provision of equipment to U.S. 
critical infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national 
security interests, end quote. Now, given this alarming report 
and other reports around the same time warning providers from 
using this equipment, why did your members continue to do 
business with these manufacturers?
    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. Good question, tough issue, 
serious issue. Many of--very few of our members have that 
equipment in their networks, and some of them have had it for 
several years. Our members want to do the right thing, they 
want to do the right thing by their consumers, they want to do 
the right thing for the community, and obviously they want to 
do the right thing for national security. I think by 
recognizing the fact that most of them are in small rural areas 
tax to find a way to build out a network on a shoestring, they, 
you know, have a small revenue stream, a few customers to 
attract to, and the attractiveness of getting into a service 
for their consumers has been very appealing.
    You should also note that our support programs under the 
USF drives the cost down to the lowest common denominator. You 
don't win and you don't get any credit for using equipment that 
may actually cost more because it may or may not be on a 
government's blacklist. So, yes, we want to work with the 
government, we want to work with the entities and the 
authorities that can identify and actually provide some 
guidance.
    The good thing is we're moving from a 4G LTE VoLTE to a 5G 
network. We have an opportunity to secure a 5G network, and I 
think we should have a national effort to do so, and I think we 
have an opportunity to cycle some of those small carriers into 
a more acceptable position from a national security point.
    Senator Udall. Yes. Mr. Berry, last year your organization 
responded to the Federal Communications Commission's supply 
chain notice of proposed rulemaking and submitted a number of 
declarations outlining problems that smaller carriers, 
including those serving hard-to-serve expensive areas, have 
attempting to procure equipment. These include that small 
regional carriers lack the economies of scale to incentivize 
other equipment manufacturers to work with them.
    Two quick questions. Is this still accurate?
    Mr. Berry. Many of my members, the same members that signed 
the declaration----
    Senator Udall. Right.
    Mr. Berry.--are saying that it's--it's changing, that they 
have--they've been--they've had--they had overtures from some 
of the other vendors that, you know, recognize the dilemma 
they're in, and I think slowly but surely we are recognizing 
that when you don't have scope and scale, it's a different--
it's a different service that you're providing. And also, these 
carriers have 3G technology, which, in many cases, no one is 
making it anymore. So that is another challenge to get to the 
next generation of technology and also provide your customers 
service. In many areas, that's the only connectivity.
    Senator Udall. And to stay within my time here, just a yes 
or no on this one. Are those obstacles going to be even more 
pronounced in a 5G buildout?
    Mr. Berry. They could very well be. For those carriers that 
have the technology and the network, yes. For those carriers, 
the rest of the carriers, in the United States--as Mr. Gillen 
said, Huawei is probably the leader, world leader, in 5G 
technology, and taking out that, eliminating that, will in fact 
put more pressure on us as a nation and us, on the carriers.
    Senator Udall. Yes. And, obviously, Mr. Chairman, we need 
to take a really hard look at these national security and 
privacy issues.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. No question about it. Thank you, Senator 
Udall.
    Senator Moran followed by Senator Scott.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Chairman Wicker, thank you for this hearing, 
your debut hearing as Chairman. It's a great topic, an 
important one, for us, both from a national security point of 
view, but for our ability to remain a competitive country and 
for rural America to have access to technology.
    Mr. Gillen, I'm going to start with you first. The 
President has called for a national spectrum strategy for 
managing our resources, and he recently issued a Presidential 
memorandum advancing that strategy. I chair the Commerce 
Justice and Science Subcommittee, that has appropriations over 
NTIA. This development caught my attention, what the 
administration is saying. How can the administration's 
development of that national strategy speed up 5G deployment in 
the United States?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. And we also think it's a 
great opportunity to chart the course for where we're going to 
be in spectrum for the next 5, 10, to 15 years. The key for us 
is an actionable plan. There is so much spectrum out there 
that's been identified, from low-, mid-, and high-band 
spectrum, and the key is a schedule. When are we going to see 
that? When are innovators going to be able to invest in it? And 
when are we going to be able to plan to build these networks? 
So I think the most important thing coming out of that strategy 
is an actionable plan with particular focus, as we've talked 
about a lot this morning, on mid-band. That's the place from 
our U.S. perspective that we need the administration's lead on.
    Senator Moran. Do you detect that that plan is forthcoming 
in the works and a schedule is part of that?
    Mr. Gillen. We certainly hope so. That is our advocacy, and 
we're working closely with the Commerce Department and all 
interested stakeholders to do that over the summer.
    Senator Moran. Ms. Baker's testimony before 2008 in the--
excuse me, to the FCC, her testimony mentioned the FCC's 
September 2018 Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council's report that highlighted the security 
advances associated with 5G networks. What are those 
improvements and what do they mean for your member companies?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you. It's a great question. We focused a 
lot this morning on national security, and part of it is, How 
do we secure our networks ourselves to protect our consumers? 
And the--one of the things the wireless industry is most proud 
is that every generation of wireless, the security gets 
stronger. Previous generation's vulnerabilities are addressed. 
I think the one that in 5G calls the most to me is the end-to-
end authentication that will happen in a 5G environment so that 
when you're talking about Internet of Things devices, when 
you're on a Wi-Fi connection, that your network protections 
will go with you. And so, again, this is the most advanced 
wireless technology for security we've had, and we're excited 
for consumers to be able to benefit from it soon.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Berry, your testimony caught my 
attention, and I think we've had questions about this topic, so 
I'm just going to say this in passing. I share your demand and 
insistence on accurate mapping, and it's dissatisfying, it's 
discouraging, to have us delayed in Mobility Phase II being 
able to proceed because the inaccuracy of the maps. And I'm 
saying this more for, again, the recognition by the FCC. I want 
them to hear one more time from me and others about the 
importance of getting those maps right. I would say once again 
that the solution should not be that we know we have a bad map 
and expect the consumer, the American citizen, to fix the map. 
We need accurate maps from the FCC, and we will continue our 
efforts to encourage that, to insist on that, but in the 
meantime, we're delayed.
    Mr. Berry. And if I must say, the FCC should be 
congratulated for actually identifying, after looking over 20 
million data points on those maps, that they're severely 
inaccurate, and they should be congratulated in stopping the 
process and trying to decide, what, in fact, should they do? I 
think this Committee has given a lot of guidance over the last 
year.
    Senator Moran. So you're taking away from my insistence, my 
complaints, to the FCC, by giving them a compliment. So I'll do 
the same thing. I appreciate the direction that the Chairman 
and others are now headed on this topic, but it is critical 
that we get it right before we spend the money because it's 
sad, but we need the money to be spent now to advance the 
cause.
    Mr. Berry, what examples of innovation from your membership 
can you point to in the United States in our aim to win the 
competitive global race on 5G?
    Mr. Berry. Well, especially in rural areas, I think 
innovation is the mother of invention for all these small 
carriers. For example, C Spire in Mississippi has already put 
together a consortium to identify new innovative ways to deploy 
a network, and to get to gigabit speeds in a rural area? 
They're using fixed wireless. They're using different types of 
unlicensed spectrum. What's going to happen is precision 
agriculture, health, education, distance learning, all those 
things are going to immediately respond to new availability and 
new connectivity. So you can look at Shentel out here in 
Virginia just kicked off what they call their--I think they 
call it the PowerHouse choice, and getting up to gigabit speeds 
in rural areas that before they were, you know, hitting, you 
know, lower speeds. So we're going to see the convergence of 
technology bringing every, you know potential solution to bear, 
and I'm hoping that rural America will, in fact, be recognized 
as an innovator in that area.
    Senator Moran. Mr. Wessel, I've run out of time, but your 
testimony is very interesting to me, and I look forward to 
perhaps a second round or an opportunity to have a conversation 
with you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Markey.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    Senator Lee and I introduced the Government Spectrum 
Valuation Act last Congress. That's legislation that will 
finally ensure that the public knows the value of spectrum held 
by the Federal Government so that we can know if it is being 
put to its best use because you cannot effectively manage what 
you have not measured.
    Mr. Gillen, why is it so important that we evaluate whether 
Federal spectrum is suitable for commercial or unlicensed use, 
and then estimate the value of that spectrum to society?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. We greatly appreciate your 
leadership on this issue and more broadly creating more 
efficiency in how government manages the spectrum it has. And 
the key for us here is to provide a dollar figure and an 
understanding on the gold mine that many agencies are sitting 
on that they may not be aware of, and that as we look at what 
the next opportunities for spectrum are, we need to provide 
more transparency and awareness both within the government and 
outside the government as to where those resources lie. So the 
more transparency and sunshine we can bring to this process, 
the more we'll get a modern spectrum policy.
    Senator Markey. Do you agree that we should incentivize 
agencies to vacate or share spectrum that they don't need 
perhaps through incentive auctions where the Federal agency 
relinquishing or sharing their spectrum gets to keep some of 
the auction proceeds?
    Mr. Gillen. It's a very interesting idea to create win-win 
opportunities, yes, Senator.
    Senator Markey. OK. And what do you think about the 
legislation Senator Lee and I have introduced?
    Mr. Gillen. We fully support it.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. That's--that's very important to 
us.
    On cyber shield, I've long said there's a Dickensian 
quality to the Internet. It's the best of wires and the worst 
of wires simultaneously. It's the best of spectrum and the 
worst of spectrum simultaneously. It can enable. It can 
ennoble. It can degrade. It can debase. And right now Americans 
are reeling from the dark side of the digital revolution, and 
that's why I was proud to join with Congressman Lieu in 
introducing the Cyber Shield Act. And what that bill does is it 
establishes an advisory committee of cybersecurity experts from 
academia, industry, consumer advocacy communities, and the 
public to create cybersecurity benchmarks for IoT devices, such 
as baby monitors, cameras, toasters, refrigerators, and IoT 
manufacturers can then voluntarily certify that their product 
meets those industry-leading cybersecurity standards and data 
security benchmarks, and display this certification to the 
public. Recently, CTIA released their own cybersecurity 
certification regime for IoT devices requiring all devices 
carried on their network to receive a certification, but this 
certification isn't consumer facing, it's between the wireless 
carriers and the IoT device manufacturers.
    Mr. Gillen, could you help to merge what you're doing with 
the idea that the public should know what those cybersecurity 
certification standards are and to provide consumers with that 
information so that they can, like an Energy Star product, 
understand what the rating for that product is?
    Mr. Gillen. We would welcome the opportunity to sit down 
with you and work on what that looks like for us. Eighteen 
months ago, we identified that there was a concern around IoT 
cybersecurity and that so any device that touches the wireless 
network meets these basic requirements. The question then for 
us is, What does a consumer mark look like? What information 
are you conveying? And that, as you alluded to, Energy Star is 
something that consumers can get their heads around, and 
cybersecurity is a really challenging one, but we look forward 
to working with you on what that looks like.
    Senator Markey. Yes, but do you think the consumers 
ultimately should have that information as well?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely, yes.
    Senator Markey. Absolutely. Great. And I think that's 
important just so they can make up their own mind. And whoever 
controls 5G networks controls that valuable data it transmits, 
potentially granting companies--governments the ability to 
change, reroute, or copy data without detection, a prospect 
with alarming privacy and national security implications that 
cannot be ignored. And that's why we can't let firms like 
Huawei and ZTE, two massive Chinese telecommunications 
companies that national security officials fear, may use their 
telecom and computing networks to intercept military, 
government, civilian, and corporate communications and win the 
race to 5G. And we also can't let those companies like Super 
Micro Computer, Incorporated, which allegedly produces 
microchips, designed and manufactured by China's People's 
Liberation Army, to sell their technology to U.S. national 
security agencies, and that's why I'm joined by--with Senator 
Cortez Masto and Senator Brown in sending this letter calling 
on the administration to investigate reports of Chinese 
government efforts to secretly manipulate U.S. technology.
    We thank all of you for what you're doing here.
    Mr. Wessel especially, I'm going to ask you if you could 
respond in writing. I can see that my time has expired.
    The Chairman. Why don't we insert that letter in the record 
at this point, Senator Markey?
    Senator Markey. I would--I would appreciate it if that 
would be included in the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, that will be done.
    [The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Senator Markey. And I would ask Mr. Wessel if you could 
provide in writing how you believe we should be able to----
    The Chairman. I'm sure Mr. Wessel will do that.
    Senator Sullivan.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 
the panel's testimony here today.
    I want to ask Mr. Gillen and Mr. Berry a little bit more on 
the issue of C-band. And I think a number of folks have seen 
that as a favorable band of spectrum for 5G deployment, but I 
do have some concerns about what that could mean for states 
like mine that have issues of connectivity already.
    So let me--let me just ask a couple questions that relates 
to that. I certainly want to ensure that the race to repurpose 
spectrum in the rollout of 5G does not have negative 
consequences. Let me just mention this as it relates to Alaska 
where incumbents are already providing critical broadband and 
public safety services through the C-band spectrum, how can we 
insurance--how can we ensure a balanced approach that helps us 
win the 5G race while also responsibly managing those that are 
using the C-band spectrum? And, quite frankly, will that go 
very well? It seems to be a bit of a difficult balancing act.
    Mr. Gillen. We--we certainly share your concerns, Senator 
Sullivan. We know that Alaska has unique uses of the C-band 
today. For us, we think there is a win-win opportunity, that 
there is vacant capacity available. The satellite industry has 
said that 200 of the 500 megahertz can be made available 
without impacting the current uses of those that are relying on 
those services, and we think that's an important factor as we 
consider it. I think from our standpoint, 200 is a good start, 
but we need more. And I think, as you said, we have to find the 
balance of protecting users, but also the political reality of 
China has 500 megahertz of mid-band, Germany has 400, we're at 
70. This 500 megahertz is the next best and only opportunity to 
do that. So we need to get creative. We need to protect who's 
there now. But we also have to keep our futures in mind.
    Senator Sullivan. Let me ask, and Mr. Berry, you can 
respond to this as well, but I understand there's a proposal 
floating around regarding the reallocation of C-band, and to be 
sold by foreign satellite companies. I'm told that this 
proposal would--these companies would conduct a private sale 
and keep all the profits. Why wouldn't we auction the spectrum 
that is licensed by the taxpayers and use the estimated $40 
billion in proceeds to expand rural broadband in places like 
Alaska that need it, and, of course, other states represented 
on this panel?
    Mr. Berry. Good question, Senator. GCI is also a member of 
CCA, and so we are very focused on the fact that we don't want 
to impair those individuals and those companies that are 
currently using C-band. Some interesting work has been done by 
the C-band group itself, i.e., the satellite companies that 
have identified additional excess capacity, and they would like 
to sell it. Now, whether it's through an auction or a private 
auction or it's sort of an innovative concept they came up 
with, I'm sort of with Mr. Gillen, that I'd love to see more 
spectrum available while we continue to service existing users.
    The work that's been done shows that you can, in fact, make 
that spectrum available without eliminating existing 
capabilities, and I think, you know, additional satellites and 
so forth and so on. The issue of whether or not it should be 
auctioned through an FCC public auction or a private auction is 
novel. Many of our carriers have not seen on record the type of 
assurances that they would like to see in a private type of 
auction that normally you would see in a public auction. So----
    Senator Sullivan. Do you see my point about, though, with a 
public auction and the ability to use the proceeds on areas? 
And if you look at the makeup of this Committee, we have a lot 
of states that are similarly situated than mine. I think mine 
is the most dramatic example of challenges with regard to 
connectivity and to be able to use that to help.
    Mr. Berry. Well, you know, the AIRWAVES Act is a good 
example of being able to get that rural element, rural reward, 
of access to the revenue created by an auction. So it's going 
to be a very difficult time.
    The other issue is, How fast do we get it? I mean, you 
know, we're behind on the mid-band spectrum.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Mr. Berry. I think there's a way to do both, i.e., get 
access to the spectrum and more--and maybe more spectrum in an 
efficient way.
    Senator Sullivan. OK. Let me ask one final question. Mr. 
Wessel, we have set up a new subcommittee here, Senator Markey 
and I will be the two chair and ranking, and that's focused on 
economic security issues. It does have 5G as part of our 
jurisdictional approach. There's a lot of focus on China. Can 
you help us with just from your perspective, not just China, 
but principles in which we need to think about these issues 
that I know have already been discussed fairly significant as 
we look at 5G in the--in the mindset of national security?
    Mr. Wessel. Let me get back to you, if I can, with putting 
greater thought into that. The new effort you are going to--
about to undertake is vital, and clearly was identified with 
the creation of that jurisdiction. The connection between 
national and economic security is, you know--is deepening. In 
China, those two are synonymous, and we need to have a broad 
agenda to develop. So I'd be happy to get back to you on that, 
sir.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wessel, for taking that 
question on the record.
    Senator Sinema.

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Chairman Wicker and 
Ranking Member Cantwell, for holding this important hearing 
today.
    I share the views expressed by many of my colleagues 
regarding the need for the U.S. to lead in emerging 
technologies like 5G, and I'm really proud to represent the 
State of Arizona. We're at--we're at the forefront of testing 
new technologies, like self-driving cars, and we're building 
out smart cities that leverage IoT technologies.
    In 2017, our State legislature passed legislation to make 
it easier for 5G operators to install small cell equipment in 
Arizona, and Gilbert became the first community in Arizona to 
fully implement small wireless facilities in municipal rights 
of way.
    We understand this time of the year between 850 and 1,000 
residents are living in our communities, but I recently heard 
from a community from Sunscape, Sunscape RV Resort, which is 
just east of Casa Grande, Arizona, lives in--is in Pinal 
County. And Sunscape residents are all 55 years and older. Many 
of them live in--are in their seventies. And depending on the 
time of year, between 850 and 1,000 residents live at Sunscape 
RV center. But no matter what cell provider they choose, the 
area has lacked reliable cell phone service for 15 years. This 
is a huge problem for these older Arizonans, most of whom live 
on fixed incomes. And these Arizonans have all paid for cell 
phone service, often over $100 a month, but they can't even 
effectively use these cell phones in their own homes. It's 
wrong, and it needs to change, but, more importantly, it's 
unsafe because seniors have acute health care needs that 
sometimes require immediate medical attention. And so when 
requests for medical assistance and 9-1-1 calls get dropped due 
to bad cell service, it risks lives.
    Yesterday, my staff visited Sunscape RV Center to hear from 
park residents and management directly about the challenges 
they face, and we learned that this challenge isn't unique to 
this park. The minute you get off the highway, that's just a 
few miles away, service starts to get spotty. And this problem 
is as real for the surrounding neighborhoods as it is for 
Sunscape. And yet this isn't an uninhabited or especially far-
flung place. Arizonans call these places home, and they deserve 
the same basic services that are afforded to those who live in 
our populated cities.
    For us, cell phone service means being able to stay in 
touch with friends and family even if they don't live close by, 
and many of us couldn't imagine life without it. So what these 
families need isn't anything groundbreaking, they just need a 
new tower or some other means of expanding and improving 
service in the area, but it would mean the world to these 
Arizonans who are just trying to enjoy their golden years. So 
these guys are not asking for a handout, they pay companies for 
services that aren't being delivered, and I'd like to fix that.
    So I hope that Sunscape's story should serve as a reminder 
that as we discuss the benefits of moving to 4G to 5G in the 
cities, there are communities all across my state and in our 
country that still don't have reliable 3G. In the digital age, 
these disparities in service are fundamentally disparities of 
opportunity. Rural communities must be a bigger part of the 
connectivity conversation, and we can't consider the race to 5G 
won until we all cross the finish line.
    Mr. Chairman, we know that customer density is one of the 
biggest challenges to delivering quality cost competitive 5G in 
rural areas. So my question today is for Mr. Berry, who I thank 
him for being here.
    Congress passed the RAY BAUM'S Act in 2018, which reformed 
the permitting process for broadband infrastructure on Federal 
lands. And the FCC has taken steps to break down State and 
local barriers to 5G deployment. So what progress, if any, has 
been made as a result of these changes? And what else can you 
suggest to be done to help communities like the Sunscape RV 
community?
    Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate it. I think you 
are seeing what many of your colleagues are seeing, and that is 
that we do not have coverage in 100 percent of the United 
States. And, again, I'd like to go back to the data. This is 
good information, that this is data points that we ought to 
include in the FCC's review of the map. Those areas, we'd love 
to work with you. Number one, that's--we'll sit down with some 
of our members that may or may not be in the area. I'm sure 
that other carriers would also like to address that issue. So 
we can do that.
    On the larger scale, it is--it's a problem you see over and 
over. We're talking about 5G and basic coverage is not 
available in most areas. So can we address it? There may be 
some unique innovative ideas that we can--technology that we 
could utilize to help address those areas, but one--one 
community alone is extremely difficult to build out the capital 
investments. So we'd like to work with you and find out if 
there are solutions that we can do, help that one community, 
but, again, it's across not only your state, but almost all of 
the rural states, that we have these huge gaps in coverage, and 
we're going to have to do a better job of identifying if we're 
going to find either USF or other innovative ways to service 
those areas.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Berry, this community can skip over 4G right to 5G, 
can't they?
    Mr. Berry. I don't know if they could do that. You have to 
have connectivity, and many of the 5G services are going to be 
built on fundamental 4G type of LTE network. But there are 
certain types of 5G services that, as we've heard today, that 
are inherent in the 4G technology itself. So, you're going to 
have to have higher bandwidth and probably fiber connectivity 
or some type of fixed wireless capability going back to fiber 
if you're going to get the 5G in a remote area like that.
    The Chairman. Well, let's see about that.
    Senator Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to each of you for being here. This is a really 
important topic. As we've talked a lot about today, more 
technology necessarily requires more spectrum, which happens to 
be a limited resource with large valuable bands under the 
control of the Federal Government. And this is going to require 
us to look at both the licensed and the unlicensed parts of the 
spectrum because both play an important role and both form part 
of this cohesive whole that is so important for the development 
of technology in our country and throughout the world.
    Federal agencies have very little incentive to share the 
spectrum that they have been allocated to them or to make it 
available for commercial use even if it's being used in a way 
that might be terribly inefficient. This isn't surprising, it 
is understandable, this is in inherent in the nature of 
government in many respects, but it's our job, as a Congress, 
to watch out for that fact and to do what we can to make sure 
that we manage this resource effectively.
    There does seem to be an absence of market-based allocation 
of spectrum, which I think has led to greater inefficiencies 
and some misallocations, and that, in turn, has a tendency to 
stifle the development of other technologies upon which we 
could rely and from which we could benefit greatly.
    It's one of the reasons why at the end of the last Congress 
I was pleased to team up with Senator Markey to introduce the 
legislation that he referred to during his remarks, which is 
the Government Spectrum Valuation Act. This bill doesn't 
transition any Federal spectrum allocations. In fact, it's a 
data bill that requires the calculation of the value of the 
Federal spectrum allocations specifically so that Congress can 
better understand what might be described properly as the 
opportunity costs associated with the holdings of spectrum by 
and within the Federal Government among these Federal agencies, 
and to make more informed decisions in partnership with Federal 
agencies.
    So, Mr. Gillen, it sounds like, from your interaction, your 
exchange with Senator Markey, that given that spectrum is a 
limited resource, you believe that it is important for Congress 
to have the best data and tools necessary to identify any 
inefficiencies that might exist within the Federal holdings of 
spectrum.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And thank you for the legislation. 
It's an important data point, and as you said, this is about 
data. This is about providing the transparency as to what 
agencies have, and as you started talking, the focus, these 
agencies have a mission to run. They're not in charge of 
spectrum. They don't necessarily even know what they have. And 
so a lot of this is, How do we provide the tools for the 
Commerce Department and the other agencies to better the 
roadmap of what spectrum could be in the future available and 
what the economic opportunities there are?
    Senator Lee. So in that respect, this could be helpful to 
both Congress and to the agencies themselves who manage it and 
may or may not know what it is that they have or understand 
what value it has.
    Mr. Gillen. 100 percent, and the consumers in the end that 
could benefit from new spectrum allocated through that process.
    Senator Lee. You've noted that NTIA is studying the 3.45 
gigahertz band, which is a very key piece of mid-band spectrum. 
I'm pleased that NTIA is studying that. Do you think that an 
estimation on the 3.5--the 3.45-gigahertz band and its 
commercial value might be helpful as we consider that band's 
allocation?
    Mr. Gillen. We do think it would be helpful. We think it 
would be helpful as we start to talk about what commercializing 
that band looks like. Understanding the opportunity would be 
first and foremost.
    Senator Lee. Overall, do you think that requiring the 
identification of these opportunity costs of Federal spectrum 
allocations that I've described could help better equip--equip 
Congress to work with Federal agencies and manage Federal 
spectrum efficiently?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes. I think this is a great tool that we would 
have greatly benefited from in the past as we try to figure out 
what agencies are using spectrum for, and do they even 
understand the value of what they have? So I think this is the 
type of transparency we're going to need as these spectrum 
fights only are going to get harder as there is less and less 
spectrum to go around.
    Senator Lee. So what then is the risk if we don't do it, if 
we don't do something like this?
    Mr. Gillen. We're going to miss opportunities where we 
could more efficiently use spectrum both within the agencies 
and as a country.
    Senator Lee. And that, in turn, could stifle innovation 
within the marketplace.
    Mr. Gillen. Everything we're talking about on this day is 
if we don't continue to provide a pipeline of spectrum, we're 
not going to get everything we want.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. I see my time has 
expired. I appreciate each of you for being here.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
    Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
holding this hearing. This is an issue of enormous consequence, 
I believe, to our global competitiveness, our economy, and the 
country that embraces and gets ahead and wins the race on 5G I 
think is going to benefit enormously in terms of the economic 
dividends that will come with that.
    Mr. Gillen, a number of cities and states across the 
country are modernizing their siting policies in order to reap 
the benefits of 5G, and much of the early investment in 5G is 
going to places that have acted first. That's why I'm pleased 
that in my home state of South Dakota, the City of Sioux Falls, 
among others, has adopted a forward-looking approach to the 
opportunities that next-generation wireless services will 
bring.
    I am also pleased that the FCC has updated its guidance to 
states and localities to reflect new wireless infrastructure 
such as small cells. All of this is consistent with the 
STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, bipartisan legislation 
that Senator Schatz and I introduced last Congress.
    Let me just ask this question: How important is 
streamlining the siting process to deployment of 5G?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your 
focus, and you've really driven this issue. To get 21 states to 
act, to get cities like Sioux Falls to engage on this, you've 
brought the leadership to make this happen, and it is critical. 
We are not going to get where we want on 5G if we continue to 
have rules that look like everything is a 200-foot tower along 
the sideways--along the highway. And so fundamentally it's, How 
do we modernize these--modernize these rules for tomorrow's 
networks? And with your leadership, we've made great progress 
over the last 2 years.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. And you're losing your voice, so 
I'm sorry to make you answer these questions, but I've got one 
other one. As you know, a robust wireless network with the 
speed and capacity to handle thousands and eventually millions 
of autonomous vehicles is crucial to realizing what I think are 
going to be enormous safety benefits that a connected 
transportation system would offer. During this Congress, I 
expect to continue to work on defining a Federal framework for 
this emerging technology. Could you speak to the ways in which 
the deployment of 5G will benefit the emergence of autonomous 
vehicles?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely, and the importance of the ability 
to test here. If we want innovation to happen here, if we want 
this leadership for the industries of tomorrow to happen in the 
United States, we have to be an incubator for it. We have to 
allow the testing of it. We have to allow that to be developed. 
And so your legislation is critical. When we start talking 
about the life-saving aspects that my colleagues have talked so 
eloquently about this morning, that to get to those things, we 
need to test these technologies and we need to understand what 
they are, and that we need your legislation.
    Senator Thune. OK. Mr. Berry, last October, U.S. Cellular, 
a member of both CCA and CTIA, expressed support for the rural 
dividend included in Senator Gardner's AIRWAVES Act, which 
would allocate 10 percent of auction proceeds to wireless 
deployment in unserved and underserved areas. Given that the 
FCC is moving ahead with auctions of much needed new spectrum 
licenses regardless of legislation, what are your thoughts 
about immediately creating a rural dividend mechanism to 
capture the benefit from auctions for targeted rural buildout 
support?
    Mr. Berry. Senator, thank you. We're totally in favor of 
that concept. We supported it last year. I would note that we 
did a study at CCA, the assessment of the economic impact of 
the AIRWAVES Act itself, and we just looked at the expected 
revenue from two auctions, 24 and 28. What would be the 
economic impact to rural America should that rural dividend be 
in place? $1.25 billion economic impact to agriculture, $3.35 
billion to health care, and $850 million impact to 
transportation, and that's just from one suggested auction, 
it's actually two auctions, 101 and 102, but that was a good 
example to use. And by the way, the study came pretty close to 
what was actually the number auctioned in the recent 101 
auction. So I think those numbers are really low-ball numbers. 
If we're talking about three or four or five different types of 
auctions, we're talking about a huge opportunity for rural 
America that I totally support, yes.
    Senator Thune. One last quick question. Mr. Gillen, you 
testified before this Committee that midrange spectrum 
leverages both capacity and coverage opportunities, which is 
helpful in more rural settings. Tell us why this band is so 
important to America's 5G leadership and what we can do to 
ensure that the wireless industry has enough mid-band spectrum 
to deploy 5G.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. The value of mid-band is 
that it provides both capacity and coverage, that right now we 
have high-band spectrum that is incredibly valuable, but it 
only can go a couple blocks. We have low-band spectrum that can 
go miles, but it doesn't carry the amount of bandwidth that 
we're going to need for a lot of 5G applications. We think in a 
lot of places mid-band will be what we'll be using for 5G. It's 
also, frankly, something that we just don't have that much of 
right now available in the market, only 70 megahertz that will 
be auctioned hopefully by this time next year. So for us, it 
really is, How do we get our national resources focused on 
making sure we have all type of spectrum for all different 
types of applications and communities?
    Senator Thune. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time 
is expired.
    Thank you all very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
having this hearing.
    We've heard from a lot of witnesses, from you today and 
others previously, about the very important potential of 5G 
technology. It promises to bring us a new era of connectivity 
with Internet speeds as much as five times faster than what we 
have today with much lower latency, and that's all a good 
thing, but 5G, as you well know, also uses higher frequency 
waves that don't travel as far and will rely on a network of 
hundreds of thousands, potentially millions, of small cell 
sites. And the question then is, Are there any health 
implications, any public safety implications, to those 
additional sites that are likely to be located close to homes, 
schools, workplaces, and closer and closer to the ground? 
Correct?
    Mr. Gillen. Correct, Senator, yes.
    Senator Blumenthal. So in December 2018, I sent a letter to 
FCC Commissioner Carr asking him to site for me recent 
scientific studies demonstrating the safety of this technology, 
what research has been done, where has it been published and 
compiled? He has essentially failed to do so, and just echoed 
the general statements of the FDA, which shares regulatory 
responsibility for cell phones with the FCC. If you go to the 
FDA website, pretty unsatisfactory. There basically is a 
cursory and superficial citation to existing scientific data 
saying, quote, The FDA has urged the cell phone industry to 
take a number of steps, including support additional research, 
on possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for 
the type of signal emitted by cell phones. I believe that 
Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, not to 
prejudge what scientific studies may show, and they deserve 
also a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions.
    So my question for you, particularly Mr. Gillen and Mr. 
Berry, how much money has the industry committed to supporting 
additional independent research? I stress ``independent 
research.'' Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been 
completed? Where can consumers look for it? And we're talking 
about research on the biological effects of this new 
technology.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your focus on 
the issue. Safety is paramount, and as you alluded to, we rely 
on the expert agencies, rely on the findings of the FDA, and 
others as to the requirements to keep all of us safe. There are 
no industry-backed studies to my knowledge right now. I'm happy 
to visit with you as to what opportunities you think there 
needs to be more studies. And we're always for more science. We 
also rely on what the scientists tell us.
    Senator Blumenthal. So essentially the answer to my 
question ``How much money?''--zero.
    Mr. Gillen. I can certainly follow up with you, Senator. To 
my knowledge, there are no active studies being backed by 
industry today.
    Senator Blumenthal. Anybody else know of industry 
commitments to back research, fund it, support it, to ascertain 
scientifically the health effects?
    Mr. Berry. Senator, I'm not aware either, but I do know 
that with small cells especially, you're going to have lower 
power levels. And, of course, as from a carrier perspective, 
you want to be able to manage interference so that that 
interference is the lowest interference possible. So, I would 
think that some of those studies or some of that information 
could be utilized in looking at the health consequences, but, 
no, I'm not aware of any----
    Senator Blumenthal. So there really is no research ongoing. 
We're kind of flying blind here as far as health and safety is 
concerned.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Senator Tester, after two hours of testimony, I'm sure 
you'll agree there is not a single question you could think of 
to ask this panel. Is that correct?
    Senator Tester. No, I've got a----
    Senator Wicker. OK.
    Senator Tester. I've got one that's unique. To be honest 
with you, Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't matter anyway.
    The Chairman. Senator Tester, you are recognized. You are 
recognized.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. All right. Thank you.
    So, Mr. Gillen, I'm from Montana. Can you give me a time-
frame for when we're going to get service in the great state of 
Montana, 5G?
    Mr. Gillen. I cannot, Senator, I think in terms of since 
the last time we had the opportunity to talk. The nice thing is 
we've seen rural carriers figure out their path to 5G. We have 
C Spire in Mississippi, we have Cellcom in Green Bay has moved 
forward with how that looks like. When it will reach Billings, 
I don't have an answer for you.
    Senator Tester. Well, not even--I mean, Billings is 
certainly one of the more urban, in fact, the most urban area 
in Montana. We'd love to have it in Billings next week. But in 
your testimony you spoke about how 5G can help with 
telemedicine and can help with smart farming. I don't think I'm 
wrong on this, telemedicine has its greatest effect in rural 
areas. Farming doesn't happen in downtown Cincinnati.
    So how can we get those kind of effects if we don't have 
that service out there? is the question. I mean, we're not 
talking about Billings now, now we're talking about Scobey, and 
not a lot of folks live in Scobey anymore, but if you're going 
to have smart farming, you've got to have the infrastructure, 
and if the infrastructure is focused on the more populated 
areas, which I get it, to pay the bills, you have to do that, 
what do we have out there to help drive it to rural areas in a 
realistic way that will do it in a timely manner? Because as I 
pointed out to this Committee before, when I go to my farm, you 
can get texts, but this damn thing doesn't work.
    Mr. Gillen. And I think it comes back to a lot of the 
conversation this morning about, How do we get to unserved 
areas? It is the FCC's Mobility Fund, and we have to get the 
maps right, and we have to get that money going. It's the rural 
dividend in AIRWAVES that would be $70 million from this most 
recent auction if it had been in place.
    Senator Tester. So do you anticipate that the digital 
divide will get wider with--with implementation of 5G?
    Mr. Gillen. We don't think it will get wider. It's also 
going to take time. We think that 5G has the opportunity in 
places that aren't fixed broadband opportunities, there may be 
applications that will get broadband in places that it's not 
today.
    Senator Tester. OK. I don't need to reemphasize my concern 
here. My concern is I think there is some great opportunity 
here to do some marvelous things to really create some real 
economy, not only in the buildout, but after the buildout is 
done. My other concern is, is that most of the stuff that's 
driven around here is driven on population, so the benefits 
that rural America could get to help repopulate those areas are 
a long ways off.
    I want to talk about something that probably already has 
been talked about, Mr. Chairman, and that's Chinese equipment.
    Mr. Wessel, do you believe that we should rip this 
equipment out right now?
    Mr. Wessel. I think there are certain critical networks 
that it should be ripped out of, but I think----
    Senator Tester. So in my local telephone co-op, the one 
right next to my local telephone----
    Mr. Wessel. I believe that you need to do a security 
evaluation. As you know, there is I-25 corridor and many other 
critical sites that, you know, we need. We have assets that 
need to be protected.
    Senator Tester. Yes, yes. I agree. Is there--is there--is 
there access for those small telcos to be able to get security 
evaluation? Do they have access to folks who can do that? Or do 
they have access to any money that could help them do that?
    Mr. Wessel. I'm not aware of money in terms of access to 
information. We found it to be very spotty between State DHS, 
Federal DHS, and other authorities that the localities don't 
know--necessarily know where to go for the kind of advice they 
need.
    Senator Tester. So, yes. And so--or where to go to--I mean, 
because, look, I know many of the folks in Montana, if not all 
of them, and I know that they don't want to put this country in 
any sort of security risk. And so Mr. Berry, how are these guys 
going to do it because I--they aren't running on very big 
profit margins, and I don't know any of them that have a big 
old bank account. And so how--it's a problem. I will tell you I 
think it's a big problem. How can we find out if actually this 
outfit actually is in our backyard to the point where this 
stuff needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed immediately? And 
how can the guys do it? I'm sure they're members of yours.
    Mr. Berry. We have several members that have the 
technology, and some of them in your state, as you referred to. 
It's--it's a difficult issue. I mean, as you said, they're 
running on a shoestring compressed with enormous responsibility 
to service an area that no one else exists. I mean, one of the 
carriers in your area services an area larger than all of the 
country of Great Britain and it's----
    Senator Tester. You got it.
    Mr. Berry.--islands, and no one knows who they are.
    Senator Tester. Yes.
    Mr. Berry. Can we address it? I think we can. I think we 
need a little better direction from the authorities that have 
identified this as a national security threat. And I think as 
we mature and move to a 5G world, you can cycle out some of 
this technology that they identify as the most troublesome 
technology. And you're talking about some carriers that are in 
3G trying to get to 4G----
    Senator Tester. Yep.
    Mr. Berry.--they're caught betwixt and between because 
they--3G technology is not being made anymore, and rip and 
replace is a huge--and it's probably more cost than the value 
of their revenue. So it's a tough question. We want to work 
with the U.S. Government and do the right thing.
    Senator Tester. So I know the Chairman wants this hearing 
extended as long as I possibly can, but I'm not going to do 
that. What I do need because I don't--we've got a problem, 
mission control, we've got to figure out how to solve it. My 
guess is that Congress is going to have to be part of that 
solution. Man, if anybody at this table can get back with some 
ideas on what we need to be doing, I know the chairman will be 
open to listening, and the ranking member, and I certainly will 
be because I think--I think we've got a problem here that we 
need to deal with, and I don't think it's going to be dealing 
with by just saying, ``Rip the equipment out, fellows, you've 
just got to get rid of it,'' because it's just not going to 
work that way. So we need some input. OK? Ideas, solutions.
    Thank you all for being here. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you 
for your ability to let me go on a little bit over.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester. Actually, I think 
those are two good notes to end on. And I can assure you, you 
have a lot of teammates behind this dais on your first point, 
which is bridging the rural divide. So I think we all want to 
work with you. A majority of the constituencies represented at 
this table are directly affected by that. And then I think it 
was well worth you coming and making that point about exactly 
what do we do and exactly what needs to be done from a security 
standpoint about this equipment that's already there.
    So thank you very much, and there being no further 
questioners, the testimony will end.
    Let me say--let me say this, because there are a lot of 
interested parties that have participated in this, and I 
appreciate the attendance. As we wrap up today's hearing, it is 
apparent that 5G will be a platform for significant economic 
opportunity and U.S.-based innovation. I would also note that 
as we are on the cusp of this new industrial revolution, we 
need to ensure trust across the ecosystem among companies, 
consumers, and communities. 5G's power and pervasiveness only 
highlights the need for a Federal privacy framework, as this 
technology knows no boundaries.
    So as we continue our efforts to win the race to 5G, I view 
it as this Committee's assignment and this Committee's 
obligation to create meaningful privacy legislation that 
protects consumers and fosters continued investment and 
innovation in the United States. This is a great opportunity 
for bipartisan lawmaking in this Committee, and my goal is 
legislation that will reach the President's desk. I look 
forward to continuing to work with members of this Committee in 
a bipartisan manner toward that goal, which will be critical 
for our Nation to remain globally competitive and lead the 
world on the cutting edge of new technologies.
    Now, I want to add something to the record in light of what 
Senator Blumenthal raised just so we can have a complete 
record. I am told the National Cancer Institute has determined 
that, ``although many studies have examined the potential 
health effects of nonionizing radiation from radar, microwave 
ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no 
consistent evidence that nonionizing radiation increases cancer 
risk.'' And that is a quote from the National Cancer Institute. 
And I will--I would be happy to have other information 
submitted to members of the Committee. But I will cite in the 
record the exact web address for this information.
    [The information referred to follows:]

                       National Cancer Institute
    Question. Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or 
other health problems?
    Answer. There are three main reasons why people are concerned that 
cell phones (also known as ``mobile'' or ``wireless'' telephones) might 
have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health 
problems:
    Cell phones emit radiofrequency radiation (radio waves), a form of 
non-ionizing radiation, from their antennas. Parts of the body nearest 
to the antenna can absorb this energy.
    The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. There were 
over 400 million cell phone subscribers in the United States in 2017, 
according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet 
AssociationExit Disclaimer. Globally, there are more than 5 billion 
cell phone usersExit Disclaimer.
    Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of 
each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have 
increased. Because of changes in cell phone technology and increases in 
the number of base stations for transmitting wireless signals, the 
exposure from cell phone use--power output--has changed, mostly 
lowered, in many regions of the United States (1).
    The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer includes 
information on wireless local area networks (commonly known as Wi-Fi), 
cell phone base stations, and cordless telephones.

    Question. What is radiofrequency radiation and how does it affect 
the human body?
    Answer. Radiofrequency radiation is a form of electromagnetic 
radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types: 
ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., 
radiofrequency and extremely low frequency, or power frequency). 
Electromagnetic radiation is defined according to its wavelength and 
frequency, which is the number of cycles of a wave that pass a 
reference point per second. Electromagnetic frequencies are described 
in units called hertz (Hz).
    The energy of electromagnetic radiation is determined by its 
frequency; ionizing radiation is high frequency, and therefore high 
energy, whereas non-ionizing radiation is low frequency, and therefore 
low energy. The NCI fact sheet Electromagnetic Fields and Cancer lists 
sources of radiofrequency radiation. More information about ionizing 
radiation can be found on the Radiation page.
    The frequency of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation ranges 
from 30 kilohertz (30 kHz, or 30,000 Hz) to 300 gigahertz (300 GHz, or 
300 billion Hz). Electromagnetic fields in the radiofrequency range are 
used for telecommunications applications, including cell phones, 
televisions, and radio transmissions. The human body absorbs energy 
from devices that emit radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. The 
dose of the absorbed energy is estimated using a measure called the 
specific absorption rate (SAR), which is expressed in watts per 
kilogram of body weight.
    Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to 
increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have 
examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from 
radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is 
currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases 
cancer risk in humans (2).
    The only consistently recognized biological effect of 
radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave 
ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency 
radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause 
heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is 
held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to 
measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly 
established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation.

    Question. How is radiofrequency radiation exposure measured in 
epidemiologic studies?
    Answer. Epidemiologic studies use information from several sources, 
including questionnaires and data from cell phone service providers, to 
estimate radiofrequency radiation exposure. Direct measurements are not 
yet possible outside of a laboratory setting. Estimates take into 
account the following:
    How ``regularly'' study participants use cell phones (the number of 
calls per week or month)
    The age and the year when study participants first used a cell 
phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the 
duration of use and time since the start of use)
    The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month 
(frequency)
    The average length of a typical cell phone call
    The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of 
typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use

    Question. What has epidemiologic research shown about the 
association between cell phone use and cancer risk?
    Answer. Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic 
studies in humans to investigate the possibility of a relationship 
between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain 
tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such 
as acoustic neuroma (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for 
hearing that are also known as vestibular schwannomas), meningiomas 
(usually benign tumors in the membranes that cover and protect the 
brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the 
salivary glands) (3).
    In one type of study, called a case-control study, cell phone use 
is compared between people with these types of tumors and people 
without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large 
group of people who do not have cancer at study entry is followed over 
time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn't use cell 
phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over 
time to see if the rates of brain tumors changed in large populations 
during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These 
studies have not shown clear evidence of a relationship between cell 
phone use and cancer. However, researchers have reported some 
statistically significant associations for certain subgroups of people.
    Three large epidemiologic studies have examined the possible 
association between cell phone use and cancer: Interphone, a case-
control study; the Danish Study, a cohort study; and the Million Women 
Study, another cohort study.
Interphone
    How the study was done: This is the largest health-related case-
control study of cell phone use and the risk of head and neck tumors. 
It was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries. The 
data came from questionnaires that were completed by study 
participants.
    What the study showed: Most published analyses from this study have 
shown no statistically significant increases in brain or other central 
nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One 
analysis showed a statistically significant, although modest, increase 
in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants 
who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the 
researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that 
the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because 
the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a 
slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not 
use cell phones regularly (4-6).
    An analysis of data from all 13 countries participating in the 
Interphone study reported a statistically significant association 
between intracranial distribution of tumors within the brain and self-
reported location of the phone (7). However, the authors of this study 
noted that it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about cause and 
effect based on their findings.
Additional analyses of data from Interphone countries
    An analysis of data from five Northern European countries in the 
Interphone study showed an increased risk of acoustic neuroma only in 
those who had used a cell phone for 10 or more years (8).
    In subsequent analyses of Interphone data, investigators addressed 
issues of risk according to specific location of the tumor and 
estimated exposures. One analysis of data from seven of the countries 
in the Interphone study found no relationship between brain tumor 
location and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest 
level of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones (9). However, 
another study, using data from five of the countries, reported 
suggestions of an increased risk of glioma and, to a lesser extent, of 
meningioma developing in areas of the brain experiencing the highest 
exposure (10).
Danish Study
    How the study was done: This cohort study, conducted in Denmark, 
linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone 
subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer 
Registry.
    What the study showed: No association was observed between cell 
phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, 
even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more 
years (11-13).
Million Women Study
    How the study was done: This prospective cohort study conducted in 
the United Kingdom used data obtained from questionnaires that were 
completed by study participants.
    What the study showed: Self-reported cell phone use was not 
associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central 
nervous system tumors. Although the original published findings 
reported an association with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma 
(14), this association disappeared after additional years of follow-up 
of the cohort (15).
    In addition to these three large studies, other, smaller 
epidemiologic studies have looked for associations between cell phone 
use and cancer. These include:

    Two NCI-sponsored case--control studies, each conducted in multiple 
U.S. academic medical centers or hospitals between 1994 and 1998 that 
used data from questionnaires (16) or computer-assisted personal 
interviews (17). Neither study showed a relationship between cell phone 
use and the risk of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.
    The CERENAT study, another case--control study conducted in 
multiple areas in France from 2004 to 2006 using data collected in 
face-to-face interviews using standardized questionnaires (18). This 
study found no association for either gliomas or meningiomas when 
comparing regular cell phone users with non-users. However, the 
heaviest users had significantly increased risks of both gliomas and 
meningiomas.
    A pooled analysis of two case-control studies conducted in Sweden 
that reported statistically significant trends of increasing brain 
cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use 
among people who began using cell phones before age 20 (19).
    Another case--control study in Sweden, part of the Interphone 
pooled studies, did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among 
long-term cell phone users between the ages of 20 and 69 (20).
    The CEFALO study, an international case--control study of children 
diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19, which found no 
relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer 
(21).
    Investigators have also conducted analyses of incidence trends to 
determine whether the incidence of brain or other cancers has changed 
during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. These 
include:

    An analysis of data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End 
Results (SEER) Program evaluated trends in cancer incidence in the 
United States. This analysis found no increase in the incidence of 
brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1992 and 2006, 
despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during 
that time (22).
    An analysis of incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and 
Sweden for the period 1974-2008 similarly revealed no increase in age-
adjusted incidence of brain tumors (23).
    A series of studies testing different scenarios (called simulations 
by the study authors) were carried out using incidence data from the 
Nordic countries to determine the likelihood of detecting various 
levels of risk as reported in studies of cell phone use and brain 
tumors between 1979 and 2008. The results were compatible with no 
increased risks from cell phones, as reported by most epidemiologic 
studies. The findings did suggest that the increase reported among the 
subset of heaviest regular users in the Interphone study could not be 
ruled out but was unlikely. The highly increased risks reported in the 
Swedish pooled analysis were strongly inconsistent with the observed 
glioma rates in the Nordic countries (24).
    A 2012 study by NCI researchers (25) compared observed glioma 
incidence rates in U.S. SEER data with rates simulated from the small 
risks reported in the Interphone study (6) and the greatly increased 
risk of brain cancer among cell phone users reported in the Swedish 
pooled analysis (19). The authors concluded that overall, the incidence 
rates of glioma in the United States did not increase over the study 
period. They noted that the U.S. rates could be consistent with the 
small increased risk seen among the subset of heaviest users in the 
Interphone study. The observed incidence trends were inconsistent with 
the high risks reported in the Swedish pooled study. These findings 
suggest that the increased risks observed in the Swedish study are not 
reflected in U.S. incidence trends.
    An analysis of primary brain tumor incidence data (including some 
of the first benign brain and central nervous system tumor data that 
SEER began collecting in 2004) reported that the incidence of acoustic 
neuromas (also known as vestibular schwannomas) was stable (unchanged) 
from 2004 to 2010 (26).
    A 2018 national study that examined trends in brain tumor incidence 
among adults aged 20-59 years in Australia found that incidence rates 
for brain tumors overall and for individual histologic types, including 
glioma, were stable over three time periods--1982-1992, 1993-2002, and 
2003-2013--including one (2003-2013) during which cell phone use was 
substantial (27).
    An analysis of U.S. cancer incidence during 1993-2013 found no 
change in the overall incidence rate of malignant CNS cancers among 
children ages 0 to 19 years in the United States (28).

    Question. What are the findings from experimental studies?
    Answer. In 2011, two small studies were published that examined 
brain glucose metabolism in people after they had used cell phones. The 
results were inconsistent; whereas one study showed increased glucose 
metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared 
with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (29), the other study 
(30) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where 
the phone was used.
    The authors of these studies noted that the results were 
preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose 
metabolism in humans were unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not 
uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of 
radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in people (4). Some factors 
that can contribute to inconsistencies across such studies include 
assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature 
effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.
    Another study investigated the flow of blood in the brain of people 
exposed to the radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and found no 
evidence of an effect on blood flow in the brain (31).
    Early studies involving laboratory animals showed no evidence that 
radiofrequency radiation increased cancer risk or enhanced the cancer-
causing effects of known chemical carcinogens (32-35).
    Because of inconsistent findings from epidemiologic studies in 
humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in 
animals, in 1999 the Food and Drug Administration nominated 
radiofrequency radiation exposure associated with cell phone exposures 
for study in animal models by the U.S. National Toxicology Program 
(NTP), an interagency program that coordinates toxicology research and 
testing across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is 
headquartered at the National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences, part of NIH.
    The NTP studied radiofrequency radiation (2G and 3G frequencies) in 
rats and mice (36, 37). This large project was conducted in highly 
specialized labs that specified and controlled sources of radiation and 
measured their effects. The rodents experienced whole-body exposures of 
3, 6, or 9 watts per kilogram of body weight for 5 or 7 days per week 
for 18 hours per day in cycles of 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off. A 
research overview of the rodent studies, with links to the peer-review 
summary, is available on NTP website. The primary outcomes observed 
were a small number of cancers of Schwann cells in the heart and non-
cancerous changes (hyperplasia) in the same tissues for male rats, but 
not female rats, nor in mice overall.
    These experimental findings raise new questions as to the potential 
for radiofrequency radiation to result in cellular changes and offer 
potential avenues for further laboratory studies. Cancers in the heart 
are extremely rare in humans, where the primary outcomes of potential 
concern with respect to radiofrequency radiation exposure from cell 
phones are tumors in the brain and central nervous system. Schwann 
cells of the heart in rodents are similar to the kind of cells in 
humans that give rise to acoustic neuromas (also known as vestibular 
schwannomas), which some studies have suggested are increased in people 
who reported the heaviest use of cell phones. The NTP has stated that 
they will continue to study this exposure in animal models to further 
advance our understanding of the biological underpinnings of the 
effects reported above.
    Another animal study, in which rats were exposed 7 days per week 
for 19 hours per day to radiofrequency radiation at 0.001, 0.03, and 
0.1 watts per kilogram of body weight was reported by investigators at 
the Italian Ramazzini Institute (38). Among the rats with the highest 
exposure levels, the researchers noted an increase in heart schwannomas 
in male rats and non-malignant Schwann cell growth in the heart in male 
and female rats. However, key details necessary for interpretation of 
the results were missing: exposure methods, other standard operating 
procedures, and nutritional/feeding aspects. The gaps in the report 
from the study raise questions that have not been resolved.

    Question. Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone 
use and cancer risk inconsistent?
    Answer. A few studies have shown some evidence of statistical 
association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks in humans, but most 
studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies 
include the following:

    Recall bias, which can occur when data about prior habits and 
exposures are collected from study participants using questionnaires 
administered after diagnosis of a disease in some of the participants. 
It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may 
remember their cell phone use differently from individuals without 
brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain 
cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone 
use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a 
tendency to recall cell phone use mostly on the same side of the head 
where their tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used 
their phone on that side of the head a lot or only a little.
    Inaccurate reporting, which can happen when people say that 
something has happened more or less often than it actually did. People 
may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
    Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain 
cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example, 
because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who 
develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often 
impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore, 
for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the 
cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not 
accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
    Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed 
with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as 
controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or 
rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the 
Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For 
example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78 
percent for meningioma patients (range among the individual studies 56-
92 percent), 64 percent for glioma patients (range 36-92 percent), and 
53 percent for control subjects (range 42-74 percent) (6).
    Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated 
radiofrequency radiation exposure from analog cell phones. Today, cell 
phones use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency 
and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have 
been in use for more than two decades in the United States, and 
cellular technology continues to change (3). Texting and other 
applications, for example, are common uses of cell phones that do not 
require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of 
hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is 
increasingExit Disclaimer and may reduce exposure by distancing the 
phone from the body (39, 40).

    Question. What are other possible health effects from cell phone 
use?
    Answer. A broad range of health effects have been reported with 
cell phone use. Neurologic effects are of particular concern in young 
persons since the brain is the primary exposed organ. However, studies 
of memory, learning, and cognitive function have generally produced 
inconsistent results (41-44).
    The most consistent health risk associated with cell phone use is 
distracted driving and vehicle accidents (45, 46).

    Question. What have expert organizations said about the cancer risk 
from cell phone use?
    Answer. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on 
CancerExit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health 
Organization, appointed an expert Working Group to review all available 
evidence on the use of cell phones. The Working Group classified cell 
phone use as ``possibly carcinogenic to humans,'' based on limited 
evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of 
radiofrequency radiation and cancer in rodents, and inconsistent 
evidence from mechanistic studies (4).
    The Working Group indicated that, although the human studies were 
susceptible to bias, the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting 
bias alone, and that a causal interpretation could not be excluded. The 
Working Group noted that any interpretation of the evidence should also 
consider that the observed associations could reflect chance, bias, or 
confounding rather than an underlying causal effect. In addition, the 
Working Group stated that the investigation of risk of cancer of the 
brain associated with cell phone use poses complex methodologic 
challenges in the conduct of the research and in the analysis and 
interpretation of findings.
    In 2011, the American Cancer SocietyExit Disclaimer (ACS) stated 
that the IARC classification means that there could be some cancer risk 
associated with radiofrequency radiation, but the evidence is not 
strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated 
further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency radiation 
exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and 
limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.
    In 2018, the ACS issued a statement on the draft NTP reportsExit 
Disclaimer noting that the findings were still inconclusive, and that, 
so far, a higher cancer risk in people has not been seen, but that 
people who are concerned should wear an earpiece when using a cell 
phone.
    The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 
states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not 
conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, 
but more research is needed.
    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notes that studies 
reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency radiation 
have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human 
epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between 
exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cell phones and health 
problems. The FDA, which originally nominated this exposure for review 
by the NTP in 1999, issued a statement on the draft NTP reports 
released in February 2018, saying ``based on this current information, 
we believe the current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for 
protecting the public health.'' FDA and the Federal Communications 
Commission share responsibility for regulating cell phone technologies.
    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states 
that no scientific evidence definitively answers whether cell phone use 
causes cancer.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that 
currently no scientific evidence establishes a definite link between 
wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.
    In 2015, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging 
and Newly Identified Health Risks concluded that, overall, the 
epidemiologic studies on cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic 
radiation exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors or of 
other cancers of the head and neck region (2). The Committee also 
stated that epidemiologic studies do not indicate increased risk for 
other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer (2).

    Question. What studies are under way that will help further our 
understanding of the possible health effects of cell phone use?
    Answer. A large prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its 
possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. 
This study, known as COSMOSExit Disclaimer, has enrolled approximately 
290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow 
them for 20 to 30 years (47, 48).
    Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their 
health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This 
information will be supplemented with information from health records 
and cell phone records.
    The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following the 
participants for a range of health effects over many decades. 
Researchers will need to determine whether participants who leave the 
study are somehow different from those who remain throughout the 
follow-up period.
    Although recall bias is minimized in studies such as COSMOS that 
link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other 
problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed 
cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other 
cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users 
of a single phone, for example family members who may share a device, 
will be represented on a single phone company account. Additionally, 
for many long-term cohort studies, participation tends to decline over 
time.

    Question. Has radiofrequency radiation from cell phone use been 
associated with cancer risk in children?
    Answer. There are theoretical considerations as to why the possible 
risk should be investigated separately in children. Their nervous 
systems are still developing and, therefore, more vulnerable to factors 
that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and 
consequently have a greater proportional exposure to the field of 
radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And, children 
have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure 
than adults do.
    Thus far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not 
support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large 
case-control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, 
Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were 
diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages 
ranged from 7 to 19 years. Researchers did not find an association 
between cell phone use and brain tumor risk either by time since 
initiation of use, amount of use, or by the location of the tumor (21).
    Several studies that will provide more information are under way. 
Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology 
in Spain are conducting another international case-control study--Mobi-
KidsExit Disclaimer--that will include 2000 young people (aged 10-24 
years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. 
The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood 
brain tumors.

    Question. What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to 
radiofrequency radiation?
    Answer. The FDA has suggested some steps that concerned cell phone 
users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency radiation 
(49):

    Reserve the use of cell phones for shorter conversations or for 
times when a landline phone is not available.
    Use a device with hands-free technology, such as wired headsets, 
which place more distance between the phone and the head of the user.
    Hands-free kits reduce the amount of radiofrequency radiation 
exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of 
energy, is not placed against the head (40). Exposures decline 
dramatically when cell phones are used hands-free.

    Question. Where can I find more information about radiofrequency 
radiation from my cell phone?
    Answer. The FCC provides information about the specific absorption 
rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 
years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency 
radiation absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (50). Consumers can 
access this information using the phone's FCC ID number, which is 
usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC's ID search form.

    Question. How common is brain cancer? Has the incidence of brain 
cancer changed over time?
    Answer. In the United States, 23,820 new diagnoses and 17,760 
deaths from brain and other central nervous system cancers are 
estimated for 2019 (51). Brain cancer incidence rates have declined 
slightly in recent years and mortality (death) rates have increased 
slightly (52).
    There is great variability in survival by brain tumor subtype, and 
by age at diagnosis. Overall, the 5-year relative survival for brain 
cancers diagnosed from 2008 through 2014 was 33.2 percent (53). This is 
the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be 
alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of 
the same age and sex who does not have cancer.
    The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age. From 2011 
through 2015, there were fewer than 4.5 brain cancer cases for every 
100,000 people in the United States under age 65, compared with 
approximately 19.1 cases for every 100,000 people in the United States 
who were ages 65 or older (53).
Selected References
    Lonn S, Forssen U, Vecchia P, Ahlbom A, Feychting M. Output power 
levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications 
for exposure assessment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2004; 
61(9):769-772.
[PubMed Abstract]
    SCENIHR. 2015. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly 
Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to 
electromagnetic fields (EMF): http://ec.europa.eu/health/
scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdfExit Disclaimer, 
accessed August 15, 2015.
    Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, et al., Epidemiology of health 
effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 
2004; 112(17):1741-1754.
[PubMed Abstract]
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-ionizing 
Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic FieldsExit 
Disclaimer. Lyon, France: IARC; 2013. IARC monographs on the evaluation 
of carcinogenic risks to humans, Volume 102.
    Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al., The INTERPHONE study: 
design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study 
population. European Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 22(9):647-664.
[PubMed Abstract]
    The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile 
telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control 
study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 39(3):675-694.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Grell K, Frederiksen K, Schuz J, et al., The intracranial 
distribution of gliomas in relation to exposure from mobile phones: 
Analyses from the INTERPHONE study. American Journal of Epidemiology 
2016; 184(11):818-828.
[PubMed Abstract]
Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al., Mobile phone use and risk 
        of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control 
        study in five North European countries. British Journal of 
        Cancer 2005; 93(7):842-848.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Larjavaara S, Schuz J, Swerdlow A, et al., Location of gliomas in 
relation to mobile telephone use: a case-case and case-specular 
analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 174(1):2-11.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Cardis E, Armstrong BK, Bowman JD, et al., Risk of brain tumours in 
relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five 
Interphone countries. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2011; 
68(9):631-640.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J. Cellular telephones 
and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203-207.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al., Cellular telephone use and 
cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the 
National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707-1713.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al., Use of mobile phones and 
risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study. British Medical 
Journal 2011; 343:d6387.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Benson VS, Pirie K, Schuz J, et al., Mobile phone use and risk of 
brain neoplasms and other cancers: Prospective study. International 
Journal of Epidemiology 2013; 42(3): 792-802.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Benson VS, Pirie K, Schuz J, et al., Authors' response to: the case 
of acoustic neuroma: comment on mobile phone use and risk of brain 
neoplasms and other cancers. International Journal of Epidemiology 
2014; 43(1):275. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt186Exit Disclaimer.
    Muscat JE, Malkin MG, Thompson S, et al., Handheld cellular 
telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA 2000; 284(23):3001-3007.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al., Cellular-telephone use and 
brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79-86.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, et al., Mobile phone use and 
brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occupational and 
Environmental Medicine 2014; 71(7):514-522.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of case-
control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and 
cordless phones including living and deceased subjects. International 
Journal of Oncology 2011; 38(5):1465-1474.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, et al., Long-term mobile phone use and 
brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526-
535.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Aydin D, Feychting M, Schuz J, et al., Mobile phone use and brain 
tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case-control study. 
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2011; 103(16):1264-1276.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Inskip PD, Hoover RN, Devesa SS. Brain cancer incidence trends in 
relation to cellular telephone use in the United States. Neuro-Oncology 
2010; 12(11):1147-1151.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Deltour I, Johansen C, Auvinen A, et al., Time trends in brain 
tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974-
2003. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2009; 101(24):1721-1724.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Deltour I, Auvinen A, Feychting M, et al., Mobile phone use and 
incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979-2008: consistency 
check. Epidemiology 2012; 23(2):301-307.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Little MP, Rajaraman P, Curtis RE, et al., Mobile phone use and 
glioma risk: comparison of epidemiological study results with incidence 
trends in the United States. British Medical Journal 2012; 344:e1147.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Kshettry VR, Hsieh JK, Ostrom QT, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS. 
Incidence of vestibular schwannomas in the United States. Journal of 
Neuro-oncology 2015; 124(2):223-228.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Karipidis K, Elwood M, Benke G, et al., Mobile phone use and 
incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical 
location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open 2018; 
8(12):e024489.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Withrow DR, Berrington de Gonzalez A, Lam CJ, Warren KE, Shiels MS. 
Trends in pediatric central nervous system tumor incidence in the 
United States, 1998-2013. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 
2018 Nov 21. pii: cebp.0784.2018. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0784
[PubMed Abstract]
    Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, et al., Effects of cell phone 
radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA 2011; 
305(8):808-813.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kannala S, et al., GSM mobile phone radiation 
suppresses brain glucose metabolism. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and 
Metabolism 2011; 31(12):2293-301.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Kwon MS, Vorobyev V, Kannala S, et al., No effects of short-term 
GSM mobile phone radiation on cerebral blood flow measured using 
positron emission tomography. Bioelectromagnetics 2012; 33(3):247-56.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Hirose H, Suhara T, Kaji N, et al., Mobile phone base station 
radiation does not affect neoplastic transformation in BALB/3T3 cells. 
Bioelectromagnetics 2008; 29(1):55-64.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Oberto G, Rolfo K, Yu P, et al., Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz 
pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice. 
Radiation Research 2007; 168(3):316-326.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Zook BC, Simmens SJ. The effects of pulsed 860 MHz radiofrequency 
radiation on the promotion of neurogenic tumors in rats. Radiation 
Research 2006; 165(5):608-615.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Lin JC. Cancer occurrences in laboratory rats from exposure to RF 
and microwave radiationExit Disclaimer. IEEE J of electromagnetics, RF, 
and microwaves in medicine and biology 2017; 1(1):2-13.
    Gong Y, Capstick M, Kuehn S, et al., Life-time dosimetric 
assessment for mice and rats exposed in reverberation chambers of the 
2-year NTP cancer bioassay study on cell phone radiation. IEEE 
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(6):1798-1808.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Capstick M, Kuster N, Kuehn S, et al., A radio frequency radiation 
exposure system for rodents based on reverberation chambers. IEEE 
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 2017; 59(4):1041-1052.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al., Report of final results 
regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from 
prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field 
representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental 
emission. Environmental Research 2018; 165:496-503.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Kuhn S, Lott U, Kramer A, Kuster N. Assessment methods for 
demonstrating compliance with safety limits of wireless devices used in 
home and office environmentsExit Disclaimer. IEEE Transactions on 
Electromagnetic Compatibility 2007; 49(3):519-525.
    Kuhn S, Cabot E, Christ A, Capstick M, Kuster N. Assessment of the 
radio-frequency electromagnetic fields induced in the human body from 
mobile phones used with hands-free kits. Physics in Medicine and 
Biology 2009; 54(18):5493-508.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Brzozek C, Benke KK, Zeleke BM, Abramson MJ, Benke G. 
Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and memory performance: 
Sources of uncertainty in epidemiological cohort studies. International 
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2018;15(4). pii: 
E592.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Zhang J, Sumich A, Wang GY. Acute effects of radiofrequency 
electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phone on brain function. 
Bioelectromagnetics 2017; 38(5):329-338.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Foerster M, Thielens A, Joseph W, Eeftens M, Roosli M. A 
prospective cohort study of adolescents' memory performance and 
individual brain dose of microwave radiation from wireless 
communication. Environmental Health Perspectives 2018; 126(7):077007.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Guxens M, Vermeulen R, Steenkamer I, et al., Radiofrequency 
electromagnetic fields, screen time, and emotional and behavioural 
problems in 5-year-old children. International Journal of Hygiene and 
Environmental Health 2018 Oct 9. pii: S1438-4639(18)30502-9.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Atchley P, Strayer DL. Small screen use and driving safety. 
Pediatrics 2017; 140(Suppl 2):S107-S111.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Llerena LE, Aronow KV, Macleod J, et al., An evidence-based review: 
distracted driver. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2015; 
78(1):147-152
[PubMed Abstract]
    Schuz J, Elliott P, Auvinen A, et al., An international prospective 
cohort study of mobile phone users and health (Cosmos): design 
considerations and enrolment. Cancer Epidemiology 2011; 35(1):37-43.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Toledano MB, Auvinen A, Tettamanti G, et al., An international 
prospective cohort study of mobile phone users and health (COSMOS): 
Factors affecting validity of self-reported mobile phone use. 
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 2018; 
b221(1):1-8.
[PubMed Abstract]
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting 
Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. 
Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
    U.S. Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). FCC Encyclopedia: 
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for Cellular Telephones. Retrieved June 
18, 2012.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A 
Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2019; First published online: January 8, 
2019. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21551Exit Disclaimer.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Cronin KA, Lake AJ, Scott S, et al., Annual Report to the Nation on 
the Status of Cancer, part I: National cancer statistics. Cancer 2018; 
124(13):2785-2800.
[PubMed Abstract]
    Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M, et al., (eds). SEER Cancer 
Statistics Review, 1975-2015, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 
https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2015/, based on November 2017 SEER 
data submission, posted to the SEER website, April 2018.

    That being said, the hearing record will remain open for 
two weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any 
questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are 
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as 
soon as possible, but no later than Wednesday, February 20, 
2019, by the close of business.
    Now, if there is nothing further from my capable staff, we 
will conclude the hearing.
    The witnesses have been absolutely terrific, and I want to 
thank each and every one of you for participating.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                                  ACT | The App Association
                                  Washington, DC, February 20, 2019
Hon. Roger Wicker,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell,

    I applaud the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation for examining how the United States can best position 
itself to compete with overseas interests to establish a secure, 
reliable, and evolving set of 5G technologies. The hearing you held on 
February 6, ``Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology 
Innovation in the United States,'' focused rightly on how Federal 
policies can positively impact our competitiveness on 5G and related 
technologies. To supplement the record on these issues, we are 
directing the Committee's attention to the important role standard-
essential patents (SEPs) and related standards-setting activities play 
in fostering a competitive landscape that maximizes our efforts in 
leading the race to 5G. ACT | The App Association's small business 
member companies create products and services in the mobile app economy 
that rely on far-reaching and fast mobile Internet connections. They 
have a large stake in the ability of the United States to host and 
drive the development of 5G networks and the innovation that occurs on 
top of the 5G standard.
    1. SEPs are central to 5G development, and abusive SEP licensing 
practices harm innovation. The standards-setting system in the United 
States is strong and supports a private-sector driven approach that is 
superior to the government-controlled tactic other countries have 
chosen. In the United States, companies convene in neutral settings 
called standards-setting organizations (SSOs). The SSOs provide a forum 
in which interested stakeholders can take part in the development of 
technical standards. The gathering of companies across an industry to 
decide on the technologies that comprise a standard raises inherent 
antitrust concerns. As such, companies that wish to offer intellectual 
property (IP) as part of a standard typically must sign an agreement to 
license those patents that are declared essential to a standard on 
terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND). By 
requiring FRAND licensing of SEPs, SSOs thereby avoid antitrust 
liability by preventing SEP holders from ``holding up'' implementers of 
a standard--which must necessarily take a license on SEPs--until they 
accept unreasonable royalty rates and/o other unfair licensing terms.
    The litigation brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
against Qualcomm is a prime example of the problems created by SEP 
abuse and the importance of allowing U.S. antitrust law to curb such 
problems. Qualcomm refuses to license chip makers who are competitors 
to its cellular SEPs, only licenses end device producers if they also 
agree to exorbitant royalties and has engaged in other coercive 
licensing practices such as offering royalty rebates to one customer to 
exclude a competitor. Despite Qualcomm's FRAND commitments, it only 
licenses end device producers such as its customers because, as 
Qualcomm told the IRS, it is ``humongously more lucrative'' to do 
so.\1\ Astonishingly, as a result of its breach of FRAND commitments 
and other coercive licensing practices, Qualcomm collects more than 25 
percent of all patent royalties in the entire world.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FTC v. Qualcomm, trial exhibit CX6786-R, at 71 (emphasis 
added).
    \2\ FTC v. Qualcomm, trial transcript of Jan. 29, 2019, at 2125. 
This is not 25 percent of cellular phone royalties or even all 
telecommunications royalties. This is 25 percent of all patent 
royalties in all fields--communications, computers, medical devices, 
pharmaceuticals, chemicals, materials, aeronautics, automotive, energy, 
and all other fields in which inventions are patented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through different administrations, the FTC has been consistently 
supportive of using antitrust law to curb SEP abuse where there is 
evidence of anticompetitive conduct. Moreover, the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office (USPTO) and United States Department of Justice 
(DoJ) issued a joint Policy Statement in 2013 reinforcing the FRAND 
concepts and discouraging abusive licensing tactics like SEP owners 
using injunctions to pressure would-be innovators that must use 
standards to compete. Unfortunately, the current head of DoJ's 
Antitrust Division recently outlined plans to withdraw from the 2013 
Policy Statement. The 2013 Policy Statement reflects good policy, and 
accurately restates a robust and growing body of Federal legal 
precedent that underscores the importance of upholding FRAND licensing 
commitments. Proposed withdrawal from the Policy Statement comes at a 
difficult time, just as the United States is competing to develop 5G 
technology. It is now more important than ever to ensure that U.S. 
antitrust authorities stop SEP abuse. A refusal to enforce competition 
laws where SEP holders hold up SEP licensees in a way that has 
anticompetitive impact could have grave consequences for the 
development of technical standards and would devastate American efforts 
to win the ``race to 5G.'' Moreover, allowing abusive licensing to 
occur harms not just the American innovators that must use the 5G 
standard to develop new products, but it also harms consumers in the 
form of higher prices and lower quality. We urge the Committee to 
recognize the importance of enforcing competition laws in the SEP 
context to further American leadership in 5G networks. A broad 
coalition of manufacturers, software and device companies, and 
retailers support these views, which are described in more detail in a 
January 2019 letter to the United States Department of Commerce.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Letter from ACT | The App Association, Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, et. al., to Hon. Wilbur Ross, Sec'y of Commerce, U.S. 
Dept. of Commerce, and Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Sec'y of Commerce for 
Intellectual Property and Dir. Of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offc., 
Re: Preserving American Leadership in Standards, Licensing, and 
Innovation; and Significant Concerns with DOJ AAG Announcements on 
December 7, 2018 (Jan. 31, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. The United States should maintain robust competition in the 
market for premium baseband chipsets. An important component of 5G 
connectivity is the premium baseband chipset, a piece of hardware that 
connects smartphones and other devices to advanced wireless networks. 
There are only two competitors left in the commercial premium baseband 
chipset market and both are U.S. companies, Intel Corporation (Intel) 
and Qualcomm Incorporated. They have been developing baseband chipset 
technologies in 4G and are poised to compete for the 5G baseband 
chipset market.
    Very shortly after the FTC filed its complaint in U.S. Federal 
court, Qualcomm filed two patent infringement cases in the United 
States International Trade Commission (USITC), seeking to ban the 
importation into the U.S. of all iPhones with Intel modem chips in 
them. These two ITC cases could chase Intel out of the market entirely, 
leaving the United States vulnerable to a lack of competition. At issue 
in the first case are 88 Qualcomm patent infringement claims pressed 
against Apple for their use in late model iPhones (but only the models 
with Intel premium baseband chipsets), 87 of which have been dismissed 
throughout the course of the proceeding. The primary remedy at the 
USITC's disposal in these kinds of cases is a ban on the importation of 
the allegedly infringing item (in this case, most late model 
iPhones).\4\ This remedy is extraordinary and well out of proportion to 
the plain patent infringement issue it seeks to address when applying 
the public interest factors as required by the relevant statute. In 
fact, the proposed remedy at the USITC would cause significant 
collateral damage that is unjustified given other infringement remedies 
readily available in Federal court that Qualcomm also is diligently 
pursuing for the same alleged patent infringement.\5\ The Committee 
should be aware of the implications for 5G deployment in the U.S. that 
could result from an import ban on iPhones with Intel premium baseband 
chipsets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1337(d).
    \5\ Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 17-cv-1375 DMS (MDD) (S.D. 
Cal.). The trial in Qualcomm's district court companion case is 
scheduled to begin on March 4th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The administrative law judge (ALJ) assigned to review the first ITC 
case declined to issue the import ban, even though he agreed that one 
of the 88 patent claims was infringed. First, he noted his concern that 
if iPhones with Intel chipsets are banned, Intel would exit the 4G and 
5G markets and only one U.S. premium baseband chipset maker would 
remain. Allowing only a single premium baseband chipset maker to remain 
in such an important market, the ALJ reasoned, would deprive consumers 
of the higher quality, more secure, lower priced technologies that are 
driven by competition.
    Second, the ALJ determined that undermining the quality and 
strength of 5G technology would degrade our national security. In 
brief, ALJ Pender found that ``competition is necessary for quality, 
innovation, competitive pricing, and, in this case, the preservation of 
a strong U.S. presence in the development of 5G and thus the national 
security of the United States.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio 
Frequency and Processing Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1065, 
Initial Determination and Recommended Determination at 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A lack of competition in the market for 5G hardware could cede 
leadership in the development of the standard to other countries. Some 
of these nations--if allowed to lead the development of necessary 
hardware and the associated standard--would likely require the 
inclusion of insecure technologies designed to maintain an open 
backdoor for their own intelligence gathering. This would inevitably 
compromise mission-critical communications connecting to a 5G network. 
The full USITC is poised to review the ALJ's final initial 
determination, and we believe that determination--declining to impose 
the import ban--should be upheld to preserve competition and U.S. 
competitiveness in 5G. The App Association's member companies depend on 
secure and evolving next-generation networks, undergirded by robust 
competition and strong standards. Ceding ground to foreign interests in 
the ``race to 5G'' would seriously undermine our member companies' 
ability to reach consumers with innovative products and services 
delivered through a secure and reliable network.
    Committee members and witnesses raised important points throughout 
the Committee's 5G hearing. The role of robust competition, and 
honoring FRAND commitments as a means of ensuring such competition, 
should not be understated, and the Committee should at least be aware 
of the grave consequences of a failure to enforce competition laws 
against SEP abuse, and specifically, of degrading competition in the 
premium baseband chipset market. We urge the Committee to take these 
important factors into account as it considers policy options and 
levers that best position the United States to lead the development of 
and further innovation in and building on the 5G standard.
            Sincerely,
                                               Morgan Reed,
                                                         President,
                                             ACT | The App Association.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                              Brad Gillen
    Question 1. Mr. Gillen, during our hearing you expressed the 
importance of making more mid-band spectrum available for 5G 
deployment. Could you please discuss why making C-Band spectrum 
available is important to 5G deployment in the United States?
    Answer. To achieve our 5G goals, we are going to need different 
types of spectrum, but mid-band is key as it can offer both capacity 
and coverage. Mid-band spectrum will be critical to help fulfill 5G's 
promise to drive transformational improvements in health care, 
education, transportation, and nearly every other industry.
    Unfortunately, the U.S. ranks sixth globally in terms of mid-band 
spectrum availability. Other countries are making four times more mid-
band spectrum available than the U.S. South Korea just auctioned a 
significant amount of mid-band spectrum earlier this year. Here in the 
U.S., we don't have any mid-band auctions planned right now.
    We need to move quickly to catch up on mid-band and C-band spectrum 
between 3.7-4.2 GHz offers the best path to making a large swatch of 
mid-band available to support robust 5G networks.

    Question 2. Do you believe Congress needs to take action to make C-
Band spectrum available for 5G deployment in a timely manner?
    Answer. This Committee has provided meaningful leadership and 
legislative direction to the FCC on mid-band spectrum, including the C-
band, and we urge that leadership to continue. In fact, a provision in 
the Mobile Now Act, which became law as part of the Ray Baum's Act last 
year, directs the FCC to report by September 23, 2019, on ``the 
feasibility of allowing commercial wireless services, licensed or 
unlicensed, to use or share use of the frequencies between 3700 
megahertz and 4200 megahertz.''
    We need Congress's support to stress the urgency with which we need 
FCC action on the C-band. Continued direction and oversight of the FCC 
by this Committee is important to advance the reallocation of this key 
band.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                              Brad Gillen
    Question 1. As your testimony noted, China announced that its three 
existing state-owned wireless providers will receive a total of 460 
megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G. What can we do to make sure U.S. 
wireless providers have access to a similar amount of spectrum as 
quickly as possible?
    Answer. A predictable pipeline of spectrum will do much to advance 
U.S. 5G interests, and help us match the aggressive efforts foreign 
governments are taking to allocate spectrum for 5G.
    Encouragingly, the Administration and the FCC have identified all 
the right bands. Now it is about execution and speed to keep up with 
the rest of the world.
    The Administration's forthcoming National Spectrum Strategy 
provides a unique opportunity to develop a five-year schedule of 
spectrum auctions, which is needed to accelerate the deployment of 5G 
networks and fully realize the connected life and Internet of Things 
breakthroughs of 5G-enabled services. Congress should ensure the 
Strategy supports our Nation's 5G ambitions.
    A long-term plan will allow wireless providers to plan and build 
their 5G networks to maximize efficiency and robustness. A schedule 
that provides access to the same or similar mid-band spectrum bands 
that are being made available throughout Asia and Europe is key.
    By harmonizing U.S. mid-band spectrum with bands being made 
available for 5G around the globe, economies of scale would be 
achieved, reducing both the costs and time to deploy 5G. Analysis Group 
recently estimated the economic impact of U.S. policymakers freeing up 
mid-band spectrum and found that 400 MHz of mid-band spectrum will 
drive $274 billion in GDP and 1.33 million new jobs.
    Congress should also encourage several specific ongoing mid-band 
spectrum activities at the FCC and NTIA:

   The FCC recently finalized rules for the 3.5 GHz band for 
        mobile broadband, which will result in 70 MHz of licensed 
        spectrum to be auctioned soon

   The FCC has an open proceeding to evaluate repurposing up to 
        500 MHz of C-band spectrum (3.7-4.2 GHz)

   The Commerce Department's NTIA recently initiated a review 
        of the 3.45 GHz band

    Question 2. While I have supported legislation like the RAPID Act 
and the MOBILE NOW Act to streamline overly-cumbersome regulations, 
what else should Congress be doing to increase U.S. competitiveness in 
5G deployment?
    Answer. Congress should encourage and provide oversight of two 
important Administration activities. First, the October 2018 
Presidential Memorandum directed the development of a National Spectrum 
Strategy. Congress should support a proactive, 5G-centric spectrum 
strategy that includes a clear long-term spectrum plan. Second, the U.S 
Government will participate later this year in the 2019 World Radio 
Conference. Congress should encourage the Administration to take 
positions that reinforce America's 5G leadership and to maintain access 
to critical spectrum bands that have already been identified for 5G use 
in the U.S.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                              Brad Gillen
    Question 1. In the race to find and repurpose spectrum for 5G, it 
is critically important that we also responsibly consider incumbent 
uses. This is especially important in Alaska, where incumbents are 
providing critical broadband and public safety services via C-Band 
spectrum. In any band transition, how can the wireless industry, 
working with the FCC, ensure that distance learning and telemedicine 
capabilities, and even FAA safety communications in Alaska will not be 
disrupted? In particular, permitting private parties to manage any 
reallocation and transition process raises red flags. If there is not 
traditional FCC oversight, how would we ensure that those incumbent 
uses would be protected and that nothing would go wrong during a 
privately managed transition process?
    Answer. Mid-band spectrum, including the C-band, will be critical 
to fulfilling 5G's promise to drive transformational improvements in 
health care, education, transportation, and nearly every other 
industry. We are seeing countries like China and South Korea move 
forward aggressively to make mid-band spectrum available to deploy 5G. 
Today, however, the U.S. has a mid-band spectrum deficit, ranking sixth 
globally in terms of mid-band spectrum availability and we need to 
catch up quickly. The large swath of spectrum in the C-band offers the 
best path to making mid-band spectrum available to secure America's 5G 
leadership.
    The C-band today can be utilized more efficiently to accommodate 
the interests of both wireless and satellite providers. We appreciate 
that the C-band is used in a different manner in Alaska than in the 
continental U.S., and we pledge to work with you to ensure continued 
access to key satellite-based services as well as important access to 
mid-band spectrum for Alaskan wireless operators.

    Question 2. Satellite companies have proposed a private sale of C-
Band spectrum in which no money would go back to U.S. taxpayers. By 
contrast, FCC spectrum auctions have raised billions of dollars in the 
past. Do you agree that funding U.S. priorities like expanded rural 
broadband should come before enriching foreign satellite companies? If 
not, why?
    Answer. CTIA is focused on making C-band spectrum available for 5G 
as soon as possible. As noted above, the United States is behind 
globally in terms of mid-band availability and we are committed to 
working with all stakeholders to remedy that deficit expeditiously.
    We share your interest in using auction proceeds to help support 
rural wireless broadband deployment through a rural dividend or similar 
program. Unfortunately, no such mechanism is in place today, and we 
would welcome the opportunity to work with you to better leverage 
spectrum auctions--however constructed--to benefit rural America.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                              Brad Gillen
    Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework 
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support 
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be 
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in 
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
    Answer. The potential of 5G will continue to evolve as more capable 
networks get deployed and new services and use-cases develop on these 
platforms. As with any network, larger scale will ultimately mean more 
value, for both users and providers, and more opportunity for 
innovation. Therefore, it will be in the interest of all stakeholders 
to extend 5G connectivity broadly. One of the most promising aspects of 
deployment on new spectrum, particularly in the low-and mid-bands, is 
that fiber-like speeds will be achievable with wireless connectivity. 
This could be a particularly meaningful way to improve the economics of 
broadband deployment in rural areas. We continue to believe that the 
FCC's Mobility Fund and a rural dividend for future spectrum auctions 
will be critical to reaching unserved areas with advanced wireless 
connectivity.

    Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to 
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to 
receive broadband and Internet support?
    Answer. The FCC's action in 2018 to address both Federal and local 
siting reforms are the most important steps the agency can take to 
promote widespread deployment and all stakeholders should commit to 
implementing those reforms expeditiously.
    Further, sufficient spectrum is key to winning the 5G race and 
unlocking the corresponding economic and societal benefits. 
Encouragingly, the Administration and the FCC have identified all the 
right bands. Now it is a matter of us finishing the job fast by getting 
that spectrum in the hands of innovators.
    We want to build out to as many communities as quickly as possible, 
and forward-thinking policies such as those recently adopted in West 
Virginia and by the FCC will help us do just that while preserving 
local siting authority.

    Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where 
there are have and have nots?
    Answer. The wireless industry is projected to invest $275 billion 
over the next decade to deploy 5G. This private capital investment will 
follow the $226 billion made in our networks just since 2010. The 
competitive nature of the broadband market--including within just the 
mobile sector--and the promise that fully scaled 5G network deployments 
hold for new economic activity provide tremendous incentive for 
wireless providers to not only deploy 5G as quickly as possible, but 
also as broadly as possible. As noted above, we also support the FCC's 
Mobility Fund and an auction rural dividend to help reach those 
communities uneconomic to serve today.

    Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. The FCC's Mobility Fund II will deliver mobile wireless 
services to rural areas without sufficient access to the critical 
services enabled by 4GLTE today, such as public safety, healthcare, 
education and economic opportunities. Providers can speed the 
deployment of 5G to rural areas by leveraging the capabilities and 
infrastructure deployed with Mobility Fund support. We encourage the 
FCC to move forward with funding.

    Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a 
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need 
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you 
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of 
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
    Answer. 5G will rely on both towers and small cells, and we should 
seek out solutions to promote the deployment of both. Backhaul is an 
essential component of wireless communications networks, and that 
includes both fiber and wireless backhaul solutions. This has been true 
since the earliest mobile voice calls were connected between 200-foot 
towers and will be true when real-time automobile data is sent back-
and-forth over small cells on lampposts. The Committee should support 
widespread deployment of fiber to support both wired and wireless 
communications.

    Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of 
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids 
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments. 
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help 
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see 
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
    Answer. Mobile broadband has been an effective tool to enhance 
education outside the classroom. A survey by Grunwald Associates found 
that more than two-thirds of parents said that mobile devices have 
opened learning opportunities to kids that were not available before. 
By delivering data speeds up to 100 times faster than 4G networks, 5G 
will further enhance learning through applications such as virtual 
reality and augmented reality. The potential for 5G to improve outcomes 
for students and resources for educators is yet another incentive to 
build out next generation wireless network capabilities as quickly and 
broadly as possible.

    Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my 
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet 
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains 
more prevalence?
    Answer. 5G promises to deliver fiber-like speeds with the added 
benefit of mobility. The two critical areas where we need congressional 
leadership is providing access to more spectrum and modernizing the 
siting rules for tomorrow's networks.

    Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are 
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G 
economy?
    Answer. Congress should continue to anticipate the tremendous 
bandwidth and connectivity needs of a 5G future and ensure a pipeline 
of spectrum is available to fully realize the connected life and 
Internet of Things possibilities. Congress should also use its 
oversight authority to identify and eliminate unnecessary barriers to 
the deployment of 5G infrastructure, including by streamlining 
deployment on Federal lands and modernizing the guardrails Congress 
placed on local regulatory authority decades ago to ensure availability 
of nationwide mobile services. Congress should explore the potential of 
new and improved services that 5G networks will facilitate, which will 
reach nearly every facet of the economy. For those areas unserved 
today, the key lies in support for the FCC's Mobility Fund and a rural 
dividend mechanism to direct future auction revenues to unserved rural 
America.

    Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously 
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed 
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying 
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer 
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress 
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps 
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not 
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example 
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in 
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you 
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
    Answer. This Committee should be credited with identifying 
challenges with our broadband mapping. Timely and relevant data is 
critical to measuring broadband services that reflects consumer's real-
world experiences. The FCC's Mobility Fund II challenge process 
provides a unique opportunity to determine how provider reported data 
and on-the-ground information can be harnessed to effectively determine 
the availability of mobile wireless broadband services.

    Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity 
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation 
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income 
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility, 
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment 
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax 
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting 
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. CTIA supported the GO Act last Congress and we applaud your 
leadership on this issue. The wireless industry is projected to invest 
nearly $300 billion over the next decade to deploy 5G. A tax-based 
incentive proposal such as the Gigabit Opportunity Act would ensure 
more of that private investment goes into better networks and services 
for consumers.

    Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the 
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal 
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate 
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural 
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum 
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in 
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like 
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed 
through programs like USF and RUS?
    Answer. The rural dividend would provide policymakers and 
communications providers an additional, and more targeted and flexible, 
tool to further close our Nation's digital divide. We agree it is 
important that any new program complement and support existing rural 
funding mechanisms, and we welcome the opportunity to work with you to 
ensure funds directed at rural America have the most impact to expand 
connectivity.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                              Brad Gillen
    T-Mobile/Sprint Merger. In April 2018, CTIA issued a report, which 
states that 5G deployment by our national providers is ``driven by the 
intense competition in the wireless market.'' But the heads of T-Mobile 
and Sprint claim that their merger--which would reduce the number of 
competing national providers from four to three--is necessary for the 
United States to win the global race to 5G.
    Question 1. In your opinion, is further consolidation of wireless 
carriers necessary for America to win the ``Global Race to 5G''?
    Answer. CTIA defers to the Committee, the Department of Justice, 
and the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate the benefits of 
proposed transactions. The most important issue from our perspective is 
that American companies are clearly focused on leading in 5G 
deployment. This focus drives significant investment and shows our 
commitment to global leadership.

    Spectrum and Public Safety. As we discuss national security 
threats, we must also recognize the role that 5G will play in the U.S. 
public safety systems.
    Question 2. How can 5G technologies be leveraged to advance public 
safety communications, including opportunities for obtaining more 
accurate locations of 9-1-1 callers?
    Answer. The wireless industry is confident that the benefits of 5G 
will be leveraged to advance public safety communications, especially 
with regard to obtaining more accurate 9-1-1 call location information.
    Specifically, the deployment of ``small cells'' required for 5G 
will result in denser, more granular networks across the country. This 
densification process means that 9-1-1 location information will be 
available with more specificity than today's systems allow. Moreover, 
as this densification process is coupled with growing numbers of in-
home products that connect to the 5G network, E911 location accuracy 
will improve.
    Apart from 9-1-1 enhancements, 5G promises to offer additional 
benefits for first responders. Enhanced vehicle to vehicle 
communications for public safety vehicles has tremendous potential. The 
FirstNet dedicated public safety network will include the latest 5G 
network upgrades and enhancements for the benefit of its millions of 
public safety users. And the ability of 5G networks to process the 
ever-increasing amount of video utilized by law enforcement will be a 
critical component of public safety capabilities in the future.
    Finally, CTIA members are focused on developing 5G products and 
capabilities for the benefit of public safety. For example, Verizon 
recently announced the first five participating companies for its 5G 
First Responder Lab, an innovation incubator that will give leading 
first responder technology companies from around the globe access to 5G 
technology to develop, test and refine 5G solutions for public safety. 
The five companies in this initial effort will focus on a range of 
technologies, including sensor data, visual data from drones, 
analytics, and augmented reality for firefighters in zero visibility 
situations.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                              Brad Gillen
    Question 1. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei 
Equipment in their networks?
    Answer. CTIA is focused on protecting the security interests of 
consumers and the U.S. wireless industry, including the security of the 
U.S. communications supply chain. Huawei has only a fraction of 1 
percent of the U.S. wireless infrastructure equipment market. Although 
Huawei is not in the plans of any national U.S. operators, CTIA members 
are committed to working closely with national security officials to 
assess and evaluate potential national security threats presented by 
Chinese equipment.

    Question 2. What kind of workforce is needed to implement 
infrastructure for 5G?
    Answer. The demands for 5G infrastructure will require a wide 
variety of resources in the field. CTIA member companies as well as 
supporting vendors and contractors will require employees with 
experience in the following areas:

   Fiber cable laying and splicing

   Replacing and setting poles in the city and metro areas

   Aerial work platforms, operating bucket trucks and manlifts 
        to deploy equipment on poles

   Electricians to install demarcation points in poles

   Welders to cut hand holes in existing infrastructure

   Field technicians to connect, test, and troubleshoot 
        installations for turn up and longer term for maintenance, and;

   RF Engineers to design and optimize networks.

    Question 3. How can we make sure the workforce have the skills and 
training to deploy 5G infrastructure?
    Answer. A critical component of making sure we have the workforce 
with the skills and training necessary to deploy 5G is public 
awareness. Federal, state, and local officials, along with the wireless 
industry, should take steps to ensure that relevant colleges, trade 
schools, employee unions, and government training programs are aware of 
the skills necessary to construct modern communications networks as 
well as the need for such employees throughout the wireless industry.
    Industry is taking concrete steps to prepare interested workers for 
the employment opportunities presented by 5G network deployment. For 
example, CTIA member Ericsson has established Centers of Excellence 
around the United States to develop a trained and educated wireless 
workforce. These Centers are enhanced training facilities that provide 
best-in-class field services, training, and support for Ericsson 
employees and partners. Trainees participate in operator-specific 
courses taught by industry experts, ranging from site installation to 
integration.

    Question 4. If we need workers, can we put training programs in 
rural areas?
    Answer. Yes, we welcome the opportunity to work with you. Many of 
the skills needed could be gained from basic electronics trade schools.

    Question 5. How are you thinking about workforce training, do you 
see a role for community colleges, job crops, and trade schools?
    Answer. Yes, the wireless industry is recruiting from all of these 
today. CTIA members predict that demand for good people with the basic 
skills described above will be high for the coming years. According to 
Accenture, 5G investments will lead to 3 million new jobs nationally. 
These do not include the construction jobs that will also be created 
during the buildout of 5G networks. Community colleges, job corps, and 
trade schools will all be institutions carriers and equipment suppliers 
look to in strengthening their workforces.

    Question 6. What overlap do you see for our Nation's veterans, who 
have come home with a variety of skills that may be useful for 
implementing 5g? Things like heavy equipment, large trucks, technical 
electronics, and engineers?
    Answer. The wireless industry is actively engaged with military 
veterans entering the civilian workforce after serving our country. 
CTIA members appreciate relevant experience gained while in the 
military as well as the work ethic instilled in so many servicemembers 
while in uniform.
    CTIA member companies are leading the way in veteran hiring, with 
carriers making commitments to hire tens of thousands of veterans in 
the coming years. Additionally, many of CTIA's members have partnered 
with Warriors4Wireless (W4W). W4W is a non-profit that trains 
experienced veterans for futures in the telecommunications industry. 
Currently W4W is working with industry partners to provide tower 
climbing and fiber optic installation certification through a local 
community college. Further, T-Mobile is also working closely with a 
leading non-profit (FourBlock) to help military veterans transition 
into corporate careers.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                              Steve Berry
    Question 1. As you know, last Congress I introduced the SPECTRUM 
NOW Act to help relocate Federal users of spectrum that is to be made 
available for commercial use. Do you agree that the reforms contained 
in SPECTRUM NOW would help provide better support for Federal users 
while also making it easier to make spectrum available for 5G?
    Answer. Increased demands for wireless service and the launch of 
next generation and 5G technologies require additional spectrum for 
commercial use. The SPECTRUM NOW Act would provide Federal users with 
the research and development tools necessary to use spectrum more 
efficiently, upgrade technologies where appropriate, and reallocate 
spectrum for commercial use, benefitting Federal users and consumers 
alike. CCA continues to support this effort.

    Question 2. Mr. Berry, 5G can help expand the use of telemedicine, 
precision agriculture, and other technologies that will be particularly 
beneficial to rural Americans. However, closing the broadband gap in 
rural areas with existing networks has been and continues to be a 
priority for this Committee. What are the unique challenges you foresee 
in deploying 5G in rural areas and what can Congress and the FCC do to 
address those issues?
    Can you describe the infrastructure that will be needed to connect 
thousands of small cells? And, what kind of fiber investments will be 
needed to deliver 5G services to less densely populated areas of the 
country?
    Answer. Modern wireless technologies are already powering 
revolutionary uses of telemedicine, precision agriculture, and other 
technologies. These services will be supercharged as 5G is deployed, 
while enabling technologies beyond our imaginations today. Many of 
these technologies will have the greatest and most immediate impact in 
rural areas, so it is vital that these areas are not left behind.
    Practically speaking, 5G will be built upon 4G LTE technologies, 
and we need reliable data to understand where 4G coverage exists so 
policymakers can advance solutions to close the digital divide. 
Additionally, all carriers need access to low-, mid-, and high-band 
spectrum frequencies to meet demands today and deploy 5G in the years 
ahead. For rural areas in particular, carriers need additional access 
to low-and mid-band frequencies. Completing the 600 MHz repack on or 
ahead of schedule and advancing solutions to allocate additional mid-
band spectrum for commercial wireless use, including in the C band, 
will help carriers serve rural America.
    Carriers also must have certainty regarding infrastructure 
deployment policies. As noted in my testimony, 5G will rely on a ``high 
fiber'' diet, and a greater focus on fiber deployment for backhaul 
services, in addition to microwave and satellite, is necessary to 
prevent backhaul from becoming a choke point in 5G networks. This is 
the case for small cells and larger towers, and significant investments 
are necessary in both urban population centers and less dense rural 
areas.

    Question 3. Mr. Berry, your organization filed comments with the 
FCC explaining how a prohibition of suppliers like Huawei could cost 
rural telecommunications carriers hundreds of millions of dollars and 
disrupt service to their customers. Can you provide any additional 
information regarding what would be required to eliminate Huawei and 
ZTE equipment from the networks of your member companies?
    Answer. CCA and its members fully support efforts to protect and 
harden networks from cybersecurity and other national security threats. 
Working collaboratively with Congress and other Federal authorities, 
carriers need clear information regarding what equipment and services 
are secure for future 5G builds, as well as clear information on 
potential current threats to make appropriate changes to their existing 
networks. Carriers must have access to equipment that is secure, 
particularly for carriers that lack economies of scale, and additional 
resources based on threat assessments to provide all Americans with 
wireless services they can use with confidence.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                              Steve Berry
    Question 1. As you and your members are aware, the Mobility Fund 
Phase II auction was expected to allocate $4.53 billion to support the 
deployment of 4G LTE network service over the next ten years, but it 
has been delayed due to questions around the quality of the data 
submitted in formulating the initial eligibility map. Whether it is 4G 
or 5G mobile service, would you agree that accurate data and maps are 
critical to effectively closing the Digital Divide?
    Answer. Reliable data is absolutely critical to effectively closing 
the digital divide. 5G services will be built upon 4G services, 
doubling down on the need for a reliable and accurate depiction of 4G 
coverage before disbursing $4.53 billion over the next decade. In the 
wireless industry, a ``generation'' of services often enters its peak 
in its tenth year. With 5G being deployed today, if the Mobility Fund 
Phase II (``MF II'') is built upon unreliable data, the digital divide 
will be significantly increased by the conclusion of MF II, failing 
rural America, leaving communities behind.

    Question 2. While I have supported legislation like the RAPID Act 
and the MOBILE NOW Act to streamline overly-cumbersome regulations, 
what else should Congress be doing to increase U.S. competitiveness in 
5G deployment?
    Answer. CCA commends your leadership to increase certainty for 
carriers as they navigate the broadband infrastructure deployment 
processes and welcomes further efforts to deploy the network 
infrastructure that will support 5G. These services will depend on a 
mix of small cells and macro towers, with readily available access to 
fiber and other advanced backhaul technologies.
    Additionally, 5G deployments are dependent on increased access to 
spectrum, the invisible infrastructure that powers wireless services. 
Carriers require a mix of low-, mid-and high-band spectrum to keep up 
with existing growing demands for wireless use and deploy advanced 5G 
services. Congress plays a key role in ensuring that these finite, 
taxpayer owned resources are used to benefit all Americans, and CCA 
supports continued work to identify spectrum bands that can be 
reallocated for commercial use to increase U.S. competitiveness in 5G 
deployment.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                              Steve Berry
    Question 1. In the race to find and repurpose spectrum for 5G, it 
is critically important that we also responsibly consider incumbent 
uses. This is especially important in Alaska, where incumbents are 
providing critical broadband and public safety services via C-Band 
spectrum. In any band transition, how can the wireless industry, 
working with the FCC, ensure that distance learning and telemedicine 
capabilities, and even FAA safety communications in Alaska will not be 
disrupted? In particular, permitting private parties to manage any 
reallocation and transition process raises red flags. If there is not 
traditional FCC oversight, how would we ensure that those incumbent 
uses would be protected and that nothing would go wrong during a 
privately-managed transition process?
    Answer. The C-Band is an important source of limited mid-band 
spectrum for 5G, and policymakers should focus on reallocating as much 
spectrum in the band as is possible to support modern wireless 
deployments. Fortunately, that is not mutually exclusive with 
protecting incumbent users, including several CCA members. CCA supports 
continued oversight from Congress and the FCC to ensure that this 
process is conducted in a way that protects existing users while 
serving the public demand for modern wireless services. Any 
reallocation of C-Band spectrum should be accomplished in a manner that 
promotes the public interest.

    Question 2. Satellite companies have proposed a private sale of C-
Band spectrum in which no money would go back to U.S. taxpayers. By 
contrast, FCC spectrum auctions have raised billions of dollars in the 
past. Do you agree that funding U.S. priorities like expanded rural 
broadband should come before enriching foreign satellite companies? If 
not, why?
    Answer. As FCC Chairman Pai has advocated in his Digital 
Empowerment Agenda and bipartisan, bicameral members of Congress have 
supported in legislation, any auction of spectrum should include a 
``rural dividend'' with a portion of the funds reserved to support 
rural broadband deployment. Rural broadband expansion, and any other 
priorities as directed by Congress, should be prioritized before 
disbursing any compensation above transition costs to current license 
holders.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                              Steve Berry
    Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework 
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support 
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be 
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in 
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
    Answer. 5G services will have the greatest and most immediate 
impact on rural areas. That is why it is critical that rural America is 
not left behind as 5G networks are deployed and new services are 
developed. To ensure that 5G develops in rural areas alongside 
deployment in urban areas, the FCC should adopt policies to support 
rural deployment and Congress should reconfirm the mandate to ensure 
reasonably comparable services in urban and rural areas.

    Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to 
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to 
receive broadband and Internet support?
    Answer. The FCC has taken significant steps to help streamline the 
deployment of wireless network infrastructure. However, the job is not 
done. Carriers must have certainty regarding the costs and time 
necessary to deploy, maintain, and upgrade broadband infrastructure. 
Steps taken now to streamline current infrastructure deployment will 
ease and accelerate the deployment of 5G technologies.
    The Congressional mandate for reasonably comparable services in 
urban and rural areas was not a snapshot in time as the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted but intended to continue to 
support an evolving level of telecommunications and information 
services. In 2019, that includes the deployment of 5G, and CCA strongly 
supports efforts to ensure that rural areas are included in 5G 
deployment plans.

    Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where 
there are have and have nots?
    Answer. 5G services are built upon today's 4G LTE networks. Absent 
policies to close the digital divide today, 5G will exacerbate this 
problem and leave rural Americans behind in the connected future. To 
ensure a rapid deployment of 5G services in rural America in the 
future, policymakers should focus on expanding current 4G deployments, 
and eliminating barriers deterring investment in unserved and 
underserved areas.

    Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. If based upon reliable coverage data to determine eligible 
areas, the Mobility Fund holds tremendous potential to provide the 
business case for carriers to deploy 4G LTE services that will support 
future 5G deployments in rural areas.

    Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a 
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need 
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you 
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of 
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
    Answer. Fiber is a critical foundation of wireless networks. Absent 
sufficient backhaul, including through fiber, small cells will face a 
choke point that slows the services available to consumers. 
Additionally, absent sufficient spectrum access, carriers are unable to 
provide the wireless capacity to meet consumer demands. For 5G services 
to meet their potential, carriers require both sufficient access to 
finite spectrum resources and readily available fiber backhaul 
services.

    Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of 
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids 
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments. 
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help 
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see 
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
    Answer. Closing the digital divide will help ensure that all 
students have the resources they need to succeed, regardless of where 
they live. Connectivity is key. 5G services will provide new services 
from increased access to lectures and homework assignments to augmented 
and virtual reality demonstrations to advance studies. These services 
will be available to students as 5G services are deployed in their 
communities, underscoring the importance of rapid deployments. CCA also 
supports legislation to allow E-Rate funds to be used to provide Wi-Fi 
on school buses, to allow drive time to be used as connected learning 
time.

    Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my 
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet 
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains 
more prevalence?
    Answer. Backhaul is a critical component to 5G services. Increased 
business opportunities unlocked through 5G deployments as well as 
sufficient support to deploy fiber to deliver fixed and mobile services 
are required to provide rural areas with reasonably comparable services 
as more densely populated areas.

    Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are 
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G 
economy?
    Answer. No state should be left behind in the 5G economy. Congress 
can take steps to ensure that all carriers have access to sufficient 
spectrum resources, certainty regarding the permitting and deployment 
process, and support to ensure that reasonably comparable services are 
deployed in urban and rural areas.

    Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously 
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed 
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying 
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer 
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress 
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps 
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not 
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example 
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in 
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you 
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
    Answer. Reliable broadband coverage data is critical to adopting 
policies to close the digital divide. Broadband availability should be 
measured using standardized parameters that reflect the your 
constituents' experiences as they seek to connect.

    Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity 
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation 
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income 
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility, 
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment 
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax 
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting 
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. There is no single solution to connecting all Americans 
with advanced mobile broadband, it will require policies that embrace 
an all-of-the-above approach. CCA supports the GO Act as one tool 
available to advance broadband deployment. Tax incentives can help 
carriers make the business case for 5G deployments where, absent 
incentives, no current business case exists to provide service. 
Investments in broadband networks foster opportunities for economic 
development and job creation throughout the entire community.

    Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the 
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal 
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate 
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural 
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum 
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in 
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like 
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed 
through programs like USF and RUS?
    Answer. If enacted, the rural dividend is an important tool to 
ensure that funding is available to support rural broadband 
deployments. A 2018 study assessing the economic impact of the AIRWAVES 
Act estimated that had the rural dividend been in place for FCC 
Auctions 101 and 102, as much as $2 billion could have been generated 
to support rural broadband deployment.
    As with today's USF and RUS programs, policymakers must remain 
cognizant of the potential for overbuilds or biases towards any one 
technology. CCA supports using proceeds from the rural dividend to 
specifically ensuring that funding is available to wireless deployments 
in rural America.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                              Steve Berry
    Improving Broadband Mapping. In order to successfully deploy 5G 
nationwide, we need reliable data on where service exists and where it 
does not. The information currently collected does not provide an 
accurate picture of deployment in rural areas.
    Question. In your testimony, you stated that reliable coverage maps 
are necessary for policies to spur 5G deployment. How could consumer-
reported data improve the accuracy of the FCC's coverage maps and 
benefit rural areas?
    Answer. The FCC should consider all data sources available, 
including consumer-reported data, to improve the current coverage maps. 
No one is more familiar with what coverage is available than the 
consumers that rely on service where they live, work, and travel. With 
appropriate safeguards regarding compatibility of devices and 
throttling polices should be reflected, consumer-reported data can 
improve the integrity of coverage data.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                              Steve Berry
    Question 1. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei 
Equipment in their networks?
    Answer. Congress can help small carriers by providing specific 
information regarding threats, approved equipment, and assistance to 
access and deploy equipment that addresses cybersecurity and national 
security concerns.

    Question 2. What kind of workforce is needed to implement 
infrastructure for 5G?

    Question 3. How can we make sure the workforce have the skills and 
training to deploy 5G infrastructure?

    Question 4. If we need workers, can we put training programs in 
rural areas?

    Question 5. How are you thinking about workforce training, do you 
see a role for community colleges, job crops, and trade schools?

    Question 6. What overlap do you see for our Nation's veterans, who 
have come home with a variety of skills that may be useful for 
implementing 5g? Things like heavy equipment, large trucks, technical 
electronics, and engineers?
    Answer. As carriers work to deploy 5G services, they rely on an 
increased workforce while simultaneously working to repack the 600 MHz 
band, enhance public safety services, preserve and expand 4G services, 
and deploy 5G. This requires an all-of-the-above approach, including 
expanding access to workforce training for tower erectors and other 
skilled positions. Community colleges, job crops, and trade schools 
play a critical role in developing the workforce necessary to meet 
deployment demands, and should include training programs in rural 
areas.
    Particularly regarding workforce training for our Nation's 
veterans, CCA supports programs that arrange certified training using 
GI bill benefits and place qualified veterans in open positions and 
apprenticeships, including the Warriors 4 Wireless nonprofit program.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                            Shailen P. Bhatt
    Question. In your testimony you state that ITS America ``strongly 
supports preserving the entire 5.9 gigahertz band for Vehicle-to-
Everything.'' I agree that safety is a paramount consideration, but 
I've said for years that it would be a positive public policy outcome 
if engineers could find a reliable way for both Wi-Fi and connected 
vehicle technology to co-exist in the 5.9 gigahertz band. Along those 
lines, the FCC has talked about a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 
reexamine this band. Would ITS America support the Commission moving 
forward with this action to see what may be achievable?
    Answer. Since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commenced 
its ET Docket 13-49 in 2013, Intelligent Transportation Society of 
America (``ITS America) has supported sharing of the 5.9 GHz band 
between ITS and unlicensed devices provided that such sharing does not 
cause harmful interference to life-saving ITS services. ITS America 
supported the consensus on a three-phase testing methodology to be 
overseen by the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) 
arrived at with the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation's support (See September 9, 2015 letter). OET accepted 
public comments on its Phase 1 Test Report in late 2018. ITS America 
continues its support of the consensus plan for testing and the 
completion of testing by OET to determine whether sharing of the 5.9 
GHz band is viable. Initiation by the FCC of an ancillary and 
collateral rulemaking bypassing the completion of testing is not in the 
best interests of the public as it will further complicate an already 
uncertain regulatory environment into which many public and private 
parties are investing their scarce resources to develop and deploy 
lifesaving services, unduly tax those resources and delay the 
introduction of those services. We urge instead that OET be provided 
all support necessary to promptly complete its testing of band sharing.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                            Shailen P. Bhatt
    Question. The FCC completed testing that showed that it could 
segment the 5.9 gigahertz band and provide spectrum for both 
transportation and unlicensed technologies. But your testimony calls 
for the FCC and DOT to engage in years of additional testing that, in 
the opinion of Commissioner O'Rielly, is no longer needed. Why would we 
need to spend more years testing a kind of sharing no one wants, 
instead of moving ahead with a process of segmenting the band, so both 
automotive companies and Wi-Fi consumers each have spectrum?
    Answer. ITS America agrees with National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) assessment, that the three-phase testing must 
continue to ensure that this lifesaving technology is deployed and that 
the driving public can have confidence in the results. ``The three 
phases of the test plan are interdependent and ongoing, and the testing 
will show whether unlicensed devices can safely operate in the 5.9 GHz 
band.'' (U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration issues statement on safety value of 5.9 GHz 
spectrum, October 24, 2018)
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                            Shailen P. Bhatt
    Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework 
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support 
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be 
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in 
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
    Answer. ITS America represents state and city departments of 
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive 
manufacturers, technology companies, engineering firms, automotive 
suppliers, insurance companies, and research universities that are 
researching and deploying intelligent transportation technologies. 
While ITS America includes among our members wireless communications 
companies, we are not a trade association representing the wireless 
communications industry, and as such, we do not have a policy specific 
to how that industry is planning to deploy 5G in rural and urban areas. 
ITS America is an intelligent transportation association. Our mission 
is the research and deployment of advanced transportation technologies. 
As such, ITS America does not have a specific policy on ways to ensure 
5G develops in combination with rural broadband connectivity.
    Ubiquitous access to high-speed broadband is key to intelligent 
transportation technologies that are saving lives; reducing crashes; 
extending the life of transportation infrastructure; improving 
capacity; reducing the rate and growth in congestion; moving more 
people in fewer vehicles; improving travel times and reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions.
    Our members believe that it should be a Federal priority to close 
the digital divide in rural areas (as well as economically 
disadvantaged urban areas). To do so, we believe the goal should be 
broadband in any, all forms, to help address rural broadband 
connectivity. For rural communities, ITS America supports increasing 
grants that are currently eligible under the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. We recommend including in an infrastructure bill funding 
to further expedite broadband in rural areas. Also, we support 
expanding broadband grant programs to enable grant recipients to use 
grants to deploy various types of infrastructure capable of offering 
middle-mile, last-mile wired, and wireless broadband access.

    Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to 
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to 
receive broadband and Internet support?
    Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on steps the 
FCC can make to continue to streamline the deployment of 5G while 
ensuring rural areas continue to receive broadband and Internet 
support.
    ITS America is considering dig once policy in the reauthorization 
of Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act that would 
establish a new Federal funding (non-Highway Trust Fund) to assist 
states and localities to (1) identify a broadband utility coordinator 
to facilitate the broadband infrastructure right-of-way efforts within 
the state; (2) register broadband infrastructure entities that seek to 
be included in those facilitation efforts; (3) establish a process to 
electronically notify such entities of the state transportation 
improvement program on an annual basis; (4) coordinate statewide 
telecommunication and broadband plans and state and local 
transportation and land use plans, including strategies to minimize 
repeated excavations that involve the installation of broadband 
infrastructure in a right-of-way; and (5) ensure that any existing 
broadband infrastructure entities are not disadvantaged.
    Funding under this new FAST Act reauthorization program would 
assist states and localities with recovering costs associated with 
conduit installation, maintenance of conduit, and conduit inventory. We 
believe this program would benefit rural communities by combining 
broadband conduit installation with highway construction, including 
expansion, resulting in a decreased frequency of construction on 
highways, decrease broadband installation costs, increase access to and 
reliability of broadband networks, increased public and economic 
benefits, and decrease time needed to deploy fiber.
    Please note that this policy does not establish a mandate or 
requirement that a state or locality install broadband infrastructure 
in a highway right-of-way.

    Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where 
there are have and have nots?
    Answer. See answer to question 1 above.

    Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how the 
Mobility Fund can play a role in 5G deployment. While ITS America does 
not have a specific policy on the Mobility Fund, we support Federal 
grants to expand mobile broadband networks to areas that are unserved 
and underserved.

    Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a 
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need 
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you 
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of 
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
    Answer. In Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) applications, backhaul 
is the fiber-optic or wireless connection between the roadside unit 
(RSU) and traffic management center or other operational centers that 
allows data to be exchanged and enables supervisory control of the 
system.

    Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of 
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids 
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments. 
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help 
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see 
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
    Answer. See answer to question 1 above.

    Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my 
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet 
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains 
more prevalence?
    Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how Internet 
providers can ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G 
gains more prevalence.

    Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are 
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G 
economy?
    Answer. See answer to question 1 above.

    Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously 
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed 
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying 
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer 
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress 
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps 
service.
    While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not have 
adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example like 
this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in my 
state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you 
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
    Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy on how to best 
measure the accuracy of broadband availability.

    Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity 
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation 
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income 
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility, 
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment 
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax 
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting 
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. ITS America did not take a policy position on the Gigabit 
Opportunity (GO) Act.

    Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the 
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal 
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate 
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural 
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum 
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in 
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like 
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed 
through programs like USF and RUS?
    Answer. ITS America does not have a specific policy position on how 
rural set-asides can be used differently than Federal support already 
being distributed through programs like the Universal Service Fund and 
Rural Utilities Service.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                             Michael Wessel
    Question. Your testimony highlighted the concerns of China's 
involvement in international standards-setting organizations and the 
potential impact on technological interoperability and operations. 
Would you please describe examples of their involvement and potential 
harms stemming from it?
    Answer. China has had an aggressive strategy to influence the 
standards and rules that will drive the development and deployment of 
5G equipment. Most importantly, China has put substantial energy and 
resources into participating and leading the design of standards at 
international standards setting bodies such as the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU), where they chair more committees than 
any other delegation. China has participated--via government and 
``private sector'' participants--to drive standards in ways that will 
promote the interests of their companies. This strategy has the 
potential to provide enormous advantages to Chinese firms and the 
government.
    5G will be the communications technology that provides greater 
connectivity between devices than ever before. The Internet of Things 
(IoT) will be dramatically enhanced by 5G. 5G will create enhanced 
capabilities for cyberespionage as the ``attack surfaces'' will be 
exponentially increased. The countries and companies that control the 
technology have the capabilities to use their technologies for 
intelligence, counterintelligence, surveillance and other efforts which 
could be averse to our interests.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to 
                             Michael Wessel
    Question 1. Mr. Wessel, how can we identify hostile foreign 
equipment in our telecommunications networks?
    Answer. The deployment of 5G alongside the increasing expansion of 
the Internet of Things (IoT) and IoT devices will significantly expand 
threat vectors and attack surfaces which bad actors, primarily nation-
state actors, can exploit and the presence of potentially hostile 
foreign-produced, serviced and maintained equipment in those networks 
increases those risks. The first step in addressing these risks is a 
comprehensive and regularly-occurring supply chain examination of our 
Nation's telecommunications networks. We have already endured years of 
Chinese cyberespionage targeting our Nation's economic and national 
security systems, some of which were facilitated and directed by the 
Chinese government. Given that reality, allowing Chinese companies--
many of which are under direct or coercive state control--to provide 
network equipment and services for our telecommunications 
infrastructure creates extreme and unacceptable vulnerabilities. It 
needlessly gives potential hostile actors control over the source code, 
updates, and servicing of key networks.
    The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's (USCC) 
2018 Report to Congress envisions the regular supply chain examination 
I suggested, recommending that Congress mandate that the Office of 
Management and Budget's Federal Chief Security Officer Council prepare 
an annual report to Congress to ensure supply chain vulnerabilities 
from China are adequately addressed. This must be supplemented with 
aggressive efforts to assess the vulnerabilities in the private sector 
and, for critical economic and national infrastructure, foreign 
equipment suppliers from unsecure and untrusted vendors should be 
excluded. Where necessary, networks should be segmented or isolated to 
maximize security.

    Question 2. How to we address the threat they pose? Do we need to 
remove them from the networks altogether? Do we need to install 
patches?
    Answer. Ideally, when potentially hostile foreign supplied 
equipment is identified in any of our networks it can and should be 
removed. In networks that transmit critical economic and security data 
or support critical infrastructure, the removal of potentially 
malevolent equipment is critical and imperative. If a situation were to 
arise in which the removal of the equipment is not possible, it is 
vital thatm at a bare minimum, U.S. authorities be given complete 
transparency with regard to the examination of hardware, data storage 
and security, source code, and updates in use and accessibility 
throughout the network, with no exceptions. Equipment, software and 
updates should not be deployed until full assessments have been 
completed.
    The USCC's 2018 Report to Congress also recommended that Congress 
direct the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
and the Federal Communications Commission to identify steps to ensure a 
rapid and secure deployment of 5G networks, and whether new statutory 
authorities are required to protect the security of domestic 5G 
networks.
    As we chart a path into the next-generation of connectivity, it is 
important that our policymakers are provided any and all relevant 
technical information that identifies and mitigates future threats. It 
is my hope that Congress will act quickly to initiate the necessary 
examinations of our domestic 5G needs and vulnerabilities that can 
provide the data and situational awareness needed to craft a 
comprehensive response to the dangers posed by potentially foreign-
produced equipment from hostile actors being utilized in U.S. networks.

    Question 3. The New York Times reported on the Trump 
Administration's efforts to pressure other countries to reject China's 
offer for a 5G network. Is this the right strategy, in your view? If 
not, what is a better approach to addressing China's efforts for a 5G 
expansion in other countries?
    Answer. The United States reaps enormous benefits from its 
information and intelligence sharing relationships with its allies, as 
to those partners. These relationships represent a critical component 
of our Nation's intelligence collection, analysis, and operations 
apparatus and are a vital aspect of a secure long-term national 
security strategy. However, for those relationships to provide that 
security to the U.S. and our allies, high-level sensitive intelligence 
must only be shared via safe and secure networks. Huawei equipment is a 
long-identified security risk. The presence of Huawei equipment on a 
network represents a serious vulnerability today that will only grow 
with time. It is entirely appropriate for the U.S. to make clear to its 
allies that current intelligence-sharing regimes may require 
significant changes if Huawei equipment is going to be utilized on 
their networks. We must always protect U.S. intelligence findings, 
including sources and methods, and that may require limitations on 
intelligence-sharing over networks that we cannot confirm are secure.
    If our friends abroad are unwilling to secure their networks from 
Huawei, we must adopt new systems to allow for sharing intelligence, 
while segregating key data from networks that include potentially 
malignant equipment. The costs of exposing our critical national 
security information is too high for inaction. As our partners around 
the world wrestle with their own challenges in deploying a secure 5G 
network, the U.S. must continue to make its case that the proven 
security threats from companies like Huawei are too dangerous to risk. 
These concerns should also be assessed vis-a-vis other critical 
communications systems. The operation of financial markets, our 
electric grids and countless other supported infrastructure should not 
be put at risk.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                             Michael Wessel
    Question. How can we help small carriers that have Huawei Equipment 
in their networks?
    Answer. Small or regional telecommunications carriers have not been 
provided enough support in identifying and mitigating potential threats 
posed by the presence of Huawei, or other foreign suppliers' 
potentially suspect equipment on their networks. Regional companies 
often face challenges in providing reliable services to fewer users 
over larger geographic areas and have found, in some cases, that using 
cheaper (subsidized) foreign-supplied equipment, namely Huawei, is a 
more cost-effective option. It is imperative that Federal authorities 
work with those regional telecommunications firms to provide up-to-date 
information on the threats and security flaws that are associated with 
equipment provided by Huawei and other foreign firms.
    It is imperative that Federal authorities provide more support to 
those smaller and regional carriers, especially with regard to the 
threats and security flaws associated with equipment from Huawei and 
other foreign companies.
    The first step should include the deployment of formal information-
sharing protocols between authorities at the federal, state, regional, 
and local levels. The more information we can provide smaller carriers 
about the developing and ongoing cybersecurity threats they face, the 
better they will be able to address and manage them. Next, new security 
standards may be needed to identify the potentially malevolent 
equipment and remove it from networks. And finally, if these standards 
require the replacement of suspicious hardware on the networks of 
smaller carriers which do not have the resources to undertake a costly 
project such as this, Federal support should be provided for firms to 
secure their systems by replacing suspicious and potentially malevolent 
equipment with safe, secure systems.
    In conjunction with these efforts, it is appropriate to assess 
whether Huawei and other equipment and services provided by suspect 
actors is supported by state-provided subsidies. These subsidies, while 
lowering the acquisition cost for consumers, also has the impact of 
unfairly skewing the market and limiting opportunities for market-based 
suppliers, many of which are trusted vendors. The initial cost may be 
lower by procuring these potentially subsidized products and services 
but the long-term security costs are unacceptable.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                               Kim Zentz
    Question 1. In your testimonies, many of you discuss the framework 
for 5G. While I understand the importance of innovation and support 
faster speeds, I have concerns that rural locations will not be 
adequately addressed: What ways exist to ensure 5G develops in 
combination with rural broadband connectivity?
    Answer. In order to fully realize the substantial benefits of 5G 
for all citizens, our work as a country on this deployment must be done 
in concert with all stakeholders. Central and local governments, the 
public sector and the private sector must join forces to ensure an 
equitable and resilient deployment. Failing this effort risks creating 
divided and socially exclusive communities across the country.

    Question 2. What are some steps the FCC can make to continue to 
streamline the deployment of 5G while ensuring rural areas continue to 
receive broadband and Internet support?
    Answer. Cities and communities of all sizes must be collaboratively 
included in the discussions that affect the oversight of their rights 
of way to ensure public safety, space, local spectrum management and 
aesthetics. The FCC must take steps to ensure that these local 
responsibilities are not reduced or over-ridden by actions taken to 
accelerate 5G deployment.

    Question 3. How can 5G be rolled out quickly to avoid a gap where 
there are have and have nots?
    Answer. Smaller and mid-sized communities can be pilot 
installations. Starting in the lower population areas allows the unique 
challenges of smaller communities to receive deserved attention and the 
pilot effort allows stakeholders with roles in the installation to 
learn lessons at a smaller scale than might be present in an attempt to 
accelerate deployment in densely populated urban areas.
    Logical practice dictates that taking care to get smaller-scale 
pilot installations done right before attempting large scale deployment 
will best serve all stakeholders interests in time, budget and 
efficiency over-all. The deployment schedule will be slower and more 
careful in the pilot installation, lessons learned will be cataloged 
and evaluated, stakeholders can weigh in before the larger scale 
commitments to equipment and personnel are made. With the known 
variables under control, the balance of the deployment can move much 
more smoothly and effectively--on time and on budget.

    Question 4. How does the Mobility Fund play a role in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. I cannot effectively speak to the applicability of the 
Mobility Fund and its governing principles. However, I do believe that 
mobility applications will be among the first and likely most 
compelling use-cases for high-speed, low latency 5G equipment. 
Furthermore, mobility is at the very heart of every community (of all 
sizes) because of its fundamental enablement of economic, social and 
environmental equity and resiliency.

    Question 5. 5G wireless services will require the deployment of a 
vast network of small cells. However, these networks will also need 
fiber-based wireline networks for their backhaul network. Could you 
explain to me the importance of a fiber backhaul and the allocation of 
spectrum in deploying these small cells?
    Answer. Wireless communications networks are worthless without 
reliable backhaul networks. The allocation of spectrum must take into 
account all of the factors that comprise essential service to citizens 
as well as the effective use of spectrum--including mid-band. With the 
deployment of 5G, applications will distribute to the most effective 
segment of spectrum, thus there will be some lower and mid-band 
spectrum capacity that should not be ignored in the balancing of 
priorities for communities' spectrum needs. In other words, not all 
applications will suddenly demand 5G to function effectively.

    Question 6. Fortunately, every school and library in my state of 
West Virginia has a fiber connection, but this not the case when kids 
go home from school. Many of them cannot do their homework assignments. 
This digital divide cannot continue to be overlooked. How will 5G help 
our students at home? How long will it take for these students to see 
the benefits of 5G at their homes?
    Answer. N/A

    Question 7. Despite significant investment, the vast majority of my 
state lacks competitive access to a fiber network. How can Internet 
providers ensure rural Internet access remains competitive as 5G gains 
more prevalence?
    Answer. N/A

    Question 8. How can Congress ensure the regulatory conditions are 
in place in order to ensure states like mine can participate in the 5G 
economy?
    Answer. Digital connectivity is essential infrastructure and is 
increasingly the lynchpin for safety, health and well-being of our 
citizens. Thus Congress should treat relevant policy decisions with the 
same thoroughness as water, electricity, roads, bridges, sewers, etc.

    Question 9. Each member of this Committee has today or previously 
mentioned the importance of having accurate data and noted the flawed 
information that our current maps provide. Last year, I visited Flying 
W Plastics, a local polyethylene pipe products manufacturer in Gilmer 
County, West Virginia. According to a recent FCC Broadband Progress 
report, Gilmer County, WV is 100 percent served with 25 Mbps/3Mbps 
service. While visiting, I found this to be inaccurate. They do not 
have adequate broadband and unfortunately, this is not the only example 
like this in my state. So my question is: When there are communities in 
my state who are still struggling to achieve 3 or even 4G, how do you 
suggest we measure the accuracy of their broadband availability?
    Answer. Clearly, the best decisions cannot be made absent the best 
information that is possible to cost-effectively obtain.

    Question 10. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity 
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation 
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income 
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility, 
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment 
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities. How can tax 
proposals like the GO Act make a measurable difference in promoting 
rural broadband deployment? Could similar proposals help in 5G 
deployment?
    Answer. N/A

    Question 11. Congress has made several steps towards improving the 
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal 
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced by my Senate 
colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--included a ``rural 
dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of any future spectrum 
auction funds to support the deployment of wireless infrastructure in 
unserved and underserved communities. How will rural set asides like 
this be used differently than Federal support already being distributed 
through programs like USF and RUS?
    Answer. N/A

                                  [all]