[Senate Hearing 116-589]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                 


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-589
 
                             OVERSIGHT OF 
                 THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 24, 2020

                               __________

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


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

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 52-681 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023
             
                
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND 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 June 24, 2020....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    33
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    35
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    37
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    39
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    42
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    45
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    50
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    52
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    53
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    55
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................    57
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    59
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    61
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    63
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    65
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    71
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    73
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    74
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    77

                               Witnesses

Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission.......     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Hon. Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner, Federal Communications 
  Commission.....................................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30

                                Appendix

Letter dated June 23, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
  Cantwell from Bill Schankel, Chief Executive Officer, NAFA 
  Fleet Management Association (NAFA)............................    85
Letter dated June 23, 2020 to Hon. Roger Wicker and Hon. Maria 
  Cantwell from Brad Thaler, Vice President of Legislative 
  Affairs, National Association of Federally-Insured Credit 
  Unions.........................................................    88
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Ajit Pai by:
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    90
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    92
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    95
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    99
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Jessica 
  Rosenworcel by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................   100
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   101
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   103
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................   108
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Michael O'Rielly 
  by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   109
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   111
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   111
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   112
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................   116
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Brendan Carr by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................   117
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   118
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................   118
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   119
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   120
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................   122
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Geoffrey Starks 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   123
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   123
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................   126


           OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cantwell, Klobuchar, 
Fischer, Blumenthal, Thune, Schatz, Cruz, Moran, Blackburn, 
Udall, Peters, Lee, Gardner, Baldwin, Capito, Duckworth, Rosen, 
Young, Tester, and Sinema.

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

    Senator Wicker. Good morning. This hearing will come to 
order.
    Welcome to today's hearing on the Oversight of the Federal 
Communications Commission and we have them here today.
    I extend a special welcome to our distinguished panel of 
witnesses and thank them for appearing.
    Today, we will hear from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, 
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner Mike O'Rielly, 
Commissioner Brendan Carr, and Commissioner Geoffrey Starks.
    The FCC is the Nation's primary regulator of interstate and 
international communications networks. A core part of the 
agency's mission is to ensure that all people in the United 
States have access to rapid, efficient, and nationwide 
communications services at reasonable prices.
    Never before has the FCC's responsibility to achieve this 
mission been more important. The COVID-19 public health 
emergency has put a spotlight on the Nation's communications 
networks and the American people's access to broadband 
services.
    Since March, there has been a dramatic and sustained surge 
in Internet usage, but the U.S. networks have performed well 
and we are faring much better than other countries in meeting 
this increased demand. This is to be applauded but there's 
still more work to be done, of course.
    Today, there are far too many Americans who remain unserved 
and who lack affordable access to any broadband connection 
whatsoever.
    I appreciate the FCC's continued efforts under Chairman 
Pai's leadership to close the digital divide and secure U.S. 
leadership in next generation communications technologies, 
especially during this pandemic.
    Through the Commission's Keep Americans Connected Pledge, 
over 700 providers have voluntarily committed not to terminate 
broadband services to any residential or small business 
customers because of an inability to pay their bills. This has 
been pivotal in keeping many Americans connected.
    Clearly the businesses who participated in the pledge 
cannot sustain that effort indefinitely. We need to engage in a 
thoughtful debate about ways to transition from the pledge when 
it expires.
    In addition, I welcome the FCC's work on the newly created 
COVID-19 Telehealth Program authorized by the bipartisan CARES 
Act. This program is designed to provide access to critical 
life-saving telehealth services to Americans who lack access to 
quality care during this global health crisis.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity for Commissioners to 
discuss what more can be done to expand broadband access and 
digital opportunity for all Americans. This work begins with 
the implementation of the Broadband DATA Act.
    As I've said many times, accurate broadband maps are 
essential to targeting universal service funds and other 
Federal broadband resources to unserved areas and communities 
in need.
    To ensure the success of new USF programs, such as the 5G 
Fund, it is imperative that the FCC develop accurate broadband 
maps with more precise data about where broadband is available 
and where it is not and at what speeds.
    I hope the Commissioners will outline what funding will be 
necessary to comply with the law before moving forward with 5G 
Fund.
    I appreciate Commissioner O'Rielly's commitment to this 
committee last week that he would not support moving forward 
with the 5G Fund until the FCC completes the new maps required 
by the Broadband DATA Act.
    In addition to developing accurate maps, Congress needs to 
explore the feasibility of allocating more resources for 
broadband deployment to areas that are not economical to serve 
or to families who have experienced economic hardship as a 
result of the pandemic.
    I look forward to discussing the Accelerating Broadband 
Connectivity Act, which I have authored, which would 
incentivize providers to expedite broadband build-out plans 
without undermining or delaying the RDOF auction.
    I hope Commissioners will also discuss ways to provide 
immediate connectivity relief to schools and students, minority 
communities, and families experiencing economic hardship 
because of the coronavirus.
    Another important part of making broadband universally 
available is having a regulatory framework that fosters 
investments and promotes broadband deployment. I'm sure the 
Commissioners will want to discuss the recent adoption of the 
5G Upgrade Order which modernizes rules for the installation of 
wireless communications equipment as well as other efforts to 
streamline regulatory processes that can delay or indefinitely 
stall broadband deployment in too many communities across the 
country. I appreciate Commissioner Carr's leadership on the 5G 
Upgrade Order.
    As Americans rely increasingly on their Internet 
connections to engage in professional, educational, health 
care, and personal activities, it is vital that we ensure the 
security of our networks and supply chains.
    Any comprehensive broadband legislation should include 
network and supply chain security, including full funding for 
the FCC's newly authorized Rip and Replace Program.
    I hope Commissioners will discuss funding needs for that 
critical program and other plans to increase network security 
and reliability.
    Finally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is 
intended to preserve a vibrant and competitive online 
marketplace for the benefit of all Americans. Section 230 
protects interactive computer services, such as social media 
platforms, from being held liable for the content posted by 
their users.
    Section 230 also specifically allows interactive computer 
services to restrict access to or the availability of content 
that it considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, 
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
    I am deeply troubled by recent reports that suggest some 
online platforms are disproportionately censoring conservative 
voices or imposing an unfair bias through their policies and 
terms of service.
    Last week, The Federalist, an online magazine, was notified 
that its publication would be removed from Google's advertising 
platform because of complaints from NBC News about content in 
The Federalist Comment section. The information I have is that 
the comments contained on the site were indeed derogatory and 
impermissible. However, policing offensive content is one 
thing. Threatening the demonetization of an entire site is 
quite another.
    And just yesterday, we learned of comments by Facebook 
moderators that seemed to confirm a blatant anti-conservative 
bias.
    If there is to be a debate over the future of Section 230, 
it is clear that each side has a responsibility to ensure that 
the Internet remains a forum for a true diversity of political 
discourse that promotes competition and innovation.
    This committee will evaluate the merits of Section 230 and 
whether modifications are necessary to promote more 
transparency and accountability across Internet platforms and 
services.
    Clearly, there's much to discuss today. I thank the 
Commissioners again for their testimonies, and I thank my 
friend and colleague, Senator Cantwell, for her cooperation as 
Ranking Member and I now turn to her for whatever opening 
remarks she chooses to make.
    Senator Cantwell.

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

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and thanks 
for holding this important and timely hearing, and it's good to 
see all the Commissioners here in person, a rare opportunity 
for sure.
    The full FCC comes before us today at what I think is a 
pivotal moment. If we were still in any doubt that the COVID 
crisis has made its impact clear to us, it is very clear today 
when it comes to the issue of broadband. It is really an 
essential service and yet millions of Americans remain trapped 
on the other side of the digital divide.
    The statistics are well known, but no less damning:

   At least 18 million Americans without access to 
        broadband, and even that number may be artificially 
        low;

   Twelve million children currently lack access to 
        broadband at home, prohibiting their ability to learn 
        remotely, and as we have uncertainty about what the 
        fall and beyond will bring, it's imperative that we 
        deal with this issue;

   In the state of Washington, 16 percent of families 
        with children have no access to broadband;

   And 31 percent of households on tribal lands lack 
        access to high-speed broadband compared to 7 percent in 
        non-tribal areas.

    So we must expand high-quality, affordable broadband in 
underserved and unserved communities so that Americans who are 
being isolated can effectively endure during this pandemic and 
learn remotely and, I would also say, have access to health 
care. It is so critical that rural communities increase the 
ability to use broadband as a tool to help deliver medicine at 
this critical time.
    We have a real opportunity here to close the digital 
divide, but I know it's going to take being bold. It won't be 
accomplished through just incremental change or plus-upping 
some numbers. It will require significant investment. I know 
our House colleagues have promised more than a hundred billion.
    But we have to make sure that low-income, minority, and 
tribal communities that connectivity is an issue we do address. 
We need to invest in programs that will promote digital 
literacy and digital adoption, targeting these marginalized 
communities. So I hope that this can be part of our discussion 
today.
    Chairman Pai, I wrote on March 5 and asked for 
consideration of the FCC's existing authority and programs as 
well as temporary policies or rule waivers could be used to 
help ensure the Nation was being well served during the COVID 
crisis.
    Specifically, I asked what take-home emergency actions to 
facilitate at-home connectivity for students to keep in class 
remote schoolwork being done during the COVID crisis?
    So I'm not interested in just applying aggressive laws to 
industry. I'm interested in making sure millions of children 
caught in the gap of not being able to do their homework don't 
fall further behind. So I am looking for emergency orders by 
the Commission, and yet nothing has happened.
    So I'm concerned about spectrum, as well. I know we're in a 
very high-profile public dispute, but the FCC has sided against 
Federal experts on weather forecasting, aviation, 
transportation safety, and national security.
    It would be tempting to dismiss these public disputes as 
just another sign of internal chaos with the Administration, 
but I believe it is more than that. It seems to me that the 
agency has narrowed its interests in the standard for public 
broadband policy.
    Today, the FCC dismisses national priorities and defaults 
to the belief that the highest and best use of spectrum is 
always terrestrial broadband. Nowhere is this development more 
obvious than the Ligado decision. Despite unified opposition 
from the Executive Branch agencies, aerospace industries, and 
others, Ligado would cause harm to the GPS spectrum critical to 
safety operations, but despite a fundamental disagreement over 
competing studies, of which there were many, the FCC continued 
to move forward. So I hope today we can also discuss this 
issue.
    I believe that the FCC should not be the place to just move 
forward, but the place to have the discussion and make sure 
these issues are well addressed. It is important that these 
issues move forward and are addressed by the many interests in 
the spectrum because this issue of spectrum is not going to go 
away. It's going to become even more in demand, and if you 
think you're just the default agency to make a decision and 
exacerbate the problem, you can see it hasn't gone away. It's 
just moved over to the Armed Services Committee.
    So I would ask you today to think about how we're going to 
do a better process, given the increased need for spectrum in 
the future.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I know there are many other issues that 
we want to discuss today, but with that, I'll leave my remarks 
and ask that I do have to go to the Floor, but I will return 
for questioning at some point in time. If I miss my cue, I'm 
sure my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, or others will jump in 
in my absence.
    But again, I thank the Commissioners for being here in 
person.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you so much, Senator Cantwell.
    And we are recognizing in this order today. We'll start 
with the Chair and then we're recognizing Commissioners in 
terms of seniority.
    So we'll begin with the Honorable Ajit Pai, Chair of the 
FCC, and we will receive each set of written testimony in full 
and ask you to summarize in some 5 minutes.
    You are recognized, sir.

             STATEMENT OF HON. AJIT PAI, CHAIRMAN, 
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. Pai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the 
Committee, I appreciate you inviting me to testify and update 
you on the work of the Federal Communications Commission.
    With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Internet 
connectivity is more important than ever. Americans rely on 
broadband to telework, to learn, to consult with doctors, to 
stay in touch with loved ones, and that's why we have been 
using every resource at our disposal to deal with this 
unprecedented national emergency.
    Most importantly, I challenged broadband and telephone 
providers in March to take the Keep Americans Connected Pledge, 
a commitment to, among other things, not terminate service to 
residential or small business consumers because of their 
inability to pay their bills due to disruptions caused by the 
coronavirus pandemic.
    More than 780 providers took the pledge, including all of 
our Nation's largest. The pledge has been critical to 
maintaining connectivity for millions of American consumers, 
but these companies, especially small ones, cannot continue to 
provide service without being paid for an indefinite period of 
time. No business in any sector of our economy could.
    As the pledge ends on June 30, I have called on providers 
not to disconnect consumers and small businesses in July who 
have fallen behind on their bills, but to instead adopt 
extended payment plans to ensure that these consumers have a 
chance to catch up.
    This transition period will also give Congress the chance 
next month to provide funding to help ensure that many 
Americans have continued access to broadband and telephone 
services.
    Along these lines, I applaud Chairman Wicker for releasing 
the Broadband Connectivity and Digital Equity Framework, and I 
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee on 
this for other related legislative activities.
    Speaking of funding, I want to thank you for establishing 
the COVID-19 Telehealth Program as part of the CARES Act. The 
FCC has worked quickly to adopt rules for this program, to open 
the application window and review the submissions that we have 
received.
    I'm proud that as of this morning, we've approved 444 
applications in 46 states and the District of Columbia, for a 
total of $157.6 million. From the Franklin County Hospital in 
Meadville, Mississippi, to the Country Doctor Community Health 
Center in Seattle, this program is enabling health care 
providers to treat and monitor patients remotely, improving 
care and reducing risks for patients, doctors, and nurses.
    During this national emergency, our networks have been 
tested like never before and I'm pleased to say that they have 
performed extremely well. For example, average fixed and mobile 
broadband speeds in our country are now higher than they were 
before the pandemic hit. The record fiber and small cell 
deployments of the last two years have made a real difference, 
but we can't rest on our laurels and that's why the FCC is 
continuing to take aggressive steps to expedite 5G deployment.
    In July, we'll begin an auction of 70 megahertz of spectrum 
for priority access licenses in the 3.5 gigahertz band. We're 
also on track to commence a public auction of 280 megahertz of 
spectrum in the C-band in December.
    Because satellite operators vacating this spectrum have 
committed to accelerated relocation, this spectrum will become 
available for 5G, two to four years earlier than otherwise 
would have been the case and just yesterday, we won a major 
court victory as a court rejected the request to stop our 
progress.
    I would especially like to thank Chairman Wicker and 
Chairman Thune for their leadership on this issue.
    Our rural tribal priority window for the 2.5 gigahertz band 
is now open, which enables tribes to get first dibs on this 
prime mid-band spectrum before we hold an auction next year.
    We've also unanimously opened up the entire six gigahertz 
band for unlicensed use, a massive 1200 megahertz test bed for 
innovators and innovation, and we've almost finished the post 
incentive auction TB transition. Because this transition has 
gone well, wireless services, including 5G, are now being 
provided throughout America on the 600 megahertz band.
    Finally, I'd like to mention a personal and professional 
priority that is literally a matter of life and death: suicide 
prevention. Three weeks from today, the FCC will vote on final 
rules to designate 9-8-8 as a new nationwide three-digit number 
to reach trained professionals who staff the National Suicide 
Prevention Lifeline.
    By making it easier for those who are in crisis to reach 
those who can help, we can save lives and reduce the stigma 
that is associated with mental illness. In a time when suicide 
rates in America are on the rise, hitting historic levels, 
especially for vulnerable populations, like veterans, LGBTQ 
youth, and African American teens, this three-digit number, 9-
8-8, could make all the difference.
    I would like to thank in this regard Senators Gardner and 
Baldwin for their bipartisan leadership on this issue.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the 
Committee, thank you again for holding this hearing. I look 
forward to answering your questions today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pai follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. I appreciate the 
opportunity to update you on the work of the Federal Communications 
Commission, particularly our efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Since becoming FCC Chairman in January 2017, my top priority has 
been to close the digital divide. With the onset of the COVID-19 
pandemic, Internet connectivity is more important than ever. Americans 
rely on broadband to telework, take classes online, consult with 
doctors remotely, and stay in touch with loved ones they can't see in 
person. That's why I'm committed to using, and why we in fact have been 
deploying, every resource at the FCC's disposal to deal with this 
unprecedented national emergency.
    For example, I challenged broadband and telephone service providers 
to take the Keep Americans Connected Pledge--a voluntary commitment (1) 
not to terminate service to any residential or small business customers 
because of their inability to pay their bills due to disruptions caused 
by the coronavirus pandemic; (2) to waive any late fees that 
residential or small business customers may incur because of their 
economic circumstances related to the coronavirus pandemic; and 
(3) to open a company's Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs 
them. The Keep Americans Connected Pledge is a big win for the American 
people with more than 780 providers participating who serve the vast 
majority of broadband and telephone subscribers. Based on the feedback 
we've received, the Pledge has been critical to maintaining 
connectivity for millions of Americans. Companies have also gone above 
and beyond the Pledge by offering free or discounted service for low-
income Americans and students, lifting data caps, and increasing 
broadband speeds at no cost to meet the heightened demand for 
connectivity due to telework and distance learning.
    The Keep Americans Connected Pledge is a public-private partnership 
which has been critical to American consumers. Without it, many 
consumers would have found it much more difficult, if not impossible, 
to conduct their daily lives. It has been an extraordinary success, and 
I commend all of the broadband and telephone service providers that 
have stepped up to the plate to do the right thing during this national 
emergency.
    But these companies, especially small ones, cannot continue to 
provide service without being paid for an indefinite period of time; no 
business in any sector of our economy could. Accordingly, the Pledge 
will expire as currently scheduled on June 30. As we transition out of 
the Pledge, I have called on broadband and telephone service providers 
to take steps to help ensure that American consumers and small 
businesses remain connected over the coming months. Specifically, I 
have asked these providers not to disconnect in July consumers and 
small businesses who have fallen behind on their bills as a result of 
the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, I have urged them to place such 
consumers into payment plans and deferred payment arrangements to 
ensure that these consumers have a chance to catch up. I have also 
asked them to maintain and expand their plans for low-income families 
and veterans as well as their remote learning plans for students. Some 
companies have already stepped up to the plate in these regards.
    But I believe more is needed. Back in March, the Commission worked 
with Congress to secure funding for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, 
which has aided hospitals, health care providers, and patients in some 
of the hardest-hit areas of the country. As we transition out of the 
Pledge, I believe now is the time for further legislation to ensure 
that doctors and patients, students and teachers, low-income families 
and veterans, those who have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to the 
pandemic and the accompanying lockdowns, those in our cities and those 
in the countryside--in short, all Americans--remain connected until 
this emergency ends.
    The efforts of the Commission and the private sector as we 
transition out of the Pledge will afford Congress the opportunity to 
provide funding in July to help ensure that Americans have continued 
access to broadband and telephone services. And the Broadband 
Connectivity and Digital Equity Framework proposed by Chairman Wicker 
and Ranking Member Greg Walden of the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce is a forward-thinking proposal. The FCC welcomes the 
opportunity to work with you on this or other related legislative 
initiatives.
    Expanding telehealth has also been a key priority for the 
Commission throughout the pandemic. I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank the Committee and Congress for establishing the 
COVID-19 Telehealth Program as part of the CARES Act. Funding for this 
program supports the daily work of frontline healthcare providers in 
hard-hit regions, from Massachusetts to the Navajo Nation. By 
supporting connected healthcare services, we're enabling many patients 
to access care remotely, while reducing the risks to healthcare 
providers. The Program has thus far made a major impact; we've approved 
367 funding applications in 45 states and Washington, D.C., for a total 
of $128.23 million. In Mississippi, for example, we've awarded funding 
to the University of Mississippi Medical Center/UMMC Consortium in 
Jackson, the Southwest Mississippi Mental Health Complex in McComb, and 
Leland Medical Center in Leland. In Washington State, we've provided 
support to the Providence St. Joseph Health Consortium in Renton, and 
the Hilltop Regional Health Center in Tacoma.
    Since March, the Commission has also taken a significant number of 
steps to help meet connectivity needs through the Universal Service 
Fund. For example, the Commission unanimously adopted my February 
proposal to fully fund all eligible Rural Health Care Program services 
for the current funding year with an additional $42.19 million. We took 
additional action to assist program participants, including extending 
the application window until June 30, 2020, and easing competitive 
bidding requirements for health care providers with expiring evergreen 
contracts. We've also waived our gift rules governing the program to 
enable service providers to offer, and hospitals and rural healthcare 
providers to solicit and accept, free improved connections or 
additional equipment for telemedicine during the coronavirus outbreak.
    And the FCC has taken other decisive action to allow providers to 
better serve consumers during the pandemic. For instance, we've granted 
Special Temporary Authority to allow fixed wireless providers, cellular 
carriers, and others to use additional spectrum. These actions have 
yielded positive results, increasing speeds, improving consumer access, 
and otherwise ensuring that spectrum is put to its highest valued use.
    Indeed, it is notable that even with a massive shift in society, 
with millions of Americans staying (and thus accessing the Internet) at 
home, our Nation's communications networks have held up very well. 
There has been a noticeable increase in traffic and a change in usage 
patterns, but our broadband networks have met the challenge. For 
example, according to the most recent data from Ookla, average fixed 
and mobile broadband download speeds in the United States are now three 
to five percent faster than they were before the pandemic hit the 
United States. I believe that's thanks in part to networks being 
designed to handle ever-higher peak traffic loads and in part to our 
market-based regulatory framework, which over the past three years has 
promoted substantial infrastructure investment and deployment.
    Outside of the context of the pandemic, the digital divide 
continues to close. New fiber deployment set a record in 2018--a record 
that itself was broken in 2019. From 2016 to 2018, the number of 
Americans without access to at least 25/3 Mbps fixed broadband fell by 
30 percent while the number of Americans without access to 250/20 Mbps 
fixed broadband plummeted by 75 percent. According to Ookla, during 
that same time period, the number of Americans without access to 10/3 
Mbps 4G LTE mobile broadband fell by 62 percent.
    Broadband service is also improving, with average speeds 
skyrocketing. According to Ookla Speedtest Intelligence Data, average 
fixed broadband download speeds have increased by 133 percent since 
January 2017 while average mobile broadband download speeds have 
increased 99 percent during that same time period. The Internet remains 
free and open. The United States is leading in 5G, with the FCC 
delivering low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum. We continue to work to 
promote rural broadband deployment through the reduction of regulatory 
burdens and reform our USF programs, aiming to efficiently distribute 
funds to those areas where the business case to deploy with private 
capital alone does not exist.
    With respect to our efforts to expand broadband access, the 
Commission's 2018 Connect America Fund Phase II reverse auction 
allocated $1.488 billion in support over ten years to expand broadband 
to more than 700,000 unserved rural homes and small businesses in 45 
states. We've now authorized thirteen waves of funding, totaling more 
than $1.45 billion, which expands connectivity to 643,813 homes and 
businesses nationwide, including in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. I have seen the 
positive results for myself, traveling in February to Wind River 
Reservation in Wyoming. There, I visited with Tribal leaders, including 
a Tribally-owned broadband provider which is using CAF Phase II funding 
to extend high-speed access to very rural, poor members of the Northern 
Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes.
    Going forward, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund represents the 
Commission's boldest step yet in bridging the digital divide. This new 
program builds upon the success of the CAF Phase II auction and will 
provide more than $20 billion over the next decade to support up to 
gigabit service for up to 6 million rural homes and businesses through 
a competitive reverse auction. We plan on targeting support to areas 
lacking access to fixed 25/3 Mbps broadband through a two-phase 
approach. The first phase will address areas of the country that 
everybody agrees are unserved. The second phase will cover areas in 
which the first phase doesn't yield winning bidders, as well as any 
areas that are partially served.
    Through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, we will connect more 
Americans to faster broadband networks than any other USF program in 
history. On June 9, the Commission adopted a Public Notice setting 
forth auction procedures for the first phase of the auction, which is 
scheduled to begin on October 29. This phase will make up to $16 
billion available for the deployment of fixed broadband networks across 
rural America. The benefits would be felt from the Mississippi Gulf 
Coast to the Appalachian Mountains, and from the Great Plains to the 
Pacific Ocean.
    Now, some have called for delaying Phase I of the Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund auction--for months, and more likely for years--until 
more granular broadband coverage maps are ready through the 
Commission's Digital Opportunity Data Collection. But that would be a 
mistake; the areas the Commission is targeting in the Phase I auction 
are areas where the Commission's current data show there is currently 
no service. As of March, Commission staff estimated that approximately 
11.7 million unserved Americans live and work in areas that we know are 
unserved. Delaying them access to broadband purposely keeps them on the 
wrong side of the digital divide and also will do nothing to help those 
living in partially-served areas get broadband more quickly. We're not 
going to do that. Digital opportunity delayed is digital opportunity 
denied.
    We have also made significant progress on the Commission's 5G FAST 
Plan. With respect to spectrum--the first component of that Plan--the 
Commission has left no stone unturned in its quest to make a mix of 
low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum available for 5G services. Our 
auctions program has been active and has produced at record levels. 
Earlier this year, we concluded Auction 103, in which bidders won 
licenses for 3,400 megahertz of spectrum in the upper 37, 39 and 47 GHz 
bands, the most spectrum ever won in a single auction. That auction 
followed the aggressive schedule set the year before, when we auctioned 
850 megahertz in the 28 GHz band, and 700 megahertz in the 24 GHz band. 
Combined, these three auctions made available almost five gigahertz of 
high-band spectrum for commercial use. To put that in perspective, that 
is more spectrum than was used for terrestrial mobile broadband by all 
wireless service providers in the United States combined before these 
auctions started.
    Gross proceeds for these three auctions totaled over $10 billion. 
And with more auctions to come, now is a fitting time to reiterate my 
2016 call for a Rural Dividend. Such a dividend would set aside 10 
percent of the net proceeds from the Commission's spectrum auction 
program and make them available for rural broadband build-out as a 
supplement to our high-cost program. With new auctions on the horizon, 
now is the time to act, and I applaud Chairman Thune for his recent 
proposal along these lines.
    Coming up next is our 3.5 GHz auction, scheduled to start on July 
23. It will make available 70 megahertz of spectrum for Priority Access 
Licenses on a county-by-county basis, offering the greatest-ever number 
of licenses--over 22,000--in a single FCC auction. Earlier this month, 
our auctions staff announced we had received 348 short-form 
applications to participate in the auction, also a record for any 
single auction.
    Next on deck is the 2.5 GHz band. The Rural Tribal Priority Window 
for the 2.5 GHz band is currently open. As you may recall, the 
Commission last year liberalized the rules of this underused mid-band 
spectrum and created a special opportunity, a priority filing window, 
for rural Tribes to get early access to 2.5 GHz before the start of an 
auction. That window has been open since February 3 and will close on 
August 3. Our staff has been engaged in reaching out to Tribal 
stakeholders about this window for the better part of a year now, 
including notifying every single federally-recognized Tribe in the 
country before the start of the window and providing ongoing support 
during the window. I'm grateful for their efforts to assist Tribes in 
applying for this unique chance to acquire prime spectrum that is well-
suited for rural deployments. Once the window closes, I expect we will 
move forward with scheduling a 2.5 GHz auction in the first half of 
2021.
    We're also on track to commence a public auction of 280 megahertz 
of mid-band spectrum from 3.7-3.98 GHz (known as the C-band) beginning 
December 8. I want to acknowledge the continued interest and support of 
the FCC's C-band proceeding by Chairmen Wicker and Thune, and other 
Committee members. Our efforts to make this critical spectrum available 
for 5G have been going very well. Our staff announced earlier this 
month that all eligible space station operators currently using this 
spectrum had committed to an accelerated relocation--meaning it will 
become available for 5G two to four years earlier than otherwise would 
have been the case. Getting this essential spectrum out years ahead of 
schedule will promote American leadership in 5G, faster and more 
reliable wireless broadband connectivity for consumers, and the 
creation of millions of jobs, billions of dollars in investment, and 
stronger economic growth.
    The Commission also took a bold step in April to increase the 
supply of unlicensed spectrum: We opened up the entire 6 GHz band for 
unlicensed use--a massive 1,200 megahertz test bed for innovators and 
innovation. By doing this, we've effectively increased the amount of 
mid-band spectrum available for Wi-Fi by almost a factor of five, which 
will be a huge benefit to consumers and innovators across the nation, 
while also protecting incumbent users of this spectrum from harmful 
interference.
    In May, the Commission modernized the rules for the 900 MHz band to 
help critical infrastructure entities develop and deploy mission-
critical broadband services. This new use of low-band spectrum will 
help us meet the communications needs of industries that provide 
crucial services, like power, to the American public.
    In June, the Commission also started a proceeding aimed at 
revitalizing the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands and expanding their use for 
new services. Putting this long underused, high-band spectrum to use 
could create new opportunities for reliable 5G backhaul to ferry data 
from the edge of the network to its core.
    Rounding off our progress on spectrum, the post-incentive auction 
broadcast television transition is nearing a successful conclusion. I 
am pleased to report that, despite the ongoing pandemic and related 
work stoppages, 896 of 987 affected television stations--which is over 
90 percent of transitioning stations--have already vacated their pre-
auction channels. The result is increased deployment of wireless 
services, including 5G, throughout the United States using the 600 MHz 
band. And we expect that almost all stations will transition before 
their July 3 deadline. I'd like to thank the broadcasters, tower crews, 
and wireless companies for their work throughout the repack, and extend 
a special thanks to this Committee for its support. Through our 
combined efforts, the repack has gone off smoothly. Additionally, 
Commission staff is working closely with a few individual stations that 
may not make the deadline due to circumstances beyond their control to 
devise plans that will ensure a prompt transition and continuation of 
service to their communities during the ongoing national emergency.
    In addition to pushing more spectrum out in the marketplace, we 
continue to clear regulatory hurdles and facilitate infrastructure 
build-out, spurring record-breaking capital investments in essential 
infrastructure, including fiber-optic cables and small cells. Indeed, 
hundreds of thousands of small cells will need to be deployed each year 
to meet growing mobile data demands. In addition to its necessity for 
5G deployment, these installations (along with new towers) create 
employment opportunities for skilled workers. And now that T-Mobile's 
recent acquisition of Sprint is completed, the six-year clock has 
started for T-Mobile to deliver on its commitment to the Commission to 
extend its 5G network to 99 percent of Americans, including 90 percent 
of rural Americans.
    One issue that I know is important to this Committee is broadband 
mapping. As you know, Congress passed the Broadband DATA Act, ratifying 
the Commission's decision last year to require new, granular broadband 
deployment maps for both fixed and mobile providers. Unfortunately, the 
law prohibits us from relying on the Universal Service Administrative 
Company as we had planned to implement that effort and develop new 
broadband maps--even though we repeatedly warned Congress starting last 
year that this provision would disrupt our work on improving these maps 
and prevent us from implementing the new maps without a separate 
appropriation to cover the significant costs of developing the new 
maps. As such, the Commission stands ready and willing to implement 
this measure, but we do not have the $65 million needed to get that 
effort off the ground and implement that law through its first year. We 
want to work with you to appropriate this funding as soon as possible 
so we can move forward quickly to improve our Nation's broadband maps. 
In the meantime, the Commission will continue to work on rulemakings as 
appropriate (and allowed and funded), including the consideration of an 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at our July open 
meeting as part of our work to adopt final rules by September's 
statutory deadline.
    As always, the Commission has stood vigilant in fulfilling our 
consumer protection mission. Our top priority in this regard has been 
to help consumers avoid COVID-19-related robocall scams. Unfortunately, 
scammers are promoting bogus cures, offering fake test kits, sending 
hoax text messages, and generally preying on virus-related fears. In 
April and May, together with the Federal Trade Commission, we demanded 
that multiple gateway providers stop bringing COVID-19-related scam 
robocalls into the country. We warned that if they did not, they risked 
being cut off from U.S. phone networks. Our letters worked; each 
gateway provider told us within 24 hours that it was complying with our 
demand. Additionally, we've launched a COVID-19 Consumer Warnings and 
Safety Tips webpage to alert consumers to pandemic-related scam phone 
calls and texts.
    Our decisive action regarding gateway providers comes on top of our 
already aggressive approach to robocalls--consistently our top source 
of consumer complaints. We've allowed telephone providers to block 
suspected, malicious, and illegal calls by default. And in March, the 
Commission unanimously adopted a Report and Order mandating the 
implementation of caller ID authentication technology known as STIR/
SHAKEN. This technology enables phone companies to verify caller ID 
information transmitted with a call, helping them identify calls with 
illegally spoofed caller ID information before those calls reach 
Americans' phones. This action fulfills one of the major provisions of 
the TRACED Act--a bill championed by Senators Thune and Markey, and 
others on the Committee. We are on track with our implementation of the 
other components of the bill.
    Earlier this year, we acted on the outstanding investigatory 
efforts of our Enforcement Bureau, proposing significant fines against 
the Nation's four largest wireless carriers for selling access to their 
customers' location information without taking reasonable measures to 
protect against unauthorized access to that information. We let the 
carriers know, in no uncertain terms, that they may not disclose their 
customers' location information to a third party without their 
customers' express consent. This FCC will not tolerate phone companies 
putting Americans' privacy at risk.
    We continue to protect American citizens and the national security 
of the United States. At our November 2019 meeting, the FCC unanimously 
adopted a rule prohibiting USF recipients from purchasing equipment or 
services from companies that pose a national security threat, and we 
initially designated Huawei and ZTE as covered companies for purposes 
of this rule.
    But the Commission still needs your help on this issue. Since our 
last hearing, Congress passed the Secure and Trusted Communications 
Networks Act, which ratifies the Commission's proposal to require 
small, rural telecommunications companies to end their reliance on 
manufacturers that pose national security threats. I strongly support 
the rip-and-replace requirements Congress mandated, but that mandate 
came without money. Last November, we estimated a full-scale rip-and-
replace program could cost up to $2 billion--and we ordered an 
information collection to nail down those costs. As our staff works 
through the data that's been collected, we want to work with you to 
ensure that needed funds are appropriated so we can move forward 
quickly to implement this program and protect our Nation's networks 
from national security threats.
    Additionally, February 17, 2020 was the effective date of Kari's 
Law, which requires all new multi-line telephone systems--commonly used 
in hotels, office buildings, and college campuses--to directly route 
911 calls, without the need to dial a prefix to reach an outside line. 
This will help save lives by enabling those who need it most to reach 
help immediately.
    Another public safety issue involves suicide prevention and mental 
health. Suicide rates in this country are reaching levels not seen 
since World War II. Vulnerable populations are particularly at risk, 
such as veterans, rural Americans, and LGBTQ youth. Access to trained 
counselors could make the difference between life and death. And so, 
consistent with the call of Members of this Committee, we have proposed 
to designate 988 as a new, nation-wide, three-digit number for suicide 
prevention and mental health. I intend to ask my fellow Commissioners 
to adopt final rules making 988 the new three-digit number for suicide 
prevention and mental health at our July agenda meeting. If this number 
is implemented, those in crisis will only need to dial a three-digit 
number to be connected with trained professionals who staff the current 
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
    I also want to assure the Committee that we will continue essential 
projects focusing on American territories. A good example is the $950 
million in long-term funding we approved last year to expand, improve, 
and harden broadband networks in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and Connect USVI Fund. 
This month, we authorized $233.9 million to three mobile carriers 
serving Puerto Rico and $4 million to one carrier serving the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. This includes approximately $59.5 million in funding 
specifically devoted to deploying 5G networks in Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands--the first funding the Commission has awarded 
anywhere in the country that is targeted for 5G deployment.
    Finally, I should note there is one auction currently mandated by 
Federal law we are not looking forward to holding. Specifically, the 
Spectrum Act of 2012 mandates that we auction off parts of the T-band--
spectrum from 470-512 MHz, which is currently used by public safety 
entities in several states. We greatly appreciate the efforts of this 
Committee, and specifically Senator Markey, in working to repeal this 
mandate. Our highly skilled economists believe this auction will raise 
less revenue than the amount needed to clear incumbents from the 
spectrum. Nonetheless, because of the statutory mandate, our staff has 
had to divert resources to preparing for an auction process to commence 
in February--including the preparation of a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, currently before the Commission, to kickstart the auction 
process. Bipartisan legislation in Congress would repeal this mandate 
and address related concerns like 911 fee diversion, and I hope this 
legislation passes as soon as possible.
    As you can see, the FCC has been exceptionally busy, and I expect 
we will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We have been able 
to accomplish all of this due to the talent and dedication of our 
extraordinary staff who continue to effectively perform throughout the 
COVID-19 mandatory telework policy. The hard-working men and women of 
the FCC serve the American public each day with skill and commitment, 
and I am deeply honored to work alongside them.
    I thank you again for the opportunity to be here before you, and I 
look forward to answering your questions.

    Senator Wicker. Precisely 5 minutes. Thank you very much.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Ms. Rosenworcel. Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee. It's good to see 
you today from a safe distance.
    These are historic days. A public health emergency has 
strained our hospitals and crashed our economy. Protests have 
filled our streets in our largest cities and smallest towns. We 
need connections now, physical and digital, that strengthen our 
mutual bonds because networks that connect more people and more 
places lift us all.
    So let me start by telling you about a conversation I had a 
few weeks ago. I spoke to a middle school teacher. She was from 
a small town in Northern Vermont, one of those places that is 
perfect for a postcard, but the truth is it could have happened 
anywhere in rural or urban America.
    Anyway, this teacher was out and about and she ran into the 
mother of one of her students. That student had not been going 
to online classes during the past week and, of course, the 
mother knew because right after she exchanged the usual 
pleasantries with this teacher, she blurted out an explanation.
    She said, ``The Internet ran out.'' In other words, her 
kids couldn't go to class because in their house, like so many 
others, they had limited data-capped Internet access. That 
meant during this crisis, they were metering out life online, 
stuck allocating bits of smart phone service to classes, work, 
health care, and emergencies.
    That's haunting but not surprising because this crisis has 
exposed a hard truth. Our digital divide is very real and it's 
very big. You see it in stories like this one and you also see 
it how nationwide parking lot Wi-Fi has become a thing. People 
are driving to places where the signal is free and sitting in 
their cars doing work, going to class, just trying to maintain 
some semblance of normal modern life. We can do better.
    First, we need a clear plan for broadband for all. It was 
just a few weeks ago the FCC released its annual Broadband 
Progress Report. It was a glowing assessment that all is well 
and only 18 million Americans do not have access to broadband 
but that's just not credible. That number is based on the same 
problematic methodology you called for us to stop using in the 
Broadband DATA Act.
    Yet despite having made no efforts to improve our Nation's 
dubious broadband data, the FCC's about to hand out billions in 
fixed broadband support with the new Rural Digital Opportunity 
Fund, based on maps we know are wrong.
    It's also proposed the same course with the wireless 5G 
Fund. We can't afford to delay improved data any further 
because without it, we will never be assured that we're 
targeting our universal service support to the right places. We 
will leave communities behind.
    We also can't limit our focus to just deployment. We need 
to address barriers to adoption because the digital divide is 
not just a problem in rural America. By some estimates, there 
are three to four times as many households without Internet 
access in urban and suburban areas.
    Second, we need a clear plan to fix the homework gap. We 
need to work during the summer months so come fall, no student 
is without the Internet access they need to go to class online.
    The FCC could do this with the E-Rate Program right now, 
but if you choose to address the homework gap through 
legislation, I hope we can move fast so no child is left 
offline.
    Third, we need a clear plan to keep all Americans 
connected.
    The FCC, at the Chairman's direction, has secured a 
commitment from our Nation's carriers that they will not cutoff 
consumers during this crisis, but that commitment comes to an 
end this month and we should all worry about what's on the 
other side. With sky high unemployment rates, we need to find a 
way to extend this commitment.
    We're also going to have to rethink the Lifeline Program 
from top to bottom, and we should have a broader conversation 
about data caps and overage fees.
    Fourth, we need a clear plan for a secure 5G future. If we 
want to be a global leader in the next generation of wireless, 
we need a whole of government approach to 5G service but we 
don't have one.
    Our national spectrum strategy is nearly a year overdue and 
Federal authorities are fighting in public about access to 5G 
spectrum bands.
    We also have work to do to secure supply chains and need to 
address the security of the growing Internet of things.
    Fifth, we need a clear plan to sustain local media and 
stand up for the First Amendment.
    Local news is vital, but the economics that underlie the 
industry are changing. To meet these new challenges, I believe 
we need to study our rules and identify how we better support 
local media and diversity, but one thing we shouldn't do is 
compromise our values, including those in the First Amendment.
    Nowhere is this clearer than in the recent Executive Order 
concerning Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I 
know that social media can be frustrating, but an Executive 
Order that would turn the FCC into the President's speech 
police cannot be the answer.
    Finally, we need a clear plan to learn from this crisis so 
we can take stock of changes in network demand and use what we 
discover to inform our efforts in the future.
    Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you 
might have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenworcel follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Good morning Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members 
of the Committee. It is good to see you all today--from a safe 
distance.
    These are historic times. A public health emergency has strained 
our hospitals and crashed our economy. Protests have filled our streets 
in our largest cities and smallest towns in a nationwide reckoning over 
systemic racial injustice. We need connections now--physical and 
digital--that strengthen our mutual bonds. We need connections that 
remind us that our states are united, and our interdependence is 
powerful. That's because networks that connect more people in more 
places lift us all.
    To meet this moment, we need to extend communications opportunity 
broadly. Our efforts to date won't cut it. The fact is they have left 
too many people in too many places behind. This is true in rural 
America, urban America, and everywhere in between. Our ongoing crises 
have revealed this hard truth. Now we need policies to fix these 
problems so that no community in this country is consigned to the wrong 
side of the digital divide.
First, we need a clear plan for broadband for all.
    In this pandemic so much of modern life has migrated online. As a 
result, it has become painfully clear there are too many people in the 
United States who lack access to broadband. It has become obvious that 
our Nation's digital divide is very real and very big.
    If we are going to address this challenge responsibly, we need to 
start by understanding its scope. After all, we cannot manage problems 
that we do not measure. Yet it's an open secret that the FCC does not 
know with certainty where broadband is and is not across the country. 
We don't have accurate data. We don't have reliable maps. That means in 
the United States we lack an honest picture of the communities that are 
consigned to the wrong side of the digital divide and the people and 
places most at risk of falling further behind.
    This needs attention. A year ago the FCC acknowledged as much when 
it committed to updating its broadband data efforts to get correct maps 
in place. Then Congress built on this foundation when it passed the 
Broadband DATA Act--led by the thoughtful work of this Committee.
    But so far, the FCC has little to show for it. Just a few weeks ago 
the agency released its annual broadband progress report. It was a 
glowing assessment that all is well and that broadband networks are 
reaching all Americans in a timely way. In fact, the agency reported 
only 18 million Americans do not have access to broadband nationwide. 
But this is just not credible. It's based on the same problematic 
methodology you called for us to stop using in the Broadband DATA Act. 
These numbers are not a true measure of the lack of broadband in rural 
America and on Tribal lands. Other estimates put it at 42 million and 
even potentially as high as 162 million.
    Yet despite having made no efforts to improve our Nation's dubious 
broadband data, the FCC is about to hand out billions in fixed 
broadband support with the new Rural Digital Opportunity Fund based on 
maps we know are wrong. It has proposed the same course with its 
wireless 5G Fund. We can and should do better.
    We need to roll up our sleeves and get the data we do not have 
about where service is and is not in rural communities. While we're at 
it we need to incorporate the experience of so many people across the 
country who can tell us what service looks like where they live and why 
our maps are wrong. After all, the best broadband map will not be built 
in Washington. It will be built by all of us. The sooner we get started 
on this, the better. Because without it we will never be sure that we 
are targeting our universal service support to the right places.
    Next, if we are going to address the digital divide, we need to 
devote energies to broadband adoption as well as deployment. It's not 
just a problem in rural America. By some estimates, there are three to 
four times as many households without Internet access in urban and 
suburban areas across the country. This cruel pandemic has revealed 
this like nothing before. In too many cases, families are struggling 
without connections or metering out life in this crisis with capped 
data plans shared by a family on a prepaid mobile phone.
    It's time to update our thinking about broadband adoption from 
front-to-back. Unemployment is at historic levels and too many families 
are facing real income insecurity. We need to have an honest 
conversation about the barriers to broadband adoption. Regrettably, 
this was not included in the FCC's recent broadband progress report. 
Going forward, it should be. It's essential that we understand it if we 
truly want to close the digital divide.
Second, we need a clear plan to fix the Homework Gap.
    This cruel pandemic has shuttered schools nationwide. More than 50 
million students were sent home. They were told to head online for 
class. But students without Internet access at home were locked out of 
the virtual classroom. We need to make it a priority to fix this 
Homework Gap and connect every student so they can have a fair shot at 
continuing their education when school starts again in the fall.
    According to the Senate Joint Economic Committee, 12 million 
children fall into the Homework Gap. The Associated Press suggests that 
the homework gap affects nearly one-in-five students. During this 
school year they haven't been able to join classes online, communicate 
with their teachers, or keep up with their peers. The usual places to 
get a connection--coffee shops, libraries, and fast food restaurants 
where they can do their schoolwork with a side of fries--were closed. 
So during this crisis parking-lot Wi-Fi became a thing. So many 
students sat in a car with a school-issued laptop propped on the 
dashboard, attending online class in parking lots where Wi-Fi signals 
were free. These kids have extraordinary grit. Just look at the efforts 
they made to continue with their education. But no parent--in rural or 
urban America--would ever choose this for their child.
    The good news is we can fix this. We can solve the Homework Gap. 
Even better, we have a sound basis to do so through the E-Rate program. 
In fact, the agency has even done this in the past on a trial basis! 
That means the FCC could use E-Rate right now to provide every school 
library with Wi-Fi hotspots and other connectivity devices to loan out 
to students who lack reliable Internet access at home. We should get 
started immediately.
    Alternatively, if you see fit to address this issue through 
legislation, I hope that we can move fast and faithfully to implement 
any directives you provide. I am optimistic that we can fix the 
Homework Gap. We can make sure no child is left offline.
Third, we need a clear plan to keep all Americans connected.
    Everyone needs communications to have a fair shot at 21st century 
success. It was true before this crisis. But it's even clearer now. 
That's because staying connected means you have a fighting chance at 
maintaining some semblance of normal life. It's increasingly essential 
for work, for school, for healthcare, and so much more.
    It's a good thing that hundreds of communications providers have 
committed to keep America connected, pledging to open their networks, 
lift fees, and promising not to discontinue service. They deserve 
credit for making these commitments.
    But at the end of this month, many of these commitments are coming 
to an end. And what comes next is just as daunting, because this 
pandemic is still moving through so many communities and upending so 
many lives. We need new ideas now to keep Americans connected in the 
future.
    To this end, the FCC should seek to have communications providers 
extend their commitments and work with this Committee to help them do 
so. But with unemployment levels approaching those of the Great 
Depression we need to do more. We also need to rethink the Lifeline 
program to meet this moment.
    For nearly four decades, this program has helped low-income 
households get connected to modern communications. It got its start 
when President Reagan was in the White House and most communications 
involved a curly cord with a telephone connected to a jack in the wall. 
It was a long time ago. But what the FCC recognized then--that a 
connection was essential for school, for work, for healthcare, for 
reaching out in an emergency--is just as true today. But during the 
last several years the FCC has cut this program to the bone, despite 
the fact that so many people rely on it--including more than two 
million elderly and more than 1.3 million veterans. We need to change 
course and identify how it can help more Americans keep connected to 
the communications services that are essential to navigate the ongoing 
public health and economic crisis.
    We can start by updating standards for what Lifeline supports so 
everyone can maintain some semblance of modern life. We need to revisit 
eligibility criteria. Then we should work with our partners at the 
federal, state, and local levels to make the most of this program 
through improved outreach.
    While we're at it, we need to have a broader conversation about 
data caps and overage fees. With Americans working from home, taking 
classes, videoconferencing, playing games, chatting with friends, and 
streaming news and entertainment we must rethink how we count bandwidth 
and data usage. While some companies have voluntarily waived these caps 
and fees, on this score the FCC's work to keep Americans connected came 
up short. I think the FCC's efforts should go further because during 
this time, no one should be punished for exceeding their usage 
allotments because they are juggling work, telehealth visits and the 
like all from home.
Fourth, we need a clear plan for a secure 5G future.
    If we want to be a global leader, then it's imperative that we 
secure our leadership in the next generation of wireless, known as 5G. 
This is the technology of the future.
    If there is one thing this crisis is demonstrating, it's the value 
of faster and more robust networks. But our progress to date has been 
limited. That's because we lack a whole-of-government approach to 5G 
policy. This is especially true when it comes to freeing up spectrum, 
which is essential for our leadership in the next generation of 
wireless services. It also is apparent in our disagreement over how to 
secure supply chains and mixed record on deploying infrastructure. As a 
result, we are chasing other countries like China when it comes to 5G 
investment and 5G patents.
    We can fix this. We need a national spectrum strategy that can 
unify all of government and commit to expanding next-generation 
technologies to all Americans. An Executive Order from October 2018 
promised such a plan by April of 2019. But we're still waiting. Its 
absence is leading to interagency disputes about airwaves in the 24 GHz 
band, the 37 GHz band, the L-band, the 5.9 GHz band, the 6 GHz band and 
more. But while we argue among ourselves about what to do with these 
spectrum resources, other nations are moving forward.
    This is not good. When that plan is finally delivered we need a 
full government commitment to our leadership in 5G. To facilitate it we 
need to revisit the fundamentals of spectrum reallocation. We need to 
develop a valuation of Federal spectrum and then build structural 
incentives facilitating repurposing of airwaves for modern use. We need 
a way our Federal colleagues see gain and not just loss from 
reallocation.
    We also need to secure our 5G supply chain by returning the United 
States to a leadership position in the market for secure 5G equipment. 
That's not an easy task. Last year, the Defense Innovation Board--the 
United States military's premier advisory board of academic researchers 
and private sector technologists--surveyed the state of 5G and issued a 
sober warning. They found that ``the country that owns 5G will own 
innovations and set the standards for the rest of the world,'' and 
``that country is currently not likely to be the United States.'' The 
underlying truth about next-generation networks in many parts of the 
world is that technology developed in China may be at the center.
    One way to start changing this is to invest in virtualizing radio 
access networks--or open RAN. I offered this idea early last year and 
it has since garnered support from staff of the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and my 
colleagues at the FCC. The RAN is the most expensive and restrictive 
part of the network--it sits between your device and a carrier's core 
network. Today all major components of a RAN have to come from the same 
vendor. There is no way to mix and match. But if we can unlock the RAN 
and diversify the equipment in this part of our networks, we can 
increase security and push the market for equipment to where the United 
States is the strongest--in software and semiconductors. This will also 
give carriers around the world that are locked into upgrade cycles with 
a single foreign vendor a way out. The FCC can help with this effort by 
incorporating open RAN testbeds in our ongoing efforts to authorize 
city-wide 5G innovation zones, which exist today in New York and Salt 
Lake City. Doing this now will help ensure that this technology 
develops here, on our shores.
    We also need to plan now so that the growing Internet of things is 
secure. With 5G we are moving to a world with billions of connected 
devices all around us. Every piece of machinery, pallet of equipment, 
thermostat, smoke detector, streetlight, garbage pail, parking meter--
you name it--will be a connected device. This creates powerful 
opportunities that will make us more effective and more efficient, our 
cities smarter and our communities more connected. But these benefits 
come with big security challenges we need to address.
    Here is what that could look like. Every device that emits 
radiofrequency at some point passes through the FCC. If you want proof, 
pull out your smartphone or take a look at the back of any computer or 
television. You'll see an identification number from the FCC. It's a 
stamp of approval. It means the device complies with FCC rules and 
policy objectives before it is marketed or imported into the United 
States. This routine authorization process takes place behind the 
scenes. But the FCC needs to revisit this process and explore how it 
can be used to encourage device manufacturers to build security into 
new products. To do this, we could build on the National Institutes of 
Standards and Technology draft set of security recommendations for 
devices in the Internet of things. This effort specifies the 
cybersecurity features to include in network-capable devices, whether 
designed for the home, hospital, or factory floor. It covers everything 
from device identification, device configuration, data protection, 
access to interfaces, and critical software updates. In other words, 
it's a great place to start--and we should do it now.
Fifth, we need a clear plan to sustain local media and stand up for the 
        First Amendment.
    Local news is vital. We need it to make decisions about our lives, 
our communities, and our country. But despite the increased demand for 
news right now, the economics that underlie the industry are changing. 
You see it in advertising revenues. You see it in lost jobs. You see it 
in business models that are under enormous pressure to evolve when real 
facts get casually derided as fake news, algorithms are ascendant, and 
what is viral is not often verifiable.
    For decades, the FCC has had policies in place to support localism, 
diversity, and competition. But in the last few years, consolidation 
has made it less local and less diverse. Local journalists have been 
told to do more with less, as content gets beamed in from far-away 
places and fewer stories get told.
    To meet these new challenges, I believe we should scour the FCC's 
rules to identify how to support local media. It's not a cure-all and 
it may not be especially trendy, but we need to do our part to try to 
support local journalism and jobs. We need to help bring the capacity 
for program origination back to the communities where stations serve. 
We also need to put back in place the tax certificate policies that 
history demonstrates were the single strongest tool we had for 
increasing the diversity of media ownership.
    One thing that we shouldn't do, however, is compromise when it 
comes to our values, including those embodied in the First Amendment. 
Nowhere is this clearer than the recent Executive Order concerning 
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I know that social media 
can be frustrating. But an Executive Order that would turn the FCC into 
the President's speech police is not the answer.
Finally, we need a clear plan to learn from the crisis before us.
    The FCC should commit now to taking stock of the lessons learned 
when we are on the other side of this pandemic. For those households 
that are connected, so many are video calling, streaming, and uploading 
content at the same time. Our providers are seeing unprecedented new 
patterns in usage. We need to study these changes because they 
represent the future. What bandwidth is being used? At what speeds? Our 
national standard for broadband is 25 Megabits per second up and 3 
Megabits per second down. Is that low for what we demand from our 
online experiences today? Is that keeping pace with the rest of the 
world? Plus, to what extent are today's asymmetrical networks with 
higher download than upload capacities truly suited for a world with 
big changes in data processing and cloud storage that are altering how 
we work everywhere from the office to the farm?
    Regrettably, there is still no official source for tracking 
America's digital connectivity during this public health emergency. 
This is a mistake. We should require reporting about how our networks 
are holding up, like we do for other public emergencies like 
hurricanes, wildfires, and power outages. We also have given out 
millions for new telehealth initiatives pursuant to the CARES Act. We 
need to study how those funds were spent to understand what connected 
care works so our telemedicine initiatives can be more effective. The 
bottom line is we need to do a better job of learning from this crisis 
so we are better prepared in the future.
                                 * * *
    Despite the uncertainty that we face with this pandemic, I have 
real optimism. When Americans see crisis, we mobilize. When we are 
challenged, we overcome with uncommon courage and extraordinary grace. 
I see it at the agency, too, in the deep commitment of the FCC staff to 
work during this pandemic to adjust our policies to extend the reach of 
communications. But now we need to do more than build on what was done 
in the past. Because what has come before will not get us where we need 
to go. We need to recognize that the future belongs to the connected 
and we need to develop new policies that make digital opportunity 
available for all.
    Thank you for having us here today and I look forward to answering 
any questions you may have.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you very, very much, Commissioner 
Rosenworcel.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, welcome back.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL O'RIELLY, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. We've made this a weekly practice.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I prefer not to but if you want, I'll be 
here.
    Senator Wicker. You're recognized, sir.
    MR. O'Rielly. Thank you.
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of 
the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to 
discuss important matters before the Federal Communications 
Commission.
    Since you have my fairly lengthy written testimony, I 
thought it best to focus my comments on a few topics. At the 
forefront of my priorities is bringing broadband access to 
unserved areas as expeditiously as possible.
    One outstanding idea championed by Chairman Wicker is to 
provide financial incentives to FCC auction winners to 
accelerate their broadband deployment obligations through 
funding provided by Congress.
    I thank Chairman Wicker, Senators Blackburn and Capito for 
introducing the Accelerating Broadband Connectivity bill and I 
commit to continue working with the Committee and staff on this 
important initiative.
    I also commit to working with Members of Congress on 
implementing our obligations under the Broadband DATA Act. I've 
long been critical of the FCC's data for purposes of 
distributing broadband funding and applaud the bipartisan 
effort that led to the mapping statute being signed into law 
earlier this year.
    I agree that we must produce new, accurate coverage maps 
before moving forward with any new subsidy mechanisms.
    Switching gears to spectrum, one of the primary obligations 
of the Commission is to allocate unlicensed spectrum for 
commercial purposes to accommodate the incredible demand for 
new spectrum uses. Existing licensees, both commercial and 
Federal, often must relocate, shrink their footprints, or cease 
operations.
    While sometimes there are opportunities to entice incumbent 
licensees to voluntarily alter their current use, such as with 
the broadcast incentive auction or the C-band satellite 
services, the vast majority of our efforts requires honestly 
assessing current usage and actively making changes to the 
holdings if spectrum is not being appropriately used.
    Let me take a moment to discuss 5.9 gigahertz because I'm 
sure it will come up sooner or later.
    It would be correct to say that in 20+ years, little 
progress has been made in deploying DSRC technology previously 
mandated by the Commission. To put a finer point on the matter, 
DSRC deployment in the universe of vehicles that currently 
feature technology is limited to only a few thousand GM 
Cadillacs. Zero automobile manufacturers are currently 
deploying DSRC in current models and virtually no one has 
stated they have any plans to use it at all in the U.S. in the 
future.
    Moreover, all of the automobile safety purposes originally 
envisioned, except one, has been usurped by other technologies 
that utilize other spectrum bands. On top of this, a new 
technology based on LTE wireless standard CV2X has gained 
prominence and many automobile companies are actively 
considering it for auto safety enhancements.
    The Commission is trying to thoughtfully balance the 
reality of these circumstances with the increasing demand for 
wireless spectrum. In this case, the unlicensed community has 
sought to share a portion of the 5.9 gigahertz band, leaving a 
sufficient amount for dedicated automobile safety purposes.
    Consider that American families right now are being 
connected to broadband over 5.9 gigahertz via wireless wisps 
under temporary Commission authority and millions of Americans 
could enjoy connectivity from expanded Wi-Fi if the Commission 
moves forward with its balanced approach to allow unlicensed 
operations in a portion of the band while preserving spectrum 
for automobile safety systems.
    In terms of freeing spectrum for future wireless offerings, 
the most ideal band after C-band and CBRS is the 3.1 to 3.55 
gigahertz band. This spectrum was singled out by this committee 
in the MOBILE NOW Act.
    After looking at this matter closely, I respectfully argue 
that upwards of 200 megahertz needs to be cleared for exclusive 
use commercial services with the bulk of the remainder 
available for shared use.
    At the same time, Congress and the Commission must work 
together by taking every action to replenish our spectrum, our 
future spectrum pipeline which lies nearly empty. For instance, 
we should look at the seven gigahertz for licensed or 
unlicensed use.
    Separately, I hope the Committee will look closely at 
proposals, including in my written testimony, including to 
expedite the appointment of a work Ambassador, establish an 
international commissioner and modify the Commission's 
marketing and import rules to promote device innovation.
    I thank the Committee and look forward to answering any 
questions that members may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee: thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss 
important matters before the Federal Communications Commission. Having 
just testified before this Committee last week as part of its review of 
my nomination for a new term at the Commission, an opportunity for 
which I was truly grateful, I plan to address further some of the 
central issues that were raised, as well as others. As always, I am 
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Broadband Expansion
    At the forefront of my priorities is bringing broadband access to 
unserved areas as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, I have 
supported Chairman Pai and the Commission's staff in moving quickly to 
implement all of the requisite steps that must be taken in advance of 
the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction, including the recent 
Auction Procedures Public Notice, the upcoming short-form application 
process, and the limited challenge process that is key in preventing 
subsidized overbuilding. While this is a tremendous undertaking, the 
efficiencies and benefits brought about through our competitive reverse 
auction framework are well worth the effort.
    Some have called on the FCC to ``accelerate'' our already expedited 
process by enabling certain preferred providers to collect the full 
reserve prices for their areas and shield themselves from the auction's 
competitive process. While I have already voiced concerns about the 
consequences of such a policy, I also question the plan's potential 
effectiveness in achieving the underlying objective of accelerated 
deployment. Expediting the auction shouldn't be conflated with 
expediting the buildout of broadband; even if the accelerated long-form 
process for certain providers were moved up, the Fund's six-year 
deployment timeline would remain in place. And, while the Commission's 
buildout timeline could in theory be modified, doing so would, at a 
minimum, require a notice and comment rulemaking process, which itself 
takes a substantial amount of time.
    If we truly want to find a way to expedite RDOF deployment, one 
idea suggested by Chairman Wicker would be to provide financial 
incentives to auction winners to accelerate their broadband deployment 
obligations, through funding appropriated by Congress. I thank Chairman 
Wicker for bringing this thoughtful idea to my attention and have 
committed to working with him and his staff to explore how such a fund 
could be implemented and administered. After all, I want to connect the 
unserved areas of our country as quickly as possible--if it were up to 
me, many of the RDOF's eligible areas would have been auctioned off 
years ago--and I am open to any good ideas, including this one, to 
truly help speed up the process.
    In thinking beyond Phase I of the RDOF and ensuring that any future 
broadband buildout subsidies are appropriately targeted to those areas 
most in need, I am also committed to working with Members of Congress 
in implementing our obligations under the Broadband DATA Act. I have 
long been critical of the FCC's reliance on Form 477 Data for purposes 
of distributing broadband funding, and I applauded the bipartisan 
efforts that led to the mapping statute being signed into law earlier 
this year. While I believe RDOF Phase I does not raise those concerns, 
due to it being limited to those areas lacking service entirely, and is 
fully consistent with the Broadband DATA Act, I recognize that some of 
the statute's authors have voiced concerns over plans by the FCC to 
introduce new funding programs in the absence of reliable and granular 
maps. Since my primary obligation is to carry out the will of Congress 
based on the law as written, I have committed to fulfilling our 
statutory obligation to produce new, accurate coverage maps before 
moving forward with any new subsidy mechanisms.
    Further, in keeping with my commitment to work with Congress on 
closing gaps in coverage across the country, I appreciate the 
thoughtful framework announced last week by Congressional leaders to 
expand and maintain connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic; remove 
barriers to deployment; and promote public health, safety, and network 
security. To the extent further broadband funding is part of a 
potential future Congressional effort, such as an infrastructure bill, 
I would also respectfully encourage our Nation's legislators to keep 
certain principles in mind.
    First, to ensure precious funding is spent as efficiently as 
possible, targets those most in need, and does not undermine the 
investments of ratepayers and the private sector, Congress should 
include safeguards against wasteful, subsidized overbuilding. I have 
brought attention to many examples of duplicative spending by other 
departments and agencies, as well as within the FCC's own Universal 
Service Fund (USF), and I hope we would learn from the past mistakes 
that led to these outcomes. At the very least, I would humbly exhort 
lawmakers to draft statutory language that is as specific as possible 
and adopt clear requirements for effective coordination among the 
various departments, agencies, and programs involved in distributing 
subsidies across the Federal government. Second, following principles 
of technology neutrality is essential: the American people benefit most 
when we don't foreclose opportunities for innovation and when the 
market--not the government--picks winning and losing technologies. 
Third, and finally, consider the FCC as the primary means to allocate 
new funding, given our agency's successful cost-effective track record 
and expertise in distributing subsidies.
Spectrum Policy
    Moving from wireline policy to wireless, the Commission has also 
been busy freeing up spectrum resources for next-generation offerings. 
While the millimeter wave bands should help facilitate 5G in America's 
largest urban centers, the mid bands will be crucial to providing 5G 
across all of the country, especially in rural areas. The 350 megahertz 
of licensed spectrum in both the 3.5 GHz band, which is somewhat 
limited, and the C-Band between 3.7 and 4.2 GHz is a great start, but 
much more is needed. Wireless providers are seeking 100 megahertz 
channels to fulfill the true promise of 5G to consumers. Not to 
mention, a mid-band pipeline is also needed to ensure we have 
frequencies available for future innovation over the next decade, to 
meet the needs of an increasingly mobile-hungry public, and to maintain 
our position as the global leader in wireless technologies. And, 
frankly, the future pipeline has effectively run dry, jeopardizing the 
premier position American wireless innovation has achieved.
    An ideal opportunity for future wireless offerings is the 3.1 to 
3.55 GHz band, as it is directly below 3.5 GHz and C-Band and could, 
therefore, provide a large swath of contiguous spectrum that could be 
quickly deployed utilizing existing equipment due to its proximity to 
these bands. This spectrum has already been singled out by this 
Committee, and the requirement to evaluate its reallocation has been 
enacted into law in the MOBILE NOW Act. This body asked the Federal 
agency holders to study these frequencies to see if they could be made 
available for commercial use. Ultimately, the upper 100 megahertz (3.45 
to 3.55 GHz) needs to be cleared for exclusive-use commercial services. 
Additionally, a significant slice, beyond the top 100 megahertz, should 
be cleared for licensed use. And, while it would be ideal for all 450 
megahertz to be cleared, I realize that may be unrealistic, so the bulk 
of the remaining lower portion of the band (e.g., 3.1 to 3.35 GHz) must 
be studied and allocated for shared use with incumbents.
    I have also been an outspoken advocate for identifying spectrum for 
unlicensed use over many years, especially as an early one to preach 
for opening the much-needed 6 GHz band for unlicensed use. Following 
several years of this effort, the FCC recently did so in order to 
relieve our congested Wi-Fi networks and permit high-speed unlicensed 
systems that require far greater capacity than is currently available. 
However, we still need to expand on these efforts by, for example, 
modifying our 6 GHz technical rules to permit very low power devices in 
the band, permitting unlicensed use in 5.9 GHz while protecting 
automobile safety systems, and completing our proceeding to maximize 
use of TV white spaces, especially in rural America. Further, we need 
to start looking for the unlicensed bands of the future, such as 7 GHz.
    Unfortunately, finding more bands--either licensed or unlicensed--
will lead to future clashes with those entities occupying the most 
ideal mid-band spectrum, especially the Department of Defense. There is 
already friction, which has been publicly documented, and it is 
unlikely to subside any time soon. Studies performed to determine 
whether reallocating spectrum for new uses or sharing will potentially 
result in harmful interference must be based on reasonable, technical 
parameters. We need to ensure that spectrum is being maximized and used 
as efficiently as possible, and overprotecting or hoarding spectrum for 
incumbents cannot be allowed. We have seen this in our own proceedings, 
and it was definitely at the forefront of issues leading up to last 
year's World Radio Conference (WRC).
International Conference Participation and Advocacy
    I have been fortunate to have participated in the last two WRCs, 
along with several preparatory meetings in advance of the conferences. 
I cannot stress enough that this is a long, resource-intensive process, 
not only as it relates to formulating our national positions, which 
have been fraught with conflict, but also in ensuring that we have 
adequate time to convince other countries that our positions are the 
correct ones. And, we face a lot of international opposition, as some 
countries are intentionally trying to block U.S. wireless progress for 
their own economic gain. Previously, I have argued that an alternative 
process, akin to the G-7, may be needed to bring like-minded, forward-
thinking nations together to work on global harmonization matters. But, 
I am also committed to working to improve the existing WRC process, so 
I have begun to look at the steps that we can take to reform our WRC 
preparations. I want to make it clear that my suggested reforms in no 
way take away from Chairman Pai's exemplary leadership at WRC-19, nor 
do they alter the role of the FCC, the State Department, or NTIA. 
Instead, they serve to highlight the importance of this process and the 
need to expedite U.S. deliberations, and to reflect on the difficulties 
associated with how the system itself is set up. I would like to raise 
two recommended changes with you, as they would take Congressional 
action to implement.
    First, a temporary ambassador is typically appointed for six months 
to lead the U.S. delegation at every WRC, but this is simply not enough 
time to allow the head of the delegation to get caught up on all the 
issues and advocate effectively when preparations span a four-year 
period. As background, generally, the ambassador is officially 
designated five months before the one-month-long conference. While the 
designee might be employed by the State Department beforehand, it is 
necessary to have the ambassador in place well before the conference so 
that they can finalize policy positions, attend the pre-meetings, and 
advocate for U.S. priorities abroad. I suggest that U.S. interests 
could be better served by allowing the President to appoint the 
temporary ambassador up to two years before the WRC. To assist this 
process, NTIA should be brought into the process by requiring it to 
provide to the Secretary of State recommendations on potential 
candidates to assist the administration two and a half years before the 
conference.
    Second, the FCC Chair should be able to select a Commissioner to 
follow the evolving and controversial international issues closely and 
designate the Commissioner to attend conferences on his or her behalf. 
This ``International Commissioner'' could also help ensure decisions 
are made expeditiously and keep the other Commissioners apprised of the 
international landscape. To be clear, this would in no way diminish the 
Chair's role, fully preserving the right of the Chair to attend as many 
international conferences as desired and to be the final voice in 
expressing Commission policy with regard to international matters. Yet, 
the Chair has many priorities that compete for time and attention, and 
the international portfolio is time-consuming and challenging, as it 
requires following not only the FCC processes and what is going on at 
NTIA and the State Department, but also the dynamics of every ITU 
member state and the regional groups.
Digital Taxation
    In addition to these international matters, I would also like to 
take this opportunity to comment on one recurring international policy 
issue that has yet again come to a head: digital taxation. It is an 
issue not necessarily within the Commission's jurisdiction but one that 
nonetheless has important implications for many regulated entities and 
the larger communications sector. As recently as May, French officials 
decided to move forward with their plan to impose discriminatory taxes 
on the largest, and most successful, U.S. tech firms. The plan is to 
impose a retroactive, extraterritorial, percentage levy on gross 
revenues generated from providing ``digital interface'' and ``targeted 
advertising'' services ``in France.'' Combined, the targeted 
companies--particularly, Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon--account 
for a significant portion of the world's current economy, so maybe it 
is no surprise that a country known for wine, cheese, and other 
material riches, wonderful as these may be, would take a backward 
approach to tapping into the digital riches of high-technology 
industries. Yet, what is even more scandalous is that this plan, which 
is now part of French law, blatantly attempts to exclude certain French 
companies involved in other digital markets from these taxes. Such a 
shameless effort is awful policy under any circumstances, but 
threatening American innovators during the worst pandemic in several 
generations is a new low. Many observers, such as Grover Norquist of 
Americans for Tax Reform, have aptly pointed out the risks of 
retaliation and an escalating spiral of regulation as more and more 
countries seek to tax constituencies that have no political recourse.
    Sure enough, last week, the European Union (EU) announced the 
interest of its countries in ``going it alone'' to impose digital taxes 
after the U.S. rejected the state of negotiations and pulled out of 
talks at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 
(OECD). Comments by EU officials claim they seek to bring taxation into 
the 21st century, but, given the dearth of digital technology companies 
in Europe, such comments are clearly a thin veil covering attempts to 
slow American progress and penalize our innovators. American 
entrepreneurship, which sent astronauts into space a few weeks ago, can 
continue to thrive if the right environment for invention is preserved. 
Imposing unfair and discriminatory taxes on high-technology companies 
will result in less innovation. Thankfully, earlier this month, the 
United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced investigations into 
digital taxes imposed by certain European countries. I heartily applaud 
the Administration's strong efforts to push back appropriately on these 
unfair taxes and urge this Committee to actively join the fight.
Modifying FCC Marketing and Import Rules
    Shifting from international concerns to the plight of domestic 
companies, I will conclude by discussing policies related to the import 
of electronic devices. Every stage in the process of bringing new 
electronic devices to consumers can be difficult and time consuming. 
Unfortunately, the Commission's rules can unintentionally make this 
more onerous than necessary. Specifically, current FCC rules prohibit 
the pre-sale or conditional sale of radiofrequency devices, except to 
wholesalers and retailers. In other words, manufacturers must first 
seek and obtain the requisite equipment authorization from the 
Commission prior to marketing or selling the next new cell phone or 
other innovative device. The problem is that companies must expend 
incredible amounts of time and capital on processing and hardware 
development to gain approval for products that consumers may ultimately 
reject. On balance, consumers are harmed because of the lost 
productivity and investment that cannot be redeployed easily into 
products that they actually want. Similarly, FCC rules prevent the 
importation of devices that haven't yet received FCC equipment 
authorization. There are exceptions for the very limited importation of 
devices for trade shows, testing and evaluation, and a few other 
specific uses, but without the ability to import a sufficient quantity 
of new products, retailers are prevented from adequately preparing for 
the launch of marketing campaigns and actual sales of approved devices.
    To remedy these issues, I believe that we can make targeted changes 
in our marketing rules to allow equipment manufacturers to take orders 
for devices, and obtain financial commitments, before a device has 
received final Commission approval. This would allow them to gauge 
consumer interest before devoting extensive time and resources to final 
production. Market research pales in value compared to actual customers 
putting their money on the table. Also, this would help determine how 
many devices will be needed in the near-term to meet consumer demand, 
preventing both excess and under supply. While small and large 
manufacturers could gain, consumers will be the ultimate benefactors--
and beneficiaries--of additional innovation, especially as 5G and the 
Internet of Things further expand.
    At the same time, a reasonable solution for these import 
difficulties would be to adopt an exception to the import rules for 
purposes of device advertising and retail display preparation, similar 
to other uses that currently have such exemptions. This would give 
electronic device manufacturers the chance to keep a very limited 
number of physical devices on hand in retail establishments that 
clearly couldn't be displayed, used, or sold without completing the FCC 
device authorization process, but that would be available to sell as 
soon as final authorization is received.
                                 * * *
    In conclusion, I thank the Members of the Committee for your 
attention and stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, sir.
    Commissioner Carr.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN CARR, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. Carr. Chairman Wicker, Distinguished Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. It's a 
privilege to appear before you with my FCC colleagues.
    Since we last testified, the country has been seized by a 
pandemic that has seriously altered Americans' lives. Our daily 
routines, driving to work, sending our kids off to school, even 
catching up with friends were upended. Staying at home prompted 
us to recreate these routines online in an instant. That sudden 
massive transition made our Internet connections more important 
than ever.
    With so many Americans relying on the internet, it was 
incumbent on providers and the Commission to ensure continuous 
quality service. I'm proud of our efforts to meet the moment.
    First, the private sector and regulators joined together to 
make sure that pandemic-related financial stress and our own 
support rules did not cutoff service when Americans needed it 
most.
    Chairman Pai's Keep Americans Connected Pledge opened up 
free Wi-Fi hot spots and kept families online through job 
disruptions. We cleared the way for providers to donate tablets 
so kids could learn from home, waived the lifeline rules, and 
provided flexibility for services vital to the deaf and hard-
of-hearing.
    Second, we tracked the surge in network traffic and took 
steps to expand capacity. With the pandemic, Internet traffic 
spiked about 25 percent on fixed networks and around 20 percent 
on mobile ones.
    Throughout all of this, America's networks fared 
exceptionally well. Other countries weren't so fortunate. Their 
networks strained to maintain quality and speed. In Europe, 
officials asked Netflix to reduce their video quality, yet our 
networks showed no significant degradation in speed or latency.
    In fact, U.S. wireless networks saw speed increases. By 
contrast, China saw up to a 40 percent reduction in speeds, 
joining many other countries that experienced significant 
declines.
    America's networks performed because of the private 
sector's massive investment in our Internet infrastructure. In 
2018, for example, America's wireless providers invested 70 
percent more per subscriber than their counterparts in Europe. 
In 2019, our wireline providers built out more miles of high-
speed fiber than ever before. Those investments increased 
speeds and pulled families across the Digital Divide.
    All of this investment is especially important to advancing 
5G. The very first commercial 5G service launched here in the 
U.S. in 2018 and today, 5G networks are live in 381 communities 
across the 50 states, making us home to the world's leading 5G 
platform.
    The network's performance under stress, the 5G build-out, 
all of this investment didn't happen by chance. They are 
fostered by a light touch regulatory approach to 
infrastructure.
    At the Commission, I've led our infrastructure 
modernization efforts. We updated Federal historic and 
environmental rules for small cells. We built on common sense 
reforms adopted by states and just 2 weeks ago, we acted to 
expedite the upgrade of thousands of towers to 5G.
    While wireless towers are being upgraded to 5G, there's 
another wave of upgrades happening on broadcast towers, the 
upgrade to ATSC 3.0. It's a new standard that allows 
broadcasters to offer 25 megabit per second download speeds 
over the same powerful spectrum that Americans now use for TV. 
These new broadcast Internet services could be used for 
everything from smart ag to connected cars. So I was pleased 
the FCC voted this month to promote the nationwide development 
of those services.
    Whether we're discussing broadcast Internet or upgrading 
towers to 5G, Americans care about these investments because of 
the life-changing services delivered over those networks and 
few services can be more life-changing than telehealth.
    On a trip to Mississippi with Senator Wicker, I first 
learned about a new trend in telehealth toward connected care. 
Now back then, we had no idea how important providing care at a 
distance would be but because of the leg work we started after 
that visit, the FCC was able to stand up a COVID-19 telehealth 
program in record time that built on the lessons we learned in 
Ruleville, Mississippi.
    Finally, after discussing our work to accelerate 
infrastructure investment, I'd be remiss if I didn't update you 
on our efforts to secure those networks.
    As you know, we prohibited subsidized gear from untrusted 
vendors from going into our networks. We're looking at removing 
any such equipment that made its way into our networks and 
we're considering whether to revoke the authority of certain 
carriers to connect to our networks.
    As Congress considers additional action, one step I 
recommend is to promote the swift transition to software-based 
networks or O-RAN which will advance our national security 
goals while decreasing the costs of building out networks.
    In closing, I want to thank you again, Chairman Wicker, 
Ranking Member Cantwell, and Distinguished Members of the 
Committee for holding this hearing. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]

        Prepared Testimony of Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members 
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. It is a 
privilege to appear before you with my FCC colleagues.
    Since we last testified, the country has been seized by a pandemic 
that has seriously altered Americans' lives. Our daily routines--
driving to work, sending the kids off to school, even catching up with 
friends--were upended. Staying at home prompted us to recreate these 
routines online in an instant. And that sudden, massive transition made 
our Internet connections more important than ever. With so many 
Americans relying like never before on their home connections, it was 
incumbent on providers and the Commission to extend and ensure 
continuous, quality service. I'm proud of our efforts to meet the 
moment.
    First, the private sector and regulators joined together to make 
sure that pandemic-related financial stress and our own support rules 
did not cut off service when Americans needed it most. Chairman Pai's 
Keep Americans Connected pledge opened up free Wi-Fi hotspots and kept 
families online through job disruptions. The Commission cleared the way 
for providers to donate computers and tablets so kids can learn from 
home, waived certain Lifeline rules so that under-resourced families 
wouldn't lose wireless service, and provided flexibility for services 
vital to the deaf and hard of hearing. We also worked closely with 
providers that launched new programs to connect low-income families 
with high-speed services.
    Second, we closely tracked the surge in network traffic and, when 
necessary, took steps to expand capacity to meet demand. In the first 
few weeks of the pandemic, Internet traffic surged about 25 percent on 
fixed networks and 20 percent on mobile ones. Peak usage, which 
normally hits a network around 9:00 PM local time, lasted longer and 
stretched into daytime hours. Network traffic not only spiked virtually 
overnight, it shifted at nearly the same time from urban centers to the 
suburbs. In addition to carriers' own network management steps, we 
granted carriers special temporary authority to lease spectrum from 
other providers and offered some of the Commission's licenses in 
inventory to augment capacity.
    Throughout all of this, America's networks fared exceptionally 
well. While our networks delivered high quality service despite 
elevated traffic levels, our friends in other advanced economies were 
not so fortunate. Their networks strained to maintain quality and 
speed. In Europe, EU officials asked Netflix and other streaming 
platforms to significantly reduce their video quality to prevent the 
continent's networks from breaking. Australia made a similar request. 
Yet our networks showed no significant reduction in speed or increase 
in latency, according to independent measurements. In fact, U.S. 
wireless networks saw speed increases despite the significant jump in 
data usage. By contrast, China saw up to 40 percent reductions in 
download speeds, and countries all across Europe and Asia also 
experienced significant declines.
    America's networks performed because of the private sector's 
massive investment in our Internet infrastructure over the past few 
years. In 2018, for example, America's wireless providers invested over 
70 percent more per subscriber than their counterparts in Europe. In 
2019, telecom crews built out more miles of high-speed fiber than ever 
before--over 450,000 route miles, which is enough to wrap around the 
Earth over 18 times. All of that fiber and new investments have 
increased speeds and connected more families. This benefits all of us 
whether or not we're in a sudden pandemic. Indeed, since 2016, speeds 
are up about 85 percent, and the digital divide narrowed by about 30 
percent between 2016 and 2018.
    This private sector investment is especially important to advancing 
5G. Industry estimates that it will invest $275 billion into upgrading 
our wireless networks to 5G. That money already has been put to work. 
The very first commercial 5G service launched here in the U.S. in 2018. 
By the end of that year, the private sector extended 5G to 14 
communities. Halfway through 2019, that figure expanded to more than 
30. And today, 5G networks are live in 381 communities across all 50 
states, making us home to the world's leading 5G platform.
    The networks' performance under stress, the 5G build out, and all 
of this investment don't happen by chance. They are fostered by a 
light-touch regulatory approach to infrastructure. It's an approach 
that emphasizes clear rules that keep pace with changing technology.
    At the Commission, I've led our infrastructure modernization 
efforts. Together, we updated the Federal historic and environmental 
rules that were needlessly delaying the build out of high-speed small 
cells. We built on the commonsense reforms adopted by the states and 
reined in outlier conduct. We streamlined the process for swapping out 
utility poles to add wireless equipment, among many other reforms.
    And in our last Commission meeting just two weeks ago, we took 
action to encourage upgrades of existing wireless towers. In Section 
6409 of the Spectrum Act, Congress codified a commonly held view: 
adding new equipment to an old tower is much less involved than 
building a new tower from scratch. And so if an upgrade to an old tower 
doesn't substantially change the tower's physical dimensions, the 
upgrade shouldn't go through a lengthy review process. Our rules that 
originally implemented Section 6409 created a 60-day shot clock for 
local government approval, and we defined what counts as a 
``substantial change.'' In the six years since we wrote those rules, 
parties have come to different interpretations of what we wrote, and 
the varying views from local governments and industry have caused 
delays--exactly the thing Congress was trying to avoid by writing 
Section 6409 in the first place. This month's order seeks to clarify 
our rules around the shot clock and ``substantial change,'' and in so 
doing, are expected to further expedite the upgrade of thousands of 
towers to 5G, including in rural and other remote communities.
    While wireless towers across the country are being upgraded to 5G, 
there's another great wave of upgrades happening on broadcast towers--
the upgrade to ATSC 3.0. It's a new standard that allows broadcasters 
to do more with their signals by transmitting in Internet Protocol, or 
IP. Much of the attention on ATSC 3.0 has focused on what it can do for 
TV, including transmitting Ultra HD video and allowing content to be 
personalized to a household. But focusing solely on better video misses 
the technology's full potential. By transmitting the data as IP and 
remembering that broadcast channels are spectrum, we can 
reconceptualize what this technology can be used for. This technology 
looks less strictly like refined broadcast TV and begins to look more 
like Broadcast Internet. Every broadcast channel using this standard 
has about enough spectrum to transmit 25 Mbps over the entire coverage 
footprint of its tower. That's the equivalent of a new broadband link 
down to every household that station serves.
    What could we do with this new Broadcast Internet pipe? For 
telemedicine applications, IoT, and smart ag, Broadcast Internet's 
broad coverage could push data over a large area. For autonomous 
vehicles, the service could send targeted map and traffic data or 
provide fleet-wide software updates. And for many families, it could 
mean another option for high-speed downloads--from movies to 
applications--delivered over the same spectrum that they've long used 
for over-the-air television.
    Given all of this potential, I was pleased that the Commission 
unanimously approved an order this month to ensure that Broadcast 
Internet services are not weighed down by legacy media regulations. Our 
decision makes clear that broadcasters and other innovators can offer 
Broadcast Internet services nationwide without triggering the FCC's TV 
station ownership rules. That certainty should encourage further 
investment and development of this technology.
    Whether we're discussing Broadcast Internet or upgrading towers to 
5G, Americans care about these improvements most because of the life-
changing services delivered over these networks. And few services can 
be more life-changing than quality healthcare.
    For years, the FCC has played a key role in supporting the build 
out of high-speed Internet services to health care facilities. And that 
important work will continue. But there's a new trend in telehealth. 
The delivery of high-tech, high-quality care is no longer limited to 
the confines of connected, brick-and-mortar facilities. With remote 
patient monitoring and mobile health applications that can be accessed 
right on a smart phone or tablet, we now have the technology to deliver 
high-quality care directly to patients, regardless of where they are 
located. It's the health care equivalent of shifting from Blockbuster 
to Netflix.
    I first learned about this new trend on a visit to the University 
of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) with Senator Wicker. That's when 
UMMC professionals explained how they launched a connected care pilot 
program in the Mississippi Delta to improve the lives of patients with 
diabetes. That program showed great results for the patients and 
significant cost savings compared to traditional care methods. Since 
then, I've been working with my colleagues at the Commission to create 
a nationwide program that builds on the one UMMC pioneered.
    Back then, we had no idea how important providing care at a 
distance would be in today's pandemic. But because of the leg work we 
started after my first visit to Mississippi we were able to stand up a 
COVID-19 telehealth program in record time; it was a matter of days 
from the time President Trump signed the CARES Act to an FCC order. 
That program has made an impact in a very short time. So far, we have 
approved 367 applications for over $128 million, with tens of millions 
more likely to be released in the coming months.
    Finally, after discussing the efforts the Commission has made to 
connect Americans and spur infrastructure investment, I would be remiss 
if I did not update you on our efforts to secure those connections and 
infrastructure. As you know, in November, we banned USF support from 
being used to purchase equipment from certain untrusted vendors. I 
thank Congress for its strong support of that action and its 
consideration of additional measures to make sure that insecure telecom 
equipment in our networks does not threaten our national security. That 
proceeding remains open, and as you may also know, we separately have 
been examining the interconnection authorizations that years ago were 
granted to a number of providers that may be owned and controlled by 
the communist regime in China. I am pleased that the FCC is now taking 
a hard look at those authorizations.
    These actions and investigations have confirmed the urgency with 
which we must secure our networks. In refining our security strategy, 
many have pointed out that for some critical network components, we do 
not have a home champion--an American company that provides an 
alternative to an insecure foreign competitor. Instead of creating or 
acquiring a champion to compete with the foreign components makers, the 
Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) concept has begun to gain traction. 
The central idea is to standardize components of the radio access 
network and allow them to be built by competing firms instead of a 
fully-integrated RAN in one company's control. Because the components 
of the RAN do not have to be built and integrated by one company, the 
higher functionality moves from the hardware components to the software 
running on it. Having a more software-driven RAN plays to an enduring 
American advantage in software development and security--and it has the 
upshot of likely lowering the costs of building out networks over time. 
This trend towards software-based networks will advance our network 
security goals as well as infrastructure investment. So as Congress 
considers infrastructure initiatives, it should continue to promote 
policies that will support and speed the transition to software-based 
networks.
                                 * * *
    In closing, I want to thank you again Chairman Wicker, Ranking 
Member Cantwell, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing 
and for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to continuing to 
work with the Committee on policies that can accelerate the buildout of 
broadband networks for the benefit of the people we serve. I welcome 
the chance to answer your questions.

    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    And now we recognize Commissioner Starks.

   STATEMENT OF HON. GEOFFREY STARKS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL 
                   COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. Starks. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. 
It comes at a historic moment.
    So far, more than two million people in the United States 
have been infected with COVID-19. Over 119,000 have died. 
Unemployment has hit its highest level since the Great 
Depression and millions of children have missed months of in-
classroom education. All of this has profound implications for 
the FCC and I look forward to discussing that with you.
    Today, however, I also want to shed light on an additional 
perspective in my remarks by speaking not only as an FCC 
Commissioner but as an African American father of two young 
children who deeply cares about my country and my community.
    The civil protests of the last few weeks have sparked a 
movement that has centered on the black experience in America. 
Each of us has our own unique personal narrative about being 
black in America, but there's also a common story, a shared 
experience, a collective thread, and over the last few weeks, a 
tighter bond has formed through shared emotions: fear, 
frustration, and, most of all, of course, hope.
    Last week, alongside civil rights leaders Reverend Al 
Sharpton, Mark Morial, Vanita Gupta, and Maurita Coley, I 
published an op-ed on broadband in America with a particular 
focus on communities of color. Our historic failure to close 
the Digital Divide has had a devastating impact on American 
communities of color, both rural and urban, which the coming 
months and years will magnify exponentially without a more 
urgent and successful intervention.
    In 2020, black Americans and other people of color are 
still by a wide margin significantly less likely to have a home 
broadband connection than their counterparts. They have 
frequently worked around this issue by searching for libraries, 
restaurants offering free Wi-Fi. The pandemic has changed these 
fundamentals.
    Shelter-in-place orders and closings have restricted and 
foreclosed completely in many instances the broadband access 
many of these public places and spaces provided and classrooms 
and workplaces have moved online to virtual settings. Our 
longstanding Digital Divide has morphed truly into a monstrous 
COVID-19 divide.
    A few thoughts. Access to high-quality broadband is a civil 
right we cannot afford to lose but one that many cannot afford 
to have. We must focus on affordability as an access issue.
    Even before the pandemic, more than 18 million American 
households did not have broadband at home simply because it is 
too expensive and with unemployment at Great Depression levels 
and people trying to decide whether they have enough money for 
groceries or for rent, this problem has undoubtedly worsened.
    There are a number of legislative proposals currently 
available for broadband connections and devices for low-income 
families and the newly unemployed and I cannot overstate how I 
believe that these efforts are essential to connecting and 
empowering all Americans.
    For my part, within the Commission's authority, I have also 
long advocated that we require rural providers who build out 
with Universal Service dollars that they offer an affordable 
broadband option.
    The Lifeline Program remains disappointingly underused and 
its benefits do not meet the needs of low-income consumers in 
this era of social distancing. The FCC must coordinate with 
agencies that administer services, like SNAP or Medicaid, that 
determine eligibility for lifeline programs to ensure low-
income communities learn about it and avail themselves of its 
benefits. Americans cannot afford for this government to work 
in silos and I'm thankful for the 40 Senators that signed a 
letter agreeing with that proposal, including many on this 
committee, and I'm thankful for Senator Klobuchar's leadership 
on the congressional push for interagency coordination to 
increase lifeline enrollment.
    We should also increase the data and voice offerings that 
lifeline covers to meet connectivity needs of our low-income 
subscribers during this public health crisis.
    We also need to focus on our youngest learners. Millions of 
students across the country remain disconnected, even though 
they spent this spring in-home classrooms away from school 
grounds. E-Rate must meet the demands of the moment and to 
respond to the ongoing need for distance learning, we should 
permit schools to offer broadband connections, including hot 
spots, to their students.
    The outlook for school reopening for the fall remains 
opaque. So this issue is not going away.
    I'm making my own investments in these issues. Earlier this 
month, I announced my Digital Opportunity Equity Recognition, a 
DOER Program, and with the help of an advisory board of digital 
equity champions, I plan to recognize organizations, companies, 
individuals who have helped to make quality affordable 
broadband service available to unserved or underserved 
communities with a particular focus on responding to the 
challenges of COVID-19.
    The alarming and predicted impacts of COVID-19 make clear 
that the American people can no longer wait for connectivity. 
Inspired by the fierce urgency of now and guided, of course, by 
hope, I want to make sure that all communities have access to 
affordable and reliable broadband.
    If we do and work together, I know we will create a better 
country for all Americans.
    Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Starks follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Geoffrey Starks, Commissioner, 
                   Federal Communications Commission
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me to today's hearing. It comes at a 
historic moment. So far, more than 2 million people in the United 
States have been infected with COVID-19 and over 119,000 have died. 
Unemployment has hit its highest levels since the Great Depression. 
Millions of children have missed months of in-classroom education. And 
Americans across the country have exercised their constitutional right 
to demonstrate for justice. Even as the Commission continues its 
regular work, this is no time for business as usual.
    We must help combat the pandemic by connecting as many Americans as 
possible to high-quality, affordable broadband service, as quickly as 
possible. Even as many of us have taken our daily activities online, 
tens of millions of Americans have been unable to access or cannot 
afford the home broadband connections necessary to access telework, 
medical information, government resources, and distance learning.
    Back in March, I called for a ``connectivity stimulus'' with roles 
for the Federal government and the private sector. I called on Internet 
Service Providers to introduce or expand their low-income broadband 
programs and eliminate their data caps. In times of emergency, no 
American should go without a connection because of cost. I called for 
expansion of the Commission's Lifeline program and for temporary 
waivers to put underutilized spectrum to work. I've been happy to see 
many of these proposals implemented, and I appreciate the hard work of 
the Chairman, Commission staff and industry to respond to this 
emergency. I also thank Congress and this Committee for funding 
essential COVID-19 telehealth services.
    But much more needs to be done. The Lifeline program remains 
dramatically underutilized, and its benefits do not meet the needs of 
low-income consumers in this era of social distancing. The FCC must 
coordinate with agencies that administer services like SNAP or Medicaid 
that determine eligibility for Lifeline to ensure low-income 
communities learn about this critical program. Americans cannot afford 
for the government to work in silos, and I'm thankful for Senator 
Klobuchar's leadership on the congressional push for interagency 
coordination to increase Lifeline enrollment. We should also increase 
Lifeline's voice and data offerings to meet the connectivity needs of 
low-income subscribers during this public health crisis.
    E-rate also needs a fresh look. Students across the country spent 
this spring in home ``classrooms'' away from school grounds. To respond 
to the ongoing need for distance learning, we should permit schools to 
offer broadband connections, including hotspots, to their students. The 
outlook for school re-opening for the fall remains opaque, so this 
issue isn't going away.
    We mustn't forget our seniors, who've been among the hardest hit by 
this pandemic but are among the least connected. According to the Pew 
Research Center, only 53 percent of Americans 65 and older own a 
smartphone, and nearly one-third of seniors never go online at all. 
I'll never forget my visit last year to Boston's Roxbury neighborhood, 
where I met Ms. Eleanor, a senior who participated in the library's 
``Tech Goes Home'' program, which trains residents to use the Internet 
and helps them purchase affordable laptops and home broadband service. 
Thanks to this program, Ms. Eleanor can enjoy her favorite new activity 
at home with her first laptop--learning to line dance by watching 
online videos. During the pandemic, the ability of our seniors to 
safely connect is much more serious. We owe it to our seniors to 
connect them to broadband and offer the training and tools necessary to 
make the most of those connections.
    Finally, last week, alongside civil rights leaders--Reverend Al 
Sharpton, Marc Morial, Vanita Gupta, and Maurita Coley--I published an 
op-ed on broadband in America, with a particular focus on communities 
of color. Our historic failure to close the digital divide has had a 
devastating impact on American communities of color, both rural and 
urban, which the coming months and years will magnify exponentially 
without more urgent and successful intervention. In 2020, Black 
Americans and other people of color are still, by a wide margin, 
significantly less likely to have a home broadband connection than 
their counterparts. They have frequently worked around this by 
searching out libraries or restaurants offering free Wi-Fi. The 
pandemic has changed these fundamentals--shelter in place orders and 
closings have restricted or foreclosed completely the broadband access 
many of these public spaces provided, while classrooms and workplaces 
have moved to online virtual settings. Our long-standing digital divide 
has morphed into a monstrous COVID-19 divide.
    Now more than ever, the FCC must stay focused on this work--as 
opposed to Section 230--as its top priority. The alarming current and 
predicted impacts of COVID-19 make clear that the people we all serve 
can no longer wait for connectivity. I'm making my own investments to 
respond to these issues. Earlier this month, I announced my Digital 
Opportunity Equity Recognition, or DOER, program. With the help of an 
Advisory Board of digital equity champions, I will recognize 
organizations, companies and individuals who have helped make quality 
affordable broadband service available to unserved or underserved 
communities, with a particular focus on responding to the challenges of 
COVID-19.
    Thank you again inviting me today. I look forward to your 
questions.

    Senator Wicker. Well, thank you to all of you for excellent 
testimony.
    Let me say we need to do everything we can for distance 
learning. At the same time, we need to get this economy open 
and we need to get schools opened. Nothing can take the place 
of that and that ought to be one of the major priorities of 
this Congress and this Administration to get our elementary and 
secondary institutions open so parents can go back to work and 
kids can go to school where educators are taught and trained to 
do the best job of teaching and we need to get our colleges and 
universities opened.
    So thank you for your effort there, but the main solution 
is a broader solution.
    We've got a lot to discuss. Chairman Pai, Commissioner 
Rosenworcel is concerned that we're not going to get the 
Broadband DATA Act information in time for two important 
events: the RDOF, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, and then the 
5G Fund.
    I think you said recently that we can get that information 
in months rather than years, which is an optimistic and 
welcomed statement on your part.
    So I'm going to let the two of you discuss this, but 
respond to her concerns and on the RDOF, the first step of the 
application begins in a week or two, July, and then it's going 
to be here before we know it.
    What do you say to her point that we're going to be doing 
that blind without new information on the Data Act?
    Mr. Pai. Mr. Chairman, I would say that that concern is 
misplaced. Phase 1 of the Rural Digital Opportunity fund 
focuses on unserved areas, areas that we know, especially after 
the challenges that we received, do not have any service 
according to the maps, any map that you look at, and so to me 
at least for those millions of Americans who are on the wrong 
side of the Digital Divide, who we know are on the wrong side 
of the Digital Divide, it is not adequate for me to say they 
should be denied digital opportunity potentially for months or 
even years while we figure out the mapping in partially served 
areas.
    That is what is at stake here, Point Number 1. Point Number 
2,----
    Senator Wicker. Please hold that point, though. 
Commissioner Rosenworcel, that makes sense to me. We know that 
these areas in the RDOF are unserved.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. So I want to point something out to you. 
We're making it a choice between speed and accuracy. I think 
the government needs to do both and let me talk a little bit 
about accuracy.
    The nation's largest broadband providers came together and 
assessed how accurate our data was. What they found was that 38 
percent of the homes and businesses that our data say have 
service today do not. That's an error rate of two in five.
    Senator Wicker. OK. But with----
    Ms. Rosenworcel. We're going to hand out billions of 
dollars based on that data----
    Senator Wicker. But with regard, though, to the RDOF areas, 
we know they're underserved, don't we?
    Ms. Rosenworcel.--but here's the problem. The bulk of 
Americans without service today are in areas that are on the 
outskirts of suburbs, on the outskirts of exurban America, and 
our maps say those people have service when they do not, and 
the problem is----
    Senator Wicker. Are they subject to the RDOF?
    Ms. Rosenworcel.[--one week before the selection, we are 
poised to give out $16 billion based on maps we know are wrong. 
That's 80 percent of the funds for the next 10 years we have.
    To me, I don't think we have any business giving out that 
much money without first making some effort to fix our maps 
that we know are wrong.
    Senator Wicker. OK. What's your suggestion?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Here's what I suggest. I respect what the 
Chairman said about trying to move fast, but I don't think 
giving out 80 percent of our funds for the next 10 years when 
we know our data is wrong is the right number.
    I think we have to reserve far more of those funds for a 
time when our maps are correct and accurate because if we 
don't, we will not have funds to get to every American. We will 
leave people behind.
    Senator Wicker. We have groups and citizens contacting us 
saying we need to speed this RDOF up and make it even earlier.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. And, you know, I----
    Senator Wicker. Aren't you----
    Ms. Rosenworcel.--also lots of people----
    Senator Wicker.--saying that we----
    Ms. Rosenworcel.--reaching out to me telling me when I look 
at the FCC map, it says I have service when I don't and as a 
result, I can't get service in my community, in my home, and in 
my business. Again, an error rate of two in five.
    Senator Wicker. Well, I was hoping----
    Ms. Rosenworcel. It's not the kind of data we should give 
out billions of dollars from.
    Senator Wicker. I was hoping, Commissioner Rosenworcel, 
though, that you would answer the question rather than making a 
speech.
    Are these areas that are subject to the RDOF among those 
suburban areas that you're talking about?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No, I think they're the areas that we more 
conclusively know there is not service today.
    Senator Wicker. OK.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. And I agree we should move ahead and do 
something fast, but I think taking 80 percent of our funds for 
the next 10 years and doing this without fixing our data is a 
mistake. We should find a way to be both fast and accurate.
    Senator Wicker. Well, OK, how do we get the Broadband DATA 
Act complied with more quickly, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Pai. Well, the FCC needs funding to be able to do that. 
65 million just for startup costs in the first year alone. 
Otherwise it is an unfunded mandate and I've said repeatedly we 
need money before maps and I think what you just heard was an 
implicit concession that without it, those Americans, Americans 
I've met in places like Capon Springs, West Virginia, and the 
Gulf of Mississippi, and in other poor towns across this 
country, they will have to wait potentially for years unless 
and until Congress gives us funding and we stand up the systems 
to determine what suburban areas might be partially served, and 
I think digital opportunities should not be denied to those 
Americans who are on the wrong side of the divide by any metric 
we use.
    Senator Wicker. Well, it seems to me that we've mandated 
this and it is incumbent upon the Congress to provide the funds 
to get this going as soon as possible because it is an urgent 
need.
    Mr. Pai. Yes, sir.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
    Do you two have dinner together?
    Mr. Pai. Socially distant.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. He's keeping it lively for you.
    Senator Wicker. Well, you're both terrific and very 
articulate.
    Who is next? Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all of you and thank you for your heartfelt 
words about what this pandemic has meant, particularly thank 
you to you, Commissioner Starks, to so many families across 
this Nation.
    So Senator Cramer and I have a bill which I know you're 
aware of which would create a major fund at the FCC to help 
providers, some of the small Internet providers that are the 
ones that are stepping in right now to help so many families, 
so students and low-income families can connect to work, 
school, and communities.
    We now have 32 co-sponsors, including nine on this 
committee, Peters, Young, Baldwin, Duckworth, Sullivan, Tester, 
Sinema, and Rosen.
    Chairman Pai, last week you sent a letter to congressional 
leaders requesting legislation to help ensure that nearly 800 
broadband providers that signed the FCC's Keep Americans 
Connected Pledge can continue providing service to consumers 
after the pledge expires at the end of the month.
    You also state in your testimony that ``these companies, 
especially small ones, cannot continue to provide service 
without being paid for an indefinite period of time.''
    Do you agree that legislation like the one that Senator 
Cramer and I have introduced would help ensure that we can keep 
Americans connected?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator Klobuchar. 
There's no question that some of the smaller providers that are 
the subject of your bill have endured significant losses in 
many cases, as we've heard, and I think your legislation is an 
important step in the right direction to make sure that from 
the consumer perspective they can continue to enjoy the 
services they've relied on the last 3 months.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, thank you for your leadership on this 
issue, and I agree with everything the Chairman just said.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good. Which I'm sure is always 
the case.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Klobuchar. Commissioner Starks, last week in your 
joint op-ed in Essence with the civil rights leaders that you 
mentioned, right,----
    Mr. Starks. Yes.
    Senator Klobuchar.--you called on lawmakers to improve 
connectivity for marginalized communities during this crisis 
and in the future.
    We have a bill, Supporting Connectivity for Higher 
Education Students in Need Act, with Senators Hirono, Peters, 
and Rosen, to help the National Co-Communications Information 
Administration ensure that college students with financial need 
can access critical internet.
    Do you believe that legislation would be helpful?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, Senator, I do believe that is extremely 
helpful legislation. I held an HBCU roundtable myself with 
presidents from HBCUs as large as Howard, FMU, to Morgan State 
and each of them also discussed how important this is going to 
be to make sure that Pell Grant students, students that are 
going back to their homes in rural areas, urban areas where 
there's not connectivity, making sure that we're thinking 
through that. It's extremely important.
    Senator Klobuchar. You also mentioned the Lifeline Program 
and Senator Durbin, Marcia Fudge, NSU, and myself wrote a 
letter along with 140 Members of Congress urging the FCC to 
take action to make sure that they are aware of the help they 
can get to access the Internet and we know that this has always 
been an issue, but this pandemic has put a major magnifying 
glass on this problem.
    What additional measures do you think are necessary to help 
close the homework gap and increase connectivity for students 
moving forward?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, and on that letter in particular, we know 
that only seven and a half million Americans are on Lifeline 
right now, whereas upwards of 38 million are eligible, and so 
it's going to be increasingly important and what I called for 
was an MOU by the FCC to SNAP, to HHS, to other agencies that 
are prerequisites basically to get Lifeline. I think it's going 
to be extremely important that those agencies be a part of this 
and the fact of the matter is that Americans cannot afford for 
our government to work in silos right now.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Rosenworcel, and I will ask some other broadband 
questions of the other two Commissioners, I didn't mean to omit 
you, but this is about the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint. You 
know, I have opposed that and I'm very concerned that we have 
only three nationwide wireless carriers once this would go 
through and just very concerned about what's happening with 
consolidation in general.
    There's a hearing going on unrelated to FCC matters right 
now but related in a bit of a way and it's over in the House on 
whistleblowers and it involves some disturbing news on some of 
the antitrust investigations and political interference in them 
related to the cannabis industry and some other things but it's 
worth looking at that testimony. I was pretty shocked. That's 
how I started my day today.
    And the reason it's relevant here is not that it involves 
the FCC but that the concern about any political interference 
in these merger decisions, and what do you think the impact 
will be of having only three nationwide wireless carriers on 
our country's ability to deploy 5G?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you for the question. Consolidation 
is a problem throughout the economy. Less competition is less 
competition. That means higher rates and less innovation.
    So we went from four to three major wireless carriers. When 
we went from four to three major airline carriers, I got 
baggage fees and smaller seats. The same thing's going to 
happen here and all I've seen to date are thousands and 
thousands of job losses. We should be concerned.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you,----
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker.--Senator Klobuchar.
    Senator Fischer joins us remotely. Senator Fischer, you are 
recognized.

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

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
OK?
    Senator Wicker. Absolutely.
    Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Pai, Nebraska's one of several states across the 
country with its own Universal Service Fund and I think the 
Federal-state communication here is particularly important.
    In the past, the FCC and the Nebraska Universal Service 
Fund has encouraged and supported projects in a very 
complementary way. As we look to the FCC's upcoming 
initiatives, I want to understand how today's FCC views that 
dynamic.
    So, Mr. Chairman, do you believe that the FCC has effective 
ways to interface with state commissions for those that have 
the Universal Service Funds, such as both the state and Federal 
funds, so that both the state and the Federal funds are 
maximized for the most efficient use?
    Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator, and I do hope 
that you can hear me.
    The answer to your question is yes. In fact, the very first 
vote held after I became Chairman was to cement a partnership 
with the State of New York to make sure that Federal and state 
funds for broadband deployment in rural areas were working in 
concert.
    Over the years since I've become Chairman, we've had 
cooperative relationships like that with other states, too, 
Pennsylvania, among others. In fact, just a week ago or 2 weeks 
ago, I had a great conversation with broadband leaders in 
Washington State about making sure that we are working in 
concert not just on rural broadband, but on things like E-Rate 
and tribal broadband to make sure that we stretch every 
taxpayer dollar, whether it comes from the Federal or state 
level, as far as possible to close that Digital Divide.
    Senator Fischer. We want to make sure that we don't have 
duplication but we also want to make sure that we have very, 
very efficient coordinated efforts. Would you agree with that?
    Mr. Pai. I couldn't agree more, Senator. It's important 
from the consumer perspective for all levels of government to 
be working together, not in silos and certainly not at 
loggerheads.
    Senator Fischer. Right. I know Nebraska has a very dynamic, 
a very thoughtful and involved Public Service Commission, and 
so I hope that we can continue that partnership to be 
beneficial to the customers and the citizens of my state.
    Also, Chairman Pai, due to the pandemic, we see students 
across the country that have had major shifts in their daily 
lives over the past several months in needing to complete their 
class work from home. Questions remain for if and how students 
will be back at school this fall. It's going to place some 
extra stress on addressing both the affordability and the 
access challenges that they have for Internet connectivity.
    So, Chairman Pai, in light of the pledge that's going to be 
expiring next week, what policies do you see as most helpful in 
tackling these challenges for student households across the 
country?
    I've had a couple roundtables with people in telecom 
providing services, with state officials, and with 
superintendents from districts across the state, and this is a 
deep concern.
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Senator. That's why 3 months ago, I 
sent a letter to Congress, including, I believe, members of 
this committee, urging the creation of a Remote Learning 
Initiative as part of the CARES Act, something similar to what 
Congress ultimately did with respect to telehealth in the 
COVID-19 Telehealth Program.
    My vision is for Congress to give the FCC similar authority 
to be able to in a streamlined way direct this funding to the 
schools and the school kids who really need that connectivity.
    In the meantime, we're going to continue to pull out the 
stops with our existing authorities to make sure that we 
provide that connectivity to the maximum extent possible. We've 
relaxed the gift rules, for example. We've extended a number of 
deadlines. We want to work with school districts and also with 
the Department of Education because the CARES Act did allocate 
$16 billion of funding that can be used for education 
technology.
    So we're working with Federal and state officials to make 
sure that school districts are aware of that funding so they 
can use it certainly by the time school gets back in in the 
fall.
    Senator Fischer. I really appreciate you taking this cause 
up and your leadership because you certainly understand the 
vastness when it comes to many of our states in this country 
while also recognizing the importance of access but also 
affordability which we see in many of our urban areas, as well.
    So thank you.
    Mr. Pai. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Fischer. I was pleased to see the recent 
announcement of funds going to medical providers in Norfolk and 
Omaha from the FCC's new COVID-19 Telehealth Program.
    Commissioner Carr, how has the structure of that program 
been successful, and what challenges have you seen with that?
    Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for the question and for your 
leadership on expanding telehealth. I had a chance to join you 
in Norfolk myself. So I'm glad to see that some of these funds 
are going there.
    I was also on the remote Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 
which runs along the South Dakota-Nebraska border and saw where 
a mental health service provider was able to remotely deliver 
care for her location in Ballantine, Nebraska. So I think the 
program that we have at the FCC that we stood up very quickly 
is moving hundreds of millions of dollars, ultimately I think 
we're at a 150 million so far today, out into the health care 
system. I think it's a great result, and I'm really pleased 
with the progress we're making on that front.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you.
    Senator Fischer. On your findings, are those being 
recorded, and can they be applied to the FCC's other efforts 
that you're working on with telehealth?
    Mr. Carr. That's right. Well, the new wave of telehealth 
applications that are going to open up for a longer-term 3-year 
pilot program, I think there certainly will be lessons learned 
from this emergency COVID-19 that we can apply in that context, 
too.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
    Senator Blumenthal.

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

    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here today and all that you're doing.
    Chairman Pai, I hope you and the Commission have some sense 
of the urgency and impatience of this committee on Homework 
Gap, which is rapidly turning into a homework chasm.
    In Connecticut, students, many of them lost a semester that 
will be very difficult for them to recover and if they lose 
another semester in the fall, it will seriously and irreparably 
harm their education.
    So this homework chasm is turning into a national scandal 
and I would like to know why the FCC is unwilling apparently to 
waive the E-Rate rules to allow schools to use their funds to 
provide devices and connections for students.
    I recognize you've done some on the gifts. I know that 
you've taken some very limited and narrow steps, but why not go 
farther to waive those E-Rate rules?
    Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. The answer is 
the law. We can waive a rule. We cannot waive a statute and the 
statute clearly says that E-Rate can only subsidize services 
delivered to classrooms. It uses that specific term.
    That's why in the context of the CARES Act when it was 
being developed, I strongly urged Congress, give us the 
authority to set up this remote learning initiative so we could 
do for school kids what we have now successfully done for 
patients.
    Senator Blumenthal. You know, on March 16, Senator Markey 
and I led a letter with 16 of our Senate colleague saying, in 
effect, the FCC could do it under your present authority. You 
disagreed.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, what do you think?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I think we need to meet this moment. In 
2011 and 2012, we used the E-Rate Program to help connect 
disconnected kids at home. There is a reference to classrooms 
but those classrooms are now online.
    In addition, there are references to using additional 
services for educational purposes and we have forbearance 
authority under Section 10. We're tying ourselves in knots and 
by doing so, we're not helping students who really need to be 
connected.
    Senator Blumenthal. Chairman Pai, I think the sense of this 
committee, as you've heard, is that the FCC has to do more, it 
has to do it more quickly, and it has to do it now, and I hope 
that you will heed that sentiment. I think that you have an 
obligation to the students of America to do it and to their 
families.
    Let me ask you on the subject of authority. Would you agree 
with me that the FCC has no authority to do the kind of 
rulemaking that the President has ordered in his most recent 
Executive Order with respect to Section 230?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, as you know, the Executive Order directs 
the NTIA to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC and so 
I can't express a view at this time as to----
    Senator Blumenthal. Well, your fellow Commissioners have.
    Mr. Pai. I can't speak for them. I can only speak for 
myself and I would never opine about a petition for rulemaking 
that we have not yet received.
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit to dealing with that 
NTIA petition in the coming weeks?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, we haven't received any petition, so I 
can't----
    Senator Blumenthal. Will you deal with it as quickly as you 
can after it's filed?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, we will certainly follow the appropriate 
process that we do for such petitions.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me just say this Executive Order is 
plainly and blatantly simply an assault on the credibility and 
the legitimacy of the First Amendment and of your agency. It's 
directing you to do something that you simply do not have the 
authority to do.
    If you care about your agency and you care about its 
integrity and authority, you will stand up for it and avoid the 
President's effort to engage you in retaliating against his 
political rivals, against tech companies who happen to be on 
the other side of issues from him, and I would like your 
commitment that you will, in effect, dispel the over-hanging 
threat to them and to constitutional rights that this Executive 
Order reflects.
    Mr. Pai. Well, Senator, if you're asking for a substantive 
answer, I can't provide that. Of course, I'm not going to 
prejudge any petition for rulemaking, but what I will say is 
what I've said on every issue. I will always follow the law and 
follow the facts, nothing more, nothing less.
    Senator Blumenthal. I'm assuming that everybody on this 
panel agrees that the Lifeline Program is an important and 
vital program. If you disagree, please raise your hand.
    I'm assuming--and no one has. So let me go to the next 
question. I'm assuming you all would support more funding for 
it, as I have urged with a number of my colleagues. I led a 
letter with about 26 of them urging the leadership to allocate 
a billion dollars.
    Do you agree that that is at least the additional amount 
that's necessary? Anybody disagree?
    Commissioner O'Rielly? Why don't you turn on your 
microphone?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sorry. We're under a billion dollars in terms 
of spending, so I don't know how much more would be needed. I'm 
not against more money. I just don?t know how much more we're 
talking about. So your number might be----
    Senator Blumenthal. You're in favor of more money?
    Mr. O'Rielly. If needed, absolutely. I voted for it in the 
past, but in terms of how much more, I can't tell you what the 
number is.
    Senator Blumenthal. But you're the only one among the 
Commissioners who feels that you have any doubts that a billion 
dollars is necessary and thank you.
    Mr. Carr. Senator, I would obviously defer to Congress on 
any bill they pass and be happy to implement it, but I join my 
colleague in saying there's not a specific number right now 
that I have in mind.
    Senator Blumenthal. Are you telling this committee you have 
no idea how much more money is necessary for the Lifeline 
Program?
    Mr. Carr. I'm saying I don't know if a billion dollars is 
the right number or the wrong number. It could be more, it 
could be less.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    Members of the Commission are asked by our Technical Staff 
to turn on the microphone when you're speaking but to turn it 
off then after your answer is complete.
    I think Senator Thune is next. You are recognized.

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

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, 
thank you for being here. Thank you for all your service and in 
these days under extremely difficult circumstances but 
nonetheless lots of challenges we face as a nation and you guys 
are right in the middle of it.
    Very quickly, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 
has been the subject of much debate and has garnered bipartisan 
interest.
    Today, I'll be joining Senator Schatz in introducing a 
Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act or the 
PACT Act, which is a bipartisan bill that will provide for more 
accountability and transparency for large tech platforms with 
respect to content moderation decisions.
    The PACT Act includes two provisions put forward by the 
Department of Justice last week in its recommendations for 
reforming Section 230. The Attorney General has concluded that 
Section 230 is, and I quote, ``ripe for reform.''
    For each Commissioner, yes or no, do you agree with the 
Attorney General that Section 230 is ripe for reform and would 
bipartisan congressional action be the most effective way to 
achieve this? Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, I can't give you a yes or no answer. It's 
an important debate, but I haven't formed a view on that 
particular question at this time.
    Senator Thune. OK. Commissioner.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, and I believe congressional action is 
the only way to do this.
    Senator Thune. OK.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. It is ripe for reform, and I think all 
stakeholders in government, from the FCC to the Federal Trade 
Commission to the Department of Justice to Congress, all have a 
responsibility to look at their roles in updating and reforming 
the approach to Section 230.
    Mr. Starks. Yes, Senator, and I think that the way that 
Section 230 is currently written, the FCC does not have a role 
and I'm highly skeptical on that and I do think Congress is the 
right venue for any further dialogue, yes.
    Senator Thune. OK. Thank you. All right. Now you've got to 
work on your Chairman.
    Last week, I introduced legislation that would provide 
additional funding to the FCC for the build-out of broadband 
networks to unserved areas. Would a framework like the one 
established under my Rural Connectivity Advancement Program Act 
make it easier for the FCC to utilize congressional dollars for 
broadband deployment? I'll start with you, Chairman Pai.
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Senator, absolutely. It would help accelerate 
that rural broadband deployment in concert with some of the 
FCC's own initiatives, like the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, 
and speeding up broadband deployment, I think, is the top 
priority of this Commission as well as this Congress.
    Senator Thune. Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Thune. All right. We got consensus there. I will 
direct this to Chairman Pai and Commissioner Carr.
    In the United States, we've largely taken a light touch 
approach to broadband regulation by the Federal Government and 
because of that, we've seen investment in our fixed and mobile 
networks increase, which means more individuals can telework, 
students can utilize distance learning, and families can 
benefit from telehealth services.
    Chairman Pai, could you speak to some of the tele-
communications infrastructure reforms the FCC has recently 
taken to ensure that we continue to see more investment in 
broadband networks, and should Congress consider additional 
reforms, like the bipartisan Streamlined Small Cell Deployment 
Act, to spur more investments?
    Mr. Pai. I would be happy to, Senator. As your question 
suggests, Commissioner Carr has played a leading role in this 
effort, but what I will say is that our recent Wireless 
Infrastructure Declaratory Ruling clarifying our Section 6409 
rules I think is a good example of trying to streamline the 
process to give wireless companies, infrastructure builders, 
and others the certainty they need to be able to build some of 
these next generation networks at scale.
    Capital is fickle, talent is scarce, innovation doesn't 
have to happen, and so the more difficult the regulatory system 
is for wireless infrastructure deployment, the less likely we 
are to get it and that's why that was a step in the right 
direction, and it's consistent, I would add, with the 3-years 
of infrastructure reforms that we have made, often with great 
heat taken, but ultimately over the last 3 months those strong 
networks have been proof of concept for our regulatory 
approach.
    Senator Thune. Commissioner Carr?
    Mr. Carr. I think these infrastructure reforms, including 
the ones that you have championed in the Streamline Act, would 
continue and accelerate our efforts to close the Digital 
Divide, but, look, the trajectory that we've gone in this 
country over the last 3 years when it comes to building out 
Internet infrastructure is a marked contrast from the prior 8 
years.
    We wasted a tremendous amount of time chasing around 
partisan political agendas at the FCC rather than focusing on 
what matters, which is building out Internet infrastructure in 
rural America, and I think this pandemic has put telecom policy 
in a crucible and what comes out of all of this is that's what 
we have to focus on, not partisan politics but on closing the 
Digital Divide, and that's really where we've been the last 3 
years and it's paying off results. We're not raising the 
mission accomplished flag yet but the Digital Divide is 
narrowing and speeds are increasing and the U.S. Internet 
infrastructure held up better than a lot of our global 
counterparts because of the investment that the private sector 
generated over the last couple years.
    Senator Thune. Hear hear. Very quickly, we're seeing 5G 
networks deployed across the country, including in South 
Dakota. It's going to require a combination of low band/mid 
band/high band spectrum.
    The FCC recently held successful auctions to free up 
additional high band spectrum, but assuring that we have 
additional mid band spectrum is key to winning the race.
    Chairman Pai, I appreciate your work on the upcoming C-band 
auction that is set to take place at the end of this year. Can 
you speak to the benefits of getting this spectrum to market 
quickly?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Senator, and because the satellite 
operators have accepted accelerated relocation, that spectrum 
will be available two to 4 years sooner than otherwise would 
have been the case and that means that American consumers will 
be ahead of the curve in enjoying 5G services.
    American companies will get quicker access to this 
spectrum, one of the critical parts of the 5G airwaves 
ecosystem, and America will be ahead of the curve compared to 
other countries that are looking to seize the advantage when it 
comes to 5G.
    C-band was critical to our efforts and I'm very proud of 
the work that we've done, thanks in part to you and Senator 
Wicker.
    Senator Thune. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 
to all of you for your service. Appreciate you being here.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Thune.
    Senator Schatz.

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

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 
Commissioners for being here.
    I want to start with a follow-up question on the exchange, 
Commissioner Pai, that you had with Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    She said that 80 percent of the $16 billion for broadband 
that is going to be deployed over the next 10 years will be 
decided upon this October and that it has a 40 percent error 
rate. Do you agree that those are the facts?
    Mr. Pai. Those are not the facts. First of all, with 
respect to the 80 percent, that is the estimated cost of 
deploying to Phase 1 areas. If that budget is not met, those 
funds roll over into Phase 2. So it could well be lower than 16 
billion, as was the case in the Connect America Fund Phase 2 
auction.
    Second, the 38 percent she's talking about has nothing 
whatsoever to do with the unserved areas that are part of Phase 
1.
    Senator Schatz. So what's the number?
    Mr. Pai. In terms of the error rate or in terms of the----
    Senator Schatz. Yes.
    Mr. Pai. Well, again, the error rate has to do with 
partially served areas. Phase 1 has only to do with the 
unserved areas. We're talking apples and oranges here.
    Senator Schatz. What's the error rate?
    Mr. Pai. I don't know what the error rate exactly is. There 
is an estimate of----
    Senator Schatz. So hold on, hold on. I know you can go five 
minutes on your own. I want to make sure I get my questions in 
here.
    You don't know what the error rate is. We're asking you to 
get better fidelity on what the error rate is and the basic 
point Commissioner Rosenworcel is making is that, you know, 
measure twice, cut once, that this is a significant investment, 
that maybe it's not 80 percent of the $16 billion, maybe it's 
something less than that, but it's certainly a significant 
chunk and certainly it is an incomplete picture as we deploy 
billions and billions of dollars.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, I want to give you a chance to 
respond to Commissioner Pai here.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, thank you for the question. Again, we 
should have a policy that involves both speed and accuracy. 
That's how we should spend Federal dollars, and I think the 
record reflects that we don't have accurate data.
    We say 18 million people don't have broadband. There are 
other studies that suggest that number is 42 million or even 
162. We just don't know well enough to give out 80 percent of 
our funds for the next 10 years in October.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you. Commissioner Pai, I want to 
follow up on Senator Blumenthal's question regarding the 
definition of a classroom, and you and I have had a 
conversation about this, but it seems to me, and I've consulted 
with lawyers about this, that the definition of a classroom 
under the statute for E-Rate certainly could be captured by an 
online classroom, and I'm just wondering why you have chosen to 
interpret this statute in the middle of a pandemic so narrowly 
because the consequences are so dire here.
    Why not allow E-Rate dollars to be used to provide more 
connectivity when brick-and-mortar classrooms are in lots of 
instances actually closed?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, I share your frustration. That's why 3 
months ago, at the inception of negotiations of the CARES Act, 
I urged Congress to give us additional authority and funding.
    Senator Schatz. I got it. I got it. You wanted a statute to 
make it clear and now you have an opportunity to interpret 
existing statute in a way that doesn't run afoul of the law but 
actually provides more broadband and so do you have--can I get 
a commitment that you'll relook at this and consider the 
possibility that you have maybe a more narrow legal path but a 
path nonetheless to get this done?
    Mr. Pai. I'm always happy to look at new legal arguments 
about this issue.
    Senator Schatz. OK. We'll send that in. Finally, the CARES 
Act appropriated $200 million for telehealth. 46 states have 
received funding. Why has Hawaii, North Dakota, Montana, and 
Alaska not received an award at all?
    Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. The reason is 
because we've been applying objective level, county level data 
from Johns Hopkins University as the Department of Health and 
Human Services advised, and we're considering an area to be 
hard hit if the county where the lead applicant is located is 
in the 75th percentile of all U.S. counties for either 
confirmed cases or confirmed deaths.
    Now the highest counties in the states that you mentioned--
--
    Senator Schatz. So hold on. So the only criteria that 
you're using is current COVID rates during the time that you 
consider the application. I want you to know how absurd that 
is.
    Number 1, obviously this virus moves across the country in 
unpredictable ways. So you might be a highly impacted county 1 
month and then a low-impact county the next month.
    The other thing is this is telehealth. This is about 
providing health care generally speaking, not just COVID-
related health care, and every single part of this entire 
country has been impacted as every single hospital was told to, 
whenever possible, to utilize telehealth for non-COVID-related 
services.
    So the idea that the only way a county or a county hospital 
can be hit is if it has got a high COVID rate is based on 
nothing at all, other than the objective to peg it to one set 
of data. That is not the intention of the statute and that is 
not fair to states and counties that have done a good job in 
managing this pandemic.
    Mr. Pai. Senator, I understand your frustration, but again 
we've adopted objective criteria that are flexible to meet 
changing circumstances.
    Senator Schatz. It's not an objective criteria.
    Mr. Pai. For example, we gave an award to Yakima, 
Washington, because it's an emerging hot spot and they 
demonstrated that. If there are areas in Hawaii that meet that 
objective criteria, let me know, but we can't just give it out 
on a whim. We have to do it based on objective criteria.
    Senator Schatz. So what I'm saying, Commissioner Pai, is 
that it is not an objective criteria to tie it exclusively to 
the COVID rate in a particular county. That's not what the 
statute was for. That's not what telehealth in hospitals is 
exclusively for.
    I want you to understand that just because you tie it to 
one dataset doesn't make it objective.
    Mr. Pai. Senator, again, we're relying on data from Johns 
Hopkins as advised by HHS and if we were to do anything other 
than that,----
    Senator Schatz. I got your talking point. Everybody heard 
the Johns Hopkins talking point.
    Mr. Pai. It's not a talking point.
    Senator Schatz. Yes. So what I'm saying----
    Mr. Pai. OK. Well, we're----
    Senator Schatz. What I'm saying is--what I'm saying is that 
what you need to do is consider the possibility that the 
statute was not only about serving places with a high COVID 
rate.
    Mr. Pai. Senator, if I did anything different, if I didn't 
use objective criteria, I'd be criticized for picking winners 
and losers across the country and that's not what I'm going to 
do. We're going to base it on the expert opinion of those who 
had advised us to use these Johns Hopkins county level data 
across the country and be flexible to meet those adapting 
circumstances in places like Yakima, Washington.
    Senator Schatz. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to 
the Chairman for exceeding my time. I'll send a letter.
    Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. And yes, we'll take other rounds 
and submit questions.
    But let me ask you, Mr. Chairman. Was this decision made 
administratively? Was it made by a vote of the Commission?
    Mr. Pai. The actual set up of the COVID-19 Telehealth 
Program was a vote of the Commission. The staff has been 
developing some of the criterias, of which one is relying on 
the county level data from Johns Hopkins University to reach 
that 75th percentile benchmark.
    Senator Wicker. OK. And if the Committee will indulge me 
for a moment, Commissioner Rosenworcel, I just want to make 
sure, you're not proposing that the RDOF be postponed, are you?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. What I am proposing is that we reconsider 
the sheer volume of dollars that we're rushing out the door 
before we have more accurate data. Let's calibrate so we have 
enough funds for the next 10 years to reach everybody. I think 
that should be our goal.
    Senator Wicker. Would you change the scheduled RDOF in any 
way?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I would certainly support us having Rural 
Digital Opportunity Fund opportunity in October, but I think 
giving out 80 percent of our funds for the next 10 years before 
we have better data is a mistake. I think we should actually 
identify how we can preserve some of those funds for a moment 
when we have a lot better data because leaving 20 percent for 
the next 10 years strikes me as likely to leave communities 
behind.
    Senator Wicker. Chairman Pai, do you understand the 
proposal that Commissioner Rosenworcel is making?
    Mr. Pai. No. Look, the answer to your first question was 
yes. I mean that is the argument, right, that we shouldn't do 
Phase 1 until the maps are perfect. That's not going to happen 
immediately. It's not going to happen in 2020 and so I think 
people who advance that view should own it, that we want to 
keep people we know are unserved on the wrong side of the 
Digital Divide until suburban areas or other areas are filled 
in with perfect color. That is not acceptable to me, Number 1.
    Number 2, this whole distinction between Phase 1 and Phase 
2 in terms of the budget is false. As I mentioned, if the 
budget is lower for Phase 1, those funds roll over into Phase 2 
and, second, the Commission can always increase the size of 
Phase 2, if need be, to meet the circumstances. That's a 
decision for a future commission to make.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Well, why don't I give Commissioner 
Rosenworcel 30 seconds and then I'll apologize to Senator Cruz 
and the two of you can supplement on the record.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. At the end of the day, I think we 
have to have speed and accuracy together. For 2 years, you've 
been telling us to improve our broadband data and not to give 
out funds until we actually know with clarity where people have 
service and where they don't.
    We know we have really high error rates in the data we 
have. I think we should do some funds fast but we've got to 
make sure that the bulk of them go out when we have accurate 
maps.
    Senator Wicker. See if the two of you can supplement your 
answers on the record.
    Senator Cruz, thank you for indulging the Chair. You are 
recognized for at least 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each of 
you for your service. Thank you for being here.
    I want to talk about the topic of big tech censorship, 
which is a difficult topic. I believe it is an incredibly 
important topic.
    We have been seeing in recent years and recent months and 
even recent weeks growing assertions of power from big tech to 
censor, to shadow ban, to silence views with which they 
disagree.
    Just within the last two weeks, we saw Google, at the 
behest of a foreign advocacy group, threaten to ``demonetize'' 
The Federalist, a conservative online journalistic outlet. The 
Federalist was told the reason they faced the threat of being 
demonetized was because of objectionable comments in their 
comments section. So nothing that actually anyone at The 
Federalist had written but, rather, third party users had put 
some, as far as I know, unidentified comments that Google found 
objectionable.
    That policy is not a policy Google applies uniformly. 
Indeed, a quick search can show dozens of progressive 
journalistic outlets that have comment sections that have all 
sorts of nasty things being said that are not facing the threat 
of demonetization and indeed one doesn't need to look as far as 
a third party site.
    YouTube, which is wholly owned by Google, any one of us can 
go on to YouTube comments right now and read a host of profane 
and racist and otherwise offensive comments on YouTube's 
platform. Yet Google was not applying that standard to its own 
wholly owned and highly profitable subsidiary, but was instead 
applying it to The Federalist to force them to demonetize.
    Now The Federalist ended up just pulling its comments 
section down because Google's power is such that challenging 
the Star Chamber is almost impossible.
    Yesterday, we saw Twitter decide to censor and block a 
tweet from the President of the United States that said that an 
autonomous zone, a lawless autonomous zone will not be allowed 
to be created in Washington, D.C., and if anyone attempts to do 
so, law enforcement will stop them. Google deemed the President 
pledging to protect public safety and stop the creation of a 
lawless zone in our Nation's Capital, Twitter deemed that 
abusive and so put a content block on it.
    Something else that complicates this challenge is there's 
an utter lack of transparency. If one asks and I have asked 
representatives from Google, from Facebook, from Twitter, from 
YouTube over and over and over again how many posts are you 
blocking, how many posts are you throttling, are you just 
reducing the number of people who see them, they won't answer 
that.
    There are zero data that exist about comparative blocking. 
In other words, bias. I've asked the questions, very simple 
questions. We have two major political parties. I've asked each 
of them the question, how many posts from Republican candidates 
for office have you blocked? How many posts from Democratic 
candidates for office have you blocked?
    We do know, for example, Twitter blocked my colleague 
Senator Blackburn's launch video for Senate. So she's a sitting 
candidate, a sitting member of the House running for Senate and 
Twitter deemed her launch video unacceptable and blocked it. 
They refused to answer these questions.
    They then respond, well, there are no data showing our bias 
because the only source of the data is the black box of their 
internal file. No one else has that information but Google and 
YouTube and Facebook and Twitter. So much like the individual 
that kills his parents and then pleads mercy of the court 
because he's an orphan, the absence of data is their direct 
creation because they refuse to answer these questions.
    The FCC has recently been brought directly into this issue 
with an Executive Order from the President and I understand 
from comments earlier that at least some of you have concerns 
as to the extent of legal authority to address this.
    This is a topic I've been deeply engaged in a long time and 
I will readily admit solving it is complicated. Part of the 
reason solving it is complicated is because it cuts across so 
many jurisdictional lines, that it doesn't fit neatly into one 
silo. It doesn't fit neatly into FCC or FTC or DOJ or Antitrust 
or Civil Division or Consumer Protection. It cuts across all of 
those lines and so I think our Federal Government is straining 
to figure out how to address this.
    I want to start with just a question to each of you. Do you 
agree that it is a problem that a handful of Silicon Valley 
billionaires have unfettered power to silence speech with which 
they disagree with no transparency and no accountability 
whatsoever for those decisions?
    Mr. Pai. Yes.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, Senator, what I would start with is 
what I agree with you with, the absolute lack of transparency 
and also that social media is frustrating, but I think when it 
comes to the First Amendment, it's there to protect all forms 
of media from government, not to protect government from all 
forms of media.
    I think the Executive Order has it backward, but I would 
understand and support efforts of you, this committee, and 
Congress to try to revisit this law, but as you said, it is 
complicated.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I believe the transparency is horrible 
and their positions and how they have treated different groups, 
specifically conservatives, has been absolutely horrible.
    Mr. Carr. The Prodigy and CompuServ messaging boards of the 
day when Congress passed Section 230 have long since shed their 
swaddling clothes. They are now corporate behemoths Twitter, 
Google, Facebook. They have more power, more control over more 
speech than any other institution we've ever known in history.
    This immense concentration of power and the application of 
it in an arbitrary way is something that those of us in 
government can't look at and sit on our hands and do nothing. I 
think that's why you're seeing bipartisan consensus from 
Senator Blumenthal and the EARN IT Act to some words from FTC 
Commissioner Wilson to take action.
    I think the status quo is no longer going to hold. I don't 
think it can hold. I think we have a responsibility at the FCC 
to take a look at updating Section 230. I think the Federal 
Trade Commission needs to look at some of the unfair deceptive 
business practices and Attorney General Barr needs to look at 
some of the competition and antitrust issues at issue.
    Mr. Starks. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do agree 
that this is a cross-sectional issue, that there are a lot of 
complications and a lot of heavy issues. What I would focus on 
is the First Amendment, which I do think prohibits the 
government from focusing on the speech of these companies.
    What I would also really like to fixate on here is that 
what we really need to do in order to make sure that this does 
not cloud our elections, I have encouraged NTIA to bring the 
Executive Order to the FCC as quickly as possible so that we 
can have a vote amongst us. I again do not think that there's 
legal authority. I'm happy to engage with my colleagues, but so 
that this does not overhang throughout our elections and have a 
dark cloud over online speech is something that I'm interested 
in making sure we do as quickly as practicable.
    Senator Cruz. My time has expired. Let me make a very quick 
observation, which is, I look forward to working with each of 
you on this and Commissioner Rosenworcel's observation about 
the need for transparency.
    If the FCC were able to do one thing and simply provide 
real transparency so the American people can see how many 
people are being silenced, how many people are being shadow 
banned, who and what the relative ratios are, that would 
transform the ability to address this problem and so 
transparency would be a very valuable thing to focus on.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again 
apologize for my absence. I guarantee you all these issues are 
very important and very important to the state of Washington 
and to all of us.
    I made in my opening statement comments about the homework 
gap, and so I want to come back to that. I know that my 
colleague from Hawaii brought this up, as well, but I think, 
Commissioner Rosenworcel, you know because you visited 
Washington State, you looked at both the education gap but also 
we focused a lot on the health care gap, too. So both of them 
are incredibly important, and I can see you were a little 
shocked when I said some of our numbers because you were 
thinking, wait, in Washington, you still have--yes, that's 
true, even in Washington, we can still have a gap.
    So following up on what my colleague from Hawaii brought 
up, how can we address the E-Rate issue with the authority that 
you have?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. We have adequate authority right now 
so that all of our Nation's schools could loan our W-Fi hot 
spots, routers, get every student connected at home. We got 50 
million kids who were kicked out of the classroom but not all 
of them could go to online school.
    So let's use the E-Rate Program to meet this moment. We've 
already used this authority back in 2011-2012. The statute 
mentions classrooms. Those classrooms are online. We also have 
forbearance authority to forbear from that to the extent the 
Chairman thinks it's an impediment. Let's not get tied up. 
Let's figure out to help students so no child's left offline.
    Senator Cantwell. So why aren't we doing this?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, despite my understanding of the 
statutes, I don't believe that I have convinced my colleagues, 
but I know that you are leading on a piece of legislation to 
compel this agency to use E-Rate and make sure every kid gets 
connected and I hope we can proceed and use the summer months 
to get it done.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, thank you. I couldn't agree more 
that we just can't afford this gap, just can't afford it, can't 
afford it. The crisis has brought into focus many inequities, 
but clearly the inequity by not having good broadband access 
for education is one of them. So I could say the same thing.
    I think, Commissioner O'Rielly, you know, I know the 
Chairman's got a tough job. He's got to fit all these people 
in. So last week, we had a panel. Too many people on the panel 
to get the time in questions in, so I'm going to give you a 
question today.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure.
    Senator Cantwell. So last year, the international community 
rejected the FCC's inadequate protection for weather spectrum 
adjacent to the 24 gigahertz band. Instead, they adopted a more 
stringent protection based on sound science and analysis, and I 
was part of a bipartisan coalition of senators who believed the 
FCC had put that weather data at risk. We had many 
conversations about this with our colleagues.
    So what is the FCC doing now to ensure that the domestic 
wireless companies will comply with these international 
interference protections, and will you commit to working with 
NASA and NOAA to ensure that these protections on interference 
are improved?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I'll always work with my Federal agencies and 
partners.
    In terms of what we're doing now, we have the WRC 
proceedings that came that I was there in Egypt. At some point, 
they will be transferred into an FCC Order and we'll have a 
chance to consider it. They take a number of years to 
actually--you know, it takes a little bit of time to actually 
put before us.
    We were voting on previous--you know, every 4 years, we 
were doing a couple of them, catch-up, during the Wheeler days. 
So it will take a little bit of time before they're adopted 
into our proceedings.
    Senator Cantwell. So you are going to adhere to those 
international issues that were brought up, saying that there 
was inadequate protection?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I will--we will put that into the item and 
have an opportunity to consider it at that time. That was the 
position of the United States and they agreed to it.
    Senator Cantwell. Commissioner Rosenworcel, can I ask you 
about this and the Ligado issue? I mean, why not go back--if so 
many people are involved now saying hold up, time out, like, 
you know, this is like all of these issues fighting around, I 
mean, shouldn't we listen to these international standards and 
make sure they're implemented? Shouldn't we look in the Ligado 
case and say, well, wait, wait just a minute, let's look at 
this?
    I mean, to me, aviation safety is critical, and it bothers 
me to think that our aviation system of the future is going to 
be hampered if that also is not adequately addressed.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. OK. So a lot there. The first was the 24 
gigahertz band and I agree with my colleague. We're going to 
have to take the standards that were developed at the World 
Radio Conference, put them into our policies. I understand 
those to be more stringent in terms of protecting weather 
services than what the FCC initially proposed. We'll have to do 
that and because I believe those have the force of law, we 
should do that in short order.
    With respect to Ligado, I want to be clear that I respect 
deeply the work of the FCC's engineers. They've worked on this 
issue for 10 years and so many adjustments and changes have 
been made over time, including an extraordinary reduction in 
power levels, a much larger guard band.
    So I think their work is solid, but I also want to respect 
you and your point, which is, there's a lot of concern about 
the continuing viability of GPS as a result of this decision.
    So I think balancing those equities and out of respect for 
you and your colleagues who have said that they're concerned 
about this, if the Chairman was interested in circulating a 
decision to us staying the decision we recently reached on the 
L-band, that would certainly be something I would support 
because we've got to iron this kind of stuff out if we really 
want to have a big and bold 5G future.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see 
my time has expired, and I don't know if our vote has started 
yet.
    Senator Wicker. It has not started yet.
    Senator Moran.

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

    Senator Moran. Chairman Wicker, thank you very much. 
Commissioners, thank you for being here.
    I have the view that we have a very solid and impressive 
FCC and I appreciate all five of you. Particularly I believe 
the FCC is enhanced by the presence of two of my colleagues 
from Kansas.
    Chairman Pai, let me start with you. Appropriations 
process, FSGG appropriates money for the FCC. As you know, as 
you've experienced, we take our oversight responsibilities 
pretty seriously, and you have been in front of our 
subcommittee numerous times now.
    One of the things that I understand is that your staff, the 
FCC staff is working to provide our subcommittee with specific 
information on the FCC's previous broadband availability data, 
data collection, and mapping efforts.
    I just want to hear from you that you commit to me that 
this information will be provided to our subcommittee as soon 
as possible, quickly, as we begin the deliberations, as we 
continue the deliberations about appropriations for the ensuing 
year, and I want to make certain that we have that information 
and that there can be no complaint that the FCC hasn't 
fulfilled its responsibilities to provide such information.
    Can you commit that to me, Chairman Pai?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Senator. I know the staff has had a number of 
crosswalks and briefings with the FSGG staff and will provide 
you further information, as needed, as soon as we possibly can.
    I know our Office of Managing Director is working on that 
particular issue that you raised in your question.
    Senator Moran. Thank you very much. Chairman Pai, last week 
we discussed the FCC's Keep America Connected Pledge. That 
pledge is with nearly 800 broadband providers.
    I've had since then conversations with a number of Kansas 
providers. I think the expectation is that the COVID-19 
consequences are lingering longer than perhaps expected and the 
amount of the resources that these companies are forgoing from 
their customers is increasing.
    Based upon your conversations with providers, do you have 
suggestions for any future legislative package? Does the FCC 
have any recommendations for targeting Federal relief to those 
providers who are forgoing the payments from their customers? 
Are there certain size of broadband providers that need to be 
prioritized? Are there certain types of eligible services or 
recipients that Federal resources should be focused on, and is 
there a preferred method in distributing that Federal funding? 
Should Federal support be directly provided to the consumer or 
to the provider?
    Mr. Pai. Thank you for the question, Senator. Obviously 
that is a really important topic and also a complex one and so 
if it's OK, I'd like to follow up with you and your team and 
the Committee in more detail, but at a very high level, I think 
you've put your finger on the problem.
    As illustrated in my colloquy with Senator Klobuchar, 
smaller providers in particular, I would say those below, say, 
two million subscribers, something like that, have incurred a 
great deal of cost which is disproportionate to them, given 
their smaller scale, and so I think it's important as the 
pledge expires as we move into the post pledge transition for 
Congress to think about creative solutions to ensure that at 
the end of the day, those consumers who are with those smaller 
providers ultimately have seamless service.
    I defer to Congress, of course, in the first instance as to 
what exactly that vehicle looks like, whether it's a subsidy to 
consumers or to companies and the like, but I think it's 
important for us to address this as soon as possible because a 
lot of these consumers, of course, continue to rely on 
connectivity during the pandemic.
    Senator Moran. I appreciate Senator Klobuchar's legislative 
attention to this issue. Let me see if any other Commissioners 
have anything they'd like to respond to that question.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I would just say that I agree with the 
Chairman on this. I think that legislation is important, it's 
timely, and I hope that this committee and Congress acts.
    Senator Moran. Anyone else?
    [No response.]
    Senator Moran. Let me highlight the FCC's announcement 
yesterday. I'm a sponsor with another member of this committee, 
Senator Gardner, of a three-digit suicide hotline. Let me 
highlight and express gratitude to the FCC for the efforts that 
you are undertaking.
    Would any of you care to speak to the importance of the 
transition deadline of July 16 applicable to all 
telecommunications carriers, and based upon your conversations 
with industries, are you expecting any challenges to get us to 
that point by that date, meeting that transition deadline?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, I would be happy to take the first crack 
at it since I just circulated the Order to my colleagues 
yesterday, but based on the record, we believe that that two-
year implementation deadline of July 16, 2022, was the soonest 
feasible, given the fact that we have thousands, if not 
hundreds of thousands of switches in the United States that 
need to be reconfigured or replaced, et cetera.
    Industry wanted a longer period of time, 3 years or later, 
but to me at least, we need to match both the priority of this 
issue, suicide, as I mentioned, is reaching epidemic levels, 
with the technical feasibility, and so I wish in my heart it 
could be sooner but we believe that that 2-year transition 
period is the most appropriate one, given the facts in the 
record.
    Senator Moran. Thank you. I appreciate again your attention 
to this issue. I serve as the Chairman of the Veterans' 
Committee. This is an important issue for all Americans and I 
understand, Mr. Chairman, that I'm yielding back no time.
    Senator Blackburn [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    Senator Udall, you are recognized on remote.

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

    Senator Udall. Madam Chair and Ranking Member Cantwell, I 
want to thank all the members of the Commission for being here 
today.
    The public health crisis and the resulting economic crisis 
caused by COVID-19 has put a spotlight on the work you do to 
connect Americans. Broadband service is more essential than 
ever for New Mexicans to stay connected to school, to medical 
and emergency services, work, social services, friends and 
family, and the Commission's role in protecting free speech and 
freedom of the press is especially important as protesters 
continue to call for justice reform.
    Chairman Pai, as part of your confirmation hearing in July 
2017, you pledged to this committee that you would speak out if 
the press were under attack. You also pledged to exercise your 
authority as Chairman of the FCC to regulate the media in an 
impartial manner, free of White House political pressure.
    Setting aside the substantive Section 230 debate, we are 
talking about it because the President is engaged in high-
profile feuds with social media companies. In light of the 
President's repeated threats to use government power against 
those he deems enemies of the people, this looks like a bad 
faith attempt to retaliate against criticism of the President.
    On top of that, there are far too many examples of 
journalists being unconstitutionally restricted and physically 
assaulted and detained as they have tried to cover historic 
Black Lives Matter protests. There are dozens and dozens of 
documented assaults by law enforcement on journalists. If there 
is any time to speak up, it is now.
    Chairman Pai, will you take this committee hearing as an 
opportunity to reassure us you will not buckle the White House 
demands on Section 230 and to speak out in support of press 
freedom to cover these protests?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, not only do I reaffirm that commitment I 
made several years ago, but I have actually done that over the 
last couple of weeks, including standing up for local 
broadcasters who I said must be allowed to do their work free 
from attacks. I've also rejected the calls of some who argued 
that a television broadcaster should have its licenses 
threatened or even yanked because of disagreement with the 
political viewpoint it expresses. So the answer to your 
question ultimately is yes.
    Senator Udall. Commissioner Starks and Commissioner 
Rosenworcel, during these times of crisis like this, we see 
just how important local journalism is. It's how people stay 
informed on local events and situations to keep their families 
and their communities safe.
    What more must Congress and the FCC do to protect the First 
Amendment and increase support for local journalism?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator, and I 
could not agree more, especially when we're talking about the 
coverage of the Black Lives Matters rallies, the civil rights 
movement that I see burgeoning right now. I agree that it's 
deeply important that we continue to protect all of our 
journalists.
    To your point on Section 230, I do have some strong concern 
about what I see as a clear intention to influence social media 
companies in particular with regard to their coverage of 
political issues, especially in the upcoming election cycle.
    Senator Udall. Commissioner Rosenworcel.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator. I agree with what my 
colleague just said. Local news is really important. It tells 
us what we need to know about our lives, our community, and our 
country, and I think that the economic pressures on local media 
are significant right now and the FCC needs to spend some time 
looking through its rules to identify how we can sustain local 
media because we all need it. It's essential for our democracy. 
It's essential for our communities.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. I want to align myself with my 
colleagues Blumenthal, Schatz, and the Ranking Member when it 
comes to the E-Rate and expanding access.
    I also want to specifically thank Commissioner Rosenworcel 
for her work to close the homework gap and improve Wi-Fi access 
to students.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, I have a bipartisan bill that 
would make Wi-Fi hot spots on school buses eligible for E-Rate. 
The House infrastructure package includes similar language. You 
said that the FCC has the authority now to do something similar 
but you believe such a legislative approach will help close the 
homework gap in underserved areas.
    Do you believe the Senate should consider such a bill?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, we are heading into the next school 
year and we don't know what it looks like. I say that 
professionally but also as a parent of young children. We've 
got to make sure every student can get online and go to class. 
We don't want any of them locked out of the virtual classroom.
    Senator Udall. Thank you. Yield back, Madam Chair.

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

    Senator Blackburn. Gentleman yields back.
    I want to welcome all of you and thank you all for being 
here. It's been awhile since we've had you in front of us and I 
was sitting here thinking and, Commissioner Starks, you've not 
had the opportunity to hear me opine about the Browser Act and 
why we should have passed it years ago and give consumers 
control over their data, to protect their virtual you, and to 
put in place some guard rails being able to opt in, to opt out.
    If we had done that, we wouldn't be where we are today with 
the discussions on Section 230 and the need for greater 
transparency and the need for competition. So it shows the cost 
of not taking action and not having congressional action. So 
let's hope that now we do move forward with reforming Section 
230.
    Let's see. Chairman Pai, there has been some talk about the 
President's Executive Order. So let's go to that. Are you 
planning a comment process pursuant to this Executive Order?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, per the Executive Order, the Department 
of Commerce's NTIA is supposed to file a petition for 
rulemaking with the FCC. If and when that happens, then we will 
follow the appropriate process.
    Senator Blackburn. You do plan to follow through with that 
process?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, we will follow that process.
    Senator Blackburn. Absolutely. That sounds great. Let's 
move on to the telehealth issue. I want to thank you all for 
the work that you have put into that.
    As we've discussed when I was in the House, telehealth was 
considered a luxury and a convenience but what we found out in 
COVID was that it was something that was a necessity and very 
important to people that were suffering and had complex medical 
conditions. So thank you for the attention that you have put on 
that.
    Let's go to the broadband process and expanding broadband, 
which is vital. I agree with every comment that you all have 
said about the necessity for that, and I agree, Mr. Chairman, 
you were talking about the 6409 rules and beginning to relax 
and move things out of the way and Senator Baldwin and I have 
the Internet Exchange Act to put these data numbers in places. 
So that is something that we want to see moved forward, but 
spectrum is a part of this, also.
    So, Commissioner O'Rielly, you've kind of had the lead on 
some of these things and we appreciate the outreach from you. 
Talk a little bit about what is on the horizon as we look at 
this mid-band spectrum recouping it. DoD has some. We know that 
other agencies, NTIA has got to do the inventory so that we can 
recoup and then we can auction. So speak to that.
    Mr. O'Rielly. We've done great work, I believe, in the high 
bands. We've also done great work starting on mid-bands. CBRS, 
C-band are already moving forward auction schedule, but it's 
the future part, the pipeline, what's next, 5 years look like 
and beyond. 3.1 to 3.55, which is being hotly fought over.
    We have, you know,--there's nothing else being worked on 
and that's where I've been spending some time trying to talk to 
manufacturers and experts in this space. What else can we 
convert for commercial purposes? How can we reclaim spectrum? 
That does require difficult decisions with Federal agencies who 
are using it today.
    Senator Blackburn. Commissioner Rosenworcel, I think you 
wanted to comment?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No, I agree with my colleague. Listen, 
we're going to need to have more air waves to fuel our wireless 
future and right now we've got knock-down/drag-out fights 
between different Federal entities over what we can reclaim and 
what we can't. We're going to need a better way in the future. 
We're going to need to figure out how to value existing Federal 
assets and then we're going to have to figure out how to create 
some structured incentives so those Federal authorities see 
gain and not just loss from reallocation.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, I think that as we look at the 
NDAA and last year with the NDAA, we had a Section 214 and we 
discussed some of this and finding a way to make the spectrum 
available is going to be essential.
    Commissioner Carr, I want to come back to you on the issue 
of giving people the ability to air their grievances against 
big tech and one of the reasons we refer to it as big tech is 
because these are no longer infant companies. They're not 
babies. They have grown up. They are some of the biggest that 
are there and the censorship that we see taking place in the 
virtual space is absolutely unprecedented.
    So what I continue to hear from people is they want to see 
some kind of public comment period so that there is a way to 
air those grievances and Senator Cruz got on this issue a 
little bit, but I want you to speak to that, the importance of 
supporting a process where the FCC can have a notice of inquiry 
and allow the public to comment on what they've experienced at 
the hands of big tech.
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your leadership 
on these issues. I think it's time for all of us in government 
to look for not just greater transparency, which is important, 
but accountability for a lot of the arbitrary decisions we're 
seeing across big tech, from Google to Twitter.
    I'll refer you to a public statement on Twitter's website 
from one of their officials. They say, ``The truth is we are 
impartial and believe strongly in impartiality. The Twitter 
platform doesn't take sides. Diverse perspectives are treated 
equally so users can see every side.''
    It's hard to read those words with a straight face at this 
point and I think this is why a lot of people are calling for 
some accountability. I welcome the President's Executive Order 
and I think we should move forward and provide the public an 
opportunity to comment on whether we at the FCC should engage 
in Section 230 reforms.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I yield back.
    Senator Peters, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator, for the recognition and 
to all of you, thank you for your testimony here today.
    Commissioner Starks, I read with great interest a recent 
op-ed that you have published which is entitled Broadband 
Access is a Civil Right We Can't Afford to Lose But Many Can't 
Afford to Have. I think it's a very powerful op-ed and focuses 
on the need for us to make sure that everybody, no matter who 
you are and no matter where you live, have access to the 
broadband access and the digital world at large and certainly 
in my state, it is a problem and, in fact, in Detroit, nine out 
of 10 students don't have access to tablets, computers, or the 
internet. Nine out of 10.
    This is a time during the COVID crisis when our schools 
shut down and moved to online instruction and yet students 
simply had no opportunity whatsoever to be able to avail 
themselves of that.
    So I have a few more other questions, but perhaps you could 
just tell us a little bit about how do we approach this in an 
equitable fashion? Zip codes should not matters and right now, 
it's those zip codes of communities of color that really 
matters. How do we change that?
    Mr. Starks. I could not agree more and thank you so much 
for your leadership. I appreciate it deeply.
    I have done a virtual event that was in Detroit and I was 
shocked to hear the statistics that you're talking about, 
Senator, and it's deeply disturbing that when you're talking 
about 90 percent of the students that are in Detroit are 
without tablets, are without home connectivity.
    One thing that we haven't talked about here today is that 
E-Rate is basically designed to offer support for schools that 
have students with a higher percent that are on free lunch and 
so when you are talking about households that are on those Head 
Start breakfasts, those are exactly the families that are 
disconnected and that's exactly the students that E-Rate needs 
to further reach.
    Affordability, I think, is an integral part of this, making 
sure that we have connections that are affordable for millions 
of struggling families right now, making sure that we have 
something that is $10-11 ultimately. There are a lot of 
legislative proposals there that I think deserve serious merit.
    The last thing that I would mention is, of course, 
Lifeline. Our Lifeline Program is going to need to meet the day 
and that's going to be expanding the data, expanding the voice, 
expanding the number of dollars, but, you know, something 
additionally that I think that I would focus on is that because 
Lifeline is so seriously under-subscribed, about 20 percent of 
people that are eligible for Lifeline actually are subscribers.
    Over 74 Senators wrote a letter saying that the Federal 
Government should use its advertising dollars to make sure that 
local broadcasters who are hurting right now can have some of 
the advertising dollars that they're losing.
    I think it makes some good sense for us to have Lifeline 
advertised, given its low subscribership, to some of these 
local broadcasters. I think it's a slam dunk win-win scenario.
    Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate your leadership on this, 
Commissioner Starks, and your focus and your passion on it, and 
as I look at this issue, we also need to think about ownership 
of broadcast assets, who actually owns these facilities, and 
having diversity in ownership tends to lead to broader reach, 
as well.
    I introduced the Expanding Broadcast Ownership 
Opportunities Act to make sure that folks of color actually 
have a seat at the table, which is critically important in my 
mind.
    Statistics are striking, as well. Women make up less than 6 
percent of broadcast TV station owners and minorities account 
for less than 3 percent. Similarly, women own just 7 percent of 
broadcast radio stations and minorities own less than 3 
percent, as well.
    So my bill would establish the FCC's Tax Certificate 
Program, which incentivizes the sale of broadcast stations to 
socially disadvantaged individuals.
    So my question to you, Commissioner, is, how would this 
help diversify the industry, and what needs to be done to help 
bring back this important program?
    Mr. Starks. Well, thank you again for the question, 
Senator. You know, I could not foot stomp that legislation 
more.
    When you look at the numbers on our media diversity and 
it's important from the ownership to who's in front of the 
camera, who is in the newsroom, the fact of the matter is that 
in our latest report that we issued in February, first of all, 
it covers data from 2017, so in that sense, I think it's a bit 
stale, the data is trending in the wrong direction from 2015.
    Asian ownership is down. Latino ownership is down. As you 
pointed out, Senator, women ownership is down from 7.4 percent 
down to 5.3 percent, despite the fact that we know that they're 
over 50 percent of our population, and the fact of the matter 
is out of 1,400 full power TV stations, 12 of them are owned by 
African Americans and so what that means is if you are rounding 
that number, you would round it down to zero percent. That is 
unacceptable in this day and in this time.
    Access to capital, access to opportunities, all of these 
are important. The tax incentive proposal that you have is the 
biggest shot in the arm that I see that we can take on this 
front.
    Senator Peters. I appreciate it. Thank you. My time is up.
    Senator Lee [presiding]. Senator Gardner is up to bat next.

                STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the panelists for taking the opportunity to testify today.
    Colorado has one of the highest suicide rates in the 
country. Tragically, we lose a Coloradan approximately once 
every 7 hours to suicide and the COVID-19 pandemic has 
exacerbated that problem. For the months of March and April 
2020, calls to our state mental health crisis lines spiked 48 
percent compared to last year and a significant number of those 
calls were related to the global pandemic.
    We have to ensure that people in this crisis have the 
resources they need for such an emergency and such emergency 
situations that they can access those resources easily to help 
provide them when they are at their greatest need.
    So I was pleased to see Chairman Pai's announcement 
yesterday. Thank you very much, Chairman Pai, that the 
Commission will be voting on Advancing the Designation and 
Implementation of 9-8-8 to replace the current 10-digit suicide 
hotline.
    Your leadership on this issue is incredible. It's 
commendable and will save countless lives by making 9-8-8 the 
new three-digit national hotline for mental health crises.
    Senator Baldwin and I have been working, as well, together 
on this as well as with our House counterparts, Congressman 
Stewart, Congressman Moulton, to put that designation of 9-8-8 
into law.
    Our legislation does not absolve Congress of its duty to 
continue to ensure robust funding for the National Suicide 
Hotline but it helps ensure that any extra dollars raised for 
9-8-8 services actually go toward that intended purpose.
    Last, we commissioned a report on specialized services for 
communities most at risk of suicide ideation, including LGBQT 
youth who face a suicide contemplation rate that is four times 
higher than that of their peers.
    My office consulted with the FCC for feedback before this 
committee passed our legislation unanimously and we recently 
passed the bill through the Full Senate unanimously, as well.
    So I'd just like to go through each of the Commissioners 
briefly down the line and ask a simple yes or no question, 
beginning with Chairman Pai.
    Do you agree with all 100 Senators that this is critical 
legislation and that it complements the work you are doing at 
the Commission and should be swiftly passed by the House of 
Representatives to help save lives? Commissioner Pai, I'll 
begin with you and then if we'd go down the panel that would be 
great. Yes or no?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your leadership on 
this issue.
    Senator Gardner. Great. Commissioner Rosenworcel?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. The answer is yes, Senator. Thank you.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you. Commissioner O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
    Senator Gardner. Commissioner Carr?
    Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator. Thank you for your leadership on 
these mental and behavioral health issues.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you. Commissioner Starks?
    Mr. Starks. Thank you. I agree, yes, this is tremendous 
work and I champion it.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you. Chairman Pai, once 
implementation of 9-8-8 is live, what's the Commission's plan 
to ensure that public education about this new number is clear 
and widespread?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Senator. In the first 
instance, public education will be the responsibility of 
agencies, such as HHS, the Veterans' Affairs Department, and 
others, but I can assure you that I or whoever constitutes the 
future commission will certainly use this pulpit to make sure 
we increase awareness and we're already doing that now in 
consultation with other sister agencies and private sector 
organizations, like the Trevor Project, the National Council on 
Behavioral Health, and others.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Chairman, and for all 
Commissioners, 5G is the next wave of wireless connectivity and 
can provide billions of dollars in economic benefits for the 
U.S.
    Colorado plays a leading role in these efforts obviously, 
including major advancements in research and development 
underway at Ft. Collins, Englewood, and elsewhere along the 
Front Range.
    In addition to the rapid embrace of ORAN and virtualized 
networks, the future of U.S.-backed tele-communications is 
incredibly bright, but despite all this good news, some have 
suggested and it continues to arise in the conversation again 
that in order to stay competitive with China, we must 
nationalize our 5G network or select a single company to 
operate it.
    I'd like to ask another simple yes or no question to each 
of you. Do you support such a plan to either nationalize our 5G 
network or select a single company to operate it? Chairman Pai, 
I'll begin with you.
    Mr. Pai. No.
    Senator Gardner. Chairman Rosenworcel?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No, I do not, Senator.
    Senator Gardner. Chairman O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. No, I completely oppose it.
    Senator Gardner. Commissioner Carr?
    Mr. Carr. No.
    Senator Gardner. Commissioner Starks?
    Mr. Starks. I strongly agree, no.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you very much for that, and I think 
I agree with your answers.
    Commissioner Carr, last week I spoke with small tele-
communications providers in Colorado. I did a Zoom call with 
them, teleconference with them, who mentioned they are 
struggling to find adequate personal protective equipment to 
safely conduct house calls to perform maintenance and continue 
construction projects.
    We have to ensure our hospitals and medical providers on 
the front line of COVID-19 have adequate PPE, first and 
foremost, obviously, but it's also important not to forget our 
small businesses as we continue to reopen the economy in state 
like Colorado for those businesses that are going into homes 
and interacting with people.
    Have you heard about similar concerns to this on PPE in 
your conversations with telecommunication providers and, if so, 
what more can Congress and the FCC be doing to ensure that 
providers have access to PPE to keep Coloradans connected?
    Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for that question. I've spent 
a lot of time with America's telecom techs and tower crews, 
including during this pandemic, and I've heard some of these 
concerns, principally early on in the pandemic. I think some of 
those issues are being worked out as a country.
    We have ramped up our supply of PPE, but I look forward to 
continuing to work with you and my colleagues across government 
to make sure we get this right.
    Senator Gardner. Thank you. I look forward to that. We need 
to work together on it. It was just something again that a 
number of rural cooperatives had brought to my attention and 
something we need to continue to work on.
    So thank you to all the Commissioners. Thank you for your 
work on that, and, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it back to you.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
    Senator Baldwin.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate all of the Commissioners joining us here today and 
for your service.
    I want to dovetail on the remarks of Senator Gardner just 
now on the three-digit number to access Suicide Lifeline 
Services and the Veterans' Crisis Line.
    It was a pleasure to work with my colleague, Senator 
Gardner, on this, on namely making it easier for Americans in 
crisis to get the help they need by creating that three-digit 
number, 9-8-8, for crisis services.
    Last month, as we noted, the Full Senate passed our bill 
and I urged my House colleagues to pass it as soon as possible, 
but, Chairman Pai, thank you for acknowledging in your 
testimony the importance of this issue.
    We just know that the crisis has been made even more 
heightened due to COVID-19. The pandemic and its economic 
consequences are placing enormous stress on Americans' health, 
both physical and mental, and we've seen a tremendous increase 
in those seeking help.
    Just by way of example, in March of this year, there was 
nearly a 900 percent increase in calls to HHS' Disaster 
Distress Help Line compared to the prior March and so I hope 
that we all can move forward expeditiously and I'm glad to see 
continued progress on the issue at the FCC. I'm looking forward 
to working with the Commissioners to get this done.
    I'd like to now turn to another critical support for 
Americans in need, another lifeline in fact, and that is the 
Universal Services Fund Lifeline Program. It plays a critical 
role in keeping low-income Americans, including millions of 
seniors and veterans, connected.
    Lifeline is all the more important in the current 
environment. On the one hand, American families are relying 
more than ever on connectivity to work, learn, and get medical 
help and stay in touch with friends and family, and on the 
other hand, many of those families are facing unemployment and 
other hardships, making that now critical broadband service 
unaffordable.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, you talked about this in your 
opening statement. I'll ask Commissioner Starks also because 
you did, too.
    How do we get these individuals connected to Lifeline, and 
what steps do we need to take to strengthen this program to 
meet the growing needs?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. That is such a good question, Senator. 
Listen, Lifeline was started during the Reagan Administration 
when most communications involved a jack in the wall and it was 
last updated during the Bush Administration after Hurricane 
Katrina. We saw there was a disaster and we expanded it to 
wireless telephony.
    I think we have a crisis right now, too, and we've got to 
figure out how to keep more Americans connected and we've got 
to use Lifeline to do it. We've got to remake it from top to 
bottom. We've got to reconsider who is eligible. We have to 
reconsider what services we support, and then we have to do 
something along the lines that Commissioner Starks spoke about, 
which is, we've got to double our outreach so that every 
interaction with public services we make available this 
service, so everyone gets a fair shot at staying connected in 
this crisis.
    Mr. Starks. Yes, thank you, Senator.
    Senator Baldwin. Commissioner Starks?
    Mr. Starks. Yes, thank you, Senator. Lifeline is such an 
undersubscribed benefit that we do need to increase 
advertising. We do need to increase--again, I think it's a 
common sense idea that the FCC--we know that SNAP applications 
because of food insecurity has skyrocketed during this 
pandemic.
    The fact of the matter is that if you are eligible for 
SNAP, if you are a new SNAP applicant, you are also eligible 
for Lifeline, and so we at the FCC have to have an MOU in place 
where, if you start to get SNAP benefits, you should also be 
told that you're eligible for a Lifeline phone, either follow 
up via an e-mail or direct mailing, something that makes people 
aware of this program.
    The fact of the matter is that we have millions of 
struggling Americans right now and if they come knocking on one 
door, they shouldn't have to knock on each door in order to get 
the help that they need.
    I think there are also some very administrative things that 
we need to do. The Lifeline Verifier has been bogged down. The 
fact of the matter is that only 13 states are automatically 
connecting applicants through SNAP. We have to do better on 
that because the manual review for Lifeline applications is not 
good and the error rate is extremely high and then you have 
people that are more vulnerable that don't get the benefit that 
they need.
    So there are a lot of things from top to bottom that we 
need to do better on Lifeline and millions of Americans are 
counting on us.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Senator Lee. Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you 
for your service and thank you for being here today.
    We know that the FCC has played a critical role in 
addressing the critical needs that we've talked a lot about 
today. Certainly during COVID, it's just been essential, some 
of the things we've learned that impact the--I mean that are 
impacted by the decisions that you've made.
    Looking forward, our largest opportunity, I've heard a lot 
of conversation about it, obviously is the RDOF Program, which 
will provide funding over the next decade.
    According to the FCC under RDOF, West Virginia has over 
128,000 eligible locations. I heard you mention West Virginia 
in one of your answers, Mr. Chairman. So I appreciate that and 
your visits to West Virginia.
    It's imperative that as many census blocks are eligible for 
this funding as possible and I'm concerned about this.
    So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, as you're looking at the 
process of the challenges that have been made on certain census 
blocks and where the distribution of the money is going to be, 
it's important that we do it effectively and efficiently.
    So as you continue to look at this auction process, will 
you commit to scrutinizing the challenges in the RDOF eligible 
location process?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, Senator, we will.
    Senator Capito. And are you in the midst of doing that now, 
and when do you expect that you will--I mean, I'm sure it's an 
evolving/revolving decision?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, it is an ongoing process, but I can tell you 
that the list of eligible areas is scheduled to be published by 
July 1, which is when the short form application window opens, 
and so we're in the final stages now. We should have results on 
this front very soon.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. One of the areas I've been 
concerned about of past programs is the transparency and 
accountability of actual delivery of what has been promised.
    How do you expect under this new auction or this increased 
auction aimed at rural America, how are we going to get better 
at the transparency and accountability of this?
    Mr. Pai. A critical question. All the taxpayer money in the 
world doesn't make a difference if the providers who get it 
don't use it appropriately and that's why for this auction, the 
RDOF in particular, winning bidders will have to enter geo-
coded locations where they have provided deployments into 
what's called the HUB, the High-Cost Broadband Data base, 
essentially.
    In addition to that, USAC will verify and audit that 
information to make sure the providers have in fact done what 
they've said they're going to do. On top of that, later on the 
networks will be subject to drive testing and other rigorous 
speed and latency verification and if they fail on any of these 
scores, then ultimately what happens is the providers will have 
support withheld. They may have to pay support they've received 
back and may face other enforcement action because we want to 
make sure again those 128,000 locations in West Virginia, 
places like Capon Springs and Clay and Clendenin, they deserve 
funding and they deserve deployment.
    Senator Capito. Well, I would encourage enforcement 
because, I mean, we can say we're going to do things, but if we 
don't----
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely.
    Senator Capito.--enforce it, it's not going to--it's a 
toothless enforcement mechanism.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, I want to thank you for working with 
us in addressing the diversion of the 9-1-1 fees. I know it has 
been an issue that West Virginia was labeled as a fee diverter 
and it was impacting our abilities to have these issues 
resolved. So we are now eligible in the much-needed next 
generation 9-1-1 funding. So I just wanted to thank you 
personally for that.
    Commissioner Carr, you came to West Virginia with the 
Connected Care Initiative. Boy, if we'd known then, you know, 
where we are now, it's an amazing--I mean, West Virginia 
University just now got a grant to be able to expand their 
telehealth services.
    So here's what I'm concerned about. I don't want to see us 
do the same thing we do with EMRs. So we've got a telehealth 
initiative that's going across the country, but we don't have 
the ability for all of our health providers to be able to be on 
the same page. I mean, do you imagine that through Connected 
Care and other initiatives that you're going to be able to have 
really broad-based--I don't want to say regulations but best 
practices so that we don't come back in 5 years and go, well, 
that's great, but the radiologists can't talk to the 
cardiologists, the rural can't talk to the urban.
    How do you see that playing out as you--both what you've 
done through COVID but also through your Connected Care 
Initiative that I know you very much are committed to?
    Mr. Carr. Senator, I thank you so much for your leadership 
on telehealth. When I joined you last summer out in West 
Virginia, that's actually when we rolled out our proposal that 
little did we know turned into this COVID-19 Telehealth 
Program. So it was great that we were out there doing the leg 
work that's paid off.
    Senator Capito. By the way, they've used the Telestroke 
Initiative. Actually, it wasn't a fake person. It was a real 
person and actually had great results.
    Mr. Carr. That's wonderful to see. I think West Virginia 
facilities have now received somewhere over $2 million already 
within more money that we have to process.
    I think there are going to be some important lessons 
learned, perhaps the one that you flagged already. We're going 
to have another follow-on Connected Care pilot program. That's 
going to be a 3-year pilot that's going to run, sort of, after 
this emergency COVID one does. So I think there are going to be 
lessons that we can carry over to that, and, frankly, I think 
the government generally has done a great job.
    If you look at what HHS has done in terms of updating some 
of the licensing/reimbursement issues, I think those are gains 
that we need to maintain as we power out of this COVID-19 
pandemic because I think this connectivity in telehealth is the 
future. It improves patient outcomes and drives down costs at 
the same time.
    Senator Capito. Well, just anecdotally, in talking with 
folks who've had telehealth visits both on the provider side 
and on the patient side, they seem to really like it. The 
convenience of it, the ability to be more efficient, and, you 
know, it's not going to work in every instance obviously, and 
so I think really the face of medicine is going to change 
through this, and I look forward to working with you on this, 
and thank you.
    Senator Lee. Senator Duckworth.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. I was on 
mute.
    Thank you for holding this important oversight hearing, and 
I want to start by thanking each of the Commissioners for your 
previous commitments before this committee to combat unjust and 
unreasonable phone rates for inmates and their families by 
clarifying the FCC's existing intrastate rates, something that 
we still need to do.
    In the interest of time, I'd like to reaffirm that we are 
on the same page on this issue. So in the interest of time, 
please raise your hand if you still believe that more should be 
done to address unjust and unreasonable phone rates at 
incarceration and detention facilities in the United States?
    Mr. Chairman, you'll have to take a look for me because I 
can't see--oh, there we go. Everybody's got their hands up. 
Wonderful. Thank you.
    Just to be clear, anyone who thinks you've adequately 
tackled this issue, please speak up now.
    [No response.]
    Senator Duckworth. All right. Thank you. I'm glad to see 
that each of you agree that more can be done and that more 
should be done. However, I am deeply disappointed by the FCC's 
lack of action and I do understand that there is an opportunity 
for legislation which I am still working on.
    I am not aware of any major action taken by the Commission 
over the past 3 years to address this issue.
    Commissioner Rosenworcel, did I miss anything?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No, Senator, you did not. We do have 
issues associated with intrastate rates. We need your 
legislation to help us on that, but when it comes to interstate 
rates, we have a crisis. A single phone call to someone who's 
incarcerated typically costs as much as you and I pay for a 
monthly unlimited plan. That's not fair. That's not right. It 
harms the families of the incarcerated and especially during 
this crisis when visits are limited and so much communication 
is cutoff, the FCC should be far more creative when it comes to 
thinking about rate caps for interstate services, ancillary 
fees, and site commissions.
    We should be doing everything we can to lower those rates 
and make them fair and just because that's what the law 
requires.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Chairman Pai, as this hearing has made clear, there's a--
I'd like to move on to Ligado and its threat to GPS. As this 
hearing has made clear, there's a tendency for the Ligado 
debate to quickly get bogged down in the weeds and I fear that 
we're at risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees.
    When I examined the Ligado issue, the primary question that 
jumps out to me is simple. I mean, aside from the Ligado 
itself, why is anyone aggressively pushing for approval, other 
than Ligado? Ligado is not mentioned in any 5G plan that I 
previously reviewed, no independent entity that I'm aware of 
believes that Ligado's proposed network would be significant in 
any way, shape, or form as a 5G solution. Yet there does appear 
to be a consensus among key stakeholders, including NTIA and 
the Departments of Defense and Transportation, that Ligado's 
proposed network threatens GPS.
    Even the FCC noted in Paragraph 91 of the Order, and I 
quote, ``Our analysis should not be construed to say that 
there's no potential for harmful interference to any GPS device 
currently in operation or in the marketplace. Indeed, the RAA 
testing showed that there is potential for harmful interference 
to some devices, particularly high precision devices.''
    Chairman Pai, I understand your frustration that the FCC 
sought comment four separate times over 2 years on the Ligado 
proposal and yet DoD did not submit comments for the first four 
times. You won't find a more sympathetic audience to your 
frustration than me over DoD's, shall we say, deliberate haste 
in responding to requests for information from Members of 
Congress.
    However, our sympathy for your plight does not change the 
reality. DoD is strongly opposed to the FCC Order and informed 
Congress that Ligado's proposed network places our national 
security at risk.
    The Department of Transportation testified to this very 
committee the following. They said, ``I regret to say in this 
case I believe that physics stand between the people of 
goodwill. I do not see a way in which anything approaching the 
Ligado proposal can succeed without interference with GPS.''
    So, Chairman Pai, recognizing that the FCC is already 
considering petitions from DoD, DOT, NTIA, and various 
industries requesting that the FCC reconsider the Ligado Order 
under existing administrative procedures, why wouldn't the FCC 
reconsider the Order? Isn't the whole point of the 
reconsideration process to enable FCC to deal with 
controversial orders where there are disputes over the record, 
new information continues to emerge, and in the event that 
Ligado's network does lead to improper interference, the costs 
of which could be enormous and these costs could be passed on 
to consumers, why would you not reconsider this?
    Mr. Pai. Well, Senator, thank you for the question about 
the unanimous bipartisan decision that the FCC made to approve 
this application with serious conditions.
    This issue has been pending for over a decade. In fact, in 
2003, the FCC granted terrestrial authority to companies, like 
Ligado, to use this spectrum on the ground.
    In 2010, this issue was first teed up and for the last 10 
years, the agency has been considering what the technical rules 
should be.
    Based on the engineering and the facts in the record and 
that alone, the FCC decided to approve the application with 
stringent conditions: a 99.3 percent reduction in power levels 
to 9.8 watts, a 23 megahertz guard band carved out of Ligado's 
own spectrum, even though its GPS was actually bleeding over 
into Ligado's spectrum, a stop buzzer to ensure that any 
deployments that are occurring or that have occurred will not 
cause interference to GPS, the replacement and removal of 
equipment.
    I mean, all of these conditions were imposed because we 
wanted to balance the necessary interests. Allowing this 
company to move forward, as the FCC had granted it authority to 
do 17 years ago, and preserving GPS from harmful interference.
    Based on the facts in the record, we made a decision, a 
decision, I would add, that was shared with Federal agencies 
well over half a year ago to enable them to give feedback to 
us, based on the facts that they saw in the record.
    We've had a very open door. This process has gone on for 
long enough and we made a decision based solely on the facts 
and on the law and I will defend this decision before any forum 
in this Congress or around the country.
    Senator Duckworth. I am out of time and I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.

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

    Senator Lee. Thank you so much, Senator Duckworth.
    Thanks to all of you for being here. It was fantastic, by 
the way. I liked the polling. That sounds like fun. Maybe for a 
future hearing, I will employ that technique. It's also given 
me some ideas on other commissions. Maybe the next time we have 
the Supreme Court in front of the Judiciary Committee, I could 
try the same thing. I'm not sure they'll love it.
    Chairman Pai, I want to thank you. A few weeks ago, several 
of my colleagues and I sent you a letter asking some questions 
about the Ligado issue and about the Commission's decision to 
approve the spectrum license modification for Ligado. You 
responded and you provided a number of very helpful answers to 
my technical questions, and without objection that will be 
entered into the record for today's hearing.
    Mr. Pai. Thank you, Senator.
    [The information referred to was unavailable at time of 
printing.]
    Senator Lee. Chairman Pai, in a recently disclosed e-mail, 
there was an official at the Department of Defense who 
acknowledged that the Department of Defense has not relied on 
the GPS L1 Band ``for years'' and that the Department of 
Defense uses the L2 Signal, which is not close to, is somewhat 
far away from the L1 Band.
    If it's true that the Department of Defense is relying on 
the L2 Signal, then why is it that the Department of Defense 
argues that Ligado will cause interference with the DoD's GPS 
systems?
    Mr. Pai. A very good question, Senator, one that is more 
appropriately presented to the Department of Defense. All I can 
say from our perspective is that our determination was that 
starting at 1569 megahertz and above, that Ligado's operation 
is well below that, 23 megahertz below that, would not cause 
interference to any of the GPS spectrum, especially the lower 
in that band, which is where the L1 Signal comes from.
    Senator Lee. OK. So if that's the case, if the military in 
fact operates on the L2 Signal and not the L1 Signal, then is 
interference from Ligado, from the Ligado Bands even possible?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, we don't believe it is likely but to be 
sure, that's why we imposed those very strict conditions. We 
easily could have rubber stamped this application as it was and 
said, you know what, we don't think there's any engineering 
case here at all, but to make sure that we protected high 
precision receivers and others, we incorporated all those 
conditions and that is why I'm very confident in going forward 
that we've made a decision that is based much more on sound 
engineering as opposed to some of the fear-mongering that we've 
heard.
    Senator Lee. The Ligado Bands are roughly how far away from 
the L2?
    Mr. Pai. From L2, so it's 23 megahertz up to the L1, which 
is 1569. I can't remember exactly. It's a significant amount 
more than that to get to L2. I can't remember if it's 33 or 
more.
    Senator Lee. OK. So we've got----
    Mr. Pai. For context, by the way,----
    Senator Lee [continuing]. Buffer there?
    Mr. Pai. Oh, absolutely. For context, in the 600 megahertz 
incentive auction, we created a three megahertz-wide guard band 
to protect wireless companies from full power broadcasters. 
We're talking about a guard band here that is almost eight 
times as large to protect against the L1 Signal, let alone the 
L2.
    Senator Lee. That's helpful. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, 
it's my understanding that the National Advanced Spectrum and 
Communications Test Network, I keep wanting to figure out a 
pronounceable acronym from that, NASCTN, but it doesn't sound 
very good, but it provides testing and modeling and analysis 
necessary to inform spectrum policy and that it's a joint 
effort that involves a whole bunch of Federal agencies, 
including NIST, NTIA, DoD, NASA, NSF, and NOAA.
    Is there any evidence that the NASCTN produces biased 
results?
    Mr. Pai. Not at all, Senator. In part, I would say because 
some of those agencies you mentioned are a member of that 
group.
    Senator Lee. And did this group, the NASCTN, study the 
impact of the LPE Signals in Ligado's spectrum on GPS devices?
    Mr. Pai. They did, yes.
    Senator Lee. And were DoD's comments and concerns heard and 
studied in this particular instance?
    Mr. Pai. I have no reason to think that they were not.
    Senator Lee. I've seen arguments that the Commission's 
decision would somehow impact taxpayer dollars because the 
Department of Defense, as a result of the decision, would be 
tasked with updating its government systems to comply.
    Now in the event that there is harmful interference, my 
understanding is that Ligado is on the hook for replacing the 
affected government receivers. Chairman Pai, did that issue get 
addressed in the FCC's Order?
    Mr. Pai. It did, Senator. We imposed a condition on Ligado 
to essentially remedy any of those types of situations. That 
could include, for example, replacement of certain affected 
receivers, high precision receivers.
    By the way, now I'm recalling the L2 is actually 300 
megahertz away. It's in 1227, something like that. So we're 
talking about a significant distance away from Ligado's 
operations.
    Senator Lee. I want to make one final point. Commissioner 
O'Rielly and Commissioner Rosenworcel, the FCC approved the 
Ligado Modification unanimously. It's no small feat for the FCC 
to agree in a unanimous manner and some would say in a 
bipartisan manner, especially on a complex issue like spectrum 
allocation.
    But even though the Commission unanimously agreed, the 
Ligado issue still took about a decade to complete, spanning 
multiple Administrations and Administrations of multiple 
political parties.
    Now this wasn't, as far as I can understand, for partisan 
reasons nor was it the product of petulance or inaction on the 
part of commissioners. This wasn't for partisan reasons, but I 
do fear that it might reflect a broken interagency process for 
spectrum decisionmaking, and, if true, this would hinder U.S. 
leadership in technology.
    So I guess the question I have for you is, should the 
Ligado decision be a warning sign for a broken interagency 
spectrum decision process, and what do we do to address this 
breakdown in communication between agencies on spectrum-related 
decisionmaking?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Sure. Thank you for bringing that up, 
Senator. We're going to need more air waves if we want to power 
the 5G future and this is a tough story, the one that the 
Chairman just exchanged with you. We've got to do better. We 
can't wait 10 years to continue to reclaim air waves.
    So here are three things we could do right now. First, we 
should reform the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, 
which is how the FCC comes together with other Federal actors 
to figure out what spectrum to reclaim.
    Second, we should do something like you and Senator Markey 
proposed in legislation. We need a full valuation of Federal 
spectrum. What do they own where? What is its value when it 
comes to all of our Nation's spectrum assets?
    And then we've got to set up a series of incentives. I 
don't think people do things when we continue to have these 
knock-down/drag-out fights. What we need to do is make sure 
that Federal actors get the opportunity to see budgetary gain 
and not just loss from their reallocation.
    Senator Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Reilly. So I would argue a couple things similar to 
my colleague. One, we need to improve the structure for how 
NTIA manages the different agencies that it oversees in terms 
of spectrum policy, the one-off agencies coming and complaining 
to Congress that the FCC is not working. So whether it's NOAA 
or NASA or DoD or DOT coming at us one-on-one has been very 
problematic and that's what NTIA used to do. We have to filter 
through some of that function and weed out the bad arguments 
and only present the most compelling and that's not what we're 
getting today.
    I would agree with my colleague in terms of incentives, but 
I'd also suggest we're going to need more sticks and that's why 
I've suggested we need the budgetary impact. We need to 
understand how much funding or how much assets they're sitting 
on in terms of dollars. The valuation piece is important. It 
should be part of their budget. We're going to need more sticks 
to push this issue forward.
    And the last thing I would say is Congress needs to 
identify the bands. We can help you with that. Identify new 
Federal bands that need to be converted. It's a heavy, heavy 
lift. It's been done in the past by this committee just as 
recent as MOBILE NOW Act, and it just requires a lot of 
lifting.
    Senator Lee. Well said. Thank you. I'll turn the gavel back 
over to the Chairman. I'll say in closing when somebody is 
going up against an issue that the FCC has addressed over a 
decade with great scientific expertise and on an issue of great 
national importance as this one, they darn well better come to 
the argument armed with something other than the catch phrase 
national security or trust us, we're right, or I can't tell you 
why I think this because it's classified, but trust us, 
national security dictates that we not do this. That's wrong. 
They know it's wrong and we can't let them get away with it.
    Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Lee and 
Senator Blackburn have been very gracious during this hearing 
to take the gavel for an extended period of time and I very 
much appreciate that.
    We might as well finish talking about Ligado. First of all, 
who wants to take this, this issue of the decision being made 
in the dark of night on a weekend? Who would like that? 
Chairman Pai?
    Mr. Pai. I'd be happy to take it. It's absolute nonsense. I 
circulated the Order to my fellow Commissioners on Thursday. 
The majority of votes were in the following day, Friday.
    Senator Wicker. So this was done remotely, as we've had to 
do so many things during this timeframe?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, and we, of course, do things in the 
regular course, as we do on circulation.
    Senator Wicker. When you circulated that, was that provided 
only to the members and staff or was it a matter of public 
record?
    Mr. Pai. It was--when we do things on circulation, we share 
it with all the Commissioners and their staff.
    Senator Wicker. OK.
    Mr. Pai. We also shared 6 months earlier that exact draft 
with the Department of Defense, among other agencies, through 
the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee.
    Senator Wicker. OK.
    Mr. Pai. So other departments had that physical possession 
of it months and months in advance.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Now why didn't you just vote on it on 
Thursday? You have to wait a certain period of time? I just----
    Mr. Pai. There are two different ways that things are voted 
on at the FCC. One is at our monthly meetings in which case the 
Chairman has to designate an item at least 3 weeks in advance. 
The other is through circulation, as it's known. Essentially, 
you e-mail around the proposal, the order to all the various 
commissioners, and then they have a certain--essentially an 
indefinite period of time to be able to suggest changes and the 
like, and so in this case, I did that, circulated it on 
Thursday. I can't speak for why the other offices voted when 
they did but they did and we ultimately released the item the 
following Thursday, a week later.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Ms. Rosenworcel, 30 seconds, and Mr. 
O'Rielly, 30 seconds.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I think the Chairman's correct when he 
says our regular processes were followed.
    Senator Wicker. OK. And Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I waited till Friday to vote. I voted on 
Friday. I had four meetings, phone call meetings with all 
interested parties that wanted to weigh in on the matter. I 
listened to those arguments and then voted. So it wasn't over 
the weekend.
    Senator Wicker. Ms. Rosenworcel, on this terminology 
interference, harmful interference, potentially impacting, help 
us parse that. Is harmful interference a term of art?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, it's terminology that is widely used 
not just by the FCC but by our colleagues at NTIA and in fact 
it's used worldwide. I think it means if something 
significantly obstructs, degrades, or interferes with existing 
communication, and in every environment, the agency and our 
engineers are tasked with trying to give meaning to that and 
like I mentioned before, our staff did work on doing that here.
    Senator Wicker. So to the extent that this new proposal 
hurts the GPS functioning, that would not be permitted without 
compensation and correction by Ligado, am I correct there?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I believe that's correct. It is a slightly 
more complicated story than that, but, yes, that was the intent 
of what I believe the Order intended.
    Senator Wicker. So in 10 years, it is more complicated.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I know. I know I just want--listen, you'd 
be going back and forth with the Chairman on it----
    Senator Wicker. I want to let you----
    Ms. Rosenworcel.--if he has the opportunity.
    Senator Wicker.--wrap this issue up and then recognize 
Senator Rosen.
    Mr. Pai. So, sorry, I missed that.
    Senator Wicker. No. On the----
    Mr. Pai. Oh, on the harmful----
    Senator Wicker.--harmful interference and interference.
    Mr. Pai. Right. So there are two different issues. First is 
how do you measure harmful interference and, second, what is 
the likeliness of harmful interference from Ligado's 
operations?
    There's a fundamental disagreement about the standard. The 
Department of Defense and others are advancing a certain 
standard that is called the One DB Standard, the metric. It's 
not even a standard for measuring harmful interference and to 
take that metric seriously would wipe out wireless 
communications as we know them because just through natural 
occurrences, you can see a one DB change in any type of 
device's operation.
    So putting aside to the One DB Standard, which the FCC has 
never embraced, which NTIA itself has rejected, then you move 
to the question of what is going to happen in terms of harmful 
interference?
    The FCC tested over a long period of time a whole bunch of 
different GPS receivers and they found that the Ligado's 
operations with the parameters that we're talking about, 9.8 
watts, 99 percent reduction, the guard band, et cetera, would 
not cause harmful interference.
    One could make an argument that for certain high precision 
receivers, there may be some type of interference and so we 
said, OK, stipulated there will be interference in that case, 
let's make sure that we impose all of these different 
conditions that we've discussed to ensure that that is not the 
case and on top of that back it up with a pre-deployment 
notification Ligado has to do for Federal agencies and a post-
deployment notification system where any affected agency can 
essentially tell us there's interference. This needs to be 
remedied ASAP.
    So given all of these conditions, I find it very hard to 
say that the FCC just rubber stamped this and sent it out into 
the ether. We took a very careful look at this over a long 
period of time. It would have been very easy for me just to 
kick the can down the road, as many of my predecessors have 
done, but that's not why we're called to these things.
    We're called to these jobs to make the difficult decisions, 
to promote American leadership in wireless, and to protect 
incumbent interests from harmful interference. We have to make 
tough decisions and we've got to make them now and I'm not 
going to kick this can or any can down the road any longer.
    Senator Wicker. I guess we could win the race to 5G without 
this.
    Mr. Pai. This is the argument in every band, 2.5, 3.5, 3.7, 
3.1, 4.9, 5.9, 6 gigahertz, Ligado. Every single agency, every 
single band you'll find somebody, some Federal agency or some 
stakeholder saying I'm completely in favor of American 
leadership in 5G, just not in this band.
    If we were to take this objection seriously, this country 
would never go anywhere and that's part of the reason why we've 
done the hard work, based on engineering, focusing on the 
facts, to promote American leadership and protect those 
incumbent interests. Were it otherwise, we'd still be stuck in 
the starting blocks while China and South Korea and Europe and 
other countries, other regions just race ahead of us.
    Senator Wicker. Senator Rosen.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Thank you, 
Ranking Member, and for bringing this important oversight 
hearing to us today. I appreciate all the witnesses also for 
your hard work in so many areas.
    Today, I want to talk a little bit about maternal mapping 
and health outcomes because in Nevada and across the country, 
it has really been incredible to see the way the telehealth has 
enabled so many patients to receive care while complying with 
the stay-at-home orders due to the pandemic and so 
telemedicine, of course, we know it's not a substitute for 
receiving a physical evaluation. It is useful in many 
applications, including keeping pregnant women and new mothers 
safe while accessing maternal care.
    As a country, we have the highest maternal-infant mortality 
rate amongst other developed countries. That was before the 
pandemic and it's especially crucial that we use every tool and 
resource we have to reach every new and expectant mother. This 
is especially important for our high-risk populations, women of 
color, disparities among our indigenous, African American, and 
rural communities. It's even more pronounced during this 
pandemic.
    That's why last year, I introduced the Data Mapping to Save 
Moms' Lives Act along with Senators Fischer, Young, and Schatz, 
and this bipartisan legislation would direct the FCC to consult 
with the CDC to incorporate data on maternal health outcomes 
into the FCC's broadband health maps in order to show where 
poor broadband access and high rates of poor maternal health 
outcomes, where they overlap in order to determine where 
telehealth is most needed.
    So, Chairman Pai, I just really want to say thank you to 
your office for reaching out and working with mine, to 
understand the issues and all the outstanding issues on this 
bill.
    The Commission, you currently map health data for rural 
broadband physician shortages, diabetes, obesity. I know you've 
updated your mapping platform so maternal health shouldn't be a 
major challenge.
    But for Commissioner Rosenworcel, I'd like to thank you for 
your leadership on maternal and infant health and mortality and 
I'd like you to address how easy or difficult it would be for 
the Commission to add maternal health outcomes to your current 
health mapping platform?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the question and 
for your leadership on this.
    We've got a crisis in this country. We are the only 
industrialized nation with a rising level of maternal mortality 
and that is especially a challenge for women of color and also 
women in rural communities. Half of our counties in rural 
America no longer have a maternity ward.
    So I spent some time in rural Arkansas and also with the 
Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and what I've learned is they're 
coming up with all forms of telemedicine to figure out how to 
take on this maternal health care crisis.
    So I think it would be terrific if we could use some of our 
mapping data, like we have in the past with diabetes, to 
understand which communities are connected and which 
communities have the highest levels of maternal mortality 
because it is the start of a solution and we should make sure 
our work gets us there.
    Senator Rosen. So building upon that, are there other 
health issues that you think might be useful for us to track if 
we're going to be adding maternal mortality? Maybe while we're 
doing that, we just add a few other things at the same time. 
What do you think might help?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. It's a really good question. There are 
really two things to think about here.
    First, what types of health care problems are we seeing en 
masse around this country that we have to correct for, and, 
second, what subset of those problems are likely to be 
effectively managed with telemedicine?
    We've seen some early demonstrations that with maternal 
mortality and with diabetes, these are tools where continuous 
home monitoring could make a huge difference.
    So I'd welcome a dialogue with Congress and this committee 
to continue to try to identify what meets those two criteria 
and how we can organize our thinking about broadband in accord 
with it.
    Senator Rosen. And I think that's terrific. I'd like to ask 
you finally for the last few seconds I have how the FCC can 
harness the Connected Care Pilot Telehealth Program to support 
this delivery of future telehealth services, particularly for 
our rural or underserved communities.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes. We do have this $100 million program 
that we've announced and it's a pilot, but rather than just 
giving the money here, there, here's an idea. Let's choose 
maternal mortality. Let's identify that problem and let's see 
what we can do with it in all 50 states nationwide.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I'll yield 
back my last 20 seconds. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Rosen. We certainly 
haven't been worried about 20-second periods during this 
hearing.
    Let me see if we can nail a few things down. On the money 
that the Education Department was provided in CARES, are you 
all coordinating with Secretary DeVos? How does that work, and 
is there some way we can facilitate, Chairman Pai?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, we are, Senator, and we've been working with 
the Department of Education on making sure the local school 
districts and other educational officials are aware of that $16 
billion. It's broken up into $13 billion and then three 
billion.
    Under the law as passed by Congress, that's available for 
education technology and we want to make sure that school 
districts are able and willing to use that for home 
connectivity.
    Senator Wicker. Are we a little slow on that? Is the 
proposed system a little behind?
    Mr. Pai. Well, we certainly are not. I can tell you that 
one of the first things we did after the CARES Act was passed 
was to sit down and figure out how do we strategize with the 
Department of Education and they've had an open door with us, 
as well. So we're continuing that effort with our state 
counterparts.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. It's good what the Chairman's doing. I do 
appreciate his effort, particularly with the $13 billion, 
coordinating with the Department of Education, but that funding 
was also for sanitizing schools, teacher training. It's a 
laundry list of things that schools are going to need to get 
back up and running, just like you suggested.
    So I think it's essential that we identify how we can use 
E-Rate for a dedicated pool of funding to get students 
connected.
    Senator Wicker. Very good. I'm told Senator Young is now in 
the queue, is that correct?

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Carr, so good to see you and the other 
Commissioners once again. I want to thank you for accepting my 
invitation to come to Indiana not too long ago. That was pre-
pandemic. A lot's changed since then, since the pandemic hit 
our country. I want to thank you for your work in establishing 
the $100 million Connected Care Pilot Telehealth Program. It's 
really benefited our state. It's a $200 million telehealth fund 
that we, in a bipartisan way, established through the CARES 
Act.
    Just today, the 10th Street Clinic in Richmond, Indiana, a 
community health center in Lawrenceburg, Decatur County 
Memorial Hospital in Greensburg, Indiana, were awarded nearly a 
million dollars from the fund to support telehealth efforts. So 
the resources are getting out there and very much appreciated.
    I'd just ask you to briefly discuss the importance of both 
of these programs, the Connected Care pilot and the Telehealth 
Fund, and then if you could quickly pivot kindly to whether 
there are flexibilities related to telehealth that have been 
made temporarily available that should remain in place on a 
permanent basis, based on your early assessment of how they're 
working?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question and for your 
leadership on telehealth. I had a chance to join you out in 
Indiana, in McCordsville, and visit a health care facility 
there that's relying on high-speed Internet connections.
    I think this is the future. It's going to be a game-
changer. For years, we focused on connections to brick and 
mortar facilities. That's important. It'll continue, but where 
we've pivoted now with this COVID program and with the 
Connected Care Program is this idea of connected care so that 
people can access high-quality care wherever they have a high-
speed connection.
    That's so important in rural America as this country is 
facing a growing doctor divide. Health care facilities are 
closing by the dozen. It's hard to get a general practitioner 
in rural America, let alone a specialist. So I think what we're 
doing now is laying the groundwork to give everyone in this 
country a fair shot at quality affordable health care.
    There are lessons learned that we need to keep as we power 
out of this pandemic. I think HHS has done a lot of great work 
in short order to look at licensing reimbursement issues. Our 
Emergency COVID Program is being followed by this separate $100 
million program. I think we are, you know, moving in the right 
direction and we need to keep the red tape that we've cut to 
the sideline.
    Senator Young. Well, thank you. Why don't we maintain a 
dialogue, as we have ever since you were confirmed to this 
position, about the issue of telehealth and we'll continue, of 
course, to work with HHS on that issue.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, you recently blogged about removing 
unnecessary barriers and maximizing competition within the 
Universal Service Fund through their auctions, such as the 
upcoming Rural Digital Opportunity Fund that will extend 
broadband in rural Indiana and across other rural areas around 
the country.
    Can you expand on this idea of maximizing competition and 
removing unnecessary barriers, maybe identifying specific 
actionables that need to be taken?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure. My blog explored whether we should 
eliminate our eligible telecommunications carrier designation 
requirement and actually recommended that Congress do so. The 
ETC mandate that's in law actually limits the number of 
competitors that are willing to participate in our auctions.
    I've talked to multiple providers who would like to 
participate and drive down the costs. So when you think of the 
RDOF, for instance, we're trying to drive a $30 billion program 
into a $16 billion expenditure and that's through competition. 
It's letting the different providers compete for different 
areas and driving down how much we need to subsidize those 
things.
    So there's a barrier, in my opinion, that's no longer 
necessary. The burdens that exist today in terms of state 
verification and state designation for ETCs don't make any 
sense any longer, in my opinion, especially since the fact that 
broadband and VoIP are both areas that are outside state 
jurisdiction. So I think that's something the Congress really 
could be helpful for.
    Senator Young. So if you eliminate that condition that 
auction winners be designated ETCs under the statute, you prod 
more people into the auction. You end up in short getting more 
value for the taxpayer in the end, is that correct?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. The money that's collected on a 
monthly basis goes further and stretches. You expand broadband 
services throughout our Nation. Absolutely.
    Senator Young. Thank you so much. I'm out of time.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Young.
    Senator Tester, have you had lunch yet?

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

    Senator Tester. Thanks for caring. I appreciate that.
    I would say, first of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
having this hearing, and I want to thank the FCC for being 
here.
    One of the things you get to do being last is you get to 
hear most of what's been said before or being close to last, 
and I just want to go back to underserved areas. I want to go 
back to allocating 80 percent of the RDOF funds, you know, at 
the end of this administration, and the reason this is somewhat 
troubling is because this committee has always been, I think 
it's still there, has always been very, very bipartisan in the 
fact we want maps that are right, so you can spend the money 
and not waste money.
    We're talking about a fair amount of dough. 80 percent is a 
little over 16 billion, if my math is correct. That 16 billion 
doesn't draw a lot of attention around here and so the question 
is--this is to Chairman Pai and Ms. Rosenworcel, if you'd like.
    I don't see how you're going to put this money out without 
good maps. I just got to tell you and I want the money out 
sooner than later. I come from a state that has underserved 
areas big time in it, but the potential for wasting money here 
is just over the top and I want you to tell me, Chairman Pai, 
how this money is going to be appropriated out so it isn't just 
a crap shoot?
    Mr. Pai. Senator, there are thousands upon thousands of 
locations in Montana that we know, based on any map you 
consult, are unserved and that is exactly what Phase 1 is 
targeting.
    What some would argue is that unless and until we figure 
out how the suburbs of Milwaukee are getting covered or not, we 
will not move forward with Montana. That's not acceptable to 
me.
    Senator Tester. So, Chairman Pai, you have maps that are 
rock solid certain that if you take this $16 billion and you 
put it in the marketplace, that that money is going to go to 
underserved areas and not overbuild in others?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Senator. Phase 1 goes to unserved 
areas, areas that we suggested were unserved and now we've gone 
through the challenge process. We can confirm they are 
unserved, so that when the auction starts on October 29, we're 
talking about thousands of locations in your state that for the 
first time will get broadband deployment. That's what's at 
stake here.
    Senator Tester. That's music to my ears, but the question 
has been before why hasn't the money already been appropriated 
to those areas if we knew they don't have the service?
    Mr. Pai. I can't speak for what happened before I got in 
office, but the very first thing we did was to reorient our USF 
Programs to target unserved parts of the country to firmly 
close that Digital Divide, and I've seen it for myself in 
Wisdom and Saint Ignatius and Absaroka Wilderness and other 
places like that, and it's high time that these folks in 
Montana and other unserved areas got digital opportunity.
    I'm not willing to wait for months or even years while we--
--
    Senator Tester. I've got it.
    Mr. Pai.--figure out what suburban areas are partially 
served before we get these unserved parts of the country on the 
right side of the Digital Divide.
    Senator Tester. I've got it. But one of the major problems 
has always been, and I don't want--we're both on the same page 
here. We want to do the same thing. I think everybody does on 
the FCC and then on this committee is on the same page. We want 
to make sure the money is well spent. You've been on the FCC 
for a long time. I mean, it's not like you haven't been 
affiliated with this board, this Commission.
    Mr. Pai. I couldn't agree more, Senator, and that's why in 
August, we instituted the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
to get the more granular maps. Unfortunately, Congress has now 
passed the Broadband DATA Act which not only prohibits us from 
using USAC to create those maps, it also doesn't give us any 
funding to be able to implement the Broadband DATA Act's 
mandates.
    65 million in the first year alone is required. We don't 
have it and so that's why I'm coming to you and I went to the 
Appropriations Subcommittee last week to ask for this necessary 
funding. We need it to be able to create those maps.
    Senator Tester. I got it, and I appreciate that. Things 
don't happen by air.
    I would just tell you this, that I think that the 
accountability issue here becomes a real problem because if 
you're doing it before you walk out the door potentially and 
we're counting on those maps being correct and if they're not, 
we just wasted a ton of money, and, look, I think I've 
supported nearly everybody, if not everybody, on the 
Commission's confirmation, and the fact is, is that, we need to 
have this work.
    If we've seen anything in Montana, we've seen health care 
being shortchanged. We're seeing education being shortchanged 
because we don?t have the service and that's the bottom line, 
and I hear you say we're going to do it. I just hope you're 
right on that.
    One last thing I just want to ask about and that's a 
question that Senator Schatz brought up about health care and 
the fact that $200 million in the CARES Act. Montana got zero 
and other states did, too, based on the incidence of COVID-19.
    I would just say this. Our Governor took actions that were 
very preemptive and it stopped things from happening like they 
could have happened. We're getting penalized because the 
Governor showed good leadership and we don't know where this 
virus is going to go and we've got at least three proposals, 
and I want to ask you to go back and look at those to see if 
there's any money left in that fund to try to help these folks 
out.
    Montana is just not a flyover state. There's people that 
live there and they're pretty good people. So we need service, 
too.
    Mr. Pai. Well, Senator, if I might, I did want to let you 
know that we have given grants to, for example, Providence St. 
Joseph in Seattle, which has been given a million dollars in 
funding for several sites, including St. Patrick Hospital in 
Missoula and St. Joseph Medical Center in Polson. In addition 
to that, Avera ECare in Sioux Falls has also gotten a grant, 
$803,000, to cover in part 10 Montana health care providers 
across the state. So we look forward to continuing to work with 
you to make sure that your state gets the help that it needs 
under this program.
    Senator Tester. I appreciate that and I appreciate the help 
that we've gotten. Make no mistake about it. Those other states 
need help, too.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pai. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Before I go to Senator Sinema, Chairman Pai, when did the 
FCC first conceive of the RDOF? When did you first start 
working on that?
    Mr. Pai. Gosh. Early 2018, yes, I believe it's--sorry. Late 
2018, if I remember correctly. I'll have to go back and look at 
the calendar, but it has been awhile, long time coming.
    Senator Wicker. OK. So----
    Mr. Pai. I first publicly announced it, if I remember 
correctly, in the spring of 2019.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Now if it goes forward on time in 
October, I think the problem we're going to see is it's going 
to take a long time to build this out. Now we could use a whole 
lot more money from the Congress and get this build-out done 
much faster, could we not?
    Mr. Pai. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and----
    Senator Wicker. You would welcome that, would you not?
    Mr. Pai. Yes, your initiative----
    Senator Wicker. We would welcome that, would you not?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I think as we've established, I think 
there's a fatal flaw in its foundation, but your idea to speed 
it up because people can't wait and that you would make sure 
that winners get additional funds if they build faster is one 
that has a certain sense to it, yes.
    Senator Wicker. Senator Sinema, thank you for indulging me 
there just to let me try to nail that down. You are recognized, 
ma'am.

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

    Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
all of our witnesses.
    You know, I look forward to working with the FCC and my 
colleagues on this committee to support Americans with expanded 
affordable broadband access during the pandemic as jobs, 
schools, and health care have shifted online.
    My first question is for Commissioner Rosenworcel. I'm 
sorry.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No problem.
    Senator Sinema. Now more than ever, communities across 
Arizona need reliable access to emergency services. I've heard 
from Arizonans lacking consistent cell service, including some 
seniors living at the Sundance RV Resort and the Fairways 
Community in Pinal County, many of whom can't reach 9-1-1 in 
the event of an emergency. In fact, during a recent 30-minute 
call between my staff and a resident discussing this poor cell 
service, the call was dropped three times.
    So the FCC Mobility Fund failed to reach communities in 
need because the maps were just plain wrong. I'm concerned the 
FCC might repeat the mistakes of the past and again spend money 
without ensuring it gets to communities that need it, like in 
Pinal County.
    How do you recommend we best move forward to help Arizonans 
who live without reliable cell service?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Not 
having wireless service, like you said, it's not just an 
inconvenience, it could be a matter of life or death. You can't 
access 9-1-1. You can't get health care and for a long time, 
the FCC's been trying to figure out with propagation maps from 
carriers where service is and where service is not and what 
we've found is that many of the maps we had from carriers were 
profoundly wrong.
    So we're going to have to take the authority you gave us in 
the Broadband DATA Act and rebuild our wireless maps, figure 
out where service is and is not, and when we do it, let's not 
just do it here in Washington with the five of us. Let's not 
just go to carriers. Let's go to people in Arizona and every 
other state in the country who from their lived experience know 
where you get bars on your phone and where you don't and use 
that kind of crowd sourcing to inform our data and that way 
we'll develop the kind of information that allows us to target 
funds to places that need it most.
    Senator Sinema. Oh, thank you. Chairman Pai, that one I got 
right, we need to provide tribal governments with the resources 
to ensure equitable broadband access for Indian Country.
    I've worked to ensure that tribes in Arizona can utilize 
the 2.5 gigahertz band for broadband services. The tribal 
priority filing window for this spectrum can lessen the Digital 
Divide in Indian Country but tribes need adequate time to learn 
about the spectrum and understand how they can use it.
    Unfortunately, tribes have been disproportionately affected 
by the coronavirus and have requested additional time to apply 
for the spectrum.
    Would you commit to a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5 gigahertz band because of the 
coronavirus?
    Mr. Pai. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I certainly 
appreciate your leadership on issues of tribal connectivity.
    It was my insistence that we included this rural tribal 
priority window to give tribes first dibs on this prime mid-
band spectrum. I'm aware of the request from some advocates for 
an extension of that window and that's something that we are 
currently considering. We would be happy to keep your team 
apprised as we make that decision.
    Senator Sinema. Please do. As you may be aware, Chairman 
Pai, there are several tribes in Arizona which are currently 
facing the most severe outbreaks in the entire country, in fact 
reaching levels above that of New York. So the need for them to 
have additional flexibility during this very dangerous time for 
their communities is important.
    Commissioner, do you also agree with the Chairman about the 
need to consider extending time for Indian tribal communities 
to have access to this decision?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Yes, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity 
for tribes to have some mid-band spectrum to promote wireless 
broadband services. They are some of the least connected 
communities in the country. I think we should give an extension 
of that August 3 deadline because tribal communities have been 
more affected by this virus than others and I think an 
extension of 180 days is warranted.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. Chairman Pai, I'll follow up 
with you directly on the specific needs of these tribal 
communities in Arizona, and I would ask you again to very 
strongly consider granting them an extension as right now their 
tribal communities are entirely focused on issues of life and 
death during this pandemic.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you so much, Senator Sinema.
    Let me tie up some loose ends and I do appreciate the 
Commission indulging us.
    Chairman Pai, there's some build-out in unserved areas 
being done through funds provided through RUS, the Rural 
Utility Service. Is there a chance that in the RDOF process 
there could be duplication there and how do we avoid that?
    Mr. Pai. There is not, Mr. Chairman. So per the FCC's 
Order, we want to make sure that there is no company, no 
provider that is under a legal obligation through either a 
Federal or state program to build out broadband to that area. 
So those types of areas would not be eligible in Phase 1 of the 
RDOF because we don't want to give companies essentially twice 
the money to do the same thing.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Now let's see. Commissioner Carr, 
broadcasters are in the process of implementing a technological 
evolution in their Signal ATSC 3.0 or Next Gen TV will provide 
broadcasters with new business opportunities beyond simply 
broadcasting.
    Could you please explain what the new ATSC 3.0 technology 
is, how it works, and how you think this will facilitate 
greater applications in rural America?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think 
ATSC 3.0 is a really fascinating technology. It takes the same 
spectrum that Americans receive today over-the-air television 
and lets broadcasters use some or all of that to offer 
effectively a 25 megabit per second, so think of it as a high-
speed internet, down link over its existing footprint.
    So it could be used for anything from updating connected 
cars with these large-scale files that they may need for 
mapping to smart ag, which can be important for rural 
communities, to just downloading movies potentially on your 
phone.
    I think the future of connectivity is going to be one where 
you don't have necessarily the same pipe as the download pipe 
and the upload pipe at the same time. You may be able to couple 
together different options from different technologies and 
different spectrum bands.
    So I think broadcast Internet is going to be part of that 
future of connectivity and our decision at the FCC this month 
removed the overhang of some regulations that could have slowed 
down the build-out nationwide of broadcast Internet services.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Commissioner O'Rielly, let me 
get your comment about the Universal Service Fund. Stakeholders 
have voiced concerns about the sustainability of the funding 
mechanism.
    What solution do you recommend, if any, to ensure that the 
USF remains sustainable in the months and years ahead, and what 
are your thoughts on making sure this remains sustainable?
    Mr. O'Rielly. It is not sustainable as it currently sits. 
Some of that recent increase is because of the pandemic that's 
going on, but it has been rising for far too long.
    There have been a number of ideas that have been put 
forward. One of those pushed forward by the state commissioners 
would involve a tax on broadband. I haven't favored that and 
that has put us at loggerheads. We haven't been able to get 
past that conversation.
    I have asked for any idea and all to be debated out and 
let's figure out how we can get to a new mechanism for USF 
funding. Our expenditures, the amount of money, every single 
one of the four programs, plus some that are outside, are being 
increased in terms of the amount of dollars that are going out, 
but the money coming in is problematic, how we collect it.
    Senator Wicker. Commissioner Starks or Commissioner 
Rosenworcel, do you want to jump in on that?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I think that Commissioner O'Rielly and I 
both had the pleasure of running the Universal Service Joint 
State Board that has tried to wrestle with these issues and, 
honestly, it's really hard because the system that was set up 
in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 assumed the future was 
interstate long distance voice and what that means is that 
that's what we assess against in order to come up with all 
these funds to build broadband.
    So the factor keeps rising because the pool that we assess 
against keeps falling.
    Senator Wicker. Right.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Simple math. And I think I've come to the 
conclusion that we're going to have to work with Congress to 
figure out what comes next because I don't think the law and 
what we were contemplating in 1996 is quite adequate for the 
moment that we're in.
    Senator Wicker. I think people viewing this hearing today 
can appreciate there's a lot that the Commission needs to work 
with Congress on.
    Chairman Pai, temporary waivers on Lifeline oversight 
expire in a day or two. How do you plan to ensure that 
qualified Lifeline users remain connected while also ensuring 
that the program does not experience waste, fraud, or abuse?
    Mr. Pai. Great question, Mr. Chairman. We've tried to make 
sure that we grant maximum flexibility to both Lifeline 
providers and consumers. For example, just recently, we took 
the step of making sure that rural tribal consumers that can't 
produce documentation for eligibility are able to get service 
nonetheless for 45 days after the application is submitted to 
allow the provider to get some additional time to verify the 
documentation.
    We've also relaxed some de-enrollment and recertification 
rules. We've taken other steps and we'd be happy to consider 
extending those, if necessary, to meet the needs of this 
emergency.
    There have been a whole bunch of different steps like this 
that we have taken to make sure that low-income consumers can 
have that connectivity and certainly think that a number of my 
colleagues support has been very important in that process.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. We haven't talked about rip and 
replace yet. The FCC recently collected data from 
telecommunications providers about the use of Huawei and ZTE 
and their networks. Based on the information provided so far, 
how are we doing? How much do you think it will cost to rip out 
that equipment and replace it with network components from 
trusted suppliers as we all agree needs to be done and as 
Congress has put into the statute, Chairman Pai?
    Mr. Pai. I'll be happy to take a crack at it.
    Senator Wicker. Yes.
    Mr. Pai. So our preliminary estimate was that it would cost 
up to two billion to rip and replace that equipment with 
trusted vendors. Right now, as you mentioned, we have a data 
collection that we've now received all the information from.
    The Office of Economics and Analytics is going through that 
information to verify the nature of the equipment involved and 
what the price tag would be for replacing it and so once we 
reach that assessment, we'd be happy to work with your team to 
make sure that the adequate resources are given to companies to 
rip and replace that problematic equipment.
    Senator Wicker. Do you think it's worth $2 billion to the 
taxpayers?
    Mr. Pai. Oh, I think in this regard, I think it is indeed. 
Making sure that we have trusted vendors supplying that 
equipment and services in our networks is incredibly important.
    Senator Wicker. What is the time-frame on getting this 
done, Mr. Chair?
    Mr. Pai. You mean in terms of----
    Senator Wicker. Of completing the mandate under rip and 
replace, secure and trusted communications network.
    Mr. Pai. So certainly the OEA is going through that data 
collection information as quickly as they can and we would--I 
mean, we want to work with you to make sure we do it as soon as 
possible. This is an issue that I've been banging the drum 
about for a couple of years and we need to make sure we take 
action with dispatch.
    Senator Wicker. How soon can it be done?
    Mr. Pai. I mean, I can't give you a full answer because I 
don't know the nature of the funding that's going to be 
provided. We don't yet know the full scope of the problematic 
equipment. So I would hesitate to give you an answer if there 
are thousands of providers out there or hundreds. The time-
frame shifts very significantly.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Let's talk about regulatory barriers, 
Commissioner Carr, and I think this is your question. The FCC 
recently approved an infrastructure order that clarifies key 
siting rules for wireless infrastructure deployment, including 
5G. It's intended to eliminate unnecessary barriers to siting 
on existing infrastructure and accelerate wireless networks 
upgrades.
    I understand you're the lead commissioner on this Order, is 
that correct, sir, and what impact do you see from the 5G 
Upgrade Order? Do you anticipate increased investment and 
build-out as a result?
    Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question and for your 
work to help promote the accelerated build-out of Internet 
infrastructure.
    Our goal, I think all of our goal on the Commission, is to 
see 5G build in every single community. The finish line was 
never when New York or San Francisco see their first 5G builds. 
We've made tremendous progress over the last couple of years 
and one way that we ultimately closed that Digital Divide is to 
make sure that Internet infrastructure is available in every 
community.
    This 5G Upgrade Order looks at existing macro towers which 
serve a lot of rural communities. I was at one not too long ago 
in Glenelg, Maryland, macro tower a couple hundred feet on a 
farm, got to climb up the tower with Charlie and Aaron, two of 
the America's hard-working tower techs, swapping out an antenna 
from effectively a 2G style antenna to a 5G antenna, took them 
less than an hour, but the regulatory process can drag on for 
months and months.
    So we updated and clarified our approach under Section 
6409, which Congress passed, and I do think this is going to 
accelerate the upgrade of 5G, particularly in rural 
communities.
    Senator Wicker. Who's going to be offended by this? Who's 
going to fight you?
    Mr. Carr. Any time that we issue a decision off the FCC 
that deals with the build-out of Internet infrastructure, 
you're going to see some pushback from state and local 
governments that ultimately oversee the siting process.
    What I've been pleased by, though, is we've gotten support 
from a lot of state and local officials who want 5G build-out 
in their community and understand that if we drive down the 
regulatory costs of building out, it's going to happen in their 
communities faster.
    Senator Wicker. Commissioner Rosenworcel, is this going to 
be easy?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. We've been here for 3 hours. Nothing feels 
totally easy at this point.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you all. We have so many issues.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. No, no, no. I appreciate your efforts.
    Listen, we've got to streamline the deployment of 
infrastructure in this country. That is an absolute given. We 
also have a 10th Amendment and a long history of local control 
in this country. You know, people don't take kindly to five 
unelected people telling them what they can and can't do in 
their own backyard and so we're going to have to figure out how 
to balance those two things.
    I would suggest this, that if you have future 
infrastructure legislation with dollars attached, you should 
condition them on speedy resolution of siting and permits at 
the local level. Let's figure out how we can use carrots rather 
than sticks to get this done.
    Senator Wicker. Well, we are anticipating such legislation.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. So I read.
    Senator Wicker. Chairman Pai, what can you tell us about 
the pending proceeding at the FCC to create a new FM Radio 
Broadcast Class, referred to as FM Class C4? Have you ever 
heard of that?
    Mr. Pai. I've heard a little bit about that, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Wicker. Can you just give us an update there and 
tell us what the considerations are?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question. We received a petition 
from NMTC, among other advocates, suggesting that the creation 
of a Class C4 could be useful for certain radio broadcasters 
and I put that on the floor for my colleagues' consideration. 
At the request of one of my colleagues, we converted what was 
originally intended to be a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking into 
a Notice of Inquiry.
    My understanding, based on the last time we've had these 
discussions, is that there's not majority support for moving 
ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and so we look 
forward to creative solutions to trying to advance the ball in 
a way that reflects consensus on this issue.
    Senator Wicker. Who has doubts about this that you'd like 
to voice? Yes, Commissioner O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I don't like to voice but I will voice. 
I have concerns it will cause, our favorite word, harmful 
interference to existing other radio broadcasters and there is 
a big, you know, disagreement amongst existing broadcasters on 
the impact of this.
    What I did, and I asked the Chairman to go from an NPRM 
back to an NOI because the NPRM was fairly empty and I thought 
it ought to understand what are the impacts. It should explain 
what's the value of this going forward. It didn't. So we went 
to an NOI and hopefully that has been addressed and fully 
fleshed out, but I haven't seen anything since.
    Senator Wicker. What is an NOI?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Notice of Inquiry. It's a more vague approach 
in our process.
    Senator Wicker. OK. Well, there are people out there who 
will very much benefit from that answer.
    OK. Let me stir the pot on my last question. Commissioner 
Carr, you said something that makes sense to me about how well 
we've done during this recent period as compared to our friends 
across the ocean and some adversaries across the ocean in terms 
of the Internet working. You say, ``America's networks 
performed because of the private sector's massive investment in 
our Internet infrastructure over the past years.''
    So the question is, why did this happen? Are we just lucky? 
You conclude, ``The network's performance under stress, the 5G 
build-out, and all of this investment doesn't happen by chance. 
They are fostered by light touch regulatory approach to 
infrastructure. It's an approach that emphasizes clear rules 
that keep pace with changing technology'' and apparently in 
your view, also encourage investment by the private sector 
which got us to this very favorable position that we've had the 
last few months.
    So you've expressed your opinion there. I'll let anybody on 
the panel discuss this and challenge it or take a different 
view. Do we all agree with the conclusion of Commissioner Carr 
in that regard? Are you raising your hand, Commissioner 
Rosenworcel?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I know. Well, I just want to qualify. 
First, let's be proud of how our Nation's networks have 
responded to this crisis.
    Senator Wicker. And I am proud.
    Ms. Rosenworcel. I absolutely--no, but I believe they've 
done a good job, but here's the thing. I think I would like it 
if we collected data on it. We don't even collect standardized 
data on broadband outages. It's not part of our network outage 
reporting system and so the one thing I would say is I'm not 
sure if we know on a regional and local level how well it's 
performed because we're not collecting data on it.
    Senator Wicker. And how would we do that?
    Ms. Rosenworcel. Well, I think we would update our outage 
reporting structure so that it reflects the broadband age.
    Right now, we primarily collect data on legacy telephone 
outages, but, you know, just last week, we had a major wireless 
provider that had an outage that affected big swaths of the 
country. The wireless phone didn't work for one major national 
provider. We got to figure out how our outage system and 
reporting reflects the way that people use services today so 
then we can use that data to make sure our policies are smarter 
in the future.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. And, Chairman Pai, you get the 
last word in this lengthy hearing on that topic. Is it a fact 
that our system performed so much better and why is that?
    Mr. Pai. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman, and I 
think the answer that Commissioner Carr gave is correct, and if 
you look at it from 60,000 feet, over the last 3 years, we've 
had to make some very difficult decisions. Some of them were 
popular, some of them were less so, but at the end of the day, 
the proof is in the pudding.
    Because of some of the decisions we've made to get rid of 
utility-style regulation of Internet infrastructure, to get rid 
of heavy-handed regulation of business data services, to 
streamline the process for wireless infrastructure deployment, 
to encourage companies to focus their investments on fiber 
instead of copper, these types of decisions in the aggregate 
have created an incredibly strong incentive for companies to 
make the massive network investments that are necessary for 
moments just like this and but for the fact that we had the 
courage to make some of these decisions, I daresay that we may 
have been put in the position similar to the European Union 
which had to proactively, as Commissioner Carr mentioned, go to 
Netflix and YouTube and these other streaming services and ask 
them to proactively throttle their own consumers' bandwidth in 
order to make sure that networks didn't collapse.
    I'm incredibly proud not just of the American broadband 
network's performance but of all the building blocks that were 
in place for that success, one of the critical ones of which 
was the regulatory framework we've established over the last 
three years.
    Senator Wicker. Well, thank you, Chairman Pai, and thank 
you all, and these are words that you have been longing to 
hear.
    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 
by no later than midnight Wednesday, July 29, 2020.
    I thank you and this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the digital 
divide experienced by millions of American children who do not have 
Internet access at home and are unable to engage in online learning. In 
normal times this prevents school children from doing homework and 
supplemental learning. During the pandemic lack of broadband access 
also locks these children out of their classrooms. As the coronavirus 
pandemic continues to threaten our nation, I believe it is in the 
public interest for the FCC to ensure that children learning from home 
can connect-to their online classrooms.
    Unfortunately, in your June 24th testimony before the Senate 
Commerce Committee, you stated that the Communication Act's reference 
to ``classrooms'' prohibits the FCC from utilizing the E-Rate program 
or waiving applicable rules so that beneficiaries of the program can 
utilize universal service funding to provide wireless service to 
existing school devices and hotspots for students. See 47 USC 
Sec. 254(b)(6). You also committed to me to review the FCC's 
interpretation of classroom under the statute.
    As I stated to you at the hearing, I believe your interpretation of 
``classroom'' callously disregards the fact that classrooms are now 
online for millions of students because of the pandemic and is 
unnecessarily narrow. The FCC appears to be unwilling to use the tools 
granted to it by law to aid our children as Congress intended. Please 
explain why the FCC has decided to adopt such a narrow interpretation 
``classroom'' under this statute?
    It also appears that the FCC has flexibility to provide funding to 
schools for ``educational purposes'' under 47 USC Sec. 254(h)(1)(b). 
Please explain why you have not exercised the FCC's authority under 
this section of the Act to allow schools to use E-Rate funds to connect 
to their students for educational purposes.
    In addition, the FCC has authority to designate additional services 
as eligible for E-Rate support under 47 USC Sec. 254(c)(3). Have you 
explored the ability of the FCC to fund connectivity to students under 
this provision of law? If so, why have you decided not to use the FCC's 
authority under this provision to connect children to their schools 
during the pandemic?
    Assuming that the statutory provisions listed above present 
insurmountable barriers that prevent the FCC from allowing schools to 
use E-Rate funds to connect to their students, the Act provides the FCC 
with explicit authority to forebear, on its own discretion, from 
statutes that limit the use of E-Rate funds if ``such provision or 
regulation is consistent with the public interest.'' See 47 USC 
Sec. 160(a)(3). Do you believe that it is in the public interest for 
school children to be connected to their classrooms during the 
pandemic? If so, why have you chosen not to forbear from applying 
Sec. 254(b)(6), Sec. 254(h)(1)(b), or any statute that governs the E-
Rate program that you believe prevents the FCC from allowing E-Rate 
funds to be used to connect children to their schools during the 
pandemic?
    Answer. Extended school closures due to COVID-19 have led to 
unprecedented disruption of K-12 education in this country. Schools 
have had to change the way they teach, and it is critical that parents 
and students stay connected so that they can participate in online 
learning from home during this crisis. The FCC aims to enable this 
transition to remote learning. But, as I explained during the recent 
Senate Commerce Committee oversight hearing, we face a major barrier: 
the Communications Act, which the FCC is duty-bound to administer, 
expressly limits the FCC's use of E-Rate program funding to broadband 
and other services delivered to school ``classrooms'' and libraries. As 
such, wireless connectivity and devices supplied to students at home 
unfortunately do not qualify for E-Rate support under the law, 
regardless of whether they are being used for educational purposes. And 
because agencies only have the authority granted to them by Congress, 
we do not have the authority to waive these statutory requirements. See 
City of Arlington, Tex. v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013); Chrysler 
Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 (1979). Nor does the Commission's 
authority under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 160 to ``forbear from applying any 
regulation or any provision of this Act to a telecommunications carrier 
or telecommunications service'' afford the Commission latitude in this 
regard; our forbearance authority does not extend to the lifting of 
Congressional limitations on the Commission's authority, including the 
statutory limitations on the Commission's ability to expend universal 
service funds outlined in Section 254.
    That's why we have been working, and will continue to work, with 
Congress on dedicated funding for remote learning. This includes 
funding for Wi-Fi hotspots, Wi-Fi enabled modems, end-user devices, and 
broadband connectivity for students who need these tools to do online 
learning at home. I remain willing to work with Congress on solutions 
to this problem, especially a remote learning initiative of the kind I 
proposed several months ago.
    I also would point out that Congress has also provided $16 billion 
in CARES Act funding--a massive injection of funding that is 400 
percent more than the annual cap for the E-Rate program--to help 
schools during COVID-19. Congress also made it explicit that this 
funding can be used for remote learning. We've been working with the 
Department of Education to help make sure that schools know about this 
important resource, and I would hope and expect that educators would 
prioritize their students' needs as they spend these funds. We've also 
been working with the Institute of Museum and Library Services to get 
the word out to libraries and Tribal organizations about CARES Act 
funding that is available to help the bridge the digital divide in 
their communities.

    Question 2. In your testimony, you explained that the FCC is using 
information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
and Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center to determine which 
applications should receive support through the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth 
Program. However, in the April 2, 2020, Report and Order announcing the 
COVID-19 Telehealth Program, the FCC identified several other factors 
in addition to CDC and John Hopkins data that the FCC would consider 
when reviewing providers' applications. These factors included:

   whether the provider served high-risk and vulnerable patient 
        populations;

   whether the provider was under existing strain due to large 
        underserved or low-income patient populations, health care 
        provider shortages, rural hospital closures, or limited 
        broadband access and/or Internet adoption rates, prior to the 
        crisis;

   whether the funds were being used to treat other types of 
        patients in order to prevent, prepare and respond to the 
        coronavirus; and

   whether the provider was using telemedicine in the 
        prevention of pandemic spread by facilitating social distancing 
        and similar measures in the community.

    Please explain how the FCC employed each of the four factors listed 
above to evaluate COVID-19 Telehealth applications. What metrics did 
the FCC use to ensure that these factors were considered in the FCC's 
decision-making process?
    Answer. In the COVID-19 Telehealth Program Order, consistent with 
Congress' directive and the urgent need for telehealth services in 
light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission directed the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to select participants and funding amounts for each 
selected applicant on a rolling basis and to ``target[] funding towards 
areas that have been hardest hit by COVID-19.'' The Commission expected 
the Bureau to ``use publicly available resources to help us identify 
these areas, such as data released by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, in addition to information provided by applicants.'' On 
the recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services, 
Commission staff used the objective Johns Hopkins data to help identify 
whether an application was from an area that was hardest hit by COVID-
19.
    After prioritizing for review applications from the hardest hit 
areas, as directed by the Commission, staff reviewed those applications 
in depth. As you note, the Commission ``strongly encourage[d] selected 
applicants to target the funding they receive through the COVID-19 
Telehealth Program to high-risk and vulnerable patients to the extent 
practicable,'' ``recognize[d] that some health care providers may have 
been under pre-existing strain,'' noted that ``treating other types of 
conditions or patient groups through the Commission's COVID-19 
Telehealth Program could free up resources . . . allow health care 
providers to remotely treat patients with other conditions who could 
risk contracting coronavirus by visiting a health care facility, and 
could reduce health care professionals' unnecessary exposure to 
coronavirus,'' and said that staff should ``consider as part of a 
health care provider's application a showing that telemedicine directly 
aids in the prevention of pandemic spread by facilitating social 
distancing and similar measures in the community,'' among other things. 
All of these factors were considered holistically, as relevant to any 
particular application.
    Altogether, the Commission was able to approve 539 applications in 
almost every state in the country, consistent with our overarching goal 
to ensure that Telehealth Program support would have the most 
significant possible impact in fighting the ongoing pandemic. There was 
incredible interest in the Program, and we were unable to approve the 
majority of applications, even from providers that were located in what 
qualified as the hardest hit areas. But I'm confident that the Program 
will prove its worth, both in the near and long terms.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. Thank you for your continued engagement on the issue of 
designating 9-8-8 as the three-digit code for our Nation's crisis 
hotlines. Although the vast majority of calls to the National Suicide 
Prevention Lifeline do not result in the dispatch of emergency 
services, for the 2 percent of calls that do, knowing the caller's 
location can be the difference between life and death.

  a.  What technological or other challenges exist today to making a 
        dispatchable location available for Lifeline caller?

  b.  Is the FCC considering how access to dispatchable location could 
        be accomplished through its current 9-8-8 rulemaking process? 
        If not, why not?

    Answer. The transmission of call location information, thus making 
a dispatchable location available for a Lifeline caller, is a 
technically complicated issue, as the Commission's Report and Order in 
the 988 rulemaking proceeding explains. By way of comparison, the FCC's 
E911 rules require wireless carriers to provide information regarding a 
caller's location to any Public Safety Answering Point that has 
requested its delivery, and wireless carriers have developed various 
techniques over the past several decades to provision this information. 
Here, however, carriers' and providers' networks are not set up to 
transmit location information to the National Suicide Prevention 
Lifeline, and the Lifeline is not set up to receive such information.
    Further, the FCC lacks the authority to compel the Lifeline and its 
call centers to accept geolocation information. The Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration, which organizes the Lifeline, 
however, has acknowledged that the Lifeline could benefit from 
geolocation capacities to assist and locate acutely suicidal 
individuals. Should our Federal partners at the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration and the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs wish to add dispatchable location capabilities to the 
Lifeline, the FCC could then elect to revisit this issue in a future 
proceeding that develops a detailed record on the various 
technological, logistical, and legal issues raised by the automatic 
transmission of geolocation and other caller data during a 988 call.
    In the interim, as fully explained in the Report and Order, the FCC 
did not wish to unduly delay or complicate implementation of 988 and 
the life-saving benefits it offers to Americans in crisis.

    Question 2. This December, Lifeline voice support is set to 
continue to sunset and the mobile broadband minimum is set to 
skyrocket. The Lifeline program has shrunk dramatically due in large 
part to the minimum service standards.
    What do you plan to do to restore Lifeline support for voice 
service and to ensure that the mobile broadband minimum service 
standards do not further restrict the availability of Lifeline across 
the country?
    Answer. Pursuant to the 2016 Lifeline Order, Lifeline support for 
service that includes a qualifying voice service but not a qualifying 
broadband service will transition from the current amount of $7.25 per 
month to $5.25 per month on December 1, 2020, while Lifeline support 
for qualifying broadband service will remain at $9.25 per month to 
encourage affordable modern communications services for low-income 
Americans. Also pursuant to the 2016 Lifeline Order, on December 1, 
2021, the support amount for service that does not include a qualifying 
broadband service will be eliminated, except in Census blocks where 
there is only one Lifeline provider, where Lifeline voice support will 
remain at $5.25 per month.
    When the Commission created the voice support phase-down in 2016, 
it noted that retail voice-only offerings were naturally declining in 
price as a result of a competitive marketplace, and the Commission 
aimed to target Lifeline support to modern broadband offerings, which 
had a higher price for service. Targeting Lifeline support in this way 
appropriately focuses finite universal service resources on broadband 
offerings to encourage Lifeline carriers to offer affordable 
communications services that enable low-income consumers to participate 
in the modern economy. And we have already seen this theory borne out 
in practice, as Lifeline providers have increased subscribers' access 
to broadband service to obtain the full $9.25 in Lifeline support. When 
Lifeline support for voice decreased from $9.25 per month to $7.25 per 
month in December 2019, the percentage of Lifeline subscribers 
receiving service that included both qualifying voice and qualifying 
broadband immediately jumped from 26 percent to 41 percent, while the 
percentage of Lifeline subscribers receiving support for Lifeline voice 
service without qualifying broadband immediately dropped from 29 
percent to 13 percent. An additional 46 percent of Lifeline subscribers 
received either standalone broadband or broadband bundled with voice 
service that did not meet the Lifeline minimum service standards. This 
result provides little reason to stop the transitioned phasedown of 
voice support that began in 2016, and indeed indicates that the 
phasedown has thus far maximized the impact of Lifeline disbursements 
to the benefit of low-income consumers.
    In 2016, the Commission also established minimum service standards 
for mobile voice and fixed and mobile broadband, along with mechanisms 
to automatically increase those standards each year, to ensure that 
Lifeline subscribers were not receiving second-class service relative 
to other subscribers. Last year, the 2016 Lifeline Order's formula to 
update the standard for mobile broadband data capacity yielded a 
minimum service standard of 8.75 GB per month, which the Wireline 
Competition Bureau subsequently adjusted to 3 GB in an order partially 
granting a petition for waiver. This year, the 2016 Lifeline Order's 
problematic formula would yield a minimum service standard of 11.75 GB 
per month--that's why I've circulated to my colleagues an order on 
reconsideration that would result in a more predictable formula going 
forward while still increasing the minimum standard to 4.5 GB for next 
year so that subscribers don't receive second-class service.

    Question 3. Have you considered raising the support amount so that 
Lifeline subscribers can get more data?
    Answer. I believe that the current approach that the Commission has 
adopted and implemented for Lifeline reimbursement ensures that we 
maximize our resources to support quality services at more affordable 
rates for low-income Americans. The Commission's minimum service 
standards set a floor from which eligible telecommunications carriers 
(ETCs) must offer service, and we have seen ETCs offer more data than 
is required to meet market demands.
    Additionally, we cannot ignore the fact that any increase in 
Lifeline support would impact the Universal Service Fund contribution 
factor, which is proposed to be 26.5 percent for the third quarter of 
2020. Taxpayers bear the burden of any increase in universal service 
support, and an increase in the Lifeline reimbursement rate will impact 
these consumers, who are, of course, from all income brackets and often 
include low-and middle-income Americans. I do not believe that now is 
the right time to ask even more of taxpayers.

    Question 4. What do you plan to do to increase participation in the 
Lifeline program to ensure that Lifeline is meeting its potential to 
close the digital divide?
    Answer. The Commission's rules require every Lifeline carrier to 
advertise the availability of Lifeline (requiring such carriers to 
``[p]ublicize the availability of Lifeline service in a manner 
reasonably designed to reach those likely to qualify for the 
service'')--and many carriers do so aggressively.
    Furthermore, the FCC and Universal Service Administration Company 
(USAC) staff have undertaken numerous efforts to promote Lifeline 
awareness to ensure that consumers who are eligible for the program 
have the information and resources they need to apply. These efforts 
have involved coordination with a variety of government agencies and 
non-profit organizations, including Federal and state agencies that 
administer programs like the SNAP and Medicaid, through which consumers 
can qualify for Lifeline. At the Federal level, FCC and USAC staff have 
been coordinating with a number of agencies, including:

   The Department of Health and Human Services, including the 
        Administration for Children and Families, the Administration 
        for Community Living, the Agency for Healthcare Research and 
        Quality, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the 
        Indian Health Service, the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
        for Planning and Evaluation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental 
        Health Services Administration;

   The Department of Veterans Affairs, including the Veterans 
        Health Administration's Homeless Programs Office and Office of 
        Connected Care;

   The Department of Housing and Urban Development, including 
        the Office of Field Policy and Management, the Office of 
        Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing;

   The Department of Agriculture;

   The Bureau of Indian Affairs;

   The Social Security Administration;

   The Department of Commerce, including the National 
        Telecommunications and Information Administration; and

   The National Institute for Children's Health Quality.

    Through these coordination efforts, FCC and USAC staff have shared 
Lifeline materials for distribution to low-income consumers, presented 
program information to agency employees both in Washington, D.C. and 
regional field offices interested in learning about and promoting 
awareness of the program among their constituents, and organized 
customized training sessions for agency stakeholders who serve on the 
front lines in providing support to low-income individuals who may 
qualify for Lifeline.
    At the state level, the Commission has partnered with the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to spread awareness of 
the Lifeline program among low-income populations, including consumers 
who may be newly eligible for the program. USAC has also distributed 
outreach materials directly to state government agencies that 
administer SNAP and Medicaid programs across the United States, urging 
them to inform consumers of their eligibility for Lifeline. In 
addition, the FCC and USAC have expanded access to the Lifeline 
National Eligibility Verifier to enable state agencies to take a more 
hands-on role in helping consumers apply for the Lifeline program. With 
this access, state departments of health and human services and state 
social service agencies can assist consumers with submitting their 
online applications, uploading eligibility or other documentation (as 
needed), and tracking the status of their Lifeline program 
applications.
    At the local level, USAC has distributed Lifeline materials to over 
13,000 food banks, homeless shelters, and other direct service 
organizations to ensure people in need are aware of the Lifeline 
program. USAC has also conducted five Lifeline consumer advocate 
training sessions since May, two of which were designed for consumer 
advocates serving residents on Tribal lands who may need assistance in 
applying for enhanced Lifeline support. USAC also provided additional 
trainings for hundreds of consumer advocates as a result of our ongoing 
conversations with state and Federal partners.
    Finally, FCC and USAC staff have also created a toolkit of Lifeline 
resources for our Federal and state partners, which is posted on the 
USAC website at https://www.usac.org/lifeline/learn/lifeline-resources-
for-state-and-federal-partners/, so that any agency that needs it can 
easily provide its stakeholders with information about the program and 
how to apply. We expect that our Lifeline outreach and coordination 
with federal, state, and local partners will continue in the coming 
months and years to ensure low-income families get and stay connected 
to broadband and phone service.

    Question 5. Broadcast licensees are seeing a fee increase this 
year, in addition to one they experienced last year. While I understand 
these fees increases are driven, at least in part, by increased 
workload at the FCC, as you know, broadcasters have experienced a 
massive drop in revenue as a result of the ongoing pandemic and the 
accompanying loss of advertising.

  c.  In light of that, has the Commission considered freezing these 
        fee increases while the pandemic continues?

  d.  Are other FCC licensees also seeing similar increases in their 
        regulatory fees this year?

  e.  Can you share the data or formula the Commission uses to 
        determine the fee structure placed on licensees?

    Answer. I recognize that local radio and television broadcasters 
are providing essential information to listeners and viewers during 
this unprecedented time. I have publicly commended the industry for all 
that they have done--and continue to do--to serve the public. At the 
same time, as you note, these stations are facing incredible financial 
uncertainty because they rely primarily on over-the-air advertising as 
a revenue source.
    The Commission has taken steps during this crisis to ease 
regulatory burdens, as appropriate, on the entities that we regulate. 
But the collection of regulatory fees is one area where the law set 
forth by Congress is explicit. We must assess fees that can reasonably 
be expected to equal the amount of funds appropriated by Congress. We 
must collect these fees by September 30 of each year. We must allocate 
the fees fairly across all of the fee payor entities. And we cannot 
exempt entities that do not already have an exemption in the statute, 
such as the de minimis exemption.
    There is some flexibility, however, to offer extended payment terms 
at nominal interest rates for regulatory fee payors that demonstrate 
they face significant financial challenges, just like we did for some 
regulatees impacted by hurricanes in 2017 and 2018. We have sought 
comment on such an approach in our annual Regulatory Fees Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, which was adopted on May 13. Alternatively, 
Congress could choose to modify the existing statutory language to 
provide additional flexibility--including providing an extension of 
time to file beyond September 30.
    As you note, the potential increase in fees each year is dependent 
on how much Congress appropriates to the Commission to complete its 
mission and how much Congress requires us to collect from regulatees. 
We revisit the allocation annually to reflect changes in both the 
appropriation to be recovered and the distribution of FTEs across the 
core bureaus (International Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau) whose 
regulatees pay the fees. Accordingly, each year, some licensees see 
increases in their fees and some see decreases. The Commission follows 
the same process each year by initiating a proceeding regarding the 
collection of regulatory fees. Within that NPRM, the Commission's fee 
allocation methodology is described in detail. The NPRM is available 
at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-64A1.pdf.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. I am proud of the providers in my state for going above 
and beyond to support their communities. Especially the small providers 
who are facing economic hardships of their own. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan Keeping Critical Connections Act, which would reduce some of 
the weight on these small providers. As Congress discusses how best to 
help these small providers, are there any gaps we should consider?
    Answer. Despite facing financial challenges during the pandemic, 
many smaller broadband and telephone service providers agreed to take 
the FCC's Keep Americans Connected Pledge--a voluntary commitment not 
to terminate service for inability to pay, to waive any late fees, and 
to open Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs them. I'm proud of the 
fact that over 780 broadband and telephone service providers across the 
country, including many small providers, took the Pledge and thus 
agreed to take these concrete steps to help Americans stay connected 
with broadband or telephone connectivity during the COVID-19 outbreak. 
Many of these same companies have gone above and beyond the Pledge and 
taken additional steps to maintain or expand connectivity during the 
pandemic and agreed to extend their Pledge and additional offerings to 
consumers through June 30, 2020.
    But these companies, especially small ones, cannot continue to 
provide service without being paid for an indefinite period of time; no 
business in any sector of our economy could. That's why I wrote to 
Congress in June, urging consideration of the Broadband Connectivity 
and Digital Equity Framework proposed by Chairman Roger Wicker of the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. That comprehensive 
framework would be a good starting point for legislation that would aid 
small providers.
    One gap that I would like to bring your attention--to the extent 
Congress considers the Keeping Critical Connections Act--is that this 
legislation does not appear to address small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills.

    Question 2. Should we include small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills?
    Answer. As noted above, I agree that any legislation offering 
support to small providers should encompass those that have aided small 
businesses during the pandemic.

    Question 3. What can Congress do to ensure these resources are 
going to the small providers that need them the most?
    Answer. Providing flexibility to the Commission to appropriately 
target such small providers would aid in getting funding to those that 
need it most in a timely manner.

    Question 4. With regards to the proposed 5G Fund, how will this 
affect my constituents that are still waiting on 3G and 4G service? 
Will communities that currently have 4G receive 5G ahead of them? How 
does the FCC plan to make these decisions?
    Answer. The Commission sought comment on two approaches to Phase I 
of the 5G Fund for Rural America. The first would use existing data to 
assess how rural an area is and prioritize support to those that 
historically have lacked 3G and 4G LTE mobile coverage. The second 
would defer the auction until the Commission is able to collect and 
process new mobile coverage data through the Digital Opportunity Data 
Collection and identify and target support to those areas where it is 
needed most. The public comment period in this proceeding recently 
closed, and I look forward to reviewing the record and working with my 
fellow commissioners to chart the best course forward. Generally 
speaking, we want to make sure that those without 4G or 3G service 
today will benefit soon from the 5G revolution, rather than expending 
public funds to help deliver existing wireless technologies at 
precisely the moment when urban Americans are beginning to enjoy the 
technologies of the future.

    Question 5. Why would the FCC consider spending the entire 10-year 
Fund based on maps that we know to be inaccurate, and which will soon 
be replaced?
    Answer. The Commission has not proposed to spend any amount of the 
5G Fund for Rural America based on inaccurate maps. Rather, we have 
sought comment on two different options for distributing funding as 
discussed in my prior answer, neither of which would be based on 
current Form 477 data.

    Question 6. Between the rural broadband initiatives and the race to 
5G, there is a lot of money going out the door for infrastructure. Do 
we currently have the telecommunications workforce we need to keep up 
with the investments we're making in our networks?
    Answer. That's a good question. And that's why when I rechartered 
the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee last year, we created a 
working group dedicated to Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Job 
Skills and Training Opportunities. Among other things, the working 
group is studying whether our telecommunications workforce is keeping 
pace with the evolving communications network, and I expect a report 
from them later this year. On July 29, the BDAC meeting included 
consideration of this very issue, as have previous meetings held on 
March 27, 2020, December 3, 2019, and September 19, 2019.

    Question 7. What steps should we be taking now to ensure that 
providers have enough skilled workers in rural areas to handle the 
demands of these substantial new universal service programs?
    Answer. Ensuring sufficient and predictable universal service 
support is available in rural areas is an important component of 
empowering the providers in those areas to attract the skilled workers 
they need. I also would draw your attention to innovative public-
private partnerships that are underway. For instance, the 
Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program is a 
joint venture involving telecommunications companies, industry 
associations like the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the U.S. 
Department of Labor to develop Department-credentialed apprenticeship 
programs available to qualified employers for the training and career 
development of the telecommunications workforce. I do not have 
particular legislative solutions in mind, but am sure those involved in 
the TIRAP would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with you to 
augment their efforts.

    Question 8. Has COVID-19 altered our workforce needs?
    Answer. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as a reminder of the 
importance of closing the digital divide for all Americans--and the 
importance of ensuring our communications workforce is sufficient to 
keep up with demand, especially when short-term needs in particular 
markets require immediate augmentation of network capacity. I look 
forward to reviewing the report from the Broadband Deployment Advisory 
Committee on this and similar matters later this year.

    Question 9. FCC is administering the three-year $100 million 
Connected Care Pilot Program. Based on FCC's perspective, what have 
been some key challenges for rural communities to access telehealth 
services via broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer. Even before the pandemic, many rural communities 
experienced challenges accessing telehealth. As explained in the Report 
and Order establishing the Covid-19 Telehealth Program and the 
Connected Care Pilot Program, the costs associated with implementing 
telehealth, limitations on medical reimbursements for telehealth, and 
medical licensing laws are some key factors that prevented wider 
adoption of telehealth prior to COVID-19 for many health care providers 
nationwide, including in rural areas. General health care provider 
shortages and broadband access and costs also have impacted access to 
telehealth in many rural communities.
    As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care providers 
serving rural and non-rural communities turned toward telehealth 
solutions. Recent temporary changes in medical reimbursements for 
telehealth and licensing laws have facilitated the wider use of 
telehealth. However, there are still significant costs associated with 
implementing telehealth that impact providers in rural and non-rural 
areas equally. In addition, for some rural communities, gaps in 
broadband access continue to limit access to telehealth. This 
underscores the importance of moving ahead with vigor to implement 
Phase I of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund on October 29. Broadband 
is the sine qua non of connected care, and it follows that the longer 
FCC delays the delivery of broadband to millions of American consumers, 
the longer those consumers will be denied the benefits of connected 
care.

    Question 10. I am specifically interested in making sure that our 
veterans in rural and Native American communities have timely access to 
VA telehealth services. Is there any coordination between FCC and other 
agencies, including VA?
    Answer. Yes, very much so. The FCC has worked closely with other 
Federal agencies concerning telehealth, including the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the 
Department of Agriculture's Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. 
In particular, the VA collaboration has provided the FCC with key 
insights into the VA's important telehealth efforts, as well as the 
challenges that the VA experiences in deploying telehealth to veterans, 
including veterans in rural areas and Native American communities. I've 
seen that for myself during many visits to VA facilities across the 
country, including the Tele-Mental Health Hub in Salt Lake City, the 
groundbreaking tele-dermatology program in Providence, Rhode Island, 
and other VA facilities from Lecanto, Florida to Boise, Idaho. I also 
have collaborated in joint events in Washington with VA leadership to 
emphasize our commonality of purpose and effort. The FCC continues to 
welcome ongoing discussions and coordination with other Federal 
agencies concerning this important issue.

    Question 11. What happens to the pilot program after three years?
    Answer. The Pilot Program is intended to be of limited duration (as 
most pilots are) in order to help us determine whether and how USF 
funds could help support the trend towards connected care services over 
the long term, particularly for low-income Americans and veterans. The 
Pilot Program will benefit many patients directly, as well as provide 
meaningful data and information that could inform next steps by the 
Commission as well as other agencies that have a role to play in 
regulating or funding telehealth services. At the conclusion of the 
three-year Pilot Program, the Commission will be able to review the 
data generated by health care providers selected to participate and 
consider whether it is appropriate to make support for connected care 
services an ongoing part of the Universal Service Fund into the future.

    Question 12. While the FCC moves forward on designating 9-8-8 as 
the 3-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, select 
providers are already enabling 988 for their subscribers. If 988 
becomes available in some areas but not others over this period, it 
will be vital to avoid consumer confusion in areas where 988 is not 
operational or ubiquitous. Does the FCC have sufficient authority to 
ensure that telecom providers are able coordinate with relevant 
stakeholders, including Lifeline administrators on 988 readiness?
    Answer. At the July Open Meeting, the Commission adopted my 
proposal to require voice service providers to transmit 988 calls to 
the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by July 16, 2022--the earliest 
technically-feasible date for nationwide implementation of 988. The new 
rules will apply to all telecommunications carriers as well as all 
interconnected and one-way Voice over Internet Protocol providers. The 
two-year transition reflects the real challenges of this nationwide 
effort, including the need for widespread network changes and providing 
time for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline to prepare for the 
expected increase in the volume of calls. Some phone companies urged us 
to roll out 988 on a phased-in basis. But a uniform implementation date 
will minimize potentially deadly consumer confusion that could result 
from having 988 available in some, but not all, areas. Although some 
providers may implement 988 before the deadline, I anticipate less 
consumer confusion with a single widely known ``available-no-later-
than'' date, accompanied by coordinated, national consumer education 
campaigns by our Federal partners. The FCC expects and encourages 
providers to coordinate with the FCC, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration (SAMHSA), and Department of Veterans Affairs 
staff before moving forward with early adoption, which will further 
facilitate clear and informative public education campaigns.

    Question 13. Will the FCC use their authority to ensure service 
providers inform relevant stakeholders of their intention to make 988 
available prior to notifying subscribers?
    Answer. The FCC expects that providers planning to implement early 
will coordinate with the FCC, SAMHSA, and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, the latter two of which have the primary responsibility to 
facilitate clear and informative public-education campaigns. To this 
end, the Order provides an e-mail [email protected] providers 
considering whether to implement early to contact. FCC staff will 
monitor that e-mail address and share any information received with 
SAMHSA and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Question 14. What plan does the FCC have to ensure clear, uniform 
public messaging regarding the availability of 988 and what challenges 
does the FCC anticipate?
    Answer. The Order designates 988 as the 3-digit dialing code for 
the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline run by SAMHSA, in partnership 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Establishing the easy-to-
remember 988 as the ``911'' for suicide prevention and mental health 
services will make it easier for Americans in crisis to access the help 
they need. We will continue to work with Federal and local partners, 
and leaders of communities most impacted by this crisis, to help raise 
awareness in any way we can. Our role, however, is limited--we cannot 
and do not wish to usurp the role of our Federal partners or others in 
operating or promoting the Lifeline itself. Our partners at the 
Departments of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs will have the lead role when it comes to educating the public 
regarding 988 and preparing the Lifeline to handle the expected 
increase in calls to this vital resource for Americans in crisis, and 
we are confident that they will do so effectively as they have for many 
other critical health initiatives.

    Question 15. In respect to Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
how did the FCC determine the funding levels for each phase?
    Answer. The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund represents the 
Commission's boldest step yet in bridging the digital divide. Building 
upon the success of the CAF Phase II auction, the $20.4 billion Rural 
Digital Opportunity Fund will use a two-phase reverse auction that will 
provide support for up to gigabit service to millions of unserved 
Americans who currently lack access to fixed 25/3 Mbps broadband. Phase 
I will target up to $16 billion in support over ten years to wholly 
unserved census blocks--those areas where no one disputes that there is 
no service at all--in order to make sure that the areas most in need 
will get broadband service quickly. The Commission adopted $16 billion 
for Phase I given the likely eligible areas and what our cost-modeling 
predicts it will cost to deploy to those areas. Nearly 5.4 million 
American homes and businesses that current data show are unserved could 
receive a broadband connection through the Phase I auction. It is 
important to set the budget for the Phase I auction high enough to 
ensure there is sufficient support for the areas that are eligible 
while fostering healthy competition for support between eligible 
bidders.
    Phase II will make available at least $4.4 billion (and potentially 
more, as any funds not awarded in Phase I will be rolled into Phase II) 
to fill in the remaining coverage gaps by supporting networks that will 
serve partially unserved census blocks that will be identified in the 
Commission's ongoing Digital Opportunity Data Collection proceeding, 
along with areas that did not have a winning bidder in Phase I. The 
Commission recognized the need for flexibility, which is why we 
specifically contemplated revisiting the Phase II budget after the 
Phase I auction and completion of the Phase II data collection, when we 
know precisely the areas and unserved locations eligible for Phase II.

    Question 16. What is the total population of the eligible areas, 
and how does that compare to the FCC's estimates for the number of 
people who lack broadband access?
    Answer. Commission staff estimate that approximately 10.4 million 
Americans live in unserved areas that are eligible for support through 
the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction. That number 
represents more than half of the 18.3 million Americans that the 
Commission's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report shows lack access to 25/3 
Mbps broadband, far and away the largest single step the Commission has 
taken to close the digital divide and bring broadband to unserved 
Americans. The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction casts a 
wide net, and includes almost all high cost, wholly unserved census 
blocks that are not yet receiving any other support for broadband 
deployment. Many of the remaining 8 million Americans reported as 
unserved in the Broadband Deployment Report will receive broadband 
connections though one of the Commission's other universal service 
programs, like the CAF Phase II auction, the first and second ACAM 
programs, and the CAF BLS legacy support program for small, rural 
carriers.

    Question 17. Will there be a challenge process for Phase 1 of RDOF?
    Answer. Yes. In March, the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau 
released the preliminary list of census blocks and a map of areas 
deemed initially eligible for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase 
I auction. A challenge process then commenced--a process that was 
completed last month.

    Question 18. What is the FCC's vetting process to ensure that 
broadband providers are actually able to provide adequate connections?
    Answer. Before being qualified to receive support in the Rural 
Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction, an applicant is required to 
demonstrate its financial and technical ability to provide broadband 
and voice service at its proposed speed and latency using the 
applicant's proposed technology. This process proved effective for 
screening potential bidders in 2018 for the successful Connect America 
Phase II auction. In addition, winning bidders will be required to 
obtain an irrevocable standby letter of credit to safeguard the 
universal service funds in the event a bidder fails to build a network 
serving all required areas. The letter of credit requirements provide 
important protections for the taxpayers that fund universal service 
program support, while minimizing burdens on participants. Commission 
staff will closely scrutinize auction applications to ensure that all 
applicants are proposing to use technologies that will be successful in 
providing mass market broadband services to consumers. Then, once 
service providers have deployed their networks, the deployments will be 
verified and will be subject to speed and latency testing under the 
Commission's CAF Performance Measures rules.

    Question 19. In regards to the IP CTS, since the FCC has decided to 
allow conditional certification of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR)-
only service, will the FCC provide a warning to hard-of-hearing 
consumers that ASR-only services are experimental? How will the elderly 
and our veterans going to know that they might be taking a risk?
    Answer. While ASR-only IP CTS may be new, most IP CTS providers 
already use ASR in some form as part of their service. The Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau recently granted conditional certifications 
for ASR-only IP CTS service, and the companies will be required to 
provide the Commission with data to ensure that the service meets our 
minimum quality standards applicable to all IP CTS providers. Each of 
the applications was thoroughly reviewed, and an independent entity 
provided a technical assessment. Consumers will continue to have a 
choice of IP CTS providers--including those that offer communications 
assistants--and under the FCC's rules, consumers are free to switch 
providers at any time for any reason.

    Question 20. Has the FCC considered using a pilot program to test 
the Automated Speech Recognition venders?
    Answer. MITRE Corp., the Commission's contractor that provides the 
National Test Lab, previously provided detailed testing of various IP 
CTS technologies as part of the Commission's proceeding and also 
performs a specific assessment of the technology to be used as part of 
any individual application. Because the conditions placed on the 
recently adopted ASR-only certifications ensure that reliable data will 
be provided to the Commission regarding the quality of service 
provided, the conditional authorizations serve the same purpose as a 
pilot program, with the added benefit of providing consumers with the 
opportunity to try out these new technologies. In short, the 
conditional authorizations provide consumers with additional choice of 
providers without delay.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                             Hon. Ajit Pai
    Question 1. Tribes across the country have been disproportionately 
affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Across the Southwest, COVID-19 
takes lives at rates 19 percent higher than other racial or ethnic 
groups. The Navajo Nation have had more people infected with the 
coronavirus per capita than any state in the country. As I mentioned to 
you at the hearing, I concerned this will impact applications to the 
priority filing window for the 2.5GHz band.
    This opportunity has never before been offered to Tribes and is a 
good step in the direction to address the broadband gap that has 
existed in Indian Country for far too long. It is critical Tribes have 
adequate time to learn about the spectrum and determine if they are 
eligible.
    Following our discussion at the hearing and your opportunity for 
further review, will you commit to a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5GHz band?
    Answer. I agree with you that the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority 
Window is a unique opportunity for Tribal entities to get access to 
prime mid-band spectrum. That's why I directed the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Native Affairs and Policy 
to engage in an extensive effort to ensure robust participation in the 
Rural Tribal Priority Window. In December 2019, the Bureau announced 
the filing window would last for 182 days--from February 3, 2020 
through August 3, 2020--responding to concerns from some Tribes that 
the initial 60-day filing window contemplated in the Commission's order 
might be too short. And by January 15, 2020, Bureau or ONAP staff had 
reached out to every federally recognized Tribe and Alaska Native 
Village by phone or other direct contact to discuss the filing window. 
And those efforts have borne fruit. As of today, rural Tribes have 
submitted 170 applications in the Commission's Universal Licensing 
System. Nonetheless, I agree that we must consider whether an extension 
is warranted, and staff are currently working on that issue.

    Question 2. An estimated 17 percent of U.S. students do not have 
access to computers at home and 18 percent do not have access to 
broadband internet--necessities for Arizona students to access online 
learning during this crisis. I support legislation to provide 
additional funds for schools and libraries through the E-Rate program 
for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet-enabled devices, so students have equal 
access to online learning.
    Do you agree that additional E-Rate funding in an upcoming 
coronavirus relief bill can help tackle the Homework Gap for students 
that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. Extended school closures due to COVID-19 have led to 
unprecedented disruption of K-12 education in this country. Schools 
have had to change the way students are taught, and it is critical that 
parents and students stay connected so that they can participate in 
online learning from home during this crisis. The FCC aims to enable 
this transition to remote learning. But we face a major barrier: the 
Communications Act, which the FCC is duty-bound to administer, 
expressly limits the FCC's use of E-Rate program funding to broadband 
and other services delivered to school ``classrooms'' and libraries. 
Connectivity and devices supplied to students at home unfortunately do 
not qualify for E-Rate support under the law.
    That's why I have been working, and will continue to work, with 
Congress on dedicated funding for remote learning. This includes 
funding for Wi-Fi hotspots, Wi-Fi enabled modems, end-user devices, and 
broadband connectivity for students who need these tools to do online 
learning at home. I remain willing to work with you on solutions to 
this problem, especially a remote learning initiative of the kind I 
proposed several months ago.
    I would note that Congress has already provided $16 billion in 
CARES Act funding to help schools during COVID-19, and this funding can 
be used for remote learning. And we've been working with the Department 
of Education to help make sure that schools know about this important 
resource. We've also been working with the Institute of Museum and 
Library Services to get the word out to libraries and Tribal 
organizations about CARES Act funding that is available to help the 
bridge the digital divide in their communities.

    Question 3. Based on the widespread concerns for the continuing 
viability of GPS, do you support a stay of the Ligado decision to allow 
for further review of the studies relied upon for the decision and an 
opportunity for additional input from potentially impacted 
stakeholders?
    Answer. The Commission's unanimous, bipartisan decision imposes 
stringent conditions on Ligado's application to deploy a low-power 
terrestrial network in L-band spectrum. These conditions serve to 
protect GPS operations, which are important to our national security 
and economy, from harmful interference. The Commission has received 
several petitions for reconsideration, including requests that we 
review our approach to evaluating interference concerns. The Commission 
also has received a petition to stay the effect of the Ligado Order. I 
can assure you that the Commission will give full consideration to the 
issues raised.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. Do you support the FCC beginning Phase I of the RDOF 
auction on October 29, 2020 as currently scheduled? Yes or no? If no, 
when should the FCC begin Phase I of the RDOF auction? Please provide a 
specific date. If the date is past October 29, 2020, please explain why 
the Federal Communications Commission should delay providing support to 
known unserved areas in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Phase 
I auction?
    Answer. I have concerns with the auction as currently scheduled. 
For years it has been apparent that the Federal Communications 
Commission's broadband data and maps suffer from fundamental flaws. The 
uncomfortable truth is that the agency does not know where broadband is 
and is not with any sort of precision. In fact, a trade organization 
representing some of the country's largest carriers did a pilot project 
and found that 38 percent of the homes and businesses the FCC counted 
as served had no service at all.
    For this reason, I believe the FCC should have made efforts to 
improve our data and maps years ago or, at a minimum, at the same time 
that we advanced our Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) policies. 
Instead, the agency is on a path to commit 80 percent of this broadband 
funding for the next ten years this October without any new data to 
inform this effort. If we're going to spend billions in public funds on 
improving service in rural America, I don't think it's too much to ask 
that we do it with speed and get it right.
    Of course, my preferred approach did not carry the day with my 
colleagues at the FCC. Therefore, as I testified, I acknowledge that 
the agency intends to move ahead with the RDOF auction in October.
    Because I have concerns with the course we have chosen, you ask 
what date would be appropriate to hold this auction. I share with you a 
desire to move fast to address the digital divide. But I believe giving 
out the bulk of our funds before we have honest and accurate data is a 
mistake. As I suggested when I testified, I believe we could start on 
the scheduled date with a smaller amount and proceed with the remainder 
after an all-hands-on-deck effort to improve our information. Failing 
to do this will lead to budget problems, with the agency draining its 
available resources before understanding the full scope of our 
broadband problems. As a result, with our existing approach we risk 
leaving significant portions of rural America behind.

    Question 2. During the hearing, you testified that you would 
structure the RDOF differently. Please describe how you would 
restructure the $20.4 billion RDOF to ensure both speed in distributing 
broadband resources and accuracy in targeting broadband resources to 
unserved areas. Please include specific dollar amounts for funding to 
be made available in both the Phase I and Phase II auctions, and an 
approximate date to begin each auction.
    Answer. Last year, when the FCC was considering the rulemaking that 
led to the establishment of the RDOF, I asked that my colleagues seek 
comment on alternative approaches. Specifically, I requested that we 
ask questions about alternatives to committing 80 percent of the total 
RDOF budget for the next ten years in our earliest phase of spending, 
known as Phase I. I was concerned then, and remain concerned now, that 
with the known problems in our existing data, this course would lead to 
too few funds available in later phases of spending. This lack of 
funding will prevent the agency from providing adequate support to a 
substantial number of rural communities in the future. I regret that my 
colleagues did not agree to my request. As a result, the FCC lacks a 
public record detailing alternative approaches to these funds, the 
calendar for spending, and the integration of more precise broadband 
deployment data into our ongoing RDOF efforts. Without such a record, 
developing a precise alternative is difficult. But it is clear that 
proceeding as planned means spending the bulk of our funds before we 
have accurate data. This approach risks leaving significant portions of 
rural America behind.
    The FCC has already acknowledged that this is true. In fact, in the 
RDOF decision at the start of this year, in light of deficiencies in 
our data, the FCC recognized the record reflects that ``the size of the 
budget may be insufficient to serve all of the unserved locations.'' It 
acknowledged that this would require ``reassessing the adequacy of the 
budget after Phase I.'' In other words, the FCC intends to reassess the 
budget for RDOF after the vast majority of the funds are already spent. 
I do not think this is prudent and fear it will result in rural 
communities that do not have service and an agency that does not have 
resources to offer them support.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. The 2.5GHz Rural Tribal Window is a unique opportunity 
to help bring greater Internet connectivity to tribal entities through 
direct access to spectrum. The current pandemic is occupying many 
resources that would otherwise be available for applying for this 
program. Is the FCC considering extending the application deadline to 
accommodate the current crisis?
    Answer. The decision to extend the application deadline for the 2.5 
GHz Rural Tribal Window lies with the Chairman of the Federal 
Communications Commission. However, in light of the ongoing COVID-19 
pandemic, I fully support such an extension.
    The available data demonstrate that far too many of our Tribal 
Lands lack the Internet infrastructure that is essential in the digital 
age. In an effort to remedy this problem, last year the FCC provided 
federally-recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Villages on rural Tribal 
Lands, and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands a ``priority window'' 
to obtain 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve rural Tribal Lands. The FCC 
determined it would keep this window open for 180 days in order to give 
Tribes the time they needed to apply.
    Since the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the FCC has acted quickly to 
offer other communities extensions of their regulatory deadlines. For 
instance, when companies suggested they needed more time to clear the 
3.5 GHz band because of the pandemic, we obliged. We also pushed back 
the start of this spectrum auction, again citing business disruptions 
caused by the ongoing public health emergency. The FCC even granted an 
extension of time to a foreign company it is investigating as a 
national security threat to the United States.
    Tribal communities face similar--if not greater--challenges as 
these other communities when it comes to participating in FCC 
proceedings during the pandemic, if not more. So we should offer the 
same courtesy here too. This spectrum can deliver major benefits to 
rural Tribal communities. They should not be prevented from having 
their opportunity to apply for it as a result of this public health 
emergency. An extension will ensure Tribes have adequate time to make 
the most of this first-of-its-kind opportunity. Accordingly, I would 
support extending the deadline and committing to ensuring every rural 
Tribal community has an equitable opportunity to receive spectrum 
licenses.

    Question 2. How is the FCC preparing for the utilization of beam 
forming, beam steering, and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing in the next 
generation of transportation?
    Answer. New intelligent transportation efforts provide 
opportunities to substantially increase safety on our roadways. To this 
end, manufacturers are installing capabilities like lane departure 
warning systems, adaptive cruise control, back-up and side cameras, and 
other driver assistance systems. Many of these capabilities are made 
possible by technologies like radar, LIDAR, cameras, sensors, on-board 
mapping tools, or cellular and Wi-Fi networks.
    For the next generation of transportation, some stakeholders also 
are exploring opportunities to integrate more advanced communications 
technologies into infrastructure and into vehicles. Specifically, 
vehicles within the Intelligent Transportation Service framework will 
sense the driving environment and exchange data with other vehicles and 
infrastructure. Smart antenna systems that utilize capabilities like 
beam forming, beam steering, and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing will improve 
these sensing and sharing capabilities and improve coverage range, 
capacity, data-rate, and quality of service. This in turn holds promise 
to advance both safety and American productivity.
    The FCC is preparing for the future of transportation by 
participating in international standards-setting efforts that are 
developing capabilities like beam forming, beam steering, and dynamic 
spectrum sharing for 5G and related verticals and by making available 
flexible-use spectrum for these new technologies. In addition, we have 
started a rulemaking to explore how best to encourage innovation in the 
5.9 GHz band for transportation while also ensuring that the spectrum 
is put to its highest and best use. Our proposal currently includes new 
opportunities for C-V2X technology for connecting vehicles in this band 
which features a protocol consistent with 3GPP standards that provide 
for beam forming, beam steering, and dynamic spectrum sharing. In 
addition, the FCC is examining its equipment authorization procedures 
to update its measurement techniques for approving these advanced 
technologies.

    Question 3. What is the plan for spectrum allocation, aside from 
DSRC and 802.11P for the DOT, for being able to de-conflict all modes 
of transportation on the same network?
    Answer. The FCC aims to provide spectrum access to support all 
economic sectors, including transportation. In doing so, the agency 
aims to implement rules that ensure that the potential for interference 
among different users is minimized. For example, the FCC's rules permit 
vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band using a licensed-by-rule 
approach that allows multiple users to co-exist on the spectrum without 
the risk of harmful interference. In the 5.9 GHz band, the agency is 
examining how best to update its 20-year old rules requiring Dedicated 
Short Range Communications so the American public can reap the greatest 
benefit from the spectrum, including access to newer safety 
technologies. The FCC has a number of technical and regulatory tools 
available to it to permit multiple users to share spectrum or to ensure 
successful co-existence among nearby users. In addition, advancements 
in technology and ongoing standards work that seeks to harmonize DSRC 
and C-V2X technologies hold promise to ensure similar success for 
future transportation-related spectrum decisions.

    Question 4. Does the FCC support or see advantages in utilizing 
localized wireless networks that keep information as localized as 
possible and could serve educational or medical districts--especially 
in places that might not have extensive fiber infrastructure--that that 
allow more connectivity for children and the workforce?
    Answer. For more than 55 million students nationwide, school is 
closed. The buildings are shut and the classrooms are empty. To manage 
the spread of COVID-19, learning has migrated online. The same is true 
for healthcare. This isn't easy for anyone--but for millions of 
students who lack a reliable Internet connection at home, it is 
especially hard. These students fall into the what is known as the 
``Homework Gap.''
    At the FCC, we are updating the way we think about spectrum policy 
in ways that will help ensure spectrum is available for educational and 
medical needs at the local level. In the Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service, the FCC's rules permit general authorized access users to use 
this spectrum without license or prior approval from the FCC. In 
addition, on July 23 the agency will begin an auction of licenses in 
this band at the county level. These licenses naturally lend themselves 
to providing localized coverage to all sectors of the economy, 
including for education and medical needs. In fact, we've seen interest 
from entities supporting localized industrial operations eager to use 
this spectrum for intelligent manufacturing, power generation and 
distribution, healthcare, and more. In addition, the FCC recently 
proposed more flexibility for TV white space devices that operate on 
broadcast spectrum and have the potential to provide greater Internet 
access to rural and underserved communities. I hope we can make 
progress on those proposals soon.
    This is exciting, but spectrum policy alone won't fix the Homework 
Gap. To do that, we need to also update the E-Rate program. For two 
decades it has supported Internet connections in classrooms and in 
every state across the country. Right now, those classrooms are 
virtual. The E-Rate program can support their classroom connections at 
home by having schools provide mobile hotspots to students who lack 
broadband service. While this creative use of E-Rate is possible under 
existing law, the FCC has not taken any action necessary to make it 
happen. I think we should change that.

    Question 5. What is the FCC's position on allowing the private 
management of publicly accessible government networks through spectrum 
sharing?
    Answer. Spectrum is a scarce resource. With the demands on our 
airwaves multiplying, it is incumbent on policymakers to explore 
innovative ways to use and manage spectrum. To this end, the FCC 
previously has explored the private management of publicly accessible 
government networks. Perhaps the best and most recent example of this 
approach is the First Responders Network Authority, which offers a 
nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. A private 
entity bid for the opportunity to manage this network and provide 
access to first responders using a mix of dedicated public safety 
spectrum and commercial spectrum when needed. The FCC provides 
oversight of some aspects of this arrangement, namely ensuring that the 
terms and conditions of the license are met.
    Going forward, additional creative arrangements may emerge in other 
spectrum bands. While the FCC's rules are designed to allow for 
flexibility, successful spectrum sharing reaches its greatest potential 
when parties operate under the same technical framework. In some 
circumstances this may require oversight and management in order to 
simultaneously accommodate new and incumbent uses.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. I am proud of the providers in my state for going above 
and beyond to support their communities. Especially the small providers 
who are facing economic hardships of their own. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan Keeping Critical Connections Act, which would reduce some of 
the weight on these small providers. As Congress discusses how best to 
help these small providers, are there any gaps we should consider?
    Answer. This pandemic has upended life across the country. Millions 
have been sent home and forced out of work. Our healthcare system is 
stressed. Students in the Homework Gap without high-speed Internet at 
home have a hard time keeping up in online class. Above all, the 
pandemic has demonstrated just how important broadband Internet access 
is to daily life.
    To their credit, providers across the country have stepped up to 
help. Many took part in the FCC's now-expired Keep Americans Connected 
Pledge, helping ensure households nationwide did not lose service 
during this crisis. Others have gone even further, with additional 
efforts to keep their communities connected. However, we must 
acknowledge that the capacity of the country's broadband companies, 
especially the Nation's smallest providers, is not infinite. Sustaining 
these initiatives is hard. It puts financial pressure on our providers 
that they may not be able to manage over the course of a pandemic that 
is lasting longer than initially anticipated.
    I would like the FCC to consider extending the Keep Americans 
Connected pledge. But I also recognize that at this point legislative 
action--like the Keeping Critical Connections Act--may be required to 
ensure all providers have the resources they need to sustain programs 
that prevent loss of service and waive or defer late fees. Above all, 
we need to find creative ways to ensure that during this crisis 
households are not cut off from the communications they need for 
essential services, like emergency response, education, and healthcare.

    Question 2. Should we include small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills?
    Answer. Small business is the engine of our economy and responsible 
for a significant amount of job creation. But, unfortunately, this 
pandemic threatens the existence of many small businesses. It's been 
reported that over 110,000 small businesses have closed permanently 
nationwide. Many more may be on the brink. So as you contemplate 
communications relief legislation, studying data from providers--
especially the smallest among them--is important. To this end, you 
might wish to review information about forgone receivables from small 
businesses in order to understand their continuing ability to pay for 
service during this emergency.

    Question 3. What Can Congress do to ensure these resources are 
going to the small providers that need them the most?
    Answer. If Congress enacts legislation designed to offer relief for 
small providers and that relief is administered by the FCC, it is 
essential that this law identify the criteria that would guide the 
distribution of available funds. For example, Congress may wish to 
limit this relief to providers of a certain size, based on revenues. It 
may also wish to consider the number of employees, the number of 
consumer and business access lines, and the demonstration of forgone 
revenues due to efforts to prevent loss of service in the community.

    Question 4. With regards to the proposed 5G Fund, how will this 
affect my constituents that are still waiting on 3G and 4G service? 
Will communities that currently have 4G receive 5G ahead of them? How 
does the FCC plan to make these decisions?
    Answer. We still have too many places in this country where 
wireless signals are scarce and service is hard to find. Yet the 
uncomfortable truth is that the FCC does not know where broadband is 
and is not with any real precision. Its existing system of mapping 
wireless service based on Form 477 data has well-known deficiencies. 
While we have a proposal to fix them, the agency has yet to begin doing 
so in earnest.
    To make matters worse, the FCC has proposed moving forward with its 
5G Fund before remedying these data problems. Under this proposal the 
FCC would provide funding to support the deployment of wireless service 
in rural communities based on information we know is flawed and put off 
fixing it for later. This makes it a good bet that the existing 5G Fund 
proposal could lead to wasteful spending and leave rural areas behind, 
including those in Montana that are still waiting on wireless service.
    I think a better course would involve the agency putting a premium 
on accurate data, so it knows with greater precision which areas have 
3G service, 4G service, and no service at all. These facts should 
inform our distribution of funds. Moreover, I believe that we can 
choose this course and prove we can two things at once--work fast and 
base our effort on facts.

    Question 5. Why would the FCC consider spending the entire 10-year 
Fund based on maps that we know to be inaccurate, and which will soon 
be replaced?
    Answer. I share your concerns. Simply put, we need maps before 
money and data before deployment. This is precisely what Congress told 
us to do in the Broadband DATA Act. It sets forth very specific 
requirements designed to improve the FCC's broadband maps for wired and 
wireless service. Then, this data was supposed to inform the agency's 
distribution of universal service funds to expand the reach of service 
in rural America, including through the 5G Fund.
    Moreover, I believe the FCC's 5G Fund proposal presents a false 
choice. It suggests we can either provide funds for more wireless 
service fast or we can do it accurately. But the truth is that we need 
to do both. If we're going to spend billions in public funds on 
improving wireless service in rural America it's not too much to ask 
that we do it with speed and get it right.

    Question 6. Between the rural broadband initiatives and the race to 
5G, there is a lot of money going out the door for infrastructure. Do 
we currently have the telecommunications workforce we need to keep up 
with the investments we're making in our networks?
    Answer. The deployment of 5G networks over the next several years 
will grow the U.S. economy and transform the workplace--but first 
workers have to be trained to build and maintain the needed 
infrastructure. By some estimates, we will need 20,000 more tower 
climbers to accelerate the deployment of 5G. We will need additional 
workers to lay fiber, install radios, and deploy other essential 
equipment. Unless it is filled, the demand for more workers could 
become a roadblock for the next generation of wireless technology.
    To that end, earlier this year the Department of Labor awarded 
grants to help support 28 public-private apprenticeship partnerships 
totaling nearly $100 million. These grants will support large-scale 
expansions of apprenticeship in industries including manufacturing, 
healthcare, and information technology. The grants included a $6 
million grant to the Wireless Infrastructure Association to expand 
apprenticeships in the telecommunications industry. In partnership with 
the Power & Communication Contractors Association, the grant will be 
used to train a 5G workforce. The grant will be supplemented by more 
than $9 million in matching support from industry for a total 
commitment to apprenticeship of $15 million in public-private 
partnership.
    These grants will provide funding to design curricula and deliver 
training to develop qualified applicants for placement in middle-to 
high-skilled jobs nationwide that will help accelerate 5G deployment 
throughout the country. The program will be delivered through the 
Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship program, which is 
a public-private partnership with the Department of Labor.
    We have a lot of work to do to train a 5G workforce, but this is a 
start. I believe the FCC now needs to monitor the effectiveness of 
these Department of Labor efforts so we understand what practices 
result in the greatest employment opportunities. We also should assess 
how well these efforts retain workers in the field and if additional 
work is necessary to ensure that they result in deployment in rural 
communities.

    Question 7. What steps should we be taking now to ensure that 
providers have enough skilled workers in rural areas to handle the 
demands of these substantial new universal service programs?
    Answer. In the near term, the United States will have to train 
another 20,000 tower climbers to help install 5G equipment. In the 
longer term, we will need many other workers for every layer of the 5G 
ecosystem. That's why earlier this year at a hearing before the 
Committee entitled ``Industries of the Future,'' I suggested the 
Department of Labor should ensure 5G jobs are listed as a priority for 
its registered apprenticeship programs.
    At a broader level, we need to think broadly about how we can 
introduce more pathways to upward mobility across industries and across 
the country, including in rural America. The skills necessary to secure 
and keep a job are changing fast, but data suggests a steady decline in 
the amount employers are investing in their workforce. To remedy this, 
we need to encourage more investment in our workers. We also should 
explore a human capital tax credit to offset a portion of new training 
activities to support the future of work. These initiatives could help 
upgrade our workforce, ensure access to in-demand skills, and create 
more job security for American workers nationwide.

    Question 8. Has COVID-19 altered our workforce needs?
    Answer. The COVID-19 pandemic is demonstrating the need for more 
robust communications networks in the United States. With so many 
Americans forced to stay home and rely on their home broadband networks 
to interact with the outside world we are putting stress on our 
Nation's networks like never before. We should be studying the new 
demands on our communications to understand how to improve their 
capacity and resiliency in the future. We also need to put a premium on 
ensuring those workers who help deploy and maintain those networks have 
access to the personal protective equipment they need to do their jobs 
safely.

    Question 9. FCC is administering the three-year $100 million 
Connected Care Pilot Program. Based on FCC's perspective, what have 
been some key challenges for rural communities to access telehealth 
services via broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer. This pandemic has demonstrated just how critical high-speed 
Internet is to maintain some semblance of normal life. This is 
especially true with healthcare services. For those living in rural 
areas, telehealth holds special promise. It can be a way to receive 
care in a timely way without requiring the coordination and expense 
associated with traveling to a location with specialized practitioners.
    The most obvious limitation on the availability of telemedicine is 
the absence of networks with the capacity to deliver care. This means 
the state of broadband deployment has the power to influence health 
outcomes. But other factors also impact the viability of telehealth 
solutions, like insurance reimbursement. In addition, state-by-state 
licensing requirements can be a barrier to delivery of healthcare. The 
good news is that during this crisis there has been some effort to 
relax these requirements. Going forward we need to understand how dated 
licensing policies might in impede quality care when, for instance, 
using telemedicine to reach experts out-of-region requires virtually 
crossing state lines.
    Once we are on the other side of this pandemic, I hope that 
policymakers will take stock of these matters and assess what practices 
both helped and restricted the availability of telehealth, especially 
in rural areas. I also hope that the FCC can take these factors into 
consideration when it proceeds with its $100 million Connected Care 
Pilot Program.

    Question 10. I am specifically interested in making sure that our 
veterans in rural and Native American communities have timely access to 
VA telehealth services. Is there any coordination between FCC and other 
agencies, including VA?
    Answer. I agree that coordination is critical if we want to make 
our efforts a success. In the text of the FCC's order establishing its 
Connected Care Pilot Program, which is targeted to both veterans and 
low-income individuals, the FCC acknowledged that Commission staff 
``engaged in discussions with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' 
Veterans Health Administration.'' This is a start. But we need to do 
more if we want to have this program truly deliver on its promise. For 
this reason, it is noteworthy that the VA has conducted its own three-
year remote patient monitoring program, which demonstrated reductions 
in in-patient care and hospital admissions. I would like to see the FCC 
work with the VA to understand this program and have the lessons 
learned imported into our own pilot effort.

    Question 11. What happens to the pilot program after three years?
    Answer. The FCC does not have a plan for what happens after the 
expiration of the Connected Care Pilot Program. Equally as troubling 
the program lacks clear performance metrics, which means that it will 
disburse funds without a system for measuring outcomes. For these 
reasons, I concurred when the FCC adopted this program. I believe it is 
well intended but lacks necessary guardrails.
    At a minimum, I hope that the program will sponsor a project in 
every state because we need to ensure the benefits of this program are 
available all across the country. I also hope that the program can be 
targeted to a particular healthcare problem, like maternal mortality. 
In doing so, the FCC could focus its efforts so that any outcomes will 
be useful for comparative study.

    Question 12. While the FCC moves forward on designating 9-8-8 as 
the 3-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, select 
providers are already enabling 988 for their subscribers. If 988 
becomes available in some areas but not others over this period, it 
will be vital to avoid consumer confusion in areas where 988 is not 
operational or ubiquitous. Does the FCC have sufficient authority to 
ensure that telecom providers are able coordinate with relevant 
stakeholders, including Lifeline administrators on 988 readiness?
    Answer. I agree that consumer confusion is a risk when it comes to 
the transition to the new three-digit number for the National Suicide 
Hotline. However, I believe that the FCC's July 16, 2022 nationwide 
deadline for transition will provide us with the time and opportunity 
to inform the public of this change. To this end, in the FCC's decision 
adopting a three-digit number, the agency stated that ``we . . . expect 
and encourage providers to coordinate with Commission staff, the 
Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration, and the Veterans Administration before 
moving forward with early adoption'' in order to ``facilitate clear and 
informative public education campaigns.''
    While the FCC's authority to proceed in this fashion is derived 
from its numbering administration powers under the Communications Act, 
I believe the agency will need to monitor this process and work with 
Congress if additional authority is required to manage the transition.

    Question 13. Will the FCC use their authority to ensure service 
providers inform relevant stakeholders of their intention to make 988 
available prior to notifying subscribers?
    Answer. I believe the FCC should work with service providers to 
help develop best practices to minimize consumer confusion with the 
transition to the 988 hotline.

    Question 14. What plan does the FCC have to ensure clear, uniform 
public messaging regarding the availability of 988 and what challenges 
does the FCC anticipate?
    Answer. The Chairman of the FCC has stated has that the Department 
of Health and Human Services and Department of Veterans Affairs now 
lead the effort to educating the public regarding the 988 hotline. 
Nonetheless, I believe the FCC still has a role to play. The agency 
should work closely with our Federal partners to help them develop a 
consumer education plan.
    To this end, it is important to recognize that one of the 
challenges associated with implementing the three-digit National 
Suicide Hotline is the prerequisite need to transition certain area 
codes to 10-digit dialing. Accordingly, the FCC has directed providers 
to coordinate the implementation of 10-digit dialing in the areas at 
issue with the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). The 
FCC set forth its expectation that providers working with the NANPA 
``will be able to develop a standard implementation plan that addresses 
both outreach and staging, which covered providers will be able to use 
in many, if not most, areas.'' This will be an important task in the 
coming months.

    Question 15. In respect to Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
how did the FCC determine the funding levels for each phase?
    Answer. In its RDOF rulemaking the FCC proposed to spend 80 percent 
of its funding over the next ten years for Phase I. This amounts to $16 
billion. I think committing the vast majority of the agency funds for 
broadband deployment for the next decade without first improving our 
data collection is a mistake. I think it will lead to waste and leave 
many rural communities behind.
    For this reason, when the FCC was developing the rulemaking that 
led to the establishment of the RDOF, I asked that my colleagues seek 
comment on different approaches. Specifically, I requested that we ask 
questions about alternatives to committing 80 percent of the total RDOF 
budget for the next ten years in our earliest phase of spending, now 
known as Phase I. I was concerned then, and remain concerned now, that 
with the well-known problems in our existing data, this course would 
lead to too few funds available in later phases of spending. This lack 
of funding will prevent the agency from providing adequate support to a 
substantial number of rural communities in the future. I regret that my 
colleagues did not agree to my request and ultimately decided on an 
approach to spend the vast bulk of the RDOF funding before we have 
improved data and maps.

    Question 16. What is the total population of the eligible areas, 
and how does that compare to the FCC's estimates for the number of 
people who lack broadband access?
    Answer. On June 25, 2020, the FCC released an updated list of 
eligible areas for the Phase I auction. The FCC announced that 
5,392,530 locations (i.e., homes and businesses) are eligible for the 
auction. The FCC will issue its final list of eligible locations 
shortly before the auction.
    To date, the FCC has only published this one location count. It has 
not made publicly available any data about the total population of 
areas eligible for the auction. The Chairman of the agency, however, 
should be able to direct staff to conduct this analysis.
    You also ask about the FCC's estimate of the total number of people 
who lack broadband access. According to the FCC's most recent Broadband 
Deployment Report, approximately 18.3 million Americans lack broadband 
access. However, this number wildly understates the extent of the 
digital divide in this country. That's because if a broadband provider 
tells the FCC that it can offer service to a single customer in a 
census block, the agency assumes that service is available throughout. 
The result is data that systematically overstates service across the 
country. Other studies have shown that the more accurate number of 
people without broadband access is 42 million or even as high as 162 
million. The gap between these numbers further highlights the problem 
with the existing plan for RDOF distribution. Despite the apparent 
inaccuracy of our current count, the data behind it will inform our 
funding decisions. As a result, areas that are presently counted as 
served but are not will not be eligible for Phase I funding. Moreover, 
because the vast bulk of the funds for deployment will be distributed 
during Phase I, the FCC is likely to lack resources to support 
deployment in these areas in Phase II.

    Question 17. Will there be a challenge process for Phase I of RDOF?
    Answer. The FCC conducted only a limited challenge process for 
Phase I. It provided stakeholders with an opportunity to remove areas 
from the FCC's preliminary list of those that are eligible. However, 
this process did not offer stakeholders the ability to challenge FCC 
data marking an area as served where in fact no service is available. 
In other words, despite the fact that the FCC has been roundly 
criticized for maps that drastically overstate service, there was no 
opportunity for the public to correct what they know is wrong. As a 
result, areas erroneously marked as served are not eligible for Phase I 
funding and there's no process in place to change that. That's 
regrettable. Moreover, it's cruel to the residents of these communities 
who were denied the ability to participate in this initial challenge 
process.

    Question 18. What is the FCC's vetting process to ensure that 
broadband providers are actually able to provide adequate connections?
    Answer. In the FCC's Auction Procedures Public Notice, the agency 
set forth the vetting process that it will use to evaluate the short-
form applications of bidders seeking to participate in the RDOF 
auction. The notice also detailed the long-form applications that will 
be required of winning bidders. As a general matter, at the short-form 
stage the FCC requires applicants to provide information about 
ownership, bidding arrangements, operational history, financial 
qualifications, technology choices, spectrum access, and plans for 
service provisioning. At the long-form stage, among other things, the 
FCC requires the submission of a design plan with supportable 
technologies that meet the relevant RDOF public interest obligations.
    In turn, FCC staff review short-form applications before 
authorizing participation in the auction. With respect to long-form 
applications the FCC staff perform additional review of the submissions 
and associated prerequisites, such as compliance with the eligible 
telecommunications carrier designation process, before authorizing 
support.

    Question 19. In regards to the IP CTS, since the FCC has decided to 
allow conditional certification of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR)-
only service, will the FCC provide a warning to hard-of-hearing 
consumers that ASR-only services are experimental? How will the elderly 
and our veterans going to know that they might be taking a risk?
    Answer. The FCC has no requirement that compels automatic speech 
recognition (ASR)-only service providers to notify IP CTS users that 
their services are conditionally certified or ``experimental'' in 
nature.
    While I respect the decision of the agency's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau to issue two conditional certifications to 
providers offering ASR-only service, I believe the FCC must assess and 
monitor the performance of these services. When we do so, we need to 
keep those who rely on IP CTS in mind, including the many users who are 
elderly and veterans.
    Finally, I would note that I concurred when the FCC determined the 
provision of CTS and IP CTS using ASR to generate captions is a form of 
relay service eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund. At the time, 
I observed that the FCC's approach was backwards. That's because the 
agency put the cart before the horse by introducing automatic speech 
recognition into the IP CTS program before addressing fundamental 
topics like rates and service quality standards.

    Question 20. Has the FCC considered using a pilot program to test 
the Automated Speech Recognition venders?
    Answer. No. To date, the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau has granted two applications from providers seeking 
certification to provide IP CTS using ASR-only. Both certifications 
were conditional. As a result, the companies were permitted to receive 
TRS Fund compensation for their service pending verification that their 
actual provision of ASR-only IP CTS to registered users meets or 
exceeds the FCC's minimum TRS standards. While the companies that have 
been conditionally certified can rely on their own ASR vendors, I hope 
that the FCC will choose to study the performance of these services 
when it considers future actions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                        Hon. Jessica Rosenworcel
    Question 1. Do you support a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5GHz band? Why or why not?
    Answer. Yes, I wholeheartedly support an extension. However, the 
decision to extend the application deadline for the 2.5 GHz Rural 
Tribal Window lies with the Chairman. Nonetheless, I have spoken 
publicly--including at the oversight hearing--about the need for the 
agency to extend the upcoming August 3, 2020 deadline.
    The available data demonstrate that far too many of our Tribal 
Lands lack the Internet infrastructure that is essential in the digital 
age. In an effort to remedy this problem, last year the FCC provided 
federally-recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Villages on rural Tribal 
lands, and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands a ``priority window'' 
to obtain 2.5 GHz spectrum to serve rural Tribal Lands. The FCC 
determined it would keep this window open for 180 days in order to give 
Tribes the time they needed to apply.
    Since the COVID-19 pandemic struck, the FCC has acted quickly to 
offer other communities extensions of their regulatory deadlines. For 
instance, when companies suggested they needed more time to clear the 
3.5 GHz band because of the pandemic, we obliged. We also pushed back 
the start of this spectrum auction, again citing business disruptions 
caused by the ongoing public health emergency. The FCC even granted an 
extension of time to a foreign company it is investigating as a 
national security threat to the United States.
    Tribal communities face similar--if not greater--challenges as 
these other communities when it comes to participating in FCC 
proceedings during the pandemic. So we should offer the same courtesy 
here, too. This spectrum can deliver major benefits to rural Tribal 
communities. They should not be prevented from having their opportunity 
to apply for it as a result of this public health emergency. An 
extension will ensure Tribes have adequate time to make the most of 
this first-of-its-kind opportunity. Accordingly, I would support 
extending the deadline and committing to ensuring every rural Tribal 
community has an equitable opportunity to receive spectrum licenses. In 
addition, I thank you for your leadership on this issue.

    Question 2. An estimated 17 percent of U.S. students do not have 
access to computers at home and 18 percent do not have access to 
broadband internet--necessities for Arizona students to access online 
learning during this crisis. I support legislation to provide 
additional funds for schools and libraries through the E-Rate program 
for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet-enabled devices, so students have equal 
access to online learning.
    Do you agree that additional E-Rate funding in an upcoming 
coronavirus relief bill can help tackle the Homework Gap for students 
that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. Yes, absolutely.
    This cruel pandemic has shuttered schools nationwide. More than 50 
million students were sent home. They were told to head online for 
class. But students without Internet access at home were locked out of 
the virtual classroom. We need to make it a priority to fix this 
Homework Gap and connect every student so they can have a fair shot at 
continuing their education when school starts again in the fall. Right 
now, during this pandemic, E-Rate is the best tool available to tackle 
the Homework Gap. It is a program that schools understand, it 
historically prioritizes based on need, and as a result it can be 
updated for the current crisis at rapid speed.
    Question 3. Based on the widespread concerns for the continuing 
viability of GPS, do you support a stay of the Ligado decision to allow 
for further review of the studies relied upon for the decision and an 
opportunity for additional input from potentially impacted 
stakeholders?
    Answer. As I explained when I concurred with the FCC's order 
approving the applications, this decision was an extremely close call. 
In the end I was compelled to support the expert technical analysis 
done by the FCC's engineering staff. However, if the Chairman were to 
circulate a decision to stay in order to allow for further review, I 
would support his decision to do so.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. Commissioner O'Rielly, you recently stated regarding 
the FCC's action to facilitate the deployment of 5G networks across the 
United States that the ruling would ``help entities like FirstNet meet 
their public safety obligations.'' Can you speak more to why you think 
this action would help FirstNet's Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 
Network buildout and why it is important to public safety responders?
    Answer. There should be little debate that the demand for new 
wireless services, including for public safety use and, particularly, 
FirstNet, will require more physical wireless infrastructure than 
exists today. Specifically, the buildout of FirstNet's extensive 
wireless network to many rural portions of our Nation will require the 
construction of new towers and installation of collocated antennas. 
Even in urban centers, where existing networks may provide service 
already, congestion will require the siting of new facilities. 
Unfortunately, some local and state governments consistently erect 
barriers to these efforts, causing these important network buildouts to 
take longer than necessary and, in turn, increasing risks to public 
safety. A similar problem exists for private wireless towers and 
antennas, which carry 9-1-1 calls and texts to local emergency call 
centers.
    Any clarity that Congress can provide to ease wireless deployment 
and infrastructure builds would be helpful. In particular, I heartily 
support the STREAMLINE Act, legislation that you have introduced with 
Senator Schatz, which would vastly improve the buildout process for 
many small cell wireless infrastructure projects. Additionally, efforts 
are needed to address macro tower construction and siting, including 
resolving the so-called ``twilight towers'' issue. I would be happy to 
continue working with your office on this or other related matters.

    Question 2. As you are aware, Congress passed and President Trump 
signed into the law the TRACED Act, legislation to aimed to help reduce 
illegal and unwanted robocalls. The law also improved the adoption of 
technical solutions for blocking illegal robocalls that are both 
harmful and bothersome to consumers. Additionally, the TRACED Act 
recognized the importance of legitimate calls, like financial 
institutions providing customers with important alerts. In addition to 
the TRACED Act, the Commission has taken several efforts to deter 
illegal robocalls. What steps has the FCC taken to ensure call blocking 
technologies do not adversely affect legal robocalls used by legitimate 
businesses to consumers?
    Answer. Despite the arguments of certain advocates, there are many 
legal and legitimate uses of automated calling technology and I have 
pushed hard for some time to protect legal robocalls, to ensure they 
are not improperly blocked or subject to abusive lawsuits. Thankfully, 
the TRACED Act recognizes the need to protect such calls and therefore 
codifies in Federal law that voice service providers offer callers an 
effective and transparent redress process for improperly blocked calls.
    At its recent July Open Meeting, the Commission adopted an item to 
implement specific portions of the TRACED Act. In particular, the item 
included two new safe harbors to protect voice service providers from 
legal exposure due to call blocking errors, as well as a redress 
mechanism to aid legitimate callers whose calls are erroneously 
blocked. While I was underwhelmed by the redress options available to 
calling parties in the initial draft version of the item, I worked with 
the Chairman's office to strengthen the redress mechanism in the final, 
adopted version, including by requiring that voice service providers 
resolve call blocking complaints free of charge, and by conditioning 
the availability of the safe harbors upon implementation of the redress 
mechanism required by the Commission. Certain other enhancements to the 
redress mechanism that I requested, including requiring voice service 
providers to notify callers in real time when their calls are blocked 
and to resolve complaints related to improper blocking in a defined 
time frame, were included in the Notice section for purposes of further 
comment and building a more comprehensive record, with the expectation 
that they would be acted upon in the future. While the Report and Order 
makes some progress in protecting legitimate callers, these additional 
requirements are necessary to ensure legitimate callers are 
meaningfully protected under the Commission's redress mechanism. More 
vigilance will be needed to ensure these added fixes ultimately make it 
into Commission rules.

    Question 3. In your testimony, you briefly mentioned reforming the 
World Radio Conference (WRC) and certain international issues as they 
relate to the FCC. Do you have any specific suggestions for Congress on 
these matters?
    Answer. Notwithstanding the aggressive recommendations I have made 
to reassert U.S. leadership and improve our leverage in dealings within 
the International Telecommunication Union and its World 
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), I believe there are other changes 
that can and should be made to improve U.S. preparation for WRCs. 
Specifically, the Commission should appoint an international 
Commissioner to serve as a chief point person within the agency on 
international matters. Additionally, the U.S. would benefit 
significantly by improving its process to identify and select its WRC 
ambassador, including by appointing that person much further in advance 
of a WRC than its current practice of six months beforehand. These 
suggestions would require changes in the law. Accordingly, I am 
including below proposed statutory language for your consideration, 
with the qualification that I would always defer to the drafting of 
those within Congress.
    Sec.____. International Commissioner Designation.
    Section 5 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) A Chairman or acting Chairman shall select, within [90] days 
of appointment or at an opening longer than 90 days, a commissioner to 
serve as international commissioner with primary responsibility to 
represent the Commission in international fora, advise the Chairman on 
developments in policy involving other nations, and carry out other 
related duties as the Chairman deems appropriate. A commissioner 
selected for this role shall serve without any additional compensation 
and shall perform such functions in addition to other Commission 
responsibilities. Nothing in this subsection shall diminish the 
authority of Chairman in any capacity.''
    Sec.____. World Radiocommunication Conference Ambassador.
    Section 103(b)(2)(G) of the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration Act (47 USC 902) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(iv) providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary of 
State regarding candidates to serve as U.S. head of delegation and 
Ambassador to the quadrennial World Radiocommunication Conference of 
the International Telecommunications Union, not later than 30 months 
prior to a conference's premier meeting.
    Section 302 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (52 U.S. Code 3942) 
is amended in subsection (a)(2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(D) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1), the President may confer 
the personal rank of ambassador to the quadrennial World Radio 
Communication Conference for a temporary term not exceeding two years 
in duration.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question. The FCC is looking for additional spectrum to free up for 
5G services. Are you reviewing the 500 megahertz of contiguous, 
terrestrial spectrum at 12 GHz?
    Isn't that band of spectrum one of the few--maybe the only--
licensed spectrum block available for 5G use without Federal incumbents 
in it?
    Assuming so, what are the Commission's plans to examine how the 
spectrum can be used to support 5G?
    Answer. There is near universal agreement that the U.S. must clear 
additional wireless spectrum for licensed commercial purposes to 
fulfill consumer and enterprise demand for new mobile services and 
devices. Beyond the absolute necessity of reallocating a good portion 
of the 3.1 to 3.55 GHz band, 12 GHz could be a candidate to meet these 
needs as well.
    Over the last many months, I have had discussions with existing 
licensees and other interested parties regarding the 12 GHz band and 
proposals to potentially reallocate a portion of it, specifically, 12.2 
to 12.7 GHz, for advanced wireless services. Your point is very well 
taken, and I agree that the band consists of a large block of 
contiguous spectrum that may very well be desirable to offer 5G 
wireless service. As such, I have recently become the first 
Commissioner to discuss that it would certainly seem appropriate to 
explore the relevant issues here. While there is an incumbent willing 
to make this happen, I am mindful of the concerns of other existing 
incumbent satellite licensees that use these frequencies to connect to 
consumer equipment.
    One step that may help move the discussion forward would be for all 
existing licensees to collaborate on whether relocation of some 
services to other bands is possible and/or whether mutually agreeable 
mechanisms exist to protect incumbents from terrestrial wireless 
networks. The Commission could also seek comment on the issue and on 
any technical studies provided by the parties, as a means to spur these 
conversations.
    While I am supportive of the effort, I must defer to the Chairman 
on the possible timing of Commission action on this or any other 
matter.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. The 2.5GHz Rural Tribal Window is a unique opportunity 
to help bring greater Internet connectivity to tribal entities through 
direct access to spectrum. The current pandemic is occupying many 
resources that would otherwise be available for applying for this 
program. Is the FCC considering extending the application deadline to 
accommodate the current crisis?
    Answer. It is my understanding that the Commission has before it a 
petition to extend the deadline for this priority window, and my staff 
and I have been taking meetings from those supporting the extension. 
Given his role in managing the Commission's staff resources, the 
Chairman would be better positioned to answer whether Commission staff 
may be preparing an item to effectuate this change.

    Question 2. How is the FCC preparing for the utilization of beam 
forming, beam steering, and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing in the next 
generation of transportation?
    Answer. The development of spectrum efficient technologies, such as 
beam forming, beam steering, and dynamic spectrum sharing, are crucial 
to the development of next-generation wireless networks. These networks 
will revolutionize many sectors of the economy, including 
transportation. The Commission's priority is to ensure that sufficient 
spectrum resources are available to meet expected consumer and industry 
demand, and the Commission is committed to taking a technology-neutral, 
flexible use approach. When formulating spectrum policy, we consider 
these technologies in our analysis and implement rules that allow our 
licensees to use these innovations and others to meet their needs. 
Specific to the transportation sector, the Commission is seeking 
comment on possible updates to the 5.9 GHz rules, which includes 
consideration of the new C-V2X technology. C-V2X is the latest 
automobile safety technology and takes advantage of beam forming, beam 
steering, and dynamic spectrum sharing. The Commission is also 
contemplating whether the band can be shared with unlicensed use.

    Question 3. What is the plan for spectrum allocation, aside from 
DSRC and 802.11P for the DOT, for being able to de-conflict all modes 
of transportation on the same network?
    Answer. In the 5.9 GHz band proceeding, the Commission continues to 
consider the relevant facts, including the existence of two competing 
transportation technologies, DSRC and C-V2X. As discussed above, the 
Commission generally allocates spectrum in a technology-neutral manner 
and does not select technology winners and losers. While the Commission 
analyzes and gives consideration to the potential for harmful 
interference between different uses and users, the exact co-existence 
mechanism to facilitate interoperability between different devices, 
systems, or, in your question, modes of transportation, would generally 
be considered in the standards setting process and, therefore, decided 
by industry participants. Additionally, the Commission has also 
allocated additional spectrum to the transportation industry for other 
safety purposes, such as for vehicular radars in the 76-81 GHz band, 
which is the backbone of automotive safety systems.

    Question 4. Does the FCC support or see advantages in utilizing 
localized wireless networks that keep information as localized as 
possible and could serve educational or medical districts--especially 
in places that might not have extensive fiber infrastructure--that may 
allow more connectivity for children and the workforce?
    Answer. Besides telehealth and educational purposes, other 
industries, ranging from hotels, airports and shipping ports to 
manufacturing, energy, and critical infrastructure providers, have 
expressed interest in localized wireless networks. The Commission has 
taken several steps to ensure that spectrum is available for these 
systems.
    First, I took the lead on the proceeding to reconfigure the 3.5 GHz 
band so that these bands would be attractive to both commercial 
wireless providers and those interested in private systems for 5G 
services. And, I am excited that the Commission's 3.5 GHz auction will 
start tomorrow. This will provide priority access licenses (PALs) to 
auction winners on a county basis. These 10 megahertz PALs would be 
ideal for school districts, healthcare networks, and others. Even after 
the auction, it will be possible to acquire these licenses, or a 
portion thereof, in the secondary market. For those that are not 
interested in purchasing a license, interested entities can gain 
general authorized access to 3.5 GHz by registering with the spectrum 
access system.
    Second, I have been a forceful advocate for opening up the TV white 
spaces for wireless use. These are also available for use by 
registering through a database that will assign spectrum to users for a 
myriad of purposes. Further, the Commission currently has a proceeding 
to relax some technical rules that will expand the use of these 
valuable frequencies. I hope these changes will be adopted in the next 
couple of months.
    Third, the Commission, at my urging, has opened up the 6 GHz band 
for unlicensed use. This spectrum will promote high speed and large 
capacity systems for schools, businesses, including healthcare 
facilities, and consumers' Wi-Fi systems at home.
    While the Commission has been actively releasing spectrum into the 
marketplace, we need to start identifying the spectrum bands of the 
future to ensure that frequencies will be available to support consumer 
demand, including for education and telehealth purposes, and the next 
great innovation, whatever that may be.
    In terms of the benefits of localized wireless networks maintaining 
data closer to users, I can see where this may make sense in certain 
circumstances and could outweigh any added costs and lost efficiencies. 
This is not dissimilar to having or maintaining local servers for 
purposes of caching and improving the consumer experience. At the same 
time, I oppose efforts, such as in China, to mandate that data be kept 
locally to facilitate government control of foreign firms or to impose 
other social mandates.

    Question 5. What is the FCC's position on allowing the private 
management of publicly accessible government networks through spectrum 
sharing?
    Answer. To be clear, I only can speak for myself on these and any 
other matters. While I understand that there may be parties interested 
in a publicly accessible, government-sponsored network managed by a 
private-sector entity, I have expressed serious concerns about such a 
model. The specifics of how any such system would be structured or 
operated remain unclear, but the project, as described to me, seems to 
raise substantial problems, which I have detailed previously at 
length.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2019/05/07/substantive-
objections-government-5g-wholesale-network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. I am proud of the providers in my state for going above 
and beyond to support their communities. Especially the small providers 
who are facing economic hardships of their own. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan Keeping Critical Connections Act, which would reduce some of 
the weight on these small providers. As Congress discusses how best to 
help these small providers, are there any gaps we should consider?
    Answer. I commend those providers that have worked to keep their 
subscribers connected during the economic hardship wrought by the 
COVID-19 crisis and recognize the challenges that many have faced in 
honoring their commitments. I, therefore, applaud Congress' bipartisan 
efforts to alleviate some of these burdens by appropriating funding for 
certain providers. In terms of your question, while I will always 
implement the will of Congress, the draft legislation might be improved 
by providing the Commission with more specific direction and objective 
criteria regarding how the $2 billion in funding should be distributed.

    Question 2. Should we include small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills?
    Answer. Households and small businesses alike have struggled to 
stay afloat during COVID-19, and I am unaware of any policy reason not 
to extend the same benefits to providers that have kept small 
businesses connected when they were unable to pay their bills.

    Question 3. What Can Congress do to ensure these resources are 
going to the small providers that need them the most?
    Answer. As I stated in a previous response, Congress ought to 
provide clear direction to the FCC on how to distribute the funding. We 
don't want a beauty-contest-like grant program, where certain well-
connected providers are selected for reimbursement and those in greater 
need go without funding.

    Question 4. With regards to the proposed 5G Fund, how will this 
affect my constituents that are still waiting on 3G and 4G service? 
Will communities that currently have 4G receive 5G ahead of them? How 
does the FCC plan to make these decisions?
    Answer. I am very aware that vast areas of the country lack access 
to 4G LTE, or even 3G service, and I have repeatedly voiced concerns 
over the 5G fund's premise that it no longer makes sense for the 
Universal Service Fund to subsidize 4G LTE. I am the first to say that 
any new funding mechanism for mobile service should prioritize those 
without service, rather than favor upgrading those who already have 
access to 4G LTE. While the Commission has only voted to initiate a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking thus far and many of the details of the 
proposed multi-round, descending clock auction remain to be sorted out, 
the proposal did include a mechanism to prioritize support in areas 
that have historically lacked 3G and 4G LTE services, and sought 
comment on how to identify and prioritize those areas.

    Question 5. Why would the FCC consider spending the entire 10-year 
Fund based on maps that we know to be inaccurate, and which will soon 
be replaced?
    Answer. I fully agree that it would be a mistake for the Commission 
to implement the 5G Fund auction based on unreliable data and have 
committed to fulfilling our statutory obligation to produce new, 
accurate coverage maps before moving forward with such a new subsidy 
mechanism.

    Question 6. Between the rural broadband initiatives and the race to 
5G, there is a lot of money going out the door for infrastructure. Do 
we currently have the telecommunications workforce we need to keep up 
with the investments we're making in our networks?
    Answer. I have heard from companies, in multiple FCC proceedings, 
about concerns related to skilled labor shortages in the 
telecommunications industry. In fact, I have been discussing the issue 
of workforce preparedness since this issue was originally brought to me 
in the context of the incentive auction and broadcast station repack. 
At that time, we knew that there were insufficient tower crews to 
handle the challenging repack of large broadcast antennae on top of the 
largest towers. Broadcasters, wireless providers, and their respective 
trade associations were concerned this would put the broadcast 
incentive auction, mandated by Congress, at risk. However, industry 
associations got together to create training and apprenticeship 
programs to increase workforce numbers. And, this month, the Commission 
announced that the broadcast repack was concluded on schedule, with 
just a handful of stations seeking extensions to move to their new 
channels. In each case, the extensions were justified due to unforeseen 
events.
    The workforce challenges, however, extend beyond needing more tower 
technicians. I have had multiple conversations with industry 
participants that general telecommunications technicians and engineers 
are needed. In response, the Wireless Infrastructure Association 
created the Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship 
Program (TIRAP). TIRAP was created to provide the training necessary to 
create a 5G workforce, and WIA has partnered with five institutions of 
higher learning to design curricula and train individuals for middle-to 
high-skilled technician and engineering positions.
    These programs have been actively trying to address the shortages 
and are making strides at ensuring that the workforce is there to meet 
demand. As workforce management issues have not traditionally fallen 
within the jurisdiction or expertise of the FCC, however, I would defer 
to industry experts and the Department of Labor about the future 
telecommunications labor needs and whether more needs to be done.

    Question 7. What steps should we be taking now to ensure that 
providers have enough skilled workers in rural areas to handle the 
demands of these substantial new universal service programs?
    Answer. Workforce management does not traditionally fall within the 
jurisdiction or expertise of the Commission, so there are others in the 
government and in industry who could provide more informed solutions 
about skilled-worker shortages in rural America. I was pleased, 
however, to see that the Department of Labor's (DOL) program to expand 
apprenticeships in the U.S. through advancing the development of high-
quality, Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, or IRAPs, 
includes telecommunications.\1\ In April, DOL also solicited proposals 
to award 11 contracts to ``industry intermediaries'' to serve as 
conduits between employers and the DOL's Office of Apprenticeship to 
accelerate apprenticeship program development and help establish new 
regional and national sector-based apprenticeship programs. When I 
appeared before the Committee in January 2020, in my testimony I 
discussed that the DOL was considering such money for 
telecommunications and broadband programs. I am happy to inform you 
that DOL for the first time has included telecommunications and 5G in 
its list of high-growth industries eligible for these funds.\2\ And, in 
February, the DOL awarded a $6 million grant through the Closing the 
Skills Gap grant program to WIA to expand TIRAP.\3\ Regardless of how 
these individual programs work out, the DOL has taken note of the 
workforce needs of the telecommunications sector and is actively 
pursuing this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20200310
    \2\ https://beta.sam.gov/opp/04e22457291a4e279e1d3c01811b341b/view
    \3\ https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20200218

    Question 8. Has COVID-19 altered our workforce needs?
    Answer. I don't think it has changed our workforce needs as much as 
it has brought attention to the importance of the Nation's 
telecommunications networks and the workforce needed to deploy, 
maintain, and upgrade the requisite infrastructure. The information we 
have received at the Commission shows that our networks have 
successfully handled the traffic increases and changes in patterns 
during the COVID pandemic. Regardless, there will be a need to expand 
broadband networks to cover the unserved and deploy infrastructure for 
next generation services. However, as stated above, workforce 
management does not traditionally fall within the jurisdiction or 
expertise of the Commission, so there are others in the government and 
in industry who could provide more information on whether COVID has 
changed our workforce needs.

    Question 9. FCC is administering the three-year $100 million 
Connected Care Pilot Program. Based on FCC's perspective, what have 
been some key challenges for rural communities to access telehealth 
services via broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer. One of the most obvious challenges has been the inability 
to procure funding under the COVID-19 Telehealth Program, which 
distributed $200 million in emergency appropriated funding from 
Congress. Since the FCC's implementing order did not provide much 
objective criteria on how funding would be distributed, the process of 
selecting grant recipients wasn't particularly transparent. And, since 
funding was scarce, and the FCC supposedly prioritized recipients in 
areas hardest hit by COVID-19, that likely meant that many deserving 
rural applicants were denied. Indeed, I am told that a total of 4,500 
applications did not receive any funding under the program, of which 
2,300 were located in hardest-hit areas.

    Question 10. I am specifically interested in making sure that our 
veterans in rural and Native American communities have timely access to 
VA telehealth services. Is there any coordination between FCC and other 
agencies, including VA?
    Answer. While the FCC Chairman is in a better position to answer 
this question, I fully agree that coordination between the FCC and 
other agencies such as the VA is crucial when it comes to targeting 
broadband or telehealth funding. One of my concerns with the Connected 
Care Pilot Program proceeding was that it did not sufficiently 
coordinate with other agencies involved in similar types of telehealth 
funding initiatives.

    Question 11. What happens to the pilot program after three year?
    Answer. My understanding is that the Connected Care Pilot Program 
is limited to a three-year duration.

    Question 12. While the FCC moves forward on designating 9-8-8 as 
the 3-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, select 
providers are already enabling 988 for their subscribers. If 988 
becomes available in some areas but not others over this period, it 
will be vital to avoid consumer confusion in areas where 988 is not 
operational or ubiquitous. Does the FCC have sufficient authority to 
ensure that telecom providers are able coordinate with relevant 
stakeholders, including Lifeline administrators on 988 readiness?
    Answer. I completely agree that the rollout of nationwide 988 
should not create unnecessary confusion for consumers. That is why, in 
my statement in response to the Commission's July item requiring 
nationwide deployment of 988 within two years, I cautioned that the 
Commission's outreach should be more careful not to create the false 
impression that it will be operational overnight. In terms of the 
second part of your question, 988 readiness will depend in large part 
on transitioning 87 area codes to 10-digit dialing, which will be a 
challenging and lengthy process and require much work and coordination 
on the part of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), 
which is overseen by the Commission. Changes to the 988 Order to 
require more accountability on the NANPA's part were included at my 
request, and I anticipate that this will help ensure a smoother 
process.

    Question 13. Will the FCC use their authority to ensure service 
providers inform relevant stakeholders of their intention to make 988 
available prior to notifying subscribers?
    Answer. While the FCC's order requiring nationwide deployment of 
988 doesn't specifically stipulate how and when service providers must 
notify subscribers of the availability of 988, it does anticipate the 
need for consumer education campaigns and coordination with other 
stakeholders, such as the NANPA and state public utility commissions, 
prior to its availability to subscribers.

    Question 14. What plan does the FCC have to ensure clear, uniform 
public messaging regarding the availability of 988 and what challenges 
does the FCC anticipate?
    Answer. Issues related to the FCC's public messaging are handled by 
the Chairman's Office. Therefore, I must defer to him on this question.

    Question 15. In respect to Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
how did the FCC determine the funding levels for each phase?
    Answer. The $16 billion Phase I RDOF allocation was calculated 
based on the total yearly amount of Connect America Fund Phase II 
support that price cap carriers currently receive, plus the yearly 
amount the Commission previously dedicated to the Remote Areas Fund, 
multiplied over a ten-year period. By establishing a Phase I budget 
well under the aggregate reserve price of $20.4 billion (the estimated 
cost of deploying a high-speed broadband network to all locations in 
wholly unserved high-cost price cap census blocks and the total budget 
for the RDOF), the Commission intends to maximize inter-area 
competition in the auction and in turn promote efficient use of scarce 
USF funds.
    In terms of Phase II, $4.4 billion is based on the delta between 
the aggregate reserve price for the auction and the Phase I budget. 
Note, however, that the Commission has indicated that it may re-
evaluate the budgetary needs for Phase II of the auction after 
conclusion of the first phase.

    Question 16. What is the total population of the eligible areas, 
and how does that compare to the FCC's estimates for the number of 
people who lack broadband access?
    Answer. While the final list of eligible areas has not been 
released, the FCC's most recent eligible areas list would include 
5,392,530 unserved locations in the auction, representing approximately 
10.4 million Americans. In comparison, according to the Commission's 
2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 18.3 million Americans lack access to 
fixed terrestrial advanced telecommunications capability of 25/3 Mbps.

    Question 17. Will there be a challenge process for Phase 1 of RDOF?
    Answer. The FCC has conducted a limited challenge process for RDOF 
Phase I to identify and remove from the auction: 1) census blocks that 
became served with voice and 25/3 Mbps or better broadband service 
since the last publicly available Form 477 data; 2) census blocks where 
a provider has been awarded funding by a Federal or state broadband 
subsidy and has an enforceable commitment to offer broadband service at 
25/3 Mbps or better; and 3) census blocks identified by rate-of-return 
carriers in their service areas as ones where they do not expect to 
extend broadband. In response to the challenges that were filed, the 
Commission published an updated list of eligible areas on June 25, 
2020. The Commission plans to release the final list of eligible areas 
14 days prior to the auction start date of October 29, 2020.

    Question 18. What is the FCC's vetting process to ensure that 
broadband providers are actually able to provide adequate connections?
    Answer. The FCC's vetting process for providers consists of two 
stages. To become eligible to bid in the auction, applicants must 
submit a short-form application, which provides information used to 
determine whether the applicant has the legal, technical, and financial 
qualifications to participate in the auction and meet the public 
interest obligations associated with receiving RDOF support. The 
Commission's determination that an applicant is qualified to 
participate in the auction does not, however, guarantee that the 
applicant will be deemed qualified to receive support if it becomes a 
winning bidder. In the second stage of the vetting process, each 
winning bidder must file a more comprehensive long-form application, 
which the Commission will review to determine if the applicant should 
be authorized to receive support for its winning bids.

    Question 19. In regards to the IP CTS, since the FCC has decided to 
allow conditional certification of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) -
only service, will the FCC provide a warning to hard-of-hearing 
consumers that ASR-only services are experimental? How will the elderly 
and our veterans going to know that they might be taking a risk?
    Answer. The Commission has made clear that providers of ASR-only 
service must meet or exceed the Commission's minimum TRS standards in 
order to receive compensation from the TRS fund. So far, the Commission 
has certified two ASR-only providers on a conditional basis, pending 
verification of their ability to meet or exceed the Commission's 
minimum TRS standards in operation. To my knowledge, the Commission has 
not formally warned IP CTS consumers that ASR-only services are 
experimental. However, given the Commission's cautious approach in 
granting conditional certification, and the fact that both providers 
have been shown to meet or out-perform their CA-assisted counterparts, 
in terms of speed of answer, caption delay, accuracy, readability, 
verbatim transcription, privacy, and emergency call handling, I am not 
sure such a warning would be necessary or accurate.

    Question 20. Has the FCC considered using a pilot program to test 
the Automated Speech Recognition venders?
    Answer. While not conducting a pilot program per se, the 
Commission's certification of two ASR-only providers was granted on a 
conditional basis. In other words, these providers will only be able to 
achieve full certification pending verification of their ability to 
meet or exceed the Commission's minimum TRS standards on an operative 
basis.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                         Hon. Michael O'Rielly
    Question 1. Do you support a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5GHz band? Why or why not?
    Answer. I understand that the Commission has before it a petition 
to extend the deadline for this priority window, and my staff and I 
have been taking meetings from those supporting the extension. While I 
am still considering this issue and discussing it with stakeholders, I 
also acknowledge that the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a strain on 
tribal governments' ability to fully consider this 2.5 GHz opportunity. 
In the end, however, requests for extensions of time are normally 
decided at the Bureau level without a Commission vote. Therefore, given 
his role in managing the Commission's agenda and staff resources, the 
Chairman would be better positioned to answer any questions regarding 
the timing of the tribal priority window and whether Commission staff 
may be preparing an item to effectuate this change.

    Question 2. An estimated 17 percent of U.S. students do not have 
access to computers at home and 18 percent do not have access to 
broadband internet--necessities for Arizona students to access online 
learning during this crisis. I support legislation to provide 
additional funds for schools and libraries through the E-Rate program 
for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet-enabled devices, so students have equal 
access to online learning.
    Do you agree that additional E-Rate funding in an upcoming 
coronavirus relief bill can help tackle the Homework Gap for students 
that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. At the outset, the FCC is constrained by the terms of our 
governing statute and would not be authorized to fund devices or 
services in a student's home absent statutory changes. Further, while I 
am very concerned about ensuring that all students have access to 
broadband Internet during the COVID-19 crisis, I believe we need to be 
clear about what we mean by ``access'' and the specific problem that 
any additional funding would be seeking to remedy. In my view, lack of 
access can be attributed to three different problems (which can often 
overlap): the student's home is unserved by an existing provider; the 
student's household cannot afford a fixed broadband Internet 
subscription; or the student cannot afford a device to access broadband 
Internet. In my opinion, the E-Rate program is poorly situated to 
address the first problem (lack of service at all), which is more 
appropriately within the expertise of the FCC's High Cost program. I am 
concerned that funding the deployment of broadband within the E-Rate 
program could lead to wasteful overbuilding of existing networks and 
duplication of our efforts in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund 
program, as well as our CAF II, Alternative Connect America Cost Model 
(A-CAM), and CAF Broadband Loop Support subsidies. In terms of funding 
to address inability to afford fixed broadband access, that is also 
more appropriately within the expertise of the FCC's Lifeline program, 
which was specifically established to subsidize communications access 
for those who cannot afford it. Finally, to the extent that Congress 
were to expand the E-Rate program to subsidize devices in a student's 
home, such as Wi-Fi hotspots, I would encourage Congress to fund this 
through appropriated funding.

    Question 3. Based on the widespread concerns for the continuing 
viability of GPS, do you support a stay of the Ligado decision to allow 
for further review of the studies relied upon for the decision and an 
opportunity for additional input from potentially impacted 
stakeholders?
    Answer. My understanding is that FCC engineers are engaging with 
the engineering staff of affected Federal agencies on data points not 
previously disclosed to the Commission regarding the Ligado license 
modification item. As I have previously committed, I am willing to give 
due consideration to a stay, based on new data or evidence, if such an 
item is circulated by the Chairman. Under our current procedures, only 
the Chair can initiate a reconsideration order, and I do not get the 
impression that such an item is being drafted at the moment. Notably, I 
have made numerous recommendations and provided proposals to modify the 
Commission's procedures to increase efficiency and transparency, 
including a greater role for Commissioners to initiate, amend, or vote 
on items.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question. Commissioner Carr, you testified at the hearing about the 
future of broadband connectivity, which may include broadcast Internet 
services. As you well know, Congress and the FCC are working to 
allocate billions of dollars for rural broadband deployment to close 
the digital divide and expand digital opportunity to all Americans. As 
I understand it, advances in spectrum technology have led to the 
development of a standard referred to as ATSC 3.0, which may allow low-
power television digital signals to deliver bandwidth-intensive 
broadband content. In light of this new development, what kinds of 
incentives can Congress or the FCC provide to further develop ATSC 3.0? 
Could broadcast Internet services help close the digital divide in 
unserved or underserved areas across the country?
    Answer. The television airwaves are undergoing a significant 
upgrade thanks to ATSC 3.0, an IP-based technology that can leverage 
the power and coverage of broadcast transmissions to deliver a 25 Mbps 
data stream to Americans. As our networks continue to mature, they 
won't always rely on the same spectrum bands for inbound and outbound 
data paths. Instead, hybrid networks will look for the most efficient 
and cost-effective ways to deliver content to users. This will be the 
future of connectivity. And this is where broadcast spectrum, 
delivering Broadcast Internet services, can leverage its inherent 
strengths to compete in this market. Those strengths include wide-area 
coverage over low-band spectrum and an efficient one-to-many 
architecture, making it well suited for unserved and underserved rural 
communities.
    I would welcome the chance to work with you to identify additional 
ways we can facilitate the offering of Broadcast Internet services, 
particularly in those areas still struggling to close the digital 
divide. Those initiatives may include support for pilot projects that 
can demonstrate the potential for Broadcast Internet services in 
unserved or underserved areas.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. A May 27, 2020, Fierce Wireless article cited you as 
suggesting that the FCC's recent action to facilitate the deployment of 
5G networks across the United States would help FirstNet buildout the 
Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN). Can you speak more 
to the FCC's actions and its relation to the buildout of FirstNet's 
NPSBN?
    Answer. The FCC's 5G Upgrade Order will expedite the upgrade of 
existing towers--including those used to build out FirstNet--by 
resolving ambiguities in our regulations that implement Section 6409. 
As you know, through Section 6409 Congress sought to speed 
municipalities' approval of tower upgrades so long as the upgrades do 
not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower. In 2014, 
the Commission implemented Section 6409, for example by defining what 
constitutes a ``substantial change.'' In the six years since we wrote 
those regulations, wireless infrastructure has changed, and we have 
gained extensive experience with how municipalities and industry 
interpret the rules. To ensure that Congress's intentions in Section 
6409 are appropriately put into action, the 5G Upgrade Order explains 
when the 60-day shot clock begins and what equipment may qualify for 
expedited review, among other clarifications.
    We know that much of today's infrastructure investment is directed 
at collocations that could benefit from Section 6409. As you reference, 
AT&T is busy building capacity and coverage to meet its FirstNet 
obligations, and many of those upgrades will involve installing new 
equipment on the company's existing towers. Likewise, established 
providers and new entrants that are moving quickly to offer 5G service 
will need to swap out radios, densify networks, and install new 
equipment such as edge computing devices. We expect many of those 
upgrades to be expedited thanks to our actions.

    Question 2. As you are aware, Congress passed and President Trump 
signed into the law the TRACED Act, legislation to aimed to help reduce 
illegal and unwanted robocalls. The law also improved the adoption of 
technical solutions for blocking illegal robocalls that are both 
harmful and bothersome to consumers. Additionally, the TRACED Act 
recognized the importance of legitimate calls, like financial 
institutions providing customers with important alerts. In addition to 
the TRACED Act, the Commission has taken several efforts to deter 
illegal robocalls. What steps has the FCC taken to ensure call blocking 
technologies do not adversely affect legal robocalls used by legitimate 
businesses to consumers?
    Answer. Illegal robocalls are the number one complaint we receive 
at the FCC and are responsible for billions of dollars of fraud every 
year. Therefore, we have made them our number one enforcement priority, 
while empowering consumers and carriers to address the problem. Our 
safe harbors have been built around the STIR/SHAKEN protocol and 
advanced network analytics to capture illegal robocalls, while letting 
calls from legitimate callers through. We also require blocking 
carriers to have a single point of contact to dispute erroneously 
blocked calls, in order to more quickly and easily resolve blocking 
disputes.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. A recent study showed that China anticipates having 460 
megahertz of mid-band spectrum for 5G by the end of 2022. Japan says it 
will have 1000 megahertz.
    If we want to lead the world in 5G spectrum, what is the FCC's plan 
to examine the opportunity to make 500 megahertz available for 5G in 
the 12.2-12.7 GHz band?
    Answer. The U.S. is home to the premier 4G networks in the world, 
and with smart policy and growing private sector investment, we now can 
boast the strongest 5G platform to match. We cannot rest on our 
laurels, and offering enough spectrum to power 5G remains a top 
priority at the Commission. We have an open proceeding concerning the 
band you reference, and I look forward to working with stakeholders to 
promote intensive use of the spectrum.

    Question 2. How can the FCC support the accelerated deployment of 
Open RAN networks for 5G and other next-generation technologies?
    What additional resources and authorities do you need from 
Congress?
    Answer. The trend towards Open RAN has the potential to lower 
deployment costs and increase network security--while reenergizing an 
important sector of American manufacturing. The unbundling of the RAN 
already is creating opportunities for American startups that specialize 
in high-value software services. And Open RAN is the approach to 
network architecture that DISH has embraced, in part because of its 
favorable economics, as it seeks to build a greenfield 5G network.
    The Federal Government has a role to play in promoting Open RAN. 
Certainly as part of our ongoing discussions with allies around network 
security, we should promote Open RAN architecture as a lead competitor 
to insecure integrated radio systems. More generally, to create a 
market for Open RAN vendors, we need to continue our nearly four-year 
effort to reduce barriers to infrastructure deployment.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. The 2.5GHz Rural Tribal Window is a unique opportunity 
to help bring greater Internet connectivity to tribal entities through 
direct access to spectrum. The current pandemic is occupying many 
resources that would otherwise be available for applying for this 
program. Is the FCC considering extending the application deadline to 
accommodate the current crisis?
    Answer. I supported the creation of the Rural Tribal Window as part 
of our order that rationalized the 2.5 GHz band last July. I thought it 
was appropriate at that time to set the window at approximately seven 
months and to provide FCC staff resources for extensive tribal 
outreach. We have received requests to extend the window beyond seven 
months, and I have not made a final decision on how to proceed.

    Question 2. How is the FCC preparing for the utilization of beam 
forming, beam steering, and Dynamic Spectrum Sharing in the next 
generation of transportation?
    Answer. The technologies you reference enable more efficient use of 
spectrum. We need creative thinking around spectrum use because the 
scarcity of spectrum and the popularity of wireless use cases threaten 
to mismatch supply and demand. Fortunately, the current Commission 
leadership had the foresight in 2017 to open proceedings into clearing 
more spectrum for private sector use. The results have been an 
unprecedented supply of high-band spectrum, increased flexible use of 
the low-band, and fresh opportunities in the mid-band through EBS 
spectrum, the CBRS auction, and a cleared C-Band, among others.

    Question 3. What is the plan for spectrum allocation, aside from 
DSRC and 802.11P for the DOT, for being able to de-conflict all modes 
of transportation on the same network?
    Answer. Many of these issues touch on the broader trend in 
wireless, which is ensuring that we are putting spectrum bands to their 
highest and best use. Questions around DSRC in particular have been 
raised in a rulemaking that is pending at the FCC. I look forward to 
reviewing the record and engaging with stakeholders to determine how 
best to proceed.

    Question 4. Does the FCC support or see advantages in utilizing 
localized wireless networks that keep information as localized as 
possible and could serve educational or medical districts--especially 
in places that might not have extensive fiber infrastructure--that may 
allow more connectivity for children and the workforce?
    Answer. Perhaps the most underappreciated attribute of 5G is its 
low latency. A 5G network's responsiveness enables technologies from 
remote surgery and autonomous vehicles to virtual reality and high-
definition gaming. But that low latency often depends on computing 
closer to the user, and so we have seen a move from cloud to edge 
processing. I understand that localizing data and computation also 
could have benefits in rural America, where backhaul is limited.

    Question 5. What is the FCC's position on allowing the private 
management of publicly accessible government networks through spectrum 
sharing?
    Answer. Congress has long recognized the need to make more spectrum 
available to support America's next generation wireless networks. In 
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Congress 
determined that, when evaluating existing spectrum allocations, the 
priority would be for reallocation for exclusive non-Federal use, and 
that shared use would be limited to circumstances in which relocation 
is not feasible because of technical or cost constraints. I support 
this approach, and I look forward to working with Congress and 
stakeholders on how best to implement it.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. I am proud of the providers in my state for going above 
and beyond to support their communities. Especially the small providers 
who are facing economic hardships of their own. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan Keeping Critical Connections Act, which would reduce some of 
the weight on these small providers. As Congress discusses how best to 
help these small providers, are there any gaps we should consider?
    Answer. Private sector providers have been instrumental in 
strengthening broadband connectivity during these difficult times, and 
I am grateful for their continued efforts to keep Americans connected. 
It is very encouraging to see Congress work in a bipartisan fashion to 
address these matters, and as with any proposal that strives to expand 
broadband services to underserved areas, I would be happy to continue 
working on this issue with you. We need to make sure that America's 
broadband providers continue to invest in and expand their networks.

    Question 2. Should we include small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills?
    Answer. Providers of all size have stepped up to keep Americans 
connected, though given their smaller scale, small providers have had a 
harder time shouldering the burdens. So as any legislation moves 
forward in Congress it makes sense to tailor relief to the particular 
burdens faced by smaller providers.

    Question 3. What Can Congress do to ensure these resources are 
going to the small providers that need them the most?
    Answer. The key issue is making sure that money goes as far as 
possible. Take, for instance, the 5G Upgrade Order we recently adopted. 
Prior to its adoption, we heard from stakeholders around the country 
about the difficulty of upgrading existing tower sites to 5G. The chief 
roadblock, according to many stakeholders, came from local regulations. 
All too often, the approval process was overly-burdensome to the degree 
that it raised the cost of investment. In response, we at the FCC used 
our authority under Section 6409 of the Spectrum Act to expedite the 
approval process in ways that redounded to the benefit of local 
governments and industry alike. I am confident that, with the counsel 
of stakeholders, Congress can appropriate these resources efficiently 
and ensure that funding is targeted at the providers that are most in 
need.

    Question 4. With regards to the proposed 5G Fund, how will this 
affect my constituents that are still waiting on 3G and 4G service? 
Will communities that currently have 4G receive 5G ahead of them? How 
does the FCC plan to make these decisions?
    Answer. It has always been a principal goal of ours at the FCC to 
ensure that every community benefits from the expansion of the 5G 
network, and we have already seen tremendous progress. To continue this 
momentum, I believe a 5G Fund for Rural America would be the best way 
forward. Whether a community currently has 4G is not the dispositive 
factor for eligibility for support from the 5G Fund.

    Question 5. Why would the FCC consider spending the entire 10-year 
Fund based on maps that we know to be inaccurate, and which will soon 
be replaced?
    Answer. The recently adopted 5G Fund NPRM proposes two alternative 
approaches. Under the first, we would hold an auction in 2021 with 
eligible areas determined by multiple data sources that identify areas 
as particularly rural and unlikely to get 5G without universal service 
support. Alternatively, we could delay the auction, potentially for 
several years.

    Question 6. Between the rural broadband initiatives and the race to 
5G, there is a lot of money going out the door for infrastructure. Do 
we currently have the telecommunications workforce we need to keep up 
with the investments we're making in our networks?
    Answer. We are excited to see the continued momentum of wireless 
infrastructure investment across the country. For the people we serve, 
it will mean better service, more choices, and fewer dead zones. That 
investment doesn't come about by chance; it's the result of eliminating 
unnecessary approval processes and expediting Federal support to where 
it's needed most.
    The infrastructure success that we're experiencing does create a 
workforce challenge. Industry estimates that there are around 25,000 
tower techs available to build and upgrade wireless facilities, but to 
expand coverage and accelerate 5G, the industry may need as many as 
20,000 more workers. These are well-paid jobs that don't require 
expensive four-year degrees. In fact, the basic training needed to 
begin working on towers can be gained in three months, with more on-
the-job training to follow.

    Question 7. What steps should we be taking now to ensure that 
providers have enough skilled workers in rural areas to handle the 
demands of these substantial new universal service programs?
    Answer. To meet the challenge I described in my immediately 
previous answer, I started a workforce initiative at the FCC. We 
realized that community colleges and trade schools are home to so many 
capable students and are well-positioned to provide the training to 
qualify the students for tower tech jobs. We convened educators, 
training organizations, and industry, and by leveraging the expertise 
of South Carolina's Aiken Technical College, we helped to start a new 
tower tech program at Southeast Tech in South Dakota. We expect more 
programs to spring from the startup work that we've facilitated thus 
far.

    Question 8. Has COVID-19 altered our workforce needs?
    Answer. COVID-19 is a challenge for every industry. However, 
because of the nature of tower tech work, there may be an opportunity 
to continue the field's growth despite the pandemic. In discussions 
with local governments and industry, the most immediate challenge seems 
to be the slowdown in approvals that understandably has occurred as 
governments deal with the current health emergency. We helped convene 
associations of local governments and industry to develop best 
practices to continue infrastructure approvals during the pandemic. And 
at the Federal level, we issued updated historic review procedures that 
allow infrastructure projects to proceed. Keeping up the pace of 
infrastructure builds will sustain tower tech jobs and the pipeline of 
workers we are developing.

    Question 9. FCC is administering the three-year $100 million 
Connected Care Pilot Program. Based on FCC's perspective, what have 
been some key challenges for rural communities to access telehealth 
services via broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer. Some of the largest obstacles to widespread adoption of 
telehealth have been related to licensing and physician reimbursement 
rates for telehealth. A number of reforms from the Department of Health 
and Human Services have addressed this issue and reduced the barrier to 
telehealth. If those reforms were kept in place and made permanent, it 
might provide a tipping point for even more healthcare to be provided 
via telehealth.

    Question 10. I am specifically interested in making sure that our 
veterans in rural and Native American communities have timely access to 
VA telehealth services. Is there any coordination between FCC and other 
agencies, including VA?
    Answer. We have been working closely with teams at the Department 
of Veterans Affairs throughout the development of our Connected Care 
Pilot program, and I look forward to continuing that coordination.

    Question 11. What happens to the pilot program after three year?
    Answer. I remain open minded as to the best path forward for the 
FCC with respect to telehealth after the $100 million pilot has 
concluded. I look forward to assessing the program as it is rolled out 
and drawing upon lessons learned from the pilot.

    Question 12. While the FCC moves forward on designating 9-8-8 as 
the 3-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, select 
providers are already enabling 988 for their subscribers. If 988 
becomes available in some areas but not others over this period, it 
will be vital to avoid consumer confusion in areas where 988 is not 
operational or ubiquitous. Does the FCC have sufficient authority to 
ensure that telecom providers are able coordinate with relevant 
stakeholders, including Lifeline administrators on 988 readiness?
    Answer. The new 988 number has the potential to save many lives by 
making it easier for those in crisis to reach counselors. As it will 
not be available in every community at exactly the same time, we will 
continue to coordinate with all stakeholders, and we have directed 
carriers to coordinate with us.

    Question 13. Will the FCC use their authority to ensure service 
providers inform relevant stakeholders of their intention to make 988 
available prior to notifying subscribers?
    Answer. In our recently adopted Report and Order, we directed the 
North American Numbering Plan Administrator to develop a transition 
plan that enables timely transition based on its expertise. We have 
also directed carriers considering early implementation of 988 to 
contact the FCC to ensure SAMHSA and VA staff are apprised.

    Question 14. What plan does the FCC have to ensure clear, uniform 
public messaging regarding the availability of 988 and what challenges 
does the FCC anticipate?
    Answer. We have been working with all stakeholders in both the 
telecommunications and mental health communities, and we will continue 
coordinating throughout implementation. We have also directed carriers 
to coordinate with relevant stakeholders.

    Question 15. In respect to Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
how did the FCC determine the funding levels for each phase?
    Answer. There has not been a final decision at this point as to how 
much money will actually be delivered in each phase. The funding for 
phase 2 is partly a function of how much funding was distributed in 
Phase 1.

    Question 16. What is the total population of the eligible areas, 
and how does that compare to the FCC's estimates for the number of 
people who lack broadband access?
    Answer. We estimate that there are six million homes and businesses 
in the RDOF Phase I eligible areas, so extending broadband in those 
communities would help narrow the digital divide.

    Question 17. Will there be a challenge process for Phase 1 of RDOF?
    Answer. The FCC adopted RDOF Phase I with a challenge process 
included.

    Question 18. What is the FCC's vetting process to ensure that 
broadband providers are actually able to provide adequate connections?
    Answer. We have imposed detailed reporting requirements with the 
Digital Opportunity Data Collection, as well as performance obligations 
to hold providers accountable.

    Question 19. In regards to the IP CTS, since the FCC has decided to 
allow conditional certification of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) -
only service, will the FCC provide a warning to hard-of-hearing 
consumers that ASR-only services are experimental? How will the elderly 
and our veterans going to know that they might be taking a risk?
    Answer. There are many positive attributes of ASR, as it can drive 
down the costs borne by rate payers while improving the quality and 
availability of IP CTS services. We made sure that quality would not 
suffer with the use of ASR, as IP CTS providers must ensure they 
provide functionally equivalent communications, and individual 
providers must first receive approval from the FCC before implementing 
ASR.

    Question 20. Has the FCC considered using a pilot program to test 
the Automated Speech Recognition venders?
    Answer. Under our 2018 Declaratory Ruling, any provider wishing to 
use ASR for IP CTS must first receive approval from the FCC's Consumer 
and Governmental Affairs Bureau before integrating ASR into its 
services. The decision to designate ASR as a functionally equivalent 
service was made based on a thorough record demonstrating that the 
technology can work in the real world and is often superior to IP CTS 
provided by human communications assistants.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                           Hon. Brendan Carr
    Question 1. Do you support a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5GHz band? Why or why not?
    Answer. I supported the creation of the Rural Tribal Window as part 
of our order that rationalized the 2.5 GHz band last July. We have 
received requests to extend the window beyond seven months, and I have 
not made a final decision on how to proceed.

    Question 2. An estimated 17 percent of U.S. students do not have 
access to computers at home and 18 percent do not have access to 
broadband internet--necessities for Arizona students to access online 
learning during this crisis. I support legislation to provide 
additional funds for schools and libraries through the E-Rate program 
for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet-enabled devices, so students have equal 
access to online learning.
    Do you agree that additional E-Rate funding in an upcoming 
coronavirus relief bill can help tackle the Homework Gap for students 
that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. I have been focused on closing the digital divide through a 
variety of means so that every family has access to next-generation 
connectivity. As a result, we now have a strong network that has been 
able to shoulder this pandemic much better than the broadband networks 
of a few years ago could have. I support efforts ongoing in Congress to 
make sure low-income families are able to get online and stay online.

    Question 3. Based on the widespread concerns for the continuing 
viability of GPS, do you support a stay of the Ligado decision to allow 
for further review of the studies relied upon for the decision and an 
opportunity for additional input from potentially impacted 
stakeholders?
    Answer. I support the Commission's unanimous, bipartisan decision 
to approve terrestrial use of this spectrum. The applications of Ligado 
and its predecessors have been sitting before the Commission for years, 
and I commend Chairman Pai for bringing a close to the matter. Our 
expert engineers have studied the power and interference issues between 
Ligado's band and adjacent bands and recommended imposing various 
restrictions on terrestrial use, which the Commission unanimously 
agreed to. There has been no new evidence presented thus far that would 
lead me to reconsider the decision.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                          Hon. Geoffrey Starks
    Executive Branch Concerns with FCC's Ligado Decision. The 
Departments of Commerce and Transportation (along with the entirety of 
the executive branch) believe that the Federal Communications 
Commission's (``FCC's'') recent approval of Ligado's terrestrial 
wireless plan threatens the Nation's global positioning system 
(``GPS''), on which the safety and security of everything from civil 
aviation to military operations to weather forecasting rely. The FCC 
rejected the executive branch's concerns and related technical studies 
from the government and the private sector showing that the precision 
and effectiveness of GPS could be impaired. Instead, the FCC relied on 
competing technical studies (some of which were funded by Ligado), and 
its own conclusion that the government studies measured the wrong 
things. Based on these studies, the FCC decided to allow Ligado to move 
forward with its plans. Yet in its decision, the FCC acknowledged that 
its ``analysis [in the Order] should not be construed to say there is 
no potential for harmful interference to any GPS device currently in 
operation in the marketplace.''
    Question. Given the potential risks to safety; the unprecedented 
and unified opposition of Executive Branch agencies to the FCC's 
decision; and the fact that a third of the U.S Senate, on a bipartisan 
basis, has asked you and your colleagues to take a step back and 
reexamine the decision, would you be willing to support a stay of the 
Ligado decision until the FCC can work with the Federal expert agencies 
to reach a sustainable consensus that serves the greater public 
interest in terms of protecting aviation and transportation safety, 
national security and our 5G future?
    Answer. Given the concerns raised by multiple parties, including 
Executive Branch agencies as well as you and your colleagues, I would 
be willing to support a stay while we review petitions for 
reconsideration so that we can take into account new filings and 
information received in classified briefings. Of course, the Chairman 
would have to be willing to circulate a decision to the Commission 
staying the Ligado decision. It does seem to me, however, that the 
intensity of concerns regarding possible effects to safety and national 
security systems, even when balanced against our desire to secure this 
Nation's 5G future, warrants a pause and second look given the 
potentially high stakes if we do not get this right.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                          Hon. Geoffrey Starks
    Question 1. I am proud of the providers in my state for going above 
and beyond to support their communities. Especially the small providers 
who are facing economic hardships of their own. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan Keeping Critical Connections Act, which would reduce some of 
the weight on these small providers. As Congress discusses how best to 
help these small providers, are there any gaps we should consider?
    Answer. During this pandemic, low-income people are making tough 
financial decisions because they know being offline means being left 
out of remote work, education, and health care. I commend the companies 
that have made and honored the Keep America Connected pledge, but we 
need a long-term commitment to making broadband affordable. This 
commitment should emphasize more competition, more resources for the 
Lifeline program, and a requirement that companies receiving Federal 
funding for broadband deployment offer affordable options. I also 
understand that many small providers are facing serious financial 
issues because of the efforts to help struggling customers, as well as 
broader economic challenges. I support the Keeping Critical Connections 
Act because it focuses on vulnerable small providers who have made 
vital voluntary commitments to their communities.

    Question 2. Should we include small providers that maintained 
service for small businesses even when they fell behind on their bills?
    Answer. I believe funds should be prioritized for small business 
broadband providers that voluntarily provided free or discounted 
service to residential customers. If additional funds are available, I 
would support extending support to small business broadband providers 
that maintained services for small businesses that could not pay their 
bills.

    Question 3. What Can Congress do to ensure these resources are 
going to the small providers that need them the most?
    Answer. Congress can ensure that these resources are going to the 
small providers that need them most by insisting that the FCC 
distribute the funds based on objective, published criteria and provide 
ongoing public transparency as the funds are distributed.

    Question 4. With regards to the proposed 5G Fund, how will this 
affect my constituents that are still waiting on 3G and 4G service? 
Will communities that currently have 4G receive 5G ahead of them? How 
does the FCC plan to make these decisions?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about its future plans regarding the 5G Fund. The 5G 
Fund Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the FCC adopted in April 
proposed to prioritize funding areas that have historically lacked 3G 
and 4G service. While I dissented in part from the item, I supported 
the goal of bringing state-of-the-art wireless service to all 
Americans, especially those in rural communities. The comment period on 
that NPRM closed on July 27, 2020, and Chairman Pai has not yet put a 
proposal before the Commission about how to identify those areas.

    Question 5. Why would the FCC consider spending the entire 10-year 
Fund based on maps that we know to be inaccurate, and which will soon 
be replaced?
    Answer. As mentioned above, I dissented in part from the 5G Fund 
NPRM because I do not believe that spending the 5G Fund based on 
outdated maps should have even been considered. Doing so would be bad 
policy and, at a minimum, contrary to the spirit of the Broadband DATA 
Act. We can and should target the 5G Fund using the new coverage maps 
Congress has ordered us to develop.

    Question 6. Between the rural broadband initiatives and the race to 
5G, there is a lot of money going out the door for infrastructure. Do 
we currently have the telecommunications workforce we need to keep up 
with the investments we're making in our networks?
    Answer. Please see my response to Question 3.

    Question 7. What steps should we be taking now to ensure that 
providers have enough skilled workers in rural areas to handle the 
demands of these substantial new universal service programs?
    Answer. Please see my response to Question 3.

    Question 8. Has COVID-19 altered our workforce needs?
    Answer. A skilled telecommunications workforce is critical to 
ensuring that all communities receive broadband service and can 
participate fully in our economy and democracy. These jobs are not only 
essential to connecting all communities with broadband but also offer a 
path to financial security for working men and women, even in these 
uncertain times. Unfortunately, tower construction and service 
contractors report that they are experiencing a severe shortage of 
properly trained and qualified technicians. This problem does not only 
impact rural communities without broadband service, but also urban and 
suburban areas that may be underserved. And the problem could be 
getting worse. According to industry estimates, broadband 
infrastructure deployments could require as many as 20,000 additional 
technicians over the next 10 years.
    Policymakers need to address this issue, and Senator Tester's 
Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act is a good start. I support the 
bill's goal of increasing interagency coordination between the 
Commission and the Department of Labor on workforce issues, as well as 
providing guidance to state governments on Federal workforce 
development programs that are available to them. Indeed, I've 
personally encouraged efforts by industry and local minority-serving 
institutions to develop training and apprenticeship programs in this 
important field.
    COVID-19 has highlighted the challenges brought on by the current 
workforce shortage. Even as some technicians have missed work due to 
illness or to care for their families, the need for infrastructure 
construction has grown with the increased demand for broadband 
services. Moreover, travel restrictions related to controlling the 
spread of COVID-19 have periodically made it difficult for technicians 
to travel between different states. The situation only reinforces the 
need for a large, well-trained workforce that is distributed throughout 
the country.

    Question 9. FCC is administering the three-year $100 million 
Connected Care Pilot Program. Based on FCC's perspective, what have 
been some key challenges for rural communities to access telehealth 
services via broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer specific 
questions about challenges identified during the application process. 
In my visits to rural communities and discussions with rural leaders, 
the same issue arises again and again: the need for high quality, 
affordable broadband connections to serve patients and providers. 
Without this basic input, telehealth services--along with distance 
learning, job opportunities, and many other benefits of the modern 
economy--will remain out of reach.

    Question 10. I am specifically interested in making sure that our 
veterans in rural and Native American communities have timely access to 
VA telehealth services. Is there any coordination between FCC and other 
agencies, including VA?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about FCC staff coordination with other agencies and 
the VA. As a general matter, I strongly support the FCC strengthening 
its coordination with other Federal agencies. For example, I have 
called on the Commission to enter memoranda of understanding with other 
Federal agencies in order to better promote the Lifeline program.

    Question 11. What happens to the pilot program after three year?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about future plans for the pilot program. To the 
best of my knowledge, the Commission adopted the pilot program for this 
limited duration in order to generate data on the benefits of connected 
care and collect information about how Universal Service Fund support 
could be used more broadly to facilitate connected care. We should 
rigorously evaluate that data before determining next steps after the 
pilot program.

    Question 12. While the FCC moves forward on designating 9-8-8 as 
the 3-digit number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, select 
providers are already enabling 988 for their subscribers. If 988 
becomes available in some areas but not others over this period, it 
will be vital to avoid consumer confusion in areas where 988 is not 
operational or ubiquitous. Does the FCC have sufficient authority to 
ensure that telecom providers are able coordinate with relevant 
stakeholders, including Lifeline administrators on 988 readiness?
    Answer. Please see response to Question 2 below.

    Question 13. Will the FCC use their authority to ensure service 
providers inform relevant stakeholders of their intention to make 988 
available prior to notifying subscribers?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about future plans for service provider 
requirements. As described in our July 2020 decision, we ``expect and 
encourage providers to coordinate with Commission staff, SAMHSA, and 
the VA before moving forward with early adoption.'' That decision 
provides a single point of contact at the FCC for providers considering 
early implementation, which should help streamline coordination 
efforts.

    Question 14. What plan does the FCC have to ensure clear, uniform 
public messaging regarding the availability of 988 and what challenges 
does the FCC anticipate?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about its public messaging plans. I supported a 
single nationwide implementation of 988 because it will facilitate 
consistent and clear communication with the American people regarding 
the availability of 988. Our July 2020 decision anticipates that 988 
may be available through some providers before the nationwide deadline, 
but I agree with the Order's conclusion that, even with some early 
adopters, we can anticipate less consumer confusion with a single 
widely known `available-no-later-than' date, accompanied by 
coordinated, national consumer education campaigns.

    Question 15. In respect to Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), 
how did the FCC determine the funding levels for each phase?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about funding level determinations. I do remain 
concerned that the FCC did not provide adequate justification for the 
funding levels of each phase. Because the majority of the Commission 
decided to distribute the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund without first 
correcting our broadband data, the RDOF Order does not provide an 
estimate of how many areas will need to be served using Phase II 
funding. Without that information, we cannot be sure the budget 
proposed for Phase II is enough. I am worried that the majority has 
made promises for Phase II that it will not have the resources to keep.

    Question 16. What is the total population of the eligible areas, 
and how does that compare to the FCC's estimates for the number of 
people who lack broadband access?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions. For Phase I, the Chairman has announced that RDOF 
will target approximately 6 million locations. To my knowledge, 
Chairman Pai has not announced a population estimate for those areas. 
As described above, I do not believe the Commission has gathered 
adequate information to determine the number of people in areas that 
will be eligible for Phase II. The Chairman has not provided assurance 
that there will be sufficient funding for Phase II. One of the reasons 
I dissented in part from the January 2020 RDOF Order is that I did not 
believe the Chairman's proposal was based on accurate data or supported 
by answers to questions like this one.

    Question 17. Will there be a challenge process for Phase 1 of RDOF?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions. Consistent with Chairman Pai's proposal, the FCC 
conducted a limited challenge process for Phase I. That process 
operated as a one-way ratchet: it only identified areas that should not 
be eligible, and it ignored information that identified unserved areas 
that should be eligible. Accordingly, the Commission did not attempt to 
correct inaccuracies in its coverage data. As a result, the process 
almost certainly prevented communities that should have been eligible 
for RDOF from benefiting--another reason I dissented in part from the 
January 2020 RDOF.

    Question 18. What is the FCC's vetting process to ensure that 
broadband providers are actually able to provide adequate connections?
    Answer. The Chairman's office is best positioned to answer any 
specific questions about the vetting process. I note that in my 
statement dissenting in part from the RDOF Order, I laid out a four-
part plan for a data-driven and fiscally responsible approach to 
promoting rural broadband deployment that emphasized holding auction 
winners accountable. Currently, the Commission uses a combination of 
factors--letters of credit, the state Eligible Telecommunications 
Carrier designation, and the vetting of long-form applications by 
Commission staff--to help avoid defaults and ensure service is actually 
provided. In many cases, this has not proved sufficient. We have seen a 
significant number of defaults and missed buildout milestones among the 
Connected America Fund Phase II winners. Going forward, we must create 
real accountability for companies that receive subsidies and consider 
updating our vetting processes, because a default can be extremely 
harmful to communities that face delayed deployment.

    Question 19. In regard to the IP CTS, since the FCC has decided to 
allow conditional certification of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) -
only service, will the FCC provide a warning to hard-of-hearing 
consumers that ASR-only services are experimental? How will the elderly 
and our veterans going to know that they might be taking a risk?
    Answer. The Chairman has not shared with me any plans to provide a 
warning to hard-of-hearing consumers about any attendant risks posed by 
ASR-only IP CTS services.

    Question 20. Has the FCC considered using a pilot program to test 
the Automated Speech Recognition venders?
    Answer. The Chairman has not indicated to me whether he has ever 
considered using a pilot program to test ASR vendors. However, the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau notes, in recent approvals of 
certifications to provide fully automatic IP CTS, that such 
certifications are conditional, and thus subject to a final 
determination as to whether the service meets the Commission's minimum 
standards for IP CTS.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                          Hon. Geoffrey Starks
    Question 1. Do you support a 180-day extension for the tribal 
priority filing window in the 2.5GHz band? Why or why not?
    Answer. I support extension of the tribal filing window for the 2.5 
GHz band. Tribal communities are some of the least connected in the 
United States, and 2.5 GHz licenses present a great opportunity to help 
these Americans. Unfortunately, many tribal entities have had 
difficulties meeting the current filing deadline because of COVID-19-
related delays.

    Question 2. An estimated 17 percent of U.S. students do not have 
access to computers at home and 18 percent do not have access to 
broadband internet--necessities for Arizona students to access online 
learning during this crisis. I support legislation to provide 
additional funds for schools and libraries through the E-Rate program 
for Wi-Fi hotspots and internet-enabled devices, so students have equal 
access to online learning.
    Do you agree that additional E-Rate funding in an upcoming 
coronavirus relief bill can help tackle the Homework Gap for students 
that lack reliable Internet access?
    Answer. Absolutely. One lesson that we've learned in this pandemic 
is that the concept of the ``classroom'' isn't limited to the brick and 
mortar walls of the school. Over the last few months, the classroom has 
meant the kitchen table or the home office for families around the 
country. But far too many kids couldn't take advantage of distance 
learning because they don't have broadband at home. The FCC needs to 
adjust its E-rate program to reflect this reality and provide support 
for hotspots and other broadband connections at home. We've done so 
before, when we operated a pilot program in 2011 that supported off-
campus wireless connectivity for schools and libraries. Additional 
funds for such an effort are an essential part of our Nation's response 
to, and recovery from, COVID-19.

    Question 3. Based on the widespread concerns for the continuing 
viability of GPS, do you support a stay of the Ligado decision to allow 
for further review of the studies relied upon for the decision and an 
opportunity for additional input from potentially impacted 
stakeholders?
    Answer. Given the concerns raised by multiple parties, including 
Executive Branch agencies, as well as you and your colleagues, I would 
be willing to support a stay to allow for further review of studies and 
other information in the record from potentially impacted stakeholders. 
However, because the Chairman controls the Commission's agenda, only he 
can present a stay order for our consideration.