[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]







    STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF 
                               CONSUMERS

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

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 6, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-51





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]







     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                        
                             _________
                              
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                 
54-446 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2024
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
                 WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                        MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                                 Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York             Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    Chair                            TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota                   (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)  
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, prepared statement..............................     9
Hon. Lizzie Fletcher, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Texas, prepared statement...................................    10
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of North Carolina, opening statement...........................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs, 
  Competitive Carriers Association...............................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   140
John Fogle, Councilmember, City of Loveland, Colorado, and Chair, 
  Information Technology and Communications Committee, National 
  League of Cities...............................................    28
    Prepared statement...........................................    30
Todd Brandenburg, President, PocketiNet Communications, Inc......    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Advisor, Office of Communications, Inc., 
  United Church of Christ........................................    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    46

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1042, the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act \1\
H.R. 1046, the Federal Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas Act 
  \1\
H.R. 1049, the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews 
  Act \1\
H.R. 1058, the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act 
  \1\
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act \1\
H.R. 2489, the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act \1\
H.R. 2501, the Spectrum Coordination Act \1\
H.R. 4208, the Section 331 Obligation Clarification Act \1\
H.R. 5028, the ISAAC Alerting Act \1\
H.R. 5058, the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act \1\
H.R. 5378, the Spectrum Innovation Act \1\
H.R. 5400, the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds 
  Act \1\
Letter of October 6, 2021, from Jim Nussle, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Credit Union National Association, to Mr. 
  Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle....................   103

----------

\1\ The proposed legislation has been retained in committee files and 
is available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114108.
Statement of Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., October 6, 2021, submitted 
  by Mr. Pallone.................................................   105
Statement of Rick Roderick, President, National Association for 
  Amateur Radio, October 6, 2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle.........   107
Letter of October 5, 2021, from Todd Schlekeway, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, NATE: The Communications 
  Infrastructure Contractors Association, et al., to Mr. Doyle 
  and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher......................   113
Letter of September 24, 2021, from Todd Schlekeway, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, NATE: The Communications 
  Infrastructure Contractors Association, et al., to Mrs. 
  Fletcher, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher...........................   116
Statements of support for H.R. 5058 from CCA, INCOMPAS, and WIA, 
  August 23, 2021, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher....................   117
Statement of the March of Dimes by Stacey Brayboy, Senior Vice 
  President, Public Policy and Government Affairs, October 6, 
  2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle...................................   119
Letter of October 6, 2021, from ADAPT, et al., to Mr. Doyle and 
  Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle..............................   121
Letter of October 5, 2021, from Wade Henderson, Interim President 
  and Chief Executive Officer, and Jesselyn McCurdy, Executive 
  Vice President of Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on 
  Civil and Human Rights, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   124
Letter of May 20, 2021, from James L. Madara, Chief Executive 
  Officer and Executive Vice President, American Medical 
  Association, to Mr. Butterfield, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle   126
Statement of the American College of Obstetricians and 
  Gynecologists, October 6, 2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle.........   128
Letter of October 5, 2021, from J. David Grossman, Executive 
  Director, GPS Innovation Alliance, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   133
Letter of October 6, 2021, from Jonathan Spalter, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, USTelecom, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, 
  submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   137
Article of July 7, 2021, ``New Jersey, media desert,'' by Rep. 
  Bill Pascrell and Senator Robert Menendez, New York Daily News, 
  submitted by Mr. Pallone.......................................   138

 
    STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF 
                               CONSUMERS

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. 
Mike Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke, 
Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui, 
Welch, Schrader, Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex 
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Guthrie, Long, 
Hudson, Mullin, Walberg, Carter, and Curtis.
    Also present: Representatives Rush, Dingell, and Griffith.
    Staff present: Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer 
Epperson, Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; Mackenzie 
Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; Joe 
Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Chloe 
Rodriguez, Deputy Chief Clerk; Johanna Thomas, Counsel; Kate 
Arey, Minority Content Manager and Digital Assistant; Sarah 
Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, 
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protections and Commerce, 
Energy, Environment; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff 
Assistant/Policy Analyst; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and 
Office Administrator; Jack Heretik, Minority Press Secretary; 
Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority 
Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily 
King, Minority Member Services Director; Bihan Koohmaraie, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations Chief 
Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer 
Protections and Commerce; Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Clare Paoletta, 
Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Olivia Shields, Minority 
Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy 
Director; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff Member, 
Communications and Technology; and Everett Winnick, Minority 
Director of Information Technology.
    Mr. Doyle. The committee will now come to order. Today, the 
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a 
hearing entitled ``Strengthening Our Communication Networks to 
Meet the Needs of Consumers.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Members can 
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via 
online videoconferencing. Members who are not vaccinated and 
participating in person must wear a mask and be socially 
distanced. Such Members may remove their mask when they are 
under recognition and speaking from a microphone. Staff and 
press who are not vaccinated and present in the committee room 
must wear a mask at all times and be socially distanced.
    For Members participating remotely, your microphones will 
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to 
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak. Please note 
that once you unmute your microphone, anything that is said in 
Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in the committee 
room, and subject to be heard by the live stream and C-SPAN.
    Since Members are participating from different locations at 
today's hearing, all recognition of Members, such as for 
questions, will be in the order of subcommittee seniority. 
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the 
email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be 
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

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

    Today's hearing presents us once again with the opportunity 
to discuss and debate the communication needs of our Nation, 
while reviewing the proposal our Members have authored to meet 
those needs.
    It is our responsibility on the subcommittee to highlight, 
as we have in so many hearings, the issues important to the 
people we represent, issues such as access to and the adoption 
of broadband, resiliency, media localism, and more. And 
imperatively, it is our duty to explore solutions we can 
advance to address those issues in a way that makes progress 
for the Nation.
    On this committee, we have a bipartisan tradition that 
recognizes no single party has a monopoly on good ideas. We 
consider a large slate of bills specifically before us today. 
The 12 bills--six authored by Democrats and six by 
Republicans--span the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and 
highlight so many issues of importance to Americans.
    We have all seen the stark reality, highlighted by the 
ongoing pandemic, that broadband is a necessity. We have made 
important investments in funding for broadband deployment and 
adoption, investments that will help our urban and rural 
communities, our students and teachers, and those Americans who 
otherwise could not afford a broadband connection.
    To that end, we should examine how the proposals under 
consideration could speed deployment of wired and wireless 
networks and assist localities and broadband providers as they 
facilitate buildout to consumers. We should examine how to 
ensure incarcerated individuals can remain connected to their 
families. We should examine the role of localism in the media, 
and we should examine how we can use connectivity to keep us 
safe during an emergency.
    There are, of course, a few proposals I think deserve 
highlighting. For example, I am proud that today we will be 
considering the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. We must 
give further consideration to enact upon proposals that ensure 
that incarcerated population and their families have access to 
communications services at a fair and reasonable rate.
    Studies have shown that the ability to connect with family 
and support reduces recidivism. That means a reduction in crime 
and reincarceration. Families should not go into debt to 
maintain contact with an incarcerated loved one. I believe 
these are goals we can all support.
    Perhaps a little more arcane but critically important, we 
have to protect the Universal Service Fund from disruption by 
extending the Antideficiency Act exemption. This is critical to 
connecting rural hospitals, rural homes, schools, libraries, 
and providing telehealth and discounted internet and phone 
service.
    I am also happy to see Mrs. Fletcher's bill before us, a 
proposal that aims to treat our local governments as partners, 
not adversaries, in the effort to deploy broadband.
    And, of course, I am looking forward to hearing our 
witnesses' thoughts on the Spectrum Innovation Act, which would 
give consumers access to more spectrum leading to faster 
speeds, better networks, and new innovative services. Midband 
is of critical importance, as this Goldilocks spectrum can 
cover substantial geographic areas and handle large amounts of 
data.
    We have sought unprecedented participation in the CBRS 
auction last year, a record-breaking C-band auction earlier 
this year, and an auction for the 3.45 band that just started 
this week. We should build on those successes, and we should do 
so with a process framework that will promote maximum usage of 
this valuable band.
    Ultimately, this should be a win for the Federal incumbents 
of the band, consumers, our economy, and the U.S. Treasury. We 
have an excellent panel before us today who will provide 
valuable insight into the bills before us and the issues they 
seek to address.
    I also look forward to the feedback and questions of my 
colleagues to ensure that the views of their constituents are 
heard throughout this deliberative process. Thank you both to 
the witnesses who are speaking with us today and to my 
colleagues for their contributions to this hearing and their 
thoughtful legislative proposals.
    I look forward to continued collaboration on these 
important topics, and that concludes my initial remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

    Today's hearing presents us once again with the opportunity 
to discuss and debate the communications needs of our nation 
while reviewing the proposals our members have authored to meet 
those needs. It is our responsibility on this Subcommittee to 
highlight, as we have in so many hearings, the issues important 
to the people we represent--issues such as access to and the 
adoption of broadband, resiliency, media localism, and more. 
And imperatively, it is our duty to explore solutions we can 
advance to address those issues in a way that makes progress 
for the nation.
    On this Committee, we have a bipartisan tradition that 
recognizes no single party has a monopoly on good ideas. We 
consider a large slate of bills specifically before us today. 
The twelve bills, 6 authored by Democrats, 6 by Republicans, 
span the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and highlight so 
many issues of importance to Americans.
    We all have seen the stark reality highlighted by the 
ongoing pandemic that broadband is a necessity. We have made 
important investments in funding for broadband deployment and 
adoption - investments that will help our urban and rural 
communities, our students and teachers, and those Americans who 
otherwise could not afford a broadband connection.
    To that end, we should examine how the proposals under 
consideration could speed deployment of wired and wireless 
networks and assist localities and broadband providers as they 
facilitate build-out to consumers. We should examine how to 
ensure incarcerated individuals can remain connected to their 
families. We should examine the role of localism in the media. 
And we should examine how we can use connectivity to keep us 
safe during an emergency.
    There are of course a few proposals I think deserve 
highlighting.
    For example, I'm proud that today we will be considering 
the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. We must give 
further consideration to, and act upon, proposals that ensure 
the incarcerated population and their families have access to 
communication services at fair and reasonable rates. Studies 
have shown that the ability to connect with family and support 
reduces recidivism. That means a reduction in crime and 
reincarceration. Families should not go into debt to maintain 
contact with an incarcerated loved one. I believe these are 
goals we can all support.
    Perhaps a little more arcane, but critically important, we 
have to protect the Universal Service Fund from disruption by 
extending the anti-deficiency act exemption. This is critical 
to connecting rural hospitals, rural homes, schools, libraries, 
and providing telehealth and discounted internet and phone 
service.
    I'm also happy to see Ms. Fletcher's bill before us, a 
proposal that aims to treat our local governments as partners, 
not adversaries, in the effort to deploy broadband.
    And of course I'm looking forward to hearing our witnesses 
thoughts on the Spectrum Innovation Act, which would give 
consumers access to more spectrum, leading to faster speeds, 
better networks, and new innovative services.
    Mid-band is of critical importance as this ``goldilocks'' 
spectrum can both cover substantial geographic areas and handle 
large amounts of data. We saw unprecedented participation in 
the CBRS auction last year, a record-breaking C-Band auction 
earlier this year, and an auction for the 3.45 (three dot four 
five) band that started just this week. We should build on 
those successes and we should do so with a process framework 
that will promote maximum usage of this valuable band. 
Ultimately, this should be a win for the federal incumbents of 
the band, consumers, our economy, and the U.S. Treasury.
    We have an excellent panel before us today who will provide 
valuable insight into the bills before us and the issues they 
seek to address. I also look forward to the feedback and 
questions of my colleagues to ensure the views of their 
constituents are heard throughout this deliberative process.
    Thank you to both the witnesses who are speaking with us 
today, and to my colleagues for their contributions to this 
hearing and their thoughtful legislative proposals. I look 
forward to continued collaboration on these important topics.

    Mr. Doyle. So the Chair will now recognize my good friend, 
the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

    Mr. Latta. Well, I thank my friend for today's hearing, and 
also for our witnesses for appearing before us today. It has 
been nearly 100 days since this subcommittee has held a 
hearing, and I am glad we are back to discuss some important 
issues within the communication and technology jurisdiction.
    For over a decade, expanding broadband access has been a 
shared bipartisan goal. We have enacted landmark legislation to 
improve our broadband availability and mapping tools, took 
steps to streamline Federal broadband deployment, and worked 
together to ensure Americans did not lose service during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. All this was done with thoughtful input from 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
    Yet, on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation investment in 
broadband, as the President calls it, our committee, and in 
particular this subcommittee, has been absent. We have held no 
hearings to examine communication provisions included in the 
Senate infrastructure bill that is being discussed among House 
leadership. We have also held no markups to consider 
improvements, despite a partisan bill on today's hearing that 
aims to improve portions in the Senate bill.
    In addition to the disappointment of not having input on 
the Senate infrastructure bill, we have not heard directly from 
the agencies on how they plan to implement this funding should 
Congress provide it to them.
    NTIA and the FCC, both agencies that this committee has 
oversight, stand to receive tens of billions of dollars between 
the Senate infrastructure bill and the partisan reconciliation 
bill, yet, we have not had either agency before this committee 
to testify under this administration.
    We are missing an opportunity to deliver a truly bipartisan 
success for the American people that reflects the expertise and 
experience of this committee's members to close the digital 
divide once and for all. So today, we will examine the missed 
opportunities as a subcommittee and prepare for the hard work 
of understanding the shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure 
bill.
    Earlier this year, Republicans introduced the Boosting 
Broadband Connectivity Agenda to remove regulatory barriers to 
broadband deployment, and I am pleased to see four bills from 
that agenda on today's hearing: Mr. Curtis' Federal Broadband 
Deployment in Unserved Areas Act would map Federal facilities 
that can support broadband infrastructure in unserved areas; 
Mr. Duncan's Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews 
Act would expedite and prioritize reviews for requests to 
deploy broadband on Federal land; Mr. Kinzinger's Wireless 
Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act would make it easier to 
invest in network resiliency; and Mr. Bucshon's Protecting 
Critical Infrastructure Act would establish a 2-year prison 
term for anyone who maliciously destroys a communications 
facility.
    While it is disappointing that we are not considering all 
of the bills included in our package, this is a good first 
step.
    I would be remiss if I did not also mention the other bills 
on today's hearing that, despite being historically bipartisan 
issues, have been unnecessarily injected with partisanship.
    The chairman's Spectrum Innovation Act takes meaningful 
steps to improve the auction of lower 3-gigahertz spectrum that 
was included in the Senate infrastructure bill. However, this 
bill did not have the opportunity to receive Republican input 
before it was placed in the partisan reconciliation tool as 
part of the Democrats' $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree.
    H.R. 5400 extends the Antideficiency Act exemption for the 
Universal Service Fund, conveniently through the first term of 
the Biden administration's FCC Chair, who still remains 
unknown. Yet this subcommittee has not held an FCC oversight 
hearing after giving record-level funding to the FCC through 
partisan reconciliation spending with no confirmed share.
    And then we have H.R. 4208, another attempt by the 
Democrats to disregard the First Amendment by this time telling 
broadcast agencies what type of news programming to distribute.
    Mr. Chairman, the breadth and significance of these bills 
demand much more than a last-minute legislative hearing, 
including additional hearings on the individual topics we are 
covering today. We have certainly had time over the last 
several months to hold substantive hearings on the topics 
contemplated in this legislation. I would urge you to do so 
before the committee meets to consider reporting these bills to 
the floor.
    Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for today's 
hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. It 
has been nearly 100 days since this subcommittee has held a 
hearing, and I am glad we are back to discuss some important 
issues within the communications and technology jurisdiction.
    For over a decade, expanding broadband access has been a 
shared, bipartisan goal. We have enacted landmark legislation 
to improve our broadband availability mapping tools, taken 
steps to streamline Federal broadband deployment, and worked 
together to ensure Americans did not lose service during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. And it was done with thoughtful input from 
Republicans and Democrats alike.
    Yet on the cusp of a ``once-in-a-generation investment'' in 
broadband, as the President calls it, our committee, and in 
particular this subcommittee, has been absent. We have held no 
hearings to examine the communications provisions included in 
the Senate infrastructure bill that is being discussed among 
House leadership. We have also held no markups to consider 
improvements, despite a partisan bill on today's hearing that 
aims to improve portions of the Senate bill.
    In addition to the disappointment of not having input on 
the Senate infrastructure bill, we have not heard directly from 
the agencies on how they plan to implement this funding should 
Congress provide it to them. NTIA and the FCC, both agencies 
that this committee oversees, stand to receive tens of billions 
of dollars between the Senate infrastructure bill and the 
partisan Reconciliation bill, yet we have not had either agency 
before this committee to testify under this Administration.
    We are missing an opportunity to deliver a truly, 
bipartisan success for the American people that reflects the 
expertise and experience of this Committee's members to close 
the digital divide once and for all.
    So today, we will examine the missed opportunities of this 
Subcommittee and prepare for the hard work of understanding the 
shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure bill.
    Earlier this year, Republicans introduced the Boosting 
Broadband Connectivity Agenda to help remove regulatory 
barriers to broadband deployment, and I am pleased to see four 
bills from that agenda on today's hearing. Mr. Curtis's Federal 
Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas Act would map Federal 
facilities that can support broadband infrastructure in 
unserved areas. Mr. Duncan's Expediting Federal Broadband 
Deployment Reviews Act would help expedite and prioritize 
reviews for requests to deploy broadband on Federal land. Mr. 
Kinzinger's Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act 
would make it easier to invest in network resiliency. And Mr. 
Bucshon's Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act would 
establish a two-year prison term for anyone who maliciously 
destroys a communications facility. While it is disappointing 
that we are not considering all of the bills included in our 
package, this is a good first step.
    I would be remiss if I did not also mention the other bills 
on today's hearing that, despite being historically bipartisan 
issues, have been unnecessarily injected with partisanship.
    The Chairman's Spectrum Innovation Act takes meaningful 
steps to improve the auction of lower 3 gigahertz spectrum that 
was included in the Senate infrastructure bill. However, this 
bill did not have the opportunity to receive Republican input 
before it was stuffed into the partisan reconciliation tool as 
part of Democrats' $3.5 trillion dollar tax and spending spree.
    H.R. 5400 extends the Anti-Deficiency Act Exemption for the 
Universal Service Fund conveniently through the first term of 
the Biden Administration's FCC Chair, who remains unknown. Yet 
this subcommittee has not held an FCC oversight hearing after 
giving record level funding to the FCC through partisan 
reconciliation spending, with no confirmed Chair.
    And then we have H.R. 4208, another attempt by Democrats to 
disregard the First Amendment, this time telling broadcast 
stations what type of news programming to distribute.
    Mr. Chairman, the breadth and significance of these bills 
demands much more than a last-minute legislative hearing, 
including additional hearings on the individual topics we are 
covering today. We have certainly had the time over the last 
several months to hold substantive hearings on the topics 
contemplated in this legislation. And I would urge you to do so 
before the Committee meets to consider reporting these bills to 
the floor.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
    Communications networks play an integral role in the lives 
of our constituents, and today we are going to examine 
legislation aimed at strengthening those networks to better 
meet the needs of consumers. Today's legislative hearing, as 
you mentioned, includes 12 bills, six of them led by Democrats 
and the other six by Republicans.
    First, I am pleased we will be discussing H.R. 5378, the 
Spectrum Innovation Act, which was introduced by Chairman Doyle 
and Representative Matsui. This committee has worked for years 
to address the increasing demand for spectrum. This legislation 
requires making at least 200 megahertz of new midband spectrum 
available for auction, as well as requiring the opportunistic 
use of those airwaves.
    Representatives Hayes and Veasey have introduced H.R. 5400, 
the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds Act. This 
bill extends the Antideficiency Act exemption on the Federal 
Communications Commission's universal service programs until 
December 2024. Without this extension, the universal service 
programs, including rural broadband, rural healthcare, 
telemedicine, E-rate and Lifeline programs may be at risk.
    And, as part of this committee's ongoing efforts to reverse 
the alarming trends in maternal mortality, we will consider 
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act. And this 
bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Butterfield, 
Bilirakis, and Blunt Rochester requires the FCC to consult with 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to integrate 
maternal health outcome data into the FCC's broadband maps.
    I am also looking forward to discussing Representative 
Rush's bill to address predatory phone rates and fees that 
target incarcerated people and their families. It is well 
documented that connections to friends and family during 
incarceration help produce better outcomes for people after 
they are released, including lower rates of recidivism.
    H.R. 2489, the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act, 
would require the FCC to issue rules to limit the costs that 
may be charged to incarcerated individuals or their families.
    And, finally, I would like to mention H.R. 4208, the 
Section 331 Obligation Clarification Act, which was introduced 
by Representative Pascrell in series. This legislation aims to 
address the lack of local television programming for New Jersey 
residents.
    So I look forward to discussing today all these bills, that 
we continue our bipartisan work to improve connectivity for all 
Americans.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Communications networks play an integral role in the lives 
of our constituents, and today we are going to examine 
legislation aimed at strengthening those networks to better 
meet the needs of consumers. Today's legislative hearing 
includes 12 bills, six of them led by Democrats and the other 
six led by Republicans.
    First, I'm pleased we will be discussing H.R. 5378, the 
Spectrum Innovation Act, which was introduced by Chairman Doyle 
and Representative Matsui. This Committee has worked for years 
to address the increasing demand for spectrum. This legislation 
requires making at least 200 megahertz of new, mid-band 
spectrum available for auction, as well as requiring the 
opportunistic use of those airwaves.
    Representatives Hayes and Veasey have introduced H.R. 5400, 
the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds Act. This 
legislation extends the Antideficiency Act exemption on the 
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service 
programs until December 2024. Without this extension, the 
universal service programs including Rural Broadband, Rural 
Health Care, Telemedicine, E-Rate, and Lifeline programs may be 
at risk.
    As part of this Committee's ongoing efforts to reverse the 
alarming trends in maternal mortality, we will consider H.R. 
1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act. This bipartisan 
legislation introduced by Representatives Butterfield, 
Bilirakis, and Blunt Rochester requires the FCC to consult with 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to integrate 
maternal health outcome data into the FCC's broadband maps.
    I'm also looking forward to discussing Representative 
Rush's bill to address predatory phone rates and fees that 
target incarcerated people and their families. It is well 
documented that connections to friends and family during 
incarceration help produce better outcomes for people after 
their release, including lower rates of recidivism. H.R. 2489, 
the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act, would require the 
FCC to issue rules to limit the costs that may be charged to 
incarcerated individuals or their families.
    Finally, I'd like to mention H.R. 4208, the Section 331 
Obligation Clarification Act, which was introduced by 
Representatives Pascrell and Sires. This legislation aims to 
address the lack of local television programming for New Jersey 
residents.

    Mr. Pallone. And I would like to split the remainder of my 
time between Representative Matsui and Representative Fletcher. 
So I guess I will yield the minute and 15 seconds beginning 
with Representative Matsui and then a minute and 15 seconds to 
Representative Fletcher.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding 
to me. And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for having this hearing.
    Recently, I joined Chairman Doyle in introducing the 
Spectrum Innovation Act to ensure we are making available as 
much spectrum as possible for commercial use while recognizing 
the needs of our Federal users.
    Our bill lays out a balanced framework for freeing up much-
needed, midband spectrum in the lower 3-gigahertz band. By 
requiring 200 megahertz of spectrum to be made available, we 
are asserting a clear commitment to winning the race to 5G and 
beyond. The bill also creates a path for new, innovative uses 
of spectrum through opportunistic and flexible access. This 
bill will help ensure that the United States has a healthy 
pipeline of spectrum to boost innovation and job creation.
    And with that, I yield my time back to Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui

    Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
    Recently, I joined Chairman Doyle in introducing the 
Spectrum Innovation Act to ensure we are making available as 
much spectrum as possible for commercial use while recognizing 
the needs of our federal users.
    Our bill lays out a balanced framework for freeing up much 
needed mid-band spectrum in the lower 3 gigahertz band.
    By requiring 200 megahertz of spectrum to be made 
available, we are asserting a clear commitment to winning the 
race to 5G and beyond.
    The bill also creates a path for new, innovative uses of 
spectrum through opportunistic and flexible access.
    This bill will help ensure that the United States has a 
healthy pipeline of spectrum to boost innovation and job 
creation. And with that I yield back my time.

    Mr. Pallone. I yield the rest to Representative Fletcher, 
Chairman Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields to Congresswoman Fletcher.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
    And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for holding this important 
legislative hearing today where we are looking at useful 
proposals to help keep our communities connected.
    And I am glad that my bill, H.R. 5058, the Broadband 
Incentives for Communities Act, is one of the proposals that we 
will discuss today. This bill grew out of partnerships in my 
community here in Houston where we have learned important 
lessons in the effort to build our broadband networks.
    And as this committee works to address the digital divide, 
which we have seen the impacts of throughout the COVID-19 
pandemic across communities across the country, and as Congress 
has invested significantly in broadband expansion and is 
continuing that work in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, we must ensure that our local governments are prepared to 
take advantage of these efforts and these funds.
    And my bill does just that. It provides grants to local 
governments to support their processing of applications for 
broadband deployment. These grants could be used to build 
remote or electronic submission portals, or hire additional 
staff to process applications, for example.
    The program would be voluntary. It would not preempt any 
local, zoning, or permitting processes. But it serves to make 
sure that these crucial funds are efficiently and effectively 
disbursed.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Fletcher follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Lizzie Fletcher

    Thank you, Chairman Pallone for yielding to me, and thank 
you Chairman Doyle for holding this important legislative 
hearing today, where we are looking at useful proposals to help 
keep our communities connected.
    I am glad that my bill, H.R. 5058, the Broadband Incentives 
for Communities Act, is one of the proposals we will discuss 
today.
    This bill grew out of partnerships in my community in 
Houston, where we have learned important lessons in the effort 
to build our broadband networks.
    As this committee works to address the digital divide--we 
have seen its impacts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic across 
all communities-and as Congress has invested in significant 
broadband expansion and is continuing that work in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we must ensure that our 
local governments are prepared to take advantage of these 
efforts and funds.
    My bill does just that: it provides grants to local 
governments to support their processing of applications for 
broadband deployment.
    These grants could be used to build remote or electronic 
submission portals or to hire additional staff to process 
applications, for example.
    The program would be voluntary and would not preempt any 
local zoning or permitting processes.
    It simply serves to make sure that these crucial funds are 
efficiently and effectively disbursed.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The chairman yields back.
    It is the Chair's understanding that Mr. Hudson will be 
claiming Chairwoman Rodgers' time. So, Mr. Hudson, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Energy and Commerce Committee and this subcommittee 
have a rich history of bipartisanship. We have come together 
many times on solutions to tackle tough issues, like securing 
our communications supply chain, combating robocalls, and 
improving our broadband maps to ensure resources go to the 
people who need them most.
    We all share the goal to close the digital divide and 
ensure all Americans are connected. I have concerns with some 
of the proposals today and appreciate the opportunity to hear 
from our witnesses and for a robust discussion and debate on 
legislation from both sides of the aisle.
    My colleagues and I are leading and support solutions to 
lift the permitting and regulatory burdens to speed up the 
deployment of America's broadband infrastructure. This is the 
kind of approach we wanted before the Democrats chose to rush 
through reckless levels of funding for proposals that lack the 
critical, targeted funding necessary to ensure resources get to 
the people who need them.
    As we debated in our recent markup, the majority's partisan 
go-it-alone agenda has the potential to fuel out-of-control 
inflation while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a 
partisan wish list. This will not drive results for reliable 
broadband in communities like the ones I represent in North 
Carolina.
    In 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act under President Barack Obama and spent 
billions of dollars on broadband through the BTOP. This Federal 
funding was not targeted to unserved areas and not based on 
accurate broadband maps. Across the country, this led to 
wasteful overbuilding.
    BTOP was a failure across the Nation, and without changes, 
the Senate infrastructure bill and the partisan reconciliation 
package is on the same path. This package gives nearly 
unlimited discretion to the Assistant Secretary of NTIA and to 
States to impose burdensome restrictions on carriers, such as 
net-neutrality obligations. It prioritizes funding in areas 
which already have access to broadband, which could lead to 
overbuilding.
    The problem is the market is already in these areas, and if 
we are going to spend billions of dollars, then it needs to go 
to areas that have no access. From broadband to energy to 
nearly every sector that this committee has jurisdiction over, 
the Senate infrastructure package lacks any improvement in 
today's outdated permitting process and regulations.
    Further, at a time when Congress is pushing an 
unprecedented billions of dollars of broadband funding with 
minimal guardrails to the executive branch, this administration 
has yet to even nominate people for the top two most important 
jobs for broadband, the Chair of the Federal Communications 
Commission and an Assistant Secretary for the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration. This is the 
longest it has taken any President in history to nominate an 
FCC Chair.
    Earlier this year, my colleagues requested that the Energy 
and Commerce Committee hold an FCC oversight hearing, and today 
I would like to reiterate that request. We should be leading to 
ensure accountability.
    We all want to close the digital divide once and for all, 
and the people's House should have been allowed to have input 
on these massive programs, included on permitting reforms to 
spur development, which should have been included in the Senate 
infrastructure package.
    But the fact remains, this committee didn't write that 
bill. The Democrats have taken a go-it-alone partisan approach 
to borrow and tax to spend an insane amount of money in their 
late package. We should work together in a bipartisan way and 
honor the rich history of this committee.
    And, finally, since Leader Rodgers is unable to be here, I 
am thrilled to give a warm welcome to one of her constituents, 
Todd Brandenburg, with PocketiNet, who is testifying before us 
today. I look forward to hearing about his good work to deploy 
broadband. Welcome to you, sir.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Hudson

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Energy and Commerce committee, and this subcommittee, 
have a rich history of bipartisanship.
    We have come together many times on solutions to tackle 
tough issues ...
    ... like securing our communications supply chain, 
combatting robocalls, and improving our broadband maps to 
ensure resources go to the people who need them most.
    We all share the goal to close the digital divide and 
ensure ALL Americans are connected.
    I have concerns with some of the proposals today ...
    ... and appreciate the opportunity for a robust discussion 
and debate on legislation from both sides of the aisle.
    My colleagues and I are leading and support solutions to 
lift the permitting and regulatory burdens so we speed up the 
deployment of America's broadband infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE
    This is the kind of approach we wanted before Democrats 
chose to jam through reckless levels of funding for proposals 
that lack the critical, targeted funding necessary to ensure 
resources get to the people who need them.
    As we debated in our recent markup, the Majority's partisan 
agenda has the potential to generate out of control inflation 
while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan wish 
list.
    This will not drive results for reliable broadband in 
communities like mine in North Carolina.
BTOP
    In 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act under President Obama and spent billions of 
dollars on broadband through the BTOP [bee-top].
    This federal funding was not targeted to unserved areas and 
not based on accurate broadband maps.
    Across the country, this led to wasteful overbuilding.
    BTOP was a failure across the nation, and without changes, 
the Senate infrastructure bill and Reconciliation package is on 
the same path.
    This package gives nearly unlimited discretion to the 
Assistant Secretary of NTIA and states to impose burdensome 
restrictions on carriers, like Net Neutrality obligations.
    It prioritizes funding in areas which already have access 
to broadband, which could lead to overbuilding. The problem is 
the market is already in these areas and if we are going to 
spend billions of dollars then it needs to go to areas that 
have no access.
    From broadband, to energy, and nearly every sector that 
this committee has jurisdiction over. .the Senate 
Infrastructure package lacks any improvements to today's 
outdated permitting processes and regulations.
FCC
    Further, at a time when Congress is pushing an 
unprecedented BILLIONS of dollars of broadband funding, with 
minimal guardrails, to the executive branch, this 
Administration has yet to even nominate people for the top two 
most important jobs for broadband: a Chair of the Federal 
Communications Commission.and an Assistant Secretary for the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    This is the longest it has taken any President in HISTORY 
to nominate an FCC Chair.
    Earlier this year, my colleagues requested that the Energy 
and Commerce Committee hold an FCC oversight hearing, and today 
I would like to reiterate that request. We should be leading to 
ensure accountability.
CONCLUSION
    We all want to close the digital divide once and for all, 
and the People's House should be allowed to have some input on 
these massive programs ...
    ... including on permitting reforms to spur deployment 
which should have been included in the Senate Infrastructure 
Package.
    But the fact remains that this Committee didn't write that 
bill ... and Democrats have taken a go-it-alone, partisan 
approach to print and spend an insane amount of money in their 
linked-reckless package.
    We should work together in a bipartisan way and honor the 
rich history of this committee.
    Finally, since Leader Rodgers is unable to be here, I'm 
thrilled to give a warm welcome to one of her constituents, 
Todd Brandenburg with PocketiNet, [pocket-i-net] who is 
testifying before us today
    I look forward to hearing about his good work to deploy 
broadband.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    Now, I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing. First, we have Mr. Tim Donovan, senior vice president, 
legislative affairs, with the Competitive Carriers Association; 
next, the Honorable John Fogle, councilmember, City of 
Loveland, Colorado, National League of Cities Information 
Technology and Communications Committee; third, Mr. Todd 
Brandenburg, president and CEO of PocketiNet; and last but 
certainly not least, Cheryl Leanza, policy adviser, United 
Church of Christ, Office of Communications.
    We want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We 
look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will 
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening 
statement.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system--and hopefully you are able to see this lighting 
system--but in front of our witnesses is a series of lights. 
The light will initially be green. It will turn yellow when you 
have a minute remaining. Please, at that time, wrap up your 
testimony. When the light turns red, your time has expired.
    So, Mr. Donovan, you will lead it off. You are now 
recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENTS OF TIM DONOVAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEGISLATIVE 
    AFFAIRS, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN FOGLE, 
     COUNCILMEMBER, CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, AND CHAIR, 
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL 
   LEAGUE OF CITIES; TODD BRANDENBURG, PRESIDENT, POCKETINET 
COMMUNICATIONS; AND CHERYL A. LEANZA, POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF 
         COMMUNICATIONS, INC., UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

                    STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN

    Mr. Donovan. Chairman Doyle, Republican Leader Latta, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify.
    CCA represents wireless carriers ranging from small, rural 
providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional and 
nationwide providers serving millions, as well as vendors and 
suppliers throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
    As the COVID pandemic altered our lives, connectivity has 
never been more important. The bills under consideration today 
will help preserve and expand service, particularly wireless 
services and 5G, and set our country on a path to maintain 
wireless leadership in the years ahead.
    5G will impact every industry segment of our economy. Where 
fully deployed, these networks will power significant benefits 
and drive innovation. Conversely, insufficient service 
threatens to deprive the communities that could benefit most 
from enhanced connectivity.
    As this committee's bipartisan leadership recently noted, 
closing the digital divide remains a shared bipartisan goal. I 
fully agree. Legislation pending before the committee addresses 
three key policy areas to make this goal a reality: spectrum, 
infrastructure, and universal service.
    First, spectrum, the life blood of wireless services. 5G 
services continue to drive massive increases in data use, and 
carriers need additional spectrum to meet demands and prepare 
for continued growth in the years ahead.
    A significant portion of the midband spectrum most 
important to 5G, the Goldilocks spectrum, as Chairman Doyle 
just called it, is currently controlled by the Federal 
Government. For example, the 3.45-to-3.55 gigahertz band is in 
the process of being reallocated from Federal to commercial 
use, with bidding beginning this week.
    CCA strongly supports considering adjacent spectrum in the 
3.1-to-3.45 gigahertz band for potential reallocation. I 
commend Chairman Doyle and Representative Matsui for their 
leadership on this issue through the Spectrum Innovation Act.
    In addition to developing the spectrum pipeline, confidence 
in the reallocation and coordination process is vital. 
Unfortunately, as this committee's leadership noted in a 
bipartisan letter earlier this year, the NTAI FCC coordination 
process is broken. This has led to disputes where individual 
agencies have presented claims of potential interference 
outside of the NTIA process and contrary to science-based 
studies. Such efforts distract from important policy goals and 
undercut bidder confidence in FCC service rules and eventually 
auctions.
    Updating the memorandum of understanding on spectrum 
coordination between the FCC and NTIA, as contemplated in the 
Spectrum Coordination Act, can help improve the process for 
resolving disputes and increase confidence from all spectrum 
users.
    Second, infrastructure. Carriers must also deploy, 
maintain, and upgrade physical infrastructure to support 
current and future demands. As Congress considers significant 
additional resources to boost broadband deployment and close 
the digital divide, it is more important than ever that 
policies to review applications and permits are reasonable and 
consistent. This includes oversight of Federal agencies to 
ensure that they facilitate, not impede, deployment.
    CCA thanks the committee for proposing solutions to address 
barriers to deployment, including through bills on the agenda 
today that make up part of the Boosting Broadband Connectivity 
Agenda. CCA strongly believes that meaningful broadband 
infrastructure reform need not pit carriers against States and 
municipalities. As the number and scope of applications 
increases, additional resources can make sure that an influx of 
applications does not become a chokepoint that delays 
deployments.
    The Broadband Incentives for Communities Act proposes a 
win-win-win for carriers, reviewing agencies, and ultimately 
consumers by providing resources through grants to build 
capacity to review applications. Congress also should clarify 
that States and localities can use their allocations of the 
$350 billion coronavirus State and local recovery funds for 
these purposes.
    Third, and finally, Universal Service Fund support will 
continue to provide critically needed resources, not only to 
preserve and expand broadband connectivity in rural and high-
cost areas but also to provide support for low-income 
Americans, rural healthcare, and programs for schools and 
libraries.
    CCA commends this committee's bipartisan work to enact the 
Broadband DATA Act, and work is well underway at the FCC to 
collect reliable data. The resulting maps should be the 
standard used across Federal agencies and programs. These maps 
can also provide reliable data for other purposes, such as 
proposed in the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act.
    Congress should continue to exercise oversight over USF to 
ensure that the universal service mandates are met by 
supporting ubiquitous 5G and making sure that contribution 
sources are equitable and sustainable. Congress also should 
continue to exempt the Universal Service Fund from the 
Antideficiency Act to ensure that support remains predictable 
as mandated by the Communications Act.
    In closing, strengthening our communications networks to 
ensure that all consumers have access to critical broadband 
services should remain a top priority for Congress. Thank you 
for your leadership on these issues. I welcome any questions 
you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows: ]  
    
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
       
    
     
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you for your testimony.
    Councilmember Fogle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JOHN FOGLE

    Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member 
Latta and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the City of 
Loveland, Colorado, and the National League of Cities, thank 
you for inviting me to speak before this body today. My name is 
John Fogle, a member of the Loveland, Colorado, City Council, 
chair of the National League of Cities Information Technology 
and Communications Committee, and a member of the NLC Board of 
Directors.
    With Congress poised to approve a historic Federal 
investment in our Nation's broadband infrastructure, the timing 
could not be better for this committee to consider what further 
steps are needed to strengthen the Nation's communications 
networks and better meet the needs of consumers. Our cities, 
towns, and villages urge Congress to partner with local 
governments on this effort.
    Over the past 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, local 
leaders have stepped up to the plate, gotten creative, and 
worked hard to connect their communities. We ask that Federal 
solutions support and empower these local leaders rather than 
imposing a one-size-fits-all edict.
    One of the ways Congress can support and sustain this 
locally driven broadband leadership is through increased access 
to resources. Many communities are already investing 
substantial funds in connectivity. These investments include 
public broadband infrastructure, subsidized connections, 
technical support, digital navigators, and digital literacy 
training.
    The funding made available through the American Rescue Plan 
Act has bolstered these efforts. Funding for digital equity, 
anchor institutions, and middle-mile broadband infrastructure 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build 
Back Better Act will continue these efforts.
    Congress must also ensure the Universal Service Fund 
programs are sustainable for the long term so that households 
and institutions may consistently access them in the future. 
Congress should also consider funding broadband planning and 
capacity-building efforts at the local level.
    While governments will benefit from large, new grant 
programs for broadband infrastructure, broadband is deployed at 
the street level. Many communities, particularly smaller 
communities, would benefit from increased Federal technical 
assistance and funding for capacity building to assist them in 
planning for their broadband futures.
    Congress can also support local governments by removing the 
barriers to local investment in community broadband programs. 
PULSE, Loveland's city-owned municipal broadband system, was 
approved by our council in 2018 and began connecting 
residential customers in 2020.
    Heading a community broadband network meant we were able to 
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. We were able to take 
advantage of a State grant to connect students living in a 
remote canyon area and students living in a local mobile home 
park where broadband access was not available and mobile 
hotspots performed poorly.
    In Colorado, we are fortunate to have the local authority 
to overwrite State preemption, and the citizens of Loveland did 
so by a vote of 82 percent, as have most Colorado cities and 
counties. However, in more than a third of the States, 
municipalities are blocked from investing in their own 
broadband infrastructure. Until these State barriers to 
municipal broadband are removed, the U.S. will continue to 
fight the digital divide with one hand tied behind our back.
    Finally, we urge Congress to support local broadband 
connectivity by preserving local decision-making authority. No 
one is more eager to adopt new technologies and improve 
communication infrastructures than local leaders.
    As the community on Colorado's front range, we have seen 
the consequences of wildfires and extreme weather. We need to 
know that our mobile networks will be there when we need them 
to ensure an emergency alert system, or residents when they 
need to dial 9-1-1. It is critical that efforts to improve and 
expand communications infrastructure are done in cooperation 
with local governments.
    Cities, towns, and villages work hard to balance protection 
of residents and public property with speed when working with 
communications providers. Federal mandates preempting local 
processes will harm that balance without significantly 
improving infrastructure. Preemption creates an antagonistic 
environment for negotiations between local governments and 
providers.
    When we partner with industry, we all succeed. In Loveland, 
we mandated that PULSE work with all carriers to provide our 
citizens the world-class municipal broadband they deserve. For 
the future, PULSE may work with private broadband providers for 
direct links between businesses and future needs for wireless 
providers, making it easier for these companies to add wireless 
infrastructure in our community as time goes on. These 
partnerships cannot succeed in an environment of Federal 
overreach and local preemption.
    Again, I thank you for your attention on this important and 
timely issue, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Fogle follows: ]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                 STATEMENT OF TODD BRANDENBURG

    Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and esteemed 
Members of Congress here on the committee. I am going to speak 
to you directly here today and not read my notes here and tell 
you a story a little bit about the work that we have been doing 
for the last 21 years in eastern Washington, and this is from 
an internet service provider.
    PocketiNet Communications is a regional provider that 
provides residents and businesses with that high-speed 
broadband connectivity. So we have been doing the work of 
actually serving our customers, and we try to do that every day 
with 2 words: honor and respect. And during these pandemic 
times, we were actually--we had put in place a network that was 
able to scale to meet the demand, but I want to talk to you a 
little bit about some programs that are coming down, you know, 
from the Federal and State level.
    From the Federal level, we have the infrastructure--the 
looming infrastructure bill that really is defining 100 
megabits by 20 megabits as the speed standard. And, by the way, 
we serve customers throughout the region with fixed wireless 
and fiberoptic technologies and are able to serve customers 
anywhere from 10 to a gigabit of services.
    So when this pandemic hit, we were all kind of not prepared 
for the onslaught of demand because we had a lot of customers 
that were forced to be at home, and a lot of those customers 
were doing school at home for their children as well as work. 
And so, we got calls routinely for increasing speeds, and we 
took a pledge, and that pledge was not to turn down any 
customer whether they could pay or not. So we honored that 
throughout the year and actually are still doing that.
    I think for the first time, I would like to talk frankly 
about, I have never been threatened, I guess, by government 
programs, but I do feel that way today in that--with the risk 
of being overbuilt by municipal networks, or State networks, 
and that is a concern to us because we have worked for 21 years 
of reinvesting every dollar that we make putting back into the 
network.
    And, so, I have experience working with wholesale open-
access networks. And in the State of Washington, we actually 
have retail authority for those cities, ports, counties, to 
actually go direct to consumer. And I feel that we may have to, 
at some point in time, compete directly with the local 
government, and I don't believe that that should be allowed, 
because it is government funds going directly against private 
sector.
    The other thing I would like to briefly talk to you about 
is permitting. We have been tasked with building infrastructure 
throughout the region, and we serve about 22 communities, about 
200 miles across by 100, and we have been trying to put up 
towers. And we have tried to work--we work really well with our 
local authorities' permitting, but we have, in most cases, been 
delayed by up to a year in processing those permits. And if 
broadband is a priority, we must do something to do a better 
job in that.
    By the way, we are a member of WISPA, Wireless Internet 
Service Provider Association, and we fully support additional 
spectrum. We believe that there is a need for at least 200 
megahertz of additional midband spectrum. We would actually 
welcome that in auctioned and nonauctioned availability as 
well.
    The last thing I would like to just touch upon is something 
that is very near and dear to our customers. They have been 
plagued recently by ransomware attacks, and these ransomware 
attacks are yielding lots of money, and we feel we have no 
availability from the Federal Government to help thwart these 
attacks. Just recently, in the last few weeks, tier 1 VOIP 
providers have been attacked, taking down our Nation's 
telecommunications infrastructure and being held for ransom, 
and I believe that we must do something.
    So thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity, 
and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brandenburg follows: ]
    
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg.
    And now we recognize Ms. Leanza. You are now recognized for 
5 minutes for your opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. LEANZA

    Ms. Leanza. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman 
Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. 
My name is Cheryl Leanza, and I am honored today to be 
testifying on behalf of the United Church of Christ's 60-year-
old media justice ministry.
    I commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing and for 
its focus on strengthening communications policy to serve the 
needs of consumers. Beyond being consumers, however, it is 
important to remember that the people of the United States are 
human beings, they are citizens, and they are always in need of 
meaningful communication from affordable telephone calls 
between each other to accurate and thorough local news and 
information broadcasts.
    I am here today, first, to strongly encourage the committee 
to support and quickly pass Congressman Rush's Martha Wright 
Prison Phone Justice Act, H.R. 2489. Currently, high costs and 
egregious practices separate people inside prisons and jails 
from connections with their families and loved ones on the 
outside.
    The need for this bill's passage is urgent. Rates are 
atrocious. For grandmothers like Martha Wright herself before 
she passed away, for clergy, for counsel making local calls, 
the Federal Communications Commission found instances where a 
15-minute local call cost as much as $24.80. The Prison Policy 
Initiative's 50-State study found the average cost of a 15-
minute call was $5.74.
    And even these smaller amounts add up when they are the 
only contact a child has with a parent or a married couple has 
with each other. Three $6 calls a week is over $800 a year. 
Could you maintain your marriage on a few 15-minute 
conversations per week? I don't think so, and neither can these 
families.
    Studies show families are going into debt to stay in touch 
on top of already challenging hardships. This impacts everyone. 
One in two adults have a family member who has been 
incarcerated, and there are 1.4 million children in the United 
States with an incarcerated parent. No matter what your parent 
has done, you are better off hearing from them and maintaining 
contact.
    I am reminded of the words of Diane Lewis, a mother of an 
incarcerated son. She explained she always paid her prison 
phone account first before the electric bill. She said, and I 
quote, ``I have seen the difference between my son, who has a 
lot of support, and others in prison who can't make phone calls 
or who never have family visits. There is a big difference, and 
it is why they struggle while they are inside and often go back 
after. It is the anger and depression that comes with doing 
time by yourself and the lack of practical support needed when 
you get out.''
    Treatment of all people is a human--as human beings is a 
moral issue. And as somebody representing a Christian 
denomination, I would be remiss if I did not remind the 
committee of the biblical teaching in Mathew 25--Mathew chapter 
25, asking us to take care and look after the people who are 
often considered the least of these among us.
    In addition to supporting H.R. 2489, I want to turn to the 
matter of accountability and local broadcasting. I am here on 
behalf of a long line of advocates from the United Church of 
Christ. Many of you may know that Dr. Everett Parker, who 
founded our denomination's advocacy in the 1960s, he pressed 
television stations at that time to serve all their viewers 
when Black viewers could not get news about the civil rights 
movement through their TV stations and through two seminal 
court cases, UCC versus the FCC, established the right of 
ordinary people to petition the FCC and establish 
accountability for broadcasters.
    For that reason, I urge the committee to give serious 
consideration to Representative Pascrell's H.R. 4208. Decades 
of neglect by the Federal Communications Commission has 
rendered broadcasters' legal obligations often close to 
meaningless, ignoring Congress' directive in law that 
broadcasters serve the public interest in competition, 
localism, and diversity. And nowhere is this more evident than 
the failure of FCC to supervise section 331 stations.
    Advocates from New Jersey came, showed their evidence to 
the FCC in the--standing in the shoes of Dr. Parker, showed the 
failures, and yet, the FCC turned a blind eye. Holding the 
public trust should mean something.
    And, finally, in my closing few minutes, I want to point 
out that H.R. 5400 is an extremely important bill to ensure 
that the FCC's universal service programs continue to function 
without interruption and without running afoul of the 
Antideficiency Act.
    These programs provide critical subsidies for rural 
telecommunications and telehealth for schools, for libraries, 
and for low-income families. Connectivity is too important 
particularly now to allow these programs to come to a 
screeching halt.
    Thanks very much for your time this morning.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Leanza follows:]  
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
    We have concluded our openings. We now are going to move to 
Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask 
questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing myself 
for 5 minutes.
    The Spectrum Innovation Act seeks to ensure that the entire 
350 megahertz of the 3.1 band are used as efficiently as 
possible. Additionally, the bill provides flexibility to the 
FCC and NTIA to balance not just the needs of the incumbent 
Federal users and safeguard their operations, but also the 
interest of all commercial wireless users.
    Mr. Donovan, could you talk about why this flexibility is 
important and what it would mean for your member companies?
    Mr. Donovan. Of course. Thank you for the question. 
Flexibility is absolutely vital as we are looking at 
reallocating these bands. Spectrum is important, but it is also 
finite, and we are not making any more of it.
    So particularly when we are talking about midband spectrum 
resources that are really the sweet spot for 5G services, that 
flexibility is going to allow the FCC and NTIA to do what they 
do best and structure a band plan that maximizes use by the 
commercial industry while also protecting incumbent missions.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. You know, it is not just the portions 
of this band that can be auctioned that are important for 
consumers. Unlicensed spectrum is crucial for our in-home 
devices and in developing new innovation.
    Ms. Leanza, how do you see the opportunistic-use provisions 
in this legislation benefiting consumers and other end users of 
spectrum?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Mr. Doyle. As Mr. Donovan said, 
spectrum is a very valuable resource as it is scarce. And 
policies that maximize the number of users that then can 
utilize spectrum are incredibly important, for example, 
entrepreneurs that come from communities that face barriers in 
access to capital, small businesses, new entrants.
    And so, unlicensed-use and opportunistic-use standards 
really maximize the amount of use for all the greatest number 
of consumers. Opportunistic-use standards permit devices to 
share spectrum in real time, and they are very helpful to make 
the most of our valuable and scarce spectrum.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    I agree with the witnesses who noted today that speedy 
broadband deployment is going to take collaborative work 
between our towns who are closest to their constituents and 
broadband providers. And I want to commend my colleague, 
Congresswoman Fletcher, for her work in developing legislation 
that embodies this principle.
    Mr. Fogle, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this 
proposal and how better Congress can provide support for 
municipalities as they plan for their communities' broadband 
futures.
    Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Chairman. Locally directed funding to 
build out and improve broadband networks is desperately needed. 
Local leaders need to have a say in where infrastructure is 
built and what locally needs to be done. Nobody knows our 
communities better than the elected officials and the staffs of 
our cities, towns, and local municipalities.
    I think the best thing that Congress can do is to not 
impose layers of prescriptive infrastructure or citing 
requirements and/or onerous shot clocks on, or fee limitations 
that limit local governments' abilities to deal with the 
carriers in their regions.
    Funding technical assistance programs for regional and 
local areas, I think, is a critical piece that needs to be 
added into the Federal infrastructure. This could include 
capacities for activities like broadband planning, digital 
inclusion programs, and incorporating new technologies from 
municipal uses.
    Mr. Doyle. Thanks. Mr. Donovan, do you have any other 
thoughts you want to add on these deployment issues?
    Mr. Donovan. Sure. So we agree that providing ways for 
carriers to work with their local communities is the best way 
to move forward. Many CCA members are based in the very 
communities literally connecting their neighbors.
    And so we appreciate Congresswoman Fletcher's bill and 
efforts to make sure there's resources to process those 
applications. And if there's further needs that municipalities 
have in reviewing applications, we want to hear about them and 
we want to find ways to fix that.
    In addition, you asked about other issues for deployment. I 
would be remiss if I didn't mention that just as localities 
need additional people to review applications, the industry is 
needed for additional wireless workforce to make sure to work 
on these deployments, from tower climbing, delaying fiber, and 
all across the board.
    So efforts to boost the workforce are helpful, and efforts 
to provide some more stability in supply chains, especially 
right now. We are hearing from members from, you know, 
seemingly random supply chain shortages on different issues 
from fiber and other inputs. As we have resources to expand 
broadband and timelines that are going to come with that, 
making sure that we have access to a secure and stable supply 
chain is going to be very important.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The Chair will yield back 15 seconds 
as an example to my colleagues going forward. And I will now 
recognize Mr. Latta, ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 
minutes to ask his questions.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, thanks to our witnesses for being with us today.
    Over the last decade, this subcommittee has held numerous 
oversight hearings on the failures of the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program, BTOP, that was created in President 
Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
    But instead of building on this committee's expertise 
learning from past mistakes, we are bound to repeat them if the 
House is able to pass the $65 billion broadband in the Senate 
infrastructure bill. If not fixed, this bill has language that 
gives the NTIA and Assistant Secretary vast authority to spend 
the money as he or she wishes.
    Mr. Brandenburg, in the BTOP program there were many issues 
with how that funding was awarded because there were not 
appropriate safeguards and the funding was not targeted. How do 
BTOP funds affect the broadband landscape in eastern 
Washington, and what were some of the challenges you faced when 
you considered participating in the BTOP program?
    Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Congressman Latta. Just to 
speak directly to that, we did not, you know, apply for the use 
of the funds at that time, but we watched it happen with a lot 
of other carriers in the State. One carrier that did work with 
was--you know, and applied for those funds was NoaNet, 
Northwest Open Access Network. And they teamed with a lot of 
communities, community leaders, libraries, schools, that type 
to get letters of endorsement and built this middle-mile 
extension, you know, throughout the State.
    We thought that was great, and it has done some good work 
to actually connect those cities, but it did not succeed in 
actually providing residential and business services because it 
only served anchor institutions.
    When asked later on if we, as a service provider, could 
access excess fiber for the--to connect some of our cities, we 
were told that by NoaNet representatives that there was not 
enough capacity. So they had purposely built the network with 
low-count fiber, ultra-high-cost labor costs to extend this 
network, and it didn't result.
    So other than serving the anchor institutions and paying 
for the construction to that, the anchor institutions did--
there was no funding to provide services for those libraries 
and schools.
    And I would further like to add, if a business wanted to 
connect to that fiber, sometimes the costs were $5,000 to 
$10,000 to connect to that fiber, and then on a wholesale level 
they were $300 to $400 a month for a basic 100-meg service.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Donovan, your members have vast experience with Federal 
agencies making funding decisions based on bad broadband maps 
over the years. In fact, the FCC delayed awarding money through 
its 5G fund until the Broadband DATA Act maps are complete, so 
we now put money out before knowing where it is most needed.
    Mr. Pallone. You need to increase the volume.
    Mr. Latta. Will you please speak--oh, I am sorry. Would you 
speak to the importance of targeting broadband support based on 
accurate broadband maps and where the Senate infrastructure 
proposals may fall short on targeting these funds?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, and thank you for 
your past leadership on mapping issues, including with enacting 
the Broadband DATA Act. I know you know from personal 
experience that in the world of mobility fund and the 5G fund 
that had funds gone out under the previous map, areas like in 
your district that should receive support to make sure they can 
get connected would be blocked from those resources simply 
because the map said that coverage already exists there.
    So I can't underscore enough the importance of having 
reliable mapping data. We are pleased to see the FCC moving 
forward on this issue as they continue work to come up with 
collecting more reliable data. We are also encouraged to make 
sure that there is some sort of firewall in the process so that 
maps that overstate coverage aren't immediately sent to a 
challenge process that requires burdensome demands for drive 
testing from carriers and others, including localities, just to 
prove what they already know and what you already know from 
traveling around your district, that more support is needed to 
make sure that there is ubiquitous coverage. So I agree that it 
is significantly important that all funding programs should 
flow and be based on the maps created by the Broadband DATA 
Act.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And, again, those 
maps are so absolutely important, and appreciate your work.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my other questions for the 
record, and my time has expired and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full committee 
chairman, for 5 minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
    I want to ask Councilmember Fogle about interplay of State 
and local government. Can you explain how the Federal 
Government and local governments can work together in a manner 
that promotes resilient ubiquitous broadband but doesn't 
impose, I guess, what I will call a one-size-fits-all approach 
of preempting State and local autonomy?
    Mr. Fogle. I have got to remember to push my button.
    Thank you. As far as the local city autonomy, NLC as a unit 
supports local control, always has, always will. We want to see 
local authority maintained so that each of our cities and our 
counties and our States have the ability to make the decisions 
that are important to them when it comes to broadband authority 
and broadband rollouts.
    As far as how the States work with the local cities, in our 
State, the ability to override the State's preemptive 
authority, in 2005, our State put in a preemption that it 
didn't allow for municipalities to participate in the 
communications space whatsoever. But, thankfully, they did have 
the foresight to put in the ability for municipalities to 
override that authority, and more than half of the 
municipalities in our State have overridden that, and many have 
taken off on doing their own broadband programs.
    In northern Colorado, the four cities have formed their own 
broadband networks, and all work cooperatively to provide 
backhaul and all the needed resources to bring broadband as a--
broadband to the home utility to all of our customers to the 
Northern Front Range.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks.
    Mr. Donovan, I want to ask you about the FCC's Universal 
Service Fund in this Antideficiency Act exemption. Can you tell 
us what you think would happen to the millions of Americans who 
rely on the high-cost program, the rural healthcare program, 
the E-rate program, or the Lifeline program if we let the 
Antideficiency Act exemption expire, and then should Congress 
consider a multiyear extension?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I 
don't need to speculate on what would happen were that to 
expire. We can go back that when the determination was made by 
the Office of Management and Budget, that the Antideficiency 
Act should apply to the Universal Service Fund, the immediate 
effect that that had in 2004 was a 4-month pause in funding 
through the E-rate program.
    In recognizing that, Congress did move at that time to 
apply an exemption to the ADA for Universal Service Fund, some 
that has now been repeated since that time through several 
different processes, through appropriations bills and including 
through work product that has come through this committee in 
the past.
    That is significantly important, especially as you talk 
about the importance of a multiyear exemption. That would allow 
for the continued scope of a lot of Universal Service Funds 
that are not, you know, 1-year programs, aren't 6-month 
programs, certainly aren't the length of a continuing 
resolution if that is the way that the ADA is extended.
    The multiyear extension allows for the network planning and 
operations for all aspects of the Universal Service Fund. And 
as CBO has mentioned and has been cited in previous work 
product in this committee during process reform bills at the 
FCC, that the exemption doesn't change the amount of money that 
USF brings in or disburses. It merely adjusts the timing so 
that it can be done in a reasonable way. So that is something 
that we support and I would encourage moving forward with.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks. Let me try to get one more 
question in. I would like to introduce the statement, Chairman 
Doyle, for the record, from our friend Congressman Pascrell and 
an op-ed from my Senator, Menendez.
    And I would also like to ask a question to Ms. Leanza, why 
localism is so important not just in New Jersey, but in every 
part of the country, if you will.
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congressman. Our country, of course, is 
a democracy, and it is founded on local control and local 
citizens participating. If you don't understand what is 
happening in your local community through local news and 
information, how can you make your views known? How can you 
know what the school board is doing? How can you know what your 
Governor or your State House is doing?
    When Congress directed the FCC oh so many years ago to 
license broadcast stations, they specifically licensed them to 
particular communities, to licensees' communities and not as 
a--it is not a national service, because we need that 
information from our next-door neighbors on our local issues.
    Mr. Doyle. Frank, I think you are muted, but your time is 
up anyway.
    Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to make sure we were able to 
enter into the record the statements from Pascrell and 
Menendez.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes, without objection so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the 
recognition. And I just wanted to reiterate what a couple of my 
colleagues have already said, that we should do these issues 
bipartisan. I know that we haven't had oversight of the FCC in 
over a year, some of the other agencies. And I have been 
working on spectrum and working bipartisanly on spectrum. And I 
know in the reconciliation process, particularly in the Senate, 
we haven't been going through regular order. And I just kind of 
ask the committee to rethink that and hopefully we can get our 
jurisdiction back into regular order.
    I want to start with a question with Mr. Donovan. And, 
yesterday, I introduced legislation that would create an 
incumbent, informed and capability or spectrum-sharing system 
in NTIA, so that Federal and non-Federal users know when and 
where users are operating in a given band.
    Mr. Donovan, do you think this system would be useful and 
as we continue to look at ways to be more efficient with 
Federal spectrum and make Federal spectrum more available for 
commercial use? Mr. Donovan?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question and for the 
introduction of that legislation. Any tools that we can have 
more information for where incumbents are using bands is 
ultimately going to be extremely helpful for industry, both in 
opportunistic use where that is possible today, as well as you 
are looking to reallocate bands and bring them to auction for 
exclusive use in the future. It is an issue that we saw in the 
run-up to the current auction that began yesterday of a need 
for information about where incumbent government systems 
operate, where there's going to be exclusion zones, and what 
the impact is going to be for carriers that bid on and 
ultimately win this spectrum, and where they can use it.
    So I certainly encourage more sharing of information about 
what Federal missions are using spectrum in what areas and 
when, and a way to facilitate maximum use of limited spectrum 
resources.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And I would like to ask a question 
of Mr. Brandenburg. And, Mr. Donovan, if you weigh in as well. 
The concern I have--I have a rural district. I have city areas 
and rural areas. And one of the biggest concerns is just 
getting broadband into rural areas, as we all have--are 
focusing on this. One of the big questions is fixed broadband 
versus fiber. Everybody wants fiber to their home. But today 
with all the money that has been appropriated, and even the 
money to the counties of the American Rescue Plan, most of my 
counties' provisional money, and they want to spend it on 
broadband and fiber.
    And the question is, do we have enough capacity to get 
broadband to every home, even though we have the financial 
capacity to do it? And if the Federal Government prioritizes 
fiber over fixed wireless, will that delay people in rural 
Kentucky, rural America from getting access to broadband?
    And Mr. Brandenburg, and then Mr. Donovan, if you have a 
comment.
    Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Representative Guthrie. Let me 
just say that I think it is going to take a strategy based on 
the rural parts of America of fiber and fixed wireless. And so 
there is not a one-technology-that-fits-all solution. And, so, 
we talk about access to spectrum, which is a very vital part of 
this. We have been operating as a company on 20-some, 21 years 
of unlicensed spectrum and, you know, and recently participated 
in CBRS auction for licensed spectrum. So we welcome any 
additional midband frequency allocations that--to be licensed 
out.
    But I do not believe that the Federal Government should be 
specifying fiber or fixed wireless. It is let the provider 
actually choose the right tool. My dad always as a farmer had a 
toolbox, and he told us to go get the right tool. And I think 
you have to use the right tool and the right application. And 
having the flexibility for the service provider, I think, is 
very important.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Donovan, if 
you would comment.
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I completely agree that--with my 
colleague that we need to have every tool in the toolbox. And 
in many areas, fiber is going to provide a great--a broadband 
experience. In some areas, fixed wireless is going to be able 
to provide requisite speed in a manner that could be built 
faster than fiber can be deployed.
    I think the other piece to look at it, in terms of this, is 
that there are applications that require mobile wireless 
services that can't be met by fixed technologies of any fixed 
speeds of any technology--fiber, wireless or otherwise. We talk 
about the exciting new applications that are going to be 
powered by 5G networks. So many of them are mobile. And if we 
don't make sure that we have mobile connectivity as well as 
fixed access in rural areas, those areas that could benefit 
most from those benefits could be left behind.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you both for your responses. And I thank 
the chairman for the recognition, and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the 
witnesses for the wide-ranging hearing this morning.
    I am a cosponsor of Mr. Rush's bill, the Martha Wright 
Prison Phone Justice Act. Earlier this year, California took 
steps to reduce the rates that incarcerated individuals and 
their families paid for calls, because these links 
significantly increased positive outcomes for individuals after 
the release from prison.
    Ms. Leanza, I am concerned about families who have to go 
into debt to maintain a link with incarcerated loved ones 
paying outrageous and unjustified rates. Can you put this into 
context with the financial challenges faced by these low-income 
families?
    Ms. Leanza. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for your 
cosponsorship. A study out of the Ella Baker Center based in 
California show that 1 in 3 families go into debt in order to 
pay just for phone calls, let alone anything else. And the 
carceral system falls more heavily on low-income people in the 
first place who already have families who are struggling to 
make ends meet, and then they have to take this additional 
burden.
    And it is particularly bad for folks who are in jail. They 
haven't even been convicted yet, and they are trying to 
maintain a connection with their family members, with their 
jobs without--without phone calls and other communication that 
cannot be done.
    So we very much--the debt--oh, and Philadelphia also did a 
study recently. And, I think, 87 percent of their respondents 
said that they were going into debt in order to pay for phone 
bills.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Ms. Leanza. Again, I 
understand that in the previous administration, the FCC didn't 
think it had the authority to halt egregious interstate rates. 
Can you explain how this bill would address that?
    Ms. Leanza. Absolutely. Thank you. The bill would clarify 
something that Congress tried to do in 1996, which is that the 
Federal Communications Commission would have authority over all 
rates that are to and from carceral facilities, from jails, 
prisons, and other detention centers.
    A court decision that happened in about 2017 said that the 
FCC did not have this authority, even though there already is 
some provision for this in the Communications Act. So now we 
are limited to Federal rules only about interstate calls, and 
we need more broad authority to address this problem for once 
and for all.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. Good. Thank you for explaining that.
    Mr. Fogle, I am proud of the work this committee has done 
to bridge a digital divide. We can't be satisfied until all 
Americans have access to the affordable, reliable, resilient, 
broadband service. But to reach that goal, we shouldn't cut 
corners by cutting out local governments.
    In your testimony, you touch upon the role of local 
governments in responding to emergency situations and 
disasters, which I take seriously, as I have watched wildfires 
devastate communities across California. Can you talk more 
about the importance of productive relationships between 
communication providers and local governments particularly, in 
responding to disasters?
    Mr. Fogle. In northern Colorado where I live, last year, or 
a year and a half ago, we experienced massive wildfires, which 
isolated some of our mountain communities completely. They had 
no phone service. They had no internet service for up to a 
couple of months. With our post-broadband, we were able to take 
care of the local disconnects that occurred within our area, 
but there were areas that were outside of our fiber reach that 
were--we had no availability whatsoever. In fact, some of our 
phone service to a large community west of us, Estes Park, was 
cut off for a couple of months.
    Previous to that, in 2013, we had a flood that devastated 
all the river systems up and down the northern front range of 
Colorado, and the mountain communities were totally cut off.
    Since then, we have added fiber and redundant fiber up all 
of those canyons to make sure that our mountain communities are 
connected. So the ability of local municipalities to 
participate in the fiber space has allowed installation of 
redundant fiber systems that will keep those mountain 
communities connected, even in the times of calamity. Thank 
you.
    Mr. McNerney. So would you say that that is going to be 
saving lives?
    Mr. Fogle. Oh, absolutely. One of the things that I think 
Estes Park did experience was a loss of emergency services. 
Because not only were they cut off physically because the roads 
were closed, they also had no phone service to a good chunk of 
their population during that time in 2013 when the flood cut 
off all of their phone service for an extended period of time.
    Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, I have to leave the 
questions about maternal morbidity to others, and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today we are 
considering legislation that has little to no committee 
process. It makes expansive changes to the Government, Mr. 
Chairman. One bill would vastly expand the SEC's authority over 
the interstate phone rates. One would allow them to continue 
awarding Universal Service Funds through the end of 
administration with zero oversight.
    Mr. Doyle. Billy, we can't hear you. Your voice is cutting 
out.
    Mr. Long. Hello?
    Mr. Doyle. OK. We can hear you now, Billy.
    Mr. Long. OK. Today, we are considering legislation that 
has had little or no committee process, yet make expansive 
changes to Government authorities. One bill would vastly expand 
the FCC's authority over interstate [inaudible] and one over 
interstate phone rates. And one would allow them to continue 
awarding Universal Service Funds through the end of this 
administration with no oversight.
    Another one, H.R. 4208, Section 331, Obligation 
Clarification Act, would reinstate burdensome, outdated 
mandates on broadcasters that the Trump FCC removed. Not only 
does this bill mandate a specific number of hours of common 
local programming, it mandates the hours of the day when such 
programming must air. It takes it further and directs a 
broadcast station to consult with community leaders to 
determine said programming. Who are these community leaders? 
Are the same people that follow [inaudible].
    Mr. Doyle. Billy, I am sorry. You are cutting out again.
    Mr. Long. I have got a good signal. I don't know what to 
do.
    Mr. Doyle. You know what? You can come back. Let's keep 
trying.
    Mr. Long. OK. I have got a good signal. I don't know what 
to do. I have got a signal here. It looks like a good signal.
    Anyway, the Democrats' bill purportedly takes aim at a TV 
station in New Jersey owned by Fox, no surprise. What is next? 
Programming mandates for cable news, more Rachel Maddow, less 
Sean and Tucker, more Obama Library coverage, and less 
accountability of this administration's failure in Afghanistan?
    Sounds to me like another attempt by my friends on the 
Democratic side to counter news programming they simply don't 
like. This goes along with Democrats pushing their socialist 
agenda through Congress with no Republican support. The Senate 
infrastructure bill tied to the reconciliation package is going 
the same route. This is not legislating.
    If you are serious about working together, we should have 
had hearings on these topics in the subcommittees throughout 
the summer. Throwing controversial bills on a hearing to claim 
that they have due process and try to shove them to the end-of-
the-year funding package isn't legislating, it is lazy and 
irresponsible. I sincerely hope you take the reins back from 
your leadership and stand [inaudible] for working together.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. I think Billy finished. I didn't hear any 
questions there, but I believe he is done. Is that right, 
Billy? I don't----
    Yes. All right. Let's see who we have next here. Let me 
look through the list.
    Congresswoman Rice, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the 
witnesses for being here today. And I would like to direct my 
first question to Ms. Leanza. The Antideficiency Act, among 
other things, prohibits on officer or employee of the Federal 
Government from obligating or expending funds in advance of the 
appropriation of such funds. So in 2004, the FCC concluded that 
the Antideficiency Act's limitations applied to the FCC 
spending from the Universal Service Fund, which, through its 
various programs, is intended to ensure that telecommunications 
services, including broadband, are available and affordable 
throughout the country.
    That is why Congress has acted since then to exempt the 
Universal Service Fund from application of the Antideficiency 
Act so that these programs do not face any uncertainty.
    So, Ms. Leanza, what would the lack of Universal Service 
Fund support have on efforts to make broadband affordable? And 
if Congress does not act, is it your opinion that the FCC may 
have other tools to continue with the Universal Service Fund 
program?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congresswoman. No, the FCC doesn't 
really have many tools, except for just stopping funding. And 
then, as Mr. Donovan mentioned, in 2004, that is what happened. 
We had schools and libraries across the country had put in 
their applications to get their E-rate funds, and all of a 
sudden, disbursement letters were cut off. We all know schools 
and libraries right now are relying incredibly on the need for 
broadband connectivity. And to have their budgets, which are 
done carefully on a year-to-year basis, suddenly left up in the 
air because there was no funding available because of the 
Antideficiency Act violation would be extremely problematic.
    So, I think all of us have been understanding how important 
the telemedicine efforts are. Everybody needs connectivity, and 
we know that even more than ever in the COVID-19 crisis. So 
there is not much alternative except for cutting off the 
spigot. And it really doesn't change the amount of money that 
is being spent, it just changes timing for what is being spent. 
So it could be quite a problem. And Congress has been extending 
this on a bipartisan basis, I think, since 2004. So it has been 
well, well considered.
    Miss Rice. Yes, H.R. 5400 would exempt USF, Universal 
Service Fund, programs from the Antideficiency Act for 3 years 
until December 31, 2024. And as you have pointed out, we have 
done this on a bipartisan basis before. It is a simple bill, 
but it is a bill that brings long-needed certainty.
    Mr. Donovan, the Universal Service Fund has supported the 
deployment of broadband networks to rural and remote areas. It 
has also provided essential support to build out networks to 
healthcare facilities that may otherwise go without service. If 
we don't pass this bill, what would be some of the disruptions 
felt in rural America, particularly, on rural healthcare as we 
try to find our way out of the pandemic?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. So if the 
exemption is not extended, then what you are really doing is 
you are shrinking the window of timeframes for what the FCC can 
obligate funds through for the Universal Service Fund. And as 
we know that, broadband projects, whether from carriers 
building to deploy services or healthcare facilities standing 
up new operations, or ways to connect with patients to minor 
health, especially as remote health has become so important 
over this time, must be done within the current appropriations 
window, or the current funding window, despite the fact that 
the Universal Service Fund is an ongoing permanent 
appropriation that raises funds through contributions on rate 
papers, not from appropriated funds from Congress.
    So it would have an immediate, disruptive effect and lead 
to increased cost in the short term by reducing the windows 
that you have to complete projects and uncertainty in the long 
term to making sure that those projects can go on over 
multiyear periods.
    Miss Rice. Thank you so much to all the witnesses. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. And I thank her. The 
Chair now recognizes Congressman Mullin for 5 minutes.
    Markwayne, can you hear me? Are you available?
    OK. I think we are going to move on to Mr. Walberg. Tim, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 
panel for being here today as well.
    Others like it, this hearing today, I would agree with a 
number of my colleagues should have been held weeks ago. We are 
now holding what seems to be a legislative hearing on bills 
that have received little, if any, due diligence. That is not 
to say that I don't support some of the legislation on the 
agenda today. But many of these bills take substantial action 
to address problems with broadband access and deployment.
    A few of these bills, along with dozens of others not being 
considered here today, were included in a legislative package 
introduced by members of this subcommittee in February. Among 
other things, our proposals would have removed barriers to 
employment, streamlined permitting and the processes involved, 
promote competition and consumer choice, enable broadband 
facilities on Federal lands, and help close the digital divide.
    A bill that I introduced, the Brownfield Broadband 
Deployment Act, would help expedite environmental reviews for 
broadband infrastructure projects in digitally unserved areas.
    I am disappointed that this commonsense solution and many 
others like these were not included on today's agenda. But it 
is what it is.
    So before today, none of these proposals had been 
considered in this subcommittee, and none of them were included 
in the Senate infrastructure bill either. Not only that, this 
subcommittee will never--was never given an opportunity to 
provide input or weigh the merits of the $65 billion in 
broadband infrastructure and digital equity grants included in 
the infrastructure bill that is now expected at some point to 
go directly to the House floor.
    So I would like to use what time I have left to ask a few 
questions about the broadband provisions in the $1.22 trillion 
spending bill.
    Mr. Donovan, if the Senate infrastructure proposal goes 
forward as it is, coupled with reconciliation proposal, do we 
risk wasting $65 billion of taxpayer money without fully 
closing the digital divide?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, and thank you for 
your leadership on broadband issues. As cochair of the 
Bipartisan 5G Caucus, we appreciate your efforts on that.
    If the Senate-passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
moves forward as is, we agree that it is ultimately important 
that we rely on data. And that comes back to the maps being 
produced from the Bipartisan Broadband Data Act, work product 
that was seriously considered in this committee. And the FCC is 
now underway of contracting for the location fabric for fixed 
locations as well as collecting data on updated and more 
reliable parameters from our mobile providers.
    So the way that that bill would get implemented would 
ultimately be determined on its success by how the States use 
their grant funding, since the bill does provide the funding 
significantly through State setup processes, and how much it 
does apply on being--following the map produced by the FCC and 
making sure that that mapping exercise and the commission is a 
success.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I would just add to that, I think what 
you are saying is we are in trouble, at the very least. We may 
overbuild. We may underproduce.
    But let me ask further. Mr. Donovan, in your testimony, you 
talk about how your member companies have been forced to 
default on Federal broadband rewards solely because they were 
unable to obtain the requisite permits from other Federal 
agencies within the required timeframe for deployment.
    Would having the ability to waive certain environmental, 
historic preservation reviews, in circumstances where they 
aren't necessary, have a significant effect on speeding up the 
process?
    And then, second, can you speak further to how regulatory 
streamlining has an impact on deployment?
    Mr. Donovan. Sure. So when the previous funding programs--
you know, our members have applied for funding because they 
want to deploy service. And so it is extremely frustrating when 
they are trying to get permitting through other Federal 
agencies, that the timelines meant that they ended up having to 
seek extensions. And then they default on those programs 
because they could not get funding cleared--permitting cleared 
through Federal agencies in that timeframe. I think it is 
important to note that where we can streamline that, it is 
really helpful.
    For other Federal agencies like Department of Agriculture 
or Department of the Interior, while broadband may not be their 
primary mission, I think all of their missions are enhanced by 
having access to broadband connectivity. So we should find ways 
to work together to get it done, and efforts to streamline that 
process are certainly welcome.
    Mr. Walberg. I certainly agree. Thank you, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman 
yields back. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. And I am excited. We are on 
the precipice of passing the largest investment in broadband 
infrastructure in our Nation's history. It was a bipartisan 
process. And as a problem-solver, I got to work with several of 
you who are on this committee and others across the aisle to 
help have some input. Although our House input wasn't quite 
what the Senators had, that is kind of the way it goes 
sometimes.
    Today, you know, we need to stop the whining and just 
commit to extensive oversight to ensure that this funding gets 
where it needs to go. The process is never perfect around here, 
but the investments are something we all agree need to happen, 
and that unites all of us, Republicans and Democrats.
    I have rural areas just like you all do, in Osceola and 
Polk Counties, and citrus and cattle country. I think of 
students who, throughout COVID, at my wife's elementary school 
were desperate to be able to try to learn from distance 
learning and didn't have the internet they needed, particularly 
in the rural areas. Persistent agriculture in our district, 
where they are using GPS for cattle and they are using sensors 
to determine when to water the groves and when they are ripe 
and when to fertilize--that is all going to be done via WiFi. 
And rural small businesses, from your feed lots to your local 
general stores that want to take advantage of having better 
internet.
    Even some urban areas and suburban areas in our district 
have fallen behind, even though it is the fastest-growing 
district in the Congress. Issues like digital divide, access to 
the internet, and telecommunications, boosting 5G, even a 
spectrum sale to increase private-sector opportunities and 
revenue to pay for this plan, are all on the agenda.
    I want to thank you first, Councilmember Fogle, for your 
testimony. I saw that Loveland is a fairly rural area. And 
knowing that I have those two, I wanted to get an idea of how 
critical you think that the bipartisan infrastructure package 
broadband investment is to meeting our Nation's infrastructure 
needs, especially in rural areas?
    Mr. Fogle. Excuse me. In Colorado, in our rural areas, we 
have also experienced the digital divide. It is not the digital 
divide of economic and social status, it is the economic divide 
that is caused by just simply distance.
    In Colorado, the counties outside of our cities have to 
override the State--you have to take advantage of the State 
preemptions so that they can start providing broadband to their 
customers.
    The thing to keep in mind is that robust wireless simply 
doesn't exist without robust fiber. So as the communities up 
and down the Front Range add fiber connectivity to the home, 
and we have four communities working together, big communities, 
that will add fiber to the home within the next 2 years. We are 
also running to the edges of those communities unused fiber 
availability that can be used by the rural carriers and start 
stretching out into the parts that I call the donut, which is 
the unserved areas around our communities that have literally 
hundreds of thousands of people in them.
    So I am hoping that as the Federal Government brings 
forward these funding sources, that the rural communities can 
take advantage of those sources as soon as possible and tap 
into the fiber broadband that is already being put in place by 
the communities all around us.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Councilmember.
    Mr. Donovan, thank you for being here. There are some great 
opportunities for additional spectrum coming out. We know the 
private sector plays a huge role in some of these rural areas. 
Obviously, having some government support to these private 
efforts is critical. How critical is passing the bipartisan 
infrastructure package to your clients, your members, to get to 
those last couple miles in rural America?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. And so, while a 
lot of the deployment provisions in the Senate-passed bill are 
focused on fixed broadband connectivity, I would like to tie 
some specifically important aspects for mobile wireless 
connectivity as well. And fixed wireless is eligible for 
funding in several of those programs.
    But, specifically, that bill also includes a billion 
dollars for middle-mile support, including for access for a bad 
call for 5G broadband connections and designates prep--that 
special categorization for broadband deployment projects, as 
those that can support 5G technologies and successful wireless 
generations. So those efforts will add significant benefit to 
rural wireless carriers as they seek to expand coverage.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. For years, we have been 
fighting for national infrastructure upgrades. Now, we have the 
opportunity, and this committee will play a critical role. And 
I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentleman yield back. The Chair now 
recognizes Congressman Carter for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of the 
witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Donovan, I want to start with you. Mr. Donovan, for 
your information, I represent south Georgia. And as we always 
say in Georgia, there are two Georgias. There is Atlanta, and 
there is everywhere else. And south Georgia is very rural. I 
don't have to tell you about the need for high-speed internet 
and broadband in our rural areas.
    And we can make this easier. We have got two bills we are 
considering today that I think would actually help, H.R. 1046, 
by Representative Curtis, that essentially would integrate FCC 
broadband mapping data in a platform that shows which Federal 
properties can support communication facilities. And also H.R. 
1049 by Representative Duncan, that would prioritize reviews 
for requested employee broadband on Federal land. Both of those 
would help us in our goal of getting broadband to the rural 
areas.
    In your view, Mr. Donovan, are the Federal Government 
departments and agencies who are charged with overseeing public 
lands diligent enough about processing applications for rights-
of-ways to site towers?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. I agree that rural 
parts of States like yours that certainly do need further help. 
And a big part of that is that you can't have service in a lot 
of these rural areas without crossing Federal lands. And you 
need to have participation and support from Federal agencies to 
get that done.
    To that end, both of the bills you mentioned, H.R. 1046 and 
H.R. 1049, they would help in terms of making sure we can both 
identify the areas where there are Federal lands that don't 
have sufficient coverage, so that we can then set up 
collaborative efforts between carriers and those Federal 
agencies, as well as make sure that there is oversight, that as 
applications come in and carriers step up that want to work 
with those Federal agencies to expand service, that they are 
able to do so with certainty in a timely manner, with 
confidence about the process that they are going into, the fees 
they are going to have to pay, and the timeframes that they are 
going to have to complete projects.
    So we support those bill, and especially having an 
interagency strike force of working with the departments like 
Interior and Agriculture, with NTIA, to make sure that there is 
accountability is going to help. We have had a lot of good 
discussions here at high levels within the agencies about how 
important broadband is. And then I hear a different story from 
my members on the ground working with some of their local 
offices. And sometimes they are cautious about even bringing 
those stories forward because they need to find a way to work 
together.
    Mr. Carter. Well, Mr. Donovan, you are familiar with the 
RAY BAUM'S Act, and you are familiar with the shot clock that 
was established there for the Federal agencies. Do you feel 
like they are complying with that?
    Mr. Donovan. I think it has helped. It certainly has helped 
to push pressure to make sure we get to decisions. If we can 
revisit some of the shot clocks for Federal lands, especially 
for places where there is previously disturbed land, other 
construction, or ways that we can really expedite their view 
process, we will certainly welcome that.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Also, Mr. Donovan, I introduced a bill 
earlier this year, H.R. 1043, the Proportional Reviews for 
Broadband Development Act. Essentially, what my bill said was 
that, if there are minor changes that are made to the 
structure--to cabinets or to file cabinets or anything within 
the physical structure--that you wouldn't have to go through 
the whole review. And I am disappointed that my legislation is 
not being considered today. And are you familiar with that 
legislation? And if you are, do you think it would help?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, sir. We are familiar with that. And we 
agree that minor changes to structures should not require going 
through the permitting process again. That is going to have an 
impact. As carriers upgrade facilities to 5G, that is going to 
have an impact for carriers that have equipment that has been 
deemed to pose a national security risk is removed and replaced 
from their network. Especially in those scenarios, you need to 
put up a new network before you can take down the old one.
    So there will be modifications made to towers and 
facilities in order to do that. But having to go through the 
whole permitting process is going to frustrate that effort, 
make it take longer, and make it cost more. Lastly, as we 
face----
    Mr. Carter. Well, that is important. And that is why I am 
disappointed it is not being considered today. And I just want 
to make sure I get that in.
    Just one last thing very quickly. The Senate infrastructure 
bill that requires that $42.5 billion broadband developed--
deployment dollars go to areas that are 80 percent unserved, 
that means that up to 20 percent of those areas could be 
served. Do you think that is an efficient use of taxpayers' 
money? And I know we should have oversight on this, but we 
haven't even had any oversight hearings. And what good is that 
going to do?
    Mr. Donovan. You know, that is going to come down to the 
maps. That is going to ultimately show where money both--what 
States get, what piece of that overall funding bucket, as well 
as where the funds are going to ultimately be distributed. 
There is always going to be some overlap, and I leave it to the 
Congress to determine what is acceptable.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Veasey.
    And, Marc, I know we have heard there is been a shooting in 
your district at a school in Arlington, and all of us here hope 
that nobody, nobody is hurt. I don't think if you have any 
update on that or not. But the floor is yours for your 
questions, and if you want to add anything to that.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
that. Yes, there was a shooting at a high school just outside 
of my district. And it looks like that everyone is going to be 
OK. They are still looking for the gunman. But it appears that 
the people that have been hospitalized, that they should be OK 
is what the Arlington Police are saying right now. And thank 
you for giving me the time to address that. You know, it is sad 
that we are having to go through this yet again, but it shows 
that we have a lot of work that we have to do in that area as 
well. So thank you very much.
    Mr. Doyle. Sure. You have your full 5 minutes for 
questions.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this legislative hearing. I think that this is very 
important, and I am glad to see that we are putting consumers 
first by holding this hearing. And I know that some of my 
colleagues have already touched on this, but I wanted to tell 
you about the reason why I introduced H.R. 5400, along with my 
good friend, Representative Hayes of Connecticut, to make sure 
that the Antideficiency Act doesn't hurt low-income Americans, 
schools, libraries, or other USF beneficiaries by stopping the 
normal flow of those funds.
    This isn't a new idea. We have been exempting Universal 
Service Fund from the ADA for years. All this would do is bring 
more certainty to these recipients so they don't have to worry. 
We are in a very different time moving past COVID-19, and 
Americans don't need any more roadblocks that will keep them 
from living and thriving in our communities.
    Ms. Leanza, do you favor a multiyear exemption over our 
current year-by-year approach? And if you do, please explain 
why.
    Ms. Leanza. Thank you very much, Congressman. And thank you 
for your leadership in getting broadband to low-income 
families.
    Yes, I think that the Antideficiency Act really should be 
extended for a longer period of time. Year by year doesn't 
really seem to be a wise use of congressional resources. Right 
now, you know, the FCC is actually led equally by both 
Republicans and Democrats. It is a two-two split. So I think 
the oversight is happening within the agency itself. And the 
Antideficiency Act exemption really just causes less red tape 
for the communities that the program is serving.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. And I want to move on to 
spectrum coordination. The last administration set a great 
example of what not to do here. We shouldn't let that become 
the norm, because it is imperative that we have a unified 
approach.
    Mr. Donovan, like you, I was disappointed with the FCC and 
NTIA's lack of coordination of the Trump administration. In 
your written testimony, you suggest that having these two 
agencies embrace a unified approach is crucial for the 
advancement of effective spectrum management policies. In 
addition to improving the process for resolving spectrum 
disputes and ensuring the efficient use of spectrum, what other 
improvements could be made to the MOU to maintain a unified 
approach between the FCC and NTIA?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you. A unified approach is really so 
important that commercial users know how they are going to be 
able to use spectrum that is being reallocated from previous 
users, by Federal users or being shared with Federal users. So 
we need increase in coordination, increase in information 
sharing, timely action on that.
    And previously, we have seen agencies go around that 
typical NTIA process which express concerns after there has 
already been service rules established, after there has been 
agreement by the FCC as process is moving forward, sometimes 
even as we are approaching auctions, and that risks undermining 
the faith in the auction.
    In addition to updating the memorandum of understanding, we 
should also look to make sure that that has a way to provide 
information for a potential commercial users as early as 
possible and as complete as possible with flexible access to 
make sure that we can get that information into the right 
hands, as well as to make sure that there is a process in place 
so that, if agencies do go around or after the IRAC, 
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Council, made some determination 
on how these bands should be used, that there's remediation 
efforts so that the FCC and NTIA can make sure when the Federal 
Government speaks on these spectrum issues, that they speak 
with one voice so industry can have confidence in what they say 
and move forward accordingly.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you. And given the importance of 
maintaining a spectrum pipeline and instilling confidence in 
the spectrum reallocation and coordination process, do you 
agree that the FCC and NTIA should move quickly to finalize 
their update of the MOU?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, I do. We need to make sure that there is 
an auction pipe--a spectrum pipeline going on to make sure that 
we can continue to strengthen our networks, expand them to make 
sure everyone has connectivity, and continue to keep up with 
ever-growing demand from consumers, and in a 5G world from the 
greater broadband Internet of Things as more and more devices 
and functions are connected back to their wireless networks.
    Mr. Veasey. But what is the appropriate time that you 
recommend for the agencies to complete this work?
    Mr. Donovan. Going off of current experience, as soon as 
possible. We need to continue to work to identify additional 
spectrum bands and reallocate them as quickly as we can to make 
sure that we do have--as an industry know what bands are going 
to be coming online and when they will become available.
    Mr. Veasey. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to 
thank the subcommittee leadership for including my legislation, 
H.R. 1046, the Federal Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas 
Act. The legislation introduces needed coordination 
requirements to efficiently deploy broadband infrastructure on 
Federal lands and reach unserved communities like those I 
represent. I have shared with the committee before that about 
80 percent of my geography in my district makes--is made up of 
90 percent Federal land ownership, if you can imagine.
    The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to 
share broadband mapping data with other Federal partners. H.R. 
1046 will enable providers to make smarter investments and 
employ internet services in currently unserved communities 
while avoiding overbuilding.
    I recently heard from a local telecommunications 
cooperative operating in my district about the experience they 
had dealing with the Bureau of Land Management. I have to put 
an asterisk by this. We love our local BLM and agents, but 
sometimes they don't have the right resources to do their job.
    The telecommunications cooperative attempted to build a 
highway spanning multiple counties in my district. But the BLM 
offices in different counties bounced the project accruals back 
and forth for 6 months. This scheme of hot potato cost 
companies resources and consumers reliable access to the 
internet, which can save lives and keeps kids connected to 
school. I know that my colleague, Mr. Duncan, has legislation 
to address this very issue, and I thank him for his leadership 
on this.
    My Bipartisan Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act 
that I have introduced with a fellow member of this committee, 
Mr. O'Halleran, will also help providers looking to build on 
Federal lands know how much they should expect to spend and 
when they will have answers on their permit application. This 
will be especially helpful to communities in Utah that wait too 
long for responses from Federal agencies, like I have just 
described, or heard stories of waiting up to 9 years for 
permitting on Federal lands.
    Once again, I thank the committee for holding this hearing, 
and I urge my colleagues to consider supporting these 
important, fiscally responsible permitting reform bills that 
can solve real-world problems.
    Now, a question or two. Mr. Brandenburg, before I ask you a 
question, I would like to acknowledge your comments that you 
made in your testimony about the frustrations you might feel 
competing with local government on services.
    Just to note, I served as a mayor of a community that had a 
fiber network--a failed fiber network that I inherited. And in 
addition to the frustrations you expressed, I can speak 
firsthand to the difficulties of municipality running these 
networks. And I think, oftentimes, they overlook things and 
assume it is running. It is not too different than running the 
power department or a sewer department. Then I can tell you 
firsthand that they are very, very different.
    A quick question, and Mr. Donovan, hopefully we will have 
time for you to respond as well. As we seek to close the 
digital divide and undertake sensible, good government reforms, 
such as H.R. 1046, what should our expectations be if this 
becomes law? And just as a quick example, should success be 
defined by the number of permitting applications that are 
currently unserved, or defined by how many permits are approved 
and networks that are deployed?
    Do we have the necessary accountability measures? And which 
Federal agency should be responsible?
    Mr. Brandenburg first.
    Mr. Brandenburg.  Thank you, Representative Curtis. I want 
to just touch on this, maybe, just to kind of reciprocate some 
of the challenges we have even tried to, you know, that your 
bill would introduce. We have tried to put towers on DNR land. 
And, basically, that was years ago, and we actually gave up in 
the process because it was just too difficult. We couldn't get 
anything passed because we were getting vague answers and vague 
responses. And so, there needs to be some coordination and 
research. I don't know what is the right method to do that.
    When you were talking about--and, by the way, I just want 
to add real quickly that broadband should not be a partisan 
issue. We are all in this business to serve our customers, to 
serve Americans that desperately needing this service at this 
time.
    So what agency should be involved? You know, I think, 
perhaps, you know, that the FCC is probably the best equipped, 
given that we have, you know, accurate data mapping, and not 
just let service providers say what they have to service. And 
that is how we got into this mess in the beginning. And we, for 
one, you know, submitted accurate data. I will yield back so 
Mr. Donovan can----
    Mr. Curtis. Yes, Mr. Donovan, we have just a few seconds if 
you want to weigh in quickly.
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, so quickly, success should be on projects 
deployed. And I agree, the FCC is the right source for that. I 
appreciate and commend in your bill of having the FCC map be 
the gold standard and providing that data to other agencies to 
move forward.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you for your quick and precise answers. 
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking 
Member Latta, for holding this hearing today. I am pleased to 
see the committee working in a bipartisan fashion on these 12 
bills. Expanding our network capabilities is a priority on both 
sides. Both parties agree that broadband access is essential 
for America's economic growth.
    We all know that, when it comes to expanding our networks, 
we have a lot of work to do, especially in rural and Tribal 
areas. In my district, many households have no at-home internet 
access. No broadband means that children can't do their 
schoolwork, parents can't talk to their doctors, and new 
businesses can't open. The result is in worsening education and 
healthcare, economic outcomes for these communities. This is 
why it is so important for the House to pass the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill as soon as possible. This bill will provide 
$65 billion to build out broadband networks and bring down the 
cost of high-speed internet access. It would focus our 
investments in communities with no broadband.
    Once this bill is passed, we will need strong oversight to 
ensure these investments are going to the right places. We also 
need to make sure this money is spent in a timely fashion. That 
means using high-quality data and minimizing project delays. 
Every day a community has no broadband access is a day its 
people are left behind.
    Mr. Fogle, the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act will be 
signed into law soon. As the broadband grants are rolled out, 
how can we make sure the money is used effectively and wisely 
by State and local governments?
    Mr. Fogle. When it comes to Federal moneys, I would 
encourage Congress to directly allocate those funds rather than 
go through the State governments, because the State government, 
at least in our State, adds another layer of delay to rural 
broadband and to regular city broadband. If there is direct 
access, we are proving that even through the Recovery Act funds 
that communities throughout the country are able to directly 
use the funds that have been sent to them, and they are doing 
it much more effectively than going through the State levels.
    I am fortunate to be in a community that received directed 
funds from the recovery acts. And we have already put those 
where the dollars were sent to us, and we put those dollars to 
work. By sending the broadband funding directly to communities 
or community organizations, for instance, the organization for 
large communities in northern Colorado serving 400,000 people 
that are currently deploying fiber, that money can be put to 
work right away. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. I agree with most of 
what you have said. And I would hope that we have learned from 
the pandemic funding that the State holds up the process for 
much of the funding that went forward during the pandemic.
    I hear a lot of talk about--Mr. Donovan, I hear a lot of 
talk about the future of 5G. But right now, much of my district 
is stuck with zero G. What is being done to expand wireless 
access in rural and Tribal areas right now, and how can 
Congress help to get that done?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you. And I agree, we have experienced 
this morning during the hearing that in Mr. Long's district 
that there is indeed maybe a signal, but not enough to complete 
a call. I just read this morning that the President of the 
United States, while traveling across Michigan, is dropping 
calls. There is certainly a need for wireless service to be 
expanded. And I really appreciate your leadership on calling 
attention to that in rural and Tribal areas.
    One of the things could help immediately, since funding 
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is going to 
flow through the States, the ideas contained in Congressman 
Fletcher's bill in the Broadband Incentives for Communities 
Act, to make sure that there's resources in place to process 
applications, especially if there is an influx of them coming 
in. It would be extremely helpful to clarify now that funding 
already provided and already gone out under the American Rescue 
Plan Act can be used for those purposes to make sure that as 
additional funds come online, that municipalities and 
localities are ready to work in collaboration with carriers to 
make sure that service is expanded, including wireless service, 
as soon as possible. And building on that, we should make sure 
that there is still a role for the FCC and others to push to 
expand mobile connectivity as well as to fix connectivity 
targeted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    I see Congressman Mullin is here. Markwayne, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry. I 
had--I had some phone issues a while ago, and I had to run out 
and get a new phone real quick, ironically. The irony of that, 
right?
    Mr. Donovan, you mentioned in your testimony that 
policymakers should consider ways to make sure that 
contributors or contribution sources that provide resources for 
the USF are equitable and sustainable. Have you considered the 
edge providers that do not contribute to the Universal Service 
Fund despite the fact that their high-bandwidth content or 
content is driving up costs for rural providers?
    Mr. Donovan. Thank you. That is an issue that we are 
looking at. The contribution space right now is not sustainable 
and should be looked at to make sure it is set up for the 
mission that USF has put forward to expand--likely to expand 
the contribution-based edge providers would require production 
from Congress, an act of Congress, but is an issue that we 
suggest continue to explore. I do know there is Senate 
legislation currently pending that would require the FCC to 
study the implications of moving policy in that direction. And 
we certainly think that is worth taking a look at.
    Mr. Mullin. Well, I can tell you from all my rural 
providers is what they talk about and complain about 
constantly, and what is jamming up the network, slowing them 
down obviously. So what role do you think the edge providers 
should play in ensuring the sustainability moving forward in 
the USF fund?
    Mr. Donovan. I think it is appropriate to look at the 
companies that derive the greatest benefit from having that 
connectivity have a stake in making sure that carriers are able 
to build out and strengthen those networks to make sure that 
all consumers are able to access the content that they demand 
in the ongoing increasing use of applications as network use 
continues to explode.
    Mr. Mullin. So just, kind of--you said the Senate was 
moving forward with legislation, which I am vaguely familiar 
with. What do you think Congress should be looking at if we are 
going to include the edge providers?
    Mr. Donovan. Congress should look at what the future of 
Universal Service Fund should be overall. What is the role of 
both? What needs to be built to meet the mandate of reasonably 
comparable services in urban and rural areas? That should 
include mobile and 5G in today's mobile world. And then, you 
know, once--after establishing what the Universal Service Fund 
should be used to pay for, then look at the contributions 
factor and see who it is that benefits from those services and 
who should contribute to make sure that it is an equitable and 
sustainable base to make sure that the goals of the Universal 
Service Fund are met.
    Mr. Mullin. Well, I appreciate that, and I don't have any 
further questions. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes my good friend from California, Ms. Eshoo. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your 
testimony.
    First, Mr. Hudson raised the issue of not having a Chair of 
the--we have an Acting Chair of the FCC, but the administration 
has not named a permanent Chair. I agree with him. I think it 
is troubling, and I have publicly and repeatedly called on the 
administration to name a Chair. I have and continue to support 
the Acting Chairwoman, and I think she would be absolutely 
superb. It is a very important position. The FCC should not be 
left without a permanent Chair being named.
    Again, thank you to the witnesses. I want to say to Mr. 
Fogle that I served for 10 years in county government, on the 
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. I have such a deep 
appreciation for local government. Telecommunications has 
always been a Federal-local partnership, and I am really 
pleased that you are with us today to represent the needs of 
municipalities. I also want to add my thanks for your 
leadership on municipal broadband and your support of the 
Community Broadband Act, which I am the author of.
    I would like to ask you, and just have you answer briefly, 
your view on the two bills that are before us that directly 
impact municipalities: 5058 and 1058. Will these, in your view, 
these bills help municipalities? And if so, do you have any 
suggestions on how those bills to be strengthened?
    Are they good as they are written? Can you just comment on 
that briefly?
    Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Congresswoman. As far as 1058, that 
is the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act.
    Ms. Eshoo. Right.
    Mr. Fogle. I am assuming I have the right one there.
    Ms. Eshoo. You do.
    Mr. Fogle. NLC always has problems with shot clocks. The 
60-day timeframe for State and local governments to receive a 
complete eligible facilities request will cause problems at a 
local level. And----
    Ms. Eshoo. Why?
    Mr. Fogle [continuing]. What I would like to see----
    Ms. Eshoo. Why----
    Mr. Fogle [continuing]. Because----
    Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Can't the municipalities respond or 
act in 60 days? That is 2 months.
    Mr. Fogle. I think they can.
    Ms. Eshoo. OK.
    Mr. Fogle. I think what happens is it sets up an automatic 
antagonistic attitude by forcing them to do it. I haven't seen 
anything in our community or communities around us where the 
60-day shot clock would have even made a difference. But if 
somebody comes into an area with historic preservation issues, 
things like that, the 60-day shot clock might get in the way.
    Ms. Eshoo. OK.
    Mr. Fogle. Other than that, NLC stands in support of this 
bill.
    Ms. Eshoo. OK.
    Mr. Fogle. The 60-day shot clock is the only thing that we 
would take exception with.
    Ms. Eshoo. OK. That is wonderful.
    To Ms. Leanza, thank you for your advocacy, for the reform 
in prisons and jails. It is--I would just say to colleagues 
that many of us know that the mother of this issue was 
Commissioner Clyburn. And she raised it. And I sure hope we can 
get this through, because in the words of my father, it is a 
racket.
    To Mr. Brandenburg, as all Members did, we read the 
testimonies. I am not so sure what your top line is. Can you 
state in one sentence what you think is the most important 
issue that you have come to testify on?
    Mr. Brandenburg. I think--in one sentence, I will try. I 
think the top concern is access to spectrum, you know, and also 
the role that government plays with public-private 
partnerships. With private providers, I think it is right up 
their end, because there is nobody that is in line with what 
that means. And I think we could benefit greatly from that.
    Ms. Eshoo. And to Mr. Donovan, is H.R. 5058 a bill that you 
support?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, it is. And as well as in addition to 
that, 1058, I appreciate your support for the concept of having 
some backstop for a shot clock. That is helpful. If there is an 
issue that arises, there is a process to move forward, but 
carriers do need to have an answer so they can know which way 
to go.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
convening this very, very important hearing. And thank you as 
well to the witnesses for your testimony today.
    I think I am going to spend my time, Mr. Chairman, with Ms. 
Leanza, policy advisor for the United Church of Christ. I have 
listened to most of your testimony today. And let me tell you, 
I can feel your passion. And I just want to thank you very much 
for all that you do for the underserved communities all across 
the country.
    You know, I have said time and time again, we are the only 
industrialized nation with a maternal mortality rate that is on 
the rise. Most countries are moving in the right direction, but 
in the U.S. it is on the rise. Even more concerning to me are 
the stark racial and the ethnic inequities in these outcomes. 
African-American women are three times more likely and 
indigenous women are more than twice as likely to die from a 
pregnancy-related complication as their peers. Congresswoman 
Robin Kelly talks about this all of the time.
    In addition, a recent study confirmed by the Urban Rural 
Disparity and Maternal Mortality finding that maternal 
mortality increased with rurality, in rural communities. COVID-
19 pandemic revealed already existing correlations between 
broadband accessibility and access to proper healthcare 
services. Healthcare providers rapidly scaled up their use of 
telemedicine. We have been talking telemedicine ever since I 
have been on this committee for 14 years. But healthcare 
providers rapidly scaled up their use of telemedicine in an 
effort to minimize patients' exposure while continuing to 
provide needed care, including OB/GYN. However, patients 
without access to high-speed, reliable, and affordable 
broadband may face barriers to accessing care through 
telemedicine.
    And, so, that is why I introduced the Data Mapping to Save 
Moms' Lives Act, which will require the FCC to include maternal 
mortality as part of its broadband health mapping tool. Now, I 
know that took a long time to say, but I had to get it in the 
record.
    My question is, Ms. Leanza, how will advancing legislation, 
such as the data mapping legislation that I have, expand access 
to broadband activity and close the gap for populations that 
already suffer a disparity in maternal health rates?
    Ms. Leanza. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    As we know, in addition to the terrible disparities in 
maternal health, we also have disparities in the access to 
broadband. So, unfortunately, those two problems overlap one 
another. And they also are common to communities in rural 
America and also in more urban settings where people cannot 
afford broadband.
    But, as you said, telemedicine, the ease of access to 
healthcare, is a great way that we can bring down maternal 
mortality and severe side effects of childbirth. In fact, I 
think the CDC says that two out of three childbirth deaths are 
preventable. So it is not that we lack the medical knowledge to 
save these women; it is just, they lack the access to care.
    So, if we can see how technology can make that care easily 
accessible to them, then we can hopefully take one more step to 
actually getting scientific knowledge we have to them.
    Mr. Butterfield. I completely agree. By utilizing maternal 
mortality data and broadband access data, we can better 
understand the intersection--I think that is what you said--the 
intersection between health and broadband and better develop 
policy responses.
    My final question, if I have time: The Emergency Broadband 
Benefit Program has helped over 6 million households since it 
started earlier this year. The program is a temporary one, 
designed to provide assistance during the pandemic. However, we 
know that many families will continue to need a program like 
EBB to subscribe to broadband and remain online even after the 
pandemic ends.
    Do you feel that Congress should update the program and 
provide additional funding to set it up for long-term success?
    Ms. Leanza. Absolutely, sir. People will still need to pay 
for that broadband even next year, even when the great work 
that Congress did to establish the Emergency Broadband Fund is 
over. And, you know, I strongly support and a number of the 
civil rights community strongly supports continuing that 
funding and hopefully keeping the funding at the level that it 
is right now.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for that answer.
    And, Mr. Doyle, you admonished us at the beginning of the 
hearing to keep it within 5, and I therefore give you back 10 
seconds. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Doyle. I will thank the gentleman for that courtesy.
    And the Chair now yields to Congresswoman Fletcher for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Doyle. And 
thanks to you and Ranking Member Latta for convening today's 
hearing to discuss this important slate of bills.
    I have appreciated hearing so many of the witnesses and my 
colleagues speaking out in support of my bill that I mentioned 
earlier today, and really appreciate the robust conversation 
about these bipartisan bills, and especially want to concur 
with the comments of Mr. Butterfield just now about the 
importance of having this data for maternal mortality efforts.
    You know, what Mr. Butterfield was just saying, something 
that we have noted over the last year and a half, we have seen 
so much in this COVID-19 pandemic that has highlighted the 
disparities and challenges that we face. And there is nothing 
that is more clear than the highlight for the need for high-
speed broadband to connect people to their jobs, students to 
their schools and their teachers and their classmates and 
online resources just in every community across the country.
    And Congress really has answered that call by providing 
significant broadband funding in the recent relief packages. 
And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would provide an 
additional $40 billion to States to expand their broadband 
connections, as we have discussed today.
    My home State of Texas is estimated to receive at least 
$100 million to connect Texans to broadband. And there are 
approximately a million Texans right now who don't have access 
to broadband. So I really support these provisions.
    But part of the reason that I introduced this bill and that 
it is important that we are talking about it today is that I am 
concerned that with this incredible level of funding will come 
a lot of applications to deploy the infrastructure--the towers, 
fibers, small cells that are needed to provide these 
connections--and that this will strain local offices tasked 
with reviewing the applications.
    And that is why I believe that my bill is so essential for 
the effective deployment of these funds that we are investing 
in.
    And so I want to direct a couple questions, with the time I 
have, to Mr. Donovan.
    Can you explain or just describe some of the challenges 
that your members have faced in obtaining the authorizations 
necessary to deploy their networks in communities that they 
serve and describe maybe a little bit about how legislation 
like mine, H.R. 5058, would help address those challenges and 
kind of prevent this bottleneck in delay at the local level?
    Mr. Donovan. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank 
you for your leadership on this important issue.
    Our members have faced issues of uncertain timeframes for 
receiving answers, which challenges how they plan their 
networks for network deployment moving forward, even before 
things shifted to remote.
    And so some of the new ways that we have experienced 
challenges in going through the permitting process is, some 
systems that require, you know, wet-ink signatures or notarized 
signatures in order to move forward or only in-person 
submissions of applications or wet-stamp review of construction 
plans--all things that we should look at how we can update to 
make sure that it is a sustainable process and a collaborative 
process.
    As Councilmember Fogle mentioned earlier, when industry and 
localities can work together, it is a win-win for all of us.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that. And, actually, you 
took the words right out of my mouth, because this bill really 
has emerged from a collaboration process that we have here in 
Houston. It is modeled after what we have been doing here in 
Houston, which really has been a leader in our State in terms 
of 5G broadband deployment. And a key factor to that success 
has been the close working relationship between city leaders 
and the private sector in identifying the needs and 
facilitating this deployment.
    So, you know, our city's technology investments will be a 
huge economic driver for our region for the years to come. And 
I would be interested, Mr. Donovan or anyone on the panel, if 
you can discuss the importance of these public-private 
collaborative efforts to reach the goal of rapid 5G broadband 
deployment in all communities, rural and urban.
    Mr. Donovan. It comes down to resources. It's the resources 
to process the applications, both in terms of the individuals 
that are needed to process it as well as equipment and services 
to process applications.
    And that should be both in a conventional work environment 
as well as in a remote work environment, so that processes can 
continue to move forward even if there are additional shifts to 
remote work, that that doesn't become a block to approving the 
applications that we need to build out the broadband services 
that, as you mentioned, are so critically needed.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific.
    I have 30 seconds if anyone else wants to weigh in on that 
question.
    Mr. Fogle. I will add something, if I could, Congresswoman.
    Well, many of the things that I talk about revolve around 
municipal broadband. Municipal broadband is not the end-all-be-
all response on how to provide broadband to our communities. 
Partnerships with the private sector are just absolutely 
critical for ongoing rollout of the broadband infrastructure 
throughout our country. Both should be treated with equal 
importance going forward.
    And I thank you.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. Thank you for that.
    I have gone over my time, so, Mr. Doyle, thank you very 
much for indulging me on that. And I would also like to enter 
some statements in the record that we will email, as instructed 
at the beginning of the hearing.
    Thank you so much. I yield back, Chairman Doyle.
    Mr. Cardenas. Chairman, you are muted again.
    Mr. Doyle. I am sorry, Tony. The Chair recognizes you for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That was 
interesting. Anyway. But we are on.
    I want to spend some of my time talking about the Martha 
Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. And one of the things--and I 
apologize, I mean this in the best spirit possible, Ms. Leanza. 
Some people might assume that your expertise or your approach 
is completely emotional.
    Although this is a very, very emotional issue, can you just 
spend a little bit of time explaining the intricacies of why 
this is so important and what it has to do with the technical, 
not just the adverse effects when we don't allow people who are 
preadjudicated or incarcerated to be able to communicate with 
especially the next generation of their family?
    Ms. Leanza. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Congressman.
    So I think there are two important things to understand 
here. First of all, folks from across the ideological spectrum 
recognize and agree that the marketplace is broken. This is not 
a marketplace that functions. This is not a marketplace that 
brings prices down and improves technology for people, like the 
marketplaces that most of us benefit from today.
    And, in fact, for that reason, we have seen last year's 
Chairman under the Trump administration, Chairman Pai, 
advocated, said he wanted to work with Congress to fill the gap 
in regulatory authority of the Federal Communications 
Commission. We saw, last year, Americans for Prosperity, the 
American Conservative Union, Right on Crime all supporting Mr. 
Rush's legislation, which is unchanged from that time.
    So it is very important that, when a jail or prison 
negotiates for service for their facility, they right now are 
able to offset the cost of the facility on to the backs of 
people like Mrs. Martha Wright, a grandmother trying to keep 
touch with her grandson. The provider will offer a bid in an 
RFP to say, ``We will maximize the amount of money that we will 
pay back to the prison to cover the cost of that prison.'' And 
then the rate goes on the backs of the people who are paying on 
the outside--the community members, the clergy people who are 
on the outside who are paying for those bills.
    So we have a marketplace problem that we need solved, in 
this case with regulation. We all might prefer competition, but 
competition does not solve this problem. We have seen this RFP 
process actually work to the detriment of consumers.
    Mr. Cardenas. The providers of this service, it sounds to 
me as though they are gouging and they are actually welcoming a 
wild wild west scenario, where there is no standard to which 
they should comply. And, with all due respect, I call it a 
standard of decency, for God's sake.
    To be able to charge what they charge just so that a child 
can speak to their parent already in a very difficult 
situation, with a child having the stigma of their parent being 
in jail or what have you, and then to have to not be able to 
connect, and then create, in my opinion--and I think studies 
have shown, when young people are able to communicate with 
somebody who is either preadjudicated or incarcerated and 
convicted, they are able to deal with it much, much better. And 
so, less acting out, better attention in school, et cetera, 
which is what I think everybody on this committee and everybody 
in America wants for every child, is to not create extra 
burdens, whether it be accidentally or for the lack of 
regulation that should be and could be corrected, just like Mr. 
Rush's legislation will do.
    Ms. Leanza, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, which 
is very recent, has helped over 6 million households since it 
was started earlier this year. The program is temporary, one 
designed to provide assistance during the pandemic, but we know 
that many families will continue to need a program like EBB to 
subscribe to the broadband and remain online ever after the 
pandemic ends.
    Do you agree that Congress should update the program and 
provide additional funding to set it up for long-term success? 
And can you just speak frank and say, is the program currently 
perfect and can we make fixes and make sure that we make it 
better as we go along?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congressman.
    Yes, the EBB is very important. It is very important for 
the EBB to continue. And, in fact, one of the key ways that you 
can make the program better, that Congress can make it better, 
is to make sure that it lasts a long time.
    It certainly takes some level of application. People need 
to apply for the program. And, for them to do that, they want 
to know that the program will be there for them over the longer 
term. They don't want to go through the trouble of applying 
and, you know, a fair amount of work and then discover that, 
you know, their benefit is over.
    So I think a benefit that continues at the level that 
Congress already provided for and a benefit that is lasting a 
long term. And a number of the modifications that Congress has 
proposed in the infrastructure bill are quite beneficial and 
will improve the smoothness of operations for the program so 
that people have those connections that can do all these other 
things.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Ms. Leanza.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    I understand we have some colleagues that are waving on 
today, and I believe the first person to wave on is Mr. 
Griffith.
    So, Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate that.
    And let me say, I have been very pleased to hear lots of 
folks talk about robust oversight and that we have to do a lot 
of oversight. As ranking member on the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee--I think Chairwoman DeGette would 
agree with me--that, in order to do a lot of robust oversight 
on this and other important projects that we oversee on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee, because what we oversee and what 
we have as jurisdiction is so broad, we might need some 
additional staff and some additional committee slot times to 
get all that in. But I am up for it, and I am pretty sure that 
Chairwoman DeGette would be up for it too.
    That being said, I do want to thank you, Chairman Doyle and 
Ranking Member Latta, for allowing me the opportunity to wave 
on today and be a participant in this hearing. I believe that 
some of our most valuable bipartisan work that we can do is on 
broadband and broadband expansion.
    I was disappointed that my bill didn't make the list today. 
Hopefully it will make the list at some point. But I have a 
bill, H.R. 1051, that I introduced back in February called the 
Broadband Leadership Act. My bill would make telecommunications 
infrastructure investment more efficient by expediting local 
permitting decisions in either 90 or 150 days, depending on the 
type of site.
    If no decision is made or an extension waiver is not 
obtained, the provider would be granted a permit by default. 
Additionally, it would ensure that permitting fees are tied to 
actual processing and equipment maintenance costs.
    Now, I heard somebody talk about a 60-day time limit 
earlier. And if we need to put some protective language in 
there for historic sites or something like that, I am more than 
happy to work with people on that language.
    Mr. Brandenburg, I know that any delay when burying fiber 
or constructing fixed wireless can force a company to shift its 
investment to a different area at the expense of the consumer, 
particularly the rural consumer. And so you all know, most of 
my district would be considered rural. I represent 29 different 
geopolitical subdivisions across about a 4\1/2\-to 6-hour-wide, 
depending on how you measure it, district.
    Do you believe, Mr. Brandenburg, that delays in permitting 
are sometimes used to favor certain providers over others, or 
is site permitting just not a priority for those who are making 
those decisions?
    Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Representative Griffith.
    I would say that, you know, from our experience, I do not 
see any preference, you know, in the local authorities. By the 
way, these guys are doing a great job, especially during the 
pandemic. There was some comments made about being able to do 
that remotely as well. I think those all need to be considered. 
I just think that they are overwhelmed and understaffed.
    And, in many cases, you know, if broadband is meant to be a 
priority--and it needs to be--in this country, we need to, yes, 
have those, you know, discussions with them about what we 
intend to do in an inviting way, but we also, I think, do need 
some kind of provisions for a shot clock so that we can move on 
with the work that needs to be done.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes. I appreciate that. Do you think that my 
bill would help, then? It sounds like you do.
    Mr. Brandenburg. I do, yes. I believe that we need some 
kind of, you know, a mechanism to--and a single point of 
contact, I might add, as well, so that we can not have to deal 
with multiple agencies. Sometimes we are dealing with Federal, 
State, and local, and sometimes there are cascading events that 
happen in series, and I think a lot of those things could 
happen in parallel.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that.
    In dealing with a variety of municipalities at your 
company, how have permitting processes impacted your expansion 
decisions?
    Mr. Brandenburg. So it is a great area of concern. 
Sometimes we get capital authorized for, you know, for specific 
projects, and if we cannot execute--and we have to build a 
business plan, right, to be able to serve those customers. And 
if we are waiting a year-plus for those projects to actually be 
ready for construction, the business dynamics, just like a 
grant application to the Federal Government, those dynamics 
have changed. And nothing stands still for that period of time, 
so it greatly affects our ability.
    So timely investments require timely permitting.
    Mr. Griffith. Yes. Well, I appreciate that greatly.
    I see my time is just about up, and so, Mr. Chairman, thank 
you for letting me participate, and I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    I see one of our subcommittee members has returned.
    So, Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    You are muted. I think you are still on mute.
    Ms. Clarke. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Doyle. We can hear you.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our ranking 
member and our very distinguished panelists for being here 
today and for providing this venue in which we can discuss 
these matters that are critical to my district.
    As more goods and services and opportunities shift from the 
real world to cyberspace, broadband access and deployment is 
one of the defining policy issues of our time. While this shift 
to the digital realm has provided numerous societal benefits 
and allowed us to remain more connected than ever before, it is 
critical that we do not allow historically underserved and 
underrepresented groups to be left behind.
    Our efforts in Congress will determine if the continued 
build-out of our wireless networks serve as the tide to lift 
all ships towards a more equitable and inclusive society or 
further entrench the inequities of the past.
    One such inequity we have an opportunity to address today 
are those related to maternal health outcomes. Currently, the 
U.S. ranks as the worst place in the developed world on 
maternal mortality, and Black women are 2.5 times more likely 
to die due to childbirth complications than White women.
    And that is why I am so encouraged to see this committee 
look to better understand this issue and the role broadband 
access may play in addressing this through legislation such as 
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act, introduced 
by my distinguished colleagues on the committee, Mr. 
Butterfield, Ms. Blunt Rochester, and Mr. Bilirakis.
    This bill would allow for a better understanding of the 
nexus between internet connectivity and maternal morbidity 
rates by integrating related maternal health outcome data into 
the agency's broadband data maps. To me, this legislation seems 
like a commonsense approach to providing policymakers with 
information critical to addressing the maternal health 
disparities.
    So my first question is, Mr. Donovan, is this proposal 
something the Competitive Carriers Association would support, 
and if not, why or why not--if so, why or why not?
    Mr. Donovan. Yes, Congresswoman. So thank you for that and 
for your leadership on this issue.
    This is something that we would support. We want to see the 
most reliable broadband maps available, especially for wireless 
coverage. And then they can be used for a range of purposes, 
including supporting positive health outcomes on the issues 
that are so important like this.
    Ms. Clarke. And, Councilmember Fogle, would the data 
collected under H.R. 1218 provide information relevant to 
policymakers at the local level seeking to better understand 
health outcomes?
    Mr. Fogle. Absolutely. The data mapping from the FCC has 
been very limited up to now, so we definitely support and NLC 
supports a more robust data-mapping system that can tell us 
where the holes in the broadband infrastructure of the country 
are. Because we can't fix what we cannot see.
    Ms. Clarke. Absolutely.
    And, Ms. Leanza, I want to follow up on a question or a 
point raised by Rep. Cardenas, the question about the EBB 
program.
    I would like to raise a concern received by my office about 
the lagging participation in the program due to a lack of 
maintenance of effort by internet providers in keeping the cost 
of their internet service within the affordable realm that the 
EBB program was intended to provide.
    They have found that many of our carriers are anticipating 
a hike in the cost of the internet service beyond the program 
that has been provided by the FCC.
    Can you give us any insight to how we can mitigate that? Is 
it ultimately making the program permanent, or are there other 
means by which we should be discussing this with our carriers?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks so much.
    So I do think that we should make the program permanent. I 
think we should maintain the current funding levels in the EBB 
in the new proposal.
    In addition, the infrastructure proposal has provisions 
that enable the FCC to protect consumers, to look at whether 
there is upselling or other kinds of anticonsumer practices in 
the broadband industry. And I think it is really important that 
we have the so-called cop on the beat to be sure that, when 
consumers are using these Federal dollars to make sure that a 
broadband is affordable, that the carriers on the other side 
are putting good use to that money and it is not being wasted 
on price hikes or things that are not justified in the 
circumstances.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 7 seconds.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
    The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
    Bobby?
    I think you need to unmute.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate 
your allowing me to wave on to the subcommittee. I want to 
thank the ranking member also. And I certainly want to thank 
all of our fine witnesses today.
    Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Ms. Leanza.
    Ms. Leanza, as you know, I have been working on the prison 
phone issue for a while. And, in April, I introduced the latest 
version of my one, which is H.R. 2489, which you have already 
commented on, you and others have commented on. But I have a 
question that I want to address to you.
    The question on the proper regulation of phone calls to 
incarcerated people has been addressed before, as I said, at 
least a decade earlier. Congress originally adopted section 276 
of the Communications Act, which covers this issue, in 1996. 
But even though Congress gave the FCC the authority to address 
intrastate calls to prison and jail, the FCC has not been able 
to address this issue fully.
    What has been the impact of the GTL v. Federal 
Communications Commission ruling by the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals? What does Congress need to do to improve this 
situation?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks so much, Congressman. Thank you for your 
bill and your leadership on this.
    As you said, section 276 of the Communications Act 
addresses this issue. It says that the FCC has authority over 
inter- and intrastate pay phones, and pay phones includes calls 
to incarcerating facilities.
    But, unfortunately, a Federal court decision said that, 
even though Congress gave the FCC authority over intrastate 
calls in 1996, it concluded that Congress actually had to amend 
the law in two places, not just one place, in order to 
effectuate that change. So your bill amends section 2 of the 
Communications Act, which makes clear that the FCC would have 
authority.
    And the reason that this is necessary is because, you know, 
the Federal Government is often a really important player to 
preserve the rights and needs of consumers and citizens across 
the country. Everybody should be treated fairly, and everybody 
should receive the same consumer protection against unjust and 
unreasonable rates that all the other consumers in this country 
receive under the Communications Act.
    Mr. Rush. I totally concur.
    Several studies, Ms. Leanza, going as far back as the 
1970s, have shown that prisoners who were able to maintain 
close contact with loved ones experienced better postrelease 
outcomes and had lower recidivism rates. This is an important 
aspect of rehabilitation, not only for those that are 
incarcerated and for their loved ones but also for the 
community where they will return to and where they reside in.
    Can you please discuss how the current prison phone model 
discourages this very close, extremely close, contact 
relationship?
    Ms. Leanza. Yes. There is no more effective way to 
improve--and more cost-effective way to improve the outcomes 
than to give people who are incarcerated close ties to the 
community outside so that, when they get outside and they are 
finished with their term, they can find a job, find a place to 
live, their family relationships with their children, their 
spouses, will continue to be strong and vibrant, and they will 
be able to reenter society fully and successfully.
    So it is a part of Safe Communities to allow people to 
successfully reintegrate in society if they can keep those 
communications vibrant while they are inside.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    Let's see. Last but certainly not least, my good friend, 
Congresswoman Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes to 
close this hearing.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 
the hearing, letting me wave on, and to all the witnesses that 
testified today.
    You know, it is essential that our communication networks 
serve the unique needs of all of our communities, and I am 
pleased that I have the opportunity to discuss the ISAAC 
Alerting Act at today's hearing.
    I have partnered with Ranking Member Rodgers on this 
effort, because ensuring people with disabilities have access 
to services they need has long been a priority of not only mine 
and hers but this entire committee. It is especially important 
when we consider emergency response services and how some of 
our neighbors with disabilities might be best served if first 
responders are aware of the special circumstances before 
arriving on the scene.
    Ms. Leanza, how is accessibility for people with 
disabilities a civil rights issue, particularly as it relates 
to 9-1-1 and emergency response services?
    Ms. Leanza. Well, clearly, people with disabilities have 
the same civil rights as everyone else in our country, and, you 
know, the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, among 
others, prohibits discrimination against them. And if a person 
cannot get access to emergency communications and emergency 
services, they might pay the ultimate price for not being able 
to call an ambulance.
    So there could be no greater deprivation of your civil 
rights than to die because you couldn't get the same access to 
services as everyone else.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for that.
    So, building on that, what should the committee keep in 
mind as it considers ways to improve 9-1-1 and emergency 
services responses to requests for assistance from people with 
disabilities?
    Ms. Leanza. Thanks.
    First of all, you should absolutely work closely, as I am 
sure you have, with the people with disabilities. There is such 
a wide range of different kinds of disabilities. The needs of 
somebody who is deaf, versus somebody who is blind, versus 
somebody who is deaf/blind, versus somebody who has a cognitive 
disability--all of those require different kinds of responses, 
and all of those communities are the experts themselves about 
what needs best serve them.
    I do have a little bit of experience with this, in 
particular, in working with, unfortunately, incarcerated people 
who have disabilities. And the tragedy of somebody not being 
able to communicate while they are inside, you know, turns a 
prison term into a solitary confinement for multiple years.
    So not being able to communicate with your loved ones, 
whether that is because of a disability or some other way, is a 
really significant issue.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    So I am going to ask all of the panel, please, to answer 
this with ``yes'' or ``no.''
    Do you consider connectivity and accessibility to public 
safety networks and emergency 9-1-1 services a public health 
issue?
    We can go down the panel, whoever wants to answer first.
    Ms. Leanza. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Brandenburg. Yes, I do as well.
    Mr. Donovan. With 80 percent of an estimated 240 million 9-
1-1 calls coming from wireless devices, absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Fogle. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Dingell. And, having time, I am going to ask Mr. 
Fogle, is it correct to assume that disparities or gaps in 
broadband access could lead to gaps in access to these 
emergency services?
    Mr. Fogle. Oh, I think you are absolutely correct that 
areas that do not have worthwhile broadband services could not 
only cause disparities in response times for emergency 
services, it could cause disparities in reporting of 
emergencies.
    The areas outside of our communities, for instance, that 
are in the semirural areas, there are gaps that are literally 
150 yards away from good fiber connectivity, but because of the 
transition between city and rural, the broadband connectivity 
stops.
    And as we move forward with broadband deployment across our 
country, I think we need to especially concentrate on those 
semirural areas where the facilities exist. It is just a 
confluence of laws and confusion that cause those areas to not 
be equally served even though they are so close to 
connectivity.
    So we can't have people's homes having issues and not 
having great broadband service just because they are, you know, 
a few hundred yards outside of a given area.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Leanza, in the 16 seconds left, do you agree with 
that?
    Ms. Leanza. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you to all of you for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my 6 seconds and look 
forward to working on this subject with you.
    Mr. Doyle. OK.
    The gentlelady yields back. I thank her.
    So I think that is everyone. I want to thank all the 
witnesses for their participation in today's hearing.
    I want to request unanimous consent to enter the following 
records, testimony, or other information into the record: a 
letter from the Credit Union National Association; a statement 
from Congressman Bill Pascrell; statement from Rick Roderick, 
president of the National Association of Amateur Radio; a 
letter from NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors 
Association to Representative Fletcher in support of H.R. 5058; 
another letter from NATE to myself and Ranking Member Latta in 
support of H.R. 5058; statements from CCA, INCOMPAS, WIA in 
support of H.R. 5028; a letter from the March of Dimes in 
support of H.R. 1218; a letter from grassroots advocates, civil 
rights, consumers' rights, and faith-based organizations in 
support of H.R. 2489; a letter from the Leadership Conference 
on Civil and Human Rights in support of H.R. 2489; a letter 
from the American Medical Association in support of H.R. 1218; 
a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists in support of H.R. 1218; a letter from GPS 
Innovation Alliance in support of H.R. 2501; a letter from 
USTelecom in support of H.R. 5400; an op-ed in the New York 
Daily News entitled ``New York News: New Jersey, media desert'' 
by Congressman Bill Pascrell and Senator Robert Menendez.
    Without objection, this is so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Doyle. I remind Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared.
    I would ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
questions you may receive.
    At this time, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]  
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]