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

                   STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS:
                       LEGISLATION TO CONNECT AND PROTECT

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

                                VIRTUAL HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATION AND
                                   TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                                    COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                  MAY 24, 2022
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-85

                   [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

    61-455 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2026

                        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    DEBBIE 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. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the
      California, opening statement..................................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Hon. Anna C. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, prepared statement..............................    92

                                   Witnesses

    Anna M. Gomez, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP...........................    18
        Prepared Statement...........................................    21
    Thomas E. Kadri, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of
      Georgia School of Law..........................................    27
        Prepared Statement...........................................    29
    H. Mark Gibson, Director, Business Development and Spectrum
      Policy, Commscope and Regulatory Officer of the Ongo Alliance..    38
        Prepared Statement...........................................    40
    Alisa Valentin, Ph.D., Senior Director of Technology and
      Telecommunications Policy, National Urban League...............    51
        Prepared Statement...........................................    53

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
      Recipients Act of 2021\1\
    H.R. 4990, the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
      Codification Act\1\
    H.R. 5486, the Simplifying Management, Reallocation, and Transfer
      of Spectrum Act\1\
    H.R. 7132, the Safe Connections Act of 2022\1\
    H.R. 7783, the Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership
      Act of 2022\1\
    Letter of May 24, 2022, from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO,
      CCA, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Matsui...........    93
    Letter of May 23, 2022, by Gre Guice. Director of Government
      Affairs, et al., Public Knowledge, to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
      submitted by Mr. Matsui........................................    95

    ----------
    \1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
      available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
      ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114824.

                   STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS:
                       LEGISLATION TO CONNECT AND PROTECT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2022

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
    and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
    Doris O. Matsui, (member of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives McNerney, Clarke, Veasey,
    McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Matsui, Welch, Schrader,
    Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex officio); Latta
    (subcommittee ranking member), Guthrie, Bilirakis, Long,
    Walberg, Carter, and Rodgers (ex officio).
        Also present: Representatives Joyce and Kuster.
        Staff present: Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer
    Epperson, Senior Counsel; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director
    and General Counsel; Jessica Grandberry, Staff Assistant;
    Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk;
    Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jerry Leverich, Chief
    Counsel, Communications and Technology; Dan Miller,
    Professional Staff Member; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Chloe
    Rodriguez, Clerk; Johanna Thomas, Counsel; Kate Arey, Minority
    Content Manager and Digital Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority
    Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
    Analyst, Consumer Protection 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; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel,
    Oversight and Investigations, Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth,
    Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Clare
    Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Olivia Shields,
    Minority Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority
    Policy Director; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of
    Information Technology; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff
    Member, Communications and Technology; and Kate O'Connor,
    Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology.
        Ms. Matsui. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will now come to order.
        Today the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is
    holding a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening Our Communications
    Networks: Legislation to Connect and Protect.''
        Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
    hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
    be participating via video conferencing.
        As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
    the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone
    each time you wish to speak.
        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 herself for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORINA

        Back in March this committee met to execute one of the most
    important functions: holding an FCC oversight hearing. At that
    hearing one thing was abundantly clear: There is bipartisan
    agreement that we cannot let the FCC's auction authority lapse
    under any circumstances.
        Congress has extended the FCC's spectrum auction authority
    on a bipartisan basis several times over the last three
    decades, and has never let it lapse. I am committed to keeping
    that unbroken record intact.
        It is no exaggeration to say that the FCC truly sets the
    global benchmark for spectrum auctions. To date the Commission
    has held 98 auctions, awarding more than 94,000 licenses and
    permits, raised more than $233 billion in revenues, and
    provided more than $1 trillion in benefits for the American
    people.
        But the stakes are even higher right now. In July the FCC
    will be kicking off the 2.5 gigahertz auction, bringing more
    needed mid-band spectrum to market. Even a brief lapse in FCC
    auction authority could jeopardize licenses from being awarded,
    and delay the carriers' ability to supercharge their networks
    with this 5G-ready spectrum. That cannot happen.
        The inclusion of Congresswoman Davids' Extending America's
    Spectrum Auction Leadership Act on today's agenda can prevent
    that. It would extend the FCC's general auction authority for
    an additional 18 months to March 31st, 2024, providing the
    needed time to complete the 2.5 gigahertz auction. I look
    forward to working in a bipartisan, bicameral way to give the
    FCC the authority it needs to maintain America's position as a
    pace setter in wireless communications.
        I am also excited to see Congressman Guthrie's SMART Act on
    the agenda today. As my fellow co-chair of the congressional
    Spectrum Caucus, we have worked together on more legislation
    than I can count, and the SMART Act is no different. This
    important bill would improve spectrum management in the United
    States by establishing a standardized framework to facilitate
    spectrum sharing between Federal and non-Federal users.
        While I am interested in pursuing some clarifying edits
    with Congressman Guthrie, I am confident that it can be done on
    a bipartisan basis and set the path for a smooth markup and
    quick consideration on the floor. This bill is smart public
    policy and tackles an emerging but crucial issue in spectrum--
    America's spectrum leadership.
        Congressman Carter's ITS Codification Act would also
    reinforce America's leadership in innovation by providing
    statutory authority for NTIA's Institute of Telecommunications
    Sciences. As a research and engineering arm of NTIA, ITS
    advances innovation in communications technologies through
    cutting-edge research.
        The ITS Codification Act also established an initiative at
    NTIA to develop emergency communication technologies for use in
    locating individuals trapped in areas where mobile connectivity
    may not be available.
        We also have two bills on the agenda that will increase
    broadband access and provide new protections to help survivors
    of domestic violence and human trafficking. Representatives
    Luria and Katko's Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
    Recipients Act establishes new reporting requirements to help
    track and improve Lifeline enrollment among SNAP participants,
    ensuring critical assistance programs are working together to
    ensure participants will help deliver better services to those
    who need them most, especially as we continue to recover from
    the pandemic. I believe this bill will help provide information
    to improve the Lifeline program.
        Additionally, Representatives Kuster and Eshoo's Safe
    Connections Act establishes new protections that will help
    survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking gain
    independence. Too often survivors of crimes like domestic
    violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and human
    trafficking remain stuck on a family or shared wireless phone
    plan. This allows their abusers to limit their access to
    family, social safety networks, employers, and support
    services.
        The Safe Connections Act empowers survivors by allowing
    them to separate a mobile phone line from any shared plan
    involving an abuser without penalty, including the lines of any
    dependents in their care. And it requires the FCC to initiate
    two rulemakings to connect survivors to the Lifeline program
    and ensure calls or texts to hotlines do not appear on call
    logs. Is smart policy, and I hope our committee will consider
    it as a markup as soon as possible.
        I want to thank the authors of these bills and the
    witnesses for appearing today. I look forward to hearing your
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Matsui. I now want to recognize my friend, Ranking
    Member Latta, for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much and, Madam Chair,
    thanks very much for calling for today's hearing.
        And also, thank you to our witnesses that are appearing
    before us. I really appreciate it.
        As our Nation's spectrum resources become more scarce, good
    public policy plays an increasingly important role in ensuring
    efficient use. I am encouraged that today this subcommittee is
    considering legislation that will allow the United States to
    better utilize these valuable airwaves for economic growth and
    innovation.
        Recently, Chairman Doyle and I introduced the Spectrum
    Innovation Act to accelerate commercial access to the lower
    three gigahertz band. Access to this mid-band spectrum is
    needed to bring 5G to farms and households across rural
    America, and I am proud to have worked with my colleague to
    come to an agreement on this legislation, which should move
    through Congress, and should be sent to the President's desk.
        I am also pleased that we are considering the Extending
    America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act of 2022. This
    legislation extends the FCC's authority to conduct spectrum
    auctions and issue licenses for 18 months, which will allow the
    FCC to continue its ongoing work to make more spectrum
    available for commercial use. Without congressional action, the
    FCC's authority will expire on September 30 of this year. And I
    urge swift passage of this bipartisan legislation to avoid any
    disruption to the FCC's planned auction activities, like
    auctioning the 2.5 gigahertz band.
        While these are great steps forward, our work is far from
    over. The FCC, NTIA, and industry must continue to identify
    opportunities to use spectrum more efficiently, which remains
    difficult as the demand for wireless technology grows and
    spectrum resources have become more congested.
        Fortunately, we have engineers at NTIA's Institute for
    Telecommunications Sciences, or ITS, who play a critical role
    in advancing technologies that help NTIA better manage Federal
    spectrum resources. ITS played a key role in developing the
    solutions to spectrum sharing between Federal and commercial
    users in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service Band. Spectrum
    has been--previously been under-utilized by the Federal
    Government. It is now able to be used commercially to promote
    5G, while protecting Federal incumbents.
        ITS's role will only continue to grow in its importance as
    spectrum re-purposing decisions become more difficult, which is
    why Mr. Carter's legislation, H.R. 4990, the ITS Codification
    Act, is so important. This legislation takes an important step
    forward by strengthening ITS authorities and recognizing the
    contributions the lab makes to our wireless economy.
        In order to identify areas where Federal spectrum use can
    be more efficient, Congress must provide NTIA with necessary
    tools to advance the spectrum management mission. To further
    this effort, Mr. Guthrie's SMART Act requires NTIA to establish
    an incumbent informing capability to take a holistic view of
    how Federal users are using their spectrum resources across the
    government to identify opportunities for new commercial uses,
    while preserving Federal missions to keep our country safe.
        As these spectrum management decisions become more
    difficult, we must utilize every tool in the toolbox to
    efficiently use these airwaves and provide certainty for
    commercial investment and wireless developments. I am pleased
    to see the legislation on today's hearing, and look forward to
    discussing these important topics.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Latta

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
    Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for
    his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, and it is good
    to see you chairing the subcommittee today.
        And let me point out to our members that this is what we
    call a virtual committee week, as set by the Speaker. And there
    are three committee days: today, tomorrow, and Thursday. And we
    are having a subcommittee hearing each of those days, two of
    which are legislative hearings. So we are always busy, even
    when we are virtual.
        We are continuing this committee's long-time work in this
    subcommittee of ensuring that our Nation's communications
    networks are stable, secure, and reliable. Communication
    networks are essential infrastructure to help connect friends
    and families, relay emergency communications to the public,
    allow business operations to run more efficiently and
    effectively, and deliver education and health services.
        At today's legislative hearing we will discuss five bills,
    most of which are bipartisan, on a broad range of proposals
    aimed at ensuring that these invaluable networks continue to
    deliver this critical service to consumers. I would like to
    comment and give my own view on these bills.
        First, I am pleased that we are considering H.R. 7783, the
    Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act, introduced
    by Representatives Davids, Joyce, Welch, and Johnson. This
    committee has a long tradition of working together in a
    bipartisan fashion to lay the groundwork for technological
    innovation in this country. We are called the innovation
    committee, and this legislation is no exception. It will extend
    spectrum auction authority for the Federal Communications
    Commission by 18 months from its expiration date later this
    fall. And as a result, the FCC will be able to hold its planned
    auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band in July without disruption,
    and also fully close out auctions that have already occurred.
        Congress has never let the FCC's spectrum authority lapse
    since authorizing it in the early 1990's, so I am pleased we
    are taking this important step forward today.
        I also want to thank the FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel for her
    leadership on this issue and emphasizing its importance. I
    agree with the chairwoman. I am hopeful that Congress can come
    together to use the funding from the upcoming auctions to fund
    important priorities like next generation 911 and the
    replacement of suspect communications equipment, among other
    good ideas.
        Next, we are considering H.R. 7132, the Safe Connections
    Act, introduced by Representatives Kuster and Eshoo, and
    cosponsored by Representatives Welch and Walberg. While there
    is no question that wireless phone service can be an important
    lifeline for survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking,
    and other related crimes, it is also the case that shared
    mobile service plans can subject these individuals to hidden
    risks, such as digital abuse. So, this bill addresses this
    abuse by requiring mobile service providers to separate the
    survivor's phone line from an account shared with their abuser
    without financial penalties or other potential challenges after
    they receive a request from a survivor.
        The FCC would also be required to establish emergency
    communications support for these survivors. This is lifesaving
    legislation that has already passed the Senate, and I welcome
    the opportunity to discuss it here today.
        We are also considering H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and
    Internet Access for SNAP Recipients Act, introduced by
    Representatives Luria and Katko. Since 1985 the FCC's Lifeline
    program has provided a discount on phone service to qualifying
    Americans. But the data demonstrates that only a fraction of
    Lifeline-eligible individuals enroll in the program. So this
    bill would require the FCC to annually submit a report to
    Congress on the Lifeline program's enrollment of individuals
    participating in SNAP.
        It would also require the FCC to report to Congress on the
    enrollment of new broadband consumers in the Lifeline program,
    and the effectiveness of advertising on these numbers.
        Now, finally, we will consider two bills directed at the
    work of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration: specifically, H.R. 4990, the ITS Codification
    Act, introduced by Representative Carter and cosponsored by
    Representative O'Halleran; and then, separately, H.R. 5486, the
    SMART Act, introduced by Representative Guthrie.
        And collectively, these bills provide NTIA with access to
    innovative spectrum management solutions, led in part by NTIA's
    Institute for Telecommunications Scientists [sic], ITS. As the
    engineering laboratory for NTIA, ITS helps drive innovation,
    enables the robust development of telecommunications
    infrastructure, and helps protect an open, global internet.
        So finally, I did want to also recognize, if I could today,
    a departing member of the Energy and Commerce Committee team.
    Parul Desai is a native New Jerseyan and has done terrific work
    for the committee over the past five years since she joined us
    as a detail from the FCC. She is now headed to a new role at
    the NTIA. We all know the incredible amount of work that agency
    has before it, and I just want to wish her nothing for the best
    in her future pursuits.
        So thank you, Parul.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my
    time, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, ranking member of the full committee,
    for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
    everyone.
        The success of our Nation's wireless future depends on
    smart management of our spectrum resources. Earlier this year
    we had a hearing on spectrum issues, where we heard
    overwhelming support from witnesses to extend the Federal
    Communications Commission's spectrum auction authority to
    ensure the successful competition of the FCC's upcoming
    spectrum auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band. This will allow
    carriers to expand 5G across the United States.
        I am pleased to announce that this committee responded.
    Today we are considering bipartisan legislation to extend the
    FCC's auction authority for 18 months through March 2024. This
    bill will ensure the agency completes their ongoing spectrum
    activities, and it provides certainty to bidders in the
    upcoming 2.5 gigahertz auction that the FCC will be able to use
    their licenses if they bid.
        I want to thank Chairman Pallone and Chairman Doyle for
    working with us to reach this bipartisan agreement. And I look
    forward to advancing this legislation.
        As demand for wireless technology grows, we need to adapt
    to make sure our spectrum resources are used efficiently. While
    it is critical to re-purpose spectrum from Federal to
    commercial use, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find
    prime spectrum bands that are unencumbered. I am pleased that
    we are considering my colleague Representative Guthrie's SMART
    Act today, which requires NTIA to establish an incumbent
    informing capability. This will allow NTIA to see spectrum
    usage by agency across the Federal Government, and help them
    improve spectrum use efficiently, while also protecting
    national security.
        Representative Carter's bill, the ITS Codification Act,
    will codify the important duties of NTIA's Institute for
    Telecommunications Sciences, the government's premier radio-
    frequency laboratory; clarify the agency's responsibilities;
    and direct them to advance spectrum re-purposing opportunities;
    and certify new technologies as we continue to advance American
    wireless leadership.
        U.S. leadership and next generation technology depends on
    our ability to develop innovative solutions to re-purpose
    spectrum for commercial use. This will ensure spectrum
    resources are available for future uses not yet known and
    maintain the United States' reputation as the number-one place
    for businesses to invest in innovation and grow the economy.
        This committee is leading on solutions to make spectrum
    resources available. But to unleash the full potential of
    today's spectrum legislation, we also need to address barriers
    to deploying wireless infrastructure. Energy and Commerce
    Republicans are leading on a package of bills, the Boosting
    Broadband Connectivity Agenda, which roll back duplicative,
    burdensome regulations and permitting requirements to speed up
    deployment of broadband infrastructure. Without permitting
    reform, it will be difficult for the United States to compete
    and beat China. If we fail to address these reforms, this
    committee will miss an opportunity to strengthen American
    leadership in next-gen communication technology.
        We are also considering legislation that would allow
    survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking to
    separate from any shared mobile contracts with their abuser.
    Republicans have several changes we would like to see made to
    this bill, if it advances. But we stand ready to work with our
    colleagues to find a solution. Survivors of domestic violence
    must have the freedom to have a new start, to be safe and
    secure, and able to separate from their abuser quickly.
        This hearing is a great first step to discuss these bills
    and hear from witnesses about how they will impact the
    marketplace. I look forward to hearing from all of you.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Rodgers. And I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady 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.
        I now would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
    hearing: Ms. Anna M. Gomez, partner, Wiley Rein LLP; Dr. Thomas
    E. Kadri, assistant professor, University of Georgia School of
    Law; Mr. Mark Gibson, director, business development and
    spectrum policy, CommScope, and regulatory officer of the OnGo
    Alliance; and Dr. Alisa Valentin, senior director of technology
    and telecommunications policy, National Urban League.
        At this time the Chair would recognize each witness for 5
    minutes to provide their opening statement.
        Ms. Gomez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ, PARTNER, WILEY REIN LLP; THOMAS E.
    KADRI, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA SCHOOL
    OF LAW; MARK GIBSON, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & SPECTRUM
    POLICY, COMMSCOPE AND REGULATORY OFFICER OF THE ONGO ALLIANCE;
     AND ALISA VALENTIN, PH.D., SENIOR DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY AND
            TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE

                       STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ

        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking Member
    Latta, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and
    the distinguished members of the subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        My background, from working at the FCC and NTIA, as well as
    my experience in the private sector, give you a unique view of
    spectrum challenges. However, my testimony today reflects my
    own views, and are not necessarily those of my clients.
        The task that NTIA and the FCC share in managing our
    Nation's airwaves can be daunting, given the diverse array of
    stakeholders and interests, as well as our continuing need to
    identify additional spectrum for new and innovative uses. It is
    important to bolster and respect the agency's shared
    responsibilities.
        I, therefore, want to first commend and thank the Committee
    for its bipartisan attention and commitment to exploring ways
    to strengthen U.S. spectrum management. The Simplifying
    Management Reallocation and Transfer of Spectrum Act would
    authorize NTIA's proposed incumbent informing capability, which
    would provide a common platform for sharing.
        I want to applaud Congressman Guthrie for introducing this
    thoughtful legislation.
        NTIA's missions are critical and complex. The tools
    Congress has provided ultimately allow NTIA to draw on its
    experience to ensure continued U.S. leadership in facilitating
    the development and deployment of new and innovative services
    which spur economic growth, investment, and job creation, while
    ensuring that the Federal agencies have the spectrum they need
    to meet their missions.
        The Institute of Telecommunications Sciences, or ITS,
    Codification Act is another important step in ensuring that
    NTIA has the tools necessary to effectively manage the
    country's spectrum. ITS is an integral arm of spectrum
    management efforts by providing research, testing, and analysis
    both to NTIA, as well as to entities with which it has
    contracted, like commercial providers and other government
    agencies. By providing the statutory authority for ITS, the Act
    will further support spectrum management initiatives. And I
    want to commend Congressman Carter for introducing this
    legislation.
        In recent years, the NTIA and FCC coordination process has
    been increasingly challenging. However, the two agencies
    recently announced their new Joint Spectrum Coordination
    Initiative. Of the commitments they announced, developing a
    national spectrum strategy is particularly essential, and any
    strategy should include identifying additional spectrum for new
    uses, while continuing to ensure that Federal agencies can meet
    their missions.
        Of course, identifying additional spectrum would be of
    little use if the FCC does not have the authority to conduct
    auctions to license that spectrum. In addition to encouraging
    the best and highest use of spectrum, spectrum auctions have
    raised over $200 billion in Federal revenue. Congress has, in
    turn, used that revenue to significantly reduce our national
    debt and to pay for key national priorities, such as the first
    responder network authority and 911 grants.
        Revenue from spectrum auctions also helps facilitate the
    re-purposing of Federal to non-Federal spectrum through the
    Spectrum Relocation Fund. Accordingly, Congress's extension of
    the FCC's spectrum auction authority is of paramount
    importance.
        I want to thank the bipartisan leadership of this
    subcommittee for reaching a compromise to extend the FCC's
    auction authority. Once extended, this subcommittee has an
    important role to play in overseeing the work and producing a
    national spectrum strategy that identifies additional spectrum
    bands for re-purposing.
        I want to conclude by urging the subcommittee to continue
    to look for ways to improve the existing spectrum management
    framework. In that regard I refer to FCC Chairwoman
    Rosenworcel's recent letter to the House and Senate Commerce
    Committee leaders regarding improvements Congress can make to
    existing spectrum processes, which includes recommendations for
    updating the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, or CSEA, to
    make it even more effective for re-purposing spectrum.
        While the CSEA is an effective tool, there is room for
    improvement. For example, Congress can further incentivize
    Federal agencies by removing the comparable capability
    limitation, which then would allow Federal spectrum users to
    modernize their outdated equipment as part of the spectrum
    reallocation process, generating greater incentives to
    relinquish under-utilized or duplicative spectrum bands.
        In addition, reforming CSEA to cover costs to evaluate
    impacts to non-Federal bands where there are strong Federal
    equities would allow NTIA to examine thorny issues affecting
    commercial providers.
        Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with
    you on my perspective on pending legislation to improve our
    Nation's spectrum management activities. I look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        Dr. Kadri, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. KADRI

        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Chair Matsui, Ranking Member Latta,
    and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I greatly
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
        By way of background, I am a law professor at the
    University of Georgia, where I am also affiliated with the
    Institute for Women's Studies and the Institute for
    Cybersecurity and Privacy. I obtained my Ph.D. from Yale Law
    School, and my research focuses on the legal and technological
    regulation of privacy, speech, and abuse. And as an affiliated
    researcher with Cornell's Clinic to End Tech Abuse, CETA, I
    work directly with victims of digital abuse, and advise
    lawmakers on how to address it.
        Now, I use the term ``digital abuse'` to refer broadly to
    how people exploit technology to harm others. More
    specifically, digital abuse involves using technology to
    control, harass, stalk, surveil, or threaten someone in a way
    that invades their privacy or autonomy, or harms them
    emotionally, physically, reputationally, or financially.
        Now, digital abuse is on the rise. Domestic Violence
    Charity Refuge estimates that 95 percent of its cases involve
    technology, while the National Domestic Violence Hotline has
    seen a 155 percent increase in reports of digital abuse between
    2015 and 2018, and those numbers have surely grown during the
    pandemic. These statistics might initially seem shocking, but
    one in three women and one in six men have experienced abusive
    relationships. And so, given how central digital technologies
    have become in our lives, their growing role in interpersonal
    abuse is predictable.
        Why is digital abuse so harmful? Well, this is, obviously,
    a complex question. But one common theme is that abusers use
    technology to become ever-present in a victim's life, or at
    least to create that impression.
        Now, though it might be tempting to focus on more
    sensational topics like stalkerware apps, the work of Dr. Karen
    Levy and others has shown that digital abuse is often mundane
    in that it requires little to no sophistication, and relies on
    everyday devices and services. And a classic example of this is
    family phone plans.
        Information that an abuser can gather from these plans
    might exacerbate abuse, and even thwart a victim's attempts to
    escape. And these serious yet under-appreciated risks make
    family phone plans the snake in the grass of domestic violence.
    These plans let an abuser monitor a victim's calls, texts, and
    even their precise location of their device. An abuser may, for
    example, discover where a victim is currently hiding, or
    planning to go, as well as any contact they have had with
    family members, domestic violence hotlines, or crisis response
    centers.
        As Diana Freed, a lead researcher at CETA, has observed,
    ``People would come into our clinic and report that the abuser
    knows where they are. They have left the abuser. They have
    moved on to a new relationship, new friends, and suddenly all
    of their contacts have been contacted by the abuser. And there
    was no idea how this person got the numbers.'`
        So though a victim could always abandon their device
    entirely, this might actually worsen matters if their phone and
    its number connect them to friends, family, work, and crucial
    services that can help keep them safe.
        And if a victim does try to leave a family plan, phone
    companies often charge high fees of up to $350 per line, in
    addition to demanding upfront payment for any devices being
    financed in installments. Now, for many victims, paying these
    sums all at once will exceed their financial means, especially
    when their abuser controls their economic resources, as is
    common with domestic violence.
        And currently, no Federal law allows victims to leave
    family plans. Existing State laws, meanwhile, provide
    inadequate protections. And people in states without any legal
    right to get out of a family plan, especially people with low
    incomes, could effectively be trapped in a contract that allows
    their abuser to control them.
        A strong Federal law empowering victims to leave family
    plans would help vulnerable people in all states to cut this
    dangerous tie with their abusers.
        The legislation before your subcommittee, the Safe
    Connections Act, represents significant progress by making it
    easier to leave family plans quickly, remotely, and for free.
    Victims rely on phones as a lifeline, but that same technology
    can simultaneously expose them to abuse. And the Act represents
    a careful effort to respond to how phones play this essential
    but complicated role in victims' lives.
        It is encouraging to see the bipartisan consensus that has
    emerged as the Act has passed through Congress, or progressed
    through Congress. And even the telecommunications industry has
    now signaled its support.
        Federal law should allow victims to make a clean break from
    their abusers with minimal barriers and risks. And the Safe
    Connections Act would be a step in the right direction.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Kadri follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        Mr. Gibson, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF MARK GIBSON

        Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui and Chairman
    Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. It is truly an
    honor and a pleasure to be here today, if only virtually.
        I am here today in my capacity as regulatory officer and
    board member of the OnGo Alliance. The mission of the OnGo
    Alliance is to support the common interests of members,
    implementers, and operators for the development,
    commercialization, and adoption of LTE and 5G solutions for the
    U.S. 3.5 gigahertz Citizens Broadband Radio Service. This is a
    very important band for the 5G deployment in our country, as it
    is one of the first 5G bands available. And I would like to
    discuss how the legislation that is the focus of today's
    hearing will enhance the importance of the band, and allow for
    greater deployment of broadband.
        Deployment in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or
    CBRS, launched in January 2020. In the nearly two-and-a-half
    years since CBRS service launched, there have been well over
    200,000 base stations deployed across the country. These
    deployments support all regions of telecommunications,
    including support for distance learning during COVID, enabling
    hospital COVID triage centers, helping otherwise poorly
    connected farmers achieve 5G connectivity, support for critical
    manufacturing automation, and helping to connect disparate
    corners of our supply chain.
        CBRS literally saves lives.
        The CBRS band is shared with several types of incumbent
    operations, including fixed satellite service, legacy
    broadband, and the DoD. Sharing happens through a Spectrum
    Access System, or SAS. The role of the SAS is to tell CBRS base
    stations what frequencies they can operate on at their
    locations without causing interference to incumbent operations.
        For fixed satellite and broadband incumbents, SASes know
    where these operations are, and can easily perform frequency
    availability analyses. However, for DoD operations, which are
    generally a specific type of naval radar onboard aircraft
    carriers, it is not possible for the SAS to know exactly where
    they are located for national security reasons.
        Therefore, these operations are identified through coastal
    sensor networks called Environmental Sensing Capability, or
    ESC. Each ESC network is comprised of scores of coastal sensors
    that sense radar operation and alert SASes, which then tell
    CBRS base stations to avoid the radar frequencies in use.
        ESC Sensors must quickly sense radar operations that occur
    over 150 miles off the coast, which means that ESC sensors are
    extremely sensitive to very weak signals, and this also means
    that ESC sensors can be susceptible to interference from CBRS
    base stations.
        To avoid interfering with ESC sensors, CBRS devices as far
    as 25 to 50 miles from an ESC sensor must operate at reduced
    power, or avoid operating altogether. This creates a de facto
    protection area around each sensor where a CBRS device
    operation is either curtailed or extremely limited. ESC
    operators have tried to minimize these protection zones through
    sensor design and location by placing sensors as close to the
    coast as possible.
        But sometimes avoiding populated areas is inescapable.
    Because of reduced availability of CBRS, ESC sensor protection
    affects millions of Americans in coastal regions, as well as
    CBRS licensees who paid over $4.5 billion for their spectrum in
    an FCC auction.
        However, there is a remedy to this problem in the form of a
    portal-based incumbent informing capability. The NTIA has
    proposed creating a portal they are calling the incumbent
    informing capability, or IIC. The IIC would allow for any
    Federal spectrum user to notify about their operation with at
    least a few minutes notice. This would then be communicated to
    SASes. Federal spectrum users could specify a time, duration,
    location--which could be an area--and operating frequencies,
    and this information could be provided to SASes, which would
    then perfect--protect the areas if--as if an ESC sensor had
    sensed the radar.
        The only drawback to the IIC is authorization and funding.
    There is currently no firm timeline for the construction of the
    IIC, and no authorization or specified funding source. The IIC
    would greatly enhance 5G operations in CBRS, including allowing
    our operators to increase power levels and fully realize the
    value of the band, allowing, potentially, millions of Americans
    along the coast to benefit.
        This is why the OnGo Alliance fully supports H.R. 5486, or
    Simplifying Management Relocation and Transfer of Spectrum Act,
    the SMART Act, and we are--we honor Congressman Guthrie's work
    on this. The SMART Act will provide the NTIA with a timeline
    and funding authorization to build a capability that will allow
    for sharing in all bands, not just CBRS.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        Dr. Valentin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ALISA VALENTIN

        Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Matsui, Ranking
    Member Latta, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris
    Rodgers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank
    you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is
    Alisa Valentin, and I am the senior director of technology and
    telecommunications policy at the National Urban League. I bring
    you greetings on behalf of our president and CEO, Marc Morial.
        In my prior role I was a special advisor to FCC
    Commissioner Geoffrey Starks, where I advised the commissioner
    on broadband policies that impacts communities of color and
    low-income communities. And in this capacity I made policy
    recommendations regarding the FCC's Lifeline program.
        I was also the person watching the livestream, or sitting
    behind my former boss as he answered from the committee. But my
    virtual seating arrangement has changed a bit today.
        The National Urban League and our 92 local affiliates have
    long recognized that access to high-speed internet is a civil
    right. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that everyone needs
    broadband to learn, work, receive healthcare, and access
    critical government services, no matter their income, no matter
    their race, and no matter their geographic location.
        Last year the National Urban League published the Lewis
    Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion, where we
    presented four goals, which included deploying networks
    everywhere; getting everyone connected; creating new economic
    opportunities to participate in the growth of the digital
    economy; and using networks to improve how we deliver essential
    services. We recognize that, in order to achieve these goals,
    we must erase pertinent connectivity gaps, including
    availability, adoption, and affordability.
        Today, I will focus on affordability. Nearly 47 million
    people in the United States are left offline because they are
    unable to afford broadband, and this disproportionately impacts
    Black and Latinx households. In fact, 29 percent of Black
    adults and 35 percent of Latinx adults do not have a home
    broadband connection.
        Prior to the pandemic, low-income families were dependent
    on the FCC's Lifeline program, which was the only Federal
    program focused on providing affordable communications services
    to low-income households. This program must be modernized to
    reach households who need it most because it is very under-
    utilized, with a participation rate that hovers at around 19
    percent.
        We need a whole-of-government approach to get households
    enrolled in what is already a literal lifeline for millions of
    families. That is why the National Urban League supports the
    goals of the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
    Recipients Act of 2021, which requires the FCC and USDA to
    submit an annual report to Congress on enrollment in Lifeline
    by SNAP recipients. It also requires the Commission to report
    on projected Lifeline consumers through Federal assistance
    programs and the efficacy of various efforts to advertise the
    program.
        The requirements of this bill should be extended beyond
    Lifeline to include the Affordable Connectivity Program, which
    was established with the passage of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law. Almost 12 million households have enrolled
    in ACP, and estimates show that approximately 48 million
    households are eligible.
        Congress, the FCC, and NTIA have recognized that outreach
    efforts must include the funding of trusted organizations
    working on the ground. The National Urban League could not
    agree more. We believe the burden of advertising these programs
    should not fall solely on the shoulders of advocates seeking to
    serve the under-served. There needs to be more resources
    provided.
        We also think about solutions for the future that can
    extend the life of the program. Although the National Urban
    League has not taken a formal position on the spectrum bills
    being discussed today, we do believe that Congress should
    consider a number of ways to provide permanent, sustainable
    funding for ACP, such as using proceeds from spectrum auctions
    to fund digital equity and affordability efforts.
        In an era of rising income inequality and increasing
    dependency on the digital ecosystem, we must recognize that
    there is a moral imperative and an economic benefit to
    connecting everyone to high-speed internet, including both
    workers and small business owners. The National Urban League
    believes that spectrum auction winners should also be
    encouraged or incentivized to hire from under-represented
    communities beyond entry level positions; establish diversity
    hiring goals; and increase supplier diversity. Our organization
    has taken up efforts to increase equity in companies because we
    know that Black and Latinx workers and entrepreneurs deserve to
    experience the economic benefits of this sector.
        We have reached a critical juncture in history, and it is
    time to move forward in creating an inclusive technology
    ecosystem that centers the needs of communities of color and
    low-income communities. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony today, and I look forward to answering your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Valentin follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        We have concluded openings. We will now 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 FCC's 2023 budget estimate to Congress earlier this
    week expressed confidence that the 2.5 gigahertz auction will
    likely conclude before the end of Fiscal Year 2022, when
    current auction authority is set to expire. But it also notes
    that certain post-auction activities requiring FCC staff
    resources may continue into Fiscal Year 2023.
        Ms. Gomez, yes or no, do you believe extending the FCC's
    auction authority will help ensure that 2.5 gigahertz spectrum
    gets to winning bidders without issue?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, Chairwoman.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I have long been interested in supporting
    agencies to find innovative ways to share under-utilized
    spectrum for commercial use. The SMART Act, introduced by
    Congressman Guthrie, would provide new resources to NTIA to
    support the development of a new spectrum sharing system to
    enable more Federal and non-Federal coordination.
        Mr. Gibson, why is it important to have a standardized
    framework for sharing spectrum across Federal agencies?
        And could you describe the potential for the system to
    support commercial applications?
        Mr. Gibson. Yes, Congresswoman and Chairwoman Matsui, thank
    you very much. That is an excellent question.
        The IIC is a project that the NTIA has conceived to
    facilitate a job that they are already doing sort of in the
    background, which is supporting the sharing of spectrum.
        What the IIC would do, as I noted in my testimony, is allow
    a more robust capability, thereby doing away with these sensing
    networks that have been deployed, which sense Federal operation
    in situations where there may be issues of classification.
        So the concept of the IIC is to move that responsibility
    over to the NTIA by allowing them to build an informing portal
    that Federal spectrum users would then put that information
    into the portal, and then that information would be made
    available to commercial users with the appropriate protections
    for classification domains.
        And so we believe that this is probably one of the best
    ways to effectuate commercial Federal sharing. And, as the NTIA
    have noted, that can operate across all spectrum domains where
    there is Federal commercial sharing.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
        While we have made strong progress over the years freeing
    up spectrum for commercial use, we need to keep looking for new
    opportunities to replace the spectrum pipeline to support 6G,
    WiFi 6, and satellite broadband.
        Ms. Gomez, what role does Federal equipment like receivers
    and other technology play in supporting or limiting our ability
    to free up spectrum?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. Federal agencies
    have equipment that at times is aging. And unfortunately, the
    Spectrum Relocation Fund does not permit the agencies to use
    those funds to do anything but replace their equipment with
    that that has a comparable capability.
        The comparable capability thus serves as a disincentive to
    the extent the agency's equipment is close to the end of life,
    or is decades old. So permitting agencies to expand their
    systems' capabilities would serve as powerful incentives to
    agencies to plan for re-purposing their spectrum.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you.
        The FCC's Lifeline program has helped ensure Americans
    experiencing economic hardship can maintain broadband and voice
    services.
        At the onset of the pandemic I wrote to then-Chairman Pai,
    urging him to take immediate steps to grant provisional
    approvals for Lifeline subscribers as they become eligible
    directly or via qualifying support programs. It is important
    that we continue to reduce barriers to and expand the awareness
    of the Lifeline program.
        Dr. Valentin, do you see additional opportunities to
    streamline the Lifeline enrollment process and increase
    coordination between the FCC and other Federal agencies to
    increase awareness of the program?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes, definitely. You know, the bill before us
    today at its core is about understanding where we are,
    understanding where we are hoping to go, and identifying any
    gaps that may persist in the road to get there.
        I think that it will also help us to understand, you know,
    who is eligible for the Lifeline program. Is it folks who are
    struggling with housing insecurity? Is it folks who are
    struggling with food insecurity? And that can then help
    organizations like the National Urban League figure out where
    we need to focus our efforts to raise awareness about the
    Lifeline program and the Affordable Connectivity Program.
        Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you. My time is expiring, so I yield
    back, and I recognize Mr. Latta, subcommittee ranking member,
    for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
    again, thanks to our witnesses for being with us today. I
    greatly appreciate it.
        Mr. Gibson, if I could start my questions with you, and
    again, the new wireless use cases demand Federal agencies to
    identify new and innovative tools to make more efficient use of
    spectrum use. And incumbent informing capability systems seem
    to show great promise for enhancing NTIA's ability to manage
    Federal spectrum and increase opportunities for commercial use.
    This tool would give NTIA a greater understanding of how and
    when Federal spectrum users are occupying the airwaves.
        How would this tool help promote better interagency
    coordination of spectrum resources?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta. That is an
    excellent question.
        The--as you--as we all know, the NTIA is sort--is the
    spectrum manager for the Federal Government. And in that role
    the NTIA is ultimately responsible for interfacing with
    commercial users in that regard.
        The informant incumbent capability will allow other Federal
    spectrum users, the agencies, to interface with the portal that
    the NTIA can then use to make that information aware to
    commercial spectrum users. This could be made aware through
    this thing I talked about called a spectrum access system, or
    otherwise. NTIA has constructed a very broad concept for this.
        So this, the concept of the IIC, should facilitate sharing
    across all Federal spectrum domains just by being there and
    allowing the Federal spectrum users to put their spectrum usage
    capabilities or spectrum usage information into this that would
    thereby be made available to commercial users.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Ms. Valentin, H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet
    Access for SNAP Recipients Act would require the FCC to report
    on the enrollment of the Lifeline program that also
    participates in the SNAP program. What benefit, if any, would
    this provide?
        Dr. Valentin. I believe that it will help the FCC better
    coordinate with USDA. I think it can be extended, obviously, to
    other Federal agencies. As I just stated, it is important for
    us to know where we are, where the gaps in participation are.
        And I think it is also really important to help us
    understand what effective kind of advertising efforts there are
    out there, so we can better focus those efforts, as well.
        Mr. Latta. Let me followup. Does the FCC currently have the
    SNAP enrollment data, or would this be new data collection?
        Dr. Valentin. There is some data that--with USAC. I know
    that there is data about kind of like the SNAP data bases, and
    the folks are kind of like directly enrolled through the
    states, which--I believe that enrollment rate is at about 13
    percent.
        But then there is also folks who get into the program on,
    like, kind of a multitude of data bases. And I don't have
    clarity--I don't--I am not sure the FCC has clarity on how
    folks are entering when they are eligible through kind of like
    multiple programs. So this would just better help us kind of
    pinpoint that information.
        Mr. Latta. OK, thank you.
        You know, I am also going to note that there is currently
    an ongoing discussion required by the infrastructure law as to
    what the future of the Universal Service Fund should look like
    in light of all the funding appropriated for the purpose of
    keeping Americans connected. So I am not really sure right now
    if this legislation is necessary at this time.
        Mr. Gibson, if I could go back to you--a question. The ITS
    Codification Act would provide additional tools and authority
    for NTIA's Institute of Telecommunications Sciences. As a
    significant user of the CBRS spectrum, which ITS helped make
    available for commercial users, you have benefited from their
    work. What role did ITS play in the CBRS framework, and how can
    its expertise be utilized to address our future spectrum
    management challenges?
        Mr. Gibson. What an excellent question. ITS started off
    initially by doing a series of interference measurements,
    bench-type, lab-type interference measurements, radar systems
    into commercial systems. That report was huge, and was made
    available initially so that the commercial world could better
    understand what role the radars play in causing or mitigating
    interference. So that was the first work they did.
        As we moved through, ITS actually were the agency that did
    testing for the ESCs and the SASes. On behalf of the FCC they
    did all of the testing for all of the ESCs to test us against
    commercial availability.
        And then, as we have been working through this, they have
    conceived--I am not sure if they have actually been able to do
    it--propagation modeling efforts to help better inform the
    propagation models that we have been using.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And Madam Chair, before I yield back, I am going to have to
    turn my spot over to my good friend from Florida, Mr.
    Bilirakis, because I am going to have to be at a fentanyl
    roundtable. But I really appreciate today's hearing, and thank
    the witnesses. And thank you very--Madam Chair. And I yield
    back.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee chairman, for 5
    minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Pallone Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui. I am going to try
    to get three questions. And so I would ask each of you to only
    take a minute or so.
        Ms. Gomez, can you talk to us about how access to spectrum
    enhances our mobile broadband networks, and what consumers and
    the public will lose if auction authority isn't extended? In 1-
    minute.
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is a very good question, thank you.
        So access to spectrum allows mobile networks to meet
    broader capacity, speed, and low latency needs of our next
    generation technologies. And it would be bad for consumers if
    we lost the ability to auction the licenses, because it would
    delay disproportionately the rollout of services to consumers.
        Mr. Pallone Well, thank you so much.
        I wanted to ask a little bit about survivors of domestic
    violence. We know that domestic violence, human trafficking,
    and other related crimes are a serious concern. And studies
    indicated that at least one in four women and one in ten men
    have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or
    stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime. So--and
    too often, these abusers use technology and the internet to
    bully, intimidate, or control a partner.
        So the question for Dr. Kadri is how could family mobile
    service plans place survivors of domestic violence and other
    related crimes in harm's way?
        And would providing survivors with the ability to separate
    their phone service from their abusers help?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Chair Pallone. I--absolutely. The
    family plans allow abusers to monitor a victim's calls, texts,
    and even their locations sometimes. And so all of this
    information from family plans can enable further escalation by
    the abuser.
        And safety planning is so essential when a victim is trying
    to leave an abusive relationship, but that same planning can
    also create immense danger if an abuser discovers an imminent
    departure. And so, as things stand, there are just too many
    obstacles and risks involved.
        And we hear these stories all the time in our work at CETA.
    I will just mention one briefly. It was a client who was on a
    family phone plan, and then the abuser left the country
    permanently. And so this client couldn't, you know, get
    released from the family phone plan because the abuser couldn't
    even be contacted. And we have all sorts of other stories where
    people have struggled to get out of these family phone plans.
        And the Safe Connections Act could really change these
    conditions by giving victims a right to leave their phone plans
    quickly, remotely, and for free.
        Mr. Pallone Well, thank you. And then last I wanted to ask
    about the Lifeline program, which you know provides eligible
    families with phone service, so no one would be without a phone
    line in case of an emergency, or keep in touch with friends or
    loved ones.
        It has been proven to be an essential program for many
    people, though we know that just a fraction of the eligible
    population--just about 19 percent, believe it or not--is
    enrolled. So my question is, Ms. Valentin, in your opinion,
    could the data reporting requirements in H.R. 4275 help
    policymakers and community organizations raise awareness of the
    Lifeline program, and ultimately help those who need this help?
        I mean, obviously, we want more people to sign up, if you
    would.
        Dr. Valentin. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, the
    data reporting requirements in this bill can absolutely help
    community organizations raise awareness about the Lifeline
    program and figure out where we need to target our efforts.
        And it is also about accountability as it relates to
    government agencies fulfilling their obligations to help people
    most in need. You know, at the National Urban League we
    understand that access to critical communication services such
    as the Lifeline program directly correlates to economic
    opportunity for both workers and entrepreneurs. And we want to
    be able to close those opportunity gaps.
        Mr. Pallone Well, thank you so much.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Matsui.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
    Rodgers, full committee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning again. I
    am really pleased that we have come together with bipartisan
    legislation to extend the FCC's auction authority for 18
    months.
        Ms. Gomez, this 18-month extension will allow the FCC to
    complete the auction of the 2.5 gigahertz band and avoid
    disruption to the FCC's spectrum operations. However, some
    people think that the FCC's authority should be extended for a
    longer term, such as ten years. What are the benefits of
    extending the FCC's auction authority for 18 months versus a
    longer-term extension?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, for your
    question.
        I do think a lengthy extension can be very beneficial, but
    at this point the 18-month extension is the most practical path
    at this point in time. We only have a short time left before
    September 30. We don't have any current spectrum identified, so
    there wouldn't be any spectrum in the extension of the
    authority. We don't have a national spectrum strategy, either.
        So it is probably best at this point to extend, but if
    Congress provide the oversight as the FCC and NTIA develop
    their national spectrum strategy.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Ms. Gomez, as the former deputy assistant
    secretary of NTIA, you have firsthand experience about the role
    that NTIA plays in spectrum management. NTIA's Federal lab, the
    Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, ITS, does important
    work to understand radio frequency propagation and develop
    technologies to improve spectrum efficiency.
        What role does ITS play in the Federal Government?
        Ms. Gomez. Apologies for the delay in unmuting.
        ITS plays a very important role in spectrum management
    supporting NTIA as it makes its decisions, as well as--with
    regard to Federal spectrum use, as well as it coordinates with
    the FCC on spectrum decisions that might affect Federal
    agencies. It conducts research and development. It conducts
    testing. It also enters into agreements with other Federal
    agencies to conduct tests for them, as well as with commercial
    providers.
        So there is a variety of ways that ITS is important in the
    spectrum management ecosystem.
        Mrs. Rodgers. And as we look to the future of wireless
    technologies, we know that effective spectrum management is
    critical to our success. How can we better leverage ITS to
    promote innovation, and continue to compete with China in
    deploying wireless technology?
        Ms. Gomez. I am so glad you raised this question, because
    ITS is a very important component of spectrum management, as I
    mentioned. It is also largely funded through these agreements.
    And so being able to pass the Act that is being proposed, being
    able to draw attention to the importance of its resources, and
    being able to bolster the ITS functionality all will help
    support our efforts, both domestically and internationally.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Kadri, earlier this year the Senate passed the Safe
    Connections Act to ensure survivors of domestic abuse can
    separate from a shared phone plan with an abuser. This is
    important legislation to bring survivors one step closer to a
    more hopeful, safe, and secure future. However, it is also
    important that we get the details right in this legislation, so
    that both survivors and wireless carriers have a smooth process
    for providing relief.
        Would you speak to the challenges survivors of domestic
    violence face when they are trying to separate from the shared
    aspects such as a shared phone contract?
        Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman. So the
    obstacles are many and varied, but I will just focus on a
    couple, since I know time is short.
        For one thing, it can be quite difficult to even detect
    this level of surveillance that goes on through family phone
    plans. And so some victims are just, frankly, unaware of it.
    But then, when they do become aware, trying to actually protect
    themselves can be a real challenge. Often times, phone
    companies won't allow for changes to the accounts unless they
    have the primary account holder's permission, which, in many
    cases, will be the abuser themselves. At other times there are
    considerable fees and upfront costs that really make this kind
    of barrier to separating the line too daunting for survivors to
    go through.
        I would be happy to mention other obstacles, but those are
    a couple that I think are of particular concern to survivors
    when they are trying to protect themselves and get out of these
    plans.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Well, thank you. And do you think including a
    remote option to request a line separation might be part of the
    answer?
        Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. And I am pleased that the Act, at
    least as I read it, does include such a protection,
    particularly given the fact that so many survivors may have
    real concerns about going into a physical store, particularly
    in smaller communities, where the people working in the stores
    may know them, they may know the person of concern. So I think
    providing that remote option is crucial.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Super. I appreciate your insights and your
    work.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
    Chair recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair for holding this
    hearing, and I thank the committee staff for putting it
    together, and the witnesses for bringing your expertise here
    this morning for us.
        Ms. Gomez, how would greater spectrum sharing between the
    Federal and non-Federal entities impact the current deployment
    of our 5G networks?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    Sharing is certainly a tool in the toolbox for 5G deployment.
    As it becomes more and more challenging to identify additional
    spectrum, sharing enables us to find new ways to obtain
    spectrum.
        But of course, it continues to be preferable to provide
    cleared spectrum for auction, to enable infrastructure
    providers and manufacturers the certainty they need to make the
    necessary investments to establish U.S. leadership in 5G and
    beyond.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean, do you think moving toward a
    more agile spectrum sharing environment will blur the lines
    between licensed and unlicensed spectrum, Ms. Gomez?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. I don't think we have
    the technology or the systems in place today to get to an
    environment that would blur the lines between licensed and
    unlicensed spectrum. But I can imagine some time in the pretty
    far future when that could happen. It would require, of course,
    investments in technology, changes in our allocation processes,
    and how our regulatory agencies approach spectrum management.
        But in the meantime, unlicensed spectrum has been hugely
    successful, with a tremendous impact on the economy. But there
    is also an important place for licensed spectrum. So, as I
    mentioned, for auctions to succeed, the participants must have
    the certainty necessary that makes them willing to invest in
    the auction, as well as to invest in deploying the network.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you again.
        The spectrum sharing framework outlined in the SMART Act
    includes a system to enable time-based spectrum sharing. So,
    Ms. Gomez, what degree of automation would be required to
    ensure successful implementation?
        And do you see a role for artificial intelligence and
    machine learning in time sharing and distribution of the
    spectrum?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes. So I have to admit I am not an expert in
    this exact area. But I will point out that NTIA wrote a report
    on the IIC a while ago, in which it mentioned that eventually
    the system should lead to a point where AI and machine-based
    learning is utilized as a method of implementing these sharing
    mechanisms.
        Mr. McNerney. Good. Thank you for that response.
        Mr. Gibson, in your written testimony you explain the
    concept of incumbent informing capability as a mechanism to
    manage interference more effectively between Federal and non-
    Federal users, specifically in the Citizens Band Radio Service.
        Could the IIC be expanded to other parts of the spectrum?
        Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Congressman, for that question, and
    that is a very good question. And to clarify, I don't know that
    I think the IIC manages interference. It manages spectrum
    availability, thereby reducing the capability for interference.
        But absolutely, it could be applied to other parts of
    spectrum. In fact, the NTIA's vision for the IIC is to be used
    across all spectrum domains where there will be Federal
    commercial sharing, and it could also be extensible to Federal-
    Federal sharing, to the extent that that is a thing.
        Mr. McNerney. Yes.
        Mr. Gibson. But it--their vision on it is very broad, and
    it could really easily very--effectuate Federal commercial
    sharing in any spectrum band.
        Mr. McNerney. Is artificial intelligence used in that
    process, or planned to be used in that process?
        Mr. Gibson. It is not planned to be used in that process,
    but artificial intelligence, machine learning absolutely lend
    themselves to spectrum management, and that is my area of
    expertise. And full disclosure, we were a SAS provider, we are
    an ESC provider, and we have been using bits and pieces of
    artificial intelligence to improve the fidelity of responses to
    spectrum queries, thereby mitigating or eliminating
    interference using those types. It is a little nascent, but it
    is beginning.
        Mr. McNerney. Excellent. Well, what implications would an
    IIC have for unlicensed 5G and deployment of broadband?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, they could--the--to the extent that any
    sort of deployment will be in shared spectrum, the IIC would--
    it wouldn't matter what spectrum is being managed. So it could
    handle licensed, it could handle the auction spectrum, it could
    handle unlicensed.
        For example, in the six gigahertz band in the United States
    there is this concept being called an automatic frequency
    coordinating system that is coordinating much like a SAS for
    commercial six gigahertz licensed and--around microwave
    systems. The same thing could be applied in, say, the 7 and 8
    gigahertz band, sharing with Federal and--Federal systems up
    there. So it would absolutely lend itself to that.
        Mr. McNerney. Very good. Thank you. It looks like my time
    is about expired, so I am going to yield back. Thank you for
    your responses.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie
    for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. You said in your
    opening statement that we worked on more spectrum bills than we
    can count. And I agree. And each time it has been a pleasure to
    work with you. And our staff it has been a pleasure to work
    with your staff. So, I appreciate that very much.
        My first question today is for Ms. Gomez, and I want to
    thank you for your support of my legislation. Spectrum is,
    obviously, a valuable and increasingly scarce resource, and I
    believe we need to do all we can do to ensure that every
    spectrum user is as efficient as possible, including the
    Federal Government. So, my question is, how would an incumbent
    informing capability help NTIA work with Federal agencies to
    resolve technical barriers to make more Federal spectrum
    available for commercial users?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie.
        So, while there is a preference for clearing bands for
    exclusive use, it is getting harder to fully clear bands. And
    sharing has some benefits that I see will provide needed
    transparency and certainty during sharing scenarios.
        It would also replace some of the current dynamic sharing
    methods that are proving to be technically challenging.
        I would note that the capability will not enable the use of
    fully cleared spectrum, but to the extent there are geographic
    sharing opportunities, it would permit broader uses of spectrum
    in areas where the Federal agencies may not be operating.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I keep muting in between so it
    doesn't have feedback, so sorry.
        The SMART Act--Ms. Gomez again--the SMART Act directs NTIA
    to establish a standardized framework for Federal spectrum
    users to share more real-time usage information. As NTIA seeks
    to identify new bands to clear for commercial use, how would
    this tool help preserve and enhance Federal missions that are
    key to protecting our national defense, such as those carried
    out by the Department of Defense?
        We all want access and better spectrum, but we also want to
    make sure our agencies, our--particularly the Department of
    Defense and others, can accomplish their core mission. So how
    does this balance that?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. That is right. And, I
    mean, NTIA's mission is to support the other agencies' ability
    to fulfill their missions through the use of spectrum, while
    balancing, of course, the need to support innovation for the
    economy.
        The IIC would enable Federal missions to continue using
    their spectrum, but on a shared basis. So it gives a broadening
    opportunity to access more spectrum, while permitting the
    agencies to continue to utilize them.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
        And one of the bills we are discussing is focused on
    sharing. I want to reiterate my continued support for making
    additional spectrum available through auctions or licensed
    commercial use. So Ms. Gomez, again, can you talk about the
    role of NTIA in finding ways to incentivize Federal agencies to
    be more efficient with their spectrum, so that we can make more
    spectrum available for non-Federal use?
        And does this bill strike the right balance between
    prioritizing auctions where possible, and sharing where
    auctions are infeasible?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman Guthrie. I am really glad
    you asked me that question, because it is something I feel very
    passionate about.
        In NTIA's role as spectrum manager, NTIA must work with all
    agencies to make sure they are making efficient use of their
    spectrum. It is challenging, however, for NTIA to motivate
    other agencies to work on either identifying spectrum or to
    make more efficient spectrum use if the sole purpose is to re-
    purpose their spectrum for other uses. They are understandably
    focused on fulfilling their missions, while NTIA's is the
    efficient use of spectrum while supporting the innovation
    economy. So the CSEA has provided tools for NTIA in its efforts
    to re-purpose spectrum. But I noted in my testimony it could be
    broadened to provide additional incentives.
        In addition, it is helpful when Congress or the White House
    includes spectrum bands to be studied or auctioned in its
    legislation, or in executive orders or memoranda. Such actions
    bolster the work that NTIA is doing, and gets the Federal
    agencies' attention, and helps provide that motivation.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. I appreciate that. That
    completes the questions that I have.
        So I will yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member,
    for holding this meeting today. We need more hearings like
    this, where we are working together to solve a problem, where
    we are more focused on finding a solution than partisan
    bickering. And I appreciate the bipartisan emphasis on this
    meeting.
        I want to voice my support for the Safe Connections Act,
    introduced by my friend, Congresswoman Kuster, which would take
    necessary steps to protect victims of domestic abuse and other
    crimes.
        I thank you for your leadership on this, and I am glad to
    see this committee consider the bill, and hope to make it move
    through the House quickly.
        Another bill we are considering today addresses a problem I
    see far too often in my district and in under-resourced
    communities in general. Congress passes legislation often times
    aimed at helping struggling communities, working families, or
    seniors. But the people it is supposed to help don't know the
    program exists or that they are eligible at all. Far too often,
    people don't know how to navigate bureaucratic systems. We
    should be doing everything we can to make it easier for them to
    get the help they need.
        Ms. Valentin, what does a whole-of-government approach look
    like when reaching under-served and under-resourced
    communities?
        Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
    I would say a whole-of-government approach means that Federal
    agencies across the board are using their existing authorities,
    using their existing resources to reach under-served
    communities in a coordinated fashion. Eligibility for programs
    like Lifeline and the Affordable Connectivity Program, you
    know, are based on eligibility for other Federal assistance
    programs. But far too often, Federal agencies are working
    independently to administer their respective assistance
    programs.
        So agencies can, you know, work on creating coordinated,
    you know, educational materials. They can share information
    across agencies, and just work on effective outreach efforts.
        Mr. O'Halleran. I was just out in the field yesterday in my
    district. It is three different communities. And each one of
    those communities brought up a lack of knowledge on what was
    going on with the different programs within our whole-of-
    government approach. So somewhere along the line we are missing
    the opportunity to get the information out there. I know that
    my staff does a consistent job on that, but we have to find a
    way to--I don't care where it is at and what agency it is, we
    have to find a way to get--to allow our citizens to know what
    is going on out there.
        Another question, Ms. Valentin. Beyond this bill, are there
    other approaches Congress should consider to ensure eligible
    households access programs like Lifeline and the Affordable
    Connectivity Program?
        For example, certain tribal programs administered by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs qualifies households for the ACP.
    Should Congress consider requiring BIA to provide information
    to eligible households about the ACP, or should other agencies
    be working together in that whole-of-government approach to get
    this information out to people?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes, thank you for the question. Well, as you
    know, tribal communities are disproportionately disconnected,
    and they are dealing with both access issues, as well as
    affordability issues. And with the Lifeline program, as well as
    the ACP program, you know, that is recognized. And that is why
    tribal communities receive those enhanced benefits for
    broadband services.
        But those benefits can only be effective, as you said, if
    the households actually know that these programs exist. So I
    think that Congress should definitely explore all options that
    encourage and incentivize Federal agencies to work together in
    reaching these households. And I think cross-collaboration
    between the FCC and the BIA can certainly help increase
    enrollment, and we would certainly welcome legislation that
    supports those goals.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much.
        I am also glad to see this committee consider bills giving
    the NTIA and the FCC the necessary tools to manage spectrum in
    an efficient and innovative way. Spectrum is a public resource.
    It belongs to all of us. But it is also a finite public
    resource. Our approach to spectrum policy must reflect that
    reality.
        Ms. Gomez, what actions can and should the FCC and the NTIA
    take to ensure that spectrum bands are used as efficiently as
    possible?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. The
    FCC and NTIA are constantly trying to evolve what they do to
    ensure spectrum bands are used as efficiently as possible. But
    from a high level, I would say, No. 1, increasing transparency
    as much as possible. Sometimes this can be difficult with
    sensitive or classified systems, but the more knowledge that we
    have about how spectrum is being used, the more creative ways
    we can come up with using spectrum more efficiently.
        I see we are out of time. Planning as far ahead as possible
    and participating in research and development.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I yield.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
    much.
        Like many of my colleagues, I am pleased to see a
    bipartisan bill to extend the spectrum auction authority for an
    additional 18 months. The benefits that auctions have brought
    through increased revenue, technological innovation, and
    consumer choice have been immeasurable.
        Ms. Gomez, if this legislation is not signed into law, and
    the FCC's auction authority is severely restricted, what
    implications does that have on the international stage?
        And would we be allowing our international competitors--
    unfortunately, like China--to have a leg up on leading the
    future of technology?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, that is a very important
    point. I do think it would have a significant effect on our
    international standing, largely because it would make--it would
    put us back to the old-fashioned way of licensing spectrum,
    which is very lengthy and inefficient. And so, we would be
    significantly delayed vis a vis other countries, who are
    actually quite advanced in providing spectrum for new and
    advanced services.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Next question--it has been some
    time since I have brought up natural disasters in this
    subcommittee. And with June 1st being the beginning of
    Florida's hurricane season, the time is right to remind people
    of the dangers, but also the promise that technology brings
    to--again, we need to save lives.
        Congressman Carter's ITS Codification Act includes the
    creation of an emergency communications and tracking
    technologies initiative that would help locate trapped
    individuals during events when communication lines are down,
    helping save lives when seconds count.
        Again, Ms. Gomez, what can Congress do to continue
    advancing ITS leadership in technological innovation?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. ITS does core
    research for public safety to better understand the components
    of a communication signal need to prioritize--to see through
    smoke in a video, to have resolution, the necessary resolution
    for public safety responses.
        So the work that they are doing is very important.
    Adequately funding ITS to conduct this research is critically
    important for us to be prepared as a nation to meet the
    challenging of--the changing environment, and what that poses
    to communications systems.
        So, you know, Congress supporting the Act is terrific, and
    continuing to find ways to utilize ITS and to bolster its
    funding would be terrific.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        As a followup, Mr. Gibson, what role can ITS play in
    developing technologies to more efficiently use spectrum
    resources?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you for the question. That is very
    insightful. And I would say that, you know, I wanted to make
    sure that I did say this, that I think, in my opinion, ITS is
    probably the best at what they do.
        And so I think that some of the collaboration that ITS has
    done with industry and also with the Federal Government in
    terms of innovation, what we can do in industry--and also
    Federal Government has come up with ideas, and then NTIA ITS
    can then instantiate those ideas in whatever--they can build
    models, they can build tools, and--which is some of what they
    are doing now. In fact, they had built a tool to support
    spectrum sharing in other spectrum bands in the AWS band.
        So I think allowing--as Ms. Gomez said, allowing them the
    funding they need to get going, allowing a collaboration with
    other experts in the industry, I think that will help bring
    about what we are looking for.
        Mr. Bilirakis. It sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
        And I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The internet is integral to our daily lives. From online
    education to e-commerce, telehealth to smart agriculture,
    access to high-speed internet is essential for all central
    Floridians.
        We made a big promise and put our money where our mouth was
    with the infrastructure law, $65 billion for high-speed
    internet, for rural broadband. It is going to be key for rural
    areas of Florida, as well as low-income areas of Florida that
    right now don't have equal access to internet.
        Extending Federal auction for an additional 18 months makes
    sense. We must carefully make spectrum available to the private
    sector, balanced against defense and aviation concerns. And
    this is going to help us with that right balance. And I applaud
    the SMART Act, which is going to standardize a spectrum sharing
    framework.
        We also see more specific legislation on the agenda today
    to help victims of domestic violence and human trafficking by
    requiring providers to prove separate lines. Can you imagine?
    And I have heard horror stories in our district of victims
    being----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Soto [continuing]. And how that can put folks into
    danger.
        There are many isolated areas of the Sunshine State also.
    So this is going to be key in emergency response.
        Ms. Gomez, it would be great to hear a little more about
    some examples of how there is interagency hang-ups, barriers,
    and conflicts as we are trying to deploy new spectrum. What
    actually happens on the day-to-day to slow this stuff down, and
    how does the SMART Act address that?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
        So, you know, on a day-to-day basis, I actually think the
    coordination between the agencies is quite good. There is a
    good relationship at the staff level between the agencies. What
    becomes difficult is when we are asking agencies to put away
    their attention from their day-to-day missions and to focus on
    finding ways to free up spectrum for other uses.
        So, as I mentioned before, what we need is incentives to--
    for the Federal agencies to focus and to provide the
    engineering that is necessary in order to determine how we can
    utilize spectrum, either more efficiently or re-purpose it for
    other uses.
        Mr. Soto. Can you--oh, please continue.
        Ms. Gomez. Sorry, go ahead.
        Mr. Soto. And you believe the SMART Act would help address
    those incentives?
        Ms. Gomez. I think, to a certain extent, it helps address
    those incentives. It is important that NTIA have that
    capability, and that NTIA's authority be bolstered and
    recognized as the manager of Federal spectrum.
        So to--for purposes of sharing, it would definitely help
    NTIA fulfill its mission and work with the FCC to find more
    ways to share spectrum.
        Mr. Soto. OK. So it helps, but we have more work to do.
        Dr. Kadri, my constituents would be shocked to know that
    domestic violence and human trafficking victims can't even
    separate a shared line from their attackers. And I was looking
    in your testimony about roughly only a dozen states provide
    protections. So 38 states across the United States have nothing
    to help victims of domestic violence get away from something as
    essential as having their own cell phone.
        And you also mention in your testimony requiring a court
    order.
        So does this legislation--will it help those other 38
    states, and will it need a court order, or will we be able to
    really fast track this going forward?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. It
    certainly would help all of those people in states where there
    are just no existing protections.
        And no, thankfully, the bill, as currently drafted, would
    not require the burden of trying to seek a court order to force
    a phone company to do this. The survivor would have to provide
    certain documentation from a third party in order to get the
    line separation, but they wouldn't have to go to court in order
    to be able to do it. And that would be a big change, even for
    those folks in many of the other states, where there are some
    limited protections for them.
        But as you point out, for those folks in other states who
    currently lack any legal recourse to do this, it would make a
    big difference.
        Mr. Soto. Thanks, Dr. Kadri, and I am proud of this
    legislation to make sure we are empowering victims, and I yield
    back.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And Ms. Gomez, you can probably see on the wall behind me
    my 42-year-old auctioneer license plate from here in Missouri.
    And so I have got a long, long history auctioneering before I
    went to Congress 12 years ago. And the FCC spectrum auctions
    have helped create the wireless services that we all enjoy
    today. Congress can take a little bit of credit for this
    success story also.
        With one exception, every time Congress extended the FCC
    auction authority, we told the FCC to auction spectrum. It
    seems to me that this short-term extension will give Congress
    the time we need to find the right bands in which to auction.
        Ms. Gomez, isn't that why short-term extension of FCC's
    auction authority, as included in H.R. 7783, makes the most
    sense?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, I agree. It makes the most
    sense for the reasons you articulate.
        Mr. Long. Thank you. And also sticking with you, Ms. Gomez,
    the National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
    NTIA, of course, is statutorily--easy for me to say--
    statutorily responsible for representing Federal views on
    spectrum matters before the FCC, and FCC actions may affect a
    Federal user spectrum use.
        In recent years, this process has gained public attention.
    How would standardized framework contemplated in the SMART Act
    improve NTIA's ability to represent Federal views?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. So
    the SMART Act will both provide NTIA with a more transparent
    and efficient tool to permit it to enable the sharing of
    Federal spectrum. It also recognizes that NTIA is the manager
    of Federal spectrum, and bolsters its status by that
    recognition.
        Mr. Long. OK. And why is it important that NTIA retains its
    role as the spectrum manager across all Federal agencies,
    rather than have each agency manage their own spectrum use?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. This is a very important
    issue.
        NTIA must retain its role as the spectrum manager across
    all Federal agencies. There is an important distinction between
    the agencies, which are spectrum users, and NTIA, which manages
    spectrum used by Federal agencies. Placing the responsibility
    for managing spectrum within the spectrum user, whether it is a
    Federal agency or a commercial user, would present an inherent
    conflict of interest.
        Even the FCC doesn't manage its own spectrum. Rather,
    because the FCC is a Federal user, NTIA manages its spectrum.
    So the Federal agencies each have their own missions to
    accomplish, and managing spectrum efficiently is not among
    those missions. NTIA has to balance its duty to ensure that
    Federal agencies can perform their missions with its duty of
    working with the FCC to enable new and innovative uses to
    enhance the U.S. economy. To perform this mission well, NTIA
    must remain the regulator, and be charged and bolstered as the
    agency that makes these difficult decisions.
        Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
        And I told you I was a fast talker, so Madam Chairwoman, I
    yield back 1-minute and 45 seconds.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Long. The Chair now recognizes
    Miss Rice for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
        And Ms. Gomez, I would like to continue along with Billy--I
    am sorry, Representative Long's--questions.
        I hear you on NTIA remaining the manager of all the
    spectrum. And what I have heard a lot about is ways that we can
    make that management more efficient. I would just like to go
    back a step. Can you tell us the ways that spectrum is being
    inefficiently used?
        You know, in order for us to make sure that we come up with
    ways to make sure that the management is as efficient as
    possible. And maybe give examples of either specific bands that
    have historically been under-used or that are ripest for re-
    purposing.
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
        So NTIA actually has an interestingly efficient way of
    managing spectrum, in that it actually facilitates more sharing
    between Federal agencies than what you see in the FCC's
    licensing process, which tends to be more exclusive licensing.
    That can also create certain inefficiencies.
        For example, when NTIA approves systems that have similar
    product but they are utilizing different bands for those
    products for different reasons. This happens in, for example,
    the 1.0 gigahertz band, where you have FAA sensors, you have
    DoD, you have--I believe it is NOAA that has--have similar
    uses, similar products that they utilize, but they are
    utilizing them in ways that really could be consolidated and,
    therefore, there could be more spectrum freed up. So that is
    one example of inefficiencies that could be addressed.
        Miss Rice. And are we addressing them? Or how do we address
    them so that we make sure that these--that this limited, finite
    universe that we have is managed most efficiently?
        Ms. Gomez. Well, honestly, I think one of--yes, of course,
    NTIA is constantly studying ways to make the uses more
    efficient. Giving them the tools to be able to upgrade their
    spectrum management systems, which are quite antiquated at this
    point, would be really helpful, increasing the transparency of
    Federal uses and, as I mentioned, increasing the incentives for
    Federal agencies to study their own systems and to find ways to
    move or re-purpose the ones that they have, so that we can free
    up additional spectrum for new uses.
        Miss Rice. Well, that is--thank you so much, Ms. Gomez,
    that is very helpful. I would like to turn to Dr. Valentin, if
    I can, for a second.
        Legislation like H.R. 4275 is important because it is going
    to help Congress understand why eligible--and we have talked
    about this all morning--but why eligible individuals end up
    enrolling, and more often why they don't enroll in Lifeline.
    While this bill is focused on Lifeline enrollment in SNAP-
    eligible individuals, it should offer important lessons for
    every agency and program that qualify a consumer for Lifeline.
        So, for instance, more than ten percent of Lifeline
    beneficiaries are veterans, even though just 0.08 percent of
    participants--that is one out of every 1,000--qualify for the
    program through their veteran's pension or survivor pension.
        So, Dr. Valentin, are there ways for the Department of
    Veterans Affairs and other relevant agencies to improve
    coordination and outreach around the Lifeline and ACP program
    so that more qualifying veterans are able to take full
    advantage of the program?
        Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
    as the daughter of two veterans, the sibling of a veteran, I am
    really glad that you raised this because I think that veterans
    are often a group that is left out of these conversations when
    we are talking about the digital divide. And they make so many
    sacrifices for our country.
        And there is also folks who deal with kind of multiple
    levels of marginalization--for example, you know, Black
    veterans. One-third of all veterans experiencing homelessness
    are Black veterans. And I do think that we need a whole-of-
    government approach to getting households enrolled in the
    Lifeline program, in the Affordability--Affordable Connectivity
    Program, as well.
        And we need to make sure that, if someone signs up for a
    program, you know, at the VA, they sign up for a program at
    USDA, they are immediately notified about all the other
    programs that they are eligible for, including the Lifeline
    program, including the Affordable Connectivity Program.
        Miss Rice. All right, that is good to know. Thank you.
        I just want to thank the witnesses so much, and thank Madam
    Chairwoman and the ranking member for bringing this hearing
    today. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Matsui. Mr. Walberg? Can you--Mr. Walberg, are you
    hearing us? We can't hear you.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Matsui. OK, let's go on to somebody else.
        Schrader?
        Voice. Long. Long, sorry, Long.
        Ms. Matsui. No, Long is already done. OK, the--is Mr.
    Carter----
        Mr. Walberg. Can you hear me now, Madam Chairwoman?
        Ms. Matsui. Yes, I can.
        Mr. Walberg. Sorry about that.
        Ms. Matsui. OK.
        Mr. Walberg. Sometimes technology doesn't work in a tech
    committee, I guess.
        Ms. Matsui. I understand.
        Mr. Walberg. I thank the witnesses for being here today,
    and today's hearing touches on a number of extremely important
    bills for both consumers and businesses.
        But first I want to highlight the importance of H.R. 7132,
    the Safe Connections Act. I join my colleagues, Representatives
    Eshoo and Kuster, as the lead Republican on this legislation
    because no one should ever have to make the choice between
    staying connected and staying safe.
        This partisan--bipartisan bill allows survivors of domestic
    violence, stalking, and other harms to separate their phone
    line from any cell phone plan shared with their abuser without
    having to worry about financial penalties or other
    requirements. It also directs the FCC to examine further ways
    to support and protect survivors after they disconnect.
        Shared plans can be used by abusers to continue stalking or
    controlling their victims, and fees and arduous paperwork
    should not be another impediment to survivors getting to
    safety.
        I am extremely heartened by the broad support this
    legislation has had. The wire industry worked closely with
    domestic violence groups to come to an agreement that passed
    the Senate by unanimous consent. And I know that we, here in
    the House, can do the same.
        Dr. Kadri, your testimony outlines the patchwork of State
    laws that currently exist to address digital abuse and shared
    mobile service contracts. In what ways does the Safe
    Connections Act strengthen current laws to make gaining digital
    freedom easier for survivors?
        And also, what gaps still remain?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The
    Safe Connections Act, I think, really sets a really solid
    foundation from which we can kind of expand protections for
    survivors. So it sets a really good base in making it easier,
    cheaper, and more accessible for survivors to be able to get
    out of family phone plans that do pose them the risks that I
    have discussed this morning.
        And then it also empowers the FCC, I think, to engage in
    some really wise and innovative rulemaking to try and provide
    further protection. So I think, for example, the provision in
    the bill that is before you that would have the FCC look into
    removing or concealing communications with domestic violence
    hotlines from phone bills would be of crucial importance to
    survivors as they try and safety plan, and get out of an
    abusive relationship.
        And similarly, the efforts to expand access to the Lifeline
    plan, as my fellow expert today, Dr. Valentin, has, I think, so
    compellingly told us, is just so essential in trying to close
    that digital divide.
        So I really commend those aspects of the bill.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Also, Dr. Kadri, the legislation
    tasks the Federal Communications Commission with determining
    which program, the Lifeline program or the Affordable
    Connectivity Program, is best suited to provide emergency
    communications support to survivors.
        Which of these programs, if I could ask, do you recommend
    for this purpose?
        Dr. Kadri. Congressman, I can't say that I have a firm view
    either way on that one. I would sort of defer to the expertise
    somewhat of those, you know, within the FCC who really engage
    with those programs and, I think actually, some of the other
    legislation that is before your subcommittee today to try and
    gain a better understanding of how these programs are used or,
    unfortunately, more often not used by people, could be really
    important in trying to figure out which of the plans make the
    most sense.
        But I do think that providing that kind of support through
    one plan or the other would be of great importance to
    survivors.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
        While all of my questions have been asked about H.R. 7783,
    I do want to applaud that legislation, the Extending America's
    Spectrum Auction Leadership Act. This short-term extension will
    ensure that we have an uninterrupted and well-coordinated
    spectrum pipeline. And it is key to the United States remaining
    leader in 5G deployment and beyond. And for that reason the
    continued efforts in this legislation need to be done, need to
    be carried out, and I certainly stand in strong support.
        With that, I yield back my remaining 38 seconds.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
    appreciate the hearing we are having here today.
        Mr. Gibson, interference is a potentially huge hazard to
    the aviation industry, both military and civilian. I want to
    know what--if you could speak to the issues about wireless
    interference, and what is the State of testing going on to make
    sure, with the spectrum availability auctions that are going
    on, that that would be minimized or, if at all possible,
    potentially eliminated.
        We have had discussions in this committee about
    interference for quite some time. And what are the standards,
    and how are they being allocated at this point in time?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, that is an excellent question. And there
    is a lot of areas where that is pertinent.
        One of--you may be thinking about is the interference
    situations with radar altimeters. I am not in the middle of
    that, and probably am not qualified to comment on that, other
    than knowing the issues as a pilot. And what I do know is there
    is a lot of work being done with key leadership and key
    engineers from the FAA, from the FCC, and with wireless
    carriers. And they are doing their level best to mitigate that.
        The new band that is being considered where there may be
    some aviation interests is the 3100 to 3450 megahertz band. In
    that band is AWACS operations.
        Mr. Schrader. Yes.
        Mr. Gibson. And so there is no--at least from what we know
    about it--and this information is--some of this information is
    classified, and some of it is coming to us piecemeal--the
    interference issues there are with respect to the onboard
    radars. So there is no safety of flight interference issues
    there in that band.
        And then there is just generally potentially interference
    issues with aviation in general. For example, like, potential
    for interference with navigation conditions. Like, for example,
    we are familiar with the issue that occurred years ago with
    potential interference with GPS. A lot of that stuff is being
    dealt with now in the context of studies that are being taken
    care of, both in the NTIA and the FCC.
        And for the most part, the only major issue that we are
    still facing right now with that is the one that is going on in
    the C-Band. And as far as I can tell, that is on the path to
    being resolved in time.
        Mr. Schrader. A related question is, is there a timeframe
    within which--it seems like, if we are doing all the spectrum
    auctions, it would be extremely important to have this issue
    resolved, at least for the near term, until we learn
    differently, based on the best knowledge at hand about, well,
    what interference potential there is.
        You know, Federal and non-Federal agencies, as well as
    military and civilian aviation, it seems like we ought to have
    this figured out before we go too far down the line going
    forward and, you know, realizing that our best efforts and
    knowledge at this point might change, but at least have a
    standard protocol that everyone should count on.
        Mr. Gibson. That is an excellent point, Congressman, and
    with respect to the C-Band, that effort is ongoing. The auction
    happened.
        What I can tell you that is going on in the 3100 to 3450
    meg band, as you well know by the Acts and the legislation,
    that ban won't be auctioned before, I think, early--no earlier
    than November 2024. And there is study going on as we speak. In
    fact, I was in a daylong meeting yesterday trying to better
    understand how the equities that are owned by the DoD in that
    band can better share with commercial operations.
        And our goal in that work is to establish better
    understanding of use cases, both from Federal, mostly DoD, and
    commercial use, and then try to effectuate solutions for
    sharing. And we all understand that the primary goal is to not
    have interference, especially with some of the DoD systems that
    are being dealt with, but also with commercial systems.
        Mr. Schrader. Yes, obviously, important for our committee
    to have a hearing on this, bringing the FCC and NTIA in, and
    have a discussion about timeframes and working with civilian
    and other Federal agencies, and come up with a game plan.
    Otherwise, we may be ending up still studying things as these
    auctions transpire.
        I guess the last question regarding the--and it was hinted
    at before, which is, you know, why extend the authority for
    only a short period of time. I understood the answer to be,
    well, we don't have any auctions coming up at this point in
    time.
        But I mean, it seems to me--why are we not just extending
    the authority for the FCC to do these auctions indefinitely?
        They will take time, they are--a great deal of work goes
    into studying the effects, and who is interested, who is not,
    what the potential problems might be. So why are we not at this
    point in time just giving this authority to the FCC so we don't
    have to revisit it every so many months and put it at danger?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, I think Ms. Gomez made a very good point
    about that early on, but mostly it is related to, among other
    things, the fact that we don't have any spectrum auctions teed
    up in the near future--certainly beyond the horizon for the 18
    months.
        And also, I would note that the Commission is down a
    commissioner, and that some of the folks at some of the key
    bureaus there are acting. And so 18 months seems to be an
    appropriate timeframe, all those things considered.
        Mr. Schrader. Very good, very good, and I yield back. Thank
    you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentleman has yielded back. The
    Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter for 5 minutes to ask his
    questions.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of the
    witnesses for being here, a very important hearing. Very, very
    important, as you know.
        And I will start with you, Ms. Gomez. But as you know, I
    have introduced House Resolution 4990, which is simply to
    codify the Institute for Telecommunication Services. It also
    directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications
    and Information to establish an initiative that will support
    the development of emergency communications and tracking
    technologies.
        But the main impetus of it is really for the Institute for
    Telecommunication Sciences, or ITS. As you know, it is NTIA's
    lab, and it is important for tests and research to solve the
    challenges that we have, the--of the technical issues.
        Can you just--Ms. Gomez, can you just please speak to the
    importance of ITS, and how this bill will strengthen it and the
    lab's important work?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman, thank you for that very good
    question.
        So NTIA has a very technical mission between spectrum
    management, supporting technical decisionmaking, and supporting
    spectrum being transitioned for commercial uses.
        ITS conducts the studies to enable sharing, for example.
    What they are doing day to day is supporting NTIA's efforts to
    make decisions about how to manage spectrum more efficiently,
    and how to avoid interference while supporting agency missions.
    This includes conducting interference studies for FCC actions
    that affects Federal users.
        So their work is very important in both supporting existing
    spectrum uses and ensuring that they are in an interference--or
    a harmful interference-free environment, but also for finding
    new and innovative ways to use spectrum and enabling
    decisionmaking that allows that.
        Mr. Carter. Great, great. Well, I had asked Secretary
    Davidson earlier this year, and I will ask you the same thing:
    What role do you think ITS will play in improving NTIA's
    interagency spectrum coordination mission?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. ITS plays such an
    important role, because what ITS gives us is the engineering
    basis for these discussions and their decisions. They are the
    ones that provide the proof of how things are going to work.
        So it is very important for these discussions so we don't
    just rely on, you know, generalized discussions or hyperbole;
    we actually have what we would call a science-based
    conversation about how to utilize spectrum.
        Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you this. It is obviously
    critical to ensure that the FCC continues to have the ability
    to auction spectrum. We all agree on that.
        But you note in your testimony that there is a need for
    better spectrum coordination. What--based on your experience at
    NTIA, I am curious, what do we need to be doing to ensure the
    longstanding interagency spectrum process works?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question. I think the most
    important thing that we need to be doing is recognizing NTIA's
    statutory role as the manager of Federal spectrum.
        What we have seen is, if Federal agencies or also private
    parties are unhappy with a decision that has been made, then
    utilize outside of the NTIA and the FCC coordination process in
    order to continue to litigate some of the issues. And that is
    just not healthy to have a strong spectrum management process.
    So bolstering NTIA's position is important. The White House
    needs to strongly support NTIA, and to reinforce its role as
    the Federal spectrum manager.
        If I can also put in a plug, if Congress would see fit to
    elevating the assistant secretary to an under secretary at the
    Department of Commerce, it would greatly help with his
    position--his or her in the future--in its negotiations with
    high-level representatives from other agencies.
        Mr. Carter. How do you think it--why would it help if he--
    to be elevated?
        Ms. Gomez. You know, it is amazing how protocol sometimes
    falls into play with these types of negotiations. If you have
    an assistant secretary sitting in a room with the deputy
    secretary of DoD, there are times when perhaps the staff may be
    unwilling to allow that kind of negotiation to happen. And yet
    it has happened in the past. Past NTIA heads have sat down with
    the deputy secretary of defense in order to talk about re-
    purposing spectrum and management of spectrum, generally.
        So it is just a protocol issue, but it definitely helps.
    Much like having an ambassador status helps in the
    international negotiation process, having an under secretary
    status helps in the domestic negotiation process.
        Mr. Carter. OK, OK. Well, thank you.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much. Now the Chair recognizes--
    let's see--Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman and
    Ranking Member, for holding this hearing, and to all the
    witnesses for your testimony and your expertise and your
    opinions on the matters today.
        We know more than ever that broadband must be more
    accessible for all Americans to succeed. About 38 million
    people in the United States benefited from the Supplemental
    Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, in 2019. This
    is about 12 percent of our total U.S. population.
        We also know that too many eligible people don't know that
    the FCC's Lifeline program exists. SNAP recipients, for
    example, automatically qualify for the Lifeline program, which
    offers discounted phone and internet service. More than 33
    million households are eligible to receive Lifeline support,
    yet only 1 in 4 of those households in the United States
    actually takes advantage of it.
        This question is to Dr. Valentin. How does the FCC's
    Lifeline program, among other Federal programs, help close the
    digital divide?
        And what can the Federal Government do to improve outreach
    efforts for programs like this one that promote access to low-
    cost broadband service, and to help increase participation
    rates and public awareness in all communities, including under-
    served communities and rural America?
        Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
    affordability is often cited as the biggest barrier that is
    preventing communities from adopting broadband. And both the
    Lifeline program, as well as the Affordable Connectivity
    Program, are the strongest tools that we have to help bridge
    that affordability gap by lowering the cost of monthly
    broadband services for millions of households.
        As you stated, both of these programs are very, very under-
    subscribed. I think that public-private partnerships are really
    important. As we saw a few weeks ago at the White House, their
    recent event where they announced industry commitments to ACP,
    it helped increase dramatically the awareness around that
    program.
        And also, we have to make sure that we are prioritizing the
    funding of trusted organizations that are working on the ground
    to reach communities where they are.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. And also thank you for earlier
    reminding us how important it is that we try to reach out and
    support our veterans because of the disproportionality of
    veterans who aren't connected to the internet, and also the
    disproportionality of veterans who actually are homeless.
        The Lifeline program has helped millions of people connect
    to vital tools and stay digitally connected. The bill
    introduced by my colleagues, Representatives Luria and Katko,
    H.R. 4275, Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
    Recipients Act of 2021, would help lower the cost of phone and
    internet access for families that benefit from the SNAP
    program. I commend my colleagues who are working on this issue,
    and I look forward to working with them and the chairman to
    ensure that all American families have the vital resources that
    they deserve to be at--to have access, and afford phone and
    internet services, and stay digitally connected.
        When it comes to WiFi and extending spectrum auction
    authority, I am glad that today's legislative hearing also
    includes the discussion of H.R. 7783, the Extending America's
    Spectrum Auction Leadership of 2022, introduced by my fellow
    colleagues, Representatives Davids, Welch, Joyce, and Johnson.
    Congress must act now to ensure wireless operators have a
    continuing supply of the spectrum they need to keep the United
    States at the forefront of global 5G investment and innovation.
        Ms. Gomez, never has the value of WiFi been more apparent
    than during the COVID-19 pandemic. And even though spectrum
    auctions raised funds directly for the U.S. Treasury, how can
    Congress better account for the vast economic and societal
    benefits offered by unlicensed spectrum when identifying
    spectrum bands for commercial use?
        Ms. Gomez. Hi, Congressman, thank you so much for that
    question. It is a very good question.
        You know, I would refer you to the letter that Chairwoman
    Rosenworcel wrote to the leaders of the Commerce Committees,
    both in the Senate and the House, where she talks about how to
    value unlicensed spectrum, which is used for WiFi, in order to
    demonstrate or to take into account the tremendous economic
    value that unlicensed has given to our economy as it conducts
    its analyses of spectrum bills. It only does so for auction
    spectrum. But the fact is the downstream effects of unlicensed
    spectrum are tremendous for our economy. So looking at ways to
    do that would be very helpful.
        Mr. Cardenas. Yes, thank you very much.
        And once again, we have some incredibly talented
    commissioners. And Chairwoman Rosenworcel I have known for many
    years, and has been working really hard on this issue, and
    trying to be as innovative as possible, and is incredibly
    accessible to constituents like mine across the country.
        So with that, Madam Chairwoman, I want to--I will yield
    back. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Kelly for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Kadri, you mentioned in your testimony how corporate
    programs meant to help abuse victims are often so poorly
    advertised that victims are highly unlikely to even know they
    exist. Other times, the process of leaving a family plan can be
    complex, burdensome, and risky.
        Beyond what is required in the Safe Connection Act, are
    there are other things wireless service providers can do to
    help make it easier for victims to leave a family plan?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    Certainly, there are.
        One thing that springs to mind is that the phone providers
    could allow survivors to leave family plans based solely on a
    survivor's own sworn attestation of abuse. Now, although,
    right, the Safe Communications--sorry, Safe Connections Act
    requires third-party documentation, there is no reason why
    companies couldn't allow people to leave family plans based on
    their own affidavit. And so I think that is one thing that they
    could do.
        They could also certainly do more to warn account holders
    about the potential risks from family phone plans. And indeed,
    I think an earlier version of this bill had a provision in
    there that required adults of 18 years or older to sort of opt
    in to any of these monitoring features on a family plan, such
    as the location information that could be shared. And although
    that is no longer in the bill, I see no reason why phone
    companies couldn't do that, and why they shouldn't do that. I
    firmly believe that they should.
        So those are just a couple of ideas of what they could do
    on their own sort of volition.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
        As many of my colleagues are aware, representation of Big
    Tech for women and minorities is abysmal. There is only one
    woman to every 3.76 men employed at the Big Five tech
    companies: Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
    Racial diversity is also a major concern, with an estimated
    77.1 percent of venture-backed startup founders being White,
    and only 1.8 percent Black. Those numbers do not bode well for
    creating teams equipped to empathize with victims of digital
    abuse who are overwhelmingly women, racial minorities, and
    sexual minorities.
        Dr. Kadri, can you discuss how lack of representation in
    the tech industry can further harm survivors, and what steps
    companies can take to do more to protect women, racial
    minorities, and sexual minorities?
        Dr. Kadri. Certainly, Congresswoman. It is an excellent
    question and a really important issue.
        I think, you know, not only must these companies engage
    actively with questions of diversity in hiring, as one of the
    other experts earlier mentioned----
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Dr. Kadri [continuing]. Actually kind of listening to
    survivors' stories and experiences, and stopping treating them
    as kind of aberrant or rare or unusual is crucial. Even the
    language that gets used in the tech industry of kind of these
    situations being treated as ``edge `cases''' is really
    problematic, I think. They aren't edge cases. They should be
    seen as stress cases. And here I am drawing on work by Sara
    Wachter-Boettcher, who has talked about this in her work.
        And so I think even that kind of terminology is important.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        The Lifeline program is very under-utilized, with a
    participation rate that hovers at about 19 percent, or 6.5
    million households, despite estimates that more than 34 million
    households are eligible. Dr. Valentin, can you discuss the
    disproportional effects this has on low-income individuals,
    women, and people of color, and how we can work to reach those
    who will benefit most from the program?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes. Thank you so much for the question.
        So, yes, when we are talking about folks who aren't
    connected, we are talking about our most vulnerable
    populations, which includes domestic violence survivors, it
    includes people who are experiencing homelessness, people of
    color who are disproportionately in lower-wage jobs. And so the
    lack of connectivity impacts one's ability to have access to
    healthcare, impacts one's ability to have access to government
    services that are online, and even impacts one's ability to
    stay connected to family and friends.
        But it can't be underscored enough that this is also about
    an economic opportunity gap. We are leaving these groups behind
    and--within the tech ecosystem and--when we are not connecting
    them to broadband and all the opportunities that are associated
    with broadband.
        So, we have to be able to lean on groups that have
    connections in the communities, fund these groups so that they
    can fund their outreach efforts, and there also needs to be
    more outreach efforts going on on the Federal level, as well.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you so very much.
        I am out of time, so I yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you,
    yield back.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it is great
    that we are holding this hearing, and for the witnesses being
    here today. I think today's hearing reflects the deliberate and
    bipartisan work that the committee has been able to accomplish
    to help connect millions in urban and rural America, and ensure
    we maintain a robust telecommunications infrastructure, and
    especially in areas like that I represent here in the Dallas-
    Fort Worth area, and every part of the country. It is just--it
    is good that we are having this discussion.
        Dr. Valentin, first of all, I want to say congratulations
    on your recent transition to the National Urban League. And my
    first question deals with the FCC's Lifeline program and H.R.
    4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet Access for SNAP
    Recipients that was introduced by my colleagues Luria and
    Katko.
        As you know, the legislation will require the FCC to submit
    reports on enrollment in the Lifeline program by those
    participating in SNAP. According to the USAC in Texas, there
    are approximately 2.7 million Lifeline-eligible households, yet
    only about 280,000 are subscribed, which is a ten percent
    participation rate in the program. That is also much lower than
    the national average participation rate, which is around that
    20 percent, 19 percent or so.
        In your written questions you suggested that the
    requirements of H.R. 4275 should also be extended beyond
    Lifeline to include the ACP, which is the long-term version of
    the emergency broadband benefit program that I helped introduce
    at the beginning of the pandemic.
        Can you explain the benefits of extending the requirements
    of this bill to go beyond the Lifeline program to also include
    a report on enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program
    by SNAP recipients?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes, thank you so much for the question, and
    thank you for your leadership on the Affordable Connectivity
    Program, as well.
        So, I would kind of answer this question by saying that,
    you know, we need both the Lifeline program, as well as the
    Affordable Connectivity Program. As you know, when you are
    applying these benefits, you can only apply it to either mobile
    services or your wireline services. And there are households
    across the country that need both.
        Therefore, we need to understand the data from both of
    those programs. And hopefully, it will also help us understand
    if, for example, the Lifeline subsidy needs to increase, and
    how we can better coordinate the programs, as well.
        Mr. Veasey. Dr. Valentin, you also talked in your opening
    statement about the National Urban League's support for
    spectrum auction winners to hire from under-represented
    communities beyond entry level positions, and to increase
    supplier diversity.
        And as you know, many of these auction winners have also
    made commitments to incorporate racial equity initiatives into
    their businesses. Do you think these winners are delivering on
    their promises?
        Dr. Valentin. I think that we can always do better,
    honestly. And I think that it is--this is something that
    National Urban League has been working on for years. But the
    more that we can integrate equity and inclusion into companies,
    the better. And it goes across the board, from the workers who
    are entering the field, to the C-suite, to what--the community
    investments are of these companies.
        Mr. Veasey. And I know that sometimes, you know, people
    will say, well, it is better for Congress to stay on the
    sidelines and let the private sector work all this out, or,
    ``We need some help from Congress.'` Do you think that there is
    anything that Congress can do to incentivize auction winners to
    hire, retain, and promote under-represented groups?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes. You know, I think, you know, any
    legislation that you all introduce in this space would
    definitely be welcomed because, again, we need to make sure
    that all communities are benefiting from this booming
    ecosystem.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes, yes. No, absolutely.
        And with that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back. But thank
    you to the panelists. I thought that this was a very useful
    topic today. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Ms. Clarke. And thank you very much, Madam Chair, for
    convening this very important hearing. And thank you to our
    panelist
        [sic] of witnesses for your expert testimony.
        Increased and targeted outreach efforts are necessary for
    all eligible families to take advantage of programs like the
    Lifeline program. H.R. 4275, the Ensuring Phone and Internet
    Access for SNAP Recipients Act of 2021, requires the FCC to
    submit reports on the effectiveness of various Lifeline program
    advertising efforts.
        Dr. Valentin, could you elaborate on how these reports
    could assist in increasing the utilization of the Lifeline
    program among SNAP recipients?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes. You know, we really just need to know,
    like, where the gaps persist.
        And I would say that something--as it relates to, you know,
    outreach efforts that we can sort of lean on, and something
    National Urban League talked about in recent comments to the
    FCC, you know, the CDC had a program, the Partnering for
    Vaccine Equity Grant Program, and that is a model that the FCC
    could use.
        As a CDC grantee, National Urban League, in conjunction
    with our amazing affiliates, about 35 of our affiliates, we
    were able to train 76,000 trusted messengers. We were able to
    establish 400 partnerships, open 270 non-traditional
    vaccination sites, and do about 1,000 events. And we were able
    to then reach about 32 million people with our efforts. If we
    are able to kind of, like, copy those efforts for the
    Affordable Connectivity Program, that would be amazing.
        But again, in order to do these things, we have to have
    funding to do so.
        Ms. Clarke. Got it, got it.
        Ms. Gomez, the FCC's spectrum auction authority is set to
    expire in September of this year. Proceeds from the spectrum
    auctions have been used to fund key initiatives like the first
    responder network authority. By extending the FCC's spectrum
    auction authority to March 31st, 2024, as stipulated in H.R.
    7783, the Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act
    of 2022, would you opine a bit on other essential programs that
    could be funded through auction proceeds?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congresswoman. So I don't advocate
    for any particular programs, but I will list the ones that I
    have heard advocated that I--that all sound terrific.
        So in no order of priority, you know, Chairwoman
    Rosenworcel has supported utilizing spectrum auction proceeds
    to fund next generation 911, which is largely overdue, and I
    think would be a great use of the program.
        I have also heard that support for funding digital equity
    programs, such as what Dr. Valentin was talking about, to
    continue our desire to get as much uptake as possible of
    broadband so everyone can benefit from the information economy.
        I have also heard that perhaps it could be utilized to
    continue the rip and replace efforts to replace Chinese-
    manufactured equipment with non-Chinese, something more secure.
        Those are the three that I have heard. And so let's just
    call those illustrative.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you, I appreciate it. H.R. 7132, the Safe
    Connections Act of 2022, requires service providers to provide
    information for survivors seeking to separate from a shared
    mobile service contract on their website, in physical
    locations, and other forms of consumer communication.
        Dr. Kadri, in your testimony you indicated that some
    providers are voluntarily offering similar programs to help
    survivors of digital abuse, but the programs are not well
    advertised, so the survivors are not aware of these resources.
    Would it--wouldn't it be unlikely for a survivor to find this
    information via a provider's website or physical store, if they
    are not the primary account holder, especially if the
    information is not prominently displayed?
        And if so, in that case, what would additional outreach
    efforts look like to reach as many survivors as possible
    through this legislation?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is an excellent
    point, and that is certainly part of the concern, although I
    will note it is usually possible even for secondary account
    holders to engage with phone companies, whether that is in
    person or online.
        And so I think the main concern driving the legislation is
    the sort of type of monitoring that these plans enable. But
    that said, having conspicuous information available is--you
    know, it is only going to be one part of it. It is not a
    panacea. And so I agree that many people will be in conditions
    where they, frankly, won't be able to even make use of some of
    the protections in this bill unless it is supplemented with
    other efforts.
        And so, in terms of additional outreach, I think it is
    important to educate folks on the front lines, kind of, of
    intimate partner violence about the dangers posed by
    technology. That is an important start. And we do some of that
    work at CETA, and there are other great groups doing this. But
    I think, if people don't know about the legal protections that
    exist that are designed to help them, then they simply won't
    use them.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you.
        And Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
        [Pause.]
        Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, unmute yourself.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes Mr. McEachin for 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Dr. Valentin, you know, one of the accomplishments that we
    have made during this Congress--and I was proud to be part of
    it--was to establish the Affordable Connectivity Program as
    part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan. And as you know,
    that helps qualifying households pay for internet service and
    buy devices that can access the internet.
        How can we, as Members of Congress, help our constituents
    know more about programs like this one?
        Dr. Valentin. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
    the first piece of advice I guess I would give Members of
    Congress is to partner with the National Urban League and our
    local affiliates to get the word out about ACP, also partnering
    with small businesses, particularly those that are owned by
    people of color, because they are trusted in local communities.
        And also, we can't underestimate the power of paid media,
    particularly through media organizations that are owned by
    people of color.
        And what I would also add, again, to Members of Congress,
    an ask is to make sure that you are allocating funds for
    outreach organizations that are known and trusted in the
    communities.
        And also, you know, lean on the resources at the Federal
    Communications Commission. They are doing a great job with
    outreach, and they have had hundreds of events at this point in
    time, and know that they are always accepting speaker requests.
        Mr. McEachin. And I thank you for that answer. You
    mentioned in your testimony that proceeds from spectrum
    auctions could be used to fund digital equity efforts. What
    kind of digital equity efforts could be funded, in your
    judgment?
        Dr. Valentin. Yes. So I think that, when we are thinking
    about digital equity, it must be thought of broadly, and it
    must include affordability. We have to find a way to sustain a
    meaningful affordability program for low-income consumers.
        And one idea that has been out there is the use of spectrum
    funds.
        But we are also going to need funds for devices. You know,
    through the Affordable Connectivity Program you get a one-time
    discount on a device. But what happens when your device breaks,
    or what happens when it is outdated and it can no longer run,
    you know, new software?
        And also, I would say we can use these funds to help
    upskill and reskill workers, particularly workers of color, for
    the jobs of tomorrow, so that they can reap the benefits of the
    digital economy.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much.
        Dr. Kadri, I would like to turn to you. And, of course, in
    your testimony, sir, you left us with some very interesting
    thoughts about--that family phone plans can pose, actually,
    challenges to victims of abuse.
        We don't have a lot of time left, so let me just ask you
    this question. Once a victim is able to leave a family phone
    plan, and that victim doesn't really have control of their own
    financial resources, how will affordability programs like
    Lifeline help victims who do not have, again, control of their
    own finances?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman. It is a very important
    issue, as well.
        You know, as I said in my testimony, victims really rely on
    communications technologies as a lifeline. Right? I think that
    is why the Lifeline program is called what it is. And so, you
    know, interpersonal abuse doesn't have this fixed expiration
    date. There is no neat line in the sand after a victim leaves
    and the violence, you know, just suddenly ends.
        And so I think kind of thinking about ways that these
    programs can help support in a more enduring way is just
    crucially important. You know, especially now, given our
    increasing reliance on technology in the wake of the pandemic,
    this is something that is only going to become more important,
    I think.
        Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that. In the very long minute
    and six seconds that we have left, can you sort of summarize
    some of the ways that family plans are challenging and can pose
    dangers to victims of abuse?
        Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. If I may, maybe I will just use that
    time to share a very quick story from our work at CETA, which I
    think is illustrative, and brings the point home.
        You know, we had one client who became concerned that their
    partner was able to kind of routinely find out where they were,
    and know who they were communicating with. And they were on a
    family phone plan together. And she eventually tried to leave
    the phone--you know, the phone plan by calling the phone
    company. And the company told her that there was another
    account holder who they needed to contact, and then suddenly,
    without informing the client, dialed the abuser in to a three-
    way conference line. And not only did the abuser refuse
    permission to allow her to leave the plan, this was obviously a
    deeply traumatic incident.
        And so, even later, when the client was informed about a
    State law that could have allowed them to leave the family plan
    even without his permission, she just declined to move forward
    because she was so scarred by that experience. And so
    experiences like that are--you know, are what I think we should
    be trying to avoid through this law.
        Mr. McEachin. I thank you. I thank the witnesses.
        And Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. And let me see. The
    Chair now recognizes Mrs. Fletcher for 5 minutes to ask
    questions.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Matsui and
    Ranking Member Latta, for having this hearing today on
    strengthening our communications networks. It has been a very
    important and interesting hearing, and I want to thank all of
    our witnesses for testifying before us today.
        As many of our colleagues and our witnesses have noted
    today, broadband networks and digital technologies are
    essential parts of our daily lives. At the same time, because
    these technologies are so connected to our lives, they can also
    be used as methods of surveillance and control for those in
    unsafe situations. And like many of my colleagues, I am deeply
    concerned about what we have seen, especially recently, about
    the use of technology to track individuals, and even the
    ability for others to buy that data.
        That issue, some of the app tracking issues that we are
    talking about so much lately, are not really before us in this
    hearing. But I do think that they are connected to the larger
    issues of privacy and safety in the legislation that we are
    discussing today, especially in the Safe Connections Act.
        And I see Representative Kuster has joined us, who is, of
    course, the sponsor of that bill, as well as Chairwoman Eshoo.
    This is a really important bill for supporting survivors of
    domestic abuse and assisting them in cutting these digital and
    physical ties with their abusers, as so many of my colleagues
    have mentioned, as our witnesses have mentioned, and Dr. Kadri,
    as the story that you just shared really illustrates.
        And I know in my home State of Texas, 40 percent of women
    and 35 percent of men experience intimate partner violence,
    rape, or stalking in their lifetimes. And as we have heard,
    this bill will help them disentangle their lives from abusers
    by allowing them to separate their phone lines without
    penalties or burdensome requirements as they try to get off of
    these family plans.
        So I want to followup on some of these questions. In
    particular, Dr. Kadri, you mentioned in your testimony that the
    National Domestic Violence Hotline saw a 155 percent increase
    in digital abuse in a 3-year period, even as rates of other
    forms of abuse remained fairly constant. So I want to ask a
    couple of things. Based on your research, are there any
    explanations or theories that are available as to why that may
    be the case?
        And connected to that, do you anticipate that the rise in
    digital abuse will continue as digital technologies become even
    more interwoven in our daily lives?
        Dr. Kadri. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely.
        I mean, I think, you know, part of it is a story about how
    we are relying on technology more. But it really does go beyond
    that. And I think this really gets to your point earlier, that
    it is the type of technology that we are using that matters.
        And so many of the digital technologies that are so
    prevalent these days fundamentally prioritize extracting as
    much data as possible from us. And this alone can create all
    sorts of risks, as we see with family phone plans and many
    other forms of technology that are used to perpetrate abuse
    nowadays. And so I think that, you know, that is certainly one
    part of the story.
        Another is that this technology often allows people to
    perpetrate harm from afar, often with relative anonymity and
    secrecy. And so proving who is behind it can be really
    difficult.
        And the other thing I would say is I think the
    trivialization of digital abuse is really an important part of
    this story. It is less likely to be taken seriously. It is less
    likely to--people will identify it as abuse, less likely they
    may speak up. And of course, that can cut both ways. It might
    mean that the statistics are misleadingly low because people
    are actually under-reporting. But maybe also part of the rise
    is being fueled by people feeling like they can get away with
    this, and that it is not so serious.
        And so, I mean, I don't want to paint too pessimistic a
    picture, but you asked whether I think it is sort of inevitable
    that it will keep rising because of how interwoven tech is with
    our lives, and in some ways I do, but, you know, with the
    important caveat that that doesn't mean that I think that kind
    of pragmatism or realism means that we should just give up. And
    to the contrary, I think we need to be thinking creatively and
    empathetically to try and come up with ways to mitigate and
    address this kind of abuse.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much. That is incredibly
    helpful. And I have a limited amount of time left. So what I
    would love to ask you as a followup--and maybe all of our
    witnesses to weigh in in writing following the hearing--is what
    kind of other issues of privacy and safety that you have
    identified in your work that our committee and the Congress
    should be looking at to ensure the safety and protection for
    users.
        Obviously, we have got some great bills in front of us
    today, but this is one of many steps. And as you mentioned,
    there are a lot of things that we can and should be looking at.
    I would love it if you and any of our other witnesses who have
    joined us today want to share those thoughts for the record,
    and submit that testimony in writing.

        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        **********COMMITTEE INSERT**********
        Mrs. Fletcher. I only have a few seconds left, so I just
    want to thank you all for your time and your work.
        And thank you, Chairwoman Matsui, again, for convening the
    hearing, and I will yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes Mr. Joyce for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chair Matsui and Ranking Member
    Latta, for allowing me to waive on to today's Communications
    and Technology Subcommittee hearing, and thank you to all the
    witnesses for testifying.
        Spectrum is vital for bridging the digital divide in my
    district, as well as across the entirety of the United States.
    Last week I helped introduce with my colleagues H.R. 7783,
    Extending America's Spectrum Auction Leadership Act of 2022, to
    extend the FCC's general spectrum auction authority by 18
    months. By extending the FCC's authority, it allows for more
    opportunity to help rural Americans seek the connectivity that
    right now they so desperately need.
        As we have seen during this pandemic, more and more people
    are working, learning, and healing from home. And that requires
    additional broadband support. Congress must continue to show
    leadership on spectrum policy, and I implore my colleagues for
    the swift passage of H.R. 7783.
        My first question is for you, Ms. Gomez. Assuming auction
    authority is extended, what additional policy reforms can be
    made to spectrum auction rules to promote international
    competitiveness, maximize spectrum use efficiency, and foster
    the rapid deployment of next generation technologies?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you very much for that question. And I
    certainly agree with you that the spectrum auctions are
    important to ensure the rapid deployment of services to all
    areas, including rural areas.
        In terms of other changes, statutory changes that could be
    made to advance spectrum management, there are a few things
    that I would recommend. One is kind of practical.
        Right now the FCC and NTIA have fantastic engineering--
    engineers, but it is a very difficult field to hire in because,
    honestly, the private sector keeps stealing all their good
    engineers, and can lure them away with much better benefits
    and--not benefits, but much better salaries. So one thing that
    could be done is to give authority to NTIA and to the FCC to
    actually hire at higher market rates, similar to what the SEC
    was able to do back in the 2000's. It is just practical, like I
    said, but it would help a lot to be able to have those
    engineering resources on staff, to be able to quickly act to
    conduct the engineering studies.
        Continuing to support ITS is important, as well, and
    continuing to support research and development to continue both
    the FCC--sorry, the U.S. Government participation and policy
    standards bodies, as well as to support industry representation
    in the engineering standards bodies would also be important.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you for that insight.
        Mr. Gibson, again, assuming that the auction authority is
    extended, what specific policy reforms would you recommend to
    promote the competitiveness, the maximizing spectrum use
    efficiency, and to foster rapid employment?
        Mr. Gibson. Well, thank you for the question. That is
    excellent.
        And in addition to what Ms. Gomez has said, I--one thing I
    would suggest is promote stronger collaboration between Federal
    and commercial users. Right now what happens--and actually, we
    have begun down that path a little bit even now. I mentioned--
    you may have missed this, but I mentioned meetings I have been
    in to deal with sharing issues and the 3100 to 3450 megahertz
    band.
        What seems to be happening is we have moved more toward
    allowing some collaboration. But I think officializing it, and
    taking advantage--what Ms. Gomez said is absolutely true, and
    we have seen that across the Federal space. Obviously, you
    know, better compensation for Federal experts, but also taking
    advantage of experts in commercial, and collaborating more, and
    trying to provide a collaboration framework that allows
    collaboration without possible conflicts of interest. That
    might be threading the needle a little bit complexly. But we
    think that that can be done. It is being done now. It just
    needs to maybe be more officialized.
        Mr. Joyce. And in my brief time left, Ms. Gomez, do you
    agree that we in Congress should make it a priority to work on
    a long-term spectrum pipeline bill?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you so much for that question. And if I
    may just add to my prior answer, of course, reforming the CSEA
    to use the Spectrum Relocation Fund for additional incentives
    for both Federal and commercial users.
        Second, yes, I do think it is important for Congress to
    work on the Federal spectrum, the pipeline bill.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see my time is
    expiring, and I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Kuster for her 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
    allowing me to waive on to your subcommittee. I am grateful for
    the opportunity.
        Many Americans have benefited from technological advances,
    including high-speed broadband, the internet, mobile phones,
    which many of us take advantage daily
        [sic]. However, we also know, by some accounts, 95 percent
    of domestic abuse cases involve technology, and countless
    others have suffered or perpetrated abuse online.
        Dr. Kadri, I am so grateful for your expertise and your
    experience. In your testimony you define digital abuse as
    people exploiting technology to harm others, specifically
    involving the use of technology to control, harass, stalk,
    survey, or threaten someone in a way that invades their privacy
    or autonomy, or harms them emotionally, physically,
    reputationally, or financially. Can you describe for us how
    family plans, which you refer to as a snake in the grass, can
    be a tool of such abuse?
        Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank
    you for your leadership on this bill.
        You know, one source of common information is just the
    phone bill, or other account records, right, which reveal, you
    know, details about a victim's communications, and can also
    provide clues about their location, you know, such as the area
    codes that they are calling, or call patterns that they are
    making.
        Some family plans also allow an abuser to kind of listen to
    a victim's voicemails, and sometimes even see their text
    messages. And so, you know, these kinds of surveillance, this
    level of surveillance and the type of surveillance, just
    creates this justified, I think, anxiety, as much as anything
    else. And I think that is what is at stake here.
        Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you for your good work.
        And I am proud to have introduced the Safe Connection Act.
    It is a bipartisan bill with the Health Subcommittee Chair,
    Representative Anna Eshoo, and Republican Representative Mr.
    Walberg, which provides a clear template for survivors to work
    with their phone carriers to exit from a family or shared
    account that they share with their abusers.
        Again, Dr. Kadri, can you explain how the Safe Connection
    Act will help these survivors?
        Dr. Kadri. Certainly. So I think, you know, although a
    victim could simply abandon their phone, you know,
    theoretically, and maybe avoid some of the risks that I have
    talked about during my testimony today, of course, there are
    many reasons why that might actually do them more harm than
    good, because phones are so often a lifeline amid abuse.
        And so, even if--you know, then there are the high fees
    that come associated currently with kind of leaving a family
    phone plan. And so, even if they have the funds to be able to
    leave, they can still encounter resistance from a phone company
    that has no legal obligation to honor line separation requests.
    And so a bill like the Safe Connections Act that would, you
    know, give them the right to leave safely and quickly would be
    hugely important.
        Ms. Kuster. Thank you for that. And I think you may have
    addressed this question, but I will just add it--ask it
    quickly.
        Survivors of digital abuse with limited resources and
    income are often unaware that they may qualify for
    participation in Federal programs that provide a discount on
    phone and broadband services, such as the Lifeline and
    Affordable Connectivity Programs. But the Safe Connection Act
    requires the FCC to adopt rules to allow survivors facing
    financial hardship to enroll in one of these programs as
    quickly as possible, whether or not they otherwise meet the
    qualifications of the programs, so they can receive a discount
    off of service for short period of time while they are getting
    back up on their feet.
        Why--again, Dr. Kadri--is it important to ensure that these
    abuse survivors are able to maintain consistent communications
    services after they are allowed to separate from the shared
    account with their abuser?
        Dr. Kadri. Absolutely. I am happy to reiterate on this
    point, because it is so important, I think, and it is just that
    people remain in deeply precarious positions long after they
    attempt to leave a relationship in one form or another. And so,
    being connected through their phones is just crucial in
    regaining their independence and in guarding against future
    abuse.
        And this, again, was always true, but it feels important to
    stress that these last two years, of course, our reliance on
    technology increasingly, and the way that our--you know, many
    of our interactions have been filtered through technology more
    and more, has increased this risk of digital abuse. But it also
    means it is more important than ever for us to be able to use
    our devices safely, whether that is for social connections,
    work, ordering food, testifying before Congress, you know, all
    of these different ways. It just shows how important it is. And
    so a survivor should be entitled to do that safely.
        Ms. Kuster. Well, thank you.
        And thank you, Dr. Valentin, as well, for your work.
        And on behalf of the many members of the bipartisan task
    force to end sexual violence, I am pleased to see the Safe
    Connections Act come forward today at this hearing.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Matsui. The gentlelady yields back.
        At this time I request unanimous consent to enter the
    following documents into the record: a letter from the
    Competitive Carriers Association in support of congressional
    efforts to extend the Federal Communication Commissions general
    spectrum authority; and a letter from Public Knowledge and Open
    Technology Institute.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Matsui. I would like to thank today's witnesses and the
    committee members for participating in this hearing today. It
    has been informative and educational in the sense that everyone
    here were--was agreed upon the importance of these bills in a
    very bipartisan manner. So I want to thank you all very much
    for participating.
        Now I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
    they have TEN business days to submit additional questions for
    the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I
    ask the witnesses to respond promptly to any such questions
    that you may receive.
        So at this time the committee is adjourned, and thank you
    so much for your participation.
        [Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna C. Eshoo

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]