[Senate Hearing 117-438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-438

                            OVERSIGHT OF THE
                      NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
                     AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA,
                             AND BROADBAND

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                              JUNE 9, 2022
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation


                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


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

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-621  PDF               WASHINGTON : 2024                   



       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                       Lila Helms, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                                 ------                                

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA, AND BROADBAND

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico, Chair     JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROY BLUNT, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana                  MIKE LEE, Utah
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado              Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on June 9, 2022.....................................     1
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................     1
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     3
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    13
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    14
Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    16
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    18
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    20
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    22
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    24
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    26
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    28
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    30
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    32
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    36
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    39
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    40
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    42

                               Witnesses

Hon. Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
  Information, National Telecommunications and Information 
  Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce....................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                                Appendix

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Alan Davidson by:
    Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    47
    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    49
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    50
    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    52
    Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    54
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    56
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    60
    Hon. Roy Blunt...............................................    64
    Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    67
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................    68
    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    70
    Hon. Mike Lee................................................    71
    Hon. Ron Johnson.............................................    74
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    75
    Hon. Rick Scott..............................................    78
    Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    79

 
                            OVERSIGHT OF THE
                      NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
                     AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2022

                               U.S. Senate,
            Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,  
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray 
Lujan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Lujan [presiding], Cantwell, Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Sinema, 
Rosen, Hickenlooper, Warnock, Thune, Wicker, Blunt, Cruz, 
Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Lee, Capito, and 
Scott.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. The Subcommittee on Communications, Media 
and Broadband on Oversight of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration. I want to thank Ranking Member 
Thune for being a part of this important hearing and the work 
that he continues to do every day.
    And I want to thank you, Administrator Davidson, for your 
willingness to provide testimony and be available today. Thank 
you for your work. Now, the last time the Senate Commerce 
Committee heard testimony from anyone at NTIA was June 13, 
2018, nearly 4 years ago. The years since have transformed our 
understanding of broadband, telecommunications, and the promise 
of technology.
    In New Mexico and across the Nation, work, school, health 
care, and connecting with loved ones moved online faster than 
we could have ever anticipated. This shift highlighted how 
dangerous and disadvantageous the lack of access to high speed 
and affordable broadband can be. New Mexico families know the 
difference between fast internet, slow internet, and no 
internet.
    And unfortunately, a lot of families across America know 
the difference, too. As a Nation, we will no longer tolerate 
stories of working families unable to access work, students 
forced to drive miles just to do their homework at a 
McDonald's, patients cutoff from essential health services.
    Now, Congress recognized this in a bipartisan manner, and 
we all worked to fix it. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act made a $65 billion investment to expand broadband access--
affordability and access. This is the single greatest 
investment to expand broadband infrastructure we have made as a 
Nation.
    Congress chose the National Telecom and Information 
Administration, and everyone watching today is going to hear 
about the NTIA quite a bit if they don't already know what it 
is, to oversee the majority of these ambitious goals. However, 
NTIA's responsibilities range far beyond broadband access.
    As the coordinator for the Federal Government's use of 
spectrum, NTIA manages Federal participation in a limited and 
valuable public resource critical for aviation, defense, and 
scientific discovery. Effectively, managing Federal spectrum is 
essential to ensuring Americans have access to emergency 
services, telecommunication devices, and in many cases, access 
to broadband at home.
    The NTIA also plays a critical role in public safety, 
supporting FirstNet, next generation 9-1-1, and our Nation's 
first responders. Administrator Davidson has already proven 
that he is well equipped to lead NTIA during this historic 
moment, and I look forward to his testimony. Now, in this 
capacity, I have three points I want to urge the 
Administration--or Administrator Davidson to consider as we 
begin the first Senate oversight hearing of the NTIA in the 
117th Congress.
    First, NTIA must stay focused on closing the digital divide 
for all Americans. Broadband access relies on both availability 
and adoption. For some communities, affordability has been and 
will remain the most pressing obstacle for ensuring adoption. 
For others, ensuring availability through high quality future 
proof fiber is the solution. And for others, deployment of 
wireless technology capable across challenging terrain must be 
prioritized.
    No single solution is going to work for all Americans, and 
I am glad to see that the Administrator understands this, 
recognizes, and that is how we are moving forward. Second, NTIA 
must work closely with the FCC, with USDA, with OMB, and other 
agencies to accomplish its mission.
    BEAD is the newest, but there are 133 Federal programs 
administered across 15 agencies that support broadband access. 
Administrator Davidson, your leadership in guiding the 
Administration toward developing a cohesive broadband strategy 
is critical. NTIA, in coordination with the Office of the 
President, has a responsibility to ensure that the Executive 
Branch effectively presents its priorities for tech and telecom 
to Congress. We have seen the risk when internal conflicts 
offsets progress and coordination breaks down.
    Spectrum management, mapping, affordability, each of these 
priorities require NTIA to be an effective partner with 
Congress and its sister agencies with an effective leader 
within the executive branch. Now third, NTIA must ensure 
investments in connectivity are made effectively, efficiently, 
and in the best interests of the community they serve.
    NTIA's mission to support a secure, private, free, and open 
communication is critical for protecting consumers. Industry 
has made significant private investment to close the digital 
divide. Despite the Federal Government's many programs to 
provide broadband access, we still fall short.
    Digital equity is essential. We must do more in rural 
areas, tribal nations, and in urban areas with a history of 
digital redlining. In a report released just last week, GAO 
recommended NTIA identify key statutory provisions that limit 
the reach of broadband. NTIA should offer legislative proposals 
to address those limitations.
    I look forward to continuing to work with you, 
Administrator, and your team as this report is developed and to 
clear any hurdles standing in the way of a comprehensive 
telecommunications strategy, including both broadband and 
spectrum. The programs you are administering are championed by 
many members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
    I want to thank the Administrator for continuing to work 
with us to identify challenges and find solutions. This is our 
chance to get this right, to close the digital divide, and to 
have a lasting impact on the prosperity, health, and well-being 
of our Nation.
    Without effective Administration by NTIA, we will not reach 
this goal. And with that, I want to turn this over to our 
friend, Ranking Member Thune, for his opening statement.

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

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the 
hearing. It is an important hearing. Last time this committee 
conducted its oversight responsibilities of the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration was in 2018 
when I was still serving as Chairman of the Commerce Committee.
    So I appreciate Assistant Secretary Davidson appearing 
before the Subcommittee today. Despite NTIA's critical role in 
advising the President of both domestic and international 
telecommunications and information policy issues, NTIA has not 
been authorized--reauthorized, I should say, since 1992.
    Kind of hard to believe. Since that time, the digital 
landscape has changed rapidly and the agency's role in 
expanding communications services has increased significantly. 
Ranking Member Wicker and I put forward a proposal this 
Congress to reform NTIA's functions and structure.
    Having a regular reauthorization or authorization, I should 
say, of NTIA would ensure that the necessary Congressional 
oversight of NTIA's budget and activities occur routinely, so 
it is my hope that this committee can work together on 
advancing that legislative effort. NTIA plays an essential role 
in maintaining American leadership in 5G expansion.
    Next generation telecommunications services like 5G will 
require the identification of more spectrum, both licensed and 
unlicensed, including spectrum currently allocated for Federal 
use. We need to build on the successes of the MOBILE NOW Act 
and Beat China for 5G Act in order for all Americans to reap 
the benefits of these advanced wireless services.
    Chairman Lujan and I introduced the Spectrum Innovation Act 
to free up additional mid-band spectrum, and I look forward to 
working with Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker on 
advancing that legislation through this committee and getting 
it signed into law. Freeing up additional spectrum also 
requires proper coordination between NTIA, the FCC, and other 
affected Federal agencies.
    And I was pleased to join Senators Wicker, Blackburn, and 
Lujan introducing the Improving Spectrum Coordination Act. This 
legislation will ensure our Federal partners are effectively 
managing our Nation's airwaves. In addition to its work on 
expanding wireless services, NTIA will be a major driver in 
fulfilling the Commerce Department shared goal with Congress in 
expanding fixed broadband Internet services to all Americans.
    Last year, through the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act, 
the Congress provided billions of dollars to NTIA to deploy 
broadband services to unserved areas throughout the United 
States. When Congress was debating the IIJA, I raised a number 
of concerns with NTIA's ability to effectively and efficiently 
manage such a large program given NTIA's past history in 
expanding rural broadband services.
    The last time Congress provided NTIA broadband funding, a 
fraction, a fraction, I might add, of what is responsible for 
managing today, the agency struggled with implementation, faced 
staffing challenges and overbuild existing broadband networks, 
resulting in billions of taxpayer dollars being spent with 
little to show. And today, I remain deeply concerned about the 
direction NTIA is taking with respect to broadband deployment.
    Last month, NTIA released its notice of funding opportunity 
for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment or the BEAD 
program. The NOFO contains many troubling components. Congress 
directed NTIA to use the FCC's new maps in determining which 
areas are unserved, and I would encourage NTIA to make their 
funding allocations based on final FCC maps, not preliminary 
ones that may be no better than the bad maps that we have had 
spent years trying to correct.
    Should you choose to move forward with the FCC's initial 
maps before any challenge process occurs, NTIA runs the risk of 
misallocating dollars, making it all the more likely that 
states will overbuild existing networks at the taxpayers' 
expense. The NOFO also favors certain applicants, which puts 
the Government in charge of picking winners and losers. It is 
puzzling that NTIA is prioritizing Government run networks and 
nontraditional providers. These are entities with no proven 
track record in deploying broadband networks.
    NTIA should work on allowing states to adopt a technology 
neutral approach and allow equal participation from all types 
of broadband providers as long as they have met the objective 
technical, financial, and operational standards to deploy 
networks.
    Finally, at a time when this Administration and Democrats' 
inflation crisis is at a record high, the last thing any agency 
should be doing is pursuing extraneous political goals that 
will ultimately increase the costs for providers who are 
deploying networks.
    Just as other Federal agencies seem intent on doing under 
this Administration, I am disappointed that NTIA is seeking to 
score political points with certain constituencies by favoring 
open access networks, promoting burdensome labor standards, and 
focusing on other climate change initiatives.
    I have heard firsthand from the folks who are building out 
networks in my home state of South Dakota about the challenges 
they face with respect to supply chain shortages and increased 
construction costs, and the inclusion of any of these 
unnecessary requirements will only exacerbate that problem.
    I would strongly encourage you to work with states on 
reducing the amount of regulatory burdens so that we can 
maximize the impact of this funding and connect as many 
Americans as possible. Thank you again, Assistant Secretary 
Davidson, for coming before the Subcommittee today. I look 
forward to discussing many of these issues with you. Mr. 
Chairman, thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Thune. Now, I would like to 
introduce our witness for today's hearing, the Honorable Alan 
Davidson, Assistant Secretary for Communications and 
Information, Administrator of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration at the United States Department 
of Commerce.
    The Senate confirmed Administrator Davidson to his position 
on January 11, 2022. He is an Internet policy expert with over 
20 years of experience as an executive, public interest 
advocate, technologist, and attorney.
    He previously served as the first ever Director of Digital 
Economy at the U.S. Department of Commerce. I want to thank 
Assistant Secretary Davidson for joining us today, and I look 
forward to your testimony. And at this time, I will recognize 
Mr. Davidson for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

           STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN DAVIDSON, ASSISTANT

         SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION,

  NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 
                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Chairman Lujan, Chair Cantwell, 
Ranking Member Thune, and members of the Subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to speak with you at this historic 
moment for NTIA. By law, NTIA serves as the President's advisor 
on telecommunications and information policy.
    Today, NTIA's programs are expanding broadband Internet 
access and adoption in America, promoting the use of spectrum 
by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine 
for continued innovation and economic growth. NTIA has many 
responsibilities, as you have noted.
    But this morning I will highlight our priorities and update 
you on the progress that we have made since I was confirmed by 
this chamber in January. Our top priority is closing the 
digital divide. We have been talking about the digital divide 
in this country for over 20 years.
    Now, Congress, through the bipartisan infrastructure law 
and the leadership of many on this subcommittee, has finally 
given us the tools and our colleagues the tools to structurally 
address this problem.
    The law provided, as you know, $65 billion to help deliver 
affordable, reliable, high speed Internet to every American. 
NTIA was allocated $45--$48 billion of that total. I am pleased 
to report, as Senator Thune noted, ahead of our statutory 
deadlines on May 13, NTIA published funding notices for three 
programs totaling over $45 billion in funding, our State grant 
or BEAD program, the Middle Mile program, and the Digital 
Equity program. Those notices are the product of months of hard 
work.
    They incorporate feedback from a wide array of 
stakeholders, along with Members of Congress, Governors, 
mayors, and other officials all working to close the digital 
divide. Those notices are just the start of our efforts. I am 
even more pleased to report that as of this week, 36 states and 
territories have submitted letters of intent to participate in 
the BEAD State grant program.
    So we are off to the races now. In addition to these 
programs, NTIA has been implementing the broadband funding 
authorized in 2021. We have awarded more than $277 million in 
grants for the broadband infrastructure program and another $83 
million for tribal broadband connectivity. We expect to 
announce a total of over $1 billion in tribal broadband and 
connecting minority communities funding awards this summer.
    NTIA's second major focus area is ensuring access to 
spectrum. That includes meeting Federal--critical Federal 
mission needs, while coordinating with the FCC to support 
advanced wireless technologies and commercial needs for 
spectrum. NTIA is committed to working toward a national 
approach to spectrum that is well coordinated, that is evidence 
based, and that promotes innovation to meet current and future 
demands on spectrum. We have made great progress on this front 
already.
    In February, FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel and I launched the 
Spectrum Coordination Initiative to improve coordination on 
spectrum management and a national spectrum strategy between 
our organizations. We have also launched a joint task force to 
update our interagency memorandum of understanding for the 
first time in 20 years.
    And I am pleased to report that the Chairwoman and I have 
spoken, and we are committed to having an updated version of 
that MOU in place--in hand by the end of the month--the end of 
next month. Finally NTIA supports secure, private, free, and 
open communications around the world.
    We are working to bolster our Nation's cyber security, 
strengthen public safety communications, protect privacy, and 
advocate for America's vision of free and open communications.
    We are encouraging the adoption of Open RAN technology and 
enhancing supplier diversity for secure 5G infrastructure 
around the world, NTIA's leading efforts to enhance public 
safety communications and next generation 9-1-1, as well as 
supporting the first net authority for our Nation's first 
responders.
    We are protecting American interests globally by engaging 
with standards and coordination bodies, including efforts this 
year to support Doreen Bogdan Martin's election as Secretary 
General of the ITU. Let me just close where I began, which is 
with the digital divide. Generations before us brought 
electricity and water to rural America. They built the 
interstate highway system.
    This is our generation's moment, to close the digital 
divide and ensure that everyone in America has the connections 
that they need to thrive in the modern digital economy. Thank 
you for your time and your support and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary for 
    Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and 
        Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
    Chairman Lujan, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Thune, Ranking 
Member Wicker and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to speak with you today at this historic moment for NTIA.
    By law, NTIA serves as the President's advisor on 
telecommunications and information policy. Today NTIA's programs and 
policymaking are expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in 
America, promoting the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that 
the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic 
growth.
    I am honored and humbled to lead NTIA at this pivotal moment. We 
have been given a historic opportunity--thanks to bipartisan support 
from Congress--to close the digital divide, create good-paying jobs, 
promote equity and fairness, and enhance American competitiveness.
    NTIA has many responsibilities, but today I will highlight our 
priorities and update you on the progress we've made since I was 
confirmed by this chamber in January.
    Priority number one is closing the digital divide. Gaps in 
broadband availability and in adoption, even where the infrastructure 
is available, mean gaps in opportunity: fewer opportunities to learn 
and work from home, remotely visit doctors, or stay connected with 
family and friends. Achieving an equitable future means ensuring that 
homes and businesses have high-quality connections at affordable 
prices, and the means to use them.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $65 billion to help 
deliver affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet to every American and 
help close the digital divide. NTIA was allocated $48.2 billion of that 
total.
    To achieve these goals, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created 
or expanded four programs at NTIA. The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity, 
Access, and Deployment Program will fund infrastructure buildouts 
needed to connect every American to reliable, high-speed, affordable 
Internet. The law also provides NTIA with $2.75 billion for a program 
to address digital inclusion and equity, and $1 billion for a program 
to expand middle mile infrastructure. Our active Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Program received an additional $2 billion to help further 
our efforts with tribal communities.
    I am pleased to report that on May 13th--ahead of our statutory 
deadlines--NTIA announced $45 billion in funding by issuing the first 
Notices of Funding Opportunity for three of these programs: the 
Broadband, Equity Access, and Deployment Program, the Ensuring Middle 
Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, and the State Digital Equity 
Planning Grant Program. In drafting the Notices of Funding Opportunity, 
NTIA faithfully implemented the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. NTIA 
reviewed and incorporated feedback from the broad array of stakeholders 
who commented in response to our Request for Comment, as well as input 
that we received from Members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, and other 
elected officials throughout the country who are all working close the 
digital divide. I am even more pleased to report that, as of this week, 
36 states and territories across the country have submitted letters of 
intent to participate in the Broadband, Equity Access, and Deployment 
program.
    In addition to these Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs, NTIA 
is working to implement the separate $1.5 billion in broadband grant 
funding included as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 
2021. We have awarded 13 grants totaling more than $277 million as part 
of the Broadband Infrastructure Program and have made another 33 awards 
for $83 million from the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. On a 
rolling basis this summer, we expect to announce a total of over $1 
billion in Tribal broadband and Connecting Minority Communities Pilot 
Program awards.
    NTIA's second focus area is ensuring access to spectrum. NTIA 
serves a critical role in ensuring the most effective and efficient use 
of this scarce Federal resource across the Federal government. That 
includes meeting critical Federal mission needs while coordinating with 
the Federal Communications Commission to support advanced wireless 
technologies, so we can realize the promise of next generation services 
and connected devices. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I am 
committed to working toward a coordinated, national approach to 
spectrum use, promoting evidence-based approaches to spectrum 
allocation, and leaning on innovative new technology to ensure we meet 
current and future demands.
    We have made great progress already on this front. In February, one 
of my first acts as Assistant Secretary was establishing the Spectrum 
Coordination Initiative in conjunction with FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel. 
The Initiative's purpose is to improve coordination on spectrum 
management between our agencies, including regular high-level meetings 
and renewed efforts to develop a National Spectrum Strategy. At our 
inaugural meeting in March, we launched a joint task force for the 
purposes of updating our interagency Memorandum of Understanding for 
the first time in 20 years. I am pleased with our progress to date. We 
continue to meet monthly to ensure that spectrum policy decisions 
foster economic growth, ensure our national and homeland security, 
maintain U.S. global leadership, and advance other vital U.S. needs.
    Finally, NTIA supports secure, private, free and open 
communications around the world. We are working to bolster our Nation's 
cybersecurity, strengthen public safety communications, protect 
privacy, and advocate for America's vision of free and open 
communications. We are playing a leading role in the U.S. government's 
efforts to increase market competitiveness and enhance supplier 
diversity for secure 5G infrastructure, and working to accelerate the 
adoption of Open RAN technologies in the United States and globally. I 
also want to thank you for your work to advance the U.S. Innovation and 
Competition Act, which would provide $1.5 billion in funding for the 
NTIA-administered Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund.
    NTIA is also leading efforts to enhance public safety 
communications and Next Generation 911, as well as supporting the 
FirstNet Authority for our Nation's first responders.
    And we are working to ensure that our global communications systems 
remain a positive force offering access to information, connection with 
community, and economic opportunity. That includes support for the 
election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin to Secretary General of the 
International Telecommunication Union as a key U.S. government 
priority.
    All of these are ambitious goals. Given technology's growing role 
in our lives, these priorities are about far more than communications 
policy. They are about creating new jobs for Americans. They are about 
public safety and national security. They are about improving equity 
here at home. They are about competing on the global stage.
    This is an exciting and historic moment for NTIA. I look forward to 
working with this Subcommittee to execute our mission and deliver on 
these promises to all Americans.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

    Senator Lujan. Administrator, thank you so much for that 
opening statement. Next, I want to recognize the Ranking Member 
of the Full Committee, Senator Wicker, for his opening 
statement.

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

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will insert 
my full statement in the record at this point, without 
objection.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger Wicker, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
    Good morning. Thank you, Senator Lujan and Senator Thune, for 
convening this important hearing.
    I am pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson back to 
the Commerce Committee today. It has been a long time since we had a 
Senate-confirmed head of the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA), and I am glad we have one now and 
are able to resume these hearings.
    NTIA advises the President on telecommunications policy, both 
domestic and international. It is responsible for a range of important 
activities, which include administration of broadband grants, Federal 
spectrum management, participation in international telecommunications 
forums, and development of Administration policy on issues like 
privacy, copyright, and cybersecurity.
    Congress recently gave NTIA a significant task: administering $48.2 
billion to close the digital divide. The majority of that money--$42.45 
billion--will go to states to award funding for broadband providers to 
deploy broadband in unserved and underserved communities. The remainder 
will go toward expanding broadband deployment on Tribal lands, 
promoting digital equity and capacity, and developing middle-mile 
networks.
    It is vital that NTIA carefully administer these programs to ensure 
they achieve their intended purposes. Past NTIA efforts have wasted 
precious tax dollars overbuilding existing networks while doing little 
to expand broadband to unserved communities. We cannot repeat these 
mistakes.
    Last month, NTIA released its Notice of Funding Opportunity for 
three of these programs, including the broadband deployment program. I 
am encouraged by the inclusion of some specific provisions, such as 
requiring states to use the FCC's updated broadband maps when 
determining unserved and underserved locations, and encouraging states 
to streamline their permitting processes for accessing poles and rights 
of way. These provisions should help prevent overbuilding while making 
deployment cheaper and faster.
    However, I am concerned by other provisions, which I fear could 
undermine the program's success. First, NTIA is unclear on whether it 
will wait for the FCC to resolve challenges to its maps before 
allocating funds to states. This could cause some states to get more 
money than they need at the expense of others. Next, NTIA fails to take 
a technology-neutral approach to deployment, which could increase costs 
in some areas. NTIA also prioritizes government-run broadband networks, 
as well as other ``non-traditional'' providers that lack a record of 
successful deployments. Further, NTIA requires states to develop middle 
class affordability plans, which the agency does not define and could 
lead to rate regulation by states. Finally, NTIA adopts a number of 
other unnecessary requirements, particularly on labor and climate, 
which will increase the burdens on states and providers.
    I look forward to discussing this program with Assistant Secretary 
Davidson. I am especially interested in hearing why NTIA made certain 
choices in developing its Notice of Funding Opportunity and how the 
agency thinks this program, as structured, will help bridge the digital 
divide.
    NTIA also manages Federal spectrum use. This role includes 
identifying ways to make Federal spectrum use more efficient, with the 
goal of making additional spectrum available for commercial use--an 
important task as we try to promote continued investment in next-
generation networks. But disputes between Federal agencies and the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over spectrum have become 
prevalent in recent years.
    I welcomed the new Spectrum Coordination Initiative between NTIA 
and the FCC, which was announced in February, and I hope Assistant 
Secretary Davidson will discuss how this endeavor will promote more 
efficient and effective spectrum management policies for Federal and 
non-federal users.
    Finally, Congress has not reauthorized NTIA in decades. The last 
reauthorization occurred in 1992, when key components of the current 
NTIA portfolio, like Internet governance and cybersecurity, were not 
prevalent or even in existence. It is time for Congress to do a 
comprehensive review of NTIA's structure and responsibilities to ensure 
it is equipped for our digital age. Last fall, I joined Senator Thune 
in introducing the NTIA Reauthorization and Reform Act. I look forward 
to hearing Assistant Secretary Davidson's views on this legislation and 
learning what additional tools NTIA needs from Congress to fulfil its 
mission.
    I thank Assistant Secretary Davidson for his testimony. And with 
that, I will turn back to Senator Lujan.

    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Senator.
    Senator Wicker. Let me just make a make a couple of points 
and maybe that will substitute for questions I might ask and 
yield that time back. Congress gave NTIA a big job, 
administering $48.2 billion to close the digital divide. That 
money, $42--$45 billion of that money will go to states toward 
funding for broadband providers to deploy broadband in unserved 
and underserved communities.
    We need to get it right this time. And the remainder will 
go to tribal lands promoting digital equity and capacity and 
developing middle mile networks. It is vital that NTIA 
carefully administer these programs to ensure they achieve 
their intended purposes.
    Past NTIA efforts have wasted precious tax dollars, 
overbuilding existing networks while not reaching the goal of 
expanding broadband to unserved communities. Can we all join 
hands and agree that we do not need to make those mistakes 
again? Last month, NTIA released its notice of funding 
opportunity for three of these programs, including the 
Broadband Development Program.
    I am encouraged by the inclusion of some specific 
provisions, such as requiring states to use the FCC's updated 
broadband maps, updated broadband maps when determining 
unserved and underserved locations, and encouraging states to 
streamline their permitting process for accessing poles and 
right of way, a major problem in the past.
    These provisions should help prevent overbuilding while 
making deployment faster and less expensive. However, I am 
concerned by other provisions which I fear could undermine the 
program's success. First, NTIA is unclear whether it will wait 
for the FCC to resolve challenges, resolve challenges, to its 
maps before allocating funds to the states. This could cause 
some States to get more money than they need at the expense of 
others.
    Next, NTIA fails to take a technology neutral approach to 
deployment, which could increase costs in some areas. NTIA also 
prioritizes Government run broadband networks as well as other 
nontraditional providers that lack a record of successful 
deployments. Further, NTIA requires states to develop middle 
class affordability plans, which the agency does not define, 
and could lead to rate regulation by the states, something we 
have specifically prohibited in debate on the floor and in the 
legislation.
    NTIA adopts a number of other unnecessary requirements, 
particularly on labor and climate, which will increase the 
burdens on states and providers. I look forward to discussing 
this program as we proceed with Assistant Secretary Davidson, 
who has always been very accommodating when we have attempted 
to speak with him.
    I am especially interested in learning why NTIA made 
certain choices in developing its notice of funding opportunity 
and how the agency thinks this program as structured will help 
bridge the digital divide. I welcome the new spectrum 
coordination initiative between NTIA and FCC.
    You have testified there is an MOU in the offing, and I 
hope the Assistant Secretary will discuss how this endeavor 
will promote more efficient and effective spectrum management 
for Federal and non-Federal users. And then, don't you think it 
is time to reauthorize the NTIA since the last reauthorization 
was done some 20 years ago and so much has changed.
    But the rest of the statement as we have already done, Mr. 
Chairman, and I am very grateful for you accommodating my 
schedule.
    Senator Lujan. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator 
Wicker. It is always an honor to work with you and thank you 
for being here today. Now, I am going to wait to ask my 
questions because I know there are many demands on our 
colleagues today, so I will reserve my time for the end here. 
So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Thune if he is ready 
for questions.
    Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start 
by getting at some of these issues that have been raised by the 
Ranking Member and as well as in my opening statement. Contrary 
to the infrastructure law's prohibition on the regulation of 
broadband rates by NTIA, the NOFO for the BEAD program 
disregards Congress intent--Congress's intent and heavily leans 
into regulating broadband rates.
    For instance, states must include a middle class 
affordability plan to ensure that all consumers have access to 
affordable, high speed Internet available for the useful life 
of the network assets at, ``reasonable prices.'' Aren't these 
types of price controls defacto rate regulation? And how are 
these directives consistent with the statutory prohibition on 
rate regulation?
    Mr. Davidson. Senator, thank you for that question. I will 
just start by saying, first of all, the heart of this is that 
we believe that affordability is a critical component of what 
we are trying to achieve here. The statute tells us that it is, 
and we know that affordability is not a luxury, it is a 
necessity. If we build access and people cannot afford, 
families can't afford to get online, then we will not have met 
our goal.
    We have looked at different ways to make sure that we are 
promoting affordability while still giving states the 
flexibility to approach it in the ways that are appropriate for 
their state. And there is a lot of flexibility in here. We have 
got three different ways that we promote affordability. We have 
got a low cost option. We have talked about this middle class 
affordability mechanism.
    We also ask that states when they do their grant making, 
consider affordability. I think those are all very appropriate 
that give states a tremendous amount of flexibility. We expect 
that different states are going to approach this different 
ways. Nowhere in here do we set a price for broadband, and we 
believe we are consistent with both the letter and the spirit 
of the statute in that regard.
    Senator Thune. The NOFO also requires states to ensure that 
prospective subgrantees do not impose unjust or unreasonable 
network management practices. That is a quote. As you know, net 
neutrality requirements were not included in the infrastructure 
law. So can you clarify the intent of that provision? And will 
you make it clear that states are not authorized to impose net 
neutrality requirements on subgrantees as a condition of a BEAD 
award?
    Mr. Davidson. First of all, we do believe that, you know, 
consumers should have control over the broadband that they pay 
for. But as I have said in testimony before, we believe that 
there are other agencies and organizations, parts of Government 
that are the right place to approach the net neutrality issue.
    The FCC Chairwoman, when she testified in her confirmation 
hearing, indicated her intent to do so. Congress could take 
that up. This is not our role. And there are several reasons we 
included that prohibition, if you are getting Federal funding 
and building a federally funded network, against unreasonable 
network management practices. But we know that net neutrality 
is a much broader concept than that, includes other kinds of 
requirements, and we do not believe that this is a net 
neutrality requirement.
    Senator Thune. And you will make that clear to states that 
they are--imposing net neutrality requirements isn't going to 
be a condition?
    Mr. Davidson. We have an extensive program of technical 
assistance and engagement with states that were ongoing and 
certainly would answer that question that way.
    Senator Thune. In the BEAD NOFO, there are detailed 
reporting requirements on subgrantees who do not use a 
unionized workforce on a project labor agreement, which will 
not only disadvantage providers who don't use union workforces, 
but also is unworkable for providers in many rural communities, 
like those in my home state of South Dakota that simply don't 
have a unionized workforce.
    So bidders and subgrantees must comply with Federal labor 
and employment laws. And as long as they do so, they should not 
face unnecessary burdens. If NTIA keeps this requirement, the 
overall cost of deploying broadband services is going to 
increase, resulting in fewer individuals being connected, and 
as I mentioned, creates lots of problems in a state like South 
Dakota where we don't have unionized work force. So would you 
consider eliminating these reporting requirements?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question. 
Thank you. We expect that this--that we are going to be 
creating tens of thousands of jobs and we do want to make sure 
that the workers on the front lines of building these networks 
have safe and good paying jobs. That is the intent behind these 
reporting requirements and other efforts that we have in there 
to make sure, as we are required in the statute, to consider 
some of these labor issues.
    And I will just say, it is an enormous Federal investment. 
And we have felt, I have felt an obligation to make sure that 
all Federal laws are being obeyed, including and especially 
employment and labor laws.
    Senator Thune. Well, and that is, they have to comply with 
Federal labor employment laws. But what I am talking about are 
these additional burdens above and beyond it. And I--my concern 
is that the dollars are going to discriminate against states 
like South Dakota, where we don't have unionized workforce.
    And so I am going to ask you again if you consider limiting 
any of these reporting requirements so that these dollars that 
are going out the door are not going to be in any way precluded 
for states, like states the state of South Dakota, where we 
just simply don't have that----
    Mr. Davidson. And I will say, we do not intend to preclude 
people. We understand that different states have different 
approaches. This is not intended as a bar on people in those 
situations, and we are very open to the idea of how to--if 
there are particular pain points. We do feel that this was not 
an undue burden.
    And, you know, we are open to conversation and willing to 
continue to discuss it. We don't think it precludes people in 
your state, providers in your state from participating in the 
program. We do think we want to make extra sure, and it should 
be no surprise that this Administration cares deeply about 
workers, and that we will continue to push--to promote the 
interests of workers.
    Senator Thune. And I--and the fact that you don't think it 
precludes, is fine. It should not preclude people in my state 
and so we are going to be paying careful attention as the 
program rolls out to make sure that as decisions are being 
made, that these are not factors that are going to create 
discriminatory conditions with respect to certain places in the 
country. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thanks.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, sir. It is always an honor, Mr. 
Thune. Next, we will hear from Senator Klobuchar. Senator, five 
minutes.

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

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. 
Davidson, welcome back. Thank you. Enjoyed talking to you this 
week. The bipartisan infrastructure law, as you well know, 
invested $65 billion for broadband infrastructure. I worked 
hard on this piece of the bill with Representative Clyburn, as 
did Chair Lujan.
    So I want to thank him for his work on it as well. How is 
the NTIA making sure that the rules are not overly burdensome 
to get this money out for small community based providers 
looking to participate in the program? Because for--in my 
state, a lot of the small providers over time have been the 
ones that actually been building out. So, please answer.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, thank you. First of all, I will just 
say we welcome the wide variety of providers, including small 
providers and small entrants. We have tried to build the 
program in a way that welcomes them and make sure that the 
requirements for them is very much on our mind, making sure 
that we had the accountability that we needed in the program, 
which is essential if we are going to spend American money, 
taxpayer money, wisely.
    But we also wanted to be sure that it was welcoming to new 
entrants. So you will see in our notices that we made clear 
that many different types of providers are going to be part of 
this program and are welcomed in this program. And we look 
forward to any conversation with you about places where--any 
places where we see any burdens, undue burdens on those 
providers.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thanks. And one other thing on that, 
Senator Wicker and I worked on the Broadband Agency 
Coordination Act that we passed in 2020, focused on making sure 
we are sharing information across the lines of Government for 
building out and with private sector. How is that going, 
sharing information?
    Mr. Davidson. Yes, sharing information with other parts of 
the Federal Government. I will say we are in close coordination 
with other parts of the Federal Government around broadband 
particularly. There are--we have an MOU that we have signed 
with the other major entities, the other agencies, major 
agencies that are giving out Federal funding in broadband.
    We have got regular meetings, I will tell you a lot of 
regular meetings among all of the interagency groups that work 
on this together. We are thinking about common data standards 
and working to make sure that--you know, from the point of view 
of the American people, they don't care whether it is the FCC 
or the NTIA or the USDA that they are getting money from it, 
they just want to see the money going out the door for 
broadband, and we are committed to working together to make 
that happen.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Senator Cortez Masto and 
I have legislation to modernize 9-1-1 system. We have made 
improvements over the years. But you believe we need to do more 
when it comes to modernization, when how people are traveling, 
the kind of technology they have, and when there is an 
emergency, it is not like the old days.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you. It is absolutely an area where we 
need to raise our game as a country in modernizing 9-1-1. We 
need to develop the tools to help people reach 9-1-1, the way 
they communicate by text on their mobile phones, smartphones, 
as they travel. And while work has been done in this area, we 
know that it is actually a multibillion dollar investment to 
help the 9-1-1 centers across the country that need this 
urgently. So I just can't help but say, you know, we hope that 
there will be more activity and action to provide the funding 
to do that work.
    Senator Klobuchar. Well thank you. As Chair of the Next Gen 
9-1-1 Caucus, appreciate that and look forward to working with 
you.
    Mr. Davidson. And thank you for your leadership.
    Senator Klobuchar. Of course. Last, competition 
legislation. Senator Grassley and I have a bill that we are 
ready to bring to the floor. We have been promised a floor vote 
in early summer here can make the digital economy more 
competitive. Right now, we have four major gatekeeper 
monopolies that are--with vertical dominance on their 
platforms, and they buy stuff and then they are self-
preferencing it, above other competitive businesses.
    In our bill, basically put some rules of the road in place 
with broad support across the spectrum, everyone from Senator 
Warner to Senator Durbin and Senator Graham to Senators Hawley 
and Booker and Warner and Hirono and Blumenthal of the Commerce 
Committee, and Senator Lummis of the Commerce Committee, and 
many others.
    Secretary Raimondo has endorsed the bill when she was in 
front of the Committee. Given your expert--Mr. Davidson, your 
expertise in technology, do you agree that we should modernize 
our competition laws to deal with the problems of gatekeeper 
power?
    Mr. Davidson. I will just say, it is essential that we have 
a competitive--that we have fair competition in our economy. It 
is essential for our economic growth and our competitiveness. I 
am very happy to agree with my boss, Secretary Raimondo, and 
say that in her support of your effort as the Justice 
Department wrote in support as well. And I just thank you for 
your leadership in this area. We need it.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from 
Senator Fischer.

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

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 
Davidson. I appreciate you being here today. NTIA has important 
responsibilities managing our Federal airwaves and expanding 
broadband access, especially now with the passage of the 
bipartisan infrastructure law. The agency's new BEAD program 
has the monumental task, first and foremost, of building out 
reliable broadband service to all unserved individuals 
nationwide.
    In Nebraska, we have fewer than ten people per square mile, 
and in the Panhandle, it drops to fewer than six. Companies 
serving the most rural locations already will be operating on 
thin margins. I have some concerns about the multitude of 
scoring preferences and requirements NTIA has included in the 
program such as for labor unions, multiple pricing tiers, and 
requiring consideration of Government owned networks.
    With each of these added objectives, you are making margins 
thinner, and you are increasing costs, which means less money 
for deployment. Will you commit to awarding funds to applicants 
with the best ability to complete broadband deployment in the 
program's 4 year timeframe?
    Mr. Davidson. The answer is yes that is the intent behind 
what we have done. We agree that, and we built this program 
with the intent that it is implementable, right. The only way 
that we are going to succeed at our mission of getting high 
speed, affordable broadband access to everybody is if there are 
economically sustainable and viable projects and providers that 
come in and meet those.
    So I think your point is very well taken. We have weighed 
carefully the requirements that we put on. A lot of these 
things are reporting requirements, not requirements that will 
preclude people from being part of it. And while we know some 
of them do add to the work that people have to do, we think 
that those are appropriate things for Federal--people receiving 
Federal money to have to do.
    Senator Fischer. But do you agree that that should be the 
number one priority? Number one consideration is to get this 
broadband deployed. You and I had that conversation yesterday 
where I said, ``I am hearing from people all across the 
state.''
    I was in the state last week traveling and hearing from 
people all across the state, they go, well, when are we going 
to get this, right? You know, you say that broadband is going 
to be deployed. Broadband is going to be deployed not just to 
rural Nebraska, but we have places in the City of Omaha that 
need help as well.
    And so to get it deployed, you know how long is it going to 
take? And when you require more reporting, that to me, it puts 
more roadblocks in to getting broadband to people's homes.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I will tell you, it is a great point. 
We strongly believe that our top goal is to get broadband out 
and get it out quickly. We have talked about some of the 
challenges in that. I am very excited, for example, we spoke 
about the Middle Mile program and our ability to get that out 
very soon because we don't have to wait for some of the other 
things that are going to take longer with the mapping and other 
issues.
    And I agree. And I will just say, if you hear of pain 
points or particular things that are really--appear to be 
slowing us down and keeping it making it harder for people, we 
would like to hear them. We have taken our best shot at trying 
to balance these requirements.
    And the number one thing that we do want, and we do want 
states to do, is reward those who can reach people, reach the 
most people with the most affordable and best broadband that 
they can. That is the core of the part--of the of the grant 
making scheme. And if we--you know, we welcome a chance to work 
with you on that.
    Senator Fischer. Did you do any kind of cost benefit 
analysis on what those reporting requirements, the additional 
preferences would have on funding?
    Mr. Davidson. We did look at different--it is a great 
question. I think we did. Of course, want to make sure that 
anything that we added in terms of requirements would enable us 
to still meet our goal. Again, our goal of meeting--of 
deploying to everyone. And we did look at the cost of different 
kinds of additional requirements and we felt that we have 
struck the right balance here.
    And when you think about things like the low cost option, 
we were quite careful about providing flexibility for states, 
putting those in. And our understanding is, our belief is that 
people are going to be able to do these things and still 
deploy. But we welcome the chance to work with you on it.
    Senator Fischer. Do you think you are going to add any 
additional preferences to the BEAD program? When you said you 
looked at some other requirements that may be out there, do you 
think you are going to add more or are we set where we are at?
    Mr. Davidson. We believe we are set. I think there are 
areas that we----
    Senator Fischer. Until I send you a list of things that are 
irritating to Nebraskans?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I will say that there are two things. 
It is a great point. We tried to build this in a way that 
people could really build to the program. There are issues that 
we have not fully tackled in the notices that we put out. We 
intentionally--I mean, they are very long, but they could have 
been longer. And so, for example, the definition of high cost 
areas.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Davidson. Yes. So, right. Exactly. There are things, 
the definition of high cost areas, we would like to do more on 
permitting, on pole attachments. Those are guidance and 
technical assistance that we can provide or things that are not 
necessarily requirements but areas where we want to do more 
work. And so you will see more technical assistance. You will 
see clarifications coming up from us. We know--I would be 
shocked if we got it all right. So we are--you will see that. 
But this is meant to be the core of the program.
    Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Well, I want to 
recognize and thank the Chair of the Full Committee for being 
with us today. Chair Cantwell, thank you so much for being with 
us. Next, we will hear from Senator Schatz. Senator Schatz, you 
are recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davidson, good 
to see you again. Congress set aside at least 3 percent or $90 
million of the $3 billion in the tribal broadband connectivity 
program for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. In June 2021, NTIA 
released its notice for the first $1 billion portion of the 
program, explaining that it would allocate at least $30 million 
to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, DHHL, and would be 
done processing applications by November 2021. So let's just 
sort of level set. Do you agree that Congress appropriated $90 
million to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for the purpose 
of broadband deployments?
    Mr. Davidson. I do agree. I agree there is a 3 percent set 
aside. And when you do the math that is $90 million.
    Senator Schatz. OK. And you are committed to getting that 
$90 million to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands?
    Mr. Davidson. We are committed to getting that money to 
Hawaii.
    Senator Schatz. OK. So what is a reasonable time-frame to 
expect NTIA to award the first $30 million of statutorily 
required resources?
    Mr. Davidson. I don't have a full answer for you. I can say 
we are committed to working with you and your staff. Since we 
have spoken, I think we have been able to provide them with 
even more information and we are happy to, glad--we are working 
very hard to do it as expeditiously as possible. It does depend 
a little bit on the meeting the requirements of the, the legal 
requirements that we have, but we are working to get it 
expeditiously.
    Senator Schatz. Yes. And we have had this conversation. I 
mean not in a hearing context, but I just want to clarify a 
couple of points here. I understand the first application 
coming from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands was--had some 
challenges. And we have communicated to the Department to kind 
of make sure that they can sync up with NTIA. These are two 
agencies that haven't worked together before.
    The Department of Hawaiian Homelands, in answering at least 
some of the questions, consider themselves unable, per their 
lawyers, to answer these questions because the questions 
specifically were about partners, and they can't select 
partners in advance because they are a State agency subject to 
the State procurement code. So some of their inability to 
answer those questions was on the advice of their own lawyers. 
Then on the advice of your lawyers, you say, well, this is 
insufficient.
    Fine, let's massage all this. I think this is all workable. 
And I am not interested in assigning blame. I am interested in 
this--what we are hearing is that they may have to wait a full 
year to reapply. And I just don't see--I get the sufficiency 
challenge and I get what your general counsel is saying. I 
don't think there is anything in statutory law that requires 
you to make the State agency wait for a full year to apply for 
the first tranche.
    And I am just wondering if we can--you know, I am going 
back to DHHL and saying do what they say, right, work with 
them, find partners that know how to receive and administer 
Federal funding in this fashion. As you know, we brought in 
some expertise from the University of Hawaii.
    So we are working our side. What I want to hear from you is 
some flexibility, because what we are hearing is, you got to 
come back next year. And there should be a little grace here 
for a new program and a new State agency, and that has never 
worked with this particular Federal agency before.
    And so it just, it strikes me as a little draconian to make 
the Department of Hawaiian Homelands wait another year to apply 
for the first tranche, which was supposed to be awarded 
actually last year.
    Mr. Davidson. So, we really want to work with you on this. 
I can--what I can promise you is the maximum flexibility that 
we are allowed under law. And I have instructed our staff to 
give us--to lean into this problem and to find out if we can do 
what you have asked for. And I think it is very reasonable. And 
we do want to make sure--this money is going to go to the 
tribal communities in the State of Hawaii. Absolutely.
    Senator Schatz. OK. And I don't mean to trap you here, but 
this is what I am a little worried about. I am worried that 
NTIA has zero expertise in tribal matters first, but or very 
little, and second in native Hawaiian matters. Native Hawaiians 
are not a federally recognized tribe. The Federal Government 
has a trust obligation, not a treaty obligation, to native 
Hawaiians.
    And so to the great extent that your lawyers are informing 
you that Native Hawaiians are a tribal Government, that is a 
foundational legal error. And so I want you to push them and 
say, how much do you actually know about the Department of 
Hawaiian Homelands? Are you treating them like a State agency 
or are you treating them like a tribe? Because this will get me 
a little hot, right.
    This will get me a little irritated to think that I am 
interacting with the State agency, both through my perch on the 
Commerce Committee and as a Chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs, and you guys don't even know the basics about the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Native Hawaiian 
people.
    And so you are not supposed to know that, but your lawyers 
are. And so we have got a lot of work to do here, and I am not 
going to be satisfied if they just come back to you and say, 
well, next year is all the flexibility that we can provide.
    Mr. Davidson. Message received.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Schatz. I want to echo 
that concern as well. That is the basis of all my questions, 
Administrator, and across America this has to be done 
correctly. Otherwise, there is going to be no infrastructure, 
not just with broadband, no infrastructure that will be 
completed in a timely manner. So I very much appreciate the 
line of questioning from our chair there. Next, we are going to 
hear from Senator Blackburn. Senator Blackburn, you are 
recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 
Davidson, thank you for your time yesterday, and thank you for 
being with us today. When you were addressing Senator Fischer, 
you said you wanted to hear about the pain points and know 
where those were. And we discussed some of these yesterday.
    Let's continue to drill down on some of them today. We 
talked about the money, and you have heard from others this 
morning about the money coming out of the Infrastructure and 
Jobs Act and how difficult it is for people to get certainty on 
these distribution amounts, the burdensome permitting process. 
If you want to talk about a pain point that is a pain point 
because it is making it difficult for them to deploy the 
broadband and close that digital divide. And then also the 
timelines that are called for in the bill.
    And as you know, these are points where there is a problem. 
So how is the NTIA planning to work with the state, with the 
local officials, and with agencies like the EPA to streamline 
some of this permitting and to deal with these timelines that 
are really a pressure point?
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you for the question. I think it is 
imperative, as you said, for us to be working closely with 
states and communities to make sure that we can implement this 
program effectively. Probably the most important thing that we 
are building right now at NTIA is a team of people who are 
Federal program officers who will be out in the states, working 
in each state, assigned to each state, making sure that the 
programs are successful and that providers can navigate these 
issues. So we are----
    Senator Blackburn. Do you have those individuals that are 
going to be working in the state, do you have them employed by 
the NTIA at this point in time? And are----
    Mr. Davidson. We have--I am sorry, go ahead. I am sorry, 
ma'am.
    Senator Blackburn. Do you have them employed and are they 
out there working with the state?
    Mr. Davidson. So we have, I would say--the intent is they 
will be NTIA employees. We probably have, I would say, roughly 
half of them. We have got----
    Senator Blackburn. Prioritizing the areas where you are 
putting them?
    Mr. Davidson. A lot of it--I will just be honest, a lot of 
it depends that we are recruiting and making sure that we can 
get good people in-state. So if folks know of great people in 
your state that we should be hiring, we would love to hear it. 
I will say we do have some great people actually based in 
Tennessee, in Nashville, so.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, let me move on. I wanted to talk 
with you about the Davis-Bacon requirements. We have talked 
about this for a moment, and Senator Thune brought it up to 
you. You were evasive on how you plan to work with states that 
are right-to-work states. Can you, for the record, say how you 
are going to do that? And would you--do you need to submit that 
protocol in writing to us?
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you for the question. I would say, as I 
said before, that we do take these labor issues very seriously 
and we want to make sure that we are protecting workers----
    Senator Blackburn. Are you prioritizing union labor, yes or 
no?
    Mr. Davidson. These are not requirements for states. There 
are reporting requirements for States, but they are not 
requirements for states. And so I would say, and I am not a 
labor expert on Davis-Bacon, so I am--I apologize. I think 
there we probably have to get back to you on exactly what 
reporting you would want to see from us. But I will say that 
what we have done here is not a requirement that we think goes 
against--requires any state to go against the State law.
    Senator Blackburn. I am going to read--OK, here is the 
notice and what it says, that providers, and I am quoting 
reading from the law, ``must give priority to projects based on 
a demonstrated record of and plans to be in compliance with 
Federal and employment laws, and that they are required to give 
preferential weight to projects based on the strength of 
showing in their application on this factor. The factors 
include things like using a directly employed workforce as 
opposed to subcontractors, compliance with Davis-Bacon using 
project labor agreements, commitments to union neutrality, and 
more.'' So this is why we are concerned about how you all are 
going to preference, how you are going to prioritize union 
labor, and we are--I am going to be very watchful.
    Our state is a right-to-work state. And if you read this, 
Mr. Davidson, it appears that what you are doing is putting in 
place the ability to preference union states and to disregard 
and not give any kind of priority to states that are right-to-
work states. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time. 
I yield back.
    Senator Lujan. I thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear 
from Senator Baldwin. Senator Baldwin, you are recognized.

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

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, I lost my voice 
since we talked yesterday, so I have asked the Subcommittee 
Chairman to read my questions on my behalf.
    Mr. Davidson. You sounded great yesterday.
    Senator Baldwin. I know. What the heck happened?
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Now, Mr. 
Davidson, thank you for appearing today. As we discussed 
yesterday, nearly 650,000 Wisconsinites lack access to high 
speed, affordable broadband service. Through--though the funds 
were made available in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, we have an opportunity to connect every Wisconsinite to 
the Internet service they need to participate in the modern 
digital economy, and I look forward to working with you to 
ensure these historic investments are deployed successfully. 
Now, the first question.
    I was proud to author a section of the infrastructure bill 
that requires construction materials used in the federally 
assisted infrastructure projects to be produced in the United 
States. As NTIA works through implementation, I want to make 
clear my concern that blanket waivers to Buy America erode 
critical market signals that incentivize domestic investment.
    The blanket waiver issued by NTIA in 2009 for the Buy 
America requirements included in the American Recovery 
Reinvestment Act--allowed Chinese telecommunication companies 
to increase market share in the United States. In order to 
prevent such a mistake from occurring again, I would like to 
ask you, will you commit, following the OMB's guidance, that 
only time limited, targeted, and conditional waivers will be 
sought by the NTIA for the Buy America requirements?
    Mr. Davidson. I certainly will commit to following the OMB 
guidance here. And I would say, we strongly believe that a huge 
benefit of this, of the broadband infrastructure law is the 
fact that it will promote U.S. jobs and promote U.S. 
manufacturing. And so we are eager to support those things. I 
will say we do know that there are technical--there are 
challenges in telecommunications networks at times in that.
    And there will be moments where there will be waivers 
needed. We will follow the guidance on those waivers. And our 
belief is those waivers should be rare. They should be--the bar 
needs to be high, and the waivers need to be carefully 
tailored. And I believe that will be the way that OMB 
approaches it.
    Senator Lujan. It will be important to work with Senator 
Baldwin's office if that is encountered, I think, to make her 
fully aware from the start.
    Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. We welcome a chance to work with 
you on that.
    Senator Lujan. I know we are both looking forward to the 
FCC's progress on improving its broadband maps. We need 
information on existing last mile infrastructure to ensure that 
we aren't overbuilding and to identify where broadband access 
is still needed.
    And yet the same kind of approach has not been taken with 
middle mile infrastructure where we have even less information 
than we do on last mile connections. I am eager to work with 
you on this issue. Now, given the relative lack of information 
on middle mile, how will NTIA evaluate Middle Mile Grant 
applications to ensure that they go to areas that most need 
them?
    Mr. Davidson. This is a very important question. And I was 
glad that you raised it in our conversation. It is one that we 
would like to keep working with you on and keep thinking about. 
It is essential that as we spend these middle mile dollars, and 
we do view them as a force multiplier, something that will 
really help us with affordability and our--and the 
effectiveness of our last mile efforts, that we do it wisely. 
There is a provision in the statute that requires--that says 
that the middle mile should also use the FCC maps.
    But there is also, the problem is, of course, one of timing 
and the Middle Mile program will be going out very rapidly. We 
will be getting applications in September. The statute also 
includes a fallback for how--for using other mapping tools. We 
will be pressing for that.
    The other thing that I think we can do that is really 
important here, and you had hinted at this when we talked, is 
really making sure that we are collecting the data so that when 
people apply for these programs and then when they are grantees 
of these programs, that they must also share their mapping data 
with us so we can make it part of the broader NTIA mapping 
collective that we have.
    Senator Lujan. Just like roads, bridges, and ports, 
broadband is infrastructure that is necessary to build a 
strong, resilient economy. Businesses in rural Wisconsin need 
to be able to see progress made on broadband infrastructure to 
plan for the future.
    I would like to know more about how NTIA plans to 
communicate with the Committee and the public about 
implementation of the BEAD and Middle Mile Grant program. The 
question is how will Wisconsinites be notified of broadband 
buildout in their areas and how will you keep us in Congress 
apprised of your progress in implementing these infrastructure 
grant programs?
    Mr. Davidson. It is an excellent point. We view this as an 
all of Government, all-hands-on-deck moment to build this 
infrastructure. That means we know we have to work with State 
Governments, but we also know we have to work with local 
communities.
    We have requirements in our notices that states must 
consult with communities. We have given them a lot of guidance 
about what that can look like. We also, I will just say at NTIA 
believe that telling the story of this infrastructure building 
is going to be an essential component of it, reaching out to 
the public, engaging them.
    We have already we have a very extensive program that we 
have started already, webinars, outreach events, staff 
traveling to do events out in districts. And I just, I will say 
it is a blanket invitation to all of you. We would welcome the 
chance to visit with you in your states. But I think engaging 
the public in this will be essential and it is something we are 
investing energy in already.
    And the last thing I will say is that our NOFO and the 
statute do require that people who are recipients of this 
funding publicize it, talk about it, make sure that people in 
the area, the service area, know about this service that is 
being provided. So we are going to lean into that.
    Senator Lujan. And Mr. Davidson, the final question. In 
rural Wisconsin, locally owned and operated telecommunications 
cooperatives are often the only source of internet. These 
cooperatives' participation in the BEAD program will be vital 
to its success in Wisconsin.
    The BEAD notice OF funding opportunity makes clear that 
providers seeking grants from the BEAD program should not be 
favored based on form of organization or commercial status. How 
does the NTIA plan to enforce that principle across each 
state's plan so that commercial and cooperative providers are 
allowed to apply to the program on equal footing?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I would just say we strongly believe 
this is, again, an all hands on deck moment. We need all of the 
different kinds of forms of organizations that will contribute 
to this. We know that in different states it is going to look 
different. We have put it into the notice, and we will 
continue--we will be holding feet to the fire on that front 
with the states. And we welcome a chance to work with you if 
you see any places where there are issues in Wisconsin or 
anywhere else. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, for those 
excellent questions. Senator Moran, you are recognized for your 
questions.
    Mr. Davidson. And a well read, too.

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

    Senator Moran. Fortunately, I haven't lost my voice. And I 
want to begin first with a critique. A nicer word than 
criticism, it is a critique. I was a part of the bipartisan 
effort in regard to infrastructure. A couple of the arenas in 
which you were operating were issues that received significant 
attention from the bipartisan group of Senators.
    One would be the low cost option for Americans in poverty, 
which was included in our report. But you have--in our 
legislation, but you have taken that further to a middle class 
affordability option. And I am interested in knowing your 
justification, your legal justification. The second has been 
mentioned at least while I have been in the room by several 
Senators, and that is Davis-Bacon. And to me it ought not 
matter whether you are for this option, this additional option, 
or you are for or supportive of Davis-Bacon. It is so tiresome 
to me to have agencies time and time again not follow the 
letter of the law or the intent of Congress.
    And it discourages bipartisan effort. If the end result is 
that the things that we negotiated among ourselves in a 
bipartisan fashion are then altered by the Administration, by 
any Administration. And I want Congress to have more bipartisan 
discussions and outcomes, not less.
    But if we go through the process only to find that the 
conclusions we reached are not the conclusions that the agency 
reached, you are diminishing the interest in that effort. And 
so I think we will have a better chance to have this 
conversation in the appropriations process, but I raise this 
topic for you as a genuine concern.
    And the bipartisan group continues to meet, and with almost 
every instance of those meetings are complaints among all of us 
are criticism of the Administration for not doing what we said 
in the legislation. So I don't--I would guess this may be a 
more Republican complaint, but it is not totally a Republican 
complaint when we see the results of what we thought we had 
accomplished. I would raise just a couple of questions.
    One, taxation. You had a recent conference, I saw you 
answered a question about this issue of the grants being 
taxable, and I think the answer is--your answer was, it is an 
issue of ongoing conversation within the Administration. So 
what are the potential solutions to these grants not being 
subject to a 21 percent tax rate?
    Mr. Davidson. So, thank you. Thank you for the question. 
And I will just say, by the way, we really appreciate the 
bipartisan nature of the bill, and we are--and the bipartisan 
support that we have seen for the goals of this program to 
connect everybody in rural, urban America, everywhere across 
America with high speed, affordable internet. So we are eager 
to continue to work with you on those issues.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Mr. Davidson. On the particular taxation issue, it is an 
issue that we are concerned about and making sure that we are 
not--you know, certainly we did not believe that the intent of 
Congress was to give out this money and then immediately take a 
big portion of it back in taxes. It is being worked by people 
far more expert than me within the Administration who are 
colleagues, particularly at the Treasury Department and at the 
White House, who are thinking about this. In terms of the 
solutions, I am not sure I am the right person to ask, but I 
will tell you, they include things like Congress.
    Senator Moran. Which is really a good answer based upon the 
critique I just gave you. In this case, I think I don't know 
that there was any conversation among us on this topic. I don't 
know that there is anything in the record of our debate and 
discussions that would suggest an answer. But I think common 
sense tells us what you just said earlier. This was not the 
intention.
    The FCC maps continued to be a problem. Every time we have 
an FCC Commissioner or the Chairwoman in front of us, this is a 
major portion of what we all ask. But, you know, Secretary 
Raimondo in an Appropriations subcommittee hearing committed to 
me that there will be no Kansan who doesn't have broadband 
service when this money is spent. And I am worried. I see your 
eyebrows go up.
    I appreciated her answer to my question, and what bothers 
me is that we don't have the maps and the things that you are 
potentially using to make decisions I don't think are 
necessarily accurate. You are in a time pressure to move 
forward, but the end result of this cannot be one more time 
that we have failed to see that broadband is available across 
the country in places where broadband is not available today.
    And if the end result is after one more Congressional 
effort and X billions of dollars, again, that we still come 
back with people who are served with terribly slow speeds or no 
broadband at all, then we have failed.
    Mr. Davidson. I could not agree with you more. That is very 
much how we have approached this entire process of producing 
these notices. This was the idea. The intent is to reach 
everybody, high speed, affordable Internet service. On the 
issue--the maps are essential, and we wholeheartedly agree they 
are going to be the biggest gating item for us. They are going 
to be the biggest thing slowing us down. We want to move fast. 
The thing that we have to get right first is the maps.
    Senator Moran. What is the date expectation on the maps?
    Mr. Davidson. I think the FCC Chairwoman has said that she 
will have a first draft of the maps in the fall. And the--and I 
say first draft, because we already heard from several Senators 
who talked about the importance of making sure that, and we 
have heard from states and communities that want to have at 
least a chance to evaluate those maps and potentially do 
challenges to those maps if they feel like they are erroneous. 
And we want to make sure there is the flexibility to do that.
    Senator Moran. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. And Administrator, I 
want to associate myself with the last question of Senator 
Moran, with one exception. I received the same commitment for 
New Mexicans. And so I think you are going to hear from us 
bipartisanly with every one of us that received these 
commitments that we expect them to be carried out. And so we 
look forward to working with you and the team, the Secretary, 
to make sure that happens. Next, I will recognize the Chair of 
the Full Committee, Chair Cantwell, for questions.

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

    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lujan. You are 
doing a great job on such an important subject for all of our 
colleagues, as you can see by attendance, and obviously, the 
COVID pandemic laid bare how important broadband connectivity 
was for Americans. So, Mr. Davidson, thank you for being here 
this morning and for your leadership at NTIA. I wanted to ask 
you about the broadband middle mile issue. Obviously, last mile 
deployment depends on middle mile infrastructure. And without 
sufficient backhaul structure, the network providers will be 
unable to service the last mile needs into their networks, and 
this is in addition to 5G and 6G rollout. So, we have about $1 
billion there. Do you think that there will be a need for more 
resources on broadband middle mile?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, first, I will just first echo your 
comments, and we have had this discussion before. We believe 
that middle mile is an essential piece here, a real force 
multiplier to make--to increase affordability, competition, and 
make our last mile efforts much more effective. We are grateful 
to have the $1 billion program and we think it is going to be 
very effective. I will just say that I anticipate it will be 
wildly oversubscribed and we will see by September if that is 
true.
    The Chair. Thank you. I know my colleague, Senator Capito, 
and I are working on this. She has some innovative middle mile 
solutions in her state that I think have been really 
illuminating to how successful this partnership can be, and so, 
I look forward to continuing to work with her on that.
    On the mapping point, it is clear now that there are ways 
for us to really get an understanding of who does not have 
connectivity. So, there are unserved areas, which people would 
say are some of these rural areas.
    And then there is the underserved, which really means you 
might, in that zip code, have people who are purchasing 
broadband services, but it doesn't mean it is affordable. How 
do you think that these maps will help us paint that picture 
more accurately for people?
    Mr. Davidson. You rightly indicate the maps in the past 
have not been good because they have not been granular enough, 
right. So we have really looked at like, for example, census 
blocks. And if one person in a census block had service, the 
entire census block, maybe thousands of people, were considered 
served.
    So we know that we have radically missed it. Now, Congress 
wisely gave resources and appointed the FCC as the mapping lead 
here, which we are working with them very carefully. And I 
think the maps that come out from the FCC will be much more 
granular at the location level, and that will give us much 
better insight into, especially where we believe there are 
pockets of, you know, broadband deserts all across America that 
we will need to see.
    The Chair. Thank you. You know, our colleagues, Senators 
Wicker and Klobuchar, worked on some of what I would call 
administrative leadership on broadband issues, a little more 
concentration of focus by NTIA on this.
    Recently, I know that my colleagues here, Senators Lujan 
and Wicker and Thune, also worked on a spectrum issue because 
there are various agencies within the Administration that have 
different views and different issues on spectrum. How well 
equipped is NTIA to play a more leadership role in sorting out 
some of these overlapping issues with agencies?
    Mr. Davidson. It is essential that we are well coordinated. 
And I will say, so far so good but I may need to get back to 
you. I think, no, I don't mean to make light of it. I think 
that we are making good progress. And I think you mentioned 
both broadband and spectrum, but in both areas, I feel like we 
have had an opportunity to work really closely with our 
colleagues in broadband, particularly.
    We have got the largest pool of resources now. And so we 
are able to leverage what we are doing to help other agencies 
that are working on this. In spectrum, coordination is 
critical. And I will say so far I have been cautiously 
optimistic.
    We have got a very close working relationship with the FCC. 
I have been work--reaching out and working with a lot of other 
agency spectrum leads, which has been great, and the White 
House has been very supportive of us, of NTIA having this role, 
and I think there will be more to come on that.
    The Chair. Do you think that NTIA has the resources to do 
that, when we have NASA and DOD and various divisions of 
people? Obviously, everybody has realized we need to be 
connected, right? The spectrum resource is also about that. We 
have agencies fighting against each other's views. So, the 
question becomes, can NTIA play a more elaborating role on the 
technical side in helping this discussion on behalf of the 
Administration?
    Mr. Davidson. So I think the area where we have--really 
this team has really been able to excel is in technical 
leadership. And I think our expertise is something that a lot 
of other agencies respect and actually we are a resource for 
those other agencies. So that has been our lead. I will say--I 
would be remiss if I didn't say that we could use more 
resources for things like our ITS, our Institute for 
Telecommunication Science out in Boulder, our officer spectrum 
management here also has an IT modernization project. Resources 
would certainly help us grow our technical strength in this 
area. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. Next, we will 
hear from Senator Lee. Senator Lee, you are recognized for 
questions.

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

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 
Davidson, for being here. Mr. Davidson, during your nomination 
process, you and I spoke about the important role that NTIA has 
in managing the Federal Government's spectrum allocations.
    And I believe it is important that NTIA continue to play 
this role, that it continue to be the Federal Government's 
spectrum manager, and that it be able to make objective 
decisions and receive cooperation from all agencies involved in 
making such decisions, including coordinating matters with the 
FCC.
    So I want to run through a few quick questions on this 
front. Do you agree that in order for the NTIA to be able to 
fulfill its spectrum management responsibilities that Congress 
has given it, and that the agency needs and requires full 
cooperation from every agency?
    Mr. Davidson. We certainly--yes.
    Senator Lee. It is interesting that after recent FCC 
spectrum management decisions, which presumably have gone 
through the IRAC process, we have had some last minute 
objections from some specific Federal agencies. Is the NTIA 
receiving that full agency cooperation that is necessary for 
the proper spectrum decisionmaking? I mean, is that--in those 
circumstances, is that an interruption to what we hope to be 
the norm?
    Mr. Davidson. I will just say, I think this is an area of 
continued work, and certainly it is that coordination is 
critical to do this right. Also, you know, we need to, for 
example, respect the integrity of our auction process and not 
second guess it.
    So at the same time, we recognize there are very important 
Federal missions, defense missions, aviation missions that need 
to be met. I think people look at some of the less ideal 
outcomes of the last few years and say this, we do not want to 
repeat this. So I will just say to you, I detect a renewed 
energy within the Administration, certainly I have seen that, 
to make sure that we are better coordinated than we have been. 
And I think that is across the board.
    Senator Lee. I appreciate that. What about the data? Are 
you getting the data that you need, including that the 
classified data that you need from agencies in order to make 
sure that the spectrum decisions are made with all the 
necessary available information?
    Mr. Davidson. We have had good cooperation. Certainly on 
the classified side, we have. And I will just say, for example, 
you know, we have been in close contact with our colleagues at 
DOD. You know, there are other areas where we would love more 
collaboration, but we are working on it.
    Senator Lee. Yes, I as you know, I think NTIA really needs 
and deserves to have the full cooperation of all Government 
agencies in doing its job. And having that cooperation within 
the IRAC process along with FCC coordination avoids the 
uncertainty that has far too often been injected, made its way 
into the spectrum of decisionmaking.
    Mr. Davidson. I could not agree more and would welcome the 
chance to continue to talk to you about that as we move 
forward.
    Senator Lee. Great. Great. And I hope you will continue to 
work with me on that, to ensure that NTIA and FCC can work 
together in order to meet our spectrum needs. Let's pivot 
really quickly to the BEAD notice of funding opportunity. I 
have got a few questions that I wanted to raise with my 
remaining time. The infrastructure bill, did the statute 
require NTIA to carry out the BEAD program in a technologically 
neutral manner?
    Mr. Davidson. We are committed to carrying it out in 
technologically neutral manner. I will say this, the statute--
it is not so simple to say that the statute required that, but 
we are committed to it.
    Senator Lee. OK. You are committed to it. In your NOFO, you 
defined a priority broadband project in a manner that seems to 
favor fiber projects over other technologies. What can you tell 
me about how, if at all, that definition--how does that 
definition carry out the technology neutral requirement in the 
statute, or if you are not acknowledging it as a requirement, 
the aspiration that you have for that? Doesn't your violation--
doesn't your definition violate that principle?
    Mr. Davidson. So the statute--we do believe that there 
should be technology neutrality. And the truth is--the notice 
does allow for other technologies to be used too. We were 
required by the statute to define a--what a priority broadband 
project is and in such a way that we felt the most logical and 
consistent way to do that was to talk about fiber.
    But we fully expect that the program will be implemented 
with mixes of technology and that each state will choose for 
itself how to--what that mix looks like. Some States will have 
more fiber. We expect there will be fixed wireless. We expect 
there will be lower Earth orbit satellites. Different states 
will make those choices. So we believe that on the whole, the 
notice is--does allow that flexibility and is therefore neutral 
to it and that that was our approach to it.
    Senator Lee. OK. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Lee. Next, we will hear 
from Senator Rosen. Senator Rosen, you are recognized for 
questions.

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

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Lujan, for holding this 
really important hearing. Thank you, Administrator Davidson, 
for being here today. You know, I was proud to be part of a 
group of Senators that helped draft key portions of the 
bipartisan infrastructure law that Congress passed last year, 
which included my bill, the Middle Mile Broadband Deployment 
Act.
    The impetus behind this legislation was included in the 
final infrastructure bill, was to create a grant program to 
address the need for more middle mile infrastructure in rural 
states like Nevada so we can connect last mile networks to the 
Internet backbone.
    Currently only a few middle mile routes will cover hundreds 
of miles, hundreds of miles in Northern Nevada, and network 
outages due to extreme weather, roadwork, network glitch, of 
course, can therefore leave households, businesses, and even 
public safety, just leave them out in the dark.
    So as you begin to roll out the Middle Mile Grant program 
Congress created, how is NTIA approaching the needs of vast 
rural states like Nevada and the Chairman state of New Mexico, 
where we have considerable deployment issues such as geography, 
topography, permitting, and right of way challenges, and the 
need for us in Nevada, with over 80 percent of our state 
managed in some form or fashion by the Federal Government, how 
do you coordinate with Federal agencies from BLM to DOD?
    Mr. Davidson. So thank you. It is a terrific question. And 
I will just start again by saying we are huge believers in the 
power of the Middle Mile program, and we really appreciate the 
chance to administer that and have the funding. As I said a few 
times before, it is a real force multiplier, we think, and will 
help with the last mile efforts that we have as well. I fully 
appreciate the point you are making also about the unique 
issues faced in a state like Nevada.
    And I will say we are very committed to working with 
Federal agencies, other Federal agencies. We probably are 
working right now most closely with other major funders. But we 
do have work in progress, for example, with the Department of 
Interior on creating an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, and 
streamlining permitting processes and working with them closely 
to make sure that we are thinking about how Federal lands play 
into this.
    Senator Rosen. So while you are doing this, I would like 
you to really think about how are going to advise states on 
meeting the matching requirements of the Middle Mile Grant 
program when, like us, over 80 percent of our land is Federal 
land managed by the Federal Government and that land is tax 
exempt. So we may not be able to do that in the way that other 
states can. So could you--can you speak to this at all, or will 
you give a commitment to consider this?
    Mr. Davidson. First of all, certainly commit to consider it 
and to work with you and your staff on this issue. I think--you 
are right that there are, for example, match requirements in 
here. There is a requirement they come from non-Federal 
sources. Some of that could be from the state, but some of it 
can be from the providers themselves who will be putting this 
forward. And I think we are eager to work with you and----
    Senator Rosen. Is that going to put our state at risk, who 
has 80 percent managed by the Federal Government, if you are 
just only going to consider it--we really have to have a 
solution that works for each and every state.
    This money was meant to go to these deep rural areas, some 
of them close right outside critical bases, critical 
infrastructure for our national security, for our homeland 
security and the like. And so I would like you to do more than 
consider that, please.
    Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. And I will note, yes, certainly. 
We are--I will commit that we will work with you on this. And 
we agree that the purpose of this program is very much to meet 
the needs of a state like Nevada, so we have to make sure it is 
doing that.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I have about a minute left. I 
want to talk now about urban broadband challenges and the FCC 
data maps. The new ones may have--I am concerned they may have 
difficulty identifying multi-dwelling units as unserved or 
underserved because the maps only track the service delivered 
to a building or location rather than to each living unit in a 
building.
    So let's say I have a 50 unit building in Las Vegas and it 
shares a one gigabyte download, 35 megabit upload. That means 
each unit in the building is receiving less than 20 meg down 
and less than 1 up, which is considered an unserved household, 
but the entire building may show as served on your FCC map.
    So as you begin again to implement programs from the 
bipartisan infrastructure law to address affordability in 
underserved households, how are you going to look at multi 
dwelling buildings?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I would just agree with you that. First 
of all, it is a real issue, and we are concerned about it as 
well. We are compelled by statute to use the FCC's maps 
initially in our allocation process. I will say we are actively 
working on how we can make sure we account for multi-dwelling 
units.
    You will see it in our notice. We give--we expect and give 
states flexibilities about how they spend money that they will 
be able to consider those multi-dwelling units unserved in each 
location, so states will be able to compensate for this. And we 
have encouraged them to do that in our notice.
    Senator Rosen. Well, it seems to me there are some simple 
algorithms that we can write for the number of units in a 
building and do that. I am a former computer programmer. I know 
there are a lot of folks out there that can help with that.
    Mr. Davidson. Appreciate that.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I look forward to it. Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you. Senator Rosen. Senator Capito, 
you are recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
being here with us today, Mr. Davidson. Appreciate it. I do 
want to reiterate to you and re-extend and extend, and I 
understand that we are working on a visit to West Virginia, 
hopefully maybe in the summer. It is a great place to visit, 
so.
    Mr. Davidson. I know we are working on that, and I look 
forward to. I am also visiting New Mexico this summer, I 
understand, Senator.
    Senator Capito. Well, good.
    Mr. Davidson. Just don't want to play favorites here.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. My first question was going to be on 
statements that you made during your nomination about the, all 
of the above technology. I heard Senator Lee ask basically the 
same question. We had the same questions in that your first 
notice of funding opportunity appeared to put a heavy foot on 
the pedal for fiber, which is great for West Virginia, but very 
expensive and not sure it is going to get to that last house. 
But you have already--you know, wireless may solve some 
problems. I am going to assume wireless is in all your above 
bucket. How do you see wireless as it is moving in the next 
funding opportunities?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, we do expect that for different states, 
different states will have different mixes of technology or a 
little of that answer. We talked about that as well. And we do 
think that fiber is--it is the gold standard. It is the most 
extensible, resilient. But for many areas, it will not be the 
right answer. And so we do believe we have given states 
flexibility to make the choices that are right for them.
    Senator Capito. Our state was just given a notification 
through the American Rescue Plan of $136.3 million from the 
Treasury, from the Rescue Plan, on broadband. So good news. It 
is supposed to reach 20,000 people. So I am sitting here 
thinking, we are going to have an--we already had an influx of 
money through a lot of the COVID funds, we have this new influx 
of money, and then, of course, your bigger and broader and more 
robust plan through NTIA.
    This plan is feeding into three programs that the Governor 
has already set up. It would be really useful, I think, if the 
monies that come in from NTIA can fit into the buckets that are 
already pre-established. Will the states have the flexibility 
to be able to do that, working with you all?
    Mr. Davidson. I absolutely believe so. I think it is 
important that we--the only way we are going to reach our goals 
is if we use all the different funding streams that are 
available. That is partly why we are trying to work so hard 
with our other sister agencies, including the Treasury 
Department.
    Senator Capito. So you are working with them on this?
    Mr. Davidson. We are working with them. And the goal is to 
make it simple for states to--for streamlining reporting 
requirements, common data. And we do hope that states will plug 
in and plug our funding into their existing efforts. It is the 
only thing that will make sense.
    Senator Capito. Well, that is the hope for West Virginia. 
We have a gig ready program. We have a Middle Mile program. We 
have a major--major projects that might be bigger and broader. 
So I think it just makes good, common sense, quicker, more 
efficient, better reporting and once we get the map thing 
straightened out, to be able to feed into what I think our 
state's already moved pretty well. After we had a big stumble 
in 2010, I think we learned a lot. And so any way that we can 
help and assist you with that, we would like to play a role 
there.
    Mr. Davidson. We welcome the chance to work with you.
    Senator Capito. Good, good. Let me ask you about supply 
chain. We are hearing from our small rural providers that 
increased costs and delay of equipment is making deployment 
incredibly challenging. I am concerned about these supply chain 
issues. What an effect it might have on Middle Mile, BEAD 
projects.
    How are you seeing this, and while I am a Buy America 
person, you have Buy America provisions in there, we are 
starting to hear some rumblings that that may cause some 
problems as well.
    Do you have the ability to waive Buy America requirements? 
Do you anticipate that you would be using that? And what can we 
do to help with the supply chain issue or how are you 
approaching that? It is going to drive the cost of these 
projects higher.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, first of all, we are--it is a great 
question. We are tracking these supply chain issues quite 
closely. And we are concerned as well, especially with the big 
influx of funding that is going to come into this field. So we 
are working closely with providers, with equipment providers, 
with fiber providers to make sure we understand supply and 
demand in this space. We do also believe strongly that Buy 
America is an important part of the of the law. Part of the 
goal of the infrastructure law was, of course, to promote 
American jobs, promote American manufacturing.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Mr. Davidson. So we think that--we take that very 
seriously. We will be working--we know that telecommunications 
networks pose unusual challenges in that environment. So we do 
expect, for example, that there may well be waivers issued, but 
those waivers have to be done very carefully.
    We believe that they have to be tailored, and the bar needs 
to be high. We will be following the OMB process, the process 
that is laid out for getting those waivers within the 
Administration. I anticipate that we will have some. But as I 
said, the bar needs to be high on getting them.
    Senator Capito. Well, you have a, I think, a very exciting 
and tough job ahead of you, especially when your Secretary is 
promising every single one of us that every one of our 
residents is going to have broadband by the time that this is 
over.
    Mr. Davidson. This is a once in a generation opportunity. 
You have giving us resources to do something that we need to do 
as this country, and so we are----
    Senator Capito. It is. And it is so need.
    Mr. Davidson.--firm believers. And thank you for your 
partnership.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Cruz, you 
are recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator 
Davidson, welcome. Thanks for being here today. I want to start 
by discussing Federal spectrum management and the role that 
NTIA plays in that process. Is it correct to say that with 
regard to spectrum management, NTIA manages spectrum allocation 
and use by Federal agencies while the FCC oversees non-Federal 
allocation and use?
    Mr. Davidson. Yes.
    Senator Cruz. Great. Is the Department of Defense one of 
those Federal agencies for whom NTIA is responsible for 
managing spectrum allocation and use?
    Mr. Davidson. I would say, yes. They are of course--they 
have, you know, opinions about how they manage their spectrum 
as well. But we work with them closely on those issues.
    Senator Cruz. Indeed they do. So let's say the Department 
of Defense was going to conduct an inventory of and prepare a 
roadmap for its current and future spectrum needs in order to 
ensure the accessibility and efficient use of the spectrum 
needed to support DOD. As the entity that manages spectrum 
allocation and use by Federal agencies, shouldn't NTIA be fully 
engaged in that process, whether it is being undertaken by DOD 
or any other agency?
    Mr. Davidson. We would like to be a partner in that. Of 
course, they are the ones that will be most expert in their own 
needs in the future, but we do try to engage with them as we 
think about the road map ahead on spectrum use.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I agree with you. And so as you are 
aware, the reason that I am asking is, is there some language 
floating around on Capitol Hill right now that some Senators 
want to see included in this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act. That language would allow DOD to bypass NTIA 
and its role in ensuring that all Federal agencies and 
stakeholders? needs are considered in terms of the allocation 
of spectrum, which in turn could create significant conflicts 
in terms of overall allocation.
    Now, several years ago there was a similar effort in the 
Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA to have DOD create an electromagnetic 
spectrum sharing research and development program. I led the 
ultimately successful effort to have that language removed, but 
not before what was a fairly bruising back and forth over the 
issue with DOD and others.
    Then as now, one of the major issues was the DOD via the 
NDAA seemed to be trying to go around the well-established 
practices for spectrum allocation and management for Federal 
users.
    Administrator Davidson, as the entity that manages spectrum 
allocation and use by all Federal agencies, would it create a 
problem for NTIA and as a result, other Federal users, to have 
a Federal agency like DOD go off on its own and make its own 
plans with regard to spectrum use?
    Mr. Davidson. We would have concerns about that. I mean I 
think the--this only works if we are all well-coordinated. And 
our role by statute is to be the President's adviser on 
telecommunications, spectrum policy issues, to be the manager 
of Federal spectrum resources. And because of that, we have a 
dual hat.
    We recognize the importance of the Federal mission. We also 
have a real imperative to meet the commercial needs of American 
businesses. And I think our concern would be, we deeply respect 
to our colleagues in this space, we value our close working 
relationship with, particularly we have had a very good working 
relationship of late at DOD.
    But I do think we need to make sure that we are all 
coordinated and that agencies aren't given incentive to go off 
on their own and make these kinds of decisions unilaterally. So 
we welcome the chance--we have expressed some concerns as we 
have talked to the Armed Services committee. We welcome the 
chance to work with you and your team as it moves forward.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I think that is helpful. And everyone 
recognizes there are multiple objectives that need to be 
served. Obviously, everyone wants to ensure that we have 
sufficient spectrum to meet our defense needs, but at the same 
time, we have multiple agencies and ultimately the private 
sector that have demands as well, and we need to balance those 
competing demands in a way that maximizes the benefit for 
everyone.
    Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. And there is huge opportunity. 
You know, we are looking at the lower 3 gigahertz with the 
Defense Department--that the Defense Department currently uses, 
but that is a tremendous opportunity to also to explore new 
technologies, spectrum sharing, other ways to make sure that we 
are making the most efficient use of spectrum and getting more 
of it into the hands of the commercial users who need it.
    Senator Cruz. Well, I hope we can get this issue resolved 
quickly and without the fighting that surrounded Section 214 
several years ago. And I look forward to working with you to do 
so.
    Mr. Davidson. We welcome that. Thank you, sir.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Administrator, 
while we wait on a few colleagues that I believe are still 
trying to make it before the vote will be called, I want to ask 
you a few questions as well. Now, with large rural, fixed 
income communities, like many of the challenges that our 
colleagues are facing in their states, New Mexico faces 
significant barriers to broadband access.
    Our state, like many others, has large, sparsely populated 
areas, thousands of acres of public land, and I want to echo 
what Senator Rosen raised as a concern, geography, topography, 
as we have heard from many, which has prevented thousands of 
families across the State from accessing high quality, 
accessible, and affordable service. We also faced similar 
problems to the rest of the Nation, when it comes to 
affordability, and we are behind much of the Nation's digital 
skills.
    Now, New Mexico is relying on funding from the BEAD program 
to ensure students, families, hospitals, small businesses, and 
community institutions are connected. As I said before, I was 
very pleased to receive a commitment from Secretary Raimondo 
last April that connecting every family in New Mexico, if this 
program didn't connect them, it would be unsatisfactory was the 
word that was used.
    And committed to working in the community to make the 
program ubiquitous and affordable. So, Administrator Davidson, 
can I get your commitment as well that NTIA will connect every 
single household in New Mexico?
    Mr. Davidson. Yes. You asked me this question in my 
confirmation hearing as well. I remember it very well and 
always make it a policy to agree with my boss, Secretary 
Raimondo. But I also am happy to say to you that is very much 
our goal and that is our commitment.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I learned from my parents 
the importance of getting those commitments, reminding them 
every time I would get the chance, so I'm following 
instructions----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Davidson. I look forward for more reminders, sir.
    Senator Lujan. Importantly to New Mexico, the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill reserved 10 percent of the BEAD program 
funding for high cost areas like those in Water County and San 
Miguel County, two communities that are suffering what is now 
the largest fire in our state's history.
    And we have another fire burning in Southern New Mexico. 
The first over 318,000 acres, and now they are worried and as 
am I, with a flood. And we had a thunderstorm come in last 
night with the first series of flood warnings. Now, this 
funding will make a real difference in areas with geographical 
and cultural diverse communities. Now, we are still waiting for 
NTIA to fully define high cost areas. Is that right?
    Mr. Davidson. That is right. It is not part of our, the 
notices that went out.
    Senator Lujan. I certainly hope that the characteristics in 
the States, that many--that these are taking into consideration 
given the challenges and there is a reason why New Mexico and 
Alaska and a couple of others are considered high cost areas. 
And that is why we are where we are. So I appreciate your 
thought there as well.
    Mr. Davidson. I absolutely agree. The statute is quite 
clear that there is a reason--and there is a reason why we need 
to make sure we are recognizing the high cost areas and making 
sure that the allocations reflect that. I will say just that we 
didn't include everything in our notice, in our funding 
notices. They are long as they are. They could have been 
longer. High cost is top of the list of areas that we now--we 
know that we need to further offer guidance on.
    We received, we asked for and received comments in our 
request for comments on those specific factors about what 
should--how should we think about defining a high cost area. We 
have gotten a fair amount of input and we are now working on 
it. And I would say we welcome a chance to work with you and 
folks in New Mexico to make sure we are getting the definition 
right.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. So now, it is my 
understanding that NTIA has already laid out some of the 
criteria, like remote locations, lack of density, unique 
topography, poverty, things of that nature, while New Mexico 
that fits--fits our state. Now, a follow up on high cost areas, 
will the definition of high cost area take into account 
secondary cost to build out, including permitting and easements 
on Federal lands?
    Mr. Davidson. I actually don't know the answer to that 
question about whether--that certainly would be a factor. We 
would like to--we will take that under advisement. I certainly, 
I don't--we haven't made a final assessment about what would be 
in there, but that is certainly something I take back and want 
to work with you on.
    Senator Lujan. And while easements will become an issue, as 
we all know, especially with public lands, Federal lands, but 
also on tribal lands, and I am certainly hopeful that there is 
a close conversation between the Department of Commerce and the 
Department of Interior. There was a recent bridge that we 
finally were able to complete on the Navajo Nation in 
Manuelito, New Mexico. It was a result of flooding back in the 
early 2000s. FEMA freed the money.
    The President declared an emergency. And it took until 
2019, 2021 to get the bridge completed. After FEMA freed the 
money, NTIA would not authorize an easement. Money was lost. We 
had to fight to get the money back. This is my concern across 
indigenous sovereign nations, across America. There should be a 
seamless approval for easements across the spectrum with every 
Federal agency working with NTIA.
    And I firmly believe that when there is an easement for, 
let's say, a power line, NEPA and everything has been 
conducted, they tore up the ground, they put up the poles, 
there is electricity running through there. Why can't people 
co-locate on it without having to do additional work?
    If you are not going to dig deeper than what the previous 
NEPA was, I don't understand why there is not just a recognized 
utility easement. That is just me ranting, but I hope that 
there can be some agreements in that place to allow for this 
work to happen expeditiously. Our local communities need 
Washington to also understand that all the paperwork, 
regulations, and rules aren't the end of the conversation.
    It is the on the ground results, whether they are 
successful at connecting every single family, which matters 
most at the end of the day. The last question I have today and 
then I will submit the rest into the record is, what can 
historically underrepresented communities, including rural and 
tribal communities, minority communities, do to ensure that the 
definition of high cost accurately reflect the realities that 
we experience every day in New Mexico?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, thank you for that. I think it is--it 
is very important to us that we are hearing the voice of those 
communities as we move forward to implement the program and as 
we work on some of the issues that you have rightly noted are 
still unresolved. And so I say we first of all welcome the 
chance to engage with them.
    We did our request for comments, but we have an active 
outreach program, webinars, sessions out with the public, 
working with particular communities. And we would, I would just 
say, our door is open.
    Our e-mail address as Internet for all, internetforall.gov. 
And we will take questions and submissions and we welcome the 
input, and particularly welcome the chance to work with you and 
your staff on those issues, too.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Administrator. Next, we 
will hear, and Mr. Sullivan will be recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, 
good to see you. Congratulations again on your confirmation. 
First, I want to just thank you for your commitment to coming 
up to Alaska here, I think, early August?
    Mr. Davidson. August 13, or no, it is a little earlier. 
August 10. Yes, I will be there in August.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes, you are the star of the show. But 
the goal there is to bring in all the different key Federal 
agencies like yours, FCC leaders, and others, and then key 
stakeholders in Alaska to make sure that we are--to the extent 
we can, all of us are trying to coordinate and take advantage 
of what I see, and I hope, I know you agree is a really 
historic opportunity to build out our broadband Internet 
connectivity, which, unfortunately, in my State is the least 
connected State in the country. So thank you for coming up for 
that.
    Mr. Davidson. My pleasure. I am looking forward to it. And 
to see firsthand some of the challenges also.
    Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask, one thing, I know it 
is not just an Alaskan issue, but there is a little bit of a 
concern as the FCC's new maps are released that there are 
concerns, and I am starting to hear them already in Alaska 
that, we are at risk of being undercounted with regard to 
places that are notoriously difficult and challenging to count.
    And I certainly hope our FCC colleagues are listening and 
watching closely to this hearing. But I want to make sure that 
the challenge process that we are allowed to have--we want to 
accelerate the deployment of broadband under the infrastructure 
bill, but we also want to make sure that things are counted 
properly.
    Mr. Chairman, I am assuming this is probably be an issue in 
your state as well. And the statute does not compel NTIA to 
allocate funds based on an unchallenged map. So what we want to 
get your commitment on is, if you are going to be waiting for 
those challenges to play out so that your allocations are 
actually based on an accurate counting.
    Can you talk about that? I am sure I am not the first 
Senator to raise this with you. But in Alaska, I am really 
starting to hear some worries about undercounting and that 
would not be good for anything, but you guys play a role, even 
though it is not--you are not the primary actor on the Federal 
agency side, but you can influence this a lot.
    Mr. Davidson. It is a terrific question. We are very 
focused on this issue.
    Senator Sullivan. And are you talking to the FCC about it 
or--?
    Mr. Davidson. Regularly.
    Senator Sullivan. And what is their----
    Mr. Davidson. Consistently. My staff is laughing back here 
because they talk to the FCC quite a bit.
    Senator Sullivan. On this issue?
    Mr. Davidson. On this issue. Because I will just say, first 
of all, getting the maps right is essential for our success for 
all the reasons that you said. We have to be spending the money 
in the right place to get to the people who are really 
unserved. And the----
    Senator Sullivan. Remember, the broadband bill focuses on 
the truly unserved. That was a big debate we had. That is in 
the law.
    Mr. Davidson. And that is how----
    Senator Sullivan. In the statute.
    Mr. Davidson. And that is how we are----
    Senator Sullivan. We do not want Federal regulators who 
maybe had another view to try to change that. That is--Congress 
has spoken.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, that is an area where I feel confident 
that we can--if you look at our notices, you will see we have 
taken that approach. And on the maps, we are focused on this 
quite a bit because this is our gating item. I mean, in terms 
of the pace we want to deploy quickly, but we need to wait.
    We need to--the maps are critical. We can't deploy without 
good maps. And what I said here earlier, and I will say again, 
is that we have heard about the FCC's, you know, the first 
draft of their maps, the Chairwoman has said, will be available 
in the fall.
    But we have also heard from many in states and localities, 
just as you are saying, that there is a strong desire to make 
sure that there is a chance for at least some challenge to 
those maps that is due to play out. And we are committed to 
that.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Let me ask another question. I 
have raised this with you numerous times. A recent GAO study 
identified there are a staggering 100 Federal programs across 
15 agencies that could be used in some form or another on 
broadband. 11 or 7 of these alone are under your jurisdiction 
at NTIA.
    One of the things we want to make sure happens in addition 
to trying to get our entire country connected, my entire state 
connected, which is a challenge in and of itself, is to make 
sure that there is tight agency coordination, transparency to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. That is going to be part of 
the elements of the Summit that you are going to be 
participating in Alaska. I think we are all looking now at the 
CARES Act and, you know, shocking figures of how much abuse and 
fraud there was.
    We really need to make sure that is not happening again. I 
am not just talking about in my state, I am talking about 
across the country. You are going to be playing a central role 
in that. What are you doing right now to ensure the very 
significant funds that you are going to be responsible for 
awarding and deploying, are done in a way that is coordinated, 
transparent, and also prevents waste, fraud, and abuse?
    And one of the things I am particular worried about, 
smaller tribes, smaller communities that might not have a lot 
of capacity. You know, I think in some ways are particularly 
vulnerable to a Beltway bandit that might be coming from D.C. 
up to Alaska to try and, you know, kind of rob people of the 
money.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, we are very aware of that, too. It 
is a great question. There were two elements, which you asked. 
One is about coordination. And I will simply say we are deeply 
coordinated with other Federal agencies, regularly coordinating 
with MOUs with the other critical agencies, Treasury, USDA, 
others for sharing data, making sure that we are being 
consistent in the way that we ask people to report.
    So we are trying to make that simple, and we recognize that 
outside of the Beltway, nobody knows the difference between the 
NTIA, USDA, FCC, any--so we want to make it easy for providers 
and states and localities to interact with us.
    This is also an area where NTIA can help because we are--we 
have got more resources than some of our other colleagues. And 
so we are working to try and do that. On the waste, fraud and 
abuse point, I would simply say we are also quite focused. And 
because for many different reasons, we know we need to be wise 
stewards of taxpayer money. We also know that we will not 
succeed in this effort to connect everybody if we don't use 
that money wisely. We also have seen and learned lessons from 
the past about just the kinds of scenarios that you have talked 
about.
    And so we have coupled with this, you see this even in our 
notices, require--a lot of due diligence requirements in the 
grant making processes. A lot of requirements that some will 
find a pain in the neck, to be honest, but they are there to 
make sure that we can monitor and make sure that we have 
legitimate players who are seeking these grants, being awarded 
these grants, and then there is a back end process to this, 
which is included in our budgeting. This is a 10 year program, 
right.
    This is a program where it is not just about giving the 
money, it is also about making sure that--monitoring to make 
sure that the money is being spent well. And that is very much 
a part of our plan. So thank you for the question.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator 
Hickenlooper. Just reminder to our colleagues that the vote has 
been called on the floor.

             STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate 
that. Enjoyed the conversation. I have been ducking in and out, 
but Mr. Davidson, I tremendously appreciate your service. The 
Institute of Telecommunications Science--Institute 
Telecommunications Sciences, ITS, is NTIA's--we like to think 
of as your premier lab, especially in terms of wireless 
spectrum.
    Mr. Davidson. We think about it that way too, sir.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Good, because it helps us in Boulder, 
Colorado. ITS has expertise in scientific research into 
spectrum sharing and more importantly, coordination among 
users, because it is obviously a limited resource.
    Lack of funding for ITS though limits its capabilities, 
more often now limited to interagency agreements and corporate 
partnerships. As demand for spectrum increases dramatically, I 
think we do need to find some ways and we talked about this 
once before, ways to share and coordinate spectrum between all 
users.
    So how can Congress empower ITS to--with more resources to 
carry out proactive spectrum research which would help 
modernize the entire approach?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I will so first of all, thank you for 
the question and thank you for your support of ITS. It really 
is the crown jewel, not just at NTIA, but I think for the 
entire Federal Government in terms of real expertise and 
forward looking research around spectrum. You know, give a 
quick example, for example, right. Just this week ITS is doing 
testing, they have got a helicopter, they are there working 
with the Defense Department to explore this issue of 
interference between 5G and altimeter systems for Defense 
Department equipment.
    A real issue that has come up in the commercial sector. 
They also do, and I was just out there 2 weeks ago, very 
forward looking research about spectrum, spectrum sharing, new 
bands of spectrum, and the issues around it.
    So I would just say, I think, you know, giving--as you 
noted, much of the work that now happens at ITS is funded by 
other Federal agencies or in a consulting type arrangement. It 
would help us to have more baseline, long term funding to do 
the kind of research about future bands and about spectrum 
sharing, other new tools and having that consistent support so 
it is not just dependent on which other Federal agencies have 
come in to support work. That would be very helpful.
    Senator Hickenlooper. And would that come under the heading 
of modernizing the Spectrum Relocation Fund?
    Mr. Davidson. It would, absolutely. So thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I am just checking. Want to make sure 
it got in the record. A lot of these fights over spectrum, you 
know, as you describe, not just among Federal agencies, but in 
the private sector as well, are around this interference that 
you mentioned.
    And I think that the research that ITS is doing does allow 
us to move toward science based decisions to make sure we 
prevent that interference through appropriate protection 
criteria. So I guess the question I have is, how is the ITS and 
the NTIA, how can they get that consensus based, science based 
collaboration done?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, it's----
    Senator Hickenlooper. And protections.
    Mr. Davidson. It is something we are working on quite a bit 
with our Federal colleagues. So the starting point is 
absolutely that we are committed to, and I think the only way 
we succeed as an Administration in administering this scarce 
resource, is if we have an approach that is well coordinated, 
but evidence and science based at its heart.
    And we believe that NTIA and our Office of Spectrum 
Management, ITS can play a real role with our technical 
expertise there. So far we have gotten very good support on 
this, I think from the White House, from other agencies that 
see this expertise. But it is an area where we need to continue 
to work and make sure that we have the beef to follow up on it, 
right, so.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Last question. We have got a 
minute left. Senator Wicker and I introduced the 
Telecommunications Supply Chain Diversity Promotion Act, which 
is included in USICA, I think. It establishes a test bed out 
there, and the opportunity to test these Open RAN technologies 
and their performance in rural settings I think is really 
important.
    More network vendors is going to be able to create more 
competition. It is going to reduce costs to the network and 
really promote resiliency, network resiliency. So, can you 
describe how NTIA is monitoring and promoting this strong 
network supply chain?
    Mr. Davidson. So I will just say that we deeply support 
your--appreciate your support in this area. It is really 
essential that we have diversity in the vendor community 
around, you know, particularly in 5G. We have been big 
supporters of the Open RAN initiative around the world, 
promoting that as a way to get more secure 5G equipment.
    Our ITS lab has played a critical role already in helping 
us understand where the challenges lie and where research is 
needed to make Open RAN a success. We are eager for more 
resources and more opportunity to do that. So thank you for--we 
certainly are very supportive of the bill formally known as 
USICA and programs like this that are in it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you 
for your service. I yield back.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. Senator 
Markey, you are recognized for questions.

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

    Senator Markey. Thank you. Much appreciated, Mr. Chairman. 
Climate change. You know, I was pleased to see NTIA include 
important climate change provisions in its new broadband 
programs, and that is going to allow applicants to provide 
detailed plans for addressing climate and weather related 
risks, including identifying ways to avoid or mitigate those 
threats and from driving up the cost of construction with 
needless red tape.
    Those far sighted, thank you, requirements will benefit the 
public and reduce long term costs by making our networks more 
resilient. So can you talk about how your proposal--NTIA 
proposal is actually going to save money for individuals, for 
states, and for the Federal Government in the long term?
    Mr. Davidson. I will just say, Senator, first of all, thank 
you. Thank you and thank you for your leadership in this area. 
We actually do believe that a focus on resiliency actually 
reduces costs over the long term, right. That by taking 
resiliency into account, by taking climate change resiliency 
into account, we can make sure that we are building in ways 
that are smart, that make sure that states and subgrantees are 
taking into account extreme weather events as they begin to 
give out their money.
    That, in turn, makes sure that we are, again, increasing 
resiliency, making sure we are deploying in the right ways, in 
ways that take into account what is likely to happen in the 
future. And that is what we have asked for in our notices.
    Senator Markey. Well, thank you. And I think it is well 
done. And it is why I introduced with Senator Wyden the Green 
Communications Act, which would create a $5 billion program at 
NTIA to build resilience communications networks. And do you 
think that kind of funding makes any sense?
    Mr. Davidson. Well, we certainly see value in that kind of 
approach, in more resilient and energy efficient communications 
networks. And we would be happy to work with you and your staff 
on legislation offering technical assistance. Appreciate your 
leadership here as well.
    Senator Markey. Thank you, sir. And I am so glad that you 
have also included labor, competition rules, critical to 
bringing reliable high speed Internet to every household in 
America.
    And your program is going to require states to prioritize 
projects that commit to maintaining high labor standards, 
encourage states to favor broadband providers that make 
wholesale and open access commitments, and ensure that 
providers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices.
    I think those rules are a good starting point for building 
a broadband system that harnesses market competition to deliver 
affordable Internet access to unserved and underserved 
communities. And, you know, we hope that it is not going to be 
a fantasy. But, you know----
    Mr. Davidson. I hope so, too.
    Senator Markey. You have got a lot of backing to make sure 
that you implement that vision, you know, in a strong way.
    Mr. Davidson. Well, I appreciate--we appreciate that. And 
that we do feel, again, this speaks to just the breadth of the 
kinds of activity we want to see. We hope to see in this that 
there will be new entrants, that there will be experimental 
approaches, and that open access can be a big part of that.
    Senator Markey. And again, the notice of funding 
opportunity for these broadband programs was an important 
milestone. But, you know, working with you--we just have so 
much work to do. So, thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I just want 
to emphasize once again how impossible it is going to be to 
really close the digital divide and ensure that broadband 
consumers have the protections they deserve without a full 
complement of Commissioners at the FCC.
    And that is why I just think we have to move to immediately 
confirmed Gigi Sohn as the fifth Commissioner, so that the FCC, 
like Mr. Davidson, can get down to work to do the job which we 
need. There is a lot riding on having a fifth Commissioner. I 
think Gigi Sohn is the right person for the job and we should 
do it as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Davidson. And I would just say, we would be aided in 
our work by a full complement at the Commission. And we, of 
course, this Administration deeply supports Gigi as a nominee. 
So thank you for your support for her.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you, Administrator. And Senator 
Markey, I certainly agree with you as well. Next, we will 
recognize and hear from Senator Young. You are recognized for 
questions, sir.

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

    Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Davidson, 
it is good to be with you. We last visited during your 
confirmation hearing, and I enjoyed our exchange. And at that 
exchange, you gave me a few assurances about the massive 
broadband grant program, you know, you would be taking charge 
of as NTIA Administrator. So I would like to start with your 
commitment to focus the broadband funding on unserved areas as 
opposed to underserved areas.
    Closing the digital divide, of course, won't be possible 
without ensuring that these unserved areas are served before a 
single dollar is focused on the underserved areas. But getting 
broadband funding to unserved and underserved areas is only as 
strong as the weakest link. So, you know, it was in this vein 
that Congress required the FCC to adopt improved maps, and we 
gave the FCC nearly $100 million, $98 million to create those 
maps.
    When negotiating the infrastructure bill, and I played an 
active role in that process, the broadband provisions in 
particular, some of my colleagues and I reluctantly agreed to 
let NTIA oversee the program, provided that it rely on these 
FCC maps which will show service at the location level.
    This week, you issued guidance that invites the states to 
use all sorts of flawed data in actually distributing the funds 
they receive. That is my reading of it. I will give you an 
opportunity to respond, sir. Including data from the NTIA 
website that is out of date and that the agency itself 
acknowledges may be inaccurate or incomplete.
    This, of course, puts at risk a key objective of the, you 
know, efforts to ensure there is access and deployment of 
broadband. It also puts at risk your assurance to this 
committee, as I read it, that you would focus on unserved areas 
first, and it directly contradicts another assurance you made 
to me when you committed to work with the FCC, utilizing their 
maps, coordinating on their broadband programs to avoid 
duplication, and utilizing their expertise when it comes to a 
challenge process as is required by the law.
    I will read the relevant passage to inform your response, 
sir, if you would like, and this is an opportunity to clarify 
and explain on the record that you will be abiding by that 
previous commitment. So it reads, quote, this is from the 
guidance, ``eligible entities are encouraged to begin their 
planning processes prior to the release of the FCC's broadband 
data maps.
    In this situation, eligible entities may utilize all 
available sources of existing data, such as State level data, 
existing FCC data, national broadband availability maps, so on 
and so forth, and other sources.'' There is not the specificity 
indicating you can only use FCC maps. So, will you commit to 
ensuring that the states use high quality data that track the 
new FCC maps and update your guidance accordingly, sir?
    Mr. Davidson. Yes. So I am familiar with the provision you 
are speaking about. Thank you for raising the question. First 
of all, I just want to start by saying, I assure you, we remain 
committed to using the FCC maps as instructed by the statute 
for the purpose of allocation. And those are going to be what 
we expect states to use when they look at their served, their 
unserved areas, and underserved areas.
    And we are also committed to, as you and I spoke about, and 
I think you will see it in this notice, really focusing on the 
unserved communities and then the underserved communities as is 
indicated in the statute. The provision you are reading from, 
just to give you some assurance, is about the planning process.
    And we were contemplating a period like right now, for 
example, where the FCC's maps are not yet available, but that 
we want to encourage eligible entities that states and 
territories to be able to do their planning and to be doing it 
based on the best available data that they could get.
    So right now, for example, you know, a State may have 
submitted its letter of intent to be part of our program. They 
are going to get a $5 million planning grant. We want them to 
be doing planning. We want them to use the best data they can. 
There is no FCC map yet available. So that is what this speaks 
to. And rest assured, sir, we are committed to using the FCC 
maps.
    Senator Young. That is fantastic. I will not have to break 
my promise to Hoosiers and other Americans that I helped 
negotiate a bill, my office and I, we led this negotiating 
effort on the broadband provisions. And my pledge is because of 
our authorization, our allocation of resources, there will--
every American will have access to high quality broadband 
moving forward. And I believe that will continue to be possible 
based on your clarification. So thank you so much. And with 
that, I will yield back to the Chairman.
    Mr. Davidson. Thank you. And we look forward to working 
with you to reach that goal as well.
    Senator Lujan. Thank you so much, Senator Young. One area I 
was hoping to get some clarification, Administrator, is 
Congress sometimes sets up double standards, and this is one of 
them that has been established. And what it did is it created a 
lower standard for Native American communities with speeds.
    The current law says that minimum speed for tribal grants 
is 25 megs down, 3 up. While broadband funding for the rest of 
the country in the bipartisan infrastructure bill says you 
cannot go below 100 over 20. Now, I know you will be 
administering these programs fairly and effectively, but the 
statutory requirements are not equitable for indigenous 
sovereign lands across the United States. So what I am hoping 
that I can get from you today, sir, is to count on you to help 
identify areas where Congress can update the law so that 
broadband programs meet the intended goals.
    Mr. Davidson. First of all, I am glad you--thank you. Thank 
you for the question. And I would say we are committed to that. 
And on the issue, particularly of that example you gave, the 
difference for the tribal grant program, we were well aware of 
it, and we don't think that there should be double standards 
here either.
    We are working in our competitive grant program to try to 
make sure that we are getting the best possible broadband 
available to those communities. So we are trying to compensate 
for it where we can. But there are areas probably like that 
where some updates to our broader statutes would be helpful. 
And we are committed to working with you in giving assistance 
in identifying those areas.
    Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Administrator. And I will 
recognize myself to close. There are some areas that I wanted 
to offer a rebuttal of sorts with some of what I heard today. 
First off, with some of the questions surrounding provisions in 
the buildout, namely a climate provision, I want to remind my 
colleagues what I shared during my statement in questionings in 
that New Mexico is on fire.
    We are in the midst of hurricane season. We have seen the 
destruction of tornadoes. And we need to build out in such a 
way that resiliency is a focal point. And I appreciate you 
emphasizing that. The climate change initiatives in the NTIA 
program is good stewardship of Federal funds. And so I want to 
thank you for that commitment in the lay out and the work that 
we are doing in that space, and just look no further than New 
Mexico, if anyone wants to come and visit, with the challenges 
we are facing right now.
    As I said in my opening statement, we must work to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure Federal funds connect 
unserved families first. Now, the last thing we want is for the 
red tape to prevent families from getting across and connected 
to broadband.
    While we are working to avoid duplication, agencies could 
miss areas that are unserved or underserved despite prior 
supports in the area. And the one area I wanted to highlight 
today, Administrator, is in 2018, the FCC's CAF II auction, the 
speed required there was 10 down, 1 up. That sounds unserved to 
me, not underserved.
    Mr. Davidson. It would be today, yes.
    Senator Lujan. You know, some of you may have dial up or 
had dial up in your lives. That is what they are going to get 
or that is what they are getting if they have connectivity. 
Like I said, that sounds unserved to me.
    So I am hopeful that while we are having this conversation 
and in many of our communities, Democratically represented, 
Republican represented, who benefited from that particular 
investment, well now they are going to be left behind if they 
are considered served and they don't qualify for this program. 
So I just wanted to highlight that area as well. And again, 
remind our colleagues, and I think we heard this consistently 
today, that there is no one size fits all approach to expanding 
broadband in any given community.
    So I very much appreciate the flexibility that you are 
approaching this in every community across the country and that 
we are able to lean on different technologies to get 
connectivity. Now, simply expanding broadband service to folks 
is of little help if people don't have the skills or resources 
to utilize it. So while there is emphasis for affordability in 
here, we need to make sure that we are helping to provide that 
support and technical teaching, if you will, across America.
    And so I am hopeful that there will be initiatives designed 
in those particular areas. From the low cost and rate 
regulation arguments, the ACP significantly expands eligibility 
for Lifeline and is a critical component to ensuring these 
billions of dollars being spent can actually be used by the 
communities they are meant to serve. Ensuring low cost options 
actually are low cost is not rate regulation.
    I am a former regulator. I served on the New Mexico Public 
Regulation Commission and oversaw many rate cases. In that 
case, it was with POTS, if anyone knows what that is. But with 
plain old telephone service compared to the connectivity today, 
I hope that everyone embraces this and understands it and 
recognize it was built into a piece of legislation that 
received overwhelming Democratic and Republican support in the 
Senate and in the House. We agreed to this.
    As someone said, this issue has been addressed. I certainly 
hope that we can see that because without that, there is going 
to be a lot of people left that don't have connectivity today. 
So I wanted to straighten that one out a little bit and offer 
my perspective at the very least. In the last area that 
received a lot of attention, I was raised in a union household, 
but a blue collar household.
    My father, while he served the people of New Mexico as a 
member of the State legislature, as a representative, he 
retired as an ironworker. He sadly passed because of the lack 
of some of those protections that were in place, and we lost 
him to a fight with lung cancer. But when I look at this and 
everything that I have read, research shows that prevailing 
wage laws boost worker productivity. We are talking about 
people's wages here. Regular folks that are out there working 
that are going to connect America. It is their wages.
    So when we talk about a prevailing wage that is how much 
someone makes an hour. They should have a good wage with a good 
job. That is what this bill promised to help foster. Prevailing 
wage laws benefit blue collar and middle income people. The 
family that I was raised in. In short, adopting a prevailing 
wage standard accomplishes the goals of the bipartisan 
infrastructure law by providing good paying jobs to the 
American work force.
    It will also bolster the broadband workforce, an area of 
significant need across the Nation, but especially in rural 
states. And so I am hopeful that by having that strong 
prevailing wage in states that are hard to connect or where we 
don't have that workforce established, this will establish it.
    And that is going to help us futureproof this as well. So I 
wanted to get that off my chest. I wanted to share a little bit 
about that. And that is the power of this thing that I have 
learned, so I appreciate having that gavel. But as I close, to 
close, Administrator Davidson, thank you and your staff for the 
work that they have already done.
    I want to thank you for being here today and being 
available, and the commitments you have already made to travel 
into different parts of the country given those demand. That 
means a lot and it shows how committed you are.
    Your testimony has helped demonstrate your agency's 
commitment to closing the digital divide, ensuring access to 
spectrum, and supporting secure, private, free, and open 
communications around the world.
    Now, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks 
until June 23, 2022. Any Senators that would like to submit 
questions for the record for the witness should do so by that 
date. Administrator Davidson, we ask that your responses be 
returned to the Committee by July 7, 2022, and that concludes 
today's hearing. Thank you, everybody.
    [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Rural Broadband Access. Many Georgians living in rural areas 
continue to lack access to high-speed Internet service or knowledge on 
how to use digital technology, making it difficult for them to 
participate in virtual learning, telehealth services, and economic 
opportunities. I believe that connecting these rural communities will 
be critical to closing the digital divide and expanding economic 
prosperity. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or the 
Act) (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL) provided 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with 
$2.75 billion to create grant programs that promote digital equity 
among populations that often lack broadband technologies or the skills 
to use them, many of which live in rural areas.

    Question 1. When will NTIA begin awarding these funds to states and 
localities so that they can work with rural Americans to improve 
digital equity and access?
    Answer. The deadline for applications to the Digital Equity 
Planning Grant Program was July 12, 2022. All 52 Eligible Entities (50 
states, DC and Puerto Rico) submitted applications. The four 
territories and hundreds of tribal nations submitted letters of Intent. 
Eligible Entities have begun receiving funds to develop their Digital 
Equity plans--on August 31, Louisiana became the first state to receive 
such funding. The planning period will run through 2023, at which point 
Eligible Entities will be able to submit capacity grant applications.

    Question 2. What steps has NTIA taken to reach out to state and 
local governments to ensure they are aware of these funding 
opportunities and the process for applying?
    Answer. Since January, NTIA staff has engaged frequently with a 
wide variety of stakeholders, including the state broadband offices, 
regarding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) programs. 
NTIA convenes the State Broadband Leaders Network (SBLN) twice a month 
and held three office hours sessions for Eligible Entities on the 
Digital Equity Planning grants to answer specific questions on the 
application process. There have been, and will be, office hours for 
both the Middle Mile and Broadband Equity, Access & Deployment (BEAD) 
programs as the application deadline gets closer. The State Broadband 
Leadership Network has had 22 virtual meetings and two in-person two-
day meetings, the first in March 2022 in Washington, DC, and the second 
in August, 2022 in Denver, CO. The next SBLN Summit is planned for 
February, 2023. For tribal specific outreach, NTIA held three Tribal 
consultations and a Tribal engagement webinar, four meetings of the 
state-tribal cohort, and presented to four Bureau of Indian Affairs 
regional office meetings on Tribal broadband opportunities. We have two 
additional Tribal consultations scheduled for October, 2022.
    NTIA also convenes the Digital Equity Leaders Network (DELN), a 
group of over 160 state, territory, county, and city staff who work in 
offices overseeing digital equity. NTIA has held nine DELN virtual 
meetings providing overviews of the IIJA programs and covering topics 
relevant to prospective applicants. NTIA hosts meetings of the State 
Broadband Leaders Network twice per month and held one in-person 
meeting following release of the NOFOs. NTIA also has hosted five 
public virtual listening sessions on the IIJA programs, five pre-NOFO 
webinars and 14 post-NOFO webinars focused on the BEAD program, the 
Digital Equity Act of 2021 and the Middle Mile Grant program. These 
webinars are open to the public. Twenty-six states and two territories 
attended the Pew Charitable Trusts Broadband Access Summit in June to 
connect and hear from NTIA Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson and 
members of the NTIA team. In addition, the NTIA Office of External 
Affairs has conducted extensive outreach to ensure that the public and 
targeted groups know about the IIJA programs. NTIA's goal is to 
maximize participation in these programs at all levels.

    Broadband Mapping Accuracy. NTIA and other Federal agencies that 
assist with the deployment of broadband infrastructure rely on the 
Federal Communications Commission's broadband maps. These maps are 
known to lack the granularity needed to accurately identify areas that 
are unserved. Georgia, a leader in broadband mapping, identified 
inaccuracies in the Federal broadband map that deemed certain 
communities as ``served'' when in fact their community had no access to 
broadband at all. Though I know the FCC is working with Federal 
agencies, state governments, and others to improve broadband maps, I 
believe these inaccuracies cause desperate communities to miss out on 
Federal funding opportunities and impede our efforts to close the 
digital divide.

    Question 3. As the FCC works to update its broadband maps, what 
will NTIA do to ensure its broadband programs accurately identify 
communities that are unserved?
    Answer. Under the IIJA, NTIA's new programs will rely on new maps 
that the FCC is in the process of creating. NTIA recognizes the 
importance of ensuring that the FCC's Broadband DATA Maps accurately 
identify unserved and underserved locations, and we are working closely 
with our colleagues at the FCC to assist them in any way possible. NTIA 
staff are engaging in outreach in partnership with the FCC to Internet 
service providers, encouraging them to file their data quickly. We also 
are actively engaged with states, territories, tribal governments, and 
other stakeholders, because we understand that they want to provide 
input as well. We will continue to support and amplify the FCC's 
efforts at every opportunity.

    Broadband Equity, Access & Deployment Program (BEAD). Broadband has 
become a critical aspect of daily life in America, from virtual 
learning and remote work to e-commerce and entertainment. Despite years 
of Federal funding from NTIA and other Federal agencies to support 
broadband deployment, millions of Americans still lack access to 
Internet service. I was proud to support the BIL, which provides $42.45 
billion for the BEAD Program at NTIA, to help connect unserved 
Americans with high-speed broadband service and close the digital 
divide.

    Question 4. In what ways do the FCC and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) broadband programs complement and interact with 
NTIA's work to deploy broadband in unserved areas through the BEAD 
Program?
    Answer. NTIA is working closely with Eligible Entities to help them 
``braid'' BEAD program funds with broadband deployment funds available 
not just from USDA, but from the FCC, the U.S. Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury), the Economic Development Administration, and other 
Federal agencies that fund broadband deployment.
    On May 12, 2022, NTIA, the FCC, USDA, and Treasury announced an 
interagency agreement to share information about and collaborate 
regarding the collection and reporting of certain data and metrics 
relating to broadband deployment. Under this Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU), respective Cabinet and Agency leaders regularly 
will consult with one another and share information on data collected 
from programs administered by the FCC, the USDA's Rural Utilities 
Service, programs administered or coordinated by NTIA, and Treasury's 
Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund and State and Local Fiscal Recovery 
Fund.

    Question 5. How will NTIA collaborate with other Federal agencies, 
such as FCC and USDA, to avoid duplicating broadband service in 
communities to help ensure more unserved areas will receive BEAD 
funding?
    Answer. The MOU referenced in Answer #1 is targeted at facilitating 
collaboration between the agencies in numerous areas of broadband 
buildout. As part of the agreement, each Federal agency partner shares 
information about projects that have received or will receive funding 
from the previously mentioned Federal funding sources.

    Question 6. Will NTIA solely consider the number of unserved 
locations when administering the BEAD Program? Or will NTIA factor in 
Federal funding commitments from other programs that have not yet led 
to broadband availability?
    Answer. The BEAD Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) 
explicitly requires Eligible Entities to factor in federal, state, and 
local funding commitments. As described in item 3 of section 
IV.B.7.a.ii of the BEAD Program NOFO, an Eligible Entity ``may not 
treat as `unserved' or `underserved' any location that is already 
subject to an enforceable federal, state, or local commitment to deploy 
qualifying broadband. , . .'' when it conducts its subgrantee selection 
process.

    Question 7. Will NTIA allow applicants to combine BEAD funding with 
other Federal dollars to expedite broadband deployment in unserved 
areas?
    Answer. Yes, to the extent permitted by law. Section 
60102(h)(3)(B)(ii) of the IIJA expressly provides that matching funds 
for the BEAD Program may come from a Federal regional commission or 
authority and from funds that were provided to an Eligible Entity or a 
subgrantee for the purpose of deploying broadband service under the 
Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127; 134 Stat. 
178); the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136; 134 Stat. 281), the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260; 134 Stat. 
1182); or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2; 135 
Stat. 4), to the extent permitted by those laws.

    Ligado Interference Risks. In 2020, the FCC made the controversial 
decision to approve Ligado's application to deploy broadband in the L-
Band. With the support of other Federal agencies and departments, NTIA 
asked the FCC to stay and reconsider the Ligado Order after concluding 
that Ligado's terrestrial deployment would disrupt critical GPS and 
satellite communication services and cause an unacceptable operational 
impact to government users. As you are also aware, Secretary of 
Commerce Gina Raimondo reiterated the Biden Administration's continued 
opposition to the Ligado Order. However, Ligado announced that it 
intends to begin deploying as soon as September 30th. I share the 
concerns of many that if Ligado proceeds with deploying and activating 
broadband in the L-Band, critical communications could be interrupted 
and jeopardize safety and security.

    Question 8. Could you provide an update on the steps that NTIA is 
taking to identify and resolve these interference concerns?
    Answer. As you note, NTIA, on behalf of the Executive Branch, filed 
a petition at the FCC for reconsideration of its order allowing Ligado 
to use the L-Band to operate terrestrially. That petition remains 
pending. Recently, on September 12, 2022, Ligado notified the FCC that 
it ``is not intending to move forward with its trial deployment in 
northern Virginia,'' which is the deployment referenced in your 
question. Ligado's voluntary cancellation of the trial deployment 
resolves concerns of interference from that trial deployment.

    Question 9. Given the Administration's clear view that the Ligado 
Order did not adequately assess the real-world risks of terrestrial 
operations in the L-band, do you believe the FCC should stay the Ligado 
Order before Ligado deploys?
    Answer. Following the FCC's issuance of the Ligado Order, NTIA 
filed a petition with the FCC requesting that it stay its decision 
because it believed that it was appropriate given the seriousness of 
the concerns that were raised. The FCC denied NTIA's stay petition. 
Since that time, NTIA has not sought a stay from the FCC because no 
terrestrial deployment by Ligado was imminent. As noted above, on 
September 12, 2022, Ligado notified the FCC that it ``is not intending 
to move forward with its trial deployment in northern Virginia.'' 
NTIA's petition of reconsideration for the Ligado Order remains 
pending.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
Internet Freedom/International Telecommunications Union.
    Question 1. What is the National Telecommunication and Information 
Administration doing to protect Internet freedom online in addition to 
supporting the nomination of Doreen Bogdan-Martin to be Secretary 
General of the International Telecommunication Union? How are you 
working with the Department of State and other Federal partners to 
coordinate on this effort?
    Answer. NTIA supports efforts to promote access to the Internet 
worldwide, while protecting Internet freedom in multistakeholder and 
multilateral forums such as the ITU, ICANN, and the International 
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO). In particular, NTIA 
helped launch the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, which 
upholds the principles of protecting human rights and fundamental 
freedoms of all people; promoting a global Internet that advances the 
free flow of information; advancing inclusive and affordable 
connectivity so that all people can benefit from the digital economy; 
promoting trust in the global digital ecosystem, including through 
protection of privacy; and protecting and strengthening the 
multistakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running 
for the benefit of all. NTIA accomplishes all of this work through its 
strong interagency relationships with the State Department, the FCC, 
USTR, the FTC, other Commerce bureaus, and others across the Federal 
government.

    Question 2. Projected Cost Models. NTIA is responsible for 
distributing $42 billion through the BEAD program. Other Federal 
agencies, like the FCC, have in the past provided estimates of how much 
it would cost to deploy broadband when distributing funding.
    Will the agency publish any tools or estimates of projected cost 
per location to help states determine the reasonableness of deployment 
proposals they receive? This would be helpful for Hawaii and other 
states to ensure broadband funds are used efficiently to provide 
connectivity.
    Answer. NTIA is actively evaluating tools that Eligible Entities 
can use to develop cost estimates and to evaluate proposals from 
prospective subgrantees. We will work with Eligible Entities on 
developing these tools during their planning grant process.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    FCC Broadband Maps. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment 
(BEAD) Program created in the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act 
(IIJA) will utilize Federal Communication Commission (FCC) maps to 
distribute broadband funding to states. The maps will be especially 
important for identifying unserved or underserved communities eligible 
for additional funding above base levels. Until the updated FCC maps 
are complete, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) has allowed states to use existing map data from 
the FCC and other entities for planning purposes.

    Question 1. What have you heard from entities who have attempted to 
use existing maps for planning purposes? In your opinion, will the new 
FCC maps properly document areas in Arizona that are underserved or 
unserved by broadband providers?
    Answer. We understand that several Eligible Entities are using 
their own data and commercially available data to start their planning 
processes. We expect that the FCC's Broadband DATA Maps, based on the 
FCC's new Broadband Data Collection, will mark a significant 
improvement over the previous maps, which were based on the FCC's Form 
477 data collection. NTIA agrees with Chairwoman Rosenworcel that 
``[t]he new Broadband Data Collection will tie together data from 
multiple sources to give us an accurate, detailed, and evolving picture 
of broadband availability that is much needed and long overdue.'' We 
encourage Eligible Entities to submit timely challenges if they believe 
that data in the maps is inaccurate so that these maps can 
expeditiously be improved.

    Fiber Prioritization. Last month, NTIA issued the BEAD Notice of 
Funding Opportunity. The notice prioritizes fiber connectivity 
projects, but stresses that states will have the flexibility to choose 
the broadband technology that is right for them. For some rural 
communities in Arizona, broadband technology other than traditional 
fiber may be more appropriate.

    Question 2. What steps will you take to ensure that NTIA's fiber 
prioritization rules will still permit and not impede the timely and 
efficient rollout of non-fiber projects?
    Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband 
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure 
that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical 
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will 
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs, 
consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
    The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant 
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for 
selecting subgrantees.
    Based on the statutory definition, NTIA determined that ``Priority 
Broadband Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic 
architecture. Only end-to-end fiber will ``ensure that the network 
built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet 
the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and 
``support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and 
other advanced services.'' Unfortunately, there will likely be 
locations for which an Eligible Entity does not receive a proposal to 
deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In such cases, the Eligible Entity 
may select any project proposing to use an alternative Reliable 
Broadband Service technology, meeting the BEAD Program's technical 
requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy of less than the 
Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
    If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD 
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of 
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given 
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a 
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does 
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise 
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.

    Tribal Broadband. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) 
and IIJA together provided $3 billion to the Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Program. At your confirmation hearing, I asked how you 
would approach administering the program. Since then, NTIA has awarded 
several grants through the Tribal Broadband Program, including a nearly 
$4.5 million grant to the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.

    Question 3. Can you provide any further updates on implementation 
of the Tribal Broadband Program? What metrics will NTIA use to assess 
the program's implementation?
    Answer. NTIA received more than 300 applications during the 
application window for over $5 billion in funding requests. Given the 
volume of requests and the significant need to quickly expand high-
speed Internet service on Tribal lands, NTIA has allocated $1 billion 
from the IIJA funding to the first round of Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Program (TBCP) funding, which was initiated by the $1 
billion appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. 
The total available for high-speed Internet grants as part of this 
first round of funding is now $1.96 billion. NTIA alerted Tribal 
entities who applied in June 2021 that there is no action required on 
their part and NTIA will continue to announce additional awards on a 
rolling basis as they move through NTIA's review process. Since then, a 
total of 95 awards have been made from the TBCP fund, totaling $1.35 
billion (as of October 19, 2022). NTIA will be releasing a new Notice 
of Funding Opportunity for the second round of funding covering the 
remaining $1 billion appropriation from IIJA.
    The program's goal is to fully connect all households in tribal 
lands to high-speed internet. Our primary metric for success will be 
how many households are connected using these funds.

    Workforce and Training. Staffing and implementation will play 
crucial roles in the success of BEAD and other IIJA telecommunications 
programs. Sens. Wicker, Scott, and I introduced the Improving Minority 
Participation and Careers in Telecommunications (IMPACT) Act. The 
IMPACT Act would create a NTIA-administered, $100 million grant program 
that would provide funds to Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, tribal colleges and universities, and minority-serving 
institutions to help develop the telecommunications workforce through 
education, apprenticeship, and training programs.

    Question 4. Given that we are pursuing a significant expansion of 
broadband into tribal communities and otherwise underserved or unserved 
communities, what role do you think training, recruiting, and retaining 
a diverse telecommunications workforce has in ensuring successful 
implementation of IIJA broadband programs? Could you elaborate on steps 
NTIA has taken to achieve such a workforce? Could our legislation 
supplement existing NTIA programs, including the Connection Minority 
Communities Pilot Program?
    Answer. In order to build out broadband to every corner of the 
country, we're going to need a highly skilled, diverse workforce that 
can safely do their jobs. NTIA is participating in the 
Telecommunications Workforce Interagency Group (TWIG), as established 
under the IIJA, along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 
the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Education. The 
working group held its first meeting on March 8, 2022, and has since 
made progress toward identifying the current and future needs of the 
telecommunications industry workforce.
    In addition, NTIA is engaging in outreach and technical assistance 
activities to help Eligible Entities, territories, and their political 
subdivisions prepare and plan for use of funds through the BEAD 
program, by encouraging coordination with Eligible Entities' 
telecommunications workforce development plans. All planning and 
project efforts funded under the Digital Equity Act are intended to 
promote activities that advance digital equity, digital inclusion, and 
workforce development initiatives, and the Department will engage in 
outreach and technical assistance activities to help Eligible Entities 
and their political subdivisions prepare to seek funding and plan for 
use of funds (including uses relating to workforce development). The 
Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program is also investing in 
building a diverse IT workforce at HBCUs, tribal colleges and 
universities, and minority serving institutions. The five grants 
awarded as of August 2022 as part of the program all invest in IT staff 
and digital workforce capacity.

    Broadband Deployment on Public Lands. Arizona contains 22 sites 
operated by the National Park Service and six national forests, along 
with over 12 million acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management. My office has heard concerns that some Federal agencies may 
not have the necessary resources required to process all of the 
expected permit requests for the deployment of wireless and wired 
communications projects supported by the IIJA on Federal lands.

    Question 5. How does NTIA plan to address this potential issue from 
a time and resources perspective?
    Answer. This has been a complex issue for the Federal government--
and state and local governments--for decades. We recognize the 
importance of removing unnecessary barriers faced by the entities that 
are going to build the networks required to achieve our goal of 
universal, affordable, high-speed Internet access, and we are working 
closely across the Administration and land-management agencies to 
identify pain points and solutions.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Topic. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the NTIA's work to 
provide high-quality service for our Tribes and Pueblos. I would like 
to ask a few additional questions about the Tribal Broadband 
Connectivity Program.
    Unfortunately, Congress created a double standard for this program 
that sets a lower standard in Native communities than in the rest of 
the country. Current law says the minimum speed for Tribal grants is 25 
megabits down over 3 megabits up, while broadband funding in the rest 
of the country cannot go below 100 over 20. These statutory 
requirements are not equitable for our Tribal communities in New 
Mexico, and while I know you will administer these programs fairly and 
effectively, it is vital that we address any statutory barriers that 
continue to put our Tribes and Pueblos at a disadvantage.

    Question 1. Yes or No, can I count on you to help identify areas 
where Congress can update the law so that broadband programs meet the 
intended goals?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 2. Will the NTIA open the TBCP to additional applicants 
beyond the more than 300 applicants that applied for the initial $980 
million?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 3. Would the NTIA provide my office with the list of 
Tribes and Pueblos from New Mexico and Navajo Nation Chapters that 
applied for TBCP grants during the initial application window?
    Answer. In keeping with the Department of Commerce practices for 
grantmaking and to respect the business privacy of unsuccessful 
applicants, we do not release the names of unsuccessful applicants for 
Department of Commerce grant programs. We will continue to announce the 
organizations that are receiving awards on a rolling basis.

    Question 4. In a March 18, 2022, virtual Tribal Consultation 
regarding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), NTIA 
stated that some Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) 
applications had already been denied on merit review because they had 
not met the scoring threshold for funding. How many? Have these Tribes 
been notified? If not, when will they be notified?
    Answer. While notifications have begun, the process is still 
ongoing. We have, as of October 19, 2022, announced 95 TBCP grants 
totaling $1.35 billion of funding. We expect all notifications will be 
complete in the coming months. Given the volume of requests and the 
significant need to quickly expand high-speed Internet service on 
Tribal lands, NTIA allocated $1 billion from the IIJA funding to the 
first round of TBCP funding under the current Notice of Funding 
Opportunity. The total available for high-speed Internet grants as part 
of TBCP first round of funding is now $1.96 billion. NTIA alerted 
Tribal entities who applied to the June 2021 Notice of Funding 
Opportunity that there is no action required on their part and NTIA 
will continue to announce additional awards on a rolling basis as they 
move through NTIA's review process. We intend to publish the second 
Notice of Funding Opportunity, sourced by the remaining IIJA funds, by 
the end of 2022.

    Topic. As I have mentioned, New Mexico is currently facing some of 
the worst wildfires in our state's history. I am heartened that the 
NOFO references the importance of building resilient networks in 
response to global warming and increasing severity of natural 
disasters. Disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods affect the 
constituents of every member of this Committee sitting here today. Due 
to the effects of climate change, these kinds of events are only 
becoming more frequent.

    Question 5. Will state plans be able to prioritize infrastructure 
that has been destroyed in a disaster?
    Answer. To the extent the FCC's broadband map shows a location or 
groups of locations as being unserved as a result of a natural 
disaster, the state will be permitted--and, indeed, required--to ensure 
provision of reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband to those 
locations. IIJA's BEAD provision does not contemplate a scenario in 
which a state can accelerate the deployment of service to such 
locations. Under the law as passed, each state must run a competitive 
process to make subgrants for the deployment of broadband service, and 
that process needs to be approved by NTIA.

    Topic. In the BEAD program guidance, broadband providers are 
required to provide broadband service on terms that are ``reasonable 
and non-discriminatory''. I am glad this provision was included and 
encourage you to go as far as possible in ensuring broadband providers 
receiving this historic funding are held to high standards in how they 
treat their customers. Earlier this year, I sent letters to eight 
national ISPs to better understand how they handle customers' data.
    This is a critical issue. Unlike competitive industries, most 
Americans--particularly those in rural parts of New Mexico--don't get 
to choose their ISP. They have only one option for home broadband. They 
are effectively forced into agreeing to a single provider's terms and 
conditions. No one should be forced to surrender their privacy and 
personal information for an essential service like a home broadband 
connection.

    Question 6. How does NTIA ensure providers protect the privacy of 
our constituents on federally funded networks?
    Answer. Protecting individual privacy while promoting the 
innovation that drives the digital economy is a priority for this 
Administration. NTIA will work with Eligible Entities and Federal 
regulators to ensure that subgrantees meet their current obligations 
under the law, including any requirements set forth by the FCC, or 
applicable state laws. NTIA is also engaged in a workstream focused on 
the intersection of privacy, equity, and civil rights, given the Biden 
Administration's dedication to eradicating structural inequity, and the 
disproportionate impact of privacy invasions on marginalized 
communities.

    Topic. Thank you for mentioning the work you and Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel have done on the Spectrum Coordination Initiative to ensure 
a ``whole-of-government'' approach to spectrum policy, including making 
updates to the interagency Memorandum of Understanding for the first 
time in 20 years. Over the past few years, challenges in coordinating 
Federal users with commercial spectrum interests have caused major 
disruptions in wireless infrastructure deployment. I'm glad that a 
number of my colleagues have brought up this essential issue, 
highlighting that there is strong support on both sides of the aisle 
for reforming this process. Senators Wicker, Thune, Blackburn and I 
have been working to ensure there is a statutory framework in place so 
that we will never go 20 years without updates to this process.

    Question 7. Not only the FCC, but also Congress, relies on NTIA to 
identify Federal spectrum that might be made available for other uses 
including licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Which spectrum bands is 
NTIA evaluating, and how can Congress help ensure that spectrum is used 
effectively and to the best interest of the public?
    Answer. NTIA's primary focus for making more spectrum available for 
non-federal use is the 3.1-3.45 GHz band. In the IIJA, Congress 
directed the Department of Defense to study the band for the possible 
auction of some or all of it. The wireless industry has identified this 
mid band spectrum range as vital for future 5G deployments, especially 
as it is adjacent to the 3.45 -3.55 GHz band that was auctioned last 
year. The 3.1-3.45 GHz band has the potential to add hundreds of 
billions of dollars of activity to the national economy, and it is 
unclear how soon we might have another opportunity of this magnitude. 
NTIA is also leading the development of a National Spectrum strategy 
that will help shape future spectrum decisions and ensure that spectrum 
is used effectively. I thank this Committee for its leadership in 
supporting NTIA's work to ensure spectrum is put to its best use.

    Topic. For the BEAD program to truly succeed, we need to ensure 
small, local providers who have been serving their communities are set 
up to successfully compete with large national carriers. I have heard 
some concerns from competitive rural carriers around certain provisions 
in the initial guidance regarding certain specific requirements.
    It is my understanding that there is more clarification to come on 
some of these issues such as the specific requirements for matching 
funds, providing letters of credit, and addressing supply chain 
interruptions, and I look forward to seeing those clarifications as 
they are made available.

    Question 8. In future guidance, how will NTIA ensure that local 
broadband providers are able to compete with national providers on a 
level field?
    Answer. It is critical to the BEAD Program's success that all 
providers identified by the statute be able to compete for funding on a 
level playing field. The IIJA directs Eligible Entities consider a wide 
range of applicants. As the NOFO states, we are urging Eligible 
Entities not to adopt any new restrictions on municipal providers, and 
to waive any pre-existing restrictions. In its initial proposal, a 
state or territory must identify any existing restrictions, whether it 
will waive them, and, if not, how they will affect applications from 
municipal providers. BEAD NOFO IV.B.5.b.18. In the final proposal, the 
state or territory must tell us how any such restrictions affected any 
unsuccessful applicant for a subgrant. BEAD NOFO IV.B.9.b.16. Our goal 
here is to help ensure that Eligible Entities respect the statutory 
requirement that these providers have a fair opportunity to 
participate.

    Question 9. Can you provide a timeline on when we can expect 
further clarifying guidance on letters of credit and matching funds, as 
well as any other topics?
    Answer. Since the BEAD NOFO was released, NTIA has been working 
tirelessly to draft and release guidance on a broad range of topics. We 
have responded to scores of inquiries, held webinars and listening 
sessions, and compiled and published responses to Frequently Asked 
Questions. This work will continue into the coming weeks, months, and 
years. I cannot cite a particular timeline for guidance; however, NTIA 
has answered a range of stakeholder questions regarding letters of 
credit and matching funds, and has issued multiple FAQs. I promise that 
we will continue to provide timely and relevant information to help 
ensure that providers falling into all of the categories identified in 
the statute are able to compete for BEAD funding.

    Topic. It is Congress' intent to provide NTIA with every tool it 
needs to complete the mission it was tasked with in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act. It's critical the administration meet this 
moment, and there is bipartisan mobilization to make that happen.

    Question 10. Does NTIA have all the necessary authorities it needs 
to ensure the funding from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment 
Program connects all Americans to high-quality, affordable broadband 
service?
    Answer. We believe we have all the authority we need to implement 
the BEAD Program and achieve our goal, which is to ensure the provision 
of high-speed, reliable, affordable broadband to all unserved 
Americans.

    Topic. Regions are not bound by state lines--El Paso is less than 
an hour from Las Cruces, and the communities between the two cities 
share many similarities. Providers are often well-versed at operating 
across state lines in regions on the New Mexico-Texas border, and can 
benefit from coordinating their activities across state lines. I 
understand that with BEAD money flowing through states, there may be 
some barriers to creating successful projects that are in multiple 
states.

    Question 11. How does NTIA plan to facilitate regional coalitions 
and projects that cross state lines, given that funding will be 
disbursed directly by states?
    Answer. As you note, the statute calls for funding to be disbursed 
by the Eligible Entities and gives each Eligible Entity a great deal of 
authority to structure its own BEAD grant framework. We agree that 
there are many opportunities for Eligible Entities to collaborate, 
particularly when they share common borders. NTIA is happy to work with 
Eligible Entities to facilitate such collaboration. Eligible Entities 
may take steps to align their frameworks to better serve their 
populations, so long as those frameworks are consistent with IIJA's 
requirements and the parameters set out in the BEAD NOFO.
                                 ______
                                 
 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Topic. The First Responder Network (FirstNet) Authority is 
responsible for operating a communications network dedicated to first 
responders nationwide. This network is vital to first responders and 
public safety organizations nationwide, and in Colorado, is especially 
important to firefighters combating wildfires.
    In February, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a 
report on FirstNet highlighting that the spectrum license held by 
FirstNet for network deployment and operation needs to be renewed by 
the FCC this November, and the FirstNet Authority will sunset in 2027 
without a re-authorization.
    I intend to work on a bipartisan bill to ensure network continuity 
and improve wireless communications for our first responders.

    Question 1. Administrator Davidson, can you describe your 
priorities with respect to FirstNet to ensure it provides resilient and 
reliable services to our first responders?
    Answer. P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority 
(FirstNet Authority) as an independent authority within NTIA and 
charged the FirstNet Authority with ensuring the building, deployment, 
and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband 
network (NPSBN). NTIA manages specific activities undertaken by the 
FirstNet Authority, including the review of annual fee collection; 
FirstNet Authority's overall programmatic, financial, and operational 
performance; and delegated responsibility to support Secretary Raimondo 
with her appointment of non-permanent FirstNet Authority Board members.
    FirstNet is building a track record of success in responding to 
various public safety issues, including wildfires, a critical issue in 
Colorado. FirstNet's deployable assets were a key component of the 
public safety response to the Marshall Fire in Boulder County, Colorado 
in December 2021. This wildfire devastated approximately 6,000 acres 
and destroyed over a thousand homes. Despite significant fire damage to 
the local fiber infrastructure, FirstNet's fleet of dedicated mobile 
deployable assets was able to rapidly ensure communications resiliency 
for firefighters and other public safety officials. This included a 
cache of over 100 devices handed out to state and local first 
responders, giving these individuals immediate priority access to the 
FirstNet network to assist with their response to the emergency. 
FirstNet also supported the response at the incident command post and 
the Emergency Operations Center during the incident. As a result of its 
contributions, the FirstNet Authority was recently recognized with a 
formal commendation by the Boulder County Sheriff's Office for their 
swift support, assisting Colorado's first responders to successfully 
conduct their mission to save lives and property that impacted so many.
    I am proud of the work that the FirstNet Authority has been able to 
accomplish to date and support their work to continue to improve 
resilient and reliable communications for your constituents in Colorado 
and our Nation's first responders. I look forward to working with you 
in our shared interest to ensure network continuity and improve 
wireless communications for public safety.

    Topic. Cybersecurity is a major threat to our national and economic 
security. As a result, I introduced the bipartisan NTIA Policy 
Development and Cybersecurity Act to strengthen the work of NTIA in 
cybersecurity.
    NTIA recently released its ``Software Bill of Materials'' guidance, 
which includes a detailed list of software components to ensure digital 
products are secure.

    Question 2. Administrator Davidson, could you discuss how the 
initiatives NTIA is carrying out will improve our Nation's 
cybersecurity posture and defenses?
    Answer. The multistakeholder community involved in the Software 
Bill of Materials (SBOM) process took the idea that an ``ingredients 
list'' for software should be available to software administrators and 
made it a key part of the global agenda around software supply chains. 
When a new vulnerability or risk is discovered, a Software Bill of 
Materials can help any organization realize whether it or its customers 
might be at risk. SBOM was featured in the Cybersecurity Executive 
Order, and NTIA published the Minimum Elements for an SBOM last summer. 
NTIA is continuing to engage as the U.S. government works on new 
language for the Federal Acquisition Regulation focusing on 
cybersecurity and incident reporting. NTIA also continues to promote 
SBOM in our supply chain work. Furthermore, as we work to enable a more 
virtualized communications ecosystem to expand and improve our 5G 
footprint, transparency in software will be an important building block 
for security.
    NTIA emphasizes the importance of effective cybersecurity and 
supply chain security risk management under the IIJA broadband grant 
programs. NTIA, in coordination with NIST, has developed cybersecurity 
and supply chain security requirements for grant applicants under each 
of the IIJA's broadband programs. Additionally, NTIA offers state 
broadband offices technical assistance on such issues, including 
increasing the redundancy and resiliency of the country's broadband 
networks, other commercial telecommunications services, protection of 
other critical national infrastructure (e.g., the national power grid 
and power transmission facilities), border security, or other physical 
infrastructure sensor and monitoring.
    Further, in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 
2019, Congress tasked NTIA with establishing a program to share 
security risk information with small and rural communications providers 
and suppliers of communications equipment. Through the Communications 
Supply Chain Risk Information Partnership (C-SCRIP), NTIA coordinates 
with other relevant Federal agencies to share both classified and 
unclassified security risk information and resources with those 
providers and suppliers (small and rural) that have traditionally 
lacked access to such information. Cybersecurity resources from across 
the Federal government are available on the C-SCRIP website. The C-
SCRIP program will be a key mechanism for NTIA's high-speed Internet 
grant programs cybersecurity-related activities as well. C-SCRIP 
presented a webinar on the high-speed Internet grant programs and on 
the NIST Cybersecurity Framework to our stakeholders on August 8.
    NTIA also is the Department of Commerce representative to the 
Vulnerabilities Equities Process, which governs how the Federal 
government will choose to disclose to the vendor community, or retain 
for exclusive government use, any vulnerability for which it becomes 
aware.
    Finally, NTIA is the Executive Branch expert on policy issues 
relating to the Domain Name System (DNS) and can work within its 
interagency and industry partnerships to assess impacts to the DNS. We 
further work within the interagency to help develop policies that 
relate to the security of the Internet, and our telecommunications 
infrastructure such as undersea cable networks.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. I am concerned that allocating money to states before 
the Federal Communications Commission finishes resolving challenges to 
its Broadband DATA Act map could lead to NTIA misallocating money among 
the states.

   Will you commit to waiting for the FCC to resolve challenges 
        to its broadband map before allocating BEAD money to states?

   If you cannot commit, how will NTIA address inaccuracies in 
        the FCC's maps without waiting for the challenges to be 
        completed? Won't this mean some states will not receive the 
        correct allocation of funds? Please explain.

    Answer. The IIJA directs the Assistant Secretary, in coordination 
with the Commission, to allocate BEAD funds amongst the Eligible 
Entities once the broadband DATA maps are made public. I agree that 
accurate mapping data is vital, and that the FCC's challenge 
processes--both for the Fabric and for provider data submitted in 
conjunction with the new Broadband Data Collection--are critical to 
improving their accuracy. I note, however, that the FCC's challenge 
processes are ongoing and the accuracy of the maps will improve over 
time. We are working closely with our colleagues at the FCC to 
determine how best to balance the need to provide certainty regarding 
the amounts to be allocated to the Eligible Entities in a timely manner 
against the need to allow the FCC, Eligible Entities, and providers to 
review and validate the content of the maps. We encourage states and 
others to submit timely challenges if they believe that data in the 
maps is inaccurate so that these maps can expeditiously be improved.

    Question 2. NTIA recently released a document on Frequently Asked 
Questions for the BEAD Program. In it, NTIA states that it will use the 
FCC's broadband maps to allocate funds to states, but that an Eligible 
Entity ``can incorporate information from its own mapping data . . . 
prior to awarding subgrants for broadband deployment.''

   What type of information and mapping data are states 
        permitted to incorporate? Will you require states to identify 
        the additional data they use? How will you ensure its accuracy?

   How does permitting states to include this data comply with 
        the IIJA's requirements that unserved and underserved locations 
        be based on the FCC's Broadband DATA Act maps and the Notice of 
        Funding Opportunity's requirement that states use the most up-
        to-date Broadband DATA Act maps when determining unserved and 
        underserved locations?

   Will NTIA permit a state to use this information as a 
        substitute for the most up-to-date Broadband DATA Act map?

   Will NTIA require states to base their subgrant decisions on 
        the FCC's Broadband DATA Act maps? (While still accounting for 
        enforceable funding commitments from other programs.)

    Answer. By statute, the FCC's Broadband DATA Act will be used to 
identify the universe of unserved and underserved locations that each 
Eligible Entity will put out for bid during their subgrantee selection 
process. Section 60102(h)(2) requires Eligible Entities to ``ensure a 
transparent, evidence-based, and expeditious challenge process under 
which a unit of local government, nonprofit organization, or other 
broadband service provider can challenge a determination made by the 
Eligible Entity in the initial proposal as to whether a particular 
location or community anchor institution within the jurisdiction of the 
Eligible Entity is eligible for the grant funds, including whether a 
particular location is unserved or underserved.'' The BEAD NOFO directs 
Eligible Entities to ``update the data provided in their Initial 
Proposal to reflect the most recently published version of the 
Broadband DATA Maps available as of the initiation of the challenge 
process.''
    Eligible Entities are required to include a detailed plan for their 
challenge process as part of their Initial Proposal, which should 
include descriptions of the types of evidence that the Eligible Entity 
may consider as part of that challenge process. NTIA will review each 
of these proposals, and the Assistant Secretary may modify the 
challenge process proposed by the Eligible Entity as necessary.
    Upon conclusion of the challenge process, each Eligible Entity must 
notify NTIA of any modifications to the Initial Proposal that are 
necessitated by successful challenges to its initial determinations. 
Pursuant to the discretionary authority granted to the Assistant 
Secretary in the IIJA, NTIA may reverse the determination of an 
Eligible Entity with respect to the eligibility of a particular 
location or community anchor institution.
    NTIA has worked and will continue to work closely with each 
Eligible Entity on ensuring that the challenge process required under 
Section 60102(h)(2) is transparent, evidence-based, and expeditious.

    Question 3. In IIJA, Congress addressed broadband affordability by 
requiring providers receiving subgrants from states to include low-cost 
broadband options, and by providing $14 billion to the FCC's Affordable 
Connectivity Program.

   Given these provisions, why is NTIA requiring states to 
        address middle class affordability? Where in the IIJA does NTIA 
        find authority for this requirement?

   How will NTIA define what constitutes ``middle-class 
        affordability''?

   Will NTIA approve state plans that rely on market forces to 
        determine the price of a low-cost broadband service option and 
        the middle-class affordability plan? If not, please explain why 
        not.

   Would a state requirement that subgrantees offer a low-cost, 
        high-speed plans to all middle class householders on BEAD 
        funded networks be de facto rate regulation?

    Wouldn't NTIA's approval of any such plans be impermissible rate 
regulation? If not, please explain why not.
    Answer. The IIJA states that ``[a]ccess to affordable, reliable, 
high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life 
in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he persistent `digital divide' in 
the United States is a barrier to'' the Nation's ``economic 
competitiveness
    [and the] equitable distribution of essential public services, 
including health care and education.'' We agree, and believe it is 
essential that communications networks be accessible and affordable to 
all Americans. Thus, while the IIJA's low-cost service option 
requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-income 
Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that service is 
affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the 
IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose 
plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO expressly 
refrains from defining that term, because its answer might differ from 
state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to the 
Eligible Entities in the first instance.
    Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms a state must employ 
to ensure middle-class affordability. Again, this is a question for 
Eligible Entities to address in the first instance.

    Question 4. NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity includes a number 
of provisions that favor ``non-traditional'' broadband providers over 
traditional ones. These include asking states to waive prohibitions on 
these providers and requiring states to explain why they chose a 
traditional provider over a non-traditional one.

   Why is NTIA favoring non-traditional providers, rather than 
        letting the competitive process play out?

   Is it NTIA's position that non-traditional broadband 
        providers have a stronger and more extensive record at 
        successfully and cost-effectively deploying broadband networks 
        and connecting Americans than traditional providers? Please 
        explain.

   Do you have any concerns about NTIA encouraging states to 
        support non-traditional providers that lack a proven record for 
        operating a broadband network? If not, please explain why not.

    Answer. There is no preference for non-traditional providers in the 
statute or the BEAD NOFO. Rather, our framework follows the statutory 
directive that the BEAD program must support a wide mix of provider 
types. With regard to non-traditional providers, the NOFO asks Eligible 
Entities to explain how non-traditional providers were affected by any 
state laws designed to restrict such providers' operations, and why 
applications from such providers were rejected. The NOFO does not take 
any view with respect to the relative performance of traditional and 
non-traditional providers and does not suggest that non-traditional 
providers should be given any advantages in the process. Nor do we 
encourage Eligible Entities to support non-traditional providers 
without a proven track record. To the contrary, the NOFO includes 
robust provisions requiring that any subgrantee--traditional or non-
traditional--demonstrate its technical, operational, financial, and 
managerial capability to deploy and operate the network for which it 
seeks funding.

    Question 5. The IIJA required NTIA to use specific criteria to 
determine what constitutes ``Reliable Broadband Service.'' In its NOFO, 
NTIA determined that ``Reliable Broadband Service'' must be (1) a fixed 
broadband service that (2) is available with a high degree of 
certainty, (3) both at present and for the foreseeable future.'' 
However, NTIA did not recognize broadband service using entirely 
unlicensed spectrum as ``Reliable Broadband Service.'' The FCC, through 
programs like CAF Phase II and RDOF, has made significant awards to 
ISPs that utilize entirely unlicensed spectrum to deliver quality high-
speed broadband. For years, fixed wireless companies have been using 14 
Gigahertz of unlicensed spectrum in the 57-71 GHz band to provide 
Gigabit per second download and upload speeds. And in April 2020, the 
FCC allocated another 850 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum in the 6 GHz 
band for standard power outdoor operations.
    Please explain how these networks that serve more than 9 million 
Americans do not meet the criteria NTIA adopted for defining ``Reliable 
Broadband Service.''
    Answer. The NOFO does not take the view that any particular 
technology--including fixed wireless relying on unlicensed spectrum--is 
incapable of providing reliable service to consumers today. As you 
note, providers are currently providing such service to end users. The 
IIJA defines the term ``Reliable Broadband Service'' to encompass 
factors such as ``adaptability to changing end-user requirements'' and 
``length of serviceable life.'' The BEAD Program represents a once-in-
a-generation opportunity to deploy broadband to the unserved, and we 
must consider a network's reliable provision of broadband today, and 
its reliability for the next 20 years or more. Because unlicensed 
spectrum is susceptible to debilitating harmful interference and 
because operators can lose access to the spectrum on which the network 
relies with little or no warning, such service cannot be considered 
available with a high degree of certainty both at present and for the 
foreseeable future.
    Notwithstanding the above, if no Reliable Broadband Service 
technology meeting the BEAD Program's technical requirements would be 
deployable for a subsidy of less than the Extremely High Cost Per 
Location Threshold at a given location, each state is authorized to 
select a proposal involving a less costly technology for that location, 
even if that technology does not meet the definition of Reliable 
Broadband Service but otherwise satisfies the Program's technical 
requirements. For example, if in an Extreme High Cost Per Location 
area, an unlicensed spectrum system offers speeds of 100 Mbps 
downstream/20 Mbps upstream, that system might receive funding.

    Question 6. Assistant Secretary Davidson, we have seen several 
spectrum related disputes among Federal agencies in recent years.

   Can you tell us how you intend to improve the relationship 
        between NTIA and Federal agencies, and ensure that the FCC has 
        the appropriate information in the record when making decisions 
        related to Federal spectrum?

   Can you discuss the biggest challenges to coordination with 
        the FCC on spectrum management? How can this relationship be 
        improved? Are there additional tools that would be helpful?

    Answer. I believe we have a strong foundation for working with 
other Federal agencies. Earlier, this year, the FCC and NTIA announced 
a Spectrum Coordination Initiative to improve U.S. government 
coordination on spectrum management. As a result, my staff and I meet 
regularly with FCC staff to address spectrum issues. We have updated 
our Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC, which will strengthen 
cooperation and collaboration between the agencies and help advance a 
whole-of-government approach to how we use and manage one of the 
Nation's most important resources. We are also making headway to 
improve the technical exchange and engagement with industry and other 
Federal agencies. For example, NTIA is participating in the Partnering 
to Advance Trusted and Holistic Spectrum Solutions (PATHSS) working 
group of the National Spectrum Consortium.
    The centerpiece of our engagement with other Federal agencies is 
the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which is the 
oldest such advisory committee in the Federal government and is 
celebrating its centennial this year. We are working to strengthen the 
IRAC to ensure greater transparency such that Federal agency input on 
spectrum decisions is provided earlier and more meaningfully by, for 
example, revising the NTIA-FCC MOU to allow 20 days' prior notice to 
the FCC of final spectrum actions. We additionally are reinvigorating 
our Policy Plans and Steering Group (PPSG). NTIA and FCC staff also 
participate as observers on advisory committees exploring spectrum-
related issues including FCC staff on NTIA's Commerce Spectrum 
Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC), and NTIA staff on the FCC's 
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) and the Communications Security, 
Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC).
    Since I assumed the role of NTIA Administrator, I made it one of my 
top priorities to strengthen the working relationship between the NTIA 
and the FCC. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and I meet regularly and 
are making significant progress on a variety of issues. We are seeing a 
revitalization of this historically strong relationship.

    Question 7. In April, Secretary Raimondo testified before this 
Committee about the Spectrum Coordination Initiative between NTIA and 
the FCC. She mentioned that NTIA is increasing its presence in the 
interagency spectrum process, but emphasized that NTIA needs to be 
``elevated'' in interagency discussions.

   Do you agree with that? And, how can Congress help to 
        elevate and reinforce NTIA's statutory spectrum management role 
        among other Federal agencies?

   Secretary Raimondo also testified that we need ``an 
        administration-wide, government-wide spectrum strategy.'' Is 
        that spectrum strategy something NTIA is actively working to 
        develop? If so, when can we expect that strategy to be 
        completed and made available to Congress to review?

    Answer. Yes. Commerce Secretary Raimondo noted that NTIA is 
committed to fulfilling its statutory obligations to lead the Federal 
spectrum management process. NTIA has the responsibility to manage 
Federal agency use of spectrum and this is a responsibility I take 
seriously. I very much appreciate Congressional recognition of these 
responsibilities. In terms of Congressional help, I appreciate Senator 
Wicker's and Senator Thune's efforts to advance NTIA reauthorization 
language. Reauthorizing NTIA is one way Congress can elevate and 
reinforce our spectrum management role.
    Efforts are being made to collaborate on a whole-of-government 
national spectrum strategy and create a framework to support long-term 
spectrum planning and coordination. We are still in the early stages of 
these efforts.

    Question 8. The FCC's spectrum auction authority expires at the end 
of September. I hope this Committee will consider legislative proposals 
to extend the agency's authority. That said, there is currently 
bipartisan legislation in the House to extend the FCC's auction 
authority for 18 months. This short-term extension would give Congress 
time to develop a spectrum pipeline that sets a timeline for auctioning 
a series of spectrum bands in the coming years. Do you support the 
bipartisan legislation in the House that would extend the FCC's auction 
authority for 18 months? And, how would extending the FCC's auction 
authority help NTIA in developing a strong and competitive national 
spectrum strategy?
    Answer. NTIA recognizes that FCC's auction authority was extended 
through December 16, 2022 as part of the Continuing Resolution and is a 
vital component of our national spectrum management framework. NTIA 
supports providing certainty to the FCC's ability to conduct spectrum 
auctions, because it will help both NTIA and FCC support broad national 
priorities related to efficient and effective spectrum management. NTIA 
has undertaken development of a national spectrum strategy that will 
provide a way of developing a pipeline consistent with agency statutory 
missions and needs.

    Question 9. Last fall, Senator Thune and I introduced the NTIA 
Reauthorization and Reform Act. This legislation would reauthorize NTIA 
for the first time since 1992. It also includes a number of provisions, 
including one that would elevate the NTIA Administrator from Assistant 
Secretary to Undersecretary. I know your staff has reviewed this bill.

   Do you support the NTIA Reauthorization and Reform Act?

   Would you like to see the committee advance this 
        legislation?

    Answer. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, Senator Thune, 
and your staffs on your legislation and to offer our technical 
assistance.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. The NOFO for the BEAD program assumes that middle-class 
affordability is an issue that NTIA has the authority to address. 
Please provide the provision in the statute that authorizes NTIA to 
require states to address broadband affordability for the middle-class 
in particular and any studies that were relied upon that indicate that 
broadband affordability is an issue for the middle-class.
    Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA states that ``[a]ccess to 
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full 
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he 
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the 
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of 
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We 
believe it is essential that communications networks be accessible and 
affordable to all Americans. IIJA's low-cost service option requirement 
is important for ensuring affordability for low-income Americans, but 
that requirement alone will not ensure that service is affordable for 
middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the IIJA's clearly 
stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose plans for 
promoting middle-class affordability.

    Question 2. NTIA is supposed to speak for the entire Executive 
Branch on Federal spectrum issues; however, NTIA's decisions and 
authority in certain spectrum cases have been called into question. 
This has led to Federal agencies communicating directly with the FCC 
rather than collectively through NTIA. Do you think it's helpful when 
multiple Federal agencies talk directly to the FCC rather than allow 
NTIA to communicate the entire Administration's position on a spectrum 
issue? What steps is NTIA taking to improve its communication with 
other Federal agencies as it relates to their spectrum needs?
    Answer. NTIA has the statutory obligation to represent the 
Executive Branch before the FCC on spectrum and telecommunications 
matters. This is an important job. When this process is not followed, 
consequences emerge that can undermine the effectiveness of all 
parties. We are actively working to ensure that other Federal agencies 
recognize NTIA's statutory role, and we are engaging with other Federal 
agencies so that we at NTIA are educated early enough in the process to 
be an effective advocate for all Federal missions--many of which are 
statutorily mandated. Additionally, NTIA is leading the development of 
and working collaboratively with all relevant agencies on a whole-of-
government national spectrum strategy that takes into account Federal 
and non-federal needs and forges deeper interagency cooperation and 
coordination.
    Additionally, on February 15, 2022, the FCC and NTIA announced a 
new initiative to improve U.S. government coordination on spectrum 
management. The Spectrum Coordination Initiative will involve actions 
by both agencies to strengthen the processes for decision making, 
information sharing, and to work cooperatively to resolve spectrum 
policy issues. On August 2, 2022, NTIA and the FCC published an updated 
Memorandum of Understanding on spectrum coordination. This MOU will 
strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the agencies and help 
advance a whole-of-government approach to how we use and manage one of 
the Nation's most important resources. Key aspects of the MOU include 
formalized high-level planning, coordination, data sharing, and clear 
processes for dispute resolution.

    Question 3. NTIA plays a critical role within the Executive Branch 
to ensure that agencies responsible for broadband permits are acting in 
a timely fashion, and with all the money going out the door, it is 
going to be even more important for providers to have permits processed 
in an efficient manner.
    As you know, the MOBILE NOW Act created a 270 day shot clock for 
agencies to act on telecommunications applications. What is NTIA doing 
to further streamline broadband permitting on Federal lands? How is 
NTIA encouraging agencies to prioritize permit reviews? Should the 270 
day shot clock be shortened.
    Answer. We are working closely across the Administration and with 
land-management agencies to identify pain points and potential 
solutions. NTIA is responsible for coordinating with other agencies to 
implement the broadband permitting reforms called for in the MOBILE NOW 
Act, which include developing application tracking procedures, speeding 
application reviews and approvals, expediting renewals, and 
prioritizing permits in previously disturbed rights-of-way.

    Question 4. How does the NTIA plan to address supply chain issues 
that may increase project costs or slow down the timeline for providers 
to complete a project as they wait to obtain equipment and supplies 
needed to build the networks?
    Answer. The Department of Commerce has taken a leading role in 
addressing supply chain challenges facing our nation, and the 
Department and NTIA are well positioned to engage with the 
telecommunications sector and manufacturers to ensure that there is 
sufficient supply of fiber, equipment, and other necessary materials to 
implement the broadband programs. I intend to leverage the resources 
and expertise within the Department and to work closely with industrial 
stakeholders to address this critical issue.

    Question 5. I am concerned that states could misread the NOFO as 
giving them the authority to adopt workforce requirements that will 
discourage--or even exclude--experienced providers from competing for 
funds even if they have a demonstrated record of compliance with 
Federal labor and employment laws. Would you be willing to make clear 
to states that their workforce plans should be aligned with our 
fundamental objective of building out broadband networks within four 
years?
    Answer. Eligible Entities must require submission of, and evaluate, 
the prospective subgrantee's plans for ensuring compliance with Federal 
labor and employment laws. Neither the statute nor the BEAD NOFO give 
the Eligible Entities any additional authority in this regard, and NTIA 
has made that clear in its responses to inquiries on this issue.

    Question 6. I was disappointed to see that the NOFO encourages 
states to give a preference to applicants that commit to ``open 
access'' networks that would be available on a wholesale
    basis. I'm disappointed because I think the focus on ``open 
access'' is a distraction to our primary objective of building out 
broadband facilities to unserved and underserved areas, and because 
``open access'' was an element of other infrastructure bills that was 
not included in the final law. Would you consider eliminating ``open 
access'' as a factor, or at least making clear that it should carry 
little weight in a state's consideration of proposals?
    Answer. The BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD provider to offer 
open access, but rather encourages Eligible Entities to adopt secondary 
selection criteria promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband 
service. All secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no more 
than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process.

    Question 7. Can you describe the objective standards NTIA may adopt 
when it evaluates state plans and how potential subgrantees will be 
vetted--that is, before an award is made--to ensure that a provider has 
the capability necessary to perform?
    Answer. The BEAD NOFO states that Eligible Entities shall ensure 
that any prospective subgrantee can carry out activities funded by the 
subgrant in a competent manner and in compliance with all applicable 
federal, State, Territorial, and local laws. Eligible Entities shall 
ensure that prospective subgrantees have the competence, managerial and 
financial capacity to meet the commitments of the subgrant and any 
requirements of the Program, as well as the technical and operational 
capability to provide the services promised in the subgrant in the 
manner contemplated by the subgrant award. Specific showings that 
Eligible Entities must require from prospective subgrantees seeking to 
deploy network facilities using BEAD funds are further detailed in 
Section IV.D.2 of the NOFO. The Assistant Secretary invited Eligible 
Entities to propose alternatives to the specific showings set forth in 
the NOFO, which may be permitted if they are necessary and sufficient 
to ensure that the Program's objectives are met.

    Question 8. NTIA's NOFO issued in May stated that the agency will 
provide information regarding its designation of high-cost areas in 
future guidance, including how states should determine the ``extremely 
high cost per location threshold.'' When will NTIA release its guidance 
regarding high-cost areas, and how can the agency make sure that the 
bar for the ``extremely high cost'' areas is set as high as possible so 
as not to leave large swaths of rural America behind?
    Answer. NTIA staff are actively developing the definition of 
``high-cost area,'' and a firm timeline is not yet in place. With 
respect to the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold, the NOFO 
states, and NTIA will require, that each Eligible Entity must establish 
its Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold in a manner that 
maximizes use of the best available technology while ensuring that the 
program can meet the prioritization and scoring requirements set forth 
in Section IV.B.6 of the NOFO. NTIA expects Eligible Entities to set 
the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold as high as possible to 
help ensure that end-to-end fiber projects are deployed wherever 
feasible. We look forward to working with each Eligible Entity to help 
develop an appropriate Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.

    Question 9. How will NTIA ensure all providers, regardless of their 
organization or commercial statues, are allowed to apply for funding 
under the BEAD program on equal footing?
    Answer. NTIA will review each Eligible Entity's initial proposal 
and monitor the implementation of each subgrantee selection process to 
ensure compliance with the requirement that Eligible Entities may not 
exclude, as a class, cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public-
private partnerships, private companies, public or private utilities, 
public utility districts, or local governments from eligibility as a 
subgrantee. See NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 6.

    Question 10. Why did NTIA choose to go beyond requiring 
participation in ACP for the low-cost offering by requiring a 
subgrantee to participate in both the ACP and offer a low-cost 
offering? Congress allocated $14.2B to fund the ACP to subsidize 
broadband for low-income Americans. What data did NTIA rely to show 
this isn't sufficient?
    Answer. The IIJA's BEAD provisions are premised on Congress's 
determination, set out in section 60101, that ``[a]ccess to affordable, 
reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in 
modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he persistent 
`digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the Nation's 
``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of 
essential public services, including health care and education.'' The 
statute requires that each subgrantee receiving BEAD funding to deploy 
network infrastructure offer at least one low-cost broadband service 
option, and that each Eligible Entity consult with the Assistant 
Secretary and prospective subgrantees regarding a proposed definition 
of that term, and obtain the Assistant Secretary's final approval.

    Question 11. NTIA encourages grantees to prioritize those who 
commit to open access last mile facilities. What research did NTIA do, 
if any, into this being a viable model and that retail providers will 
actually want to and be willing to resell those services and compete 
for customers?
    Answer. NTIA's grant programs that include a middle mile component 
have traditionally included an open access requirement for middle-mile 
networks. That notwithstanding, the BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD 
provider to offer open access. The BEAD NOFO encourages, but does not 
require, Eligible Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria 
promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband service, but also 
provides that all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no 
more than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We 
believe that giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility 
strikes an appropriate balance.

    Question 12. NTIA's NOFO states that IIJA grant money will go to 
areas that are not scheduled for broadband deployment from previous 
auctions. During a past Appropriations hearing, Secretary Raimondo 
believed the IIJA money could go to areas that are covered under 
previous grants but have yet to be built out, leading to overbuilding. 
Will NTIA prioritize areas that are unserved before overbuilding in 
areas who are already scheduled?
    Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n 
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project, 
an Eligible Entity may not treat as 'unserved' or 'underserved' any 
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or 
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the 
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is 
concluded.''

    Question 13. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) 
considers a household unserved if ``no broadband provider has been 
selected to receive, or is otherwise receiving, Federal or State 
funding subject to enforceable build out commitments to deploy 
qualifying broadband service in the specific area where the household 
is located by dates certain, even if such service is not yet 
available.'' Further, the TBCP considers qualifying broadband service 
as ``broadband service with--(i) a download speed of not less than 25 
megabits per second; (ii) an upload speed of not less than 3 megabits 
per second; and (iii) a latency sufficient to support real time, 
interactive applications. For purposes of this program, NTIA will 
interpret the 25/3 standard to mean the ability to provide 25 Mbps 
downstream and 3 Mbps upstream simultaneously to every household in the 
eligible service area.''
    What steps is NTIA taking to ensure that households that are 
receiving speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps today by existing providers are 
not being overbuilt with TBCP funds?
    Answer. Our NOFO asks applicants to define their service area and 
``the total number of Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian 
households, businesses, and community anchor institutions lacking 
access to the Internet and to qualifying broadband service (i.e., those 
not currently receiving Internet service with speeds of 25/3 Mbps or 
greater with latency considerations).'' The NOFO also permits Tribes to 
self-certify the unserved status of proposed service areas within 
Tribal Lands, and lands providing services to Tribal members, if they 
provide a description of how the Tribe determined that the area is 
unserved. The TBCP review team evaluates these submissions and whether 
they fit into the larger plan to bring high-speed Internet to these 
communities.

    Question 14. The TBCP NOFO did not provide an opportunity for 
providers to challenge awards nor were any TBCP applications made 
public, which could result in locations that have qualifying broadband 
service to receive TBCP funds even though they are already being built 
out with funds from other Federal and state programs. How has NTIA 
coordinated with other Federal agencies, like the FCC and USDA, to 
ensure areas that are receiving funding from other Federal broadband 
programs are not being awarded TBCP funds to the same locations?
    Answer. NTIA participates in standing bi-weekly meetings with the 
USDA, the Treasury Department, and the FCC (per the Broadband 
Interagency Coordination Agreement). During these meetings, a mandatory 
topic is analysis of potential duplication of service in TBCP 
applications under consideration for funding by the Assistant 
Secretary. A process was established whereby NTIA would provide 
detailed information on those applicants being considered for funding, 
including service area maps provided directly by the applicants and the 
associated census blocks. This applicant-provided service area data is 
compared against current and future broadband infrastructure grant 
programs by USDA and FCC (CAF, RDOF, Community Connect, and Reconnect). 
Potential overlap, including service provider identification, is 
addressed with the relevant agency and in a follow-up letter to the 
applicant requesting confirmation that no duplication existed in the 
proposed project area.

    Question 15. The TBCP NOFO permits ``Tribes to self-certify the 
unserved status of proposed service areas within Tribal Lands, and 
lands providing services to Tribal members, with a description of how 
the Tribe determined that the area is unserved.'' What specific actions 
did NTIA take to ensure that areas were truly unserved? Did NTIA do any 
``on-the-ground'' efforts to verify broadband coverage as other Federal 
agencies like USDA has previously done?
    Answer. During programmatic review curing, NTIA examined each 
applicant's proposed project area and planned infrastructure deployment 
and utilized the National Broadband Availability Map platform to assess 
availability of qualifying broadband service in the proposed project 
area. If NTIA determined that a specific area within the proposed 
project area was already served by qualifying broadband service, it 
required that an applicant descope or revise its application to remove 
that area from the project.

    Question 16. Can you describe the standards NTIA adopted when it 
evaluated applications to ensure that a provider had the necessary 
financial and technical capabilities of delivering the service outlined 
in their application?
    Answer. NTIA adopted the standards articulated in the Notice of 
Funding Opportunity associated with each of its grant programs. 
Specifically, TBCP applicants must present a project narrative and 
specific information that demonstrates the applicant's ability to 
deploy the technical aspects of the project and a budget demonstrating 
the financial ability to use grant funds to complete the project. The 
applicant must present information in the application to include ``a 
budget that is both reasonable and cost-efficient, considering the 
nature and full scope of the project. Reviewers will consider whether 
the applicant has demonstrated adequate and appropriate budget 
resources to successfully execute the proposed project activities. 
Reviewers will assess whether the budget detail is consistent with the 
allowable programmatic activities as outlined in the project narrative. 
Reviewers will evaluate the reasonableness of the budget based on its 
clarity, level of detail, comprehensiveness, appropriateness to the 
proposed technical and programmatic solutions, the reasonableness of 
its costs, and whether the allocation of funds is sufficient to 
complete the tasks outlined in the project plan.'' See TBCP NOFO 
Section E.1.c.i.
    The project narrative submitted by the applicant should identify 
specific tasks, measurable milestones and performance outcomes for 
Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian communities resulting 
from the proposed project activities. The NOFO requests that applicants 
include in its Project Narrative: An executive summary of the project; 
a description of the Eligible Entity applying for funds, and the 
qualifications and experience of key personnel responsible for 
implementing the proposed project; a description of the project 
objectives related to promoting broadband adoption, telehealth, remote 
education, workforce and economic development, digital inclusion and 
skills, or providing affordable broadband programs for Native American/
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian communities; a description of any 
existing broadband and/or digital inclusion plans, or any planning 
activities to be conducted during the project; a description of the 
specific activities to be funded by the grant and the eligible uses of 
the funding; and a project plan describing all major project activities 
and timelines for implementation, including key milestones and when 
each major project activity will start and end. This information will 
be evaluated by a team of qualified reviewers to determine whether the 
applicant has the necessary financial and technical capability to 
deliver the service outlined in their applications. See generally, TBCP 
NOFO D.2.b.iii.

    Question 17. When you testified before the House Subcommittee on 
Communications & Technology back in February, you talked about plans to 
formalize spectrum coordination efforts with Chairwoman Rosenworcel and 
the FCC. Can you discuss what sort of progress has been made in that 
effort?
    Answer. NTIA and the FCC have begun work on a Joint Spectrum 
Coordination Initiative intended to strengthen the processes for 
decision making and information sharing and to work cooperatively to 
resolve spectrum policy issues. Under this new framework, FCC Chair 
Jessica Rosenworcel and I have committed to:

   Hold monthly leadership meetings for the purpose of 
        conducting joint spectrum planning;

   Update the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between 
        the FCC and NTIA to address the challenges of today;

   Develop a National Spectrum Strategy for long-term planning;

   Reaffirm our commitment to scientific integrity and 
        evidence-based policymaking; and

   Foster technical engagement among Federal agencies, 
        industry, NTIA, and the FCC. As part of this effort, the FCC 
        will participate in NTIA's Commerce Spectrum Management 
        Advisory Committee (CSMAC), and NTIA will participate as an 
        observer in the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) and 
        the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability 
        Council (CSRIC).

    Since we announced this plan, we have updated the 2003 MOU, which 
was announced on August 2, 2022. The MOU will strengthen cooperation 
and collaboration between the agencies and help advance a whole-of-
government approach to how we use and manage one of the Nation's most 
important resources.
    We are confident that with steady leadership, a proactive approach, 
and greater communications, we can have efficient, effective regulatory 
governance of this valuable resource.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. Administrator Davidson, I first want to thank you for 
NTIA's significant work to date to in bringing broadband to the 
approximately one third of rural Missourians who still lack access. In 
February, Missouri was awarded $42 million from the NTIA's Broadband 
Infrastructure Program, the largest state-wide award from that program, 
representing more than 15 percent of total funding available. This 
award will be used for projects benefiting more than 13,000 households 
in 12 Missouri counties: Boone, Butler, Jasper, Lincoln, Livingston, 
Marion, McDonald, Monroe, Pulaski, Shelby, St. Charles and St. Louis, 
and will have a significant, positive impact for Missourians in need of 
high-speed internet.
    As you know, I voted for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
and believe that it creates a unique opportunity to make significant 
strides in closing broadband availability gaps. Thank you to you and 
your staff for your hard work in establishing rules to implement the 
IIJA funding.
    At the same time, I'm concerned that some of the rules--for the 
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, in 
particular--may undermine the objective of closing the digital divide.
    Specifically, I am very concerned about rules that go beyond the 
authority established in the IIJA to pursue policy objectives apart 
from connecting the unserved. For example, NTIA is requiring a new 
``middle class'' affordability option, over and above the statutory 
obligation to require low income offerings. This requirement is 
incredibly vague, both in terms of the substance of the obligation and 
who would be eligible for it.
    Private providers--including those with a record of providing high-
quality broadband at affordable prices--have expressed to me that they 
believe this requirement is a backhanded way to introduce rate 
regulation into the broadband industry, and would be less inclined to 
participate in the program as a result.
    I share those concerns. While I strongly believe that broadband 
access is about both accessibility and affordability, NTIA isn't a 
central planning authority and doesn't have the discretion or expertise 
to broadly mandate broadband rates.
    Beyond the fact that broadband capital investment has historically 
flourished under a light-touch, deregulatory framework, the IIJA 
expressly prohibits NTIA from engaging in broadband rate regulation.
    Mr. Davidson, what is the basis for NTIA's authority to require 
``middle class'' broadband pricing? Are you concerned that this 
requirement will deter participation in the program and in turn 
undermine efforts to close the digital divide?
    Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA stated that ``[a]ccess to 
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full 
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he 
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the 
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of 
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We 
believe it is essential that communications networks be accessible and 
affordable to all Americans. The IIJA's low-cost service option 
requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-income 
Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that service is 
affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the 
IIJA's stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose plans for 
promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO expressly refrains from 
defining that term, because its answer might differ from state to 
state.
    Instead, we have left that determination to the Eligible Entities 
in the first instance. Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms a 
state must employ to ensure middle-class affordability. NTIA believes 
this portion of the NOFO is broad enough so as not to deter 
participation.

    Question 2. Administrator Davidson, as you know, we have a very 
serious challenge right now with inflation in the economy.
    Given that service providers' obligations--including to provide 
various low income and vaguely-defined ``middle class'' plans--will 
last throughout the life of the network (possibly upwards of 30-40 
years in the case of a fiber network), some providers have expressed 
that they are concerned about that they don't have the requisite 
knowledge of what burdens they would be taking on or would become 
subject to in the future. This is compounded by the uncertainty caused 
by inflation, when it comes to the price of inputs such as electricity, 
labor, maintenance, etc.
    Does NTIA plan to provide further guidance to providers on how the 
program will account for inflation, including when it comes to low-
income and middle class offerings?
    Answer. Inflation is an issue for all Americans, and we understand 
and respect the uncertainty it creates for all consumers and 
businesses--including those that may seek to participate in the BEAD 
program. We are committed to the success of the BEAD Program, and have 
committed to providing robust technical assistance to Eligible Entities 
and potential subgrantees as part of that commitment. We will, through 
that technical assistance, provide as much certainty to Eligible 
Entities and potential subgrantees as possible.

    Question 3. As you know, the primary objective of the $42.45 
billion BEAD program is to deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved 
areas as quickly as possible. However, the rules released by NTIA 
pursue a litany of progressive political objectives that are unrelated 
to this goal, including giving preference to government-run networks 
and providers that commit to ``open access'' obligations, as well as 
projects that promote ``equitable workforce development,'' union labor, 
and climate resilience, and domestic suppliers.
    Moreover, the BEAD rules introduce vague consumer protection rules 
prohibiting ``unreasonable network management practices'' that sound 
eerily similar to a common carriage/Title II regulatory regime--in 
turn, scaring away investment and participation by high-quality, 
experienced providers.
    Every dollar spent on these different objectives is diverted from 
our primary goal, and I'm concerned that this Christmas tree wish list 
takes our eye off the prize in making sure that each American gets 
access to broadband.
    Mr. Davidson, would you consider eliminating some of these 
preferences and rules that distract from the objective of building out 
broadband to unserved areas?
    Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we 
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment, 
access, workforce development, and affordability objectives established 
by Congress in the IIJA. The BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD 
provider to offer open access, and the BEAD NOFO encourages, but does 
not require, Eligible Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria 
promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband service, but also 
provides that all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no 
more than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We 
believe that giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility 
strikes an appropriate balance. I also note that the NOFO does not 
impose any common carriage/Title II requirements on entities receiving 
BEAD funds.

    Question 4. Most of the questions at the hearing focused NTIA's 
BEAD broadband deployment program, but I have a question concerning the 
Middle Mile Grant Program established under the IIJA.
    As you know, middle mile is the part of the network that aggregates 
large amounts of data traffic between local networks--as distinguished 
from last-mile, which connects the end user to the network.
    As I read the IIJA, Congress intended for middle mile grants to 
help connect unserved and underserved areas to the Internet backbone. 
However, NTIA recently announced that middle mile grant applications 
must be received by NTIA by September 30, 2022, likely before the FCC 
publishes its broadband maps, and definitely far before the FCC 
concludes its challenge process on the mapping data.
    Given that NTIA will be evaluating middle mile maps before the FCC 
produces an accurate, granular picture of the Nation's unserved areas, 
how will NTIA ensure that middle mile grants are allocated to connect 
unserved areas?
    Similarly, how will NTIA ensure that it doesn't use middle mile 
grants to overbuild private providers and the vast areas of the country 
where middle mile competition and service is thriving?
    Answer. While the deadline may be in advance of the FCC's 
publication of the Broadband DATA maps, Congress recognized that this 
might be the case when drafting the IIJA. Section 60401(e)(3)(B)(i) of 
the IIJA directed NTIA to use the ``the most recent broadband mapping 
data available'' from the FCC's Broadband DATA maps, maps generated 
from State or Tribal governments, or speed and usage surveys conducted 
by States, territories, or Tribal governments.

    Question 5. The Federal government has historically been eager to 
spend money on broadband but has often done a poor job of evaluating 
the outcome of its efforts according to clear goals and metrics. 
Without evaluation, it's harder to learn from the past and course-
correct to improve outcomes.
    According to economists Sarah Oh Lam, Scott Wallsten, and Greg 
Rosston, NTIA should establish a clear set of standardized metrics at 
the outset to monitor and evaluate IIJA broadband funding and enable 
reporting and comparisons across state BEAD programs. Without such an 
evaluation system set in advance of funding going out the door, it will 
be practically impossible to objectively and consistently measure and 
compare the different approaches that states use to distribute funding 
and in turn learn from BEAD.
    Lam and Wallsten have also separately argued that in order to 
objectively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NTIA's funding programs, 
NTIA should make all broadband grant applications--both funded and 
unfunded--public.
    Administrator Davidson: in the name of good governance, do you 
agree that NTIA should establish clear, uniform evaluation metrics and 
a plan for collecting data before funding is distributed? If so, will 
you commit to establishing evaluation metrics for each of the IIJA 
broadband programs? Additionally, will you commit to making all grant 
applications across all the IIJA broadband programs, both funded and 
unfunded, publicly available?
    Answer. States and subgrantees are required under section VII.E of 
the BEAD NOFO to comply with reporting requirements. In addition to the 
reporting requirements found in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, NTIA will provide 
additional reporting instructions in connection with the requirements 
set forth in the NOFO, including details on the manner and format that 
states will be required to report information in support of NTIA's 
obligations under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act (47 USC Sec. 1307), and 
Section 60105 of the IIJA. NTIA will, consistent with its obligations 
under the IIJA and the ACCESS BROADBAND Act (section 903 of Division F 
of P.L. 116-260), measure and report on the success of the program. 
Further, as discussed in section IX.A of the BEAD NOFO, the IIJA 
requires NTIA, the Commission, and other agencies to coordinate to make 
information regarding Federal broadband funding, low-cost plans, and 
other aspects of the BEAD Program readily available to and 
understandable by the public. However, in accordance with Department of 
Commerce policy, we will not be sharing applications publicly before 
awards are announced.

    Question 6. As you know, billions of dollars have been allocated 
across multiple Federal agencies to fund broadband deployment over the 
last few years, including through the CARES Act, 2021 Consolidated 
Appropriations, and the American Rescue Plan Act.
    It is crucial that NTIA take into where this funding--as well as 
state and local broadband funding--to ensure that we don't overbuild 
areas already subject to enforceable broadband deployment obligations.
    I am glad that NTIA's rules count areas subject to enforceable 
deployment obligations as ``served'' and thus ineligible to be 
overbuilt. I am also grateful that NTIA is requiring states to conduct 
a rigorous challenge process to enforce this requirement. However, 
since government funding from other agencies like Treasury and 
ReConnect may be awarded after states' challenge processes close, it is 
possible that we won't take into account the full universe of where 
enforceable deployment obligations exist before allocating funding.
    To ensure that these areas don't get overbuilt, will NTIA permit 
additional challenges of a BEAD award by providers that are awarded 
other government funding after a state closes its challenge process to 
determine which areas are eligible for funding?
    Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n 
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project, 
an Eligible Entity may not treat as `unserved' or `underserved' any 
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or 
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the 
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is 
concluded.'' In that regard, the BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between 
certainty for Eligible Entities and providers and giving the Eligible 
Entities the flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-
related funding to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If a 
state finds that circumstances have changed materially between the 
conclusion of that state's challenge process and the actual issuance of 
awards, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how NTIA and the 
state can work together or ensure the most efficient use of funding.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. As we discussed at the hearing, a recent GAO study 
identified that there are a staggering 100 Federal programs across 15 
agencies that could be used, in some form or another, on broadband. 
There are at least seven alone under your jurisdiction at NTIA. This 
just further highlights the need for tight agency coordination and 
transparency in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. I know there 
has been some progress on this Federal coordination with several 
interagency agreements being reached in the past year so I hope to see 
that work continue.
    However, specific to NTIA, the infrastructure bill requires you to 
create and maintain a searchable database to track awards and 
applications across your various broadband programs (BEAD, Middle Mile, 
Tribal, etc.). The NOFOs that have been released do not mention how 
NTIA plans to meet this statutory requirement. This database is 
critical for states, communities, and tribes to be able to coordinate 
and plan their efforts across programs to avoid duplication and 
overbuilding. In states like Alaska with many prospective applicants 
that include carriers, tribes, and tribal organizations this is 
extremely complex and necessary. Likewise, every state is being given a 
$5 million planning grant required under the BEAD program to develop a 
``state broadband plan'' but currently they can't know who has applied 
for what across NTIA's other programs.
    How does NTIA plan on satisfying this database requirement and 
further ensuring that states, tribes, and communities have the 
information they need for planning and coordination purposes?
    Answer. Section 903 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260 the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021 (``CAA 2021''), also known as the ACCESS 
BROADBAND Act, established the Office of Internet Connectivity and 
Growth (OICG) within NTIA and directed OICG to, among other things, 
``track the construction and use of and access to any broadband 
infrastructure built using any Federal support in a central database.'' 
Section 60105(b) of the IIJA directs the FCC, ``in consultation with 
all relevant Federal agencies, [to] establish an online mapping tool to 
provide a locations overview of the overall geographic footprint of 
each broadband infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal 
Government.'' Section 60105(c) requires that this ``Broadband 
Deployment Locations Map'' ``shall be the centralized, authoritative 
source of information on funding made available by the Federal 
Government for broadband infrastructure deployment in the United 
States.'' NTIA is coordinating closely with the FCC, Treasury, USDA, 
and others to fully implement NTIA's statutory coordination duties 
under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act and to ensure that states, tribes, and 
communities have the information they need for planning and 
coordination purposes.
    Additionally, NTIA maintains the National Broadband Availability 
Map (NBAM), which aggregates several different public and non-public 
data sources to show information on broadband availability within the 
United States and is available for use by participating Eligible 
Entities. These data source include data from Federal agencies such as 
FCC's Form 477, FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, USDA's ReConnect 
Program, as well as crowdsourced data from M-Lab and Ookla.

    Question 2. NTIA's BEAD Program NOFO specifically designates 
``extremely high cost per location areas'' for special treatment, 
eligible for the 10 percent set aside and with greater flexibility for 
the type of broadband technology used for projects serving those areas.
    As you are aware, Alaska has extremely high costs in many locations 
given the challenges of serving remote locations that are not 
accessible by road, have extreme weather and geographic conditions, 
lack terrestrial middle mile and have a very small number of residents 
to cover those costs, among many factors.
    Can you assure me that you will be considering these factors in 
determining which areas are entitled to receive additional funding 
under the program?
    Answer. Yes.

    Question 3. NTIA's recently released NOFO seemed to shoehorn 
several policy requirements that go beyond its statutory mandate 
including, for example: requiring applicants to provide an undefined 
``middle class affordability option''; requiring applicants to 
demonstrate that they have accounted for ``climate-related risks''; and 
prioritizing certain ``non-traditional'' providers like nonprofits and 
municipalities.
    I think many members on this committee are concerned that these 
non-statutory, political requirements are unnecessarily burdensome and 
could distract from the core mission of connectivity, delaying and 
increasing the cost of deployment. How do you address these concerns?
    Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we 
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment, 
access, and affordability objectives established by Congress in the 
IIJA.

    Question 4. The NOFO provides an opportunity to challenge a state's 
determination in its Initial Proposal that a specific location is 
eligible for funds. And I was pleased to see that the NOFO also treats 
as ``served'' any location that is subject to an enforceable federal, 
state, or local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the 
date of the challenge process. But as I read the NOFO, 80 percent of 
BEAD funds won't be awarded until NTIA approves a state's Final 
Proposal, which may not occur until a year or more after the conclusion 
of the challenge process.
    Unfortunately, the NOFO does not provide an opportunity to 
challenge the award of BEAD funds in an area where Federal or state 
funding is awarded during this potentially lengthy period after the 
challenge process. That could result in locations getting BEAD funding 
even though they are already being built out with funds from other 
Federal and state programs. Would NTIA be open to taking steps to 
prevent BEAD funds from being used to overbuild these areas, such as by 
adding the opportunity to challenge a BEAD award if other funding has 
been awarded to the same area, to ensure the most efficient use of 
funding?
    Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n 
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project, 
an Eligible Entity may not treat as ``unserved'' or ``underserved'' any 
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or 
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the 
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is 
concluded.'' In that regard, the BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between 
certainty for states and providers and giving the Eligible Entities the 
flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-related funding 
to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If a state finds that 
circumstances have changed materially between the conclusion of that 
state's challenge process and the actual issuance of awards, I welcome 
the opportunity to discuss with the state or territory how NTIA and the 
state can work together or ensure the most efficient use of funding.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. Do you believe Congress intended for NTIA to prioritize 
one technology over another in the BEAD program?
    Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband 
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure 
that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical 
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will 
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs, 
consistent with the requirements set out in the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
    The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant 
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for 
selecting subgrantees. NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband 
Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture 
because such projects will ``ensure that the network built by the 
project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving 
connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and ``support the 
deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced 
services.'' IIJA Sec. 60102(a)(2)(I). In the event there is just one 
proposed Priority Broadband Project in a location or set of locations, 
and that proposal does not exceed the Extremely High Cost Per Location 
Threshold established by the state in its initial proposal to NTIA, 
that proposal is the default winner, unless the state requests, and the 
Assistant Secretary grants, a waiver allowing the state to select an 
alternative project.
    Unfortunately, there will likely be locations for which a state 
does not receive a proposal to deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In 
such cases, the state may select any project proposing to use an 
alternative Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD 
Program's technical requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy 
of less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
    If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD 
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of 
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given 
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a 
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does 
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise 
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.

    Question 2. Do you believe that unserved areas should receive 
funding before served areas in the BEAD program? Do you commit to doing 
so?
    Answer. Yes. Eligible Entities will need to demonstrate that they 
have the ability to deploy to unserved locations before they begin 
deploying to underserved locations. If an Entity is able to demonstrate 
that they can deploy to both unserved and underserved locations at the 
same time, that may be permissible. But it will ultimately be 
considered application-by-application.

    Question 3. How do you plan to ensure that overbuilding does not 
occur before all unserved and underserved areas are served with at 
least one viable broadband option?
    Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n 
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project, 
an Eligible Entity may not treat as ``unserved'' or ``underserved'' any 
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or 
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the 
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is 
concluded.''
    Further, Section 903 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260, the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (``CAA 2021''), also known as the 
ACCESS BROADBAND Act, established the Office of Internet Connectivity 
and Growth (OICG) within NTIA and directed OICG to, among other things, 
``track the construction and use of and access to any broadband 
infrastructure built using any Federal support in a central database.'' 
Section 60105(b) of the IIJA directs the FCC, ``in consultation with 
all relevant Federal agencies,
    [to] establish an online mapping tool to provide a locations 
overview of the overall geographic footprint of each broadband 
infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal Government.'' 
Section 60105(c) requires that this ``Broadband Deployment Locations 
Map'' ``be . . . the centralized, authoritative source of information 
on funding made available by the Federal Government for broadband 
infrastructure deployment in the United States.'' NTIA is coordinating 
closely with the FCC, Treasury, USDA, and others to fully implement 
NTIA's statutory coordination duties under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act and 
to ensure that states, tribes, and communities have the information 
they need for planning and coordination purposes.

    Question 4. In April, the NTIA announced a notice requesting 
comments on competition in the mobile app ecosystem. I introduced a 
bill with Senator Blumenthal, the Open App Markets Act, that would take 
steps to resolve the problems stemming from Apple and Google's 
gatekeeper control of the app store marketplace. Have you reviewed this 
bill? How does it compare with NTIA's recommendations on this issue?
    Answer. Thank you for this question. I appreciate the engagement of 
your staff on this issue and on our Request for Comment. We have been 
closely monitoring legislative developments on this topic, and in doing 
so have reviewed the Open App Markets Act. As required by President 
Biden's Executive Order 14036, the Executive Order on Promoting 
Competition in the American Economy, the Department is finalizing a 
report on competition in the mobile app ecosystem which will include 
findings and recommendations.

    Question 5. I was not satisfied with your answer during the hearing 
on whether companies in states like Tennessee will be told they need to 
follow certain labor laws and practices that do not make sense for a 
right-to-work state. The notice says that providers ``must give 
priority to projects based on . . . a demonstrated record of and plans 
to be in compliance with Federal and employment laws,'' but you said 
during the hearing that these are not requirements. Can you explain 
this discrepancy?
    Answer. As you note, Eligible Entities must give priority to 
projects based on a prospective subgrantee's demonstrated record of and 
plans to comply with Federal labor and employment laws. We expect that 
this will not be a burdensome commitment for employers in all Eligible 
Entities, regardless of whether they are a ``right-to-work'' 
jurisdiction.

    Question 6. In NTIA's Notice for BEAD funding, NTIA encouraged 
municipalities to participate in the program as part of a ``covered 
partnership,'' which means they would not be required to get eligible 
telecommunications carrier designation by the FCC. How would these 
arrangements work? Would municipal broadband providers be permitted to 
participate in the BEAD program without joining a partnership? Will 
NTIA allow them to participate in states that prohibit municipalities 
from owning and running broadband networks?
    Answer. To clarify, the NOFO does not require that any applicant 
obtain Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (``ETC'') status from the 
FCC or a state public utility commission. Nor does the NOFO include the 
term ``covered partnership.'' However, it is critical to the BEAD 
Program's success that all providers identified by the statute be able 
to compete for funding on a level playing field. The Act directs 
Eligible Entities to consider a wide range of applicants, and we want 
states and territories to know that we take that directive seriously. 
As the NOFO states, we are urging Eligible Entities not to adopt any 
new restrictions on municipal providers, and to waive any pre-existing 
restrictions. BEAD NOFO IV.C.1.a. In its initial proposal, an Eligible 
Entity must identify any existing restrictions, whether it will waive 
them, and, if not, how they will affect applications from municipal 
providers. BEAD NOFO IV.B.5.b.18. In the final proposal, the Eligible 
Entity must tell us how any such restrictions affected any unsuccessful 
applicant for a subgrant. Our goal here is to help ensure that Eligible 
Entities respect the statutory requirement that these providers have a 
fair opportunity to participate.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question. Administrator Davidson, at the hearing, you testified 
that you are committed to using the FCC Broadband DATA maps for BEAD. 
You also testified that NTIA's recent suggestion in an FAQ that 
eligible entities (states and territories) could use other data sources 
was limited to a period of pre-planning before the new FCC maps are 
available.
    Can you reaffirm your commitment that NTIA will require Eligible 
Entities to rely on the FCC Broadband DATA maps to identify unserved 
and underserved locations as they award subgrants for broadband 
deployment and will you commit to update the FAQs 4.3 and 4.4 
accordingly?
    Answer. NTIA recognizes the importance of ensuring that the FCC's 
Broadband DATA Maps accurately identify unserved and underserved 
locations. As contemplated in the FAQ, we understand that a number of 
states are using their own data and commercially available data to 
start their planning processes. As stated in the FAQ, ``NTIA will use 
the updated FCC Broadband DATA maps in allocating funds, but an 
Eligible Entity can incorporate information from its own mapping data 
and must conduct its own challenge process prior to awarding subgrants 
for broadband deployment.'' Our commitment to the FCC Broadband DATA 
Maps for allocation is clear, but we also know the states may need to 
rely on other sources of data as they begin planning.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Lee to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. Mr. Davidson, during the hearing I asked if the IIJA 
requires the NTIA to carry out the BEAD program in a ``technologically 
neutral manner''. You responded, ``we are committed to carrying it out 
in a technologically neutral manner, I will say it's not so simple to 
say the statute required that, but we are committed to it''.
    Section 60307(b) of the IIJA states: ``The Assistant Secretary 
shall, to the extent practicable, carry out this title in a 
technologically neutral manner.''

   To follow up on your comments during the hearing, what 
        within Section 60307 is ``not so simple to say the statute 
        required that''?

   If the argument is that ``to the extent practicable'' 
        provides the flexibility, can you explain how that limited 
        flexibility justifies the outright creating of a ``priority 
        broadband project'' that favors fiber, a specific technology?

   Does prioritizing one technology over others make it harder 
        to be flexible in deployment and make it harder to help control 
        project costs (which are the taxpayer's dollars)?

   In the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), the NTIA notes 
        that it will not consider locations served exclusively by 
        satellite or terrestrial fixed wireless as ``Reliable Broadband 
        Service'' and will thus consider them ``unserved''. If the goal 
        is to ensure that these dollars are targeted to areas that are 
        truly ``unserved'', then why exclude certain technologies if 
        they very well might be providing the minimum speed thresholds 
        to a high-cost area? Could that ``Reliable Broadband Service'' 
        definition contribute to overbuilding?

    Answer. Section 60307(b) does not apply to the BEAD Program. As you 
note, that provision directs the Assistant Secretary to ``carry out 
this title in a technologically neutral manner''. ``This title'' refers 
to Title III of Division F of the IIJA--i.e., the Digital Equity Act of 
2021. The BEAD Program is established in Title I of Division F, not in 
Title III.
    Nevertheless, NTIA has designed the BEAD Program in a manner that 
values technological neutrality while also fulfilling the statute's 
express requirements. The IIJA states that a ``priority broadband 
project'' is one designed to (1) ``provide broadband service that meets 
speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and 
related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine'' and (2) 
``ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds 
over time to. . .meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and 
businesses'' and ``support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless 
technologies, and other advanced services.'' Based on this statutory 
definition, NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband Projects'' are 
those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture. Only end-to-end 
fiber will ``ensure that the network built by the project can easily 
scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving connectivity needs of 
households and businesses'' and ``support the deployment of 5G, 
successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.'' End-to-
end fiber networks can be updated by replacing equipment attached to 
the ends of the fiber-optic facilities, allowing for quick and 
relatively inexpensive network scaling as compared to other 
technologies. Moreover, new fiber deployments will facilitate the 
deployment and growth of 5G and other advanced wireless services, which 
rely extensively on fiber for essential backhaul.
    The BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between providing certainty for 
Eligible Entities and providers and giving the Eligible Entities the 
flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-related funding 
to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If an Eligible Entity 
finds that circumstances have changed materially between the conclusion 
of that state's challenge process and the actual issuance of awards, I 
would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the state or territory 
how NTIA and the state can work together or ensure the most efficient 
use of funding.
    The ``reliable broadband service'' definition will not contribute 
to overbuilding. For the purposes of the BEAD Program definition of 
that term, the NOFO adopted the criteria that Reliable Broadband 
Service must be (1) a fixed broadband service that (2) is available 
with a high degree of certainty, (3) both at present and for the 
foreseeable future. NTIA found, after coordination with the Federal 
Communications Commission, that tor the purposes of the BEAD Program, 
locations served exclusively by satellite, services using entirely 
unlicensed spectrum, or a technology not specified by the Commission 
for purposes of the Broadband DATA Maps, do not meet the criteria for 
Reliable Broadband Service and so will be considered ``unserved.''

    Question 2. I would like to ask about the ``primary criteria'' that 
you lay out for states to select competing proposals in the BEAD NOFO. 
You note that the greatest weight should go to: (1) Outlays, (2) 
Affordability, and (3) Fair Labor Practices. ``Fair Labor Practices'' 
entails: (1) paying Davis Bacon wage requirements, (2) using project 
labor agreements, and taking steps to ``prevent the misclassification 
of workers'' which I can only assume is to discourage the use of 
contractors.

   Utah along with many other states is a ``right to work'' 
        state, which has produced a competitive job market with high 
        paying jobs. Please explain to me how Utah and other ``right to 
        work'' states will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage 
        by this ``primary criteria''?

   Will you reject outright proposals from states that don't 
        use ``project labor agreements''?

    Answer. A key component of the BEAD program's success must be 
workforce development. As contemplated in the NOFO, Eligible Entities 
must create programs that will promote equitable training, development, 
and deployment of a qualified workforce. In order to meet this 
requirement, NTIA lists certain criteria Eligible Entities must 
consider when selecting subgrantees, including the use of fair labor 
practices, fair wage practices, project labor agreements, and proper 
classification of workers.

    Question 3. The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from regulating the rates 
of broadband. It then requires a ``low-cost option'' for recipients of 
these funds. Certainly, an interesting needle to thread.

   Is price a component in the consideration of affordability? 
        And how do you regulate ``affordability'' within proposals 
        without resorting to ``regulating'' the rate?

   Many of these projects are going to take place in ``high-
        cost'' areas which already have an added expense, but then bids 
        are required to be based on the provision of 100 megabytes--in 
        some circumstances up to 1 gigabyte--which will arguably raise 
        the costs of the project. Is the overall cost of the project 
        and the solvency of a company going to be factored into what is 
        considered affordable?

   The ``affordability'' options are supposed to last the life 
        cycle of the network (presumably 20-30 years). How does this 
        impede a business from being able to adjust to changes in the 
        market?

    Answer. The IIJA expressly provides that nothing in the BEAD 
statute should be construed to authorize NTIA to regulate the rates 
charged for broadband service. The IIJA does require subgrantees 
selected to deploy broadband networks with BEAD Program funds to offer 
not less than one low-cost broadband service option for eligible 
subscribers and requires that this low-cost option is to be defined by 
each state in consultation with NTIA and subject to the Assistant 
Secretary's approval.
    Section 60101 of the IIJA does, however, state that ``[a]ccess to 
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full 
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he 
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the 
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of 
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We 
agree, and believe it is essential that communications networks be 
accessible and affordable to all Americans. Thus, while the IIJA's low-
cost service option requirement is important for ensuring affordability 
for low-income Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that 
service is affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to 
fulfill the IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to 
propose plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO 
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might 
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to 
the Eligible Entities in the first instance. Similarly, we do not 
specify which mechanisms Eligible Entities must employ to ensure 
middle-class affordability. Again, this is a question for Eligible 
Entities to address in the first instance.

    Question 4. There are numerous regulations and obligations imposed 
on fund recipients. Some are required by law, but there are many that 
seem to push the regulatory burden to the absolute edge. And I'm 
concerned that more obligations and strings increase the cost of the 
projects and wastes taxpayer dollars in a time when inflation is at an 
all-time high. Did you all conduct a cost-benefit analysis on any of 
the obligations that the NOFO seeks to impose on funding recipients? 
Could you provide that data used in such analysis?
    Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we 
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment, 
access, and affordability objectives established by Congress in the 
IIJA.

    Question 5. Broadband companies are experiencing the weight of 
inflation and supply chain challenges. One concern that I've heard from 
my constituents is compliance with the statutory requirement to source 
broadband components domestically under the Buy America Act.

   If broadband companies are faced with component shortages, 
        how will the NTIA evaluate the granting of broadband waivers 
        under the Buy America Act?

   How will NTIA evaluate market conditions in consideration of 
        approving such waivers to ensure the maximizing of taxpayer 
        dollars?

    Answer. The Buy America, Build America provisions of the IIJA 
reflect a strong commitment to U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers by 
Congress and the President. We have an incredible opportunity to 
strengthen our domestic manufacturing base by using our infrastructure 
funding to purchase U.S. manufactured supplies and equipment. This will 
create good jobs and economic opportunity for countless American 
workers.
    The Administration is committed to faithfully implementing the 
IIJA's Build America, Buy America provisions. Since his first day in 
office, President Biden has relentlessly focused on an industrial 
strategy to revitalize our manufacturing base, strengthen critical 
supply chains, and position U.S. workers and businesses to compete and 
lead globally in the 21st century. The Commerce Department will 
consider waiving these requirements only where the acquisition of 
domestic components would be inconsistent with the public interest, 
their cost would be unreasonable, or the relevant materials or products 
are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in 
sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a 
satisfactory quality.

    Question 6. In the BEAD Program's review process, the NOFO notes 
that NTIA will consider three criteria for approving initial and final 
proposals: (1) compliance with applicable program guidelines, (2) the 
public interest, and (3) effectuates the purpose of the infrastructure 
bill. You then set out three different types of criteria for states to 
select ``subgrantees'': (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) additional 
considerations.

   The NOFO says that a state may ``develop additional 
        secondary criteria'' like ``open access'' or ensuring 
        ``quality'' jobs, which is defined as having a job that 
        ``exceeds'' the local prevailing wage in a region and/or is 
        unionized. How are ``additional considerations'' weighted by 
        NTIA in determining whether to approve a proposal?

   Will NTIA approve a proposal in which the state only focuses 
        on the primary and secondary criteria? How much flexibility do 
        states receive in the ``enforcement process'' of their 
        proposals?

    Answer. The BEAD NOFO encourages, but does not require, Eligible 
Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria, but also provides that 
all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no more than 25 
percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We believe that 
giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility strikes an 
appropriate balance. NTIA will approve a proposal in which the Eligible 
Entity only focuses on the primary and secondary criteria.

    Question 7. The Digital Equity Act has a ``nondiscrimination'' 
provision that must be enforced consistent with Title VI of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.\1\ However, categories for ``actual or perceived'' 
sexual orientation and gender identity appear in the Digital Equity 
Act, but not Title VI. Disparities like this have arose in the past 
concerning gender, and the Department of Justice has thus weighed in on 
multiple issues in this space, including public school bathroom 
policy,\2\ \3\ the Violence Against Women Act,\4\ and women's 
sports.\5\ The determinations that the DOJ made in this space are 
problematic to me, and I want to ensure that IIJA funding will not be 
contingent on similar definitions of sexual orientation and gender 
identity. Because the Department of Commerce must enforce the Digital 
Equity Act's ``nondiscrimination'' provisions, please answer the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ P.L 117-58, Division F, Title III, Sec. 60307(a).
    \2\ DOJ, United States Reaches Agreement with Arcadia, California, 
School District to Resolve Sex Discrimination Allegations, July 24, 
2013, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-
reaches-agreement-arcadia-california-school-district-resolve-sex-
discrimination
    \3\ DOJ, Case Summaries, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 
available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-summaries#gloucester
    \4\ DOJ, Memorandum on the Interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton 
County, March 10, 2022, available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/
file/1481776/download
    \5\ DOJ, Case Summaries, B.P.G. v. West Virginia State Board of 
Education, available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-
summaries#wvboard

   Will the Department define ``discrimination'' according to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        the DOJ's enforcement under Titles IV and IX?

   Is access to restrooms regardless of sex a requirement of 
        any school that seeks to apply for broadband funds under either 
        the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program or the Digital 
        Equity Competitive Grant Program?

   Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination'' 
        prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or 
        providing broadband to a school that maintains sex-specific 
        facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms?

   Will a shelter be forced to house female survivors with men 
        who identify as women in order to apply for broadband funds 
        under either the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program or 
        the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program?

   Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination'' 
        prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or 
        providing broadband to a shelter that houses only biological 
        females?

   Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination'' 
        prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or 
        providing broadband to a school that only allows biological 
        females in girls and women's sports?

    Answer. Section 60307(a) of the IIJA states no individual in the 
United States may, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, 
religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, 
age, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or 
activity that is funded in whole or in part with funds made available 
to carry out this title. NTIA will, as directed by Congress, issue 
regulations and take actions consistent with section 602 of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and consistent with that 
direction.

    Question 8. Currently, NTIA and the NHTSA coordinate within the 
joint 911 Implementation and Coordination Office (ICO). As you are 
aware, the ICO is required to facilitate coordination and 
communications among public and private stakeholders at local, state, 
tribal, federal, and national levels; administer a grant program for 
the benefit of 911 call centers across the country; and author or 
consult on several reports to Congress.
    Can you provide an update on the state of the current coordination 
process between NHTSA and NTIA? Are there any areas of improvement that 
you would recommend?
    Answer. NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) have been statutory partners forming the 9-1-1 Implementation 
Coordination Office (ICO) since 2004. ICO was reauthorized in 2012 
until the statutory sunset date for the ICO of October 1, 2022. Since 
2012, NTIA and NHTSA have partnered as the ICO on two major projects--
the 2018 Next Generation (NG) 9-1-1 Cost Study Report to Congress and 
the 9-1-1 Grant Program with 36 grants awarded to States, territories, 
and tribes in 2019 totaling $109 million. The 9-1-1 grants expired on 
March 31, 2022 and are scheduled to be fully closed by the ICO sunset 
date of October 1, 2022.
    NTIA has been preparing for the termination of the ICO but plans to 
continue support to the 9-1-1 community through its Public Safety 
Communications Program.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Johnson to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. Do you consider any laws or regulations to be 
burdensome or present barriers to effectively deploying broadband? If 
so, please identify such laws or regulations and their impacts on 
broadband deployment.
    Answer. The BEAD NOFO strongly encourages Eligible Entities and 
their political subdivisions to remove time and cost barriers 
associated with BEAD projects, including by expediting permitting 
timelines and waiving fees where applicable, where doing so does not 
undermine other critical policy goals. It further requires that 
Eligible Entities identify, as part of their initial proposals, steps 
that each state will take to reduce costs and barriers to deployment, 
promote the use of existing infrastructure, promote and adopt dig-once 
policies, and streamline permitting processes and cost-effective access 
to poles, conduits, easements, and rights of way, including the 
imposition of reasonable access requirements.

    Question 2. With Congress appropriating $42.45 billion to NTIA for 
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, the program is 
ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. What steps are you taking to mitigate 
waste, fraud and abuse in this program?
    Answer. The Department, NTIA, states, and subgrantees each have a 
critical role to play in ensuring that the BEAD Program is implemented 
in a manner that ensures transparency, accountability, and oversight 
sufficient to, among other things, minimize the opportunity for waste, 
fraud, and abuse; ensure that recipients of grants under the Program 
use grant funds to further the overall purpose of the Program in 
compliance with the requirements of the IIJA, the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and other applicable 
laws and regulations; and to allow the public to understand and monitor 
grants and subgrants awarded under the Program. We take these 
responsibilities seriously and are implementing a robust accountability 
mechanism.

    Question 3. How can you ensure that the BEAD Program will not 
contribute to overbuilding if NTIA distributes funds before the FCC 
resolves any broadband mapping errors? Would you delay distributions 
until the FCC resolves these mapping issues?
    Answer. The IIJA directs the Assistant Secretary, in coordination 
with the Commission, to allocate BEAD funds amongst the Eligible 
Entities once the broadband DATA maps are made public. I agree that 
accurate mapping data is vital, and that the FCC's challenge 
processes--both for the Fabric and for provider data submitted in 
conjunction with the new Broadband Data Collection--are critical to 
improving their accuracy. The FCC's challenge processes are ongoing and 
the accuracy of the maps will improve over time. We are working closely 
with our colleagues at the FCC to determine how best to balance the 
need to provide certainty regarding the amounts to be allocated to the 
Eligible Entities in a timely manner against the need to allow the FCC, 
Eligible Entities, and providers to review and validate the content of 
the maps.

    Question 4. NTIA states in the FAQs for the BEAD Program that the 
Initial Proposal from an Eligible Entity should detail actions that the 
entity ``will take on critical issues such as climate resiliency. . 
.''. How does NTIA define climate resiliency? How is climate resiliency 
within the scope of NTIA's mission and jurisdiction?
    Answer. In establishing their Initial Proposals and Final 
Proposals, Eligible Entities must demonstrate that they have 
sufficiently accounted for current and future weather- and climate-
related risks to new infrastructure projects. At present, weather- and 
climate-related risks to broadband networks include wildfires, extreme 
heat and cold, inland and coastal flooding, and extreme winds produced 
by weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and other weather 
events. Because retrofitted and new infrastructure for broadband is 
expected to have a lifetime of 20 years or more, Eligible Entities must 
account not only for current risks but also for how the frequency, 
severity, and nature of these extreme events may plausibly evolve as 
our climate continues to change over the coming decades. Future 
projected climate change is expected to continue to result in higher 
seasonal temperatures and an increased likelihood of extreme heat 
events, higher risk of wildfires, more intense rainfall events, sea 
level rise and coastal inundation, permafrost thaw in Alaska, the 
potential for stronger hurricanes when they do form, and other climate 
change related impacts.
    Communities that lack broadband are often the most vulnerable to 
extreme weather and climate events. This combination often results in a 
lack of crucial communications infrastructure to respond during these 
emergencies. Building climate-resilient broadband infrastructure for 
such communities provides emergency response preparedness and thus 
greater climate resilience for the community itself.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. For decades, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) have worked together and are responsible 
for the joint 911 Implementation and Coordination Office. As you are 
aware, the ICO is required to facilitate coordination and 
communications among public and private stakeholders at local, state, 
tribal, federal, and national levels; administer a grant program for 
the benefit of 911 call centers across the country; and author or 
consult on several reports to Congress. What are your in terms of if 
NTIA and NHTSA should jointly oversee the migration from existing 
legacy 911 systems to implementing Next Generation 911?
    Answer. NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) have been statutory partners forming the 9-1-1 Implementation 
Coordination Office (ICO) since 2004. ICO was reauthorized in 2012 
until the statutory sunset date for the ICO of October 1, 2022. Since 
2012, NTIA and NHTSA have partnered as the ICO on two major projects--
the 2018 Next Generation (NG) 9-1-1 Cost Study Report to Congress and 
the 9-1-1 Grant Program with 36 grants awarded to States, territories, 
and tribes in 2019 totaling $109 million. The NG9-1-1 Cost Study 
transmitted to Congress in October 2018 identified nationwide costs of 
at least $9.5 billion to $12.7 billion, nearly four years ago, and 
costs have only increased.

    Question 2. As you know, local governments play a critical and 
direct role in facilitating broadband upgrades and new deployments 
through their zoning and permitting functions. With the significant 
amount of broadband funding flowing to states from the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, many local 
governments, particularly those in rural or underserved areas will need 
additional resources to manage the expected increase in permit 
applications for deployment of broadband-related infrastructure.

   The recent Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Broadband 
        Equity Access and Deployment Program includes language allowing 
        for Initial Planning Funds to be used, among other things, for 
        ``technical assistance to potential subgrantees [and] 
        increasing capacity of a broadband office''; Do you expect that 
        NTIA will require a description of a state's actions to ensure 
        their political subdivisions' zoning and permitting offices 
        have the staffing and technical resources to facilitate and 
        expedite applications?

   Do you believe that political subdivisions can use Initial 
        Planning Funds for expanding and strengthening zoning and 
        permitting offices, including hiring and training employees and 
        for the purchase of software and equipment?

    Answer. The BEAD NOFO strongly encourages Eligible Entities and 
their political subdivisions to remove time and cost barriers 
associated with BEAD projects, including by expediting permitting 
timelines and waiving fees where applicable, where doing so does not 
undermine other critical policy goals. It further requires that 
Eligible Entities identify, as part of their initial proposals, steps 
that each state will take to reduce costs and barriers to deployment, 
promote the use of existing infrastructure, promote and adopt dig-once 
policies, streamlined permitting processes and cost-effective access to 
poles, conduits, easements, and rights of way, including the imposition 
of reasonable access requirements. NTIA will evaluate proposed uses of 
BEAD initial planning funds according the NOFO IV.B.2.
    Question 3. Mr. Davidson, at your confirmation hearing, I asked you 
about your thoughts about whether the IJA broadband grants would be 
administered in a technology neutral manner. You responded by saying: 
``If confirmed, I would support an ``all of the above'' approach that 
allows NTIA and the states to consider any technology that will meet 
America's broadband needs. . .''

   The NOFO that came out does not take a technology neutral 
        approach. It specifies a heavy preference for one technology, 
        ``end-to-end'' fiber. As you know, a state like West Virginia 
        is very mountainous and I am certain that the only way we are 
        going to reach the unserved and underserved in my state will be 
        with wireless. Fiber will be appropriate in many areas, but it 
        will never be financially feasible in many areas of my state. 
        Can you assure me that NTIA will NOT exclude wireless solutions 
        in the BEAD program and NOT discriminate or penalize states 
        that want to use BEAD money for wireless projects? Will you be 
        flexible enough in how you allocate BEAD funding to allow 
        states to utilize the funding for wireless if they believe this 
        is the best approach?

    Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband 
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure 
that Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical 
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will 
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs, 
consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
    The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant 
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for 
selecting subgrantees. NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband 
Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture 
because such projects will ``ensure that the network built by the 
project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving 
connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and ``support the 
deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced 
services.'' IIJA Sec. 60102(a)(2)(I). In the event there is just one 
proposed Priority Broadband Project in a location or set of locations, 
and that proposal does not exceed the Extremely High Cost Per Location 
Threshold established by the state in it is initial proposal to NTIA, 
that proposal is the default winner, unless the state requests, and the 
Assistant Secretary grants, a waiver allowing the state to select an 
alternative project.
    Unfortunately, there will likely be locations for which a state 
does not receive a proposal to deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In 
such cases, the state may select any project proposing to use an 
alternative Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD 
Program's technical requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy 
of less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
    If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD 
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of 
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given 
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a 
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does 
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise 
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.

    Question 4. I am concerned about supply chain issues and what 
effect this might have on BEAD and Middle Mile funded projects. Are you 
going to consider speed to deploy in ranking funding priorities?
    Answer. The Department of Commerce has taken a leading role in 
addressing supply chain challenges facing our Nation. The Department 
and NTIA are well positioned to engage with the telecommunications 
sector and manufacturers to ensure that there is sufficient supply of 
fiber, equipment, and other necessary materials to implement the 
broadband programs. We leverage the resources and expertise within the 
Department and to work closely with industrial stakeholders to address 
this critical issue.
    The Middle Mile Grant Program will prioritize applications that 
meet certain criteria, including that the Eligible Entity has 
identified supplemental investments or in-kind support (such as waived 
franchise or permitting fees) that will accelerate the completion of 
the planned project. For the BEAD program, each Eligible Entity may 
choose its own means of competitively selecting subgrantees for last-
mile broadband deployment projects, though that process must 
incorporate certain principles to satisfy the IIJA's mandates and the 
BEAD Program's goals. In particular, the selection process must give 
secondary criterion prioritization weight to the prospective 
subgrantee's binding commitment to provide service by an earlier date 
certain, subject to contractual penalties to the Eligible Entity, with 
greater benefits awarded to applicants promising an earlier service 
provision date.

    Question 5. Given the mountainous terrain of West Virginia, 
achieving universal broadband connectivity may require an all-of-the-
above technology approach. Fiber, cable, fixed wireless, mobile 
wireless--perhaps satellite broadband--each has a role to play in 
connecting every household and business to the digital economy. What 
are your thoughts on tech neutrality, and will broadband programs 
administered by NTIA be carried out in a technology-neutral manner?
    Answer. NTIA will ensure that Eligible Entities have flexibility to 
identify appropriate technical solutions. In many cases, the best 
solution will be fiber. But we will consider any technology that will 
meet America's broadband needs, consistent with the requirements set 
out in the IIJA.

    Question 6. IIJA contained historic funding for closing the digital 
divide, and the pandemic has shown the necessity of high-quality 
connectivity for all citizens.
    As a report issued by your own Department has indicated, the 
manufacture of information and communications technology products 
(ICTs) has moved out of the United States over the past 25 years; the 
U.S. share of global ICT manufacturing has declined from 30 to five 
percent.
    Everything from routers and switches to end-user devices contains 
components made in other countries. As such, it is highly unlikely that 
most, if not all, of the equipment necessary to close the digital 
divide will fail to meet the requirements of the Buy America policies 
established in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
    It is also clear from your report that the United States currently 
does not have the current capabilities to manufacture these products at 
scale. While ICT companies are beginning to diversify their sourcing 
due to pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, shifting geopolitical 
tensions, and the increasing prices of fuel, it does not appear that 
there will be a sufficient supply of domestically sourced equipment 
when the IIJA funds are distributed. Additional manufacturing capacity 
built in the United States would no doubt be a welcome, if not 
necessary, way to remedy the supply chain shortages--but expanding that 
capacity will take time. In the meantime, our communities desperately 
need broadband deployment.
    Answer. In the short term, we will work with industry to explore 
options for alleviating broadband equipment availability concerns. In 
the long term, we must take steps to ensure a resilient and secure 
supply chain for critical materials, including continued assistance to 
firms expanding their semiconductor manufacturing investments in the 
United States.
    The Administration is committed to faithfully implementing the 
IIJA, including the law's Build America, Buy America provisions. 
President Biden has relentlessly focused on an industrial strategy to 
revitalize our manufacturing base, strengthen critical supply chains, 
and position U.S. workers and businesses to compete and lead globally 
in the 21st century. The Commerce Department will consider waiving 
these requirements only where the acquisition of domestic components 
would be inconsistent with the public interest, their cost would be 
unreasonable, or the relevant materials or products are not mined, 
produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and 
reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory 
quality.

    Question 7. How crucial is getting sufficient middle mile to rural 
America in order to fully close the digital divide?
    Answer. Middle mile connections are crucial to fully closing the 
digital divide. The IIJA established the Middle Mile Grant (MMG) 
Program to complement other programs focused on Internet connectivity 
and digital equity. Middle mile infrastructure does not reach the end 
user's location, but typically aggregates large quantities of traffic 
for carriage between networks.
    Recognizing the middle mile's central importance, Congress 
appropriated $1 billion for the MMG Program and identified two key 
objectives: to ``encourage the expansion and extension of middle mile 
infrastructure to reduce the cost of connecting unserved and 
underserved areas to the backbone of the internet'' and to ``promote 
broadband connection resiliency through the creation of alternative 
network connection paths that can be designed to prevent single points 
of failure on a broadband network.''

    Question 8. Do you still stand by your commitment to make it out to 
West Virginia to see the challenges my state faces when it comes to 
providing broadband?
    Answer. Yes. NTIA senior leadership traveled to West Virginia in 
August, 2022, and reported back on the unique challenges facing your 
state. I look forward to going there myself and learning firsthand 
about how best to bring high-speed Internet to all West Virginians.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. With the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and 
Deployment (BEAD) Program, Americans deserve to know how their tax 
dollars are being spent. My Broadband Buildout Accountability Act (S. 
3671) would remove the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption 
currently in the BEAD. Transparency will help ensure that taxpayer 
money is spent with maximum accountability and return on investment.

   Do you plan on disclosing how the BEAD grant dollars will be 
        spent?

   How are you making the NTIA more transparent to American 
        taxpayers so that they know how their tax dollars are receiving 
        a proper return on investment?

    Answer. NTIA intends to run the BEAD Program transparently and with 
accountability, including making information publicly accessible so 
that the public can track how each state is spending BEAD funding and 
monitor their state's progress. NTIA, along with Eligible Entities and 
subgrantees, each have a critical role to play in ensuring that the 
BEAD Program is implemented in a manner that reflects transparency, 
accountability, and oversight to minimize the opportunity for waste, 
fraud, and abuse; ensure that grant recipients under the Program use 
grant funds to further the overall purpose of the Program in compliance 
with the requirements of the IIJA, the Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and other applicable laws and 
regulations; and to allow the public to understand and monitor grants 
and subgrants awarded under the Program.

    Question 2. As satellite Internet technology develops and expands, 
it is rapidly becoming a key player in ensuring that rural and remote 
America has access to broadband internet. However, in your Notice of 
Funding Opportunity for the BEAD, you explicitly consider a location 
served exclusively by satellite as ``unserved''.

   How do you justify this designation, which could lead to 
        overbuilding in areas that already have access to broadband?

   Do you believe that satellite Internet is a viable option in 
        bringing high speed Internet to rural areas so that all 
        Americans have access to the internet?

    Answer. For the purposes of the BEAD Program, locations served 
exclusively by satellite do not meet the criteria for Reliable 
Broadband Service and so will be considered ``unserved.'' The IIJA 
defines ``reliable broadband service'' as ``broadband service that 
meets performance criteria for service availability, adaptability to 
changing end-user requirements, length of serviceable life, or other 
criteria, other than upload and download speeds, as determined by the 
Assistant Secretary in coordination with the [FCC].'' For the purposes 
of this definition, the Assistant Secretary adopts the criteria that 
Reliable Broadband Service must be (1) a fixed broadband service that 
(2) is available with a high degree of certainty, (3) both at present 
and for the foreseeable future, and finds, after coordination with the 
FCC, that the definition of Reliable Broadband Service set forth in the 
BEAD NOFO best meets those criteria.
    NTIA recognize that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to 
broadband deployment given each state's unique challenges, and will 
ensure that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying 
technical solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. 
But we will consider any technology that will meet America's broadband 
needs, consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to 
                           Hon. Alan Davidson
    Question 1. The BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, 
requires states to create a ``middle-class affordability'' option to 
``offer low-cost, high-speed plans to all middle-class householders on 
BEAD funded networks,'' despite no such provisions being included in 
IIJA. Within IIJA, Congress considered the necessity of a low-cost 
option for Americans, and required NTIA to provide for a low-cost 
broadband option for low-income families, not middle class families 
that can afford broadband service.

   Administrator Davidson, can you explain to me where NTIA's 
        authority to create another low-cost option for middle class 
        families comes from, since this is not something Congress 
        authorized in IIJA?

   Additionally, given the potentially broad scope of a middle-
        class low-cost requirement, please explain how this is not rate 
        regulation, something explicitly prohibited in IIJA?

    Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA stated that ``[a]ccess to 
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full 
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he 
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the 
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of 
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We 
agree, and believe it is essential that communications networks be 
accessible and affordable to all Americans. The IIJA's low-cost service 
option requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-
income Americans, but that requirement alone will not ensure that 
service is affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to 
fulfill the IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to 
propose plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO 
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might 
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to 
the Eligible Entities in the first instance. Similarly, we do not 
specify which mechanisms a state must employ to ensure middle-class 
affordability. Again, this is a question for Eligible Entities to 
address in the first instance.

    Question 2. As has been noted already, broadband deployment is 
critical, and NTIA's duty under IIJA to provide broadband to unserved 
Americans is of critical importance. However, NTIA also serves other 
important functions that need to be executed. As the lead Republican on 
the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee that 
funds NTIA, it is my responsibility to ensure your agency has the 
resources necessary to carry out all of its functions. Administrator 
Davidson, given the focus on implementing IIJA's broadband deployment 
provision, do you have the personnel and resources necessary to achieve 
NTIA's other important tasks, including spectrum management objectives?
    Answer. Senator, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this 
issue with you and your staff. NTIA has always appreciated your support 
in your role on the Appropriations Committee. We urge Congress to fully 
fund the Administration's FY 2023 budget request for NTIA.

    Question 3. Administrator Davidson, the Notice of Funding 
Opportunity's introduction of a middle-class affordability option in 
the BEAD program was unexpected, as it was not included in IIJA. The 
definition of middle class can be quite broad and it's also very 
regional. For example, an income of $100K per year in rural Kansas goes 
a lot further than in a state with a higher cost of living like 
California or New York.

   How do you plan to approach this regional cost-of-living 
        variability? Additionally, what system do you plan to put in 
        place for eligibility verification?

   Do you expect ISPs to have to ask customers to provide their 
        tax returns or other financial information to qualify?

    Answer. Each Eligible Entity must include in its Initial and Final 
Proposals a middle-class affordability plan to ensure that all 
consumers have access to affordable high-speed internet. The NOFO 
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might 
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to 
the Eligible Entities in the first instance.
    Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms an Eligible Entity 
must employ to ensure middle-class affordability. Again, this is a 
question for Eligible Entities to address in the first instance.

                                  [all]