    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    LIFTOFF: UNLEASHING INNOVATION IN SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 8, 2023
                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-8

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    52-838 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                       CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                      Chair
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
        Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                          NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                       SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                             ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                     Chairman
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia,   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
        Vice Chair                       MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             TONY CARDENAS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                     officio)
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
        (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24

                                   Witnesses

    William R. Richardson, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal
      Communications Commission......................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   222
    Charles Glass, Chief, International Spectrum Policy Division,
      National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
      Department of Commerce.........................................    38
        Prepared statement...........................................    40
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   225
    Whitney Q. Lohmeyer, Ph.D., Professor of Engineering, Olin
      College of Engineering.........................................    77
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   227
    Peter Davidson, Vice President of Global Government Affairs &
      Policy, Intelsat...............................................    90
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   228
    David Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, SpaceX.........    99
        Prepared statement...........................................   101
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   231
    Danielle Pineres, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs &
      Compliance, Planet Labs........................................   112
        Prepared statement...........................................   114
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   237

                                  Legislation

    H.R. ___, the Secure Space Act of 2023...........................   162
    H.R. ___, the Launch Communications Act..........................   165
    Discussion Draft, the Satellite And Telecommunications
      Streamlining Act...............................................   170
    Discussion Draft, the Precision Agriculture Satellite
      Connectivity Act...............................................   196
    Discussion Draft, the Advanced, Local Emergency Response
      Telecommunications Parity Act..................................   199

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    Letter of February 8, 2023, from The 5G for 12 GHz Coalition to
      Mrs. Rodgers, et al............................................   209
    Petition for Rulemaking Before the Federal Communications
      Commission, Olin Satellite + Spectrum Technology & Policy
      Group, November 9, 202260211...................................

    LIFTOFF: UNLEASHING INNOVATION IN SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2023

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room 2232, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Latta
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg,
    Carter, Dunn, Curtis, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher,
    Pfluger, Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio),
    Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), Clarke, Veasey, Soto,
    Eshoo, Cardenas, Craig, Fletcher, Dingell, Kuster, Kelly, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Also present: Representatives Johnson and Schrier.
        Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Michael
    Cameron, Professional Staff Member, Consumer Protection and
    Commerce; Nate Hodson, Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief
    Counsel; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology;
    John Lin, Senior Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sean
    Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily
    King, Member Services Director; Tim Kurth, Chief Counsel,
    Consumer Protection and Commerce; Giulia Leganski, Professional
    Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Kate O'Connor,
    Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Michael Taggart,
    Policy Director; Evan Viau, Professional Staff Member,
    Communications and Technology; Jennifer Epperson, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Waverly Gordon,
    Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany
    Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Dan Miller, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; Elysa Montfort, Minority Press
    Secretary; Joe Orlando, Minority Senior Policy Analyst; Greg
    Pugh, Minority Staff Assistant; Caroline Rinker, Minority Press
    Assistant; Michael Scurato, Minority FCC Detailee; and Johanna
    Thomas, Minority Counsel.
        Mr. Latta. Good morning, and I'd like to call the
    Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to order. And the
    Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

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

        Thank you to our witnesses for agreeing to appear in person
    to provide your expertise on five pieces of bipartisan
    legislation and discussion drafts that aim to promote U.S.
    leadership in satellite communications technology. Last week,
    the subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the state of the
    satellite marketplace in the United States. That hearing
    provided insight into the challenges and opportunities in the
    rapidly changing satellite marketplace.
        Today, we will hear from a different slate of witnesses
    representing a wide range of the satellite industry and how the
    legislative text being considered would impact the current
    regulatory landscape. The five pieces of legislation include
    the gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full
    committee, and the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
    member, their Satellite and Telecommunications Streaming Act.
    This legislation would codify a statutory framework and
    streamline the Federal Communication Commission's satellite
    licensing process by clarifying what information the FCC should
    consider in an application and put shot clocks on how much time
    the FCC has to complete its review and grant a license.
        Next, we will discuss the Secure Space Act led by the
    ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey, and the
    gentlelady from Washington, the full committee chair, which
    would prohibit the FCC from granting authorization for a
    satellite service to operate in the United States if such
    satellite service poses a national security risk. This bill--
    bipartisan work on this committee to secure our Nation's
    communications networks in the ground by now looking to secure
    our services in space.
        Next we will have the gentleman from Ohio and the
    gentlelady from Washington's ALERT Parity Act, which would
    establish a process for the FCC to ensure that satellite
    technology can be used to ensure access to wireless and
    emergency alerts and 911 service remain uninterrupted during
    times of emergency. Then we will have the gentlemen from--both
    from Florida--legislation on the Launch Communications Act,
    which would help streamline the process for approving access to
    wireless frequencies or commercial space launches and
    reentries. Many times, the process requires approval by both
    the FCC and the National Communications and Information
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, which would
    result in delay. This legislation would help improve that
    process.
        And last but not least, we will discuss the Precision
    Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act, which is led by myself
    and the gentlelady from Illinois. This legislation will require
    the FCC to look at its current satellite rules to determine if
    rule changes can be made to promote precision agriculture.
        Despite the billions of dollars that have been made
    available for broadband deployment over the last 2 years, it is
    clear that traveling in my district that too many Americans
    still lack access to the internet. Republicans have long called
    for technology neutrality and next-generation satellite network
    provide broadband speeds and latency that rivals other forms of
    broadband service. Farmers and ranchers across America
    increasingly rely on technology, improved efficiency and yields
    by also minimizing cost.
        In the 21st century, that technology must be connected to
    the internet for its benefits to be totally realized.
    Gathering, processing, ensuring data in real time can help
    farmers and ranchers make better decisions. While many farmers
    and ranchers have made progress getting access to fixed and
    wireless terrestrial networks over time, we heard at our
    hearing last week that satellite technology played a key role.
    In some cases, satellite technology can connect directly to
    equipment or sensors in the field, and in other cases satellite
    technology provides back-hall to wireless towers nearby.
        I am excited to be considering these five pieces of
    bipartisan legislation today, and thank you again to our
    witness being with us today and look forward to the discussion.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. At this time the Chair now recognizes the
    subcommittee ranking member from California for 5 minutes for
    an opening statement.

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

        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
    witnesses for being here today. I am glad that we are building
    on the progress of our first hearing with another bipartisan
    discussion today. The bills before us hold the potential to
    boost innovation, cut the red tape, and increase security in
    the satellite ecosystem. Having the perspective of both
    government agencies and industry standards will give us a
    holistic perspective. It will help inform these bills as they
    move through the committee process.
        As both the FCC and Congress move forward on updates for
    the satellite licensing process, hearings like this will give
    us a chance to harmonize these efforts. It is important that
    this committee and the FCC are working hand-in-glove to advance
    complementary rather than conflicting policies.
        The five bills before us today are bipartisan and cover a
    wide swath of issues crucial to the satellite marketplace.
        Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers' and Ranking Member Pallone's
    SAT Streamlining Act would modernize an often onerous licensing
    and market access process at the FCC. Specifically, the bill
    would require a reasonable shot clock that would create a more
    responsive process at the FCC. It would also require the FCC to
    issue rules to promote tech-neutral rules of the road in space.
        While this is still a discussion draft, I look forward to
    working toward a consensus bipartisan introduction. As ongoing
    feedback with the FCC and industry is considered, I know we're
    on the right track.
        And as I mentioned at last week's hearing, I'm glad to see
    progress on the Secure Space Act. As an original cosponsor of
    the rip-and-replace bill, I know this is a national security
    and economic imperative. The FCC has been doing great work
    keeping the covered entity list current, and I'm excited to
    have an opportunity to discuss that work.
        We also have legislation on today's agenda that would make
    changes to the way some emergency alerts are handled. As a
    member of the California delegation, I know the stakes for this
    information is literally life and death. During emergencies
    like wildfires, these alerts need to be accurate and timely, no
    exceptions. It's important to get policy in this space right,
    and I'm looking forward to additional conversations on this
    bill.
        We're also going to discuss the LAUNCHES Act from
    Representatives Soto and Dunn. As it stands now, companies
    looking to conduct a commercial space launch must navigate a
    complex process of overlapping Federal interests seeking access
    to spectrum. And rather than coordinating multiple launches at
    once, this process can only be done on an individual basis,
    causing delays. The LAUNCHES Act would require the FCC to
    continue its work streamlining this process. This would create
    more predictability for both Federal and private organizations.
        And finally, we have a chance to discuss the Precision
    Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act from Chairman Latta and
    Congresswoman Kelly, which would require the FCC to report to
    Congress on opportunities to update its satellite rules to
    promote precision agriculture. My new district is home to a
    rich tradition of agriculture with family farms that have been
    passed down through generations. These small communities are
    desperate for connectivity and modern farming tools to stay
    prosperous.
        On the government side, the FCC and NTIA are already taking
    crucial steps to advance U.S. leadership. I'd like to note that
    in January 2021, I urged then-President-elect Biden to develop
    a unified process to spectrum management and to consider
    updating the memorandum of understanding between the FCC and
    NTIA. Thanks to the hard work of the two agencies before us
    today, that suggestion has come to fruition. I'm excited to
    hear more about how that new MOU can support better
    coordination on satellite regulations. We have a lot to
    discuss, and I'm eager to get started.
        With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back,
    and at this time the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    Washington, the chair of the full committee, for 5 minutes.

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

        Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today we will discuss solutions to unleash innovation in the
    satellite communications marketplace. Last week, we heard from
    witnesses about how satellite systems will play a role in
    closing the digital divide, how they will connect Americans in
    times of disaster and emergencies, and how they will enable the
    technologies of the future to beat China. Technologies like
    precision agriculture, which is valuable for farmers in Eastern
    Washington working to improve their yields and lower their
    costs. Streamlining the Federal regulations to enable
    technology that helps put food on the table is why efforts like
    the Satellite and Telecommunications Streamlining Act are so
    important.
        We also heard from witnesses about the threat that China
    and others pose to our economic and national security if we do
    not take action. These hearings could not be more timely. With
    the Chinese Communist Party illegally launching a balloon over
    the continental United States and spying on American assets and
    citizens, this experience was a frightening reminder of the
    need to secure our networks from the Chinese Communist Party,
    both networks on the ground and satellite communications. China
    will stop at nothing to undermine American values, steal
    American data and use that information to advance its
    authoritarian agenda around the world. We cannot let that
    happen.
        I'm pleased to have the witnesses before us who can speak
    to the five bipartisan bills we're considering to encourage
    investment, innovation and competition in the satellite
    communications industry to solidify America's dominance in this
    sector. Last Congress, I introduced with--with then the
    chairman, Frank Pallone, the Satellite and Telecommunications
    Streamlining Act. Today we are considering that language as a
    discussion draft as we continue to work with industry and
    government stakeholders to make sure that we get it right. This
    is the first major legislative effort since 2000 to update our
    laws and regulations related to how satellite systems are
    licensed in the United States.
        This legislation would reform the Federal Communications
    Commission's process to grant satellite licenses, establish a
    statutory framework that directs the FCC to act swiftly to
    approve satellite license applications, and incentivize
    operators to be responsible stewards of space and spectrum in
    the global marketplace.
        We heard repeatedly at last week's hearing about the need
    for our government to move quickly to stay relevant. In order
    for U.S. companies to compete globally, they must move first.
    They must be incentivized to design their systems to better
    serve the unconnected, whether in America or in developing
    countries that the Chinese Communist Party seeks to dominate. I
    thank Ranking Member Pallone for working with me on this
    legislation.
        We are also reviewing Ranking Member Pallone's Secure Space
    Act, a bill that I'm proud to colead. This bill builds on
    Energy and Commerce Committee's leadership to make sure
    untrusted equipment and software is removed from American
    communications networks.
        In 2020, President Trump signed the Secure and Trusted
    Communications Network Act, which prohibits Federal subsidies
    from being used for untrusted equipment and authorizes a grant
    program at the FCC for carriers to remove that equipment from
    their networks. The grant program is short by 3 billion, and we
    are working with our colleagues across Congress to fund that
    shortfall as soon as possible.
        With Chinese flying reconnaissance balloons over our land,
    the timing could not be more urgent. Additionally, last year
    Congress passed the Secure Equipment Act to close a loophole
    that allowed vulnerable equipment to remain in our networks
    regardless of whether it was federally funded or not.
        The Secure Space Act would expand this work by applying
    similar requirements to our satellite communications
    technologies. By prohibiting the FCC from granting
    authorization for satellite services that pose a national
    security risk, we will not allow risky businesses to serve the
    United States.
        Now is the time to act, to plow the hard ground necessary
    to legislate. I'm pleased to see Members across the
    subcommittee working in a bipartisan manner to lead on
    solutions to solve some of our toughest challenges, including
    how America can lead and win the future with satellite
    technologies that improve people's lives. I look forward to
    hearing from the witnesses.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And at
    this time, the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
    full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes.

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

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. I'm going to sound
    like Chairwoman Rodgers with my opening statement today, so
    please forgive me, but I think it just shows that we are very
    bipartisan in addressing the next frontier of the commercial
    space industry. And the stakes could not be higher for the
    American satellite marketplace. Just this last week, we
    witnessed the Chinese Government's balloon flying high above
    American airspace. This incident demonstrated the urgency for
    us to explore every method possible to protect our Nation from
    these and other aerial threats and prevent our foreign
    adversaries from using our skies for their surveillance
    missions. And satellites have a role to play in achieving these
    objectives. And the legislation we are discussing today would
    help ensure that our satellite marketplace remains competitive,
    nimble, and protected from untrusted actors.
        Today's legislation will also allow satellites to play a
    greater role in helping first responders in the public when
    natural disasters and other emergencies strike. Better earth
    imaging will also help us monitor and track some of the most
    urgent global issues like the worsening climate crisis.
        So first I appreciate that we're considering H.R. 675, the
    Secure Space Act, bipartisan legislation that I reintroduced
    with Chairwoman Rodgers last week. This bill would extend the
    Secure and Trusted Communications Network Act Framework to the
    U.S. licensing of nongeostationary orbit satellites to protect
    the public from untrusted entities and foreign adversaries. As
    innovations flourish, we must protect the satellite marketplace
    and its role in the supply chain from threats by nontrusted
    actors. We can't risk our satellite networks facing the same
    challenges as our other communications networks here and
    globally.
        We'll also be discussing the Satellite and
    Telecommunications Streamlining Act, a bipartisan discussion
    draft that Chairwoman Rodgers and I introduced last year. The
    legislation would streamline the satellite licensing process at
    the FCC for certain satellite applications. This bill would
    strengthen the competitiveness of the United States satellite
    industry, which is imperative, given other countries, including
    our foreign adversaries, are making aggressive moves to
    dominate the industry.
        There is no question that the U.S. must remain a market
    leader in this sector. Failure to do so risks our Nation
    falling behind our counterparts across the globe, including
    China, in producing cutting-edge consumer innovations and
    fortifying our public safety and national security
    capabilities.
        We're also considering H.R. 682, the Launch Communications
    Act, a bipartisan bill reintroduced last week by
    Representatives Soto and Dunn. This bill would enhance the
    ability of entities to launch rockets from the U.S. by
    streamlining the FCC's process for authorizing access to
    spectrums for commercial space launches and space reentries. It
    would also encourage continued competitiveness and growth in
    the American commercial space industry.
        Then we have the Precision Agriculture Satellite
    Connectivity Act, a bipartisan discussion draft from
    Subcommittee Chair Latta and Representative Kelly. That would
    encourage advancement in the innovation of precision
    agriculture. This bill requires the FCC to review its rules
    related to certain satellite services to develop
    recommendations to promote precision agriculture and report
    these findings to Congress.
        And finally, there's the Advanced, Local Emergency Response
    Telecommunications, or ALERT, Parity Act. This is, again, a
    bipartisan discussion draft from Representatives Johnson and
    Schrier that will also--that would also introduce--or they
    introduced last Congress. And it would allow satellite
    communication providers to access spectrum in temporary
    situations so that local customers can retain access to 911 and
    other lifesaving services where service is not available. This
    could be in circumstances where the area is remote, where the
    area is experiencing certain outages caused by natural
    disasters. And with this bill, Americans would not have to
    worry about being able to reach first responders and loved ones
    in an emergency.
        So every bill or discussion draft we are considering today
    is bipartisan, and we look forward to hearing feedback from
    these witnesses and other stakeholders.
        I'm determined to continue working with Chairwoman Rodgers
    and Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and other members of
    the committee so that we can make sure the United States leads
    the rest of the world in the satellite communications industry.
    And time is certainly of the essence.
        So I welcome our panelists, look forward to hearing from
    them. It's also nice to see that a familiar face will be before
    us today, David Goldman, but I don't see David. Where is he? Is
    he here? No? He is not here yet. He served as the subcommittee
    Democratic chief counsel for 7 years, and I thank him in
    advance for being here, when he arrives.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. We'll give--we'll let him know he had a glowing
    report, very accurate. But the gentleman yields back, and we
    have now concluded with the Member opening statements.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made
    part of the record. We'd also like to again thank our witnesses
    for being with us today to testify before the subcommittee.
    Today's witnesses will have 5 minutes to provide an opening
    statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from
    the Members. At the conclusion of the first panel, the
    subcommittee will briefly recess so we can prepare for the
    second panel of witnesses. The second panel will begin promptly
    thereafter.
        Our first witness panel for today's hearing will include
    Mr. Bill Richardson, the deputy associate general counsel for
    agenda review for the Federal Communications Commission, and
    Mr. Charles Glass, chief of the International Spectrum Policy
    Division of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration.
        And just to mention--again, familiarize everyone with the
    lights. You have 5 minutes. It will be green. At 1 minute, you
    will have yellow. And then time is up, is it red, so finish up
    your statement at that time. We appreciate it.
        I also want to make mention: You will see Members on both
    sides going up and out of here today because we also have two
    committees, Oversight and Health, meeting together downstairs.
    And so we'll have two--these two hearings running at the same
    time, so I apologize for people having to get up and down, but
    we have that going on today.
        And so with that, Mr. Richardson, you are recognized for 5
    minutes for your opening statement.

     STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM R. RICHARDSON, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL
    COUNSEL, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND CHARLES GLASS,
        CHIEF, INTERNATIONAL SPECTRUM POLICY DIVISION, NATIONAL
     TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
                              OF COMMERCE

                   STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. RICHARDSON

        Mr. Richardson. Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Matsui,
    Vice Chairman Carter, Chair McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member
    Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to be here with you today. Your consideration of
    these five bills will address a number of critical issues
    facing the Commission and a rapidly expanding satellite
    industry, and we welcome the opportunity to work closely with
    you in these efforts.
        The Commission's role in the licensing and regulation of
    satellite communications systems began over 60 years ago,
    including the launch of the first communications satellite to
    orbit the Earth. As you heard last week, there is widespread
    recognition that the satellite licensing process today needs
    updating in light of the growing number and complexity of
    satellite applications and the increased potential of the
    satellite sector for broadband coverage, emergency services,
    and U.S. competitiveness in a global marketplace.
        Acknowledging the work of Chair McMorris Rodgers and
    Ranking Member Pallone, FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel has agreed
    that the new Space Age needs new rules. The Commission has
    already taken a number of steps in recent years to modernize
    this process. To start, it has increased by 38 percent the size
    of its satellite staff to help speed up its work. Another
    critical action the Commission has recently taken is an
    initiative to modernize the FCC by establishing a Space Bureau,
    which is designed to prioritize attention to the growing needs
    of the satellite industry.
        In addressing these bills, I would note that the FCC has
    provided technical assistance on several of them, and we
    welcome the opportunity to continue to engage with your offices
    in that process.
        First, the Secure Space Act of 2022. This bill would bar
    the Commission from granting licenses or market access
    petitions for nongeostationary orbit satellite systems held or
    controlled by certain entities. It is similar in concept, as
    you've heard, to the Secure Equipment Act of 2021, which barred
    the Commission from issuing equipment authorizations of certain
    equipment that would pose an unacceptable risk to the national
    security of the United States or security and safety of United
    States persons. In implementing this bill, we would expect to
    draw heavily on the experience we had in implementing that
    legislation last November.
        Second, the SAT Streamlining Act of 2022. In considering
    this bill last week, industry witnesses recognized the need to
    balance concerns that incumbent satellite and terrestrial
    licensees may have about potential interference from new
    entrants with a need to support growth of and competition in
    this rapidly changing industry in three ways: streamline
    processes, adequate availability of spectrum, and effective
    processes for sharing spectrum where, as is increasingly the
    case, exclusive spectrum is no longer available. As I note in
    my written testimony, the Commission has taken or is actively
    considering steps that align with many of these goals,
    including through pending rulemakings.
        Third, the Launch Communications Act would focus not on
    satellite service but on the spectrum needed for launch and
    reentry of satellites. In 2021, recognizing that need in the
    face of an expanding commercial space launch industry, the
    Commission completed action to allocate the 2200 to 2290
    megahertz band for this purpose on a secondary basis. At that
    time, it also proposed licensing and service rules for use of
    this band and sought comment on use of additional bands for
    these purposes, including some of those referred to in this
    bill. We welcome the Launch Communications Act's support for
    this proceeding.
        Finally, the other two bills in draft that you are
    considering today would direct the FCC to address important
    priorities as well, promoting precision agriculture through
    satellite delivery in consultation with the existing task force
    established by the Commission and USDA and facilitating service
    to areas that are unserved by terrestrial providers or
    temporarily unserved because of natural disasters or power
    outages.
        Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
    hearing, and I look forward to assisting the subcommittee in
    considering these bills. I'd be happy to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Glass, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF CHARLES GLASS

        Mr. Glass. Good morning, Chairman Latta, Chairwoman
    Rodgers, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member Matsui, and
    members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Assistant Secretary
    Alan Davidson, thank you for the opportunity to testify about
    the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration's work on satellite issues.
        My name is Charles Glass. I serve as the chief of the
    International Spectrum Policy Division in NTIA's Office of
    Spectrum Management and have been in this role for the last 8
    years. NTIA has several responsibilities with respect to how
    to--our Nation utilizes spectrum resources, including those
    used by space-based systems such as satellites.
        First, NTIA is the principal advisor to the President on
    telecommunication issues, including those involving
    radiofrequency spectrum. Second, we directly manage the use of
    spectrum by Federal agencies, as I will describe more fully
    momentarily. In addition, NTIA maintains a research and testing
    lab, the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences in Boulder,
    Colorado, which provides critical theoretical and real-world
    knowledge on spectrum engineering.
        NTIA is, of course, part of the Department of Commerce. So
    we strive to ensure that spectrum resources are maximized for
    the growth and vitality of our Nation's economy. One of the
    Department's key strategic goals is to advance U.S. leadership
    in the global commercial space industry. Several other parts of
    the Department are also actively engaged in this effort.
        NTIA, through the Department of Commerce, works to ensure
    that sufficient spectrum is accessible for U.S. companies to
    pioneer and lead in their global space-based industries. As
    NTIA is well aware, space is one of the areas where a strong,
    mutually beneficial relationship exists between the Federal
    Government and American industry. NTIA works with the Federal
    agencies to ensure that their vital mission supporting national
    security, weather forecasting, space exploration, radio
    astronomy and a host of other important Federal equities are
    fully supported and protected while balancing the need for
    increased spectrum access for commercial activities.
        For satellite systems, this is accomplished through
    domestic efforts in concert with the FCC in its rulemaking and
    licensing efforts, which are coordinated with NTIA under a
    memorandum of understanding between our agencies.
    Internationally, NTIA leads, files and coordinates Federal
    satellite authorizations and registrations while working with
    the FCC to ensure maximum access to spectrum for commercial
    activities. NTIA is also committed to protecting critical
    infrastructure, including satellites, from malignant actors
    that pose a threat to our security.
        Now for an overview of our spectrum management operations.
    For Federal systems, OSM has a process for reviewing and
    certifying the spectrum supportability for our proposed system.
    We also have a separate but related process for assigning
    specific frequencies to each Federal system.
        As a result of these efforts, we process roughly 200
    certifications for Federal agencies every year and make nearly
    100,000 frequency assignments to the agencies. NTIA also is
    responsible for coordinating Federal satellite filings
    internationally to ensure protection of our existing satellite
    systems.
        The international filing process is conducted in
    coordination with the FCC, which transmits all satellite
    filings to the International Telecommunication Union. NTIA also
    leads international delegations in bilateral discussions with
    foreign administrations for coordination of our Federal
    satellite systems with new foreign satellite systems. The ITU
    publishes a quarterly report of satellite systems being
    registered, and NTIA works with the Federal agencies to
    identify any foreign systems with which coordination will be
    required.
        We have an equally important role in connection with the
    coordination of nonfederal systems that either share spectrum
    with Federal systems or operate using nearby frequencies. Our
    goal in these cases is to balance protecting critical Federal
    operations, promoting spectrum efficiency, and supporting
    commercial development.
        OSM coordinates either directly with the FCC or, at times,
    with the system proponents themselves. We also work closely
    with the FCC through our longstanding interagency processes.
    Notably, NTIA and FCC recently agreed to an update of the MOU
    that is enhancing our coordination in a number of important
    ways.
        NTIA has an important role in preparing for each World
    Radiocommunications Conference, which takes place typically
    every 4 years. NTIA coordinates and reconciles Federal views
    and proposals with the FCC and the U.S. Department of State to
    ultimately develop U.S. views and proposals that account for
    all U.S. spectrum stakeholders.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have regarding
    NTIA's work on satellite matters.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glass follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And thank you very much, Mr. Glass, for your
    testimony today. And we will now move into the question-and-
    answers portion of the hearing. I will begin the questioning
    and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Richardson, the FCC has led the Precision Agriculture
    Connectivity Task Force for nearly 5 years. While this task
    force has included some discussion about satellite technology,
    most of this recommendation do not address the role satellites
    can play in providing broadband or Earth observation services.
    Does the FCC have any plans to reexamine its rules governing
    satellite services to see if there are any changes that could
    promote precision agriculture?
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
    Precision agriculture is recognized, I think, by the Commission
    as a way that satellites technology can contribute in the
    future to improving the work of farmers and ranchers. The task
    force that you are referring to is one that has recently issued
    four working group reports. And these working groups, appointed
    by the Commission and the USDA, have included a broad range of
    experts from the satellite industry as well.
        These are interim reports. They are--my understanding is
    that they are on the way to being developed into a final
    report, which the FCC will be looking at in terms of
    recommendations for any changes to our rules that could
    facilitate use of satellite to deliver precision agriculture.
        Mr. Latta. I just want to make sure. Is there a timeline
    that you are looking at trying to have those reports in by?
        Mr. Richardson. I am not sure when the Commission is
    expected to act on that, but I could check back.
        Mr. Latta. I appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Richardson,
    when processing rounds were first established by the FCC 20
    years ago, there was no way to predict there would be the
    number of systems authorized and launched today. However, the
    processing round system stipulates that after a lead
    application is put on public notice, other prospective
    satellite operators only have a limited window to submit an
    application. But I appreciate the Commission's efforts to
    reorganize its international bureau into a--into a Space Bureau
    of Office of International Affairs.
        Do you agree that the process around framework takes too
    long regardless of the staff resources?
        Mr. Richardson. The question of revisiting the Commission's
    processes is an excellent one, and it's one the Commission has
    teed up in a pending rulemaking, several pending rulemakings,
    actually. These processing issues are something that commenters
    are due to be filing with the Commission, their recommendations
    for change, March 3rd for comments, April 3rd for reply
    comments. And we are looking forward to getting their ideas
    about the processing round and other issues that we flag for
    comment.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. And not to be picking on you a little
    more, but the ALERT Parity Act on today's hearing would require
    the FCC to issue rules that establish a process for satellite
    operators to provide wireless emergency alerts and 911 service
    using terrestrial spectrum. The Warren Act provides the FCC
    authority to ensure that the provision of these lifesaving
    services are technically feasible and reliable.
        While I recognize that the current secondary market has
    produced many partnerships, has the FCC evaluated what changes,
    if any, under law would be needed to ensure that the WEA alerts
    and 911 service provided by satellite operators receive the
    same treatment as----
        Mr. Richardson. I think the ALERT Parity Act is--recognizes
    the importance of using satellite where feasible to fill in the
    gaps, if you will, for critical 911 and alert services. As you
    know, section 1 of the Communications Act identifies as one of
    the key priorities for the Commission the promotion of public
    safety.
        We have, as you say, been--recently received applications
    for some very interesting partnerships to provide services
    between satellite and terrestrial that essentially broken down
    some of the stovepipes, if you will, that we've had in the
    past. And these are being looked at by our technical experts,
    our public safety experts and our licensing experts to see what
    kinds of issues they may pose.
        And I think those are directly relevant to the same issues
    that you're looking at in this bill. I think that it is an
    intriguing new way to promote these emergency services in areas
    that don't currently have them, which is a very important
    priority.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And I will yield back the
    balance of my time and recognize the gentlelady from
    California, the ranking member, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an original
    cosponsor of the rip-and-replace bill, which required the FCC
    to establish the covered list, I'm glad to see these
    restrictions being implemented in other industries. However,
    for this list to have teeth, it's imperative that the FCC
    constantly be evaluated and updated. Mr. Richardson, can you
    describe the FCC's process for updating the covered list and
    how to keep it current in rapidly evolving satellite
    marketplace?
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. This is
    something we've been looking at with our Federal partners. And
    to step back, it's important to stress that, under the Secure
    Networks Act, the determinations of whether particular services
    by particular entities pose an unacceptable risk to national
    security and therefore get put on the covered list come from
    other Federal agencies and--or under the National Defense
    Authorization Act passed by Congress.
        So what we first do is we look to what the Federal agencies
    have done. If they have put a covered service on the list, then
    we have a process through public notice system to implement
    that covered list----
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. Two years ago, I wrote then-
    President-elect Biden, urging him to develop an administration
    spectrum strategy that is persistent, concerted, and effective.
    Mr. Glass, can you describe the NTIA's role in--spectrum
    management generally and the implications in--for the satellite
    ecosystem.
        Mr. Glass. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Matsui.
    Coordination of individual applications typically is not time-
    consuming and is handled through precoordination per NTIA's MOU
    with the FCC. The cases that take most time for technical
    analysis involve either exceptions to the existing rules or
    actual rulemakings where new rules are being created or old
    rules are being modified. In those cases, it can take
    additional time for all stakeholders, including NTIA and
    Federal agencies, that have important equities to agree on the
    data and the methodology for analyzing the impact of proposed
    FCC actions.
        Once FCC publishes notice of its proposed actions, at that
    point in the process such issues generally are addressed
    through the FCC's public proceeding, and NTIA may submit
    information to the FCC for the record on behalf of the
    Executive branch. Beyond that, in terms of any policy
    implications, I'm not in a position to comment, but our staff
    can follow up with your staff as required.
        Ms. Matsui. Certainly will. Thank you very much. NTIA is
    responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's
    participation in the International Telecommunications Union's
    World Radiocommunication Conferences. With WRC 23 coming up
    later this year, we have an excellent opportunity to continue
    U.S. leadership. Mr. Glass, what steps is NTIA taking to
    prepare, and what are the implications for U.S. leadership in
    the international satellite ecosystem at the WRC?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. NTIA is working
    closely with the FCC and State Department as well as the
    Federal agencies and commercial stakeholders to prepare for WRC
    23. On the Federal side, which NTIA manages, Federal agencies
    have proposed a number of proposals, and NTIA is working to get
    those reconciled as U.S. proposals. At the same time, the FCC
    is running its process with nonfederal stakeholders. And we
    coordinate that effort very carefully to ensure that we have
    strong U.S. proposals going forward to the WRC.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. The FCC has several proceedings
    before it with implications for the satellite ecosystem,
    including the 12 gigahertz proceeding. The docket on this
    proceeding shows that there is much for the FCC to consider,
    and I hope it will continue to follow the science as it
    considers feedback. Mr. Richardson, I know it is difficult to
    discuss an open proceeding, but can you provide a brief update
    on the timeline here?
        Mr. Richardson. I went--I would like, if I could, to get
    back to you on the timeline for that. I can say that the
    question of harmful interference between terrestrial and
    satellite, which is the key issue in that proceeding, as in
    many FCC proceedings, is one that, as you indicate, has
    generated very complex technical engineering studies on both
    sides. And the Commission technical experts are working their
    way through the competing analyses there, and we are working as
    fast as we can on that.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Keep me updated. Thank you very much, and I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair will informally pass on the ranking member of the
    full committee until he returns from downstairs. We will now
    recognize the gentleman from Florida's 12th District for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
    very much. Last week, I chaired a hearing in the Subcommittee
    on Innovation, Data and Commerce on the threats we face if
    China was to lead on emerging technologies. I'd like to
    continue that discussion, if I may. Mr. Richardson, have
    Chinese-based NGSOs applied for U.S. market access, and are
    there different review processes in place for foreign-based
    operators, especially for those countries that are adversaries,
    as opposed to U.S.-based businesses?
        Mr. Richardson. These are very good lquestions. I can say
    that we have not received any market access requests from
    Chinese NGSOs if that is--that is your question. A few years
    ago, a U.S. company did request approval for Earth station
    support to a Chinese-owned company. Those applications were
    never granted and were ultimately withdrawn last year.
        In terms of market access and national security issues, the
    Commission has the ability on its own motion to refer
    applications for market access through Earth station
    applications to the Executive branch group of the committee
    formally known as Team Telecom for its expert views and
    recommendations on key national security law enforcement, trade
    policy, and foreign policy issues. And we generally take our
    lead from those on their recommendations.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I have another question for you.
    As you know, we are in the process of removing Chinese
    equipment from our terrestrial networks through rip-and-
    replace. But we cannot renew the Huawei debacle. I'm sure you
    agree. Once the satellite is launched, there is no retrofit.
    During the--does the FCC review the origin of satellite parts
    from China or other adversaries when approving or denying an
    application for NGSO? So in other words, you can speak to other
    adversaries as well, including Russia, of course.
        If not, does the FCC have the authority to either include
    that factor in their review or ban component parts from
    companies that are deemed national security threats?
        Mr. Richardson. I will begin by talking about the issue of
    component parts, which the Commission has looked at in the
    context of its implementation last year of the Secure Equipment
    Act that's been discussed this morning. This is a complex
    question that the Commission teed up in a notice of proposed
    rulemaking some time ago about whether the Commission can and
    should regulate equipment with respect to component parts. And
    it ended up seeking further comment on that last November, so
    we are looking at the comments to see when they come in about
    the practical impact of that, how we would identify component
    parts, how we would assess their threat to national security.
        But again, I would circle back to our general authority
    would extend these parts, but we would look in the context of
    applications to our friends in the Federal--our Federal
    partners to get their expert guidance on the extent of the
    threat to national security, these component parts.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Anybody like my time? I'll yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back the
    balance of his time, and the Chair will informally pass on the
    ranking member of the full committee's questions until he
    returns from downstairs. But we'll now recognize the gentleman
    from Texas' 33rd District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Richardson, I wanted to ask you. The Satellite and
    Telecommunications Streamlining Act would stream on FCC's
    satellite licensing process for satellite applications. I
    understand and support the need to streamline this process. The
    FCC, the satellite industries, and consumers could certainly
    all benefit.
        How would this bill specifically ensure that any changes
    made to the satellite components of a renewing applicant are
    brought quickly to the attention of the Satellite Division's
    staff in order to speed up that work?
        Mr. Richardson. I think the--first I should say that this
    is a great question that the Commission itself has been looking
    into in its own rulemaking sort of in parallel with this bill
    as to how we can simplify our application process, avoid the
    back-and-forth with the applicant that sometimes creates
    delays, and how we can establish a regulatory certainty for
    applicants by making clearer what the requirements would be in
    terms of performance criteria, for example. That's one of the
    issues that we are addressing in our rulemaking and is also
    addressed in this bill.
        If we can establish the ground rules, if you will, going
    forward for applicants, it will be easier and more expeditious
    for them to proceed with--for us to proceed with processing the
    applications.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. The subcommittee also
    recognizes the need for output spectrum, given the increased
    deployment of satellites that provide critical services to
    Americans. As new technologies are developed and deployed on
    the field, what additional best practices should Congress
    consider that would facilitate the FCC's Satellite Division's
    ability to adjust constant changes happening in the satellite
    industry?
        Mr. Richardson. I think we at the Commission recognize, as
    we have over the years, that we always have to keep up with
    very dynamic changes in our industries that we regulate. And
    satellite today is one of the biggest and best examples of
    that. I think we have proceeded, as I said, to increase our
    staff to develop--that are develop--that are working on these
    applications. And we are very excited to be implementing a
    reorganization to have a Space Bureau that's devoted to the
    needs of the satellite industry so that we can address those
    needs more expeditiously.
        Mr. Veasey. What is the FCC doing specifically to, you
    know, attract young engineers, people that have come out of
    college, particularly if they go into the private sector and
    they make more money? What are you guys doing to make the job
    more attractive to them working in the satellite----
        Mr. Richardson. That is a very good question. I'm not
    directly involved in that. I'd be happy to get back to you with
    what we are doing to do that, but I think there was a
    Washington Post article today generally by Max Stier of the
    Partnership for Public Service who is talk--who identifies this
    as a broader issue for the Federal Government in terms of
    increasing the attractiveness of the Federal workforce for
    younger people coming out of school.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. Mr. Glass, the bills under
    consideration today align with the updated memorandum of
    understanding on radiofrequency spectrum--between the FCC and
    the NTIA. Do you feel that they--that there is coordination
    there?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Yes. We do believe
    that we have a robust process for coordination under the
    memorandum of understanding. We had a target to--for
    improvements and additions to that MOU. We reaffirm and
    emphasize the respective roles of the FCC and NTIA as the
    agencies responsible for managing spectrum use in the United
    States.
        It ensures improved and effective communications between
    the agencies. It emphasizes importance of evidence-based
    spectrum policymaking, engineering collaboration and reliance
    on data analyses and engineering best practices. It promotes
    effective long-range planning at the agency principal and staff
    levels. It enhances processes for coordination of proposed
    spectrum actions. It commits to best efforts to identify
    potential issues as early as possible, and it articulates an
    isolation path between the agencies where necessary.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full committee,
    for 5 minutes. Thank you.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Richardson, I--
    just before I begin my questions, I notice in your testimony
    that your testimony is, quote, ``limited to providing an
    overview of the ... state of the law and Commission
    proceedings'' and to, quote, ``technical drafting assistance,
    but not to opine on any possible or proposed policy or
    legislative changes.'' However, your testimony also states mine
    and Ranking Member Pallone's SAT Streamlining Act is, quote,
    ``designed to inform the continuing efforts of the
    Commission.'' Do you consider opining on the purpose of goals
    of legislation in your testimony is--to be technical drafting
    assistance?
        Mr. Richardson. We are happy to provide technical drafting
    assistance and to work with the committee, subcommittee, in
    developing the bill, and my point was to try to demonstrate
    that we at the Commission are engaged in a similar initiative
    and have--are looking forward to ideas from industry and the
    public about how to do that in our proceeding and would like to
    work with you to make sure that you're aware of those
    recommendations and that input as well.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Because I do want to get to the state of
    play as it relates to the Commission proceedings. In other
    words, the United States Supreme Court decision last fall, EPA
    v. West Virginia, the Court cautioned that major agency actions
    must be rooted in clear statutory direction, that as the
    complexity of these licensing applications increases, so does
    the likelihood that the FCC's actions could be challenged in
    court. Would having a specific grant of statutory authority
    help the FCC defend its actions in court on satellite rules?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very topical question for many
    agencies. I think, in our case, I would say always from an
    Office of General Counsel perspective, the more authority that
    Congress grants us, specific or general, the better. But as
    I've said in my testimony, it was about 80 years ago, the U.S.
    Supreme Court made clear in the NBC case that, with respect to
    title III of the Communications Act--that is managing radio
    spectrum--the Commission has very broad authority for the
    reasons very relevant to this proceeding, that, quote,
    ``dynamic nature'' of the industries that we regulate.
        So we believe that we have adequate authority under title
    III to regulate and license satellite transmission of
    radiocommunications. But we, as I say, always welcome
    additional authority.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. And I'll just also quote from the EPA
    decision just within the--all the Members here. It says,
    ``Something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the
    agency actions necessary,'' the agency instead must point to,
    quote, ``clear congressional authorization''--it's going to be
    ongoing discussion.
        As you know, my Satellite and Telecommunication
    Streamlining Act would establish a statutory framework,
    providing the FCC direction on satellite licensing. And while
    it's important to act quickly on applications, it's also
    necessary to balance speed with providing a stable spectrum
    environment that encourages investment. This legislation would
    establish performance objectives and make it clear to
    applicants that--what information needs to be submitted with an
    application in order to make the timely decision.
        Giving--given the FCC's December proposed rule on statutory
    application processing, do you think such regulatory framework
    would help speed up the satellite licensing process?
        Mr. Richardson. That's a very good question, and I think
    that we are hopeful that with the recommendations we get, we
    can finalize some processes that make it clearer what is
    required in the original application to avoid, as I said
    earlier, the sometimes back-and-forth with the applicant that
    chews up time. And if we can establish regulatory certainty
    around the ground rules for performance criteria, which is
    something that your bill specifically calls for our rulemaking
    to do, I think that would be very, very helpful and----
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Very quickly here at the end, the
    World Radiocommunications Conference takes place later this
    year. Certainly this is going to impact satellite operators.
    Would both of you speak briefly to what the administration's
    priorities are on the agenda?
        Mr. Richardson. I would like, Madam Chair, if I could, to
    take that back. I'm not really prepared to----
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. To answer that one.
        [The information follows:]

            Chair McMorris Rodgers
            What are the Administration's priorities at the WRC?
            As participants on the United States delegation to the upcoming
            WRC, the FCC is supportive of the ITU's core mission of
            promoting connectivity, broadband access, and fostering a
            flexible international regulatory framework for an evolving
            telecommunications ecosystem.
            Since the WRC-23 agenda was defined at the previous WRC in
            2019, FCC staff has been engaged in the four-year ITU
            preparatory study cycle for WRC-23, fostering opportunities for
            new satellite and terrestrial operations, participating in
            sharing studies to ensure compatibility of various spectrum
            access technologies.
            Domestically, the FCC collaborates with the public and private
            sector to develop priorities in line with the FCC's own
            domestic initiatives. The FCC also collaborates with our
            partners at the federal level to ensure that the access to new
            spectrum bands considers vital U.S. interests in science,
            safety and national security.
            The FCC's engagement to WRC-23 is focused on three core themes:
            (1) promoting and harmonizing FCC's recent domestic actions,
            (2) supporting the emerging space economy and (3) establishing
            strategies to meet the increasing demands for next generation
            wireless technologies. Below, we identify some important WRC-23
            agenda items that fall into these themes.
             One key item for the FCC is an agenda item (AI 1.2) to
            identify additional mid-band spectrum for International Mobile
            Telecommunications (IMT) mobile 5G use on a primary basis. This
            agenda item covers the following frequency bands: 3,300-3,400
            MHz, 3,600-3,800 MHz, 6,425-7,025 MHz, 7,025-7.125 MHz and
            10.0-10.5 GHz. The FCC is working to ensure the actions on
            these bands are consistent with domestic priorities and
            decisions. For example, in the 6,425-7,025 MHz band, we are
            working to make sure there is no change to the Radio
            Regulations that could undermine unlicensed use of the
            spectrum.
             The FCC is also supportive of an agenda item (AI 1.19)
            that is considering a new primary allocation in the space-to-
            Earth to the Fixed-Satellite-Service in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band
            in the region in which the Unites States is included. Last
            year, the FCC adopted rules for this type of operation. The
            allocation will allow satellite operators additional spectrum
            for broadband services.
             Another key agenda item is one which would identify
            frequency bands for earth stations in motion or ESIMs that are
            communicating with non-geostationary orbit satellites (NGSO)
            (AI 1.16). The frequency bands that are currently under study
            are: bands 17.7-18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz
            (space-to-Earth) and 27.5-29.1 GHz and 29.5-30 GHz (Earth-to-
            space). ESIMs will provide broadband connectivity via satellite
            to aircraft and ships.
             Another key agenda item for the FCC is one that seeks
            to create a regulatory framework to permit the operation of
            space-to-space links between satellites, or inter-satellite-
            links, in specific frequency bands (AI 1.17). Creating a
            defined regulatory framework, including a spectrum allocation
            for this service, would allow for innovation and efficiency as
            some satellite operators are looking at the use of spectrum and
            optical resources to relay data back to earth using
            geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and NGSO satellites in
            space rather than using earth stations, reducing cost and
            enhancing efficiency.
             Another important priority for the FCC is an agenda
            item (AI 7) that has studied possible changes to certain
            satellite regulatory provisions involving the coordination and
            notification of satellite networks currently in the ITU Radio
            Regulations. These include certain milestone and "bring into
            use" dates.
             Another key agenda item is associated with regulatory
            actions to support the modernization of the Global Maritime
            Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) (AI 1.11). GMDSS is a world-
            wide maritime safety and distress systems used by vessels and
            coast station to respond to distress calls at sea. The key
            issue on this item is the inclusion of new satellite networks
            into the GMDSS, in this case a new Chinese satellite (Beidou).
            There are many regulatory and technical concerns with allowing
            the Chinese entry into the GMDSS. There are also other broader
            policy concerns from the perspective of security by allowing a
            Chinese satellite to interoperate in the GMDSS.

        Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Glass?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I'm also not in a
    position to comment on that, but our staff can work with your
    staff to describe that. Thank you.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you both for being there. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Florida's Ninth District for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, and appreciate both your
    support, our ranking member's and of course my fellow
    Floridian, Dr. Dunn, on this great bill we're hearing today,
    the LAUNCH Communications Act. From our back yard in Kissimmee,
    back in Central Florida, we had quite the display of rockets
    coming up. It's something that makes our region very special,
    being the district right next to Cape Canaveral. And we have
    seen full view of the busiest space --in the world over there
    with NASA recently launching Artemis, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin,
    and so many more on making sure we continue to be the top
    nation in space flight in the world.
        2022, we saw 57 orbital clasms rockets, a record. But wait,
    2023 is no slouch either. Eighty-seven launches set for this
    year, another record. And who knows? We might see a hundred by
    2024 on--and FCC licenses for each of these launches is--it's a
    cumbersome bureaucracy. It's one that has been there because
    there hasn't been enough direction by Congress.
        We know we need to cut the red tape to boost space
    innovation. And I appreciate the FCC's efforts on moving
    forward in response to us filing this bill now 3 years--3 terms
    in a row, efforts to utilize the 2200 to 2290 band of spectrum
    is a good promise. I know our witnesses have talked about that
    already. The LAUNCH Communications Act will ensure that they
    finish the job and have statutory framework to ensure that it
    can't go back and forth based upon who is on the FCC. We need
    to secure spectrum specifically and permanently for
    spaceflight.
        Mr. Richardson, thank you for being there. Can you speak
    more about the Commission's role in facilitating the launch of
    satellites and of commercial space launches as we continue to
    increase--what actions do you think the Commission can continue
    to build upon or take from regulatory approach that will create
    more certainty for a lot of these launches?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, thank you for your focus on this
    important question. I think we are recognizing that with the
    growth of the satellite industry comes a growth of the
    satellite launch industry, which is also, as you say, from your
    own back yard, very visible. I think the things that we can do
    in addition to having allocated that additional spectrum is
    to--and we very much appreciate your interest in that
    proceeding in bringing it to close. The things we can do, I
    think, are one, we've asked questions about are there other
    bands that we might be able to also use for this purpose. And
    the second is finalizing our proposals for service and
    licensing rules for this so that we have the system in place to
    take advantage of the new allocations.
        In the past, my understanding has been that this has been
    somewhat cumbersome because we had to go through a so-called
    special temporary authorization or STA process because there
    was no spectrum allocated for this purpose. And so we're on our
    way toward a new regulatory environment, and again, appreciate
    your interest in that proceeding.
        Mr. Soto. I believe we are nearing 2 years now. Also this
    rulemaking and effort at the FCC--is that a long-time or is
    that sort of par for the course? How would you describe the
    progress we've made so far?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I've been practicing before the
    Commission and now at the Commission for over 40 years. And I
    think there is a wide variety of timeframes for Commission
    proceedings. But I think we understand the priority that needs
    to be placed on this proceeding.
        Mr. Soto. Well, we appreciate the FCC being responsive even
    to our efforts as we are still working on passing this bill
    into law. The--can you talk a little bit about what happens
    when you miss a launch window because you can't get a license
    in time, and the effects it could have on America's space
    competitiveness?
        Mr. Richardson. I'd like to take that back if I could. I am
    not familiar with the situation that you posed.
        Mr. Soto. Well, allow me to, for the edification of the
    committee, discuss with them a little bit. You know, if you
    don't get that license on time or we have various weather
    obstacles that prevent launches, you are constantly having to
    apply again and again and again. It could be over three to four
    to five attempts in the--in the midst of one effort to launch a
    rocket. So we really want to make sure this is nimble, because
    weather can be unpredictable. The FCC licensing should be more
    so. Thank you for your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back.
        Mr. Carter [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    witnesses for being here.
        Mr. Glass, as part of the administration's national
    spectrum strategy or otherwise, is the NTIA considering the
    needs of commercial space operators to access spectrum, and are
    there ways NTIA can accelerate access to spectrum for
    commercial launches, especially whenever agency approval is
    required?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you, Congressman. With respect to our
    efforts, we coordinate very carefully with the FCC. But your
    question gets into policy issues that I'm not able to comment
    on. So if you like, our staff can get back with your staff to
    fully explore that.
        Mr. Walberg. I'd appreciate that. Only ask questions that
    we hope we can get an answer for. So, Mr. Richardson, the SAT
    Streaming Act would establish shot clocks, so to speak, for the
    FCC to grant or deny certain applications, modifications, or
    renewals. If enacted, the SAT Streamlining Act, would the FCC
    be able to meet these timeframes? And if not, why not?
        Mr. Richardson. That again is a question that the
    Commission has teed up in its rulemaking that's in parallel
    with these bills asking for industry and the public to comment
    on the nature of the shot clocks and the time periods. So
    that's under review, and we don't have the comments yet from
    various perspectives of industry and the public for what the
    appropriate time period would be.
        I think another point I'd like to raise about the shot
    clocks--and I--is in my written testimony, is that the way the
    FCC processes applications--and this is not unique to
    satellite--is that we first have a time period for accepting
    for filing the applications, which then sets the time clock for
    comments. And then the question about the second shot clock is,
    how long after we get the comments do we need to have to act?
        And I just wanted to make a point that shot clocks
    generally would be best framed, I think, from the point of view
    of acceptance for filing in terms of--rather than from when it
    comes in the door. One of the things we are trying to do is
    identify ways to streamline the process so it's clearer what
    needs to be in the application when it comes in the door, and
    that's one of the problems.
        But I just wanted to focus on that acceptance-for-filing
    piece as an important part of the puzzle.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that. I think our--some of
    our biggest concerns that come through our local offices--and I
    can only imagine we're talking about the rapid expansion of
    satellites and telecommunications that it is frustrating to
    have the goal in mind, and the bureaucracy holds it up. So I
    certainly get what you are saying about making sure that we
    know how to approach the application. But timeliness is
    extremely important.
        Mr. Richardson. We completely agree with that, and we are
    looking to expedite this process, as I mentioned, not just
    through these rulemakings that, again, have much in common with
    this bill. But also, we've increased the staff for processing
    these applications. And NGSO applications are often technically
    very complex. We've got more staff, 38 percent more staff, in
    the Satellite Division to handle them now. And we have, as I
    said, focused our priority on this emerging satellite industry
    and its importance by creating a bureau that's designed to
    focus on their needs. We hear what you are saying.
        Mr. Walberg. I wish you all good speed.
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you.
        Mr. Walberg. Coming from Michigan, we like speed. Let me--
    let me follow up that. Can you describe the differences in the
    roles of International Telecommunications Union and the FCC in
    regulating satellite communication systems?
        Mr. Richardson. My focus has been on FCC regulations. So I
    will be happy to take back the question about the ITU. But
    basically the FCC rules for satellite, which is obviously a
    global service in many respects, have to be consistent with the
    rules of the ITU. And so applicants generally need both an ITU
    and an FCC authorization. But the ITU piece, I'm not personally
    involved in, and I'd be happy to give you more information
    about that piece.
        Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Carter. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cardenas, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
    this opportunity. The chairman looks more like a pharmacist
    right now. Are those bags full? Anyway--during last week's
    Communication and Technology Subcommittee hearing, also on the
    subject of satellites, we heard from stakeholders on important
    positive roles satellites play in our everyday lives, and it
    affects all of our lives.
        And in the United States of America, I think we are
    fortunate as Americans that we are probably touched more by
    satellite in our country than most countries around the world
    because we are more developed and we have an economy that
    depends so much on it. Today we continue discussing the
    importance of ensuring we have a rigorous process in place to
    maintain U.S. leadership and satellite communication
    technologies and to promote competition in American satellite
    marketplace.
        Mr. Richardson, how will the FCC's Space Bureau and the
    legislation we are considering today promote a competitive and
    innovative satellite marketplace?
        Mr. Richardson. I think the focus of both is to identify
    ways that we can promote deployment of satellites in this
    country and make us more competitive in that global
    marketplace.
        Mr. Cardenas. And how is the FCC collaborating with other
    agencies to help improve harmonization in space policy matters?
        Mr. Richardson. By ``harmonization,'' do you mean
    internationally or--well, that is something that is part of the
    work process, I think, to make sure that our allocations and
    international allocations sync up. And we are very delighted
    that the ITU's new Secretary General, someone with a long
    experience in this field at the ITU and, previous to that,
    working at NTIA. So we look forward to that coordination.
        Mr. Cardenas. So when it comes to the United States, how
    would you describe our position when it comes to satellites
    past, present, and going forward when it comes to being a
    leader and/or collaborator internationally?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, we very much believe that the United
    States should lead the way in satellite global marketplace.
        Mr. Cardenas. Are we seeing that way at the moment?
        Mr. Richardson. We have some very strong competitors.
        Mr. Cardenas. Who would that be?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, a number of them, you heard from last
    week, and some more and I think you are going to be hearing
    from this week right after this panel, but--and there's a
    variety of segments in the satellite industry that are
    described in the communications marketplace report that I cited
    in my written testimony, which has a lot of information about
    who these players are and what their market share is and things
    like that. So I would commend that to you as an excellent
    summary but would happy--be happy to answer any other questions
    you might have about where we stack up, if you will, if that's
    your question, in the global marketplace.
        Mr. Cardenas. Because it's my understanding that the
    projections are that--about 5,500 satellites in space. And as
    soon as 2030, it might be past 55,000 or more potentially.
        Mr. Richardson. Yes. I think that's a direct result of the
    tremendous success of the NGSO satellites, which require many,
    many more satellites than the GSO systems. And that's where I
    gather there is a projected boom. And that's one of the many
    challenges for regulators in terms of addressing the higher
    volume that we can expect and have seen in the last few years.
        Mr. Cardenas. So what role would Congress have to play when
    it comes to keeping up with that pace? Would you need to see a
    much more complex staffing regimen within the FCC in order to
    keep up with that pace?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, we have increased our staffing
    already by 38 percent.
        Mr. Cardenas. So you don't need any more help? You have all
    the staff----
        Mr. Richardson. I would never say that.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK. You better not!
        Mr. Richardson. And I think you heard last--I think you
    heard last week from industry witnesses about the staffing
    question, both numbers and expertise.
        Mr. Cardenas. Yes.
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very--it's a very complicated--
    particularly engineering satellite is very complicated.
        Mr. Cardenas. And how does it--how does it feel right now
    when it comes to having domestic staff training and potential
    experts coming into possibly being future staffers at the FCC
    with the right expertise when it comes to organically people
    who grew up here who went to college here, et cetera?
        Mr. Richardson. Again, I would like to take that back with
    the--to give you an answer from the people who are focused more
    on the--on the recruitment angle. I think that's your question.
        Mr. Cardenas. I'd love to hear from them. Thank you so
    much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields
    back. And this time, the Chair recognizes the vice chair of the
    subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia's First District for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you
    for being here. We appreciate it. This is extremely important
    and very educational for those of us who are not quite as up as
    other people are on this particular subject. You know, I think
    that all of us would agree on both sides of the aisle that
    regulations and red tape are hindering innovation and, a lot of
    times, inhibit our global competitiveness.
        So we have to be very careful about that. And there is
    probably no better example than the satellite marketplace.
    While we watch our adversaries like China and Russia, we have
    got to ensure that the Federal Government is not holding
    innovators back. I truly believe and have always said that the
    greatest innovators in the world are right here in the United
    States of America, and I believe that. But we've got to help
    them.
        And one way we can help them is not to hold them back and
    to get out of their way. So I want to thank the chairman for
    bringing this important topic to our attention because it is
    important. I want to start with you, Mr. Richardson, and ask
    you. Tell me about processing rounds. What is that system? When
    was it implemented, and what was --why was it implemented? What
    was the need for that?
        Mr. Richardson. That's a good question about processing
    rounds because that's a focus of much of the commentary on this
    streamlining of the process. For GSO satellites, as I recall,
    the Commission established a first-come, first-served system
    for NGSO satellites or NGSO-like satellites. It uses a
    processing round. And if you are in the same processing round,
    you have the same priority. If you are not in the same
    processing round, you have secondary priority.
        Mr. Carter. When was that set up? Was that years ago, or
    was that just recent?
        Mr. Richardson. It's not recent. I would have to--I would
    like to get back to you on the exact date for that. There is
    a--there was a proceeding that established the processing
    rounds. I'm happy to give you that information.
        Mr. Carter. Does it still function today like it was
    intended to originally? Do you know?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, one of the questions I think that's
    been teed up in Commission proceedings is whether, in light of
    the differences within GSO and the rapid changes in the
    industry, should we revisit the way we conduct our processing,
    including processing rounds.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Let me ask you this: Do you feel like the
    workforce at the Commission is well equipped to handle the
    volume and the complexities of applications?
        Mr. Richardson. That was the subject of last week's
    hearing, that I think the industry felt that we needed more
    support. And I think I'm not authorized to ask you for
    additional support, so I won't do that.
        Mr. Carter. And I understand that and--but let me tell you
    I'm not interested in throwing money at it. Tell me how we can
    make it more efficient.
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I think there were good points made
    last week about, as you say, the complexity of satellite
    engineering, which is a key part of the processing. And, as you
    know, there are disputes between incumbents and new entrants
    about whether there is potential interference and how they
    share spectrum. We are trying to develop rules around that to
    make that a clearer process that has regulatory certainty
    attached to it.
        But it does need experts. And I certainly recognize the
    point that the more difficult it is to attract skilled experts
    to replace the ones that are moving, you know, toward
    retirement, the better it is for us.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Glass, let me ask you: Can you explain
    the procedures in place to measure interference and protect
    Federal systems when commercial users need access to spectrum
    for launches?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Yes. At NTIA, we
    coordinate very carefully with the Federal agencies through our
    interagency process to make sure that we understand what their
    issues are with any potential interference. We coordinate,
    then, with the FCC to make sure that we as the U.S. make a
    smart decision going forward that ensures efficiency and would
    allow us to maximize the use by spectrum operators.
        Mr. Carter. How do you resolve disputes?
        Mr. Glass. We have a dispute resolution process that is in
    our new MOU that would allow us to address any issues there.
        Mr. Carter. OK. I will stay with you, Mr. Glass. Last year,
    the FCC and NTIA established a Spectrum Coordination
    Initiative. Has this initiative improved issues related to
    spectrum sharing?
        Mr. Glass. I think that was worked into our memorandum of
    understanding with the FCC, and it has improved our
    coordination with them. And I think that it will continue to
    allow us to improve the process.
        Mr. Carter. Do you agree with that, Mr. Glass? Or excuse
    me. Mr. Richardson.
        Mr. Richardson. Yes, I would. I think that the--under the
    MOU, we've made increasing efforts to coordinate better with
    NTIA and its Federal agencies.
        Mr. Carter. OK, good. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' Seventh District for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta and
    Ranking Member Matsui for organizing today's hearing so that we
    can continue on last week's important discussion on satellites.
    And, as I noted in my questions last week, there are so many
    areas of importance for our communities that we are talking
    about here and such great potential.
        I want to follow up on the questions that Mr. Carter was
    just asking and Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers asked a little bit
    earlier about some of the challenges and the changing
    environment and the growing workload associated with the
    current satellite licensing demands. But I know that the SAT
    Streamlining Act includes a number of proposals to amend the
    Communications Act to better reflect those changes. So could
    you just elaborate, Mr. Richardson, a little bit on the reforms
    that are included in the bill in addition to some of the
    staffing issues that we've been talking about and some of the
    retention issues?
        Can you just talk about any of the other reforms that are
    included in the bill that you think would have a positive
    impact at the FCC?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question, the details of
    the bill and how they might relate to our pending rulemaking,
    which tracks it in many respects. I think the key issues that
    the bill identifies are the need to have a rulemaking to
    clarify what the performance criteria are for satellites so
    that applicants know what to expect. It has a process for
    expediting on applications for minor modifications that
    shouldn't take a whole lot of time. I think it would allow us
    to establish a process that would avoid the back-and-forth
    about parts of the application if the applicant maybe didn't
    realize they needed to be put in there, but we can be clearer
    about what's required. And it--I think those are the key
    things. But there are issues, for example, like letting those
    in the satellite industry know what are the ground rules for
    sharing, what are the ground rules for harmful interference,
    which, in my experience, I'm not an engineer, but I know it's--
    it's a very, very complicated question, particularly in the
    satellite field.
        And what we've done is we've proposed in this rulemaking
    some very specific proposed alternatives for people to comment
    on about how to measure interference. And again, once we get
    those ground rules squared away, the hope is that the
    application process, again, with the--coupled with the priority
    of additional staffing and in a new bureau that's focused
    directly on this, we'll be able to address the challenge.
        But I have to say that it is a--it is a--everyone
    recognizes that the volume of these applications and the
    numbers of satellites up there are increasing very, very
    dramatically.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you very much for that. With the
    time I have left, I want to switch gears a little bit with a
    question for both of you to touch on something that we haven't
    touched on as much today at this hearing, but I know in prior
    Congresses we've touched on the Science, Space and Technology
    Committee a little bit. And it's important to our discussion
    here as well. So Mr. Richardson and Mr. Glass, could you both
    just talk a little bit about how the FCC and NTIA can do more
    to help improve space sustainability and reduce orbital debris
    in lower orbit.
        Mr. Richardson. I'm----
        Mrs. Fletcher. Should I start with Mr. Glass?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. With respect to
    orbital debris, that gets outside of the spectrum issues that
    I'm able to answer. However, we would be more than glad to get
    back with your staff with that answer.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Thanks.
        Mr. Richardson. From the FCC's perspective, we have another
    proceeding that's been pending, asking questions about how to
    resolve some of the questions about orbital debris. We did,
    last year, address one specific aspect of it, which is the
    amount of time that it--after a mission is over that a
    satellite needs to be decommissioned, deorbited. And that is a
    significant issue because I think there are now 4,800 or more
    satellites up there. And the industry, I think, agrees that
    this is a potential issue for collisions, avoidance
    maneuverability, explosions. And so what we've done is we have
    established a rule that requires that for--orbiting satellites
    of 5 years.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much for that. I see that I've
    gone over my time, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Florida's Second District for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Closing the
    digital divide is encouraging innovation in satellite
    communications, outstanding priority for me personally and for
    this committee. Satellite operators can help provide broadband
    across the country and, in fact, around the world. The ability
    to maintain internet access during and after natural disasters
    is also vitally important as we discovered after Hurricane
    Michael in my home district.
        And so I want to thank the chairman for organizing this
    hearing and highlight the bipartisan legislation we are
    discussing today. This is also--one of the bills is also a
    LAUNCH Communications Act, which I reintroduced with my
    esteemed colleague from Florida, Darren Soto. The LAUNCH
    Communications Act streamlines some of the bureaucratic
    elements of the launch process, making it easier for private
    companies to obtain authorizations for temporary use of
    necessary spectrum. And I look forward to working with
    Congressman Soto and members of the committee to get this bill
    passed this session. We need to ensure that the regulatory
    processes, in fact, support innovation and don't hamper that or
    get in the way.
        Mr. Richardson, the FCC's policies guiding the licensing
    process for the special temporary authorizations were designed
    decades ago. Do you think they still meet the needs of a U.S.
    commercial launch market where we're launching, on average, two
    times a week?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question. I think that
    this bill brings needed focus to the changes in the satellite
    launch industry. As the satellite industry has grown, the
    satellite launch needs have grown. We need--we need to do
    better. And I think we began that with that allocation of
    additional spectrum to permit applications that avoid the
    special temporary authority.
        Mr. Dunn. Obviously, we'd like to standardize the process
    so everybody knows what they're going to be using ahead of
    time. And this, by the way, is what, you know, the various
    launch companies--satellite veterans, what they will ask of us
    is to come in and get involved here.
        So 2013, the FCC began proceedings to reallocate spectrum
    specifically for launches, commercial launches, and create a
    streamlined process, a whole process here. So I understand the
    NTIA--you said you support this effort on requiring the FCC, I
    believe, earlier today. So this goal, however, remains pending.
    It is 10 years later. Wouldn't it be beneficial to get these
    things through?
        Mr. Richardson. We have a proceeding designed to do that,
    to establish the service rules and the licensing rules now that
    we have the spectrum, so that's the next step.
        Mr. Dunn. Yes. Mr. Glass, you previously confirmed your
    NTIA support for these processes. Can you comment on how
    bundling licenses might be beneficial, if you think it would be
    beneficial. So that's the launch, the unorbited, and the
    decommissioned spectrum.
        Mr. Glass. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
    Unfortunately, that's outside my area of expertise
    specifically. I'm more oriented on the process with respect to
    registration, coordination, et cetera, of satellites. I had--
    can, however, make sure that we get back to your staff with an
    answer.
        Mr. Dunn. So I actually--maybe Mr. Richardson can answer
    that question. Bundling of licenses for spectrum. So for the
    whole--I mean, the launch, the orbit--on-orbit missions and
    decommissioning.
        Mr. Richardson. If I understand your question, it's about
    improving and accelerating the process for granting
    applications.
        Mr. Dunn. You bundle the license. You give out all of those
    license all at once. You don't have to go back and ask for
    another license to--different license to communicate with a
    satellite and another one to deorbit it.
        Mr. Richardson. I don't know whether that's raised under
    our proposals or not. Could I get back to you on----
        Mr. Dunn. Yes, so, you know, that's--as we've talked about
    streamlining here today, this seems like an obvious way to
    streamline that process, give everybody some surity.
        With that, I yield back my time. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chair.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of
    the full committee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. I appreciate having
    the FCC and NTIA here to provide feedback on these bipartisan
    bills. With respect to the Secure Space Act, I'm interested in
    hearing more about how we can ensure that space infrastructure
    doesn't create the same national security vulnerabilities to
    our U.S. communications like we've seen out of some of our
    other infrastructure and networks. So let me ask Mr.
    Richardson: How would the Secure Space Act ensure the security
    of U.S. satellite marketplace?
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. This is an area
    where we have first looked at use of universal service funding
    and protected that against the rip-and-replace program I'm
    referring to. And then we--last year, we completed proceeding
    pursuant to Congress' mandate to deal with equipment
    authorizations. And this bill would focus on satellite--NGSO
    satellites is the way it's drafted, as I understand it. And I
    think we would apply much the same regime, which requires a
    finding that a service is a specific kind of communications
    equipment or service.
        And then a determination by a designated Executive branch
    agency that the production or provision of that service is--
    poses unacceptable risk to the national security of the United
    States or U.S. persons. And then, under this bill, the
    Commission, much like the secure networks, the Secure Equipment
    Act Bill--Act, would put these on a covered list and bar us
    from granting applications to those persons or their
    affiliates.
        Mr. Pallone. So, I mean, the Commission's authority to
    oversee and regulate communication systems of all types is
    clear. But the SAT Streamlining Act aims to enshrine that
    authority more explicitly in the--can you just explain maybe
    better the value in codifying the FCC authority over the
    satellite market as the discussion draft proposes?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a good question about the law in this
    area. I think it would--as I've said in my written testimony,
    it's well established under title III of the Communications Act
    of 1934--really the Radio Act of 1927--that with respect to
    radio spectrum management the Commission has a plenary rule in
    making sure that those who are licensed serve the public
    interest. So we think we have established authority, but it's
    always helpful to have a confirmation and additional statute of
    the direction you think we should be going.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Glass, I'm pleased to see the progress
    being made by NTIA to reclaim its role in coordinating Federal
    spectrum users and to restore order to spectrum management
    operations. But what does NTIA's coordination with the FCC look
    like with respect to the satellite industry?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. That is handled
    through our--the revision of our MOU we--that we have with the
    FCC. And it allows us to promote effective long-range planning
    at the agency, principal, and staff levels to make sure that we
    maximize access to spectrum for satellite operators. We
    coordinate very carefully on the special temporary
    authorizations, quite often directly with the operators in
    precoordination to allow us to be able to facilitate that
    process as quickly as possible.
        Mr. Pallone. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time, and at this time the Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Utah's Third District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses.
    Mr. Glass, I'd like to highlight some of your efforts and the
    efforts of others internationally on the international spectrum
    policy. Particularly, I understand after 5 years of Chinese
    leadership, the ITU, we've been successful in getting our
    candidate in General--Secretary General Doreen Bogden-Martin--I
    think I pronounced that correctly--who was competing against a
    former Russian candidate, right, who worked for Huawei, clearly
    very important to the U.S. interest.
        And I find this very interesting. I worked--I had a bill
    called the TAIPEI Act that passed on 2020, and its whole point
    was to make sure that Taiwan was relevant in these
    international organizations, and it really--the point of the
    bill was to do exactly what you've done here, is to make sure
    we have good leadership overseas. So can you tell us a little
    bit about your work there and why this is so important for the
    United States.
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. So the election of
    our candidate as the new Secretary General of the ITU was a
    huge step in our continuing leadership. The U.S. should strive
    to continue to fill leadership roles throughout the
    radiocommunication sector of the ITU, which is responsible for
    satellite registration and coordination, and we should continue
    to lead in the development of agenda items at WRCs and sharing
    studies for those agenda items to ensure long-term U.S.
    leadership for satellite communications technology.
        The U.S. has a long history of leading on satellite issues,
    and I believe we'll continue to be on the forefront of needed
    changes for satellite regulations and adoption of technologies
    in the ITU.
        Mr. Curtis. Can you give us a sense why this matters? If we
    don't do this, what could go wrong? If we are not leading
    internationally, tell us why this matters.
        Mr. Glass. Leadership in any technology is always
    important, but you are getting into policy areas that are
    beyond my purview to comment on, so we can get back with you
    with a more thorough answer.
        Mr. Curtis. OK. That's fine. And you mentioned this briefly
    in your remarks, but besides the selection, what would you like
    to see the United States do to exert influence internationally?
        Mr. Glass. As I said, Congressman, I think that we need to
    continue to fill leadership roles throughout the
    radiocommunication sector of the ITU and to make sure that we
    are leading and putting forward advanced technologies into WRC
    agenda items and to continue our leadership in those studies.
        Mr. Curtis. Well, thank you to both of you. More just a
    comment, and that is just how critically important your success
    in my--is in my district has some specific geographic
    challenges, and satellite offers some solutions for it. And we
    are all hampered by--it's been discussed quite at length today
    updated government regulations and bureaucracies. And we feel
    that deeply in our district, so I'd like to thank you for your
    work and wish you all success. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield my
    time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back
    the balance of his time. At this time, the Chair recognizes the
    gentlelady from New York for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our
    ranking member for convening today's hearing, and I thank our
    witnesses for joining us today. Advances in satellite
    communication technology represent another major step towards
    bridging the digital divide and unleashing the full potential
    of our Nation, from connecting those in hard-to-reach rural and
    Tribal lands serving as a backstop for access in emergency
    services like 911 and providing a secure communications channel
    for those fighting oppressive regimes around the world. The
    satellite industry is already playing a critical role at home
    and abroad.
        As the pace of advancement continues and satellite
    operators and wireless carriers begin pairing up to integrate
    their networks and eliminate coverage gaps, we need to ensure
    that Congress establishes a regulatory landscape conducive to
    fostering these kinds of innovations while balancing the
    spectrum needs of the Federal Government. We also need to
    ensure that the FCC can keep up with the pace of licensing
    applications it is receiving both today and into the future.
        So my first question is directed to both of our panelists.
    The FCC recently announced its adoption of Chairwoman
    Rosenworcel's plan to establish a new Space Bureau. How can
    this new bureau other--and other recent FCC action related to
    satellite licensing work to foster further innovation and keep
    us competitive globally? And let's start with you, Mr.
    Richardson.
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. We are very
    excited to have this proposed reorganization, which is subject
    to approval by the appropriators. But I think the key is not
    only the increased staffing that we've already had, the 38
    percent that I mentioned before, but also the focus of this new
    bureau will be devoted to the satellite industry because we
    recognize that this is an extremely important industry. Its
    importance is growing for all of the reasons that you
    identified.
        Ms. Clarke. Mr. Glass?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you. So our coordination with the FCC is
    handled through our memorandum of understanding. I don't think
    that will be directly impacted by the new bureau, but we, of
    course, look forward to working with them and continuing our
    close collaboration.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. Mr. Richardson, there seems to be a
    widespred agreement that updating the FCC satellite licensing
    process is necessary for increased global broadband coverage.
    Considering that the Satellite and Technologic--excuse me--
    Telecommunications Streamlining Act will codify the FCC's
    authority to grant licenses for GSO and NGSO satellite
    services, could you tell us how this authority would expedite
    broadband coverage in the U.S., and what kind of resources or
    support you think would be necessary for the FCC to carry out
    the mandates of this bill effectively?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very good question about a very
    important challenge. I think that the Commission and the
    authors of this bill are proceeding in tandem to try to
    identify ways that we can simplify the application process and
    expedite it that way to establish regulatory certainty about
    the kinds of policies that we'll be governing, the processing
    of the applications. And then we do recognize that, as the
    number of these applications increases, particularly we're
    talking about NGSO applications. We need to be positioned to be
    able to field those on a prompt basis. And I think that the
    witnesses last week identified the need for our capabilities to
    be such that we can do that both on in terms of how many
    engineers and others we have but also the experience needed to
    handle these things.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. I've only got seconds left, so I'm
    going to yield back and thank you very much, gentlemen, for
    your expertise.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania's
    13th District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta, and Ranking Member
    Matsui for hosting today's hearings. And thank you for the
    witnesses. Mr. Richardson, as we have seen this past week,
    adversaries continue to test the resolve and grit of the United
    States. You mentioned in your testimony that the Secure Space
    Act would prevent certain covered equipment which includes
    Huawei and ZTE from being granted licenses or market assets
    petitions from non-geostationary orbit. Can you talk more about
    some of the work that the Commission is doing to prevent our
    adversaries from gaining a foothold in this critical
    infrastructure?
        Mr. Richardson. It's a very topical question and a----
        Mr. Joyce. Indeed.
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Very important one. I think
    the Commission has been devoted in a number of different ways
    to identifying national security threats to our communications
    infrastructure. One is--and forgive me if I'm misunderstanding
    your question, but began with a rip-and-replace program and
    moved, directed by Congress, in the Secure Equipment Act to bar
    Huawei and others from being authorized to use the Commission
    process to permit the distribution of their equipment of
    certain kinds in the United States.
        We have also recently taken action to revoke international
    common carrier authorizations from three Chinese Government-
    owned companies. And we have, in all of these efforts--and if
    this bill were enacted in this area with satellite, we would be
    working very closely with our Federal partners, the expert
    national security agencies, which provide us with
    recommendations and advice about the nature of the threats and
    how it relates to the particular equipment involved.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Glass, can you talk more about how
    intergovernmental coordination can create a friendlier
    regulatory environment for the satellite industry?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. Yes. We
    endeavor always to work in a collegial manner with our partners
    both at the FCC and in the private industry to ensure that we
    maximize the access to the spectrum while at the same time
    making sure that we take care of concerns with the Federal
    agencies in our interagency coordination process. We believe
    that this is a robust process and allows us to work in a very
    efficient manner with them.
        Mr. Joyce. How can Congress better assist with encouraging
    more intergovernmental coordination between NGIA and the FCC
    for nongovernment use of Federal spectrum bands?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question, but that gets into
    policy areas I'm not able to comment on. But my staff can get
    back with your staff to answer that.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Richardson,
    would you feel comfortable in commenting on that?
        Mr. Richardson. I think I would just say that the revised
    MOU, I think, is a demonstration of the fact that the FCC and
    NTIA recognize the importance of working well together. And
    from my perspective, it's been working very well.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you both. Mr. Glass, I would appreciate
    the followup answer to that question. And Mr. Chairman, I yield
    the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California's 18th
    District for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Sixteenth District.
        Mr. Latta. I'm sorry.
        Ms. Eshoo. Think of Sweet 16.
        Mr. Latta. Sixteen. Well, there you go. Sweet 16. I'll
    remember that now.
        Ms. Eshoo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
    legislative hearing, and thank you to the witnesses. Mr.
    Richardson, during last week's hearing of this subcommittee, we
    heard a lot from industry about the delays in various
    applications by satellite companies. Some of the bills we are
    considering today are trying to address those concerns.
        You mentioned in your written testimony that the FCC
    recognizes the new space-age needs of the new rules and that
    it's taken a number of steps to modernize its processes
    regarding satellites. What are those steps that FCC is taking,
    and how are they actually going to modernize the process?
        And as a followup, does the FCC need any new authorities to
    help modernize the process?
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you for the question. I was----
        Ms. Eshoo. You're welcome.
        Mr. Richardson. I was quoting from the chairwoman about the
    new space-age needs, new rules, which is a demonstration, I
    think, that the Commission unanimously recognizes that we are
    in a new era with satellite, particularly NGSO satellites. And
    we need to look at ways to streamline things. So we very much
    appreciate the efforts of this subcommittee.
        Ms. Eshoo. But what are the steps?
        Mr. Richardson. The steps would be----
        Ms. Eshoo. I know the rest.
        Mr. Richardson. OK.
        Ms. Eshoo. I know the rest, but what are the steps?
        Mr. Richardson. The steps would be to simplify the
    application process so that we don't have miscommunication with
    the applicant about what the FCC needs, establish the ground
    rules for things like how to measure interference, how to
    permit sharing, because in many of these bands there isn't
    exclusive spectrum. They all need to share it. These are things
    that the Commission has teed up for industry and public
    comment, so we are--we need to address those.
        Ms. Eshoo. I think we're going to--at this subcommittee,
    need to track that because it's important. Otherwise, it sounds
    good on paper but doesn't really effectuate where we--on land
    and what we want to accomplish.
        In your written testimony, you pointed out that the Secure
    Space Act does not include a specific grant of rulemaking
    authority to the FCC to implement it. Now, the FCC recently
    adopted rules regarding my Secure Equipment Act, which
    prevented the FCC from issuing licenses to telecommunication
    companies that pose a national security risk to our country,
    like Huawei and CTE. We are obviously not very fond--how
    important is that rulemaking authority to the success of the
    policy, and what can the FCC do or not do if you don't have it?
        Mr. Richardson. I'm glad you asked that question. I think
    that I want to emphasize that we don't--as I think I've
    indicated before, we don't--we have broad authority already
    under title III of the Communications Act. It's a matter of an
    administrative convenience, I think, if we had rulemaking
    authority as we did under the Secure Equipment Act. It's not
    necessary.
        Ms. Eshoo. So you have what you need?
        Mr. Richardson. We do.
        Ms. Eshoo. Good. Excellent. You've mentioned the MOU
    several times since I came into the hearing room. What exactly
    is in it? What's new that's in it?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you. So with the existing success of the
    MOU, the framework was targeted for improvements and additions.
    It reaffirms and emphasizes respective roles of the FCC and
    NTIA as the agencies responsible for managing spectrum in the
    U.S.
        Ms. Eshoo. Sir, I don't know what you are talking about.
    You need to break it down into something that's understandable.
    You are reading something, but it doesn't make sense to me.
        Mr. Glass. I----
        Ms. Eshoo. What's new that's in it?
        Mr. Glass. We have improved processes for coordination to
    allow us to better communicate with the FCC and----
        Ms. Eshoo. But what is that? What does that mean?
        Mr. Glass. I will have to get back with your staff on an
    answer for that.
        Ms. Eshoo. But is it speaking a better language? I mean,
    what is it? We are all for getting along with each other, but
    this is something that--it seems to me it's something beyond
    what you just said. At least I hope it is, because that
    doesn't--that kind of sounds like--law. I don't know. I don't
    understand it. Maybe others do. I don't.
        Mr. Richardson. One thing I think----
        Ms. Eshoo. Maybe the MOU is important.
        Mr. Richardson. We agree. I think one thing, as I recall,
    that it does is it focuses on making sure that each party has
    adequate time to review the proposals for use of spectrum by
    the other party.
        Ms. Eshoo. Can you get back to me on this----
        Mr. Richardson. Yes.
        Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Here? Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 14th for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Weber. Think of it as sweet 14. Anyway--two can play
    that game.
        Mr. Latta. You are making fun of me.
        Mr. Weber. Oh, no, no. It's all--it's all good. It's all
    good. Texas is the sweet spot of the United States, if you all
    can't tell that I'm a Texan.
        Mr. Glass, I want to go to you. In your description of your
    all's roles, you have, one, you're a principal advisor to the
    POTUS, the President of the United States, number two, you
    manage Federal frequency of spectrum, and you have a key goal,
    and that is to advance U.S. leadership. Witnessing the recent
    balloon foray across United States of America and things of
    that nature, it really brings up an interesting question to me.
    You manage the spectrum. FCC manages the spectrum. Is that
    right, Mr. Richardson?
        Mr. Richardson. For nonfederal users.
        Mr. Weber. For nonfederal users. And that's exactly my
    point here, is that you talk about things. There is an--
    actually a table here, and you all probably don't know the
    frequency numbers about VHF being 30 to 300 megahertz and the
    UHF being 300 to a thousand megahertz. Are you all that
    technical about it?
        Mr. Glass. I understand that.
        Mr. Weber. You understand that?
        Mr. Richardson. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Well, what megahertz would you rather apply
    for? I'm just messing with you. That's OK. The point I'm making
    is this. But you have the International Telecommunication Union
    which we--you say we discussed our guy elected to. But you've
    got bad actors out there. You've got China, and you've got a
    whole bunch of them that would rather do things and radio--
    against our best interests. In radio frequencies, power wattage
    means a lot when you're--when you're broadcasting your signals.
        You all follow me? The amount of wattage that you use. What
    is to prevent China from overbroadcasting us in wattage on any
    of these frequencies? Mr. Glass, I'll start with you.
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, you
    are getting into policy issues with respect to that that I'm
    unable to comment on, and we would have to get back with you on
    an answer on that.
        Mr. Weber. Is you all's--you manage Federal agency
    spectrum, so surely a Federal agency that would be in harm's
    way where a foreign country could overpower their frequency--
    surely that would fall within your purview?
        Mr. Glass. We have a process for identifying and trying to
    address interference both domestically and internationally.
    That process is very detailed, and that is something that we
    could get back with you on.
        Mr. Weber. Is that something that's handled by the No Such
    Agency, NSA?
        Mr. Glass. I would not know to be able to answer that
    question.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Mr. Richardson, you----
        Mr. Richardson. With respect to commercial spectrum, there
    is a staff at the FCC that monitors use of frequencies. I mean,
    broadcasting, for example, they couldn't make it from China to
    here. It wouldn't--it wouldn't work. You are talking about
    satellite?
        Mr. Weber. Well, it depends on the positioning of the
    satellite.
        Mr. Richardson. Yes. You are talking about satellite.
        Mr. Weber. Correct.
        Mr. Richardson. That--we monitor the use of spectrum in the
    United States and obviously do----
        Mr. Weber. So let me----
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Refer to some of these other--
    those other agencies you mentioned.
        Mr. Weber. If I can interrupt. Company ABC
    Telecommunications, whoever that is, suddenly somebody is
    dispossessing their signal so that they can no longer use that
    signal because they are overriding them with the higher wattage
    available to displace that signal. Do they come to you, or do
    they come to Mr. Glass?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I can give you an example when I was
    in private practice. We had a problem in the Los Angeles--our
    client, ABC, was being overrun by a station from Mexico. We
    came to the FCC and they addressed the problem with their
    Mexican counterparts.
        Mr. Weber. And so Mexican is a friendly--Mexico is a
    friendly country. So that would fly in that instance. It
    probably wouldn't fly to an unfriendly nation?
        Mr. Richardson. I don't know that that situation has ever
    occurred, but I----
        Mr. Weber. It's going to occur. You are going to have our
    enemies try to displace our capability of satellite signals.
        Mr. Richardson. I think if I could get back to you on the
    ways that we might address that problem----
        Mr. Weber. If you don't mind, that would be great. I'll
    just reserve that. You all get--reach back out to our office.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. You got that correct. Thank you, Chair Latta.
    Thank our witnesses for being here today. Yes. This is a
    critical time in our Nation's communication systems, a lot of
    high-tech advancements that we--that we talked about today. You
    know, Congress is trying to keep up with innovation across all
    areas of technology. Of course, you know, China is--you know,
    we are in constant competition there and for Federal agencies
    like the ones before us today have got to be nimble enough to
    address the multitude of needs. And we certainly have our work
    cut out for us in Congress. That's where I've been so pleased
    with the rate at which the committee has begun its work here
    over this past 3 weeks. Energy and Commerce Committee
    participated in six hearings, two roundtables, six briefings
    and one markup, with another markup scheduled for tomorrow. So
    we are--we are out of the gate very quickly. And that's why the
    American people send us here.
        Mr. Richardson, let's talk about the Secure Space Act. Does
    your agency ever receive applications from the types of
    entities which this bill has jurisdiction over?
        Mr. Richardson. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Allen. OK. And----
        Mr. Richardson. Oh, you are talking about satellite
    applications?
        Mr. Allen. Yes.
        Mr. Richardson. Yes. Not to my knowledge.
        Mr. Allen. And what would be the impact if one of those
    applications was somehow prohibited?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I guess the question the bill
    addresses is the potential threat to national security from
    having equipment of that type in a position to communicate over
    U.S. territory. And that would be a problem that I think, as is
    currently the case, these kinds of applications would be ones
    that--for satellite services, just like for international
    common carrier services or cable landing licenses, all of these
    kinds of applications, we would be in a position to refer them
    under our established policy since 1977--1997, excuse me--to
    refer them to Team Telecom for their recommendations about
    national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade
    policy concerns. And we have--the example I mentioned before of
    Chinese Government-owned international 214 applications for
    common carrier service in the United States, which were
    revoked, the--our Federal partners provided key recommendations
    on those.
        Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you. This is a question for both of
    you. Obviously, I'm in a--well, a big part of my district is
    rural. And of course we had issues with both broadband. Of
    course, we use a lot of that in agriculture. And what
    initiatives do you see that we need to implement to make sure
    that we get satellite coverage, what we need as far as
    technology to rural areas in this country?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I can start. I think the draft bill
    on precision agriculture is an important indication of the
    importance of satellite to addressing those particular needs of
    farmers and ranchers. And as I mentioned earlier, we have
    commissioned together with USDA a task force that has come up
    with some recommendations for how to make use of spectrum,
    including satellite, in deploying for these precision
    agriculture purposes.
        And that's one. I think the other is the promise of
    satellite broadband to cover areas that it makes no economic
    sense for terrestrial folks to cover. And then the other very
    intriguing idea of one of the other bills is, can we use
    satellite to fill in in areas where, because of disasters or
    other reasons, whether in rural areas or not, we need a better
    ability to communicate with 911 or send out emergency alerts.
    And that's a very interesting combination of terrestrial and
    satellite, if you will.
        Mr. Allen. Mr. Glass, I apologize. I'm out of time, so I
    have to yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th District
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my fellow Ohioan.
    Thank you both for being here today. And I'd like to first go
    with Mr. Richardson. Satellites and cellular presents a great
    opportunity to fill in coverage gaps across the Nation. In
    rural Ohio, in Appalachia specifically, these coverage gaps are
    more pronounced and have a profound impact on the ability of my
    constituents to connect with their friends, family, and
    coworkers.
        My question: Mr. Richardson, can you briefly explain the
    process satellite companies need to go through to receive
    authorization from the FCC to use satellite technologies to
    provide cellular services?
        Mr. Richardson. By ``cellular services,'' you mean fill=in
    service where----
        Mr. Balderson. Yes.
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. Where there is no cellular
    terrestrial service?
        Mr. Balderson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Richardson. This is something that, as I said, is a new
    concept that our technical experts are looking at in the
    context of a couple of applications that have been filed to do
    just this. And they do raise some technical issues about the
    way those could be coordinated, and we are looking at that
    right now.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. You mentioned in your testimony that the
    Commission has already taken several steps to modernize the
    application approval process. Can you elaborate on that and
    expand on what the SAT Streamlining Act would do to complement
    those efforts?
        Mr. Richardson. Sure. That's a good question. And I--when I
    said we have taken several steps, the Commission takes steps
    first by issuing notices of proposed rulemaking because the law
    requires that. And the purpose of that is to make sure that we
    are informed by the industry and members of the interested
    public about what the right steps would be. So we've teed up
    steps that are very similar to the steps in this bill. They are
    how can we make the application forms simpler? Can we do that
    by establishing ground rules for what kinds of measures we take
    for harmful interference and sharing of spectrum? Can we
    address other issues or we'll agree is an example of them that,
    right now, applicants receive their grants of applications
    conditioned on the outcome of orbital debris proceedings.
        So those are the steps, I think, that would help. And
    again, we agreed with the subcommittee's draft bill that these
    are things that would help promote more expedited satellite
    service, and that's why we're--we launched these various
    rulemakings to kind of bring them home to do that kind of
    thing.
        Mr. Balderson. OK.
        Mr. Richardson. I should say, too, that--I think I said in
    my written testimony this is--when I was in private practice, I
    loved getting my applications granted as quickly as possible.
    And the Commission generally helped me out with that. But the
    process for public participation is one that ensures that we
    balance the need for expedition with ensuring that our main
    mission--one of our main missions that we don't pose any
    harmful interference to other licensees or potential licensees.
    And so we have to balance those two together.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you. My last question: What
    technical considerations, be it spectrum or usage of other
    issues, does the Commission consider when deciding whether to
    authorize satellite to cellular service, and would it be
    helpful for Congress to spell out what technical considerations
    the Commission should be considering?
        Mr. Richardson. I think this comes up in the ALERT Parity
    Bill before you. And I believe that it would make sense for our
    technical experts in the public safety field--because this
    deals with 911 and EAS in the engineering field because of the
    potential, you know, coordination needs and in the licensing
    field because the question is, you know, how do you issue
    licenses to do this--that they would be happy to give you some
    technical assistance in some of the issues that these new forms
    of--these partnerships, you know, pose.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas'
    11th District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank
    the witnesses for being here to discuss some of these. I know a
    lot of questions have been asked. And there's, you know, a lot
    of details discussed. I kind of want to go more broadly. And
    I'll open it up to both of you here.
        When it comes to the policies that we have, how we are
    competing with, let's say, China? Let's call this, I think,
    what it is. And the policies we have on issuing the appropriate
    permits and licenses to do--you know, my district, we've got a
    lot of agriculture. Very interested in the precision
    agriculture when it comes to the cotton industry, being able to
    utilize technology that exists, you know, whether it's the
    planting or the fertilization or any of the other--any of the
    other new things that are going to be available.
        But also more broadly, when it comes to national security
    issues that we have of communications and how we get through
    this process at the speed of relevancy, what are the major
    hang-ups for speed of relevancy right now? We'll just--if you
    guys can give me a minute each, and then we can go to the next
    question.
        Mr. Richardson. OK. What I think on the precision
    agriculture, the work of our task force is referred to in the
    bill, and we appreciate the support for bringing that to
    closure. I think it was one of the comments we heard earlier.
    On the national security issues, I think we do need to maintain
    our position in the global economy with our satellite industry
    to make sure that it's as streamlined as possible. And that's
    what we are working to do.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Glass?
        Mr. Glass. So we work very carefully through our
    coordination process to ensure we continue our leadership and
    development of advanced technologies. But beyond that, I think
    your question gets into policy issues that I'm unable to
    answer, and we would have to get back with you----
        Mr. Pfluger. I mean, do you have an opinion on----
        Mr. Glass. I do not have an opinion.
        Mr. Pfluger. You know, let's consider a couple of things.
    And let me just, you know, open back up. I mean, where in the
    energy space when it comes to production of energy do we need
    to be focused, and do we need to be looking at these
    capabilities to enhance the production, to enhance, you know,
    the overall efficiencies?
        I mean, where can we go in the energy industry to use
    satellite technology to help, you know, whether it's
    accomplishing all the goals that we went to accomplish with
    taking care of our Earth and making sure that we have efficient
    energy specifically in the Permian Basin for the production of
    oil and gas. Can you talk to that?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you. That, unfortunately, is outside my
    area of expertise, so I would be unable to give you an answer
    today. But, however, our staff can get back with you on an
    answer.
        Mr. Richardson. I think you are identifying one of the
    important potential uses of satellite, which is to cover broad
    swaths of territory in identifying things that the energy
    industry can use. I think there are specific kinds of licenses
    that have been issued by the FCC for that purpose, and I'd be
    happy to get back to you about the uses of the satellite
    spectrum to facilitate the work in the industry.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Glass, let's talk about the nonfederal use
    of spectrum bands. You know, we are talking about the
    increasing leadership in the private sector, the dual-use
    technologies. Do you believe NTIA and other Federal agencies
    need to enhance their relationships with the private sector?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. We are
    always striving to enhance our communication and our ability to
    coordinate with both the FCC and private industry to increase
    efficiencies and to be able to maximize spectrum use by
    commercial sector.
        Mr. Pfluger. Do you think we are doing enough?
        Mr. Glass. I----
        Mr. Pfluger. Are we operating at the speed of relevancy on
    those relationships with the private sector?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that. We are always striving to
    improve because there is always room for improvement.
        Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Richardson, any thoughts on that?
        Mr. Richardson. On the ability of the private industry to
    work with the Federal Government agencies, is that--is that----
        Mr. Pfluger. That's right.
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. The question? I--obviously,
    the FCC promotes those relationships. And I would concur that I
    think we have done a pretty good job of making sure that
    Federal Government users and commercial users can meet eye to
    eye.
        Mr. Pfluger. OK. We have some questions we'll submit
    afterwards, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the
    Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's Third
    District for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our two
    witnesses for this first panel for appearing before--I'll just
    follow up on my colleague from the great State of Texas, his
    commentary about striving to improve. Mr. Glass, you said we
    are, quote, ``always striving to improve.'' By what metrics are
    you tracking that type of progress?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you for that question. I am not aware of
    specific metrics for tracking that. We are, however, through
    our MOU with the FCC constantly looking to improve our
    processes and communication, improving our processes in being
    able to facilitate access to spectrum by the commercial sector.
    And that is done in the MOU that we currently have by setting
    specific timelines for communication of all parties so that we
    can streamline that process.
        Mrs. Cammack. So without specific metrics, the only
    tangible way that you can measure progress is by communication
    timelines?
        Mr. Glass. I am unaware of any specific metrics. There may
    be--and we can get back to your office with that answer.
        Mrs. Cammack. OK. That would be very, very helpful.
        Mr. Richardson, how should changes like the improvements in
    the Streaming Act be developed to ensure that the FCC can
    maintain a flexible position not only to address the issues
    that are within the licensing space today but also those in the
    future without impeding innovation within the industry? And I'm
    sure you have some personal expertise that you can speak to
    before your time here--FCC.
        Mr. Richardson. Well, I think the history of regulation at
    the FCC, if you follow a timeline, has been to be increasingly
    aware and addressing the question of is--when is regulation
    needed, and when is it not needed? I think that's something
    that's always at the forefront and people may have
    disagreements about.
        Mrs. Cammack. Not in Washington!
        Mr. Richardson. Right. But I think the Commission is well-
    attuned, again, through its rulemaking processes because it
    hears a lot about this from all sides about how much regulation
    is too much and how much is too little.
        Mrs. Cammack. So in your personal capacity as someone who
    worked to help expedite applications et cetera----
        Mr. Richardson. Oh.
        Mrs. Cammack [continuing]. What regulatory burdens are at
    this point in time unnecessary that we in this body should
    address to potentially take off the books.
        Mr. Richardson. I can't identify particular regulations. I
    think one of the things that we've been working on with respect
    to satellite applications and this bill also addresses is, are
    there ways that we can simplify our forms. From my experience
    example is, when I first started private practice in 1977--I'm
    ashamed to say it was a long time ago--we had renewal
    applications that were like this. [Indicates thick document.]
    And they were reduced to a postcard.
        And that was in broadcasting. It was a little different.
    This is more complicated. So the technical showings,
    engineering showings for satellite applications on Schedule S,
    I think it is, are more fulsome. But one of the things we
    strive for is sort of a can we simplify them so that we--the
    processors can say, ``Yes, got that, yes, got that,'' you know,
    and move on down. And that's one of the goals of this
    rulemaking.
        Mrs. Cammack. Do you think that the current legislation
    addresses ways that the FCC and satellite companies can
    coordinate on the technological advancements that are being
    made? Is there an element that we need to address that can help
    facilitate those changes in rapidly changing environments?
        Mr. Richardson. Well, it does. This legislation does
    address those, as do our rulemaking proposals, because they try
    to hit all of the subjects as well. In other words, how do we
    make the application simpler, avoid confusion? How do we
    establish ground rules in advance for interference and sharing?
    How does the processing round system work? These are things
    that both these bills address and the FCC addresses. And we
    are--this is a rulemaking that just went out in December. So
    the comments from industry and the public on how best to do
    this are due--comments March 3rd, reply comments April 3rd. So
    we are looking forward to seeing whether we can get
    recommendations and suggestions that we can finalize into new
    rules for the new space age, you know?
        Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate it. My time is expired. I yield,
    Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has expired,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's
    23rd District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to both our
    witnesses. I have enjoyed the hearing. Mr. Richardson, you had
    highlighted in your testimony you need to develop effective
    processes for the sharing of spectrum. And you mentioned that
    it's particularly important that the satellite spectrum that is
    not dedicated to one user that is intended to be shared with
    new, different users. I know that you've had some experience in
    your career with the question of what constitutes harmful
    interference and how that can be mitigated. Can you talk a bit
    more about that?
        Mr. Richardson. Yes. It's a very good question that has
    eluded me for many years as to what--because the challenge
    about harmful interference is it depends on the context.
    Depends on what spectrum you are using, how far away it is
    geographically, how far away it is in spectrum terms. Is it
    adjacent? Is it cochannel? That kind of thing. And the path--
    and in satellite, I am not an engineer, so all I know is it's
    extremely complicated, and I always relied on the engineering
    professionals to sign the applications.
        So I'm a little bit at loss to talk about the nature of
    harmful interference. But we have a definition in our rules of
    harmful interference. And it's--I think, one of the benefits of
    this pending rulemaking is that it lays out there in the
    satellite context specific alternative ways of measuring it.
    And we haven't decided which is the best way. We are seeking
    comment on that. But it's an effort, I think, to get to your
    question, which is what exactly is harmful interference in this
    particular context.
        Mr. Obernolte. Sure. So--and I know you mentioned to
    Congressman Carter in his question that you were developing
    guidelines on the issue. Let me ask a followup question about
    that. With this interesting situation there, the established
    companies are developing more and more sophisticated methods of
    eliminating interference. So this creates a reverse incentive
    when we sit down at the negotiating table to figure out what
    interference is considered harmful that the new entrants, the
    lack of this more sophisticated technology might have a
    different standard for what constitutes harmful interference, a
    lower standard than the companies that do have better
    technology for limiting interference.
        So how can we level the playing field when we are dealing
    with such complicated issues as that?
        Mr. Richardson. I would like, if I can, to ask our
    engineers about that question and get back to you.
        Mr. Obernolte. OK. But you understand the point, though,
    right? It's--when a company says, ``You are interfering with
    me'' and the other company says, ``Well, your technology just
    isn't good enough. You should be able to eliminate that
    interference,'' you know, that's a tough issue for the
    government to deal with.
        Mr. Richardson. Right. It's a good question. I would like
    to get back to you on----
        Mr. Obernolte. OK.
        Mr. Richardson [continuing]. On that.
        Mr. Obernolte. We look----
        Mr. Richardson. Yes.
        Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Forward to that. Mr. Glass, I
    know that the NTIA has done some work on this, and we have a
    laboratory for telecommunication science in Boulder that
    actually is dedicated to, among other things, measuring
    interfering and not identifying what exactly constitutes
    harmful interference. Can you talk a little bit about the
    virtual laboratory and where NTIA is on that subject?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you very much for that question. Yes. We
    do believe that it's important to address that issue up front
    rather than after the fact. So we have processes in place
    specifically through our memorandum of understanding with the
    FCC, which now emphasizes the importance of evidence-based
    spectrum policymaking, the engineering collaboration to go
    behind and make sure that we are addressing the systems which
    have a reliance on data, the analyses and the engineering best
    practices to make sure that we address any potential
    interference before it occurs.
        Mr. Obernolte. Yes. It would be interesting, actually, to
    go down and take a tour of that lab. I'm sure I'd be interested
    in--scare up some other participants here. So NTIA has the
    often conflicting goals of, at the same time, trying to protect
    spectrum from the people who paid for access to it. And then
    also the mission of encouraging competition in the sector when
    the spectrum is shared, can you talk a little bit about how
    those two ideas are intentioned and how the NTIA navigates
    promoting those two--those two conflicting goals
    simultaneously?
        Mr. Glass. Thank you. I'm not sure that the two goals are
    conflicting. We work to make sure that we maximize efficiency
    of the Federal use. We work very carefully with the FCC and
    industry to maximize their access to that spectrum. We are
    currently working on an enduring pipeline to enable spectrum
    access for commercial systems. And it is good best practices to
    make sure that that efficiency enables us to operate in an
    environment where there is no interference.
        Mr. Obernolte. How do you navigate the international
    complexities of the--I mean, obviously we're just one country,
    and although we try to be the leader in this space, we have to
    convince other countries to adopt our way of thinking. Can you
    talk about the way that that task is--complicates--those rules?
        Mr. Glass. Well, it gets back to having U.S. leadership on
    satellite systems in--internationally. And as long as we
    maintain that, we are able to follow the standard practices of
    registration coordination in bringing into use of satellites,
    which would put us in a priority position to other players and
    enable them to coordinate with us rather than us coordinating
    with them on such use.
        Mr. Obernolte. Sure. And what are the things that might--
    that might jeopardize our leadership in this space?
        Mr. Glass. I would not be able to comment specifically on
    that issue. That's something I would have to get back to your
    office on.
        Mr. Obernolte. I look forward to it. Thank you very much to
    both of you. I would yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's Sixth District for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really
    appreciate the opportunity to waive on today to talk about this
    really very important issue. I'm proud to be sponsoring the
    ALERT Parity Act with my colleague Kim Schrier. As you've
    heard, this bill would require the FCC to issue rules within 18
    months of enactment to establish an application process granted
    and in seeking to provide wireless emergency alerts to 911
    service in unserved areas. I have got a lot of those unserved
    areas. It also requires the FCC to establish service rules
    whereby providers of emergency connectivity service may access
    spectrum held by a licensee so long as it does not cause
    interference to the licensee.
        And we just heard from my colleague, Mr. Obernolte, that
    interference is a--is a really problematic thing too. We have
    got to get to the bottom of that. But first and foremost,
    enabling 911 calls and texts and emergency alerts in remote and
    unserved areas is not only common sense. It's a lifesaving
    necessity.
        Every person deserves access to emergency assistance,
    period, no matter where they live in the United States. As you
    know, this bill is very narrow in scope. It would only enable
    emergency service providers to connect to individuals' phones
    where there is no cellular service, either due to an outage or
    because there is not a mobile carrier providing service in that
    area. To many of us, it's frustrating if we lose cell service
    temporarily. It's unfathomable for the many to understand that
    there remains in America remote areas that still lack reliable
    cellular service, as there is now technology that will enable
    distressed Ohioans in rural Appalachia lacking mobile cell
    service to reach emergency assistance. I believe we have a
    responsibility to make it happen to ensure American innovation
    can serve our communities that are otherwise not connected.
    Thank you, Chairman Latta, for including my discussion draft in
    today's legislative hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for
    your insight on all these very important satellite
    communications bills.
        So Mr. Richardson, I'm going to go to you first. As I
    mentioned, one of the intended requirements in my legislation,
    the ALERT Parity Act, is that emergency service providers may
    only use spectrum if it does not cause interference for your
    licensee of that spectrum--for the licensee of that spectrum.
    In your opinion, what kind of coordination will be required to
    ensure noninterference?
        Mr. Richardson. That's a very good question, and I think I
    should start out by saying that the Commission very much shares
    your goal of ensuring that everybody everywhere has access to
    911 emergency alerts, that kind of thing. I think that--and
    that--and that satellite can be a major contributor to this. To
    respond to your question about coordination and interference,
    these are some questions that our engineers are looking at now
    with respect to some specific proposals that we have. But I
    should note that the proposals we have right now----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I'm a computer scientist myself, and it
    seems to me that this is a matter of the engineers that are
    overseeing the various technologies sit around the table. They
    are probably the right ones to figure this out among the
    different agencies and among the different licensees and users.
        Mr. Richardson. Right. Generally, the FCC, in terms of
    frequency coordination, very much relies on the different users
    to try to coordinate their use of spectrum. And one way that
    that's being done in this set of applications we have before us
    now is through a kind of partnership between one terrestrial
    and one--so that they are working in tandem with each other.
        Mr. Johnson. The point I was trying to make there is
    probably not political appointees and bureaucrats that are
    sitting around the table that don't understand the technology
    that need to coordinate and collaborate on the interference
    issue.
        Let me ask you another question: Does the FCC have the
    personnel and technical resources necessary to handle an
    increase in satellite licenses?
        Mr. Richardson. We have recently increased by 38 percent
    the staff. I think we can always do better with more staff. I'm
    not here to--I'm not here--authorized to ask you for that, so--
    --
        Mr. Johnson. In some cases, more is always better, but I
    don't--I don't know that that's the case in the government
    work. So----
        Mr. Richardson. Well, one of the----
        Mr. Johnson. Yes or no? Do you have enough people to handle
    increased licenses or not?
        Mr. Richardson. I don't know the answer to that.
        Mr. Johnson. Can you get it back to----
        Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Richardson. Could I--could I just----
        Mr. Johnson. I yield back. Thanks for having us. It's up to
    the chairman if he'll indulge.
        Mr. Latta. Go right ahead, please.
        Mr. Richardson. Thank you. I just wanted to ask--answer one
    thing which was--which referred to last week and by some of the
    questions this week. It's not just a matter of how many, but
    the expertise of the satellite engineers is very important.
        Mr. Johnson. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Thank you. I yield back,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of the time. Well, seeing no other Members wishing to ask
    questions of this panel, again, I want to thank our witnesses
    for being with us today. Without objection, the committee--
    subcommittee will now briefly recess to switch out the latest
    panels, for the second panel. So the subcommittee will stand in
    recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Latta. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will come to order, and again, I'd like to first
    thank all of our witnesses for being with us today, and again,
    I just want to explain we have two subcommittees jointly
    meeting downstairs, and some Members will be coming back up
    again here in a very short period of time. But I really
    appreciate you all coming up today to testify and for your
    patience on the second panel.
        And as we've heard from before that we have--you each have
    5 minutes for questions--or for your opening statement, which
    will then be followed by questions. And so our second witness
    panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Dave Goldman, senior
    director of satellite policy at SpaceX; Mr. Peter Davidson,
    vice president of global government affairs and policy at
    Intelsat; Ms. Whitney Lohmeyer, professor of engineering at
    Olin College of engineering; Ms. Danielle Pineres, vice
    president of regulatory affairs and compliance at Planet Labs.
        And at this time, Mr. Goldman, you are recognized for 5
    minutes. And again--but before--I'll just explain the lights
    again. You'll see that it will be green. One minute, it goes
    yellow. And then it will start flashing red at 5 minutes.
        So Ms. Lohmeyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and
    thanks again for your testimony.

        STATEMENTS OF WHITNEY Q. LOHMEYER, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF
    ENGINEERING, OLIN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING; PETER DAVIDSON, VICE
      PRESIDENT OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS & POLICY, INTELSAT;
     DAVID GOLDMAN, SENIOR DIRECTOR, SATELLITE POLICY, SPACEX; AND
       DANIELLE PINERES, VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS &
                        COMPLIANCE, PLANET LABS

                STATEMENT OF WHITNEY O. LOHMEYER, Ph.D.

        Dr. Lohmeyer. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
    Matsui, and distinguished members of the committee. I am
    Whitney Lohmeyer, and I hope that sharing my experiences in the
    satellite industry will help Congress better define clear rules
    and policies for spectrum. I hope that these rules will also
    foster innovation, maintain U.S. leadership, and safeguard the
    people in this Nation.
        While pursuing my Ph.D. at MIT, I was hired as one first
    Web--I was hired as one of One Web's first employees. I served
    on the U.S. delegation to the ITU's World Radio Conference in
    2015. I traveled to Shanghai to coordinate our spectrum with
    Chinese operators, and I coauthored One Web's U.S. market
    access application, which initiated the first FCC processing
    round of the last 6 or 7 years.
        Later, I joined the faculty at Olin College, where I direct
    Olin Satellite and Spectrum Technology and Policy Group, OSSTP,
    and I am a PI on NSF's $25 million Spectrum Act's research
    center. In a consulting hat, I have drafted and managed eight
    full Part 25 FCC commercial licenses and also more than 10
    experimental licenses.
        The FCC adopted processing rounds in 2003 to authorize
    systems more efficiently. Today's FCC inherited this framework
    that unfortunately incentivizes or can incentivize systems to
    file prematurely and to overfile.
        So an operator can modify its authorization as long as the
    interference environment is not increased from what it
    initially proposed. Operators are starting to file for every
    orbit that they could conceive of launching in order to ensure
    flexibility with the intent to decrease the number of
    satellites down the road. This has resulted in applications of
    thousands of satellites per network that are challenging for
    the Commission to validate and impossible--nearly impossible,
    I'd say--to assess interference.
        My research group, OSSTP, found that it took an average of
    2 years for the FCC to authorize first processing round
    applicants, which increased to 3 years in the second round. In
    the May 2020 round, less than a third have received
    authorization. And in this last round, all remain under review.
    When a round is initiated, applicants have 4 months to file,
    creating a scramble, especially for those who have not fully
    defined their systems. They are unable to submit full, complete
    orbital debris or interference showings, which leads to back-
    and-forth inquiries at the FCC and delays authorization. OSSTP
    petitioned the FCC, which aligned with the SAT Streaming Act
    we're talking about today to mandate a 1-year shot clock for
    NGSO applications, which would offer regulatory certainty,
    particularly given the Commission's milestones in surety bond
    requirements.
        Systems have to launch and operate half of their
    constellation within 6 years of grant and their full
    constellation within 9. They are also required to post a $5
    million surety bond within 30 days of grant. This is
    particularly challenging for companies like startups, and they
    are struggling to plan for the financial and technical
    buildouts of their system.
        A mandated shot clock would provide clarity and reduce
    perceived risks for investors. And applicants could, of course,
    seek waivers should 1 year not be appropriate. NGSOs also
    include services beyond FSS and MSS which may first come to
    mind. These services offer weather monitoring and Earth
    imaging, navigation and orbit--in-orbit servicing. They can be
    critical in times of emergency as well as in natural disasters
    and can be deployed for precision farming. And another
    important stakeholder is launch vehicle suppliers, who have
    established an impressive weekly launch cadence. All of these
    stakeholders have spectrum needs and need a seat at the table
    when we consider the regulations at hand. I applaud the FCC
    under Chairwoman Rosenworcel for establishing the Space Bureau,
    and I hope that Congress will provide the SEC with adequate
    resources, including funding to expeditiously and support--
    expeditiously grant--I'm sorry--expeditiously support this new
    bureau.
        The increasingly long wait times for authorizations and the
    lack of clarity in the licensing process is concerning to our
    vibrant investor community and is causing our talented
    ecosystem of entrepreneurs that our Nation has intentionally
    grown to consider filing and operating overseas. This wave of
    investment in energy and the satellite sector is awe inspiring,
    and we must ensure the SEC is not a bottleneck in this historic
    period of time. It's encouraging to see the committee's
    attention on our complicated and dynamic industry, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Lohmeyer follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony, and Mr.
    Davidson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF PETER DAVIDSON

        Mr. Davidson. Great. Well, Chairman Latta and Ranking
    Member Matsui, thank you so much. And other distinguished
    members of the committee here today. Mr. Joyce. Thank you so
    much for inviting me to testify here today. I want to start by
    applauding the subcommittee for focusing the first two hearings
    of this Congress on the space sector. These are timely hearings
    reflecting the urgency of rationalizing the legal and
    regulatory frameworks given the blazing speed of technological
    development in the space industry.
        I am proud to be testifying before this subcommittee today
    representing a company that's played a pivotal role in the
    space industry for over five decades. Our rich history starts
    with President John F. Kennedy signing the 1962 Communication
    Satellite Act creating Intelsat. In 1965, we launched the Early
    Bird Satellite, the first commercial satellite in the world.
    And we broadcast Neil Young--Neil Young, we did broadcast the
    Beatles--and we broadcast Neil Armstrong walking on the moon.
        And then more recently, in 2020 we completed the first in-
    orbit successful life extension of a satellite. Intelsat has
    led innovation in the space industry and has been a good
    steward of the space environment for over 50 years, and we
    continue to be at the forefront of satellite technology today.
    So part of our responsibility as an industry leader is to
    promote investment in innovation while ensuring space
    sustainability. While about 4,000 satellites have been launched
    in the last 10 years, there are estimates that almost quadruple
    that number will be launched in the next decade. And I think we
    even heard higher numbers today to that.
        So it's--so threading the needle between investment,
    innovation, and space sustainability is perhaps the most
    critical task facing U.S. and international policymakers today.
    Intelsat applauds the Energy and Commerce Committee members and
    the staff for initiating policy discussions on streamlining the
    FCC application process, equitable access to spectrum,
    advancing space sustainability, and ensuring rural connectivity
    and emergency communications. And in particular, we support the
    SAT Act goals of modernizing the processing round system,
    expediting the FCC application process, addressing
    sustainability by incorporating specific orbital debris
    measures, and setting clear guidelines for technical
    compatibility among the various satellite systems.
        These changes will promote competition and innovation in
    space. As the SAT Act moves through the legislative process,
    Intelsat believe it's important to ensure that the legislation
    will encourage industrywide competition, investment in
    innovation and not put a finger on the scale for any one
    business model. We believe all the orbits will be
    increasingly--be working together in integrated networks to
    deliver products and services, so U.S. and international
    policies should support the health of all orbits. We also
    support the implementation of information-sharing guidelines
    among stakeholders as an important aspect of space
    sustainability in an increasingly crowded environment.
        While it is not directly addressed in the bills being
    considered today, you heard last week about the importance of
    spectrum to the satellite industry. Spectrum is the foundation
    of the space economy. The continued erosion of spectrum
    allocated to satellite services will significantly impede the
    ability of the U.S. to lead in this sector. We need to reverse
    this trend.
        Advances in information technology and communications
    continue to spur economic growth around the world, but they
    also highlight a growing access disparity between the haves and
    the have-nots. As many of you have seen in your districts,
    there is a significant divide between well-connected urban
    centers and off-the-grid rural areas. Satellite is the only
    technology today that can provide truly global coverage.
        At Intelsat, our 56 satellites cover 99 percent of the
    Earth's populated regions. If we are going to connect consumers
    in hard-to-reach areas, we need to adopt smart regulatory
    policies and streamline access for satellite operators,
    allocate spectrum efficiently, and manage space resources
    wisely.
        I have addressed Intelsat's support for the goals of the
    other four bills in written testimony, and I look forward to
    discussing these in the question-and-answer segment. But in
    conclusion, I'd like to reiterate four point Number one,
    continued access to spectrum with regulatory certainty is the
    cornerstone for a vibrant U.S. space economy. Number two, space
    sustainability is fundamental to ensuring the continued growth
    of the space economy. Number three, maximizing the efficient
    use of spectrum in space can only be achieved through a
    regulatory framework that requires transparency and
    information-sharing among industry operators. And number four,
    satellites are an excellent solution for broadband connectivity
    in hard-to-serve areas and in disaster preparedness and
    response.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
        Mr. Goldman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDMAN

        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member
    Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today about the importance of
    maintaining U.S. leadership in satellite communications
    technology. My name is David Goldman, and on behalf of my
    11,000 colleagues at SpaceX, I want to thank the subcommittee
    for its focus on modernizing and improving the regulatory
    system for satellite authorizations.
        I am the senior director for satellite policy at SpaceX. In
    this role, I serve as the lead for regulatory matters at
    SpaceX's global--for global--SpaceX's global satellite
    constellation. But prior to joining SpaceX, I had the great
    honor of serving as chief counsel for this subcommittee under
    Ranking Member Pallone.
        Being back in this hearing room reminds me of all the
    bipartisan bills this subcommittee passed while I was here that
    helped ensure that more Americans are connected. I'm excited to
    be here once again to work with the subcommittee on another
    collection of important bipartisan bills. We are here at a
    critical moment in the global race to provide high-speed
    internet with low-Earth-orbit satellite networks. Doing so is
    needed to ensure continued U.S. leadership in space technology
    and telecommunications more broadly.
        As the world's leading launch provider, SpaceX is proud to
    build, launch, and operate all of our space systems in the
    United States. In 2016, SpaceX filed at the FCC to become a
    U.S. operator of a global low-Earth-orbit satellite
    constellation that we had yet to name.
        Since then, Starlink Generations 1 and 2 have been licensed
    and SpaceX has launched nearly 4,000 satellites to orbit
    providing high-speed, low-latency internet to every corner of
    the world. To get Starlink to orbit, we now launch our Falcon 9
    rocket, on average, every 4 days in unmatched flight cadence.
    Just a few short years since being licensed, SpaceX has
    launched one of the largest infrastructure projects in space.
        We now provide high-speed internet access to more than a
    million households, with thousands more added every week. We
    serve those in urban, suburban, rural and Tribal communities,
    most of whom have never had access to broadband before.
    Starlink has also demonstrated high value when terrestrial
    services are disrupted, either by natural disaster or conflict.
    And Starlink's capability to support emergency communications
    will only be enhanced with our direct-to-cell service, which
    will save lives by eliminating cell dead zones.
        That SpaceX has moved rapidly is not incidental. SpaceX
    must move fast to stay ahead of foreign competition. To
    maintain America's lead, the Commission's processes must not
    create drag on U.S. technology innovation, business viability,
    and the deployment of critical services to consumers.
        Unfortunately, the current FCC has inherited a regulatory
    regime designed for a previous era. I want to highlight four
    key areas. First, processing timelines at the FCC are
    unacceptably long, resulting in multiyear delays for
    application approval. Importantly, the Commissioners have
    recognized on a bipartisan basis the need for reform. This
    reform is crucial. U.S.-authorized systems are at a critical
    risk of being outpaced by foreign licensed competitors. For
    example, review of Starlink's Gen 2 application took nearly 3
    years. This process must be more expedient.
        And forcing clear, reasonable timelines will not result in
    less thorough regulatory review. Rather, doing so will remove
    the current incentive for foreign licensed operators and
    latecomers to game the system by endlessly filing frivolous
    comments in a deliberate effort to overwhelm, mislead, and
    ultimately delay hard-working FCC staff.
        Second, FCC regulations must be explicitly grounded in
    statutory authority. Otherwise, applicants are left to guess at
    what requirements and conditions will be imposed, creating
    considerable regulatory uncertainty for U.S. licensees.
        Third, Congress and the FCC should reward systems that are
    designed to be spectrally efficient and share spectrum. Too
    often, the current approach rewards inefficient systems
    designed with yesterday's technology. At the same time,
    essential spectrum authorized for shared satellite use like the
    12 gigahertz band must continue to be available and protected
    from harmful interference.
        Finally, the U.S. must end its approach of providing
    preferential regulatory treatment to foreign licensed systems.
    As it stands, the FCC imposes one set of stringent rules on
    U.S.-authorized systems like SpaceX's Starlink and then
    altogether different, far less burdensome set of rules on
    foreign licensed systems that seek U.S. market access.
        As a matter of public policy, this is upside down. The SAT
    Act and the other bills address--that we are considering today
    address many of these challenges head on. With its 1-year
    deadline for action, the SAT Act would add much-needed
    certainty for satellite licensing and improve U.S.
    competitiveness.
        The LAUNCH Communications Act will result in more efficient
    handling of launch spectrum approvals. The Secure Satellite Act
    will protect U.S. telecommunications technology against foreign
    competitors like China.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
    Ms. Pineres, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF DANIELLE PINERES

        Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thank you, Chairman
    Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee.
    I am honored to appear before you today to discuss how Earth
    observation data from space can help governments and commercial
    companies make better decisions for life on Earth and how
    streamlining licensing requirements, preserving access to
    spectrum, and protecting the low-Earth-orbit operating
    environment can support space operators.
        The commercial remote-sensing community is vibrant,
    innovative, and growing and provides data and analytics tools
    used by scientists, researchers, companies, communities,
    Federal agencies, and individuals to empower better data-
    informed decisions. As Congress and relevant Federal agencies
    collaborate on steps to enable continued growth and innovation
    in the commercial space sector, Planet recommends consideration
    of technology-neutral policies that enable innovation across a
    diverse range of space actors. The continued importance of
    spectrum to support satellite capabilities and the need for a
    timely and responsive licensing regime that keeps pace with
    technology development.
        Planet is an integrated aerospace remote sensing and data
    analytics company whose mission is to image Earth's landmass
    every day in order to make global change visible, accessible,
    and actionable. Planet designs, builds, and operates the
    largest constellation of Earth-observing satellites in human
    history, imaging with multiple spectral bands and delivering
    this data within operational decision-making processes for
    thousands of users across sectors.
        At Planet, we believe you can't fix what you can't see.
    Planet is able to line-scan the Earth and image the entirety of
    Earth's landmass every day at 3.7-meter resolution using our
    Dove satellite constellation of approximately 180 small sats
    that are about the size of a loaf of bread. Additionally,
    Planet's sky sat fleet of 21 satellites can be tasked to image
    specific portion--specific points on Earth and enables Planet
    to deliver 50-centimeter resolution images to customers.
        Planet also leverages machine learning to transform imagery
    into information feeds that detect objects and track change,
    providing customers with deeper insights on planet imagery.
    Planet has a daily reported history of the planet everywhere
    for the past 6 years and adds new imagery on a daily basis.
    This growing data set offers rich historical context across the
    globe as well as deep imagery stacks for application
    development and machine-learning-based analytics. Planet's data
    sets complement government-operated space and ground-based
    sensors and dramatically improve the spatial, temporal, and
    spectral resolution available to decision makers and scientists
    for monitoring real-time changes in wildfire spread in
    California to recording daily changes in Arctic ice to better
    understanding crop production and food security around the
    world. Planet and its commercial satellite imagery are
    empowering governments, companies, and individuals with the
    daily data they need to address the challenges they face.
        I'd like to discuss today just a few examples of how Planet
    data has an impact here on Earth. Agricultural customers use
    Planet imagery in their farm management platforms, allowing
    farmers to make more informed decisions around ideal investment
    in seed and crop protection products, when to plant, water, and
    harvest and scout monitoring to identify underperforming crops
    early in a season.
        Satellite imagery provides the near-daily coverage
    necessary to conduct crop yield analysis, land-use change, and
    monitor additional impacts to farms. Norway's International
    Climate and Forest Initiative, or NICFI, is a pioneering
    program to stop global deforestation. It uses Planet data
    across all tropical developing countries between 30 degrees
    north and 30 degrees south in latitude to support the
    prevention of deforestation and help save the world's tropical
    forests.
        The NASA Harvest, Food Security, and Agriculture Program
    utilizes Planet data to benefit global food security,
    agriculture, and human and environmental resiliency. They are
    using Planet data to monitor Ukraine's farmland, which is known
    as the world's breadbasket, to enable better understanding of
    the impacts to global food supply resulting from the Russian
    invasion of Ukraine. Finally, the California Forest Observatory
    is a data-driven forest-monitoring system that leverages Planet
    satellite data and artificial intelligence to map drivers of
    wildfire behavior across California, including vegetation
    fuels, weather, topography, and infrastructure.
        This provides communities and decision makers the data that
    they need to invest in mitigation and prevention to keep
    communities safer. In order for Planet to continue delivering
    these insights to our customers and to facilitate continued
    innovation and U.S. leadership in the commercial space sector,
    we need to work together as industry and government to protect
    the operational environment for satellites so we can preserve
    access to space for future generations.
        We also need reliable access to spectrum to communicate
    with and operate our satellites and ensure that we can download
    the more than 30 terabytes of data that we collect every day.
    And we need targeted changes to existing regulatory and
    licensing frameworks to streamline the approvals necessary to
    operate in space. We ask that the committee continue its
    efforts to streamline licensing requirements, preserve access
    to satellite spectrum, and protect the LEO operating
    environment to support space operators.
        Planet appreciates the invitation to testify today and the
    subcommittee's attention on these important issues. And I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pineres follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony
    today, and I thank all the witnesses. And now we'll move into
    the questions-and-answers portion of the panel. I'll begin the
    questioning, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Goldman, low-Earth-orbit systems like Starlink have the
    potential to offer broadband speeds that can unlock numerous
    opportunities for rural America. Would you discuss some of the
    benefits, including the impact they could have, especially on
    agriculture, here in the United States?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. I
    really appreciate it. I think one of the really exciting things
    about these new next-generation satellite systems like Starlink
    is they have the potential to bring urban-quality broadband
    speeds to rural areas. And you can bring--so you are bringing
    service not only to places where you are connecting them for
    the first time, but they are actually getting high-quality
    broadband at the same time, that they are not getting a second-
    tier internet. You don't have to compromise just because you
    are living in a rural area.
        And so I think one of the values of your--of the
    legislation that the committee is considering is that what
    you're doing is facilitating the deployment of these
    constellations that brings the speed and brings these vital
    connections to rural areas. And you ask about precision
    agriculture. One of the hardest things--even assuming that
    everything is working right, one of the--it's most of--our
    government's programs for broadband right now are about
    households and not necessarily about getting to the last acre
    of farmland. It's--you are looking at densities of population
    and not saying we need connectivity in places where there's not
    necessarily people but we have important crops or other things
    that we are growing.
        And so I think one of the things that we can--we can do is,
    by using satellite technology, you can bring these kinds of
    speeds to be able to do these vital services out to every
    corner of the farm.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And Ms. Lohmeyer, the FCC's
    current structure of licensing satellite systems from
    processing rounds seems to have its pros and cons. As someone
    who has filed applications with the FCC for low-Earth orbit
    satellite systems, what challenges do processing rounds present
    to companies that want to enter the marketplace today or for
    existing satellite operators that want to make innovative
    upgrades for their systems?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. So the existing challenges really--oh,
    thanks. The existing challenges come down to timing, market
    entry and how that impacts competition. So for entrants, those
    who are applying, like I mentioned, the processing round can
    force the filer to prematurely submit an authorization. And
    given what I will say is the fortunate fact that the FCC does
    have a thorough and diligent stance on orbital debris rules and
    orbital debris showings that can delay the authorization
    process.
        For those who are incumbents who are either already
    authorized or operational, they have uncertainty when it comes
    to protections and interference risk from later round filers.
    And I will say the FCC has initiated proceedings on NGO sort of
    sharings looking at this, the impact, effectively, of early
    rounds versus later rounds and stressed, too, that what we need
    are rules that balance these expectations of our incumbents,
    which are investment-backed, with the needs of incentivizing
    for innovation and competition.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. Ms. Pineres, Planet is a different
    type of satellite operator than SpaceX in that it provides
    Earth observation sensing capabilities. Would you please
    briefly explain how Planet's services are used by farmers and
    ranchers? And sorry, only about a minute left.
        Ms. Pineres. Sir, I'd be delighted. So agricultural
    customers--agricultural customers use Planet imagery in their
    farm management platforms, allowing farmers to make more
    informed decisions. Variable rate applications optimize input
    and water-use efficiency to reduce overfertilization while
    boosting yields. Sustainable agriculture monitoring, including
    crop rotation, conservation tillage and cover cropping--I
    actually grew up on a farm myself in Idaho. But farming today
    is a very high-tech business. And actionable satellite data to
    promote precision ag fits right in with this vision for the
    future of farming.
        Also say it's important that Planet data we offered into
    the farm management platforms that farmers are already using,
    understanding that not everyone is a geospatial analysis
    expert. So we are really trying to meet our customers where
    they are in terms of bringing them actionable satellite data.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and my time is just
    about to expire, but I have a couple more questions that I will
    submit to you all and for feedback on them.
        At this time, my time has expired, and I yield to the
    gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    very much, Mr. Chairman. Satellite systems are capable of
    providing service globally regardless of where they are
    licensed. That means companies can get access to the U.S.
    market through foreign regulatory body rather than through the
    FCC. Asymmetry in the requirements for operators seeking FCC
    license versus market access and space system and significant
    consequence for U.S. international leadership.
        Mr. Goldman, I asked this question at the last hearing, but
    it's worth reiterating now. Yes or no, do you believe our
    licensing and market access requirements should incentivize
    U.S. operations whenever possible?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely.
        Ms. Matsui. Chairwoman Rosenworcel is doing what she can
    with the resources she has to keep the FCC responsive to the
    needs of the satellite marketplace. However, it's clear that
    with the increase in satellite applications and potential
    expand--potential expand the scope proposed in these bills, the
    agency needs more resources to keep up. Mr. Davidson, do you
    have concerns U.S. leadership and increased spending--if we
    don't provide a commensurate increase in resources to the FCC?
        Mr. Davidson. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that
    question. I think absolutely. And I think what you heard last
    week and what you heard in the earlier panel today was kind of
    a unanimous endorsement of what you just said, that with the
    advances in technology today, things are becoming much more
    sophisticated, not just the quantity of resources but the
    quality of the resources that are there. And I think the
    chairwoman has recognized that and in the additions that she's
    made there.
        But I think with the pace of technology and now, with--if
    this legislation passes, you are going to have a broader
    mission given to the FCC. So absolutely they will need more
    resources to accomplish this.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you. As more system operators begin to
    share congested spectrum bands, it will be increasingly
    important that satellites are spectrally efficient to allow
    more effective use of limited resource. Mr. Goldman, can you
    describe the measures that can be used to measure spectral
    efficiency, and how can we incentivize improvements in
    efficiency?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you very much for the question.
    We--this is exactly--this is exactly the point. And Professor
    Lohmeyer was mentioning earlier that the processing round
    systems at the FCC actually can somehow--can sometimes actually
    disincentivize building efficient systems. Unlike--this
    subcommittee deals with terrestrial licenses where people get
    exclusive rights to certain bands. On satellite, it's
    completely different. Everyone has to share. And that actually
    can create this incentive to build the least efficient system,
    because it allows you to box out your competitors.
        And so what I think the Satellite Streamlining Act does is
    it recognizes this, and it encourages--tells the FCC to look
    into encouraging efficiency. SpaceX has actually petitioned the
    FCC asking for them to pick this up exactly and start building
    in metrics such as how much speed are you--are you providing
    per square mile on the ground per person. How much speed are
    you providing, trying to drive an incentive towards--that you
    actually are rewarded for having a more efficient system as
    opposed to being right--right now, the current system actually
    rewards you for being inefficient.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. I am interested in the deal that
    SpaceX has struck with T-Mobile, which would permit T-Mobile
    customers with off-the-shelf devices to receive Starlink
    signals from the outer range of the usual T-Mobile network
    coverage. This is exciting, and I know that other companies are
    trying to offer similar services.
        Mr. Goldman, how is SpaceX overcoming the challenges of
    sharing spectrum with wireless licenses? And what role do you
    see for satellite to supplement terrestrial networks?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, great. That's a great question. So the
    model that we are using is we actually--we--as you mentioned,
    we have a deal with T-Mobile. So we--we are actually working
    with the terrestrial operators rather than seeing them as the
    adversary and trying to battle against them. We are trying to
    work with them and see them as partners. And so we actually
    have a deal where we are going to be using T-Mobile spectrum
    with their permission. And essentially our satellites will
    operate like wireless towers in space.
        So as you mentioned, just a phone off the shelf when you
    are in a dead zone will be able to connect with the satellites.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I'm using my time here. So, anyway, I--I
    really do. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields the balance of
    her time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida's 12th District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. In
    a global market for NGSO systems, if the U.S. regulatory burden
    for approvals and launches are too burdensome, a company could
    theoretically launch elsewhere and retroactively apply for
    market access. This would equate to other countries benefiting
    from satellite technologies while we sit in a regulatory
    quagmire. Mr. Goldman, question for you. In your written
    testimony, you stated the U.S. approval timeline is, on
    average, 2\1/2\ years. How does the U.S. regulatory burdens for
    satellite approvals compare to foreign countries', and have you
    launched outside of the United States or at least considered it
    due to more friendly regulatory environments?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question. So I guess
    to start out with, we are--SpaceX is proudly a U.S. company. We
    build, launch and operate all of our systems within the United
    States, and we are completely licensed within the United
    States. But that's actually why--specifically why we are so
    concerned about making sure that the U.S. regulatory process
    keeps up with the innovation because it is true, as Ranking
    Member Matsui was mentioning, the nature of satellites is that
    you can license anywhere in the world and still be able to
    operate in the lucrative U.S. market.
        And we have seen that. We have seen that happening. More
    and more satellite operators go and license overseas and then
    come back. And they basically escape U.S. oversight of their
    operations but still are able to take advantage of the U.S.
    market. So I think we think that one of the key--the key steps
    to take that's addressed in the Satellite Streamlining Act is
    if you can shorten the timeline to be able to do these
    approvals. The other thing that the U.S. does that no one else
    does is it's completely transparent. So it is actually--to
    answer your question about does anyone else take this long, it
    is hard to know because other countries kind of do it behind
    closed doors and in the U.S. you can see it.
        I can tell you our--we are now operating in 46 countries,
    59 total markets. We have not run into those problems in other
    places when we are operating in other countries. So I think the
    Satellite Streamlining Act would do a great deal to try to
    bring back and incentivize people back to licensing in the
    United States again.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Sounds good. Ms. Lohmeyer, do you have
    anything to add? I know you had some testimony with regard to
    this issue.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. In particular, folks filing administrations
    overseas and then obtaining market access here?
        Mr. Bilirakis. Correct.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. I think I would primarily just echo what Mr.
    Goldman said. The primary reasons folks go overseas is the
    perceived onerous nation--onerous nature of the FCC's process,
    like we described, the public nature as well. And I think as
    the FCC also conducts complete overview of the technical and
    legal narratives that are required to be submitted before
    submitting the ITU filing, which establishes international
    priority, whereas other nations have a less diligent process.
    There's pros and cons to that, so----
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Thank you. Next question is for Mr.
    Goldman. You also discuss in your written testimony the
    Starlink capabilities that allow for a satellite to provide
    services to areas devastated by natural disaster. I've seen
    hurricanes, being from the State of Florida, from time to time
    leave residents stranded both physically and from outside
    communication. How long does it take to reposition a satellite
    to provide coverage to a disaster zone, and how do you complete
    that task without disrupting service to other populations? I
    specifically recall, Representative Dean, that that happened,
    absolutely. Representative Dunn. Yes. I guess that was
    Hurricane Michael, right?
        Mr. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. So if you could answer that question, I
    appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Goldman. No. I appreciate that. And I actually--I
    myself, I grew up in Tampa, so I saw hurricanes and saw exactly
    what they did. We actually--last year, we started working with
    State of Florida government. And when hurricanes came in last
    year during hurricane season, we were able to deploy basically
    overnight. We don't need any additional ground infrastructure
    to be able to bring in our service. And our satellites are
    everywhere already. They are already spread. We don't have to
    move the satellites.
        So essentially, as soon as we get the call, we can move in
    with our equipment and be able to bring service to people
    immediately, which is what we did last year during this--during
    the hurricane season.
        Mr. Davidson. Could I add just one thought to that,
    Congressman? That is, for example, in Tonga, we were the first
    into Tonga when the disaster happened there last year. So we
    are able to set up our--carry a backpack with our satellite
    equipment on it on a commercial plane, land in Tonga. We were
    there for a week or two before anybody else could come and set
    up comms there. So satellite, as David is saying, is a very
    nimble way to get into those areas quickly. And you can
    preposition equipment so that, you know, areas that are prone
    to disasters can have that equipment ready to go.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. I yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California's 29th
    District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta and
    Ranking Member Matsui, for having this very, very important
    hearing. For decades, satellites have been used for GPS
    communications and remote sensing. In 2022, the GAO found that
    there are almost 5,500 active satellites in orbit. And one
    estimate predicts that they may launch an additional 58,000
    satellites by 2030. Satellite technologies provide more
    opportunities to advance critical research in health,
    agriculture, energy, and more. Ms. Pineres (sic), in your
    testimony, you mention the work that Planet does to capture
    daily images of Earth to show how the planet is changing and to
    help us make better decisions.
        In California, we are experiencing more extreme weather,
    hotter temperatures, longer and more severe drought, worsening
    wildfires, and dangerous flash flooding. We are not just seeing
    this in California, but we are seeing this all over the country
    and all over the world.
        How does Planet's satellite imagery reveal drought
    indicators and aid in drought response across the world?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you for the question. Measuring the
    impact of drought is critical for evaluating its severity and
    monitoring its change in identifying vulnerable areas. Planet's
    data allows users to record, process, and analyze water
    resources and land cover changes on the ground over time at a
    high spatial and temporal resolution. Planet's analytics
    products called planetary variables include a soil moisture
    content variable, which can measure the volume of water
    contained in soil at a 5-centimeter depth. And these products
    pair Planet's daily data with other public data sets to provide
    actionable insights.
        And I would just add, too, that in response to questions
    regarding, you know, other types of extreme weather, hurricanes
    and disaster response, Planet's data can also provide kind of
    critical situational awareness in those--at those times for
    building damage assessment and also for evacuation paths.
        Mr. Cardenas. And on how--could you elaborate on how access
    to sufficient wireless spectrum is critical to the work and
    data that you provide?
        Ms. Pineres. Yes. Thank you for the question. We rely on
    wireless spectrum in order to communicate with our satellites,
    to command the satellites, and, critically, to download the
    more than 30 terabytes of data that we--that we downlink every
    day. So wireless spectrum is critical for our operations, for
    the work that we do and to provide data to our customers. We
    are also really interested in new types of spectrum
    technologies, for instance, intersatellite links that can
    connect satellites in space to speak to each other.
        One of the challenges in the Earth observation sector is we
    operate a little bit differently than other satellite
    operators. We only communicate when we're within view of a
    ground station. So it limits our downlinking opportunities by
    how many ground stations we have. So intersatellite links can
    provide both better reactivity in terms of sending commands to
    the satellite about where to image and also better downlinking
    capabilities to get images faster to customers, particularly in
    disaster situations.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. I'm just amazed at the projection
    of numbers: 5,500 satellites today to possibly an additional
    58,000 or more in the very near future. Are we going to be
    sending up bumper cars instead of satellites or a combination
    thereof? How fast are the satellites moving, and does
    congestion concern anybody?
        Mr. Davidson. Yes. Congressman, I addressed in my opening
    statement this exact issue. So I think it's the health of the
    orbits and particularly the LEO orbit that could limit the
    ability for, you know, innovative new products to be launched.
    So it's going to be a crowded environment.
        So part of the licensing process needs to be an
    understanding of where this--where these new satellites are
    being deployed, how they are managed, how they--how we can
    understand where they are. Are operators communicating with
    each other? In the GEO orbit, it's a very, I would say,
    collegial orbit. All the operators talk with each other. When
    something happens, we help each other out. So it's--you know,
    there is a lot of information sharing. The LEO orbit, as you
    mentioned, is going to become very crowded.
        So what I refer to as the bucket of space sustainability
    issues, so tracking, disclosure, you know, transparency,
    maneuverability of can you move your satellites around an
    orbital debris, managing orbital debris, all part of the space
    sustainability bucket that's going to be critical for the
    future of the industry.
        Mr. Cardenas. Yes, please.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. The inclusion of technologies like standard
    fixtures on board satellites are incredibly important as well
    as in-orbit servicing. One Web, back in 2015 was even--or 20,
    yes, 2015 was even working on creating some of these devices.
        Mr. Cardenas. But people can launch satellites anywhere on
    Earth. They bring the capability. They get the information, you
    know, from somebody's lands. Is the United States the standard
    bearer, or who is the standard bearer today, and who should
    we--who should be the standard bearer going forward?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. I think the United States is definitely a
    leader in these technologies with NASA and FCC as well as
    private sector.
        Mr. Davidson. And I would also just note that the U.S. has
    a huge market. It's a huge addressable commercial market. So
    people who want to do business here need to comply with our--
    with the standards of the United States.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has
    expired and yields back. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentlelady from Washington, the chair of the full Committee of
    Energy and Commerce, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldman, I want
    to start with you and just thank you for testifying on behalf
    of SpaceX and your effort--your efforts to offer rules,
    satellite connectivity and provide launch services to other
    companies. At our hearing last week, we heard a lot about the
    importance of spectrum and spectrum access for satellite
    services. My SAT Streamlining Act would provide direction to
    the FCC on how to incentivize satellite operators to reduce
    spectrum efficiently. As we are considering ways to streamline
    and clarify the FCC's rules to encourage upgrades and new
    interest into the marketplace, what principles should we
    consider when trying to strike the right balance in providing
    adequate protection from interference and also encouraging
    innovation?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question, and thank
    you for having us today. I think you are putting your finger
    exactly on the biggest issue that we have in satellite right
    now is how do we, in a shared spectrum environment--how do we
    give enough certainty to licensees that when you get your
    license--these systems cost tens of billions of dollars to
    build--how do you get--how do you have enough certainty that
    your license is going to--is going to actually mean something
    to you going forward while you spend these billions of dollars?
        At the same time, because it's a shared environment, you
    don't want to cut off having new entrants enter. And so how do
    you do both things at the same time, which is a very, very
    difficult balance. And I compliment you and your staff for
    taking this on in the--in the SAT Streamlining bill, of trying
    to strike that balance. It really is--I think that you're--you
    are addressing it correctly, which is you are thinking exactly
    about the--how do you make sure that these licenses will
    continue to have value at the same time that you're encouraging
    the efficiencies and encouraging people to build in the
    technology that does cost more to be able to share the spectrum
    better.
        So I think that's the key, and I think that's exactly what
    your bill is getting at.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, Intelsat is also
    accompanied with storied American history, starting over 50
    years ago in the government-owned system. Today you are at the
    forefront of innovation and working to integrate multiple
    orbits and multiple spectrum bands into one integrated system.
    This discussion draft would grandfather certain systems' use of
    spectrum as the FCC sets out the new roadmap for spectrum use
    going forward. Would you also address the balance on the need
    to streamline the process or protecting billions of dollars in
    investment made by satellite operators under the current rules?
        Mr. Davidson. Great question, and I would concur with David
    in his assessment of this threading the needle. I think this
    really is the critical issue your committee and policymakers
    are going to have to address, which is dealing with the fact
    that there is a lot of investment up there in space right now
    and that there were--there was commitments made of billions of
    dollars.
        The same time, we want to encourage innovation and
    investment and new entrants. So really, finding that--you know,
    threading the needle in that regard is going to--is going to
    really be critical. I'm not going to necessarily draw a line on
    the grandfathering where you should or should not do that. I
    would just say, from a principal perspective, you've got to
    find the right balance between protecting investment and
    encouraging new investment. And I would say the spectral
    efficiency, we are in complete agreement on that as well. There
    are old systems that need to be phased out that are, you know,
    potentially nearing end of life that are extremely inefficient
    systems. And we are building cutting-edge efficiencies into all
    of our--we have--we have many new satellites in product--in
    production right now.
        Our software-defined satellites are going to be the most
    efficient satellites that GEO has ever produced.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Ms. Lohmeyer, you are an aerospace engineer with years of
    experience advising satellite operators as NGSO systems are
    getting larger and more satellites are launched into orbit. It
    will be important that these systems are designed with
    flexibility to maneuver and deorbit safely. What role should
    the FCC have to ensure satellite systems' license will be good
    stewards in space?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. The FCC should serve as the authority on the
    front end to make sure that these operators are good stewards,
    require compliance using NASA's debris assessment software
    tool. It should also continue to regulate and codify rules that
    are built from NASA's standards and interface with NASA--
    comply, if you will--with ODMSP in a holistic, not piecemeal
    approach, so not a single reg but look at the scenario as a
    whole and then interface with agencies, NASA and Office of
    Space Commerce more--more closely to coordinate those different
    efforts. Thank you.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The
    gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our last panel, we
    talked a lot about my back yard in Kissimmee, where we get to
    see the full magnificence of America's busiest spaceport, the
    world's busiest spaceport in Cape Canaveral with NASA, SpaceX,
    ULA, Blue Origin, and more, and the increasing number of
    launches, 57 in 2022. We have, 2023, 87, which is set to be
    another record. But I think a lot of people don't realize how
    many of those are from SpaceX: 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022. They are
    reusable, economically efficient.
        So, Mr. Goldman, first, thanks for your company's
    commitment to Central Florida. I guess my first question is how
    many--how many launches do you have on tap for 2023?
        Mr. Goldman. I think we have roughly about 100 on the
    manifest. Right now, we are going about every 4 days so far
    this year.
        Mr. Soto. So that's a lot of flights. So how helpful would
    the LAUNCH Communications Act be in increasing and helping your
    busy launch schedule by streamlining FCC licenses?
        Mr. Goldman. Oh. Thank you so much for that question, and
    thank you for that legislation. It really is putting its finger
    on a very, very important issue. As you know, the authorization
    process for commercial launches was built a long time ago. In
    fact, it was not built. It just kind of happened. And so we
    now--right now, for every single launch, we have to go to the
    FCC to get special temporary authority for every single launch,
    sometimes multiple authorities for a 41 launch, depending on
    what's going on.
        The process at the FCC, there isn't much of one. It's--you
    go to the FCC. You fill out their form, they reach out to NTIA,
    they reach out to the other agencies. And then it all is kind
    of manual and then comes back. When you are launching every
    four days--and that's just us, this process is just--it's on
    the verge of breaking. And so I think your bill recognizes that
    and puts in effective measures to try to address this and be
    able to make sure that the Space Coast remains the Space Coast
    going forward.
        Mr. Soto. And we appreciate Dr. Dunn's help on this in a
    good bipartisan bill. Central Florida has a lot of advantages
    in space flight. We are closer to the equator--the fuel. We
    have the Atlantic in front of you just in case something goes
    wrong. And the talent there--but the weather is not always
    cooperative, right? So you want to give the committee a sense
    of how often you may have to go to one to two to three launch
    windows just in the--one of these flights?
        Mr. Goldman. Oh, it happens all the time. And especially
    when you start getting into hurricane season and things get
    very, very unpredictable. It really kind of depends on the
    launch. Some of our launches, when we are launching our
    Starlink satellites, we have a lot more flexibility. But when
    you are launching astronauts, everything needs to be absolutely
    perfect.
        And so you really need to have that certainty. And, again,
    as your bill recognizes, you can't always just keep going back
    and forth with the government and asking, ``Is this time OK?''
    ``Is this time OK?'' ``Is this time OK?'' You need to be able
    to coordinate more in real time to make sure that, especially
    these life-carrying missions are secure, that they are
    predictable, and that we have everything in place before the
    launch goes.
        Mr. Soto. So when we see a schedule of 87 launches for 2023
    for the Cape, you could have a real pileup, right, of launches
    running into each other datewise if you have bad weather for an
    extended period of time. So how would--how would that figure
    into why it's so critical that we get this right?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely. Again, it's going back and
    forth with the government agencies. It just becomes--at some
    point, you hit the breaking point. It just becomes not viable.
    And you will--you are going to start having launches that get
    delayed not because there is anything wrong with the launch,
    but the paperwork hasn't been processed in time.
        And so what your--what your bill does is it clears out that
    problem, and it makes sure that when the launch is ready to go,
    when the technology is ready to go, that we can go.
        Mr. Soto. As we look to American space dominance and see
    the Chinese increasing their space launches and Russians being
    not only our partners but our main competition on these, how
    important is it for us to maintain our space dominance to
    really get everything just right so we can beat a schedule?
        Mr. Goldman. Oh, it's absolutely critical. As you
    recognize, there is--foreign powers around the world are--they
    are looking at the United States with envy. They recognize the
    United States has taken the lead in space. And you are seeing a
    lot of state-backed actors who are trying to build competitors
    to what the U.S. has. And what we need to do is make sure that
    our regulatory systems keeps us in the lead.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. Committee, this is something
    our Nation is getting right, but we do have work to do to keep
    our place as the world's dominant space power. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's Fifth District for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    panel.
        Ms. Pineres, precision agriculture has revolutionized food
    production all across the Nation, really all across the world.
    But I'm worried that farmers in rural Southern Michigan, my
    district, won't be able to harness this technology due to lack
    of connection. This is something different than simply
    broadband in their homes. What are the benefits that satellites
    could have on precision agriculture, and more specifically, has
    the FCC taken a comprehensive look at what rules may need to be
    updated to advance the use of satellite technology for this
    purpose?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. So, as I
    mentioned in my prior testimony, Planet's data is--it can be
    very important in sort of a different approach to precision
    agriculture than the broadband connectivity that Starlink
    provides. So it's--what we're providing is the imagery that can
    be downloaded into existing farm management platforms to help
    farmers visualize the crops, what kind of--how the crops are
    developing, whether they need more fertilizer, whether they
    need more water. And we are--Planet's satellites deliver the
    kind of daily cadence that farmers need in order to be able to
    monitor precision agriculture needs over time.
        To your question about the Commission, Congress created not
    so long ago--or instructed the FCC to create a precision
    agriculture task force that would look at broadband
    connectivity for precision agriculture. That statute, however,
    doesn't really acknowledge the importance of Earth observation
    data for precision agriculture. And so we welcome the Precision
    Ag Act under consideration here today. And, you know, I think
    that's one way--it references Earth observation satellite data.
    So that's one way we can work with the FCC to sort of expand
    what the Precision Ag Task Force is working on to look not just
    to broadband connectivity but also the role that Earth
    observation can play.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Ms. Lohmeyer, your testimony, you
    discussed how applicants only have a brief window for designing
    a system and filling--and filing with the FCC to join a process
    and round. What incentive does that provide for satellite
    operators to design efficient or responsible systems?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. So it's important to note that not all
    systems are in this kind of scramble that I describe. There are
    lead applicants as well as those that follow. And so there are
    numerous operators who have the time to methodically think out
    and plan and design, procure manufacturers. And so that fits
    nicely with the regulatory process.
        Mr. Walberg. And then Mr. Goldman, in SpaceX's experience,
    how has the processing round framework affected your ability to
    compete against international competitors like China?
        Mr. Goldman. It's been a strain, to be totally frank.
    It's--the processing rounds work for what they are. But foreign
    competitors don't have the same regulatory burdens that you do
    when you are going through the FCC's process. I think one of
    the main issues has been just delays in approvals when it can
    take multiple years before you are approved. Again, state-
    backed competitors are not--not facing those same kinds of
    delays. And it makes it difficult for the U.S. to maintain its
    lead when it continuously has to go through these delayed
    processes.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you for your testimony. Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas' Seventh District for
    5 minutes.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thanks again to
    both you and Ranking Member Matsui for organizing today's
    hearings into two very informative panels, and I really want to
    focus on this panel on a followup on what we were discussing in
    our hearing last week as well, just about the great potential
    to deliver emergency communications before, during, and after
    emergencies and natural disasters. This is something we are
    unfortunately all too familiar with in my home in Houston, and
    so we have been very focused on ways to improve communication
    both from government to residents and also between agencies and
    between first responders.
        And so I want to direct my first question to Ms. Lohmeyer.
    Specifically, can you talk about some of the specific
    challenges that both governments and industry are facing when
    it comes to implementing and providing emergency communications
    using satellites?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Sure. So efficient licensing frameworks like
    we've been mentioning----
        Mrs. Fletcher. Mm-hmm.
        Dr. Lohmeyer [continuing]. That enable multiple different
    types of services to be deployed, subsidies to overcome the
    cost of user terminals and the service. And I say ``subsidies''
    because, when I think of emergency services, I think of kind of
    two different types, if you will. There is the always on, like
    911, medics, fire.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Mm-hmm.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. And then there is triaging these natural
    disasters, like FEMA come to mind.
        And I think clearer rules for that first type and then even
    sort of lessons learned from past experiences where we have had
    scenarios like in 2017 in Puerto Rico. The hurricanes came in,
    and one anecdote that we often don't share is, in that time,
    Project Loon, a Google initiative to use high-altitude
    platforms, was quickly licensed to deploy services. The
    cellular infrastructure wasn't in place due to the hurricane,
    and so those balloons actually backhauled over O3b satellite
    network. So satellites not only provide these two that I
    mentioned. We also provide--or two being the direct-to-device
    and broadband. But they also serve a kind of multitiered
    infrastructure as well.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Well, and it's interesting the way you
    described it because I--when I'm thinking about this, I'm
    thinking about those moments when your existing infrastructure
    has stopped working and satellites coming in and being able to
    help fill the gap like the description--like the scenario you
    described in Puerto Rico. And I think that that is something
    that we have seen, is what happens when what you are usually
    relying on fails.
        Certainly with satellite technology, there is a lot that
    people are usually losing when it comes to satellite technology
    as well, so I don't mean to suggest that that's not the case.
    But certainly we have some hard infrastructure that we use in
    our emergency communications and that we have unfortunately
    seen go out time and again. And it's in those moments of true
    crisis where, if there is a quickly dispatchable, deployable
    technology that can fill that gap, I think it's incredibly
    important. So I'd love to continue that conversation in this
    committee obviously throughout this Congress.
        I also want to touch on--on kind of a related issue, but
    this bill that Representatives Johnson and Schrier have
    introduced, the ALERT Parity Act, to require the FCC to
    establish a process for satellite to provide these emergency
    services and create rules for that temporary spectrum use. And
    I think it will go a long way towards some of the things that
    we've been talking about and some of the challenges that we've
    seen.
        But I think one of the--one of the questions from this
    morning, especially, is sort of focusing on the FEC--FCC
    portion of the process that's outlined in the bill. How else
    can Congress work? What else can we do here to ensure that the
    satellite technology is available to bolster these
    communications and maybe--Mr. Davidson, you look like you might
    have an answer, something you want to say so--first.
        Mr. Davidson. Well, I thank you, and thanks for the
    question. I just--I just add very quickly that I think the
    whole ecosystem, so everything we are talking about here today,
    contributes to the satellite industry's ability to make--to
    respond to these disasters. So all the stuff that we are
    talking about--I mean, we truly are the first responders. We
    are able to go in. I mentioned, I think, before you came in
    that we can fly commercial to a site with a--with a backpack
    with the satellite equipment in it.
        We can be up and, you know, transponding information before
    anybody else. So in disasters, oftentimes, terrestrial networks
    go out. So we really are the ones that can get there, and then
    we transition to other networks. So I would say the health of
    the whole system, including spectrum and kind of regulatory
    efficiency would help in the disaster context as well.
        Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Thank you for that perspective, Mr.
    Goldman, anything to add?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. I actually completely agree with the
    answers that came before me. So, as Mr. Davidson said, you are
    looking at a collection of really important, critical bills
    that really are going to be super helpful. We are able to roll
    out our equipment basically overnight. We can reposition it and
    be there before the event if we know that it's coming. And we
    are able to--in the past couple of years, the Starlink system
    has been able to help in wildfires in California and Germany.
        We were able to help in Tonga, as Mr. Davidson--and so you
    are able to deploy this stuff immediately and bring basically
    urban-quality broadband to a natural disaster immediately and
    connect people. And as Professor Lohmeyer--it's not just for
    the satellite connectivity. You can also be backhauled for
    mobile phones as well.
        Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, thank you so much. I see that I
    once again used up my 5 minutes, because this is really
    interesting. So I thank all of you for your time, your
    testimony today. And I thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
    recognizing me and holding this hearing, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's First
    District, the vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank each of you for
    being here. This obviously is extremely important, as you all
    know. And it is important in our country. It is important in
    our world. This is the future right here. I mean, the global
    satellite marketplace is estimated to be worth $40 billion by
    2030. And, you know, we had approximately 4,000 satellites had
    been launched in the last--in the last 10 years. And the next
    10 years, that number is expected to quadruple. And, you know,
    it's just overwhelming what's happening here. So we all
    understand that.
        I want to ask you--I'll start with you, Mister--I'll start
    with Mr. Goldman. Tell me how, just very briefly and
    succinctly, how can we balance efficiency with safety and
    sustainability as we legislate? Tell me what we can do.
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question.
    Fortunately, I think the bills that you have in front of you
    are striking a very good balance on doing that. Your point is
    exactly right. In order to be able to have a robust competitive
    market, everybody has to be efficient. And so, by identifying
    that and putting that at the forefront and saying that
    everybody needs to use their resources, whether it's the
    spectrum resources or the--or orbits, your resources in space,
    making sure that you are as efficient as you possibly can is
    the only way that we are going to be able to continue this
    going and reach those numbers that you were talking about for
    the economy.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Davidson, your opinion?
        Mr. Davidson. Yes. So I agree with that, and I would say
    also that there need to be some requirements in terms of
    transparency. So as you are applying for a license, you have to
    be--your satellite should be trackable. We need to know where
    they are. We need to know what the relationship with others are
    going to be. We need to know what the interference levels are
    going to be. And this can all happen prelicensing. And then we
    can also look at the issue of maneuverability. Do we need to be
    able to move satellites around in orbit to avoid interference
    or take other measures?
        So these are all things that can be looked at the very
    beginning of the process. And it need not be bureaucratic or
    slow as long as you have the right number of engineers and
    scientists kind of looking at how these are going to interact
    with each other.
        Mr. Carter. OK. Fair enough.
        Ms. Pineres. Could I jump in just on the maneuverability
    piece?
        Mr. Carter. Yes, sure. Go ahead.
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much. On maneuverability, I
    just wanted to add that the importance of a technology-neutral
    approach to maneuverability. So in other words, when Congress
    is looking at new statutory language instructing the FCC on new
    orbital debris policies, allowing for companies to innovate
    their way to maneuverability, so mandate the desired outcome
    and let people innovate to get there versus mandating a
    specific requirement for propulsion or other kind of specific--
    technology-specific requirement.
        I would also add just on the point of transparency I think,
    in addition to everything that happens at the Commission prior
    to launch, I think it is incredibly important for space
    operators in the LEO environment to be communicating with each
    other to avoid conjunctions. We--as Planet published our
    ephemeris data, which tells where our satellites are and where
    they are going, operators like SpaceX do as well. But not
    everybody does that. And I think Congress can play an important
    role, policymakers can play an important role in encouraging
    industry to come to standards and best practices around sharing
    that kind of information.
        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you for that. Thank you for using
    the word ``encouraging'' as opposed to ``mandate.'' First
    start--I don't like that word but--and I couldn't agree with
    you more about innovation. We want to encourage innovation. And
    sometimes the best way we can do that is to get out of the way
    so--well, let me switch gears real quick. I represent a lot of
    South Georgia. You know, we like to say in Georgia there are
    two Georgias. There is Atlanta and everywhere else. Well, I
    represent everywhere else. We got a broadband problem,
    particularly in South Georgia and particularly with reliable
    broadband connectivity.
        And just tell me about regulatory barriers that exist or do
    you feel like may exist at FCC and NTIA. Have they--have they
    added to the current digital divide that we--that we see how--
    that is due to the--due to the licensing of a satellite system,
    Mr. Goldman?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you for the question. Yes. You know,
    Starlink, our broadband system, is built specifically to bring
    broadband to everywhere else. So we appreciate that. Yes.
    Unfortunately, the FCC right now is saddled with old rules that
    were developed decades ago, frankly. And----
        Mr. Carter. We just had them on the first panel, and, you
    know, that is something we were asking about.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. And I think that the Commissioners, the
    current crop of Commissioners have all mentioned it, have all
    talked about the importance of updating the rules. And we
    really do appreciate kind of on a bipartisan basis they have
    been recognizing that. But it really does need----
        Mr. Carter. Are they doing it? I mean, recognizing and
    doing is two different things.
        Mr. Goldman. I--they have a number of rulemakings that they
    are working on right now that hopefully will get us there soon.
        Mr. Carter. Nice way of saying no. I'm sorry. I'm running
    out of time. Go ahead and finish up.
        Mr. Goldman. No. I'm sorry. That's----
        Mr. Carter. All right. All right. Well, I am out of time.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlemen's time has expired. He yields
    back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
    Illinois' Second District for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member,
    and--excuse my voice--to the witnesses. My district, Illinois'
    Second Congressional District, has a strong rural sector, with
    close to 2,000 farms that serve as the economic backbone of the
    district and, quite frankly, agriculture in the State of
    Illinois. Many of these farmers and producers have felt the
    squeeze of the pandemic's economic impacts and supply chain
    challenges. Nevertheless, these farmers and producers in the
    Second District have maintained productivity, generating corn,
    soybeans, wheat that continue feeding our families, fueling our
    cars, and help raising our livestock.
        Our farmers are vital to Illinois' economy. And when I go
    home to my district, I regularly hear about the measures
    farmers want us to take in Congress to support them, notably
    the need for us to pass solutions to combat surging input costs
    and help learn from and implement successes from conservation
    practices.
        So because of that, I was excited to hear a little at last
    week's hearing about how satellite services could benefit our
    farmers, particularly how the application for satellite
    services would allow farmers to utilize GPS to control tractors
    and other farm equipment and utilize sensors to determine if
    additional water or fertilizer is needed for any crops.
        For these reasons, I was proud to partner with Chair Latta
    in introducing the Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity
    Act, which I'm not going to go into as I'm sure you did
    already. But when you are last, a lot of your questions have
    been asked already. But I wanted to ask about last September,
    the White House hosted for the first time in 50 years a
    conference on hunger and nutrition and health. Part of the
    purpose of the conference was to accelerate progress and drive
    significant change in hunger, improve nutrition, and close the
    disparities around them.
        Ms. Pineres, will you provide more background on Planet's
    work with NASA Harvest food security and agricultural programs
    and in particular, how your data enables a better understanding
    of the impact of certain world events on global food supplies?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. So
    NASA Harvest is leveraging Planet's data or daily Planet scope
    imagery, which our Dove satellites produce, and combining it
    with other environmental, economic, and social science impact
    data to see what crops were growing and what crops were not
    growing on a field-by-field level across Ukraine. And that
    resulted in an August 2022 outlook that actually predicted more
    crops had been harvested and planted along both the Russian-
    occupied and Ukrainian-held territories than previously
    expected. And so, by monitoring agricultural fields for change,
    researchers can determine what stage a crop is in from space
    without having to go field-by-field for crop estimates.
        Planet and NASA Harvest actually recently announced a new
    partnership last month that will build on this work regarding
    Ukraine and then scale it to conduct regional and global
    assessments. And that solution will be offered to national
    governments, multilateral institutions, NGOs, and other
    interested parties around the world.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. Thank you to the witnesses.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady yields
    back. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida's Second District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So great panel.
    Thank you all for being here. Mr. Goldman, in your opening
    remarks, you--in your written statement, you highlighted some
    of the ways that the foreign competitors are able to game the
    system and get approved--to slow our companies down. These two
    separate standards seem so un-American to me. I wonder, is the
    FCC inadvertently giving an upper hand to foreign competition?
    Is this something that is built into the deck, or do we have to
    write a statute in law that says level the playing field? That
    just doesn't--it seems a lot----
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question. The FCC
    doesn't need a statute to be able to level the playing field.
    And to just back up and clarify what I was talking about, the--
    for--satellites are inherently global, which means that you can
    apply for a license anywhere in the world. Everybody wants to
    then operate in the United States because we have the best
    market. And so--but what the FCC's rules are currently are
    that, if you are licensed overseas, for the most part, they are
    going to trust that you are--the country that licensed you
    already kind of looked at the--how safe your system is, how--
    whether it's going to be protecting space or not. And so, for
    the most part, they are saying they are not going to apply the
    FCC's rules to those systems.
        The problem is, is the U.S. is actually the most forward-
    leaning, has the strongest rules in the world for orbital
    debris. So for saying that, you are essentially--what you are
    doing is encouraging systems to leave the United States, go
    license elsewhere, and come back. And so we have actually
    petitioned, asking for the FCC to fix that. And I think the
    legislation you have in front of you will also do that as well.
        Mr. Dunn. Excellent. So we heard a lot about how satellite
    broadband can help the digital divide--rural broadband and
    whatnot. The Federal Government--tens of billions of dollars--
    grants for rural broadband and whatnot. But to our dismay, it
    tends to not be tech-neutral, so technology-neutral. They tend
    to sort of feed the fire on that. What programs are there
    that--well, satellites are eligible for to help the rural
    broadband, and what would you like to be part--and then I'm
    going to ask you to answer the same question, Mr. Davidson.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. That's a really good point. I know when
    the--when Congress passed the infrastructure law last year, it
    specifically called out that these programs should be
    technology-neutral. Unfortunately, NTIA, when they went to
    implement it, put in a very strong preference for fiber, as you
    recognize. I--we were disappointed in that. We think that it
    should be more performance-based metrics. If you are able to
    get certain speeds, if you are able to get certain latencies,
    the consumer doesn't care how it got there. They just want the
    service to be there.
        And so we are hopeful that these programs going forward
    will be more technology-neutral. We are working with NTIA. We
    are talking to them. We are also talking to the States to see
    if there's any ways that we can work with them.
        Mr. Dunn. I would love it if you'd share some--yes. That's
    good with the States too. But I'd love it if you'd share with
    us words--the wording of that kind of statute that we might
    pass in this committee at another time. So keep us on--on speed
    dial.
        Mr. Davidson. Yes, Congressman. So I agree with that. I
    agree with that statement, and there are--I don't know how many
    of these programs are out there, and they all have different
    standards. So it is very difficult to know what you are going
    to qualify for in the Rural Utilities Service, and the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture is even, I think, more fiber-centric
    than some of the FCC and NTIA programs. So it is kind of
    interesting. You have an agricultural department that has the
    most restrictive.
        Mr. Dunn. Yes.
        Mr. Davidson. You know, it is--and you are not--listen, you
    are not going to build fiber to a tractor anytime soon. So
    satellite is a great alternative, and yet it is disqualified
    from many of the programs.
        Mr. Dunn. And it is worth reminding ourselves that some of
    these comm competitors that we have overseas are actually
    government-backed programs. We are competing against----
        Mr. Goldman. That's exactly right.
        Mr. Dunn [continuing]. Nation states, not just--Mr.
    Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we can all
    agree that we recognize connectivity continues to be a serious
    issue throughout rural areas. I represent Pennsylvania's 13th
    Congressional District, which is a large agricultural district
    spanning from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, out to Somerset County.
    Nearly 800,000 Pennsylvanians go without fast, reliable
    broadband, including almost a half a million of them living in
    rural communities. Now, we must work together to bridge that
    digital divide. And that's why you must take an all-of-the-
    above approach when ensuring those in rural areas have the same
    connection, the same speeds as those in Philadelphia and
    Pittsburgh.
        Ms. Lohmeyer, can you talk more on how reforming FCC
    licensing requirements will better connect my constituents in
    rural Pennsylvania?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. In general, I think as we lean towards more
    and strive towards more efficient licensing rules with clear
    regulations, we are going to be able to deploy systems more
    rapidly.
        Mr. Joyce. And with that rapid deployment, do you see that
    we see a fair share of that going into the rural, underserved
    areas?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Satellites uniquely positioned to cover
    ubiquitously. And so there is not actually benefit or, if you
    will, to focus on the cities where they are densely populated.
    So it is actually an ideal location for satellites to prove out
    that there is a business case. And----
        Mr. Joyce. And we look forward to that being proven out in
    the rural areas.
        Ms. Pineres, following up on my previous question about the
    importance of rural connectivity, you mentioned in your
    testimony how farmers are making more informed decisions based
    on the imagery from Planet. Can you talk about the work that
    the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force has done in the
    satellite space and realizing that food security is national
    security? Can you talk about how the Precision Agriculture
    Satellite Connectivity Act will benefit farmers in
    congressional districts like mine which have a large rural
    agricultural component?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. As I
    mentioned in my--in my prior testimony, the underlying statute
    that formed the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force actually
    does not--focuses just on broadband and does not really look at
    Earth observation and the importance of imagery, of satellite
    imagery like Planet's and the importance that it can bring to
    farmers in rural and remote areas.
        So I welcome the Precision Agriculture Act. I think the
    fact that it references Earth observation imagery is very
    helpful. I think we'd be glad to work with the committee on
    some other language potentially to change the underlying
    statute so that the sort of mandate of the task force is broad
    enough to include not just broadband but also the kind of
    imagery that we think can make a real difference for farmers.
        Mr. Joyce. And I think that is important that this gives us
    that opportunity to, as you say, make that real difference for
    farmers.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield the rest of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 14th
    District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lohmeyer,
    understanding you have a background as an aeronautical
    engineer, the SAT Satellite Streamlining Act would require the
    FCC to issue technology-neutral, objective, and measurable
    performance objectives for space--and orbital debris. Given
    your experience providing technical advice to satellite
    companies, I have got really two questions. It is, how should
    the FCC's rules look to incentivize satellite operators to be
    good stewards of space? And the second part of that is, how do
    we compare that to other countries? Are we going to be in this
    alone, or are we going to be subject to being disadvantaged by
    those rules? What say you?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. So the first question, how do we incentivize
    our operators to be good stewards of space? I actually, from my
    time at One Web and from working with the operators, feel that
    they are on board with these rules. They want America to lead
    in this place and maintain the position as an example
    internationally.
        We even have companies coming out, startups with
    investments that are geared towards the sustainability
    initiatives. And if you will repeat your second question for
    me----
        Mr. Weber. Well, it's going to be--let's stay on the first
    one just----
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Sure.
        Mr. Weber [continuing]. A minute. So the SAT Streamlining
    Act you are saying really is not needed--pretty good actor in
    taking care of the debris. But if you follow that up with--how
    about the other countries, the other licensed satellitees, if
    that is the right term. Are they going to be just as good at
    cleaning things up and their debris?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. I have not seen as diligent measures
    internationally.
        Mr. Weber. Are there other countries that you are aware
    of--this might be a question for some of you all too--that have
    those kinds of requirements from a--maintaining a satellite
    that's basically free of debris or doesn't cause debris? Are
    you aware of any?
        Mr. Davidson. Well, Congressman, I just add that I think
    one of the key questions here is--is the U.S. market too. So
    that's why I think we can provide an example for the rest of
    the world whether--a lot of this stuff is international. I
    think if you want to do business in the United States, which
    everyone is going to want to do, you have to meet those
    standards. Then I think the rest of the world will, you know,
    follow along and try to do that. So, you know, listen, they
    have to be smart. It has to be smart regulation. It shouldn't
    be overregulation. But it should address the issues that will
    keep particularly the LEO orbit, you know, sustainable for the
    next, you know, next generations.
        Mr. Weber. Well, Congress never overregulates.
        Mr. Goldman?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. So I agree with Mr. Davidson. So the main
    idea here is that the U.S. is the market that everybody wants
    to operate in. What the Satellite Streamlining Act does that's
    really smart is it does two things, is it extends the U.S.
    orbital debris rules to anyone who wants to operate here, but
    it also has features in it that--that bring--once--it
    encourages people to come back, which there is potential for
    expedited processing if you are a U.S. licensee.
        So you are doing two things at once: You are taking away
    the incentive to move out of the United States while you are
    actually creating an incentive to come back. And so I think
    that's why I think the Satellite Streamlining Act actually
    strikes a really nice balance to be able to address these
    things without overregulating.
        Mr. Weber. Let me change gears real quick. Mr. Goldman, you
    said earlier that the least efficient satellite companies are
    able to box out their competitors.
        Mr. Goldman. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Weber. OK. And what would incentivize them not to have
    the least efficient system because they can box out their
    competitors?
        Mr. Goldman. I think if you started creating incentives and
    rewards within the regulation for having--we have the
    regulations anyway. If we have them where they benefit you for
    building in--for investing in more efficient technology that's
    better at sharing, then you can create the kind of current race
    to the bottom. You can turn that into a race to the top by
    rewarding people for doing the right thing.
        Mr. Weber. OK. And then Mr. Davidson, you said that
    applying for a license, your satellite needs to be trackable.
    Is that to say that the satellite is already launched? Are you
    talking about it needs to be--have a tracking----
        Mr. Davidson. No. In terms of your--when you are applying
    for a license to operate that these are some of the
    requirements you should have to satisfy. So you should be able
    to demonstrate where your satellite is going to go, that you
    are--you know, you are transparent in terms of the information,
    what the interference likelihoods are. All that should be done
    upfront. And that--it can--the standards can be set out very
    clearly, and you either qualify or you don't qualify to be
    given a license.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Georgia's 12th District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta. And I said in my opening
    statement before the first panel of witnesses that our
    committee needs to make it our highest priority to work to meet
    the needs of our private partners. I come to Congress from the
    business world, although I grew up on a tractor.
        And the last time that I operated a tractor, I planted a
    row of peanuts 16 inches over from where the farmer had planted
    them last year, and I didn't touch--he said, ``Don't touch a
    thing.''
        And so with that, Ms. Pineres, obviously, you all are
    involved in agriculture. That has evolved over the years. And
    you can kind of cover a little bit of that. But what do you see
    in the future? I mean, obviously farming continues. I mean, we
    are--we are satisfying 115 percent of our food needs with less
    than 2 percent of the population right now. But where do you
    see this thing going?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you. Thank you for the question. It is
    really exciting to see farming go high-tech, as you said, and I
    think Planet's imagery can play an important role in that. As I
    mentioned in my prior testimony, the ability for farmers to
    really access farm-level data and have that cadence be near-
    daily so they can see change in their crops over time and help
    decide--help them make important decisions about, you know, how
    much inputs they are going to need in terms of fertilizer,
    water, I think that's really important.
        I'd also say, in addition to kind of visual imagery, I had
    mentioned earlier that Planet also offers a planetary variable
    for soil moisture content which enables farmers to see how much
    water is in the soil and help make decisions about water usage
    as well.
        So I think, you know, I hope that we will see a future that
    Planet can play a role in a future where, you know, we are able
    to do more with less, less inputs, less land, and feed more
    people.
        Mr. Allen. Well, farming is the largest industry in my
    district and the largest in our State, and we don't have much
    dry land farming anymore. It is, like I said, very precise. And
    you mentioned the moisture content of the soil and just putting
    just enough water. They also plant the seed with fertilizer
    already in it. And so it is pretty amazing.
        The Starlink and--or Mr. Goldman and Mr. Davidson, do
    Starlink--and tell us to provide a service to farmers and
    ranchers, and what role does satellite technology have to play
    in supporting precision agriculture technologies?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    And as Mr. Davidson said, you know, we are not--we are not
    expecting to see fiber to the tractor anytime soon. So
    satellite is the solution. I can tell you, for Starlink, we
    have high-performing antennas that are essentially flat. And
    you can actually put it on a tractor and be able to get high-
    speed broadband all the way to a tractor anywhere to the last
    acre on the field.
        And so we are currently--so first of all, we have farmers
    who are customers who are using these services already. But we
    are also working with a lot of farm equipment manufacturers and
    trying to think of new ways and new--new innovative ideas to be
    able to integrate high-speed broadband into the equipment that
    is being used already.
        Mr. Davidson. And Congressman, we have a slightly different
    business model at Intelsat than Starlink does. We have multi-
    orbit, multilayer with a 5G core. So that means we utilize
    partnerships, and we have our GEO satellites. And we have MEO
    and LEO partners that we integrate into the network. And we
    have the largest infrastructure in--terrestrial infrastructure
    of any satellite operator as well. So all of this stuff is--
    operates through from end to end 5G compatibility. So we are
    doing many of the same things that Starlink is with a slightly
    different business model that delivers that, you know--well,
    sometimes different services, sometimes similar services and
    working again with equipment manufacturers and farmers to
    provide the service.
        So the future is very bright for this. And I think, as long
    as government provides the right foundation, you are going to
    see more progress in this area.
        Mr. Allen. Well, food supply is going to be an
    international need, and certainly we need to continue to look
    at every way we can produce food, because we are going to be
    doing a lot for the rest of the world.
        I only have just 24 seconds but--and you can submit this to
    me. I just--we learned there's a lot of satellites up there and
    we know that technology like in these things is changing by the
    hour. I mean, do some of those satellites need to come down,
    and we need to put new ones up there? And you can just submit
    that in writing rather than take committee time. I would just
    like to know what is the program on recycling all the stuff up
    there and using the best, latest technology.
        With that, Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back. And
    at this time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Utah
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, our
    witnesses. Thank you for this hearing. I want to go in a little
    different direction and talk about technology that it feels
    like we are just in the very beginning of, using satellite
    technology to monitor specific sources of carbon emissions. It
    feels like this is in its infancy, but it might be a good tool
    particularly overseas and narrowed down source emissions, I
    understand, within a square mile, which would be very helpful.
        There are some hurdles. For example, there are issues with
    visibility through cloud cover. But potential for this
    technology is immense.
        Danielle, I'm trying to pronounce your last name.
        Ms. Pineres. Pineres.
        Mr. Curtis. Pineres. OK. Thank you. Satellite technology
    could be used to ensure closed societies like Russia and China
    are being transparent about their emissions. Can't this
    technology be used to ensure China is giving reliable data on
    their emissions and uncover possible accidents that are harmful
    to the environment?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. Planet
    is actually working to understand methane emissions. And we
    have plans for a new groundbreaking hyperspectral satellite
    constellation called Tanager. And we expect to begin launching
    this year. Our hyperspectral mission is designed to support the
    identification of methane emissions at the facility scale, so
    at a very small scale, along with a myriad of other
    applications that can improve life on Earth spanning across
    areas such as biodiversity, water quality, et cetera.
        So we are actually undertaking this hyperspectral mission
    as part of the Carbon Mapper Coalition, which is a public-
    private partnership with a broad-based coalition of industry
    and nonprofit organizations. So we are really looking forward
    to seeing how this hyperspectral data can complement the other
    satellite imagery that Planet uses but really hoping that it
    will be a game changer in terms of ability to identify
    emissions to allow governments to--governments and companies to
    keep tabs both on their own emissions, others' emissions, and
    there would be a lot more transparency around emissions and
    accidents going forward.
        Mr. Curtis. And keeping people accountable. I am told most
    of the satellites with these capabilities are government-owned.
    But is this technology useful in the private sector? Do you
    think we will see this grow?
        Ms. Pineres. We do believe it is useful in the private
    sector. As I mentioned, we do have plans to launch a
    hyperspectral constellation. And so I guess we'll see. But I
    think Planet certainly sees value in hyperspectral data,
    particularly for these climate change emissions-monitoring-type
    applications.
        Mr. Curtis. I'm aware of one company that is using it for
    mining industry gas and oil, better track methane. Are there
    challenges that we should be aware of in Congress with getting
    these capabilities licensed?
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. You
    know, I think one thing that is interesting about Planet and
    our--we have slightly different licensing needs than are--than
    are faced by others on the panel. For instance, we are--we are
    typically exempted from the processing round requirements
    because of the Earth observation, the Earth exploration
    satellite service spectrum that we use. We share our spectrum
    in a different way.
        But nevertheless, you know, we really appreciate the
    committee's work on the SAT Streamlining Act and the focus on
    ensuring a transparent and timely licensing process that will
    enable us to continue to get our satellites authorized and have
    those authorizations in place to permit our business to go
    forward.
        Mr. Curtis. I have no doubt that China is also very
    interested in this technology. What do we need to do to stay
    ahead of them, and how do we--how do we make sure that we
    dominate in this technology?
        Ms. Pineres. Yes. What a great question. There is--as
    you've heard from across the panel today, the U.S. is a leader
    in terms of regulation but also behind, right? We are doing
    great on orbital debris and sort of leading the way on that.
    But in order to have effective orbital debris policy, it can't
    just be the United States. We need to be working with others
    globally to try to make sure that everyone around the world is
    abiding by these orbital debris rules.
        I think in addition, we--in addition to FCC regulation, we
    also face Earth observation regulation specific to our
    industry. And so we really appreciate NOAA, our regulator,
    streamlining the rules back in 2020 for Earth observation
    satellites and look forward to continuing to work with them to
    try to make some additional changes to try to make sure that
    the U.S. remains the world leader in this technology.
        Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I didn't mean to neglect the other
    three. Twenty seconds left if any of you have any comments on
    these issues.
        Good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield my time. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th
    District for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green or Mr.
    Allen just left, but I wanted to acknowledge and thank you all
    for being here, give my shout-out to former colleague of ours
    Bob Gibbs, Congressman Gibbs, who is a Starlink customer. And I
    had to hear all about it for 2 weeks, about how great it was.
    And he installed it himself, so he is quite accomplished.
        But on his farm, it is very useful. And it has been a
    saving grace for him and his wife and his grandchildren. And I
    have had numerous folks from the congressional district, Kyla
    who works with our--Farm Bureau and just the successes that
    they've had.
        So thank you, Starlink, Mr. Goodman. And I will direct my
    questions predominantly to you today. So SpaceX recently
    announced a partnership with T-Mobile that would pair
    Starlink's satellite with T-Mobile's wireless network.
        During the first panel, I discussed the importance of
    filling in the coverage gaps that hurt my constituents in rural
    and Appalachia Ohio. Excuse me. This innovation from the
    private sector sounds like a promising start, but we must
    ensure it's not thwarted by unnecessary red tape before it has
    a chance.
        Mr. Goodman, what regulatory barriers have you run into
    while seeking authorization from the FCC to provide satellite-
    to-cellular services?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you so much for the question and for the
    kind words. Really do appreciate it. And so to just back up one
    step, we do have a deal with T-Mobile where we are going to be
    using their licensed spectrum. And essentially our satellites
    will look like a wireless tower to a phone. So when you don't--
    when you are in a dead spot, when you are--when you can't--when
    your phone can't see a normal cell tower, it will see our
    satellites as though it is a tower and be able to fill in those
    gaps.
        At this point, I am happy to say we have not run into any
    significant regulatory problems. But it is--it is in the early
    time on this. We actually just had to refile an application for
    this yesterday. So we are--we are early in the process. I do
    expect where regulations struggle is when you have something
    that doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes that they are
    used to. And this is--this is one of those things. Regulators
    are not used to seeing--they are not used to seeing someone
    asking to use satellites in cellular spectrum.
        So we are going to have to work closely with the FCC to try
    to figure out how to smooth things out. So far, we have gotten
    very positive feedback from the FCC and the staff, but it is
    going to be a regulatory challenge.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you. To follow up with that, how
    will the SAT Streamlining Act and the ALERT Parity Act make
    that process easier for you and other companies that may wish
    to provide cell--satellite-to-cellular service?
        Mr. Goldman. Well--sorry. That's a mouthful. One of the
    great things about the Satellite Streamlining Act is it gives
    us certainty that, when we apply for a license, we know we have
    some idea of when we are going to get it. Right now, we have
    no--we put in an application, we have no idea when it is going
    to come out. It is really hard to build technology when you
    have no idea when you are going to be able to start using it.
    So it really adds to that certainty, which is absolutely
    necessary.
        On the ALERT Parity Act, it is a really interesting idea
    that we would really love to be able to work with you on. One
    of the things that it does that is a novel concept is that, in
    the event of an emergency, it allows you to be able to use
    other spectrum that is not already being used to be able to
    provide lifesaving services. And our equipment that we are
    going to be using with the T-Mobile service actually can access
    other spectrum bands. For example, there is mobile satellite
    spectrum that is not actually being heavily used right now.
        And so one possibility is that under that--this act is that
    we might be able to access some of that spectrum in event of an
    emergency.
        Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you very much. My last question is
    Professor Lohmeyer. Thank you for being here, Professor. In
    your testimony, you touched on the SpaceX and the T-Mobile
    partnership. Can you outline some of the technical concerns
    that this partnership would need to address to move forward
    with deployment?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Well, one thing that was coming to mind when
    you were just speaking was just this history since I have been
    involved. In 2015 at the World Radio Conference, U.S.
    delegation was prioritizing terrestrial spectrum allocations.
    And we've seen at the FCC seaband--107, right? The shift from
    terrestrial allocations and targeting satellites--satellite
    frequencies for terrestrial use. Now we are in this paradigm
    where--shift where satellite services are looking at
    terrestrial frequencies for use.
        And so going back to things that we needed, prioritizing
    satellite at the international and national level and the
    regulatory frameworks for those spectrum allocations.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    witnesses, for being here today. Mr. Goldman, I represent a
    very rural district in East Tennessee, and there's a lot of
    areas where laying fiber for traditional broadband is just
    difficult. What is the status of Starlink's deployment, and
    what speeds do Starlink service currently offer?
        And I read where you have the Starlink project that will be
    expanded in Wise County, Virginia, which is, you know, the
    district next to me in Southwest Virginia that are going to be
    serving students. And I saw in Eastern Kentucky where you have
    expanded the program that's connecting residents to telehealth,
    which is going to be--telehealth is here to stay, and we are
    going to be able to utilize that for those residents. So what
    is the status of the Starlink's deployment?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you so much for that question. And
    those are the kinds of projects that have been the most
    exciting things that we are working on. So I really appreciate
    highlighting those. And, right, in Wise County we were able to
    work with the county, and we initially--we started with 40
    units that we--of our user terminals to be able to connect
    people in Wise County. And the program went so well that we've
    been expanding it since then. And it really has been a great
    success because what we were able to do is bring high-speed
    broadband to people who just didn't have--not even like they
    had slow options. They had no options.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. No options.
        Mr. Goldman. No--and so it really has been very fulfilling
    and exciting to see. As you mentioned, Western Kentucky, we
    have similar ones. The good news is that our system is
    everywhere already. We are seeing, on average, about 100-
    megabit speeds. So it's about what you--anyone would need for
    kind of residential use. We have enterprise services that can
    go faster than that. We've even seen kind of burst speeds that
    are at, like, 350 megabits where you can actually get even
    much, much higher. So--and so we are available anywhere at this
    point.
        We do have areas where we are essentially oversubscribed in
    some areas. And so we have a little bit of a wait list. What we
    are--we are continuing to launch. We are launching every 4 days
    to put up more satellites. And that will give us more capacity
    to be able to put more people on the network, even in places
    where we are a little bit congested right now.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. In addition to high-speed internet,
    it is my understanding that the LEO systems like Starlink can
    provide important complementary services or add-on capabilities
    for terrestrial networks as well. And I saw last year that
    SpaceX announced a direct-to-sale service, which is supposed to
    end the dead zones in a lot of distressed counties too for
    mobile service. Could you provide an update on the buildout of
    that system and talk a little bit about what Starlink is or
    will be able to offer to assist with other communication
    challenges beyond the high-speed LEO internet?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you for the question. This is
    another one that we are really excited about. We just submitted
    a new application for that, actually, yesterday for that
    service. We are hoping to start launching those satellites,
    assuming FCC approval is coming this year. We are hoping to be
    able to start launching those antennas on our satellites as
    soon as this year. We are working with T-Mobile for a very
    rapid rollout of that once we have approval. It works with your
    standard phones already. So as soon as we are able to start
    launching enough satellites to have service, your phones will
    already be able to do it.
        And, yes, I--to full disclosure, this isn't going to be a
    5G service, but it will allow you to text and have emergency
    alerts and things like that. And hopefully at some point we
    will have voice and kind of low-speed data too.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, that is pretty sweet. I have got a
    little bit of time left. You know, I am reading about the
    Secure Space Act. And, you know, other countries are moving
    forward with significant investment in LEO systems. And I read
    here where China is aggressively--of course we know they are
    pursuing a satellite constellation, which is StarNet. But the
    statement that you have says while the U.S. has blocked the
    installation or use of Chinese hardware telecommunications
    network domestically due to security concerns, many nations
    have few options when it comes to telecommunications
    infrastructure and must rely on whoever can provide that for
    them. They won't--matter if they are going to spy on them or
    whatever.
        Are you aware of any countries who are using
    telecommunications from adversarial nations to the U.S.?
        Mr. Goldman. Well, we have seen this on the terrestrial
    side already, where we have seen what has happened is I think
    Congresswoman Eshoo was mentioned earlier with Huawei and ZTE.
    What they have been able to do is work with countries around
    the world that have no other options and bring low-cost options
    and get there before kind of U.S. manufacturers or anyone else
    would be able to deploy the equipment.
        In space so far--so far, the U.S. is ahead. But we are
    watching over our shoulder that foreign actors--it's not just
    that it's foreign actors and it's foreign powers, it's they
    have state-backed systems so they will be able to--they will
    have resources that just no private actor is going to have. And
    so the only way that the U.S. is going to keep its lead is that
    we continue to innovate as quickly as possible and that the
    regulatory burdens don't slow us down.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. That is a big deal. We have got to get on
    it. Thank you for that, and, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th District for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
    for being here. I know it has been a long day, but we
    appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about these issues
    and really hone in on some things.
        I will start with Ms. Pineres. We talked a lot about the
    impact on satellite technology on precision agriculture. And
    I'm just kind of wondering, you know, there has been a lot of
    answers today already. So without being redundant, I mentioned
    this in the first panel that the district I represent has a lot
    of cotton. And, you know, it is very helpful to have the
    understanding of not just the soil but where the precision
    location of the seed is. And can you just kind of talk to me
    about some of the emerging technologies and where this is
    headed and what we should be looking at?
        Ms. Pineres. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. So
    I mentioned that satellite imagery can be used for precision
    agriculture in order to monitor soil, moisture content in order
    to allow farmers to see on--on sort of a crop--a field-by-field
    basis on a daily basis what the crop health is looking like and
    where they might need more inputs to get the right output at
    the end of the day. And so we--we continue to offer that to
    farmers to try to meet them where they are. You know, they are
    not geospatial experts. So we offer our satellite data within
    the farm management platforms that farmers use today.
        In addition, you know, just to move to a slightly different
    area, we also have a contract with NASA. And I talked about
    NASA Harvest earlier, but we also have a contract with NASA
    where researchers that are funded by any U.S. Federal civilian
    agency or the National Science Foundation, including their
    contractors and grantees, have access to our data. So I think
    there is something on the order of 2,000 research papers that
    are out there on a wide variety of topics. Could be
    agriculture, it could be climate change, you know, Arctic
    monitoring, lots of different areas.
        And so I think the continued availability of our data for
    scientific research can also lend itself to better agriculture
    applications in the future.
        Mr. Pfluger. How many farmers are you seeing? I mean,
    percentage increase. And we don't even know this. And anybody--
    welcome to answer this, but I mean what's the increase that
    we've seen over the last 10 years, say, in applications for
    agriculture used by producers?
        Ms. Pineres. That's a great question, one I would have to
    get back to you on in terms of uptake on our data. But I would
    be happy to follow up.
        Mr. Pfluger. Any risk when it comes to cybersecurity for
    agriculture?
        Ms. Pineres. That is a great question. We haven't talked
    about cybersecurity much yet on the panel today. I think all
    satellite operators are very conscious of cybersecurity risk.
    And so we all take measures to protect our networks.
        Mr. Pfluger. OK. I'll go with Ms. Lohmeyer on the next one.
    Just, you know, from your experience, what is keeping you up at
    night when it comes to the action process of authorizing and
    getting, you know, the--is government acting at the speed of
    relevancy? Are we able to get the appropriate licenses and
    authorizations, and is that process moving fast enough to keep
    up with technology?
        Dr. Lohmeyer. So your first point, what is keeping me up at
    night when I work on these applications and just to shed light
    on what the experience is like. So we have got NTA wanting to
    file. They collect. And they collect data on their systems.
    They perform interference analyses. And then they have got this
    package that they submit into the system. That is the IBFS on
    the international bureau side; if it is an experimental
    license, it is the ELS. And they are different, and they are
    database driven.
        And it is almost this kind of period of time where you are
    about to submit, there is relief after you submit, and then
    there is a waiting game. You wait until the FCC comes back with
    inquiries. And it is just in this black box. But I think we
    talked about earlier the system could be improved upon if there
    was more of a means for communicating with the FCC
    automatically. So say you submit a document and it just uploads
    to a website. But maybe there's additional features that could
    allow you to know the status of that document. Maybe there's
    questions. Maybe it is just accepted after review.
        The same thing applies for coordination, which pertains to
    your relevancy question as we interact with international
    players. So the coordination process is such that sometimes you
    are sitting on other sides of the table from an operator. But
    it is actually the administration, so the FCC in the U.S. or
    Ofcom in the U.K., that arrange or organize these sorts of
    exchanges. And so you submit letters to the FCC, which then
    forward the letters to Ofcom or which other nation has a
    cofrequency use. And that admin submits letters to its
    operators.
        So some way to really automate this process and reduce the
    waiting time would address relevancy.
        Mr. Pfluger. I am out of time, but I will submit a question
    on whether or not that hampers our competition----
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Pfluger [continuing]. With other countries in the
    world.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back,
    and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for our
    witnesses for hanging in there, your endurance. It is a very
    important topic. But I recognize that a lot of this is
    technical. Basically, at this point, all of my questions have
    been asked that I had prepared. So we are just going to free-
    ball it here. So all the witnesses--this is to you, but since I
    only have 4 minutes and 38 seconds, please keep your answers
    brief.
        In the first panel, Mr. Glass from NTIA, he was speaking
    about coordination efforts. We are talking Commerce Department
    and the FCC. And I was looking back on my notes, and one thing
    that he had mentioned was, quote, they ``were always striving
    to improve.'' When I asked him to follow up on that about what
    does that mean exactly--because, you know, bureaucrats, they
    say that, right? What does that mean? What metric do you
    measure to--when you talk about improvements?
        And he said that they don't have any. So speaking from the
    private side, the industry side, what would be an acceptable
    metric, a system by which they can measure a tangible level of
    improvement that increases transparency for industry
    efficiencies within a system so that we can keep moving forward
    on this and gives the public, quite frankly, confidence that
    things are moving forward? And we can just go right down the
    line.
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you very much for the question. I want
    to think about metrics. It is a really important issue, and I
    wouldn't want to just come up with one off the top of my head.
    So let us circle back with you on any specific metrics. But I
    will say I think in terms of outputs that we see from the
    private-sector side and things that have been useful, the NTA,
    FCC MOU, the renegotiation of that, you know, we are seeing and
    hearing about increased communication between the FCC and NTIA.
    And we think that is really critical.
        I would say also, as we are talking about satellite
    streamlining and ways to make coordination--ease the burdens of
    coordination, make things easier, I think early communication
    by the FCC to NTA of satellite applications could be very
    useful. Most of the satellite applications need to be
    coordinated with Federal operators. And so I think that looking
    at how early the FCC is sharing those applications at NTA may
    be one measure we could take a look at.
        Mrs. Cammack. OK. Mr. Goldman?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think
    looking at speeds--speed of decision making is critical. It
    is--when I was listening to the panel this morning, there was a
    lot of talk about the MOU and the increased coordination. And
    absolutely. This spectrum is shared not just with commercial
    interests but also with Federal interests and absolutely needs
    to be coordinated with everyone who is there.
        But the more people you add into coordination process, the
    more everything slows down. And so I think making sure there is
    a counterbalance that as we more--add more parties to the
    coordination discussion, we are looking at longer and longer
    timelines. And so being able to make sure that we keep the
    pressure going the other way as well, that these coordination
    discussions are thorough and they are complete, but they are
    also done in a timely way.
        Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
        Mr. Davidson. I would just add--I don't know if this is a
    metric or not, but it--if you look at orbital debris, kind of
    the regulation of orbital debris----
        Mrs. Cammack. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Davidson [continuing]. I don't know. There's maybe five
    agencies, maybe more than five, that are involved in some
    aspect of that. And the jurisdictional, you know, kind of land
    grabs on that--in that topic are not efficient. And so there
    should be some--I don't know whether it is coordination or
    clarification of who is in charge of what in the U.S.
    Government I think would be very useful to have.
        Mrs. Cammack. I like that.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. And I would just like to share that the FCC
    has, in fact, recently required an NTIA data form for its
    filers, especially experimental licenses, which effectively
    documents the technical parameters, power, modulation schemes,
    to assess interference into its network, which is a step above
    what was required in the past, which usually looked like a
    series of emails back and forth to Air Force, NOAA, and NASA,
    which was kind of a guessing game of who you needed to include
    as well, so----
        Mrs. Cammack. OK. Thank you. I'm running short on time. So
    I am going to ask two questions be submitted for the record,
    one dealing with specific regulations that you would love to
    see taken off the books; second, since this is a committee on
    innovation in this space, some of the workforce challenges that
    you all are seeing in trends and how we can address on the
    front end.
        But I am going to give my last 30 seconds to you, Mr.
    Goldman. My district--emergency departments and first
    responders are having to invest upwards of $15 million per
    county--and I represent 12--in building out an updated
    emergency communication system. Can you touch on the work that
    SpaceX is doing in addressing those first responder
    communications and where that might be a good alternative?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. We don't need the same sort of ground
    infrastructure to be built out. We are already there. We
    already have coverage. So you don't need to do that initial
    huge--we have kind of already done the huge investment upfront.
    And we can, just with the deployment of user equipment, we can
    come in, and we are already actually working with a lot of
    first responders in Florida to do that. And I am happy to work
    with your office to see what we can do specifically in your
    district.
        Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. We are 3 minutes--seconds over.
        Mr. Latta. OK.
        Mrs. Cammack. I yield.
        Mr. Latta. Amazing. The gentlelady's time has expired, and
    the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am going to
    deviate here right at the end of the hearing from the--a little
    bit. But what has been on my mind throughout this discussion
    has been the issue of security and dependability and things
    that pop into my mind that could disrupt service: malfunction,
    cyber attack, some kind of breach, obsolescence, some kind of
    collision. Knowing what you do about the technology and the
    circumstances it is operating within, what is our greatest
    vulnerability to security and dependability? And I will start
    with Ms. Lohmeyer.
        Dr. Lohmeyer. Tough question. I think I would like to get
    back to you on the record.
        Mr. Fulcher. And please do that. And I am just going to ask
    Mr. Davidson: security, dependability--what is our biggest
    fear? What should we worry about? What should our--keeps us
    awake at night?
        Mr. Davidson. Yes. So, first of all, I invite you to come
    out to our network operations center in Tysons Corner here in
    Virginia--it is just about a 16-minute drive from the Capitol--
    so you can watch yourself. We are flying the satellites from
    that office there, and you can kind of see what is going on and
    in that--in that setting. So some of our engineers will be able
    to tell you about kind of what their biggest fears are.
        I do think that--I think cybersecurity is something we
    should be very concerned about. I mean, we have our subsidiary,
    IGC, does a lot of work with U.S. national security agencies
    and intelligence agencies. And so we build that into our
    network. So we feel like they are extremely secure. But there
    are a lot of operators around the world that don't have that
    kind of security with--you know, built into their systems. And
    as, you know, Mr. Goldman had mentioned before, you know, there
    aren't always the incentives to build state-of-the-art whether
    it be spectral efficiency or security into your equipment. So I
    think there are a lot of vulnerabilities in the cyber
    throughout the world. Not everyone is up to the same standards
    as the folks on this panel.
        Mr. Fulcher. And if there is a problem, it's not like we
    can go get a technician and a man and go work on it.
        Mr. Davidson. Well, these satellites are up there for, you
    know, 20 years or so. And so we have to build them--you know,
    again, we spend billions of dollars. We just launched--launched
    or are launching--and SpaceX launches most of our satellites.
    So we, you know, spend billions of dollars building and
    launching these satellites. And so we design them very well,
    but that is not necessarily the standard that is held by
    everyone.
        Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Goldman, speak to security and
    dependability, if you would, please.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thank you so much for the question. Yes.
    We have teams of people who think about this all the time. I
    think that they would be very upset with me if I gave too much
    in a public setting, but we are happy to talk to you offline
    about a number of those.
        But let me just--a little bit of what we do to address some
    of these issues. It is all--our entire system is built end-to-
    end in the United States. So we manufacture our satellites in
    Washington. We manufacture our user equipment in California. We
    launch out of Florida. Everything--everything is built in the
    United States. I think one of the bills you actually have in
    front of you that is being considered at this hearing, this
    Secure Space Act----
        Mr. Fulcher. Yes.
        Mr. Goldman [continuing]. Actually is a very smart bill to
    be getting ahead of this issue early. I was mentioning earlier
    we saw what happened on the terrestrial side when we didn't get
    ahead of that early and we saw equipment getting built into the
    networks that essentially built backdoors into the systems. We
    can't do that in space. There is no rip-and-replace in space.
    And so it is the fact that the--that the committee is getting
    ahead of this now, I think, is actually really a positive sign
    and I think will be very helpful into the future.
        Mr. Fulcher. And you say if cyber would be towards the top,
    cyber attack?
        Mr. Goldman. Absolutely. And at least for us, we have--our
    system is encrypted end-to-end. We can't--we can't even see in
    ourselves. From the time that it touches our network to the
    time it leaves, it is completely encrypted.
        Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you. Ms. Pineres, we have got 1
    minute left.
        Ms. Pineres. Thank you for the question. I would just say I
    think, although our satellites face multiple threats, I think
    one of the beauties of some of the constellations that you are
    seeing in low-Earth orbit, NGSO constellations like Planet's,
    for instance, are Dove satellites. We have approximately 180 up
    in space today, and we are launching new ones regularly with
    SpaceX, actually. And so I think having--if just--if something
    happens to just one satellite, we have the redundancy in space
    to be able to continue to take the imagery that our customers
    rely on. So I think thinking about security not just in terms
    of cybersecurity risk or dazzling of satellites but also
    thinking about how constellations are designed to provide that
    kind of redundancy is very helpful.
        Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, I intend on
    taking you up on that offer.
        Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. I will send you an invite.
        Mr. Fulcher. Thank you.
        Mr. Davidson. Thank you.
        Mr. Fulcher. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again,
    thanks for allowing me to weigh on to talk about these really
    important issues.
        Mr. Davidson, let me get right to it with you. As you noted
    in your testimony, Intelsat has been supporting emergency
    communications and natural disasters all over the world,
    although Intelsat has primarily been a geostationary Earth
    orbit provider. In your view, what type of coordination or best
    practices should the FCC consider including for the rulemaking
    required in the ALERT Parity Act enabling the provision of
    emergency connectivity in remote areas?
        Mr. Davidson. So, Congressman, thank you for the question.
    I recently just concluded a stint as the chair of the Crisis
    Connectivity Center. It is part of a World Food Program
    coordination for all world disaster. So what happens is whether
    it is terrestrial providers or satellite providers get together
    and figure out how to get in quickly. And, you know, oftentimes
    satellite is the first one to be able to get in there. So it is
    a really critical first responder. So your question is a really
    good one.
        So we use our own spectrum rights that we already have when
    we go into areas for disaster response. So we kind of self-
    provision both the equipment and the use of the spectrum. So I
    don't know that I'm the best one to be able to advise for
    people who don't have that--the spectrum or the equipment, what
    they need, so I may defer to another panelist to answer
    specifically that question. But I think the intent of your--of
    the legislation is excellent. And I think focusing on the needs
    of--you know, these things pop up, you can't always plan for
    them. And so putting the things in place in advance, which your
    legislation does, I think is a good--is great policy.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Goldman, as I mentioned last week to
    Amazon about Project Kuiper, I am very excited about the
    possibilities of LEO satellite broadband and the integral role
    that it would play in bridging the urban-rural digital divide.
    I have actually had the opportunity to set up Starlink at your
    office here in DC. And I saw for myself how easy it was to set
    up and even did a speed test. I have got a staff member back in
    Ohio that is--that is using the system to connect her entire
    farm, loves it. While Starlink is available in some areas in
    Ohio, I know there are many more in our rural Appalachian
    district who are eagerly waiting for Starlink to become
    available in their communities.
        How many additional satellites does SpaceX intend to launch
    in order to meet the great demand across the United States and
    globally while maintaining the promised speeds and latency for
    existing customers? Will you need more than the 4,408
    satellites authorized by the FCC?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. Thanks for the question. Yes. The FCC
    actually just authorized us last month, 2 months ago, for our
    new Gen 2 System, which is another 7,500 satellites initially.
    And those actually will be more capable satellites. We have
    already started launching into the--into those orbits that is
    already going to start adding new capacity to the network. And
    so we are going to be launching more and more capable
    satellites.
        And we continue to innovate. It is just like innovation on
    the ground: You just keep doing it, you don't stop, and so the
    system should become more and more capable over time, and we
    should be able to make sure that we are really excited about
    the amount of demand that we see in your district, and we are
    excited to be able to get all those people who want the service
    to be able to get on as quickly as possible.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Continuing with you, Mr. Goldman, have
    there been any important takeaways for SpaceX from your
    experience providing vital internet service in Ukraine?
        Mr. Goldman. In Ukraine? Oh, yes. That is something I
    personally am very proud of that we were able to do. And
    basically the Ukrainian Government asked us to step in and help
    when the Russian--Russia invaded. And within 48 hours, we had
    service. And we are providing service to--we are continuing to
    provide service to Ukrainians across the country.
        Important lessons, that is a good question. I don't know.
    We have been learning a lot through the entire process. That is
    obviously a very contentious area to be providing service. What
    we have seen is efforts to try to jam the system, so we have
    had to learn how to be able to avoid jamming. It has definitely
    taught us a lot of lessons on how to make the system more
    resilient and more redundant.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, maybe you don't want to answer this
    here, but just a follow-on: Are you talking to DoD and any of
    our special operations folks? I mean, that is a pretty compact
    system to be able to take anywhere.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, we are, and I am happy to talk to you
    offline about that as well.
        Mr. Johnson. OK, great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and seeing
    no further Members here to ask questions, I--again, I want to
    thank our witnesses for being with us today. You can tell----
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta [continuing]. From the questions for last--when
    you started--last couple hours has been a lot of--a lot of
    interest. You know, a couple things that I always--I listen to
    and I always say is that this subcommittee, this committee, we
    look over the horizon 5 to 10 years, and so we always have to
    have your input and make sure that we are getting the right
    laws in the books and then followed by the right regulations.
        Another thing is that we always see, the government or any
    agency picking winners and losers out there, because usually it
    is going to be the losers. So we want the best that can be out
    there for everyone.
        So I ask unanimous consent to insert--documents included on
    the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, that will
    be ordered. And without objection, so ordered.
        Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that they
    have 10 business days to submit questions for the record, and I
    ask that witnesses respond to the questions promptly. Members
    should submit their questions by the close of business on
    February the 23rd.
        And without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]