[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]