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


                      CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL 
                                  AMERICA

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 21, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-17
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov
                         
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-204 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                 GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking 
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice          Minority Member
Chairman                             JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California             ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska                  SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana              ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas                  MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, 
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa                 Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina, 
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota              NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee              ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York         JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas             JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California           CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa                   SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin         DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio

                                 ______

                     Parish Braden, Staff Director

                 Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Langworthy, Hon. Nicholas A., a Representative in Congress from 
  New York, submitted letter.....................................    91
Rose, Hon. John W., a Representative in Congress from Tennessee, 
  submitted article..............................................    89
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3

                               Witnesses

Matheson, Hon. Jim, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural 
  Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Assey, Jr., J.D., James M., Executive Vice President, NCTA--The 
  Internet and Television Association, Washington, D.C...........    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Supplementary material.......................................    93
Zumwalt, David M., President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Washington, 
  D.C............................................................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Supplementary material.......................................    93
Stroup, J.D., Thomas A. ``Tom'', President, Satellite Industry 
  Association, Washington, D.C...................................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    28
    Supplementary material.......................................    94
Hurley, Bill T., Vice President, Distribution, Americas, AGCO 
  Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board, Association of Equipment 
  Manufacturers, Duluth, GA......................................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Supplementary material.......................................    95
Bloomfield, Shirley, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA--The Rural 
  Broadband Association, Arlington, VA...........................    34
    Prepared statement...........................................    36

 
              CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL AMERICA

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn 
Thompson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Crawford, 
LaMalfa, Rouzer, Bost, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller 
of Illinois, Rose, Molinaro, De La Cruz, Langworthy, Duarte, 
Nunn, Van Orden, Chavez-DeRemer, Miller of Ohio, David Scott of 
Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Brown, Davids of 
Kansas, Caraveo, Salinas, Perez, Davis of North Carolina, 
Budzinski, Sorensen, Crockett, Jackson of Illinois, and Craig.
    Staff present: Nick Rockwell, Paul Balzano, Adele Borne, 
Wick Dudley, Erin Wilson, John Konya, DeShawn Blanding, Kate 
Fink, John Lobert, Ashley Smith, and Dana Sandman.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    The Chairman. Morning, welcome to the House Agriculture 
Committee hearing room, as we gavel in this morning, we just 
pause and--kind of tradition, what we have with the Agriculture 
Committee, and give thanks for what we are provided. And so, I 
will take the privilege of leading that prayer here this 
morning, and then we will get gaveled in right after that.
    Heavenly Father, we love you so much. We thank you for all 
that you provide for us. Lord, we thank you for the privilege 
that each and every one of us have of serving on this 
Committee, Lord, to be stewards of what you provide us as we 
lift up those who provide for this nation all the things that 
are essential, food, fiber, building materials, energy 
resources, and, quite frankly, the technology, and all the 
resources that you have provided us to capitalize for the 
benefit of the lives of those who live in rural America, and, 
quite frankly, throughout this country. And so, we ask your 
blessings over these proceedings, and I pray this in the name 
of my savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. All right.
    So the Committee will come to order. Welcome, and thank you 
for joining today's hearing entitled, Closing the Digital 
Divide in Rural America. After brief opening remarks Members 
will receive testimony from our witnesses today, and then the 
hearing will be open to questions. So let me start off.
    Throughout this Congress the House Committee on Agriculture 
has had countless discussions on ways that we can empower our 
farm families and build a robust rural economy, and a pillar of 
these discussions is providing rural communities with access to 
high-speed, affordable, and reliable broadband internet 
connectivity. The digital divide has left many Americans unable 
to access dependable, fast internet service. Disconnected 
Americans lose opportunities to grow their businesses, acquire 
new skills, or even engage in daily activities. And while I am 
fortunate to live in an area which offers quality internet 
service, although I will say not a regular basis to my home, my 
district is not immune to these challenges.
    I represent 18 counties, totaling \1/3\ of the land mass in 
rural Pennsylvania, and I can tell you there exists a 
checkerboard of connectivity. Americans without high-speed 
internet access are slipping further behind as more and more 
aspects of American society are conducted online. Despite 
decades of effort, and billions of dollars spend, too many 
communities are still on the wrong side of the divide. With its 
unique reach, expertise, and experience serving rural America, 
USDA's Rural Utilities Service, or RUS, is well positioned to 
serve a leading role in our nation's rural broadband strategy.
    Contrary to other Federal agencies working to close the 
digital divide, USDA is the only Federal agency that has 
offices and devoted staff in all 50 states, enabling 
constituents to have direct access to those who are reviewing, 
implementing, and managing connectivity programs that meet the 
needs of rural communities. The House Committee on Agriculture 
has worked hard on a bipartisan basis to close the connectivity 
gap, including through the 2018 Farm Bill. These modifications 
were the result of years of work to create policies and 
programs that address the difficulties faced by rural 
communities.
    Sadly, too many of those policies and programs remain 
dormant. These include programs and policies that address 
qualifying areas, long-term network viability, support for our 
most remote communities, and program integrity. However, last 
Congress, this Committee introduced, marked up, and passed 
unanimously bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4374, the Broadband 
Internet Connections for Rural America Act, or BICRAA, which 
set the stage for an historic commitment and investment in 
rural broadband, and for us to finally close the digital 
divide.
    Specifically, the bill codified the ReConnect Program and 
merged it with USDA's existing retail rural broadband program, 
provided last minute technical and financial assistance to 
rural communities seeking to improve their broadband service, 
ensured accurate mapping of broadband connectivity in rural 
areas, promoted borrower accountability, and protecting 
taxpayers with new tools to ensure promised services are 
delivered to rural communities. It also increased resources 
available to build-out middle-mile infrastructure, and 
allocated funds to invest in distance learning and telemedicine 
capabilities.
    While this bill did not receive floor consideration in the 
117th Congress, it will be the foundation for the broadband 
subtitle in the 2023 Farm Bill, which brings us to today, where 
we will hear directly from stakeholders about the importance of 
USDA's broadband programs. It is also an opportunity to discuss 
important policy ideas, including minimum eligibility 
requirements, build-out speed requirements, workforce and 
supply chain issues, broadband mapping, and agency 
coordination, as well as precision agriculture programs.
    Now, I have always said the best policies come when we work 
together, and I look forward to continuing to work with the 
Ranking Member on crafting the broadband provisions for the 
2023 Farm Bill. Together, we can provide the Department of 
Agriculture the tools it needs to bring broadband connectivity 
to rural America quickly, and responsibly, and with 
sustainability. Simply put, we must meet the current and future 
needs in rural America.
    We have a great panel of witnesses today who understand the 
challenges and the complexity of rural broadband networks, 
bringing innovative solutions to life, and most importantly, 
serve their communities. I appreciate each of them for making 
time to be with us today, and I look forward to the 
conversation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
                           from Pennsylvania
    Throughout this Congress, the House Committee on Agriculture has 
had countless discussions on ways we can empower our farm families and 
build a robust rural economy. A pillar of these discussions is 
providing rural communities with access to high-speed, affordable, and 
reliable broadband internet connectivity.
    The digital divide has left many Americans unable to access 
dependable, fast internet service. Disconnected Americans lose 
opportunities to their grow businesses, acquire new skills, or even 
engage in daily activities.
    While I am fortunate to live in an area which offers quality 
internet service to my home, my district is not immune to these 
challenges.
    I represent 18 counties, totaling \1/3\ of the landmass in rural 
Pennsylvania. I can tell you, there exists a checkerboard of 
connectivity.
    Americans without high-speed internet access are slipping further 
behind as more and more aspects of American society are conducted 
online.
    Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars spent, too many 
communities are still on the wrong side of the divide.
    With its unique reach, expertise, and experience serving rural 
America, USDA's Rural Utilities Service or RUS is well-positioned to 
serve as a leading role in our nation's rural broadband strategy.
    Contrary to other Federal agencies working to close the digital 
divide, USDA is the only Federal agency that has offices and devoted 
staff in all 50 states, enabling constituents to have direct access to 
those who are reviewing, implementing, and managing connectivity 
programs to meet the needs of rural communities.
    The House Committee on Agriculture has worked hard on a bipartisan 
basis to close the connectivity gap, including through the 2018 Farm 
Bill. These modifications were the result of years of work to create 
policies and programs that address the difficulties faced by rural 
communities.
    Sadly, too many of those policies and programs remain dormant.
    These include programs and policies that address qualifying areas, 
long-term network viability, support for our most remote communities, 
and program integrity.
    However, last Congress, this Committee introduced, marked up, and 
passed unanimously bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4374, the Broadband 
Internet Connections for Rural America Act or BICRAA, which set the 
stage for a historic commitment and investment in rural broadband, and 
for us to finally close the digital divide.
    Specifically, the bill:

   Codified the ReConnect program and merged it with USDA's 
        existing retail rural broadband program;

   Provided last mile technical and financial assistance to 
        rural communities seeking to improve their broadband service;

   Ensured accurate mapping of broadband connectivity in rural 
        areas;

   Promoted borrower accountability and protecting taxpayers 
        with new tools to ensure promised services are delivered to 
        rural communities;

   Increased resources available to build-out middle-mile 
        infrastructure; and

   Allocated funds to invest in distance learning and 
        telemedicine capabilities.

    While this bill did not receive floor consideration in the 117th 
Congress, it will be the foundation for the broadband subtitle in the 
2023 Farm Bill.
    Which brings us to today, where we will hear directly from 
stakeholders about the importance of USDA broadband programs. It is 
also an opportunity to discuss important policy ideas, including 
minimum eligibility requirements, build-out speed requirements, 
workforce and supply chain issues, broadband mapping and agency 
coordination, as well as precision agriculture programs.
    I have always said the best policies come when we work together. I 
look forward to continuing to work with the Ranking Member on crafting 
the broadband provisions for the 2023 Farm Bill.
    Together, we can provide the Department of Agriculture the tools it 
needs to bring broadband connectivity to rural America quickly and 
responsibly, and with sustainability. Simply put, we must meet the 
current and future needs in rural America.
    We have a great panel of witnesses today who understand the 
challenges and complexity of rural broadband networks, bring innovative 
solutions to life, and most importantly, serve their communities.
    I appreciate each of them for making time to be with us today and 
look forward to the conversation.

    The Chairman. I would now like to welcome the distinguished 
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for any 
opening remarks he would like to make.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman, for convening today's hearing. Expanding high-speed, 
reliable, and affordable broadband access in rural America is a 
top priority of mine in this farm bill. I appreciate the 
opportunity to once again join forces with you, Mr. Chairman, 
to highlight its importance and chart a path to finally bring 
high quality internet service to every single part of rural 
America. Now is the time.
    High-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband is something 
each of us here in Congress count on daily to stay in touch 
with loved ones, conduct business, schedule appointments, make 
purchases, and to stay informed. In addition to day to day 
uses, broadband addresses other longstanding inequities through 
expanding access to healthcare, educational, and workforce 
development opportunities. Broadband is now an integral part of 
our daily lives, but most areas in rural America go without 
broadband, and that must change now.
    Friends, it is also very important for us to know that the 
United States Department of Agriculture has a long history of 
serving rural America through making sure that rural America 
has the resources and investments necessary to support modern 
infrastructure, all the way back to 1935. Remember, some of us 
do, when the Rural Electrification Administration was created 
under the Department of Agriculture to bring electricity to 
rural areas? And the Rural Electrification Administration now 
operates under the Rural Utilities Service moniker, reflecting 
that the agency provides an array of loans, grants, and loan 
guarantees to deliver rural broadband, in addition to 
electricity and drinking water, to our rural communities.
    And since its enactment just before the 2018 Farm Bill, the 
ReConnect Program, administered by the USDA, has delivered a 
total of $3.86 billion to create and improve high-speed 
internet access to rural customers. As the primary program used 
to deliver broadband and financial funding to rural America, I 
look forward to working with my House and Senate Agriculture 
colleagues to codify and provide permanence for this program 
through our upcoming 2023 Farm Bill.
    And as we consider changes to broadband programs in the 
2023 Farm Bill, it is my priority to ensure that these programs 
support reliable delivery of high-speed, reliable, and 
affordable broadband that can support modern uses, such as 
telehealth, precision agriculture, distance learning, and our 
remote work jobs and business opportunities, as well as many 
other potential future uses not yet even imagined. To ensure 
responsible and effective use of the historic Federal 
investments in broadband, any investments made must support 
future-proof and scalable broadband networks. That means 
establishing progressive standards for speed, as well as 
including considerations for affordability of broadband 
services, and overall network capacity.
    And, finally, I would like to discuss Federal agency 
coordination. The bipartisan infrastructure bill (Pub. L. 117-
58) signed into law provided $65 billion for broadband, with 
the bulk of that going to NTIA's BEAD Program. As 
implementation of that program is ongoing, it is of utmost 
importance that any Federal agencies working to expand 
broadband coverage establish open lines of communication and 
continue to coordinate resources and projects. As the only 
Federal agency with the sole mission of serving rural America, 
USDA Rural Development must take the leading role in expanding 
high-speed internet to each and every part of our rural 
communities.
    I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel of 
witnesses that sits before us today on these issues, and any 
other thoughts you all may have to improve USDA broadband 
programs and deliver high quality broadband to rural 
communities now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would 
request that other Members submit their opening statements for 
the record so that witnesses may begin their testimony, and to 
ensure that there is ample time for questions. Welcome once 
again to our distinguished panel that we have here. A pretty 
impressive panel for this topic, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
    The Chairman. Our first witness today is a former colleague 
in Congress, the Honorable Jim Matheson, who is the Chief 
Executive Officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative 
Association. Our next witness, who is Mr. James Assey, 
Executive Vice President of NCTA, the Internet and Television 
Association. Our third witness today is Mr. David Zumwalt, the 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Wireless Internet 
Service Providers Association. Our fourth witness today is Mr. 
Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association. 
Our fifth witness is Mr. Bill Hurley, Chair of the Agriculture 
Sector Board for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. 
And our sixth, and final, witness today is Mrs. Shirley 
Bloomfield, the Chief Executive Officer of NTCA, the Rural 
Broadband Association.
    So, thank you, all of our impressive witnesses, for joining 
us today, and we are now going to proceed to your testimony. 
You will each have 5 minutes. The timer in front of you will 
count down to zero, at which point your time has expired, and 
hopefully we could wrap up whatever point that you are in the 
middle of. Mr. Matheson, Congressman, please begin when you are 
ready. Welcome back.

        STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
         OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 
                   ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA

    Mr. Matheson. It is good to be here, thank you. Thank you, 
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee for this opportunity. I am Jim Matheson, CEO of the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, also known as 
NRECA. NRECA is the national service association for 900 
electric co-ops that serve 42 million people in 48 states, and 
as cooperatives, they are owned by the consumers that they 
serve, and that gives us an interesting perspective on meeting 
consumer needs, because the consumers are the owners of the 
utility. Their mission, of course, is to provide low-cost, 
reliable power to their members, and it has been that way since 
the 1930s. They have a longstanding commitment also to improve 
their communities in which they serve, and they are actively 
engaged in many rural economic development efforts that go 
beyond electrification.
    Now, today more than 200 of our members, 200 electric co-
ops, are involved in rural broadband deployment efforts. They 
recognize the impact that reliable high-speed internet will 
have on their communities, and they also recognize the 
challenges of deploying that in low density, rural, and remote 
areas. For many cooperatives, the story of rural broadband 
development today mirrors the story of rural electrification 
nearly 100 years ago. The cost of building and maintaining 
networks in sparsely populated areas, in difficult terrain, can 
be prohibitive for many providers. It is a cost-intensive 
process, with little return on investment. Since cooperatives 
are owned by the people they serve, they understand the need 
for broadband in these areas, and the challenges associated 
with deploying the infrastructure, which is why some of our 
members have chosen to include broadband in their book of 
business.
    So as this Committee works to develop the next farm bill, 
electric cooperatives think there are great opportunities to 
make improvements to broadband programs at USDA. Specifically, 
we encourage the Committee to make the ReConnect Program 
permanent and easier to access, provide robust funding for 
rural broadband through USDA, prioritize symmetrical speeds and 
scalable networks, and invest in middle-mile infrastructure.
    An affordable and reliable internet connection is critical 
for growth and development of rural America, we all know that. 
Broadband is no longer a luxury, but instead it is a necessity 
for business, for education, for healthcare across the whole 
country. Internet-based services are a routine part of modern 
life, and it is increasingly clear the bandwidth and capacity 
must meet the needs not just of today. They need to anticipate 
the needs of tomorrow. Last Congress this Committee advanced 
the Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America Act, which 
would make USDA's ReConnect Program permanent, and would 
provide consistent funding moving forward. As discussions 
continue around the future of this and other broadband programs 
at USDA, let me offer just some--a few recommendations.
    First, Congress should prioritize scalable, future-proof 
networks in any future rounds of Federal funding. Without the 
ability for networks to grow in response to increased bandwidth 
needs and consumer demands, the challenge of solving the 
broadband gap in rural America won't go away. In urban areas, 
gigabit speed networks are becoming increasingly common, yet in 
many cases the discussion about rural access seems to focus on 
what is good enough. Broadband services should be equitable no 
matter where an individual chooses to live, and taxpayer 
dollars will be best spent supporting networks and technologies 
that can meet both current and future needs.
    Second, the definition of an area unserved by broadband 
should be raised to include areas that do not have at least 
100/100 megabits per second. Building networks in low density, 
hard to reach areas is challenging, but Congress must 
prioritize networks that can meet consumer demand and ensure 
the residents of these areas are able to receive a quality 
service regardless of whether they are considered unserved or 
underserved.
    Third, the time-consuming and difficult application process 
should be streamlined. The submission portal is not user-
friendly, and some have commented that attempting to fill out 
the program application is like having a second job. For small 
providers with limited resources, this is incredibly 
challenging, and could be prohibitive. And finally, the 
Committee should once again authorize a middle-mile program at 
USDA. Access to this infrastructure can make a big difference 
in reducing the cost to deploy last mile networks in rural 
areas. However, many rural providers lack access to a robust 
middle-mile connection.
    Electric cooperatives are increasingly deploying fiber 
infrastructure as part of their electric utility network, which 
enables a high bandwidth, low latency internal communication 
system to support electric utility operations. Beyond lowering 
energy costs, a fiber backbone allows co-ops to expand other 
technology offerings, such as distributed energy resources, 
electric vehicle access, or expanding retail broadband. 
Leveraging excess fiber capacity from their internal 
communication systems to provide middle-mile access to other 
third party providers, such as local cable providers, small 
telephone companies, and wireless internet service providers 
enables a critical link between the internet service provider's 
local network and the broader internet ecosystem.
    Let me just close by saying rural electric cooperatives are 
deeply committing to bridging the digital divide and connecting 
rural homes and businesses with reliable and sustainable high-
speed broadband service. As this Committee considers 
opportunities to expand broadband access in rural America, I do 
appreciate the opportunity to provide the cooperative 
perspective on USDA's broadband programs. NRECA and the 
nation's electric cooperatives look forward to working with 
this Committee, and others in Congress, to address these issues 
and close the digital divide once and for all. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer, 
     National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of this 
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Jim 
Matheson and I serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the National 
Rural Electric Cooperative Association. NRECA is the national service 
organization for more than 900 rural electric cooperatives that provide 
electric service to approximately 42 million people across 48 states. 
Rural electric cooperatives are member-owned, not-for-profit, and 
formed to provide safe, reliable electric service to their member-
consumers at the lowest reasonable cost. They have a longstanding 
commitment to improving the communities in which they serve, and many 
are actively engaged in rural economic development efforts that go 
beyond electrification.
    Today, more than 200 electric cooperatives are involved in rural 
broadband deployment efforts, recognizing the impact that a reliable 
high-speed internet connection can have on their communities and the 
challenges of deploying this infrastructure in low density, rural, and 
remote areas. For many cooperatives, the story of rural broadband 
deployment today mirrors the story of rural electrification nearly 100 
years ago. The cost of building and maintaining networks in sparsely 
populated areas with difficult terrain is prohibitive for many 
providers. It is a cost-intensive process with little return on 
investment. Since cooperatives are owned by the people they serve, they 
understand the need for broadband in these areas and the challenges 
associated with deploying this infrastructure, which is why some have 
chosen to expand their services to include broadband.
    As this Committee works to develop the next farm bill, electric 
cooperatives believe there are great opportunities to make improvements 
to broadband programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
Specifically, we encourage the Committee to:

   Make the ReConnect program permanent and easier to access

   Provide robust funding for rural broadband through USDA

   Prioritize symmetrical speeds and scalable networks in any 
        future rounds of Federal funding

   Invest in middle-mile infrastructure
Broadband is Critical for Rural America
    An affordable and reliable internet connection is critical for the 
growth and development of rural America. Broadband is no longer a 
luxury, but instead a necessity for business, education, and healthcare 
access across the country. The Coronavirus pandemic highlighted the 
ongoing disparity between urban and rural access to a broadband 
connection and made clear how critical a high-speed internet connection 
is for rural economic development and quality of life. Without these 
connections, families may choose not to return to the small towns where 
they grew up, businesses choose to locate elsewhere, and farmers 
struggle to access the latest technologies that help lower input costs 
and improve yields. Internet based services are a routine part of 
modern life, and it is increasingly clear that bandwidth and capacity 
must meet the needs of today and anticipate the needs of tomorrow.
    For many rural communities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) has been a longtime trusted partner for rural economic 
development efforts. Rural electric cooperatives have been partnering 
with the agency for more than 80 years on efforts to build reliable 
electric networks in rural areas. What started in the 1930s as a 
partnership between rural communities and the Rural Electrification 
Administration has evolved into a much-needed, modern financing tool to 
build, maintain, and modernize electric, water, and telecommunications 
infrastructure through today's Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Federal 
programs administered by RUS are designed to address the unique 
challenges facing rural communities, such as low population densities 
and vast terrain, providing financing and technical assistance to 
improve the quality of life in hard-to-reach areas.
    Many cooperatives have started deploying broadband in their service 
territories in large part because no one else will do it. Since 
cooperatives are owned by the people they serve, they understand the 
need for broadband in their rural service areas and the challenges 
associated with deploying this infrastructure. Electric cooperatives of 
all sizes are entering the broadband business due to demand from their 
members, who in many instances have no other alternative for a reliable 
internet connection. Despite these challenges, many cooperatives have 
built reliable, future proof networks capable of providing symmetrical 
speeds to both consumers and businesses.
    For electric cooperatives, investments in broadband have produced 
significant benefits both internally and externally. Electric 
cooperatives are increasingly deploying fiber optic infrastructure as 
part of their electric network builds, which enables a high bandwidth, 
low latency internal communications system to support utility 
operations. Via this infrastructure, co-ops can monitor their systems 
in real time, improve response times to outages, and better manage 
utility resources. It also allows the co-op to improve the resiliency 
of the electric network and deploy smart grid technologies, such as 
advanced metering infrastructure, which can help reduce the overall 
costs to consumers. Beyond lowering energy costs, a fiber backbone 
allows co-ops to expand other technology offerings, such as distributed 
energy resources, electric vehicle access, or retail broadband service.
    Through USDA's Electric Loan Program, electric cooperatives and 
other utilities can invest in smart grid technologies to improve grid 
security and reliability. The program allows recipients to use up to 
ten percent of the loan to construct broadband infrastructure in areas 
lacking a minimum acceptable level of broadband. This program correctly 
recognizes the dual-use nature of assets used for broadband 
communications services and electric cooperative smart grid 
technologies.
    While retail broadband offerings have been successful for some 
cooperatives, others are choosing not to provide retail service, but 
instead are leveraging excess fiber capacity from their internal 
communications systems to provide middle-mile broadband access to other 
third-party providers, such as local cable providers, small telephone 
companies, and wireless internet service providers. This provides a 
critical link between the internet service provider's local network and 
the broader internet ecosystem. Access to this infrastructure can make 
a big difference in reducing the cost to deploy last mile networks in 
rural areas, however many rural providers lack access to a robust 
middle-mile connection. In the 2018 Farm Bill, this Committee 
recognized the importance of middle-mile networks and authorized a 
program at USDA to expand middle-mile infrastructure into rural areas. 
Unfortunately, the program has not moved forward. We encourage the 
Committee to consider reauthorizing the program, as strong middle-mile 
access is critical to last mile deployment and ensuring that every 
American receives reliable internet access.
    As electric utilities, cooperatives own and maintain utility poles 
and rights-of-way for the safe and reliable distribution of electricity 
to their members. Ensuring the safe, affordable, and reliable delivery 
of electricity is the first priority for every electric cooperative. 
When safety, space and capacity allow, co-ops lease out excess space on 
their poles for the delivery of telecommunications services by third 
party providers, or even their own broadband subsidiary. This 
relationship provides communications companies with cost-based access 
to an existing pole distribution network for a small fraction of the 
significant costs that co-ops have incurred to build and maintain these 
systems.
    Some within the communications industry have called for a one-size-
fits-all rate for cooperative pole attachments. NRECA and all electric 
cooperatives strongly encourage the Committee to reject any proposals 
that would implement this type of regulation. As locally owned and 
democratically governed entities, electric cooperatives work in good 
faith to negotiate reasonable rates for pole attachments so that the 
burden of financing rural broadband deployment does not unfairly fall 
on rural electric customers. On average, electric co-ops serve seven 
customers per mile, compared to approximately 34 customers per mile 
served by larger investor-owned utilities. A one-size-fits-all approach 
does not accurately reflect the unique cost of building and maintaining 
a pole distribution network in low density, hard-to-reach rural areas 
that can differ from state to state and co-op to co-op.
The ``Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America'' Act
    Last Congress, this Committee advanced the Broadband Internet 
Connections for Rural America Act,\1\ which would make USDA's ReConnect 
program permanent and provide consistent funding moving forward. As 
discussions continue around the future of this and other broadband 
programs at USDA, I'd like to offer some recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4374/BILLS-
117hr4374rh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, Congress must prioritize scalable, future-proof networks in 
any future rounds of Federal funding. Without the ability for networks 
to grow in response to increased bandwidth needs and consumer demands, 
the challenge of solving the broadband gap in rural America will 
persist. In urban areas, gigabit speed networks are becoming 
increasingly common, yet in many cases the discussions around rural 
access seem to focus on what is ``good enough.'' Broadband services 
should be equitable no matter where an individual chooses to live, and 
taxpayer dollars will be best spent supporting networks and 
technologies that can meet current and future needs, rather than 
investing in standards that are or soon will be obsolete.
    Second, the definition of an area unserved by broadband should be 
raised to include areas that do not have at least 100/100 Mbps. 
Building networks in low density, hard to reach areas is challenging, 
but Congress must prioritize networks that can meet consumer demand and 
ensure that residents in these areas are able to receive quality 
service regardless of whether they are considered unserved or 
underserved.
    Third, the program must be streamlined. The ReConnect application 
process is time consuming and difficult. The submission portal is not 
user friendly, and some have commented that attempting to fill out the 
program application is like having a second job. For small providers 
with limited resources, this is incredibly challenging and can be 
prohibitive. The application also lacks so-called ``safeguards,'' 
meaning that if an applicant forgets to attach necessary information, 
such as their audited financial statement, the application platform 
will still certify and allow the applicant to submit rather than giving 
a warning that the required documentation has not been submitted. If 
that happens, there is no ability to go back and submit the missing 
documentation, which disqualifies the application. As Congress 
considers opportunities to modify or improve the application process 
moving forward, providing pathways to correct easily rectifiable errors 
or omissions would be helpful.
    The Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America Act also 
includes robust funding for the USDA Community Connect Program. While a 
smaller and less popular program than ReConnect, cooperatives who have 
used this program have found it to be easy to manage and are typically 
able to complete the project within the program's 3 year build 
requirement. The program also includes an 80/20 grant/match ratio that 
is incredibly helpful for projects in low density rural footprints. 
However, one of the challenges that cooperatives have faced with the 
program is the requirement to facilitate a community center within the 
proposed funded service area. Due to the inherent rurality of these 
areas, there are not typically existing facilities conducive to hosting 
such a site. Flexibility to allow the community center to be 
facilitated in areas adjacent to and within a reasonable distance of 
the proposed funded service area could provide the dual benefit of 
expanding broadband access in rural areas while also facilitating an 
internet connection at an existing community facility, such as a 
library.
Prioritize Scalable, Future-Proof Networks
    For many rural consumers, the promise of a broadband connection has 
gone unfulfilled. Recent Federal programs have defined ``unserved'' as 
areas lacking service at 25/3 megabits per second (Mbps) and 
``underserved'' as areas lacking service at 100/20 Mbps. However, the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today still defines broadband 
as 25/3 Mbps--a definition that was put in place nearly 10 years ago 
with limited consideration of raising that definition to be more 
reflective of current consumer demands. This must change. According to 
recent reports,\2\ nearly 70% of U.S. homes receive internet service 
offering speeds of 200 Mbps or more, and more than 25% of homes are 
subscribing to gigabit or faster speeds. Other reports indicate that we 
are trending toward multi-gigabit networks by 2030.\3\ It is clear that 
technology and user demand for bandwidth are exponentially increasing, 
which is why networks built in rural areas must be able to keep up with 
these growing demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://openvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
OVBI_4Q22_Report.pdf.
    \3\ https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/fba-tips-household-
broadband-speed-need-to-surpass-2-gbps-by-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FCC has recognized this fact itself. In the FCC's 2021 Section 
706 Report,\4\ it noted that, as of December 2019, the vast majority of 
Americans had access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 
Mbps. Specifically, the Report states, ``Between 2018 and 2019 . . . 
the deployment of 250/25 Mbps also increased from approximately 86% to 
over 87% of the population.'' If over 87% of the population has access 
to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 Mbps, it is difficult 
to comprehend why the Commission continues to maintain that the current 
dated definition of 25/3 Mbps is sufficient. This fact also begs the 
question of why most broadband programs and general consensus has 
landed on updating the definition of broadband to 100/20 Mbps, a 
definition that is well below what more than 87% of the population had 
access to in 2019. The Universal Service provisions in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act requires comparable services at comparable rates 
between urban and rural areas. Rural communities should not be treated 
as second class citizens and be relegated to ``good enough'' broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-annual-broadband-report-shows-
digital-divide-rapidly-closing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For farm communities, adoption of precision agriculture technology 
enables farmers and ranchers to optimize their operations, lower input 
costs, and increase product yields. Incorporating new technologies into 
farming operations allows for the adoption of automatic irrigation, 
soil health monitoring, improved weather forecasting, and real time 
monitoring of facilities. Some applications, such as the use of sensors 
in farm equipment, require low bandwidth but a wide range of field 
coverage. Other tools, such as the use of drones for the application of 
fertilizer or herbicides, require high bandwidth and low latency. New 
technologies to aid and improve agricultural operations are constantly 
being developed and released to market, creating a growing demand for 
bandwidth in and around the farm and underscoring why a robust and 
scalable network connection is essential.
    As Congress looks at USDA's broadband programs via the upcoming 
farm bill, scalable, future proof networks must be prioritized. The 
economics of deploying reliable, high-speed internet infrastructure in 
rural and remote areas is challenging for any provider, with low 
population densities and difficult terrain presenting little 
opportunity for return on investment. However, consumer demands for 
broadband speeds and capabilities continue to grow.\5\ With that in 
mind, minimum build to speeds in any future rounds of Federal funding 
should be at least 100/100 Mbps symmetrical, and reevaluated on a 
consistent and regular basis to ensure that rural communities and 
families receive adequate broadband service both now and into the 
future. This will also eliminate the need for Congress to fund 
incremental network upgrades down the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.broadbandtechreport.com/test/article/14293999/
openvault-finds-usagebased-broadband-consumption-on-par-with-flatrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recently, Reps. Zach Nunn and Angie Craig introduced the 
ReConnecting Rural America Act, a bill that would codify the ReConnect 
program, prioritize symmetrical network speeds, and would provide the 
flexibility for the Secretary of Agriculture to reevaluate the minimum 
acceptable level of broadband service provided to rural areas. These 
flexibilities are important in ensuring that rural communities and 
families receive adequate broadband service now and into the future.
Reevaluate How Overbuilding is Defined
    Duplicating Federal support to build broadband networks is a 
serious concern. However, the level of service that federally supported 
networks provide must be considered when discussing the topic of 
overbuilding. As previously discussed, Federal programs acknowledge 
anything under 25/3 Mbps to be considered ``unserved,'' and anything 
under 100/20 Mbps to be considered ``underserved,'' yet it was only 
recently that these standards were adopted for some broadband programs. 
For example, the 2018 Connect America Fund Auction at the FCC allowed 
providers to bid in a 10/1 Mbps speed tier, and those winning providers 
will continue to receive support through 2028. Similarly, the first two 
rounds of ReConnect, which made awards in 2019 and 2020, respectively, 
had a minimum build to requirement of 25/3 Mbps.\6\ Federal programs do 
not move quickly, which is why future-looking standards must be put in 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
foa_2_awards_report_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Any discussion of reforms or constraint against overbuilding should 
be coupled with an evaluation of ongoing Federal support programs, and 
the quality of service those programs are supporting. Rural Americans 
should not be relegated to sub-par, ``good enough'' broadband service 
simply because an area is already receiving or has a commitment to 
receive support to build a network that does not meet current Federal 
definitions of broadband or consumer demands. Similarly, continuing to 
provide Federal support for networks that no longer meet the 
definitions of ``served'' is not good public policy nor is it a good 
use of taxpayer dollars. Instead, this will leave many rural residents 
without adequate service unless another ISP is willing to tackle the 
high costs associated with building this infrastructure in hard-to-
reach areas without any additional support.
Permitting Reform is Needed
    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations present a 
significant challenge to rapid infrastructure deployment, often 
delaying projects and driving up costs. Co-ops face NEPA requirements 
when seeking a variety of Federal permits, approvals, and financial 
assistance, such as access to power line rights of way on Federal 
lands. In some instances, NEPA has been applied differently by Federal 
agencies, or even within different field offices of an agency.
    For example, when a cooperative in Colorado won a USDA ReConnect 
award to provide broadband service, they planned to use existing 
electric infrastructure for the project and did not anticipate any 
permitting problems. However, the project sought to cross land managed 
by the U.S. Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which required 
full oversight and review of the proposed USDA funded infrastructure 
project simply because the project involved broadband service rather 
than electric service. As a result, the co-op was required to undergo 
an expensive, time consuming, and onerous permitting process through 
BLM that added months of delay and an unanticipated, and unbudgeted, 
$800,000 to the project. For electric service, the existing rights of 
way are sufficient, and the co-op can upgrade their facilities without 
the added time and expense. But because this co-op was attaching 
broadband infrastructure to their existing poles in the existing right 
of way, BLM treated the project as a greenfield build which triggered a 
full environmental review.
    In many instances, existing rights-of-way and easements only apply 
to electric service and not to broadband, which impacts not only 
cooperatives deploying broadband but any electric utility seeking to 
lease out excess fiber capacity to third-party telecommunications 
providers. Many cooperatives are including fiber to support electric 
operations or implement smart grid technologies. Fiber installed to 
support electric operations is typically allowed in electric utility 
rights of way, but if a co-op leases excess fiber to a third party for 
retail broadband, or chooses to provide retail broadband themselves, it 
could trigger a violation. Often, the utility must renegotiate the 
right of way or easement agreement with each state or Federal agency, 
local jurisdiction, or private landowner, which can take years and can 
cost millions of dollars.
The National Broadband Map Still Presents Challenges
    In November 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 
released the pre-production drafts of the National Broadband Maps, 
which are required to be used by the National Telecommunications and 
Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) to calculate how much states will 
receive in BEAD based on the number of unserved and underserved 
locations in each state. The maps released by the FCC display a more 
granular, location by location picture of where broadband service 
exists across the country and are a significant step forward from the 
previous maps, which tracked broadband deployment on a Census block 
level basis.
    As part of the ongoing mapping process, the FCC collects self-
reported, location level data from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) 
through the Broadband Data Collection (BDC), which happens twice per 
year. This data reflects the advertised availability of broadband 
service or where it could be installed, as reported by the ISPs in 
those areas. Once the maps were released, the FCC invited the public to 
review the data displayed and submit challenges highlighting 
inaccuracies.
    NRECA worked to organize a multi-pronged response to the new maps, 
coordinating with cooperatives to submit over 260,000 availability 
challenges across multiple states, in addition to a grassroots 
education campaign to help cooperative members understand the map data 
and how to submit an individual challenge. Given the historic amount of 
funding made available through the upcoming BEAD program, it is 
critically important to NRECA and its members that this data is 
correct. Inaccuracies could mean that cooperative members miss their 
chance at a broadband connection through this historic funding 
opportunity.
    Despite significant progress in improving the map's accuracy over 
the past 6 months, it is clear that there are still discrepancies 
between what the map displays and the realities on the ground. The 
continued reliance on advertised speeds instead of actual speeds opens 
the door to gamesmanship with mapping data and could prevent rural 
areas from receiving a high-speed internet connection.
    Continued coordination between the FCC, NTIA, and [USDA] on 
broadband mapping initiatives would help ensure map accuracy. USDA is a 
uniquely focused agency with substantial knowledge of rural issues and 
areas, and has relationships with rural communities. USDA is a valuable 
partner for communities seeking to access and implement Federal 
programs, and increasingly the agency is playing a key role in helping 
to connect rural areas with the broadband resources they need to 
thrive. Given their rural focus, increased coordination with USDA on 
mapping accuracy and challenges could prove beneficial to ensuring 
rural communities are accurately reflected in mapping updates.
Conclusion
    Rural electric cooperatives are deeply committed to bridging the 
digital divide and connecting rural homes and businesses with reliable 
and sustainable high-speed broadband service. As this Committee 
considers opportunities to connect all rural communities, I appreciate 
the opportunity to provide the cooperative perspective on USDA's 
broadband programs, and your attention to this important and timely 
issue. NRECA and the nation's electric cooperatives look forward to 
working with this Committee and others in Congress to address these 
issues and close the digital divide once and for all.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. Mr. Assey, please 
begin when you are ready.

    STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ASSEY, Jr., J.D., EXECUTIVE VICE 
         PRESIDENT, NCTA--THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION 
                 ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Assey. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 
Scott, and Members of this Committee. It is a distinct pleasure 
and honor to appear before you today on this important topic. 
As we review our current and future efforts to close the 
digital divide across rural America, it is worth reflecting on 
the journey. A journey that, perhaps informed by our own 
experiences during the COVID pandemic, that is propelled by our 
growing understanding that broadband and high-speed 
connectivity are increasingly central to how we learn, how our 
families connect, how our businesses operate, and generally how 
we participate in a 21st century society.
    That journey started long ago. It has been fueled over time 
by competition and private capital investment that has resulted 
in the rapid growth of networks across much of the country. 
Over the last decade the cable industry alone has invested over 
$185 billion to build and expand both the reach and the 
capabilities of its networks. Today, 86 percent of the country 
has access to wired broadband from a cable and/or fiber 
provider. Two cable companies alone, Charter and Comcast, reach 
roughly \1/3\ of all rural homes and businesses, and 99 percent 
of the homes passed by cable networks in rural America can 
receive internet service at speeds of 100 megabits or better.
    Yet, despite such significant progress, we know our journey 
is not yet complete. There are still significant areas where 
broadband's ubiquity is frustrated by the unique economic 
challenges of low population density and high cost to construct 
and operate networks. Government programs, like those 
administered under the Department of Agriculture's Rural 
Utilities Service, have the potential to overcome these 
obstacles, offering assistance that will incent further 
investment in rural communities. But without careful design, 
such programs can also result in government spending that may 
benefit individual companies but does little to shrink the 
universe of the unserved.
    As we think about the next chapter of this journey, we 
should recognize some advantages and some challenges that we 
face. On the plus side of the ledger, Congress has recently 
provided an unprecedented amount of resources to shrink the 
digital divide. At just the Federal level over $160 billion has 
been allocated over the past 4 years to aid broadband 
expansion. Some of this funding is already flowing to broadband 
projects, but far more is expected in the future. In addition 
to more funding, we are building better broadband maps that 
help us develop a common understanding of areas without 
service, and we are seeing early signs of better coordination 
among competing agencies that are tasked with similar 
objectives. These developments give us hope that we are poised 
to make significant strides over the next few years in reducing 
the rolls of the unconnected. But along with such opportunity 
comes risk.
    Indeed, history has shown us that, in the absence of proper 
program design, focus, and coordination, there remains a high 
risk that resources will be squandered, and that good 
intentions will fail to translate into broadband connections 
for those most in need. For that reason, as the Committee 
considers new legislation addressing RUS broadband programs, it 
should recognize that future actions to close the digital 
divide may have less to do with a call for new capital, and 
more to do with the direction needed to ensure a proper program 
design and administration. In particular, we would urge the 
Committee to consider the following areas of reform.
    First, the need for greater clarity and focus in directing 
funding distributions to unserved areas. Second, the need to 
modernize application requirements, that would encourage 
participation among qualified providers. Third, the need to 
eliminate status-based scoring priorities, and other 
preferences that thwart fair competition. And last, the need to 
address execution challenges, like permitting, and access to 
utility poles, that can stall the efficient completion of 
construction projects.
    Many of these challenges are reflected in the Rural 
Internet Improvement Act (H.R. 3216) sponsored by 
Representatives Cammack, Soto, Jackson, and Gluesenkamp Perez. 
This bill appropriately recognizes the need for prioritizing 
funding to unserved areas, and suggests other reforms that will 
improve the focus, fairness and efficiency of existing RUS 
programs. With proper oversight and efficient administration, 
the next 5 years offer us the best chance yet to shrink the 
digital divide and bring the benefits of broadband to all. We 
in the cable industry look forward to working with you, the 
Members of this Committee, on that journey. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:]

    Prepared Statement of James M. Assey, Jr., J.D., Executive Vice 
 President, NCTA--The Internet and Television Association, Washington, 
                                  D.C.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss our members' experience 
with USDA's broadband funding programs and our suggestions to make 
these programs even more successful. My name is James Assey, and I am 
the Executive Vice President of NCTA--The Internet and Television 
Association (``NCTA''). NCTA represents the nation's largest broadband 
providers, which construct and operate fiber-rich high-speed internet 
networks that reach over 77% of the U.S. population, including a large 
and growing number of rural homes and businesses.
    Over the last few years, our nation's response to challenges 
arising from the pandemic has put a renewed urgency and spotlight on 
the importance of ensuring every American can access the internet 
through a high-speed connection. In common cause, our industry has 
risen to that challenge, accelerating the pace of innovation and 
forging new broadband connections both throughout and outside their 
traditional service areas. Collectively, cable ISPs have invested more 
than $185 billion in private capital over the last decade to build and 
upgrade networks across America, including $21.7 billion in 2022 alone. 
This capital has extended the collective reach of cable broadband 
networks, adding about 6.4 million households between December 2018 and 
December 2021, nearly a third of which are rural households.
    But, just as important, this massive investment has revolutionized 
the capabilities of these networks and their value to consumers, 
leveraging new technology and rapid innovation to launch the 
development of cable's 10G platform that is bringing `speed at scale' 
to millions across America. Currently, 99% of U.S. homes passed by 
cable are capable of receiving a 1 Gigabit service from their cable 
ISP. And with even more scalable, technological innovation on the 
horizon, the future, wide-scale diffusion of networks offering 10 
Gigabit connections to U.S. households is well within view.
    The dividends of these investments are not only collected in urban 
and suburban environments, but also increasingly in rural communities 
where the high-speed capabilities of cable broadband networks are 
bringing world-class broadband to rural communities throughout the 
country. Charter and Comcast alone serve nearly a third of all rural 
homes and businesses. In fact, when robust, high-speed broadband is 
available in rural America, it is more likely to be from a cable 
provider than any other platform:

       Rural Units Served (Total U.S. Rural Units = 36.7 Million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Service        Service
                  Number of     Available at  Available at   % of Rural
     Tech        Rural Units     100/20 or      1 Gig or    Footprint at
                    Served         better        better       1 Gig or
                  (millions)     (millions)    (millions)      better
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Cable            17.5           17.1           16.4           94%
     Telco             20.1            5.5            4.4           22%
Fixed wireless          29.0            4.8            0.5            2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 including copper, fiber, and fixed wireless.
Source: FCC National Broadband Map.

    Despite this growth and these significant advances, we know that 
the job is not yet done and the challenges ahead are formidable. 
Unserved communities generally lack broadband facilities for one 
primary reason--they are prohibitively expensive to serve. The cost of 
deploying infrastructure over expansive, difficult terrain is often 
exponentially higher than other areas. At the same time, the potential 
revenue to offset those expenses is inversely less where fewer people 
and businesses reside. Government funding is essential to offsetting 
these dynamics and incenting companies to serve those communities.
    At USDA, one of the most promising programs to help cable and other 
ISPs reach unserved households in rural areas had been the Rural 
eConnectivity program run by the Rural Utilities Service (``RUS''), 
better known as the ``ReConnect'' program. Unlike other RUS broadband 
funding programs, this program was, at its creation, tightly focused on 
helping to direct capital investment in building broadband networks in 
unserved areas through a competitive process that, in distinction to 
past practice, allowed all providers to participate and compete on a 
level playing field.
    Over the last 5 years, the cable industry worked extensively with 
RUS and Congress to make significant improvements to the ReConnect 
program, making it easier and more attractive for competitive 
providers, who were not traditional recipients for RUS support, to 
participate. Some progress has been made. For example, RUS has taken 
needed action to modernize outdated application and data requirements 
that were overwhelming for many would-be applicants to assemble, 
especially for providers with nationwide operations.
    Unfortunately, more recent updates have created new obstacles. 
Changes to the program have made winning funding awards extremely 
difficult for cable ISPs, and have clouded the program's focus away 
from unserved areas. Specifically, RUS has changed the scoring 
methodology for the program and injected new bias so that certain 
providers--in particular, municipalities, nonprofits and cooperatives--
get an automatic significant scoring preference, as do those that build 
using unionized contract labor. Additional points are awarded for those 
providers willing to agree to onerous open access mandates, which most 
providers are not willing to do.
    These calculated changes impede fair competition and have made it 
extremely difficult for cable ISPs to secure funding, even when they 
seek to serve areas where no one else wants to deploy. In addition, the 
agency's action in significantly relaxing the required minimum 
percentage of unserved homes required of project applications has 
created new problems and drawn dollars away from areas where they are 
most needed. Indeed, scarce resources that should be directed toward 
bringing service to unserved households are instead being used to 
subsidize network overbuilds in ways that further challenge the 
economics of serving remote areas, and worse, do nothing to reduce the 
number of unserved households.
    Beyond considering the internal changes required to promote greater 
efficiency and effectiveness of RUS programs, the next Farm bill must 
also grapple with the external challenges of encouraging greater 
coordination and consistency among a number of Federal and state 
agencies that will similarly focus on closing the digital divide. To 
promote efficiency and minimize waste, it will be more important than 
ever that we direct greater coordination and collaboration among 
Federal and state agencies engaged in similar efforts. With so many 
billions of Federal funding dollars being focused on broadband 
expansion over the next several years, we believe that it is more 
important than ever to get these programs right and to put controls in 
place that will prevent inefficiency and waste.
    As the Committee considers these issues, we believe that matters 
addressed in the Rural Internet Improvement Act, introduced by 
Representatives Cammack, Soto, Jackson and Perez, would go a very long 
way toward making needed changes and establishing clear Congressional 
direction. Most notably, the Rural Internet Improvement Act provides 
important protections against overbuilding, modernizes eligibility 
rules, reduces excessive data burdens in both the application and 
funding phases, and calls for substantially increased coordination 
among the various agencies distributing broadband funding.
Cable's Decades Long Commitment to Rural America
    Before discussing cable's experience with USDA funding programs, I 
want to underscore that cable ISPs have made it their mission to ensure 
that our most rural communities are at the leading edge of technology.
    Our growth in recent months has included important progress in 
reaching previously unserved areas, thanks both to cable's commitment 
to invest in rural areas and to partnerships with the FCC, through its 
CAF II and RDOF auctions, and with the states we serve. For example:

   Cable's Private Investment in Rural Areas

     Comcast invest billions of dollars every year to 
            expand and evolve its network--more than $20 billion from 
            2018-2022 alone, and $33 billion in the past decade. 
            Comcast added 813,000 new passings in 2021, and an 
            additional 840,000 in 2022, including many in rural areas. 
            The company recently announced that it is further 
            accelerating connecting more homes, by planning to pass one 
            million additional new addresses in 2023, bringing the 
            total new passings in just 3 years to 2.65 million homes.

     Charter also continues to invest billions of dollars 
            every year to expand and evolve its network--more than $40 
            billion from 2018-2022 alone. Charter has also committed to 
            significant expansion in rural areas in states across the 
            country. In March, Charter announced a $12 million 
            commitment to rural broadband expansion in Maine, which 
            will bring gigabit-speed broadband access to over 3,500 
            unserved homes and small businesses in several towns in 
            Somerset and Oxford counties. Concurrently, Charter 
            announced an investment of approximately $70 million in 
            Maine, part of a company-wide network evolution that will 
            enable the delivery of symmetrical and multiple gigabit 
            speeds across the state. This 100% Charter-funded 
            investment is expected to be substantially complete across 
            the company's Maine service area, which comprises more than 
            700,000 homes and businesses, by the end of 2025.

   Cable's Partnerships with Government To Bring Service to 
        Unserved Areas

     Charter Communications plans to build nearly 100,000 
            miles of new U.S. broadband infrastructure through its RDOF 
            expansion alone--a distance that would circle the equator 
            more than four times. As part of that commitment, Charter 
            announced a $5 billion investment that will connect more 
            than one million unserved, mostly rural homes and small 
            businesses to reliable, high-speed broadband service at 
            speeds up to a gigabit per second. While the RDOF funds 
            will go a long way to connecting people, approximately $4 
            of every $5 of this build-out will come from private 
            capital invested by Charter--they and other cable ISPs are 
            investing their own funds to connect people in rural areas.

     In addition to RDOF and Federal programs, Charter has 
            participated in dozens of state broadband funding rounds 
            and hundreds of local funding opportunities, earning 
            subsidies to build to more than 300,000 locations since 
            2021. For example, through Louisiana's Granting Unserved 
            Municipalities Broadband Opportunities (``GUMBO'') program, 
            which was funded through the ARPA, Charter was awarded more 
            than $10 million in grants to support broadband expansion 
            across three Louisiana parishes. Upon completion, this 
            investment will deliver high-speed internet access to more 
            than 2,000 currently-unserved homes and businesses.

     Comcast has been awarded grants from Federal, state 
            and local programs in 24 states, including multiple awards 
            to build-out its gigabit broadband network to homes that 
            are unconnected to broadband today, including more than 
            30,000 unserved homes in Georgia and over 51,000 in 
            Florida.

     Comcast has also been awarded funds from 
            Pennsylvania's Unserved High-Speed Funding State Program to 
            reach unserved homes in Lycoming, Armstrong and Union 
            counties, as well as from the Build Illinois Bond Fund, 
            ARPA/Connect IL Round 2 to bring service unconnected homes 
            in Whiteside county.

     In 2022, Cox committed hundreds of millions of dollars 
            to expand its fiber infrastructure to provide best-in-class 
            high-speed internet to un- and underserved areas. This 
            included establishing a Market Expansion Team (``MET''), 
            which is solely focused on expanding Cox's network to un- 
            and underserved areas beyond the existing service area. The 
            MET supports Cox's focus on advancing digital equity by 
            bringing Cox's robust network to communities without 
            broadband in a world where communities need to be connected 
            to thrive. Since 2022, Cox has successfully secured nearly 
            $100 million in grant funds and matched that with more than 
            $100 million in private capital to extend services to 
            almost 50,000 homes in eight states, in addition to many 
            wholly self-funded projects. Through these partnerships, 
            Cox has activated service in about 30 previously 
            unconnected communities with more currently under 
            construction, and that's just the beginning. Looking ahead 
            12 months, Cox plans to more than double that number.

     Mediacom was awarded $13.4 million in grant funding 
            from the State of Alabama, to help extend broadband to 
            nearly 20,000 locations there. Its new locations will span 
            multiple counties, including locations in northwest Baldwin 
            County, southwest Escambia County, and Mobile County.

     In Sherburne County, Minnesota, Midco is utilizing 
            private capital, RDOF funds and local partnerships with the 
            county and six townships to complete several broadband 
            expansion projects. From 2020-2024, nearly 10,000 homes and 
            businesses in the county will be connected with over 1.5 
            million of new broadband infrastructure constructed. In 
            total, Midco's investment in Sherburne County since 2020 is 
            over $32 million.

     In Alaska, GCI is deploying fiber to some of the most 
            remote communities in the country. GCI paired $25 million 
            in ReConnect funds with over $50 million of its own capital 
            to support its Alaska United--Aleutians Fiber Project, 
            which provided terrestrial broadband service for the first 
            time to Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and five other communities--
            King Cove, Sand Point, Akutan, Chignik Bay, and Larsen Bay. 
            GCI also has been awarded a $31 million ReConnect grant in 
            support of its Lower Kuskokwim Fiber Expansion Project, 
            which will bring fiber-optic infrastructure to five Yukon-
            Kuskokwim Delta communities in Western Alaska.

   Cable's Innovative Solutions to Support Rural Communities

     Nestled alongside a pond and horse farm in rural 
            Eastover, South Carolina, is Camp Cole--a fully accessible 
            camp and retreat facility for children, teens, and adults 
            facing serious illnesses and other physical, mental, and 
            emotional health or life challenges. Internet connectivity 
            is critical to providing many campers with the resources 
            they need, including monitoring medical devices, conducting 
            video calls with doctors and care providers, and ensuring 
            counselors can communicate across the campus. During 
            construction of the Camp Cole facility, camp staff reached 
            out to Charter about getting the rural property online. 
            Within a few short months--and at virtually no cost to 
            them--Camp Cole was connected to Charter's high-speed 
            Spectrum Internet, and today campers and staff enjoy 300 
            Mbps speeds across the property.

     In Colorado, Charter has used various wireless 
            technologies such as 5G, WiFi, and Citizens Broadband Radio 
            Spectrum (``CBRS'') spectrum to deliver service to 
            transform how Wells Bridge Farm does business. Wells Bridge 
            Farm was able to deploy a WiFi network and enable connected 
            sensors to provide enhanced security to the farm's main 
            gate and real-time glimpses into what was occurring on the 
            farm, and with the animals, offering opportunities for 
            proactive care for the horses and enhanced productivity for 
            the farm. The success of this wirelessly connected smart 
            farm now paves the way for similar digital solutions in 
            other communities.

     Midco relies on an existing broadband network to 
            connect relay towers, thereby extending a signal miles 
            beyond where the physical wires stop. Midco uses 
            traditional towers, as well as grain elevators or water 
            towers, to reach homes or farms miles away from those wired 
            networks. This means they can still receive broadband 
            service without the need for an ISP to lay miles and miles 
            of fiber in challenging terrain. Midco, which serves 
            communities throughout South Dakota, North Dakota, 
            Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin, has championed the use of 
            fixed wireless for precision agriculture. Some of these 
            communities have fewer than 100 people, with miles and 
            miles of land separating one neighbor from the other.

These examples underscore cable's commitment to expand networks and 
reach those areas that need it most.
    While cable ISPs are reaching new homes with broadband fiber every 
day, they also remain keenly aware that government funding will be 
needed to reach places where challenging terrain or other factors make 
private investment alone too uneconomical. For broadband to reach rural 
America as quickly as possible, it is critical that funding programs be 
technology-neutral, encourage the broadest participation of qualified 
broadband providers, and be as flexible as possible. And that leads me 
to our current concerns about the current direction of the ReConnect 
Program and other broadband funding programs administered by RUS.
Restoring Program Focus and Continuing Needed Coordination Will Help 
        Rural America
    As further rural build-out intensifies in the coming years to reach 
more unserved communities, the effectiveness of RUS broadband programs 
will depend on Congressional action to restore a clarity of purpose and 
to promote coordinated and consistent action that promotes fair 
competition. Recent changes to the ReConnect program have significantly 
shifted the focus of this program away from the portions of rural 
America lacking broadband access. This shift should be reversed.
    First, Congress should act to restore ReConnect's focus on unserved 
areas and establish a common understanding of what it means to be 
``unserved.'' While the original ReConnect program required that at 
least 90% of households in a project area qualify as unserved to be 
eligible for funding, the most recent round of funding significantly 
relaxed this requirement and considered areas to be eligible for 
funding even when as many as 50% of households already had access to 
broadband service. The most likely result of this change is that monies 
will be diverted from the areas that are 90% unserved, which are 
typically the hardest areas to serve, and those areas will remain 
unserved.
    The agency also has changed the speed thresholds used to determine 
when an area already has ``sufficient'' access to broadband service, 
which has clouded the agency's commitment to focus scarce resources 
first on reducing the number of households without any acceptable 
broadband connectivity. When eligibility is restricted to areas that do 
not receive a basic level of broadband service, such as 25/3, we know 
that funding will be used to bring broadband where it did not 
previously exist. But when areas with some level of service are defined 
as eligible for funding on a par with those with nothing, providers 
will naturally pursue those projects that are less expensive to deploy 
broadband to, i.e., those with better potential economic return, while 
those areas most in need of assistance will again end up at the back of 
the line.
    This needs to change. There should be an absolute priority for 
qualified applications to extend service to areas without 25/3 service, 
and most funding should be put to that use. For example, you could 
provide that 75% of the funding needs to be for projects without 25/3, 
or you could provide that no funding could be granted for projects in 
underserved areas (those that have service that is between 25/3 and 
100/20 speeds) until at least 80% of areas lacking 25/3 have been 
covered.
    Additionally, RUS does not sufficiently take into account where 
areas are already being built out due to awards from other government 
programs when it determines which areas should be considered unserved. 
Allowing government broadband programs to grant funding in places where 
other government awards have already been committed for broadband 
construction dangerously decreases the effectiveness of the program. 
For example, NCTA member Midco was overbuilt by two ReConnect awards in 
rural South Dakota, even though it was already building a fixed 
wireless network serving those areas that was being partially funded by 
an FCC grant. Because Midco had not yet finished construction, the area 
was still considered ``unserved,'' and so its challenges to those 
funding awards were denied. Programs need to be coordinated so that 
there is a common understanding of eligibility, one that takes into 
account areas already funded for deployment.
    Second, Congress should direct RUS, in reviewing applications, to 
limit scoring preferences to those that relate to applicant experience 
or platform performance. Points for being a particular type of entity 
(e.g., an electrical or gas cooperative), or for agreeing to assume 
extra regulatory obligations (e.g., particular wage standards) do 
nothing to ensure that broadband networks will reach rural America 
quickly and will be run well, and are simply inappropriate vehicles for 
directing funding to favored providers.
    Third, as it has in other broadband programs, Congress should 
ensure that performance standards (sometimes referenced as ``build to'' 
speed requirements) retain some element of flexibility to produce 
solutions that are forward-leaning, but also robust and cost-effective. 
As we have seen in the context of the FCC's RDOF auction, an open 
competitive process for subsidy awards can be structured to incent 
extremely robust and scalable platform solutions, but too high a 
performance threshold can also lead to situations where requirements 
preclude some areas from attracting willing providers. Programs need 
flexibility to accommodate different technological solutions, and 
guidelines for identifying those areas where flexibility can and should 
be accommodated. States may offer a helpful guide in delineating such 
areas. The BEAD Program, for example, allows states to designate an 
``Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold,'' above which the state 
can pick a proposal using an alternative technology when doing so would 
be less expensive, ensuring that the very highest cost areas are not 
ignored if they cannot be served effectively by fiber.
    Fourth, there are significant, burdensome data requirements in the 
ReConnect program, such as those designed to evaluate an applicant's 
financial viability. The application process should be simplified by 
limiting the amount of data to what is truly required to evaluate an 
applicant's viability. For financial requirements, RUS should allow 
applicants to demonstrate financial viability in various ways beyond an 
exclusive first lien on grant-funded assets. For example, an applicant 
should be permitted to rely on a bond rating performed by an expert 
credit rating agency to establish their financial viability.
    Finally, with numerous Federal agencies and nearly all states 
dedicating funding to broadband deployment, it is increasingly 
important to ensure that all relevant agencies, and to the extent 
possible state programs that are awarding grants for build-out, are 
aware of current awards so as to ensure that government support is 
coordinated and being used efficiently to reduce the number of unserved 
households and to help achieve the goal of universal connectivity. The 
recent Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Information Sharing 
between the FCC, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury is an 
important first step towards reaching that goal, but further actions 
will be required in the coming years as the pace of grant activity and 
broadband construction intensifies.
    One important aspect of coordination would be to take steps to make 
the programs, their eligibility standards, and their requirements as 
consistent as possible. Entities seeking funding should not be able to 
``forum shop'' for the least restrictive program. NCTA member Midco 
faced a situation where they successfully challenged a provider under 
the ReConnect program from overbuilding their network in rural North 
Dakota, but the applicant responded by applying for funding in that 
same area under the ARPA Capital Projects Fund program, and succeeded 
in obtaining funds to overbuild Midco's existing service.
    To avoid this result, government entities awarding funding for 
broadband infrastructure (including RUS) should promptly report those 
awards to the Federal Communications Commission, so that maps used for 
granting broadband funding are consistent, and everyone works off a 
common data set in determining areas eligible for funding. Ideally, 
maps should show all areas where Federal, state, or local funding has 
been awarded pursuant to enforceable commitments, so that remaining 
dollars can be targeted at the areas not yet covered. Programs should 
work together towards the common goal of connecting more Americans and 
reducing the rolls of the unserved.
Why the Rural Internet Improvement Act Would Improve RUS's Broadband 
        Programs
    As the Committee considers a new farm bill, one promising piece of 
legislation to draw from is the Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2022. 
It would make many key improvements to the ReConnect program, enhancing 
participation and results, so that broadband reaches rural America 
faster. In particular, it would--

   Target funding to the neediest rural areas, by limiting all 
        types of funding to areas in which at least 90% of households 
        lack access to broadband, with the highest possible priority 
        for applications proposing to serve areas without 25/3 service.

   Update the minimum build-out speed requirements to 100/20, 
        which is a reasonable speed that allows for different 
        technological solutions.

   Protect against wasted dollars by excluding funding in areas 
        where a provider has been granted funding under another 
        Federal, state, or local broadband funding program, or where a 
        provider is otherwise required to build broadband by a Federal, 
        state or local government entity (except that the provider who 
        secured such funding could obtain additional ReConnect funding 
        if they used such funding for different, non-duplicative 
        expenses, or they agreed to build broadband with faster speeds 
        or expedited deployment milestones than were originally 
        required).

   Simplify the application process, by limiting the amount of 
        data required in applications to the greatest extent 
        practicable, including allowing applicants to demonstrate 
        financial viability in the least burdensome way and requiring 
        the Secretary to establish means by which applicants can offer 
        various forms of loan collateral and security, not just an 
        exclusive first lien on grant-funded assets. For example, it 
        would allow a company with a sufficient bond rating to use the 
        bond rating to establish their financial viability, and would 
        generally require a much closer look at whether all the data 
        required to apply for funding is really relevant and necessary.

   Establish better communication between Federal agencies when 
        awards are made and improve the challenge process, so that 
        money is spent transparently and does not duplicate other 
        agencies' efforts.

These changes would go a long way towards our shared goal of connecting 
rural America, and we ask you to give them careful consideration to 
incorporating them into any program revisions. We also urge that you 
avoid any changes that would compromise program efficiency and 
sacrifice needed focus, and that you ensure that RUS give all 
applicants equal consideration, even if they are not prior borrowers. 
If ReConnect is reoriented to its original focus, it can succeed in 
making meaningful contributions to bringing broadband to rural 
Americans currently lacking service.
          * * * * *
    In closing, I commend the Committee for its focus on ensuring that 
the billions of dollars being spent on broadband deployment benefits 
all Americans--including those in rural America. Progress has been made 
in some Federal and state programs to target funding at unserved areas, 
largely by improving the design of those programs to better identify 
unserved areas and by defining broadband service in a way that 
prioritizes people living in hard-to-reach areas that may require a 
menu of technologies to serve each and every household. We hope that 
the ReConnect program and other new programs will be changed so that 
they are implemented with similar goals and guardrails in place. Thank 
you again for inviting me here today, and we look forward to working 
with you on these important issues.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Assey. Mr. Zumwalt, please 
begin when you are ready.

 STATEMENT OF DAVID M. ZUMWALT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
              OFFICER, WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE 
            PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Zumwalt. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 
Scott, and Members of this Committee. Thank you for convening 
this important hearing. My name is David Zumwalt, and I am the 
President and CEO of WISPA--Broadband Without Boundaries, 
representing nearly 1,000 members that provide connectivity to 
unserved and underserved communities across the country.
    Wireless Internet Service Providers, or WISPs, serve nine 
million Americans nationwide and deploy a variety of 
technologies, including fiber, as well as wireless, to deliver 
reliable broadband services. Most of their subscribers live and 
work in rural areas that other providers have historically 
overlooked or chosen not to serve. WISPs and entrepreneurial 
community businesses, are often putting up their own capital to 
serve their neighbors. They come in many sizes, and their 
importance is enormous to the communities they serve. They live 
there, bank there, send their children to school there, and in 
some cases farm there. They are the hometown ISPs.
    At the outset of the pandemic, WISPs were quick to adapt to 
changes in consumer demand to meet our nation's essential 
connectivity needs. WISPs know all too well that the digital 
divide is a long way from being closed. These challenges are 
particularly acute for our nation's farmers, who are facing 
higher costs and difficult supply chain issues. Connectivity is 
more critical than ever, and many applications, such as 
precision agriculture, require wireless broadband. Every 
American, regardless of where they live, should have broadband 
internet access. Recognizing the urgency of this moment, we are 
eager to stand with you in fulfilling our nation's connectivity 
mission.
    The farm bill has been assisting rural communities' 
transition to the digital age for many years. As such, it is 
critical that, going forward, the farm bill's broadband 
programs stay focused on those communities that are truly 
unserved. WISPA strongly supports the goals of the ReConnect 
Program, however, without careful structuring and a clear 
process, the program risks undermining our shared goals of 
connecting rural communities quickly. RUS's most recent funding 
round exemplifies some of these issues.
    First, ReConnect should not establish, as gating criteria, 
a requirement that applicants must provide 100 megabit per 
second symmetrical service. At present, ReConnect funded 
projects must be capable of delivering this symmetrical service 
to every location. In our experience, rural consumers are not 
asking for 100 megabits per second upload speeds, nor does it 
represent what urban subscribers are actually using today. To 
make symmetry a requirement would effectively prevent many 
providers from even applying for funding, leaving communities 
unconnected. It would force many communities to wait longer for 
service when they could have reliable broadband much sooner by 
utilizing the right tool for the right job, an assortment of 
proven technologies that can get the job done.
    If requirements such as symmetrical speeds are locked in 
statute, RUS will be precluded from having the flexibility it 
needs. Lack of flexibility may leave many areas unserved, or 
force those awarded to wait years longer for service, which is 
counter to the purpose of the program. USDA has defined 
sufficient access to broadband as any rural area in which 
households have fixed terrestrial broadband service of 100 
megabit downstream and 20 megabit upstream. This is reasonable, 
and aligns with industry experience, and should be the standard 
for the farm bill. By contrast, a 100/100 requirement will 
deflect funding to communities with more than sufficient 
broadband already, leaving out places that lack any broadband 
at all. It makes no sense to divert taxpayer dollars from where 
they are needed most to overbuild areas that are already 
connected.
    This leads to our second recommendation. Subsidizing 
overbuilding in areas where local providers are already 
delivering reliable broadband distorts the market. It wastes 
taxpayer dollars and slows our whole of national effort to 
bridge the digital divide. Every community is different, and 
therefore requires different solutions. Placing a thumb on the 
scale to benefit one type of technology or provider, or to fund 
areas subsidized with other government funding, does no favors 
for Americans who are in urgent need of broadband access today. 
It increases the time unserved communities must wait for 
connectivity at the financial and societal expense of those 
communities.
    Every community, regardless of size, location, or 
geography, deserves reliable broadband service. This is no 
small task. It will take all of us working together to ensure 
no community is left behind. On behalf of WISPAs members, the 
thousands of ISPs already at work in the digital divide, thank 
you again for holding this important hearing and inviting me to 
testify. I look forward to continuing to work with the 
Committee and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zumwalt follows:]

 Prepared Statement of David M. Zumwalt, President and Chief Executive 
 Officer, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Washington, 
                                  D.C.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the 
opportunity to testify. My name is David Zumwalt, and I am the 
President and CEO of the Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association (WISPA)--Broadband Without Boundaries, representing the 
companies that provide connectivity to unserved and underserved 
households and businesses across the country.
    Prior to joining WISPA, I served as Chief Operating Officer of 
Broadband VI, a major Internet Service Provider in the U.S. Virgin 
Islands whose needs for robust broadband for economic growth is 
unchallenged. Because of our work, in 2021, Broadband VI was awarded 
$84.5 million in FCC funding to supplement its private investment in 
Territory-wide broadband expansion. I have also served as Executive 
Director of the University of the Virgin Islands Research & Technology 
Park, a partnership of private sector, government and university 
stakeholders that supported the USVI's network-connected knowledge-
based business sector. During my tenure, RTPark sought, but was 
ultimately unsuccessful in securing, $4.7 million in financing from the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in 2008 
but did secure $5.5 million in matching funds from the U.S. Department 
of Commerce Economic Development Administration in 2009. I have 
witnessed first-hand the benefits of these programs that seek to lift 
rural and economically challenged communities.
    WISPA's nearly 1,000 members include broadband service and 
infrastructure providers, equipment manufacturers, and technology 
companies that work every day to close the digital divide in many of 
our country's most rural and remote communities. Our members' stories 
are often remarkably similar. Tired of waiting for someone else to 
bring broadband to them and their neighbors, they took their private 
capital and built a solution, connecting families, businesses, first 
responders and community anchor institutions.
    WISPA advocates for the widespread deployment of broadband. This is 
best accomplished by allowing the utilization of the ``right tool for 
the right job'' so that all communities, regardless of size or 
location, can reap the benefits of reliable, affordable, and robust 
connectivity as quickly as possible.
    WISPA and our members are grateful for the leadership of this 
Committee in promoting our shared goal of closing the digital divide 
with ubiquitous, reliable, and resilient broadband networks.
Importance of WISPs
    WISPs serve nine million Americans, mostly in unserved, under-
resourced, and Tribal territories. Our members offer cost-effective, 
competitive, and innovative services for these communities. WISPs 
deploy a variety of technologies, including fiber as well as licensed, 
shared, and unlicensed wireless spectrum, to deliver reliable broadband 
service to their customers at affordable prices, often in areas ignored 
by others because the deployment costs are prohibitive.
    WISPs are mostly small and medium sized businesses. Many of our 
members have fewer than twenty-five employees, and almost 70 percent 
have ten or fewer full-time employees. Often investing their own 
private, at-risk capital, our members are truly community-based and 
entrepreneurial companies. According to our latest member survey, more 
than 75 percent of WISPA's operator members serve primarily rural areas 
and very often to small populations, communities that have often been 
passed over by the larger, national carriers. Many WISPs may be small, 
but to the communities they serve, their importance is enormous.
    Fixed wireless broadband has proven to be a powerful and reliable 
tool in getting these communities online. According to a 2021 report by 
The Carmel Group, WISPs can deploy fixed wireless service to 
residential consumers at about \1/9\ the capital cost of fiber-to-the-
premises. These favorable economics enable WISPs to serve smaller and 
more remote communities, where it is not cost-effective for other 
technologies to be deployed.
    Typical speeds that fixed wireless providers offer continue to 
increase as technology advances, and equipment costs become more 
competitive. Download speeds exceeding 1 Gbps are possible with current 
fixed wireless technology, with equipment available from multiple 
manufacturers. Our industry is one of the most dynamic, scalable and 
flexible in the entire broadband ecosystem, characterized by rapid, 
cost-effective deployment, speedy technology innovation, and many new 
entrants.
    Moreover, fixed wireless is being deployed much more quickly than 
many other alternatives. The basic network elements are a tower or tall 
building, commercially available radio transmitters and consumer-
premises equipment, and, of course, licensed and unlicensed spectrum. 
And WISPs don't need thousands of subscribers to make a business case; 
often, only a handful of potential customers will justify beginning 
deployment to multiple locations in an area. In sparsely populated 
rural areas, that's critical for consumers who should not have to 
continue to wait for a higher, and sometimes unattainable, critical 
mass of potential customers for more expensive fiber installation to 
their homes and businesses.
    The need for fast deployment and the ability to connect rural and 
remote communities was never clearer than during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Access to fixed wireless technology was a lifeline for many Americans. 
Every child who had to attend school from their bedroom, every patient 
who needed to access their doctor via telemedicine, every business 
owner who relied on Zoom to connect with customers and suppliers--none 
of them could afford to wait for technology to be deployed. They needed 
to be online, and I am proud to say that WISPs across the country 
upgraded their networks where necessary to meet increased consumer 
demand and delivered for their communities. And they continue to do so.
    In addition, investment banking firms and private equity funds have 
made dozens of investments in our members' businesses over the last few 
years. They are attracted by solid management, favorable growth 
potential and the large untapped rural markets that will drive new 
deployment and increased revenue. This trend is ongoing and, along with 
government funding, positions our members as significant players in the 
years to come.
Closing the Digital Divide
    Due to the hard work and vision of this Committee, great progress 
is being made to connect all Americans. However, as businesses largely 
based in rural communities, WISPs know all too well that the digital 
divide is still a long way from being closed.
    Despite the enormous positive impact of broadband, many Americans 
still do not share these benefits. There remains a substantial number 
of Americans who cannot fully participate in today's economy and 
democracy, whose children tend to lag in school, and whose communities 
are not able to keep pace with the economic growth potential that 
broadband brings. While the number of new broadband subscribers 
continues to grow, the rate of broadband deployment in urban, suburban, 
and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income 
areas. This disparity has long-term adverse economic and social 
consequences for those left behind. WISPA is committed to addressing 
this disparity.
    These challenges are particularly acute for our nation's farmers, 
who are facing higher commodity prices and difficult supply chain 
issues. Connectivity, real time data, and opportunities to sell their 
commodities in an expedient and efficient manner are more critical than 
ever. And many applications used by farmers, such as precision 
agriculture, require wireless broadband to blanket vast acres of 
farmland to be useful.
    Every American--regardless of where they live--should have access 
to the very best internet and reliability that they need. Americans in 
rural areas have no less a need for fast broadband than those in urban 
centers. The questions this Committee faces are, how do we most quickly 
provide the level of connectivity that rural communities need in ways 
that leave nobody behind? And how do we ensure that taxpayer dollars 
are spent in the most efficient and productive ways possible?
    We cannot allow this opportunity to bridge the digital divide slip 
away. The NTIA BEAD program should not be the be-all and end-all for 
broadband deployment, and USDA can have a significant and positive 
impact on broadband that is complementary to that program, if the farm 
bill is written and implemented in a technologically neutral way that 
respects public and private investment. Recognizing the urgency of this 
moment, WISPA members stand ready to roll up their sleeves and get to 
work. The stakes are too high, connectivity is too important, and many 
rural communities have waited far too long.
WISPs' Experiences with ReConnect
    The farm bill has been assisting rural communities entering the 
digital age for many years. For this reason, it is critical that the 
farm bill's broadband programs stay focused on those communities that 
are truly unserved. No community should be asked to wait even longer 
for broadband so that other communities receive upgraded network build-
outs they don't actually need.
    WISPA strongly supports the goals of the ReConnect program and 
supports the investments Congress has provided to bring broadband to 
more Americans, particularly those in unserved and underserved 
communities. However, we have seen that, without careful structuring 
and a clear process, the program risks undermining our shared goals of 
connecting rural communities with the greatest need quickly. The RUS's 
most recent funding round exemplifies some of these issues.
    First, RUS required that any facilities to be constructed with 
ReConnect award funds ``must be capable of delivering 100 Mbps 
symmetrical service to every premise in the proposed funded service 
area.'' Symmetrical service means that download speeds identically 
match upload speeds.
    Some Members of Congress have expressed support for prioritizing 
symmetrical speeds. Consumers clearly value download and upload speeds 
differently, and it makes sense for RUS to consider them independently. 
To make symmetry the primary gating criteria for eligibility when 
consumers are not even asking for or using it when they have access to 
it, would prevent many providers from even applying for funding, 
leaving many communities out in the cold. In addition, this type of 
requirement would add significant time to deployment, in many cases 
forcing communities to wait additional years, when they could have 
service much quicker by utilizing other technologies.
    The gap between downstream and upstream traffic has consistently 
grown over the last 10 years. Recently, the ratio of downstream 
consumption to upstream is 14 to 1. Current consumer trends demonstrate 
significant increases in downstream consumption while upstream traffic 
increases at a fraction of the rate. Today's consumers do not utilize 
upstream bandwidth at the same rate they use downstream and speak to it 
with their dollars and usage. Video streaming makes up over 80 percent 
of all internet traffic, \2/3\ of which is traffic from downloads. Even 
popular applications that utilize relatively high upload bandwidth, 
such as two-way video conferencing, do not require anything near 
symmetrical speeds. Studies have shown video conferencing requires 
approximately \1/3\ of the upstream bandwidth compared to downstream.
    Networks are optimized based on consumer use patterns. The WISP 
industry has responded by engineering networks to favor downloads to 
meet their customers' demand. Even if demand for upload speeds somehow 
doubles down the road, it will remain far below download speed demand. 
Basing criteria on speculative predictions about future demand for 
upload speed--when, as we speak, many communities remain completely 
unserved--would be counterproductive, especially for an investment of 
this magnitude.
    For these programs to be successful and cost-effective, as many 
broadband providers as possible should be encouraged to participate. 
Symmetrical service may work in some communities, but not every 
location is the same. Erecting artificial, unnecessary, and wasteful 
barriers to participation would exclude many projects that would now 
provide connectivity to the most remote communities. If rigid 
requirements, such as symmetrical speeds, are locked in statute, it 
precludes RUS from having the flexibility to consider projects that 
address other key priorities. Lack of flexibility may leave many areas 
unserved or force those awarded to wait years longer for service, which 
is counter to the purpose of the program.
    Second, USDA defined sufficient access to broadband as ``any rural 
area in which households have fixed, terrestrial broadband service 
defined as 100 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 20 Mbps 
upstream.'' The result of this requirement is that ReConnect funding 
will wind up going to communities with more than sufficient funding 
already, leaving out places that lack any broadband at all. It simply 
makes no sense to divert taxpayer dollars from where they are needed 
the most to overbuild areas that are already connected.
    Simply put, subsidizing overbuilding in areas where innovative, 
local providers are delivering broadband, or have an enforceable 
commitment to do so, inequitably distorts the market. It wastes 
taxpayer dollars. And it still leaves many Americans without any access 
to broadband.
    At a minimum, locations subject to an ``enforceable commitment'' to 
provide broadband service through a state or Federal program should be 
off-limits for initial ReConnect funding. This will address two issues. 
First, it will ensure that taxpayers' contributions to the FCC's 
Connect America Fund and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will not be 
used to subsidize multiple providers in the same market--in effect, the 
government would be competing with itself.
    Second, exempting from ReConnect funding locations subject to an 
existing ``enforceable commitment'' will protect the integrity of the 
programs and the reliance interests of those CAF and RDOF recipients 
that are hard at work investing government funding and their own 
capital in deploying broadband in rural communities. It will also 
enable them to attract outside capital on more favorable terms.
    Third, RUS included as a key criterion for awarding grants ``local 
governments, nonprofits and cooperatives.'' The best provider of 
broadband in any given community could be a local government, a not-
for-profit, a cooperative or a private commercial company. We recognize 
the invaluable work that rural cooperatives have done in connecting 
their small communities. But we believe that the best way to ensure the 
most people are connected to the internet--especially in areas where 
rural cooperatives are not present--is to allow any provider who can 
best serve a community to access ReConnect funding. As Congress made 
clear in the IIJA, the government should not be in the business of 
picking winners and losers. The farm bill should not perpetuate this 
flawed industrial policy.
    Each of these issues shares one thing in common: they fail to 
recognize that every community is different, and therefore every 
solution must be different. Placing a thumb on the scale to benefit one 
type of technology, or one kind of provider, does no favors for 
Americans who are in desperate need of broadband access. It simply 
favors certain parties and likely increases the time unserved 
communities must wait for connectivity, at the financial and societal 
expense of the American public.
    For these reasons, it is important that the farm bill broadband 
programs remain truly technologically neutral, both explicitly and by 
not using proxies--such as the requirement of symmetrical 100 Mbps 
upload and download speeds--whereby only a single technology can meet 
the required standard. A failure to adhere to technological neutrality 
will only exponentially increase costs and further delay broadband 
deployment to high-cost rural areas. If the farm bill goes down that 
path, it will run out of money before even getting to the farms and 
rural residents most in need of connectivity.
Recommendations for the Next Farm Bill
    As you develop the 2023 Farm Bill, this Committee has an historic 
opportunity to lay the groundwork for achieving our shared goal of 
bringing connectivity to every American. With that in mind, I would 
like to share some recommendations we hope the Committee will consider:

   Base Awards on Cost Effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness should 
        be the primary criterion for determining which projects are 
        funded. This will ensure that limited taxpayer resources are 
        allocated and targeted to connecting as many rural Americans as 
        possible. All Americans, including those who live in hard to 
        serve areas, should have access to internet service before 
        public funds are used to support additional networks in 
        communities that are already connected.

   Modernize USDA Programs. The USDA should revise its criteria 
        for rural broadband development grants and loans so that the 
        limited available funding is allocated to those projects that 
        truly deliver broadband coverage rapidly to the most Americans 
        for the lowest possible cost. In addition to the up-front costs 
        of deployment, these programs should consider the total costs 
        to the end consumer, so that Federal support is not allocated 
        to deployments that consumers will not be able to afford nor 
        desire.

   Do Not Provide Funding to Overbuild Broadband Networks or 
        Networks for Which Other Subsidies (Federal and state) Have 
        Been Approved. Recipients of loans, grants and loan/grant 
        combinations under this program should not be allowed to use 
        proceeds to fund infrastructure in areas that are already 
        served or where there is an ``enforceable commitment'' to serve 
        by another provider offering a certain level of service or a 
        provider that is the recipient of subsidies from other 
        government support programs. Limited public resources should be 
        directed to areas where no service is available. Operators 
        deploying private, at-risk capital to connect rural Americans 
        should not face the risk of subsidized competition, and the 
        agency should also not apply support in areas that are already 
        subject to support through, e.g., the Connect America Fund. 
        This risk chills private investment and distorts the 
        marketplace.

   Prioritize Incumbent Providers for Upgrades. Where taxpayer 
        dollars are to be spent for areas where this Committee decides 
        the speeds are ``underserving'' the community, priority should 
        be given to those ISP's who are currently serving the 
        community. Chances are that ISP did something no one else 
        wanted to do, not a Co-op nor a large provider, they built a 
        network (most likely with their own money) where no one else 
        would--why should they be punished with government funded 
        competition. Instead, those incumbents should be given the 
        first opportunity to take the capital to upgrade their service 
        to the Committee's desired level, which can most likely be done 
        for less dollars--once again further stretching our limited 
        taxpayer resources further.

    Last Congress, this Committee passed H.R. 4347, the Broadband 
Internet Connections for Rural America Act. WISPA supports the goals of 
this legislation and commends the Committee for its commitment to 
connecting rural communities. WISPA supports the funding tiers included 
in the legislation that gives priority funding to projects in unserved 
communities. Focusing on unserved areas first and achieving that 
objective is the fastest and most cost-effective way to stretch limited 
Federal dollars.
    We also believe that the USDA broadband deployment subsidy programs 
envisioned by H.R. 4347 would benefit by requiring RUS to engage in a 
proceeding that solicits public comments that can help to streamline 
the application process for the ReConnect and other USDA broadband 
deployment programs. In October 2022, GAO found that significant 
numbers of ReConnect program applicants were rejected by USDA and 
ReConnect program applicants who were accepted responded that they were 
substantially disappointed with the ReConnect application process. 
Their experiences with the ReConnect application process have 
discouraged some from applying to the program in the future.
    In addition, I would like to thank Reps. Cammack, Soto, Gluesenkamp 
Perez, and Jackson, along with their Senate colleagues, Sens. Thune, 
Lujan, Fischer, and Klobuchar, for introducing the Rural Internet 
Improvement Act. This bill contains several important provisions that 
will improve the ReConnect program and target its funding towards areas 
of need. Specifically, the legislation limits funding to areas where at 
least 90% of households lack access to broadband service. This approach 
will ensure that those communities in most need of connectivity will be 
served first, instead of continuing to have to wait for even the most 
basic broadband service. I urge the Committee to consider including 
many of the provisions included in the Rural Internet Improvement Act 
in the farm bill.
Conclusion
    Every community, regardless of size, location, or geography, 
deserves reliable broadband service. This Committee has an 
extraordinary opportunity to expand digital inclusion and take dramatic 
steps to bridge the digital divide. Industry and the government must 
step up and work together to meet this moment. This is no small task: 
it will take every tool available to ensure the rapid deployment of 
networks so that no community is left behind. That is why the 
leadership of this Committee is so critical. Your efforts are vital to 
ensuring that all communities can reap the benefits of robust and 
reliable broadband.
    WISPA and its members stand ready to help every community find the 
right tools to connect them to the digital economy. This means 
diversity in approaches, modes of deployment, and paying attention to 
the needs of each community. WISPs provide the right tool for the right 
job. WISPs help drive America's innovation economy and fuels the 
nation's economic future.
    WISPA appreciates the opportunity to partner with the Committee in 
addressing these important issues. We are deeply grateful for the 
bipartisan recognition of the importance of universal connectivity by 
this Committee, by Congress, by the FCC, and the Biden Administration. 
All have implemented policies to promote broadband deployment.
    Thank you again, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott, for 
holding this important hearing and inviting me to testify. I look 
forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the Committee to 
make real progress on these very important issues. I look forward to 
your questions.

    The Chairman. Mr. Zumwalt, thank you so much for your 
testimony. And now, Mr. Stroup, please begin when you are 
ready.

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. ``TOM'' STROUP, J.D., PRESIDENT, 
        SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Stroup. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 
me to testify before you today. I am Tom Stroup, President of 
the Satellite Industry Association. Satellite communications 
are transforming the operation of our nation's farms and 
ranches. Satellites, unlike terrestrial communications, bring a 
range of unique attributes that benefit farmers and ranchers. 
This includes the ability to cover broad geographies without 
the need for expensive terrestrial infrastructure, as well as 
increased resiliency and rapid deployment. In addition, recent 
innovations in the satellite industry have made the delivery of 
high-quality, high-speed broadband and IoT connectivity to 
everyone, everywhere across the United States a reality.
    Satellites provide service to rural and remote areas of the 
country, where it remains uneconomical for terrestrial services 
to deploy and offer both speeds and prices comparable to 
terrestrial alternatives. These services are available directly 
to the consumer today, covering all 50 states, and delivering 
broadband speeds of up to 200 megabits per second. Satellites 
enable remote farms with livestock sensors, soil monitors, and 
autonomous farming equipment in rural America, far beyond where 
terrestrial wireless and wire line can reach or make economic 
sense to deploy.
    Precision GPS technologies allow farmers to increase crop 
yield by optimizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, 
and applying site-specific treatments to fields. Earth imaging 
satellites provide high resolution imagery that allows farmers 
to determine when to plant, water, or fertilize crops. And 
satellite advances in weather forecasting help farmers prepare 
for drought, floods, and other adverse weather conditions.
    Satellites are critical to 5G and IoT applications that 
will enable the next generation of farming technologies. 
Satellite communications allow for remote control of driverless 
tractors and network connectivity between equipment at large 
farms where equipment may not be in the same sight line. 
Indeed, John Deere estimates 50,000 to 100,000 of its machines 
will be connected to satellites by 2026.
    We are at a time of tremendous innovation in the space 
industry, with nearly 8,000 active satellites in orbit today, 
and plans for tens of thousands more through the end of the 
decade. And individual geostationary communication satellites 
are launching that provide greater capacity than some existing 
fleets combined. Costs are dropping for both space and ground 
systems, which has resulted in a decrease in the cost of 
capacity of 90 percent over the past 8 years. Most importantly, 
satellite services are available now across the entire country 
without the need for additional build-out. As the Information 
Technology and Innovation Foundation notes, no single broadband 
technology holds all the advantages. With finite resources and 
widely varying topography, we need a flexible combination of 
all available access technologies to bridge the digital divide.
    In order to further connectivity, we recommend the 
Committee prioritize these seven items. First, include 
provisions that offer financial incentives or tax breaks to 
satellite internet providers to encourage their participation 
in rural broadband expansion. Second, allocate specific funds 
or grants to support the development and deployment of 
satellite projects, particularly those focused on serving rural 
and remote areas. Third, ensure that legislation adopts 
technology-inclusive language and requirements, allowing for 
flexibility and inclusivity in deployment strategies. Congress 
should encourage competition and innovation among various 
broadband providers, including satellite companies, and allow 
affordable solutions to reach rural America where fiber build-
out is not economically feasible.
    Fourth, interagency collaboration is needed to simplify and 
streamline the regulatory processes for satellite internet 
providers. This includes working to adopt and implement a 
common set of performance targets to reflect the needs of 
agriculture, a recommendation supported by the Precision Ag 
Connectivity Task Force. Fifth, ensure sufficient spectrum 
resources are available for satellite, broadband, and IoT 
providers to deliver high-quality and high-speed services. 
Sixth, encourage partnerships with satellite companies and 
other stakeholders, such as local communities, educational 
institutions, and public agencies. And finally, allocate funds 
for research and development initiatives focused on advancing 
satellite technology, capacity, and affordability that will 
lead to increased opportunities for rural connectivity. I 
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I am happy 
to answer any questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Thomas A. ``Tom'' Stroup, J.D., President, 
            Satellite Industry Association, Washington, D.C.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members 
of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you 
today. I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association 
(SIA).\1\ SIA is a U.S.-based trade association that represents the 
leading satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, launch 
services providers, space situational awareness companies, and ground 
equipment suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ SIA Executive Members include: Amazon; The Boeing Company; 
DIRECTV; EchoStar Corporation; HawkEye 360; Intelsat S.A.; Iridium 
Communications Inc.; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions; Ligado 
Networks; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Northrop Grumman; OneWeb; Planet 
Labs PBC; SES Americom, Inc.; Spire Global Inc.; and Viasat Inc. SIA 
Associate Members include: ABS US Corp.; The Aerospace Corporation; 
Artel, LLC; AST Space Mobile; Astranis Space Technologies Corp.; Aurora 
Insight; Blue Origin; Comtech; Eutelsat America Corp.; ExoAnalytic 
Solutions; Hughes; Inmarsat, Inc.; Kymeta Corporation; Leonardo; Lynk; 
Omnispace; OneWeb Technologies; Ovzon; Panasonic Avionics Corporation; 
Skyloom; Telesat; ULA and XTAR, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Satellite communications are transforming the operation of our 
nation's farms and ranches. Satellites, unlike terrestrial 
communications, bring a range of unique attributes that benefit our 
nation's farmers. This includes the ability to cover broad geographies 
without the need for expensive terrestrial infrastructure, increased 
resiliency, and rapid deployment. In addition, recent innovations in 
the satellite industry have made the delivery of high quality, high-
speed broadband and internet of things (IoT) connectivity to everyone 
everywhere across the United States a reality.
    Satellite communications and services are well-poised to help our 
farmers meet [today's] real challenges--from addressing food 
insecurity, to monitoring weather and water, to overcoming supply chain 
challenges. Satellites are capable of providing broadband and IoT to 
rural and remote areas of the country where it remains uneconomical for 
terrestrial services to deploy, and provide both speeds and prices 
comparable to terrestrial alternatives. These services are available 
directly to the consumer today, covering all 50 states and delivering 
broadband offerings up to 200 megabits per second (Mbps). Satellite 
broadband is also used by business and government enterprises, for both 
fixed and mobile purposes, using a range of spectral bands to deliver 
assured access to broadband communications. Further, satellites are 
providing critical backhaul internet connectivity to local Internet 
Service Providers and community institutions in remote locations.
    Satellite enables remote farms with livestock sensors, soil 
monitors, and autonomous farming equipment in rural America, far beyond 
where terrestrial wireless and wireline can reach or make economic 
sense to deploy. Precision GPS technologies allow farmers to increase 
crop yield by optimizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and 
applying site-specific treatments to fields. Earth imaging satellites 
provide regular high-resolution imagery that allows farmers to 
determine when to plant, water, or fertilize crops and can be used to 
provide crop yield estimates, conduct scout monitoring, and monitor 
global food security. Satellite advances in weather forecasting help 
farmers prepare for drought, floods, and other adverse weather 
conditions.
    Satellites are critical to 5G and IoT applications that will enable 
the next generation of farming technologies. Satellite communications 
allow for remote control of driverless tractors, or networked 
connectivity between equipment at large farms where equipment may not 
be in the same sightline. According to John Deere CTO Jahmy Hindeman, 
the company is ``pretty bullish on the opportunity that the 
commercialization of all things space is bringing to agriculture at the 
moment . . . The response from farmers has been overwhelmingly 
positive. In the sense that for many of them, I call it the 0 to 1 
problem, from no connectivity in places they wished that they had it to 
full connectivity in those places tomorrow. We don't think in many of 
those cases terrestrial cell will ever be a solution.'' \2\ John Deere 
estimates 50,000-100,000 of its machines will be connected to 
satellites by 2026.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Manifest Space: Space Enabled Farming With Deere CTO, 5/18/
23'' https://closing-bell.simplecast.com/episodes/manifest-space-space-
enabled-farming-with-deere-cto-5-18-23-Y23iyvUg.
    \3\ Tita, Bob, ``Deere Seeks Satellite Network to Connect Far-Flung 
Farms'' Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/
deere-seeks-satellite-network-to-connect-far-flung-farms-65c37b0f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The satellite industry today is investing constantly to ensure it 
can address the challenges of the future and to make its technologies 
available to every American. We are at a time of explosive innovation 
in the space industry, with nearly 8,000 active satellites on orbit 
today 4-5 and plans for tens of thousands more through the 
end of the decade, and individual geostationary communications 
satellites launching that provide greater capacity than entire existing 
fleets combined. Satellite companies are working to optimize the use of 
spectrum, by investing in high-throughput satellites and flexible, 
software defined payloads that allow for instantaneous reallocation of 
spectrum resources and the mitigation of harmful interference. Costs 
are dropping for both space and ground systems through the use of 
modular satellites, digital engineering, inter-satellite links and 
cloud-integrated ground stations, which minimize the need for expensive 
ground architecture, which has resulted in a drop in cost of capacity 
of 90% over the past 8 years.\6\ Flat panel and phased-array antennas 
lower consumer costs and enable better connectivity that has been 
essential to the deployment of non-geostationary satellite 
constellations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``NORAD GP Element Sets Current Data'', CelesTrak, 14 June 2023 
https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/.
    \5\ Up from 1,167 in 2013; see Satellite Industry Association, 
``2014 State of the Satellite Industry Report''.
    \6\ Satellite Industry Association, ``2023 State of the Satellite 
Industry Report''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most importantly, satellite services are available now across the 
entire country without the need for additional build-out. As the 
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation notes, ``No single 
broadband technology holds all the advantages. With finite resources 
and widely varying topography, we need a flexible combination of all 
available access technologies to bridge the digital divide . . . if we 
try to subsidize fiber everywhere, overbuilding will crowd out private 
investment.'' \7\ In some remote areas, the cost of the USDA ReConnect 
program's fiber build-out has allocated costs per passing of up to 
$204,000 per passing,\8\ and according to Tarana Wireless, a full-fiber 
approach to BEAD would cost upward of $200B,\9\ staggering amounts for 
communities that can receive satellite broadband today. Additionally, 
fiber has been plagued by supply chain and labor shortages, in many 
cases doubling the cost of fiber programs supported by the Rural 
Development Opportunity Fund.10, 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Brake, Doug, and Bruer, Alexandra, ``Broadband Myth Series: Do 
We Need Symmetrical Upload and Download Speeds?'', Information 
Technology & Innovation Foundation, 12 May 2021 https://itif.org/
publications/2021/05/12/broadband-myth-series-do-we-need-symmetrical-
upload-and-download-speeds/.
    \8\ Goovaerts, Diana, ``The cost of running fiber in rural America: 
$200,000 per passing'' https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/cost-
running-fiber-rural-america-200000-passing.
    \9\ Ferraro, Nicole,`` `Fiber-only approach' to BEAD would cost 
over $200B, says Tarana'', Light Reading, 17 Apr. 2023 https://
www.lightreading.com/broadband/fttx/fiber-only-approach-to-bead-would-
cost-over-$200b-says-tarana/d/d-id/784398.
    \10\ Goovaerts, Diana, ``ISPs: Inflation has doubled RDOF build 
costs'', Fierce Telecom, 24 Oct. 2024, https://www.fiercetelecom.com/
broadband/isps-inflation-has-doubled-rdof-build-costs.
    \11\ Haiar, Joshua, ``Inflation Drives Up Cost of Broadband 
Internet Projects'' 11 June 2023, https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/
news/inflation-drives-up-cost-of-broadband-internet-projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to foster further broadband and IoT connectivity, we 
recommend the Committee prioritize:

   Incentives for Satellite Internet Providers: Include 
        provisions that offer financial incentives or tax breaks to 
        satellite internet providers (broadband and IoT) to encourage 
        their participation in rural broadband expansion. This could 
        help attract more companies to invest in satellite 
        infrastructure and services.

   Funding for Satellite Broadband and IoT Projects: Allocate 
        specific funds or grants to support the development and 
        deployment of satellite broadband and IoT projects, 
        particularly those focused on serving rural and remote areas, 
        including directly to farms/ranches for last acre build-out. 
        This can help lower the financial barriers for satellite 
        companies to expand their networks and reach underserved 
        regions.

   Making Requirements Technology-Inclusive: Ensure that 
        legislation adopts technology-inclusive language and 
        requirements, allowing for flexibility and inclusivity in 
        broadband and IoT deployment strategies. By avoiding 
        prescriptive mandates that favor specific technologies, bills 
        can encourage competition and innovation among various 
        broadband and IoT providers, including satellite companies, and 
        allow for the affordable solutions to reach rural America where 
        fiber build-out is not economically feasible. This approach 
        would enable satellite internet providers to compete on an 
        equal footing and encourage the development of cutting-edge 
        satellite technologies and infrastructure. Moreover, 
        technology-agnostic requirements can also facilitate 
        collaboration and partnerships between different types of 
        broadband and IoT providers, enabling hybrid solutions that 
        leverage the strengths of multiple technologies to deliver 
        robust and reliable broadband and IoT connectivity to rural 
        areas.

   Streamlined Regulatory Processes: Interagency collaboration 
        is needed to simplify and streamline the regulatory processes 
        for satellite internet providers. This includes working to 
        adopt and implement a common set of performance targets to 
        reflect the needs of Agriculture, a recommendation supported by 
        the Precision Ag Connectivity Task Force.\12\ Additional work 
        could involve reducing bureaucratic hurdles and improving the 
        reporting process for programs such as the Rural Utilities 
        Service (RUS), expediting license approvals, and promoting 
        cooperation between government agencies to facilitate satellite 
        deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology 
Needs of Precision Agriculture in the U.S.'', 10 Nov. 2021, https://
www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-report-11102021.pdf.

   Spectrum Availability: Ensure sufficient spectrum resources 
        are available for satellite broadband and IoT providers to 
        deliver high-quality and high-speed services. The bill could 
        advocate for the protection of satellite spectrum and explore 
        opportunities for sharing or repurposing underutilized spectrum 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        bands.

   Collaboration and Partnerships: Encourage partnerships 
        between satellite companies and other stakeholders, such as 
        local communities, educational institutions, and public 
        agencies. Collaborative efforts can help leverage existing 
        infrastructure, share resources, and expand the reach of 
        satellite broadband and IoT services.

   Research and Development: Allocate funds for research and 
        development initiatives focused on advancing satellite 
        technology, capacity, and affordability. This can support 
        innovation within the satellite industry, leading to improved 
        performance, lower costs, and increased opportunities for rural 
        connectivity. This includes increasing awareness and 
        recruitment efforts in STEM programs.

    I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I am happy to 
answer any questions.

    The Chairman. Mr. Stroup, thank you so much. Mr. Hurley, 
please begin when you are ready.

         STATEMENT OF BILL T. HURLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, 
  DISTRIBUTION, AMERICAS, AGCO CORPORATION; CHAIR, AG SECTOR 
                BOARD, ASSOCIATION OF EQUIPMENT 
                   MANUFACTURERS, DULUTH, GA

    Mr. Hurley. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and 
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you, and for holding this hearing 
today. My name is Bill Hurley. I currently serve as Chair of 
the Ag Sector Board of the Association of Equipment 
Manufacturers. I am also a Vice President with the AGCO 
Corporation headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
    I was born and raised in Franklin, a small town in central 
Texas with a population of less than 2,000. My family had a 
small farm not far from there in a place called Ridge, where my 
grandmother lived. I spent a lot of time on that farm, and with 
my grandmother, and I vividly remember the challenges that came 
from the ten families sharing the party line. While we have 
come a long way since then, today's hearing is a reminder that 
we have still not fully closed the digital divide in rural 
America.
    AEM is a North American based international trade group 
representing off-road heavy equipment manufacturers, with more 
than 1,000 companies and more than 200 product lines in the ag 
and construction-related sectors worldwide. The equipment 
manufacturing industry supports 2.3 million jobs in the United 
States and contributes $316 billion a year to the U.S. economy. 
The men and women who make the equipment that builds, powers, 
and feeds the world are not just welders, fabricators, and 
machinists. Many are farmers and ranchers, and one in three of 
them live and work in rural communities. Our industry is not 
only deeply connected to rural America, we are a big part of 
it.
    Equipment manufacturers are proud to provide American 
farmers and ranchers with the next generation of innovative 
tools, but they cannot take advantage of the benefits of 
precision ag technologies without reliable and affordable 
connectivity across all of rural America. Precision ag 
leverages technologies to enhance sustainability through more 
efficient use of critical inputs, such as land, water, 
fertilizer, and pesticides. For example, at full adoption, 
herbicide use could be reduced by 15 percent, and water use 
could be decreased by 21 percent. However, today just \1/4\ of 
farms in the U.S. are currently able to leverage precision ag 
due to the lack of high-speed connectivity.
    Reliable internet access and smart policies that help 
farmers and ranchers adopt these cutting edge technologies will 
lead to a transformative shift in ag practices that drive 
productivity while conserving resources. A multi-faceted 
strategy, including fiber optic, low-Earth orbit satellites, 
and 5G will continue to close the rural connectivity gap, 
enabling farmers and ranchers to leverage important 
technologies and management strategies that will help them 
produce more with less. For these technologies to deliver their 
full value, we need technology-neutral development of broadband 
dollars.
    It is imperative that all aspects of rural America are 
connected, from the hospital to the school, and from the 
farmhouse to the field. We should not prioritize one technology 
over the other, but rather take an all-encompassing approach. 
If not, many parts of rural America will be left further 
behind. Other game-changing technologies, such as soil and 
weather sensors, machine learning and autonomy, and equipment 
tracking rely on connectivity. The opportunity in front of us 
is to prioritize connectivity for the essential food supply 
chain across rural America versus entertainment streaming 
speed.
    The 2023 Farm Bill is this Committee's opportunity to fully 
embrace the potential of these technologies by including two 
bipartisan pieces of legislation in the final package. The 
Precision Agriculture Loan Program Act of 2023 (H.R. 1495) 
establishes the first Federal Precision Ag Loan Program within 
the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. Loans at 
lower interest rates and extended terms will give small- and 
mid-size producers the tools that they need to monitor, manage, 
and maximize their operations, while significantly reducing 
their environmental impact. The PRECISE Act (H.R. 1495, 
Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and 
Solutions for the Environment Act) designates precision ag as 
an applicable practice in the EQIP Program, and allows ag 
technologies which do, and will continue to, play a huge role 
in conservation. AEM believes that these two bipartisan bills 
provide an all-encompassing approach for the adoption of 
precision ag technologies, and respectfully urges the Committee 
to include them in this year's farm bill.
    The implementation of precision ag technologies depends on 
the successful deployment of broadband dollars. It is 
imperative that we work together to ensure that rural America 
has the same affordable and reliable connectivity as the rest 
of the country. I thank you for inviting me here to testify 
today, and the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Mr. 
Chairman, looks forward to continuing to work with Members of 
this Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hurley follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Bill T. Hurley, Vice President, Distribution, 
  Americas, AGCO Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board, Association of 
                  Equipment Manufacturers, Duluth, GA
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members 
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 
and for holding this hearing today on closing the digital divide in 
rural America.
A. Introduction
    My name is Bill Hurley, and I currently serve as Chair of the Ag 
Sector Board of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. I am also a 
Vice President with AGCO Corporation, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
    I was born and raised in Franklin, a small town in central Texas 
with a population of less than 2,000 people. My family had a small farm 
not far from there in a place called Ridge, where my grandmother lived. 
I spent a lot of time on that farm, and I vividly remember the 
challenges that came from ten families sharing a party line. While we 
have come a long way since then, today's hearing is a reminder that we 
have still not fully closed the digital divide in rural America.
    The Association of Equipment Manufacturers is the North American-
based international trade group representing off-road, heavy equipment 
manufacturers, with more than 1,000 companies and more than 200 product 
lines in the agriculture and construction-related sectors worldwide. 
The equipment manufacturing industry supports 2.3 million jobs in the 
United States and contributes $316 billion a year to the U.S. economy.
    The men and women who make the equipment that builds, powers, and 
feeds the world are not just welders, fabricators, and machinists. Some 
are farmers and ranchers. And one in three of them live and work in 
rural communities across the country, compared to just one in five 
people overall in the United States. Our industry is not only deeply 
connected to rural America--we are a big part of it.
    Equipment manufacturers are proud to provide American farmers and 
ranchers with the next generation of innovative tools that will keep 
our agriculture sector competitive for generations to come. But farmers 
and ranchers cannot take advantage of the benefits of precision 
agriculture technologies without reliable and affordable connectivity 
across all of rural America.
B. The Benefits of Precision Agriculture Technology
    Precision agriculture leverages technologies to enhance 
sustainability through more efficient use of critical inputs, such as 
land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. For example, herbicide use 
could be further reduced by 15 percent at full adoption. Water use 
could decrease by 21 percent at full adoption of precision agriculture 
technologies.\1\ Just \1/4\ of farms in the United States are currently 
able to leverage precision agriculture technologies due to the lack of 
high-speed connectivity. There is a great opportunity for growth in 
this area. Reliable internet access and smart policies that help 
farmers and ranchers adopt these cutting-edge technologies will lead to 
a transformative shift in agriculture practices that drive productivity 
while conserving resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, The Environmental 
Benefits of Precision Agriculture in the United States (2021), https://
newsroom.aem.org/download/977839/
environmentalbenefitsofprecisionagriculture-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Precision Agriculture Connectivity Needs
    A multifaceted strategy including fiber optic, low earth orbit 
(LEO) satellites, and 5G will continue to close the rural connectivity 
gap, enabling farmers and ranchers to leverage important technologies 
and management strategies that will help them produce more with less. 
For precision agriculture technologies to reach their full potential, 
we need technology-neutral deployment of broadband dollars. It is 
imperative that all aspects of rural America are connected, from the 
hospital to the school and from the farmhouse to the field.
    We should not prioritize one technology over the other, but rather 
take an all-encompassing approach, or many parts of rural America will 
be left further behind. Other game-changing technologies such as soil 
and weather sensors, machine learning and machine autonomy, equipment 
tracking, and food traceability will increasingly rely on connectivity. 
The opportunity in front of us is to prioritize connectivity for the 
essential food supply chain across rural America versus entertainment 
streaming speed.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, The Future of Food 
Production (2022), https://www.aem.org/AEM/media/docs/Whitepaper/AEM-
Future-of-Food-Production.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Opportunities To Advance Precision Agriculture Through the Farm Bill
    The 2023 Farm Bill is this Committee's opportunity to fully embrace 
the potential of these technologies by including three bipartisan 
pieces of legislation in the final package:

   The Precision Agriculture Loan Program Act establishes the 
        first Federal precision agriculture loan program within the 
        Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. Loans at lower 
        interest rates and extended terms will give small- and mid-
        sized producers the tools they need to monitor, manage, and 
        maximize their operations, while significantly reducing their 
        environmental impact more effectively. I would like to thank 
        Representatives Feenstra and Panetta for introducing this 
        bipartisan legislation.

   The PRECISE Act designates precision agriculture as an 
        applicable practice in the EQIP program. Precision agriculture 
        technologies do and will continue to play a huge role in 
        conservation. Adoption of these technologies allows American 
        producers to do more with less. I would like to acknowledge 
        Representatives Finstad, Hinson, Craig, and Panetta for working 
        together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill.

    The Association of Equipment Manufacturers believes that these two 
bills provide an all-encompassing approach for the adoption of 
precision agriculture technologies, and respectfully urges the 
Committee to include them in this year's farm bill.
    The Promoting Precision Agriculture Act builds on a recommendation 
from the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force, which the Association 
of Equipment Manufacturers played an integral role in creating and 
which includes several equipment manufacturers. This important bill 
directs the Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to work together with equipment manufacturers 
to create standards around interoperability. Having uniform standards 
for our industry will give American farmers and ranchers more free 
market options when choosing the technology solution that best fits 
their operations. I would like to thank Representatives Davis Mann for 
introducing this bill.
E. Conclusion
    The implementation of precision agriculture technologies depends 
entirely on the successful deployment of broadband dollars. It is 
imperative that we work together to ensure that rural America has the 
same affordable and reliable connectivity as the rest of America.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify today. The Association of 
Equipment Manufacturers looks forward to continued engagement with 
Members of this Committee as we work to close the digital divide and 
strengthen rural communities. I look forward to your questions.

    The Chairman. Mr. Hurley, thank you so much for your 
testimony. I am now pleased to recognize Mrs. Bloomfield. 
Please begin when you are ready.

   STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
      NTCA--THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA

    Mrs. Bloomfield. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, 
Members of the Committee, good morning, and a sincere thanks 
for the opportunity to testify today. NTCA members across the 
country deploy cutting-edge broadband networks in deeply rural 
areas and deliver services that are just as robust in those 
that are available in urban markets. Eighty percent of the 
customers have access to fiber-to-the-home technology. These 
providers stand ready to help bridge the digital divide in 
areas that they serve today and to go beyond to keep their good 
work in deploying broadband to connect the rest of the world. 
So, building upon these efforts, I really appreciate the 
opportunity to share how critical this Committee's efforts are, 
with USDA oversight, to the deployment of broadband in rural 
communities.
    I am Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA--The Rural Broadband 
Association. We represent over 850 community-based providers 
who are leading innovation in small town and rural America. 
NTCA members offer broadband, voice, and other advanced 
communication services across over 30 percent of the land mass, 
but with less than five percent of the population. This part of 
the country was left behind nearly a century ago by nationwide 
carriers, and there is no question that small rural internet 
service providers are a critical part of the equation as we 
work to provide rural Americans with affordable and reliable 
internet services that will meet the needs of today and 
withstand the test of time.
    RUS, within USDA, has played a very significant role in 
enabling much of this deployment to date, and it is uniquely 
well positioned to serve and close the divide for the benefit 
of still unserved Americans. And it should be tasked with doing 
so in a way that will ensure that the divide stays closed. As 
Members of the Committee assess how best to structure broadband 
funding programs, success in these programs should be measured 
by actual results on the ground rather than promises made. And 
we should all note that what matters most to rural Americans is 
not merely the deployment of broadband, but the quality, 
reliability, and affordability of the services they receive.
    As this Committee and Congress deliberates the 2023 Farm 
Bill, I offer some recommendations on how to close the divide. 
First, we should build networks in rural American that are just 
as robust and reliable as those available in urban areas. I 
encourage the Committee to make sure program requirements are 
driven by the long-term needs of these communities. To that 
end, the farm bill should maintain high-speed symmetrical 
broadband networks of 100/100 megabits. This threshold has been 
in place for several rounds of USDA's ReConnect and has led to 
four to five times greater demand for funding than is 
available. It ensures that the needs of rural consumers are 
met, it is the best use of limited taxpayer dollars by building 
it right the first time, and promotes meaningful competition 
among providers of all types.
    So, with that in mind, this farm bill is not the time to 
move the program, and the rural Americans it serves, backwards. 
When the Federal Government helped to provide telephone, 
electric, and water infrastructure in rural America in the last 
century, we didn't set lower standards. We ensured that rural 
Americans did not become second class citizens, and it was an 
investment that has paid off many times over, as we have the 
strongest rural economy in the world. Second, close 
coordination with Federal and state agencies is essential. 
There are enough un- and underserved Americans awaiting 
connectivity to not waste precious resources overbuilding 
government-supported networks with government funds.
    Third, we urge policymakers to look local when it comes to 
identifying broadband solutions in rural America, and to 
leverage the expertise and the experience of smaller community-
based providers, regardless of their corporate form, in 
overcoming these challenges. NTCA service providers are based 
in their communities and have a longstanding relationship and 
track record of performance. It is a very different measure of 
customer service when you are running into your customers in 
the grocery store. Last, the Committee should consider ways to 
streamline historical preservation requirements and 
environmental reviews that often result in significant delays. 
In fact, we still have members who were notified of winning 
ReConnect Round 1 who have yet to receive their funding due to 
these delays.
    I also want to take this opportunity to thank Members of 
the Committee, Representatives Nunn and Craig, and other 
cosponsors for introducing the ReConnecting Rural America Act 
(H.R. 4227), which would ensure networks continue to be built 
at 100 symmetrical, agency coordination is strengthened, there 
is a level playing field with those local providers with a 
proven track record being strongly urged to participate. And I 
also want to thank Representative Feenstra for his recently 
introduced Rural Broadband Modernization Act (H.R. 3964), which 
includes many of these same very important provisions.
    I thank the Committee for its leadership. We still clearly 
have much work to do, in both deploying networks where they 
remain lacking, and operating networks where they are already 
built, and this is where this Committee plays a really 
important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in 
rural markets that could not otherwise justify such 
investments. With the RUS programs, you help to provide the 
tools that not just help rural America survive, but to thrive. 
So I look forward to sharing more about what we can see on the 
ground, and what we are seeing on the ground, as NTCA's members 
continue to build smart rural communities, and to help fuel a 
needed rural renaissance. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, 
          NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, Arlington, VA
Introduction
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the 
Committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify 
about the continued role of the broadband programs overseen by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') as part of this Committee's review 
of the ``farm bill's'' rural development programs. With the help of 
these and other important broadband programs, NTCA members across the 
country deploy cutting-edge broadband networks in deeply rural areas 
and deliver services that are as robust and reliable as those available 
in urban markets. These providers stand ready both to help close the 
digital divide in areas beyond those that they serve today, and to 
sustain their good work to date in keeping millions of rural Americans 
connected to the rest of the world. Building upon such efforts, I 
greatly appreciate you holding this hearing and the opportunity to 
speak to you today.
    I am Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer of NTCA--The Rural 
Broadband Association (``NTCA''), which represents just over 850 
community-based companies and cooperatives that are leading innovation 
in rural and small-town America. NTCA members and companies like them 
offer broadband, voice, and other advanced communications services 
across more than thirty percent of the country's geography where less 
than five percent of the U.S. population resides. There is no question 
that small rural internet service providers are a critical part of the 
equation as we work to provide Americans with affordable and reliable 
internet services that will meet the needs of today and stand the test 
of time.
    Every day, NTCA members work hard to deliver for rural America. 
Their steadfast commitment to serving the communities that they--and 
many of you--call home makes them America's trusted communications 
solution providers. On average, each member serves nine public safety 
entities (police, fire, etc.) and seven schools in their areas with 
fixed broadband. NTCA members have worked for decades to invest in our 
nation's future by deploying essential state-of-the-art communications 
infrastructure. Over eighty percent of their customers on average have 
access to 100 Mbps broadband service or better. Over sixty percent of 
their customers on average have access to Gigabit speeds. These 
accomplishments are staggering when you consider that the average 
population density in these areas is about seven customers per square 
mile, or roughly the average density for the entire state of Montana.
    The Rural Utilities Service (``RUS'') within USDA has played a 
significant role in enabling much of this deployment to date, and it is 
uniquely positioned to close the digital divide for the benefit of 
millions of still-unserved Americans--and it should be tasked with 
doing so in a way that will ensure that divide stays closed. As Members 
of this Committee assess how best to structure broadband funding 
programs, success in broadband programs should be measured by results 
rather than promises, and we should all note that what matters most to 
rural Americans is not the mere deployment of the network but the 
quality of the services they receive. Some programs in recent years 
have offered the promise of better broadband, with announcements 
asserting that tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans will be 
connected to broadband at some point in the future due to Program X or 
Initiative Y. Some of these programs will undoubtedly deliver on that 
promise in coming years, at least in part and in certain places. But 
NTCA submits that the best proofs of concept can be found--and the best 
lessons drawn for future program design--by looking at which programs 
have in fact already delivered on the promise of reliable and sustained 
broadband access in rural areas.
NTCA's Experience With RUS Broadband Programs
    RUS telecommunications and broadband loans and grants have helped 
enable and unleash billions of dollars in Federal and private capital 
investment in rural communications infrastructure. A mix of local 
presence and commitment, entrepreneurial spirit, private capital, 
public capital through RUS financing programs, and ongoing support 
through the high-cost universal service fund (``USF'') programs 
overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') have 
empowered NTCA members and other community-based providers like them to 
deploy reliable networks and offer robust and affordable services 
across wide swaths of rural America.
    NTCA members have been the recipients of a number of RUS loans and 
grant awards through programs such as the ReConnect program, the Rural 
Broadband program, Distance Learning and Telemedicine grants, and the 
Telecommunications Infrastructure program. Through ReConnect alone, 159 
NTCA members have been awarded grants or grant and loan combinations to 
serve approximately 441,000 households, 21,000 businesses, and 14,000 
farms.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.usda.gov/reconnect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NTCA recommends that Congress approach proposals for new broadband 
programs with a thoughtful eye and a preference for leveraging proven 
concepts such as many of these prior efforts. In lieu of creating new 
initiatives that might compete or even conflict with existing efforts, 
Congress should consider how well-functioning existing programs, like 
many of those listed above, can be enhanced and expanded to achieve 
even better results and reach remaining unserved areas with service 
levels that meet the needs of users both immediately and over the life 
of the network that the Federal Government is helping to fund.
The Case for High-Speed Internet Access in Rural America
    While broadband has value universally, it is especially important 
for rural Americans who often must rely even more than their urban 
counterparts on online access given the challenges of distance and 
density. From telehealth, remote work, distance learning, and precision 
agriculture, the opportunities for rural Americans are substantial when 
given the ability to access high-speed, reliable internet services.
    For example, telemedicine can play a crucial role in bridging the 
gap between veterans and the Veterans Affairs system by providing them 
with seamless access to telehealth services, virtual consultations, and 
online resources, ensuring timely and convenient healthcare support 
regardless of their geographical location. Nearly a quarter of the 
United States veteran population resides in rural communities, 
underscoring the importance of leveraging connectivity to deliver 
critical services over great distances.\2\ In fact, the Veterans Health 
Administration, which has long been a pioneer in the use of 
telemedicine, conducted a pilot program which included seven hospitals, 
ten multi-specialty outpatient clinics and 28 community-based primary 
care clinics. The 900 patients in the trial were able to utilize home 
telehealth devices, which allowed them to self-manage their health. The 
results were dramatic: a 40% reduction in emergency room visits, a 63% 
drop in hospital admissions and an 88% decrease in nursing home bed 
days of care. While the total cost savings resulting from the dramatic 
decrease in resource utilization was substantial, perhaps even more 
impressive was the 94% patient satisfaction.\3\ High-speed internet is 
not just a luxury; it is a lifeline for rural America, bringing greater 
telemedicine functionality and helping residents overcome the 
challenges of distance that make so many tasks more expensive and time 
consuming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Rural Veteran Health Care Challenges.'' Veteran Affairs: 
https://www.ruralhealth.va.gov/aboutus/ruralvets.asp.
    \3\ Broderick, Andrew, ``The Veterans Health Administration: Taking 
Home Telehealth Services to Scale Nationally,'' The Commonwealth Fund 
Case Studies in Telehealth Adoption, Jan. 2013, http://
www.commonwealthfund.org//media/Files/Publications/Case%20Study/2013/
Jan/1657_Broderick_telehealth_adoption_VHA_case_study.pdf, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, one of the most difficult challenges facing rural America 
is keeping younger generations from moving away or ultimately helping 
them to come back home. However, thanks to the unique opportunities of 
teleworking and remote learning, many parts of rural America are seeing 
positive growth. Technology is shaping the next generation of American 
jobs. Manufacturing, agriculture and health care are among sectors that 
are demanding more highly-skilled employees than in the past. Increased 
training and education opportunities are imperative for many rural 
areas that face demographic and economic challenges. In rural areas, 
broadband can be used to support secondary and post-secondary education 
and training: broadband-enabled services can be used to overcome 
instances in which small or insular areas lack sufficient economies of 
scale to support interest in advanced or specialized courses.
    Rural broadband providers are playing vital roles, leveraging their 
networks and working closely with local educational institutions. For 
example, Rainbow Communications of Everest, Kansas, provides fiber 
connectivity to Highland Community College, the oldest college in the 
state. The network enables the college to offer numerous courses at 
various sites. The college also supports the agricultural industry 
through courses that include precision agriculture and diesel 
mechanics; both are necessary as farms rely increasingly on precision 
agriculture that blends traditional mechanical equipment with 
analytical tech and GPS guided systems.\4\ Meanwhile, in Alaska, the 
arrival of a submarine cable line allowed for one family to move back 
to its hometown while allowing the parents to retain their current jobs 
that required access to high-speed internet. This increased 
connectivity also provided their children with the ability to 
participate in classes and coursework that were not offered at the 
local school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``Rural Broadband and the Next Generation of American Jobs.'' 
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association: https://www.ntca.org/sites/
default/files/documents/202103/SRC_
whitepaper_the_next_generation_of_american_jobs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of course, while substantial distances in rural areas make 
broadband access a necessity for many aspects of life, there may be no 
more uniquely rural application for high-performing broadband than 
precision agriculture. Precision agriculture has revolutionized farming 
practices and enhanced the overall agricultural landscape. By 
leveraging advanced technologies such as GPS, drones, sensors, and data 
analytics, precision agriculture enables farmers to make informed 
decisions based on real-time information, leading to increased 
productivity, resource efficiency, and sustainability. In rural areas 
where farming is a vital economic activity, precision agriculture 
offers immense benefits. The value of precision agriculture is conveyed 
effectively when agriculture is viewed as a business of logistics. Row 
and specialty crops are particularly suited to tech-enabled efficiency 
during planting and cultivation that enable farmers to harvest and 
deliver product to market at peak times. Precision agriculture also 
facilitates better future planning. Visual inspection of crop 
development (either by surface imaging or drones) combined with sensors 
that assess soil conditions can help farmers create a forward-looking 
plan of action. Or, in one instance, an NTCA member's customer in South 
Dakota uses a live-video feed in a calving barn to monitor newborn 
calves and mothers from the comfort of home.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``From Fiber to Field: The Role of Rural Broadband in Emerging 
Agricultural Technology.'' NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association: 
https://www.ntca.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021-07/
06.14.21%20SRC%20Ag%20Tech%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the President of the Missouri Farm Bureau aptly observed during 
a hearing hosted by this Committee last September, ``Truly the farm of 
the future has to be connected . . . with at least 100 [symmetrical]. 
It's what we need to be shooting for. My rural hospital says the same 
thing, they need a hundred up, a hundred down in order to do 
telemedicine in a way that is truly a good experience for the provider 
as well as the patient.'' \6\ These broadband-enabled benefits combine 
to serve greater economic efficiencies and opportunities for the 
agriculture industry as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See, https://agriculture.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=7426 at minute 2:48:00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Future-Proof Networks
    With billions of dollars and millions of unserved Americans at 
stake, it is prudent and responsible for the Federal Government to 
invest taxpayer resources based upon more than speculation as to 
potential performance, marketing hype, and overstated claims of 
capability not borne out of real-world applications throughout rural 
America. The minimum speed and other performance criteria for receiving 
Federal funding must be determined by the needs of rural consumers and 
not set by the maximum capabilities some in the industry feel they can 
offer. With so much on the line in terms of dollars and unserved 
customers, this is not the time to award participation trophies. 
Setting standards is not a matter of technological neutrality--it is a 
matter of public interest and fiscal responsibility.
    To keep pace with consumer demand, the minimum speed for eligible 
projects administered by USDA to receive funds should be set at 100/100 
Mbps--just as was the case in Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Loan and 
Grant Program. It has been argued that the 100/100 Mbps minimum speed 
threshold is too high and that it may prevent certain providers from 
applying for the program. However, during Rounds 3 and 4, the program 
was oversubscribed by four to five times, proving that more than enough 
providers are willing and able to build the kinds of networks that 
consumers need today and well into the future.
    While some will argue that such an approach is not ``technology 
neutral'' and that this would favor fiber, we have seen providers and 
manufacturers of technologies of all kinds proclaim the ability to 
deliver services at these speeds or even higher, and providers that 
prevailed in the FCC's USF auctions similarly pledged that they could 
use technologies of all kinds to deliver even Gigabit speeds--so it is 
unclear why some feel as if demanding this minimum level of performance 
would now somehow shut them out.\7\ Moreover, it is not a violation of 
technological neutrality merely to set high standards and 
expectations--the public interest and fiscally responsible use of 
government funds demands nothing less. It is true that not all 
technologies are equally capable in all cases, and it does not violate 
a principle of ``technological neutrality'' to take stock of and 
account for the relative attributes and limitation of different 
technologies as demonstrated in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See, e.g., https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gigabit-6-
ghz-fixed-wireless-is-a-reality-301553129.html and https://
www.fiercewireless.com/tech/tarana-provides-1-gig-speeds-its-fixed-
wireless-access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, while many NTCA members have experience leveraging 
fixed wireless technology to serve end-users in hard-to-reach areas, 
the consensus with respect to such services among these members is that 
even as they may offer a means of initiating service, they are less 
desirable as long-term solutions to overcome the digital divide (which, 
as the title of this hearing suggests, is what programs like ReConnect 
should aim to achieve). In addition to interference and other 
reliability issues that can affect unlicensed spectrum specifically, 
fixed wireless networks require relatively clear lines of sight and 
other optimal conditions to realize their potential. Technologies that 
rely upon high-band spectrum in particular can be difficult to 
implement in rural areas given limited propagation over great 
distances. Finally, spectrum capacity can present a substantial issue, 
as the more users that place demands on a cell site or antenna can 
degrade the experience of the other users sharing that capacity. Put 
another way, just because certain technologies can perhaps be used to 
serve anyone does not mean they necessarily can serve everyone at a 
sustained level of performance--which is the essential long-term 
objective of sound universal service policy.
    To be clear, wired and wireless facilities are necessary to support 
the full complement of ag tech solutions. Therefore, the collective 
interest of the ag and tech industries, alongside policymaker interest 
in supporting U.S. farm markets and expanded broadband deployment, 
should drive actions to develop and maintain robust future-proof 
scalable broadband networks that can enable wired and wireless 
solutions alike.
    Some will also claim that consumers do not need 100 Mbps 
symmetrical services, and we should therefore build lesser networks 
leveraging government dollars. But the marketplace indicates that 
consumers--your constituents and our members' customers--already 
believe and expect otherwise. Ookla, the global speed test provider, 
reported average U.S. fixed broadband speeds of 179/65 Mbps in January 
2021--which means the ``build-to'' speeds that some in the industry are 
advocating for now (100/20 Mbps) were outdated more than 2 years ago. 
It is predicted that the average U.S. fixed broadband speeds will be 
1,500/599 Mbps by 2030.\8\ In other words, anything less than 100/100 
Mbps is outdated and even this speed threshold may soon be surpassed, 
which is why treating it as a minimum standard that can evolve over 
time as new awards are made is a sensible and pragmatic approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ``Eliminate the Digital Divide in Rural North America with 
Fiber.'' The Fiber Broadband Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A letter addressed to this Committee on March 14, 2023, underscores 
the robust support by rural stakeholders of all kinds--county 
governments, educational institutions, electric utilities, rural 
broadband providers, health care providers, economic development 
organizations, and banking institutions--for robust symmetrical 
broadband. In addition to NTCA, the following organizations signed onto 
that letter:

 
 
 
National Rural Electric Cooperative  Rural Community College Alliance
 Association
Fiber Broadband Association          National Rural Telecommunications
                                      Cooperative
National Association of Counties     Farm Credit Council
National Association of Development  CoBank
 Organizations
National Rural Health Association    National Cooperative Business
                                      Association
National Rural Economic Developers   National Utility Contractors
 Association                          Association
The Power and Communication          Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative
 Contractors Association
National Rural Education
 Association
 

    These stakeholders represent a broad cross-section of entities with 
a vested interest in the vitality and long-term viability of rural 
America, and their constituencies are at the heart of the communities 
that are intended to be benefit from the farm bill.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``100 Symmetrical ReConnect Coalition Letter.'' March 13, 2023. 
Letter. https://www.ntca.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06/
100SymmetricalReConnectCoalitionLetter.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would again encourage this Committee to make sure program 
requirements are driven ultimately by the long-term needs of rural 
communities. I would also encourage this Committee to avoid the 
mistakes of too many broadband programs past, where 4/1 Mbps or 10/1 
Mbps sounded like terrific ideas to build--only to find a few years 
later that we needed to start over because we had aimed too low. 
Indeed, if anything, Congress should view the 100 Mbps symmetrical 
threshold as a baseline, and give USDA the flexibility to increase this 
standard over time as needs and use cases for broadband evolve.
NTCA's Farm Bill Priorities
1. Meeting the Needs of Consumers Today and Tomorrow
    Federal broadband investments should support technology that can be 
readily upgraded to deliver the fastest speeds over the long-term life 
of the assets being built, rather than supporting technologies that may 
appear cheaper to deploy now but will be unable to provide meaningful 
internet access over time that keeps pace with consumer demand without 
the need to be substantially rebuilt (perhaps again at the expense of 
Federal dollars). To this end, the farm bill should support high-speed 
symmetrical broadband networks that offer a minimum of 100/100 Mbps 
speeds. As discussed above, this is a reasonable threshold that will 
ensure consumers realize the benefits of these investments backed by 
Federal dollars for years to come, while also promoting meaningful 
competition among providers of all kinds to seek to win such awards and 
serve these customers.
2. Identifying Eligible Areas
    Close coordination among Federal and state agencies is essential to 
avoid deploying duplicative government-funded broadband networks in a 
rural area that cannot support even a single network without such 
funding. The farm bill should specify the ways in which ReConnect funds 
will interact with funds already awarded under other programs; 
specifically, ReConnect funds should not be awarded to any provider in 
an area where a different provider is already the recipient of: (a) an 
RUS telecom program loan or grant (so that the agency does not put at 
risk its own prior committed awards); (b) support from Federal 
universal service programs that is being used to deploy 100/20 Mbps or 
better service (so that RUS does not undermine the FCC's important 
sustainability initiatives); and/or (c) an award under any other 
Federal or state broadband grant program where the recipient is 
obligated to deliver 100/20 Mbps or better service and is meeting those 
obligations.
    Relatedly, to ensure that broadband deployment funds are targeted 
to where they are most needed, an area should not be deemed eligible 
for ReConnect funding unless 90% of locations in that area lack at 
least 100/20 Mbps service. To be clear, networks built in eligible 
areas should be required to meet a minimum threshold of 100/100 Mbps 
speeds as noted above--in other words, 100/100 Mbps should be 
considered the minimum of what to build. But using 100/20 Mbps as the 
criterion for determining where to build--what areas will be considered 
unserved--will help in making the most of government broadband funding 
and bringing as many Americans as possible up to better standards of 
service.
3. Project Delays After Notice of Awards
    The 2023 Farm Bill should address historical preservation 
requirements and environmental reviews that often result in significant 
delays between notice of awards and receipt of the funds necessary to 
commence construction. While RUS can take certain steps on its own to 
mitigate such delays to some degree by, among other things, allowing 
providers to work toward seeking approval of environmental and 
historical reviews prior to an award, Congress should consider other 
means of streamlining network deployment while still providing 
reasonable protections for important historical and environmental 
concerns that apply in certain contexts. We appreciated the opportunity 
to testify before, and the recent work by, the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee regarding bills to address broadband-related 
permitting delays, and NTCA is supportive of that legislation. We 
encourage this Committee, however, to consider additional means of 
providing relief specific to deployments pursuant to USDA and RUS 
programs, including promoting programmatic agreements and evaluating 
other measures that the agency could implement to streamline 
preservation reviews and environmental clearances.
4. Matching Funds
    The farm bill should make clear that providers receiving grants 
need not spend matching funds in full prior to drawing down grant 
funds. The obligation to expend all matching funds prior to receipt of 
any grant resources is onerous and unnecessary to ensure providers have 
``skin in the game'' with respect to grant-funded deployment. 
Consideration should also be given, as it has been in the Broadband 
Equity, Access, & Deployment program, to reducing the need for matching 
funds in deeply rural areas that often present the most significant 
economic challenges to serve.
5. No Provider Preference Based Upon Corporate Structure
    The farm bill should codify that providers seeking grants or other 
funding will not be favored based merely upon their form of 
organization or commercial status. Providers of all kinds should be 
allowed to apply to programs on a level playing field where they can 
meet the substantive standards for doing so.
Conclusion
    In an era of transformative technological developments, regulatory 
challenges, and marketplace competition, NTCA members are advancing 
efforts to close the digital divide by delivering robust and high-
quality services over networks that are built to last. Their commitment 
to building sustainable networks makes rural communities fertile ground 
for innovation in economic development, e-commerce, health care, 
agriculture and education, and it contributes billions of dollars to 
the U.S. economy each year. The rural broadband industry and our nation 
as a whole can tell a great story of success to date in delivering 
service, but we still clearly have much work to do both in deploying 
networks where they remain lacking and operating networks where they 
have already been built--and this is where public policy plays an 
important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in rural 
markets that would not otherwise justify such investments and ongoing 
operations.
    I thank the Committee for its leadership on and interest in these 
issues, and I look forward to working with you on behalf of NTCA 
members and the millions they serve to realize a shared vision of a 
rural America that gets and stays connected.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Bloomfield, for your 
testimony, and thank you all for your important testimony 
today. At this time Members will be recognized for questions in 
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority 
Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after 
the hearing convened. You are going to be recognized for 5 
minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions 
as possible. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Matheson, as you know, USDA is the prime agency to help 
address the needs of rural America, including access to high 
quality, broadband connectivity. Since the early 2000s USDA has 
received billions of dollars to accomplish this goal, with 
thousands of projects receiving Federal funding. Do you believe 
that USDA is best suited to address the rural connectivity 
issues?
    Mr. Matheson. Well, clearly the other agencies are 
involved, like the FCC and NTIA, as has been mentioned, but I 
do think USDA is uniquely positioned to be an important voice 
in this circumstance because USDA, number one, understands 
rural America, and the Rural Utilities Service specifically 
understands what it takes to provide utility services in these 
very expensive, hard to serve parts of our country. I think 
that makes the program work better. I think USDA's 
participation in broadband deployment has had an effect where 
it has moved other Federal agencies to be more aggressive than 
they might otherwise have been. I think USDA has been a leader 
in pushing for better speeds, better requirements, and so I 
wholly endorse RUS being active in rural broadband development, 
and I think that perspective is very valuable to rural America.
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you for that. Mrs. 
Bloomfield, Mr. Zumwalt, do you share similar views?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. My members have long used RUS as their 
primary banker, actually. So, when I think about an agency that 
has really taken on the mantle of broadband, RUS was actually 
an early leader in funding a lot of the network and 
infrastructure that we see across the country. And, just 
playing upon Mr. Matheson's remarks, the other thing is the 
agency has general field reps that are out in the field. So, 
when we talk about what are the speeds, what are the demands, 
what the community's needs are, they actually have folks in the 
field who are verifying where is the infrastructure, where is 
the infrastructure not yet to be built? So I also think they 
have made the wise use of some of the investments.
    We certainly have other Federal programs that are in place, 
we have state programs that are in place, but I think RUS has 
been very diligent, and has probably been the early leader in 
ensuring that rural America has connectivity.
    The Chairman. Very good, thank you. Mr. Zumwalt, thoughts?
    Mr. Zumwalt. Most of our members have had success in other 
programs besides the RUS programs, although some are 
participating. I would agree that USDA is the proper place for 
this activity because of a longstanding history that USDA has 
representing the interests of farmers and our agricultural 
community. But as precision ag, in particular, comes into the 
forefront, our members are wanting to participate more. 
Historically, RUS has tended towards established players in the 
cooperative industries, for example, so what we would be 
looking for is to certainly encourage USDA to continue to work 
closely in collaborating with the other agencies. For example, 
the FCC National Broadband Map is important in making sure that 
we don't have overlapping funding programs at a Federal level 
trying to serve the same need from different directions.
    But I have experience with RUS as well, and my feedback 
would be anything that we can do to broaden the inclusion of 
any solution, any provider that can close the digital divide, I 
think USDA can do that, and so absolutely support efforts to do 
that.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Assey, according to a December 
2022 GAO report, some stakeholders have expressed concern 
regarding the ability of the broadband infrastructure 
deployment industry to attract enough workers needed to deploy 
broadband infrastructure, and I have also heard this concern as 
rural America continues to face a lack of skilled workers in 
key sectors, including telecommunications. Given the influx of 
Federal funding for broadband infrastructure, what can we do to 
strengthen private workforce development opportunities and grow 
labor opportunities for those in this sector?
    Mr. Assey. Yes, I think that you have put your finger on an 
issue that affects anybody who is in the communications network 
building arena, and it really goes to where we stand today, at 
the precipice of a major initiative to extend networks. It is 
one of the things that many of the companies that I represent 
are in the business of doing this on a day in, day out basis. 
Whether or not they are applying for government support or not, 
it is important for them to have a skilled workforce to be able 
to extend, upgrade networks on a regular basis. So, we work 
with private industry groups to make sure there is workforce 
certification and development.
    But there is no question that we are going to need more 
people if we want to advance rapidly in building networks, and 
we are going to be competing in a labor pool for workers that 
are going to not just be building communications networks, they 
are going to be building roads, bridges, other sorts of things 
too. So it is certainly something that we welcome working with 
this Committee, and others in Congress, to try and improve.
    The Chairman. Thank you so much. My time has expired. I am 
now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, the 
Ranking Member, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lady 
and gentlemen, as I mentioned in my opening statement, since 
the Rural Electrification Act (Pub. L. 74-605) in 1936, the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture has been the only Federal 
department with the primary mission to serve rural America. And 
with their presence in rural communities across our country, 
they are, in my opinion, the best equipped to meet the needs of 
rural communities. However, out of the $65 billion that we 
provided through bipartisan infrastructure investment, only $2 
billion was provided for USDA's Rural Development broadband. 
And also, in the bipartisan legislation that Chairman Thompson 
and I passed through the Committee last Congress, we will 
invest $43.2 billion in the Rural Development broadband 
programs to reach the most underserved rural areas.
    And so, to each of you, I got this important question. 
Could you tell us the importance of giving the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture the leadership role in deploying broadband to 
rural America, and also what, in your opinion, level of 
financial resources will be necessary for rural communities to 
access Federal funding, and to meet our collective goal of 
expanding broadband service to 100 percent of rural America? 
Each of you, please. Mr. Matheson, we will start with you and 
go down.
    Mr. Matheson. Okay.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And after you, the lady, so we 
can get----
    Mr. Matheson. Okay. Look, to expand on what I previously 
said about the value of the Department of Agriculture 
perspective, they know rural America, they prioritize issues 
that matter to rural America in their broadband funding, in 
terms of rurality or low population density. That is one of 
their criteria they look at. Look, this is important for these 
rural areas. Let us put this out there. Internet service 
matters, affordability matters. America's electric cooperatives 
serve 92 percent of the persistent poverty counties in America, 
so investments in broadband for these counties that have 
persistent poverty, it is an opportunity for economic 
development to mean something, in terms of looking forward in 
the future. I think the Department of Agriculture has the right 
perspective to do this.
    Look, there is a lot of other money you mentioned, Mr. 
Scott, in terms of programs.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. I get that, and we are going to pursue all 
those opportunities, but we are glad RUS has an important role.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Mrs. Bloomfield?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Thank you very much. I think that USDA 
understands rural America like nobody else. No other Federal 
agency understands the needs on the ground, and how important 
connectivity is for rural Americans, who, frankly, suffer from 
the handicap of distance, whether it is to education, medical 
services, whether it is tools for precision ag. So, there is no 
other agency that is more in tune to what rural America 
actually needs. But that is one of the reasons why I think they 
have taken a leadership role, and, frankly, set a higher 
standard for service than other agencies, and any of these 
other programs have, in part because they know that rural 
Americans really do need these services.
    We saw during the pandemic how people used internet and 
broadband for all of the different reasons that they did, but I 
still see--I look at companies like Pineland Telephone 
Cooperative down in Georgia, that, frankly, today all of their 
customers have symmetrical speeds because they know that that 
is the way people can utilize getting to market, doing the 
services they need, and, frankly, make sure that we continue 
economic development. So, USDA has been primarily focused on 
really how to best serve rural America, so I think they are a 
very critical player.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And, Mr. Stroup?
    Mr. Stroup. Thank you. Thank you. Unlike most of the other 
representatives here, our infrastructure is deployed in space, 
and so there is no further cost associated with covering rural 
America. The service that you get is comparable between cities, 
between rural America. So, really, the additional funding would 
be made available for access to Earth stations, to consumer 
equipment. But, I definitely feel that USDA has an important 
role to play. I would also like to emphasize the point that Mr. 
Zumwalt made previously, which is the need for coordination 
between the other funding organizations. Thank you.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So, the entire panel, my time 
has passed, but it is important that each of you do agree that 
the United States Department of Agriculture is the one best 
suited to lead and coordinate the effort. Is that correct?
    Mr. Zumwalt. Yes.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Rouzer [presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Rouzer. I recognize Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Bloomfield, 
talking about long-term, we know what it looks like now, we 
know what broadband looks like currently, and USDA's role in 
that. How do you think Congress should help to ensure that we 
are looking long-term, meeting the needs of consumers, 
specifically with regard to broadband deployment loan and grant 
programs?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So, I think the Committee has really taken 
a forward look, so I really appreciate your asking that 
question. I think we get really wrapped up in capital expenses, 
so what does it cost to actually build the infrastructure? And 
I think one of the other reasons we are very bullish about 
different technologies--it is going to take every tool in the 
toolkit, but definitely focused on fiber deployment where 
possible. Because of the fact that in a rural area, for 
example, at the end of the day your op-ex (operation-expenses) 
becomes lower it means--we have a thing in rural America, when 
we provide service, that is called windshield time. Our techs 
have to drive 3, 4, 5 hours to get out to a home that has a 
troubleshoot. Using technology that will reduce those op-exes 
actually just makes these operations more efficient.
    The other thing is I think we are just on the cusp, in 
these rural areas, of actually seeing some of the services that 
really can transform lives, like telemedicine. And I think 
having that future-proof network, thinking forward, not just 
what we need today, but what we need tomorrow in those networks 
also makes a great deal of sense. The other thing I will say, 
when I look at how Americans are consuming broadband, the idea 
if you build something, that you have to go back in 3 years to 
upgrade, I think it will force all of us to look back and say 
we missed an opportunity to do it right the first time.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. From your perspective, what do you 
think is the best way to streamline coordination to avoid a 
duplicative process among the agencies? Things like 
overbuilding, bureaucratic holdups with other agencies. One of 
the things that I have heard--recurring theme from all of you 
all is that USDA is best positioned as the Executive agency, so 
I think that we can agree. But how do you harmonize that 
effort? Give me your thoughts on how we can reduce that.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. That is going to be the literally billion 
dollar challenge coming up. But that is where--and I know you 
have heard reference today to the maps that are coming out that 
the FCC produced. Congress appropriated $7 million to produce 
these maps. We are going to see the results in just a matter of 
days. I think making sure that every agency, as they are 
rolling out funds, as USDA is making an award in an area, that 
those areas get taken off those maps, that they show as served, 
so that we continue to make sure that we are really focused on 
the unserved.
    That really needs to be a priority, that those who are 
waiting for connectivity get it, then those who are 
underserved, and then those who, filling in some of those other 
gaps. So, I would say the mapping is going to be key. I know 
that there are ongoing discussions. I know that USDA and the 
Secretary have been very engaged in coordinating, but that 
coordination is going to become even more necessary in 2024, 
when the BEAD money starts to flow out the door from NTIA.
    Mr. Crawford. I know you represent a lot of rural telecoms 
across the country, so could you give me some insights into how 
your member organizations have worked with USDA to sort of 
advocate for resource allocation for those projects?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So, they have been traditional borrowers 
since the telephone program was created decades ago. So, they 
traditionally had telephone loans, and obviously morphed very 
quickly into broadband because the need was so great in rural 
America. So, I think there are a couple of things that--one of 
the things that has really struck us is we think, through 
getting USDA to really take on that leadership mantle, has been 
some of the streamlining. Getting some of the reviews, and 
things like--when you have had previously disturbed areas, that 
you don't have to go through the regulatory process again, 
because USDA, just like every one of us, is looking for 
workforce. So they really don't have a lot of the staff that 
they need to actually process a lot of the funding.
    But I think, again, the leadership mantle that they have 
taken really comes through, and I think their long history in 
making business cases for putting money in low density parts of 
the country really speaks to their ability to kind of manage 
through where we go next on infrastructure.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. And real quick, Mr. Hurley, I want 
to talk about precision ag. I think that is relevant here in 
how broadband affects precision ag applications. What kind of 
policy changes do you think Congress should consider to help ag 
equipment manufacturers, for example, better meet the needs of 
rural America without leaving rural farming communities behind?
    Mr. Hurley. Yes. I think, in regards to a policy that needs 
to be implemented, programs, bills that need to be approved, we 
have really got three primary bipartisan pieces that we feel 
are critical to the further implementation of precision 
technologies across all of rural America, and that is the PAL 
Act (H.R. 1495), the PRECISE Act, and the Promoting Precision 
Agriculture Act of 2023 (H.R. 1697) as well.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you all for 
being here today.
    Mr. Rouzer. Mr. McGovern?
    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, and thank you all for being 
here today. This is an important topic. Access to high-speed 
internet is crucial for people to effectively do their jobs, 
participate in school, and access healthcare. And, 
unfortunately, far too many Americans still lack access, 
including 16 percent of Massachusetts residents, with a 
disproportionate number living in rural parts of my district. 
And I will say I am proud of the steps that we have taken over 
the last few years to close the digital divide, and we are only 
beginning to see the impact.
    For example, the bipartisan infrastructure law included the 
largest Federal broadband investment in our nation's history 
and will bring over $100 million to Massachusetts. The 
Commonwealth also received $145 million in the American Rescue 
Plan Capital Project funds to expand rural broadband, which 
will connect nearly \1/3\ of the homes and businesses currently 
lacking broadband. I am just glad that these funds were 
obligated in time and weren't part of the $27 billion clawed 
back during the debt ceiling debacle, but that is a whole other 
hearing.
    But, we have seen the most significant broadband 
investments in our nation's history over the past few years, 
and it is imperative that we approach the broadband provisions 
in the farm bill with great care. And, quite frankly, I have 
concerns about what I have heard from some who want to lower 
the standards for those receiving Federal funding to build-out 
our rural networks. Mr. Assey, I know that one of your members, 
Charter, has a large presence in rural parts of my district, so 
I will direct this question to you. There has been a lot of 
talk about future-proofing networks. Can you tell the Committee 
what you think that means, and if your members' networks are 
future-proof?
    Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think it is an 
important point, because when I think of future-proofing, I 
really think of--can networks grow with the society to meet 
their needs? Are they scalable? I think Mr. Matheson used the 
same word. So, the question is, are we going to be able to 
build networks that, without significant new capital 
investment, are going to be able to grow in the capabilities 
that they offer? And, without a doubt, the cable networks are.
    As I mentioned, 99 percent of the homes passed in rural 
America by cable networks already have 100 megabit per second 
speed capabilities, and we are fast moving on to the next 
iteration of cable technology, so-called 10G technology, that 
is going to offer the capability of multi-gigabit connections 
in both directions. So we are always trying to skate to where 
the puck is going to be, and we feel very confident that cable 
networks are future-proof.
    Mr. McGovern. So do you have any recommendations for how we 
can make sure that we are future-proofing broadband networks to 
make sure the internet speeds are fast enough for future speeds 
and uses?
    Mr. Assey. There is always going to be this balance between 
trying to pick a minimum level of performance that is forward-
leaning, and that will meet both the immediate and near-term 
needs, and there is always going to be a desire to ensure that 
the technologies and the platforms we pick can scale up to meet 
future capabilities. I think what we would worry about, are we 
picking standards in order to manage specific types of 
platforms that will discourage other types of solutions that 
may be better suited to particular environments or particular 
areas? So it is really a balance.
    Mr. McGovern. Yes, no, and look, I believe it is crucial to 
make sure that we take advantage of the historic levels of 
funding and ensure that it means connectivity that meets the 
needs of the future. It is clear that rural America has diverse 
needs, and we can't take a one-size-fits-all approach. Could 
you, or anyone expand on how we can connect unserved areas, 
while also increasing access for underserved communities?
    Mr. Assey. Yes. I think, when you are talking about 
unserved versus underserved, you are talking about the 
difference between communities that have no connectivity, or 
connectivity that is below 25 megabits per second, versus some 
that are above that. I think our concern is that the laws of 
economics always make the people most in need the last in line, 
and we need to orient our solutions so that we actually try to 
prioritize getting service to those who have been waiting for 
it for so long.
    Mr. McGovern. I just closed them out of time--I wanted to 
tell you--but I just want to add that we must not overlook the 
importance of affordability when expanding access. I mean, 
ensuring that people can afford broadband only services, once 
they become available. I think it is crucial if we are going to 
truly close the digital divide, but I am out of time. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
myself, in order of arrival. So a couple broad points here. 
Obviously, I am very grateful to have each of you before us 
today, and I appreciate your testimony very much. This is a 
very important issue. Connectivity is everything, whether it is 
healthcare, business, education. You can't do without it, and 
if you are doing without it, you are severely behind the curve, 
in terms of whatever the question may be.
    According to the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration Database, there are 80 broadband 
programs currently at the Federal level, including, dependent 
on how you want to count them, nine housed at the Department of 
Agriculture. We have had a lot of money flowing through a lot 
of different programs in recent years, multiple agencies, not 
to mention what individual states are doing as well. I think it 
is crucial we keep track of the areas where service is being 
implemented and where it is not, and why it is not.
    In North Carolina, for example, the North Carolina 
Broadband Infrastructure Office uses NC One Map, an open 
source, interactive, GIS mapping tool to visualize data 
collected by the state, as well as other resources, related to 
broadband availability and adoption, and other matters as well. 
So the question is--just gave you an example in North 
Carolina--how are Federal and state leaders overall keeping 
track of projects, both deployed and in the pipeline for 
deployment, to ensure underserved areas are addressed, and 
overbuilding doesn't occur? And I open that up for anybody.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So--thank you very much. We actually have 
a number of NTCA members in the State of North Carolina who 
participate both in the state program, but have also been big 
recipients of RUS. So your point on the coordination is really 
key, and I think that is going to be critical, as each state 
not only notes where some of the deployment is supposed to be, 
but also that we are coming back afterwards to ensure that any 
provider who is the recipient of Federal or state funding 
actually is able to show that they have actually lived through 
their commitment, because, if we don't have some type of 
oversight, if we don't have some type of verification on that, 
what we are going to see is those constituents, those consumers 
who were in those areas, are actually--that don't get service 
are going to be at the bottom of the line.
    So I think making sure that that coordination between state 
and Federal is going to be important, and I think that will be 
a focus of what NTIA is going to be doing with BEAD as well.
    Mr. Rouzer. Any other comment there?
    Mr. Zumwalt. Yes. Thank you. I think it is really important 
to keep in mind that the intent of these programs is to serve 
the unserved, and, so far, we are not getting there fast 
enough. This has to be a whole of nation effort, and it has to 
be one that incorporates every available technology to meet the 
need, instead of setting up a standard where existing networks 
can be overbuilt because we changed the standard by which we 
are going to measure whether they are served, or underserved, 
or what.
    And I think this is important because, as someone who has 
had experience actually running a wireless ISP, we delivered 
fiber and broad--and wireless services to roughly 10,000 
customers, and less than five percent of those ever asked for 
or required symmetric speeds from us. And this included 
government agencies, enterprises, academic institutions, 
residential customers, small businesses, and--I think I already 
covered enterprise.
    So when you actually look at download and upload speeds, if 
you are going to adopt that as the standards, you have to be 
careful because, generally speaking, the way that that is 
consumed is it is consumed much greater on the download than on 
the upload, and that is true across all of the WISPA membership 
as well. Thank you.
    Mr. Rouzer. I only have about 48 seconds left. To follow up 
on that, my experience with government is you have a lot of 
stove-piping. When I read there are 80 different programs, I am 
certain that one agency is not necessarily talking to the other 
agency. We will get into that later. Here is my final question, 
though. Technology changes rapidly. You could lose your shirt 
in broadband. Elon Musk says he will have the whole world 
covered in 3 years. I think I read that somewhere. Maybe a 
little bravado in that, but hey, technology changes. How do you 
balance the equation of financing technology, where the ball is 
going to be in the future? That is a big question for all of 
you.
    Mr. Zumwalt. Well, what we are seeing is that the total 
cost of ownership of a network is going to define what a 
carrier is actually willing to be doing. Now, if you are 
willing to subsidize operations and say we are going to give 
you a bunch of money to buy something for 30 years, perhaps 
they would buy something differently. But the market actually 
is a very effective source for determining what the best 
technology is to use in a time. And if you look at what the 
broadband carriers are doing, they all upgrade as demands 
change over time.
    Mr. Rouzer. Yes. My time has expired. I now recognize the 
gentlelady from North Carolina, and my friend, Ms. Alma.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
from North Carolina, and Ranking Member, for hosting this 
hearing on the digital divide, and for your opening remarks. I 
do want to thank the witnesses as well for offering your 
insights on this important topic. The digital divide and 
broadband equity are important to me because the constituents 
that I represent disproportionately shoulder the effects of 
this divide. The picture in Mecklenburg County in North 
Carolina's 12th District, where I represent, is a stark one.
    A recent estimate from the Center for Digital Equity found 
that 21 percent of Mecklenburg County households had, at best, 
dial-up speeds for their home internet, and 14 percent of 
households, almost 55,000 in number, had no internet at all. 
So, looking at the entire state, more than one million 
Carolinians are, in the words of our governor, ``On the wrong 
side of the digital divide.''
    It was especially revealing how disproportionately 
communities of color, especially African Americans, are 
suffering, especially at our HBCUs, our predominantly African 
American institutions, 1890s. There are 19 across the country, 
and we have one in North Carolina. The pandemic showed our 
communities how crucial dependable internet access is for 
education, for medicine, and for finding employment, so this 
hearing has been edifying in thinking about coordinated 
approaches to bring access to all.
    I have several questions for the panel, and any of you can 
answer this. As broadband continues to be deployed to unserved 
and underserved communities, how can we ensure that those 
within each community are actually able to afford high-speed, 
high quality services post deployment?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just take the first crack.
    Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. There is----
    Ms. Adams. Yes, you.
    Mrs. Bloomfield.--very important program called ACP 
(Affordable Connectivity Program), which is part of the 
Infrastructure Act that really ensures that those who are low-
income have access to connectivity. So one of the things that 
my carriers, and I am sure carriers across this table, are 
doing is working with their communities to basically get the 
word out to say, if you can't afford internet access, there is 
a Federal program that is available. Now, I will say I worry 
that this program is going to run out of funding in a year or 
2, but I think it has been really important, in terms of 
digital equity, and inclusion, and getting folks online. So 
there is a piece in place, it is already underway, and I think 
that most of the carriers probably represented here today are 
actively looking to get subscribers that you mentioned online.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. So could any of the others of you 
speak about how your associations, and the internet service 
providers within your associations, are focusing on addressing 
these disparities?
    Mr. Assey. We would echo what Ms. Bloomfield said. Our 
companies are committed to trying to make sure that all their 
customers can get access through ACP. We are working with many 
trusted digital navigators, civic organizations, to get the 
word out about this program, show people the full benefits of 
broadband, and we are committed to this cause.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Does anybody else want to comment? Yes, 
sir?
    Mr. Zumwalt. I would just like to add that, in addition to 
hoping for the continuation of ACP, which may or may not 
happen, if you look at the individual service provider 
performance, they are looking for a way to keep their costs low 
so that they can pass those savings on to their customers 
regardless of what level of assistance they have. And I think 
that that is really important, because for internet service 
providers who are active in their community, they understand 
their communities, they understand what the community can 
afford, and they want to be able to deliver broadband that is 
going to meet the needs of their communities by making sure 
that they have their own cost structures in line.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Let me--thank you very much. And let me ask anyone else, if 
you have--what, if anything, have you learned from the pandemic 
that Congress should focus on in this farm bill? If you give me 
just one thing, each of you? I have 40 seconds.
    Mr. Zumwalt. Serve the unserved first.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you.
    Mr. Assey. Agreed. Agree.
    Ms. Adams. All right. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Matheson. I think we make--we have learned the--it is--
broadband is so important to day to day life, we want to make 
sure we all have access, but it has got to be at the right 
speed, it has got to be scalable to the future it has got to be 
affordable.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Great. Yes, sir? Got two more people down there.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Agree.
    Ms. Adams. Agree.
    Mr. Hurley. Yes.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. So everybody is in agreement? Okay. I just 
certainly hope that we will take all these things into 
consideration, because these underserved communities are still 
not being served, and there is a lot we can do about it. Thank 
you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would note to our 
participants on the panel today--and, of course, Mr. Matheson 
has been through this process many times on both sides of the 
room--many times the discussions we have seem to be reinforcing 
constantly certain points of view, so let us go down that 
trail.
    As all of you know, the ReConnect Program was established 
through the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus, and the legislation 
provided USDA with authority to make grants, as well as loans, 
for construction of retail broadband networks in rural America. 
Since then the ReConnect Program has become the most funded 
broadband program in USDA, receiving almost $2\1/2\ billion. 
But because ReConnect was established with minimum program 
parameters, USDA has had broad discretion over how the rules 
should apply during each funding round. And this has caused 
each round of funding to consist of, sometimes, dramatically 
different standards and rules. So, as a sitting Member of the 
Committee, I note bringing this program under the 5 year farm 
bill gives this Committee to thoughtfully reform, and improve, 
and authorize this key broadband program.
    So, with that, I turn to the Committee to discuss--to the 
panel, I should say, to discuss what you would consider to be 
important program parameters that need to be put in place to 
ensure a more effective and consistent ReConnect Program. And 
in addition, what flexibilities need to be maintained or 
included to ensure rural consumer and business needs are met?
    And just before we start this, I punched the little test 
button, and I examined the access to broadband that I have at 
the teeny tiny efficient apartment I have here in D.C., 339 
upload speed and 306 download speed, but I noted that, on the 
test of my program at the farm in Roger Mills County, it was 5 
up and 5 down. It was a son of a gun trying to do Zoom calls 
during COVID on 5. Matter of fact, it didn't always work. So 
with that, I turn to the panel. You are getting the defined 
program coming in this farm bill. What should the parameters 
be, and what flexibility should be maintained? We are going to 
help you.
    Mr. Matheson. I will jump in. First of all, it ought to be 
in the farm bill. This was created through the appropriations 
process. It has created a lack of certainty and consistency in 
the program. I think bringing it into the farm bill----
    Mr. Lucas. And we are going to clean it up.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes. It--I think it'll be helpful for 
everyone involved to have more certainty and clarity going 
forward. You want to make sure that you are prioritizing 
minimum speeds and scalability for the future. You have heard 
future-proof used a lot in this discussion. Let us not forget, 
the last farm bill was only 5 years ago, 2018. Back then we 
were talking 25/3. So let us not continue to make a mistake of 
underestimating where the future is going, and that--it is hard 
to define it specifically, but scalability matters as well.
    Let us make sure that we also invest in middle-mile, I 
mentioned that in my opening statement. Backbone middle-mile 
matters a lot, in terms of the--participation for anyone else 
for that last mile to the end-user. And electric cooperatives 
invest a lot in middle-mile technology in terms of their 
electric utility operations, so it can be a great access to 
leverage for rural broadband to the end-user.
    Mr. Assey. I would say, first of all, with your experience 
with 5 down and 5 up, you are the paradigmatic case for the 
unserved, and one of the reasons why----
    Mr. Lucas. And, ironically, I am 1 mile from fiber, but it 
is a 1965 copper line between me and fiber.
    Mr. Assey. Yes. Well, you should be high up on the list for 
the next round of provider subsidies. I do think, as we do 
this, there are a couple things that we ought to focus on as 
well. One is to really try to change and modernize some of the 
eligibility rules at RUS. I think there is a historic--whether 
it is a historic artifact or not, a lot of the rules and 
processes in place that RUS uses are just not suited to the 
multiplicity of types of companies, including large established 
companies that offer service. And we ought to make it easier 
for people who want to participate in this program than harder.
    And, second, I think Congress really needs to give some 
guidance as far as what is a proper priority when we are 
scoring and evaluating projects. Things like experience of a 
provider, the performance of the network, the need of the area, 
that seems to be totally fine. But some of these priorities 
that have been adopted seem to be completely artificial, and 
designed more to steer a particular result rather than get 
performance to the areas of need.
    Mr. Lucas. I think the Chairman will probably tolerate one 
more answer on my behalf, if anyone else wishes to touch that.
    Mr. Zumwalt. I was just going to add that I think that it--
that the program needs to be technology-neutral, in the spirit 
of what the infrastructure Act called for. I think it needs to 
focus on serving the unserved, rather than adopting a 
technology. Most of our members are deploying fiber, so even 
though we represent wireless ISPs, we are very familiar with 
fiber. And the measurements that we take of customers all 
around the country suggest that most residential subscribers 
are not even using more than 50 megabits per second of 
download, even if they have gigabit delivery. So the speed 
tests that you run are not indicative of what you are actually 
using. So when you put in place a requirement for something, 
recognize that the requirement may not be what you are using 
now, or even need to use in the future.
    Mr. Lucas. My time is----
    Mr. Stroup. And if I may, very quickly, I can give you the 
names of at least three companies that can provide much faster 
service than you are receiving on your farm.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rouzer. I was going to say, Mr. Lucas, maybe you should 
call your Congressman.
    Mr. Lucas. Well, actually, the guy that owns the company 
was a year ahead of me in high school.
    Mr. Rouzer. Or better yet, call your two Senators. Ms. 
Spanberger?
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. I love the topic of broadband. 
I have been passionate about this issue since I first arrived 
in Congress in 2019, because I represent communities that have 
really experienced the divide. Just a few years ago the idea of 
universal broadband accessibility in Virginia seemed really far 
off, but now I am really proud to say that our Commonwealth, 
because of investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
the American Rescue Plan, Virginia is really within reach of 
this goal.
    And the district that I represent, it spans localities 
where we have suburban communities with easy access, and many 
rural communities that, over the years, have really known the 
hardships. It has been discussed, of course, that during COVID 
we saw what this divide was like, and even across 
superintendents, county to county, some were able to have Zoom 
classes for the students, and some were putting up mobile 
hotspots at the Food Lion parking lots because that is the way 
the kids were learning, and they were giving packets out, and 
that just shouldn't exist.
    But I know that we are on this, like, trajectory towards 
making the strides that need to be made. And we, in Virginia, 
have expanded access to millions of Virginians. In fact, and I 
will say this again, as a proud Virginian, we have been 
heralded as really a nationwide example for broadband internet 
expansion through what we have done correctly, Federal, state, 
local coordination, often through building partnerships, many 
times with rural electric co-ops, with wireless providers, and 
in the localities, really driven by the localities. So I am 
proud of the progress that we have made. There is more to do, 
but we are on our way to connecting 100 percent of Virginia's 
families, small businesses, farms, and students.
    And so, with that general frame--and you do not have to 
mention Virginia just to flatter me since I asked the 
question--are there examples of states that have done things 
right, from your vantage point, that while we are here looking 
at how to make sure that our Federal dollars are well utilized 
for the states and localities, are there examples that you 
would point us to as we are looking at how these programs are 
really, actually operationalized on the ground?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I will jump in, because I think Dr. 
Holmes, who runs the Virginia Broadband Office, is exemplary. 
But I think that is a key component, right, and we are entering 
a new era, because for the first time--there used to be a few 
states that had a broadband office.
    Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Virginia was early because you had some of 
the tobacco funding, and it has gotten very active.
    Ms. Spanberger. That is right.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. And you had Minnesota, you had Wisconsin, 
you had some of those out there. Now that we are entering this 
world of BEAD with NTIA, every state has to establish a State 
Broadband Office. That is part of the deal. They have to submit 
a plan. They have to show a plan by--I think in the next month 
or so--of how they are actually going to take all that Federal 
funding from BEAD and utilizing it. They then coordinate with 
NTIA. So you have a state person on the ground, you have NTIA 
here, and an NTIA person in each state.
    So I think utilizing the State Broadband Offices to help 
coordinate on the Federal front is going to be really 
important, because they are almost going to be the gatekeeper, 
as Federal funding comes from these different programs, and 
they are going to be looking at the Federal amounts that are 
released, in addition to their our state amounts, and really 
trying to very strategically fill in--where do you have those 
gaps, and where do you have those underserved gaps?
    So not just flattery, but Dr. Holmes is key, but I think 
each state now has the opportunity to meet that level. Some are 
just going to be a little bit more challenged, some are going 
to get mired down in politics, and that is most unfortunate. 
But I think we have a real opportunity with the fact that there 
will be a State Broadband Office in every state.
    Ms. Spanberger. Fantastic. Anyone else want to add to that? 
Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. I agree, and I think it really points to the 
value of coordination.
    Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
    Mr. Assey. What you have experienced in Virginia, really 
needs to be replicated at a much larger scale. It is going to 
be incredibly difficult; but, if we are looking at this as 
solving a problem, we need to all have a common understanding 
of what the problem is if we want to devote the resources to 
actually spending it. So I would say that coordination needs to 
happen at a much stronger level, not just at the Federal level, 
but also down into the state and the local level, and back up 
to the Federal level, so that we all are working to take 
whatever that number of unserved and underserved is and drive 
it down to zero.
    Ms. Spanberger. And certainly one of the things that we 
have seen on the ground is that flexibility in how those 
Federal dollars can be spent is incredibly important in 
allowing our state--again, our state offices to do good things. 
I am running out of time, but I just want to say thank you all 
for being here. Thank you for bringing your voices to this 
discussion, because it is so vitally important that we get this 
right, and that, in this farm bill, we ensure the investments 
we are making really help our communities across the board and 
add to what we have already done with prior legislation. So 
thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Miller, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Last Congress, I voted for 
bipartisan legislation to support rural broadband because it is 
a critical issue to our farmers and rural communities across 
the country. So several of my constituents had brought up that 
state mapping is better than Federal mapping, which is a little 
bit what you were talking about, but I just walked in here, so 
I don't know if I missed something. What suggestions, then, do 
you have to increase coordination among the Federal and state? 
Did you just answer that? Okay. Then----
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would be more than happy to.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I think the challenge process is going to 
be really important, because some states have gone ahead--and 
states are closer to the ground. They know--they are working--
one of the things each of these State Broadband Offices has to 
do is they have to do stakeholder meetings across the state, so 
they get a sense of what is going on there. But that is where I 
think challenges are going to be important. Whether it is a 
provider who says I have already got service here, and here is 
my speed, whether it is a consumer who says, this map shows I 
have broadband, and I actually don't. So I think there is going 
to be further refinement.
    The problem with the map is it is an evolving thing. You 
are--it is never static. So as soon as you finish it, it is 
actually out of date already. So I think staying on top of it 
is going to be very critical.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes. Does anybody have any other 
ideas on how to coordinate this between Federal and state and 
make it more efficient?
    Mr. Matheson. I think that is happening.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Good.
    Mr. Matheson. Look, the FCC maps are not perfect, but they 
are better than they used to be through this first round.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. The challenge process is going to continue 
to--it is--as Ms. Bloomfield said, this is an evolving process. 
You are never going to get perfection. But having state 
engagement on that process is going to be key to making the 
national maps better.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Also, I have heard from several of 
my constituents that broadband providers in their area are 
having trouble signing up for the USDA broadband programs. We 
were talking about how complicated it is. And have any of your 
members faced the same issue, and how do you think we can 
improve on the application process?
    Mr. Assey. We have experienced problems like that in the 
past. I mean, we have had issues where one company was 
organized as a partnership, and it wasn't eligible under the 
application rules that RUS was interpreting.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
    Mr. Assey. I think that got worked out, but there are a lot 
of--kind of these informal roadblocks that we face with a 
program that has traditionally been oriented to a very 
different profile of company than a large cable operator.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
    Mr. Assey. It is one of the reasons that--one of the things 
that we like in the--Representative Cammack's bill is really an 
opportunity to use the notice and comment process to really try 
to come up with alternative ways of demonstrating financial 
viability as companies, and to provide security interests that 
are different from what may have traditionally been used. 
Because it--this is all about getting qualified companies to 
want to come participate and that is what we ought to be aiming 
towards.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Right.
    Ms. Bloomfield, do you have--and then--sorry.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I think the programs are very competitive, 
which is great. The fact that you get four to five times the 
number of applications than you have funding for I think shows 
to the benefit of the program. I would say, USDA, and RUS in 
particular, have staffing needs. I think some of the biggest 
challenges are actually getting some of the permitting through, 
getting the process through USDA's pretty antiquated portal. So 
I think some of those things that can make the process more 
efficient would definitely help get the funding out there 
faster.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. That is great. Mr. Stroup, did you 
have a----
    Mr. Stroup. And my members would encourage that Congress 
specify that satellite and other service providers are 
eligible, and, despite the intention of legislation being 
technology-neutral, very often in the implementation phase, 
that is not how it plays out.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Mr. Matheson, we have heard 
from several stakeholders about the concerns regarding 
permitting on Federal lands within existing rights of way, 
which can take up to 3 years to get an approval. Can you talk 
about the experiences of your members with these agencies, and 
what can Congress do to help expedite this process, and ensure 
our eligible rural communities are getting connected?
    Mr. Matheson. Yes, this is clearly an issue. We have a 
specific member in Colorado that was experiencing--where they 
got funding through RUS, but then they had to cross BLM land, 
Bureau of Land Management land, and ran into a significant 
permitting delay, and the----
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. This is not new, that any committee in 
Congress has heard this, that when you have multiple Federal 
agencies that don't talk to each other, and you are the person 
trying to get the permit to get something done, it can be 
really frustrating.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. And so some of the steps that we are taking--
most recently, in the permitting reform for the debt ceiling 
Act (Pub. L. 118-5, Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023), are a 
step in the right direction. We need to keep that momentum 
going, however, in terms of creating appropriate time limits on 
the permitting process, but also the coordination across 
Federal agencies has got to be better than it is. It is just a 
question where the left hand and the right hand aren't talking 
to each other. And we have felt that specifically on Federal 
lands in the West.
    Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Did anybody else have a 
comment? Oops, I am out of time. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Scott. Access to high-speed affordable internet is no longer a 
privilege. It is a necessity for everyday work and life in a 
modern 21st century society. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how 
deep the digital divide cuts when everything from school, to 
business meetings, and doctor's appointments were moved online. 
This hit hard in communities like Cleveland, where almost \1/3\ 
of households lacked internet access. In fact, during the first 
weeks of the pandemic, Cleveland Metropolitan School District 
was unable to transition to remote leaning since almost \1/2\ 
of its students didn't have internet service at home.
    I know this is the same story that so many of our 
constituencies face, including those in rural districts. This 
is why accurate and detailed mapping of fixed and mobile 
broadband service is so important. If we are truly going to 
connect every American to the internet, we need to be able to 
target areas that have been left behind. So, Mrs. Bloomfield, 
to start, what should the Committee consider a minimum 
acceptable speed when evaluating if a household is serviced?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So I am going to go back to--I think that 
USDA has done it right with 100 symmetrical speed because, 
again, I think--I--it--I may have a different experience, but 
my members actually track what their customers use, and how 
they utilize it, and I will say that we see a huge demand from 
consumers. I have companies that I asked prior to this hearing 
who are telling me that 100 symmetrical is entry-level service. 
When you have five or six devices at one time working in a 
household, you need that bandwidth. So, again, as I think about 
this moment in time historically that we are at, to not utilize 
and look for that type of speed, we are missing an opportunity.
    I also think it is technology-neutral. For example, during 
the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, there were a 
number of fixed wireless providers that also said they had the 
ability to do 100 symmetrical, so we are not talking just about 
prioritizing fiber. We are saying that is the right speed, and 
that is what we should be building to ensure that, again, the 
capacity is met not just today, which we are seeing that demand 
for right now, but for 3, 5, 10 years from now.
    Ms. Brown. So that is the speed you would recommend we 
should aim for it to be future--ready in the future as well?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would say 100 symmetrical is important 
right now, yes.
    Ms. Brown. Okay. And what additional improvements and 
investments can we make on the Committee to ensure accurate and 
reliable maps? I know this is a--maybe a redundant question, 
but if you could speak to that, Mrs. Bloomfield?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Mapping is going to be really--that is 
going to be our--literally our roadmap, in terms of what we 
know about served and unserved. I actually have a map here that 
shows where 25/3 exists across the country. You see a lot of 
white spaces, particularly out West, and dotted throughout the 
country. But I think that the ability to make sure that we have 
a process in place--the FCC built the map. We are going to need 
to make sure that we continue to invest in that map, that we 
are constantly updating it, that every program that touches 
building broadband allows us to track not just where there is 
connectivity, but what is the speed? What is the technology?
    Ms. Brown. Yes.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Where are the providers? So I do think 
that is going to be an ongoing investment to ensure that future 
dollars go in the right places.
    Mr. Matheson. And if I could?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you.
    Mr. Matheson. We want the maps to be consistent over time. 
We have heard stories where people game it. Well, they may--
when the test is happening the speed looks good in that area, 
but that speed isn't consistent over time for people in that 
service territory. So the integrity of the map has got to be 
one where that speed exists all the time, not just in certain 
moments.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. The bipartisan infrastructure law 
established the Affordable Connectivity Program to provide 
targeted discounts for low-income households and Tribal 
communities. The most recent round of USDA ReConnect grants 
requires applicants to participate in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program to ensure that households are not only 
able to access internet but afford it as well. Now, for anyone 
on the panel, what additional measures can we take in this farm 
bill to improve the affordability and the reliability of high 
quality broadband?
    Mr. Assey. I think whether it is in this farm bill or 
separate and apart, I think continuing to strengthen and extend 
ACP support is important. And I would say it is important not 
just to help low-income families purchase affordable broadband, 
but it is really going to be important for infrastructure as 
well. When companies are deciding how much private capital they 
are willing to marry up with public funds in order to build to 
unserved areas, they have to make assumptions about, well, how 
many people are going to take to this service, how quickly?
    And being able to ensure that continuity of support I think 
is not only going to be important for people in downtown 
Cleveland, but it is going to be important for people in 
unserved areas as well.
    Ms. Brown. Anyone else?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would also jump in and say, ensuring 
that we have the resources to advertise about the program, and 
thinking about doing it in an unconventional way, as you can't, 
obviously, put it on the internet, because people don't have 
internet access.
    Ms. Brown. Right.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. But, what are you doing with local 
libraries, and local leadership, and municipalities to get the 
word out? I have a cooperative up in Minnesota that literally 
goes to their Tribal communities with a traveling van with 
applications, and they sit down, and they share with the Tribal 
residents how do you get online, what is the value of being 
online, and actually literally do the signups. Because our 
community-based providers have every incentive to have every 
member of that community online. It really speaks to the 
economic health of the community in the long run. So I think we 
have to think about how do you educate those who don't even 
know this program exists, and then we have to ensure there is 
funding for it going down the road.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Thank you for the courtesy, 
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding.] You are welcome. It is a pleasure 
to recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, it won't surprise anybody that when I 
was outside in the rain talking to some South Dakota 4-H kids 
right now, we were talking about rural broadband, because 
listen, it matters to this whole country. We all know that a 
network gains in value the larger the network is. You wouldn't 
want an internet that only lets Manhattan access Manhattan 
websites, right? So this is not just about helping rural 
America, this is really about helping us be one connected 
nation in the same way that rural electrification did that, in 
the same way the Interstate Highway System did that, in the 
same way Universal Service did that so long ago.
    And so I have a great friend on the panel today, Shirley 
Bloomfield, and so I thought we would just have a little bit of 
a colloquy here to tease out some of these issues surrounding 
speed. So, in your written testimony, Mrs. Bloomfield, you 
noted that Ookla--their study said that in 2021 the average 
broadband speeds in this country were 179/65. Am I remembering 
that right? And so your good friend and mine, Larry Thompson, a 
few years ago, when I was co-owner of a telecom engineering 
firm, had taught me about Nielsen's Law, which I think 
indicates that the user's broadband speed increases by 50 
percent a year, all other things being held equal. My 
understanding of that is roughly right, right?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson. And then I think in your testimony you talked 
about--you didn't mention Nielsen's Law because you are not as 
dorky as I am, but you did----
    Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson. That is right, exactly. You noted information 
that, consistent with Nielsen's Law, said that by 2030 
broadband speeds in this country will be 1,500/599. That is 
right, isn't it?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
    Mr. Johnson. The 1996 Telecom Act (Pub. L. 104-104, 
Telecommunications Act of 1996) had a provision we haven't 
talked about today, but to me it is fundamental to this whole 
conversation. And the provision in the Telecom Act, if I am 
remembering it right, Mrs. Bloomfield, is that service in rural 
areas, rates and service, must be ``reasonably comparable to 
those found in urban America.'' I am not wrong about that, am 
I?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. You are correct again.
    Mr. Johnson. And so in your testimony, in your close, I 
thought you really hit the nail on the head about making sure 
that we don't invest in networks delivering speeds that are not 
only antiquated today, but will be woefully antiquated in the 
years to come. And so--I mean, I have a couple more questions, 
but just--any finer points you want to put on that?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I think we haven't even touched the 
applications that we can be providing in rural America. One of 
the things NTCA does is we actually also provide healthcare to 
tens of thousands of rural Americans through a group health 
trust. What we are seeing in terms of telehealth, that--you 
can't do some of this diagnostic work. You can't--we have 
created virtual living rooms across the country for veteran 
care connecting VA, local, state to vets who live in rural 
America, which is a very high population of veteran community. 
You can't do the work that you need to do with telemedicine 
without utilizing some of those speeds, and we haven't even 
begun to see where the American demand will go.
    Mr. Johnson. And I have tremendous respect for the members 
of each of these organizations, and I do think that there is a 
role for everybody to play in getting American--America 
connected. So I understand the value of us talking about 
technology and neutrality, and I believe in that, but I don't 
want us to use the guise of being technologically-neutral to 
water down the standards that we need to build to.
    Now, the good thing is that doesn't need to cut anyone out, 
and I thought y'all's testimony did a good job of that. Mr. 
Matheson, you talked about the need for us to be building to at 
least 100 megabits per second. Of course, your members in this 
business are doing way more than that. Mr. Assey mentioned 
that--your members are routinely delivering over a gigabit per 
second. That is pretty robust. Mr. Stroup, you mentioned 
satellite can easily do 200 megabits per second. Mr. Zumwalt, 
with WISPS, you mentioned download speeds in excess of 1 
gigabit per second are possible. And so, by all means, let us 
make sure that we are technology-neutral, because there is a 
role for everybody to play. This is a real big country. We have 
a lot of people who need help.
    But Mr. Chairman, as we look toward this next farm bill, 
let us not water down the standards. If we are going to spend 
this nation's taxpayer dollars in continuing this unbelievable 
story of one America, connected, let us make sure that we are 
not investing in something that'll keep us connected for a 
year, or 2, or 5. These networks can be built to last a lot 
longer than that. Let us heed the words of Mrs. Bloomfield. Let 
us make sure we do it right. With that, I would yield back.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
back, and now I am pleased to recognized the gentlelady from 
Kansas, Congresswoman Davids, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing 
today. I mean, we have heard a lot about the need for high-
speed broadband networks to bridge the digital divide, to allow 
families and communities to access the--particularly rural 
communities to access those unique broadband needs. 
Telemedicine, of course, is in there, education. Technologies 
to support small businesses, and that includes our agriculture 
community. A bunch of the family farms that I know are not just 
in my district in the Kansas Third, but in the State of Kansas. 
And we are definitely seeing the need for that accessible, 
reliable, and affordable broadband access.
    And, I have a district with a good mixture of types of 
counties. I have three rural counties in the Kansas Third, and, 
similar to what we heard from Rep. Brown, in terms of metrics, 
up to 32 percent of the farms in those counties didn't have 
internet access, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture 
that took place, and that doesn't touch the upload/download 
speeds. That is just baseline access. I think that we have 
already heard quite a bit about the problems that can cause for 
our farmers and producers, much less for folks who are trying 
to utilize the vibrant ag technologies that are being 
developed.
    I think that, as we continue to try to figure out the best 
practices for working in coordination with rural communities, 
whether it is state, local, Federal, communities trying to stay 
connected, I think that what we see and have heard a lot about 
already is the--that idea of unserved, and what that looks at, 
and making sure that programs like ReConnect, or BEAD, or other 
Federal funding mechanisms aren't overlapping in a way that 
might impede our goal of internet access for everybody with 
maybe some overly restrictive definitions?
    I would love to hear from, like, the whole panel about 
whether you see there being a mechanism, or maybe a happy 
medium, I will call it, between this 50 percent or 90 percent 
definitions of unserved. How do we get to a place where that 
overbuilding, maybe, doesn't happen, but also that we aren't 
impeding our ability to stay on track to connect every 
community?
    Mr. Zumwalt. May I start with that?
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes.
    Mr. Zumwalt. I think the first and most important thing is 
to make serving the unserved the number one priority. Every 
other definition of underserved is going to be based on some 
understanding of speed, and so, if the speed standard changes, 
then you are going to find a lot of existing networks are going 
to be subject of rebuilding with Federal funds. And many of 
those networks were already built with Federal funds, or 
certainly with private capital, and so you have taxpayer money 
chasing taxpayer money not serving the unserved.
    Mr. Matheson. I think we need to be real careful on this 
discussion, though. This overbuilding is a lot more nuanced 
than I think some people describe it. And----
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. And let--let us be careful--if people have 
substandard technology and service, then that is substandard. 
And you are saying, too bad, you are stuck with what you got. I 
also think we have to be very careful about saying we only want 
to serve unserved, but underserved don't matter anymore. That 
is where I hear this it is good enough for rural America, and 
my members don't buy that. They expect to have the same service 
that people in urban areas have. So I understand there is a 
difference between unserved and underserved, but let us be 
careful about creating a false choice where we can only do the 
unserved, and all those folks with underserved are stuck with 
what they have, which are legacy investments that aren't 
meeting today's broadband needs in many cases, not in all 
cases.
    Of course we don't want to duplicate Federal funding where 
it is not providing an increase in service, but I think we have 
to be really careful, though, when we talk about overbuilding 
and underserved and unserved. I think it becomes too much of a 
simplistic description, and I encourage the Committee to take a 
more nuanced approach.
    Mr. Assey. I think we are just, though--I mean, I don't 
know that we are necessarily disagreeing. I think it is a 
matter of priority, as far as those that literally have 
broadband below 25/3 or nothing at all as being the people who 
have waited the longest for this technology to reach them. I 
think the problem that you touch on, which is when you are 
getting down to 50 percent of the homes have to be either 
unserved or unserved and underserved, is you are really saying 
that 50 percent of the homes could have 1 gigabit. And then you 
are starting to subsidize areas where private capital has 
already built out capabilities to this area.
    So you are not only interfering with the private investment 
that is trying to reach out into rural America, but you are 
also using scarce resources that ought to be going to the place 
that have nothing, or not good enough, and spending it to 
overbuild.
    Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And I can see that I asked 
a question that warrants quite a bit of feedback. Please, I 
would encourage you to submit written answers if you didn't get 
a chance to speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you so much. I now recognize 
Mr. Baird for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all 
of our witnesses for being here. This is a very important 
concept for our farm community, as all of you well know. When 
we have machinery that utilizes precision ag techniques and 
technology in order to improve the efficiencies on the farm, as 
well as fertilizer placement and pesticide placement and so and 
so, it is increasingly important that we have access to high-
speed internet, as you have talked--and I didn't hear all the 
discussion, but I am sure you went into that.
    So my question starts with--Mr. Matheson, in your testimony 
you talk about FCC's National Broadband Map, and that continues 
to show discrepancies between what the map displays and the 
realities on the ground as it relates to broadband 
connectivity. As you know, USDA entered to a memorandum of 
understanding, an MOU, with the FCC and the NTIA to share data 
on how each agency implements its broadband program, which 
includes mapping information.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes.
    Mr. Baird. So what can Congress do to strengthen this 
coordination so we can ensure our broadband maps protect rural 
communities, and prevent them from being further left behind?
    Mr. Matheson. Yes, that is a great question. Congress has 
already taken the steps to encourage improvement of these maps, 
and it is an evolving process. But, to the extent the FCC put 
out its first updated map last year, and the challenge process 
has continued, where people around the country say, whatever 
the map says, here in my place, that is not true, and they 
challenge the map, that is an effective process to finally have 
more of a bottom-up grassroots effort to get accurate 
information for these maps, coupled with the role of the 
states.
    And I think that is really important, that--the FCC maps 
are important, and they are always going to be an important 
asset or vehicle for us to assess where we have unserved and 
underserved areas, but states are also an important part of how 
we look at those maps. States are involved in that challenge 
process as well. So I think we are going down the right path, 
quite candidly. We are not where we want to be yet, but I think 
it is going in the right direction.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Then my next question goes to Mr. 
Stroup. In your testimony you talk about how the precision GPS, 
which I just mentioned, technologies allow farmers to increase 
yield by utilizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, 
and apply the site specific treatments to fields. You also 
mentioned how Earth imaging satellites provide farmers high 
resolution imagery to determine when to plant, water, or 
monitor their crops. So how do you feel satellite technology 
services fill in the gaps in remote areas, where other 
technologies may not be suitable?
    Mr. Stroup. Thank you for the question. And, in addition to 
the satellite services that you noted, the ability to be able 
to provide broadband and IoT services, and one of the great 
advantages to the satellite systems is the ubiquitous coverage. 
And, as I had mentioned previously, the service that you 
receive in rural North Dakota, where I grew up, is comparable 
to the service that you would receive in Washington, D.C. So 
the ability to fill in the gaps because we provide coverage to 
all rural areas across the country is the key to our ability to 
be able to provide broadband connectivity.
    Mr. Baird. Very good. Anyone else have any comments on 
either of those questions, about the maps or about the 
satellite technology?
    Mr. Zumwalt. I would just state, and concur with my 
colleagues, I think that the FCC is taking the right steps. It 
is going to take a while before they can achieve perfection on 
this, but I like what I see so far. We are in for another 
probably year or 2 of some pretty gnarly work ahead of us, but 
I think the FCC is going to get there.
    Mr. Baird. Anyone else?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would just offer to the Committee that--
those of you who are going back home to your rural districts in 
August, to take the time to connect with one of your community-
based providers, whoever they may be on this Committee, and go 
out and see some of the ag applications. I think being able to 
watch some of the livestock monitoring, watching some of the 
ability to do remote work with your livestock, and monitor the 
health of your animals, and what they are doing in the field, 
in terms of tractor technology, is really exciting to see.
    Congressmen Feenstra from Iowa, his local provider has a 
new saying, which is--we call fiber-to-the-home, FTTH, and they 
call it fiber to the hog, because of the ability to connect 
these farms. So I would just say there is an open invitation to 
go out and do a tour.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you for that comment, and especially 
bringing in the livestock. Got a livestock background. And, Mr. 
Feenstra, we have cattle and hogs in Indiana too, you know 
that?
    Mr. Feenstra. I knew that.
    Mr. Baird. Good to see you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I am now pleased 
to recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. Caraveo, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you to 
you, and Ranking Member Scott, for hosting today's hearing, and 
to the panel for being here this morning to share your 
testimony. As a doctor, accessible health care remains one of 
my highest priorities. Unfortunately, over the past several 
decades, Colorado has seen more and more rural hospitals, 
excuse me, close, and care options remain extremely limited, or 
sometimes non-existent, unless you are able to travel very long 
distances to receive health care. As a result, residents of 
rural areas experience significant health care disparities.
    We have several opportunities to improve health outcomes 
through USDA broadband programs, not only to provide the 
funding to build-out or improve the broadband infrastructure, 
but also to provide the equipment necessary to support 
telemedicine. So, to anyone on the panel, do any of you have 
insights into the specific speeds or other network 
characteristics necessary to support telemedicine specifically?
    Mr. Zumwalt. If I can start with that, I have some 
experience working with an urgent care center in a previous--a 
role that I had with a wireless ISP. They were generally using 
gigabit speeds for their urgent care facility, which included 
imaging, but I would want to emphasize that that was for that 
facility. That was not for interacting with people in their 
homes using telemedicine services, which tended to be more of a 
residential broadband service.
    So, to the extent that you want to differentiate between 
those services, just make sure that you recognize that no 
matter who is providing that area, that they have the capacity 
to provide the unique support that is going to be required by 
facilities that have a need for greater broadband.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. And I would jump in and say that we work 
very closely with the National Rural Hospital Association, who 
also endorses 100 symmetrical speeds for that very reason, the 
ability to be able to do the work that they need to do to 
transfer the medical files. And I think that the applications 
out there really kind of demand a lot of bandwidth, the ability 
to--I have a telephone cooperative that actually put fiber into 
the ground because of the fact that the general manager's 
workman fell off the roof, broke his leg, and it was going to 
take 2 days to get all the files transmitted over to the 
Vanderbilt Hospital.
    So it was kind of that real need on the ground to be like, 
``Hey, you know what, we can do this, and we can actually 
ensure that our people don't have to drive 2 hours over to 
Vanderbilt.'' They can actually do some of the care with 
cardiac care, here back in the rural community, before it 
becomes urgent to relocate some of these patients, which, as 
you know, can be very traumatic.
    Ms. Caraveo. Well, thank you very much for those answers. 
Switching gears, I have been meeting with farmers in my 
district over the past few months who have shown me some of the 
technologies, Mrs. Bloomfield, that have improved the way that 
they farm. I would like to touch on the promise of precision 
agriculture what we have talked about kind of more broadly, and 
how we build-out broadband networks that will support further 
adoption of these technologies.
    We have focused on delivering internet service to the home, 
but supporting agriculture--precision agriculture means we also 
have to expand to the fields. So once we deliver broadband to 
the home, what equipment or technologies, more specifically, 
are necessary to expand that coverage to the field, and what 
are some of the common barriers that farmers are facing to 
incorporate precision agriculture into their operations? And we 
can start with Mr. Hurley, and then if anybody else has 
thoughts.
    Mr. Hurley. Yes, thank you for bringing that up, and it is 
absolutely one of the most essential pieces of our being able 
to further the adoption and reap the benefits of precision 
agriculture, whether that is through an increase in yield, or a 
reduction in the inputs, and the impact that that has on the 
environment. And, as we stated, and I stated in my testimony, 
we need to be neutral in regards to the technologies that we 
invest our dollars in as we go forward, because we look at the 
various different aspects of--whether it is satellite, whether 
it is wireless, or whether it is fiber, we need coverage across 
the fields, and into the barn, into the--whether it is the 
chicken house, the hog house. But we have also got to be able 
to follow, and interact, and communicate with the tractor, and 
the combine, and the sprayer as they move through the field.
    Mr. Assey. I would just say that it--this may not be the 
correct analogy, but if you think about it, precision 
agriculture is just another type of business application. It is 
very similar to, if you were to bring broadband to a school, 
you wouldn't want to just bring it to the principal's office. 
You would want to make sure that it is campus-wide. And, 
essentially, the campus in a precision agriculture environment 
are the fields, and the barn, and the hogs.
    I think what we are going to see is, as the power of 
technology extends to rural America, we are going to see those 
solutions develop. They are already being developed, and we 
just need to encourage their development through kind of hybrid 
solutions that rely on cable or fiber technology to a 
particular area, and then extending out into the fields using 
either unlicensed technology or 5G CBRS (Citizens Broadband 
Radio Service) technology to basically provide that campus-wide 
or field-wide connectivity. But it is a very exciting part of 
getting connectivity to rural America to help people not just 
in their home, but in their day to day business as well.
    Ms. Caraveo. Thank you all. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you for the courtesy of extra time.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and now recognize the 
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking 
Member Scott, and I want to thank each of our witnesses for 
testifying. It has been very impressive. Mr. Hurley, you spoke 
at length in your written testimony about the benefits of 
precision technology. I am from Iowa, one of the largest farm 
districts in the country, and at a time when our farmers are 
feeling the real pinch on inflation in inputs, and all these 
other costs going up, it is advantageous for us to create 
precision farming. You mentioned that innovations that could be 
adopted at a 90 percent rate would reduce herbicide costs by 15 
percent, fertilizer would be reduced by 14 percent, water would 
decrease by 21 percent, and our crop production would increase 
by six percent. Okay, this is very significant, but our problem 
here is the cost.
    I was at the Farm Progress Show last year, and we saw all 
these incredible technologies. My larger farmers and my larger 
producers can probably afford some of these, but my smaller 
producers cannot. And you noted this, and I appreciate you 
highlighting my bill, Precision Ag Loan Act, which gives loans 
through the USDA. Can you talk, Mr. Hurley, about why this is 
so important, and what we can do as an Agriculture Committee to 
try to get this new technology in the hands of our smaller 
producers?
    Mr. Hurley. Yes, I would be glad to do that. And, as you so 
note, the technologies continue to advance, and the innovation 
continues to be developed as we go forward, and there are costs 
associated with that. Representative, I would more approach 
that as investment, and think there are some key aspects of 
that. One, if someone was to come in and try to convert 100 
percent of an operation that had no previous investment in 
precision technologies, it would be a very steep cliff to 
climb.
    But the great thing about precision technologies, number 
one, is it is scalable. And so, from that perspective, I think 
that it is prudent for each and every individual farmer, 
producer, rancher, whether they are in the poultry business--to 
really sit down and understand what is most important to their 
business, and prioritize where they want to invest, based on 
the return. But I think critically, and you mentioned your 
bill, as did I, the Precision Ag Lending Act is one of those, 
along with PRECISE, that, for us to expand beyond the 25 
percent or so of farmers that actually utilizes technology 
today, we have to have supportive programs--loans with flexible 
terms that allow these other growers to be able to go, and be 
able to invest, and borrow the money--the capital to put these 
technologies in place.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hurley. And I fully agree 
with that, and you can see what it does. I mean, the cutting 
down of the input--inputs that are going into the crop, or 
whatever it might be, into milking and so forth. And I just 
think this farm bill that we have coming up has this great 
opportunity to do that, and I look forward to working with 
that.
    I want to pivot just a little bit. Mrs. Bloomfield, thank 
you for your comments about Iowa. Obviously you probably know 
we have 120 locally-owned, community-based broadband providers, 
and they are all fighting like ever to get to every subscriber, 
to get to every community, and every rural producer. My big 
issue is that the Rural Broadband Modernization Act, which I am 
on, the ReConnect underserved definition is that 90 percent--
and it notes that we need 100 percent megabit downstream, 120 
percent--or 120 percent upstream, and recently that definition 
got lowered to 50 percent. Can you talk about why that is so 
concerning, and why we need to be at 90 percent? I mean, to me, 
especially in Iowa, this is a huge issue.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Thank you for the question, and thank you 
for your leadership in the introduction of the Rural Broadband 
Modernization Act (H.R. 3964). It is a very important piece of 
legislation which also does kind of go to the 100 symmetrical 
speed. When you talk about 50 percent, and you set that 
standard, most of the Federal programs, ReConnect, BEAD, all of 
these programs, Treasury look at that 80 to 90 percent coverage 
as kind of the basis.
    Problem with 50 percent is you are really encouraging 
overbuilding. And we have talked about when you have scarce 
resources, the ability, because we are all so focused on 
unserved Americans, to make sure that any money goes as far as 
possible, the ability to overbuild in using government 
resources, to overbuild government resources, really becomes 
duplicative efforts that are just wasteful. So that 50 percent 
is way too low, and I think leads to a lot of issues.
    Mr. Feenstra. Yes. I agree 100 percent, Mrs. Bloomfield, 
and thank you for noting that. I mean, we have to be at 90 
percent, and I agree 100 percent. Thank you so much for your 
comments. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I 
now recognize Congresswoman Salinas from Oregon for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the--you and the Ranking Member for holding this important 
hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses for staying with us 
for this long. So, as we have talked about, Congress has 
essentially allocated billions of dollars to build-out 
broadband capacity for our unserved and underserved areas 
across the country, including mine in Oregon. Where my concern 
lies is about the ability of our state and local governments 
and small providers to successfully navigate this huge rollout 
while keeping track of any ongoing opportunities that USDA 
might have.
    And so one of my top priorities for the farm bill, 
especially as I am talking to my communities, is really 
ensuring that we are providing that robust technical assistance 
to ensure that our rural communities can easily access Federal 
programs. And I will start with Congressman Matheson. Does the 
existing Broadband Technical Assistance Program provide that 
adequate assistance to help our rural utilities, co-ops, and 
small businesses access that Federal funding?
    Mr. Matheson. Yes. Yes, I think you have raised a fair 
question. I do think the program's adequate, actually. I think 
that people have access to enough information to make these 
decisions. These are capital-intensive decisions people make to 
go into this business. They should not take it lightly. Many of 
my members, through electric cooperatives, are actually hiring 
some third party entities to help them do their feasibility 
analysis on the front-end to try to make the good decisions 
that go into this. I don't see where there is a huge gap right 
now, in terms of what you are asking.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then for--the follow-up, for 
anyone who might want to answer, how should we be thinking 
about removing any barriers to access for these smaller 
providers that don't necessarily have the same resources as 
some of the bigger players?
    Mr. Assey. Well, I will take a shot. I think one of the 
things--and we represent large and small companies, but one of 
the things really goes to what we talked about earlier, and the 
fact that Agriculture has tremendous expertise in rural 
America. They have a very capable Administrator in 
Administrator Burke. But this really requires a whole of 
government type of approach to the problem, and we have to 
figure out a way to promote greater consistency and greater 
coordination in how we apply for these programs where we can. 
It makes little sense to me to have--to be able to have to fill 
out a form one way for a grant in one agency and have to do 
it--completely different way in another agency.
    Ms. Salinas. Yes.
    Mr. Assey. We ought to be trying to make it easy to get 
more providers into the system that are experienced and that 
can do the job.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to comment?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just say, one of the things that I 
think there can be a role somewhere in here is thinking about--
when you think about those local municipalities, or those 
anchor institutions that really have that need, I think 
creating the opportunity for collaboration, and thinking 
about--and can USDA play that central point of--if you have an 
area that is really tough to serve, what can you do about 
bringing providers together? What can you do about connecting a 
municipality with a broadband provider who knows how to do the 
service. How about NTCA rural broadband provider along with an 
electric cooperative?
    How do you think about, in some of those really tough to 
serve areas, where you just can't make a market case for doing 
so, what is the role of some of these agencies, like USDA, to 
actually support some collaboration?
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And my time has almost expired, but 
I really do want to get to this. Do we have the tools, through 
other USDA/NTIA programs to support--and we see a lot of 
wildfires in Oregon--to support resilient middle-mile 
infrastructure? And to anyone on the panel who wants to answer.
    Mr. Matheson. Look, I have advocated in my opening 
statement that I want to make sure that when you--the Committee 
considers--you look at the next farm bill about--important 
investment in middle-mile. I think that that is a key factor in 
creating a platform for last mile broadband service, and I 
think it is something that USDA has looked at and funded in the 
past. I think it should be continued in the next farm bill.
    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 
gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to all of the witnesses for joining us today and sharing 
your valuable insight. As we all know, access to high-speed 
internet is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for economic 
growth, education, health care, and social connectivity. 
Unfortunately, many rural communities across our country still 
lack access to reliable broadband services. This digital divide 
has created significant disparities in economic opportunities, 
educational outcome, and healthcare access between urban and 
rural communities. It is important that Americans, regardless 
of where they live, have access to reliable and affordable 
broadband services.
    My question is, first, for Mr. James Assey, Executive Vice 
President here for The Internet and Television Association, 
what improvements should we consider to USDA broadband programs 
to make broadband infrastructure grant programs more 
accessible, flexible, and locally-led?
    Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. As I stated in my 
testimony, I think one of the things that it is most important 
is for there to be kind of a review of the processes by which 
we attract eligible providers to make sure that we are taking 
stock of the different corporate profile and organizations that 
we have in attracting applicants. I also think it is important 
that we review and put limits on the types of scoring 
priorities that our U.S. gives, and when those aren't related 
to an entity's experience, or the performance of the network, 
or the need of the particular area, we should get rid of those, 
because what we really want to do is find who can provide the 
best solution at the cheapest price for the area of need. So I 
think those are two important places to start.
    The last thing I think is very important is that we get 
back, as has been stated earlier, to really focusing the 
distribution of dollars to the areas that are unserved so that 
we make sure we are getting the most bang for the buck that we 
can.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you. And, Mrs. Bloomfield, we 
continue to hear from stakeholders about struggles with USDA's 
lengthy approval process for broadband loan applicants. In your 
testimony you highlight the delay of Federal funding to 
entities due to historical preservation requirements and 
environmental reviews. What specific improvements should 
Congress consider to streamline the application process?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. It is a wonderful question, because I 
think it is kind of the secret obstacle that nobody really 
knows about. So when I think of some of my companies who were 
actually awarded funding as far back as 2019 who have yet to 
see the money flowing into the field, I think that obstacle of 
not getting that process moving through quickly enough is 
really holding up a lot of infrastructure deployment.
    So I would say there are a couple of things. I think some 
recent legislation, hopefully, is looking to streamline it. But 
I also think that if you have gone through a process where an 
area has been deemed previously disturbed, where you have 
already gone through the historicals, and now you are going 
back to deploy additional infrastructure, you have already gone 
through those steps. So doing it a second time I think really 
further holds it back. But it is a very important point, and 
something we need to ensure that, as you do the farm bill, that 
there is more streamlining available.
    Ms. De La Cruz. So what I am hearing is that if they have 
already done the research, or the analysis, for a prior 
application, perhaps?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Exactly, and previous construction, but 
they still have to go back through it additionally for a new 
construction, whether you are building further out, you are 
upgrading existing infrastructure. So once you have already 
approved it, let us move on.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Right. Sounds like a waste of time, 
materials, and money, is what it sounds like.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. And it becomes expensive, because with 
inflation, honestly, the longer the delays go, you may have 
gotten a grant 3 years ago, but the cost, between labor supply 
and the supply of the actual infrastructure, has gone up 
significantly. So suddenly you are in a position where you 
actually got that award in 2019, and now your cost to build 
what you committed to build to has gone up exponentially.
    Ms. De La Cruz. Absolutely. That can pose a big problem. 
Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I am now pleased 
to recognize another gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman 
Crockett, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and to all 
the witnesses for your time. I am glad to hear that so many 
Members are talking about what we all know, which is that 
reliable access to the internet is a non-negotiable these days. 
Yet, sadly enough, there is a fringe group that believes we 
have done everything that we needed to do and should go no 
further. But tell me, how can we have accomplished our goal 
when over ten million Americans still don't have access to 
broadband?
    For decades we let rural Americans fall farther and farther 
behind. Without reliable internet access, it is harder to find 
a job, harder to share special moments with your family, and 
ultimately people are robbed of opportunities. Finally we are 
lending folk a helping hand. But just as broadband is starting 
to be deployed, our colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriation 
Subcommittee want to cut broadband funding by almost $100 
million. It seems some of my colleagues believe we have done 
enough, and, after an initial investment, we need to just pack 
up and go home. So let me set the record straight.
    Mrs. Bloomfield, you make a excellent point about 
healthcare in your testimony. Could you expand upon the 
importance of telehealth access in communities, and maybe talk 
a little bit more about other important use cases?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would be more than happy to. It is 
something near and dear to my heart because I think it is an 
application that we have only just scratched the surface of. 
And to your point about USDA, and all of these other programs, 
I will say, as we look at all this Federal funding coming down, 
I encourage my members to look at ReConnect, the USDA program, 
first because I do think it is that immediate opportunity with 
a very well run program.
    So we partner a lot with the National Rural Health 
Association, and we have been working in collaboration to talk 
about what it takes to build smart rural communities. 
Healthcare is really a foundation. If you don't have access to 
healthcare in these communities, you find that people don't 
move there. It is one of those things people look for. So 
really thinking through what we could do more aggressively to 
not just build the right networks to ensure that you can do 
healthcare, but how do you get the devices in people's hands? 
How do you actually do digital literacy so you are educating 
techs and healthcare clinicians on how to actually manage some 
of this?
    And the thing I will share, that--what we see from our own 
experience, running a teledoc and other programs as an 
association, mental health care in rural America is really 
critical. And there is also a stigma in rural America. People 
don't want to see their truck outside of a local mental health 
care clinic. The ability to do mental health care using 
telemedicine at home, in the comfort of your living room, is 
powerful. So I think as we look at some of these applications, 
and what we can do in terms of digital literacy to educate more 
Americans, and get more Americans online to utilize these 
resources, I think we are going to have a healthier rural 
America.
    Ms. Crockett. I think I will actually skip around on my 
questions, since you touched on something, which was the 
ReConnect Program. But I do want to highlight what you are 
saying. As it was mentioned, I am out of Texas, I am out of 
urban Texas, but we went through redistricting last cycle, when 
I was in the Texas House. And when we went through 
redistricting, what we saw is that rural Texas was bleeding 
population. And when we talked to people, and they talked about 
the next generation, they talked about the fact that there just 
weren't opportunities, and so their children were leaving rural 
Texas. So we have plenty of land in Texas, and we want to make 
sure that everyone feels like they have all the opportunities 
that they need, no matter where they want to live in the State 
of Texas, so thank you for that.
    So I am going to skip to a different question now. As we 
are considering how to bring the ReConnect Program into the 
farm bill, I would like to know, specifically from Mr. 
Matheson, good to see you again, about--I know that you are big 
on the co-ops, but talk to me about the things--and anyone can 
feel free to kind of jump in--about opportunities that we see 
to improve the ReConnect Program.
    Mr. Matheson. Well, I am big on the co-ops, I appreciate 
you noticing. Look, I think that this program that has had 
success, but there are opportunities for improvement, and 
that--it is not a program that has been around too long, so it 
is good to assess where we can go. Number one, let's get it in 
the farm bill. It is subject to the annual appropriations 
process. It ought to be authorized by this Committee and by the 
Congress. So that would be an important step to create 
consistency and clarity for the program.
    The program should include minimum speeds, 100 up, 100 
down, symmetrical, we think, as a criteria. We think that the 
middle-mile investment matters a lot. It is not the top of mind 
issue for a lot of folks, but if you don't have robust middle-
mile, it is difficult to provide broadband service to rural 
America in an adequate, so that ought to be important, probably 
look at. Look, I think that this Committee's got great 
opportunity with this farm bill to really make some important 
steps to establish, ReConnect, and build on the success it has 
already had.
    Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. With that, I will yield 
back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thanks to 
Ranking Member Scott for holding this hearing, and thank you to 
all of our witnesses for your time and thoughtful attention to 
today's hearing. I want to talk a bit about the future of 
telemedicine, and how important it is that we ensure that USDA 
broadband programs keep up with new technologies. In an article 
in Forbes entitled, An Exciting, Surprisingly Imaginative, 
Techy Vision Of Telemedicine's Future,* author Michelle 
Greenwald, who is the CEO of Catalyzing Innovation, described 
some potentially game-changing advances in telemedicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Greenwald describes the possibility of remote 
monitoring devices for use at home, such as a stethoscope, or a 
device for looking in the ear, nose, and throat. These readings 
could be digitally transmitted to the doctor to interpret. 
Additionally, Ms. Greenwald's article brings up the possibility 
of using artificial intelligence, machine learning, and pattern 
recognition to potentially flag serious illnesses, all from an 
image of a patient.
    In the not too distant future we could be living in a world 
where AI flags a potentially serious illness during a 
telemedicine visit that otherwise may not have been diagnosed. 
What really scares me is the possibility that many Americans 
will not be able to utilize these life-saving technologies 
because they don't have access to broadband that is strong 
enough, fast enough, to support these emerging telehealth 
technologies. Mrs. Bloomfield, as the CEO of NTCA--The Rural 
Broadband Association, can you talk about the ways in which 
USDA rural broadband programs help to support access to 
telehealth technologies?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Absolutely, and thank you for the 
question. So, as we look at the statistics about the number of 
rural hospitals that are closing on a regular basis, I think 
the ability to look at the evolution of telemedicine is going 
to be really important. So you hit on a few of them. We also 
see in rural America the ability to monitor your diabetes, your 
cardiac care, some of those things that are really pretty 
prevalent in rural populations is going to be important.
    And I think another application to be thinking about, and 
that will need some of this capacity and bandwidth, are things 
like how do we allow seniors to age in place in their homes? 
The ability to monitor has our mother taken her pills, because 
you have the sensor that actually reads some of these things. I 
don't even think we have scratched the surface on the different 
things that we can do.
    So USDA, with their program, has some additional support on 
the telehealth side. I think it is getting folks comfortable 
with some of the technology, but you absolutely need the 
bandwidth. And the other thing that we find with rural 
communities, where I think the bandwidth, and the ability to 
transport whatever type of medical technology you are 
transporting, is the expert care that you get in some more 
urban hospitals. If you have something that's complex that you 
can't deal with in a rural clinic, that you actually need to go 
into Mayo, or you need to have that access.
    The other thing that I will say is we think a lot about 
privacy when we think about healthcare. And it is another 
reason why, again, remaining technology-neutral, I think fiber 
optics is a really important technology to look at because, 
when you think about cybersecurity, the pulses of light that 
move through fiber are actually harder to intercept. So when we 
think about security of networks, and, again, when I think 
about healthcare, and all of that private data, that's another 
thing that I think is really important, and I think that's 
where USDA has a role as they fund some of these programs like 
ReConnect.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining 
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today 
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to 
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long 
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think 
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money 
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money, 
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face 
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that 
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so 
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
    And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades 
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and 
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably 
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like 
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I 
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to 
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America 
wired with broadband access?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I hate to be a microphone hog, but I will 
tell you, hit on a really important--it is not just building 
these networks, it is making them sustainable and affordable, 
and Universal Service is key. Yes, we need to reform 
contribution reform.
    Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would 
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about 
that question. Thank you.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Editor's note: the responses to the information referred to are 
located: for Mr. Assey, on p. 93; Mr. Zumwalt, on p. 93; Mr. Stroup, on 
p. 94; and Mr. Hurley, on p. 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Matheson. I agree with Ms. Bloomfield as well.
    Mr. Rose. I----
    Mr. Baird [presiding.] Next we have Mr. Gluesenkamp Perez 
from Washington.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We know that access to 
high-speed internet is essential to participating in the 
economy, including telehealth and telework. That's why it is so 
important that the bipartisan infrastructure law provided 
almost $2 billion for the ReConnect Program. In fact, last 
week--in one of my counties, Lewis County, was awarded--$24.2 
million ReConnect grant. And this money will be used to deploy 
a fiber network and make high-speed internet available to 2,863 
people, 119 businesses, 487 farms, and four educational 
facilities. And this will serve an area in which 91 percent of 
residents do not currently have access to adequate broadband. 
And right--this all hit really close to home during the 
pandemic. You can't attend online school if you don't have 
internet. So I am thrilled that these dollars are getting to 
where they need to be.
    Mrs. Bloomfield, you state in your testimony that what 
matters most to rural America is not the mere deployment of 
network, but the quality of the service they receive. And I am 
agreeing with you, but I also wonder, how do we balance that 
pursuit of quality, pursuing quality, when we still have so 
many places that don't have access at all?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Well, first, congratulations to Whidbey, 
who received that USDA grant, which I think is going to go 
really far. I think some of these Federal programs can also be 
looked at as complimentary, right? Because we have BEAD coming 
out in 2024, and they are really focusing primarily on getting 
the unserved done first. So I think that all of these programs 
kind of fit together, and I think about--it is one of the 
reasons why I am pretty adamant about, like, let's not dumb 
down what we have with ReConnect at the 100/100, because I 
think complimentarily we are going to have NTIA's program 
coming in--really filling in those unserved pockets as well. I 
think the two programs should work very well together.
    Ms. Perez. And following up on that, in many rural 
communities like mine there will only be one internet provider. 
So what are we going to ensure that these resources remain 
affordable, and we haven't created an untenable situation?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. Trying to spur competition in markets 
where you can't even have one provider without getting Federal 
support really makes it tough to actually subsidize competition 
in these areas, so I think that there are going to be a lot of 
checks and balances along the way. Washington State, for 
example, has a pretty robust State Broadband Office. In 
thinking through the affordability programs, thinking through 
the digital education programs, I think all of those things 
packaged together are really going to be an important part of 
ensuring that you get unserved served, but then you are also 
able to kind of ensure that you are utilizing the networks to 
the best capability.
    Ms. Perez. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Assey, in your testimony you 
talk about some of the potential fixes that could be made to 
better ensure that the ReConnect Program is able to serve the 
most rural and unserved or underserved areas. I am wondering if 
you could elaborate on some of the current challenges, on some 
of the potential changes you would like to see made?
    Mr. Assey. Sure, and thank you for your leadership on the 
Rural Internet Improvement Act as well. I think chief among 
them is to ensure that the funding goes to the projects just 
like the one you mentioned, where we have 90 percent of the 
households that are going to be reached are those that actually 
are the most in need of being reached. So making sure that the 
dollars are used efficiently is probably chief among them. I do 
think we need to modernize the eligibility screens, and the way 
in which the agencies attract eligible and experienced 
participants so that we get qualified applicants who are 
willing to provide service.
    I think we need to, again, refocus the way in which a lot 
of these applications are scored to make sure that we are not 
giving priority just to companies based on who they are, but we 
are actually focused on what they can perform and execute on in 
building these networks. And last, we just need to really 
promote coordination with the FCC, with NTIA, with state 
governments, because this really is going to be a case in which 
the holistic approach and working together is going to be 
better than the sum of the parts.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you all so much. And--yes?
    Mr. Stroup. I would like to respond to the question that 
you raised about competition.
    Ms. Perez. Yes?
    Mr. Stroup. There are at least three companies in the 
satellite industry providing direct to consumer broadband 
services in competition with all of the other industries that 
are represented here. Another one will be launching within the 
next couple years, and others that are providing partnership 
with rural telco companies. So there are a variety of means of 
providing that competition.
    Ms. Perez. Thank you so much for that additional point. 
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Baird. Yes. Mr. Nunn, from Iowa, please.
    Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much 
for the panel being here today, specifically for the help that 
we need in rural Iowa. I was just in Des Moines, Iowa 
yesterday, at Mercy One Hospital talking with a nurse as she 
was talking to me--or--conversation with a patient who was 
getting their update as they went. We can see, even during that 
quick conversation, from a metropolitan area to a very rural 
area, how challenging it was based on latency versus the amount 
of times we dropped and were interrupted, versus trying to keep 
that patient engaged.
    Now, if that patient had a critical issue, it had been one 
of our veterans who needed assistance, if it had been somebody 
who had a life-saving recommendation coming from their 
physician unable to have that communication, think we--put us 
all in a very dangerous spot. The alternative was that patient 
could have driven 2\1/2\ hours to Des Moines to try and get the 
assistance they needed. A single mother, leaving their job, 
coming to Des Moines, when at the same time somebody in a 
community right next door had unparalleled access to it.
    Which gets me to my concern that my home state right now is 
45th in the nation for broadband access and is the second 
lowest speeds. So at a topical level, yes, are we covered? But 
is it an effective use of the internet? Absolutely not. To fix 
this, I have introduced a bipartisan ReConnecting Rural America 
Act of 2023 (H.R. 4227), alongside many of my colleagues in 
this room. We think it is very important to become part of the 
farm bill conversation. Our bill would make permanent the 
ReConnect Program and expand broadband access to increase 
speeds in rural America.
    Now, Mr. Assey, I know that you feel differently than I do 
on this, and I think that we can get to a point where we can 
help a lot of these folks. But my concern here is that if you 
have ever tried to plant precision agriculture with a delayed 
speed, you are losing crop. If you are a person in immediate 
medical need, and you have a delayed speed, it is almost like 
having no internet at all. Or if you are just an individual 
who's trying to improve their education and you have latency 
here, whether it is an urban area or a rural area, you are 
being left behind. And I think we all agree that's 
unacceptable.
    So I would like to speak specifically here to Mrs. 
Bloomfield on your comments, as well as Mr. Matheson, the 100 
up, 100 down and the robust middle-mile. Now, how would you 
respond to the difference between no access, or delayed access, 
or diminished access? Because, in my mind, they are all not 
enough access for what's necessary. Mrs. Bloomfield, I will 
start with you.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So you--first of all, thank you for your 
leadership, and thank you for the legislation that you have 
introduced. It is very important, I think sets the future stage 
on the right course. So when you reference latency, I will just 
share that when you talk about the livestock, we have a lot of 
folks who actually run livestock sales. You have just lost the 
ability to either purchase or sell something if you are not 
being able to do it in real time.
    I think all of that--and when you look at the symmetrical 
speeds that you set in your legislation, it is really to ensure 
that rural Americans aren't second class citizens, that they 
are able to receive the same robust services that those in 
urban areas of the country receive, and I think that is a 
critical reset for this country.
    Mr. Nunn. I would like to turn further--thank you. Mr. 
Matheson, on the ReConnect side, for our broadband networks, 
versus just keeping what I would call low grade infrastructure, 
everything in the future, from our combines, to our 
refrigerator, to our medical devices are going to be connected 
to this. Talk to me about the long-term needs of rural 
communities and how broadband high-speed is going to be 
essential for this.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes. Appreciate--again, I will echo--I 
appreciate your leadership on this legislation that you have 
introduced. Look, we all know that the internet and use of 
broadband is only increasing, in terms of--it affects every 
aspect of our lives in rural America. There have been 
challenges. The pandemic helped highlight some of those 
challenges when it came to work at home, when it came to school 
at home, when it came to access to healthcare. And so I don't 
think we need to make that case. I think that is settled, that 
we all agree there is value in having access to real broadband.
    And I appreciate your comment about the difference between 
the fully served or underserved or not served. And I made some 
comments earlier about the fact that--let's be careful about 
simplistic description of unserved versus underserved.
    Mr. Nunn. Right.
    Mr. Matheson. It is not that simple.
    Mr. Nunn. Right.
    Mr. Matheson. And that--while unserved clearly deserve 
service, the underserved do too, if it is not adequate.
    Mr. Nunn. And let's not leave them behind on that. I 
appreciate that.
    Mr. Matheson. Absolutely.
    Mr. Nunn. I know that's where we all want to get to 
ultimately.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes.
    Mr. Nunn. Mr. Hurley, I am going to change topics, very 
quickly ask you, as a guy who served in cybersecurity for quite 
a while, as we roll out this new infrastructure, talk to us 
specifically about the vital equipment that's essential so that 
we can maintain good hygiene throughout the network.
    Mr. Hurley. Yes. I think, as you look at the technology 
that's coming on, and the connectedness of it, I would 
encourage this Committee, when you think about cybersecurity, 
think about food security and ag security, because--and I would 
equate that to national security. Because today, and all these 
gentlemen and ladies do their job, we become more connected. We 
have--it is not just a single tractor, it is not a planter, it 
is a sprayer, or a hog house, or a poultry farm. They are all 
connected, and can all be vulnerable, and we need to give that 
the focus that it deserves.
    Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I 
yield back, and I appreciate all the ag references in today's 
hearing as well. Thank you.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And now we 
go to Illinois with Representative Budzinski.
    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
Ranking Member, and thank you to the panelists. I appreciated 
your testimony and the discussion that's happened so far. I am 
really building on that. I wanted to make a note, I am the 
former Chairwoman of the Illinois Broadband Advisory Council. 
This is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart, as it 
is, I know, to many of us on this Committee. And very 
important--more importantly to my constituents that I represent 
in central and southern Illinois.
    I really believe we are on the precipice of true 
generational change in this space, where we can finally capture 
underserved areas, and rural communities will no longer have to 
settle, which I think we all want to see. This is why it is 
important to set our sights high, and ensure that all residents 
have access to quality, affordable, high performance internet 
and cell phone access at home.
    The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Rural Broadband Program to 
require 90 percent of residents in proposed service areas be 
without--in a proposed service area be without sufficient 
access to broadband or unserved to be eligible for grant 
funding, and a 50 percent unserved requirement to be eligible 
for loans. Prior to the 2018 Farm Bill, the Rural Broadband 
Program required just 15 percent of households in a proposed 
service area be unserved. I agree that our first priority 
should be to deliver services to areas most in need, but I also 
strongly believe that the introduction of unnecessary and 
unprecedented program rigidity does not serve rural Americans, 
or our goal of closing the digital divide.
    Furthermore, as we get closer to 100 percent nationwide 
connectivity, it is critical, I believe, that USDA have the 
necessary flexibility to reach those final communities. So my 
first question, actually, is for Mr. Matheson. With the 
historic broadband infrastructure investments made over these 
last several years, wouldn't it make more sense to add more 
program flexibility in order to reach every part of rural 
America? What are your thoughts on the flexibilities that will 
be necessary for the USDA's broadband programs to address as we 
get closer to 100 percent nationwide connectivity? And maybe 
you could connect this to under--the underserved donut hole 
issue as well.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes. Look, one thing that is often said in 
the electric co-op world is when you met one electric co-op, 
you met one electric co-op.
    Ms. Budzinski. Thanks.
    Mr. Matheson. They pride themselves on--they are in a 
unique circumstance. Everyone is different.
    Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. And so adding that flexibility you mentioned 
to accommodate specific areas----
    Ms. Budzinski. Right.
    Mr. Matheson.--in terms of what the needs are and the 
circumstances, of course that makes sense, particularly as we 
are trying to fill in these gaps, which are the hardest ones to 
fill.
    Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. That's why they are still unserved today.
    Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. And so I think that flexibility is all the 
more important now than perhaps it was previously, because of 
the nature of the task at hand. That being said, I also think 
it is important that we--that the flexibility--to not allow 
specific parameters to shut people out. If you are in an area 
where 50 percent have access to broadband and 50 percent don't, 
you say, well, too bad for that 50 who don't we are defining 
that as one block of area.
    Ms. Budzinski. Right.
    Mr. Matheson. When what happens is the economics go--the 50 
percent who have it are probably in the high population density 
areas, where there is money to be made and the folks out in the 
low population density areas are left out. And if they are 
coupled into one category, and we just looked at it through 
that frame, they are never going to get service, right?
    Ms. Budzinski. Right.
    Mr. Matheson. So that's the argument--that's an example 
where that flexibility matters.
    Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you very much. And just to add 
onto that--so building out broadband infrastructure in rural 
America must account for the needs of every facet of rural 
areas. I believe households, farms, businesses, and anchor 
institutions--though adequate for many households, a recent GAO 
report found that 25/3 is likely just to be too slow to meet 
the speed needs of many small businesses. Many small businesses 
and farms reported wanting download speeds of up to at least 
100, and as--as did the Connect Illinois--excuse me, the 
Connect Illinois Broadband Grant Program that we helped to 
launch.
    So one quick question in my last less than 60 seconds, Mrs. 
Bloomfield, do you think that 25/3 is sufficient broadband 
access? What factors should we take into consideration when 
determining the speed minimum?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I would just note, for example, this 
hearing room itself is 126/113, I believe. So, if you look at 
25/3, you are saying you are willing to give rural Americans a 
standard that is lower than you have in this hearing room to 
transmit this hearing. So I think we have just grown beyond. I 
think, as--everybody on this Committee has been talking about 
applications with healthcare, and, having served on the 
Illinois Advisory Board, you know all of the different 
applications, whether it is agriculture, economic development, 
I think that speed is something that--it--we are beyond that.
    And, again, when I think about the fact that I have 
companies, Country Fiber in South Carolina just shared that \1/
3\ of their customers take their gig service. We are there. We 
are not just looking at it, we are there. So----
    Ms. Budzinski. Thank you very much, and I yield back the 
rest of my time.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And next 
we have Representative Molinaro from New York.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
witnesses, and I come from a part of New York where this 
continues to be a significant challenge. And, despite the 
influx of significant Federal, and even state funding, we 
continue to experience not only deep challenges, but a shortage 
in workforce and the challenge of expanding job opportunities. 
So workforce availability is one of the items that we have been 
focusing on.
    Last year the GAO published a report indicating that over 
30,000 additional telecom workers are needed to deploy high-
speed internet infrastructure on a scale that matches the 
recent funding levels. And, Mr. Matheson, although--do we call 
you Congressman still?
    Mr. Matheson. Call me whatever you want.
    Mr. Molinaro. Jim, I know that you and your organization 
have had a long history of trained skill workers out into rural 
communities.
    Mr. Matheson. Yes.
    Mr. Molinaro. Could you speak to what you observe are the 
causes of the workforce shortage, and what tools maybe we might 
consider to open up those job opportunities?
    Mr. Matheson. Yes. It is a timely question. And while it is 
not unique to the telecom fiber space, or even the electric 
utility space, I think we have seen workforce shortages hitting 
a lot of segments of the economy. But in this place, where we 
are talking about the significant infusion of Federal money to 
make these investments, this is one of the potential trip 
hazards, if you will for being effective, and we are feeling 
that.
    Mr. Molinaro. Yes.
    Mr. Matheson. We are feeling that in terms of finding 
qualified technicians, qualified people to do the construction, 
the operations. Again, not unique to the telecom sector, but it 
is important. I know, for our local electric cooperatives, they 
are trying to partner with local community colleges, trying to 
find other partnerships to develop and train people, and create 
the workforce of the future. But I can tell you, we haven't 
found the secret sauce that fixes this yet, and I do think that 
it is an issue that merits some consideration at the Federal 
level about what we can do to encourage folks to go into these 
fields to meet these workforce needs.
    Mr. Molinaro. Yes. I think we have undervalued this kind of 
work. We certainly have diminished its presence in public 
education, and, frankly, have encouraged people to only learn 
in a particular way when we should be expanding those 
opportunities.
    Mr. Matheson. Right.
    Mr. Molinaro. Mrs. Bloomfield, I just wanted to turn to 
some of the obstacles we--I know that we are facing in New York 
in particular. We held a roundtable recently with some of our 
service providers. We are not even--in New York, in my part of 
the state, it is not the last mile, it is not the donut hole. I 
mean, it is truly, like, 50. I mean, we are talking about 
making the last connection in very small numbers.
    The challenges that many of them face, the providers in 
particular, are costs related to redundancy and bureaucracy, 
both state and Federal, but also, then, the make-ready costs 
for pole access, working with public utilities. These are real 
challenges that I don't think we look at with great detail 
because they are fine--they are sort of granular, but I hear 
more and more that that's the last challenge. Can you speak to 
how those impediments have kept access--or expanding access, 
and then what have others done to overcome them? And what might 
we do to streamline that process?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. They are very real. When I think about 
pole attachments, I think about railroad crossings, I think 
about local barriers, local permitting, everybody kind of--you 
kind of go through your different pounds of flesh, you go 
through the process. So I do think there is something to be 
said for--from a Federal perspective, looking at some 
streamlining. I also think that a lot of things that can be 
done when you think about, like there is, going through Forest 
Service land, and working with municipalities in these State 
Broadband Offices to say what can they do? How do you trickle 
down from the Federal Government to minimize some of those 
barriers that folks are seeing on the local ground?
    And if I could just jump in one last point, because I do 
think it ties to broadband, we think a lot about workforce 
development, particularly in rural communities, because, again, 
you have fewer folks to actually choose from. We have actually 
been working with our companies on--we produced a guide for--K 
through 12 guides to careers in broadband, getting kids to 
understand this is a great career, this is a great path 
forward.
    And, frankly, if you look at your gamers--we may talk about 
different applications here today, your gamers--my companies 
that sponsor their e-sport teams, that is their future--those 
are their future technicians. Those are their future IT folks.
    Mr. Molinaro. Yes.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So watching that evolution, using 
broadband networks to do something kids love to actually groom 
that workforce is something we are really very focused on.
    Mr. Molinaro. I thank you for saying that. And I will say 
perhaps establishing timelines, and sort of specific 
expectations for states to move or remove some of those access 
obstacles, if you will, tied to Federal dollars might 
incentivize them. I have 10 seconds. I just would say you bring 
up one point, there is a labor force, those with disabilities, 
who rarely have access to jobs. Eighty percent are unemployed. 
The gaming space is a space that creates a level playing field 
for those individuals to learn and access your workforce, and 
it would be something that we should pay attention to. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Baird. And the gentleman yields back, and next we go to 
Mr. Sorensen from Illinois.
    Mr. Sorensen. I would like to begin by thanking the 
Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this important 
hearing, and our witnesses for your testimony. I know it is 
getting into the afternoon. I really appreciate you sticking 
through this. I am proud to represent northwestern and central 
Illinois, where we have farming, urban, and rural constituents. 
Many of our constituents face the challenge of per--poor 
quality broadband. They have service that meets the definition 
of broadband set by the FCC, but the service is not sufficient 
to meet their needs.
    Yesterday, I introduced the bipartisan ReConnecting Rural 
America Act, along with my colleagues in this Committee, 
Representative Nunn from Iowa, Representative Craig from 
Minnesota, along with Representative LaHood. This bill sets 
standards to target broadband investment to unserved and 
underserved communities. The approach my bill takes will ensure 
that underserved constituents can benefit from ReConnect grants 
and loans, just like unserved constituents.
    Currently broadband providers can access ReConnect funds to 
service areas that are 50 percent unserved. Now, my bill 
increases the standard to 75 percent, with minimum service 
speeds of 100 up--or 100 down and 20 up, with a preference for 
service areas with 90 percent unserved. And, finally, the bill 
sets mandatory build-out speeds, what we have been talking 
about here today, 100 by 100 symmetrical. I am thankful, Mrs. 
Bloomfield, you mentioned that in your opening statement today, 
so I will begin with you. Could you speak to why this standard 
needs to be met?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. There are so many reasons the standard 
needs to be met, but I would also--I think I would start off 
with the fact that, again, it is looking at current usage, 
current network capacity, and really thinking about--making 
sure that we build for what we need right now, but also what we 
need in a few years from now. And so I think the ability to 
say, we are not going to get this type of funding again, so 
let's make sure that what we are not doing is turning around in 
3 years, and digging back up, and looking to upload the speeds, 
and increase the speeds. Let's go ahead and ensure that we are 
putting what is probably the most logical target in place as a 
start. So, again, we commend you for your leadership, and think 
that there are so many things in your piece of legislation that 
are actually very commendable.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. I plan to introduce the 
House version of the Access to Capital Creates Economic 
Strength and Supports Rural America Act, or the ACCESS Rural 
America Act (H.R. 4360), alongside Representative Tiffany, and 
Senators Baldwin and Ernst. The bicameral and bipartisan bill 
will provide regulatory relief to small rural broadband 
providers, allowing them to focus on delivering broadband to 
the most remote areas of our country.
    So, if I could continue, Mrs. Bloomfield, could you share 
with the Committee some of the potential impact of this, and 
also maybe some of the stresses that we see in the rollout of 
rural broadband?
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So this is an area where your leadership 
is really important, because I will say that when we think 
about Sarbanes-Oxley, it was put in place because of large 
corporate interests, large publicly traded companies.
    Mr. Sorensen. Right.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. My members are community-based providers, 
but if you have a commercial company that is locally held, they 
maybe have 490 shareholders, and somebody in the family decides 
to gift to somebody else in the family some of their shares, 
suddenly you hit 500, and all of these requirements from the 
SEC kick in. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year 
annually in terms of things that you need to file that are 
compliance oriented. Then you need to get auditors, and then 
you need to get lawyers.
    And, again, what is--the regs are understandable, but they 
are really meant for publicly traded companies, and what they 
are doing in some of these small towns is they are really 
having people focus spending money and dealing with these 
regulations, rather--and reporting, and reporting, and 
reporting, rather than actually being able to build the 
broadband.
    Mr. Sorensen. Yes.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. So, we greatly appreciate your 
introduction of the legislation.
    Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. Mr. Stroup, you mentioned 
in your testimony the need to incentivize satellite internet 
providers. In the past there have been concerns for providing 
Federal funds for satellite internet, given the limitations to 
the technology. With technological advancements, and the 
introduction of low-Earth orbit satellite networks, have those 
concerns for satellite network capacity changed?
    Mr. Stroup. Thank you for the question, and I think that 
they certainly have. Given the advances in satellite 
technology, the ever-increasing speeds, the ever-increasing 
capacity--as I had mentioned in my testimony, companies are 
providing speeds up to 200 megabits per second. They continue 
to launch additional satellites just to--and in--10 years ago 
there were 1,000 satellites. Today there are approximately 
8,000 satellites, just to give you a sense of the expansion in 
the numbers of satellites in the same capability. Ten years ago 
the speeds were much different than they are today. So I think 
that that's an argument--a relic of the past, quite frankly.
    Mr. Sorensen. As the Ranking Member on the Space 
Subcommittee, I appreciate you here, and there, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. And then we go to the very patient 
Representative Van Orden from Wisconsin.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
acknowledge some of my constituents in the back from Grant 
County. I appreciate you showing up, very much. Mr. Zumwalt, 
are you related to Admiral Zumwalt?
    Mr. Zumwalt. Yes, I am, distantly.
    Mr. Van Orden. All right. He is a good dude. Politicians 
have been running on providing rural broadband since Al Gore 
invented the internet, and I want to share with you how broken 
this system is. And it is not on your side, it is on this side. 
I want to give you an example here. We have spent, over the 
last 5 years, $166.6 billion. The private-sector has spent $185 
billion. That's $351 billion. This is a penny. See the penny? 
Look at it sideways. If you were to stack up 351 billion 
pennies, it would reach almost 1\1/2\ times to the Moon, and 
13.3 times around the Earth.
    Speaking of the Moon, in 1961 John F. Kennedy said, ``We 
are going to go to the Moon.'' Eight years later, a man stepped 
on the Moon, Neil Armstrong. I met him. Another good dude. That 
cost $257 billion. So for two--that's inflation adjusted 
dollars. It cost $257 billion to put a man on the Moon, 8 years 
after John F. Kennedy said we are going to do it. We have spent 
$351 billion in the last 5 years, and I can't do precision 
agriculture, going from Crawford to Grant County, where those 
people are from. This is a stent--a systemic failure of this 
system. I work with all my rural co-ops. I am good with all you 
cats. I want to ask you one question. When is the last time you 
all sat together in a room? When?
    Mr. Matheson. Well, some of us sit----
    Mr. Van Orden. No.
    Mr. Matheson. All of----
    Mr. Van Orden. When's the last time all of you sat in a 
room?
    Mr. Matheson. Well, all six of us have never done that.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Okay. Guess what? I am planting a flag this morning. I am 
appointing myself in charge of this. I am formally inviting all 
of you to sit in my office and talk about things, regardless of 
how you provide services. So right now you can Netflix and 
chill, and smoke check a Russian check in Bakhmut, Ukraine, 
right? And my combine, it can't do precision agriculture in 
Grant County. That's wrong, okay? So I am formally inviting all 
of you to my office. Leave your jerseys at the door, and let's 
fix this problem. Because it ain't about you, it ain't about 
me, it is about those people in the back of the room. With 
that, I yield back.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Next we go 
to Mr. Langworthy. You have 5 minutes.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 
Member. Whether it is managing a vineyard, operating a dairy, 
broadband access plays a crucial role in supporting our farming 
operations and initiatives. The nature of running a farm, much 
like operating a small- to medium-size business, requires 
reliable and fast internet connectivity to ensure efficient and 
effective management.
    Now, everything from ordering supplies, to monitoring farm 
data, to managing pesticide use, it is all done using the 
internet. We can't imagine a local convenience store or a gas 
station operating without full broadband. Yet, today our 
farming operations are really no different. Like too many parts 
of our country, only 75 percent of my district is considered to 
be served by fast, reliable broadband. So while billions of 
dollars has been made available through new and existing 
programs to deploy broadband infrastructure, I share the goal 
of many of my colleagues here today to focus these abundant 
resources first and foremost on the areas that are unserved.
    And, with that, Mr. Assey, last month I sent a letter, with 
several of my colleagues here today, to Secretary Vilsack 
regarding the Rural eConnectivity Pilot Program. We expressed 
to the Secretary that he prioritizes the pressing issue of 
connecting unserved rural Americans in bridging the digital 
divide by keeping the ReConnect Program of the Rural Utilities 
Service focused on this objective. Unserved households are 
unserved for a reason. They are often not economically viable 
for private entities to provide networks there, so those 
unserved areas require the help of Federal dollars.
    And for this reason, we need to ensure that the mission of 
ReConnect is to serve unserved areas first. This makes certain 
that the government is overbuilding, and developing competing 
networks where networks already exist. Like the cafeteria line, 
we need to make sure everyone is served first, and then, if 
there is still food left, others can get back in line for 
seconds, to build their networks to even higher speeds and 
higher capacities.
    I am a little concerned with how new or additional funding 
for ReConnect and other programs will be adequately and 
appropriately targeted towards areas that are genuinely 
unserved. So can you talk a little bit about the importance of 
prioritizing unserved versus underserved areas?
    Mr. Assey. Sure. And thank you for the question and for the 
letter. I think what it expresses is consistent with what was 
the original intent of the program, to really focus on our 
hardest problems first, because if we don't, things have a way 
of always trying to get places that may have a larger economic 
return. And what we have seen in the past is the people that 
don't have even standard broadband at 25/3 are continually left 
behind. So I think it is a good reminder, it is a good way to 
kind of refresh people's focus on the areas that we need to 
focus on first that are the hardest problems to solve. But, 
with resources and resolve, I believe they can be solved.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, we certainly have enough resources. 
Mr. Assey, for the past 2 decades we have seen significant 
Federal investment in broadband development. And given the 
influx of all of these funds to build-out internet 
connectivity, how can we prevent overbuilding and duplication 
of Federal efforts in funding for the broadband systems?
    Mr. Assey. I think we have to have consistent standards for 
the areas that we are trying to serve with Federal dollars. We 
have to recognize that, no matter how much money that we put 
into the system to provide support, and I would say necessary 
support in areas where it is otherwise uneconomic to serve, 
there is a substantial capital investment that's being made by 
private companies, and we need to harvest the benefits of 
competition in order to solve the problem.
    Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Matheson, is there anything you would 
like to add on that topic?
    Mr. Matheson. I am sorry, can you--I couldn't--the door--
what did you say again?
    Mr. Langworthy. Okay. Is there anything you would like to 
add on that topic of overbuilding?
    Mr. Matheson. I think that comment I made--it is easy to 
oversimplify the term overbuilding, and unserved and 
underserved. I think there is a more nuanced approach we ought 
to be talking about here. I am concerned about folks that are 
underserved that are going to be left behind, and it is good 
enough for them. And in--for rural--it is good enough for 
rural. I don't buy that. So I understand that unserved are an 
important priority. I don't think I would summarily reject all 
unserved as being secondary to that. There is a more nuanced 
approach that I think this Committee needs to think about as 
they write the next farm bill.
    Mr. Langworthy. Very good. Thank you very much, and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia [presiding.] Thank you. And now 
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much----
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking 
Member, and to all the witnesses who are here today. In eastern 
North Carolina, which I represent in the First Congressional 
District, broadband accessibility is one of the largest 
roadblocks people face to advance: 42 percent of people in the 
First Congressional District do not have broadband access. 
Whether it be in their education, small business, or applying 
for grants and loans, USDA often tells people in my district 
that they can go online and apply for the grant. But how can 
they do that when there is not internet connectivity? That's a 
big hurdle. That's a comment. I would like to move into a more 
technical question here and would love to hear from any of the 
witnesses.
    There are a lot of different ways, then, to bring broadband 
connectivity to rural households. Fiber may work best in one 
place, but then--increasingly noticed fixed wireless in certain 
locations. How should USDA consider place-based policies when 
constructing broadband networks? And I would love to hear from 
any of the witnesses on this.
    Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just jump in and say that I think 
that you can be technology-neutral, because I do think it is 
going to take every--you may be serving--you may have a 
mountain that is tougher to lay fiber to. You may have an area 
that has line of sight obstruction, which makes fixed wireless 
a little bit more challenging. But that is where I think there 
is a real value to USDA setting that speed of 100 symmetrical, 
because what you are saying is it is about this capacity, it is 
not about how you actually--what technology you are using to 
actually bring the technology to the consumer.
    Mr. Zumwalt. I think we can stipulate that Shirley likes 
100/100, because we have heard this a lot today, and I am 
certainly not trying to argue against the best that we can do 
for every American. But when you look at actual streams of 
data, a Zoom call or a Teams call is about 5 megabits per 
second. A 4K stream from a streaming service like Netflix is 
about 5 megabits per second. Gaming is about 5 megabits per 
second each way. It takes a lot of those to get up to 100/100 
in every single location. And if we insist on 100/100 service 
everywhere, we will have people who are unserved because we 
will overbuild existing networks that do have service today.
    And I think that when we talk about future-proofing, we 
need to be talking about future-proofing the people of the 
United States of America, including the people who are unserved 
today. And that's why we are passionate about making sure that 
the unserved get served first, and then we can solve for how we 
get connectivity enhancements along the way.
    Mr. Stroup. And, Representative Davis, from the equipment 
manufacturer's perspective, specifically focused on how do we 
continue to deploy, and utilize, and reap the benefits of 
precision ag, our position is strongly that we have to be 
neutral on the technology because it is going to take all of 
the different types of technology for us truly to be able to 
utilize and reap the benefits, whether that is from increasing 
yields, whether that is reducing fuel usage, all of the 
advantages that precision technology brings, because it has to 
be in the middle of the field, it has to be in the barn, and it 
has to be at--wherever the analytics are being done.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes. Well, let me just ask 
this question, then. Do we believe we have been neutral so far 
in the technology?
    Mr. Assey. Have we been neutral?
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes.
    Mr. Assey. I look to a program like the FCC RDOF Program, 
where we set a baseline. We obviously don't want to invest in 
yesterday's technology, but we want to incent the best 
technology platform we have. Cable is a connectivity company. 
We offer hybrid fiber/coax solutions, we build fiber networks, 
we offer wireless solutions. We want to provide whatever the 
connectivity is that the consumer's going to need in the 
future.
    And what's important is that the technology platforms we 
build can meet not only the needs of today and tomorrow, but 
that they are scalable. And we believe that, in the very near 
future, cable technology is going to make this entire debate 
moot because we are going to be able to provide multi-gigabit 
speeds in both directions.
    Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Well, I greatly appreciate the 
responses today, and, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back.
    Mr. Langworthy [presiding.] Thank you very much. And before 
we adjourn today, I invite--thank you. And before we adjourn 
today, I invite Ranking Member Scott to share any closing 
comments he may have.
    Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much. Lady and 
gentlemen, this has been an extraordinary hearing at an 
extraordinary and historic time. We are recognized around the 
world as having the best, foremost, number one agriculture 
system in the world. But a lot of that is at stake if we don't 
connect with ourselves and the rest of the world where we 
produce our food supply. And that is making what we have to do 
now a national security issue. No more pussyfooting around. It 
has got to end. Your testimony here today has opened our eyes 
up on this Committee to much of what we were only dimly aware.
    And thank you for this, but don't stop here. We have just 
12 weeks to complete this task of making sure that we don't cut 
any corners in connecting rural America full speed ahead on the 
same basis that we have connected urban America. That's where 
our food supply is. It is--and our food supply is becoming more 
and more an issue. Precision agriculture, all of the 
technological benefits that we need to make sure is in our 
communities where we produce our food. There are worlds and 
nations who are envious of us. We look at the European Union, 
who looks at us, and says that they are more interconnected 
with the internet than the United States. We have to put that 
to an end.
    And so I want to thank Mrs. Shirley Bloomfield, Chief 
Executive Officer of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association. 
Your testimony was most helpful. Thank you. Mr. James Assey, 
Executive Vice President of NCTA--The Internet and Television 
Association, you did a masterful job. David Zumwalt, President 
and CEO of WISPA--The Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association. Mr. Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite 
Industry Association, thank you. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive 
Officer of National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, 
and my friend, and former Member of Congress. We have traveled 
together, we have worked together. Keep up the good work. And 
Mr. Bill Hurley, Chair of the Agriculture Sector Board, 
Association of Equipment Manufacturers, AEM.
    You all did a fantastic job, and you saw and heard, from 
the participation of our Members on both sides of the aisle. We 
are Republicans and Democrats working in a bipartisan way to 
make sure we finally cross the Rubicon and establish rural 
broadband in rural America. God bless you, and thank you for 
your wisdom, your advice, and please continue to work with us 
over next 12 weeks. We must get this farm bill done by the end 
of September, and that's just 3 months away. So our work is 
ahead for us, and we want you to continue to be involved. And, 
most importantly, make sure we got the right amount of money so 
that we don't short circuit our rural communities from having 
the financial resources to do this job the right way. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott, and thank 
you to all our witnesses for their expert testimony here today, 
and all of your cooperation and time. Under the Rules of this 
Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for 
10 calendar days to receive additional material and 
supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any of 
the questions posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee 
on Agriculture is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
 Submitted Article by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Tennessee


[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegreenwald/2021/04/06/an-exciting-
surprisingly-imaginative-techy-vision-of-telemedicines-future/
?sh=6fbb57647a03]
An Exciting, Surprisingly Imaginative, Techy Vision Of Telemedicine's 
        Future
Michelle Greenwald,\1\ Contributor, Corporate Innovation Expert, 
Systematic, Creative, Product Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegreenwald/.

Apr. 6, 2021, 08:51 a.m. EDT


          Avatar of Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal at Vanderbilt University 
        Medical Center to potentially use in future patient 
        interactions. Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal.

    Avatars, virtual waiting rooms, virtual scribes, in-home testing 
devices, ``syndromatic'' facial analysis using AI and machine learning, 
screen-sharing, and sentiment analysis . . . There are many exciting 
innovation possibilities on the horizon that will make telemedicine 
even more productive, informative, helpful and dare I say fun and 
personable, than current, in-person doctor visits. Several weeks ago I 
heard Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal, MD MPH, Assistant Professor of Biomedical 
Informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, speak at the 
Disruption Lab's excellent series on the Future of Health Care. Dr. 
Kumah-Crystal defined telehealth as ``care unbound by distance, 
physical location or setting.''
    While many of the ideas Dr. Kumah-Crystal shared have a long way to 
go, they paint a picture that's exciting to imagine, and can be 
instructive and inspiring to a range of industries outside of 
healthcare. The guiding objective for these ideas is how to make 
telemedicine even better than current in-person care, in certain 
instances. While telemedicine visits have been reimbursed by most 
insurance companies at the same rate as in-person visits since the 
onset of [COVID] due to restrictions and the need to encourage care, 
going forward telemedicine may have to prove its comparable worth for 
insurers to maintain parity payments. What follows are some of the more 
exciting, creative, effective possibilities Dr. Kumah-Crystal shared.
Screen-sharing
    It can be hard for patients to understand verbal explanations by 
physicians of their conditions, or through wall-charts or plastic 
models of body parts in their offices. With screen-sharing, it's easier 
for doctors to show more still visuals that can be easier for patients 
to understand, or even short, explanatory videos.
Chart Photos
    It can be difficult for physicians to match patient names with what 
they look like between or before visits. While not a common occurrence, 
there can be errors in writing prescriptions for the wrong person. What 
if each person's photo always appeared in their telehealth chart?
Syndromatic Facial Detection Using AI, Machine Learning & Pattern 
        Recognition
    One way physicians diagnose is looking at the patient's eyes, face 
and tongue. AI and Machine Learning benefit from millions of 
observations, correlations with diseases, and pattern recognition. 
Using image recognition of the patient, computers have more data points 
to draw upon than any one physician, and therefore the conclusions can 
be even more accurate.
Virtual Waiting Rooms
    Waiting rooms can be boring and not a great use of a patient's 
time. What if once a patient was logged in for their appointment, while 
they were waiting for the doctor online, there was content tailored 
either to their interests, or even better, relating to the issue they 
came to see the doctor about.
Remote Monitoring Devices & Virtual House Calls
    What if patients had in their homes, simplified yet effective 
versions of routine monitoring devices normally found in a doctor's 
office, such as a stethoscope or a device for looking in the ear, nose 
and throat. These readings could be digitally transmitted to the doctor 
to interpret.
Sentiment Analysis Based On Facial Expression
    The patient experience, while historically not given enough 
attention, can become easier to assess by analyzing facial expressions 
in response to each step of their care journey, from filling out forms 
(even digital ones), to speaking with the doctor, to understanding new 
terminology, to understanding a bill. Anonymized facial expression 
analysis could help interested doctors' offices realize what areas of 
the end-to-end patience experience they most need to improve.
Better Understanding How Patients' Everyday Life Affects Their Health
    Imagine how effective it would be for a patient to show their 
doctor how they organize their medications, the foods they eat, or how 
they exercise, right from their home. The patient could take the doctor 
or physical therapist for a virtual tour of their medicine cabinet, 
their refrigerator or pantry, or their exercise routine.
Avatars
    It's been shown that people can feel more comfortable sharing 
personal things with through avatars of themselves and people they're 
interacting with. Avatars of doctors can seem more approachable and 
easier to talk to about difficult subjects. Advances in avatar creation 
has enabled them to be even more realistic, with movements like raising 
eyebrows, smiling, and other facial expressions.
Virtual Scribes
    Since the advent of electronic medical records, physicians have 
found themselves spending more and more time, both during and after 
patient visits, typing notes about the patients' symptoms and 
condition. It's hard to make eye contact with the patient while doing 
it. Virtual scribes that use voice recognition to hear and transcribe/
diarize the entire conversation, free doctors to make eye contact with 
patients so they feel they're being paid better attention and getting 
better care. Patients can then receive a copy of the notes with a 
patient dictionary or glossary of terms, so they can more easily 
understand unfamiliar terminology used by the doctor.
Improved Accessibility and Speech Captions
    Due to [COVID] concerns and patients and physicians wearing masks 
in-person or online, the sound can be muffled and patients can't read 
lips to help decipher the speech. With virtual visits, there could be 
captions to what was being said to be sure nothing was missed. For 
hearing impaired patients this is even more essential.
Text Check-Ins Between Visits
    While there will always be circumstances that require in-person 
visits, some can be replaced by text check-ins, including photos. 
Telemedicine is envisioned as only a partial replacement for in-person 
care. For seniors, the disabled, and individuals without good 
transportation options, the ability to not have to physically come into 
an office is not only easier, it can increase medical provider/patient 
communication, and therefore improve outcomes. This could correlate 
with a different compensation mechanism that rewards how well the 
patient does, rather than basing compensation solely on office visit 
and procedure fees.
Doctor/Patient Portals
    With digitized remote monitoring devices like glucose monitors, 
heart monitors, and scales, doctors can check-in periodically to 
monitor the data for aberrations that might warrant attention. The 
software can be programmed to alert the doctor when aberrations occur 
and is therefore a 24/7 kind of monitoring that's more effective than 
waiting for a scheduled visit to discover an issue.
Conclusion
    We live in a very exciting time for medicine because of the 
combination of advances in science, technology, creativity, and 
increased focus on customer experience, speed and efficiency. What's 
key is bringing together individuals with different expertise to 
jointly problem solve and imagine more effective processes, independent 
of legacy procedures and systems.
    I've heard Scott Friedman, another speaker at the Disruption Lab 
series on the Future of Health Care, who is a Professor and Chief of 
the Division of Liver Diseases at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York 
(considered by many to be the most innovative medical center in New 
York), speak about Mount Sinai's new BioMedical Engineering and Imaging 
Institute. Launched in September 2019, its goal is to develop novel 
medical inventions in the fields of imaging, nanomedicine, artificial 
intelligence, robotics, sensors, medical devices, and computer vision 
technologies that include virtual, augmented, and extended reality. 
Mount Sinai's pioneering FlexMed medical school program allows 
applicants to apply who don't have traditional science majors and 
they're not required to take the MCAT for admission. It encourages a 
student body with broader set of interests and skills such as 
engineering, computer science, software engineering, or robotics, that 
will help graduates create the healthcare of the future.
    There's much to be learned by other industries in the way 
healthcare, due to necessity, is adapting to a post-[COVID], more 
contactless, more visual, virtual, and data driven world. [COVID] was 
the accelerant for changes that were long needed, causing us to think 
sooner, more intensely, broadly, and imaginatively about what the 
future can hold.

          Follow me on Twitter \2\ or LinkedIn.\3\ Check out my website 
        \4\ or some of my other work here.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.twitter.com/CatalyzingInnov.
    \3\ https://www.linkedin.com/in/catalyzinginnovation.
    \4\ http://www.catalyzinginnovation.com/.
    \5\ https://books.apple.com/us/book/catalyzing-innovation/
id794016507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Letter by Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, a Representative in 
                         Congress from New York
May 18, 2023

  Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack,
  Secretary,
  U.S. Department of Agriculture
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Secretary Vilsack,

    We write to you today to request that you prioritize the pressing 
issue of connecting unserved rural Americans and bridging the digital 
divide by keeping the Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Pilot Program of 
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) focused on this objective.
    For years, rural communities have long been neglected due to their 
remote location and lack of economic viability, making it difficult to 
provide them with broadband service without the aid of targeted 
subsidies.
    The Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Pilot Program has provided 
funding for broadband deployment in rural communities without access to 
broadband service since its establishment in 2018 and has two main 
strategies to effectively distribute its funding.
    First, it prioritizes rural areas where at least 90 percent of 
households lack access to broadband, ensuring that the most unserved 
regions receive support. Second, it avoids duplicative efforts by not 
providing funding to areas that are already receiving broadband service 
through other programs, thus making the most efficient use of its 
resources. These measures, in addition to other improvements like 
refining broadband coverage data and expanding program access to more 
qualified providers, are meant to allow ReConnect to accurately 
allocate funding and provide services to the most unserved rural areas.
    However, as RUS begins to award a fourth round of funding, we are 
deeply concerned that the program may not be focused on this objective, 
and that these funds for the next round of ReConnect could go to places 
that already have strong broadband service. In the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress directed RUS to focus funding 
on rural areas ``without sufficient access to broadband defined . . . 
as having speeds of not less than 25 megabits per second downloads and 
3 megabits per second uploads.'' In addition, Congress directed RUS to 
set aside a portion of the appropriated funding specifically to 
prioritize areas where at least 90 percent of households to be served 
lack 25/3 megabits per second (Mbps). And yet, in its most recent 
funding opportunity announcement, RUS increased the threshold for 
``sufficient access to broadband'' to 100/20 Mbps. Coupled with IIJA's 
lowering the percentage of households within a project that are 
unserved, RUS could be allocating a significant portion of its 
resources to subsidize additional broadband deployment in areas where 
more than half of households can already subscribe to 100/20 Mbps or 
better from an existing provider, diverting funding away from rural 
areas that require broadband the most.
    The concerns regarding the duplication of Federal resources are 
amplified due to the significant amount of broadband funding that has 
been allocated to NTIA through the IIJA. As you know, to ensure the 
maximum impact of Federal and state broadband programs, it is crucial 
for ReConnect to collaborate with other initiatives such as the FCC's 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program, NTIA, Treasury, and 
state broadband programs. This collaboration will prevent any 
duplication of services in project areas that are already funded by 
other government agencies. Duplicating services will not only hinder 
the efforts to bridge the digital divide but also deprive numerous 
rural communities of reliable, affordable, and high-speed internet 
services.
    Therefore, through the next farm bill, Congress should have proper 
oversight and authority for ReConnect and other programs that directly 
impact rural Americans, as the lack of checks and balances in the 
ReConnect funding program have been a cause for concern. In addition, 
we strongly urge the agency to make every effort to give priority to 
communities with the highest percentage of unserved households and 
those not being served by other broadband funding programs, as meeting 
our shared goal of connecting all Americans is dependent on these 
crucial actions.
            Sincerely,
            
            

 
 
 
Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy,         Hon. Don Bacon,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Trent Kelly,                    Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Zachary Nunn,                   Hon. John S. Duarte,
Member of Congress                   Member of Congress
 

                                     
                                     

 
 
 
Hon. Marcus J. Molinaro,
Member of Congress
 

                                 ______
                                 
    Supplementary Material Submitted by James M. Assey, Jr., J.D., 
Executive Vice President, NCTA--The Internet and Television Association
Insert
          Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining 
        time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today 
        talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to 
        rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long 
        time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think 
        about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money 
        that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money, 
        doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face 
        as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that 
        reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so 
        that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
          And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades 
        ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and 
        that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably 
        not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like 
        to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I 
        right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to 
        make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America 
        wired with broadband access?
          * * * * *
          Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would 
        appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about 
        that question. Thank you.

    With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
there is a rare opportunity for policymakers to reassess the scope and 
scale of the Universal Service Fund's (USF) programs to ensure optimal 
use of USF's resources in achieving the goal of universal service. The 
Infrastructure Act's programs, such as the $42.5 billion Broadband 
Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, will fund new broadband 
infrastructure in many of the same unserved and underserved areas that 
are supported by USF's high-cost program.
    NCTA recognizes that broadband providers that deploy broadband 
networks with government funding will continue to incur operational and 
maintenance costs in high-cost areas; however, there is no basis for a 
blanket assumption that providers will be unable to cover these costs 
in the future because modern, fiber-rich networks tend to have lower 
operating costs than the legacy copper networks they are supplanting. 
In the event a provider does seek USF support for operational and 
maintenance expenses in an extremely rural, high-cost area, NCTA 
believes the provider should be required to demonstrate such support is 
necessary and not duplicative of other government support. All 
stakeholders will soon have the opportunity to address these issues in 
response to the Notice of Inquiry that recently was commenced by the 
FCC.
    The extensive and overlapping funding provided by the new programs 
recently created by Congress should reduce the fiscal demands on USF. 
NCTA believes this is an opportune time to focus on stabilizing USF 
through increased efficiency and better targeted spending.
                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by David M. Zumwalt, President and 
     Chief Executive Officer, Wireless Internet Service Providers 
                              Association
Insert
          Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining 
        time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today 
        talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to 
        rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long 
        time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think 
        about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money 
        that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money, 
        doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face 
        as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that 
        reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so 
        that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
          And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades 
        ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and 
        that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably 
        not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like 
        to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I 
        right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to 
        make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America 
        wired with broadband access?
          * * * * *
          Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would 
        appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about 
        that question. Thank you.

    Thank you for this important question. Many rural communities 
across America do not have the same access to broadband as their urban 
and suburban counterparts. This disparity has long-term adverse 
economic and social consequences for those left behind. These 
challenges are particularly acute for our nation's farmers. 
Connectivity, real-time data, and opportunities to sell their 
commodities in an expedient and efficient manner are more critical than 
ever. And many applications used by farmers, such as precision 
agriculture, require wireless broadband to blanket vast acres of 
farmland. WISPA is committed to addressing this disparity.
    The Universal Service Fund (USF) has played a major role in 
connecting communities and remains important today. However, for it to 
be most effective in today's technological environment, USF should be 
updated to better accommodate small, broadband-only providers who 
deliver needed internet access to millions of Americans in high-cost 
areas that are on the wrong side of the digital divide.
    More specifically, WISPA recommends the following:

   Congress should update the FCC's USF programs from Title II 
        telecommunications programs to allow support for broadband 
        programs; an important step will be to decouple or eliminate 
        the hurdle that requires recipients of high-cost support to 
        first be designated as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers 
        (``ETCs'').

   Federal and state broadband funding programs should be 
        carefully crafted and implemented to avoid duplicating 
        government support to providers in the same area.

   USF programs should focus on functionality, consumer demand, 
        deployment costs and speed of deployment to encourage timely 
        and efficient distribution of ratepayer and taxpayer 
        contributions.

   The E-rate program should fund support of off-campus use of 
        broadband services for library patrons/students who would 
        otherwise lack access; and allow schools/libraries to use funds 
        for broadband access for K-12 students within the footprint of 
        a school or school district, with such support available for 
        all technologies, including fixed wireless networks using 
        unlicensed spectrum.

   The FCC should permit high-cost support recipients that are 
        not the only Lifeline provider in their Census block to fulfill 
        their obligations by either offering Lifeline discounts or 
        participating in the Affordable Connectivity Program.

   And, if the Commission requires entities that do not provide 
        voice services to contribute to USF, it should raise the de 
        minimis contribution threshold to prevent unfair burdens on 
        small providers.

    Every American--regardless of where they live--should have access 
to the very best internet and reliability that they need. Americans in 
rural areas have no less a need for broadband than those in urban and 
suburban centers. Modernizing USF is an important step to ensuring that 
all communities benefit from connectivity.
                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by Thomas A. ``Tom'' Stroup, J.D., 
               President, Satellite Industry Association
Insert
          Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining 
        time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today 
        talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to 
        rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long 
        time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think 
        about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money 
        that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money, 
        doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face 
        as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that 
        reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so 
        that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
          And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades 
        ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and 
        that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably 
        not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like 
        to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I 
        right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to 
        make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America 
        wired with broadband access?
          * * * * *
          Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would 
        appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about 
        that question. Thank you.

    The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) submits this in response 
to the request for formal reply to the question raised during the House 
Agriculture Committee Hearing on June 21, 2023, concerning whether ``we 
need to address the Universal Service Fund to make sure that it is 
providing the resources to keep America wired with broadband access?''
    The USF is one of many current Federal funding programs seeking to 
support the deployment of broadband in rural and other unserved areas 
of the United States. For example, the FCC, NTIA, Department of 
Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Treasury, and the 
Institute of Museum and Library Services all provide funding to build-
out rural broadband infrastructure.\1\ *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Congressional Research Service, Overview of the Universal 
Service Fund and Selected Federal Broadband Programs (updated June 25, 
2021), at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46780.
    * Editor's note: the referenced report is retained in Committee 
file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SIA believes these programs should be technology inclusive and that 
satellite operators should be eligible for funding through them. As 
noted in SIA's written testimony, no single broadband technology holds 
all the advantages. With finite resources and widely varying 
topography, we need a flexible combination of all available access 
technologies to bridge the digital divide and satellites are a key part 
of that ecosystem. Fortunately, multiple satellite providers currently 
provide broadband access to consumers nationwide, including in rural 
and remote areas. They provide connection to all 50 states with speeds 
of up to 200 megabits per second (Mbps) without the need for additional 
build-out.\2\ Satellite companies continue to launch new capacity and 
plan to deploy tens of thousands of new satellites adding to the 
approximately 8,000 satellites on orbit today. The satellite industry 
is currently increasing production of satellites capable of providing 
connections to rural America while reducing costs. For example, the 
cost of manufacturing satellites as measured by cost per throughput has 
decreased approximately 90% resulting in lower costs to consumers, 
including those in rural areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AG/AG00/20230621/116129/HHRG-
118-AG00-Wstate-StroupT-20230621.pdf.
    \3\ BryceTech, Satellite Industry Association: State of the 
Satellite Industry Report 2023, at 10, 16 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
  Supplementary Material Submitted by Bill T. Hurley, Vice President, 
   Distribution, Americas, AGCO Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board, 
                 Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Insert
          Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining 
        time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today 
        talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to 
        rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long 
        time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think 
        about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money 
        that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money, 
        doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face 
        as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that 
        reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so 
        that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
          And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades 
        ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and 
        that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably 
        not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like 
        to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I 
        right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to 
        make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America 
        wired with broadband access?
          * * * * *
          Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would 
        appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about 
        that question. Thank you.

    The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) supports updates 
to the Universal Service Fund that take into consideration advancements 
in precision agriculture and the connectivity needs that they require. 
We believe that the spirit of the Communications Act of 1934 called for 
universal services to be administered as an evolving level of service. 
Precision agriculture wasn't initially theorized until the 1980s and 
policymakers then could not possibly have foreseen what innovations 
would be developed 50 years into the future.
    As such, as policymakers approach updating any Federal broadband 
deployment program, AEM would encourage a multifaceted strategy that 
includes fiber optic, low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and 5G. It is 
imperative that the system supports connectivity between all aspects of 
rural America, from the hospital to the school and from the farmhouse 
to the field.

                                  [all]