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


                    BREAKING BARRIERS: STREAMLINING PERMITTING 
                     TO EXPEDITE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 
                                TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 19, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-25


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-203 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

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

                           Professional Staff

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

                         ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                 Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia,   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    Vice Chair                       MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                DARREN SOTO, Florida
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                     officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, opening statement...............................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21

                               Witnesses

Michael Romano, Executive Vice President, NTCA-The Rural 
  Broadband Association..........................................    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   202
Michael Saperstein, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, 
  and Chief Strategy Officer, Wireless Infrastructure Association    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   207
Ernesto Falcon, Senior Legislative Counsel, Electronic Frontier 
  Foundation.....................................................    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    56
Louis Finkel, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, 
  National Rural Electric Cooperative Association................    72
    Prepared statement...........................................    74
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   209
Michael O'Rielly, President, MPORielly Consulting, Inc...........    80
    Prepared statement...........................................    82

                            Legislation \1\

H.R. ___, the Winning the International Race for Economic 
  Leadership and Expanding Service to Support Leadership 
  (WIRELESS Leadership) Act
H.R. ___, the Barriers and Regulatory Obstacles Avoids Deployment 
  of Broadband Access and Needs Deregulatory Leadership 
  (BROADBAND Leadership) Act
H.R. ___, the Cable Access for Broadband and Local Economic 
  Leadership (CABLE Leadership) Act
H.R. ___, the Connecting and Building Lines for Expedited 
  Expansion (CABLE Expansion) Act
H.R. ___, the Consumer Access to Broadband for Local Economies 
  and Competition (CABLE Competition) Act
H.R. ___, the Cable Transparency Act
H.R. ___, the Broadband Expansion and Deployment Fee Equity and 
  Efficiency (BEAD FEES) Act


----------

\1\ The proposed legislation has been retained in committee files and 
is available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115750.
H.R. ___, the Granting Remaining Applications Not Treated 
  Efficiently or Delayed (GRANTED) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the 5G Using Previously Granted Rulings that Accelerate 
  Deployment Everywhere (5G UPGRADE) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient 
  Deployment for Broadband Infrastructure (SPEED for Broadband 
  Infrastructure) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Wireless Broadband Competition and Efficient 
  Deployment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act 
  \1\
H.R. ___, the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Broadband Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act 
  \1\
H.R. ___, the Proportional Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act 
  \1\
H.R. ___, the Reducing Antiquated Permitting for Infrastructure 
  Deployment (RAPID) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Coastal Broadband Deployment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Brownfields Broadband Deployment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Timely Replacement Under Secure and Trusted for 
  Early and Dependable Broadband Networks (TRUSTED Broadband 
  Networks) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Connecting Communities Post Disaster Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Wildfire Wireless Resiliency Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Reducing Barriers for Broadband on Federal Lands 
  Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Standard Fees to Expedite Evaluation and 
  Streamlining (Standard FEES) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband 
  Deployment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Deploying Infrastructure with Greater Internet 
  Transactions and Legacy Applications (DIGITAL Applications) Act 
  \1\
H.R. ___, the Facilitating the Deployment of Infrastructure with 
  Greater Internet Transactions and Legacy Applications 
  (Facilitating DIGITAL Applications) Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Rural Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act \1\
H.R. ___, the Fair Access to Internet Ready Poles Act (FAIR 
  Poles) Act \1\
H.R. 1241, the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act \1\
H.R. 2552, the Community Broadband Act \1\

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record.......................   138
Memorandum from Shalanda D. Young, Director, Office of Management 
  and Budget, et al., ``Implementation Guidance for the Biden-
  Harris Permitting Action Plan,'' March 6, 2023.................   139
Letter of April 19, 2023, from Gary Bolton, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Fiber Broadband Association, to Mr. Latta, 
  et al..........................................................   155
Letter of April 18, 2023, from Tom Quaadman, Executive Vice 
  President, Chamber Technology Engagement Center, U.S. Chamber 
  of Commerce, to Mr. Latta and Ms. Matsui.......................   157
Final Report on Status of Implementation of MOBILE NOW Act 
  Section 606(c) Requirements....................................   160
Senate Bill 2674, 219th Legislature, State of New Jersey.........   168
Letter of April 18, 2023, from Desmarie Waterhouse, Senior Vice 
  President of Advocacy and Communications & General Counsel, 
  American Public Power Association, et al., to Mrs. Rodgers, et 
  al.............................................................   189
Letter of April 19, 2023, from Zach Cikanek, Connect the Future, 
  to Mrs. Rodgers, et al.........................................   191
Letter of April 19, 2023, from Clarence Anthony, Chief Executive 
  Officer and Executive Director, National League of Cities, et 
  al., to Mr. Latta, et al.......................................   193

----------

\1\ The proposed legislation has been retained in committee files and 
is available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=115750.
Letter of August 5, 2022, from Ms. Matsui, et al., to Secretary 
  Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation, et al.   196
Letter of April 14, 2023, from Todd Schlekeway, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, NATE: The Communications 
  Infrastructure Contractors Association, to Mrs. Fletcher.......   199
Statement of Chip Pickering, Chief Executive Officer, INCOMPAS, 
  on the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act................   200
Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association on the 
  Broadband Incentives for Communities Act, April 19, 2023.......   201

 
   BREAKING BARRIERS: STREAMLINING PERMITTING TO EXPEDITE BROADBAND 
                               DEPLOYMENT

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, April 19, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in 
Room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg, 
Carter, Dunn, Curtis, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, 
Pfluger, Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio), 
Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), Clarke, Veasey, Soto, 
Eshoo, Cardenas, Craig, Fletcher, Kuster, Kelly, and Pallone 
(ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Johnson.
    Staff present: Slate Herman, Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology; 
Sean Kelly, Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; 
Emily King, Member Services Director; Giulia Leganski, 
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; John 
Linn, Senior Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kate 
O'Connor, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Evan 
Viau, Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; 
Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Jennifer Epperson, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Waverly 
Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff Director; Dan Miller, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Caroline Rinker, Minority 
Press Assistant; Michael Scurato, Minority FCC Detailee; Andrew 
Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and 
Member Services; and Johanna Thomas, Minority Counsel.
    Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. The subcommittee will come 
to order, and the Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

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

    Broadband connectivity is a critical part of everyday life. 
Ordinary activities like work, education, healthcare now 
require a high-speed internet connection. Yet millions of 
Americans, particularly those in rural areas, still lack access 
to broadband and aren't able to enjoy the benefits of 
connectivity.
    Over the past few years, Congress has made significant 
investments to bridge this digital divide, the most significant 
being the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, providing 
over $45 billion for broadband deployment. While funding is a 
key piece to the puzzle, it's not enough to make sure that 
people have access to broadband; we need to make sure new 
networks can be built in a timely and a cost-efficient manner.
    I firmly believe that the infrastructure bill was a missed 
opportunity to enact meaningful permitting reform that would 
have broken down barriers to deployment and stretched Federal 
spending. Lengthy application reviews and excessive fees for 
deployment will only delay connectivity and increase costs, 
leaving behind those Americans--American families who lack 
reliable internet access.
    Without changes to the permitting process and meaningful 
oversight, all of this money set aside for broadband could be 
wasted. We cannot let that occur. Permitting reform is not just 
necessary to bridge the digital divide; it is necessary to help 
us continue to lead the world in the next-generation wireless 
technology. We will not beat China to 5G leadership if efforts 
to deploy new wireless infrastructure are delayed.
    I appreciate that the Federal Communications Commission has 
worked to streamline State and local permitting process in this 
space. We need to codify and build on these reforms. The 
legislation we're reviewing today includes over 30 proposals 
that will help us streamline permitting at all levels of 
government, facilitating accelerated broadband deployment.
    These ideas include implementing shot clocks on State and 
local government reviews of permitting applications, capping 
fees, removing burdensome environmental and historic 
preservation reviews, and making it easier to deploy on Federal 
lands. Enacting these policies would help providers receive an 
answer in a timely manner, reduce the burdens and costs of the 
deployment, ensure that the--ensure that we connect people 
quickly.
    I am proud to once again lead the Wireless Leadership Act, 
which would help expedite the deployment of wireless 
infrastructure. This legislation would set timelines that State 
and local governments must abide by in reviewing applications 
and create a deemed grant remedy for reviews that miss 
deadlines. It would also reduce the cost of the deployment by 
limiting the fees these government--those governments can 
charge for reviewing applications and using a right-of-way. The 
bill does all this while preserving State and local zoning 
authority.
    I hope that we can make these bills bipartisan as we move 
through our regular order. This is not a partisan issue. Both 
Republicans and Democrats want to close this digital divide. 
And as I've said in the past, it's not a Republican, Democrat, 
or Independent issue, it's all of our issue.
    The bills we are considering today will ensure we do so 
quickly and cost effectively. I am pleased that the Biden 
administration recognizes the need for permitting reform and is 
encouraging States to streamline their permitting processes for 
broadband deployment. I hope we can work on this package 
together.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, all of 
whom understand the challenges of deploying broadband. And 
again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. And at this time, I will recognize for 5 minutes 
the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.

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

    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta. The topic 
of today's hearing is an important one. If we're able to find 
bipartisan solutions that speed broadband deployment, we can 
accomplish a goal shared by all members of the subcommittee: 
getting connectivity to communities who need it. While I have 
some concerns about process and representation on the witness 
panel today, it is my hope that moving forward we can get back 
to a more balanced approach that encourages bipartisan 
collaboration on a consequential issue.
    The small towns and hamlets in my district are desperate 
for modern internet connectivity. The mayors that reach out to 
me are ready to do whatever it takes to get their residents 
connected. This is something I know is not unique to me.
    Most of us on this subcommittee hear from our districts 
about the lack of broadband on a daily basis. These local 
governments understand the challenges they have--they face 
better than anyone else. They know where broadband is 
available, where it's not, and the barriers they face to 
connectivity.
    I believe we must be supporting, not limiting, their 
efforts. These communities want broadband connectivity, and 
with the funding included in the bipartisan infrastructure 
bill, we have historic opportunity to provide it. The 
bipartisan IIJA provided $65 billion to expand access to 
broadband through new deployment and adoption efforts.
    This includes $42 billion for the BEAD Program, which is to 
support deployment of new broadband infrastructure projects. 
BEAD will be successful because it addresses the fundamental 
impediment to broadband deployment: economics. In rural areas 
where populations are more spread out, private companies can't 
afford to deploy or operate a network. In those areas, the 
problem isn't permitting barriers, it's an unsustainable 
business case.
    Thankfully, Congress correctly recognized this dynamic with 
the bipartisan BEAD Program. Continuing to support NTIA in the 
States as they implement BEAD is the single most powerful tool 
that we have to connect our unserved constituents.
    Let me repeat: It is the bipartisan BEAD Program, more than 
any bill on today's agenda, that will be responsible for 
closing the digital divide. In both Republican and Democratic 
districts, this funding will soon result in shovels in the 
ground and homes coming online.
    If you haven't already, I'd encourage Members to reach out 
to their State broadband offices. Let them know about the needs 
of your district and get engaged.
    Over this past recess, I held a roundtable with NTIA, the 
California Public Utilities Commission, and official--and local 
officials to discuss broadband implementation. We outlined the 
broadband needs of the rural areas in my district and how all 
levels of government can work together to get them served.
    I believe that this type of Federal, State, and local 
collaboration is a key to successful broadband deployment. 
Leveraging the expertise of all involved to connect communities 
is the right path forward. That's why I'm concerned that as 
drafted some of the proposals on the agenda today could 
undermine that collaboration. Rigid, top-down Federal 
preemption can never be as successful as meaningful incentives 
to support local collaboration and engagement.
    Having said that, it's clear that there are ample 
opportunities to support a more predictable, sustaining 
permitting process, especially at the Federal level. 
Contradictory permitting requirements, unacceptable deadlines, 
and a confusing tangle of bureaucracy at the Federal level has 
inhibited broadband deployment for far too long. This is 
especially a problem for western States where Federal lands can 
prevent middle-mile connections that serve as a bridge between 
communities.
    I'm hopeful we can find bipartisan agreement on issues like 
this which can meaningfully speed up broadband deployment. 
We've done it before. I think about the bipartisan work on 
commonsense dig-once policies led by Congresswoman Eshoo or 
some of the consensus permitting items advanced by the FCC.
    So while I am disappointed by some aspects of this hearing, 
I'm committing to really continuing the discussion. There is 
more to be done: providing clarity and responsiveness at the 
Federal level, incentives for local engagement, and a more 
predictable process across the board.
    I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us 
today, and I look forward to our discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Matsui. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and at 
this time the Chair recognizes for 5 minutes the Chair of our 
full Committee of Energy and Commerce, the gentlelady from 
Washington.

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

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In 2021, Congress wrote the largest check for broadband 
deployment in our Nation's history, more than $42 billion for 
the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD, Program, 1 
billion for the middle mile infrastructure deployment, an 
additional 2 billion for deployment on Tribal lands, and 2 
billion for rural broadband deployment through the Department 
of Agriculture.
    These funds are just a small fraction of the funding 
appropriated over the past several years that could have been 
used for deploying broadband. This is an historical opportunity 
in our Nation's history to connect all Americans, and we cannot 
allow permitting delays and unnecessary costs to mess it up.
    Unfortunately, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
spent more money without the needed fixes to the burdensome 
permitting process. We need to lift regulatory burdens, cut the 
red tape, roll out the red carpet. Without removing barriers to 
deployment, a record amount of taxpayer money will be wasted. 
This means that rural Americans will continue to watch from a 
distance as technologies advance, kids will go without access 
on--to online educational resources, and businesses in Rural 
America will be left behind as the digital economy continues to 
boom in urban centers across the globe.
    This issue should not be partisan. The Federal funding wave 
is coming. The BEAD Program will begin awarding money for 
deployment as early as the end of this year in addition to the 
deployment that is already happening from both private and 
public investments.
    It was good news last year that the National 
Telecommunication and Information Administrative encouraged 
States to identify steps to reduce costs and barriers to 
deployment, promote the use of existing infrastructure, promote 
and adopt dig-once policies, streamline permitting processes, 
and cost-effective access to poles, conduits, easements, and 
rights-of-ways.
    But encouraging and promoting these actions is not enough. 
It's time for Congress to act and pass substantive permitting 
reform like the legislative discussion drafts we're considering 
today. The bills being discussed today offer a wide variety of 
needed improvements to existing permitting requirements at the 
Federal, State, and local levels.
    I'm proud to lead the Wildfire Wireless Resiliency Act as a 
part of our legislative agenda. In wake of a disaster, 
communities need to be reconnected as quickly as possible when 
their networks go down. Communications providers working to 
reconnect victims to the systems that provide access to public 
safety, healthcare, and resources should not be tied up in 
regulatory nightmares.
    Under this new legislation, projects to rebuild damaged or 
destroyed communication facilities will be exempt from NEPA and 
historical preservation review, which would have already 
occurred from the original communications facility to be built. 
We don't need another round of environmental or historic review 
when there's already existing infrastructure. And this is one 
of many we will discuss today that enacts reasonable permitting 
reforms.
    Members across this committee are putting forth excellent 
solutions that guarantee these important Federal funds are 
going to go towards deployment, as Congress intended and 
communities need.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. To our rural 
and urban constituents currently under- and unserved, broadband 
is on the way. I'm hopeful that we can get it to you faster in 
a less costly manner.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking 
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman.
    Breaching the digital divide has been a top priority of 
this committee for years, and in 2021 Democrats delivered on 
that promise with passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law. 
This law made historic investments in broadband that will help 
connect millions of Americans to high-speed, affordable, and 
reliable broadband regardless of income or ZIP Code. And I look 
forward to discussing today how we can build upon the 
investments we've already made to continue bridging the divide.
    For years, House Democrats have championed the need to make 
government investments in areas where the private markets have 
failed to build out broadway--broadband networks equitably and 
affordably. Far too many people in these communities the lack 
for--for them, the lack of high-speed, reliable internet means 
not having the opportunity to do basic things that many of us 
now take for granted like applying for a job, telehealth 
appointments, or completing schoolwork from home.
    All told, the Biden administration will provide more than 
$60 billion across a number of programs to bring state-of-the-
art broadband networks to families and households in primarily 
unserved and rural communities, Tribal lands, and other 
unconnected areas around the country. The overwhelming majority 
of these funds have yet to be distributed, and therefore the 
hard work ensuring these funds and projects reach the people 
who need them mostly remains ahead of us.
    It's critical that we ensure States and communities are 
prepared to receive these funds and get projects moving quickly 
and efficiently. If there are impediments or delays that might 
jeopardize the smooth implementation of these programs, then we 
want to know about them.
    So it's important for this committee to hear from expert 
witnesses about potential issues, but that's not the point of 
today's hearing. Republicans have skipped right past an 
examination of the issues to potential solutions, which is 
unfortunate and defies logic. The subcommittee should first 
take the time to identify where the problems are before 
examining solutions. And this legislative hearing is, in my 
opinion, too broad.
    The 30 Republican discussion drafts on the agenda span a 
vast number of issues, amend a number of different Federal 
laws, impact a number of different industry sectors and State 
and local autonomy. The Republican majority invited four 
witnesses to cover these bills, and yet the Chair rejected our 
request for a second Democratic witness for the panel, and I 
have deep concerns about that imbalance and the precedent it 
sets, especially because the Republican majority skipped 
holding an informational hearing.
    I believe that any discussion of these issues that does not 
include State and municipalities, Tribal representatives, 
environmental justice communities, and other experts with 
relevant testimony is incomplete. The Republican majority's 
actions are inconsistent with their calls for bipartisan 
collaboration, and unfortunately may make it harder to work 
together on these bills as they move forward.
    To be clear, if there are real obstacles in deploying 
broadband universally, we want to know about them and find ways 
to address them. But some of the Republican proposals before us 
today are supposed solutions to problems that simply do not 
exist. In fact, one of the clearest obstacles to reliable and 
affordable internet are State laws in more than a dozen States 
that prohibit municipalities from competing in the free market 
to build or operate their own broadband network if they choose.
    Representative Eshoo's Community Broadband Act is critical 
to ensuring flexibility and competition for communities that 
want to provide this service for their residents, which is a 
successful model in many States. Representative Fletcher's 
Broadband Incentives for Communities Act would kick start 
deployment efforts by providing resources to communities to 
deal with the influx of applications for these projects and 
others. So these two bills are real solutions as we bridge the 
digital divide.
    And, obviously, I think that we need to investigate a lot 
of the background here before we move forward with these bills, 
Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Pallone. And with that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time.
    And I would like to point out for our witnesses that you 
will each have 5 minutes to address the committee. And also, I 
don't see in front of you--do we have the light, the timer in 
the front for the witnesses? Yes, there--I see we don't have it 
on the tabletops today. But you'll see that when the light 
turns yellow that you'll each have 1 minute remaining, and then 
when it turns red, the time has expired.
    Our witnesses for today's meeting is Mr. Michael Romano, 
executive vice president of the NTCA-The Rural Broadband 
Association; Mr. Michael Saperstein, the senior vice president 
of Government Affairs and Chief Strategy Officer of the 
Wireless Infrastructure Association; Mr. Ernesto Falcon, the 
senior legislative counsel, Electronic Frontier Foundation; Mr. 
Louis Finkel, the senior vice president of government 
relations, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; and 
our final witness is the Honorable Michael O'Rielly, president 
of MPORielly Consulting, Inc.
    And with that, Mr. Romano, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ROMANO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NTCA-THE 
 RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL SAPERSTEIN, SENIOR VICE 
  PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, AND CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, 
  WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION; ERNESTO FALCON, SENIOR 
  LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION; LOUIS 
 FINKEL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL 
 RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL O'RIELLY, 
              PRESIDENT, MPORIELLY CONSULTING, LLC

                  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL ROMANO

    Mr. Romano. Thank you. To Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, 
Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Latta, Ranking Members Matsui, 
members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the chance to 
testify this morning regarding how to accelerate the deployment 
of broadband networks.
    My name is Mike Romano, I am the executive vice president 
of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association. We represent 
approximately 850 small community-based network operators who 
live in and serve the most rural parts of the United States.
    NTCA members have made extensive strides in deploying 
broadband in rural America. This gives them substantial 
experience and perspective on permitting and approvals relating 
to Federal lands, highways of all kinds, and railroad 
crossings, among others. At the same time, they have more to do 
to upgrade their remaining customers and they are actively 
engaged in expanding to reach unserved locations in other 
areas. This gives them a substantial interest in finding ways 
to improve and expedite permitting procedures where possible.
    My written statement provides a series of case studies 
involving NTCA members to highlight some of the most 
significant concerns they encounter in navigating current 
permitting laws and procedures. Examples include a provider who 
incurred $30,000 in engineering and environmental fees and 
delay of nearly a year to cross BLM land for one small part of 
a large fiber ring.
    A provider who was trying to upgrade a network to fiber in 
a previously disturbed right-of-way that took 9 months to 
approve despite a categorical exclusion under NEPA, with the 
approval coming too late to start construction during the 
winter.
    A provider who faced delays of nearly 2 years for 
historical and consultation processes under the National 
Historic Preservation Act for projects that were primarily in 
previously disturbed rights-of-way.
    And a provider who faced delays and fees of $12,000 simply 
to bore 15 feet under a railroad crossing.
    These examples and many more like them demonstrate how 
providers can face lengthy and frustrating delays, and the need 
to expend substantial sums beyond the actual cost of 
construction to access Federal lands or other rights-of-way for 
broadband deployment. What must not be missed, however, is that 
this is just the current state.
    Certainly broadband deployment has accelerated over the 
past several years, but we are just on the precipice of even 
more massive investment as important well--much-needed 
initiatives like the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment 
Program, or BEAD, come online. These expanded efforts will lead 
to much greater demand for permits and approvals that threaten 
to exacerbate existing backlogs and could undermine a shared 
national objective of universal connectivity.
    While permitting is just one piece of the puzzle when it 
comes to the business case for rural broadband, it is a 
critical piece, and NTCA therefore greatly appreciates both the 
subcommittee's general attention to these issues and its 
specifical consideration of various pieces of legislation aimed 
at promoting streamlining. Bills like the Broadband Leadership 
Act, the BEAD Fees Act, and the Reducing Barriers for Broadband 
on Federal Lands Act will help facilitate fiber deployment in 
rural areas through a variety of measure outlined in those 
bills.
    I also highlight in my written statement how the 
subcommittee can make sure that other legislative measures 
under consideration here will streamline wireline and wireless 
deployments alike, and the need for further conversations 
regarding how to promote timely and cost-effective access to 
poles and railroad crossings.
    Finally, workforce development has become an important 
phrase in our national dialogue these days generally and in the 
broadband industry specifically. But as my written statement 
highlights, this concept is going to be essential as well in 
considering how to make permitting more efficient. As good and 
as skilled as many employees in Federal, State, and local 
permitting offices may be, NTCA members consistently report 
that there appears to be a lack of staff resources necessary to 
handle the quantity of applications presented, leading to 
confusion, delay, and a lack of effective communication at 
times.
    For example, one NTCA member reported that the BLM office 
in a large western State had only two staffers tasked with 
reviewing all broadband, oil, and gas permitting applications 
there. Therefore, even as the subcommittee rightly and 
thoughtfully considers process improvements that can accelerate 
broadband deployment through the legislation presented, NTCA 
encourages attention as well to ensuring that permitting 
agencies and offices at all levels are staffed for the work to 
come, that the staff will be well-trained for the important 
work they need to do, and that internal systems and procedures 
are in place within each agency to ensure more timely and 
effective communication with applicants.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
the conversation today and answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Romano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Thank you for your testimony.
    And, Mr. Saperstein, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SAPERSTEIN

    Mr. Saperstein. Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member 
Pallone, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you for holding this timely hearing 
highlighting the importance of efficient and streamlined 
infrastructure permitting reform.
    I am Mike Saperstein, senior vice president of government 
affairs and chief strategy officer for the Wireless 
Infrastructure Association, WIA.
    WIA represents the multitude of entities that make up the 
entire wireless ecosystem. We have never been closer to 
achieving our bipartisan goal of nationwide connectivity, 
making broadband available literally everywhere from dense 
urban corridors to rural farmland. To realize our shared 
connectivity goals, we must also account for significant 
consumer demand for broadband connectivity on the move. Mobile 
broadband has never been more available, affordable, 
accessible, and competitive than it is today. We should 
acknowledge this win for the American people even while we 
finish our work.
    However--and this is the main message I want to impart 
today--infrastructure deployment is the fulcrum between the 
potential of historic broadband investment and the reality of 
universal connectivity. Our Nation's broadband potential will 
ultimately be limited by the barriers we do not remove. That's 
why today's hearing is so important.
    What we're doing here today is fundamentally in exercising 
good government and sound management. If universal connectivity 
is Congress' priority--and there are 65 billion reasons to 
believe it is--then we must identify the things within our 
control preventing us from achieving that priority. Permitting 
processes serve a function, but common sense tells that not 
every proposed action requires the same amount of scrutiny. And 
what we're asking for is straightforward.
    We simply seek a predictable application process 
proportionate to the project that will be decided in a timely 
manner. And when the answer is no, let us know why that is, and 
let's work together to resolve reasonable concerns.
    Fortunately, we're not starting from scratch. We can build 
on the existing policy, much like we can build on existing 
physical infrastructure, and fill in the gaps that exist. 
Congressional action over the last decade, aided by the FCC's 
sensible interpretations, has been effective in reducing the 
gap between potential and actualized connectivity. And the 
results speak for themselves.
    5G is being deployed at twice the speed of 4G. Siting 
activity in the 2 years following FCC reform exceeded the 
previous 7 years combined. And that's why these reforms must be 
maintained and strengthened as we attempt to cover the hardest 
remaining parts of America.
    Permit me to give a few examples of what WIA members 
experienced. Many jurisdictions were doing an end run around 
the application shot clock for colocation and minor 
modifications simply by claiming things like the locality lacks 
processing procedures and the shot clock can't start until 
those procedures are established; or, most egregiously, simply 
refusing to accept an application to avoid triggering the shot 
clock.
    There was also endless debate about what constitutes a 
substantial change to the dimensions of a structure that make 
it eligible for streamline review that the FCC's 5G upgrade 
order resolved. The FCC's interpretation of congressional 
action has gone a long way toward solving this problem, and we 
see an increasing partnership with local communities that 
understand the value of wireless connectivity.
    But the FCC's orders are subject to challenge. Today, the 
FCC's 2020 5G upgrade order is now under appeal in the Ninth 
Circuit. We appreciate the bills, like Chairman Latta's 
Wireless Leadership Act, that would codify and make permanent 
existing FCC interpretations.
    In Congress' own backyard, siting on Federal lands 
continues to be a bedeviling issue despite prior congressional 
action. More than anything, WIA members seek clarity, 
accountability, and transparency with respect to permitting on 
Federal lands. Simple portals would help this.
    Similarly, there are resource-driven review issues at the 
FAA that could also use congressional attention. WIA supports 
codifying streamlined environmental reviews which otherwise may 
not be commensurate with the undertaking and unnecessarily 
delay broadband deployments.
    Finally, WIA supports efforts to increase government's 
ability to prepare themselves for this increasing permitting 
demands across all divisions, Federal, State, and local--a 
crucial effort as broadband providers push to connect every 
corner of this Nation.
    Removing broadband--barriers to broadband deployment has 
long been a bipartisan goal of Congress and the executive 
branch. We agree. We look forward to discussing today the slate 
of bills at issue to determine how we can help remove those 
barriers. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Saperstein follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Falcon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF ERNESTO FALCON

    Mr. Falcon. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, and 
members of the subcommittee, my name is Ernesto Falcon, and I'm 
the senior legislative counsel for the Electronic Frontier 
Foundation. Thank you for inviting me today to speak with you.
    My organization has been around for more than 30 years and 
is focused on the simple premise that a person's rights and 
liberties are maintained--must be maintained or enhanced as 
technology advances. We have been at the forefront of studying 
the future of broadband access and how to get it to everyone 
because without 21st century right of connectivity, you are not 
a full participant in society.
    We have conducted in-depth research and produced 
publications on the issue from both the legal and technical 
perspective. And for years I have led the organization's 
research and analysis work and have interviewed with the CEOs 
of ISPs, municipalities, industry consultants, cooperatives, 
financial experts, and many others involved in our broadband 
ecosystem. I hope to be of assistance to the subcommittee as we 
dig into how to ensure the success of BEAD.
    One thing is clear: Fiber infrastructure underlies the 
advancement of all broadband access options, from fixed 
wireless to satellites to wireline. The IIJA Priority Broadband 
Projects Provision is arguably one of the smartest course 
corrections we have made in telecom policy. Now, Federal 
dollars must be spent on futureproof networks so we do not have 
to continually play a game of catchup.
    In the past, we have spent billions subsidizing good-
enough-for-now access only to find all of it obsolete within a 
few years. Now, Congress and the Biden administration have set 
forth a path for every State to deliver 21st century access 
infrastructure through fiber that will not need to be replaced 
for decades to come.
    Two objectives I think we all share here are predictable 
construction timelines and standardized costs when accessing 
public land, and the unnecessary cost driver is delay. And I 
also think a lot of good can be done with standardizing fees 
when accessing public land in a way that is consistent and 
logical. There are fee structures out there that I have 
witnessed that actively undermine fiber deployment, and I 
detail that in my written testimony. Those types of structures 
would undermine the goals of BEAD.
    And I understand the attractiveness of shot clocks with 
deemed granted, and policies should favor expeditious review of 
permits to enhance BEAD, but the reality is increasing staffing 
resources to the relevant permitting agencies will likely yield 
better results. Most communities are eager, but resource 
constrained, to work with the ISPs to expand access, and ISPs 
are not able to know of all the possible complicating factors a 
public land might hold without involving the government agency 
in charge of managing it. And in terms of cities, ISPs are not 
fully aware of a city's infrastructure or the current status of 
the rights-of-way without the help of the local government.
    And any number of complications may occur if we view 
deployment as a unilateral matter. These need to be done in 
collaboration. Furthermore, running over local power I believe 
risks forgetting what we learn--what--forgetting what happened 
last time we did this nearly 20 years ago with a consolidation 
of franchise authorities in most States at the advent of fiber 
to the home.
    Study after study have showed that large ISPs favored the 
most lucrative targets of a community while foregoing equal 
upgrades to less desirable areas. This has created a two-tier 
broadband market where wealthy areas enjoy fiber-based 
broadband with faster speeds and lowering prices while low-
income areas are still stuck with legacy access that is both 
slower and more expensive. As part of IIJA, Congress found it 
necessary to remedy this problem by creating the digital 
discrimination rulemaking authority at the FCC.
    So it's important to keep local power involved to give 
them--and give them the flexibility to work with ISPs to ensure 
equitable outcomes.
    We cannot forget the E in BEAD. And local governments have 
traditionally served as the party to represent the interest of 
local communities. And we can't lose sight of the fact that a 
successful BEAD is one that delivers broadband access to all 
people without exception.
    Thank you again for inviting me here to speak. I look 
forward to your questions and hope to be of assistance.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Falcon follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. And thank you very much for your testimony.
    Mr. Finkel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF LOUIS FINKEL

    Mr. Finkel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 
Ranking Member Matsui, members of the subcommittee, thank you 
for inviting me to testify today.
    My name is Louis Finkel, and I serve as the senior vice 
president for government relations at the National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association, or NRECA.
    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 we 
were formed to provide safe, reliable electric service to their 
members at a most--at the most reasonable cost.
    Electric cooperatives are focused on people, not profits. A 
longstanding commitment to rural communities drives co-ops to 
identify ways to help build a better tomorrow. This obligation 
is not without challenges. More than 80 years ago, electric 
cooperatives were formed to bring affordable electricity to 
high-cost, low-density rural areas where large, investor-owned 
utilities would not. Those same economic factors exist today 
for broadband delivery to those same areas.
    The cost of building and maintaining these networks in 
sparsely populated areas with difficult terrain is prohibitive 
for member--many providers. It is a cost-intensive process with 
little return on investment.
    Today, more than 200 electric cooperatives in 39 States are 
involved in rural broadband deployment efforts, whether as the 
internet provider themselves or through partnerships. Since 
cooperatives are owned by the people they serve, they truly 
understand the need for broadband in these areas and the 
challenges associated with deploying this infrastructure, which 
is why some coops have chosen to expand their services to 
include broadband. Simply put, co-ops are providing this 
service because no other provider will.
    The existing Federal permitting process takes too long, 
it's too expensive, and is an impediment to the ability of 
broadband providers to meet the needs of their consumers and 
communities. This process must be modernized to give more 
certainty and predictability to providers.
    The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, regulations 
present a significant challenge to rapid broadband deployment. 
Co-ops face NEPA requirements when seeking a variety of Federal 
permits, approvals, and financial assistance, including access 
to powerlines right-of-way on Federal lands. In many instances, 
existing rights-of-way and easements only apply to electric 
service and not to broadband. When this happens, the utility 
must renegotiate the right-of-way or easement agreement with 
each State, each Federal agency, local jurisdictions, and 
private landowners, which can take years and cost millions of 
dollars.
    Improving coordination amongst Federal agencies is a 
simple, commonsense step that can alleviate many challenges to 
rural broadband deployment and reduce both delays and costs for 
these projects. Even within the same agency, co-ops have 
experienced differing application of the rules when dealing 
with multiple regional or State offices. Similarly, duplicative 
reviews by Federal agencies for broadband infrastructure placed 
on existing poles in existing right-of-ways only serve to slow 
down projects and make them more expensive.
    Streamlined approaches to actions that are known to have 
minimal environmental impacts will allow agencies to focus 
their time and resources on proposals that truly do have 
significant environmental impact. Similarly, ensuring that 
broadband maps are accurate before BEAD funds is distributed is 
critical to connecting unserved communities. Congress should 
provide flexibility to States to use their own maps and local 
knowledge in addition to the FCC maps when determining eligible 
locations for BEAD.
    As electric utilities, co-ops own and maintain utility 
poles and rights-of-way for the safe and reliable distribution 
of electricity. When space and capacity allow, co-ops lease out 
excess space to their poles to communications providers. This 
relationship provides communications companies with access to 
an existing pole distribution network for a small fraction of 
the cost that the co-op community has incurred to build and 
maintain these systems.
    The fees charged to attach to co-op poles reflect the 
unique geographic and demographic characteristics of each co-op 
service territory, which can vary from State to State and co-op 
to co-op. If the Fair Poles Act were enacted, it would dissuade 
electric cooperatives from participating in recently created 
Federal programs and supporting broadband deployment in high-
cost rural areas.
    Cooperatives are some of the most willing entities to bring 
broadband to those hardest-to-reach and most expensive 
communities, and adoption of the Fair Poles Act would unfairly 
change the rules of the game after providers have already gone 
through the complicated and costly process of applying for 
Federal funding. The Federal permitting process becomes even 
more challenging when multiple Federal agencies are involved, 
and lengthy reviews coupled with unclear timelines and 
administrative burdens only add to the challenges and 
frustration of dealing with the Federal Government.
    NRECA and its members are deeply committed to bridging the 
digital divide and connecting rural families and businesses 
with reliable, high-speed internet. We appreciate the 
committee's timely attention to permitting issues and 
streamlining deployment so that families, no matter where they 
live, can access reliable, affordable internet connection that 
meets their needs today and into the future.
    I thank you for the opportunity and look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Finkel follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Thank you for your testimony.
    And the Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Rielly. Thanks very much 
for being with us. Good to see you back at the subcommittee. 
And you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL O'RIELLY

    Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you 
to Subcommittee Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, Full 
Committee Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone, and the 
members of the subcommittee for calling this important hearing 
for the--and including me as a panelist.
    I am Michael O'Rielly, currently president of a self-named 
small consulting firm. Previously, I served as an FCC 
Commissioner and a 20-year congressional staffer, including 8 
years on this subcommittee.
    I want to start by extending my support for the large 
majority of bills and the underlying issues that are the 
subject of today's hearing. I appreciate and applaud the 
subcommittee's attention to ease the broadband permitting 
process and address the necessary component of pole 
attachments. In several instances, respectfully, I do believe 
the legislative efforts could go further, especially on pole 
attachments.
    For multiple decades, policymakers rightfully have declared 
it U.S. policy that all Americans should have access to 
broadband. Despite changing definitions of speed and capacity 
requirements over time, the charge has remained constant: Bring 
private-sector broadband offerings to every unserved household 
in our Nation.
    While several of today's bills may be being brought forward 
by Republicans, I note that relevant Biden administration 
officials have wholeheartedly agreed with permitting reform and 
have outlined additional action that they intend to take on 
that purpose. Inefficient and costly permitting and pole fee 
requirements extend broadband buildout timelines, raise overall 
costs, reduce willingness to participate in Federal and State 
programs, alter bids being submitted, and waste broadband 
company resources.
    If the ultimate goal is to give broadband access to those 
unserved Americans, this effort, if sufficiently broad and 
comprehensive, can remove a known and legitimate set of 
obstacles to deployment. Likewise, the U.S. cannot be a global 
leader in wireless connectivity without necessary upgrades to 
existing wireless infrastructure. Yet, creating modern wireless 
networks and meeting consumer wireless needs can reduce overall 
approval from--requires overall approval from a multitude of 
government entities.
    In particular, the siting of towers and antennas, be they 
large or small, has generated unnecessary opposition from 
certain groups for various reasons, and operators have run into 
processes that are outdated based on out--based outside of 
reason or fact and are downright discriminatory. Application 
costs have also been a major issue.
    For wireline-centric networks, new fiber routs as well as 
fiber connecting wireless communication towers and antennas 
will be buried underground or attached to existing pole 
infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of miles of fiber that 
all need to be approved whether it uses States or local lands, 
easements, rights-of-way, and the source--or needs overall 
governmental approval to dig and lay the fiber within a State.
    Thus, improvements to these procedures, such as those 
contained in the draft Broadband Leadership Act and other draft 
bills would be exceptionally helpful to the effort. 
Respectfully, these are not new issues, as we've mentioned 
before. They've been explored at length and are well known.
    I participated in hundreds and hundreds of meetings on this 
particular topic. I've been in the fields and have run the 
diggers, the cherry pickers, and the trenchers. I've had 
thousands of conversations with people who are trying to get 
broadband out into the communities they serve. I've sat with 
families who have had--who have not had broadband and are 
seeking it. And these problems exist and have existed pretty 
much in some form or fashion for the last 30 years of my 
career. We're finally getting to a point where we're trying to 
patch up a number of issues that are well known.
    On the wireless side, streamlining Federal siting 
provisions and codifying recent efforts of the Commission, such 
as timelines, deemed granted procedures, application fee 
amounts, minimizing upgrade approval needed, and addressing 
historic preservation and NEPA restrictions would go a long way 
toward securing a wireless future and short circuiting endless 
litigation.
    Additionally, a number of bills under consideration would 
address the wireless siting procedures on Federal land. One of 
the bills being discussed today would effectively apply Section 
224 of the Communications Act, thus sidestepping the current 
exemption for multiple--municipal systems, cooperatives, and 
nonutilities for entities that are or becoming recipients of 
certain Federal broadband subsidy programs.
    While I worry the scope of this bill may be too narrow, I'm 
outraged by a joint letter that I saw yesterday by many 
electric utility and co-op organizations opposing even this 
moderate step. To put in context, these organizations represent 
entities that have sought to enter the broadband marketplace 
and have full access to the provisions of 224 for areas outside 
their natural footprints but reject any type of reciprocity. 
These are the same entities that stood at my door at the FCC 
and begged to be put first in line on broadband subsidies, 
leaving others to pick for the leftover areas and funds.
    Not only should this applicable bill be passed into law, 
but the current exemption should be completely eliminated. If 
that's too far, at least exclude the exemption area--exclude 
the exemption for areas deemed unserved or underserved.
    I thank the Chair for his time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
    And before I begin the questioning on our end here on--with 
the Members, I would also like to point out that we also have 
another subcommittee running downstairs, Health is, and so many 
of us also, including the Chair, are also on Health, and so 
we're going to have to go back and forth between the two 
subcommittees. But I just wanted to mention why you see the 
movement of Members in and out of the subcommittee today.
    So it's not that they don't want to hear your testimony or 
be here for the entire--they're just covering for two. And it's 
always a fun day when we have three running, so we can really 
keep moving.
    But I'm going to begin the questioning and recognize myself 
for 5 minutes.
    And, Mr. O'Rielly, as I've said, the infrastructure law was 
a missed opportunity to enact meaningful permitting reform. 
That's why we need to make those changes now. If Congress does 
not act to roll back certain permitting requirements, what are 
the risks for the future of broadband deployment in these hard-
to-reach areas?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you for the question. You're absolutely 
right that reform is necessary. The last time that I remember 
that Congress addressed these was in the siting provisions in 
2012, the last time I was here working in the Senate. If we 
don't go forward as a nation, if we don't--if the committee--
subcommittee is unable to fix some of these issues, then 
broadband will be delayed. Broadband deployment will be 
extended, the timelines will be much farther out, and the costs 
will be--you know, will be exceptional for the providers 
themselves.
    And this is not something that is--that we just learned of. 
We have providers in the RDOF Program, the FCC's RDOF Program, 
who are the canary in the coal mine, who have been trying this 
for a number of years to deploy and have run into these exact 
problems. It's not something that we just came up with. These 
things will delay and--delay deployment and cost more money, 
and that will leave a portion of population unserved after all 
the money has been spent.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Saperstein, over the last decade, the FCC has taken a 
number of steps to streamline permitting for wireless 
infrastructure. These actions include imposing shot clocks for 
reviewing applications, deemed granted remedies for missing 
deadlines for reviewing applications to modify existing 
wireless towers, and limiting fees. How have these changes 
helped accelerate deployment, and why should Congress codify 
these changes?
    Mr. Saperstein. Thanks for your question, Mr. Chairman. So 
as you mentioned, thanks to Congress' leadership, starting 
really with the 6409 Act addition, the FCC has done a number of 
interpretations that have really made the siting process much 
more streamlined and efficient than it was before that. But the 
reason we need Congress' help is because those reforms are not 
necessarily permanent.
    As I mentioned, the proof is in the pudding in terms of the 
FCC's reforms and the overall improvements that we've seen. 
We've seen 5G deployed at a rate that 4G never was. We've seen 
twice as many--well, more infrastructure deployed over the last 
2 years after the FCC's action than in the previous 7 combined.
    The FCC's reform--interpretations of Congress' actions are 
making a big difference, but we're afraid if Congress does not 
step in to act and does not codify the reforms that the FCC has 
made, that challenges like the one going on right now in the 
Ninth Circuit for the 5G upgrade order could backslide on all 
of those. And so, we can't afford to have that. We can't afford 
to go back to where we were. We need to keep charging forward 
with our wireless infrastructure, so we'd appreciate your 
consideration.
    Mr. Latta. Yes, let me follow up, because again, something 
you mentioned--something I--I'm not sure I've ever heard here 
in committee, that you mentioned that, you know, the problems 
you're--that folks out there are finding, you know, not only as 
far as shot clocks and things like--but refusing to accept an 
application.
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, I mean, and so this goes I think to 
part of what----
    Mr. Latta. And I guess one of the questions is how do we--
who should we do that here in Congress to make sure we're--you 
know, we're legislating on something like that because not 
accepting an application, saying, ``Sir, we're not going to 
take it today, or tomorrow, or whenever.''
    Mr. Saperstein. Right. And some of the reforms that are 
proposed here, they provide accountability, and that's one of 
the key things that we seek. And that can be in the form of a 
deemed granted measure.
    So there's a certain shot clock. There are provisions in 
there for when an application is deemed complete, so it's clear 
to the jurisdiction, as well as the applicant, you have 
submitted a completed application, there's an established 
period of review, which is appropriate, and from there, 
jurisdiction either needs to act or the application would be 
deemed granted.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Romano, in my last minute and 10 seconds, a similar 
question for you. The FCC has taken some action to streamline 
wireline deployment, including one-touch, make-ready rules and 
prohibiting moratory on deployments. What reforms have not been 
acted up by the FCC that Congress should consider to streamline 
the wireline permitting process? And, I'm sorry, I only got 
about 50 second left.
    Mr. Romano. So I'll just--thank you, Chairman, for the 
question. I think something like the Broadband Leadership Act 
is something we look to, for example, as a terrific measure to 
move some of these forward. They address some of the concerns 
that Mr. Saperstein raised as well in the wireless context.
    For example, when applications are considered complete, 
there is a definition in the bill of that process, received and 
complete, which is terrific. We've seen cases in Michigan, for 
example, where the provider didn't hear for months about the 
status of its application despite inquiries. These measures 
would help to instill, I think, definitional important--
definitional certainty in the process, promote communication, 
and ultimately, I think, lead to better results in terms of 
knowing where one stands at the very least in this process.
    Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate that. And again, you know, 
what we want to get done, we want to make sure that our 
unserved areas get served, you know, our underserved areas get 
better service, and we don't end up in situations where you 
might have served areas being considered unserved. So we want 
to--these are all the things we're looking at.
    But my time's expired, and at this time I'm going to 
recognize the gentlelady from California, the ranking member of 
the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Last year I wrote a letter to the Biden administration 
urging the Departments of Transportation and Energy, along with 
NTIA to coordinate on the deployment of electric vehicle 
charging and broadband infrastructure. Much of the disparities 
we see in broadband access are also present in EV charging 
infrastructure. Low-income and rural areas lag behind. 
Colocating EV charging and broadband infrastructure can address 
multiple national priorities simultaneously and avoid 
duplicative permitting requirements, maximizing impact of this 
funding.
    Mr. Saperstein, do you believe coordinating infrastructure 
deployment efforts in IIJA with broadband expansion can help 
reduce deployment barriers and stretch Federal dollars further?
    Mr. Saperstein. Thank you for the question. Yes, 
absolutely. One of WIA's core tenants it to make shared use of 
infrastructure.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, thank you very much, Mr. Saperstein.
    Much like dig-once, I really think this type of colocation 
can speed broadband deployment. I ask unanimous consent to have 
this letter introduced.
    Mr. Carter [presiding]. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Mr. Falcon, this is a question for you. In 
addition to deployment challenges, we can't lose sight of the 
critical adoption equity work we need to do to truly close the 
digital divide. I introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act 
to establish a nonprofit foundation that would channel public 
and private investments into making progress boosting adoption 
in digital literacy.
    Mr. Falcon, can you discuss the role equity and adoption 
plays in closing the digital divide, and do you believe 
additional resources are needed to support these efforts?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Matsui. Absolutely. I think there is an awful lot of 
opportunity in helping a large segment of the population learn 
how to interface with the internet. You know, a lot of them 
need, you know, actual assistance in understanding, you know, 
the value of the internet, the resources available to them. And 
efforts that promote adoption are going to be necessary for 
quite a long time.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. While it's understandable that Federal 
agencies approach property management differently, significant 
discrepancies between their approaches to permitting can be 
extremely burdensome for broadband deployment on public lands. 
Mr. Saperstein, how do these--those diverse and conflicting 
requirements hinder broadband deployment on Federal lands, and 
do you believe they have a disproportionate impact on rural 
broadband access?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, I mean, when it comes to wireless 
infrastructure, the last remaining areas that are unserved by 
wireless are often in rural lands, and often those areas 
coincide with Federal lands as well due to park land.
    There are success stories. We know that some of our members 
have recently worked, for instance, in Utah to work closely to 
bring service there. But what we don't have right now when it 
comes to siting on Federal lands is a clear sense of clarity 
for how the processes should exist; accountability, what 
happens if you miss the deadlines that Congress has worked so 
hard to install; and transparency, where are we in the process. 
Even knowing that would be extremely helpful.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, fine. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Falcon, can you discuss how these arbitrary fee 
scales can disincentivize innovative broadband financial 
models?
    Mr. Falcon. Absolutely. So one of the things that fiber 
infrastructure provides from a financial planning standpoint is 
longevity. So you can look at it with a very long timetable of 
how long your investment will be worthwhile, and that opens up 
a lot of opportunities in terms of long-term financing.
    However, if there are fees that essentially--in my written 
testimony, demonstrated a fee that kind of scaled up the cost 
of the monthly, annual cost of deploying additional fiber 
strands, that kind of destroys the model of any sort of long-
term planning. A lot of these will need--you'll--on the early 
years will need to look for subscribers and opportunities to 
sublease.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, permitting barriers can prevent 
deployment in certain circumstances. The biggest impediments 
have always been economic considerations. For rural and low-
income neighborhoods, this historical legacy has produced a 
digital divide we're attempting to close with the BEAD Program.
    Mr. Falcon, can you discuss limitations of permitting 
reform in addressing these considerations and how BEAD can help 
support the access in these historically underserved areas? And 
I don't have much time. We have 30 seconds to discuss this.
    Mr. Falcon. Certainly. So, I mean, the local community, the 
local government has always been the negotiating arm on behalf 
of the local community, so ensuring that they're part of the 
process, to ensure that there's equitable deployment of the 
network in applicants is key.
    Ms. Matsui. I find that very true since I met with some of 
my people, and they feel the same way in these small villages 
and community areas. So anyway, thank you very much, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Carter. The gentlelady has yielded back. The Chair now 
recognizes the Chair of the full committee, Ms. Rodgers, from 
Washington State.
    [Phone ringing.]
    Voice. Oops, excuse me.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal 
Government owns a significant amount of land in the western 
States--hundreds of millions of acres--and many of these areas 
are unserved despite billions of dollars of private and public 
investment that has historically gone into broadband 
deployment.
    Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein, can you discuss the 
challenges your members face trying to deploy on Federal lands 
and how we can make this process easier?
    Mr. Romano. Sure. Thank you for the question, Chairwoman 
Rodgers. To start, I think the issue on Federal lands is 
getting--as Mr. Falcon mentioned as well, for fiber, for 
example, it's a long-term investment. We're trying to plan for 
years ahead, and also trying to plan around build cycles and 
timeframes and seasons and the like. And the predictability is 
so important in trying to plan, especially for smaller 
providers, many of whom are based in rural America and want to 
serve the communities in which they live, trying to plan to get 
contractors on site, trying to plan to get supplies in, all of 
these things are specific challenges that not only prevent 
potentially private deployment but also can deter potential 
participation in public programs to the extent that I cannot 
necessarily specify when I'll be able to deliver, the cost of 
delivering.
    All of those things make it much harder to both deliver on 
the promise or even participate in the programs that would help 
with that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Right, right. Thank you.
    Mr. Saperstein, would you speak to maybe any ideas you have 
as to how we can make the process easier?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. We were excited to see two bills that 
dealt with portals, and this is a simple but really helpful fix 
that would at least allow applicants to know where they are in 
the process. Currently, there is no transparency into where 
they are from--with the Federal land agencies, so that would be 
a very helpful fix.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
    Mr. Finkel, I've heard from some providers that the cost of 
pole attachments is high and is a barrier to broadband 
deployment, and I understand that some pole attachment rates 
are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, or 
the States, while some, those are--those set by municipal or 
cooperatively owned utilities are not. I wanted to ask you to 
speak to how cooperatives determine their pole attachment rates 
and how they compare to the regulated rates.
    Mr. Finkel. Sure. So I appreciate the question, Madam 
Chair. Pole attachment rates, as determined by--at least, I can 
only speak for electric cooperatives, is really based upon what 
the true cost is for that attachment. In many rural areas, 
there are more poles than people, and so when we're looking at 
what the cost is to attach that pole, the cost is truly the 
cost. And there's no profit motive, though accusation has been 
made that we're in the business of trying to impose higher fees 
for access. It's based on the geography, on the density, on the 
demographic of that community.
    And so when you're talking about trying to connect these 
rural communities, I mean, our members, they're the provider of 
last resort. They were in electricity 80 years ago, and they 
are now in many rural communities where they're providing that 
broadband service because nobody else will show up.
    I mean, it's--so for us, reliability and affordability of 
the electric system is the first priority, and so when we try 
to establish that fee, it's a fee based upon what's going to 
keep that pole safe and what's going to ensure that we get back 
the true cost of that attachment.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you for those insights. I appreciate 
what you do.
    I wanted to ask Mr. O'Rielly if you would also speak to 
this issue.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I appreciate the views of my fellow--I 
don't--fellow panelist, but I don't agree. You know, we have 
providers that are right next to the exempt entities that are 
offering and able to comply with FCC rules and rates, and are 
not going bankrupt and are not putting health and safety at 
risk.
    This exemption doesn't match up with cost. There's a number 
of studies that have been done that the rates are two to three 
times more expensive on the exempt entities than on nonexempt 
entities, and that's just not something a provider--you know, 
we talk about areas that are unserved and why there's, you 
know, a carrier of last resort, someone who is offering 
service. Well, Congress is going to provide a--is providing a 
boatload of money to help provide access and buildout.
    It has to deal with the issue of these rates being--you 
know, we're not going to bury all of the poles and fiber, we're 
going to have to attach--excuse me, attach to the poles that 
already exist.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, this is an issue that we're--appreciate 
your insights. We got to work on this some more.
    I want to--in my time remaining, one of my priorities is to 
strengthen American competitiveness. And we know that the 
Chines Communist Party wants to surpass us in wireless 
leadership, and it's easy for them to build the infrastructure 
to do that. We need to be doing everything in our power to make 
sure that that doesn't happen.
    So why is permitting reform good overall for American 
competitiveness? And just incorporate that into your answers in 
the future.
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you all for being here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. The gentlelady has yielded. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Representative Clarke, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Good morning. Let me start by thanking our 
panel of witnesses for joining us today, as well as Chairman 
Latta and Ranking Member Matsui for convening this important 
hearing on broadband deployment.
    Access to reliable high-speed internet is essential in our 
increasingly digital society, and I'm proud of the work this 
committee has done to bridge the digital divide in America. The 
historic bipartisan infrastructure law provided billions of 
dollars in Federal funding to bring high-speed internet to the 
millions of Americans still lacking access. As we continue to 
grow as a nation and expand our digital infrastructure, it is 
vital that these funds are used to bring broadband to 
communities historically left out of certain opportunities and 
investments.
    Unfortunately, the stark reality is that many of the 
communities that were disproportionately denied mortgage loans 
in the 1960s are the same communities that are without high-
speed or any internet access today. So I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this committee to explore 
pathways to equitable streamline--equitably streamline 
permitted processes, bridge the digital divide, and unleash the 
full potential of our Nation.
    My first question is directed to Mr. Falcon. As this 
committee looks at efforts to streamline broadband deployment, 
what factors should we consider to ensure that low-income 
minority communities have been--who have been subjected to both 
traditional and digital redlining in the past do not continue 
to be left behind? And other witnesses may feel free to chime 
in as well.
    Mr. Falcon. Certainly. Thank you for that question. The--I 
mean, I think the fundamental goal of all of these applications 
and the funding is ensuring that the infrastructure is built 
equally and equitably to all people that are in need of it. The 
history of cherry picking and redlining has given us--has given 
Congress the reason to have passed the digital discrimination 
rulemaking. So ensure we don't forget that we had to do that, 
and prospectively going forward ensuring equitable distribution 
of these networks is vital.
    Ms. Clarke. Would anyone else like to chime in now? Mr. 
Romano.
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congresswoman. I'll weigh in as well 
representing more rural areas specifically. I think one of the 
important things that Congress has done and that Congress 
should continue to do, and the funding agencies as well, is to 
make sure that when providers are receiving funding, for 
example, that there is a commitment to serve throughout the 
entirety of the area for which funding is provided without 
differentiation between particular communities within that 
serving area.
    I think that is a critical piece of this, and it does 
underpin I think a lot of the recent grant programs and other 
funding programs, but the accountability and the backend of 
tracking whether that is, in fact, happening is going to be 
critical as well.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Mr. Saperstein?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, thank you for the question. I just 
wanted to point out that one of the great benefits of wireless 
infrastructure, particularly shared wireless infrastructure, is 
it allows multiple service providers to attach to the same 
facility, and therefore, multiple network providers to serve 
that community. We saw the benefits of this with 99 percent 
coverage with 4G LTE, and we're already well on our way ahead 
of pace with 5G.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well, thank you.
    In your testimony, Mr. Falcon, you acknowledge that 
previous deregulatory efforts failed to spark industry 
competition. It did nothing to mitigate the digital redlining 
we see today. I'd like to dig into that topic a bit more.
    Can you explain to this committee the negative impact of 
digital redlining, particularly how it perpetuates poverty in 
low-income and minority communities, and why haven't previous 
efforts by the FCC to streamline permitting for broadband 
deployment resulted in buildout in digitally redlined 
communities?
    Mr. Falcon. Certainly. So the natural inclination of a 
provider would be to kind of target the most lucrative portions 
of a community first. In the absence of any sort of regulation 
to ensure a fully distributed network of full equitable 
deployment, that's generally where they'll stop. That's what 
most of these studies that we've seen over the years have 
shown. The markup did a nationwide analysis showing, you know, 
a replicated result of this type of discrimination that's 
occurring and the ramifications that are significant.
    When we look at in terms of fiber deployment in particular, 
you know, there's a study by the Fiber Broadband Association 
that shows that property values, the value of a home when it's 
connected to fiber, you know, is a sizable--there's a sizable 
increase, so the equity of a household in a neighborhood is 
dependent on the wire that's connected to that household. The 
pandemic I think showed the significant problem when your 
connection couldn't handle distributed work and remote 
schooling. These are--this is why I call it a first-class and 
second-class internet structure.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Carter. The gentlelady has yielded back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Representative 
Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it very much, 
and I appreciate all the testimony here.
    I represent Pasco County, one of the counties I represent, 
and it's no stranger to horrors of the Federal permitting 
process. In 1998, the county identified the need for an 
additional emergency evacuation route for use during a flood 
event, such as a hurricane. That year, the county submitted its 
proposal known as the Ridge Road Extension Project to Federal 
regulators.
    That public safety project sat in a regulatory quagmire for 
22 years, despite the overwhelming support of the county 
residents and really unanimous support in the Tampa Bay area. 
Meanwhile, the 178,000 people who were deemed to benefit from 
the emergency project were put at risk. The project was finally 
green-lighted after President Trump issued an Executive order 
titled ``Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for 
High Priority Infrastructure Projects.''
    But we shouldn't have to rely on an Executive order, folks, 
in my opinion, to streamline permitting, especially for 
projects that promote public safety. That's why I have 
submitted the Coastal Broadband Deployment Act as a discussion 
draft for today's hearing. This bill would remove lengthy 
barriers to deploying or modifying communication facilities 
within a floodplain, which can help people stay connected 
during a weather event.
    And I want to tell you, Ridge Road is--we finally got it 
done, and--man, oh man--the people love it. The community loves 
it, and they're--they feel safer because it is an evacuation 
route, God forbid we have a hurricane in our area directly. If 
we get a direct hit, it's going to be very difficult.
    But I want to ask the question, Mr. Romano, in your written 
testimony, you mentioned that your members have delays as long 
as 2 years due to Federal reviews when building out. Can you 
discuss the potential regulatory problems a company may face if 
they wanted to modify an existing communications facility, for 
example, to make it more resilient to natural disasters? If you 
could answer that question, I'd appreciate it.
    Mr. Romano. Yes, thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
You know, one of the most confounding deployment struggles we 
face at times is putting something--restoring networks, putting 
in where previously disturbed earth is there. You would think 
that putting a network back in or upgrading an existing network 
in a previously disturbed right-of-way should be relatively 
seamless due to the fact that it's already been used, and it--
and you would think that it's gone through reviews in the past.
    Nonetheless, we run into these circumstances all too 
frequently, and so I think bills like the one you've talked 
about are going to be critical to make sure that we can get 
through both the NEPA and the National Historic Preservation 
Act and Section 106 Procedures as promptly as possible to 
reengage or re--and then upgrade those networks and those 
places.
    The one other note I would make, Congressman, very quickly, 
on this bill and a number of others is because they're amending 
existing law, they tied a 6409, which is a provision that's 
primarily dealing with wireless issues. So we would encourage 
the subcommittee and folks to think about this. I know there's 
some bills in here that help to amend 6409 to pick up wireline 
networks as well, and so we would like to make sure to see that 
as part of all of these measures to pick up wireless and 
wireline networks alike and make sure they're all resilient and 
can be restored quickly.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. It makes a lot of sense to me.
    Mr. Saperstein, during an emergency, real-time 
communication keeps people informed of ongoing threats. Do you 
think there's--there are instances where regulatory delays and 
building out or disaster mitigation of communications 
facilities could unnecessarily threaten lives through hindered 
communications?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. And what we see right now is that much 
of the parklands, particularly, you know, in western districts, 
are still unserved, and that is really a public safety threat. 
So we would encourage any actions that can really expedite 
siting on Federal lands in order to avoid those public safety 
instances.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK, I'd like to ask this question for Mr. 
O'Rielly. If he don't--if we don't have time, at least he can 
get it for the record.
    Over the past several years, the Federal Government has 
allocated tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for 
broadband buildout in closing the digital divide, as you said. 
In your estimation, as a percentage, how much of allocated 
dollars are doing regulatory red tape as opposed to actually 
getting people connected?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I'm happy to give you more specific, but if I 
had to, you know, off the top, I would say it's probably around 
15 to 20 percent.
    Mr. Bilirakis. OK. That's a lot. So yes, please, if you can 
give us some more specific information, I'd appreciate it.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. The gentleman has yield back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Representative Soto, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. Just a few weeks ago we got 
to travel to Kenansville, Florida, in our district in Southern 
Osceola County with the Under Secretary of Rural Development, 
Xochitl Torres Small, a dear friend and former colleague here. 
We met with local ranchers and local hunting and game managers 
in an area that is as rural as it gets.
    And it was great to hear them talk about the 15 million 
being invested by the American Rescue Plan in that area. They 
talked about the need to download information quickly for the 
ranches on information related to their cattle, on information 
related to dove hunting. Who would have thought, right? The 
Osceola turkey as well, which you have to go to my district to 
make the turkey trot on the East Coast.
    And I guess if you're not in there, you don't realize how 
much data is needed for all these rural businesses, and 
agricultural and hunting and other businesses. And so I was 
pleased to see that the American Rescue Plan is helping deliver 
internet to rural communities in Central Florida. And, Members, 
if you're not seeing that in your district, it's, you know, 
time to speak up. It's changing lives in Central Florida.
    But that's just the first step. And we know with the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed recently, 65 
billion improve internet access, 42 billion for the Broadband 
Equity Access and Deployment Program, the BEAD Program. I'm 
excited that Florida has taken steps to participate in the BEAD 
Program and signaled it intends to continue that process. We 
already saw 5 million awarded to help with their initial plan 
and grant to create a 5-year action plan, and they've received 
over $7.4 million in Federal funds to support that planning.
    In addition, NTIA has estimated--as well as third-party 
research--that Florida could receive as much as $1.5 billion 
through BEAD to really help finish the job across Florida. The 
company in question who stepped up for areas of South Osceola 
was Spectrum.
    And, Mr. Romano, are your member companies ready to take on 
this challenge like we've seen in rural Osceola?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, they're ready and 
eager. I think the biggest challenge--some of the biggest 
challenges will be figuring out--well, among other things that 
aren't subject to this hearing necessarily, supply chain 
considerations, finding trained workforce.
    But permitting issues, again, will be a piece of the 
puzzle. Our members have been--actually, I would say probably 
the active participants in the reconnect program, so great 
partners with rural development. I think we're excited about 
the promise of this.
    The biggest concern I have right now is we--as I mentioned 
in my testimony, we're on the precipice of massive amounts of 
investment coming in, and we need to make sure both the 
procedures are ready to go but also the staff skill sets and 
training are there, and to--and the systems to make sure, as 
Mr. Saperstein mentioned, the portals, to make sure that we can 
see--realize the promise of all of these different programs out 
there.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Finkel, this is Peace River country, one of your 
members, and I know they've been eager since--we won't see--
we'll see a combination of companies help with this. How are 
your members gearing up, and what are you hearing from your 
customers about the potential of getting higher-speed internet?
    Mr. Finkel. Well, Congressman, it's always driven by the 
local community, as electric utilities are owned by the 
communities we serve. When the community speaks up and our kind 
of ownership base drives us to build out and asks us to 
partner, we do. It's just really that simple.
    Mr. Soto. Well, we're excited to work with our local folks 
as well.
    Mr. Falcon, we saw the Biden-Harris administration put out 
a permitting action plan. There's a lot of discussion in the 
cornucopia of bills of today in this hearing of how to address 
permitting as we implement the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
Infrastructure Law. Do you have any comments on the permitting 
action plan by the Biden-Harris administration and any other 
principles that you think can guide as we have to permit these 
projects?
    Mr. Falcon. Yes, I think it just demonstrates that everyone 
is committed to the success of implementation of BEAD. No one 
wins if systemic delays results in rising costs, particular for 
small applicants, particularly new entrants into the space.
    I think, you know, as I say in my written testimony, really 
just predictability and predictability in the cost in terms of 
the fees on public lands are probably the two best things you 
can deliver in order to ensure successful outcomes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you so much.
    Members, our oversight is going to be a key part of this as 
well as we work with the administration, with our colleagues in 
Congress, so I look forward to continuing that work. And I 
yield back.
    Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman yields 
back, and at this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan's Fifth District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
panel for being here.
    Broadband providers are subject to significant permitting 
delays, as we've talked about already. Delays are felt by the 
consumers. The frustration of some of my neighbors seeing me 
with broadband finally and not seeing themselves with a sight 
of broadband coming down. I felt the same way for a number of 
years myself, and so it's a challenge. Connecting everyone to 
broadband is a goal we all share.
    Billions of dollars have gone out the door, but it takes 
dollars, it takes many hands to make it work. And oftentimes we 
don't see interagency coordination, and maybe through no fault 
of their own, but the process that takes place. The FCC, NTIA, 
USDA, and various stimulus grants over the years have often 
appeared to compete with one another.
    And so, Mr. Romano, how do we improve coordination between 
agencies? And if I could add on to the question, do you believe 
requiring all government broadband programs to make 
distributions based on FCC's new broadband maps can break the 
decades-long cycle of overbuilding and the problems that come 
from that?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The 
second part of your question actually I think was the first 
place I was going to go in terms of effective coordination, 
which is the use of a singular data source to start from.
    Now there are always going to be issues arising in terms of 
the maps that are presented by--produced by the FCC being 
snapshots in time and needing updating. There are processes set 
forth in BEAD, for example, for States to run challenges. But 
at the end of the day, we should be starting from a singular 
data source that reflects the best source of information we've 
got available. So I think that is going to be a critical 
starting point for coordination.
    The other part of coordination that's going to be important 
is sharing of information about enforceable commitments that 
are made, grants that are made among these agencies so that if 
NTIA sees that the FCC has done something over here, NTIA is 
not necessarily putting money there or vice versa. So I think 
that sharing of information about enforceable commitments 
feeding into the broadband mapping exercise, those are two of 
the most critical pieces of communication that can happen.
    Mr. Walberg. It cuts down a lot of waste, too. Yes.
    Mr. Saperstein, while permitting delays can be a barrier to 
deployment, should we also be concerned about other potential 
bottlenecks, including supply chain delays, workforce 
shortages, and what efforts are underway to ensure we have the 
labor force in place to get the job done?
    Mr. Saperstein. Congressman, thank you for the question. 
WIA actually is doing a lot on the workforce front. We are 
partnered with the Department of Labor, with the 
telecommunications industry registered apprenticeship program, 
which has thousands of apprentices in the pipeline now working 
with over 80 employers.
    We couldn't agree more that we can't allow our human 
workforce, our human infrastructure, to become a bottleneck 
here, and so we're working to train the next generation.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes, so necessary. Good jobs out there, too.
    Mr. Saperstein. Absolutely.
    Mr. Walberg. The slate of bills we're discussing today 
includes my Brownfields Broadband Deployment Act, which would 
help streamline the deployment of broadband projects entirely 
within Brownfields sites by eliminating the requirement to 
prepare an environmental or historic preservation review. These 
sites are often located in digitally underserved areas, and the 
proposed changes will help promote greater digital 
connectivity.
    In Vicksburg, Michigan, where I was just last week, in 
fact, they are creating a one-of-a-kind facility for lodging, 
entertainment, artist development in a town of less than 4,000. 
Located in a former paper mill, this brownfield site will 
hopefully bring incredible economic growth to the area, but 
they have a problem with connection.
    Mr. Romano, how important is broadband connection to the 
economic viability of rural areas, and how could a longer 
regulatory approval process for broadband infrastructure 
destroy that opportunity?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman. So at NTCA, we believe 
not only that networks need to be built but they need to be 
used and celebrated, and that those--the best practices should 
be shared. I mean, economic development--we have a program 
called Smart Rural Community that highlights the fact that 
these networks are not just built for their own sake but for 
the benefit ultimately and uses of the community for 
telehealth, telework, economic development, and the like.
    Those types of uses, especially in a town of 4,000 people--
that's about the average size of the biggest city in the type 
of areas that our members serve. That's a difference maker in 
terms of rural--attracting new people to rural areas and just 
getting people to come back home after school, so it's 
incredibly important.
    And permitting's a big part of that. If providers go to--
again, as I said earlier in an earlier question, if it takes 
them--if they look at a program and think, ``I could do this 
but for the fact that I don't know that I can meet the buildout 
deadlines because I don't even know when my shot clock's going 
to start,'' that can be a real deterrent to participation.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes, and this is a visionary community, they 
believe in their community. It's a neat site. It will be 
unbelievable if they get it done, but this is a key component 
to it.
    So thanks for your attention, and I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and at 
this time, the Chair recognizes 5 minutes to the ranking member 
of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
    Affordable, reliable broadband service is a resource that 
every community needs and every community wants, and so I have 
some concern that broad measures by Congress to trample on 
local authority and treat every community the same will end up 
creating more problems than they solve.
    So let me start with Mr. Falcon. In your testimony, you 
point to examples of when past deregulation efforts have not 
closed the digital divide but have, in fact, exacerbated the 
problem. So what lessons should we keep in mind about the role 
of municipalities and local leaders in broadband deployment, 
and how can proposals to remove local consultation and 
authority hinder efforts to connect all Americans to high-speed 
internet?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member 
Pallone. I think the big lesson to have learned is just looking 
at the results of what has happened when you compare two 
similar situated markets: Los Angeles and New York City. New 
York retained local authority for franchising, and California 
didn't. California consolidated under the State government. New 
York is pushing fiber to the home to hundreds of thousands of 
low-income households--New York City, that is. And Los Angeles 
has less than half of their community connected to 21st century 
access today.
    You know, these are both very similar areas of density in 
terms of income and opportunity, business sector, but the 
removal of the local community from negotiating with ISPs, from 
ensuring equity in the deployment, ensuring a ubiquitous 
deployment, yields these results. So I think that is the 
number-one lesson to learn from removing local power, removing 
the local community from the equation and working with ISPs. 
They're eager to work, but they also want to make sure everyone 
is covered.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Now, many of the witnesses today 
have pointed to a lack of resources at permitting agencies as a 
cause for delay and other challenges in the review process. 
But, again, Mr. Falcon, what is the risk to communities and the 
public at large if we ignore those resource restraints and 
focus only on strict approval timelines and deemed granted 
provisions, if you will?
    Mr. Falcon. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. The 
challenge here that we're facing is this is the largest public 
works projects happening in many areas for decades, and they 
don't have the staffing in place to handle that. So staffing up 
and providing the personnel resources to review these permits 
in an expeditious way resolves the issue. It's not really about 
removing the government or taking--getting the government out 
of the equation. The government is an inherent and necessary 
partner for the success of the deployment of these areas. The 
ISPs cannot completely go it alone to be successful at their 
deployment plans.
    Mr. Pallone. So would you agree, then, that unless 
permitting agencies at the Federal, State, local, or Tribal 
levels get additional resources for personnel and training, 
we're not going to fully address delays in permitting for 
broadband infrastructure?
    Mr. Falcon. I think there's a whole list of unforeseeable 
complications that will come up, particularly for--and I would 
like to distinguish between, you know, upgrading areas where 
existing rights were already utilized versus, you know, new 
construction. A lot of this money is going towards new 
construction and new areas. Lacking knowledge of the local area 
because the managing government agency is the one with that 
knowledge could be detrimental to deployment planning.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, thanks. I've just got another 
question or so to Mr. O'Rielly. It's good to see you here 
today.
    I'm concerned that efforts to complete our historic 
buildout of reliable high-speed broadband to every corner of 
the country will still leave too many people behind unless we 
continue to focus on ensuring that everyone can afford the 
service regardless of income. So I know that--I'm sure you can 
answer--or if you could just briefly discuss funding for the 
Affordable Connectivity Program, why it's important to close 
the opportunity gap. Well, I know because you've been involved 
with it, obviously.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I have supported and do support the ACP. I 
believe that additional funding from Congress would be wisely 
spent. Affordability is a component for a number of American 
families who--you know, we can get broadband to everybody, but 
if they can't afford it, then they're not going to be able to 
subscribe.
    The program is working today. It's probably in the best--
the best program in terms of its structure that we've had, and 
there have been a number of programs in the past that have had 
deficiencies, and we've solved some of those with ACP. So I 
think additional funding would be appropriate, but that's also 
with another committee to work through in terms of going 
forward.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, you know, we can push them, as you know.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. O'Rielly. I think that would be smart for both sides, 
and I support--you know, as a fiscal conservative, I think it's 
money well spent.
    Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you so much. I don't--I guess 
I'm out of time, so I'll leave it at that. Thanks a lot.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back. And at this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia, the vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for being here.
    Before I ask my questions, I want to respond to the ranking 
member's comments earlier about broadband permitting barriers 
not existing. I could not disagree more. They do exist, and the 
witnesses here today have already cited examples of where they 
exist, and I'm sure we'll cite even more examples. Even the 
current FCC Chairwoman has also acknowledged that these 
barriers exist.
    In 2018, when the Republican-led FCC embarked on an effort 
to revise its infrastructure rules to promote expansion of 5G, 
Chairwoman Rosenworcel suggested in her statement that, ``If we 
want broad economic growth and widespread mobile opportunity, 
we need to avoid unnecessary delays in the State and local 
approval process.''
    While we may disagree on the approach, we must all 
acknowledge that these are real problems and they deserve real 
solutions. So I appreciate you bringing up these examples that 
you've brought up. And with all due respect, I am encouraged to 
hear the ranking member say that he's concerned about local 
control, a long-held Republican view that I'm glad that is 
being shared now with some of our colleagues, so I appreciate 
that.
    You know, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this hearing because 
this is extremely important, and as vice chair of this 
committee, it's one of the things that I really wanted to 
concentrate on. And one of my top priorities is to close the 
digital divide that exists, particularly in rural America.
    For those of you who don't know, I'm from Georgia. We have 
a saying in Georgia: There are two Georgias--there's Atlanta, 
and everywhere else. And I represent everywhere else, so this 
is extremely important to me. And it's extremely important for 
us to continue to lead U.S.--to help the U.S. maintain 
leadership on broadband and wireless innovation, investment, 
and competition.
    So, Mr. Saperstein, I want to ask you, one of the bills 
that we're discussing today is my bill, the Proportional 
Reviews for Broadband Development Act. This expedites the 
process for certain modifications to wireless towers or base 
stations. Specifically, it exempts the addition, removal, or 
replacement of transmission equipment on those towers or 
stations from environmental and historic preservation reviews.
    Do you think that such a simple modification would improve 
the quality and the timeliness of broadband deployment for 
Americans?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. Thank you for the question. So, yes, I 
mean, I think what your bill and what we're seeing with many of 
the bills affecting the NEPA review is that it adds a deal of 
proportionality to the review at stake. So not everything needs 
to be reviewed in the same manner.
    Colocations don't need to be reviewed in the same manner. 
Things that have already gone--undergone different reviews 
don't need to be reviewed in the same manner. And I think it 
brings a commonsense approach to that.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. And that's the key, common sense, 
and that's what we're trying to get at it here. Look, we all 
want to make sure we have rules and regulations and they're 
followed, but we want to use common sense and get this done and 
really eliminate unnecessary barriers. That's what we're all 
trying to do here.
    Also, Mr. Saperstein, I wanted to ask you, in June of 2021, 
the New Jersey State Assembly passed S2674, a bill that was led 
by three Democrats that would institute cost-based fees, shot 
clocks, and deemed grant remedies for wireless and broadband 
network facilities. The purpose of the bill was to meet the 
growing consumer demand for wireless data and increasing 
competitive options for communication services available to the 
State's residents.
    Chairman Latta has a bill that--the Wireless Leadership 
Act, that contains many of the same principles as this New 
Jersey State bill. Do you agree that enacting these policies 
would help meet the needs of consumers and promote competition?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. We appreciate Chairman Latta's 
Wireless Leadership Act and its--steps that it would take to 
really codify many of the reforms that the FCC has done to 
encourage, you know, fees that are reasonably based to the 
costs as well as streamlining of permitting procedures.
    Mr. Carter. Good. The New Jersey bill that passed the State 
Senate was also amended to accommodate the concerns of 
residents and municipal leaders who raised concerns. Can you 
describe how broadband permitting laws can balance State and 
local concerns with the need for timely and fair permitting 
processing?
    Mr. Saperstein. Absolutely. One of the things that we've 
seen is that we've taken out the review of colocation, which 
makes sense because it's making use of existing infrastructure. 
There's nothing in what we see here today that would remove a 
community's ability to have legitimate aesthetic concerns and 
their own processes dealt with. So there's a good balance to be 
struck in there, and we find that we have a good partnership 
with our communities.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you, and thank all of you for 
being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And our next Member 
to ask questions is the gentlelady from New Hampshire. You're 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to our witnesses for being with us today to discuss the 
speed--how to speed up deployment of broadband services.
    There are a number of legislative proposals before us 
today, but I'd like to take a step back and further examine the 
challenges to broadband deployment. Addressing these challenges 
will allow States and providers to implement Federal broadband 
funding. Through the bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress 
invested an historic $65 billion to build out our country's 
broadband infrastructure. This established the Broadband Equity 
Access and Deployment Program for States to expand high-speed 
services to their communities. This program will ensure that 
even the most rural and hard-to-reach communities, like many in 
my district in New Hampshire, have access to broadband.
    Mr. Falcon, you spoke about how deploying this scale of 
infrastructure will be a major endeavor for many small 
communities. How should Congress ensure local governments are 
equipped to meet this challenge?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question. The--you know, 
what it--again, what it boils down to is providing the 
resources for personnel to kind of meet this surge of demand. 
This is going to be a very intense but short period of years 
where these projects will come in large volume, and once 
constructed, given that the guidance is to deploy fiber, we 
will not be revisiting these any time in the near future. So 
it's really just a matter of the surge demand and ensuring the 
resources are available there for them to, you know, meet that 
demand when it comes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Now, I know that local governments 
will play an important role in bringing high-speed broadband 
service to the communities. While this hearing focuses on the 
deployment of broadband, these services will still be out of 
reach for families that can't afford them. The Affordable 
Connectivity Program, or ACP, is established by the bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law to provide assistance to eligible households 
to help them afford internet services.
    This program has already connected over 16 million 
Americans to internet services, including many, many families 
in my district. Unfortunately, funding for the ACP is set to 
run out without congressional action.
    Mr. O'Rielly, you briefly spoke about the importance of 
addressing broadband affordability. Can you elaborate on why 
funding the ACP should be a high priority this Congress?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So, as I mentioned to the ranking member of 
the full committee, I do support ACP. I believe it's important 
to address affordability component. There are a number of 
families in America, certainly in New Hampshire, that won't be 
able to afford service without such a program. I think we 
crossed the 17-million threshold in terms of people--families 
that are taking advantage of the funding. So I think it is 
something that has to be addressed if you're trying to figure 
out how to serve all Americans.
    If I could just return briefly to your previous question.
    Ms. Kuster. Sure.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I've spent a great deal of time in New 
Hampshire in a past life. I will tell you the local governments 
there are really sharp, and I don't know that they need 
necessarily the resources. It's really the areas, especially in 
the north country and the western part that you represent, that 
are--that, you know, attracting--having the subsidy that's 
going to come forward to actually serve those areas throughout. 
That's probably more important to me in terms of New Hampshire, 
in terms of the local governments who are actually pretty--you 
know, they're very small, and they do represent the people very 
well.
    Ms. Kuster. Well, we're lucky we have a lot of volunteers 
that get involved in these committees who are very 
knowledgeable.
    As cochair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, I'm committed to 
ensuring that communities can connect to broadband services. 
It's critical that Congress not only address the challenges to 
deploying broadband but also work to make these services more 
affordable. The bipartisan Infrastructure Law set our country 
on a path to close the digital divide, and I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
continue this work.
    And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back with 49 seconds to 
go.
    Mr. Latta. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Kuster. I will yield.
    Mr. Latta. Thanks very much. I'd like to go back with the 
40 seconds that are remaining, a question--just a quick 
question.
    Mr. Finkel, in your statement you mentioned that with 
right-of-ways on Federal lands that when you already have the 
lines up that you have to renegotiate for the broadband, and I 
assume you're deploying a line across it, and so what's the 
difference? You know, this is the commonsense question.
    Mr. Finkel. Yes.
    Mr. Latta. It's already there and you're putting another 
line up.
    Mr. Finkel. So, many rural electric cooperatives are either 
crisscrossing or abutting Federal lands, whether it's U.S. 
Forest Service, BLM, and so we'll have existing electric 
infrastructure, and we'll have existing right-of-way and 
existing easement, and to put up broadband onto the same pole 
in the same right-of-way with the same easement requires a 
Greenfield review in many cases.
    Mr. Latta. OK. I just wanted to make sure I had that 
clarified. Thank you very much.
    And I appreciate the gentlelady yielding. The gentleman 
from Florida's Second District is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chairman Latta.
    So as he said, coming from the Second District of Florida, 
we know how damaging natural disasters, such as hurricanes, can 
be to communications infrastructure when it matters the most. 
You know, communications facilities, including wireless and 
wired infrastructure and power sources, shelters, et cetera, 
they're all essential after a disaster and must be restored 
quickly, efficiently.
    That's why I plan on reintroducing my bill, the Connecting 
Communities Post Disasters Act of 2023. My bill provides that 
after a major disaster declared by the President, projects to 
replace and improve communications facilities will not be 
subject to the requirements to prepare environmental historical 
preservation reviews, which become massive obstructions. You 
know, this requirement leads to needless delays, and it happens 
during a crisis when it's most essential to restore these 
services.
    You know, when your community is damaged by a natural 
disaster and it's struggling for essential communications 
infrastructure, imagine the frustration that barriers such as a 
mandatory environmental preservation review, you know, can 
cause. These are reviews that were performed previously when 
the infrastructure was first built. I think it's nonsense red 
tape, we've addressed that earlier, that must be corrected and 
for the good of relieving all Americans.
    Mr. Saperstein, in your testimony, you mentioned that 
Congress has made progress on removing barriers to the wireless 
infrastructure in the past, and yet broadband is still out of 
reach for far too many people. Do you agree that wireless 
connectivity is especially important during and immediately 
after natural disasters?
    Mr. Saperstein. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
Yes, I mean, I think the first place most people reach in order 
to get in touch with their loved ones is to their cell phone 
and so they can reach out and make that connection, so wireless 
connectivity is absolutely a key. And your bill makes very--a 
number of commonsense points with respect to need and reform.
    Mr. Dunn. I experienced that firsthand after Hurricane 
Michael. We went 13 days without our cell phones. You can 
imagine, you know, several counties like that. We were really 
wandering around lost. So both baseline connectivity and, of 
course, resilience and restoration after a disaster is very 
important.
    Are you familiar, sir, with any regulatory barriers to 
wireless deployment, specifically when recovering from natural 
disasters?
    Mr. Saperstein. So most of--when it comes to natural 
disasters, the physical infrastructure is generally pretty 
resilient. What happens is we often lose power, and that's one 
of the key elements that we need to make the overall systems 
run. There's backup power, but that only exists so long and, 
you know, the providers themselves are not independent sources 
of commercial power. So that's one of the reforms that we 
really need to see overall.
    Mr. Dunn. Yes, our problem is we lost all our towers. I 
certainly agree with the need for resilient infrastructure, and 
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation or 
to increase our Nation's ability to respond and rebuild after 
disasters.
    Mr. Romano, as EVP of the Rural Broadband Association, I'm 
especially happy to see you here. Can you share with us what 
the biggest regulatory burdens, challenges, or inefficiencies 
are impacting wired connectivity in rural areas?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes. 
So fundamentally making the business case for investing in 
rural areas where distances are measured in tens or hundreds of 
miles and densities are very low, that is a significant issue, 
and obtaining permits in order to deploy across those areas can 
be significant barriers I've talked about.
    In particular, I think things that we see frequently, and I 
had mentioned briefly on a question earlier, replacing--so our 
members have been in these communities in many cases for 
decades or hundreds of years or a hundred years in some cases, 
and--but the problem becomes replacing or upgrading networks in 
these existing facilities, or restoring in the case of natural 
disasters. We have to go through, oftentimes, repeat reviews 
under the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, or 
NEPA.
    The ability to make sure we can upgrade these networks in 
an efficient fashion to get better broadband out there, more 
resilient broadband out there, bury the networks if we need to, 
that's a significant regulatory impediment today.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much for that. I'll take that as 
an endorsement of my bill. It's an important, you know, thing 
for us to streamline connectivity development and restoration 
in the United States. I just want us to stay out of our own 
way, you know, with excess permitting needs, and so I think if 
we do that, we can help everyone in the United States.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and at 
this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California's 
29th District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you, 
Ranking Member Matsui, for having this important hearing on 
broadband.
    As we all know, in November of 2021, President Biden signed 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law. Through 
this legislation, Congress made a $65 billion investment 
towards eliminating the digital divide and delivering 
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband to every American. 
In the next few months, the NTIA will begin providing grants to 
States and territories to deliver broadband access to 
underserved areas across our Nation.
    While this is truly a historic investment in our country's 
infrastructure, Congress' work still is not done. Affordable 
broadband to every American is far from over. We have a lot of 
work to do.
    Specifically, there are various permitting application and 
review processes that must take place before broadband can be 
deployed effectively. Some of my colleagues are highly 
skeptical of the value of these processes. I, on the other 
hand, believe that these processes are important to keeping 
communities safe, competition robust, and ensuring that 
important stakeholders are not ignored.
    That having been said, permitting should not be overly 
burdensome. Construction of these critical projects should not 
be delayed by endless reviews or unreasonable fees. We must 
strike a balance between protecting communities and expanding 
and improving broadband in an efficient and cost-effective 
manner.
    Mr. Falcon, in your testimony, you gave an example of how 
policies in New York yielded more equitable results and brought 
more fiber to homes, more than my little hamlet of Los Angeles 
in the 2000s. Using the quote from one of my colleagues as she 
described hamlets in her district, so I felt a little jealous. 
Can you provide--it sounds cozy. Can you provide other, more 
recent examples of State or local governments that can serve as 
models for expanding high-quality, reliable broadband access to 
their residents?
    Mr. Falcon. Certainly. So, as I mentioned before, the--you 
know, the local government is I would say a valuable partner to 
the industry because of the rights-of-way. The taxpayers funded 
the infrastructure that allows these networks to deploy. You 
know, I think one of the best examples from California is 
Brentwood, California. In Brentwood, California, the city 
required developers to build conduit and deed it to the city, 
so a large underground conduit network was available for a 
competitive fiber provider called Sonic to deploy what I would 
say is probably the fastest, cheapest private internet: $40 for 
one gigabyte, $50 for 10 gigabyte internet.
    That was, you know, really a product of smart local 
planning and coordination with the local government to really 
eliminate most--the most expensive part of construction was the 
civil works in deployment. I think if more communities made 
their rights-of-way accessible and kind of preplanned for the--
you know, the advent of new entrants coming in, that pays 
itself off quite handsomely as these applicants are coming in.
    Mr. Cardenas. OK. Also, Mr. Falcon, a lot of your work and 
that of your organization is focused on connecting historically 
underserved and underprivileged communities with modern high-
speed broadband. Can you talk about the importance of the 
Affordable Connectivity Program now and into the future in 
meeting our goal of universal connectivity, and how would a 
permanent affordability program level the playing field between 
high- and low-income communities competing for providers to 
serve them?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question, Congressman. The 
ACP, if it were to be made permanent, I think, would radically 
change the financial planning of many providers that are 
motivated to serve entire communities. One of the first things 
I started asking a lot of the people in the kind of the public 
and the private industry when ACP was first enacted is how much 
did that--how much does this change the way you think about 
where you can deploy and finance it. And the answer was not 
enough, because it was temporary.
    You know, we want to have, you know, 10-to-30-year, maybe 
even 40-year plans, and if this money runs out within 5 to 6 
years, we really don't make a plan around that. We don't really 
expect a revenue source from low-income subsidies as a means of 
helping finance the overall network.
    But if Congress were to make the ACP permanent, I think you 
would see a lot more expansion of these networks, simply 
because the predictability and the dependability of the revenue 
and how you change the attractiveness of low-income users to 
many in the industry would be significant.
    Mr. Cardenas. So are you describing that a longer plan 
would actually spur public-private participation to bring more 
accessibility to more Americans?
    Mr. Falcon. A permanent ACP would, I think, expand private 
providers and public providers and all players, cooperatives as 
well, their capacity to deploy fiber simply because the 
dependability of the revenue for parties who can't afford the 
internet will be there, and that changes a lot of financial 
models.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, 
thank you for holding this hearing.
    I find myself, as I'm listening to this thinking, I think 
we all agree on this. Like why can't we move forward, why can't 
we solve this? And I also feel like there's a little bit of 
oneupmanship, and I'm going to try to do one upmanship over all 
my colleagues today and see if anybody can beat me on this.
    Think about this scenario. My district is not only rural, 
half of it is classified as frontier. Now layer over top of 
that that the vast majority of it, 90 percent of the land, is 
owned by the Federal Government. Now wrap your arms around that 
for a minute. When we talk about these delays, 90 percent of 
this property, you--it takes years and years and years to 
permit.
    A great story is one of my companies had to spend the money 
within 5 years. The permit took 9 years to get, to go, Mr. 
Chairman, in an existing right-of-way down an existing road to 
lay that fiber. Nine years. And we want to solve this, you 
know, much quicker than that.
    So I have a bill out there, it's the Rural Broadband 
Permitting Efficiency Act, and what this basically does is it 
turns over NEPA to the States. We do this in transportation a 
lot where we let the States complete the NEPA process for the 
Federal Government. The Federal Government's backed up. We know 
it takes them years and years to get an answer.
    It's a great bill. It actually passed on a bipartisan basis 
in the 115th Congress, and I'd to commend this bill to my 
colleagues as one possible solution to help us move through 
this.
    Mr. Finkel, just weigh in on the impact of 9 years to 
permit. What is that costing us, right? What--help us get our 
arms around that.
    Mr. Finkel. Yes, I mean, you're talking about, depending on 
the size and scale of the project, you know, I mean, 10, 20, 30 
percent more. And especially in a time where we have a 
constrained supply chain. So you have Federal dollars. The 
Federal dollars are going to expire at some point. So you don't 
have BEAD out there yet, right?
    So if you have 9 years to spend--if you have 9 years to 
permit the project and the BEAD money is going to expire in j9 
years, you're not going to get the project built, and even if 
you do, it's going to push off 5, 6, 7 years where your costs 
are going to go up. So your original cost estimates are going 
to be up considerably between now and then.
    Mr. Curtis. And----
    Mr. Finkel. And that's even when you try to do it in an 
existing right-of-way.
    Mr. Curtis. And so now we can understand that from a 
company's perspective. Imagine the constituents we're trying to 
serve and telling them you have to wait 9 years, right, before 
you can have this.
    Mr. Saperstein, weigh in from your members' perspective. If 
we were able to fix this, what would your members be able to do 
differently, right, if they didn't have this--that we're all 
talking about--all of us are talking about the same problem 
here. Could you give us what that world looks like?
    Mr. Saperstein. Well, the world is universal connectivity. 
I mean, I think that's the short answer. Where people can use 
their devices and be connected anywhere they go at any point, 
enabling the world economy to their homes and phones.
    Mr. Curtis. So I've only got just a couple minutes, and so 
I'm going to direct this to you and Mr. Romano and Mr. 
O'Rielly. Last August, NTIA and Bureau of Indian Affairs 
announced an agreement to, among other things, streamline the 
NTIA and Bureau of Indian Affairs' Environmental Policy Act 
reviews for Tribal broadband grants. In fact, Assistant 
Secretary Allen Davidson noted pridefully that NITA is 
``streamlining the creating efficiencies within in the Federal 
Government to ensure Tribal communities get the resources they 
need quickly to close the digital divide on Tribal lands.''
    I believe a lot of the Republican-led legislation that's 
being discussed today would streamline the environmental review 
process, and I'm just wondering if--I also think that's 
consistent with President Biden's approach. Can any of you 
describe the impact of this, and is this part of the answer?
    Mr. Saperstein. So, yes. Thank you for the question. So 
streamlining and efficiency are two favorite words when it 
comes to permitting processes. And for too long, many things, 
particularly on Federal lands, have been caught up in those.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. Mr.----
    Mr. Romano. And I would just say yes. Extending--or 
offering that up in that program is, I think, a good case study 
for why it makes sense in other programs. And I must tell you, 
one of the most frustrating things we see is when members get 
grant awards, announce that a grant award has been won, and the 
customer is still waiting years later for that big news release 
they saw in the local paper that broadband's coming. So, yes, 
absolutely.
    Mr. O'Rielly. So we used the word coordination. I would 
suggest that, as nice as the presentation sounded, that 
Congress acting on the matters that are before it today and 
others, including one that you mentioned, would be very 
helpful. The coordination is great, and the conversations will 
happen between different parties at NTIA and, you know, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, but actually getting progress is a 
different story.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes. I'm out of time, but I'd like to urge all 
of my colleagues and myself included to make this a priority 
and move these bills that we seem to all agree on, and let's 
see if we can't solve this.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentleman yields back, and 
at this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 33d 
District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to also 
say, you know, this is great, you know, the historic and 
bipartisan Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act. We're 
delivering on a promise to create a more digitally inclusive 
and equal society. And I continue to hear stories all over 
Dallas-Fort Worth about helping to bridge the digital divide. 
We have neighborhoods now, lower-income neighborhoods that have 
free access to Wi-Fi so kids can do homework and people can 
start businesses. And the Affordable Connectivity Program, or 
the ACP, is also another success story that highlights the 
benefits of making broadband internet affordable for low-income 
households.
    And after--California, Texas, and Florida have the highest 
ACP enrollment rates in the country. And I think Commissioner 
O'Rielly put it well in his recent op-ed, and it said, 
``American poverty is not isolated to urban areas but 
distributed throughout our country. In blue areas, in red 
areas, the opportunity gap resulting from unequal broadband 
access really impacts all regions.''
    American families from all walks of life are connecting to 
high-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband internet at 
unprecedented levels. And, for instance, in the chairman's 
district in Ohio, close to 50,000 households are enrolled in 
the ACP. The title of today's hearing is ``Breaking Barriers: 
Streamlining Permitting to Expedite Broadband Deployment,'' but 
I would also urge my colleagues to engage in a conversation 
about the sustainability of ACP, which is targeted to help 
eligible households afford broadband once it's deployed. And I 
hope this is an issue that we can work on together, because 
it's obviously something that's helping all of our districts.
    My question, Commissioner O'Rielly, in the op-ed that you 
wrote, you said, ``More broadband deployment does not 
necessarily equate to greater adoption. Broadband will remain 
inaccessible to poorer families if affordability is ignored.'' 
And I couldn't agree with you more. You urged Congress to 
prioritize extending ACP by adding additional funds.
    Can you elaborate on why you think it is so important for 
Congress to get to work on extending the program, which is 
likely to deplete mid-next year, if not sooner?
    Mr. O'Rielly. That's right, mid-next year sounds about 
where the estimates are. And I just want to correct one point 
earlier. I think the program actually is authorized. It's--you 
know, we talked about permanency. I think it exists. It's 
really a question of the funding.
    Mr. Veasey. Right.
    Voice. [Indiscernible] your mic.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, sir. I think it's a question of funding.
    Mr. Veasey. Funding. Right, exactly, yes.
    Mr. O'Rielly. And then that's something to be addressed. 
But to your point, I think there's a portion of American 
families that will all be challenged by the budgets that they 
face and the circumstances they face, and it's both in, you 
know, urban centers and also in very rural America, the jobs 
and, depending on the economic situations that they face, that 
they're going to, you know, not be able to afford broadband. 
And if we believe, and I do, and in my previous jobs, believe 
the benefits of broadband and should be available to all 
Americans, well, then we have to address something on the 
affordability side.
    And I think ACP is structured the best that we've--that 
Congress and the Government has created an affordable program. 
Others have had lacking--there's still some improvements to be 
had here. We can address some waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
program. May look at eligibility. But overall, ACP is the best 
we've had, and I'd like to see Congress add some funds to it.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. In your op-ed, you also talked about the 
positive externalities of broadband adoption with respect to 
helping government operate more efficiently in generating 
economic activity. Can you expand on that and describe the 
negative impacts that the loss of ACP would have on families 
that rely on it and on businesses and local communities if 
families are suddenly no longer able to afford broadband 
service?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely. Broadband accessibility and 
affordability--having broadband, you know, reduces the cost for 
government. There's just so many services that would no longer 
need to be in a paper form, it will be in--you know, you can 
reduce populations in terms of in DC. You can, you know, 
scatter offices, you can do all kinds of different things that 
are more efficient and can reduce the cost for government 
services. But it's on the small business side, it's in 
bringing, you know, options and, you know, opportunity to so 
many different families that don't have it today.
    In terms of services that they may have or to be able to, 
you know, have access to retail and so many different things 
that they just don't have in their local communities and the 
supplies and--you know. And the job side to the equation, I've 
been and sat in family's kitchens when they're trying to figure 
out how do they--you know, their job is moving away, and the 
employer says I can--you can work remotely, and they say I 
don't have broadband, what do I do?
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. Yes. No, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time, and at this time the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta and Ranking Member 
Matsui, for holding today's hearing, and thanks to the 
witnesses for offering your time, your expertise, and your 
testimony.
    Americans have increasingly turned to the internet for 
work, for school, for agriculture, for socialization, and in 
telehealth. Virtually every facet of our daily lives requires 
fast and reliable access to this commodity. As members of this 
body, it is incumbent upon us to provide for our constituents 
and all Americans access to resources specific to this 
conversation, high-speed internet.
    However, something that seems so simple and fundamental is 
often met with opposition and prolonged delays, especially with 
regard to buildout and permitting for this necessary 
infrastructure. In an effort to bridge this digital divide, 
I've led legislation that would cut through the bureaucratic 
red tape and streamline the permitting process in order speed 
up the deployment of critical broadband infrastructure.
    As Chair McMorris Rodgers stated earlier in this hearing, 
rural America cannot be left behind. Rural America should not 
be left behind. In the 21st century, connectivity is actually a 
key for success, and securing better access to broadband, 
especially in rural Pennsylvanian communities, will benefit 
students, small businesses, farmers, seniors, families.
    So let's start with our questions. Mr. Saperstein, when 
you've had positive interactions with State and local 
permitting office, what were those experiences like, and can 
other similar offices learn from your experiences?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. And thank you for the question, 
Congressman. So many communities now represent--recognize the 
intense value that comes with mobile connectivity and wireless 
connectivity. And so many of the relationships that we have 
with our communities across the country are, in fact, positive.
    The reforms that we're seeking today are to make sure that 
those reforms stay in place nationwide. When we have positive 
interactions, we are respectful of the community, 
representing--or recognizing their need to have a say in the 
siting process, but also recognizing that these facilities need 
to be built to ensure coverage everywhere.
    Mr. Joyce. What specific state--steps should we take, Mr. 
Saperstein, can Congress use to reduce cost to broadband 
providers when deploying new networks?
    Mr. Saperstein. So colocation has been one of the biggest 
benefits of the overall congressional reforms. And the reforms 
that have streamlined that process have paid off by expedited 
siting and increased wireless coverage everywhere. Making 
permanent the FCC's interpretations of congressional acts are 
probably the single most important thing that you could do.
    Mr. Joyce. So the permanency will lower cost?
    Mr. Saperstein. Correct.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Mr. Romano, in some regions of our country, in particularly 
in rural areas like I represent in Pennsylvania, construction 
can only occur when the weather permits. How have long 
application review wait times or environmental or historic 
preservation reviews delayed your ability to deploy broadband 
in areas where the construction period might only be 5 or 6 
months out of 12?
    Mr. Romano. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 
Yes, the frost belt can be a real concern for people, 
especially as you move further north, of course, it does get 
quite shorter. I'm headed to Minnesota in a few days, and 
they've got snow on the ground there still right now. It just 
came down--coming down again.
    I have an example of a provider in North Dakota who waited 
9 months to get through NEPA review of something that should 
have been categorically excluded, but just to get confirmation 
of that. And by the time they got that review, they had to sit 
because they had to wait for several months before they could 
start because it came right around to the November timeframe.
    So, yes, Congressman, it is a significant issue. Again, 
having shot clocks that are more concrete and definitions that 
are more established will allow providers to have that 
predictability to deliver sooner on that promise.
    Mr. Joyce. I think predictability is ultimate in being able 
to expand our broadband access. And building broadband in rural 
areas, we recognize, is challenging, and it's expensive. Could 
you describe in more detail permitting regulations at the 
Federal level that are impeding broadband deployment?
    Mr. Romano. So the two that I think stick out most are the 
overarching sort of umbrella statutes of NEPA and National 
Historic Preservation Act. They're incredibly important, but 
there are circumstances in which--we've talked about 
proportionality. Really, proportionality is critical here to 
the application of those.
    If it's in a previously disturbed right-of-way, if it's in 
a critical circumstance of restoration of a network, those are 
circumstances that really contribute greatly to the cost of 
deploying a network in a place where it's already been deployed 
before. It's simply, in many cases, upgrading copper to fiber, 
for example.
    So, you know, those are two of the biggest, you know, 
delays that we see, and in turn they result in an increase with 
cost for reasons that others explained on this panel. That time 
delay leads to inflation, and the ability to procure supplies 
and having to refind contractors.
    Mr. Joyce. And thank you for recognizing that those time 
delay recognizably increase the cost. I think that's an 
important takeaway message for all of us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for this important hearing, 
and I yield the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired, and 
he yields back, and at this time the Chair recognizes the 
gentlelady from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Latta. Thanks to 
you and Ranking Member Matsui for convening today's hearing to 
discuss the challenges we face in deploying next-generation 
communications networks throughout the country, and thanks to 
the witnesses for taking the time to be here and share your 
expertise and testimony with us today.
    As we all know, broadband infrastructure is essential 
infrastructure. And like many of my colleagues here have 
already mentioned and talked about throughout this hearing, I 
was very proud to support the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, the largest long-term investment in our country's 
infrastructure in nearly a century.
    As we've discussed, the bill included almost $43 billion 
for the BEAD broadband expansion program. And while some of 
this money has already arrived for planning, the majority of it 
will soon be on its way to States, Territories, and Tribal 
Governments. And with this funding will come a flood of 
applications to deploy infrastructure: the towers, fibers, 
small cells needed to provide these broadband connections. And 
local offices will be strained reviewing and processing these 
applications.
    Right now, we have a unique opportunity to capitalize on 
these Federal investments and to close the digital divide. And 
that is why I am so pleased that in our hearing today we are 
including my bill, the Broadband Incentives for Communities 
Act, which provides grants for local governments to hire and 
train employees, purchase software, upgrade capabilities so 
essential for permitting and for the effective deployment of 
these funds so that we can really close the digital divide.
    So I want to ask just a couple questions on that note. Both 
Mr. Romano and Mr. Saperstein, both in your testimony and in 
response to Mr. Soto a little while ago, you described some of 
the challenges that your members have faced when obtaining 
authorizations and permits. That's been a theme throughout the 
day. Obviously, we also heard it from Representative Curtis as 
well.
    Can you talk about how legislation like the Broadband 
Incentives for Communities Act would help address those 
challenges and prevent bottlenecks at the local level?
    Mr. Romano. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you for 
that question. Thank you for the legislation as well. I agree 
with you fully.
    One of the things we hear most of all is the procedures do 
need to be improved, and I think we support a lot of the 
measures here for that very reason, but we also then need to 
execute, and execution is going to be critical. And I think 
measures like yours that look at how do you make sure the 
offices are primed, the pump is primed for them to deliver on 
anything else we do in terms of streamlining permitting is 
going to be critical.
    So systems, training, online portals, getting better 
staffing, training people to respond to us, that will enable 
better communication that ultimately delivers on all of these 
other things that we're talking about.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you.
    Mr. Saperstein?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. Thank you for the question. I agree 
with Mr. Romano, and I--it sounds from our discussion that we 
all agree that it's critical that local governments have the 
resources and expertise needed to review these projects quickly 
so we can get these services out there. Your help in focusing 
on being broadband ready is greatly appreciated. And I would 
also add that NTIA has recently emphasized the importance of 
being broadband ready, and we appreciate that focus there, too, 
so thank you.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Well, terrific, and you actually anticipated 
my next question, which I was actually going to direct over to 
Mr. Falcon.
    But the bill does aim to address--to bring stakeholders 
together through NTIA to establish a local broadband advisory 
council so that problems with deployment can be addressed in a 
collaborative manner or sharing experiences and other best 
practices. And so it's modeled after work that we've done in my 
city of Houston, which has been a relator in broadband 
deployment, and 5G broadband deployment in particular.
    So a key factor to success has been the close relationship 
between all of those working to get it done, between city 
leaders and the private sector and others. And a city's 
technology investments in Houston, I know, will make a huge 
economic impact in our region for years to come.
    So, Mr. Falcon, with the time we have left, which is just a 
little over a minute, could you describe--you described the 
bill as a win/win for communities and industry in your 
testimony, and I was just hoping you could take a few seconds 
to talk about the importance of that public-private cooperation 
and partnership, particularly in the early stages of these 
projects.
    Mr. Falcon. Certainly. Thank you for that question. You 
know, I think the--particularly for cities that have just as 
many needs in terms of the successful implementation of BEAD, 
the rights-of-way are crowded, and I think the need to explore 
alternative ways to deploy wires--you know, one of the--one of 
your provisions in your bill includes, you know, improving 
microtrenching and, you know, expanding on that.
    I think microtrenching is a pretty key solution to 
deployment. It's cheaper to deploy. It allows new ways to reach 
different corridors, communities without trying to refigure out 
accessing crowded out rights-of-way. And I think there are even 
new forms of accessing city infrastructure to deploy the wires. 
I've heard ideas of using kind of the stormwater system which 
runs throughout a city, is another one that's under works 
today.
    So these types of collaborations are key, and everyone wins 
if we all work together.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much.
    I'm over my time, and so, Mr. Chairman, as I yield back, I 
would like to enter some documents for the record in support of 
the bill.
    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman, and thank you 
all.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. At this 
time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 14th 
District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you all for 
joining us today to discuss these much-needed permitting 
reforms.
    This Congress I'm going to be leading the Cable 
Transparency Act. This bill will streamline the franchising 
process for cable operators and franchise authorities to make 
it less costly and burdensome, which currently deters new 
entrants. The Cable Transparency Act would help close the 
digital divide by encouraging new cable providers to enter 
markets and create more competition and therefore--and thereby 
lower consumer costs, which we're all in favor of.
    So question for you, Mr. O'Rielly. Cable providers are 
important players in the broadband marketplace, and I think 
we'd all agree and recognize that. What are some factors or 
barriers to entry that they face as they enter new markets or 
try to modify their franchises where they already operate?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So they--you have a number of franchises that 
are aggressive in trying to extend some of the obligations that 
they would like to add when they actually don't have authority 
to do so. And so in terms of simplifying the franchise process, 
I think that's very important, and the transparency is very 
important.
    But they face--you know, poles is one of the biggest 
issues----
    Mr. Weber. Poles?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Pole attachments. The ability to get access 
to the infrastructure that they're going to need to attach 
fiber and coax to serve the communities that are unserved 
today, to do the grants that they will receive and expand. So 
poles is a very big issue. The whole permitting process that--
and the culmination of the legislation that the bills that are 
before the subcommittee would be very helpful, including yours 
especially.
    Mr. Weber. Well, that's good to know. And the gentleman to 
your right there would be very interested in poles and the 
application of the system to--but I have--still have a question 
for you. Maybe for the panel too. What other deterrents--we 
really haven't discussed is access to capital, does that play 
in a part in any of this procedure? You're shaking your head. 
Why?
    Mr. Romano. Because the business case for rural broadband 
can be incredibly challenging. I mean, we're talking distances 
and densities that don't present a business case. It's a market 
failure in some areas. And so the extent to which--I've had 
members say before, ``You give me a hundred cents on the dollar 
and I still wouldn't build it'' to--because the operating 
expenses and the ability to maintain affordable rates is 
difficult. So that is a barrier as well.
    Mr. Weber. Is workforce availability a problem? Yes, sir.
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. Thank you for the question. That's one 
of the things that WIA has really leaned in on is making sure 
that we have the next-generation technicians who are going to 
be out there propelling all of this infrastructure. And so we 
have not only our registered apprenticeship program but we're 
also working with States as part of the BEAD Program to be a 
registered intermediary.
    Mr. Weber. Are you experiencing--are we experiencing supply 
chain issues? We'll go to you, Mr.--is it Finkel? I can't see 
that far.
    Mr. Finkel. Yes, sir. Supply chain, as this Congress has 
talked about over the last 3 years, is a huge problem 
economywide. But when you're talking about $65 billion worth of 
buildout with Federal dollars plus private investment plus 
upgrading existing infrastructure in well-served communities, I 
mean--and it's not just domestic, it's a global supply chain 
that we're competing in, so without question, supply chain is a 
huge challenge.
    Mr. Weber. Anybody else? Mr.--is it ``Falcone'' or 
``Falcon''?
    Mr. Falcon. ``Falcone.'' Yes, you know, I would echo much 
of what was said here. I think the--to the question of access 
to capital, I think there's also a need to look at alternative 
means of deploying the infrastructure, treating it as--purely 
as an infrastructure, I think, changes some of the long-term 
investment strategies that are out there that BEAD has provided 
an opportunity for.
    I think there are ways we need to think about how to share 
the infrastructure, particularly for 5G, in rural markets that 
we haven't really explored much today. But there are going to 
be challenges that small providers can't shoulder the burden 
completely alone out there.
    Mr. Weber. Were you the one that brought up microtrenching?
    Mr. Falcon. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. That kind of got my attention. Describe that for 
us, please.
    Mr. Falcon. Yes. So it's basically--the issue is a lot of 
the rights-of-way that exist are already crowded. They're 
already utilized by a number of providers or a number of other 
entities, and, you know, sometimes a provider just needs to, 
you know, run their fiber down a--you know, a handful of 
streets to get from one side of a community to another to 
connect their network, and they just need to trench through the 
street itself. So, you know, digging more in a shallow way, in 
an expedited way, allows them to connect an area of that. They 
wouldn't be able to by running through traditional conduit or 
other means you would normally do it.
    Mr. Weber. So in other words, in a yard, they put cable in 
your yard,--because I have cable in my yard, and they bring a 
little trencher out there that makes a groove and they lay that 
cable down. I bet it's not 4 or 5 inches deep. Is that----
    Mr. Falcon. Yes, and I think--and the challenge has been a 
lot of local communities are not familiar with this. One thing 
that California did was standardize kind of safety protocols 
around microtrenching and then published that to local 
jurisdictions, so it kind of took some of the guesswork about 
what's the right way to do it.
    Mr. Weber. Got you.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time. At this time, the Chair recognizes the gentlelady 
from Illinois for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Latta and Ranking Member 
Matsui, for holding this important hearing this morning. I also 
want to thank our witnesses for your testimony to help us 
understand how we in Congress may help reduce unnecessary 
barriers to broadband deployment.
    Although the last few years have been clouded with 
challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting in chips 
and supply chain shortages that hurt our economy, I was so very 
proud to stand with my colleagues last Congress as we passed 
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or the 
IIJA. Watching it get signed into law was a historic day for 
our country and proved that we are working on behalf of the 
American people to deliver real results.
    Importantly, the bipartisan bill made a huge investment of 
65 billion to expand broadband and help close the digital 
divide to ensure that every American has access to reliable 
high-speed internet. My district is urban, suburban, and rural, 
and I've seen the problem. Urban, suburban, and rural.
    Mr. Falcon, I was particularly moved by your written 
testimony where you said without 21st-century-ready 
connectivity you are not a full participant in society. As we 
look to expand broadband deployment, I'm very concerned still 
that certain communities will be left behind as they have been 
with other emerging technologies and advancement.
    To ensure the promise of the Broadband Equity Access and 
Deployment BEAD Program can be fulfilled, what recommendations 
do you have for us as we look to ensure access is delivered to 
everyone?
    Mr. Falcon. So thank you for that question. I think the 
fact that the Congress created the digital discrimination 
rulemaking authority to the FCC is a recognition that there 
always has to be oversight to ensure equitable outcomes given 
historically that has not happened. So rigorous enforcement of 
that new authority to the FCC is going to be key.
    Ms. Kelly. OK. And also, what can the FCC do in its 
rulemaking to ensure that this practice ends for good and we 
get rid of this two-tiered broadband infrastructure?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question. The big debate at 
the FCC between I would say the civil rights community and many 
in the consumer advocacy space with industry is when does 
liability trigger from the new digital discrimination rule.
    There--the civil rights community argue, and in line of 
many other civil rights statutes, that it should be a 
disparate--impact standard meaning, you know, what is the 
statistical information on the ground, what does the evidence 
show. And a number in industry are arguing it should be 
disparate treatment, which would raise the standard of 
liability to a point where you would be very difficult to 
actually prove.
    I think that actually contradicts what Congress intended 
with the passage of the law because, you know, when you invest 
a lot of dollars in terms of BEAD, to simultaneously say, you 
know, ensure that all people receive the benefit. Equal access 
means equal for all people.
    Ms. Kelly. Also, millions of Americans, many of whom are 
older or lower income, have access to broadband but do not 
adopt broadband because they don't understand how to use it or 
the value it can add to their lives. To address the adoption 
barrier, we need to promote digital equity, which among other 
things focuses on providing digital literacy and skill training 
for people who have not been afforded an opportunity to develop 
these skills.
    Mr. Falcon, can you speak about the challenges of broadband 
adoption, how we can best address these needs? And then, 
Commissioner O'Rielly, can you make comments if you have any?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question. You know, the 
challenge of adoption is--there has to be a lot of training and 
sensitivity to that. There's a lot of Americans who really--
don't really know how to use the internet fully, you know, need 
to be acclimated and helped, a lot in the senior citizen 
population, for example. And it's a--there's a value to getting 
everyone connected and everyone acclimated to the internet.
    You know, this is something that, you know, we're not 
reinventing the wheel here. South Korea did something similar 
to advance their economy, where they're at now. They gave 
people free computers and trained people how to use the 
internet.
    Mr. O'Rielly. If you look to reasons why people haven't 
adopted--why families haven't adopted, it's a long list. 
Affordability is one of them, and I've talked to--about that 
today and elsewhere. But digital literacy and the benefits and 
education on broadband benefits is important, and Congress has 
obviously made it so they can provide funding for that purpose 
for the first time. So there's other programs that have touched 
on it, but literacy and the value of it to individuals, we'll 
see what the result is from that.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and at 
this time, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia's 
12th District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, and again, thank you to 
our witnesses for being with us today.
    Since I was first elected to Congress, expanding rural 
broadband, improving cellular service in my district has been 
one of my top priorities, and it sounds like it's the 
priorities of every Member that has asked questions today. It 
is frustrating when it seems that no matter how many billions 
of dollars we appropriate towards this mission, it just gets 
more complicated and it's incomplete. It's almost like we can't 
do big things in this country anymore.
    A top priority of mine last Congress was to reduce waste, 
fraud, and abuse by making sure that the Federal broadband maps 
are as accurate as our broadband mapping is in the State of 
Georgia. Now I'm concerned about the fees some State and local 
governments charge for processing applications and using space 
in public right-of-ways. I'm concerned that these calls will 
only increase the cost of deployment and make it hard to 
provide service to those who need it.
    Mr. Saperstein and Mr. Romano, could you describe typical 
application fees associated with building broadband 
infrastructure at the State and local level, and is there a 
high level of variance between one State and one locality and 
another?
    Mr. Saperstein. Well, thank you for the question. One of 
things that the FCC's reforms have done is help to standardize 
the FCC's fees and make them cost-based, and that's one of the 
things that we're seeking to be made permanent by Congress 
today is to eliminate some of those wild disparities that we 
used to see where fees were not cost-based.
    Mr. Allen. OK. Thank you. Given these fees, I'm concerned 
that we will not be maximizing the money we dedicated for 
broadband deployment. This money needs to go towards building 
new networks, not helping local governments. This is especially 
true for the 42 billion that has been dedicated to the BEAD 
Program.
    Mr. O'Rielly, why is it necessary to cap fees to State and 
local governments--that State and local governments charge for 
deployment under the BEAD Program?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So you absolutely have it right, the money 
should go to the buildout. We have a number of locations that 
need to be addressed, households that don't have service, the 
unserved population needs to be addressed, and that money needs 
to go for those, and we'll probably at the end of that still 
have a problem and still have a percentage. So you can't use up 
the dollars on other functions like permitting fees--like--or 
sorry, permitting applications and everything else that they're 
trying to overcharge the applicants.
    Mr. Allen. Exactly. And that's why we're here today. We 
need legislation to correct that.
    Mr. O'Rielly, when you were on the FCC, you acted to 
prevent local and State governments from blanket banning the 
deployment of telecommunications services or facilities. From 
your perspective, have regions who have been unfriendly to the 
deployment of such facilities in the past been less responsive 
in processing permitting applications in a timely manner?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Whenever there is a barrier in the past, 
whenever there was a problem, you saw the dollars and where the 
construction would go to somewhere else. The providers would 
shift dollars to somewhere else, and those communities would 
suffer, and this--you know, what's left is what we're dealing 
with. The population that needs attention is, you know, both in 
economic reasons and some because of the shifting of attention 
is really important.
    So you highlight the issue of how receptivity is the 
community, how receptivity--how receptive, excuse me--is the 
application process, the permitting process is really important 
to how the dollars will flow.
    Mr. Allen. Well, and would you all agree that, you know, 
when it comes to Federal funding you're dealing with interstate 
commerce, so all things being equal, shouldn't it be standard, 
reasonable fees across the country?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with that, and I've made that point a 
number of times, so I agree absolutely.
    Mr. Allen. OK. Anyone else object to that?
    Mr. Romano. No, not object at all. I was going to say to 
the contrary, we were part of the Broadband Deployment Advisory 
Council--or Committee at the FCC when then-Commissioner 
O'Rielly was at the FCC as well, and I think that group, there 
were a number of us in that group, including NTCA, who 
supported cost-based fees, so the actual and direct costs. And 
I think several of the pieces of legislation here aim to do 
that at as well, and that's welcome.
    Mr. Allen. OK. Well, you know, you have my support to 
provide legislation. Let's get this done and so America can do 
big things again.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California's 16th District 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for always being so 
specific about the number of my district.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Eshoo. It's a----
    Mr. Latta. If I could just interject, the gentlelady has 
informed me I was wrong one time.
    Ms. Eshoo. Well, thank you, and thank you to all of the 
witnesses.
    I served 10 wonderful years on the San Mateo County Board 
of Supervisors in California before I was elected to the House 
in 1992, and I hold a deep reverence for local government to 
this very day. Academicians, political leaders from both 
parties, industry groups, public interest groups all agree that 
universal high-speed internet is necessary for our country's 
competitiveness in the 21st century. I mean, there just isn't a 
question about this. This is accepted across the board.
    The pandemic made this need even more evident as so many 
had to transition to teleworking, schools operating through 
distanced learning, doctor visits via telehealth. It's 
currently estimated that 24 million Americans lack internet 
access, a problem that is far more acute in rural and Tribal 
communities in our country. And this number is just those who 
lack access. Millions more simply can't even afford high-speed 
internet.
    Last Congress, Democrats made a generational investment to 
bridge the digital divide and bring reliable high-speed 
internet to every American household. That's the goal: 82 
billion--with a B--dollars for broadband affordability, equity, 
deployment.
    I think one of the most promising solutions to closing the 
digital divide that I've seen comes from local communities. 
That's why I started my comments out about serving in local 
government, county government in California. Over 900 counties, 
cities, local utilities, co-ops, neighborhood association, and 
Tribes are taking on the digital divide into their own hands by 
building their own broadband networks. Community broadband 
systems expand internet access to unserved and underserved 
areas and encourage competition across the country.
    And here's the thing about locally owned networks: They 
work really well. In 2019--in a 2019 report, New America's Open 
Technology Institute called these networks ``the fast, 
affordable internet option that's flying under the radar.'' 
Unfortunately, 19 States have enacted--they're protectionist 
laws, I mean, that's what they are, that's what they deserve to 
be called, that restrict and in some cases ban community 
networks.
    This is--I think it's wrong. You know, I mean, so many--you 
know, we all espouse competitiveness in our country, but there 
are some outfits, when they see competition from 5,000 miles 
away, they go and squash it like a bug. So that's essentially 
what has happened here.
    So to solve this problem, I introduced the Community 
Broadband Act, which simply prohibits State laws that ban or 
restrict community broadband. There's always talk about the 
reverence we have for States and local governments except when 
it comes to legislating. So here's an opportunity I think for 
us to underscore that. I think every solution to bring reliable 
and affordable internet to Americans should be available.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, thank you for the work that you've 
done at the FCC. We partnered on so many issues, and I think 
we're both legitimately proud of that. And I don't know whether 
you support my legislation or not, but let me ask Mr. Falcon 
and Mr. Saperstein, do you support the Community Broadband Act?
    Mr. Falcon. One hundred percent, absolutely. It is--if we 
are serious about getting----
    Ms. Eshoo. Music to my ears.
    Mr. Falcon. If we are serious about getting everyone 
connected, every--all hands have to be on deck.
    Ms. Eshoo. Mm-hmm. Mr. Saperstein?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, so as wireless infrastructure 
providers, we support communities providing service--well, 
whatever service provider wants to serve any given area.
    Ms. Eshoo. And Commissioner O'Rielly, do you?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well----
    Ms. Eshoo. And if not, how do we get your support?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So I am more sympathetic on the ban side 
where there are limitations. And I've done a number of blogs on 
this topic. I've examined these issues. Things like 
referendums, rights of first refusal, having a budget, that was 
a--that's been pointed out as having a--that's an objection and 
a barrier and therefore should be prohibited. A State shouldn't 
mandate that they're--actually have to have a budget from 
someone who's--you know, a community that's going to, you know, 
offer this service.
    I think that our--you know, so that's some of the States, 
that's some of the 19 you mentioned. There are a number, and I 
can't--it used to be, you know, bigger. It's shrinking.
    Ms. Eshoo. It's 19.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, but I'm saying the number that actually 
have the ban, the straight-up ban across the board, and that's 
a little different in my mind. I'd explore in terms of--there 
are also a lot of advantages that I'd be--I'm very worried come 
to the local community broadband network that wouldn't be 
available--that are not available.
    Ms. Eshoo. So you're squishy. You're squishy on it.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. O'Rielly. This issue is--yes, on this issue, I'm a 
little squishy.
    Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I might lean more to the--I might lean to 
the----
    Ms. Eshoo. I just want you to know how fair I am in asking 
you when I know that you weren't a hundred percent----
    Mr. O'Rielly. Probably less squishy and maybe lean no 
category.
    Ms. Eshoo. Yes, yes, exactly. Maybe we got rid of some of 
the squishiness.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our wonderful ranking 
member, Congresswoman Matsui. This is an important hearing, and 
I thank you for having it, and thank the witnesses.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentlelady's time 
has expired, and the gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for the panelists that are here today.
    Mr. Saperstein, in your testimony you discussed the 
barriers to broadband caused by lengthy Government reviews. Do 
you agree with me that the Government's way too big and 
permitting is way too slow? You can say yes.
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK, good deal. Well, under the Trump 
administration, the FCC instituted a 60-day shot clock for 
making technology updates on existing cell towers. You know 
that it's crucial that the telecommunications industry can make 
any updates to existing towers for the transition to 5G for 
future technologies. You know, it's common sense making a 
technological update on existing towers shouldn't be a 
tremendously controversial change. I mean, is attaching the 
equipment to a pole that difficult, or it's just the 
permitting, am I correct?
    Mr. Saperstein. That's correct.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. OK. I'm leading the 5G Upgrade Act, which 
would codify this shot clock, so if a State or a local 
government takes too long approving a permit for adjusting 
technology on an existing tower, it's automatically approved. 
And I guess my question to you is, why is that important that 
the shot clock be codified as law?
    Mr. Saperstein. Thank you for the question and for your 
support of the 5G Upgrade Act. Many of the reforms that were 
made recently in the FCC's 5G upgrade order are currently under 
appeal, and we don't know how those are going to turn out. So 
being--making sure that those are codified is essential so we 
can have commonsense reform so colocations can have the 
streamline reviews, we can get 5G upgraded quickly everywhere.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, I have a rural district in East 
Tennessee, and it's imperative--you know, there's so many 
things that we can do if we have that, so, you know, broadband 
and everything else. So there's much to do, but dragging our 
feet is not the answer, so I think--I appreciate your agreement 
with me that the Government's too big and the permitting's too 
slow.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and 
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas' 11th District 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, you know, I appreciate the leadership that Chair 
Rodgers has shown on this, and I love the discussion on 
permitting reform, whether it's energy, or telecommunications, 
broadband, electricity, it doesn't really matter. You know, 
this is a commitment that we made to the American public to 
deliver at the speed of relevancy, and I think we're currently, 
you know, being inhibited in a lot of areas by government 
delays, inaction, and otherwise, so I appreciate the 
conversation.
    I just want to start with that because I think if we don't 
pay attention to that, inevitably we're going to lose. We've 
had this same discussion on satellites in this committee, and 
spectrum, and we're going to lose to China if we don't continue 
to move at the speed of relevancy.
    So, Commissioner O'Rielly, I'd kind of like to start by 
talking about, you know, the difficulty to track permitting 
applications once it's submitted to a Federal agency.
    Mr. O'Rielly. So depending on the agency, my experience is 
that different agencies are more receptive and more capable of 
handling the process and being favorable to the--excuse me, 
apology for that, I'm the--responsible for my kids, so 
anytime----
    Mr. Pfluger. We understand.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Anytime the local school calls I'm--so, yes, 
so the application process and the actually approval process is 
extremely tough to follow, and the providers can highlight how 
it gets lost in the shuffle and then go--years can go before 
the action is actually taken, much less know what's happening. 
And the Commission itself, as a former Commissioner, we 
wouldn't be able to see any of that, you know, from other 
agencies. Ourselves, in the activity that we did, you know, was 
to move forward on all the balls that your colleague 
highlighted and really push the envelope as far as we could.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Romano or any others on the panel, your 
thoughts on how difficult it is to track?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you for the question. Yes, I would agree, 
and I'll give you an example. I was talking to a member in 
Michigan just last night who applied for a permit in August of 
2022. Despite repeated inquiries, couldn't get word back on 
where that stood until December of 2022, which then put their 
shot clock starting then, which pushed them into August of 2023 
for their 270 days, which then becomes a problem because of 
frozen ground in Michigan when they want to start construction.
    So having greater transparency, greater responsiveness, 
greater levels of communication is going to be critically 
important. There are a lot of dedicated people working on these 
permitting issues, but having systems and processes in place to 
provide greater transparency will be critical.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you for that. That--I'm proud to 
introduce the--you know, a bill that will have a tracking 
mechanism, you know, to have the deployment tracking--to 
understand what the facts are to better communicate between 
government and industry. You know, in a rural area like I 
represent in West Texas, you know, look, there's billions of 
dollars that have been spent on this, and we want to see the 
results. We want to see connectivity.
    And I'm just interested--Mr. Finkel, I'm interested in your 
thoughts on this. Is there a--an intentional delay towards 
rural areas?
    Mr. Finkel. Well, look, I don't--I'm not sure that there's 
an intentional delay, but I think that by nature a lot of these 
agencies just move real slow, they add a level of redundancy. 
There's agencies that are duplicative, that are tripping over 
each other when they're doing reviews.
    And one of the things that I--that was in my testimony was 
that, you know, working across 48 States, our members, when we 
get aggregated stories from them, you'll have different field 
offices for different agencies which have totally different and 
completely different approaches, different timelines. So 
they're all moving through the process at a different pace, so 
even when you get that transparency, you're going to see a 
great degree of discrepancy between the different offices 
within the same agency.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist here, and 
I don't want to inject things that may not be happening, but I 
think it's clear that the inefficiencies, whether it's 
intentional or not, or the lack of tracking, whether it's 
intentional or not, you know, OK, let's fix the problem now, 
and let's deploy broadband into areas that need it.
    And for our area, this is energy. This is, you know, the 
energy capitol of America, it's agriculture, it's the men and 
women who work in those industries. It's a safety issue, and as 
I mentioned earlier, I think that this is a national security 
issue with regards to competing with China every single day 
because they're doing this, and they're deploying it, and we 
need to get our act together.
    So thank you all for testifying and for your thoughts 
today, and I appreciate your professional expertise here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio's 12th District 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the panel for being here.
    Too many people in my district and across Ohio--as I have 
three Ohioans here so they can all speak for the same, and 
often--too often the buildout of new networks can be delayed or 
even sidelined completely due to lengthy applications for 
franchising or permitting zoning problems, issues with access 
to poles, and more. Congress needs to do something. The bills 
being discussed here today would do just that, and I applaud 
the chairman for hosting this committee.
    My bill, the Cable Leadership Act, puts a shot clock on 
franchising authorities to grant or deny franchise to 
providers. This is the only one of the many applications that 
need to be submitted and approved before providers can start 
building out new broadband networks.
    Mr. Romano, I know that you don't represent cable companies 
so you can't give input on that specific bill, but could you 
give some great examples in your testimony about how your 
members' projects have been delayed? What tools, such as a shot 
clock, can Congress employe to streamline the approval process 
and prevent such delays?
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman, for that. And, in fact, 
it's interesting, we do have a handful of cable companies 
within our membership, so it--there is some relevance there as 
well directly too.
    Yes, I think the biggest things we see with--and I think 
where these bills would help tremendously is certainty. 
Providing definitional certainty, knowing what it means for 
something to be complete, what it means for something to be 
received. Providing greater certainty and transparency into the 
process. The communicate--lack of communication, as I mentioned 
earlier, is a real concern. The inability to see and predict 
what's going to be coming next.
    Our members are small companies. A lot of cable companies 
are small cable companies as well. Their ability to hire 
construction crews depends upon knowing when they're going to 
be able to hit the ground running, and if they don't have that, 
they can't line that up, which complicates both the cost and 
the timing of keeping those crews busy.
    So all of those things are significant hurdles, and I think 
the measures before this committee would help to alleviate 
those, if not address them completely.
    Mr. Balderson. All right, thank you. Sorry. Thank you.
    And, Mr. Romano, I'm going to include you on this next 
question too, but also Michael Saperstein. I'm curious, where 
most of these delays occurs. As I've mentioned, various 
applications and approvals are needed from all levels of 
government before a provider can start building out a new 
network. Are your members--both of you, are your members seeing 
these delays occur more often at the Federal level, or State 
and local level?
    Mr. Romano. I think just by nature of the areas they serve, 
it tends to be more of a Federal issue because, especially as 
you get out west, our members are serving a lot of Federal 
lands for service BLM and the like. But State highways can be 
an issue as well, and I would be remiss if I did not mention 
railroads. Railroads are a significant issue in rural areas in 
terms of crossing.
    So I have examples in my testimony of people going 15 feet 
and paying significant sums for that. So--but it is--tends to 
be more of a Federal end issue, but then that does bring in 
State historical preservation offices at times for some of 
those Federal reviews, which again, is why these measures are 
so important.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes. And thank you for the question. I 
would agree, due to congressional and FCC action, that most of 
the delays we're seeing now is on the Federal level. One thing 
I wanted to highlight is that one of the big challenges we're 
seeing now is that the FAA actually has to approve certain 
towers that are over a certain height, use certain frequencies, 
or in a certain proximity to airports. What was taking 3 weeks 
about a year ago is now taking 9 months to a year. And so we 
are looking to--for Federal guidance to--I believe it's a 
resource issue--how we can get that better resourced so we 
don't delay 5G rollout.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
    My last question is for Mr. O'Rielly. I can hardly see, but 
I see you through the thing here.
    Voice. I'm with you.
    Mr. Balderson. Anyway, in your--and I--you know, I've been 
in and out and--as you're well aware of, but in your testimony, 
you talked about the FCC--which I did read--and needed to take 
it upon ourself to alleviate barriers to broadband deployment, 
often pushing its statutory boundaries. Do you feel that the 
FCC should be granted more latitude to tackle barriers to 
deployment as they come up, and if so, in what areas? And you 
have 50 seconds.
    Mr. O'Rielly. So I agree with the package of legislation, 
and there's probably some things I would do to make them 
stronger. I want--I would believe the committee and the 
subcommittee should always limit and structure what the FCC--
what you ask out of the FCC. But in terms of aggressiveness and 
the need to act, I think the FCC can be very helpful in this 
case.
    It certainly needs to be talked about, poles. I think the 
FCC can address all the poles nationwide. Don't have to have 
the exemption for certain municipal or nonutilities or co-ops. 
So I think that the Commission can handle those things and can 
handle other authority. They've done a very good job, I think, 
in this universe, and if you give them direction and 
limitations, they will follow closely. If you give them broad 
authority, then you run into some issues sometimes.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you all very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 
Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida's Third 
District for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Awesome. Well, thank you, Chairman Latta, for 
hosting this important hearing today.
    Thank you to our witnesses for appearing. I see you all 
have been bunched up real tight this entire hearing. I've been 
noticing the elbow room as I've been dipping in and out of the 
room, so we are near the end. Hang in there.
    This is such an important topic. I know we have chatted 
about this and how we can do this in a way that is efficient, 
responsible, and hits the mark. And every single person who 
serves today has a district that is impacted by broadband or 
lack thereof, and so I'm excited that we're starting to really 
address some of these issues.
    All of our witnesses here today I'm sure share the concerns 
of the process for permitting is too complicated, opaque, time 
consuming. I heard a little bit about some of the delays that 
we're having.
    In your view, what is the single most urgent change needed 
to the permitting process in order to best deploy broadband 
across the country, especially in rural areas like Florida? And 
I would like to address this question to each of you, and we'll 
start down here and work our way down.
    Mr. O'Rielly. So pole attachments, both access and rates, 
and I actually wrote a letter a number of years ago to the 
State House in Florida because they were looking to simplify 
that process there.
    Mrs. Cammack. I'm shocked by your answer. That's my joke 
for the day.
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Finkel.
    Mr. Finkel. Expediting the process on existing right-of-
ways on existing poles to make sure that you don't have to go 
through an EIS for--to put wire on existing infrastructure.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Mr. Falcon. I think increasing the personnel resources 
available given the surge of projects that are coming in is key 
to shorten the review time.
    Mrs. Cammack. So at the agency level?
    Mr. Falcon. Yes.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Mr. Saperstein. Thank you for the question. For Federal 
lands, it's adding clarity, accountability, and transparency to 
that process, in addition to looking at what more resources can 
be given to FAA to avoid a bottleneck there.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Mr. Romano. And thank you, again, Congresswoman, for the 
question. So, yes, I think it's--to echo some of the others, 
dealing with reviews for previously disturbed rights-of-way and 
previously disturbed earth, those--the ability to upgrade 
networks quickly where especially we've already got networks in 
place is going to be critical to delivering on next-generation 
capabilities and capacity.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you, as we're considering a 
number of bills that are working to address some of these more 
nuanced issues. Myself, in particular, I'm really glad to lead 
the discussion draft for the Digital Applications Act, which 
would establish an online portal to accept, process, and 
dispose of the common form application to deploy a 
communications facility on Federal property.
    Mr. Finkel, can you discuss the current challenges with the 
common form application SF299 and how an online portal for 
permitting applications would benefit broadband deployment on 
Federal property?
    Mr. Finkel. It's just common sense.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you. You know. And common sense is not 
common around here.
    Mr. Finkel. I don't need to add much more.
    Mrs. Cammack. You mentioned Federal property?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, and thanks for the question. Actually, 
portals are one of the things we--our members have talked about 
that's a simple fix that would add so much transparency into 
what's going on and allow more predictability in the overall 
build cycle.
    Mrs. Cammack. Just going down the line, legislation like 
this to basically modernize the process and make it more 
transparent, you would fully support, and it would be silly for 
anyone to oppose this legislation, correct?
    Mr. Romano. Yes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Just go--we'll start down here.
    Mr. Romano. Gaps in--yes, gaps in communication are 
incredibly frustrating. At a time when we can track so many 
things in our daily lives online and check with--on the status 
of different things from airline flights to train schedules, it 
is difficult to understand why we cannot keep track of these 
significant investments in our future. Yes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
    Mr. Saperstein. I think Mr. Romano said that well.
    Mrs. Cammack. Mr. Falcon.
    Mr. Falcon. Yes. No, I would agree, and I think the 
coordination amongst if there's several agencies involved is 
also key. Some sort of single point of contact may be a way to 
augment the value of a portal.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
    Mr. Finkel. And the portal, again, makes it so all agencies 
can see it. It creates transparency for the applicant. You have 
a clear picture of what your process is.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I actually----
    Mrs. Cammack. If you say--if you don't say ditto, I'm going 
to be disappointed.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Ditto. I support--I agree with the 
legislation. I may not use the word silly, only to--but I--I'm 
hard pressed to come up with a reason to oppose it.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Well, thank you guys for making 
the case for that wonderful piece of legislation.
    What expected risks and challenges in the absence of 
permitting reform, considering the massive amount of Federal 
dollars dedicated to broadband deployment, do we face over the 
next few years? Just--we've got 30 seconds. Give me your 
number-one concern if we don't act. And we'll go down the line.
    Mr. O'Rielly. I'm worried about overbuilding, and I'm 
worried about waste, fraud, and abuse.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Mr. Finkel. I'm worried the money won't get out.
    Mrs. Cammack. Ooh.
    Mr. Falcon. I'd be worried about costs rising and 
minimizing the impact of the dollars invested.
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, simply that we would fail our 
objective of universal connectivity.
    Mr. Romano. A crush of applications leading to chaos and 
trying to sort through them all to get them done.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
    With 2 seconds to spare, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. 
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today, and 
with that I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for those on the 
panel willing to take the time and provide some input to us.
    We all want rural broadband, and the permitting process, as 
we've had many discussions on, sometimes slows things down and 
makes it tough. In the State of Idaho, we have a tremendous 
amount of Federal land, nearly two-thirds of land mass there. 
And in my State, rural carriers and utilities struggle to get 
approvals to lay fiber lines, set up towers, construct 
buildings and other infrastructure to ensure residents that are 
physically located in regions surrounded by Federal lands, or 
in other words kind of landlocked that way, so they can get the 
same access and quality broadband as those in urban areas.
    And so by streamlining the Federal side of the permitting, 
then that gives the access and the quality for broadband to 
those in rural areas and just makes it that much more 
achievable. So one of the bills that I am introducing is--it's 
called the Reducing Barriers to Broadband on Federal Lands Act, 
and this bill would remove the requirement to do a NEPA review 
for the deployment of broadband projects that are on previously 
disturbed land. And that previously disturbed, basically to 
summarize, means there's already been a NEPA process for other 
purposes.
    And so otherwise, these projects end up just not making it 
through the planning stage, and there's multiple examples right 
in my backyard where that's been the case.
    So, Mr. Chair, there is a report that I'd like to enter 
into the record. It's from the National Telecom and Information 
Administration. They published a report that provides 
recommendations on how Federal agencies can improve or 
streamline their processes for reviewing broadband installation 
applications, and I would ask unanimous consent to enter that 
report into the record, please.
    Mr. Latta. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And basically my questions and my requests for interaction 
from you all is, first of all, do you see specific problems--
and I'll start with Mr. Romano and then Mr. Saperstein and Mr. 
Finkel. Do you see problems with that when we're looking to 
streamline by foregoing NEPA again when it comes to permitting 
for rural broadband? Mr. Romano.
    Mr. Romano. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, and 
thank you for the discussion draft you put forward--the bill 
you've put forward.
    We support that bill. We think that it makes a ton of 
sense. The landlocked point you raise is a really good one, an 
interesting one, and I think it's one of these pieces that's 
hard to capture sometimes. But the puzzle pieces of putting 
together when you're going across Federal land, and then you're 
in a private right-of-way, then you're going across a railroad, 
that can make it incredibly hard, especially for a smaller 
provider.
    So I think a bill like yours offers an opportunity to help 
put the puzzle pieces together better. I don't think when 
you're talking about previously disturbed earth, previously 
disturbed rights-of-way, you're talking about upgrading 
existing networks, that hopefully is a proportional response 
that allows you to make sure that you're not presenting the 
kinds of concerns that would rise to a higher level of scrutiny 
or need a higher level of scrutiny with respect to 
environmental or historical preservation issues.
    So I think this bill makes a lot of sense. It's a good use 
of finding a way to make sure it's not considered a major 
Federal action or an undertaking under those statutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Saperstein?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, and thank you for the question. So our 
view is that permitting processes should be predictable, 
proportionate, and timely, and I think your bill speaks 
specifically to the proportionality. In the types of 
circumstances that you're describing, do we really need the 
types of NEPA views--NEPA reviews, or are we better off 
exempting them? And I think your bill goes a long towards that.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Finkel?
    Mr. Finkel. As I shared with the Chair earlier, the idea 
that you'd have to Greenfield existing right-of-way that you've 
already--and existing infrastructure that's already been 
through the NEPA process just seems totally redundant and a 
waste of both time and Federal resources.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I support your legislation. I think it's the 
direction to go, and the requirement is unnecessary in my mind.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great.
    We'll ask Mr. Falcon too.
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you. I--you know to the extent that many 
of the projects are transitioning legacy infrastructure to kind 
of 21st century infrastructure in previously disturbed ground, 
I think there is--it is right to think about how do you 
distinguish that from actual Greenfield projects.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have 20 seconds to spare. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
California's 23d District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I represent an extremely rural district, and the problems 
that my constituents have in accessing broadband are 
exacerbated by the fact that over 90 percent of the land mass 
of my district is in public ownership in one form or another. 
So it's not enough to merely allocate grant funding to be able 
to create broadband infrastructure in these rural areas, then 
we'll have to manage this process of getting that 
infrastructure built through the privately held--the publicly 
held land that separates the communications hubs from the 
places where my constituents live. I know that you're very 
familiar with that particular problem.
    So one of the bills that we are discussing today is my 
bill, the GRANTED Act, which aims to solve in some small part 
that problem. Congress has already directed the FCC to expedite 
the processing of those permits required to cross Federal lands 
either through lands held by the BLM or sometimes the 
Department of Agriculture. We've directed a common application 
for those permits, and we have put a shot clock of 270 days on 
the approval of those permits.
    Unfortunately, what we are experiencing is that in many 
occurrences the Federal agencies involved take more than 270 
days to process those permits, and unfortunately, there are no 
penalties or consequences for them doing that. So my bill would 
deem approval for any application for broadband infrastructure 
across public lands that has been pending for more than 270 
days, provided that application was full and complete when it 
was submitted. And I think that's a commonsense way of solving 
that problem.
    I'd be interested in your opinion on that concept. Are you 
a supporter of that kind of deemed approval after 270 days as 
a--let's start with the end of the table here, Mr. Romano.
    Mr. Romano. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Yes, we do. We think that that makes a lot of sense. And I 
think what this highlights too--one of the things I want to be 
clear about as well is a lot of the bills that are being 
presented here refer back to 6409, the section which is a 
wireless facilities deployment.
    So one of the things--one of the other bills that's present 
in this proceeding would attempt to stitch this together and 
make sure those also apply to wireline, and I think that's 
going to be critical. I think a lot of the concepts here that 
are presented make a ton of sense and would help to expedite 
deployment. I think it's going to be critical as well to make 
sure those dots connect to make sure they apply to wireless and 
wireline----
    Mr. Obernolte. Sure.
    Mr. Romano [continuing]. Facility deployment alike to the 
extent appropriate.
    Mr. Obernolte. That's a good point.
    Mr. Saperstein?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, thank you for the question. And yes, 
we support your bill, and we believe it would help adding 
accountability to the Federal land process because currently, 
though Congress has set this 270-day shot clock, there is no 
accountability and there is no recourse if they fail to meet 
it.
    Mr. Obernolte. Right. I hope so too.
    Mr. Falcon?
    Mr. Falcon. Thank you for that question. I think the--if 
the staffing personnel is made available, permits can be turned 
over faster. And a common issue I hear, particularly in 
California with rural carriers, is there's just not that many 
people there for reviewing permits. So, you know, I think it's 
a fixable problem that can bring it down to that number you're 
shooting for in terms of 270 days.
    Mr. Obernolte. Mr. Finkel?
    Mr. Finkel. I'll associate myself with the comments of Mr. 
Romano on both--including wireless and wireline. But let me 
also--you noted and you used ``full and complete application,'' 
and that's when the shot clock would end. So just one thing to 
consider is oftentimes with agencies that have that--have the 
time limitations, how they define ``full and complete'' and 
whether or not they restart the shot clock because they deem 
you to not have been full and complete, and how they 
communicate and how--whether or not they're transparent about 
the full and complete is a really important factor to consider 
as well.
    Mr. Obernolte. Yes. I actually think that's an excellent 
point. We've tried to be very thoughtful and deliberate with 
our approach to that problem in the text of the bill, but we 
are certainly open to any suggestions that you might have to 
differentiate perhaps between the shot clock for declaring an 
application complete and the 270 days required to review it, 
because what we don't want is to get to the end of 200--you 
know, Day 269 and have an agency come back and say, oh, you 
know what, you include--you failed to include this piece of 
paper, we're starting over, you know, at Day Zero.
    Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I've got experience with that at the 
FCC. But to your point, I actually very much support your 
legislation. I think you're maybe being a little generous on 
270 days.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, we'll have to think about that. Well, 
I thank you very much, and we'll continue to work with you as 
we work through the legislative process with this bill, but I 
think we're all unified in our desire to increase this access 
to rural--access to broadband infrastructure and solve some of 
these systemic problems.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance 
of his time, and at this time the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Ohio's Sixth District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm really proud to 
once again this session be sponsoring the Wireless Broadband 
Competition and Efficient Deployment Act that would remove the 
requirement for environmental and historic preservation reviews 
in order to add or upgrade wireless facilities on existing 
infrastructure.
    This is common sense, and it would eliminate a tremendous 
burden with reviews that are often repetitive and that 
unnecessarily slow down broadband expansion. And I want to 
thank Chairman Latta for including my discussion draft in 
today's legislative hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for 
your insight. We really have to break down the barriers to 
deployment that are keeping folks like those I represent in 
rural Appalachia on the wrong side of the digital divide.
    Commissioner O'Rielly, you and I have worked together on 
this for a long time. It's so frustrating to me that here in 
2023 we're talking about the same problems that we were talking 
about in January of 2011. We're just not making progress on 
rural broadband, and this is a commonsense thing that can 
really make a difference.
    Mr. Romano, your testimony discussed the difficulties and 
lengthy delays your members have experienced when obtaining 
permissions through environmental and historic preservation and 
consultation processes for broadband deployment. How often do 
you have to perform an environmental or historic preservation 
review for simply adding or upgrading wireless facilities on 
existing infrastructure?
    Mr. Romano. So the way the NEPA and HPA work essentially 
is, if we are deploying on Federal lands or essentially using 
Federal funds, those are going to trigger the kinds of----
    Mr. Johnson. So anytime the Federal Government's involved, 
you have to do all that.
    Mr. Romano. That essentially is correct. I mean, there may 
be--there are categorical exclusions under NEPA that can apply 
that can take one out of that, but oftentimes they can't even 
take time to figure out whether one qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion and the number of the projects.
    Mr. Johnson. Got you. In your view, does the amount of 
time, effort, and cost for these reviews detract from the 
incentive for providers to upgrade existing wireless 
infrastructure, and what does this mean for consumers?
    Mr. Romano. I think the--and I'll pick up a point that Mr. 
Saperstein made earlier about the sort of transparency and the 
predictability of this. The inability to know for certain 
what--how long this is going to take, what exactly is going to 
be required can be a deterrent to participation in some of 
these programs or otherwise to invest in these areas. I will 
say the incentive to invest--our members are based in the 
communities they serve, so they've got strong incentive to do 
it anyways. But particularly, participating in expansion 
programs, that can be a real deterrent.
    Mr. Johnson. Got you.
    Mr. Saperstein, same question: In your view, does the 
amount of time, effort, and cost for these reviews detract from 
the incentive for providers to upgrade existing infrastructure?
    Mr. Saperstein. Yes, absolutely. I mean, colocation is one 
of the most efficient things we can do as a society to spread 
wireless deployments. It makes use of existing infrastructure, 
it allows multiple carriers to serve an existing area, and it 
reduces the overall effect on the local community. So 
absolutely.
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. O'Rielly? And again, it's good to see you. The last 
time I think I saw you maybe when you came out to see some of 
the rural aspects of my district and the struggles that we have 
there with broadband. In your testimony, you mentioned the 
importance of permitting reform for wireless connectivity, 
including for 6G. Can you expand on what reforms will be 
helpful for future 6G deployment?
    Mr. O'Rielly. So 6G is expected--and it's still early in 
the discussion stage, but it's expected to use higher 
frequency, so both midbands and super-high bands, and in doing 
that, you're going to have more towers, more infrastructure 
that's absolutely necessary. And so that means more colocation, 
that means more placement of towers, it means new construction 
of big towers and small cells and antennas, and all of that's 
going to need approval, and all of that's going to go through 
the molasses that we've been talking about today.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Are there any particular reforms you would 
recommend to increase the efficiency of current 5G deployment?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I--permitting is at the top of my list. 
Permitting and pole attachment, both the rates and access are 
at the top of my list. I've talked about other aspects that the 
committee can focus on. I--we talked about railroads briefly. 
I'd put railroads in that category as well.
    Mr. Johnson. You know, we used to have an anti-drug 
campaign in America that the big byline was ``Just Say No.'' 
God, we need the Federal Government to just say yes to some of 
these things that are common sense. It--this is mind-boggling 
to me.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks again, I appreciate you letting me 
waive on the committee. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And seeing no other 
Members wishing to ask questions, I want to thank our panel of 
witnesses today for your expertise and your time today. We 
greatly appreciate it. You can tell from the interest of the 
Members that this is a very, very important topic that we're 
dealing with.
    I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the 
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Latta. I remind Members that they have 10 business days 
to submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to 
respond to the questions quickly. Members should submit their 
questions by the close of business on May the 3rd.
    And without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]