[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: OVERSEEING
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR BROADBAND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 10, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-33
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-774 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
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 Oversight and Investigations
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
Chairman
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona, Vice Chair PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington officio)
(ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, opening statement..................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Witnesses
Andrew Von Ah, Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
George S. Ford, Ph.D., Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for
Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies................ 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion
Alliance....................................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: OVERSEEING FEDERAL FUNDS FOR BROADBAND
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. H. Morgan
Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Griffith, Guthrie, Duncan,
Palmer, Lesko, Armstrong, Cammack, Rodgers (ex officio), Castor
(subcommittee ranking member), DeGette, Schakowsky, Tonko,
Ruiz, Peters, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Latta, Walberg, and Allen.
Staff present: Deep Buddharaju, Senior Counsel, Oversight
and Investigations; Lauren Eriksen, Clerk, Oversight and
Investigations; Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and
Technology; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; John Lin, Senior
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Karli Plucker, Director
of Operations; Michael Taggart, Policy Director; Austin Flack,
Minority Junior Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Liz Johns,
Minority GAO Detailee; Will McAuliffe, Minority Chief Counsel,
Oversight and Investigations; Christina Parisi, Minority
Professional Staff Member; Greg Pugh, Minority Staff Assistant;
Harry Samuels, Minority Oversight Counsel; Andrew Souvall,
Minority Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member
Services; and Caroline Wood, Minority Research Analyst.
Mr. Griffith. The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations will now come to order.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
I welcome our invited guests and experts to a hearing on a
subject that is very important to the constituents of my
district. That subject is the access to broadband. For many
Americans, broadband has become second nature, from sending
emails, doing work, doing homework, watching our favorite
shows, or ordering packages. People count on speedy and
reliable broadband to connect with each other, foster new
economic opportunities, and engage with the wider world.
The need for broadband access was prominently revealed
during the coronavirus pandemic when even more activities moved
online. Unfortunately, large sections of rural America,
including much of my district, lack reliable access to
broadband, putting many Americans at a disadvantage.
The lack of broadband access in rural communities, or the
digital divide, has been lessened, billions of dollars spent by
numerous Federal agencies, and yet millions of Americans still
lack access.
When it comes to broadband access, a considerable number of
people aren't underserved, they are still unserved. According
to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, at least 17
percent of rural Americans lack access to fixed broadband,
defined as a minimum download speed of 25 megabits per second
and 3 megabits per second upload speed. Only about 1 percent of
Americans in urban areas can't access these speeds.
That is a population of underserved people, and that is a
separate issue from the question of affordability in those
areas. If you are unserved, it doesn't matter how much money
you have, you can't practically gain access.
The digital divide is certainly not a new problem. Federal
Government funding appropriated to help solve the problem
hasn't been lacking. The Federal Government has been funding
efforts to close the digital divide for decades and has spent
billions of dollars. The problem has not improved as quickly or
completely as was expected, and millions of Americans still
lack access.
Most recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
of 2021 allocated nearly 48 billion to support broadband
deployment in unserved and underserved areas: 42.45 billion
through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program,
also known as the BEAD Program; 2 billion for the Tribal
Connectivity Program; 1 billion for Middle Mile Grant Program;
and 2 billion for the ReConnect Program.
As I noted before the bill passed, no preference was given
to unserved areas over underserved areas. The National
Telecommunications and Information administration, known as
NTIA, housed inside the Department of Commerce, is charged with
administering the majority of these funds. Prior to these
programs, from 2015 to 2020, the Federal Government invested
about 44 billion to increase Americans' access to broadband,
and yet millions of Americans still lack access.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, a recent GAO report
highlighted how Federal efforts to expand access to broadband
have been riddled with the classic problems we see with
Government-run programs. According to the GAO, Federal
broadband efforts are fragmented and overlapping. Within the
many Federal programs related to increasing broadband access,
there is potential for overlap, duplication, and conflicting
messages.
Current Federal efforts to increase broadband access
involve more than 100 programs administered by 15 Federal
agencies, and yet millions of Americans still lack access. Now
think about that: 15 agencies, 100 programs riddled with lack
of coordination. No wonder millions of Americans still lack
access.
And to make it worse, according to the GAO report from last
May, the United States' broadband efforts are not guided by a
national strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and
performance measures. Also troubling is that, according to the
GAO, the administration has not decided if a national strategy
is needed. I would submit that a national strategy is needed,
it is necessary, and strong leadership to coordinate all of
these agencies' spending on broadband access is needed.
GAO has identified the Federal Communications Commission
and the NTIA as having significant roles in expanding broadband
access, and I look forward to this committee conducting
additional oversight of those Federal agencies and their
spending on broadband.
Today, however, I am curious to hear from our witnesses. We
appreciate you all being here. Curious to hear from them about
the various challenges currently facing the Federal Government
agencies tasked with expanding Americans' access to broadband,
and I look forward to their testimony. And hopefully soon
millions of Americans who don't yet have access will gain that
access.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida,
ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Castor, for her 5-
minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY CASTOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
especially for calling this very important hearing on the
digital divide, and thanks to our witnesses for being here
today. Reliable broadband internet is essential to our daily
lives. It allows us to fully participate in the economy, in
education, allows us to see a doctor, apply for a job, and
more. But a digital divide persists between those who have
reliable and affordable internet and the skills to use it and
those who do not.
The digital divide is persistent and complex. Challenges
include accessibility, affordability, and adoptability.
Currently, the Biden administration estimates that 24 million
households in the United States lack internet access.
This digital divide is a problem in rural, in Tribal
communities, but also in our urban areas where the cost of
internet service is still a considerable barrier for millions
of Americans. Nearly a third of Americans who do not have
broadband in their homes say the reason is because it costs too
much.
Back home in Tampa, I have worked with neighbors,
especially seniors on fixed incomes, who view internet access
as a luxury. Working with the Tampa Housing Authority, we
developed a plan for seniors to get connected through one of my
first community funding projects. Residents told me that
reliable internet access opens up employment, allows them to
communicate with medical providers, experience cultural
activities they didn't have access to before, and even help
with homework when the grandkids come over.
And as our everyday lives increasingly rely on the
internet, it is important that we don't leave any of our
neighbors behind. So I am interested in how Congress can ensure
that broadband is deployed across America in an equitable
manner.
Another particularly troubling part of the digital divide
is the homework gap, which describes the divide between
students who have home-based broadband access and those who do
not. Many students without reliable broadband are forced to
squeeze in 2 or more hours of homework at school before the
library closes rather than participate with their friends in
afterschool activities, or venture to a commercial parking lot
with free Wi-Fi access to complete and submit their
assignments.
Although we have made progress towards closing the homework
gap through many years of Federal and State investments, there
is still work to do.
Researchers found in 2018 that nearly 1 in 5 teens couldn't
always finish their homework because they lacked broadband
access. And in 2022 that number dropped to about 1 in 10. And
while this is good progress, it is unacceptable that, in 2023,
1 in 5 teens from working-class families often have to rely on
public Wi-Fi to simply finish their homework.
No parent should have to spend their evening parked in
front of a fast-food restaurant so their kids can get their
homework done on time, and no child in America should have to
deal with these digital obstacles to complete their
assignments.
The Federal investments in closing the digital divide
reflect the importance and the complexity of this challenge.
The GAO reported that taxpayers invested 44 billion from 2015
through 2020 in various efforts needed to close the digital
divide, such as planning, deployment, affordability, devices,
and digital skill development.
Then, in 2021, heeding the outcry from farmers, rural
communities, and Americans still stuck in the broadband gap,
Democrats delivered 65 billion in a transformational investment
to connect communities across the country to high-speed,
reliable, and affordable broadband internet through the
historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
A multifaceted problem like this requires multifaceted
solutions that leverage expertise from a variety of agencies
and stakeholders. This helps explain why there are so many
important broadband initiatives that support a variety of
funding recipients and regions and scopes and approaches.
For example, the FCC's E-Rate Program provided discounts on
broadband deployments at libraries and schools nationwide while
the Institute of Museum and Library Services grants to States
offered support for libraries to expand their services, such as
offering digital skills classes.
These initiatives are complementary, and they are both
important to reducing the digital divide, but it highlights the
importance of really the agency coordination to ensure that the
investments make it into the communities that they--that need
it most. That includes reconciling programmatic differences in
deadlines that may make it too burdensome for applicants to
take full advantage of the complementary programs available to
tackle the issue.
And that is where our focus should be. Can we in Congress
work with our Federal agencies and work together to make sure
that every dollar spent we do it efficiently and effectively so
that these initiatives succeed?
I look forward to having that conversation with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the witnesses today. So thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the
Chair of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for her 5-
minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Chair Griffith. The internet
provides Americans with the opportunity to earn a living,
complete a degree, and receive vital telehealth services, and
more. However, as many of my constituents in rural eastern
Washington know, millions of Americans still lack access to
this essential service.
I think about all the excitement around 5G, but I have
constituents who have told me, ``We would be grateful for any
sort of a connection.'' Supporting broadband and that access
across our country's large geographic area, populated by
diverse communities with varying needs, is no simple task.
Millions of Americans still lack access to fix broadband
services despite our Federal Government spending tens of
billions of dollars on broadband-related programs over the
years. This indicates that we need to do better, and we have
opportunities for improvement.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, alone
appropriated, as others have said, nearly 65 billion for
broadband deployment and adoption. This is on top of the nearly
8 billion spent annually by the FCC through the Universal
Service Fund for similar purposes.
In March, this subcommittee heard from the Department of
Commerce's inspector general, and we learned about their plans
for overseeing IIJA implementation and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's, NTIA, use
of the 48 billion it received to implement five broadband
programs.
But NTIA is only one of several agencies that administers
broadband programs. Federal broadband programming is scattered
among more than 100 programs at 15 different agencies.
Unsurprisingly, when GAO inventoried the dozens of Federal
broadband programs for its May 2022 report, it found
fragmentation, overlap, duplication hindering these programs.
Today we hope to learn more about how the Government can
better manage and better coordinate the agency components that
are supposed to be increasing access to broadband services,
such as infrastructure planning, affordability, proper devices,
and building digital skills.
We also must explore how the Government can avoid
overbuilding or wasteful and duplicating deployment in some
areas for the same recipients. This includes making sure that
the FCC's new broadband maps are accurate and used by all
Federal agencies when making funding decisions.
Rather than simply assuming a solution is spending more
money and standing up new programs, we need to step back. I
believe that we need to take a hard look at how we have spent
the funds that we have already invested and what lessons we can
learn.
We also plan to learn more about the challenges
stakeholders have faced in navigating multiple Federal programs
and employing them in a complementary manner. From inconsistent
program requirements to complicated permitting processes, we
need to reduce the burden on deployment.
I am grateful to the witnesses for sharing their research,
their expertise with us. Assessing dozens of programs and
identifying opportunities to harmonize can be challenging, but
it is necessary if we are going to maximize this investment and
ensure that the hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent with
accountability. Surely we all share the goal of closing the
digital divide in the fastest, most efficient, and effective
way possible.
According to GAO, no national strategy exists. No national
strategy exists to coordinate and guide Federal broadband
efforts. Staff from the Executive Office of the President told
GAO that they are considering whether a strategy is needed. GAO
concluded that, without a national strategy, broadband
activities will not be fully coordinated and they will continue
to be at risk of overlap and duplication.
Energy and Commerce has previously acted with bipartisan
support to ensure that more coordination across the Federal
agencies happens by enacting the Access Broadband Act in 2020.
This legislation tasked NTIA with tracking and coordinating all
Federal broadband programs. As a principal advisor to the
President on telecommunication policies, it is NTIA's job to
guide and coordinate the Federal Government's efforts to close
the digital divide.
Whether it is programs at the NTIA, FCC, USDA, Treasury,
DOT, or several other agencies, it is extremely important that
NTIA ensure the efficient use of Federal resources to close the
digital divide once and for all. We hope to hear more about
GAO's conversations with the administration regarding
implementation and how this committee can assist through
additional policies to ensure that NTIA is coordinating these
efforts.
I look forward to our discussion today, and I thank the
witnesses for being here. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady for yield back.
I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, for his 5-minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Access to reliable
high-speed internet is essential for all Americans to fully
participate in our modern society and economy. The COVID-19
pandemic accelerated our reliance on broadband to work, to
study, and to just connect with family and friends. As our
future is increasingly online, we must bridge the digital
divide and eliminate connectivity gaps that are leaving too
many communities behind.
Unfortunately, too many American households do not have
access to reliable high-speed internet. They are being left out
and are on the wrong side of the digital divide, and there are
several main reasons for this. Some people simply live where
there is no available broadband. For others, they may not be
able to afford the broadband services that are available, or
they may lack the skills to fully utilize digital technology.
Approximately 24 million American households lack high-
speed internet service, and nearly one-third of Americans
without broadband stated that it costs too much. As our future
is increasingly online, we must bridge the digital divide and
eliminate connectivity gaps that are leaving too many
communities behind.
And that is exactly what Congress and the Biden
administration did in the last Congress. We made major
investments to eliminate that digital divide by holistically
addressing broadband access, affordability, and adoption.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law invests 65 billion in
programs to provide affordable high-speed internet to Americans
and Native communities around the country. It funds projects to
build out and strengthen our broadband infrastructure into
rural and underserved communities. It also reduces monthly
broadband costs for hard-working American families and ensures
that people have the skills needed to fully participate in our
digital society.
These programs are already increasing internet connectivity
for millions of Americans. More than 17 million American
households are saving $30 a month on their internet bill thanks
to the Affordable Connectivity Program. And Federal agencies
are working to create comprehensive maps that will ensure an
effective distribution of funds to ensure equitable access to
broadband across the country.
This is a complex challenge that requires the participation
and expertise of officials at the Federal, State, and local
levels. There's no one-size-fits-all solutions, and both
Congress and the Biden administration have responded to the
need for coordination between various broadband programs and
their complementary goals.
Now, as one important step, Congress created the Office of
Internet Connectivity and Growth within the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, to
basically coordinate many of the programs focused on broadband
access and digital inclusion.
The NTIA has also substantially increased its own capacity
to address this expanded role. They are bringing on board the
subject-matter experts and leaders necessary to assist with
grants and monitor their progress. They are putting a thorough
and thoughtful framework in place to implement these programs
carefully and effectively.
And the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is making a major
difference in closing the digital divide, and yet not one
Republican on this committee supported the new law. I am
concerned that we are going to hear a lot of fear and
negativity about these investments from committee Republicans
today, even though they have been talking for years about the
need to expand broadband access in their districts. The
investments they oppose will do just that.
And now House Republicans' threats of a default crisis
would undermine our ongoing efforts to close the digital
divide. Their Default on America bill passed last month would
claw back unobligated funding for Tribal broadband, students'
internet creativity--or connectivity, I should say--and
accurate broadband mapping that is so critical in ensuring that
we are deploying broadband where it is needed most.
And I just think that this Republican approach is wrong.
The investments included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
are necessary to tackle the longstanding gaps and provide us a
real opportunity to completely connect Americans. And we should
be working together with our Federal, State, and local partners
to ensure that every American has access to affordable high-
speed internet.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I
think this is an important hearing. I appreciate your having
it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. That
concludes the Members' opening statements. I would like to
remind all Members that, pursuant to committee rules, Members'
opening statements will be made a part of the record.
We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
taking the time to testify before our subcommittee. Each
witness will have the opportunity to give an opening statement,
followed by a round of questions from Members.
Our witnesses today are Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical
Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office. Thank you for
being here; Dr. George Ford, chief economist, Phoenix Center
for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies; and Angela
Siefer, executive director, National Digital Inclusion
Alliance.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to
hearing from you all on this important issue.
You are all aware the committee is holding an oversight
hearing. And when we do so, it has been the practice of this
committee to take the testimony under oath. Do any of you have
an objection to testifying under oath?
Let the record reflect that there were no objections, so we
will proceed.
The Chair advises that are you entitled to be advised by
counsel pursuant to House rules. Do you desire to be advised by
counsel during your testimony today?
And seeing that none request counsel, if you would each
rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Griffith. Seeing that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative, you are now sworn in and under oath, subject to
the penalties--you can sit down--subject to the penalties set
forth in title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code.
With that, we will now recognize Andrew Von Ah for 5
minutes to give an opening statement. Mr. Von Ah.
STATEMENTS OF ANDREW VON AH, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; GEORGE S. FORD, Ph.D., CHIEF
ECONOMIST, PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL & ECONOMIC PUBLIC
POLICY STUDIES; AND ANGELA SIEFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
DIGITAL INCLUSION ALLIANCE
STATEMENT OF ANDREW VON AH
Mr. Von Ah. Chairman Griffith, Vice Chair Lesko, Ranking
Member Castor, members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to talk about GAO's work on Federal
broadband programs. Closing the digital divide in our country
has proven to be a vexing task with many dimensions.
It is not just about building infrastructure, which has its
own challenges in overcoming difficult terrain, and in reaching
rural, Tribal, and remote areas, it is also about adoption,
affordability, the availability of equipment, and digital
skills.
To address this complex issue, Congress has created new
programs2, and existing programs have expanded to include
broadband. Our report last year, as it has been mentioned,
found that there are now 133 Federal programs across 15
agencies that can be used to support broadband access in some
form or fashion.
Just to break those numbers down a bit, we found 25
programs specifically that had broadband as their main purpose.
Many of those have overlapping purposes, such as deployment of
broadband or for planning or for other purposes. These include
programs like FCC's High-Cost Fund, Affordable Connectivity
Program, Agriculture's ReConnect Program, and new programs in
NTIA like BEAD, the Middle Mile, and Tribal Broadband programs.
We identified another 45 programs that have broadband
access as one possible use of funds. These include things like
Treasury's COVID relief funds, for example, and other economic
and community development programs.
The other 63 programs can support broadband access under
certain circumstances. For example, DOT RAISE grants could be
used to install fiber conduit when constructing a highway. For
many of these programs, we could not identify instances where
funding had been used specifically for broadband access.
From 2015 to 2020, Federal programs invested at least $44
billion in broadband access. And since the onset of the
pandemic, which highlighted for us all how critical broadband
access can be, Congress has authorized north of $80 billion in
new spending.
Having numerous programs can be helpful to address a
multifaceted issue such as this, and new funding has targeted
gaps that previous programs had been--not been able to fill,
such as the Tribal and Middle Mile funding programs. But this
fragmentation and overlap has created challenges for the
agencies and for the potential recipients of the funding who
are trying to address the lack of affordable connectivity in
their communities.
Having so many overlapping programs creates the necessity
for Federal agencies to effectively collaborate to avoid
wasteful duplication, which is no easy task. The main
agencies--FCC, Department of Agriculture, NTIA, and Treasury--
have an MOU and processes in place that have been largely
effective at limiting duplicative support, but not all agencies
and programs are aware of what the others are doing.
Agencies have been less successful in aligning programs
with similar purposes and leveraging programs to address
multiple issues within a community. This is largely because of
statutory variations in each program that limit agency
flexibility. Agencies have also struggled to set goals, track
program performance, and identify fraud risks.
For potential recipients of Federal funding, the challenges
are even more acute. They must navigate a complex web of
eligibility requirements, definitions, and deadlines that vary
across the programs. And applicants are hard pressed to
understand which programs that may be best--may be best suited
for them or they may be most competitive for, and applying to
multiple Federal programs can be costly.
Federal programs also run the gamut in terms of how funding
is disbursed. We have grants, we have loans, loan-grant
combinations, subsidies, apportionments, reimbursements, some
programs require matching funds, you name it. All of this adds
to the complexity and administrative burden on agencies and
potential applicants.
Potential applicants also have difficulty using programs in
a complementary way, such as for deployment of infrastructure
as well as for devices and subsidies for the cost of service.
And so communities may have to apply to numerous programs with
no guarantees that they will be successful.
New funding in the IIJA, which presents an enormous
opportunity to make significant process in expanding
connectivity, will also exacerbate these challenges. The BEAD
Program will provide funding directly to States, which will
necessitate further coordination between Federal and State
officials and create new sets of rules for potential applicants
of funding.
Fundamental in trying to address these challenges, we
recommended that the White House develop a national broadband
strategy that can identify overall goals for all of these
programs, track program performance and progress, and help
align program rules so that programs can work together and
identify agency rules and responsibilities. To date, the White
House has not produced such a strategy.
We also have recommended that agencies improve
coordination, set performance goals and metrics for their
programs, and identify fraud risks, which agencies have been in
the process of implementing.
With that, I will conclude my statement, and I am happy to
take questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ah follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you for your statement.
I now recognize Dr. George Ford for his 5-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. FORD, Ph.D.
Dr. Ford. Thank you, Committee Chair Roberts, and Ranking
Member Pallone and Subcommittee Chair Griffith and Ranking
Member Castor, and all the Members here, for inviting me today.
I really appreciate it.
I think what we are here to talk about is whether we can
finally close the digital divide by spending hundreds of
billions of dollars on it very quickly, which is what we have
set ourselves up for here.
I think right off the bat we have a problem with the
aggressiveness with which we will spend it. It is always easy--
I can do things more quickly, but it costs more to do it. I
suspect that about 20 percent of the money will be lost in the
speed with which this program will be implemented.
But there are ways we can think about increasing the
productivity of the spending. And while I think that some of
this may have been considered by places, there is a lot of
evidence that it is not being taken very seriously, OK? What we
need is a goal, very clearly stated goal, or a mission
statement, OK, as I like to phrase it here. And that mission
statement, with respect to deployment, is quite simple. You
maximize economically sensible connectivity subject to a
subsidy budget constraint, OK? So there's so much money you've
got to spend. Get as much of the gap reduced as possible as
long as it is sensible to do it.
There are going to be connections where it does not make
sense to build a fiber network, OK? That's just the way it is.
OK. So, for example, would spending $150,000 to pass a
single location, with an 80 percent probability of actually
subscribing to service over that connection, satisfy that
mission statement? And the answer is no. That is an
economically insensible decision. About 400,000, 500,000, these
are all numbers I have seen, OK? This is outrageous. It is an
enormous waste of money, OK?
And while we think about waste, fraud, and abuse of the
scammers on the supply side and demand side with various
subsidy programs, the waste and abuse of that kind of spending
to deploy a single connection is as bad or worse. And probably
if you summed up the dollars, it would be much worse. OK?
That's got to be addressed, OK?
In my estimation, you should be spending no more than
$20,000 on subsidy per connection. Anything above that amount
should be put in a bucket and looked at later, and try to
figure out if there's some option. And there are plenty of
options today, as I discuss in my testimony, OK?
Under that mission statement, would you threaten subsidy
recipients with de facto rate regulation? No. That is against
the mission statement, OK? Would you prefer high-cost union
labor? No. That works against the mission statement. Would you
impose unbundling requirements on companies who receive
subsidies? No. That works against the mission statement, OK?
What's the role of the mission statement? It's to assess
when you want to go outside the task that's before you, which
is to make an 8 percent number as close to a 0 percent number
as you can. That's it, OK? Don't get distracted with things
that don't serve the purpose, OK? And the purpose is reducing
that gap as much as possible.
What would that thing tell you on the positive side, the
mission statement? It'll tell you to serve the unserved first
and serve the lowest-cost ones first, OK? If you want to
maximize the number of connections, you start at the cheap ones
and you work yourself up to the expensive ones, OK? That's how
you maximize. If you do it randomly or willy-nilly in some way,
you get less. That's just the way the math works, OK?
You do not fund competition, OK? It's wasteful for many
reasons. Whatever gain people get from the competition is just
paid for by somebody else. It's not a net gain to anybody, or
at least to society, OK? You don't fund municipal broadband
networks, OK? You could have some sympathy for that sort of
thing when they were desperate and nobody was building, but now
we've got money, people will build.
We don't need people who aren't in the broadband business
to get in the broadband business. Let's limit the money to
professionals, and we will get better product, OK? More
productivity. We are going to desperately need to look at
satellite and mobile as substitutes for fiber, OK?
And real quickly, in waste, fraud, and abuse, we really
need to focus on the agencies. We need good records about what
they're doing, why they're doing it, progress reports, and some
clear, measurable targets that they are trying to do, so that
we can then assess the performance to some standard.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ford follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize Ms. Siefer for her 5-minute opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA SIEFER
Ms. Siefer. Thank you. Chair Griffith, Vice Chair Lesko,
Ranking Member Castor, members of the subcommittee, I am
honored to be here. Thank you for having me.
I am Angela Siefer. I'm the executive director of the
National Digital Inclusion Alliance. We're a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit. We advance digital equity by supporting community
programs and equipping policymakers to act. We envision a
country where everyone has the opportunity to use technology to
live, learn, work, and thrive.
NDIA launched early 2015 with an old MacBook, an address
book of community tech practitioners, and some big ideas. By
July 2015, we had 100 affiliates. These are mostly community-
based organizations, local governments, housing authorities,
libraries. They were leading digital inclusion work in their
communities, and they didn't have a community of practice or a
voice in Washington, and now they do.
Today we have over 1,250 affiliates in all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
18 Tribal entities. Achieving digital equity in the United
States would mean that a senior in North Dakota can talk to
their doctor from the comfort of their home in winter, that an
entrepreneur in Florida has the digital skills to start their
own business, and that schoolkids in Virginia never have to sit
outside a Taco Bell to do their homework.
The people running local digital inclusion programs are our
country's heroes. They would not have made such progress
without the swift actions of Congress during the pandemic.
Representing the digital equity community, I thank Congress.
The increased awareness led to increased attention,
efforts, and capacity on the ground across the country. For
example, just in the past 6 months, NDIA has trained 154
digital navigators, 30 percent of whom are serving in rural
areas. Digital navigators are trusted guides trained to assist
individuals as they seek affordable connectivity, appropriate
devices, and digital skills to meet their goals.
We recently created the National Digital Navigator Corps, a
program designed to build capacity in 18 rural and Tribal
communities. Prior to the pandemic, we knew of roughly a dozen
place-based coalitions which gathered together community-based
organizations, local governments, and corporations collectively
addressing the digital divide. Now that number is over 60.
This year at our annual conference we hosted 800 attendees,
more than double our previous conferences. Capacity is rising.
States, territories, DC, and Tribal entities are also adding
capacity. Within the past year, over 20 States have hired
dedicated staff to lead their digital equity planning and
implementation efforts.
The need for affordable broadband is so essential that it
unites people from across geographic and political spectrums.
From Alabama to New Jersey, Governors have voiced the critical
role of broadband connectivity and acknowledged that the
Affordable Connectivity Program is an important tool to help
close the digital divide.
ACP addresses one of the main barriers to broadband
adoption--cost--and helps make broadband more affordable for
over 17 million households and rural, urban, and Tribal
communities. The success of the Federal broadband investments
are inextricably linked to the ACP program. ACP improves the
business case for investing in rural areas, reduces household
broadband service cancellations, and increases the likelihood
that service providers will achieve a reliable return on
investment.
In the report under discussion at this hearing, the GAO
recommended the Federal Government create a national broadband
strategy. We second this recommendation and also recommend the
Federal Government create a national digital inclusion strategy
to capture and leverage the momentum we are experiencing today.
A national digital inclusion strategy should include
strengthening and supporting local, State, territory, and
Tribal digital inclusion ecosystems; designation of a
coordinating body to facilitate digital inclusion work across
all Federal agencies; and, finally, supporting the creation of
public-private partnerships to support local digital inclusion
programs.
I would like to thank you for your time and your attention
in closing the digital divide. Access to the internet and the
skills to use it are not only essential to survive but to
thrive. And thriving is essential to America's promise, the
future of our people, and our Nation's ability to compete
globally.
Thank you for having me, and I welcome the committee's
comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siefer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Griffith. I thank you all for your testimony, and we
will now move into the question-and-answer portion of the
hearing. I will begin the questioning and recognize myself for
5 minutes.
All right. Dr. Ford, I was particularly moved by some of
your testimony because I have heard some of those same stories.
I represent the mountainous part of Virginia, in deep southwest
Virginia. In the folds in the rural--even in the areas that are
not quite as mountainous, the folds in the land often make it
very difficult.
I have seen some of those estimates that you have seen
where it may be 120,000 or $175,000 just to hook up one house.
Even if they have fiber laid, you know, to the next house over,
you have got to go over a hill and down a small valley to get
in there.
And, in fact, a lot of times people think that I am just
talking about the areas that are completely, you know, rural or
out in the middle of nowhere. But I represent Montgomery
County, which has Blacksburg in it, the home of Virginia Tech.
It is very well wired. But if you travel a few miles out into
the county, because of the lay of the land, the folds in the
mountains, all of a sudden you have got people who have
nothing. They have zero service.
You indicated that you think that there are still too many
rural areas that are completely unserved, and that we should
prioritize those areas that have zero. I agree with you. It was
one of the problems I thought we had with some of the
legislation that was passed last year, is that if you were so-
called underserved, you could be in the same pot--in the same
pot of money or competing for the same grant as people who had
zero or zero, even if you had something.
I have got people who have nothing. Ms. Siefer was talking
about going to the Taco Bell. My colleague, Ms. Castor, talked
about going to a fast-food restaurant. I have people who don't
have fast-food restaurants to go to. The fire department seems
to be used in some areas.
So I guess one of the things I am trying to get at is we
are in agreement that we shouldn't be spending $120,000 to get
to one house where you don't know 100 percent that they are
going to even sign up. And the people can't afford it, and it
doesn't make economic sense. But we should look for creative
ways.
And so you mentioned satellite. We actually had one of the
beta tests for Starlink. And I would like to see competition in
that arena, but it is not there yet. But it is coming, I hope.
So what do you think we should do from a Federal standpoint to
encourage that?
I will also tell you that Appalachian Power has worked on
some deals, and they did it first in Grayson County, Virginia,
and now they're looking at some of my other counties, where
they will--they use their electric--I don't want to say poles
because it is usually the bigger lines. They are carrying the
lines. They use those to help do some wireless into the
community, do broadband off of those. That has been pretty
successful in a pretty rural area.
So what can we do to make that better?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think that it is--you are right that you
have to start focusing on what options are available to solve
particular problems like that. I mean, sometimes people tend to
think, you know, here's 100 homes, and it is all going to cost
me some $2,000 in subsidy to make it all happen. And it is
hardly ever like that. You have a mountain. You could have a
lake or a river that causes problems. You could have easements
with the Department of Transportation that doesn't let you
cross a highway because they don't want to fool with it.
So there's a lot of those issues, and I do think that we
shouldn't get in a super hurry. I know it is important, but we
need to really focus on the opportunity to use what services
are available. And satellite services are an option today. The
capacities can be limited. Speeds are pretty good, but they
can't just take anybody and everybody, so it is not for
everybody.
Mr. Griffith. But if we are saving $120,000--I am going to
hit on Ms. Siefer's point before my time all runs out--should
we--instead of subsidizing the $120,000 to lay the fiber there,
should we be subsidizing the satellite service?
Dr. Ford. Yes. I would--I would say yes. It is much
cheaper, and I say that in my testimony.
Mr. Griffith. Or helping the public-private partnership----
Dr. Ford. Right.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. That APCO has got worked out
where they are doing----
Dr. Ford. Right.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Stuff with the counties.
Dr. Ford. And you can view that as an option, right, as
holding that option to do something later when it becomes more
affordable.
Mr. Griffith. Right.
Dr. Ford. Get something to them now that is not too
expensive.
Mr. Griffith. And, Mr. Von Ah, your report indicated that
NTIA ought to do a--compile and transmit a report to Congress
that identifies statutes preventing broadband program
alignment. Is some of that--should some of that focus on where
we could have these public-private partnerships or have deals
where we say this house is just--we are in an area where we are
not going to ever be able to lay fiber there in a practical
sense, and we can afford to spend--you know, for 30 years we
can subsidize them cheaper than we can run the fiber up there,
to wait until we get the technology, as Dr. Ford says, to do
something different.
Mr. Von Ah. Yes. Absolutely. So some programs will allow
for things like satellite programs to participate, others will
not, right? So we want to be able to--be able to make it
available for different technologies that can serve different
communities, right?
So not one technology is going to be able to serve every
community. Some are going to be--fiber will work just fine, and
others you might need a wireless solution, you might need a
mobile solution or a satellite solution. And so having that
flexibility amongst programs is important.
Mr. Griffith. And we should get a report from the various--
how many agencies was it that are--15 agencies and 100 programs
I think?
Mr. Von Ah. That is right.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. All right. I have overtaken my time, so
I had better yield back before I get mad at myself. I yield
back and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms.
Castor, for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank goodness
the COVID-19 pandemic is over, but the pandemic did illuminate
how vital the internet is to our ability to function. It also
highlighted a number of obstacles, especially for many
Americans in rural areas and especially young students who are
in the digital gap.
Ms. Siefer, you state in your testimony that swift
congressional investments through the emergency COVID-19 aid
helped communities rise to the challenge. So as we move forward
and work to eliminate the gaps, give us some examples of how
communities were able to accelerate digital equity and
inclusion efforts in schools and how communities continue their
work to eliminate the homework gap once and for all.
Ms. Siefer. Thank you for the question. So what we saw,
what was really fascinating is that folks came together. Prior
to the pandemic, it was--there weren't many of us working on
this. And then what we saw is these coalitions. So I live in
Columbus, Ohio, and all of a sudden the public library, the
housing authorities, the folks at the Planning Commission, the
city, Jewish Family Services, the Y, everyone was forming a
coalition to figure out how to address this. And this coalition
is going strong to this day.
Some of the initial efforts were quick, by computers, by
hotspots. One of the lessons learned--and we should recognize
what didn't work in this also, right? One of the lessons
learned was hotspots aren't the grand solution. They are a
Band-Aid. They are a really important Band-Aid, but let's use a
Band-Aid as a Band-Aid and then come up with permanent
solutions, which is actually what we think is in the process of
happening now and why we are so excited that the States are
creating those State digital equity plans, because those are
long-term solutions, not Band-Aids.
Ms. Castor. So you also said this--the Digital Equity Act
now requires States to work on partnerships in local
communities to address the gaps. What have you seen out of
those plans that are innovative? And then what are the existing
common barriers?
Ms. Siefer. So the plans are all in development now. NDIA
is not writing anybody's plan. We have been careful to say
that. But we are being supportive and talking to folks as they
create their plans. And we have gone--been able to go to 12
different States to be part of their launch events. We were
just in Alaska a few weeks ago, and I was fascinated to hear
the conversations that were occurring at some of the tables,
because Alaska's situation is so different from so many folks'.
And they were talking about the pros and cons of internet
coming into their communities, that, yes, jobs, healthcare,
that is all awesome, but also human trafficking and scams,
right, all of that is real. So these folks are going to be more
prepared when that comes in to create their digital inclusion
programs, because they are having the conversations. So we are
super excited about that.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Von Ah, you have heard what Ms. Siefer has
said. Now here comes this transformational investment through
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and that--that new
law does prioritize unserved areas. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Von Ah. Well, it depends on how the agencies implement
those specific programs in terms of making decisions about
which applicants get funding. But yes, I mean, that--the way
that they have set it up, they do look for the places where
they can get the biggest bang for the buck.
Ms. Castor. And that is different from how the agencies
were operating before, on the scale of the resources coming in
and then with kind of a little bit of a reset in priorities for
unserved areas and underserved areas.
Mr. Von Ah. So it has been--it has been all over the place,
really, for several of these programs. So the high-cost program
has identified areas that are unserved and looked to, you know,
get providers to provide service in those areas.
There has been some success in doing that, and that has
also led to areas within those census blocks that have been
given to those carriers where there is still no service. And so
that is part of--some of the gaps that some of these programs
are really trying to address.
Ms. Castor. And you have really helped us focus on the need
to align a lot of these initiatives. Provide some examples for
us of the statutory differences that made participating
difficult for communities that are most in need.
Mr. Von Ah. Right. So this is everything from who is
eligible for the program, right? So you might have some
programs where you have to be an eligible telecommunications
carrier, you have to have that designation. Other programs
don't have that requirement, and so it is open to a broader set
of potential applicants.
Definitions within programs can cause challenges, right?
You have different definitions of what ``rural'' is. Even
within the Department of Agriculture's six or seven different
programs, they all have a different definition of what
``rural'' is. And so, you know, you may be eligible for this
program based on population, but not for this program. And so
it is very difficult for potential recipients to sort of weed
through all of these different programs and figure out what is
most appropriate for them.
Ms. Castor. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the State of Washington
and Chair of our full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for her
5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses being here.
Mr. Von Ah, I noted in your testimony that you said that
there's at least 133 funding programs administered across 15
agencies that can be used to support broadband access. You also
said that the Federal agencies have invested at least 44
billion in broadband support activities between fiscal years
2015 and 2020.
Given the number of programs and the number of agencies, I
am concerned about interagency coordination. So would you speak
to the communication between the agencies as they are making
funding decisions, and are they checking to make sure that they
are addressing potential duplication?
Mr. Von Ah. Sure. They assure us they are. They have
regular communications and meetings. The main four agencies I
would say have regular communications and meetings around what
they are funding. So this would be FCC, NTIA, Rural Utilities
Service within the Department of Agriculture, and the
Department of Treasury now is included in those discussions as
well.
They reference the NTIA's national broadband accessibility
map, which tracks where Federal funding is going, what service
areas are being served by different programs. So they look at
that. They try to make sure that--whether there is an
overlapping service area, because many programs do allow that
kind of overlap, that the actual locations that are being
served are not being served by both programs. So they go
through those exercises on a regular, ongoing basis.
Mrs. Rodgers. So if there is an incident of waste, fraud,
and abuse, a potential incident by a certain applicant, do they
take that into consideration for future awards?
Mr. Von Ah. They do, although we have a number of
recommendations around improving most of these programs'
ability to identify fraud risks, including waste and abuse. And
so we always find, you know, they can still improve in that
area, but yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Well, overlapping programs is a key
concern to me. So recently Congress created the BEAD Program,
the Emergency Connectivity Program, the Affordable Connectivity
Program, and then we have similar programs--High Cost, E-Rate,
and Lifeline--that already existed under the Universal Service
Fund.
Would you just discuss how these programs and potential
duplication might impact the effectiveness of Federal funding?
Mr. Von Ah. So for the Affordable Connectivity Program, I
think we have seen relative to Lifeline, it is a larger
benefit. There is--one of the things that we noted in a report
we recently did on that program was that we are not sure based
on the way that they measure their performance of that--in that
program whether they are serving people who are, you know, new
subscribers or they are serving people who already have a
subscription but now they are getting a subsidy based on--you
know, for that subscription.
And so that is one of the areas where we try to focus on
getting the agencies to develop performance measures and goals,
so that we can sort of really track and see what the effects of
these programs are.
With respect to things like the BEAD Program, I mean, I
think it still remains to be seen exactly how that program will
be rolled out. State plans are still in progress, and how that
is going to interact with all of the other Federal investments
that are already out there is going to be sort of the big
question going forward.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Ford, would you also address that same--that same
question about the new programs, the existing programs, and the
effect of--the impact that that has on the effectiveness of
Federal funds?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think with the--there has to be some kind
of coordination between the sorts of programs that are intended
to particularly pay for on the demand side of things. We have
got--at the FCC, we have got two programs. We have got a
Lifeline program and an ACP program. They are funded from
different sources, but the target is generally the same, which
is to help low-income people afford broadband service.
Why we have two of those programs is unclear. It probably
makes sense to consolidate those two. I would not consolidate
the two within the Universal Service Program because it has got
problems and it needs a reform, and getting that money out of
it might help postpone the need for reform. And that money
should be from the budget and should be reviewed by----
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. Committees like this.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Before I run out of time, you
submitted to us, Dr. Ford, that the agencies need to report
whether a project was actually accomplished. So would you just
speak to, you know, these unknown projects and whether or not
they are being completed?
Dr. Ford. There are some cases where you can get kind of an
idea. I mean, the broadband map itself might be useful in that
regard.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Dr. Ford. It is tricky to find, particularly from RUS, hard
to find a number that says it was--``this is how many lines we
asked for, and this is how many we got and when.''
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Dr. Ford. OK. BTOP had a lot of that information, but a lot
of it was related to what you could do and not what you were
doing.
Mrs. Rodgers. Right. Right.
Dr. Ford. Which, you know, you could do a lot of----
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. Things----
Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. You don't do.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. My time has expired. It seems like
a pretty basic question, though.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I now recognize Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois for her 5
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate this hearing. I just want to point out that there
are multiple hearings going on at the same time, and I just
want to apologize for, you know, having to come in and out,
because this is such an important issue.
We have been talking about closing the digital divide for
years and years and years, and it is clearly still a big
problem. Nearly a third of Americans really do not have access
to broadband. And in my State of Illinois, it is about half
of--almost half of the low-income families that really don't
have the access that they need.
I am happy that the FCC's Affordability Connectivity
Program has been some help to us in the--in the State of
Illinois. And all of the other programs that we have been
talking about, I hope they are working, because we really need
to make this--make this happen.
Ms. Siefer, I wanted to talk to you about how important is
that particular program--we have seen it in Illinois--and how
much progress are we seeing being made?
Ms. Siefer. The Affordable Connectivity Program is
incredibly important. There are actually more folks, as you
just noted, who don't have access because of affordability
issues and digital skills and device issues, and then don't
have access because the service, the availability, is not
there. Not that that is all-important, right, but it means that
we can't set it aside. It means we have to continue
prioritizing the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Ms. Schakowsky. So affordability, is that the key issue
that is keeping us from closing the digital divide?
Ms. Siefer. It is a key issue, but it is connected to all
of the other issues, right, because you can't address
affordability if there is not availability. And you also--the
affordability gets connected to digital skills and devices.
Early days--I have been doing this work for 26-some years, and
early days when people would say, ``Oh, I just don't need it,''
and then the second question you would ask them was like, ``Why
don't you need it?''
``Well, because I can't afford it,'' right? So it gets
all--it gets all confused, and we have to make sure that we are
dividing--diving into all of the barriers.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you this. If--well, first of
all, let me just ask basically, do you think Congress needs to
go further in passing legislation that would make some serious
advances? And what would that be? What do you suggest that we
be doing more than what we are already doing?
Ms. Siefer. I absolutely agree that Universal Service
Fund's contribution mechanism needs to be figured out. In order
to figure that out, we need a little bit of time to figure that
out, and then we can possibly have ACPB inside of the Universal
Service Fund. But in order to get there, we really need
Congress to extend the funding for the Affordable Connectivity
Program, either extend it for a year or two or extend it for
forever. Any of those solutions would be super. But we can't
get to a longer-term solution if we--if ACP just stops.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me ask you about education. A lot--our
kids now are using technology more in school. But when they get
home, being able to continue with that work, I am just
wondering how--if you have any data on how the digital divide
has also divided educational opportunities for our kids.
Ms. Siefer. Absolutely. Common Sense Media has been a
fabulous source of information on that point. We know that
there are kids who go home and cannot participate in the same
things that their other friends are. My children have friends
who go to the library to do their homework and then aren't
participating in other afterschool activities, because that is
their only opportunity to do their homework.
Ms. Schakowsky. So I also wanted to ask you about the issue
of--I mean, I am kind of an organizer person. Who is doing the
work on the ground to really help educate and bring people more
access?
Ms. Siefer. Yes. So those individuals are members of the--
of organizations that are NDIA's affiliates. We were created to
serve those people you just described. They tend to be in
community-based organizations, libraries, housing authorities,
local governments. And now really any entity that is already
trusted by low-income households who would be eligible for
Affordable Connectivity Program, we encourage them to get
engaged in helping folks sign up for ACP, because that trust
factor is so important.
Ms. Schakowsky. I agree with that. I mean, I think the more
we are in touch and people in the communities and helping make
this happen, it will happen. So thank you so much to all of
you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
I now recognize the chairman of the Health Subcommittee,
from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, my friend from Virginia. I
appreciate that very much.
First, Mr. Von Ah, my question would be, as you know, the
FCC continues its work to update the national broadband maps
and process challenges on broadband accessibility data. These
maps are more granular than was previously available, but there
are still inaccuracies.
I am concerned that not enough feedback has been
incorporated into the map before Federal dollars are
distributed to States. So my questions--and I will list them
all out and let you answer them--is how often does the FCC
incorporate feedback to update the maps? And do you think that
overbuilding remains a concern for Federal programs for the
Fund Broadband projects? And do you have any recommendations
for us to help improve the coordination between USDA, NTIA, and
FCC?
So how often do they incorporate the feedback?
Mr. Von Ah. Sure.
Mr. Guthrie. Is there--are you concerned about
overbuilding? And what can Congress do to help coordinate?
Mr. Von Ah. Sure. My understanding for the challenge
process is that it is an ongoing process right now. They are in
the midst of seeing all of these challenges and investigating
and determining whether there's changes to the maps that are
necessary.
We haven't done extensive work to look at exactly how that
process is going, but my understanding is that it is an ongoing
process.
As far as overbuilding, I think one of the things that we--
like I said before, we don't see a lot of instances where the
same programs are building to the same locations. But
overbuilding can come in many forms, right? As Mr. Ford had
mentioned earlier, you don't need to necessarily have, you
know, very gold-plated kind of service everywhere, right? In
some locations, you know, a different kind of solution can be
appropriate.
And so that is what I think we want to try to--what our
recommendations have been geared towards and what we think
about when we think about a national strategy is, what are we
really trying to accomplish with each of these programs? What
is the best kind of service that communities need? Are we
giving them what they need? And how do we go--you know, make
sure that we do that effectively and efficiently?
Mr. Guthrie. And does Congress have to better--what can
Congress do to help that coordination?
Mr. Von Ah. So I think encouraging more of a strategic
approach would be--would be a good first step. While the
agencies are all, you know, trying to move forward with
implementing their programs, what FCC does and what NTIA does,
they can coordinate on, you know, we are not going to fund the
same locations.
But what they have trouble doing is aligning their
programs, and that requires, you know, sort of a higher-level
sort of look, right, that has a higher authority than just the
agencies themselves, because what FCC does, NTIA may or may not
want to do, right?
Mr. Guthrie. I appreciate that. I am going to switch over
to Mr.--Dr. Ford. So in Kentucky's 2nd District, a lot of my
constituents lack access to broadband. However, there is not a
standard, so I want Mr. Von Ah to comment on your testimony,
and let you expand upon it a little bit.
Should Congress standardize the definition across agencies
of what an unserved area is? And I have also been concerned
about advocating for changing the speed thresholds from 25
megabit to--down by 3 to up by 100, down by 20. Do you think by
changing the speed benchmarks for unserved and underserved
communities we risk diverting limited Federal resources from
the last mile to hard-to-reach communities?
Dr. Ford. I think there could be problems like that when it
happens at the congressional level rather than the lower level.
Of course, when it does happen at the congressional level, it
becomes standardized to some extent, and all agencies are on
the same page.
I think the problem with all of that is if you set a
standard at 100 megabits per second, and it costs $60,000 to
provide that, and I can get 58 megabits per second for $1,500,
which do you want to do? You know, it seems pretty obvious to
me which way you would go with that, and particularly if you
have a fixed budget. I mean, if the budget is unlimited--which
it kind of looks like sometimes, except too much leaks out of
it--then you would.
So I think the strictness of the idea is problematic, is
who chooses it. You know, we need to have some understanding,
and honestly I think that understanding should come from
independent people who say this is what a modern broadband
connection is. It gets so political at the FCC as to what that
is. It is not motivated by anything, I don't think, really, of
any importance to people.
But, you know, there are people who could honestly come up
and say, ``I think it ought to be this,'' and it may be 50/10
instead of 120 or whatever. That might be perfectly adequate
for people.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired, so I will
yield back to the Chair.
Thank you for that answer.
Dr. Ford. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you for yielding back.
I now the recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms.
DeGette, for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize for running in and out. I am sure several people have
already said we have two very important Energy and Commerce
subcommittee hearings going on at the same time.
But this particular issue is really important for me
representing Denver, Colorado, because what the pandemic
crystalized for many of the members of this committee is when
we think about--when we think about the digital divide, we
frequently talk about rural communities and Tribal communities.
But also, in urban communities like mine, what we saw in the
pandemic is we had really terrible problems in some of the
lower-income neighborhoods where people just had no ability to
get broadband.
And so--and so the Biden administration has really
demonstrated the commitment to eliminating the digital divide
through historic investments, but cities need this too.
And so, Ms. Siefer, I know you talked briefly earlier about
your work with community partners around the country, and you
talked about the digital divide, access to broadband, and the
impact on so-called smart cities. But I wonder if you can
broaden out a little and talk to us about how Federal
investments in broadband deployment and digital inclusion
enable cities to provide--plan for and provide better services,
not just today on a cobbling-together basis but long into the
future.
Ms. Siefer. Right. So we have to look at the future. We
can't just be building broadband for today. One of the
realities we have in urban communities is areas that have been
digitally redlined. So there are providers who have decided
that it is--they are making business decisions to put the
internet service in higher wealth areas and in lower wealth
areas.
So it doesn't mean that the lower wealth areas don't have
internet service. They do, but it is more expensive and it is
slower. It is not consistent. It is not in every place, but
there is enough of a pattern to see that there is a problem.
So understanding that we want to focus on building out in
rural areas. At the same time, we have to figure out how to
address this inequity of the service that is available, the
cost of the service, and how robust the service is in all of
our neighborhoods across the U.S.
Ms. DeGette. And is it important that we have a continuing
program to build it out over time?
Ms. Siefer. I am often unpopular when I say the digital
divide will never end. Technology is going to keep changing. We
will bridge some divides, right? We will get everyone access to
a certain speed threshold. We will get folks devices that meet
certain needs. We will bridge certain divides, but other
divides are going to keep creeping up. Artificial intelligence
now, how is that going to change how we use technology? That
could create a new divide.
So, yes, we have--we have to have a permanent position and
a permanent agency that always addresses this.
Ms. DeGette. And what would happen if, say, when we pass
the budget this year, we just cut funding for broadband
affordability programs to try to get these underserved
communities to get online for this year or next year, what
happens when you have these lapses?
Ms. Siefer. Millions of people will not have access to the
internet, and it will be just as it was during the pandemic
when we saw how it impacted health, education, work, every
aspect of life.
Ms. DeGette. So this is what I am concerned about too, is
when we do these budgets--and they are annual budgets--and so
if we say, ``Well, we are just going to cut this
temporarily''--earlier this week, for example, a letter that
all of the Republicans on this subcommittee signed, it was to
the FCC's inspector general, and it talked about the Affordable
Connectivity Program as temporary and asked whether the FCC had
prepared participating providers for potential lapses in ACP
funding.
This is what disturbs me because I am not sure you can
prepare for potential lapses in ACP funding. What is your--what
is your position on that?
Ms. Siefer. The preparation is for the internet service
providers to know how they are going to handle it. That is the
preparation side. But for the consumer side, right, you just
know that you are not going to have it. There is really no
preparation for that.
We have to figure out how we can continue the Affordable
Connectivity Program for forever. But, first, Congress has to
figure out how to do it in the short term, right, and then we
can figure out the forever.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize the chairman of the Energy Sub, the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for his 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a fiscal
conservative and someone who believes in limited markets--
limited government, free markets, individual liberties--I
struggle with what the role of the Federal Government truly is
when you come--when it comes to things like broadband and
connectivity and a lot of other Government programs that we are
looking at cutting budgets for, because, you know, at the end
of the day, government cannot be all things to all people, and
it cannot afford to provide all things to all people when we
are $32 trillion in debt. We just cannot continue to spend
money willy-nilly in this Nation to provide everything that
everyone wants.
Now, having said that, I am a big fan of rural broadband
and the need for access. I saw during the pandemic in small
communities in my district where Wi-Fi buses had to show up in
certain areas, and parents would bring their children in close
proximity to that bus so they could have access to Wi-Fi in
order to do their schoolwork, because they weren't in the
classroom. And the only way they were going to be able to get
an education is, at that point, online. So there was a need and
it was satisfied with the Wi-Fi buses.
So I do understand in a rural area of the 3rd Congressional
District of South Carolina that we need more rural broadband.
But I also saw private industries, like Western Carolina
Telephone, that actually invested in fiberoptic in rural areas
of McCormick, South Carolina. Ninety percent of the county is
owned by the Federal Government. It is Federal land. I don't
have a tax base. Abbeville County, South Carolina, same thing.
It is not Federal land, but a very low tax base, small
population, rural area.
So, you know, I do think most areas in cities like Denver
probably have some sort of access to broadband. Now, whether
those consumers actually can afford to have broadband or have
internet access in their home choose to spend their money to
access that internet for entertainment or educational purposes
or business purposes. I understand that.
But my concern is how money that the Federal Government has
allocated--has already been allocated--is being spent. So I am
concerned that tens of billions of dollars have been allocated
over the past few years to extend broadband services, and I am
concerned they will end up being wasted instead of used
appropriately.
Ronald Reagan once wisely said, ``The closest thing to our
eternal life here on Earth is a Government program.'' So there
should be sunset dates for these. We should have guardrails and
accountability, oversight. That is a congressional role.
And I am going to approach it from a limited government
standpoint. There is a role for the free market. If you see the
need for a service and you provide the service and get paid for
that, that is how market economies work. So I go back to, what
is the role of government? And I will end with that.
Dr. Ford, I am concerned that, if we invest in the wrong
technology, we will constantly be chasing the latest soon-to-
be-obsolete technology rather than making a lasting impact. So,
you know, putting fiberoptic in the ground seems to make sense
because it has the capacity to meet the changing technologies,
whatever they may be, going forward, so what we bought for this
money, and shouldn't we build build-to-last technologies that
can adapt to improvement? The fiberoptic in the ground is
primarily what I am thinking about.
Dr. Ford?
Dr. Ford. It is possibly--I mean, we talk a lot about fiber
being future-proof, but what if in 10 years the wireless
networks are so advanced nobody wants a home connection
anymore? How many home phone calls do you make nowadays?
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Dr. Ford. You know, never.
Mr. Duncan. I don't have a home phone in my house.
Dr. Ford. I mean, I don't think 15 percent of people have
wireline phones in their house. That may turn out to be the way
mobile works. I mean, it is obviously what we call vertically
superior. It moves with you. You know, you can take it
anywhere. You can't do that with a fixed connection. So that
may--that may be the future of communications. I suspect it
will be.
So saying that we are making wise investments in this is
really to me kind of puzzling. And the fact that just because
that may be true doesn't mean we want to do it right now if it
is $200,000 to do it. You can't get a payoff from that. I mean,
that is losing money.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. Real quickly, Mr. Von Ah, how can we be
certain not to double- or triple-build internet services to the
same urban locations in order to ensure that rural areas, like
I mentioned 3rd Congressional District of South Carolina, gets
the service they need?
Mr. Von Ah. Right. Well, as I said before, I think there
is--there is less duplicative funding than we think there might
be in terms of what we have been able to find in our work.
Programs serve similar areas, but they may not be serving the
exact same locations. And so we do have some controls in place,
and agencies are paying attention to that particular fact. In
fact, most of the coordination the agencies do is about trying
to avoid that kind of duplication.
I would just mention in terms of the role of the private
sector and the Government, the private sector is still building
out infrastructure. They are the--they are the main providers
of internet infrastructure everywhere. And the High-Cost
Program and other Federal programs are really trying to
incentivize those companies to extend service to those areas
where they really don't have an economic incentive to do so. So
just to mention that.
Mr. Duncan. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize Mrs. Lesko of Arizona for her 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you all of--the three of you for being here today. Obviously,
we are spending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on this
project, and so I think it is very important that we get this
right, so we don't have the waste and fraud.
And I think, Mr. Ford, you thought we would--the speed that
we are doing this at, we might lose 20 percent of the funding,
which is very, you know, troubling, obviously.
Mr. Von Ah, the American Rescue Plan authorized $10 billion
for the Capital Projects Fund, which provides money to States,
territories, and Tribal governments to fund critical capital
projects that enable work, education, and health monitoring in
response to the public health emergency.
Does the Department of Treasury have the expertise and
capability to effectively administer this program, given that
they do not traditionally oversee broadband funding?
Mr. Von Ah. Well, thank you for that question. We haven't
looked specifically at that particular program, and so it is a
little hard for me to comment on whether they have the
expertise. But I will mention that they are participating now
with other agencies in, you know, ongoing coordination meetings
so that they understand exactly what NTIA and FCC and other
agencies--and Agriculture--are doing. And so that is an
encouraging sign, that Treasury is now a part of that MOU
between those agencies.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And then a similar question, Dr.
Ford. The Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program is a
$42.45 billion NTIA program established by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act to deploy broadband infrastructure. In
your opinion, is the NTIA properly equipped to direct and
oversee this large amount of funding?
Dr. Ford. No.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. My next question is for--also for
Dr. Ford. Broadband providers are subject to significant
permitting delays at the local and Federal levels. With funding
going out the door for multiple different broadband programs,
all having various timelines and regulations, do you agree that
a uniform permitting application would help solve this problem?
Dr. Ford. I mean, it seems like it would, you know, at a
general level. Implementation might prove tricky, but, yes,
ease that process would make it better. It is part of the hurry
problem, right? Hurry up and do something and then, wham, you
know, 8 months later you get to submit a letter to ask
permission to cross a street. So that is all part and parcel of
it. But if that could be simplified, it would--it would most
assuredly help.
Mrs. Lesko. So related to that, do you think that
permitting reform is something that Congress should do this
year?
Dr. Ford. I think it would be reasonable to do that, and
maybe even pole attachments and rights-of-way stuff. Yes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
Mr. Von Ah, would it be reasonable and effective to have a
single agency that administers all broadband programs?
Mr. Von Ah. So just to go back to the number of programs we
have, I would just mention that many of them are--do not have
broadband as their main purpose. So right now we have four
agencies that really have the bulk of the funding--FCC, NTIA,
Department of Agriculture, and Treasury. And so for many of
those programs, you know, they have other purposes--economic
development, community development, whatever it may be.
Whether one agency would be most appropriate, I mean, it is
hard to say. I mean, in some ways I want to say yes, in the
sense that, you know, you have it all in one--you have one
agency who is focused on this, but the FCC is not an
administrative branch agency. It is an independent commission.
They usually--they function off of the Universal Service Fund
that is collected through taxes on our phone bills, whereas
NTIA, being an executive branch agency, has a different
function, right?
So we are looking at--they are looking at, you know, the
strategic plan and goals of the Department of Commerce. So
those things are different. You know, would it be better if it
had one agency to do that? Perhaps. But communications issues
are spread across a number of agencies.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you for your answer. Yes. It just seems
to me common sense that, if you have all of these different
programs, and a whole bunch of different agencies trying to
do--have the same goal, that you are going to inevitably
overspend money. And we are talking about U.S. taxpayer
dollars. And so we all have a goal, but we don't want to waste
taxpayer dollars.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I now recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Ruiz, for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Ruiz, you need to turn your microphone
on.
Mr. Ruiz. OK. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Broadband is now
a necessity, not a luxury, and we need to treat it as such.
We saw during the COVID-19 pandemic that the ability to
participate in remote learning, telework, and telehealth was
critical to people's well-being and survival in our Nation's
recovery.
We should be treating broadband access like the common good
that it is, which means we need to make sure that reliable,
high-speed broadband connections are available in order to
improve the public's health, increase educational access, boost
our small businesses, and reduce disparities and give everyone
a real chance to access basic, necessary resources and share in
our country's prosperity. Without it, communities are being
left behind, and everyone is at a disadvantage.
I want to particularly focus on the importance of the
broadband programs for Tribal areas and the funding that
Congress has provided over the years. My bill, the Tribal
Broadband Deployment Act, was included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2018 and required the FCC to assess
broadband availability on Tribal lands and bring broadband
internet to these underserved areas.
Between 2018 and 2021, the portion of people living on
Tribal lands who don't have access to broadband dropped from 35
percent to 21 percent. That is an improvement, but let me
repeat: 21 percent of people living on Tribal lands still do
not have access to broadband. That is compared to just only 4
percent of Americans overall. So while the progress we have
made should be celebrated, there is obviously much more to do.
That is why I am encouraged by the 2021 Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law's transformational $65 billion investment in
broadband, which includes $2 billion specifically for Tribal
broadband programs. My district has suffered from
underinvestment for years, and I am proud that we are finally
bringing Federal resources that promote equity and help those
most in need. But I will also remain vigilant to ensure that
Tribal voices are heard and their unique needs are met.
Ms. Siefer, I know that last March you and other members of
the National Digital Inclusion Alliance held a Tribal broadband
bootcamp in Southern California. Thank you for coming to my
part of the country and working close--to close the digital
divide.
Can you tell us what unique challenges do Tribal
communities face in participating in broadband programs?
Ms. Siefer. Right. One of the things that NDIA is doing now
is helping tribes create their own digital equity programs. So
it is one thing to make sure that the infrastructure is
available, which they are doing, and some tribes actually own
their own internet service providers, and that is amazing,
right, because then there is that control there.
And what we are also finding is that those same internet
service providers are also providing digital navigation
service. So they are the ones that also help teach their
neighbors and their elders how to use the internet, how to get
connected. That is a uniqueness. We don't see that elsewhere. I
would not encourage any other internet service provider to
provide those services, but it does happen in Tribal
communities because there is a closeness that is not the same
in other places.
Mr. Ruiz. How do they get started? What are the barriers
for them to even get started in participating in these
programs?
Ms. Siefer. It is the connectivity itself, the device,
because carrying around a mobile phone does not mean that you
can create a resume or you can work on your--have your
telehealth appointment. So it is the skills, the devices, and
the connectivity, all three.
Mr. Ruiz. Do Tribes need technical support?
Ms. Siefer. Tribes need technical support.
Mr. Ruiz. Grant writers?
Ms. Siefer. It needs to be technical support that comes
from within the community.
Mr. Ruiz. OK. Mr. Von Ah, recent GAO reports have shown
that Tribal lands continue to lag behind the rest of the
country in broadband access. What should the Federal Government
do to close this gap, and how can Congress help agencies take
these steps?
Mr. Von Ah. Absolutely. Our work has shown and highlighted
a number of the difficulties the Tribal communities face in
trying to access Federal programs. They are eligible for many
of them, but they are not very successful in getting funding
that is necessary.
And then the carriers that they rely upon, if they don't
have their own internet service provider, you know, has--they
may not trust them, they may not be able to partner with them,
and so there are some difficulties there.
The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program that was created
is the first program really to focus specifically on getting
funding out to Tribal communities for broadband connectivity.
But our recommendations around this have been for--in terms
of creating a national strategy, to have a Tribal focus within
that national strategy, because there are so many unique issues
related to Tribal communities and Tribal lands, as well as for
NTIA's Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth to have a
specific workstream to focus on trying to overcome those
barriers that Tribes face in accessing Federal programs.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr.
Armstrong, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
follow up a little bit on what Ms. Lesko was talking about and,
Director Von Ah, your previous testimony. There are 133 funding
programs from 15--over 15 Federal agencies that support
broadband access. At least $44 billion has been spent from
fiscal years 2015 to 2020.
We have discussed a lot about how this duplicative and
inefficient bureaucracy creates challenges and how streamlining
would help. But what we haven't heard yet is an economic
estimate of how much this inefficiency actually costs.
Director Von Ah, how much is potential savings from
streamlining the agencies involved and their roles, avoiding
duplicative grants, standardizing policies, definitions,
eligibility standards, and just eliminating other bureaucratic
inefficiencies?
Mr. Von Ah. We haven't done the work to give you a really
clear answer on that. But certainly there is overhead involved
with running multiple programs within multiple agencies. Just
for NTIA itself--go ahead.
Mr. Armstrong. I was going to say, particularly because
there's four agencies that do--require the bulk of it, so the
other 131 it is one piece of all of the other things they do,
right?
Mr. Von Ah. Right. So there is--I mean, of the other
programs, I have--just 63 of them are really--it is just--they
can only fund broadband under certain circumstances. They have
other purposes, right? So they are not really--they can support
broadband, but they are not focused on broadband. So the main
four agencies are really where the bulk of the funding lies.
Mr. Armstrong. Dr. Ford, do you have any idea--any estimate
of how much this inefficiency costs? Is there a way to do this
estimate? I mean, even--we are talking about it. We know we
have spent at least 44 million. We can't even pin down exactly
what we have spent.
Dr. Ford. I suspect you could possibly construct an
estimate by comparing performance across agencies, if you could
get the data, which is not always easy to get, and see, you
know, how productive the spending was in achieving some kind of
goal, and say--and I think what that is going to tell you is
that Agency A should be used and not Agency B, more than there
is some global inefficiency of multiple agency activity. But
there might--you might could come up with something like that.
Mr. Armstrong. The complexity of the support activities,
and I just believe over--figuring out a way to simplify, and
particularly if you can cut out a portion of these ones who
only touch it in a minor way, would, I mean, just help in the
overhead and the bureaucratic malaise that exists in this
space.
Dr. Ford. I think overhead would be a big part of it, for
sure. And you are just duplicating certain roles that don't
need to be duplicated. Guys that do all the data collection and
management, you don't need, you know, four sets of those guys,
really, you know?
It might be 50 percent more than the one firm, because you
might need a little more, and then the data would be--the data
would be the same, you know, and people could access it in a
way that was comparable. Now you get it from all the different
sources in different formats. It doesn't line up. You don't
have the same information. It is kind of a mess.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. And with that, I would yield to
the chairman.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman. I have heard of some
cases, Mr. Von Ah, where NTIA has not awarded grants for many
months after receiving applications. In GAO's view, are there
particular statutes preventing effective distribution of
Federal broadband funds?
Mr. Von Ah. I wouldn't say that there were statutes that
were preventing that. For the new programs that NTIA has been
authorized to execute, there has just been a ramp up for them
to staff--get staff available to put NOFOs out to have the
various processes in place to be able to process the number of
applications they have gotten. And they have also gotten over--
these programs have been--you know, have more applicants and
funding than the programs have available. So they have been
trying to weed through a lot of--a lot of information.
Mr. Griffith. You all recommended that we do some program
alignment to make things to eliminate some of these
redundancies. What was NTIA's feedback with the undertaking of
this recommendation?
Mr. Von Ah. They agreed with that recommendation, and the
agencies all point to some of these things are in statute and
Congress has to make some changes too. So we recommended that
they identify those things that are in statute and report to
you on what changes are----
Mr. Griffith. And they haven't gotten that done yet, have
they?
Mr. Von Ah. They have not done that yet.
Mr. Griffith. All right. All right. Did you hear any
hesitation or complaints from them on accomplishing these
recommendations or this recommendation?
Mr. Von Ah. No.
Mr. Griffith. OK. I yield back to the gentleman from North
Dakota, who I assume then yields back to me again.
Mr. Armstrong. Yields back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Griffith. Thank you, Ranking
Member Castor. And appreciate our witnesses being here today.
A recent tragedy near my district in upstate New York has
had me thinking about how much we can take technology for
granted. In many places these days, we assume that we have
ready access to the outside world, our phones work, and our
internet works. But just last month, a 20-year-old named Kaylin
Gillis, a resident of my district, was shot and killed when she
and her friends mistakenly drove up the wrong driveway in a
nearby rural town.
Despite being--not being far from New York's capital city
and other larger cities, her friends had to drive several miles
just to find cell coverage to reach 9-1-1. By the time they got
help, Kaylin had passed away.
While we are focused primarily on broadband internet today,
I do think that this horrible and senseless tragedy must serve
as a reminder that there are many places where phone coverage
or broadband internet access have not caught up to the rest of
the country. We need to do the important work to close that
digital divide in all of our communities.
I have been working for a long time to expand broadband
access to unserved and underserved communities. In December of
2020, my bipartisan Access Broadband Act was enacted as part of
the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The law established
the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth, known as OICG,
at the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration.
OICG is charged with tracking broadband funding across
agencies, supporting small businesses and local communities,
and improving coordination amongst the government and private-
sector elements.
Mr. Von Ah, when you team--when your team examined Federal
investments in broadband before November of '21, it found that
numerous broadband programs lacked coordination. The OICG was
established in August of 2021, just a few months before that
evaluation was finalized.
Has GAO examined interagency coordination on broadband
since that--it took the lead on interagency coordination? And,
if so, what did GAO find?
Mr. Von Ah. We have looked at interagency coordination
within the context of specific programs since then. So, for
example, we looked at the ReConnect Program and how the
Department of Agriculture was coordinating with FCC, NTIA, and
others to ensure that they weren't duplicating funding.
Our understanding of where OICG is right now is that they
are using the American Broadband Initiative, which is a
coalition of broadband stakeholders, as a way to help
coordinate these issues. Our recommendations to them were to
have--you know, to expand the role of that ABI to include
Tribal issues, such as Tribal workstream within that ABI. And
they are still sort of ramp--they were still ramping up to
undertake that role, but that is our understanding of where
they are.
Mr. Tonko. But it moved--it sounds like they are moving in
a good direction? OK
What are some concrete steps that Congress can take to
further improve interagency coordination when it comes to
broadband?
Mr. Von Ah. So for us, our recommendations were really
for--to sort of seek a national strategy, so congressional
support for a national strategy would be helpful.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And my bipartisan Access Broadband
Act also makes it easier for businesses and local leaders to
bring Federal funding to underserved and unserved areas in need
of broadband access. But the Federal Government needs to know
which communities are most in need of support if we are indeed
going to make the most of our efforts. Engaging with community
leaders to understand what is happening on the ground is
critical to success, including in developing an accurate map of
who has access to reliable high-speed broadband and who does
not.
So, Ms. Siefer, how can collaboration between agencies and
communities help ensure that our dollars are making the most
impact?
Ms. Siefer. It is the deployment side, and then it is also
the access side. And so what is interesting about the GAO
report is that it includes the broadband adoption along with
the deployment.
And so separating out--which I think the Director has done
today--separating out which ones are specifically focused on
broadband adoption and which ones are focused on the
deployment, that interaction is somewhat occurring now, and we
are seeing also the coordination not only from them but the
State offices, which is not something that we have talked about
today but has been included in the legislation.
Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. And how can Congress help agencies
better collaborate with the communities?
Ms. Siefer. I agree that the strategy is something that we
need everyone to get behind. It was suggested by lots of folks
early on, but we are all so busy with lots of things that it
didn't happen, and it needs to happen.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, these programs are too important to
let them fall prey to partisan attacks and indiscriminate
budget cuts. We need to work together to close this digital
divide. If we don't, the people who lose the most are our
constituents' communities. And it sounds like we are making
progress, and I appreciate that.
And with that, I am out of time, and I yield back, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for
his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hosting
this hearing. And thank you to the witnesses for appearing.
Dr. Ford, in your testimony you describe how some agencies
run a cost-benefit analysis to verify how much positive results
we get from our broadband investments. But some of them
obviously don't.
And one example: In your written statement, you called one
of the Department's commitments of $33 million for 211 homes
and 5 businesses as ``irresponsible and disrespectful'' to the
tax subsidy imposed on Americans. Then you contrasted that with
the State of Georgia, where the investment served 76,700
locations, which you found reasonable.
How does an agency responsible for committing these funds,
allocating these funds, not know they would obtain so little
return on such a large broadband investment?
Dr. Ford. That is a great question. I feel like the only
person ever asking about the cost and benefits of deploying a
broadband circuit. I have been shouted down at academic
conferences for even raising the issue that it might not be
worth spending $100,000 to get broadband to a household if it
is only worth $30,000 or $20,000.
They just don't ask that question, and maybe because they
have never been asked to ask that question. ``Here is a giant
pot of money, go spend it'' is pretty much their direction. But
I think that definitely needs to be incorporated into the
thinking. There are cases where it is just too expensive to do
and we need to be finding an alternative, and there is just no
talk of that.
Mr. Palmer. No. I think the key here is that we don't want
to deny last-mile service, but there--we should be evaluating
alternatives to provide that service. You know, I think any
agency that is committing funds for any project needs to be
fully aware of the cost-benefit analysis. They ought to go
about this the way the private sector does, to do that type
analysis.
But I want to shift gears here a little bit. If you were
constructing a cost-benefit analysis for a Federal program
responsible for giving broadband dollars, what factors would
you take into account?
Dr. Ford. Well, I was----
Mr. Palmer. And if you could be brief, I want to ask
Director Von Ah a couple of questions.
Dr. Ford. That was good. I was about to lead into that from
what--from what you had said. Why aren't we doing just a
traditional net present value calculation on investment? What
is it going to sell for? How much money am I investing? How
long a time do I have to do this? And then, you know, we are
going to have to contemplate some sort of social value from
these investments. Otherwise, we wouldn't make them at all.
I think it is reasonable to say that the social value of a
service is not more than its private value, and private value
is something that can be calculated with reasonable accuracy,
which is what I did in my testimony. So I think, you know,
where is the model, you know, that tracks this out over 20
years and says we are green 6 years out, you know.
Mr. Palmer. Well, one of the reasons this hearing is so
important is, first and foremost, we want to get broadband
service to people. But at the same time--and the GAO does a
really good job about evaluating some of these programs, we
are--we have reached out debt limit. We are at almost $32
trillion in debt. We cannot afford to spend money the way we
are spending money. We need to do a cost-benefit analysis. We
should have been doing this for years.
Director Von Ah, in your written testimony you mention that
some programs are Federal-funded to single-use deployment,
which can mean that nearby or colocated schools, clinics, other
businesses would need to seek separate program funding for
broadband. Are there other examples of program requirements
like this that unnecessarily drive up the cost of broadband
deployment?
Mr. Von Ah. There are a number of programs that are
specific to things like schools and libraries or for
educational purposes or for telehealth and things of that
nature. You know, it depends on whether the surrounding area
and those businesses and locations have actual infrastructure
that can provide service or not as to whether, you know, they
would need to seek other Federal funding to build that
infrastructure. But there are a number of programs that have
that quality to them, yes.
Mr. Palmer. So has the GAO taken an in-depth look at the
mapping process when it comes to determining broadband
availability?
Mr. Von Ah. We have not taken a deep look at FCC's new
mapping process. We have had a number of recommendations
previously for FCC to improve its maps, and we have commented
on--in a number of reports about the inaccuracy of the 477
data. But we haven't looked in depth at the current maps.
Mr. Palmer. Well, any information that the GAO could
provide to us, to this committee, I think would--that helps
improve this process would be very valuable. Thank you for your
response.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Cammack,
for her 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Chairman Griffith, for hosting
this hearing today. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing
before us on, obviously, a very important topic, albeit a
little bit of a complicated one.
I will go straight to you, Dr. Ford. In past funding
announcements for ReConnect, the Rural Utilities Service has
lowered the unserved threshold from 90 percent to 50 percent of
households without internet service in an area without proper
justification for that area to be eligible for funding.
Do you believe that it is important for this threshold to
remain high for ReConnect in order to target the truly unserved
areas? Or would you have another number that would ping that
at?
Dr. Ford. I think it should be high, unless--I guess what
bothers me is that they can't find any place. I mean, we are
going on and on and on about places that don't have it, and
they can't find one with 100 percent? That is kind of strange.
I mean, you loosen up the boundary when you can't spend
your money, right? You can't find a project at 90 percent, so
he says, ``Well, let's make it 50.'' Why can't you find a
project at 90 percent? Are we just so far along that we have
solved the problem already? That is kind of what it sounds
like.
No. I think it should be unserved first and then some
underserved, yes, and sometimes you have got to combine. I
mean, some guy might want to say, ``Well, I can do both of
these for cheaper than I could--two people could do them
independently.'' You know, there are some complexities with
stuff like that.
But until we are done, it should be a very high threshold
towards, you know, unserved first and then underserved, a very
high threshold until all that other stuff gets taken care of.
Now, I suppose the problem for them is that maybe people
don't come and ask, you know, and there are unserved areas that
aren't going to the RUS and saying, ``Hey, can I get some
money?'' Maybe that is the problem. I don't know.
Mrs. Cammack. And on the definition of ``underserved,'' do
you think that that requires some updating or tweaking?
Dr. Ford. I think you kind of--you have to sort of set some
kind of standard. I mean, it doesn't have to be--you don't have
to think about it so strictly as we often do, but there is
probably some level of service that you might reasonably
conclude is probably not good enough. I mean, today that might
be 10 megabits a second.
Mrs. Cammack. OK.
Dr. Ford. Something like that.
Mrs. Cammack. Should entities be barred from receiving
funds under ReConnect if those entities have already received
funding from other Federal, State, or local broadband programs
for those same areas?
Dr. Ford. If it is exactly the same places, yes, I think
there should be restrictions on that.
Mrs. Cammack. I think we saw that under RDOF.
Dr. Ford. Yes.
Mrs. Cammack. Yes. What about, should the ReConnect Program
be subject to the same administrative Procedure Act
requirements for funding announcements like all other Federal
programs?
Dr. Ford. That is kind of getting into a legal question,
but I do think that--I do think any project should be well
documented and publicly available for people to see. It should
not be hard to find, it should not be hard to combine with
other sources, and it should be complete.
I mean, I was looking at some RUS stuff today, and it is
just incomplete. And then even some of the FCC stuff, which is
generally pretty good about providing data, you have to look in
a bunch of different places to try to piece it together, and it
jumps between USAC and the FCC, and the USAC website is kind of
clumsy. But that shouldn't be. I mean, it should be brought in
together in a very nice data set that can be downloaded and
analyzed, you know.
Mrs. Cammack. Do you believe that all broadband funding
decisions should be based on the same maps in order to prevent
wasteful spending and overbuilding in areas?
Dr. Ford. I think that it should be strongly related to a
map, OK. There are going to be weird cases where that might not
work out, I understand, but should--everybody should be kind of
on the same page as what they are doing. Otherwise, people are
going to say, ``Oh, the FCC says I don't have it,'' you know,
or ``I do have it,'' and ``I don't have it, and I am not going
to get the money.''
And it may not be true, but you should challenge the FCC
map rather than convince some organization who is barely in the
business of broadband subsidies to give you money, because
there is some confusion.
Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely.
Dr. Ford. Yes.
Mrs. Cammack. And I am coming close to the end of my time,
so, again, I appreciate it. Thank you to our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
And I will take a second to apologize to Mr. Walberg. This
is what happens when we have numerous committees going at the
same time. I thought we were very close to being done, and then
everybody started showing up after I sent word to Mr. Walberg
he needed to be here in 5 minutes. But we appreciate you being
patient and recognizing that we sometimes have these issues.
I now recognize Mr. Walberg for his 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Walberg. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I get it.
Being the stepchild on this committee, by having to waive on
it, I understand it. And I just appreciate you giving me the
chance to waive on.
As Cochair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, proper oversight
of our Nation's broadband funding programs is one of my top
priorities. My district stretches literally from Lake Michigan
to Lake Erie and everything in between. And every week we field
calls and letters from constituents who do not have access to a
reliable internet connection--and I mean access, period.
Affordability and literacy are issues we can continue to
discuss, but connection doesn't even reach so many parts of
southern Michigan. And we are not talking about hills and
valleys and mountains in Michigan, especially in the southern
portion. We need to get rural America online for the
agricultural interest as well.
The hearing memo and Mr. Von Ah's testimony highlight a
major concern I have shared since GAO's study was published
last year, how the lack of a national strategy for broadband is
impeding deployment. In response to the GAO report, last
Congress I worked with my colleagues in the Senate to introduce
bipartisan, bicameral legislation, the Proper Leadership to
Align Networks for Broadband Act, or PLAN for Broadband Act.
The Plan for Broadband Act would implement many of the
recommendations that Mr. Von Ah has discussed today. Under
administration leadership, it instructs all of the offices of
jurisdiction to come together to create a coordinated strategy
for broadband deployment with set goals and markers for each
program. It asks agencies to identify barriers to deployment
and ways that we can streamline permitting processes for
broadband infrastructure.
But more importantly, it requires that the agencies consult
with States, localities, and providers--the people really on
the ground--on what the strategy should look like. This will
help ensure that funds get to the rural areas that need it
most, so we can truly close the digital divide.
Mr. Von Ah, the GAO report recommends that the Executive
Office of the President develop and implement a national
broadband strategy, but others have argued that the
responsibility should fall to NTIA. Given their expertise and
history of Federal coordination, would NTIA be better suited to
leading the strategy for the administration?
Mr. Von Ah. So certainly NTIA should have a prominent role
in developing that strategy and leading that strategy. The
reasoning behind our putting it in the White House's purview
was because we saw that there are issues across agencies. You
have multiple agencies involved in multiple programs.
And so what--if NTIA creates a strategy, it doesn't
necessarily have any bearing on what FCC might be doing or RUS
within the Department of Agriculture. And so we saw that--a
need for a national strategy that was at a higher level that
went across agencies. But certainly I think, you know, having
NTIA being--having a lead role and having a significant input
into that strategy is extremely important.
Mr. Walberg. Because of the background, the knowledge, the
information, the contact.
Mr. Von Ah. Absolutely. And the Administrator of the NTIA
is the advisor to the administration on broadband--on
telecommunications issues.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Another hurdle to deployment that GAO
identified is the significant workforce shortages in the
telecommunications industry. And I just left the Education
Workforce Committee, which is concerned about that very thing.
Without a robust workforce, no amount of money can get people
connected.
And so, Mr. Von Ah, the report indicated that we would need
34,000 additional workers during peak deployment to support the
broadband expansion programs. The need for workers is
especially acute in rural areas, even now before the bulk of
funds have gone out the door.
Why is that the case? And how can rural communities and
businesses grow their skilled telecommunications workforce?
Mr. Von Ah. Right. So in terms of the workforce, our
estimates were based on looking at how the funding will be
allocated over the next several years. There's a number of
uncertainties about that estimate, but really what we are
seeing is just there is a lot of demand for the same kinds of
workers.
With the IIJA and a number of other areas, you have got a
number of infrastructure projects that all demand similar kinds
of skills and abilities. And so there is just a lot of demand.
You have got an aging workforce, and you have got sort of
sometimes not the best working conditions, and a lot of travel
is sometimes involved as well.
And so there are a lot of challenges that need to be
overcome, but building those skills in local areas, I think,
would be something that would be useful.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Well, seeing my time is almost up, Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I now recognize Mr. Allen of Georgia for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And also thank you for
allowing me to waive on. This is very important in my district,
and improving broadband service has been a top priority of
mine. Of course, I hear it from my constituents on a regular
basis.
But for all of these years we have spent talking about this
issue after the creation of 130 separate broadband subsidy
programs in 15 different agencies, and after the appropriation
of over $100 billion for broadband-related purposes since 2015,
it is kind of hard to understand why this issue has not been
resolved.
One of the main reasons from my perspective is a lack of
accurate broadband maps, which I think you have probably heard
over and over here today. The FCC's broadband maps are
notoriously inaccurate. In the 116th Congress, we passed the
Broadband Data Act to fix this, which was signed into law. This
law requires the FCC to completely rehaul their maps, but it
has been 3 years now.
Mr. Von Ah, I understand that the FCC will release new maps
this month. How would you evaluate their implementation of the
Broadband Data Act?
Mr. Von Ah. Well, we haven't looked very closely at their
implementation of the Broadband Data Act, but we did look very
early on at their ability to develop the national fabric, which
is sort of the basis of the maps, which identifies all of the
serviceable locations in the country.
We identified a number of challenges associated with that,
but FCC was recognizing those challenges and the----
Mr. Allen. Do you think we can expect Federal broadband
funds to be disbursed more effectively once the Broadband Data
Act is fully implemented?
Mr. Von Ah. That would be the hope.
Mr. Allen. I know that, even once these maps are fully
updated, there are still not requirements for other Federal
broadband programs to award funds based on them.
Dr. Ford, could you walk us through the inefficiencies that
might create this?
Dr. Ford. Trying to allocate the subsidies by new maps?
Mr. Allen. Right.
Dr. Ford. Well, hopefully they are better, and that way we
won't be spending money where we don't. I think, too, that
higher precision of the locations will make sure that the
locations can be tracked better as to what has been served and
what has not, and possibly along the way find things that we
didn't think were there that are there, because there are
actually going to be people out there deploying that work.
I think that is important, and I--I think there are a lot
of non-map ways to be addressing some of this problem, too, if
you have got constituents calling and saying, ``I don't have
broadband.'' You know, send somebody out there and check and
make sure that the map squares up that way, and, if not, then
try to figure out how to get broadband there.
But I think we are just going to have to wait--wait and see
how good that map is and then what sort of requirements the
NTIA and the States put on providers to tell us what it is they
are doing and when they have done it.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Dr. Ford. I mean, that is the main thing, is to find out if
they did spend the money correctly.
Mr. Allen. Well, that is certainly--we need to hold the
Government accountable for these funds and what we are doing,
and you have pointed that out in your testimony as far as the
cost per connection.
Another frustration is that, you know, most Third World
countries have better cell service than I do in the 12th
District of Georgia. Dr. Ford, could you talk about this
disconnect? Is universal cell service feasible?
Dr. Ford. Sure. Well, I mean, it depends on what you mean
by ``universal.'' Every square foot, I don't know. But for
covering most of the population, which tends to live in very
few places and travel along certain roads a lot, we can have
very high cellular coverage. There's always going to be
issues----
Mr. Allen. Right.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. With certain areas, I mean, if you
are low or you are in a certain spot. And a lot of the problems
from that come from localities who refuse to allow towers to be
located or expanded. That has been a huge problem in the
wireless industry. They can't grow their network all the time--
--
Mr. Allen. Right.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. When they need to. So that can give
you----
Mr. Allen. Yes. As far as permits and that sort of thing.
Dr. Ford. Yes.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Von Ah, are there programs already in place
that are intended to expand cell service?
Mr. Von Ah. The Mobile Connectivity Fund within the High-
Cost Funds--set of funds is one that is meant to try to
encourage rural areas and growth in rural areas.
Mr. Allen. OK.
Mr. Von Ah. But that----
Mr. Allen. Hey, thanks.
Mr. Von Ah [continuing]. For the most part they are not.
Mr. Allen. Thanks for being here today.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to waive on.
Mr. Griffith. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Allen. I yield back.
Mr. Griffith. We are always glad--in this subcommittee has
been long--and in this committee it has been a long tradition
to let people waive on, because if you are on the committee,
you sometimes have an interest even in areas and you are not
on--can't be on all of the subs, and you can't be in all of the
hearings. So we let people waive on.
There are no further Members wishing to ask questions, so I
would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today.
And, pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record, and I ask that witnesses submit their responses
within 10 days upon receipt of those questions.
Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]