[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2026
__________
Serial No. 119-54
[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
63-362 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida, Vice PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas RAUL RUIZ, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
Chairman
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia, Vice DORIS O. MATSUI, California
Chairman Ranking Member
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DARREN SOTO, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida RAUL RUIZ, California
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia SCOTT H. PETERS, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota officio)
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina, opening statement........................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Witnesses
Brendan Carr, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission........ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Answers to submitted questions............................... 140
Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Answers to submitted questions............................... 165
Olivia Trusty, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission... 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Answers to submitted questions............................... 173
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 103
Letter of January 12, 2026, from Sharon Wilson Geno, President,
National Multifamily Housing Council, et al., to Mr. Hudson and
Ms. Matsui..................................................... 104
Petition from the American Civil Liberties Union addressed to
Chairman Carr\1\
Article of October 10, 2025, ``Brendan Carr wants to let internet
providers charge hidden fees again,'' by Jess Weatherbed, The
Verge.......................................................... 107
Letter of January 14, 2026, from The Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, et al., to Mr. Hudson and Ms. Matsui... 109
Letter of January 12, 2026, from John Frank, Chairperson,
International Commission on the Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Fields, et al., to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......... 113
Transcript of ``The Benny Show'' podcast, September 17, 2025..... 122
Letter of January 9, 2026, from Odette J. Wilkens, President and
General Counsel, National Call for Safe Technology to Mr.
Guthrie, et al.\1\
Article, ``U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health
protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms,'' by Theodora
Scarato, Frontiers\1\
Article of December 15, 2025, ``How an AM radio station in
California weathered the Trump administration's assault on
media,'' by Byron Tau, Associated Press........................ 127
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF16/20260114/118825/HHRG-119-IF16-20260114-SD1949422.pdf.
Article of April 16, 2021, ``Democrats Want Feds To Block Miami
Latinos From Hearing Conservative Radio,'' by Luke Rosiak,
DailyWire.com.................................................. 133
Article, ``Scientifc evidence invalidates health assumptions
underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for
radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,'' International
Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic
Fields\1\
Letter of January 12, 2026, from The Wireless and EMF Program at
Environmental Health Sciences to Mr. Guthrie, et al.\1\
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF16/20260114/118825/HHRG-119-IF16-20260114-SD1949422.pdf.
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2026
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Richard Hudson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hudson, Allen, Latta,
Griffith, Bilirakis, Carter of Georgia, Fulcher, Pfluger,
Cammack, Obernolte, Houchin, Fry, Kean, Goldman, Fedorchak,
Guthrie (ex officio), Matsui (subcommittee ranking member),
Soto, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Kelly, Barragan, Carter of
Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, McClellan, Castor, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Joyce, Tonko, and Mullin.
Staff present: Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Michael
Essington, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sydney
Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics; Megan Jackson, Staff
Director; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications and Technology;
AT Johnson, Special Advisor; Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff
Director; Brayden Lacefield, Special Assistant; John Lin,
Senior Counsel, Communications and Technology; Sarah Meier,
Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Elaina
Murphy, Professional Staff Member, Communications and
Technology; Dylan Rogers, Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director;
Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Parul Desai, Minority
Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Ava Digre,
Minority Intern; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy Staff Director
and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Staff
Director; Jackson Hall, Minority Intern; Will McAuliffe,
Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Dan
Miller, Minority Professional Staff Member; Emma Roehrig,
Minority Staff Assistant; Johanna Thomas, Minority Counsel;
Hannah Treger, Minority Staff Assistant; and Caroline Wood,
Minority Research Analyst.
Mr. Hudson. The subcommittee will come to order, and the
Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Good morning, and welcome to today's oversight hearing, the
first of this Congress, of the Federal Communications
Commission.
Welcome back, Chairman Brendan Carr. Congratulations on
your appointment as Chairman.
And welcome to Commissioner Anna Gomez. I look forward to
your testimony today.
And I want to extend a special welcome--or should I say
welcome back, or maybe welcome home--to Commissioner Olivia
Trusty. Congratulations on your confirmation, and welcome to
your first oversight hearing in your old stomping grounds here
at the Energy and Commerce. It is always great for us to see a
former staffer on the committee rise to such heights to be a
Commissioner on the FCC. We are really proud of you, and
appreciate you being here with us today. I know Mr. Latta is
very proud of you, as well.
The FCC had an active 2025 that can be summed up in one
word: deregulation. Under Chairman Carr the FCC has taken
significant steps to reduce barriers to broadband deployment,
modernize outdated regulatory regimes, and delete obsolete
rules. These efforts include preempting State and local
barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment, which I
appreciate--as some of you all have heard me talk about, I am
too familiar with calls dropping too often when I am driving
around my own district--reforming the satellite licensing
process, and ensuring that Next Generation 911 networks are
reliable and interoperable, another issue that I have made a
top priority of mine over the years.
And Chairman, I want to say thank you that the first
official trip you took as Chairman was to western North
Carolina to look at Hurricane Helene impacts on our
communications network. So I appreciate the priority you have
put on this issue.
Together, these efforts will accelerate closing the digital
divide, unleash the new space economy, and strengthen America's
wireless leadership. I applaud the FCC for this great work.
The FCC still has significant work ahead, including
modernizing outdated media ownership rules. Last year I led a
bipartisan letter with more than 70 Members of Congress, urging
the Commission to revisit its broadcast ownership caps. Local
broadcasters remain the most trusted sources of news for most
Americans, yet they now compete with an uneven marketplace
shaped by well-resourced new entrants, most notably big tech.
Burdened by outdated regulations, local broadcasters are
increasingly unable to compete, a reality reflected in newsroom
closures and the growing concentration of influence among
national networks and social media platforms.
Current ownership caps prevent broadcasters from combining
or expanding operations, constraining their ability to invest
in local journalism. Updating these caps would help ensure
broadcasters remain viable and competitive without creating
monopolies. It would empower local stations to better compete
against dominant platforms. I urge the Commission to keep these
realities in mind as you continue your deregulatory agenda.
A huge accomplishment this year was the Working Families
Tax Cut Act direction to the FCC to auction 800 megahertz of
spectrum for commercial use. Making the spectrum available is
essential to America's leadership in 5G and 6G. I am pleased
that the agency has already begun this work by identifying at
least 100 megahertz for auction in the upper C-band. As the
agency looks for remaining spectrum both on its own and in
coordination with others, I know you have important decisions
to make, and I urge the FCC to be mindful of investment that
has already taken place in the existing commercial bands such
as the 6 gigahertz band and the CBRS band. The proposal your
agenda laid out this month to expand unlicensed operations in
the 6G band is a great, great first step.
Finally, I am a member of the bipartisan, bicameral
Universal Services Fund Working Group. The USF, overseen by the
FCC, helps support broadband access to high-cost rural areas,
to schools and libraries, rural health centers, and low-income
households. Last year the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of USF, but it is past time to reform this
program to ensure the long-term sustainability and ensure the
funds are reaching the right people. Congress needs to
reexamine what the USF supports and how it is funded. A
sustainable USF is essential to ensuring all Americans have
access to affordable, reliable broadband. Given the FCC's role
in administering the fund, I look forward to discussing ways to
ensure the USF remains viable for future generations.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the many
important issues before the FCC. Again, I thank the
Commissioners for being here today, and I look forward to our
conversations.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. I now recognize the ranking member, the
gentlelady from California, for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad we
are holding this hearing.
The Federal Communications Commission affects people's
everyday lives. It determines whether you can call 911, whether
your internet bill is affordable, and whether local news can do
its job without political interference.
Oversight is not optional, it is our responsibility. The
FCC serves the public, not any President, not any party, and
not any one political agenda. It is supposed to be an
independent, expert agency that promotes competition, protects
public safety, and expands connectivity to our rural and urban
communities. But President Trump and Chairman Carr have
repeatedly abused the FCC's power.
We don't have speech police in America, we have the First
Amendment. Yet under Chairman Carr we have seen a pattern of
pressuring the media to tow the administration's line. He
warned Disney and ABC stations, ``We can do this the easy way
or the hard way'' to push them to take Jimmy Kimmel off the
air. He threatened to investigate or revoke the license of
local stations over content the administration doesn't like.
And he has opened investigations into newsrooms' routine
editing decisions such as CBS condensing an interview for time.
That is not calling balls and strikes. That is censorship by
intimidation.
Chairman Carr has stressed the standards of acting in the
public interest and preventing news distortion beyond
recognition. The FCC's own guidance sets a high bar for news
distortion. The FCC can only go after deliberate distortion,
not mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion. Yet, like the
rest of the Trump administration, this FCC seems to believe it
is above the law and the Constitution. That is why I introduced
the Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act to draw a bright
line. The FCC cannot target broadcasters based on viewpoint,
and the White House cannot use the FCC to settle political
scores.
The threats this FCC poses to journalistic independence
have been local as well as national. In Sacramento people rely
on local stations for wildfire updates, flood warnings, and
breaking news. Local news is a lifeline for communities. When a
handful of companies control local stations, communities lose
independent voices, newsrooms face layoffs, and viewers are
left with fewer trusted sources. That is why Congress set
strict limits for how big any one TV station owner can get.
No company can reach more than 39 percent of U.S.
households. That is the law. So it is deeply concerning when
the Trump FCC appears open to deals that weaken local
independents and plainly violates the law, deals like Nexstar's
acquisition of TEGNA, which would create a media giant reaching
80 percent of U.S. households. And in Sacramento, Nexstar-TEGNA
would put two of our four English-language local TV stations
under the same owner. That should raise flags for anyone who
believes in protecting local news and competition.
Finally, I want to address cybersecurity. Our
communications networks are critical infrastructure. They carry
our calls, texts, and data, they support hospitals, small
businesses, and emergency alerts, and they are under attack.
After Salt Typhoon, the worst telecom hack in U.S. history, the
FCC began moving toward enforceable cybersecurity requirements
for companies--not just voluntary promises--but Chairman Carr
reversed course, leaving our networks more exposed.
So today we are going to put this record under a spotlight.
The public deserves to know what Chairman Carr thinks ``public
interest'' means and why he is using it to pressure speech.
Communities deserve to know why local voices are being squeezed
by consolidation. And Americans deserve to know why
cybersecurity protections were weakened at the moment we need
them the most.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses,
and I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank
you for holding this important oversight hearing, and thank you
to our Commissioners for being here.
Commissioner Trusty, welcome back to the committee. We are
glad to have you back here. And we always say--and it is true--
that we get--the Members of Energy and Commerce get to work
with the best people on Capitol Hill, and you were a part of
our group at one time, and we appreciate having you, having you
back.
And this is an exciting time for the FCC, an exciting time
to be there. The Working Families Tax Act restored the FCC's
Spectrum Auction Authority, which had elapsed for more than 2
years. It also set a target of 800 megahertz of spectrum to be
identified and made available for commercial use. These actions
will help meet the growing demand for spectrum, but also, more
importantly, ensure the U.S. continues to be the leader in 5G
and even developing 6G.
Under the first Trump administration the FCC made a
significant amount of mid-band spectrum available for licensed
use and opened up 1,200 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed
use. This strengthened our position as a global technology
leader, and American innovators have seized the opportunity.
But in the years ahead the United States must continue to lead
in wireless innovation. Otherwise, adversaries like China will
dominate this battle and set their own standards according to
the values of the Chinese Communist Party. That is harmful to
both our economic growth and our national security, and I would
say the security of the world. Facing these risks, we must act
quickly. I am pleased that the Commission under Chairman Carr
has already started implementing aspects of this law and has
prioritized security throughout the communications sector.
Another area where the FCC is working to maintain and
expand American leadership is in space. Under Chairman Carr's
leadership, the Commission has been hard at work modernizing
satellite regulations. We have also seen--we have seen
significant investment in innovation in space in recent years.
Americans have long relied on GPS and other satellite-based
communications services. But today more Americans use satellite
services for connectivity at home and on the go. I am pleased
that the Commission has made this a priority.
Finally, I have noted several times during this Congress
the urgency of updating media regulation to allow regulated
industries the opportunity to compete against new platforms,
and specifically the Big Tech companies who are competing with
broadcasting cable companies for advertising revenue and
viewership. It is important to remove outdated regulations, and
I appreciate Chairman Carr's efforts to modernize these legacy
regulatory structures to reduce burdens on incumbent
industries.
This is an important time for the FCC. I look forward to
hearing from the Commissioners.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. And I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Chairman.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Hudson.
One of President Trump's most defining qualities has been
his contempt for American media and his hostility towards the
First Amendment. Trump has repeatedly attacked and threatened
late-night hosts for making jokes that bruise his ego,
dismissed reporting he does not like as fake news, smeared
journalists for merely doing their jobs, and taken completely
meritless legal action against news networks that do not bend
to his will. And he has also debased the office he holds by
resorting to bullying and name-calling, recently telling a
veteran reporter who asked a question about the Epstein files--
and I quote--``Quiet, piggy.''
On duty--or, I should say, our duty here is to conduct
oversight of the Federal Communications Commission, and that
has never been more critical than it is today because in
Trump's ongoing crusade to chill free speech, punish news
networks, and vilify American journalism, there has been no
greater ally than Chairman Brendan Carr.
Over the last year Chairman Carr has grossly distorted the
power and purpose of the FCC, he has weaponized the agency to
benefit Trump and punish anyone who challenges him, he has
rubber-stamped shady deals between media conglomerates when
those deals have included monetary and political benefits for
the President. He opened a sham--or sham investigations into
small local media outlets for simply reporting on publicly
available information about ICE raids. He weaponized the FCC's
public-interest principles to bully news organizations, and
Chairman Carr repeatedly violated the First Amendment by
threatening and intimidating broadcasters who aired speech that
the President does not like.
Now, you don't have to take my word for it. There is a
reason why a Republican Senator, Ted Cruz, said that Chairman
Carr's actions have been--and I quote--``right out of
`Goodfellas,' and dangerous as hell.'' This was never more
apparent than when Chairman Carr threatened to revoke American
broadcasters' licenses if they did not take action against a
comedy program, ``The Jimmy Kimmel Show,'' telling them--and I
quote--``We can do this the easy way or the hard way.'' And
let's be very clear about what happened there: The Federal
Government threatened to wield its power to stamp out speech it
did not like, and this is a violation of the First Amendment.
This is censorship which does not belong in America.
There was a time when my Republican colleagues would have
been up in arms over all this, when their allegiance to the
First Amendment was greater than their loyalty to one man. But,
obviously, that is not the case anymore, and the Chairman's
misdeeds do not end with his clear and dangerous violations of
the First Amendment. After months of delay, Chairman Carr
approved the Skydance-Paramount merger only after President
Trump was paid $16 million to settle a meritless lawsuit,
offered $20 million in free advertising, and received
guarantees that CBS's editorial decisions would be tweaked in
his favor.
This is what we call a quid pro quo facilitated by Chairman
Carr, and that is why Representative Raskin and I have opened
an investigation into this merger's approval. The American
people deserve to know the truth and that some of us in
Washington still believe that billionaires should have to play
by the same rules as the rest of us.
Now, in sum, Chairman Carr has abandoned the FCC's role as
an independent agency and has instead turned it into an
instrument for President Trump's own personal and political
benefit. In fact, during his testimony before the Senate he
openly stated that the FCC is no longer an independent agency
because the President says so. That is, in my opinion, madness.
And it makes clear that the FCC is no longer operating in the
public's interest. Quite the contrary, right now the FCC is
failing the American people and Chairman Carr is failing his
oath to the Constitution.
So while today's hearing is a good start, it is past time
that this committee hold a media hearing--immediate hearing so
we can dig deeper into these and other matters.
So finally, let me say Chairman Carr's decision to insert
the FCC into policy debates where it has no authority to act
while walking away from congressional mandates and existing FCC
rules is also very disturbing. While President Trump and
Chairman Carr may wish that the FCC could preempt State and
local laws on artificial intelligence, Congress has not given
the agency that power. The FCC also does not have the power to
raise the 39 percent national TV ownership cap, which can only
be changed by Congress.
So, frankly, Americans deserve a lot better than this. They
deserve an FCC that upholds their constitutional rights, that
acts in their interests, not in the private interests of the
President.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
We have now concluded with Member opening statements. The
Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all
Members' opening statements will be made part of the record.
We would like to thank our witnesses for being here today
to testify before the subcommittee.
Our witnesses will have 5 minutes each to provide an
opening statement, which will be followed by a round of
questions from Members.
The witnesses here before us today are Chairman Brendan
Carr, Chairman of the FCC; Commissioner Anna Gomez,
Commissioner at the FCC; and Commissioner Olivia Trusty,
Commissioner at the FCC.
Chairman Carr, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN, AND ANNA M. GOMEZ AND
OLIVIA TRUSTY, COMMISSIONERS, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF BRENDAN CARR
Mr. Carr. Thank you. Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member
Matsui, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the invitation to testify. While this is not my first time
appearing before the subcommittee, it is my first time doing so
as Chairman. Like my colleagues, I have fond memories of this
room. I started as an intern here over 20 years ago now.
I also want to start by saying how proud I am of the FCC's
dedicated staff and everything they accomplished for the
American people last year. The FCC delivered an historic set of
wins in 2025, thanks to them.
I also want to applaud the important work that the
subcommittee has accomplished this Congress. For instance,
thanks to Chairman Hudson, Chairman Guthrie, and many of their
fellow Members, the FCC's spectrum auction authority has now
been restored through President Trump's Working Families Tax
Cut Act, a major legislative accomplishment.
In terms of the FCC's work, the agency has been following
President Trump's strong leadership and moved quickly to
execute on an ambitious set of reforms. We are advancing a
Build America agenda, a concrete plan to unleash high-speed
infrastructure builds in communities across the country; we are
reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work, including
cracking down on illegal robocalls; we are empowering
broadcasters to meet their public-interest obligations; we are
strengthening America's national security; and we are
eliminating waste while modernizing agency operations.
Much of this represents a significant change from the Biden
administration policies. Indeed, when I took over as Chairman
of the FCC a year ago, the FCC faced several serious
challenges. For instance, the Biden administration had allowed
the U.S. to fall behind when it comes to one of the most
important features of our economic strength, national security,
and connectivity goals: spectrum. The FCC spectrum auction
authority had lapsed 2 years earlier. The Biden administration
had failed to tee up a single new spectrum band for auction,
and President Biden's National Spectrum Strategy committed to
freeing up exactly zero megahertz of spectrum.
On top of that, permitting reform was going nowhere. The
Biden administration was layering on heavyhanded regulations
that only made it harder for broadband builders to start
turning dirt. To make matters worse, the Biden administration
was pushing policies that would make services more expensive
for Americans. We had to turn things around, and fast.
Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are doing
exactly that. As I detail in my written testimony, the FCC's
build agenda focuses on unleashing the nation's broadband
builders. It does so by advancing several core goals. For one,
we are modernizing permitting rules and cutting red tape. For
another, we are freeing up the airwaves that are necessary for
America to lead the world again. We now have a massive new
spectrum pipeline and are working on multiple new spectrum
auctions. In fact, the FCC just voted at the end of last year
on a plan to auction up to 180 megahertz of spectrum in the
upper C-band.
In the secondary markets we are now seeing large chunks of
spectrum move into the hands of competitors that can put it to
productive use quickly. Indeed, one carrier alone announced
that they built out spectrum they gained access to late last
year. That is over 23,000 cell sites in record time, boosting
5G speeds by up to 80 percent.
In all of this, President Trump and the FCC are looking out
for America's blue-collar workers. In this job I have had the
chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string lines with
some of the country's most talented and hard-working telecom
workers, and also some members of this committee, as well. So
it is important to me that the FCC do its part to strengthen
the Nation's telecom workforce.
We are already seeing changes. Providers are now adopting
faster payment cycles. They are closing loopholes that allowed
foreign fly-by-night groups to swoop in and undercut U.S.
workers, and they are improving safety.
Finally, the FCC is now pushing the largest deregulatory
effort in the agency's history. To date we have teed up for
removal over 1,000 rules. In all of this we are seeing good
results, including on affordability, where data just out shows
that prices for wireless plans are now down over 4 percent
since last January. I look forward to continuing to work with
all of my Commission colleagues and the agency staff to deliver
on this important agenda.
And in closing I want to thank you again for the
opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Commissioner Gomez, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ
Ms. Gomez. Thank you. Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member
Pallone, Chair Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, Vice Chair Allen,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today.
It is worth stepping back and asking where the FCC has been
directing its energy. Too often that energy has gone into
culture war fights rather than protecting consumers and
expanding access to reliable, affordable broadband. From my
perspective, the FCC has drifted from its mission in ways that
should concern this committee.
Let me begin with the First Amendment. For months this FCC
has asserted an apparent roving mandate to police speech that
this administration does not like, invoking an undefined and
unchecked concept known as the public interest standard. This
standard is being treated as a license to weigh in on content,
viewpoint, and editorial judgment. The FCC's job is not to
police content, root out media bias, or guarantee favorable
coverage for any administration. Its responsibility is to
regulate communications infrastructure and markets, not censor
the speech that flows through them.
Both the First Amendment and the Communications Act protect
against the FCC interfering with speech and engaging in
censorship. In a free society the Government does not get to
decide what speech is acceptable or aligned with its views.
When the Government's media regulator claims the power to judge
content or to police bias, we move away from oversight and
toward censorship and control. That is why it is so important
for the Commission to define what it means by the public
interest standard, something I have called on it to do
repeatedly. It is also why Congress must insist on guardrails
and protect against the FCC acting as an arbiter of free
speech.
I do want to acknowledge the Commission's continued
bipartisan work on robocalls, which remain the FCC's top source
of consumer complaints. But beyond that, we are seeing the FCC
retreat from core responsibilities that help make
communications more affordable, more transparent, and more
accessible.
Affordability is now one of the biggest barriers to staying
connected. Programs like the Affordable Connectivity Program
helped millions of households afford basic service. When that
support lapsed, the impact was immediate. Yet the Commission
has failed to treat that loss with the urgency it demands.
Instead, what we have seen is a clear pattern of retreat from
practical, consumer-focused initiatives.
The Commission eliminated E-Rate support for school bus
connectivity and hotspot lending by schools and libraries. For
many students, seniors, and families, these programs were the
only reliable connection to the internet. Ending them removed
one of the most effective tools we had to help people
participate in the digital economy and to avoid being left
behind.
The Commission has rolled back limits on exorbitant prison
communication rates. These communications are often the only
way for those in prison to stay connected to the support they
need to return to society without turning back to crime.
Vulnerable families will now be paying higher phone rates
because of this FCC's actions.
The Commission has proposed weakening the broadband
nutrition labels it previously adopted, making it harder for
consumers to compare prices, speeds, and fees before they sign
up for service, and making it easier for prices to rise.
The Commission has stalled the cybersecurity trustmark
after years of bipartisan work, leaving consumers without a
practical tool in an increasingly risky digital marketplace.
And in a nation that is home to millions of non-English
speakers and that welcomes millions of international visitors
each year, the Commission has delayed bipartisan efforts to
provide consumers with multilingual emergency alerts. As we
prepare to host the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, language
barriers should not become a public safety risk.
None of the policies this administration has sidelined was
symbolic. The rollback reflects a Commission spending less time
on consumer needs and more time on ideological priorities and
the needs of billion-dollar corporations. Without sustained
attention to affordability and consumer protection, even the
largest investments in broadband deployment, including the BEAD
program, risk becoming digital bridges to nowhere. If students
cannot afford broadband, if families cannot trust the security
of their devices, if incarcerated individuals are cut off from
support, and if emergency alerts fail to reach whole
communities, then no amount of deregulatory policy will close
that divide.
We should measure success from AI and other investments in
human outcomes: Who is connected? Who is protected? And who is
fully included? That is the standard that the FCC should be
held to and the responsibility it must return to if it is to
fulfill its mission.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Commissioner Trusty, you are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA TRUSTY
Ms. Trusty. Thank you. Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member
Matsui, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
It has been 6 months since I was sworn in as a Commissioner
at the Federal Communications Commission. During that time I
have focused on policies to advance access to high-speed
connectivity, strengthen the resilience of the Nation's
communications networks, and restore U.S. leadership in next-
generation communications technologies. A critical part of that
work has been the opportunity to travel across the country and
around the world to engage directly with those who build,
maintain, and rely on our communications infrastructure and
technologies. From Jackson, Mississippi, to Eek, Alaska, and
abroad, I have seen firsthand how fixed, mobile, and satellite
connectivity is delivering on the promise of job creation,
technological innovation, and economic prosperity.
In Jackson, Mississippi I saw how broadband is delivering
quality, lifesaving care straight into the homes of
Mississippians across the Magnolia State. Doctors at the
University of Mississippi Medical Center are treating chronic
illnesses, managing high-risk pregnancies, and delivering
mental healthcare by video to rural communities that would
otherwise go without these essential services.
In Bethel and Eek, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is
transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the
most rugged and hard-to-reach terrain, and broadband is
enabling Alaska Natives and non-Natives alike to contribute to
and benefit from the global digital economy while maintaining
their treasured culture and way of life.
And last fall I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to represent
the United States at the International Telecommunication
Union's World Telecommunication Development Conference. There,
ministers and regulators from around the globe highlighted
their progress on closing the digital divide within their
nation's borders. They also used this forum to seek U.S.
guidance and leadership on maximizing spectrum efficiency,
building trusted networks and secure supply chains, and
creating a regulatory environment that invites continued
innovation, investment, and competition while protecting
consumers and enhancing public safety. These are issues we
confront at the FCC in almost every proceeding. They also
inform the three priorities guiding my work: universal
connectivity, network resilience, and U.S. leadership.
Ensuring that every American has access to communications
services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding. In
addition to the Universal Service Fund, removing regulatory
barriers that impede broadband deployment is critical to
connecting every American. I commend members of this
subcommittee for advancing several legislative proposals to
reform the permitting process which will help accelerate the
delivery of high-speed broadband services to homes and
businesses across the country.
In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving
universal connectivity requires increased focus on the
deployment of trusted and resilient network infrastructure. Our
communications networks are the backbone of both our economy
and our defense. From robocall scams to foreign-made network
components to infrastructure vandalism and copper theft, the
threats are evolving rapidly.
Recent Commission actions to remove foreign adversary-owned
labs from our equipment authorization process, to block illegal
robocalls from exploiting American consumers, and to garner
commitments from broadband providers to harden their network
infrastructure will enhance network integrity while allowing us
to maintain agility in responding to new and emerging threats.
U.S. leadership in next-generation technologies--6G, AI,
emerging commercial services in space, and more--hinges on our
ability to deploy high-speed and resilient communications
infrastructure to every corner of the country. Thanks to
President Trump and members of this subcommittee, the
Commission's general spectrum auction authority has been
restored, along with the creation of a long-term spectrum
pipeline. This positions America to lead in wireless innovation
and beyond. Our continued success in technological advancement
will ultimately be determined by a domestic and international
regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation, competition,
and global cooperation.
Importantly, U.S. leadership isn't inevitable. It must be
earned. I look forward to working with members of this
subcommittee, the full committee, and our interagency partners
to ensure that the United States is positioned to capture
first-mover advantages in technologies that will define the
future of our economic and national security.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
testify, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trusty follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you very much, and I would like to take a
moment of personal privilege and welcome someone I see in the
audience here: former chairman of this subcommittee and the
chairman of the full committee, Greg Walden.
Welcome back. Good to see you, sir.
We will now begin questioning, and I recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Chairman Carr, for the United States to maintain its
leadership in wireless innovation, we need to make both
licensed and unlicensed spectrum available for commercial use.
Can you tell us why a balanced spectrum policy is so
important?
Mr. Carr. Yes, U.S. leadership in wireless is part and
parcel of our geopolitical leadership. We need the full toolkit
out there, both licensed and unlicensed. In fact, on the
unlicensed side we are going to be voting at the FCC later this
month to supercharge WiFi so Americans get better, faster, more
powerful WiFi. I think it is a great complement to the other
work that we are already doing on the license side.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Trusty, do you have anything to add to that?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank you
for your leadership on spectrum policy.
I have been a proponent of an all-of-the-above approach to
spectrum policy, where we can accommodate a variety of users,
use cases, and technologies. Our immediate priority is the AWS-
3 spectrum auction that will start in June, and we are also
working on rules for the upper C-band auction, which will
create opportunities for licensed spectrum.
But we also need more spectrum for unlicensed uses, so --to
support WiFi and IoT-based applications. And we need spectrum
for satellite connectivity and space-based applications. So I
think that having licensed, unlicensed, satellite spectrum is
important for promoting innovation, investment, and
competition, and strengthening U.S. leadership in next-
generation technologies.
Mr. Hudson. I agree.
Chairman Carr, the White House recently released a
Presidential memorandum on 6G. How does this action affect your
collaboration with NTIA on identifying additional bands for
auction?
Mr. Carr. Well, thanks again to the work of you and this
committee and President Trump, we now have a real, concrete
spectrum pipeline, 800 megahertz. And as part of that we are
collaborating very closely with NTIA, with Commerce, with the
White House to make sure we are identifying the right target
bands, studying them, and staying on track. And so that is a
really good thing.
Again, we--as a country, we are behind a little bit on 3G,
but we caught up on 4G. We caught up on 5G. And now President
Trump is making sure that the U.S. leads the way on next-
generation technology too.
Mr. Hudson. Great. Chairman Carr, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, I am part of the bipartisan, bicameral
Universal Service Fund Working Group that is trying to
implement long-term reforms to ensure sustainability for USF
into the future.
How does the USF ensure that broadband remains affordable
for all Americans?
Mr. Carr. The Universal Service Fund has played a key role
over the years, ensuring connectivity for Americans all across
the country. We are doing work right now, including making sure
that we are ending any unlawful expenditures that were taking
place. We are policing better for waste, fraud, and abuse in
these programs. We are going to work collaboratively with the
bipartisan, bicameral task force that you talked about.
And more generally, on affordable, we are making some
really good progress here. Again, just recent data out,
wireless cell phone plans are down 4 percent since January 2025
alone. They are down over 7 percent from Biden-era highs. Right
when we came into office we ended a Biden-era plan that could
have spiked the price of internet services for Americans living
in apartment buildings by--at least one study--up to 50
percent. So there is a lot more work to go, but I am glad that
we are heading in the right direction.
Mr. Hudson. Great. What reform ideas should Congress
consider, particularly on the distribution side, as we evaluate
the future of the USF?
Mr. Carr. Well, one thing that is important I think
Congress is focusing on--should focus on--is technology
neutrality. You know, we want high-speed fiber connections in
so many parts of the country, but there's other places where
you are going to have fixed wireless or a new generation of low
Earth orbit satellite, or 5G or 6G. So we want to do this in a
way that makes sure that Americans get the connectivity they
expect and deserve, but we do it in the most efficient way
possible.
Mr. Hudson. I agree. So public safety communications is
also a top priority of mine. It includes everything from
upgrading our 911 systems to NG911 to ensuring that we quickly
restore communications following a disaster. Again, I
appreciate your visit to western North Carolina and looking at
this issue.
What are your top priorities in improving our public safety
communications?
Mr. Carr. Well, look, your call to 911 absolutely always
has to go through. That is a system that we never want to see
fail. And we are taking a lot of steps to harden that. We are
working to collaborate across different industry segments,
including power and utility and telecom crews so that when you
rush into a place like western North Carolina after Helene,
that we are making progress and not stepping on each other.
So we are encouraging that, and we are taking other efforts
to encourage this broader transition to all IP networks, which,
again, can really strengthen the resilience and performance of
the 911 and public safety system.
Mr. Hudson. Great, and I appreciate that. My time is
getting very low, and I can't hold everybody accountable if I
go over.
So I believe I will stop and recognize our ranking member,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Trump administration is weaponizing the FCC to punish
speech it doesn't like. A free press is supposed to hold power
accountable. Commissioner Gomez, President Trump has threatened
to revoke the licenses of NBC and ABC, claiming they are biased
and give him only bad publicity or press.
Yes or no, does the FCC have the power to take licenses
away from network affiliates solely for the content of their
news coverage?
Ms. Gomez. No, they do not.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Chairman Carr has consistently used the
FCC's news distortion policy to justify investigating
broadcasters.
Can you briefly describe the news distortion policy, and
whether in your view it allows the FCC to revoke or not renew a
broadcast license for perceived bias?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
So the news distortion policy covers local broadcasters
broadcasting news--a news about a significant event, but it
requires intentionality to mislead about a significant event,
not merely an incidental event. And it also cannot be used if
you just simply disagree with the content, and if it is just an
incidental mistake.
Now, the courts have looked at the constitutionality of the
doctrine, and what they have said is under the constitutional
scrutiny, because we are looking at deliberate distortion and
not just mere inaccuracy or a difference of opinion, that it
would uphold the constitutionality of the news distortion
policy. Under this FCC, however, we appear to be using the news
distortion policy to go after any content that we don't like--
--
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Ms. Gomez [continuing]. And using that in conjunction with
this vague public-interest standard.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Chairman Carr, the Communications Act requires broadcasters
to serve the public interest. Does that standard allow the FCC
to censor or interfere with broadcasters' free speech under the
First Amendment?
I just want a yes or no here.
Mr. Carr. What the Supreme Court has said on this issue is
that no one has a First Amendment right to a license. So the
FCC enforcing the public interest----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Standard on broadcasters, according
to the Supreme Court, doesn't violate the First Amendment and
doesn't constitute----
Ms. Matsui. So where do you come down?
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Censorship----
Ms. Matsui. Is it yes or no? Just--I want to just hear from
you yes or no.
Mr. Carr. I am sorry, could you repeat it?
Ms. Matsui. Yes or no. I mean, just don't quote the Supreme
Court. Where are you, yes or no?
Mr. Carr. Look, the FCC has an obligation to enforce the
public interest, and that is very unique----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. As to broadcasters. Again, if you
step back, broadcasters----
Ms. Matsui. OK, OK.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Are unique among all other
distributors of news information----
Ms. Matsui. OK, reclaiming----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. A license.
Ms. Matsui. I don't need a speech now. Does the public
interest include informing the public about what their
Government, including ICE, is doing in their local community?
Yes or no?
Mr. Carr. The core ingredient of the public interest
standard is to identify the needs of your local community and
make sure you are meeting that.
Ms. Matsui. OK, so it is a yes, right?
Mr. Carr. Broadcasters have an obligation to identify and
meet the needs of the local communities they serve.
Ms. Matsui. OK. When you talk about the public interest,
does the public include Americans who disagree with the
President? I just want a yes or no here.
Mr. Carr. Does the public include people that disagree with
the President?
Ms. Matsui. Who disagree----
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Ms. Matsui [continuing]. With the President. When you talk
about public interest, does that include Americans who disagree
with the President? I just want a yes or no.
Mr. Carr. Yes, the public includes people----
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. That disagrees with the President.
Ms. Matsui. 0K. In 2021 you wrote that a newsroom's
decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them
should be beyond the reach of any government official. Do you
stand by that today? Yes or no?
Mr. Carr. Yes, in that context there were members of this
committee that wrote letters to cable companies--which, again,
aren't broadcasters, no public interest obligation--and they
pressured those cable companies to drop cable channels--Fox
News, OAN, and Newsmax--because the members of this committee
described them as right-wing outlets.
Ms. Matsui. OK.
Mr. Carr. I think when the Democrats on this committee did
that, it was wrong.
Ms. Matsui. OK. So to recap, we agree that broadcasters are
protected by the First Amendment. Is that right?
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. The public interest includes informing
communities about government action. Correct?
And the FCC, a government agency, shouldn't influence
newsrooms' decisions. Correct?
OK, so why did the FCC open an investigation to into KCBS
in San Francisco after it covered the January 26 ICE raid in
San Jose?
Mr. Carr. The FCC, I believe, received either a complaint
or we heard concerns about that specific radio station, and we
have raised those concerns. I believe we have heard back from
that radio station, and we have nothing new to share to update
on that investigation.
Ms. Matsui. OK, OK.
Mr. Hudson. That is time.
Ms. Matsui. Excuse me, did I lose my time?
Mr. Hudson. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. OK. It seems like----
Mr. Hudson. Your time has expired.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
And so, Chairman Carr, I appreciate your commitment to
meeting the 800 megahertz target established in the Working
Families Tax Cut.
Can you talk about how the consumer benefits that making
spectrum more available for commercial use brings to hard-
working Americans, but focus on how it will impact prices for
hard-working Americans?
Mr. Carr. Thank you very much for the question.
Prices, according to new data just out, on the wireless
side in particular, are already down over 4 percent from
January 2025 alone. And part of this is our work to make more
spectrum available both through auction and secondary markets.
When you introduce new spectrum into a market, the data shows
that it drives down prices for consumers significantly. And so
both in our work in the secondary markets and our work in the
upcoming auctions, pushing more spectrum into the marketplace
is going to be really good for consumers.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
So Commissioner Trusty, the U.S. has led the world in
wireless innovation, including through unlicensed uses of
spectrum since--WiFi is a great example of unlicensed. It has
changed the way people connect to the internet and led to an
ecosystem of new devices that we all rely upon.
So could you--how can we foster--how can we continue to
foster this innovation and investment to ensure the United
States continues to lead the world in wireless?
Ms. Trusty. Sure, thank you for the question and thank you
for your leadership in spectrum policy.
Because we have the spectrum provisions in the Working
Families Tax Cut Act, that gives us the foundation we need to
lead the world in wireless. And so to build on that we need to
maintain predictability in our spectrum policy. So to continue
to have auction authority and a long-term spectrum pipeline, we
need to be leading in international standards-setting bodies.
We also need to maintain strong interagency coordination. And I
think we need to be investing in artificial intelligence so
that we can increase spectrum efficiency. And I think AI will
define the future of things like 6G, AI native networks, and
capabilities like integrated sensing and communications.
And to build on that, I also think we need to continue to
build trusted and secure infrastructure and develop coalitions
with our international partners and allies so that our
preferred technologies and standards achieve harmonization and
scale. I think all of those things will position us well to
lead in wireless innovation.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you, and welcome back to the
committee. I hope you are enjoying it from that side.
Ms. Trusty. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Guthrie. And I enjoyed working with my--the ranking
member of this subcommittee. We still work together, Ranking
Member Matsui, on spectrum policy. That has been a good, good
work for us.
And so Chairman Carr, could you speak to the importance of
media modernization, and why it is critical to remove outdated
regulations for incumbent industries to allow them to better
compete with Big Tech?
Mr. Carr. Well, one of the main concerns I have with
respect to media policy is you have, on the one hand, all these
individual licensed local TV stations. On the other hand, you
have these national programmers: Disney, Comcast, a handful of
others. And over the years, historically, we had a balance
between the national programmers and the licensed local TV
stations.
But recently what we have seen is those national
programmers have just consolidated and amassed a massive amount
of power, and we are losing that balance between the
programmers and the actual local TV stations. In some cases
they are becoming just a mouthpiece for programming being
produced by those national programmers.
So the thing that we are trying to push the hardest on our
media policies is to reempower those local TV stations to
compete in this modern media marketplace.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. And also, Chairman Carr, space
is expected to dominate the accompanying--upcoming World Radio
Communications conference. I think Commissioner Gomez told me
yesterday she was very--she has been very involved in the radio
communications conferences.
I am deeply concerned about what China and Russia are doing
in space. And that being said, our friends across the Atlantic
have been making it difficult for the American companies to
operate in the European market.
Chairman Carr, from your perspective, how do we posture the
U.S. for success?
And do you think there is still room for partnership with
our partners in Europe?
Mr. Carr. One thing I give credit to my predecessor,
Chairwoman Rosenworcel--honestly, she stood up a new space
bureau inside the FCC. And one thing that we are doing is
really supercharging those efforts there. Right when I came in,
we cleared out over half of the backlogs that had been there.
We recently approved a next-generation constellation into low
Earth orbit, and we did that in roughly half the time that it
had taken the FCC to approve the prior updated constellation.
And so, as you point out, China wants to dominate in low
Earth orbit and up and down all orbital slots----
Mr. Guthrie. I have about 30 seconds.
So what--in this area, what can the committee do to help?
Is there a legislative need for you, or what can we do to help
you?
Mr. Carr. You know, the FCC needs to continue to move
faster in this space, and legislative efforts to help lock that
in would be a good thing.
Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you.
I have 15 seconds left, and I will yield them back.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that, Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Hudson.
Chairman Carr, I did want to get into the local
broadcasters that you mentioned, but just as simple yes or no
initially. You recently stated that the FCC is not an
independent agency.
True? Yes or no.
Mr. Carr. I said the FCC is not, formally speaking, an
independent agency, yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. But to me, that is very much contradictory
to what you said in 2022 when you testified before this very
subcommittee and you made it clear that Congress made the
decision that the FCC is truly independent--not the President,
and certainly not you--that it is an independent agency. So I
think you, you know, you are kind of hedging a little bit when
you say that you think it is an independent agency, because I
think you have repeatedly said that it is not.
But whatever. Let me get to Commissioner Gomez.
Can you discuss the importance of the FCC's independence
from political interference, if you will?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for your question.
Congress set up the FCC as an independent agency because it
feared that the agency should not be subject to the whims of
one person or one political party. That is why we have an
independent, multimember, expert body that regulates our
communications medium.
So when we declare that we are not independent, what we are
doing is, A, we are not recognizing what Congress wanted when
it created the--this independent agency, but we are also
putting way too much power into one person and then doing their
political whims.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that, and I do think, Chairman
Carr, that you don't--you know, your repeated comments do not
suggest that you think it is an independent agency.
But I don't want to get into all the details because I do
want to get to this local broadcaster issue which you mentioned
before, because I think local broadcasters are some of the most
powerful voices shaping public opinion at the local level. And
the FCC has adopted and enforced ownership restrictions to
ensure the needs of local communities are met, and that is why
I have concerns with any further relaxation of that ownership.
And I also want to remind you that Congress set the maximum
reach for entities owning TV stations at 39 percent of national
television audience households, and I--only Congress can change
that threshold.
So let me ask you, Chairman, do you agree that only
Congress has the authority to raise the national ownership cap?
Mr. Carr. The position of the FCC consistently over the
prior four Chairs, Republican and Democrats alike, has always
been that the 39 percent cap is a rule that the FCC has on our
code of regulations. And as a general matter, I really agree
with you on the need to reinvigorate----
Mr. Pallone. Right.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. The local broadcasters.
Mr. Pallone. But you are saying, then, that you don't
think--you think you can raise it on your own, the Commission
can.
Mr. Carr. These are issues that we are looking at right
now. I am just saying----
Mr. Pallone. Well, I mean, yes or no, you believe that you
can raise the cap on your own. You are saying it is a
regulation, not a statute?
Mr. Carr. We are looking at that right now. I am saying
that if you look at the last, you know, four FCC Chairs across
Republican and Democrat, the FCC has consistently been----
Mr. Pallone. Well, I don't think you are answering my
question, but let--again, let me move on.
Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with Chairman Carr?
And, well, I guess he didn't really say anything, so let me
ask you: What impact do you think any relaxation of this 39
percent would have on consumers?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
So yes, the 39 percent ownership cap is, in fact, in the
statute. The Congress amended the Communications Act when it
imposed the 39 percent ownership cap. So I don't think that we
have the authority to waive that. It is not just a rule. Rules
are how we implement the Act.
I believe consolidation is worrisome. I travel all over the
country and I meet with local broadcasters, and I am always so
impressed with their commitment to their communities and to
serving their communities. What I fear is that this
consolidation is going to enable behemoth corporate parents to
take those local broadcasters and to create ``efficiencies''
that will, in fact, water down local news and then lead to less
service for their communities, not more.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Let me--one more question.
There has been a lot of discussion with the Chairman about
the public interest or the public interest standard, but I
really believe that under Chairman Carr's leadership the FCC
has really not served the public interest but rather the
personal or political interests of President Trump.
So let me ask you, Commissioner Gomez, has the FCC under
Chair Carr's leadership been guided by the public interest
standard, as you would expect, especially when it echoes
President Trump's threats to take away broadcast licenses for
merely criticizing him? How is that in the public interest?
Ms. Gomez. Fundamentally, it is important to note that we
are subject to the First Amendment and to the Communications
Act prohibition on censorship. We cannot use this vague and
undefined and unchecked term ``the public interest'' in order
to go after any content we don't like.
What we are seeing on this--under this administration is
retaliation against speech and reporting that this
administration doesn't want in order to get coverage that this
administration wants. That is not a good use of the public
interest standard, and we need to define what we mean by that.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Hudson, and also Chairman
Carr and other members of the Commission for being here today
and--anyway, thank you for your service. It is great, even
under the duress that you are dealing with, but--which I really
apologize for.
But anyway, Chairman Carr, last March 73 Members of
Congress, including myself, sent a letter to your Commission
calling for immediate action to update outdated ownership
regulations. Our letter emphasized the need for rules that
reflect today's competitive media landscape, where local
broadcasters face unprecedented challenges competing with the
unregulated Big Tech platforms.
Could you provide us with a status update on this issue?
And as I understand it, with the local broadcasters, it is a
matter of survival. I mean, this is a real problem. Could you
update us on that?
Mr. Carr. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question and
for your leadership on this issue.
The FCC has a couple of active proceedings underway where
we are looking at this. Again, my, you know, North Star through
all this media policy is I am not interested in seeing the
national programmers, Disney and Comcast, amass any more power
than they already have. I think one thing that we have to try
to look at, whether it is this proceeding or otherwise, is how
do we create some better structural competition to them
because, to your point, if you look at local news right now, it
is principally being driven by local broadcasters.
We used to have thousands of local newspapers across the
country. I know in your experience you are seeing them close
down or at least stop physically printing by the dozen.
What I don't want to see, and I think the conversation that
we should have in Congress, is if we care about local news and
local reporting, how do we make sure that those local TV
stations continue to be economically viable because we don't
want them to go the way of so many newspapers. I don't think we
would be better off as a country if we lost them.
Mr. Allen. And, you know, again, it is run by local folks
who live in the community, who work in the community, who
contribute to the community. And I don't see how being part of
a bigger organization to survive, you know, the current
turmoil, if you would say, in this industry and expansion in
this industry is--I think it is, you know, I think it is
important that we have that local influence.
You have made empowering local broadcasters a centerpiece
of your agenda. One such way has been your oversight of
retransmission consent fees, ensuring that they are used as
Congress intended--that is, by local broadcasters for a program
that serves the local community.
Can you update us on your oversight of the retransmission
consent regime and explain why this is so important?
Mr. Carr. Well, one issue that we are looking at is those
agreements, the affiliate agreements between the local TV
stations on the one hand and those national programs on the
other. We are looking at lots of different ways to help empower
that.
Retrans is a very complex issue. On the one hand, we are
seeing declining revenues at a lot of local TV stations. At the
same time, the national programmers will say they need to
maintain scale themselves to continue to compete for expensive
sports rights. And so we have to try to find a right balance
between having the financial capability of local TV stations to
invest in local news and reporting, but also making sure that
they have, you know, the national sports rights that people
expect and demand. So it is a complex issue, but we are looking
at it.
Mr. Allen. Yes, yes, there is nothing worse than having the
national championship and then all of a sudden you find out,
oh, I can't get it on my television, yes.
But we know that in 2027 China will host the next World
Radio Conference, an international conference that will set
global rules for using spectrum. Under the last administration,
domestic disputes between Federal agencies about how spectrum
should be used sidelined the United States and allowed other
countries to pick the spectrum bands for next-generation
networks. As a result, the United States now trails the world
on midband spectrum for wireless broadband.
What does the United States need to do to ensure it is
ready for the next World Radio Conference?
How can we ensure that the United States, and not China, is
driving global spectrum focus at this conference?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. I think you are right. If
you look back at past radio conferences, there was some gaps
between different Federal agencies in terms of their positions.
That doesn't put us on the strongest possible footing.
You know, thankfully, President Trump has been very clear
to every agency that the United States is going to lead the
world in next-generation technology, and that has resulted in a
lot of close collaboration from the FCC, NTIA, Commerce, the
White House, and hopefully, you know, we continue to make a
very strong, unified position because we know China and others
are going to be very unified going into that, and so we need a
strong U.S. position, as well.
Mr. Allen. Good, great.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Thank you for your service.
And I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
President Trump has the most corrupt administration in
modern history: a $2 billion cryptocurrency scandal, pay-to-
play pardons, pardoning January 6 insurrectionists, an Epstein
pedophile coverup, White House ballrooms that are lavish, and
the Trump family getting rich off of official U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and beyond. And when
the national media like CBS, ABC, and NBC cover these egregious
scandals or use satire, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr tried to
crush them using his power as FCC Chairman.
CBS covers the cryptocurrency corruption, pardon of the
Binance founder. Then CBS is forced to install a bias monitor.
Two days after the merger approval, under pressure from Carr
and Trump, along with an extortion payment of $16 million,
ABC's Jimmy Kimmel uses satire to criticize Trump. Carr
threatens their license. NBC's Seth Meyers uses satire to
criticize Trump. Chairman Carr echoes Trump's call for Meyers'
ouster.
Chairman, you have turned the FCC into Trump's attack dog
to crush First Amendment rights through FCC extortion. The
Chinese Communist Party would be impressed. There was a time
when you passionately defended First Amendment rights. In fact,
you and I tangoed over COVID and issues related to that.
So how do you justify using the FCC to censor news and
satire of Trump's rampant corruption?
Mr. Carr. Broadcasters have an obligation to operate in the
public interest, and in 2021----
Mr. Soto. Is it not the public interest----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Wrote this letter right here to the
FCC, asking us to take action when there was a transaction
pending at the FCC involving a Spanish-language radio station
in south Florida.
Mr. Soto. Is it not in the public interest----
Mr. Carr. You talk about disinformation and pressuring the
FCC----
Mr. Soto [continuing]. For people to know about the
corruption that is happening in this administration?
Mr. Carr [continuing]. And then Democrats step in and say,
to win in 2022, this must stop, pressuring the FCC to block a
sale because Democrats thought it would be bad for their----
Mr. Soto. Reclaiming my time, you serve the American
people.
Mr. Carr. And after that----
Mr. Soto. What is at issue----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Go through.
Mr. Soto [continuing]. Is blatant corruption by the Trump
administration and you trying to hide it, and everybody knows
it.
Commissioner Gomez, one day Chairman Carr's reign of un-
American censorship will be over.
How do we restore public confidence in the FCC after this
national censorship scandal?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
I think Congress can really help us here by putting
guardrails on the FCC so that it cannot violate the First
Amendment and censor content on broadcasters.
Mr. Soto. And what do you think those guardrails should be?
Ms. Gomez. I think defining the public--what it means to
serve in the public interest would be very helpful.
Mr. Soto. Do you think highlighting corruption is in the
public interest?
Ms. Gomez. I think the FCC should stay out of content,
whether we like it or not. And that is the problem, is this
administration wants to retaliate against news organizations
that have the temerity to report factually about this
administration.
Mr. Soto. Well, the history books will not be kind to that.
It has been over a year since Trump took office, and we
still don't have rural broadband in rural communities like mine
and others. You came to my district a while back in Orlando to
hear from veterans who utilize internet to help with their
healthcare.
What has the effect been of the BEAD program still not
being rolled out across America with regard to consumers?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, it is so important for us to be able to
participate in this economy today, the digital economy, to have
access to affordable broadband. And the communities that don't
have that are getting further and further left behind.
And as you know, when we came we were talking about the
Affordable Connectivity Program and how important that was to
veterans to be able to make their meetings and their healthcare
appointments without having to, in fact, travel. It saved them
days of painful travel. So we need to focus on this issue so
that every American can have access to affordable and
accessible broadband, especially if we want to be world leaders
in artificial intelligence.
Mr. Soto. And----
Ms. Gomez. It is so important.
Mr. Soto. And what happens to rural businesses, farms,
ranches when they don't have access to high-speed broadband?
Ms. Gomez. If you don't have access to high-speed
broadband, you really are at risk of being left behind. It is
an imperative in today's economy, in this digital economy, to
have access to broadband.
Mr. Soto. Thanks, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Latta, for----
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you----
Mr. Hudson [continuing]. Five minutes for your questions.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Commission for being with us today, Chairman Carr, Commissioner
Gomez, and Commissioner Trusty, and congratulations. It is
great since you have been in my office years back to follow
your career. Congratulations.
Chairman Carr, to start off with the BEAD program, how much
shovels in the ground were there in the Biden administration?
Mr. Carr. The BEAD program was President Biden's $42
billion plan to connect millions of Americans to high-speed
internet. And after over 1,000 days of the Biden administration
implementing it, not a single shovel's worth of dirt was
turned.
Now, President Trump and Secretary Lutnick and NTIA
Administrator Roth have come in, and they have turned that
program around, and we are finally going to be seeing dirt
turning and Americans getting connected.
Mr. Latta. So I just want to make sure I heard that
correctly. Nothing happened in the Biden administration.
Let me turn to another topic I know that you and I talked
about through the years, especially when we had this spectrum
authority auction lapse, you know, because how far did we fall
behind in this country when we didn't have that authority to
sell spectrum?
And the other question I would like to ask is this, because
it is always one of the things we always worry about: How much
money did we lose in that timeframe from not being able to have
that auction authority?
Mr. Carr. Yes, during the Biden administration the FCC's
Spectrum Auction Authority lapsed for the very first time ever,
and that enabled other countries, China and others, to leapfrog
the United States. We fell several hundred megahertz behind
them. But thankfully, this Congress came together, President
Trump came together and passed a Working Families Tax Cut that
created a strong pipeline of 800 megahertz.
And again, every time you bring spectrum online, that
drives down prices for consumers, and so that is what we are
doing right now.
Mr. Latta. So if I understood that correctly, it was during
the Biden administration that authority lapsed.
Let me ask you another question, because this just came in.
I know that we talked about this 3 years, and I worked on
legislation on robocalls and trying to protect the public out
there. What is that--and I know that in reading your testimony
that the Commission wants to move forward and make sure that we
protect people out there from these robocalls that people are
getting.
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you.
Robocalls, obviously, are our number-one consumer
complaint. And right now we are building on the long-term
bipartisan work of the agency on this. One thing we are doing
is historically the FCC would focus on a very small number of
robocalls that generated a lot of calls, and they would fine
them hundreds of millions of dollars, but those fines would
largely go uncollected. And what we are doing now is we are
picking up on something we did in the last administration,
which is to kick providers out of our robocall mitigation
database if they are not doing enough to fight illegal
robocalls, and that effectively cuts them off from the U.S.
telephone network.
And more generally, we are going at every single portion of
the life cycle of illegal robocalls, and making it harder for
the bad actors to get their calls through, including we are
looking particularly at foreign-originated illegal robocalls.
Mr. Latta. Well, I know the American public out there is
going to appreciate your work on that, because I know I just
got a call the other day from a constituent that had problems
with robocalls coming into their business.
Commissioner Trusty, you know where I am from and what
our--my area looks like. And there's areas out there, of
course, that we don't have broadband. And I know I worked years
back making sure that we had accurate maps before we would
spend money to make sure that dollars were spent. In your
testimony you talk about some of the things you are really
focusing on, and one of the things I think is really important
you talk about is when we are talking about rural healthcare
and telehealth. And I know when I am in my rural hospitals,
they can't afford to have a lot of different programs you might
see or docs doing certain procedures, or especially on the
mental health side.
Could you just elaborate a little bit on the mental health
side and the telehealth side?
Ms. Trusty. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question.
As you know, the rural healthcare program ensures that
rural patients have access to modern quality healthcare,
including telehealth. And the FCC has made some process
improvements to improve access to this essential program by
extending the application deadline, by making sure funding
aligns with demands. And we have been able to roll over unused
funds for this year--or for 2025--to ensure that we increase
access to this important service.
I think as part of the USF congressional working group
there is another opportunity to explore additional reforms that
can be made to this program to ensure that Americans in rural
communities across the country have access to the quality care
that they need.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
If I could just return to you, Commissioner Carr, just real
quickly, because we had discussions when we talked about 4G,
5G, 6G, and I would always ask this question: Are we winning
the race? And you know, who is our competitor out there?
We got to win this race. So are we winning this race out
there when we talk about 6G?
Mr. Carr. We are. We had fallen behind, in my view, during
the Biden years, and now we have hit the accelerator and we are
going to be leading the world once again in next generation
technology.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
My time has expired, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
Representative of New York, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes for your
questions.
Ms. Clarke. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Hudson,
Ranking Member Matsui, for convening this hearing. Given the
actions of the FCC under Chairman Carr, it is long overdue.
Less than 1 year into his tenure, the FCC under Chairman
Carr has given this committee many worthy avenues of
exploration and oversight, most of which appear to stem from
his new role as an obsequious partisan fulfilling President
Trump's desire to exact revenge on his perceived enemies and
line the pockets of the oligarch class.
While appearing before this committee less than 4 years ago
under the Biden administration, then-Commissioner Carr rightly
acknowledged the independence of the FCC, free from executive
branch interference, but recently made clear that under the
Trump administration that independence is gone. While this may
seem like a shocking about-face, it shouldn't be that
surprising, given Mr. Carr's role as author of the horrific
Project 2025 manifesto as well as the frankly bizarre choice to
wear a golden lapel pin bearing President Trump's face.
The weaponization of the FCC under Chairman Carr is not
just frustrating but dangerous, dangerous for the Nation and
the ideals upon which it was founded. Individuals' freedom of
speech and a press corps free from political intimidation are
vital to a democracy. It is what also allows informed citizens
to speak their minds without fear of government reprisal and
serves as an important check on those in power. Unfortunately,
these ideals are lost under this iteration of the FCC, which
appears bound to the whims of a President intent on punishing
those who report accurately on his unsettling behavior.
Because my time is limited, I can't possibly list every
example of the weaponization of the FCC in the last year, but a
few that come to mind include reinstating complaints against
news organizations that were critical of Trump during the
election, while failing to reinstate a petition filed against
the President's media outlet of choice, Fox; ordering baseless
investigations into NPR and PBS; using mergers to extract
political revenge; and more, such as withholding approval of
the Paramount-Skydance merger until Trump's personal lawsuit
was settled with financial payment; launching a ridiculous
investigation into KCBS in San Jose for merely reporting on ICE
activity in their own community; threatening to unilaterally
alter national media ownership limits, which would reduce
diversity in media and further endanger local news; overtly
partisan reinterpretations of the FCC's public interest
standard and news distortion policies to enact a regime of
censorship; and most notably the overt threatening of licenses
of broadcasters for carrying the Jimmy Kimmel Live show.
To the last point, Senator Cruz, who I rarely agree with,
aptly described Chairman Carr's threats as akin to something
out of a mafia movie. And let me just say I don't see any
Michael Corleones in this room today. Only Alfredo.
So my question is to Commissioner Gomez. For nearly 90
years, the FCC has functioned as an independent agency to
insulate communications policy from political pressure.
Can you explain why the FCC's independence is essential to
its credibility and effectiveness, and what potential risks
arise as that independence is eroded?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
You know, when Congress created our predecessor, the
Federal Radio Commission, it considered putting the Commission
under the Department of Commerce. And Herbert Hoover at the
time said it was a terrible idea because it was dangerous to
have the regulator of the most important communications medium
at the time being overseen by a single person, and so that is
why it created an independent agency.
It is important to have an independent agency because we
must be seen as an expert body that makes decisions based on
that expertise and not based on the political whims of one
administration.
Ms. Clarke. Commissioner Gomez, how do FCC media ownership
caps support diversity of viewpoints and locally focused news?
And what do communities risk losing if these limits are
weakened?
Ms. Gomez. Our core principles when we talk about the
public interest in local broadcasting are localism, diversity
of viewpoints, and competition. The caps ensure that we have
multiple voices in every market. That is why we have them. We
want to ensure that we have that. If we lose those caps, what
we are going to lose is that diversity of viewpoints, and we
risk having one voice funneling all the information to our
voters.
Ms. Clarke. With that I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5
minutes for your questions.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. My questions are for
Chairman Carr.
In addition to serving on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, I am a member of the Select Committee on China.
Under that role I recently led a letter with Chairman Moolenaar
to your office regarding specific concerns about Chinese fiber
technology entering our country and the security concerns it
brings to the United States.
The FCC and Congress has already done a great job to
protect our networks from these threats, but the concern
remains. Just last week the Financial Times reported a new
China-backed hack of congressional staff email accounts.
Can you outline, Mr. Chairman, what actions you are
continuing to take to identify and address adversarial threats
to U.S. telecommunications infrastructure?
And can you confirm that you will continue--again, have all
the necessary tools at your disposal to adequately address
these concerns without additional congressional approvals?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman, for the question, for
your leadership on this important issue.
So one of the very first things I did as Chair was to stand
up within the FCC a new Council on National Security that
brings together all of our bureaus and offices and their
expertise to bear on this issue because China and other foreign
actors are constantly poking and prodding and finding--looking
for ways into our communications network.
We have taken actions on what we call bad labs to try to
kick out equipment authorization bodies that aren't
trustworthy. We have taken action to implement the Secure
Equipment Act, and with cybersecurity in particular we worked
directly with carriers to ensure that they are taking renewed
actions to accelerate the patching of vulnerable equipment,
updating and reviewing their access controls, disabling
unnecessary outbound connections.
And the key to this is we have to be very, very nimble and
make sure that carriers and our country's national security
expertise, including CISA and DHS, are very closely
collaborating because you need very quick reactions, given the
types of threats we are seeing.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Again, a question for the
Chairman.
In your written testimony you devote a section to the
deregulatory actions the FCC has engaged in under your
leadership. This includes removal of over 1,100 rules and
regulations. I applaud these actions, especially as this
committee is working on its own permitting reform package to
streamline the process.
Beyond the baseline number of regulations removed, is there
any way to quantify how much time and/or money is saved by
these actions?
How would you describe these changes to the typical
American taxpayer and internet user? I think that is very
important.
Mr. Carr. We----
Mr. Bilirakis. If you could respond, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Carr. Yes, thank you, Congressman. The easiest way to
put it is that it historically just--it costs too much and it
takes too long to build out internet infrastructure in this
country. And that means communities that are on the edge case
of new or additional or better service can get left behind. And
so we are working hard at the FCC on permitting reform and
cutting red tape, and that is going to be key to making sure
that we keep driving down prices for Americans.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. For the last several weeks the
news has been inundated with the discovery of mass amounts of
fraud within our Federal programs. What are the safeguards at
the FCC to help guard against fraud?
And in light of what is happening with the improper
payments within other agencies, is this something you are
considering taking a look at and updating?
Mr. Carr. We are in the midst of continuing to reinvigorate
our work to detect and root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Just
recently we took action, for instance, with respect to
California. California had a State Lifeline program that had
decided that they were going to stop sharing relevant
information with certain Federal agencies, and that opened the
door to potential waste, fraud, and abuse. So we revoked
California's ability to opt out of that program, and now we are
putting everybody through this national database.
We are also finalizing some work right now on some
additional steps that we can take with respect to our Lifeline
program to make sure that those benefits are flowing only to
those Americans that Congress intended them to.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
And now I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Peters, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
important oversight hearing.
In 2021 Congress voted to invest a total of $65 billion in
the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, or BEAD, to
advance universal broadband access, with over $1.8 billion
reserved for my home State of California. By the end of the
Biden administration, State deployment offices had made
progress through the long process requirements, guidelines, and
mandated studies included in law. They made awards to grantees
who were committed to building fiber lines to hard-to-reach
areas and strengthening connectivity in underserved areas.
However, lamentably, there were no shovels in the ground,
and I was one of the people who joined Republicans to criticize
how long it had taken for that to happen and to be an advocate
for permanent reform in this field and in others. But by the
beginning of 2025, States were ready to build their--begin
their build-outs, and the Trump administration decided to issue
new regulations which halted any progress. So we are back where
we started. We are no better off, and progress is still stalled
today as the administration holds the BEAD program's funding
hostage.
The Federal Communications Commission is guided by the
principle that all Americans should have access to
communications services. The Trump administration's pause on
BEAD funding broadband build-out for over a year goes directly
against this principle and continues the very things I joined
Republicans to be critical of under the Biden administration.
Ms. Gomez, how did delays in broadband deployment affect
the FCC's abilities to meet its goal of making affordable
connectivity accessible to all Americans?
And how can we ensure that people have the skills to take
advantage of broadband once it is deployed?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
We want to get broadband to every community everywhere as
soon as possible because we really risk leaving people further
and further behind. And I am afraid that we will go from having
a digital divide to a digital chasm if we don't do that.
But I am glad that you raise the totality of what Congress
did with the Broadband Equity and Access program, because one
thing we cannot ignore is that we need affordability and we
need people to have the digital skills in order to take
advantage of broadband that will give them access to this
digital economy. And I am afraid that this administration has
completely lost its focus on that, and that is why I say I am
afraid that, if we don't ensure that these networks are
sustainable but making sure that everyone can use them and
afford them, we are going to be building bridges to nowhere.
Mr. Peters. Right. Well, I share that concern, and thank
you. And I think it is critical that we invest in and continue
to improve programs like the Universal Service Fund to support
affordable rates in underserved areas and rural access to hard-
to-reach areas.
And again, when I first came to Congress we were all
talking about rural broadband and how important that was. I
think the pandemic showed us that the digital divide exists
even in wealthy neighborhoods like the ones that I serve, and I
think we should get at it.
Along the lines of permanent reform, last year I joined
with my colleagues, Representatives Joyce and Landman, to
introduce the bipartisan Broadband and Telecommunications Rail
Act. We have heard that when broadband companies try to build
out communications infrastructure across railroad crossings,
the costs and approval times skyrocket. To streamline the
deployment process between broadband providers and railroad
carriers, the bill would implement firm timelines, conflict
resolution processes, and fee scales to help the FCC move
faster in support of the public interest. It would outline the
responsibility of each party and give the FCC authority where
it previously had none.
Commissioner Gomez, how would granting the FCC authority
over this process speed up access to fast, reliable, and
affordable connectivity?
And are there other areas in broadband deployment that the
FCC does not currently but should have jurisdiction?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, and I am very
supportive of streamlining approvals and particularly of your
bill's focus on making sure that the costs that are being
recovered are actually the costs of providing those approvals,
and that, I think, is very important.
So I think it is very helpful when Congress gives us
instructions on what it is that we are supposed to do,
particularly in the area where we are, in fact, acting to
either preempt local regulations or tell others what we think
that they should be doing. So I look forward to working with
you in the future on this.
Mr. Peters. Great. Maybe, Commissioner Trusty, any other
areas in broadband deployment where the FCC needs jurisdiction,
we need to give you jurisdiction?
Ms. Trusty. Well, thank you for the question and thank you
for your work on this bipartisan legislation.
The Commission is working on a number of fronts to remove
regulatory barriers that impede the deployment of broadband,
whether it is pole attachments, environmental or historic
reviews, and expanding access to rights-of-way. I think all of
these things will help us accelerate access to connectivity.
Mr. Peters. Well, keep us posted on that.
I am out of time, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Georgia,
Representative Carter, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
all of you for being here.
Chairman Carr, there has been a lot of ink here recently in
the past few months or so regarding the streaming market and
competition, and there has been a lot of confusion about
regulatory jurisdiction in this space. Do you care to give us a
view on the current landscape?
Mr. Carr. Well, streaming is something that we stay
apprised of at the FCC. It is adjacent to markets that we
directly regulate, and it is intertwined. And I think there
is--has been concern increasingly expressed recently about
consolidation in the streaming market, and potentially further
consolidation in the streaming market that could potentially
harm consumers.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great. Thank you, Chairman Carr, and
I am going to jump into--straight into some of my next inquiry
regarding broadband permitting reform. And as you know, I have
introduced the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025 to
help cut red tape and to speed broadband build-out and to close
the digital divide across America, which has been passed on to
the full committee and awaits further consideration.
Chairman Carr, I appreciate your support for my legislation
in your testimony, and I want to ask you, why is it important
for Congress to pass my legislation codifying your reforms?
And what kinds of steps is the FCC exploring to address
State and local barriers to fixed and mobile broadband
deployment?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your leadership
on permitting reform. I had the chance to visit with you in
Georgia and actually splice fiber at an active build. And as we
saw there and other places around the country, we have to make
sure--that is a tough job, it is a difficult job, but we
shouldn't have red tape standing in the way. And I continue to
think one of the most important things that can happen is to
pass that package of permitting reform bills to make sure that
we keep turning dirt.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. I want to highlight another
permitting national security issue regarding undersea cables.
This is something that I have taken an interest in because it
is critical broadband infrastructure that carries over 95
percent of international data traffic. I have got a bill that
is called the Undersea Cables Protection Act, which will
eliminate the need for redundant, 5-year special use permits in
national marine sanctuaries to streamline duplicate permitting
that is significantly slowing down the deployment of cables.
Chairman Carr, can you explain why slow-rolling subsea
cable infrastructure is a threat to national security?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Congressman, for working on
this.
Most consumers probably don't realize it, but, to your
view, over 95 percent of all internet traffic ultimately
travels over undersea cable. So we are working at the FCC right
now to incentivize secure investment, new undersea cables,
cybersecurity requirements for some of the technology that is
in there, and I think your legislation would go a long way to
promoting greater, securer build-out of that critical
infrastructure.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. And a lot of this information is in
financial markets as well, isn't it?
Mr. Carr. That is right.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Commissioner Trusty, I want to ask
you, the Commission recently issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking on subsea cables that also addressed the importance
of speeding the deployment of cables.
Can you talk a little bit about how the FCC plans to
expedite the permitting and licensing process generally and why
facilitating the deployment of cables is so important?
Ms. Trusty. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for your
leadership on this issue.
So last year, in August, the FCC adopted a proceeding where
we streamlined the licensing and permitting processes for
undersea cables. We updated outdated rules, we established
faster processing timelines for eligible applicants, and we cut
unnecessary administrative steps or disclosures. And that helps
to promote the fast and efficient deployment of undersea
cables, which is essential for our economic and national
security.
This positions us to be able to promote more U.S.-led cable
projects, to diversify our subsea traffic routes so in the
event of sabotage or compromise there is no single point of
failure, and it means we can strengthen our disaster recovery
and emergency response plans. So it really helps with
redundancy in this critical infrastructure.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. And it would be naive of us to think
that this wouldn't be used as a weapon at some point.
Ms. Trusty. That is right.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Well, thank you, Chairman Carr and
Commissioner Trusty. I am going to do the chairman a favor and
give him back almost a minute.
And I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Ruiz, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Look, I want to begin by addressing the troublesome
direction Chairman Carr has taken the FCC. He is a tool of
President Trump's Project 2025 agenda to suppress freedom of
speech and those who criticize Trump, and to forcefully favor
Trump's billionaire friends and supporters in order to control
the content.
One: Publicly criticizing Jimmy Kimmel Live over their
content criticizing Trump, leading ABC and some affiliates to
pull the show out of fear of a Department of Justice lawsuit
and threats of pulling their license.
Two: Reopened complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC
affiliates for alleged ``news distortion'' while ignoring
similar complaints against other networks that support
President Trump.
Three: Linked investigations to license reviews and looked
into platforms like YouTube and Comcast, NBC Universal, sending
a message that what companies say or do could be closely
watched, overly scrutinized by the FCC.
Oh, and finally, for overseeing and facilitating media
consolidation, specifically the proposed Nexstar-TEGNA merger,
which is owned by one of Trump's besties and supporters, and
would give one company unprecedented reach to over 80 percent
of households in America, controlling the content, threatening
competition, weakening local journalism, and driving up costs
for consumers.
The Trump administration does not care about everyday
Americans. They care about power, about control, and their
billionaire friends. They care about making the rich richer and
pushing their own agendas to suppress criticism of Trump and
limit what Americans see on TV to control the message and push
his propaganda. That is not America, and that shouldn't be
happening in America. Americans deserve an FCC that protects
free expression and ensures all communities have access to
diverse content.
Commissioner Gomez, what concerns do you have on the
Nexstar-TEGNA merger and Chairman Carr raising the national
audience cap from 39 to 54.5 percent illegally on a special
deal to benefit Trump's friends?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
What we fundamentally want is we want local communities to
get information about their local communities. And what happens
when we have too much consolidation by these national
corporations that own these local broadcasters is we lose the
diversity of voices and we lose that local news content that we
have. Couple that with the defunding of public media, and we
are also losing even more voices in our local communities.
Now, the 39 percent ownership cap is in the statute. I
don't think we can waive it. I think it would take an act of
Congress in order to allow us to be able to grant a transaction
of this size because of the fact that not only is the 39
percent cap in the statute, it is also--we were forbidden from
forbearing from that cap.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you. The Trump administration
has failed to ease the financial burden on everyday Americans.
Their actions have raised costs. Specifically, they opposed
several Federal initiatives, including the Broadband Equity
Access and Deployment Program, State Broadband Price
Regulation, and the Universal Service Fund, all of which would
raise costs.
One of these programs, the USF, is crucial for ensuring
that communities in the Coachella, San Jacinto, and Imperial
Valleys have access to reliable and affordable broadband and
telephone services. Through programs like Lifeline, USF
provides direct discounts to low-income households, helping
students, agricultural workers, and families stay connected
while also supporting broadband deployment in rural and
underserved areas where service would otherwise be too costly.
USF alone helps expand essential services and promotes more
affordable and competitive broadband options for residents.
Commissioner Trusty, in your confirmation you highlighted
your commitment to ``considering adjustments to USF programs to
better target resources to underserved communities.''
Do you still maintain that commitment?
Ms. Trusty. Yes, I do.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. And would you commit to working with
Members of Congress before the FCC releases any rulemaking or
public notices on changes to USF programs?
Ms. Trusty. I am always happy to work with Congress.
Mr. Ruiz. Will you commit to work before any changes are
made?
Ms. Trusty. I am always happy to commit to work to
Congress.
Mr. Ruiz. I will take that as yes, and I am going to take
your word for it.
Ms. Trusty. I am always happy to work with Congress.
Mr. Ruiz. Without these programs, households face barriers
to education, telehealth, and emergency communications, leaving
them disconnected from opportunities and civic life. We cannot
discuss fairness and media oversight without addressing the
systemic barriers that leave communities behind, and I am tired
of seeing time and time again how the Trump administration
hurts Americans and make their everyday lives more costly. It
is time to hold them accountable.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Representative Fry, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
witnesses for being here. Chairman Carr, Commissioners, I
really appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today.
Commissioner Trusty, I understand that you had recently
attended a conference in Dubai, and I am curious your thoughts
on that conference, just briefly, and what we need to do to
ensure that the U.S. has a more unified position going into the
conference in 2027. It seems critically important, given the
conference is being held in China, of all places.
Ms. Trusty. Yes, thank you so much for the question.
So, as you know, the WRC 2023 was held in Dubai, and the
unfortunate issue for the United States was that we didn't have
auction authority, we didn't have a long-term spectrum
pipeline, and we didn't have a unified strategy. And so we were
sidelined from very important discussions, which meant that we
couldn't emerge from that conference with wins.
Now, thanks to leadership from members of this
subcommittee, we have auction authority, we have a long-term
spectrum pipeline, and I think that gives us a foundation to
develop a unified strategy where we can focus on key U.S.
interests, working with our international allies in advance of
WRC 2027, to emerge from this conference with wins.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Obviously, you know, during the first Trump administration
they unlocked additional 6 gigahertz of bandwidth. In 2020,
when the first Trump administration made that available, nearly
70 countries followed our lead. Now China is trying to
undermine those efforts in Europe, and we are hearing good
things, obviously, now out of the Trump administration
defending that abroad.
But have you talked--you have talked about the importance
of WiFi to the American innovation. Can you explain why it is
pivotal that America lead on WiFi?
Ms. Trusty. Absolutely. So as I mentioned a little bit
earlier, I have been a proponent of an all-of-the-above
approach to spectrum policy, where we are accommodating a
variety of users, use cases, and technologies. When you look at
things like CBRS, you know, the United States has long been a
leader in innovative uses of spectrum, and CBRS is a model for
that. It accommodates the military, transportation, logistics,
tracking, schools, hospitals, and much more.
And so my job at the FCC is to ensure spectrum is being put
to its highest and best use. But given all of the use cases, I
think it emphasizes the meaningful benefit of CBRS and
unlicensed spectrum.
Mr. Fry. Thank you so much for that.
Commissioner Gomez, I appreciated your comments earlier
about, I think, the--that--maybe the mission, in your opinion,
of the FCC has shifted, that you are not supposed to police
speech, that you are drifting from the mission. Those are some
of the comments that I think you made. But I am curious.
In 2023 the Senate Majority Leader and House Minority
Leader Hakeem Jeffries sent a letter to Fox News regarding
their coverage of the 2020 election, pressuring private news
outlet owners to order specific shows and hosts to change their
political coverage and issue compelled, on-air statements
solely because they disagreed with that coverage.
Although you were not on the Commission at the time, based
on your opening statements, do you condemn those attempts by
Democrats to censor free speech and journalism?
Ms. Gomez. The First Amendment prohibits government
interference in free speech. And so, in my view, the FCC should
not be engaged in any activities that lead to either policing,
bias, or pressuring newsrooms into how to report the news. So
we should not be regulating content.
Mr. Fry. So----
Ms. Gomez. At all.
Mr. Fry [continuing]. It would be fair to say that you
would disagree with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' letter
to Fox News?
Ms. Gomez. I think that to the extent any actions to
pressure news by the Government has led to the abuses that you
are seeing under this administration, we should reconsider it.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. I am glad to hear you that you
disagree with that.
Would you also--in 2023, progressive activists petitioned
the FCC to deny the renewal of a WTXF-TV's broadcast license,
Fox 29 out of Philadelphia, arguing that Fox's--Fox News' 2020
election coverage rendered the licensee unfit for the public
interest and character standards. The FCC issued a public
notice, treated the matter as a permit, but disclosed
proceeding and formally invited public comment on whether the
Fox 29 license should be renewed. It was only after the 2024
election that the Commission dismissed the petition and renewed
that license.
Commissioner Gomez, during that period when the petition
was pending and the FCC was actively taking comments on whether
Fox 29's license should be renewed based on coverage, did you
issue any public statement condemning the use of the public
interest and character standards to attack the station's
license over election-related speech?
Ms. Gomez. I am so glad you raised the issue of the Fox
petition to deny by an outside party, because it gives me the
opportunity to talk to you about what is different today. That
was a petition to deny a license renewal, and it was treated
like other petitions to renew licenses.
In this case, what we are seeing is the FCC using
complaints by a partisan group in order to police content and
in order to harass and in order to affect how these stations
are actually giving us the news, and that is light years
different.
What you didn't see under the last administration was the
last administration investigating news outlets for the content
of their broadcasts. You didn't see them using the public
comment cycle in order to ask them, did a station violate any
FCC rules? That is not what we do.
Mr. Fry. No, they just did that----
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Fry. They just did that directly for----
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Fry. To say that they did not engage in----
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
I gave a lot of extra time for the witness to answer, but
we will now recognize the Representative from Michigan,
Representative Dingell, for 5 minutes for her questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
Commissioners for being here today.
This committee has a very serious responsibility to conduct
oversight of the FCC. And while we made a lot of progress under
the last administration, I am deeply concerned that under this
administration that the FCC is moving in the wrong direction. I
am going to associate myself with the previous comments by my
Democratic colleagues and move to some areas that I am very
deeply concerned about that are impacting people's lives.
As vehicles become increasingly connected and reliant on
wireless communications, we have a responsibility to ensure
these technologies are not weaponized to harm people,
especially survivors of domestic violence. Survivors have
reported that their abusers have used connected vehicle
services to track their movements, stalk them in real time, or
remotely disable their vehicles. Yet today there is no clear,
consistent, or confidential process for survivors to cut off an
abuser's access to their vehicle services.
In 2024 I sent a letter to the FCC urging it to take
proactive steps to address the threat of domestic abusers
exploiting connectivity tools in vehicles to harass and
intimidate their partners. While I worked with the FCC on this
issue, the lack of a clear, survivor-centered process is why I
introduced the bipartisan Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act
with Congressman Dan Crenshaw. The bill is designed to create a
secure pathway for survivors to disable connected vehicle
access tied to wireless-enabled vehicle technologies, while
providing clarity for automakers and service providers.
Commissioner Gomez, From the FCC's perspective, how serious
is the risk of these wireless-enabled vehicle technologies can
be misused to facilitate stalking, coercive control, or other
forms of abuse?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you so much for that question, and thank
you for your leadership on this issue. It is so important to be
able to protect survivors of domestic abuse.
As you know, we took action in the previous administration
to require companies to sever the cell phone accounts of
victims of domestic abuse, and also to not allow information in
the abuser's bill to be given about the victims. And that is so
important for their safety. So what you are doing is you are
promoting now that we do this with vehicles.
We sought comment on that issue, but I would welcome
working with you and some guidance from----
Mrs. Dingell. OK, I am going to ask you a brief question
because I want to get to another issue.
Ms. Gomez. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. But given the FCC's jurisdiction over
wireless services, does the FCC currently have the authority to
address these harms?
Are there limits to your authority without congressional
action?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
I do believe we have authority to address them. It is
always helpful when it is outlined in the statute directly.
Mrs. Dingell. I would encourage the FCC to please act, and
we will come back with congressional and try to get that done
too.
Chairman Carr, I want to talk about broadband build-out
failures affecting people not only in my district but across
the country. Bridgewater Township is in my district, but like
so many places across the country they were promised broadband
service through the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, also
known as RDOF. We are now in--they were promised, by the way--
my community was promised service by the end of 2024, and we
are now in 2026 and this particular community only has 32
percent of the--has--have been given that access.
Let me be clear. This isn't just a failure by one company,
which I have written, but it is a failure of FCC oversight. The
FCC is responsible for ensuring that taxpayers' dollars is
dedicated to broadband build-out, and the money that is there
is used as intended, and that the communities actually receive
the broadband service they were promised. Instead, communities
across the country are being left behind without reliable
internet for school, work, or healthcare.
Chairman Carr, what concrete enforcement actions is the FCC
taking to hold those vendors that are being given contracts for
its RDOF obligations?
How are you making sure that communities like mine are not
punished for losing access to other Federal broadband build-out
programs because of companies' false promises and FCC
enforcement inaction?
Mr. Carr. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, for the question
and your advocacy on this.
It is very important that the FCC take enforcement action
in those types of cases, and I can assure you that we have a
number of enforcement matters going. If you made a promise to a
community to deliver, then the FCC needs to hold you
accountable to that.
We have also been working to make sure that NTIA and
Commerce, as these BEAD dollars come online, if there is
opportunities to pick up communities through that, we should
collaborate on that. But my goal is the same as yours, is
people should get the broadband that they were promised.
Mrs. Dingell. Well, I hope the FCC----
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Dingell. I know, but I just--I know you will look at
Bridgewater now, but let's look at all those communities. You
are 2 years behind. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman
from South Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Fry. I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Hudson. You can state the request.
Mr. Fry. To add an article into the record titled
``Democrats Want Feds To Block Miami Latinos From Hearing
Conservative Radio.''
Mr. Hudson. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hudson. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize to our witnesses today that I had a markup in another
committee that I had to be at, so I have got an update on what
is going on.
Chairman Carr, I represent a lot of small jails that are
concerned with the cost of operating a phone system for the
inmates, which is a tough balance. I understand the need for
prisoners, particularly inmates awaiting trial, to have
reasonable communication rates, and I get that.
But can you briefly talk about the useful--and all of your
standards and what you have been doing to try to make sure that
smaller jails in rural areas, et cetera, have the ability to
meet that balance, to be able to provide it? Because some of my
jails have talked about not allowing them, you know, any
communication because they can't afford the equipment to make
sure that the calls are made in a safe manner and in a proper
manner.
And as a former criminal defense attorney, I am concerned
because I don't want to have to go to the--if I were to return
to that practice of law, I wouldn't want to have to go to the
jail every time I needed to talk to one of them, one of my
clients.
Mr. Carr. Yes. Well, thank you, Congressman, for your work
on this, and this is an issue that is very important. It is
very complex.
As you note, on the one hand we want to make sure that
incarcerated individuals and their families can continue to
communicate. At the same time we have an obligation to jails
and the broader community to make sure those communications
take place with technology that ensures safety.
The FCC over the years has tried to strike the right
balance, and it has been difficult. There has been at least six
different FCC actions, I think four different court cases or
challenges. Congress came together in the Martha Wright Reid
Act and gave us additional authority, and the FCC recently
revised some of the rates. The rates are higher than the rates
that were initially set the first go-round by the Biden
administration, they are--sorry, they are lower than the rates
initially set by the Biden administration, they are higher than
the rates the Biden administration set at the end.
But to your point, what we were seeing with those last
round of Biden rates is that they were too low in some
circumstances, that inmates were getting denied calling
services because the jail couldn't afford it or they couldn't
afford the technology to make sure the communications were
safe.
So it is a complex issue with really well-intentioned
people on all sides of this, and we have a proceeding right now
to see if we can't, you know, once and for all strike the right
balance here.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. And as I said before, I have a
fairly rural district. It is pretty large, got some mountains
in the way of some of this stuff. And so we have had some
success, and some of my folks really like Starlink. But we need
competition in order to--competition is always good for
bringing down prices. What is the FCC doing to try to promote
additional providers in that space?
And what are your goals on reforming the satellite
licensing and so-called EarthLink connections?
Mr. Carr. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
One thing that we are doing is taking a technology-neutral
approach. There's many, many portions of this country where a
high-speed fiber connection makes sense. But we have to be
open-minded where cost per location exceeds a certain point, in
which case you need to then look at other technologies like
fixed wireless, like LEO systems, and that is what we are
doing. We are making sure people can compete on a level playing
field.
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that because there are some
areas of my district where there is one house, two houses,
maybe three houses up a holler, and it would cost us a minimum
of 100, maybe as much as $200,000 just to get fiber to those
couple of houses, and there is no way you would ever recoup the
costs. So I appreciate that.
I appreciate also that the Commission has opened a docket
to tighten foreign ownership standards for FCC licenses. Could
you explain the difficulty in sorting out increasingly complex
ownership structures sometimes used by licensees?
Mr. Carr. Yes, we have rules and regulations on the books
to try to make sure that we can process that. We obviously want
investment in this country, but we need to make sure that there
are security checks in place, and we have been taking a number
of actions, again, to try to strike that right balance.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. I will tell you, my team
thought we ought to have a little bit of fun, so I was
requested to ask--and I have some questions we have to put for
the record, but you don't have enough time to answer them with
what I have left.
But I was requested to ask, which one was your favorite in
eliminating FCC regulations?
Did you prefer or have more fun eliminating regulations on
phone booths or telegraph lines?
Mr. Carr. It is funny, I was going to--before you said it,
I was going to say telegraph. Yes, we had some--so much dead
wood in our regulations that there were still rules that tied
back to telegraph service, and I think that was a good one to
get rid of.
Mr. Griffith. Yes, I agree, and that is why sometimes you
have to take a look at everything and eliminate those things
that are no longer appropriate.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Excuse me, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Fedorchak [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Barragan for her 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
Commissioner Gomez, I would like to start with you and
follow up to that last interaction. The Chairman said that
families should be able to communicate with their families when
they are in prison. Wasn't there an effort to raise cost or the
caps for prisoners to be able to make calls to their families
to make it--which could lead to them costing more, making it
more expensive to communicate with family?
Ms. Gomez. Yes. Congress, in the Martha Wright Reid Act,
directed the FCC to lower the cost of the IPCS, which is the
prison services payphone and video calls, to make sure that
they were just and reasonable and that they fairly compensated
these providers.
This administration--and the last administration did that,
we substantially reduced the cost of the calls. We had three
mandatory data collections for--to get the correct data so that
we could determine whether the rates were just and reasonable.
This administration reversed what we did and said, ``Well, we
don't have enough data, so we are going to give the payphone
providers everything they want.''
And the problem with that is what the payphone providers
are doing is they are providing to these prisons and jails
services that are not related to the cost of making those
calls. We are forcing families of incarcerated people to pay to
provide search warrant processing, to transcribe and convert
into digital format, to support litigation and investigations,
to aid in investigations, and to provide for skilled
investigators. That has nothing to do with the making of these
calls. But this administration decided that they would provide
that because we don't have enough data after three mandatory
data collections.
So we are forcing families to pay for these big costs
because the providers are monopoly providers that provide these
services for free to these prisons and to these jails on the
backs of these families.
Ms. Barragan. So these families are paying more to
communicate with their----
Ms. Gomez. Yes, they are. Their costs have gone up.
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Their family members. Thank you.
Commissioner Carr, you have said that you think the agency
should focus on information that consumers want and need. Is
that accurate?
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. And you have also said they should have
information so they can make an informed decision. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Carr. Yes. That is right.
Ms. Barragan. OK. I want to show you one of these. You know
what this looks--you know what this is, I am sure, right? A
nutrition label, the broadband label. OK, one of the pieces of
this label is an early termination fee on whether there is one
or not. Do you see? Have you--it is down here. I don't know if
you could see it from where you are at, but certainly you must
be familiar with that, correct?
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Do you believe that consumers should know
if there is going to be an early termination fee on a plan that
they are signing up for?
Mr. Carr. What we are focused on is making sure that
consumers have clear, concise----
Ms. Barragan. Do you think that a consumer should know that
there is going to be a cancellation fee? It is very simple.
Mr. Carr. This is an issue that we are looking at right
now. What we want to reach is a point at which consumers have
all of the information.
Ms. Barragan. You don't have an opinion on whether
consumers should know if there is going to be an early
termination fee? That is shocking, Mr. Carr, Commissioner Carr,
and let me tell you why. This company too has an early
termination fee, up to $750 depending on the device and the
contract. So to have the Chair of the committee--of this agency
not have an opinion on whether consumers should have informed--
--
Mr. Carr. With respect to----
Ms. Barragan [continuing]. Information on a cancellation--
--
Mr. Carr. The FCC has an active--
Ms. Barragan. You just confirmed to me----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Proceeding underway right now----
Ms. Barragan. I am not--there is no question pending, sir.
Mr. Carr [continuing]. Questions about this.
Ms. Barragan. You--there is no question pending. You just
told me the consumer should have the information to make an
informed decision. I can tell you in my congressional district,
where the people are working class and they are low income,
they are going to want to know if there is an early termination
fee. And they are certainly going to want to know if there is a
$750 early termination fee.
So Commissioner Gomez, I am going to turn to you. Do you
think consumers should be able to know if there is an early
termination fee on their plan?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, I do.
Ms. Barragan. And isn't there a proposal now to eliminate
that requirement that would read to consumers whether there is
an early termination fee?
Ms. Gomez. There--yes. What it would do is obfuscate the
fees by making--by pulling them all up into one category.
Now, I believe that companies, carriers should compete on
price and quality, not on being able to hide information from
their consumers.
Ms. Barragan. OK. And I now want to turn to these same
labels. There's companies that go out and they market to
consumers in Spanish language. And then these customers come in
and sign up for a service. Should those consumers be able to
get this information in their language that they were marketed
in?
Ms. Gomez. Yes. The proposal that the FCC has just adopted
would eliminate that requirement, even though the companies are
marketing in another language.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you. I agree that I think
consumers should know this.
I would like to enter into the record this article, October
10, 2022, from The Verge. It is titled ``Brendan Carr wants to
let internet providers charge hidden fees again.''
Mrs. Fedorchak. Without objection----
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, I yield back.
Mrs. Fedorchak [continuing]. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Fedorchak. All right, the Chair recognizes
Representative Cammack for her 5 minutes of questions.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
our witnesses.
Commissioner Carr, great to see you again. You could hardly
get a word in edgewise a minute ago, so would you like to take
30, 45 seconds or so to respond to the Representative's
accusations, we will say?
Mr. Carr. Well, look, as a general matter, I will say this.
There is a lot of discussion here about prices and
affordability. But thanks to President Trump, that is changing.
Since January 2025 alone, prices for wireless plans are down
over 4 percent. They are down over 7 percent from Biden-era
highs. Prices for smartphones are down 9 percent, and speeds
are up. So prices are down, speeds are up, and competition is
intensifying.
In respect to broadband labels, if you look at the chart
that was held up, it is very confusing. And that is the point
that we are looking at, is how do we get the information that
consumers want, whether it is ETF or other information, so that
they can find it and see it accurately and quickly. Let's
separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is what that
proceeding is about.
Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely. And we have seen an immense
amount of deregulation, which is good for consumers because it
helps foster that competition.
And I know you have spoken to me about the REINS Act and
the work that is being done there. Talking about REINS Act
being the largest regulatory reform effort in American history,
what would the passage and adoption of that bill, which would
require Congress to have an up or down vote on any major rule
or regulation that has an industry impact of $100 million--what
kind of impact would that have at your agency?
Mr. Carr. Well, I think it is important. Again, as we just
talked about, we did a sweep through all rules and regulations
on the FCC's books. We have eliminated over 1,000 rules or
regulations, or teed them up for removal. We have over 2,000
enacted proceedings. Again, when you think about one agency,
the FCC, it is actually a relatively small agency, and you
spread that out across the Federal Government, so some
mechanism to make sure that needless regulations aren't getting
on the books and staying on the books would really help unlock
further economic growth for the country.
Mrs. Cammack. And I just want to repeat that again for
folks watching back home. You guys took 1,000--over 1,000--
regulations off the books, and prices are coming down. It is
almost like the smaller government gets, the better it gets for
people across America, right?
Mr. Carr. Right.
Mrs. Cammack. OK. I love that.
Well, another issue that you and I have talked about and I
know everyone can really understand is the issue of robocalls
and scam texts. I must get a half a dozen or a dozen a day, and
it makes you want to throw your phone across the room. Talk to
me about the work that the agency is doing to stop the scam
texts and the fraud that is taking place there, and what
authorities or additional authorities your agency would need in
order for us to crack down on these robocalls and these scam
texts.
Mr. Carr. This is an issue that across the Trump
administration and, really, every administration we have had,
there has been a lot of work to crack down on illegal
robocalls. Right now we are coordinating across the Federal
level, whether it is the FCC, FTC, we are working with State
attorney generals, as well.
And again, we are tackling this issue at every single
portion of the life cycle of the call. We are looking at things
like know your customer, so if you are going to onboard a
business to allow them to place calls to U.S. subscribers, we
are pushing to make sure those telephone companies know much
more about those businesses both so that they are legit and, if
there is an issue, we can then track it back. So I think
Congress could potentially legislate more on the KYC, know your
customer, rules to strengthen those even further. But there is
some room for the FCC to push, and we are going to do that.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, and I know so many of these robocalls
and some of these scam texts originate from overseas. We have
really graduated from the Nigerian prince who just needs $5,000
and then he will, you know, make you a millionaire. We have
really graduated----
Mr. Carr. Yes.
Mrs. Cammack [continuing]. The scams, right? Talk to me
about your coordination efforts with your counterparts overseas
and what we need to do here in Congress to strengthen that.
Mr. Carr. Well, one idea that we are pursuing at the FCC is
the idea that if you get a call on your phone from abroad, it
shouldn't necessarily, in my view, display a U.S.-based area
code, because that could mislead someone to think that this is
a call originating in the U.S. So if you are a company and you
want to have a call center overseas, at least be truthful and
honest with your customers. So we are looking at that.
We are looking at potentially doing standards for call
centers to make sure that foreign call centers are compliant
with our customer service regulations. And so there is a lot of
efforts we are taking on that front.
Mrs. Cammack. I love it. So again, for folks watching back
home, the Trump administration under your leadership is
tackling robocalls and scam texts. That is something every
American can get behind. I love that.
So I want to in my last 30 seconds talk about the letter
that Chairman Hudson sent talking about broadcast ownership
caps. Now, there is some debate about whether or not the FCC
has the authority to do this on their own or not. And I would
like to get your thoughts in the final 20 seconds that I have
on the clock.
Mr. Carr. Well, on the authority, this question has been
brought up to the DC Circuit already, and the DC Circuit said
that 39 percent is the starting point for the FCC's analysis.
So I don't think the legal authority issues are that
compelling, but we are still looking at it to see if the FCC
wants to change its position on that.
And again, I think we are still open minded. But again, we
are cognizant of this idea that you have got licensed local
broadcasters. And I know I am out of time, but I think, as a
Congress, it is important that we figure out, do we want
investment in local news? Because right now you have got, you
know, Comcast and Disney that are programing almost 100 percent
of the content that Americans are seeing. And how do we
incentivize the local TV stations to continue to generate their
own local news and information?
Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely. We are not in the business of
supporting monopolies, so I appreciate that.
And with that, my time is expired. Thank you to all our
witnesses for being with us.
I yield.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you. The gentlelady yields. The Chair
recognizes Representative Landsman for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
ranking member, FCC leadership for being here.
I want to focus on three big things: the first has to do
with corporate consolidation and costs; the second has to do
with corruption and what tends to be or oftentimes you find
behind the consolidation of these companies; and the third is
the overall issue of independence and the impact it has on the
American people.
When you all continue--or Mr. Carr continue--to approve the
acquisitions of these big companies, which is the direction
that I am seeing the FCC take at the moment, we will see higher
costs, right?
I mean, when somebody controls the market they increase
costs on consumers, so cable costs go up, streaming fees,
subscription fees. And the corruption piece is what, obviously,
worries so many of us as we are seeing this play out. I am
going to just focus on David and Larry Ellison.
They, David, has--is the CEO of--now of Skydance, Paramount
or Paramount/Skydance, whatever it is. But they--Skydance was
going after Paramount and CBS. In the midst of all of this, $16
million goes to Trump to settle this legal issue, $20 million
goes to Trump for free ads, he gets all these editorial
concessions.
Larry, David's father, runs Oracle. Oracle is the OG of all
of this. So in Trump's first term, you know, Larry and David
give a ton of money to Trump, and Larry gets a no-bid contract
at the VA with Oracle. It has been an absolute disaster, and we
have been trying to figure out how to fix it, spending tens of
billions of dollars to try to deal with Oracle having been the
wrong vendor.
So the question I have, as you are the sort of traffic cop
trying to figure this out and make sure that there isn't
corruption, as you are looking at the deal now with David
trying to go after Warner Brothers, how much--and this is just
David and Larry Ellison--how much have David and Larry Ellison
given to the Trump coin, Mr. Carr?
Mr. Carr. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Landsman. OK. How much money have they given to Trump
businesses? Just Larry and David Ellison.
Mr. Carr. I am not sure why I would know that information.
Mr. Landsman. Last one, the MAGA, Inc., the big--you know,
Super PAC. Do you know how much money they have given?
Mr. Carr. No, sir.
Mr. Landsman. So the reason you should know, and the reason
the American people should know, is because ultimately you are
going to weigh in on these acquisitions, and there's going to
be questions about whether or not there is corruption behind
these corporate mergers. So it is really important for us to
know how much these people are giving to the President.
On the issue of independence, I--the concern is--and Ms.
Gomez, just very briefly, what is the impact to the American
people when we don't have an independent FCC? Just how does it
hurt them?
Ms. Gomez. It is important to have an independent FCC
because we are an expert-driven body that is supposed to make
decisions based on our technical expertise, and also to have
the respect both domestically and internationally of those that
we regulate and are--those with whom we work. When we lose
that, people will second guess everything we do because they
will just assume we are controlled by the whims of one person.
Mr. Landsman. So to that point about the being controlled
by the whims of one person, Mr. Carr--and this is where, like--
this is--you are probably going to hate this question, but it
is--a genuine question that we are all struggling with, is,
when we see the administration folks go out and do some of the
stuff on behalf of the President, is it--do you do it--do you
go after the media folks, like, to keep Trump happy because
that is what is key to, like, keeping your job? Or are you
genuinely going to punish them for criticizing Trump?
Mr. Carr. The FCC has an obligation to make sure that
broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations.
Licenses, broadcast licenses, are not property rights, and
there's things you can do to lose your broadcast license.
Broadcasters are fundamentally different than any other
forms of distribution, whether it is cable or podcast or----
Mr. Landsman. Yes, I am going to reclaim my time. I think
it is probably a little bit of both, but either way it is
scaring Americans, and it is hugely problematic in terms of the
future work of the FCC.
With that I yield back.
Mr. Hudson [presiding]. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Pfluger, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work
that you all are doing. It is a very important, obviously, time
in our country.
Chairman Carr, thank you for your leadership. In 2021 you
proposed a multiyear spectrum calendar that auctioned specific
megahertz across several bands. I asked your predecessor about
issuing a spectrum calendar, but she declined, stating that the
Commission cannot produce one because spectrum auction
authority had lapsed.
Thankfully, as has been discussed already today, we were
able in the Working Families Tax Cut Act to allow the FCC to
auction off 800 megahertz of spectrum for commercial broadband
use by 2034. So I am very excited about that, and I would ask
you that, now that the Commission is in full swing and the
auction authority has been restored, give us an idea of what
that long-term spectrum calendar looks like and other items
that you are pursuing along those lines.
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
As you noted, we now have a concrete, 800 megahertz
spectrum pipeline, and the FCC's work is well underway. We are
going to hold the first auction in a number of years in the
first half of this year, AWS-3 spectrum. Then next up we are
finalizing rules for the upper C-band, which will clear at
least 100 megahertz. We have sought comment on clearing up to
180 megahertz. There is also active work underway on the 7
gigahertz band, on the 2.7 gigahertz band, and even on license.
Again, this month alone we are voting to supercharge WiFi by
allowing higher-power devices.
And in addition to all of that, we are clearing the
barriers in the secondary market so spectrum that wasn't fully
loaded that could have been sitting fallow is moving into the
hands of carriers that are loading it and lighting it up and
increasing speed. So again, we are seeing increase of speeds,
decrease of prices, and enhanced competition.
Mr. Pfluger. That is great to hear.
Commissioner Trusty, what does that mean for national
security needs? Had we not passed that and not been able to get
those 800 megahertz out, I mean, what does this do for our
competition with China and national security issues?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. Well, it means that we are left behind.
Now that we have auction authority and a long-term spectrum
pipeline, we can meet the growing demands of wireless services,
public safety, national security, and emerging technologies.
And we can fully participate in the WRC 2027, which is
absolutely critical to promoting American values, our economic
competitiveness, and national security by having a foundation
to develop a unified strategy and so on.
So I really appreciate the leadership of the subcommittee.
Mr. Pfluger. You read my mind on the next question, which
was WRC 2027 and the steps that we are taking to support the
U.S. position and be prepared for that and show some
leadership.
I will give both of you guys a chance to answer on that.
Ms. Trusty. OK, sure. So I think this is really important,
and I think the focus should be on aligning public and private-
sector interests. We also should be engaged in pre-WRC
coordination with our international allies so that we can
harmonize our preferred standards and technologies. And I think
we need to work with Congress to ensure that we have the
resources to support our technical and diplomatic
representation needs.
As you know, the WRC 2027 is in Shanghai, China, which
creates some unique security challenges for us. The State
Department is taking the lead working with the ITU and with
Commission staff and NTIA to resolve those challenges. But
again, we need to be fully engaged in this conference so that
we can win when it comes to our economic and national security.
Mr. Pfluger. That is fantastic.
Chairman Carr, let me pivot just a little bit. I want to
kind of talk about the public interest and the responsibility
that you all have as Commissioners to protect the public
interest, and just give you some time to explain what that
means to our country for the licenses that you hand out,
especially broadcast licenses.
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman.
So broadcasters are unique among all other distributors of
information or even data. They have a license given them by the
Federal Government, and that necessarily means the Government
has excluded other voices that might have wanted to use those
airwaves. And so they have an obligation to stand not just in
their own shoes but in the shoes of their entire community of
license. And that means they have to operate differently than a
cable channel or a podcast or social media.
And what has been interesting to me is that, on the
Democrat side, there is a lot of simply projection and
distortion. If you go back to the Biden years, there was actual
weaponization of the FCC in communications policy. As we noted,
there was members of this committee that wrote letters to cable
companies to pressure them to drop conservative channels simply
because they were viewed, in their words, as right-wing media
outlets.
You had Democrats in Congress write a letter to the FCC
asking it to investigate the news activities of Sinclair
Broadcast because they disagreed with the views of Sinclair.
They viewed that they were right-wing, and there has been
discussion about nothing negative happened after that letter.
There were 227 routine Sinclair licenses that came up for
renewal or pending during the Biden years, and all but 1 of
those--so 226--were not renewed by the FCC. That was
unprecedented. It had never happened before. So Democrats put
pressure, and it engendered results.
What we are doing is applying the public interest standard
in an evenhanded way. And for people that benefitted from the
weaponization during the Biden years, that may feel like
discrimination, but it doesn't make it so.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Pfluger. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our FCC
Commissioners.
The FCC plays a very important role to ensure communication
services and WiFi is affordable for American families and
available.
Commissioner Gomez, your--the takeaway from your testimony,
if I can summarize it, is now the Commission is spending less
time on consumer needs and has diverted its attention to
powerful special interests. It does appear--and I share your
concern--that the FCC has taken a tact that will make life more
expensive for American families at a time when they are being
crushed by the rising cost of living. And one example of this
is what the FCC has done to make it harder and more expensive
for students to access the WiFi they need to--under E-Rate that
provides affordable WiFi to students in K-through-12 schools
and to libraries and to families.
This is so important to bridge the digital divide. I mean,
all of us here, you would--maybe you would scoff that--the
availability of WiFi because it is ubiquitous for folks who can
afford it. But there are so many students and families that
can't afford WiFi right now.
You have--you opposed the ripping away of those E-Rate
dollars for certain students. Why?
Ms. Gomez. That is correct. We need to make sure that
broadband is accessible to everyone, and part of that is
ensuring that it is affordable. And there are a lot of families
for whom it is not affordable to have broadband access.
So we had the Affordable Connectivity Program, which was
the most successful nationwide program to ensure affordability.
But sadly, we ran out of funds for that. So the next action
that the FCC takes under this administration is to rip away the
hotspots and the WiFi on school busses for students.
And the hotspots are also handed out by libraries, and
these are often the only means that people have to access the
most important communications medium of the 21st century, and
that is broadband. They need that in order to be digitally
literate so they can participate in the artificial intelligence
economy, as well. And they need it in order to apply for jobs,
in order for students to do their homework, in order for
seniors to get their healthcare appointments. Everything is
online. We need access for everyone.
Ms. Castor. And rather than focus on lowering costs for
Americans, it is very concerning that the FCC Chair is using
the regulatory power to stifle criticism of the President and
change news coverage to please the President. Beyond
heavyhanded, it is dangerous and wrong.
Going back to the Skydance acquisition of Paramount and
CBS, Chairman Carr blatantly acted to enrich the President and
to boost him after months of regulatory delay. The FCC approved
the acquisition just days after Paramount agreed to pay $16
million to settle the President's meritless lawsuit attacking
standard editorial edits at ``60 Minutes.''
And then, in exchange for obtaining FCC's approval of this
deal, Trump was also offered $20 million in free advertising
and a host of dangerous editorial concessions, including a
promise to root out perceived bias, align its editorial
practices to better suit the Trump administration's political
agenda, and hire an ombudsman to police the news organization's
editorial choices. This was a bribe by any other name, and
Chairman Carr rubber-stamped it.
The consequences of these concessions were on full display
last month, when the new CBS News editor-in-chief pulled a ``60
Minutes'' story on allegations of abuse at an El Salvadorian
prison, where President Trump has deported hundreds of
Venezuelans without due process. Notably, President Trump had
numerous conversations with David Ellison, now chairman and CEO
of Paramount-Skydance, and his father, Larry Ellison, executive
chairman of Oracle, leading up to the merger's approval. But
conveniently, none of these interactions were memorialized in
the FCC's docket, as required by law.
A corruption out in the open does not mitigate its odious
nature and, Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers deserve so
much better.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Goldman, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you to all the panelists for being here.
Chairman Carr, broadband deployment--obviously a major
thing in Texas, especially rural Texas.
Can you give us an update of where we are on broadband
deployment across America, but mainly in rural America?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. Thanks for your
leadership on this issue.
We are very quickly turning things around, and the Commerce
Department has this $42 billion program that they have righted
the ship on, and we are moving forward with that. We are
engaging in permitting reform at the FCC. We have a universal
service program that is supporting high-speed builds, and we
are bringing new technologies into the market.
This next generation of connectivity includes connectivity
directly to your smartphone at a high-speed-internet level to a
low Earth orbit satellite. And we are taking steps right now at
the FCC to position the United States to lead the world in this
new technology. So we are seeing more competition coming
online. That is why, again, you are seeing prices going down,
speeds coming up, competition enhancing.
There is no way we are raising the ``mission accomplished
flag.'' We have to keep pushing harder until every single
community has what they need for next-generation connectivity.
Mr. Goldman. And so looking towards the future, what are we
looking at? Months? Years?
You know, to have better connectivity across America, what
in your mind--what does that look like?
Mr. Carr. We are seeing it right now. We are seeing it this
year with shovels going into the ground. We are seeing it with
the secondary markets, as we are encouraging spectrum to move
so that it can be loaded up.
And right now we have secondary market transactions that
folks are turning on their new cell sites immediately. Just one
provider last year took spectrum they gained access to that
year alone and lit up 23,000 new cell sites, boosting speeds by
80 percent. So we are pushing on this from a technology
perspective, from a funding perspective, and coordinating with
the other components of the Federal Government that also have
funding.
Mr. Goldman. OK, thank you. And I was going to ask before
Representative Cammack did about robocalls. Anything further to
expand on what we can do to--I mean, there are many
constituents of mine that would love to eliminate robocalls.
Is that even a possibility? Or how can we do a better job
of making sure that our constituents aren't bothered by
robocalls?
Mr. Carr. Yes, robocalls are a significant technological
challenge. Historically, it felt like the FCC was a game of
Whac-a-Mole. We would find one technology, one type of scam,
and we would shut it down.
Right now what we are trying to do is get down lower and
look at every single portion of the life cycle of a call and
take action, including making it clear that if you are not
doing your part as a carrier you are going to get kicked out of
the robocall mitigation database, which effectively makes them
unable to deliver traffic. And we have a particular focus right
now on foreign-originated robocalls, as well.
Mr. Goldman. Great, thank you.
I know you have heard from the Texas Farm Bureau in regards
to your drone ban. Can you speak upon that, and is there a
solution in sight?
Obviously, many Texas farmers and ranchers like their
drones, and like flying them. It is better for their
operations. Can you speak about the ban, and is there a
solution for the farmers and ranchers of Texas in using drones?
Mr. Carr. At the end of last year national security
agencies came together and made a determination, a specific
termination, that foreign-produced drones presented an
unacceptable threat to U.S. national security. And President
Trump has been clear that we are going to reestablish American
drone dominance. We have taken a couple steps.
One, because of that national security determination, we
added foreign-produced drones to our covered list. But that
doesn't mean that consumers that have these drones today can't
continue to use them. They can continue to use them today. In
fact, if you have a model that was already authorized by the
FCC, you can buy a new version of that same model device. The
cover list only applies to new models that might seek
authorization in the future.
Subsequently, we have also taken some additional action
from advice by the Pentagon and others, DHS, that drones on the
UAS Blue List are cleared to go through the process. We have
also created a mechanism where people can petition for
additional clarity around the types of drones.
So again, if you have a drone today that you are using, you
can continue to use it, and you can even buy another one of the
same drone you have today under the same model number.
Mr. Goldman. Right. OK, thank you very much.
And you were recently at the Consumer Electronics Show?
Mr. Carr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. What was the coolest or scariest thing you
saw?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carr. Well, I think, you know, one of things I am most
excited about is AI getting continued to be embedded in new
technology. And again, President Trump has made clear that the
U.S. is going to lead the world on this. And we have a job, as
sort of the pipes and tubes people, to make sure that we have
those high-speed internet connections so that AI can flourish
in this country.
Mr. Goldman. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for 5 minutes to ask
your questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
In today's world, high-speed connectivity is no longer a
luxury. It is essential to how Americans work, learn, access
health services, and stay connected to their families and
communities. Expanding affordable, high-speed broadband access
across the country is essential to ensuring that American
families can thrive in the digital economy.
Commissioner Gomez, just yes or no. Is the FCC's role to
ensure that every American, regardless of where they live or
their background, has access to reliable, high-speed
communications services?
Ms. Gomez. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
And is ensuring that Americans have affordable connectivity
and access to digital equity programs critical to the FCC
fulfilling that role?
Ms. Gomez. Yes.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
Before President Trump appointed Chairman Carr head of the
Commission, the FCC made real strides in expanding broadband
access. Since then, many of those critical efforts have been
stopped or been rolled back.
Commissioner Gomez, would you say the FCC's rollback of
programs and initiatives that support affordable broadband and
digital equity has undermined the FCC's mission to deliver
broadband access to every community?
Ms. Gomez. I would.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
I agree. That is why I am so concerned that under Chairman
Carr's leadership the FCC has deviated from its core mission.
Further, since President Trump took office, we have seen
the FCC's independence weakened.
Chairman Carr, you authored the FCC's section of Project
2025, in which you state on page 845, ``The FCC is an
independent regulatory agency.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Carr. Oh, I authored that in my personal capacity. I
don't say this to dodge, it is just a----
Mr. Menendez. It is----
Mr. Carr. Just as a point of----
Mr. Menendez. But you did. You did. I understand----
Mr. Carr. Just as a point of clarification, I just want
to----
Mr. Menendez. Prior to you being named Chairman, you had
written that the FCC was an independent regulatory agency.
I am going to continue. And Chairman Carr, just yes or no.
Did you testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on
December 17, 2025? Just yes or no.
[No response.]
Mr. Menendez. Yes, I believe you did. It is in the record.
And at that hearing you testified in response to a question
from Senator Ben Ray Lujan that the FCC is no longer an
independent agency. And you reiterated that point earlier
today.
Prior to the Senator's question, the FCC website was clear
that the Commission is an independent agency. But shortly after
your response, this language was removed from the website, as
displayed here.
[Slide shown.]
Mr. Menendez. Chairman Carr, did you decide in the middle
of the hearing to officially abandon the FCC's independence, or
had that decision already been made by you and President Trump
prior to the hearing?
Mr. Carr. This is an important conversation. So the way----
Mr. Menendez. Yes, and my question is just on timing.
So did you make that decision during the hearing or prior
to the hearing? Because it was this--because the website said
prior to the hearing that it was an independent agency. You
made a comment during the hearing, and then someone changed the
website to say--to make no reference to it being an independent
agency.
So I just want the American people to know, had that
decision already been made when you walked into the hearing, or
did you make that decision at the hearing?
Mr. Carr. I am pleased that the FCC's website reflects my
views. And what I am saying----
Mr. Menendez. That the FCC is not an independent agency.
That is correct, right? So your view was--entering the hearing,
it was an independent agency. During the hearing, no longer an
independent agency. So that is your view, that it is not an
independent agency.
Mr. Carr. That is not correct. The independence is
determined by a number of factors. It is multi-members, it is
term of years. But the main key piece is can a Commissioner be
removed by the President for no reason or any reason. And
historically, the view had been that courts would read into the
Communications Act for cause removal protection that wasn't in
the statute.
Mr. Menendez. OK, so let's just----
Mr. Carr. But now the view of the courts----
Mr. Menendez. Let's just talk about the independence,
speaking to----
Mr. Carr [continuing]. The FCC is not----
Mr. Menendez. So I understand you are trying to make the
case for what independence--
Mr. Carr [continuing]. My view on that----
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. Could be made. But you no longer
clearly want to say that it is an independent agency and just
be up front about it, as you did in Project 2025, as you did on
the website entering that hearing. So it is just a question of
were you misleading the American people because a decision had
been made, or it was something that you had previously
discussed with Trump.
On the issue of independence, you talk about broadcasters'
public interest standard, and we have listed a number of
instances where the FCC has gone after broadcasters.
Can you tell the committee what investigations or actions
the FCC has taken for coverage of Democrats that the FCC has
disagreed with? Because there has been a number of things for
President Trump. But what have you done that you have--that the
FCC has thought was in violation of the public interest
standard as it relates to coverage of Democrats?
Mr. Carr. The FCC right now has investigations into NPR,
PBS, CBS--
Mr. Menendez. Regarding their coverage of Democrats?
Regarding their coverage of Democrats. That is a question. Not
the number of investigations. Regarding the coverage of
Democrats, are there specific investigations specifically to
the coverage of Democrats?
Because there's a number of Republicans--for Republicans
and Trump. What are you doing with respect to the coverage of
Democrats that shows that it is fair, balanced, and you are not
picking winners and losers? Just tell me what you are doing.
Mr. Carr. We don't have investigations that are targeting
Republicans or Democrats. We have investigations that are
focused----
Mr. Menendez. Well, you have been clear about this. And you
have been lauded by the President for going after people who
disagree with the President's policies or who articulate
positions that differ from the President's policies. I am just
wondering----
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Menendez [continuing]. To show that you are balanced,
what are you doing to show the American people that you
continue to be an independent agency by going after agencies
and broadcasters in a fair and balanced way?
We know you are not, and that is why I am glad that you are
here. But we need to have more of these conversations.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired. If the
Chairman would like to respond, I would give you a few seconds.
Mr. Carr. I would say we have a range of different
investigations that are underway right now. We are enforcing
the public interest standard, and that is the work that we are
doing.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota,
Representative Fedorchak, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to
step back and talk a little bit about the great work that is
being done in combination with the President, your agency, and
Congress.
For the first time in 4 years we are having spectrum
auctions. That was completely ignored by the last
administration, at the peril of our country in very serious
races against China on some of these technology fronts.
Unleashing BEAD funding to help connect America to broadband;
deregulation, driving down costs, 1,000 regulations eliminated
by your work alone; modernizing satellite regulations; and
protecting vital submarine cables. Those are just a few of the
great things that are already being done, and it has only been
a year.
So thank you for your leadership. Thank you for delivering
on many of the tools that Congress passed and gave you in the
One Big, Beautiful Bill. It is going to make a real difference
to everyday Americans.
With that I want to pivot a little bit to a couple issues
that are really important to my State.
Universal Service Funding. Chairman Carr, North Dakota has
been a leader in using Universal Service Funding to help
connect our State. We have one of the largest rural State
broadband deployments of any place in the country. So for
anybody looking to do that great work, North Dakota is a model
on how it can be done.
But moving forward, there is still a lot of uncertainty in
the long-term plan for securing universal service, the
Universal Service Fund.
What--how should we be thinking about this? And what should
Congress be doing? What sort of recommendations do you have?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, and thanks for
your leadership. I had a chance to visit North Dakota and see
the great progress that is being made there. And obviously,
there is much more work we need to do.
There are several actions we are taking on universal
service. One is taking a look at our high-cost programs. And
how do we make sure that, in this idea of a high-cost 2.0, what
is the future of high-cost support look like? And we are going
to be asking some questions about that. We are also looking at
ways to make sure we bring new technologies online, including
low Earth orbit satellites, freeing up spectrum, and permitting
reform. I think all of those combined is why you see us finally
turning things around with prices coming down, with speeds
going up, and with construction projects finally getting
underway.
Mrs. Fedorchak. How should we be working to stabilize the
fund, though?
Mr. Carr. The bicameral working group that the House and
the Senate is involved in, I think, can play a really
constructive role. We talked in the Senate hearing last--at the
end of last year about the FCC collaborating with that group,
and I think we are going to start that process, potentially as
soon as this month, to make sure that we are coordinated there.
Mrs. Fedorchak. And the timeline on that, how urgent is it
to get some certainty here in this long-term funding pool?
Mr. Carr. Yes, when you look at the lifecycle of
investments, particularly for rural broadband, it is over many,
many years. And so we need to be able to step in and provide
that long-term sustainability for these programs.
Mrs. Fedorchak. OK, very good. I want to pivot a little
bit. You mentioned the low Earth satellites, low Earth orbit
satellites. The University of North Dakota just last year
launched its ROADS satellite mission, which established a
dedicated satellite operations training facility at the
University of North Dakota. I would like to see more of this
type of work, particularly with regard to competing with China.
So how should Congress think about the FCC's role in this
space, in particular in relation to competition with China and
around the LEO satellites, Earth stations, and ITU
coordination?
Mr. Carr. Well, China has made clear that they want to
dominate when it comes to the delivery of NextGen services from
space. They are, predictably, copying a lot of the technologies
from U.S. providers. So one thing we have to do is go as fast
as we can so there is nothing holding back America's innovators
from launching new satellites, next generation satellites. And
that is what we are doing. We are clearing out backlogs and we
are moving much faster.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Are you working on the satellite licensing
timelines, as well? I have heard that that is a program that is
often a source of delay.
Mr. Carr. It is true. We are now working on a couple
fronts. One, to eliminate whole categories of things that don't
require either licenses or don't require certain types of
lengthy coordinations. We are taking them out of the system,
and we are moving to what we describe internally at the
building as a much more assemblylike process, assembly-linelike
process, so that we give people clear parameters to shoot for
with their applications, and they hit the mark, and it moves
on, and get away from sort of a bespoke review process that
slowed things down.
And we are seeing results. Again, this latest generation
constellation that we approved, we went in about half the time
as the prior one.
Mrs. Fedorchak. Very good. Mr. Chairman, if you need more
tools from Congress, we are here to help. So thank you for your
work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes to ask your
questions.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
ranking members.
Over the last year the Federal Communication Commission,
under Brendan Carr's leadership, has recklessly abandoned its
core principle to operate as an independent agency. Instead, it
has weaponized its power to bully news organizations and
broadcasters that disagree with the President on his political
agenda.
That is unfortunate. I stand firmly against this misuse of
Federal power to suppress free speech, and will fight to
protect everyone's First Amendment rights.
Mr. Carr, at one point it appeared that you appreciated the
First Amendment. At one point it appears that you recognized
its value. Somewhere along the line you appeared to have lost
your compass.
That is unfortunate, because the American people deserve
better. The American people deserve freedom of speech that
allows expression without fear of retribution. That is not the
America that we should have. We have a rule of law. We have a
Constitution. We have those protections. And unfortunately,
sir, you have failed in the regard of protecting those rights.
So I am going to pivot, because I really don't have time
for filibuster, and we have a need for questions to be
answered.
Commissioner, as the cochair of the WiFi Caucus, I am
encouraged by the FCC's continued commitment to dedicating the
6 gigahertz band for unlicensed use, which is essential for
WiFi technologies.
How critical is it for the FCC to ensure that sufficient
spectrum remains available for unlicensed use to both support
the continued growth and innovation of WiFi technologies and to
help the U.S. remain competitive with China and the development
of cutting-edge wireless technologies?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
You know, unlicensed spectrum was an experiment decades
ago, when I still worked at the FCC, and it has turned out to
be an enormous benefit for our economy, for our global
leadership in spectrum, and in technology. So it is important
that we have sufficient unlicensed spectrum for WiFi and other
such uses.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. What would happen in the case if
we didn't have--if there wasn't enough unlicensed spectrum
accounts to anticipate increased usage in WiFi?
Ms. Gomez. Well, we don't want to choke off other services.
For example, we all have WiFi in our homes. Well, it does us no
good to have the gigabit speeds if we don't have WiFi that is
capable within our own homes to give us the benefit of those
gigabit speeds.
It is also just really important for innovation. We have
amazing innovative services that use WiFi and use connected
devices throughout everything we do. And so we need to make
sure we have sufficient spectrum to make sure that we can
continue to evolve these technologies and support them.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So of late we have heard the
discussion about affordability, the importance of
affordability, the importance of making sure that we see these
tools that are no longer something that is luxury but is a
necessity.
How does preserving and expanding access to unlicensed
spectrum help advance affordability and digital opportunity for
rural and underserved communities like that of my district?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, WiFi is a very important tool for giving
access to everyone who needs access to broadband. Whether we
get them through our library or we have students that are
sitting in the parking lot of a McDonald's in order to access
broadband, what WiFi has enabled is this type of accessibility,
and it is very important that we continue to support it.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Under the Biden administration,
Louisiana, I am very proud to say, was number one. We were
ready. We were ready for shovels in the ground with the BEAD
program. Under the Trump administration there was a drastic
halt. And as a result of that halt, although it was said that
it was intended--that it was going to make things better,
faster, we had ``taken too long.''
But Louisiana was first, was ready. Our Republican Governor
hailed this as one of the most monumental infrastructure
advances in Louisiana. Yet now we hear that--from my
colleagues--I think Mr. Latta said a little while ago that
thankfully we were able to stop this because things weren't
moving fast enough.
Well, in fact, we were moving fast enough and we had done
all of the legwork through a Democratic Governor and a
Republican Governor, only to be halted by this administration,
which leaves us now with a far less superior product that is
going to ultimately cost more money, and the people will get
less service and an inferior product.
Real briefly.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Can----
Mr. Hudson. I will allow the witness to answer.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. You will let her answer? Thank
you, sir.
Ms. Gomez. I will follow up.
Mr. Hudson. Go ahead.
Ms. Gomez. Oh, I am allowed to answer?
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Yes, yes, you----
Ms. Gomez. I am sorry.
Mr. Hudson. Take a few seconds.
Ms. Gomez. Very quickly, yes, we are over a year since--or
about a year since this administration took over and complained
about the amount of time that it took to deploy under the last
administration. And yet they have now effectively added yet
another year.
So I am concerned that this administration has a race to
the bottom in terms of what provision--what technologies it is
going to use to provide broadband service, and I am hopeful
that the end outcome is that everyone gets the broadband they
need to participate in the artificial intelligence economy.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And Mr. Chairman, I am going to
submit for the record and ask that you have an opportunity to
answer, because obviously NextGen 911 is a huge issue, making
sure that we are providing opportunities for law enforcement to
actually be able to access the greatest technologies that we
have when, in fact, today they can't.
Mr. Hudson. I agree with you. That is why I let you go a
little extra, but--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Indiana, Ms.
Houchin, for 5 minutes to ask her questions.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
ranking member for holding today's hearing and for the
witnesses for being here.
The Federal Communications Commission plays an integral
role in closing the digital divide, promoting competition, and
ensuring Americans can access reliable communication services
that are essential for work, education, healthcare, and public
safety. I am especially glad to welcome Chairman Carr and
Commissioners Trusty and Gomez from the FCC here today.
I also want to just commend the Trump administration for
finding $21 billion in savings under the BEAD program, which I
know is under Secretary Lutnick. But I do hope that that $21
billion in savings on the BEAD program will be put toward
deployment in a technology-neutral way, and that it might go
even to updating our National Broadband Map, which is what I
want to focus some of my comments on today.
One of the most, I think, underappreciated tools the FCC
manages is the broadband map. We relied on it when I was a
State legislator, as we were trying to roll out a broadband
grant program that would avoid overbuilding in areas that
already had access. It is a map that is increasingly relied
upon not just by the FCC but by other Federal agencies, State
broadband offices, and communities across the country. It
really shapes where taxpayer dollars go, how programs are
designed, and, again, preventing overbuilding and making sure
that we are actually reaching unserved Americans.
But the map is inaccurate. And if it is inaccurate, then
everything down from it is at risk. In April of 2025 the GAO
warned that Federal agencies are directing tens of billions of
dollars in broadband funding based on the map despite concerns
about the accuracy of the data. The report issued six
recommendations for the FCC related to broadband mapping and
improving interagency coordination.
Chairman Carr, where does the FCC stand today on
implementing GAO's recommendations, particularly validating
true access to broadband and strengthening the map?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for your
leadership, including on these critical rural broadband issues.
The FCC is working on all the recommendations there. And
one thing that we have is we have a coordination agreement with
NTIA and others to make sure that we are getting all of the
data put in the map. For instance, as you have indicated,
there's dozens and dozens of different broadband funding
programs out there, and if we can make sure they all funnel
their information through a single map, that will really help
improve.
The map itself is starting to stabilize. We are seeing the
fabric start to stabilize. We are seeing more accuracy out of
it. So I think we are heading in the right direction, but more
work to do.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you. You know, many of my colleagues
and I, we are working on both sides of the aisle on legislation
that does rely on the accuracy of the map. That includes my
Data BRIDGE Act, which directs the FCC to incorporate USDA
cultivated land data into the National Broadband Map, and this
is important because in rural and agricultural areas we want to
make sure that is mapped accurately so that funding reaches an
entire farm or field, not just a farmhouse address, and
supporting connectivity in modern agriculture like precision
ag.
In the time I have remaining I do want to pivot to the
broadcast policy, Chairman Carr, specifically the broadcast
ownership cap. It is clear the landscape for media has changed
over the last several decades, and many young Americans don't--
never experienced broadcast television, moving the rabbit ears
on the television so you can get your five stations that you
could watch. And many Americans really don't know the
difference between Fox News Channel and Fox 59.
Under the broadcast cap, what is the impact to local
broadcasters if the cap is expanded or not? Why is that an
important conversation to have?
And a followup question--and I will give you time to close
out--if big networks like NBC News, if they wanted to just get
out of the broadcast business tomorrow and sell to conservative
stations or any stations like Fox or Sinclair, wouldn't the
broadband--or wouldn't the--sorry, wouldn't the broadcast
ownership cap prevent that from happening? And is that in the
public interest?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are looking at a
number of issues related to this right now, and we haven't made
any final decision. We are still taking input.
I think one of the things that I have been concerned about,
to your point, is you have these licensed local broadcast
stations that are supposed to be serving the needs of their
individual communities. But over the last dozen-plus years, you
have seen these large, national programmers, Comcast and
Disney, that have just come to dominate those local TV
stations. So when you turn on your local TV stations, almost
the entire time now you are just viewing programs that have
been produced in New York and Hollywood.
And so we are looking at ways, structurally and otherwise,
to potentially insert some more competition because I think,
again, if we care as a country about local news and local
reporting, we want healthy local news stations. And it is
expensive to produce local news.
At the FCC we had this before. We had rules relating to
investment in local newspapers, and we left those rules in
place. And over time you saw investment decline, and now the
shuttering of local news. So the touchstone has to be localism.
Whether we, you know, go forward in this proceeding or not, we
haven't made that decision yet.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
continuing to work with the FCC on broadband policies, ensuring
that the data is accurate.
I want to give a shout out to Commissioner Trusty for her
work on Data BRIDGE. Thank you.
I do know that my community does----
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mrs. Houchin [continuing]. Appreciate their local news, and
I look forward to continuing to work together.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Kelly, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Hudson and Ranking Member
Matsui, for holding this morning's hearing. And thanks to our
witnesses for participating.
This past year, the Trump administration has threatened
platforms' ability to responsibly moderate content by
unlawfully weaponizing independent agencies such as the FCC.
Rather than protecting consumers or fostering competition, this
agency is now being weaponized in a calculated effort to
sabotage the decisions of private entities and undermine online
free speech.
The FCC has repeatedly claimed to oppose censorship, yet
its recent posture toward section 230 of the Communications Act
reflects a sharp departure from the agency's traditional scope
and legal limits. That inconsistency undermines public trust
and places us in dangerous times.
Chairman Carr, in Project 2025 you wrote the chapter on the
FCC, in which you call for revisions to parts of section 230 to
counter what you saw as censorship and bias against
conservatives by large technology companies. Chairman Carr, in
Project 2025 you wrote, ``The FCC has authority to interpret
that law, and thus provide courts with guidance about the
proper application of the statutory language.'' Your writing is
also consistent with the FCC's general counsel's 2020 legal
opinion that the FCC has the authority to interpret section
230.
But there is no language in section 230 directing the FCC
to enforce this law. And even if the language is ambiguous, in
June 2024 the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference and
stated that courts need not and may not defer to an agency's
interpretation of the law simply because a statute is
ambiguous.
So Chairman Carr, just yes or no. Does the FCC still have
the legal authority to interpret section 230? Just yes or no,
please.
Mr. Carr. Section 230 is in the Communications Act, and
there's provisions of the Communications Act that give us
authority to interpret those terms. And so, yes, the FCC,
generally speaking, has authority to implement provisions of
the Communications Act.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you for your answer.
Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with Chairman Carr that
the FCC has the authority to interpret section 230?
Last I checked, the FCC's website says the FCC does not
regulate online content. Is that no longer correct?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question.
Yes, I disagree. I don't think we have authority to--we
definitely don't have authority to regulate online content, and
we don't want to under the First Amendment.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you for your response.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Carr is now determined to sit
back and be America's speech police. If Brendan Carr, who
tweeted whether it is the Government shutting down speech or a
private platform doing it, these decisions are not made by an
oracle of truth, that is what--that is--that I wish would stand
up.
Thank you to the witnesses, and I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher----
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--
Mr. Hudson [continuing]. For 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Fulcher [continuing]. And thank you to the panel for
all your input today. And I have got a question for
Commissioner Trusty, but I want to apologize in advance for
some of us with dual commitments if some of this is a rerun. So
bear with me here.
But Commissioner Trusty, this has to do with spectrum
auctions. And I come from the great State of Idaho. There is a
lot of rural space in Idaho. And I just want to underscore the
importance of wireless deployment in rural, underserved areas
such as what I represent.
And when it comes to spectrum auctions, have you got any
ideas or input on what we can do to make sure that the small
rural carriers get access to that, or somehow get included with
those?
Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you for this question, and thank
you for your leadership on this issue.
Making sure small, rural providers can participate in
spectrum auctions is critical to fostering competition and
making sure we get high-speed wireless services to unserved and
underserved areas in these rural communities.
So for the AWS-3 spectrum auction that will be initiated in
June, we have designated entities, small businesses, rural
telecommunications companies who have bidding credits. So they
get a discount on the spectrum. We are also proposing to offer
bidding credits to small, rural telecommunications providers in
the upper C-band auction, as that is being debated in the NPRM
that is currently before us.
Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you. Great. Thank you for that.
Commissioner Carr, first of all, thank you for your work in
a lot of this related area too. As you recall, there is a lot
of Federal land in the West, and you have been helpful in
helping us get access to some of that.
I want to just put a plug in for legislation that I passed
through this committee that, when it comes to deploying
broadband infrastructure across previously disturbed Federal
lands, that there is an exemption for that from NEPA if that
is--has to be disturbed again when it comes to broadband
deployment.
Is that something that you can support in terms of putting
the infrastructure in place in rural areas?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership on
these key permitting reform issues.
We are looking right now at additional relief with respect
to courts or otherwise overriding NEPA and environmental
reviews to put needless reviews in place. We want to try to cut
through that. And the work that you are doing in Congress and
elsewhere is important to that.
Mr. Fulcher. It really does slow things down unnecessarily,
in my view.
And I am going to shift gears a little bit to a totally
different topic, but GPS. We went through recently a Homeland
Security review and didn't realize just how much GPS was
involved with many, many things. And one of the concerns that
came up as part of that dialog was that we don't have a good
redundancy system. There is not necessarily an auxiliary
system.
Are you looking at anything potentially to address that
need in case there was a disruption of service to the GPS
system?
Mr. Carr. Most Americans don't realize how dependent we are
for GPS for precision navigation and timing. It is a great
system, but it is a single point of failure.
So one of the very first things that we did when I became
Chair is start the process of looking at standing up
alternatives, a system of systems to GPS. I think it is
important at the FCC that we keep moving forward to do our part
to look at a range of different ways that we could stand up
alternatives or complements to GPS.
Mr. Fulcher. We are told that some other countries have got
some auxiliary systems. That is why I asked the question. Thank
you for looking at that.
I did have a question regarding broadcast ownership, but
Congressman Houchin addressed that with you, and so I won't
force you to repeat the response on that.
Mr. Chairman, with that I yield.
Mr. Carr. Thanks.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the representative from Virginia,
Ms. McClellan, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and
Representative Ranking Member Matsui, for holding this very
important hearing. And thank you to the Commissioners for being
here.
I am probably the most excited about this hearing of any
other hearing we have had thus far. I graduated law school one
year after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed. I was one
of the lawyers who worked on, I think, the only arbitration
before the FCC under that Act. And I ended my legal career
helping my client try to figure out how to provide inputs to
the FCC broadband map.
So I could spend hours, hours talking to you, asking
questions about the FCC's critical role, how we can work
together to modernize the Communications Act, how we can ensure
Americans can communicate freely, affordably, reliably, how we
can help with pole attachment issues, as someone who--yes, I
also climbed a telephone pole. But I only have 5 minutes.
And so in this first conversation with you I want to focus
on what I think is the FCC's most important role, and that is
ensuring that the public, not political interference, remains
at the center of our communications ecosystem, which, as you
have heard today, there is a lot of concern about.
Because since January of this year, at the behest of the
President and under Chairman Carr's leadership, it appears the
FCC has been pursuing a course that mirrors the goals of
Project 2025: consolidating Executive control, weaponizing
regulatory authority, and pressuring speech and media that fall
out of political favor with the President.
These actions represent a clear departure from the FCC's
historic mission and a dangerous erosion of the guardrails that
protect free speech. And that is why earlier this year I
offered an amendment to our oversight plan that said that this
committee would remain committed to investigating any instances
of the FCC weaponizing this independent agency against the news
media to settle the scores of the President or anyone else,
because that is the epitome of abuse.
And I noted in that hearing that our Founding Fathers
believed that freedom of speech and the press are vital
safeguards against government overreach and are crucial for an
informed citizenry and democracy.
George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights,
the precursor to the Bill of Rights, ``that freedom of the
press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never
be restrained but by despotic governments.''
James Madison said that ``for the people to rule wisely,
they must be free to think and speak without fear of
reprisal.''
Benjamin Franklin said that freedom of the speech ``is a
principal pillar of a free government,'' and ``when this
support is taken away the constitution of a free society is
dissolved.''
And I can't be a graduate of UVA and not quote Thomas
Jefferson, who believed ``our liberty depends on the freedom of
the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.''
And so you can see why we are so concerned about how the
FCC conducts itself as it plays a critical role protecting
these linchpins of American democracy.
So Commissioner Gomez, as someone with a front row seat to
how the FCC has operated under the Trump administration and
Chairman Carr's leadership, I want to commend you for your
initiative, the First Amendment Tour, to challenge government
censorship and control. And I want to know if you could share
with us some of what you have heard from broadcasters,
journalists, freedom of speech advocates while you have been
traveling around the country.
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
Yes, I have launched a First Amendment Tour because I have
been so concerned about this administration's abuse of its
regulatory authority in order to target content in the free
press. And what I have heard from communities is a lot of
concern, and this concern is bipartisan. It is across the
ideological spectrum because freedom of speech and the freedom
of the press is paramount to our democracy.
I have also heard a lot of concerns about the level of
consolidation and the capitulation of the corporate owners of
these media companies in order to curry favor with this
administration.
Ms. McClellan. And what have you heard from small and
minority-owned broadcasters about the unique role that they
play in delivering local news, music, and entertainment that
reflect the voices of all communities and not just the majority
community?
Ms. Gomez. Small broadcasters are really the salt of the
earth when it comes to serving their communities, and it is so
important that we maintain a diversity of viewpoints that
reflect the communities in which these broadcasters are
serving.
There is one thing I would like to correct for the record,
and that is there are four national networks--ABC, CBS, NBC,
and Fox--not just two. And the local broadcasters that are
seeking to merge are actually corporate behemoths, not small
local broadcasters.
Ms. McClellan. OK. I thank you for that. I hope this is the
beginning of a beautiful friendship with all of you, and we
have lots of geeking out that we can do.
And with that I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Kean, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman
Carr, Commissioners Gomez and Trusty, for being here today.
Chairman Carr, supporting first responders' ability to
communicate with the public and with others is of critical
importance. I was interested to see that in August of 2025 the
Commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning
the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts. I
agree that it is important that our Nation's alert and warning
systems are closely examined so that fire, EMS, and police
personnel can communicate as effectively and as efficiently as
possible.
Can you provide an update on this process and give an
overview of your vision for the next generation of Wireless
Alert System?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. This is critical. In
fact, the very first project I worked on at the FCC, all the
way back in 2012 when I started at the agency, was on these
types of emergency alerts. And if you look back over the years,
sort of every different compilation of the Commission that
comes in sort of adds something else on top of the existing
system.
And we haven't, at least in my view, stepped back and said,
as a matter of first principles, if we were designing this
system today with today's technology, how would we do it? And
that is the point of what this is designed to do. It is a
voluntary system, so we have to be careful about how much we
put on top of that, but we are asking all of the questions as
to how we make this work in the future.
Mr. Kean. Thank you.
Chairman Carr, you spoke in support of direct-to-cell
satellite connectivity. How can we strengthen coordination
between the FCC and the private sector to expand the
availability of direct-to-cell satellite communications?
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Congressman. We just spoke about
geeking out, and this is something that I really geek out on.
There is this new generation of connectivity where you can
go straight from your smartphone right to a low Earth orbit
satellite. And the low Earth orbit satellite is effectively
like a cell tower in the sky. What that does is eliminates dead
zone. If we have enough spectrum capacity for that, you can get
truly high-speed service right to your phone anywhere. Or think
about any type of device as well.
And so what we are doing right now is positioning the
United States to lead the world in this new technology by
making sure that we have the spectrum resources and the
regulatory framework for this direct-to-cell technology to
really flourish, and to flourish in America first.
Mr. Kean. So I believe it is very important that the U.S.
maintain leadership in space.
How can the FCC support updating regulations on satellite-
based services within bodies like the International
Telecommunications Union to remain dominant and to counteract
anticompetitive efforts by other nations?
Mr. Carr. One of the touchstones of our spectrum and
satellite policy through the years has been reciprocity. We
have a lot of U.S.-based satellite providers, but there's a lot
of European satellite providers that are doing business here in
America. And I am concerned, as a general matter, if you look
at some of the protectionist conduct that is taking place by
European regulators, you see it all across the tech ecosystem,
but we are seeing it rise with respect to satellite in
particular.
And I would simply remind my counterparts in Europe that,
again, that reciprocity has been key to a successful regime. We
want to make sure that U.S. satellite providers are treated
fairly when they are doing business in Europe.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. And Chairman Carr, I appreciate the
FCC's efforts to review regulations in order to streamline
outdated and burdensome rules and to support American
innovators.
First, can you give us an update on the progress of the
effort at large and share any plans for deregulation in the
coming year that you feel is important to support this effort?
Mr. Carr. We have launched the largest deregulatory effort
in the agency's history. To date it is over 1,000 different
rules or regulations that have been either eliminated or teed
up for elimination, over 2,000 inactive dockets. And we are
going to continue to work away to get rid of substantive
regulations that's holding back innovation.
Again, just in a short year you are already seeing wireless
prices come down, speeds increasing, competition enhancing,
bridging the digital divide. This is the work that we are
doing, and it is delivering real, tangible results for the
American people. And we are just getting started.
Mr. Kean. So what is the best way for companies like those
in New Jersey to most effectively engage with the FCC and offer
their perspectives to make the delete-delete-delete effort as
productive as possible?
Mr. Carr. One thing that we want is to hear from them
directly about the types of rules and regulations that are
holding them back. That is why I try to spend as much time
outside the Beltway as possible in this job, meeting directly
with broadband providers and tower climbers. And I ask them,
you know, ``What is holding you back?''
One idea that we have heard is--came up over here in
legislation, which is railroad crossings. Again, it seems like
a random issue, but that has, you know, substantively been
holding back broadband builds in this country. So we want to
hear directly from them what is slowing them down.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kean. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, and I now recognize the last member
of the subcommittee before we go to Members who we welcome here
who waived on.
Mr. Obernolte from California, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carr, thank you for your testimony today. I want
to start by adding my voice to the chorus of voices that you
have heard in the hearing today about the FCC's broadcast
ownership rules.
Now, obviously, those rules were written in an era when
broadcasters were just competing against other broadcasters.
But now, in our digital era, we have broadcasters who compete
about--against players like social media platforms, streaming
platforms. And although I myself am not an advocate of
expanding the regulation to those entities, I think that we do
have an obligation to keep a level playing field and make sure
that we are not handicapping our broadcasters.
So you are aware we sent you a letter last March on this
topic. I was a signatory to that. I won't belabor the point, I
know it has been brought up here before, but I just wanted to
make sure that you knew how important that was to the members
of the subcommittee.
I also want to talk a little bit about the C-band auction
that is coming up the middle of next year, you know, or before.
As you are aware, in 2021 we had the auction of the lower--for
the lower C-band, and that had some pretty serious consequences
for the aviation community in the use of radar altimeters, the
interference with those radar altimeters, and that was
unintended, it was kind of unforeseen, caused a lot of chaos. I
am a pilot myself, so I got to experience some of that chaos
firsthand. And I know that there are things that we wish we had
done differently.
So as we approach this upcoming auction for upper C-band,
what is the FCC planning to do differently to make sure that we
don't get a recurrence of that?
Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Congressman, for the question.
One thing that we are doing is working on the front end on
deep collaboration and coordination with the aviation industry
and our counterparts. So Administrator Bedford at the FAA,
Secretary Duffy at DOT, the White House, myself, we are, you
know, regularly in touch, regularly having meetings to work
through this.
We have a proceeding right now where we have sought comment
on precisely these types of issues. We have a mandate from
Congress to free more than--or at least 100 megahertz of
spectrum. That is going to likely necessitate new standards for
radio altimeters, some retrofitting of radio altimeters, and we
are working through all of those issues right now about what is
the standard. In fact, the FAA itself is working through their
own rulemaking process as well. And again, we are trying to
line up all of these actions so that we are ready to go at the
middle of next summer.
But, you know, it is probably the biggest effort inside the
FCC in terms of the amount of brainpower we have working on it.
I know that the media issues get a lot of attention because the
media likes to talk about the media, but in terms of the work
of the building, C-band and all of the issues that you are
talking about is a big workstream for us.
Mr. Obernolte. All right. I am glad to hear it. If I could
urge you to, as you prepare for the auction, to consider this
issue of mandatory retrofits of radar altimeters, first of all,
always keeping in mind that--I mean, to my understanding, we
don't actually have a certified retrofit available yet. And
even when we do, there is limited production capacity for those
radar altimeters and limited avionics shop capacity. And so we
have to have enough of a window to be able to retrofit the
entire fleet that needs that new part to avoid that
interference.
And second of all, my understanding is that the bidders in
this auction would likely be willing to bear the costs of those
retrofits. And I think that that is fair, that if you are going
to ask a community to retrofit something that they already
bought, that the people that benefit, you know, ought to help
pay for that. And so, if you could, please keep those things in
mind.
And then, in the time I have left, I want to talk a little
bit about the spectrum and this seemingly insatiable demand for
spectrum that is being driven by not just digital media
consumption on portable devices but newly now by AI, and
particularly generative AI that is, if you look at it, it is
going to be at least a linear increase in the number of the
amount of spectrum that we use. In the most dire cases it is
exponential. So we are going to run out of spectrum if we--on
the path that we are on.
Can you talk us through how the FCC views this? I mean, are
we going to run out of spectrum? I know we have directed you to
make more spectrum available. Is that going to be sufficient?
What do you see the future hold?
Mr. Carr. Yes, right now the United States is a bit out of
balance in terms of spectrum policy. We have taken a lot of
good action on license, we have taken a lot of good action to
have access on the Federal side, to Federal spectrum. But this,
you know, high-power commercial spectrum for NextGen is where
we really need to focus our efforts, and that is why I think C-
band and others are so important.
To your point, we are seeing this hockey stick curve of
demand, historically. But now, with AI coming online, we want
AI to work directly on your smartphone. Well, that hockey stick
just goes straight through the roof. And so we have to continue
to bring more spectrum online but also permitting reform.
Because if you can split cells by making it not onerous to
build a new cell site, that can help take care of capacity as
well.
But we are facing, potentially, a shortfall of capacity a
number of years from now, which is why this work we are doing
right now is so important.
Mr. Obernolte. All right--
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Obernolte. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
And the Chair will remind the committee that we are pushing
up on votes at 1:30. It is my intention to drive through, and
we have got three members of our full committee who have waived
on. I would like to push through these. I would just ask
everyone, please observe the time limits so we can get
everyone's questions in.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Hudson and Ranking Member
Matsui, for cohosting this hearing, and welcome to our guests.
In my opinion, this hearing is long overdue. The actions of
the Federal Communications Commission over the past year have
been deeply troubling and demand serious oversight. As many of
my colleagues have discussed, we have seen dangerous violations
of free speech, of political interference certainly at what
should be an independent agency, and brazen efforts to
greenlight illegal broadcast consolidation.
Today I want to focus on the Commission's rollback of basic
consumer protections. I listed with great--listened with great
interest to Ms. Castor's exchange with the panel as it relates
to E-Rate support. In 2024, when the FCC announced it was
expanding E-Rate support to include WiFi on schoolbuses and
hotspot lending by schools and libraries, I was indeed
thrilled. I have long advocated for this expansion as a
practical way to narrow that homework gap and reach students
who otherwise lack reliable broadband access.
However, last year the Commission reversed its course, and
I joined many of my colleagues in calling out that rollback,
and I do it again here today.
So Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty, I strongly urge
you to reconsider your votes and reinstate that rule. This
decision was cruel and, I believe, very much short-sighted. It
strips students of the tools they need to succeed and widens
that digital divide the Commission is charged with closing.
Commissioner Gomez, in your testimony you noted that E-Rate
support for buses and hotspots was one of the most effective
tools the FCC had to ensure students across the country are not
left behind in our digital economy, and I heard some of your--I
heard all of your remarks to Representative Castor.
But from your perspective, what impact will students,
educators, and libraries experience as a rollback with these E-
Rate expansions?
And what does that mean for the FCC's obligation to ensure
universal service?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you for that question.
Broadband connectivity is crucial to be able to participate
in today's digital economy in order for students to become
ready for the digital future, in order for seniors to be able
to make their health appointments, in order for people to apply
for jobs, in order for veterans to be able to meet their
healthcare, as well. And yet, if you don't have access to
broadband, we need the ability to provide affordable access to
these students and to all these other folks that rely on
broadband because today broadband is everywhere. We have--
everything is done online.
So losing access via hotspots means students can't do it to
do homework. Losing the WiFi means students can't do it while
they are on their schoolbuses. There are some States where
students are on the schoolbus for 2 hours each way. Think about
what they could do to do their homework on those buses, and we
pulled that away.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you for the response.
Last month this committee held a hearing on public safety,
with witnesses emphasizing that emergency alerts must be
effective for everyone, including individuals with language
barriers. So it also is disappointing to have seen the FCC
delay commonsense safety reforms like multilingual emergency
alerts. The Commission had to be sued by State attorneys
general, including New York's Letitia James, for obstruction
before publishing its rule on multilingual emergency alerts.
And even now, provisions of that rule have been delayed
indefinitely.
So Commissioner Gomez, can you explain the risks that
delayed multilingual alerts pose to our public safety?
Ms. Gomez. Yes. It is so important that everyone be able to
get access to emergency alerts and that they be able to
understand them. If--we can only save lives if people
understand the emergency alerts.
So we have squandered time. We have the Olympics and the
World Cup coming next year, which is going to require a lot of
people to get alerts, if there is a public safety incident, in
a language they might understand. So I am hopeful that we will
move forward in order to ensure that everyone can understand
the emergency alerts.
Mr. Tonko. Well, we see a lot of brutality in our streets
and neighborhoods these days. So----
Mr. Carr. Just a point of clarification, because I think
this is important. Multilingual alerts could go out before, and
they can go out today and then go out tomorrow. So I just want
to make sure we are not leaving people with the misimpression
that alert originators can't send out multilingual alerts. They
can, and we want them to.
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Ms. Gomez. And it is true that that is the case. What this
does, what the FCC has paused is actually making it easier and
more frequent that they will be able to put those out, because
right now the vast majority of alerts go out in English because
it is the originators that put them out.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. I had other questions, so I
will get them to the committee.
But let me just close and say that freedom of speech is the
underpinning of our republic.
Mr. Hudson. Thank----
Mr. Tonko. With that I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for allowing me to
join this very important hearing.
The intersection of rural broadband and healthcare is
critical to examine as we work together in expanding
connectivity to all Americans.
Chairman Carr, thank you for coming to Pennsylvania's 13th
congressional district. Thank you for meeting with the
providers. Thank you for working with the poll workers and
climbing those towers. Your personal impact and commitment is
felt in Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district.
Rural districts like the one you visited and I represent
are often left behind as broadband deployment accelerates
across the country. Your personal commitment to not allow the
rural areas to be left behind is important, and that resonates
throughout America.
As a doctor, I have seen the impact that the digital divide
has on rural healthcare providers. Rural healthcare providers
serve unique populations that are often underserved. We doctors
who serve in rural areas often struggle to access
telecommunications infrastructure and broadband that is
essential to serve our patients.
The RHC program offered by the FCC under the Universal
Service Fund aims to provide funding to eligible care providers
for telecommunications and broadband services necessary for the
provision of healthcare today. The RHC program serves my
constituents in Pennsylvania's 13th congressional district.
Connecting them and the funding and connectivity resources are
important.
It is crucial that we evaluate the efficiency and the
effectiveness of the RHC program and how it contributes to the
FCC's goal of connecting all of America. At WellSpan Health,
the RHC program has allowed hospitals to maintain access to
physical, behavioral, and maternal care in Pennsylvania's 13th
congressional district.
Chairman Carr, as I have noted, you have visited the 13th
congressional district in Pennsylvania on more than one
occasion, and you personally are keenly aware of the broadband
challenges that the district faces, particularly in the
healthcare industry.
How do you measure the effectiveness in the RHC program and
the impact of the program that we are seeing in rural
communities, in hospitals like WellSpan?
Mr. Carr. Congressman, thank you for the question, and
thanks for your leadership for Pennsylvania and for your
district.
If you look back just the last 5 years alone, my
understanding is that almost $2.5 million have flowed to your
district for rural healthcare, and we are seeing those funds
being put to use to make sure people can have access to next-
generation care. And we are working together to make sure that
we expand rural broadband, as well, to further bolster access
to healthcare and NextGen services for the good people in your
community.
Mr. Joyce. As we are talking today, there are patients who
are connecting with their doctors right now receiving the care
that, to your point, Chair Carr, was not available 2\1/2\ years
ago. Telehealth is a tool that has become increasingly
valuable, as I have noted, in rural areas, in underserved
areas. In some areas, telehealth is the most accessible option
for patients seeking care.
Commissioner Trusty, you said in your written testimony
that you have witnessed how broadband is delivering quality
care straight into rural patients' homes through video. How can
the RHC program serve providers that are seeking to expand
their healthcare options for rural patients?
Ms. Trusty. Thank you for the question, and also thank you
for your leadership.
So, as you know, the Rural Health Care Program ensures that
rural patients have access to modern healthcare or telehealth.
In recent months we have made process improvements at the FCC
to extend funding deadlines to ensure we have the funding to
meet the demand and to roll over additional funding for the
funding year 2025 to meet the needs of rural communities across
the country.
I think this congressional bipartisan working group on USF
is another forum for us to explore additional reforms or
modernizations to this program so that all rural Americans can
have access to quality healthcare services.
Mr. Joyce. I look forward to working with you and seeing
that expansion continue.
Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to waive on to this
important hearing, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Hudson. The Chair appreciates that, and I will now
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullin, for 5
minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Carr, as we have heard today from my colleagues,
there are serious concerns about the FCC's actions during your
tenure and that they crossed the line into interference with
free speech, a concern that I share. Will you simply commit
today that the FCC will not use its licensing authority,
enforcement role, or claims of news distortion to politically
pressure or punish broadcasters for their editorial decisions?
Mr. Carr. The FCC is going to enforce the public interest
standard, news distortion, broadcast hoax rule, and, you know,
that is the actions we are going to take.
Mr. Mullin. I want to emphasize the importance of editorial
independence to our democracy. Broadcasters, whether public,
private, local, or national, need to be able to exercise lawful
journalistic judgment without fear of retaliation from the
Federal Government. That principle is foundational to the First
Amendment and to a functioning democracy.
So Commissioner Gomez, in your testimony today you warned
that the Commission has asserted what you described as a
``roving mandate'' to police speech it does not like, relying
on an undefined and unchecked interpretation of the public
interest standard.
Can you explain in plain terms the role Congress has given
to the FCC?
And should the FCC be in the business of content
regulation, especially in light of how people are now receiving
their content?
Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you for that question.
The FCC does regulate the broadcast licensing to serve the
public interest, but the public interest is not some nebulous
standard that can be used in order to target any content that
this administration doesn't like, and that is the problem with
this continued use of this public interest standard, as it
exists to punish broadcasters because of their editorial
decisions or because of their news reporting.
We need to go back to simply conducting our role of
ensuring that the broadcasters have the infrastructure that
they need, and in order to be able to serve their local
communities, and that is what I think we should be doing. We
should not be pressuring broadcasters on their content. It
violates the First Amendment and the Communications Act
prohibition on censorship.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. And out of respect for
time, just one final issue. In light of a $1 billion rescission
cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its impact
on our emergency alert systems, given that extreme weather
events are increasing in both frequency and severity, is the
FCC prepared to provide--and I will ask you again, Commissioner
Gomez--additional technical support to local broadcasters to
both maintain and build out resilient emergency alerting
systems, particularly for rural and underserved communities
that rely on public and local broadcasters for lifesaving
information?
Ms. Gomez. Thank you for bringing to light this issue with
the defunding of public broadcasters. Not only are we losing
educational programing, local news, a lot of civic engagement,
but we are also losing the backbone of our emergency alert
system. And I am unaware that the FCC has any activities to
address this issue, but it is something that we really need to
consider.
I would urge Congress to refund public media because of the
important services that they provide, both from a public safety
perspective and also to their local communities.
Mr. Mullin. I certainly share that view.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Hudson. Seeing there are no further Members wishing to
be recognized, I would like to thank our witnesses for being
here today.
I remind Members they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to respond to
those questions promptly. Members should submit their questions
by the close of business on January 28, 2026, which tells me I
have 10 days until my mother's birthday, because it is the
28th.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hudson. Without objection, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]