    [Senate Hearing 119-389]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                             S. Hrg. 119-389

                           OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL
                           COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 17, 2025

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    63-603  PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                           TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi                Ranking
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    TED BUDD, North Carolina             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOHN CURTIS, Utah                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    TIM SHEEHY, Montana                  JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware

                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on December 17, 2025................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................     1
        Letter dated April 11, 2018 to Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman,
          Federal Communications Commission from Senators Maria
          Cantwell, Tom Udall, Patty Murray, Elizabeth Warren, Ron
          Wyden, Edward J. Markey, Richard Blumenthal, Tina Smith,
          Bernard Sanders, Jeffrey A. Merkley, Tammy Baldwin and Cory
          A. Booker..................................................    49
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    20
    Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    22
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    25
    Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    27
    Statement of Senator Capito......................................    29
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    31
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    34
    Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    36
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    38
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    40
        Screen shot of FCC Homepage..................................    41
    Statement of Senator Young.......................................    43
    Statement of Senator Kim.........................................    45
    Statement of Senator Curtis......................................    53
    Statement of Senator Blunt Rochester.............................    56
    Statement of Senator Schmitt.....................................    58
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    60
    Statement of Senator Budd........................................    62
    Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    64
    Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    66

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. Brendan Carr, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission...     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Olivia Trusty, Commissioner, Federal Communciations Commission...    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission...    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15

                                    Appendix

    Letter dated December 17, 2025 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Maria
      Cantwell from The Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights.    69
    Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Brendan Carr by:
        Hon. Ted Cruz................................................    71
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    72
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    73
        Hon. Deb Fischer.............................................    74
        Hon. Jerry Moran.............................................    75
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    75
        Hon. Todd Young..............................................    76
        Hon. Eric Schmitt............................................    77
        Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    77
        Hon. Cynthia Lummis..........................................    79
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    80
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    86
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    86
        Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    88
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................    90
        Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    90
        Hon. Jacky Rosen.............................................    91
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    91
        Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    96
    Response to written questions submitted to Olivia Trusty by:
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    97
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    97
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    98
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    98
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    99
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   100
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   101
        Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   101
        Hon. Jacky Rosen.............................................   102
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................   103
        Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester....................................   103
    Response to written questions submitted to Anna M. Gomez by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................   103
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   105
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   107
        Hon. Brian Schatz............................................   109
        Hon. Gary Peters.............................................   111
        Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................   112
        Hon. Tammy Duckworth.........................................   113
        Hon. Jacky Rosen.............................................   116
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................   117
        Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester....................................   118

                           OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL
                           COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
    room SDG-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Wicker, Fischer, Moran,
    Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Budd, Schmitt, Curtis, Capito,
    Cantwell, Klobuchar, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Rosen,
    Lujan, Hickenlooper, Kim, and Blunt Rochester.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        The Chairman. Good morning.
        The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation will come to order. Welcome to today's hearing,
    ``Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.''
        The FCC plays a critical role in the lives of everyday
    Americans, from TV and radio broadcasting to cellular and
    satellite communications and Internet connectivity.
        The Commission sits at the center of the services and
    technologies that power Americans' daily lives, that project
    American leadership and influence across the globe, and that
    form the backbone of our national economy. In other words, the
    Commission's work is kind of a big deal.
        So I am pleased that we are joined today by our witnesses--
    Chairman Carr and Commissioners Trusty and Gomez--for this
    important hearing, and especially pleased that they agreed to
    be here and that this is the first FCC oversight hearing this
    committee has held since 2020.
        I believe Commissioner Trusty was sitting right here
    staffing then Chairman Wicker at that hearing and so,
    Commissioner, it is nice to see you have moved 30 feet to the
    other side of the dais.
        We have a lot of important ground to cover today. The pace
    of change in just the last year, let alone since the last FCC
    oversight hearing by this committee, has been astounding.
        We have seen the deployment of 5G and early groundwork for
    6G, major advancements in the satellite industry, particularly
    the growth of low Earth orbit, high-speed internet, AI, and
    seismic shifts across the media landscape, and we have seen the
    enactment of President Trump's Working Families Tax Cut Act
    which not only reinstated spectrum auction authority for the
    FCC for the next decade but contained the largest single-
    spectrum pipeline, 800 megahertz, ever enacted into law.
        This will raise billions of dollars for the taxpayer. It
    will stimulate billions more in private sector investment as
    U.S. companies bring faster and cheaper Internet to more
    Americans, and it will lay the foundation for countless
    technological innovations.
        These benefits will be felt nationwide and, indeed,
    worldwide across multiple generations of Americans. On day one
    of the new administration the FCC, under Chairman Carr, hit the
    ground running and already has an impressive list of
    accomplishments to show.
        These include the delete, delete, delete docket, which
    continues to clear out the regulatory underbrush, ensuring the
    integrity of the universal service programs and preventing
    fraud by illegal aliens, reforming the FCC's satellite
    licensing regime to help bolster America's position as the
    global leader in space commerce, streamlining permitting to
    speed broadband build out, and moving at lightning speed to
    implement the new spectrum pipeline, already teeing up 100
    megahertz of valuable C-band spectrum to be auctioned for
    commercial use in the near future.
        But there is plenty more work to be done. Given the rapid
    pace of evolution in technology and telecommunications, it is a
    wonder that the legal regime governing these issues and the
    Commission's role in regulating them has, largely, not been
    updated since 1996, and there are any number of issues, from
    the utility of the so-called public interest standard in the
    modern era to retransmission consent rules in the streaming era
    to the current media ownership caps, where a statutory update
    might be worthwhile.
        The world of today, with mobile computers in every pocket
    and artificial intelligence becoming exponentially more
    capable, is markedly different from the time when cell phones
    were the size of footballs, when Gordon Gekko walked on the
    beach holding a brick to the side of his head, and from the
    time when AOL was the leading edge of Internet connectivity.
        We live in a different world and it is worth considering
    whether Congress should revisit the Communications Act and
    update it for the modern age.
        On the public interest standard in particular, if my
    colleagues across the aisle do what many expect and hammer the
    Chairman over their newfound religion on the First Amendment
    and free speech, I will be obliged to point out that those
    concerns were miraculously absent when the Biden administration
    was pressuring Big Tech to silence Americans for wrong think on
    COVID and election security.
        It will underscore a simple truth, that the public interest
    standard and its wretched offspring, like the news distortion
    rule, have outlived whatever utility they once had and it is
    long past time for Congress to pass reforms.
        I am grateful to our witnesses for being here today to talk
    about what the FCC is doing and how to address some of these
    important issues.
        The energy and focus Chairman Carr has brought to this
    Commission in just the first year has been productive and
    refreshing. I am excited for what the next several years will
    bring.
        I now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    convening this important oversight hearing, and I thank our
    witnesses for being here.
        The FCC's independence is central to protecting free and
    diverse press, strengthening our national security, and
    bringing down the cost of telecommunications and media
    services.
        However, what we have seen this year in costs that
    Americans are facing, prices are rising. The question is what
    is the Chairman of the FCC and the FCC doing to bring down
    costs for consumers?
        The American people deserve an FCC that protects them from
    hidden fees and promotes affordability. The FCC, though, is, in
    my mind, doing just the opposite in allowing consolidations
    that reduce competition and can help drive up costs.
        Americans are paying more than ever for streaming, cable,
    wireless services. Streaming costs are up 13 percent this year
    alone, basic cable costs have more than doubled in the last 10
    years, and Americans are paying more than almost any other
    country for wireless.
        And what is the FCC doing to help drive down those costs?
    Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ensure transparency
    in billing, but Chairman Carr has proposed to punch holes in
    those rules to implement that.
        He is making it easier for big corporations to tack on
    hidden fees to your Internet bills. I have even heard
    consideration by some groups saying that we should take away
    spectrum from broadcast television stations because maybe they
    are not getting enough use and maybe we should have even less
    competition.
        So it is clear to me that the FCC, we need to do everything
    to protect consumers including protecting them from the harms
    of AI.
        So instead I see an FCC that is not focused enough on
    affordability. That is why today we are releasing a snapshot
    report from the minority here talking about why consolidation
    and reduced competition is driving up costs.
        So, hopefully, we can ask some questions about that today
    and focus on what we need to do to keep local journalism, to
    keep broadcasting, and to make sure that we do not have undue
    influence.
        We now know that this issue, as related to Jimmy Kimmel,
    quote, ``the easy way or the hard way'' is just an example, and
    I certainly appreciate Chairman Cruz's words saying it was
    ``dangerous as hell and right out of Goodfellas.''
        But I also appreciate Leader Thune and former Majority
    Leader McConnell agreeing that this went too far. The question
    is how do we now make sure that we continue to have not so much
    consolidation?
        Because I know, Chairman Carr, you have supported
    consolidation that makes it easier to have influence and to
    have less competition. Local news and independent voices
    matter, and consolidation undermines that independence and
    drives up costs.
        What happens if a merger does take place and CBS and CNN
    are in the same boat? Are they going to continue to be the same
    competitive environment or what will we do to make sure that
    consumers still have a choice?
        Earlier this year, Chairman Carr greenlit the Skydance
    acquisition of Paramount, but not before Paramount agreed to
    pay $16 million in a lawsuit.
        Using the FCC process should not be used in this kind of
    extortion process but to focus on what will drive down costs
    and help consumers in this process.
        People across the political spectrum agree there is too
    much control in a few hands. Chris Ruddy, CEO of NewsMax, has
    spoken about how corporate consolidation threatens local news.
        Chairman Carr, what are we doing to make sure that you are
    going to continue to protect local media ownership and grow
    this opportunity?
        We do not want to see content that is produced nationally
    for local broadcast. I am right now suffering from an
    unbelievable flood that has gone on for days and days.
        Today's latest challenge will be a blizzard. They are wall
    to wall with news. For the safety of the citizenry of
    Washington, I would hate to see broadcast content interrupted
    or a station undermined to the point that they cannot do their
    job in covering this unbelievable flood which is affecting
    every corner--almost every corner of our state.
        But beyond bringing down costs and protecting independent
    media, I am also concerned about safety. Chinese intelligence
    orchestrated Salt Typhoon attacks, which then Senator Rubio,
    Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described as,
    quote, ``The most disturbing and widespread incursion into our
    telecommunications system in the history of the world,'' end
    quote.
        That should have led the FCC to strengthen our defenses.
    Instead, Chairman Carr, you rolled back the FCC's Salt Typhoon
    rules, the only major regulatory response to those attacks, and
    the rush to auction off critical spectrum I believe could
    undermine military readiness and aviation safety.
        Earlier this year, we wrote to Secretaries Duffy and
    Hegseth outlining those concerns about safety. So I hope that
    today's hearing can have the proper oversight on these
    important issues--what are we doing not only to protect
    consumers from costs but protect them on their safety and
    security.
        Mr. Chairman, it is an important time. Not all of these
    issues have happened in the last year but, clearly, we need to
    do our job in continuing to help the American consumer get
    information in a competitive landscape and also drive down
    costs.
        I thank the Chairman. Look forward to hearing from the
    witnesses.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is
    Brendan Carr, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
    Commission. He was designated as Chairman on January 20, 2025,
    by President Trump and he has served on the Commission since
    2017.
        Our second witness is Olivia Trusty, Commissioner at the
    FCC. She was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the
    Senate this past June.
        Our final witness is Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner at the
    FCC. She has served on the Commission since September 2023.
        Chairman Carr, you are recognized for your opening
    statement.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN,
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

        Mr. Carr. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation to testify.
        It has been a busy and productive year at the FCC with the
    agency focused on delivering great results for the country. So
    I welcome the chance to join with my Commission colleagues
    today and discuss the agency's important work.
        While this is not my first time testifying before the
    Committee, it is my first time appearing before you as Chairman
    of the FCC.
        So I want to thank President Trump for the honor of leading
    this exceptional agency. I also want to start by saying how
    proud I am of the FCC's dedicated staff and everything they
    have accomplished for the American people.
        In my view, the FCC's public servants are simply the best
    in government. At the outset, I would also like to applaud the
    important work that this committee has accomplished this
    Congress.
        For instance, thanks to Chairman Cruz and many of his
    fellow committee members, the FCC's spectrum auction authority
    has now been restored through President Trump's Working
    Families Tax Cut Act, a historic legislative accomplishment.
        In terms of the FCC's work, the agency has been following
    President Trump's strong leadership and we have 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 bills, drive down prices for
    consumers, and restore U.S. leadership in wireless.
        We are reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work
    including new efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls.
        We are strengthening America's national security with work
    underway that tracks Senator Fischer and Senator Lujan's leads
    on the FACT Act and we are empowering broadcasters to meet
    their public interest obligations.
        I lost my page for a second there. Much of this represents
    significant change from the Biden years. Indeed, when I took
    over as Chairman the FCC faced several challenges.
        For one, the Biden administration allowed the U.S. to fall
    behind when it came to one of the most important features of
    our economic strength, spectrum.
        The FCC's spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years
    earlier. The Biden administration had failed to tee up a single
    new spectrum ban for auction, and the prior administration's
    spectrum strategy committed to freeing up exactly zero
    megahertz of spectrum.
        On top of this, permitting reform was going nowhere. The
    Biden administration was layering on heavy-handed regulations
    that only inflated prices and made it harder for broadband
    builders to start turning dirt.
        We had to turn things around, and fast. Thanks to President
    Trump's leadership we are doing exactly that. As I detail in my
    testimony, the FCC's ``Build'' agenda focuses on unleashing our
    Nation's construction crews 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.
        Indeed, we now have a massive new spectrum pipeline and are
    working on multiple new spectrum auctions. In fact, the FCC
    just voted on a proposal to auction up to 180 megahertz in the
    upper C-band.
        For still another, we are boosting America's space economy
    and in all of this we are already seeing results. One carrier
    alone just announced that they lit up spectrum. They gained
    access to this year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time,
    boosting 5G speeds by up to 80 percent.
        President Trump and the FCC's ``Build'' agenda are also
    delivering for America's workers. Providers are now adopting
    faster payment cycles and fairer pricing, they are closing
    loopholes that allowed foreign groups to swoop in and undercut
    U.S. workers, and they are improving safety.
        Finally, the FCC is now pursuing the largest deregulatory
    effort in the agency's history. To date, we have teed up for
    removal over 1,000 rules or regulations and terminated a record
    2,000 inactive proceedings.
        Eliminating those costly regulations is part of our
    affordability work, too. For instance, we shut down a Biden-era
    plan that could have spiked the price of Internet for millions
    of Americans living in apartments by up to 50 percent, and in
    many ways we are just getting started.
        I look forward to continuing 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:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. Brendan Carr, Chairman,
                       Federal Communications Commission
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I am grateful for
    the opportunity to join with my Commission colleagues today and provide
    an update on the FCC's work over the last year. I look forward to
    sharing with you the priorities we have been advancing at the FCC since
    January.
        While this is not my first time testifying before the Commerce
    Committee, it is my first time appearing before you as Chairman, and
    there are a number of new members on the Committee since the last FCC
    oversight hearing in 2020. So I wanted to begin with a brief
    introduction.
        I first joined the FCC as a staffer in 2012 over a dozen years ago.
    In the time since, I have had the privilege of serving in a number of
    different roles at the agency. I started out as an attorney in the
    FCC's Office of General Counsel. I then worked as a legal advisor for a
    Commissioner. Following that, I served as the General Counsel of the
    FCC before President Trump nominated me to serve as a Commissioner in
    2017. Having been confirmed by the Senate three times, I am very
    grateful to President Trump for his decision to designate me as
    Chairman of the FCC earlier this year.
        Working alongside my Commission colleagues here today and leading
    the talented group of public servants at the agency is the honor of a
    lifetime. I am proud of the work the agency's dedicated staff have been
    getting done for the American people. And I am especially grateful for
    their commitment to public service through the recent government
    shutdown. It is great to have everyone back in the building again.
        I would also like to take a moment to recognize the important work
    that this Committee has accomplished this Congress. Thanks to Chairman
    Cruz, and many of his fellow Committee Members, the FCC's spectrum
    auction authority has now been restored through President Trump's One
    Big Beautiful Bill. When the FCC's auction authority lapsed for the
    first time ever back in 2023, it put America's global leadership and
    our connectivity goals at serious risk. I am glad we are correcting
    course now. I also want to applaud Chairman Cruz and Senator Markey for
    their leadership on the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. This
    legislation will help keep AM radio--a linchpin of our emergency
    response system--in place and ensure that Americans can continue to
    access local news, information, and entertainment programming.
        Following President Trump's strong leadership, the FCC has 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, drive down prices for consumers, and restore
    U.S. leadership in wireless. We are reinvigorating the agency's
    consumer protection work, including its efforts to crack down on
    illegal robocalls. We are empowering broadcasters to meet their public
    interest obligations. We are strengthening America's national security
    and advancing public safety. We are undertaking the largest
    deregulatory effort in the agency's history. And we are eliminating
    waste while improving efficiency and modernizing agency operations.
        I detailed much of this agenda for the first time on a visit
    earlier this year to a tower construction company's training center in
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota. While Sioux Falls might not be everyone's
    pick for rolling out a policy agenda for a Federal agency headquartered
    in Washington, D.C., I could not think of a more appropriate setting.
    For one, the communities spread across South Dakota are a great
    reminder of the types of places we have to keep in mind as we develop
    connectivity policies back here in Washington. For another, I first
    visited that facility over seven years earlier--it was the first place
    that I ever put on a harness and hardhat in this job and climbed a
    tower. So it was a good reminder of the work ahead for America's
    broadband builders, and why the FCC's agenda should focus on making
    their jobs a little bit easier.
        As I detailed in those remarks, the FCC's Build America Agenda
    focuses on a number of core priorities. I would like to provide the
    Committee with an overview of those goals, and the work the FCC is
    undertaking to advance them and some of the agency's other top agenda
    items.
    Unleashing High-Speed Infrastructure Builds
        The FCC is working to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds in
    communities across the country. We are modernizing permitting rules and
    cutting red tape. This includes making it easier for providers to
    retire slow and old copper lines and replace them with the modern,
    high-speed ones that consumers want. We are accelerating and
    simplifying the process for extending new lines across existing utility
    poles. And we are pursuing a range of additional steps that can remove
    barriers to deployment and streamline regulatory approaches. These
    actions will free up billions of dollars in capital that can go to work
    closing the digital divide.
        At the same time, we are ending the Biden-era regulatory
    overreaches that only made it harder to build high-speed infrastructure
    in this country. This year, for instance, the FCC reversed a Biden-era
    plan that would have slowed down infrastructure builds by subjecting
    tower builds to additional, needless, and onerous regulations. We also
    stopped a Biden-era proposal to regulate so-called ``bulk billing''
    arrangements, which could have increased the price of Internet service
    for Americans living in apartments by as much as 50 percent. And at the
    very beginning of this year, a Federal court invalidated the prior
    FCC's plan to expand government control of the Internet through heavy-
    handed, Title II regulation.
    Restoring America's Leadership in Wireless
        The FCC has also been working hard to free up airwaves and restore
    the country's leadership in wireless. This is key because opening up
    spectrum for more intensive use drives down prices for consumers,
    brings families across the digital divide, and strengthens competition.
    But at the beginning of this year, the FCC had a lot of work to do on
    this front. Our spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years
    earlier. And there was no pipeline of spectrum for the agency to
    auction.
        Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we are turning things
    around--and fast. At my very first meeting as FCC Chairman, we started
    a proceeding to examine ideas for freeing up a large swath of spectrum
    in the Upper C-band. The White House then initiated a ten-week
    ``spectrum sprint'' to study options for lighting up hundreds of
    megahertz of spectrum. And President Trump leaned in--making it clear
    that advancing America's 5G and 6G leadership would be a top priority
    for the Administration.
        Chairman Cruz and many members of this Committee then spearheaded
    the work to pass the spectrum provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
    Those provisions restored the FCC's auction authority and established a
    real spectrum pipeline--one with hard deadlines, clearing targets, and
    candidate bands.
        For our part, the One Big Beautiful Bill requires the FCC to
    auction at least 100 megahertz of spectrum in the Upper C-band by July
    2027 and at least 300 megahertz total by 2034. The FCC has been working
    hard to implement those provisions in coordination with other Federal
    agencies and stakeholders. Indeed, just last month, the Commission
    voted on a proposal to auction up to 180 megahertz of spectrum in the
    Upper C-band--exceeding the 100 megahertz minimum set by Congress.
        Of course, a lot of work remains ahead on the C-band. Success will
    require continued interagency coordination, especially with our Federal
    partners at the FAA and NTIA. It also requires extensive cooperation
    and information sharing between the wireless and aviation sectors. We
    have been working well with all stakeholders, and I am pleased with the
    collaboration we've seen to date.
        But our work to advance U.S. spectrum leadership is not limited to
    the Upper C-band or even spectrum auctions alone. In the secondary
    markets, we are now seeing large swaths of spectrum moving into the
    hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. On this
    score, AT&T recently agreed to purchase 50 megahertz of spectrum. And
    SpaceX has agreed to acquire 60 megahertz more. If approved, the latter
    transaction could advance America's position as the world-leader in
    next-generation, direct-to-cell technology. These secondary market
    moves are already showing results. Indeed, just recently, one carrier
    announced that they have already built out spectrum they gained access
    to this year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time--boosting 5G
    speeds by up to 80 percent.
    Boosting America's Space Economy
        President Trump has been clear that the Administration is ushering
    in a new Golden Age for space innovation in America. And President
    Trump's leadership could not come at a better time. Our nation is in
    the midst of what I refer to as a Space Race 2.0. This time around our
    main competitor is the government of China, which has its sights set on
    dominating in low-Earth orbit and up and down every orbital location.
        To win this second Space Race, the U.S. is going to rely on
    American innovators. And I have had the chance to see these great
    businesses firsthand on visits outside the Beltway. Earlier this year,
    for instance, I visited Midland, Texas, with Chairman Cruz where we saw
    some of the Nation's leading innovators building next-gen satellites in
    West Texas.
        The FCC's efforts on this front are possible thanks to the
    Executive Order President Trump signed earlier this year to streamline
    regulations and foster a competitive commercial space industry. The FCC
    is following the White House's lead. We are looking to add rocket fuel
    to our space economy and give the private sector a predictable
    regulatory framework by focusing on four main principles: speed,
    simplicity, security, and satellite spectrum abundance. We are already
    clearing out application backlogs and standardizing procedures in
    furtherance of that agenda.
    Strengthening America's Telecom Workers
        I have had the chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string
    lines with some of the country's most talented and hardworking telecom
    crews. So it is important to me that the FCC do its part to strengthen
    the Nation's telecom workforce. I am determined to ensure that our
    nation's tower and telecom crews are rewarded for their work. And they
    are poised to benefit greatly from President Trump's leadership and the
    agency's Build America Agenda.
        We are already seeing good results. Over the last year, many
    communications providers have committed to a range of workforce reforms
    that will result in a more sustainable environment for America's tower
    and telecom crews. Providers are now adopting faster payment cycles and
    fairer pricing metrics. They are minimizing layers of subcontracting,
    which will allow for greater oversight of crews and stronger safety
    protections. And they are closing loopholes that allowed foreign, fly-
    by-night groups to swoop in and undercut U.S. crews. The FCC will
    continue to look out for American workers.
    Reinvigorating the FCC's Consumer Protection Work
        The FCC has been working hard to reinvigorate and modernize our
    consumer protection work. Of course, the issue the FCC hears about the
    most through consumer complaints is illegal robocalls. And on this
    front, the FCC has started a new campaign to tackle illegal robocalls
    at every point in the call path. For years, the government's efforts in
    this area have been described as a game of whack-a-mole. When we
    address one type of scam, or fine a bad actor, another one pops up
    using a new workaround.
        So we are now looking at every portion of the call lifecycle. We
    are focusing on prevention--stopping bad actors from ever originating
    calls in the first place. We are pushing carriers to block more illegal
    robocalls before they reach consumers. We are giving consumers better
    tools to distinguish legitimate calls from scams. We are looking to
    curb scam calls that originate outside of the United States by
    deterring the use of U.S. area codes for calls originating overseas.
    And we are stepping up enforcement to make sure every provider doing
    business in the U.S. takes proactive steps to mitigate robocalls.
    Indeed, on my watch, the FCC has now removed over 1,200 non-compliant
    voice service providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database, which
    functionally disconnects them from the U.S. phone network. The FCC will
    continue to crack down on shady providers using all of the tools at our
    disposal.
        Our work on consumer protection matters also includes our efforts
    to help Americans access the right resources during a time of crisis.
    This year, for instance, we adopted rules requiring wireless providers
    to develop the capability to transmit georouting data when someone
    sends a text to 988. This means that someone reaching out for help
    during a crisis will get the localized help they need.
    Empowering Local Broadcasters
        The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to serve the
    public interest and meet the needs of their communities. As Congress,
    the Supreme Court, and the FCC have all made clear, broadcasters are
    different than every other distributor of media. Specifically,
    broadcasters are required by both the Communications Act and the terms
    of their FCC-issued licenses to operate in the public interest. This
    sets them apart from cable channels, podcasts, streaming services,
    social media, and countless other types of distributors that have no
    public interest obligation. The FCC's broadcast hoax rule, its news
    distortion policy, its political equal opportunity regulation, its
    prohibition on obscene, indecent, and profane content, its localism
    requirements--all of those and more apply uniquely to broadcasters.
    Congress has instructed the FCC to enforce public interest requirements
    on broadcasters. The FCC should do exactly that.
        Television broadcasters have this public interest obligation
    because the government has given them the unique privilege of using a
    scarce national resource--the public airwaves--and in doing so has
    necessarily excluded others that might want to broadcast their own
    programming over that same spectrum. That is why they are required to
    serve, not just their own narrow interest, but the public interest,
    including the needs of their local communities.
        To ensure that broadcasters can meet their public interest
    obligations, the FCC has taken a number of actions, including seeking
    public comment for the first time in more than 15 years on the
    relationship between the large, national programmers on the one hand
    and the many local broadcast television stations on the other. Comments
    in that proceeding suggest that many local broadcasters are concerned
    that the national programmers have amassed enormous power and influence
    in recent years and have made it more challenging for local
    broadcasters to fulfill their public interest obligations.
        The FCC is going to continue its efforts to empower local
    broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations.
    Promoting National Security and Advancing Public Safety
        The FCC has significantly ramped up its efforts this year to
    promote our country's national security and advance public safety. For
    one, at the beginning of my time as Chairman, I stood up a new Council
    on National Security within the FCC to leverage all of the agency's
    authorities, expertise, and relevant workstreams to counter the threats
    posed by foreign adversaries, including the government of China. This
    Council is already paying dividends. The FCC cracked down on what we
    call ``Bad Labs''--labs that review and approve electronics for use in
    the United States, but are owned or controlled by foreign adversary
    governments. The Council on National Security also executed Operation
    Clean Carts, which worked with e-commerce platforms to take down
    millions of listings of devices on the FCC's Covered List or otherwise
    prohibited for sale in the United States.
        And that's not all. In May, the FCC started the process of
    identifying foreign adversaries that hold licenses or authorizations in
    the communications sector, in line with the policy of Senator Fischer
    and Senator Lujan's FACT Act. In August, the FCC adopted new rules on
    undersea cable security, following President Trump's America First
    Investment Policy Memorandum. In those rules, we took action to unleash
    the build out of undersea cables to ensure the U.S. leads the world on
    AI infrastructure, as the President's AI Action Plan calls for, while
    mitigating threats to undersea cables from foreign adversaries. In
    October, the FCC closed two loopholes that provided no check on old
    models of covered equipment--potential spy gear--to be imported or
    sold, as well as allowed devices to be approved that contain covered
    equipment as module components. And most recently, in the wake of SALT
    Typhoon, the FCC has worked directly with carriers to ensure that they
    are adapting their cybersecurity practices and hardening their networks
    against future attacks, including by working with Federal partners like
    the FBI, NSA, and CISA to receive technical assistance on networks,
    rapidly share information, and working together to strengthen cyber
    defenses.
        Beyond threats from foreign adversaries, the FCC also continues to
    foster network resilience in the face of natural disasters. My first
    trip as Chairman of the FCC was to Western North Carolina where I
    visited several of Hurricane Helene's hardest-hit areas and met with
    emergency management and public safety officials, telecom crews,
    broadcasters, and other government representatives that worked to
    rebuild those communities. In July, we hosted a public roundtable
    focused on collaboration between communications service providers,
    electric utilities, and emergency management officials. Following the
    discussion, we published Cross-Sector Best Practices for Hurricane
    Season in September focused on disaster recovery, ``blue sky''
    coordination efforts, and mutual cross-sector aid and assistance,
    building on the work of the Mandatory Disaster Response Initiative.
        Earlier this year, the FCC also began the process of a ground-up
    re-examination of the national alert and warning systems, including the
    Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts. The underlying
    frameworks of these systems are 31 and 13 years old, respectively, so
    it is important to ensure the FCC is leveraging the latest technology
    to save lives.
        The FCC has also worked to strengthen and modernize our Nation's
    public safety systems. In March, the FCC proposed requirements to
    improve location precision for 911 callers in multistory buildings. We
    also moved forward with a proposal that would make the transition from
    legacy 911 to NG911 effective and reliable without creating new
    vulnerabilities in critical public safety networks.
    Streamlining Regulations and Modernizing Agency Operations
        Right now, the FCC is also undertaking the largest deregulatory
    initiative in the agency's history. At the beginning of my tenure as
    Chairman, I launched an effort titled ``In Re: Delete, Delete,
    Delete.'' Since then, the FCC has been reviewing every rule,
    regulation, and guidance document for the purpose of eliminating
    unnecessary regulatory burdens, and we sought feedback from
    stakeholders to get their perspectives as well.
        I am now pleased to report that to date the FCC has removed or teed
    up for removal 1,108 rules and regulations, 134,928 words, and 312
    pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. The FCC has also worked to
    close out inactive dockets and has terminated a record 2,048 inactive
    proceedings. These initiatives further the Commission's goal of
    promoting good governance, increasing efficiency, and modernizing
    agency processes.
        Improving efficiency at the FCC does not stop with examining the
    CFR and open FCC dockets. We are also working to be good stewards of
    the taxpayers' funds. In Fiscal Year 2025, we generated millions of
    dollars in savings by eliminating or modifying unnecessary contracts.
    We also brought agency staff back into the building to foster in-person
    collaboration to deliver on the FCC's mission.
        As you can tell, the FCC and its hardworking staff have been moving
    fast to deliver great results for the American people this year. I
    thank them for their dedicated service. And I look forward to the
    important work ahead.
                                     * * *
        In closing, I want to thank you again Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and Members of the Committee for holding this hearing and for
    the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Commissioner Trusty.

               STATEMENT OF OLIVIA TRUSTY, COMMISSIONER,
                   FEDERAL COMMUNCIATIONS COMMISSION

        Ms. Trusty. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today.
        It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a
    commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that
    time, I have had the privilege of working on policies to expand
    access to high-speed connectivity, enhance the resilience of
    the Nation's communications networks, and restore U.S.
    leadership in next-generation communications technologies.
        Critical to my work has been the opportunity to travel
    across the country and around the world to hear directly from
    broadband providers, tower engineers, fiber splicers,
    consumers, and our international partners and allies.
        Whether in Jackson, Mississippi; Eek, Alaska; or Baku,
    Azerbaijan; I heard about the state of the communications
    marketplace and how access to 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, life-saving 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 health care 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 Alaskan 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 this 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 communication
    services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding.
    Following my confirmation, the Supreme Court affirmed the
    constitutionality of the Universal Service Fund.
        I commend the bipartisan, bicameral, congressional USF
    working group for taking the initiative to identify reforms to
    ensure the program's sustainability and continued support for
    the operation and maintenance of communications networks in
    rural and remote areas.
        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 the leadership of Chairman
    Cruz and the members of this committee, 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 is not inevitable. It must be
    earned. I look forward to working with members of this
    committee and our interagency partners to ensure the United
    States is positioned to capture first-mover advantages in the
    technologies that will define the future of our economic and
    national security.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to
    testify. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Trusty follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Olivia Trusty, Commissioner,
                       Federal Communications Commission
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
        It has been nearly six months since I was sworn in as a
    Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. In that time, I
    have had the privilege of working on policies to expand access to high-
    speed connectivity, enhance the resilience of the Nation's
    communications networks, and restore U.S. leadership in next-generation
    communications technologies.
        Critical to my work has been the opportunity to travel across the
    country and around the world to hear directly from broadband providers,
    tower engineers, fiber splicers, consumers, and our international
    partners and allies. Whether in Jackson, Mississippi, Eek, Alaska, or
    Baku, Azerbaijan, I heard about the state of the communications
    marketplace and how access to 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,
    life-saving 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 health care 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 this 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. Following my
    confirmation, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the
    Universal Service Fund. I commend the bipartisan, bicameral
    congressional USF Working Group for taking the initiative to identify
    reforms to ensure the program's sustainability and continued support
    for the operation and maintenance of communications networks in rural
    and remote areas.
        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 the leadership of
    Chairman Cruz, and the members of this Committee, 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 committee and our interagency partners to ensure 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. I
    look forward to your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Commissioner Gomez.

               STATEMENT OF ANNA M. GOMEZ, COMMISSIONER,
                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

        Ms. Gomez. Thank you.
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and the
    distinguished members of this Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        As Commissioner, my priorities have centered on expanding
    reliable and affordable connectivity to every community,
    maintaining U.S. leadership through smart spectrum policy,
    preserving localism in a vibrant media ecosystem, and ensuring
    first responders have the tools they need to reach the public
    when it matters most.
        These priorities reflect longstanding bipartisan goals and
    they are the areas where I had hoped we would be spending our
    time and energy with a shared commitment to serving consumers.
        Instead, over the past 10 months, the Commission has taken
    a markedly different approach, one that has undermined its
    reputation as a stable, independent, and expert-driven
    regulatory body.
        Nowhere is that departure more concerning than in its
    actions to intimidate government critics, pressure media
    companies, and challenge the boundaries of the First Amendment.
        It is precisely because of these concerns that I launched a
    First Amendment tour earlier this year, traveling across the
    country to hear directly from communities.
        My goal was simple--to listen, engage, and to reaffirm that
    the FCC's work must remain grounded in constitutional
    principles and public trust, and I have found myself aligned
    with voices across the ideological spectrum, united by a shared
    belief that the First Amendment is fundamental to our democracy
    and worth defending, even when doing so is politically
    inconvenient.
        In that spirit, I want to thank Chairman Cruz for speaking
    out in defense of the First Amendment and for his continued
    engagement on this critical issue.
        One thing I learned during these conversations is that when
    the FCC strays from its core mission, consumers pay the price.
    That reality results in higher costs, fewer voices and choices,
    and missed opportunities to expand access across communications
    ecosystems.
        One clear example of where Congress and the Commission have
    been aligned is spectrum policy. I want to thank Congress for
    restoring our spectrum auction authority. This is an important
    step toward expanding capacity, promoting competition, and
    maintaining U.S. leadership in wireless innovation.
        When spectrum policy is done properly, it lowers costs for
    consumers and it fuels economic growth. Yet, spectrum is only
    part of the story. Millions of households have faced rising
    broadband costs following the lapse of the Affordable
    Connectivity Program with little action from the Commission
    focused on affordability or consumer relief.
        These missed opportunities reflect a troubling lack of
    focus on the everyday challenges consumers face in accessing
    and affording essential communications services. Beyond missed
    opportunities, the FCC has taken affirmative actions that have
    raised costs and reduced the choice for consumers.
        FCC actions contributed to the loss of a potential fourth
    competitor on national wireless front, weakening competition
    and increasing the risk of higher prices.
        At the same time, the Commission reversed the work it had
    previously done under congressional mandate to lower the cost
    of prison communications and chose to increase the cost of
    phone and video calls, leaving some of the most vulnerable
    families paying excessive rates to stay connected with loved
    ones.
        These affordability concerns are especially acute in the
    media landscape. The FCC has advanced plans that would allow
    billion-dollar media companies to grow even larger at the
    expense of local news and community-driven reporting.
        This push comes at a time when major media companies are
    already consolidating across broadcasting, streaming, and
    content production, raising serious questions about market
    power, editorial independence, and the future of community-
    based journalism.
        The national television ownership cap is established by law
    and reflects Congress' judgment about the importance of
    competition, localism, and viewpoint diversity.
        Efforts to sidestep that statutory limit present
    significant issues concerning the scope of the FCC's authority
    and the consequences for those it regulates and serves.
        Whether in broadcasting or streaming, media consolidation
    should not erode the independence of the press or diminish the
    voices of local communities.
        I have always believed that the FCC does its best work when
    it honors the needs of the people it serves. When the agency
    focuses on lowering costs, expanding opportunity, and
    protecting the ability of communities to communicate and to be
    heard, it builds public trust and produces real benefits for
    consumers.
        I look forward to working with this committee to ensure the
    FCC returns to that mission and continues to serve the American
    people with integrity and independence.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner,
                       Federal Communications Commission
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
    of the Senate Commerce Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today.
        When I was confirmed as an FCC Commissioner just over two years
    ago, I could not have anticipated the pace or the magnitude of the
    challenges we now face.
        As Commissioner, my priorities have centered on expanding reliable
    and affordable high-speed connectivity to every community; maintaining
    U.S. leadership in wireless innovation through smart spectrum policy;
    preserving localism and a vibrant media ecosystem; and ensuring first
    responders have the tools they need to reach the public when it matters
    most.
        These priorities reflect long-standing, bipartisan goals that
    should unite this Committee and the Commission alike. They are the
    kinds of issues the FCC has traditionally addressed with seriousness
    and a shared commitment to serving consumers. And they are the areas
    where I had hoped we would be spending our time and energy.
        Instead, over the past ten months, the Commission has taken a
    markedly different approach, one that has undermined its reputation as
    a stable, independent, and expert-driven regulatory body.
        Nowhere is that departure more concerning than in its actions to
    intimidate government critics, pressure media companies, and challenge
    the boundaries of the First Amendment.
        It is precisely because of these concerns that I launched a First
    Amendment Tour earlier this year, traveling across the country to hear
    directly from communities in Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, Illinois,
    Maryland, Washington State, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and
    California. My goal was simple: to listen, to engage, and to reaffirm
    that the FCC's work must remain grounded in constitutional principles
    and public trust.
        And, I have found myself aligned with voices across the ideological
    spectrum, united by a shared belief that the First Amendment is
    fundamental to our democracy and worth defending, even when doing so is
    politically inconvenient. In that spirit, I want to thank Chairman Cruz
    for speaking out in defense of the First Amendment and for his
    continued engagement on this critical issue.
        One thing I learned during these conversations is that when the FCC
    loses its focus and strays from its core mission, consumers pay the
    price. That reality results in higher costs, fewer choices, and missed
    opportunities to expand access across the communications ecosystem.
        One clear example of where Congress and the Commission has been
    aligned is spectrum policy. For years, the FCC was hamstrung by the
    lack of auction authority, limiting our ability to innovate and bring
    new spectrum to market. I want to thank Congress for restoring our
    spectrum auction authority. This is an important step toward expanding
    capacity, promoting competition, and maintaining U.S. leadership in
    wireless innovation. When spectrum policy is done properly, it lowers
    costs for consumers and fuels economic growth. Over the next few
    months, continued bipartisan engagement on this issue will be critical
    to getting it right.
        Yet spectrum is only part of the story. At the same time, millions
    of households have faced rising broadband costs following the lapse of
    the Affordable Connectivity Program, with little action from the
    Commission focused on affordability or consumer relief. Taken together,
    these missed opportunities reflect a troubling lack of focus on the
    everyday challenges consumers face in accessing and affording essential
    communications services.
        Beyond missed opportunities, this FCC has taken affirmative actions
    that have raised costs and reduced choice for consumers. In the
    wireless market, FCC actions contributed to the loss of a potential
    fourth national wireless competitor, weakening competition and
    increasing the risk of higher prices. At the same time, the Commission
    reversed the work it had previously done under congressional mandate to
    lower the cost of prison communications and chose to increase the cost
    of phone and video calls, leaving some of the most vulnerable families
    paying excessive rates to stay connected with loved ones.
        These concerns are especially acute in the media landscape. The FCC
    has advanced plans that would allow billion-dollar media companies to
    grow even larger, likely at the expense of local news and community-
    driven reporting. This push comes at a time when major media companies
    are already consolidating across broadcasting, streaming, and content
    production, raising serious questions about market power, editorial
    independence, and the future of community-based journalism.
        The national television ownership cap is established by law and
    reflects Congress's judgment about the importance of competition,
    localism, and viewpoint diversity. Efforts by this FCC to reinterpret
    or effectively sidestep that statutory limit present significant issues
    concerning the scope of the FCC's authority and the consequences for
    those it regulates and serves. Whether in broadcasting or streaming,
    media consolidation should not erode the independence of the press or
    diminish the voices of local communities. Taken together, these actions
    underscore the need for the FCC to refocus on the principles that
    matter in the real world and the impacts its decisions have beyond
    Washington.
        I have always believed that the FCC does its best work when it
    honors the needs of the people it serves. When the agency focuses on
    lowering costs, expanding opportunity, and protecting the ability of
    communities to communicate and be heard, it builds public trust and
    produces real benefits for consumers. I look forward to working with
    this Committee to ensure the FCC returns to that mission and continues
    to serve the American people with integrity and independence.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to join you today. I look
    forward to your questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you to each of you.
        Chairman Carr, let us start with free speech. I think you
    would agree that the FCC's public interest standard has been
    weaponized against conservatives in the past.
        In 2018, Senate Democrats tried to pressure the FCC to use
    the public interest standard to stop Sinclair Broadcasting
    Group from acquiring Tribune Media.
        In 2023, leftists sought to stop a routine renewal of a
    Fox-owned broadcast station over complaints about 2020 election
    coverage.
        Do you agree that that was wrong?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, I agree, and those are cases, in
    fact, where rather than following FCC precedent the agency
    broke from it and did so in a weaponized way.
        The Chairman. Now, another area of agreement between you
    and I is that Jimmy Kimmel is angry, overtly partisan, and
    profoundly unfunny. That, sadly, is true for most late-night
    comedians today who seem to have been collectively broken by
    President Trump's election.
        Jimmy's remarks about Charlie Kirk were tasteless, and ABC
    and its affiliates would have been fully within their rights to
    fire him or simply to no longer air his program. That was their
    choice.
        But what government cannot do is force private entities to
    take actions that the government cannot take directly.
    Government officials threatening adverse consequences for
    disfavored content is an unconstitutional coercion that chills
    protected speech.
        This is why it was so insidious how the Biden
    administration jawboned social media into shutting down
    conservatives online over accurate information on COVID or
    voter fraud.
        My Democrat colleagues were persistently silent over that
    scandal, but I welcome them now having discovered the First
    Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Democrat or Republican, we
    cannot have the government arbitrating truth or opinion.
        Mr. Chairman, my question is this. So long as there is a
    public interest standard should it not be understood to
    encompass robust First Amendment protections to ensure that the
    FCC cannot use it to chill speech?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, I agree with you there, and I think
    the examples you laid out of weaponization during the Biden
    years are perfect examples.
        The Fox case you mentioned was a renewal for a broadcast TV
    license and petitioners sought to have the FCC not renew it
    based on content that aired on a separate cable channel.
        In a cable context, it is entirely different. There is no
    license. There is no public interest standard. So first and
    foremost, we have to make sure the FCC is hewing to precedent.
        Similarly, we saw Democrats in Congress write letters to
    cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox News, OAN, and
    Newsmax because they disagreed with the political perspectives
    of those cable channels and there, again, it is cable.
        No broadcast license, no public interest standard. So the
    FCC has to write within the four corners of our precedents to
    be consistent with the Communications Act and the First
    Amendment concerns as well.
        The Chairman. All right. Let us shift to spectrum.
        One of the biggest economic and national security wins in
    the Working Families Tax Cut Act was restoring the FCC's
    auction authority and creating the largest spectrum pipeline--
    800 megahertz of spectrum--in U.S. history.
        It will not just bring faster and cheaper wireless to
    consumers, but it will keep the United States competitive in
    the global 6G race against communist China. I am encouraged
    that the FCC has already begun the process of freeing up
    potentially as much as 180 megahertz of C-band spectrum.
        Chairman Carr, is the Commission on track to meet the law's
    spectrum deadlines and to fully deliver on the bill's
    obligations?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, and, again, thank you to you for
    restoring the FCC's auction authority. We had fallen into a
    deep spectrum malaise during the Biden years. We were losing
    our leadership position.
        Right now, we are very actively working with our partners
    across government, Department of Transportation, FAA, NTIA, and
    we are all aligned to deliver on the statutory deadline of July
    2027 for that auction.
        The Chairman. And what will the benefits to consumers be of
    800 megahertz of spectrum being made available for auction for
    the private sector?
        Mr. Carr. First of all, this will allow us to catch back up
    to China. When President Trump left at the end of his Trump 45
    administration, we had leapfrogged China and were set up in a
    very good position.
        But then we did not move forward with any new spectrum
    bands and China moved ahead. So this is important for national
    security but also for prices for consumers.
        The data shows when we free up more spectrum we can allow
    providers, for instance, to compete for in-home broadband and
    when they do that with fixed wireless we have seen that cable
    modem prices drop by 37 percent where they used to have a
    monopoly.
        So it is good for our economy, for innovation, and for
    prices for consumers as well.
        The Chairman. Commissioner Trusty, how does the spectrum
    auction pipeline and the Working Families Tax Cut help position
    the United States for success at the 2027 World Radio
    Conference?
        Ms. Trusty. Yes, thank you so much for the question,
    Senator, and thank you again for your leadership in restoring
    the FCC's general spectrum auction authority and creating this
    long-term spectrum pipeline.
        I think these spectrum provisions are foundational to
    developing a unified strategy going into the next World Radio
    Communications Conference where we can focus on key U.S.
    interests.
        We can work with our international allies in advance to
    preempt those who are seeking to undermine U.S. interests at
    the conference in Shanghai, China.
        In 2023, at the last World Radio Communications Conference
    we did not have this kind of legislative backing or support. We
    did not have auction authority. We did not have a long-term
    spectrum pipeline, and so we were sidelined on very important
    conversations.
        Now that we have this authority, thanks to your leadership,
    we can constructively and meaningfully engage in these
    conversations that I think position us better to come out of
    this conference with wins that are essential for economic and
    national security and global leadership in next-generation
    communications technologies.
        The Chairman. Terrific. Thank you.
        Ranking Member Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Carr--Chairman Carr--obviously, Salt Typhoon
    was a major attack on the United States infrastructure,
    government espionage by them, specifically exploiting the
    wiretap system built by law enforcement to track millions of
    Americans, their location, real-time phone calls, text
    messages, and according to senior officials, breached largely
    because the telecom companies did not implement basic
    cybersecurity measures like not putting a patch in place or
    router vulnerabilities.
        At the beginning of the year, the FCC issued a ruling to
    hold the FCC companies accountable but the FCC rolled that back
    last month. So are these Chinese hackers still in the American
    telecom system?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        I agree with you that the Salt Typhoon incident should
    never have been allowed to happen. At the beginning of the year
    the Biden administration put forward a declaratory ruling, but
    no rules themselves were adopted at the time, and the FCC's
    decision itself did not go through the agency's normal review
    process.
        When I spoke with the career intel officials then they were
    urging me not to move forward with a rulemaking but instead to
    work collaboratively and directly with the carriers to make
    sure they were taking real-time actions to address and
    remediate.
        In fact, that is what we have been doing. We have worked
    directly with the carriers----
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think there are still hackers in
    the system?
        Mr. Carr. Well, recently over the summer, the FBI's Cyber
    Director--I will refer you to his remarks that are very
    specific on this and the Cyber Director for the FBI said that
    the hackers behind Salt Typhoon are, quote, ``largely
    contained,'' end quote, dormant in the networks, that they are
    not actively infiltrating information.
        So I would, again, refer you to sort of the FBI which is
    the lead spokesperson on this issue. What we have done----
        Senator Cantwell. I mean, I know what the FBI and CISA
    recommended. They said that you should use Signal, that
    everybody in America should get off of these systems and use
    other messaging services that had encrypted calling.
        So I do not think this issue is solved and I think rolling
    back the rules that protect Americans--I think in this
    information age you need to have robust, robust security
    measures and you need to make sure that the telecom industry is
    implementing them. Otherwise, we will continue to have these
    kind of hacks on the system.
        And so I do not agree with the rolling back of these
    issues. I do want to bring up a second issue, which is on cost
    and, Ms. Gomez, you articulated this as it related to EchoStar
    Dish, I think, but I think it is bigger than that.
        We are seeing this massive amount of consolidation in the
    marketplace. I think we have a chart back here--if somebody
    could just hold it up for a second--about how, you know, we pay
    the most in wireless costs, we pay--or second in the world--the
    most or second most in broadband costs writ large.
        And so the question is what are we going to do to drive
    down costs for consumers and how are these consolidations
    basically making it more challenging for us to give consumers
    real choice in the marketplace without cost?
        And while I love spectrum and I want good international
    competition, I am more impressive with spectrum that does not
    interfere with DOD.
        I am more impressed with spectrum that basically helps
    expand into rural areas and drives down costs, and more
    impressed with a spectrum policy that basically takes that low
    end of the market that does not have affordable costs and
    basically does something to help them participate in the
    market.
        Why give more spectrum if the telecom companies float and
    decide not to do the rules on security and they just become
    basically richer while the American consumer becomes poorer?
        And, again, this is just one example of how the United
    States is one of the most expensive in the country. But could
    you help explain a little more on your thoughts about what we
    do to increase competition and lower costs?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator.
        I am a firm believer that robust competition results in
    benefits for consumers including lower costs, and I am
    concerned that the level of consolidation in this country is
    actually reducing the incentives that lead to lower costs for
    consumers.
        And since you raised affordability, I am so glad you raised
    that because one of the things that I am very concerned about
    is the lack of a program to provide affordable access to
    connectivity for consumers throughout this country.
        We are spending billions of dollars in order to deploy
    networks in the hardest to reach areas but we are not going to
    make sure that they are sustainable if people cannot afford to
    actually purchase that service. So we need----
        Senator Cantwell. Is that not what has been wrong with
    spectrum policy writ large is we just--we sell the spectrum, we
    give it to the telco industry.
        They basically expand to the areas that they can have
    customers but not to the hard-to-serve areas or figuring out a
    price point that will allow them to deliver a service so we can
    expand to the whatever it is, 20 million Americans that do not
    have broadband.
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, that is exactly right. I mean, it is an
    incentive, as your economic incentive is where the profits are.
    So that is where government steps in.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I do not think that is where the
    FCC is stepping in.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Fischer.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    our Commissioners for being here today.
        Congress codified the Universal Service Mission three
    decades ago. It has been a fundamental building block in
    providing reliable communications and Internet across this
    country and in the hardest-to-reach places.
        However, communications in the 1990s looked a lot different
    than they do in 2025.
        Chairman Carr, given this reality and ongoing legal
    challenges to the Fund, would you agree that Congress has a
    vital role in modernizing the USF?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your long-time
    leadership on these universal service issues. I have enjoyed
    the chance to visit with you in your state and see the
    important work that the Universal Service Program has done.
        I commend the working group that is ongoing in the Senate
    looking at this issue, and I think you are right. I think it is
    time for Congress to take a fundamental look at the program to
    make sure it is fit for service in the coming years.
        Senator Fischer. And Commissioner Trusty and Gomez, do you
    have anything you would like to add to that?
        Commissioner Trusty.
        Ms. Trusty. Thank you for the question, Senator. I agree.
    Thank you for your leadership on these issues. You have been a
    long-time leader on making sure we can meet connectivity needs
    in these areas.
        I do agree that reforms for USF are very important. This is
    the cornerstone of the FCC's mission in connecting Americans
    across the country and USF is a part of that effort.
        Senator Fischer. And, Senator Gomez, anything to add? Any
    comments about reforms?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Senator, and, again, also thank
    you for yours and Senator Lujan's leadership on this issue.
        I think it is very important for the Senate to help us to
    make the Universal Service Fund a sustainable program that
    ensures affordable access for all Americans, and I am really
    hopeful that what you are able to provide is that sustainable
    affordability program as part of your--the reforms that you put
    forward.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. As co-chair of the working
    group, I sent the Commission a letter with Senator Lujan
    earlier today and it requests a briefing to help inform
    Congress' efforts in this regard.
        Chairman Carr, will you commit to getting a briefing on the
    books in January for our staff and the appropriate Commission
    personnel?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, I look forward to working with you on this
    issue.
        Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you.
        The U.S. role in shaping global communications policy is
    vital for countering foreign threats to our networks and all
    the assets that they connect, and adding to--an element to this
    challenge is the upcoming World Radio Communication Conference
    that will take place in China.
        Commissioner Trusty, what will be the biggest risks that
    this adds to a complex process?
        Ms. Trusty. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I think security is the business risk that adds to this
    process, and as, you know, we are working at the FCC to ensure
    that providers uphold their commitments to patch outdated
    equipment, to update their access controls, to make sure they
    are improving threat intelligence sharing to further harden our
    networks, and I think a part of this process will mean more
    public-private partnerships so that we can share information,
    educating providers about how they can harden their networks as
    well as we travel over to Shanghai to participate in this
    conference.
        I think there needs to continue to be whole-of-government
    conversations about how to protect our assets in this forum.
        Senator Fischer. I would imagine that those are many of the
    things that you will take into account as the United States
    develops its positions at this conference, correct?
        Ms. Trusty. That is absolutely right.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell brought up spectrum. I cannot let it go by
    without also chiming in.
        There are a lot of decisionmaking ahead for the Commission
    as it charts out spectrum resources for both licensed and
    unlicensed use, and I believe that balance needs to be the key
    here.
        We know that unlicensed and shared spectrum technologies
    carry up to 90 percent of the U.S. communications each and
    every day.
        Commissioner Trusty, moving forward, how should the
    Commission ensure that shared technologies can continue to
    flourish and innovate, and how do you preserve value between
    the different types of spectrum licensing in striking a
    balance?
        Ms. Trusty. Thank you for this very important question,
    Senator.
        I think the FCC has an all-of-the-above approach to looking
    at spectrum to accommodate a variety of users, use cases, and
    technologies.
        So our immediate priority is the upper C-band, which will
    result in exclusive license use, but we also need more spectrum
    for unlicensed uses, for WiFi 7, WiFi 8, to support the
    Internet of Things and other forms of connectivity that is
    benefiting all Americans.
        We also need spectrum for satellite and space uses so we
    have the satellite spectrum abundance proceeding where we are
    looking to make upward of 20,000 megahertz available for
    satellite and space reasons, and we are looking more
    intensively at bands above the 24 gigahertz band for fixed
    satellite services.
        So the whole thing is we need an all-of-the-above approach
    so that we can accommodate a variety of users and use cases and
    advance U.S. leadership in these technologies.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. I look forward to
    having conversations with all of you on this in the future.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I would prefer to be asking
    questions about the bipartisan work that needs to be done on
    universal service and broadband and spectrum, and I will ask
    that in writing, but the events of this year move me to focus
    on free speech and our democracy.
        Chairman Carr, in 2022 you tweeted, ``Political satire is
    one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It
    challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people
    into the discussion. That is why people in influential
    positions have always targeted it for censorship.''
        Yes or no, do you still agree that political satire should
    be protected speech?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, and whenever that satire or any
    other programming is over the public airways for broadcasters
    there is a public interest standard and there is a news
    distortion rule, a broadcast hoax rule, a political----
        Senator Klobuchar. You answered it. You answered it yes and
    I am just----
        Mr. Carr.--equal opportunity rule.
        Senator Klobuchar. I am going to go on.
        Mr. Carr. That particular instance, too, had to do with
    speech on social media where Biden administrations were trying
    to shut down political speech, again, an area where there is no
    license, there is no public interest standard. We want robust
    wide-open speech.
        Senator Klobuchar. We will get to that in a minute. You
    know, I believe, too, that there is no place in chilling
    political satire, but after Jimmy Kimmel's monologue you went
    on a podcast and suggested that ABC should take Kimmel off the
    air saying, ``We can do this the easy way or the hard way.''
        Those were your words. Do you think it is appropriate to
    use your position to threaten companies that broadcast
    political satire?
        Mr. Carr. I think any licensee that operates on the public
    airways has a responsibility to comply with the public interest
    standard and that has been the case for decades.
        Senator Klobuchar. I asked if you should--if you think it
    is appropriate for you to use your position to threaten
    companies, and this incident with Kimmel was not an isolated
    event.
        You have launched investigations into every major broadcast
    network except Fox. Is that correct?
        Mr. Carr. I do not know if that is true or not. We do have
    investigations going on NPR and PBS. We have a number of
    investigations that are ongoing.
        I think if you step back, over the years I think the FCC
    has walked away from enforcing the public interest standard and
    I do not think that is a good thing.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. You brought up social media. So do
    you think it is appropriate for after a horrific murder and the
    stabbing--the stabbing of Rob Reiner and his wife--do you think
    it is appropriate for someone to say that it happened when they
    know better, reportedly due to the anger he caused others
    through his massive unyielding and incurable affliction with a
    mind-crippling disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome?
        He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging
    obsession of President Donald J. Trump with his obvious
    paranoia reaching new heights.
        Do you think that is appropriate for the President of the
    United States to do that, and if Jimmy Kimmel would have said
    that would you have threatened to take him off the air?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, look, Democrats on this dais are
    accusing me of engaging in censorship and now you are trying to
    encourage me to police speech on the internet. I am simply not
    going to do it. Broadcast television is----
        Senator Klobuchar. Oh, I am just asking what kind of words.
    I think they are cruel. I think they hurt President Trump to
    say that kind of thing. I think it hurts him with trust in the
    American people.
        But this is the kind of stuff that is going on right now,
    and yet you are going after broadcast stations except for Fox
    and making threats.
        Mr. Carr. Senator, we are applying the law.
        Let us step back. Broadcast TV is fundamentally different
    than any other forms of media, whether it is cable or podcast
    or a soapbox or a man on the street. There is a public trustee
    model that Congress has set up. When you are on a podcast----
        Senator Klobuchar. So you think there should be no rules in
    place when it comes to tech platforms then?
        Mr. Carr. I think there is no public interest obligation.
    There is no license. There is no----
        Senator Klobuchar. Do you think we should change the laws?
    Here is one.
        Mr. Carr. There is no news----
        Senator Klobuchar. Last week, President Trump came out with
    this dangerous and likely illegal AI rule that preempts all the
    states from doing anything to try to save people, whether it is
    kids that are being exposed to content they should not see or
    fentanyl or political videos that are lies.
        So, do you think Congress has the authority to preempt
    state laws or do you think President Trump and the agencies
    like yourself have the authority to preempt state law when it
    comes to the Internet and safety with AI?
        Mr. Carr. Well, when it comes to AI in particular there is
    an executive order. It asks the FCC to initiate a proceeding.
    We are going to initiate a proceeding. We are open minded on
    where that goes.
        But look, if you want to step back and talk about
    weaponization, we saw that for 4 years in the Biden
    administration. Senate Democrats including Democrats----
        Senator Klobuchar. Joe Biden is no longer president. You
    are head of the FCC and Donald Trump is President, and I am
    trying to deal with this right now.
        So I would ask you, Ms. Gomez, what are the risks of the
    Commission trying to preempt state laws, particularly when
    there are no Federal guardrails? Because our colleagues,
    despite some good efforts, refuse to pass any kind of even
    minimal rules when it comes to AI.
        What are the risks of the Commission or a President then
    trying to preempt state laws that can legally put state laws in
    place?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator.
        I believe that the FCC has very dubious authority to
    actually preempt state laws in this case, because without a
    comprehensive Federal framework there is nothing for the FCC to
    preempt.
        The Communications Act did not actually talk about
    artificial intelligence or provide authority to the FCC to do
    this preemption. So I am very dubious of our authority to do
    so.
        That said, we have sought comment on this.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Senator Moran.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Chairman Cruz, thank you. Thank you and
    Senator Cantwell for this hearing. Welcome, Commissioners.
        Chairman Carr, I sent you a letter in May urging the FCC to
    modernize broadcast ownership rules, quote, ``to enable local
    broadcasters to compete with today's media giants,'' and it is
    my local broadcasters that are at significant risk from
    competition from media giants, traditional and otherwise.
        And in that letter I described the impact of applying
    legacy media rules to a fundamentally changed media landscape
    on local broadcasters versus national players.
        I firmly believe--there is no question that follows my
    statement this morning but I want to reiterate this to you
    today in this hearing.
        I firmly believe that local broadcasters are best suited to
    deliver local journalism and as a small town print journalism
    has succumbed to even stronger headwinds, the importance of
    local broadcasters has increased by orders of magnitude.
        Across Kansas local broadcasters are hugely important and
    provide the news, the weather, the sports, and we need to make
    certain that their viability is enhanced by ownership rules
    that the Commission has talked about and considering.
        I also want to highlight broadband mapping. Seems like deja
    vu, a conversation we have had since 2017 when the maps were
    first provided to Congress and the country. It was clear that
    they were desperately or damagingly flawed.
        More than five years ago, Congress passed and the President
    signed the Broadband Data Act which required the FCC to update
    its approach to broadband data collection, verification, and
    reporting.
        I appreciate the FCC's work to implement that legislation
    including operationalizing the broadband data collection
    platform, the broadband serviceable location fabric, and the
    national broadband map.
        But I notice when I am ever going to--on the occasion I get
    a compliment it is usually followed by a word but and that is
    what I am doing here.
        But everything that I know from Kansas providers is that
    while the maps themselves have been improved, providers still
    face an arduous and outdated challenging process that makes it
    difficult to update the maps with the most recently available
    data.
        This circumstance is particularly concerning given that
    NTIA makes use of the FCC's data in adjusting the eligibility
    locations for services under broadband.
        So I would encourage you to, again, continue your efforts
    to recover from the mapping process that includes improvements
    in the ability for those in Kansas and across the country to
    make changes in the maps based upon actuality and the reality
    of what we actually provide in service to Kansans.
        This is true in cellular coverage and telephone service,
    and certainly in broadband. The Telecommunications Act of 1996
    provided the statutory basis for the Universal Service Fund
    that Senator Fischer has talked about.
        I serve on that, her task force--her working group to make
    certain that we better empower the FCC to deliver on its
    universal service mission and I appreciate the answers that you
    provided to Senator Fischer about your willingness to work with
    us to accomplish that goal.
        Earlier this year my colleagues and I sent you a letter
    encouraging the Commission to take a balanced approach to
    implementation of spectrum requirements.
        I described--that protect current uses and certain uses of
    spectrum bands, especially unlicensed users in the 6 gigahertz
    band.
        Again, you have addressed this previously in answers to
    questions from my colleagues but I, again, highlight the
    importance of that balanced approach and I know in my
    conversation with you, Commissioner Trusty, and what you said
    this morning, again, that balanced approach involving
    unlicensed spectrum remains an important issue for you and I
    assume that is true.
        Ms. Gomez--Commissioner Gomez--you and I have not had this
    conversation but I would be happy to have you confirm that you
    agree with me.
        Ms. Gomez. Apologies. I am happy to have this discussion
    with you.
        Senator Moran. Thank you.
        Finally, the Federal broadband programs are encumbered by
    inconsistent coordination between entities on the myriad of
    programs that offer broadband services to America, provide the
    support for broadband services to America.
        In April, a GAO audit noted that--just that and lamented
    that the lack of a national strategy on coordinating
    administration of these programs. Major Federal investments in
    broadband like BEAD, which is administered by NTIA, will
    require a focused coordination to make certain that these
    programs are delivering appropriate levels of service.
        Chairman Carr, what specific actions is the FCC taking to
    coordinate with NTIA in the run up to the broadband deployment
    under the BEAD program?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        This is a really important issue. As you indicated, there
    was a GAO report not that long ago that said there was over a
    hundred different broadband funding programs. They were spread
    out over more than a dozen different agencies and they were
    entirely uncoordinated.
        Right now, we have got a great working relationship across
    the FCC, the NTIA, the NEC, and many other agencies that have
    broadband funding to make sure that we are addressing some of
    this coordination issue that has been a challenge before.
        Senator Moran. And when you say making certain we address,
    you are addressing them and there will be a different outcome
    than what we would expect in the absence of that addressing
    those problems, true?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, sir. Yes.
        Senator Moran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Schatz.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Schatz. Thank you to all the Commissioners. Thanks
    to the Committee for conducting this hearing.
        Chairman Carr, you and I have actually known each other for
    maybe 10 years now. We have had several meetings in our office
    and it is usually--I do not want to say mundane but it is
    technocratic, it is technical, it is nonpartisan, and all the
    rest of it. And so I am hoping----
        Mr. Carr. We can do that again right here. It is fine.
        Senator Schatz. I am hoping we can do that again right here
    but it is a more sensitive topic. So I am just going to ask you
    a couple of ``yes or no'' questions.
        I do not mind a quick explanation but, you know, I will
    make a promise to you not to hector you for three or four
    minutes if you can give me quick yes or nos or at least quick
    explanations.
        Chairman Cruz said, ``I think it is unbelievably dangerous
    for the government to put itself in the position of saying we
    are going to decide what speech we like and what we do not, and
    we are going to threaten to take you off the air if we do not
    like what you are saying.''
        Do you see this issue the same way as the Chairman?
        Mr. Carr. Well, my position on this is pretty clear. We
    have a public interest standard that Congress has put into the
    law and there is a number of very specific rules and doctrines
    that flow from that--the broadcast hoax rule, the news
    distortion rule.
        Senator Schatz. OK. So do you----
        Mr. Carr. So my position and I think the Trump
    administration position is that we should be enforcing those
    rules and policies. If Congress wants to change it you are free
    to change it.
        Senator Schatz. So under the--so you think you have
    jurisdiction over political satire under the public interest
    standard and the news distortion standard, just to put a fine
    point on it?
        Mr. Carr. My position is that----
        Senator Schatz. Just a--that one is a yes or no. Do you
    have jurisdiction or not?
        Mr. Carr. We have jurisdiction with respect to the
    broadcast airwaves uniquely to ensure that their operations are
    in the public interest and there is very specific rules here
    for broadcast hoax and news distortion.
        Senator Schatz. So if there is a--so if there is a
    determination by the Federal Communications Commission that
    satire is not in the public interest you believe you have the
    authority to revoke the license of the broadcaster?
        Mr. Carr. That is not my position at all.
        Senator Schatz. OK. So but the----
        Mr. Carr. My position is if the use of the facility is in
    the public interest----
        Senator Schatz. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just--let me
    clarify the question.
        Mr. Carr. Satire that is not broadcast hoax, that is not
    news distortion policy, is perfectly fine.
        Senator Schatz. So----
        Mr. Carr. But I also do not understand the conversation
    about--what satire are we talking about? Where was there
    satire?
        Senator Schatz. We are not doing the questions in this
    direction.
        Mr. Carr. OK.
        Senator Schatz. What is the FCC standards for making this
    kind of evaluation about whether you--whether news has been
    distorted?
        My understanding is that this has been used eight times.
    The Chairman--and I think he is right--is saying, like, this is
    rarely invoked and there is a reason for that because, yes, we
    have a statute that governs what the FCC is supposed to do.
        But basically the FCC has decided we need to get out of the
    business of refereeing what is offensive, and if something is
    indecent or obscene, that is one thing, right?
        If they are violating the terms of their broadcast license
    that is another thing. If they just say an awful thing on the
    air it seems to me, Chairman, that is not your jurisdiction.
        And I know you are quick and you understand this law
    backward and forwards. I understand. I remember you when you
    were Counsel for Chairman Pai. So I do not doubt your ability
    to race right into how--the architecture of the originating
    statute.
        But I am asking you, do you think it is appropriate for you
    to have an opinion at all in your official capacity about what
    a comedian says, as offensive as it may have been?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, my job is to implement the law passed by
    Congress and Congress has said that broadcast is fundamentally
    different, that there is a public interest standard. There is
    decades of precedent on this.
        Senator Schatz. Do you think there are any--do you think
    there are any conservative commentators or conservative
    comedians or conservative satirists that ever say anything
    offensive that you would consider investigating?
        Mr. Carr. I am not looking at things that are offensive or
    awful, to use your words. I am looking at things that are
    consistent with our public interest rules and regulations. That
    is the full scope of what we are looking at.
        Senator Schatz. And in what way--so I am a little confused
    because it seems to me that in subsequent conversations I
    forgot after Ted and John Thune and Dave McCormick and others
    said, oh, this seems like a little much for you, Chairman, that
    you went out and you said, that was fake news--I did not do
    that. This is fake news. I am not doing that. I am not going
    after Jimmy Kimmel.
        And now you are saying you have a perfect right to go after
    Jimmy Kimmel and I am wondering which one it is?
        Mr. Carr. No, two different things. Democrats at the time
    were saying that we explicitly threatened to pull a license if
    Jimmy Kimmel was not fired. That never happened. That was
    nothing more than projection and distortion by Democrats.
        What I am saying is any broadcaster that uses the airwaves,
    whether radio or TV, has to comply with the public interest,
    and licenses are not sacred cows. Yes, you can do things to
    lose a license.
        But if we want to change that that is up to Congress and
    one idea, for instance, is why do we not put all the broadcast
    TV licenses up for auction and if people want to buy them
    without the public interest obligation they can do that.
        But look, there was a bargain here.
        Senator Schatz. But you are--I mean, you are kind of
    tiptoeing through the tulips here, right? Because what you
    actually said is they have a license granted by us at the FCC
    that comes with an obligation to operate in the public
    interest.
        We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These
    companies can find ways to change conduct and take action,
    frankly, on Kimmel--on Kimmel--or there is going to be
    additional work for the FCC ahead.
        Chairman, my final comment is I have actually enjoyed our
    relationship. I have praised you behind your back as a solid--
    someone I disagree with but solid, knowledgeable person.
        This stuff, at least up until the last year, has been out
    of character and it will not age well, and it will not age well
    on the conservative side of the aisle and the liberal side of
    the aisle.
        This is not American FCC behavior and I am hoping we can
    recalibrate.
        Mr. Carr. Let me try to understand this. Did you have an
    issue when Senator Markey told the FCC to investigate Sinclair
    for their news activities? Was there any issue raised there?
        Senator Schatz. I am going to allow this because I was
    tough on you. You did ask me a question. This is the first time
    I am ever going to respond to a question from a witness.
        I did not sign that letter.

                STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. All right. Thank you.
        I am going to continue with the questioning, and I
    appreciate all of you all being here and your good hard work at
    the FCC.
        A lot of my interests are really along the same lines as
    Senator Moran, representing a rural state, an underserved state
    in terms of connectivity and some of the challenges that we
    have had trying to get us to close the digital divide in a
    small state like West Virginia.
        So, Chairman Carr, he did talk about the mapping issue and
    the issues of small providers alleviating the barriers that
    they have and then the possible penalties that they might
    accrue if some of the maps are inaccurate or if they are unable
    to--failing to serve locations that do not actually exist and
    are not residential or their business.
        Do you have the necessary data from agencies to be able to
    have more accurate maps? And, you know, as we get down to the
    nitty gritty here where we are actually going to get to the
    last house, the last home, this is going to really be
    important.
        So where are you with the maps and what kind of
    formulations for improvements have you considered and you as
    all of you?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, for your leadership on this
    issue.
        I think we have actually been making some real significant
    progress on the mapping issue, the fabric itself. The locations
    are starting to stabilize. We are seeing less than one percent
    change in terms of iterations of the map. We have solved a lot
    of issues.
        One that is popping up recently and I have heard from you
    is the challenge process, and it is difficult because some
    could argue that the original provider would have an incentive
    to overstate and then others would say that the challenging
    provider would have incentives to overstate their challenge and
    we have a regulation of that process, but perhaps we need to do
    a little bit better job at streamlining that and I am open to
    looking at that.
        Senator Capito. Right. Commissioner Trusty, did you have
    something to say on that issue on the mapping?
        Ms. Trusty. Sure. One of the issues that I have heard about
    on mapping just this year testability--how do you test whether
    or not broadband is available in a particular area--and I know
    that FCC staff is working very closely with providers to try to
    make this a more efficient process and less costly.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, do you have
    anything to add there?
        Ms. Gomez. No, I agree with my colleagues. We still hear
    complaints, of course, both of where areas are shown as served
    that are actually not served----
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Ms. Gomez.--which is problematic. So the staff continue to
    update and update and update the map and I--you know, every
    iteration makes it better but it still needs improvement.
        Senator Capito. Right, and a lot of these areas are the
    smaller providers. Capacity is an issue to be able to help
    verify. So anything that can smooth that process would be very
    much appreciated.
        Commissioner--Chairman Carr, I appreciate the work, and it
    is interesting to listen to the debate over the broadcasters in
    terms of consolidation and everything.
        I mean, I have a view similar to what Senator Moran
    expressed in that in the rural areas our local broadcasters are
    so essential, whether--and he even mentioned the top three:
    weather, sports, local government.
        And they are--try to preserve that local news as we have
    seen what has happened to our newspapers. Our broadcast is so
    very important.
        You know, we just had a food drive and our local television
    providers, you know, did this and publicized it so that it was
    much broader and bigger than it would have been without that
    local flavor and that local input and involvement.
        So a number of senators wrote to you to ask what you are
    doing to ensure that our local broadcasters are able to compete
    in this changing landscape and I think he mentioned that as
    well and he mentioned the letter.
        What is the update on the ownership rule proceedings that
    the Commission has started since we sent the letter over?
        Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator. We are, you know, very
    open minded as to how to resolve that proceeding. We have not
    made a final decision yet.
        I think this is actually one area where I heard some strong
    alignment between me and Ranking Member Cantwell on this. She
    talked about the importance and value of local news,
    particularly when there is natural disasters.
        One of the things I am trying to do with our media policy
    as a general matter is to reempower those local broadcasters to
    invest in local news because what has happened over the years
    we have had a consolidation of power into what are national
    programmers--Comcast, Disney and others--and, effectively, a
    lot of local broadcast stations are just mouthpieces for that
    national programming made in New York and Hollywood and I am
    not sure that is going to be consistent with the public
    interest, again, when it comes to a natural disaster like in
    Washington State right now.
        So one of the lenses that we are looking at this media
    ownership proceeding is is that consistent with our goal of
    constraining the power of some of those national programmers.
    But we have not made a decision there yet.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. I will be interested to hear
    what happens there.
        I will say as a compliment when I first started in this
    role and got very active with rural broadband there was a lot
    of confusion in a state such as mine as, you know, who is
    covering this area, can RDOF go? Can ReConnect go? Can BEAD go?
        And you mentioned more programs than I even had concept of
    that are still trying to, as I said, connect that last home and
    last mile.
        We are hearing less about the lack of coordination between
    all these different entities and I think that is--particularly
    at the Federal level and I think that is extremely important
    because, number one, we do not want to overbill but we do not
    want to under bill, too, and we do not want to squash
    innovation.
        So I thank you all for your efforts in that. I think it has
    been very helpful and I appreciate that we can keep working on
    that because I think that will make the dollars go quicker and
    make the connectivity come faster as well.
        So with that, I will recognize Senator Markey.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Chairman Carr, you are not reinvigorating the public
    interest standard. You are weaponizing the public interest
    standard. That is what the Carr FCC is doing every single day.
        Behind me are your past tweets declaring your commitment to
    the First Amendment. You even defended political satire, saying
    in 2022 it challenges those in power and that is why people in
    influential positions have always targeted it for censorship.
        That is why your threats against ABC and Disney over Jimmy
    Kimmel's political monologue was so outrageous, and here is
    what you said. In September 2025 as the Chairman of the FCC,
    ``We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies
    can find ways to change conduct or take action, frankly, on
    Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC
    ahead.''
        Now, that statement was roundly condemned across the
    political spectrum. Chairman Cruz called it ``dangerous as
    hell''.
        Chairman Carr, do you regret making that statement, yes or
    no?
        Mr. Carr. Senator Markey, thank you for the question. My
    job is to enforce the law as passed by Congress. That includes
    a public interest standard and broadcast TV is fundamentally
    different than any other media. We have a news distortion
    rule----
        Senator Markey. Do you regret making that statement?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, my job is to enforce the law.
        Senator Markey. So you do not regret making that statement?
        Well, that is a refusal----
        Mr. Carr. Senator----
        Senator Markey.--to take accountability for your language,
    for your use--your abuse of power. You will not say that you
    made a mistake.
        For example, in your response to my oversight letter in
    September on the Kimmel incident you repeatedly stated that the
    media companies made their own decisions in preempting and
    suspending Kimmel.
        You seem to think that your words, the most powerful
    communications regulator in America, especially your threats,
    do not matter.
        So just to be clear, your position is that your mafia
    threats had nothing to do with Nexstar and Sinclair and
    Disney's decisions to preempt and suspend Kimmel.
        Is that your position? Is that your point, that you had
    nothing to do with the suspension of Kimmel?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, if you look at the evidence, the
    expressed statements by every single company involved from
    Nexstar to Sinclair to Disney as recently as last week is that
    they made these business decisions on their own. The record is
    clear on this.
        Senator Markey. And, again, you are refusing to take
    accountability for your own words. You intimidate the
    companies, they do what you want, and then you say, well, it
    was up to them.
        You are the Chairman of the Federal Communications
    Commission. Actually, you are now the Chairman of the Federal
    Censorship Commission, and these broadcasters they feel that
    censorship. You have broad authority over the media industry,
    especially broadcasters. Your words and actions matter.
        Now I am going to give you another chance to take
    accountability for your actions. In 2022, you said, quote, ``A
    newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to
    frame them should be beyond the reach of any government
    official, not targeted by them,'' by government officials. Do
    you stand by that statement?
        Mr. Carr. This was a letter written by Senate--I am sorry,
    House Democrats to cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox
    News, OAN, and Newsmax simply because those Democrats thought
    they were right wing.
        Senator Markey. So do you stand by your statement? Do you
    stand by--do you stand by your statement?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, I do. I think it is inappropriate what the
    Democrats said there.
        Senator Markey. OK. Well, OK. Good. I just want to--I just
    want to get your own views out here on the record for people to
    hear.
        So in February, under your leadership the Federal
    Communications Commission opened an investigation into a San
    Francisco radio station over its coverage of a Federal
    immigration raid.
        FCC investigation is a big deal for a local station. In a
    worst case scenario, the FCC could shut down the station by
    revoking its license. In fact, you have repeatedly suggested
    over the past year that the FCC could revoke station licenses.
        Yet, this investigation was based solely on the news
    content of the radio station's coverage of an immigration raid.
    I have the entire news statement that they put out that day.
        This happens every day everywhere across the country for
    broadcast journalists. This investigation was based solely on
    this very brief statement that is in everyday coverage and I
    have that transcript, and the anchor was literally reporting on
    the information that was released by the mayor, by the local
    city council member, and a community group.
        So you are telling me that reporting on statements from
    public officials and a community group is grounds for an FCC
    investigation?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, the concern there in the report was that
    there may have been interference with lawful ICE operations and
    so we were asking questions about what happened.
        This was a period of time, remember, when ICE agents were
    being attacked, their locations--undercover locations were
    being disclosed----
        Senator Markey. There is nothing in here that discloses
    anything. There is no risk to anyone except the risk----
        Mr. Carr. And they can provide that to us.
        Senator Markey. No, no. The risk that is posed here is to
    you, to the broadcast journalist coverage. That is what really
    happened. The news journalists were just covering an important
    news story and some conservatives were upset by the coverage.
        So you used your power as FCC Chair to hang a sword of
    Damocles over a local radio station's head and that is
    precisely what you warned about in 2022, the government
    targeting a newsroom's editorial decision.
        Well, guess what happened? The station demoted the anchor
    who first read that news report over the air and pulled back on
    his political coverage. You got what you wanted.
        One former journalist at the station said ``chilling effect
    does not begin to describe the neutering of our political
    coverage.'' That is what you wanted, that is what you got, but
    it affected stations everywhere.
        So just let me say again, the neutering of our political
    coverage this is government censorship, plain and simple.
        Was it a mistake in retrospect for you to say that, to
    instigate an investigation of that San Francisco radio station?
    Was that a mistake?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, broadcasters understand, perhaps the
    first time in years, that they are going to be held accountable
    to the public interest, to broadcast hoax rules, to the news
    distortion policy, I think that is a good thing.
        I do not have a poster board but, listen, in 2018 you
    signed this letter right here to the FCC.
        Senator Markey. OK. No, you--OK. You are--you are here
    right----
        Mr. Carr. You signed a letter to the FCC asking us to
    investigate Sinclair's news activities.
        Senator Markey. You are--you are--OK.
        Mr. Carr. You said investigate Sinclair's news activities--
    --
        Senator Markey. OK. You are here right----
        Mr. Carr.--and you know what happened after that?
        Senator Markey. You are here right now----
        Mr. Carr. Over 227 licenses were up for renewal----
        Senator Markey. This is--Madam Chair, please ask the
    witness----
        Mr. Carr.--or due during the Biden years.
        Senator Capito. I am going to ask the witness----
        Mr. Carr. Almost none of them were renewed after your
    letter. Your letter produced the results that we are seeking.
        Senator Capito. Chairman Carr--Chairman Carr----
        Senator Markey. Madam Chair----
        Senator Capito. Well, you are well over your time here so
    in----
        Senator Markey. Well, a lot of it is because----
        Senator Capito. Well, no, it is not because I looked at the
    clock and you were already two minutes over. But----
        Senator Markey. All right. So I will just finish, Madam
    Chair. He is turning the Federal Communications Commission into
    the Federal Censorship Commission.
        It is a betrayal of the FCC's mission. You should resign,
    Mr. Chairman. You are creating a chilling effect on broadcast--
    --
        Mr. Carr. Do you regret sending this letter in 2018 asking
    the FCC to investigate Sinclair's news activities?
        Senator Capito. Senator Markey, please. There are a lot of
    people on this committee.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Chairman Carr--please suspend, Chairman
    Carr. We will move to the next question.
        Senator Sullivan.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Chairman
    and the other commissioners.
        I am going to turn back to the topic that Senator Capito,
    the Chair was talking about and that is rural broadband, which
    is really important to so many of us. There is rural broadband,
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, and then there is Alaska, which is
    super rural.
        So I want to commend you in particular on your sustained
    focus on my state during your tenure first as a commissioner,
    now as Chairman.
        As you know, you, Commissioner Trusty, Commissioner Gomez--
    all the FCC Commissioners--have come up to Alaska and I just
    want to give some statistics here, which I think are important.
        The Alaska Connect Fund Order from the FCC through 2023
    is--according to the fund order that was in front of the
    Commission the Alaska plan helped deploy and upgrade broadband
    to more than 96,000 previously unserved locations, delivered
    new or improved 4G LTE or better wireless services to, roughly,
    65,000 Alaskans, and laid the groundwork for the Alaska Connect
    fund to carry that success forward with added flexibility.
        So I want to thank the FCC's leadership, in particular you,
    Mr. Chairman, who has enabled this strong coordination with
    other Federal programs and to help what is in the law, which is
    to be able to connect all Americans to broadband and Internet
    connectivity regardless of if you live in a city, in the lower
    48, or a rural native village in Alaska.
        So can you speak to how this Alaska-specific approach has
    helped drive these outcomes which have been very positive, and
    why continuing this model is so important for connecting rural
    and remote Alaskans?
        And, again, Mr. Chairman, I know you are taking a lot of
    incoming here. I want to compliment you on the good work that
    you have done as Chairman and as a Commissioner on the issues
    of focusing on my state, who are Americans who have very
    challenged communications issues because our state is so big
    and remote, and I think you have done an exceptional job.
        So can you talk to those issues?
        Mr. Carr. Yes. Thank you, Senator, and, frankly, I do not
    think people understand the change in trajectory that you have
    brought to Alaska in terms of connectivity.
        I remember the very first time you had me come up to Alaska
    which, again, I agree with you, it is the only really way to
    understand the challenges that are up there. Frankly, in my
    view, I do not think the FCC had been taking the appropriate
    lawful approach with respect to Alaska there.
        Senator Sullivan. And by the way, this is not some earmark.
    It is in the law, right?
        Mr. Carr. And we brought that to you as well.
        Senator Sullivan. Required for all Americans and my
    constituents are Americans.
        Mr. Carr. And you brought that to my attention and others.
    When I went up there in 2018, I had a chance to visit Unalaska,
    Dutch Harbor. It is an island part of the way out the Aleutian
    chain.
        There had been some talk about maybe bringing an undersea
    fiber cable across the Aleutians but the plans were getting
    scuttled because of uncertainty caused by the FCC's, in my
    view, sort of missed application of the Communications Act.
        And you worked with the agency over a period of time with
    diligence and corrected that, and that created the stability to
    be able to see that investment. In fact, the phase one of that
    undersea cable is now complete.
        Unalaska is getting connected to next-gen high speed
    Internet thanks to that. There is a phase two that is coming.
    It is just not there.
        On a subsequent visit, you took me to a small village
    Napaskiak, which you would only reach by boat, and it was a
    place that had been long left behind in terms of the digital
    divide, and we had a multi-billion dollar effort to close the
    divide. But Napaskiak was not even on the national broadband
    map.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Carr. The FCC acted and Commerce Department back then
    in the Biden years acted like it did not even exist, and after
    you took us there----
        Senator Sullivan. From their perspective it did not exist.
    It was not on the map. You and I were in there. We did a town
    hall, 600 people, and we looked at everybody saying, according
    to the maps back in D.C., this town and all of you people from
    Alaska do not exist.
        So I am glad you mentioned that one.
        Mr. Carr. Look, there is obviously a long ways to go still
    but the digital divide has been closing in Alaska and, again,
    you know, Senator, I do not think we would be in the position
    where we are in Alaska right now with connectivity but for the
    leadership you have had on this committee.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, look, it has been your leadership
    and others. I want to thank Commissioner Trusty. I am glad you
    were up in Alaska, Commissioner Gomez. It is an issue I think
    that unites the FCC, all the commissioners.
        Can you very quickly--maybe each one of you very quickly
    speak to how the FCC's Alaska specific funding frameworks,
    including the Alaska plan and the Alaska Connect fund, will
    help ensure that projects like the one you just mentioned, the
    Unalaska project.
        And, again, if you look at a map, this is the Aleutian
    Island chain. It goes way out in the Pacific, actually crosses
    the international dateline, which a lot of people do not know.
    But these are Americans out there and it is a very strategic
    part of our country, very close to China and Russia and Japan
    and our allies.
        But can I just very quickly, because I am running out of
    time here, to just help these specific programs to continue
    delivering reliability in terms of connectivity in rural,
    remote parts of the state?
        Can I just get your commitment to continue to working on
    that, all of you?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator.
        Ms. Trusty. Absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Commissioner?
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Sullivan. OK, great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Certainly.
        Senator Baldwin.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I need to echo the concerns of my Democratic colleagues.
        Chairman Carr, in September you used your position within
    the Federal Government to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air in a
    clear attempt to chill free speech.
        You told ABC, ``We can do this the easy way or the hard
    way.'' The FCC is not a political weapon to be used against the
    President's critics and, yet, you have also used it to go after
    ``60 Minutes,'' ``Saturday Night Live,'' and Seth Meyers, all
    because the President did not like their criticism or because
    they gave airtime to his opponents.
        Your Twitter account before 2025 would seem to align with
    what I am saying. It is filled to the brim with statements
    defending freedom of speech as well as stating that the FCC
    does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of
    public interest.
        Sadly, those principles seem to have evaporated into thin
    air. There are many things that Chair Cruz and I do not agree
    on but when he said that your actions have been, quote,
    ``dangerous as hell,'' that I can agree with.
        So your attempts to coerce private companies to censor
    speech that you and the President did not want to hear is
    really a blatant attack on the First Amendment, a foundational
    principle of American democracy.
        The Trump administration has been attacking free speech
    across the government since day one. President Trump and
    Secretary Hegseth have expelled all legitimate journalists from
    the Pentagon.
        President Trump and Secretary McMahon have curtailed
    academic freedom in research and stifled lawful protests.
    President Trump and Attorney General Bondi have rolled back
    protections that allow journalists to protect their sources.
        President Trump and Senate Republicans defunded the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR. You have become a
    parrot for President Trump and diminished the independence of
    the FCC.
        So the FCC has an incredibly important role in reviewing
    market consolidation in local broadcasting, cable, broadband,
    telephone, and wireless industries.
        We know that consolidation in any industry often results in
    a bad deal for consumers: higher prices, fewer choices, and
    reduced incentives for companies to compete.
        Chairman Carr, you have repeatedly signaled your desire to
    use merger reviews to force companies to enact policies favored
    by the Trump administration. This summer the FCC approved the
    merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media.
        This approval only came after Paramount agreed to pay the
    President $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit and
    Paramount agreed to change its news editorial policies.
        And then just this month, the FCC approved AT&T's purchase
    of U.S. Cellular's wireless license, just one day after AT&T
    terminated their diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI,
    policy.
        If the timing of this announcement was not suspicious
    enough, Chairman Carr, you took to X to boast about AT&T's
    decision.
        Commissioner Gomez, you voted against both of these
    mergers. Can you share why you opposed them?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for your question, Senator.
        I have had strong concerns about the strong-arming by the
    FCC of these companies, using its power over these merger
    approvals and transactions in order to delve into what is
    really private employment matters completely unrelated to the
    transactions themselves.
        Traditionally, when the FCC has concessions as part of a
    merger review it does so to address a harm that is caused by
    that particular transaction.
        The Paramount transaction had this voluntary concession to
    appoint an ombudsperson reporting to the President of Paramount
    to police concerns about bias and content. That is completely
    unprecedented, and I know what my colleagues would say--there
    was an ombudsperson in the Comcast merger.
        That ombudsman's job was to make sure that the corporation
    did not interfere with news decisions of the news division.
    That is completely different than saying you are going to
    become a bias monitor.
        So I had strong concerns about us using our authority in
    order to demand these types of concessions from the companies.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carr, I want to chat with you for a minute about
    the new form of payola, or showola, as some of our entertainers
    in Tennessee call it, and what has happened is broadcast
    stations use events in exchange for airplay and they
    particularly like to couple this with threats of reduced
    airplay if the band or the artist cannot give them these free
    events.
        Now, in the opinion of so many of our musicians, that
    violates the FCC's payola rules, and I know that you have
    looked at this coerced performance issue and wanted to know if
    you have any update and if you could speak to that for a
    moment?
        Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on
    this.
        Historically, there has been a law on the books that
    prevents radio stations from accepting or seeking unreported
    payment of money or any other compensation to influence
    airplay, the time that music is played on the stations.
        One concern that you brought to my attention early on
    including through a letter earlier this year is that a lot of
    radio stations are holding music festivals and the concern that
    has been raised is that they are effectively pressuring
    musicians--that could be, you know, ones that are well off or
    ones that are just getting started--to perform for free under
    threat that they may suffer airplay on radio stations if they
    do not do that.
        I think that is a concern. We issued an enforcement
    advisory right after being aware of this from you and we are
    going to be, and are, investigating some issues around this.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you very much for that.
        Ms. Trusty, thank you so much for your time yesterday. We
    talked a little bit about the World Radio Communication
    Conference and, Ms. Gomez, I know last year you kind of
    struggled. You had two jobs on your plate and it was hard to
    prepare for that.
        But, Ms. Trusty, I know that it is going to be essential to
    prepare for it because it is going to be in China. So give me a
    minute about what you are going to do in preparation for that
    conference?
        Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you so much for the question,
    Senator. Thank you for your leadership on spectrum policy.
        The WRC is a really important forum for the United States
    to promote American values, our economic competitiveness, and
    our national security, and thanks to the spectrum provisions in
    the Working Families Tax Cut Act, we now have the ability to
    develop a unified strategy where we are working and focusing on
    key U.S. priorities, and we can work with our international
    allies in advance to preempt those seeking to undermine U.S.
    interests in Shanghai, China.
        As I mentioned a little bit earlier, in 2023 at the
    previous World Radio Communications Conference we did not have
    this kind of legislative support. We did not have auction
    authority, which really set us back.
        And so I think with the restoration of auction authority
    and a long-term spectrum pipeline we are positioned to emerge
    from that conference with wins so that we are the leader in the
    next generation of communications technologies.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you.
        Staying on spectrum, Mr. Chairman, coming to you, looking
    at mid-band spectrum, about 60 percent of our mid-band is held
    by government agencies and about 5 percent is licensed
    commercial users and, of course, with 5G and 6G we absolutely
    cannot afford this.
        So I have advocated for years for a full inventory of
    government spectrum licenses and Senator Moran and I have had
    the Spectrum Inventory Act, and I think it is important for the
    record for you to speak about the importance of freeing up the
    spectrum, getting it in the hands of commercial users.
        And then also talk a little bit about how the FCC and NTIA,
    which is responsible for the inventory, can work together and
    move this auction forward, that 800 megahertz that the Big
    Beautiful Bill allowed for?
        Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator, for your leadership on
    this.
        I agree that we have to have a balanced spectrum policy and
    if you step back, though, particularly over the Biden years, we
    sort of walked into a bit of a cul-de-sac where we over
    leveraged to some extent with respect to unlicensed spectrum,
    with respect to shared spectrum, and to some extent government
    spectrum as well because we have a very small sliver of
    spectrum that is truly exclusive use, high power, the type of
    stuff you want to build 5G and 6G on.
        So that is what we are addressing in the near term,
    particularly in the C-band, working very well across the
    administration. The NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth is doing a
    fantastic job. They are going to be identifying some additional
    bands for us to move on.
        But I also think, to your point, we have to make sure we
    have intensity of use of spectrum, not just buildout. One of
    the things we push for is to encourage providers to make sure
    they are actually loading their spectrum up and, again, I think
    that is part of why you see AT&T now, you know, quickly putting
    new spectrum on 23,000 cell sites.
        And I should say, I mean, in terms of the wireless
    services, I was a bit surprised to see some of the remarks
    earlier. If you look at the data, the prices for wireless phone
    services are actually down 2 percent year over year.
        In fact, they are down 5 percent over Biden-era highs. It
    is not where, you know, we want to keep driving down by
    eliminating inflationary prices but we are heading in the right
    direction. We just have to keep at it.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Thanks.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Lujan.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Carr, yes or no--and please, yes or no--is the FCC
    an independent agency?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, thanks for that question. I think----
        Senator Lujan. Yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no, is
    it independent?
        Mr. Carr. Well, there is a test for this in the law and the
    key portion of that test----
        Senator Lujan. Just yes or no, Brendan.
        Mr. Carr. The key portion of that test is----
        Senator Lujan. OK. I am going to go to Commissioner Trusty.
        So just so you know, Brendan, on your website it just
    simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This is not a trick
    question. Is it yes or no?
        Mr. Carr. OK. The FCC is not. Is not.
        Senator Lujan. OK.
        Mr. Carr. Is not an independent----
        Senator Lujan. So is your website wrong? Is your website
    lying?
        Mr. Carr. Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency
    because----
        Senator Lujan. OK. Can I read this to you? The FCC's
    mission--on the home page of the FCC, man--an independent U.S.
    Government agency overseen by Congress. Is that factual or is
    that a lie?
        Mr. Carr. The FCC is not formally an independent agency.
        Senator Lujan. Is this true or is this a lie?
        Mr. Carr. I can--I am happy to answer your question.
        OK. The sine qua non of independence would be removable by
    the President.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I will get back to you.
        Chairman--Chairman, I have a little bit of time. I will get
    back to you, sir.
        Mr. Carr. The FCC is not an independent agency, formally
    speaking.
        Senator Lujan. Appreciate you saying that and being honest
    with the American people.
        Commissioner Trusty.
        Ms. Trusty. Senator, thank you for the question.
        The President is the Chief Executive vested with all
    executive power in our government and FCC commissioners are
    not--we do not have for cause removal protections, which means
    that we are not independent.
        Senator Lujan. So is the--is your website lying?
        Ms. Trusty. I cannot speak to the website. I have not seen
    that.
        Senator Lujan. You all are the Commissioners in charge of
    this place, right? So this stuff has to be approved by one of
    you. If this is lying then you should just fix it.
        Let me just say that. That was not even my gotcha question.
    I am surprised that I have burned up 3 minutes talking about
    this damn thing.
        Commissioner Gomez.
        Ms. Gomez. Yes, and we should be.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that.
        Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just submit the printout of
    the homepage of the FCC into the record that says it is an
    independent agency.
        And if it is not true then change it.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, sir.
        Chairman Carr, with that being said, does Congress need to
    clarify that the FCC is an independent agency?
        Mr. Carr. Well, it is up to Congress to pass any
    legislation. The Constitution is clear that all executive power
    is vested in the President and Congress cannot change that by
    legislation.
        Senator Lujan. Yes or no, is it appropriate for the FCC to
    revoke broadcast licenses based on the viewpoint of the
    licensee?
        Mr. Carr. It is appropriate for the FCC to take action
    under our public interest standard and hold broadcasters
    accountable to things like broadcast hoax, news distortion,
    localism. Those are things that we should be taking action on
    and enforcing.
        Senator Lujan. Commissioner Trusty, same question to you.
    Is it appropriate for the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses
    based on the viewpoint of the licensee?
        Ms. Trusty. Senator, my job is to enforce the law as it
    relates to broadcasters. Broadcasters have public interest
    obligations and it relies on a case-by-case basis.
        As you know, the FCC does have the authority to revoke
    licenses and the conditions for which are spelled out in
    Section 312 of the Communications Act.
        Senator Lujan. Commissioner Gomez?
        Ms. Gomez. Absolutely not. The First Amendment applies to
    broadcasters regardless of whether they use spectrum or not,
    and the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring
    broadcasters.
        We should not be revoking licenses based on their
    viewpoint. In fact, what we should be doing is ensuring more
    viewpoints because if you do not like speech the answer is more
    speech.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I think that is something
    that this body would agree with.
        Chairman Carr, you supported the broadband label that the
    FCC adopted back in 2022. Is that correct?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Lujan. Even though broadband providers, as you are
    aware, they have been displaying these broadband labels for
    over a year, you recently proposed changes to making it harder
    for consumers to understand what plans they are subscribed to
    or what they are paying for at the end of the month.
        As you know, it is hard to understand why this action would
    have been taken. You also want to eliminate the requirement
    that broadband labels be translated in the languages in which
    the providers are already marketing their services. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Carr. That is not correct, sir.
        Senator Lujan. So you will reverse the notion that these
    labels will not be done in English and other languages?
        Mr. Carr. No. What I am saying is consumers want clear,
    concise, accurate information. I think we agree on that. We
    have started a proceeding to make sure that they are not
    overwhelmed by irrelevant information.
        We have not made any decision to eliminate any particular
    feature of this. We are open minded. We have sought comment on
    different portions of the existing process.
        Senator Lujan. So, Chairman, just to be clear, there will
    be no action taken by the Commission that prevents these
    companies from putting that information--the same languages
    used in marketing, those languages can be used in other ways?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, we will not take any action to prevent them
    from doing that.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that clarity. Do you think
    then, consumers benefit from seeing the full price they pay at
    the end of the month with no hidden fees?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, we want clarity. We want transparency. We
    want just like nutrition labels. Again, the concern is did we
    strike the right balance or did we add information that
    effectively put in wheat and chaff. We want to separate the
    wheat from the chaff and make it clear for consumers.
        Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I hope you keep your word
    there and that there is more information, not less information,
    in these labels and that----
        Mr. Carr. We want clarity. We want clarity. I do not know
    if it is more or less.
        Senator Lujan. Amen, brother. I just hope that it is more,
    better information, however you want to talk about it, that
    whatever the Commission--the action that you all take that you
    just do not make it harder.
        Mr. Chairman, I have other questions that I was hoping to
    get to but my little back and forth on this web page got me
    stuck, sir.
        Just so you know, I will be submitting some questions into
    the record about caps. I have a question associated with if it
    is Congress or if it is the FCC that can change those caps on
    consolidation.
        I have questions about USF. I was proud back in May 2023
    with Leader Thune to introduce the framework around the
    bipartisan bicameral working group and I certainly hope that
    the word that was given to Senator Fischer to work together
    that we just commit to do this one together and that we all
    work together to get this done. It is too important not to get
    right.
        So I appreciate the time today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Young.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Young. Chairman Carr, earlier this month during a
    telecommunications subcommittee hearing I raised the growing
    challenge of the illegal cutting of subsea cables and the
    danger that it poses to our many critical infrastructures.
        In response, we were told the best way to ensure our subsea
    cable infrastructure is more resilient is by creating more
    cables. Makes sense to me, but more redundancy in the system.
        That would foster a more diverse ecosystem of cables,
    increasing the number of American-owned cables, expanding the
    capacity of American ships to fix and repair any damages, which
    without deviating too much that is the focus of my SHIPS for
    America Act and, last, by sending a message to our adversaries
    that such cuttings, again, of our undersea cables will be
    treated as an attack on our critical infrastructure.
        So in line with this can you speak, Mr. Chairman, to why
    accelerating and streamlining subsea cable deployment is
    important to U.S. economic and national security and how the
    rule that you adopted earlier this year helps move the process
    toward clear, timely decisions?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for your work on
    all those important legislative efforts that you are working
    on.
        Undersea cables are sort of the unsung hero of global
    communications. They carry, roughly, 99 percent of all Internet
    traffic. They can be vulnerable to disruption.
        One of things that we have taken as part of our ``Build
    America'' agenda is put new policies in place to invest in
    additional buildout of undersea cables as we do so, making sure
    that they are secure as well including looking at foreign
    ownership issues related to undersea cables to make sure we are
    not introducing risks.
        And, again, if we are going to lead the world in AI and
    many other vectors we have to have that infrastructure to carry
    it and so I think we are heading in a good direction now.
        Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman.
        Commissioner Trusty, do you have any thoughts on this?
        Ms. Trusty. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for your
    leadership on undersea cables.
        I do think that streamlining permitting processes can help
    with redundancy, resiliency, and efficiency, and I think that
    goes to support economic growth, our technological leadership,
    and secure communication.
        So I think we are all headed in the right direction on this
    regard.
        Senator Young. Thank you. I wish Congress could learn from
    the leadership of the Commission in streamlining the permitting
    process of critical infrastructure. Perhaps we will in coming
    months.
        Commissioner Trusty, in that same rule the FCC established
    requirements for applicants and licensees to create a
    cybersecurity and physical security risk management plan.
        How can that create a more resilient subsea cable network
    and what else should we as Congress be doing to secure this
    infrastructure?
        Ms. Trusty. Senator, thank you for the question.
        I think with respect to these risk management plans we can
    identify threats, we can help reduce vulnerabilities, and to
    the extent there is sabotage or some kind of compromise we will
    have ready-made response plans in place to address these types
    of issues.
        In terms of what more Congress can do, I think Congress can
    promote more U.S.-led cable projects. I think that will be
    helpful to get foreign adversaries out of these types of
    networks.
        I also think we should look to diversify traffic patterns
    so we do not have a single point of failure in the event there
    is compromise or sabotage, and I think we can strengthen
    emergency response plans and disaster recovery initiatives so
    that we can have more secure critical infrastructure.
        Senator Young. Thank you. Good answer.
        Chairman Carr, the media marketplace has evolved
    drastically since its early days in the 20th century and, as a
    result, we have seen legislative and regulatory reforms advance
    to keep pace with the market.
        Over the past year, I have heard from many different
    stakeholders, including small and local broadcasters in
    Indiana, regarding potential action by the FCC to modify the
    current broadcast ownership cap.
        Can you explain to the Committee what the impact to local
    broadcasters will be should the broadcast ownership cap be
    expanded?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator.
        We are looking at these issues and have not made a decision
    but, you know, there is a couple of potential guide stars here.
        One, if you look at local newspapers, they have been
    shutting by the thousands all across the country, and so if we
    care as a public interest matter about local news and local
    reporting, I think we have to start to look at policies that
    can create more incentives for investment there.
        And so one of the concerns that I have in media policy as a
    general matter is you have got the national programmers--
    Comcast, Disney, and others--that are increasingly dominating
    with respect to those local broadcasters.
        So we want to make sure that they do have the ability to
    invest in local news gathering because it is also more trusted.
    Local news is more trusted than the national media that is out
    there, and so we are balancing a couple of different policies
    there and, you know, we will see where we land.
        Senator Young. I completely agree with you. It is not just
    a matter of trust, however. It is also a matter of content. I
    think you would--most everyone would agree.
        When seemingly every issue gets nationalized, when national
    issues get far more play than local issues, and when we have an
    electorate--a citizenry--who have absolutely no idea what is
    happening in the local council meetings and in school boards
    and all the rest because the information is not being
    circulated for whatever reason, you have to question whether
    some of the fundamental predicates for, like, having a
    democracy--a functioning democracy--and voting for local
    officials are being laid.
        I could not tell you in little Bargersville, Indiana, where
    I live--and I am probably more active than most in terms of my
    citizenry and my attentiveness to the news--but I could not
    tell you what is happening at the local school board and all
    the rest.
        Yet, I still show up to vote for these local offices. My
    own approach is to skip those that I know nothing about but it
    is, I think, an indictment on our news ecosystem and it may
    take some intentionality to fix it.
        Mr. Carr. Senator, this is one issue we are looking at,
    too. As you look--turn of the TV, you know, in the evening
    hours, again, a huge percentage of that time now is programmed
    by the national program, again, out of New York and Hollywood.
        And so one idea that we are looking at is how we empower
    those local TV stations to reclaim more of that nightly news
    time for actual local news and programming, and we are looking
    at ideas for that.
        Senator Young. Count me interested. Thank you, Chairman,
    for indulging me well over my time.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young, and I will say I am
    glad the Senate does not follow your philosophy on voting. If
    senators did not vote on things we know nothing about there
    might be a number of votes without a single yea or nay cast.
        Senator Kim.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Kim. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the three of
    you for coming out here.
        Chairman Carr, I guess I just wanted to start with you. I
    was confused after hearing your response to one of my
    colleagues about the status of the FCC. I want to read you a
    quote here and see if you agree with it.
        Congress long ago determined that the FCC is an independent
    expert agency. Is that correct or not?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, there has been sort of a sea change in
    sort of the law and the approach since I think I wrote that
    sentence, I am assuming, because you gave it to me.
        Senator Kim. Yes, you did. You said it in front of
    Congress.
        Mr. Carr. Right. The view has been that the Communications
    Act was passed in 1934, one year before Humphrey's Executor,
    and so Congress did not include in the Communications Act ``for
    cause removal of FCC commissioners, so I can be fired by the
    President for no reason or any reason at all''.
        The theory had been that courts would read for cause
    removal into the statute and that was the basis for that
    viewpoint. I think now it is clear that that is not the case
    and so, formally speaking, the FCC is not independent because
    we do not have that key piece, which is for cause removal
    protection.
        Senator Kim. So when you are talking about all power vested
    in the President, I mean, I just want to read this a little
    more because you are saying not just that it is an independent
    agency but you are saying that Congress did not want these
    technical decisions to be made in a haphazard manner or based
    on misinformation or short-term political interests.
        You specifically said it placed the authority outside of
    the Executive Branch for a reason. So you were not just stating
    what was the law at the time; you were stating the benefit that
    comes with the independence.
        So I guess I am just trying to get a sense from you, if you
    do not think that the FCC is independent then is President
    Trump your boss?
        Mr. Carr. President Trump has designated me as Chairman of
    the FCC. I think it comes as no surprise that I am aligned with
    President Trump on policy. I think that is why he designated me
    as Chairman. But ultimately----
        Senator Kim. Do you consider him your boss?
        Mr. Carr. Ultimately, the President designated me as
    Chairman. I can be fired by the President. The President is the
    head of the Executive Branch. The decisions of the Commission--
    --
        Senator Kim. So he is your boss?
        Mr. Carr. Look, the decisions of the Commission are going
    to be based on a vote of the three of us right here. So there
    are some things that are different about that, and our
    decisions are based on the facts and the law in the record.
        Senator Kim. You swore an oath when you came into your job,
    right? Does the oath have the word president in it?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, again, I am not tracking this line. What
    I am saying is every decision----
        Senator Kim. Do you remember the oath that you took?
        Mr. Carr. Yes. Every----
        Senator Kim. You swore an oath to protect what?
        Mr. Carr. Sir, every single decision I made----
        Senator Kim. What is it that you are protecting?
        Mr. Carr.--in this job was based on the facts, the law, and
    the record consistent with the Constitution.
        Senator Kim. The Constitution of the United States. I am
    just--look, this is not a test here. I am just trying to get a
    sense of how you are trying to operate here. So I guess I would
    just like to be a little bit more direct here.
        Have you ever had a conversation with the President or
    senior administration officials about using the FCC to go after
    critics?
        Mr. Carr. Well, first of all, Senator, I do not get into
    the specifics of conversations that I have with the President.
        Senator Kim. OK. Well, let me reframe it then. Would it be
    appropriate for the President or senior administration
    officials to give you direction to pressure media companies?
        Mr. Carr. Look, Senator, I am not going to get into
    hypotheticals. What I can tell you is, again, the decisions by
    the Commission----
        Senator Kim. Well, look, the easy answer is no.
        Mr. Carr. The decision of the----
        Senator Kim. It is not a hypothetical. It is literally just
    trying to determine whether or not you are understanding your
    job being--belonging to the American people. Trump is not your
    boss. The American people are your boss.
        Mr. Carr. The basis for the Commission----
        Senator Kim. And here is just one example I want to give on
    this. This is one----
        Mr. Carr. The basis for the Commission decisions are going
    to be based on a vote of the three of us.
        Senator Kim. Let me finish--let me finish my comment here,
    OK?
        The reason I raise this is because whether or not you had
    that conversation in the Oval Office or on a phone call, what
    we do is we see it all out in front.
        On August 24, Trump wrote, ``ABC and NBC fake news. They
    are simply an arm of the Democratic Party and should,
    accordingly to many, have their licenses revoked by the FCC. I
    would be totally in favor of that because they are so biased
    and untruthful and an actual threat to our democracy.''
        So this is not hypothetical, like you said. He did
    intentionally try to pressure you and direct you to be able to
    use your power in the FCC against media companies that he
    thought were biased against him.
        So that is why I just want to say this is not hypothetical.
    This is not theoretical. This is real, and I was trying to get
    a sense of whether or not you thought this behavior was
    appropriate or not, and your failure to be able to directly
    dictate a line and show that there is integrity in this process
    concerns me because these--before the FCC comes all of these
    decisions. All of these decisions.
        And when you cannot tell me directly that Trump is not your
    boss, that the American people are your boss, I do not trust
    you that you can make these decisions with the independent mind
    that is needed and directed by Congress.
        And with that, I will yield back, Chairman.
        Mr. Carr. When we take--when we make decisions at the
    Commission it is a vote among the three of us. It is a product
    of the three of our votes, and we all can suggest edits and
    change items and you can see for yourself the basis in
    reasoning for it----
        Senator Kim. So would it be appropriate then for the
    President to try and remove and replace any Commissioner
    because he disagrees with the decisions made by that
    Commission?
        Mr. Carr. The President can remove any member of the
    Commission for any reason or no reason at all.
        Senator Kim. I know that but do you think that is
    appropriate?
        Mr. Carr. It is up to the President to decide.
        Senator Kim. OK. Well, then we got your answer. With that,
    I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I would note Senator Kim asked
    multiple questions about whether it is appropriate for
    politicians to try to pressure the FCC to silence their
    critics.
        My answer to that is unequivocally no, but that happens to
    be my answer whether those politicians are Republicans or
    Democrats, and I would like to now enter into the record a
    letter dated April 11, 2018, and it was directed to the then-
    Chairman of the FCC Ajit Pai and it says, ``We write to express
    our grave concerns regarding Sinclair Broadcasting Group's
    conduct. This conduct affects its fitness to hold its existing
    broadcast licenses and its fitness to acquire even more
    broadcast licenses through the proposed merger with Tribune
    Media Company.''
        And what the signatories of this letter was concerned about
    is that Sinclair had their local anchors warn the populace of
    the dangers of, quote, ``one-sided news stories plaguing our
    country.''
        In other words, Sinclair spoke out against bias in
    journalism. Apparently, our Democrat colleagues did not like
    that and in writing they urged the FCC to strip the licenses
    and block the merger, and this letter is signed by Maria
    Cantwell, by Patty Murray, by Ron Wyden, by Richard Blumenthal,
    by Bernie Sanders, by Tammy Baldwin, by Tom Udall, by Elizabeth
    Warren, by Ed Markey, by Tina Smith, by Jeff Merkley, and by
    Cory Booker.
        And so I am going to enter this letter into the record.
    Without objection, it is so entered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. And I would point out the principles ought to
    apply to both sides evenly.
        Senator Kim. I appreciate your comments. Can I say a quick
    rebuttal here?
        The Chairman. Sure.
        Senator Kim. I just want to say this is another attempt to
    muddy the waters. Chairman Carr's threats to companies he
    directly regulates are not the same thing as a letter from
    Congress requesting an agency examine a matter of public
    concern.
        Members on both sides of the aisle frequently write similar
    letters. That is the proper oversight role of Congress.
        As one example now, Secretary of State Rubio and other
    Republican senators wrote to the FCC in 2022 urging the agency
    to thoroughly scrutinize a proposed sale of Spanish-language
    radio stations concerned it would, quote, ``silence political
    viewpoints.''
        So I hope my colleagues, we stop trying to distract from
    the clear and present attacks right now upon our First
    Amendment. Chairman Carr has targeted threats against the
    licensees he directly regulates and we can hear from Chairman
    Carr without further delay.
        The Chairman. So, Senator Kim is factually incorrect. This
    letter is calling for the FCC to block the licenses, to block
    the merger, because the Democrats who signed this disagreed
    with the content on that station.
        And the difference--I was on that committee then. When this
    happened I spoke out against it at the time and you know what?
    Not a single Democrat on this committee had a word to say about
    it.
        I was also on this committee at the time that Democrats
    tried to go after Fox and deny a routine license renewal,
    again, because Democrats did not like what Fox News says.
        You know what? I do not like what MSNBC says but I am not
    urging the Commission to take away MSNBC's license. And so
    suddenly when the current administration and FCC makes comments
    about Jimmy Kimmel, comments that, as you know, I disagreed
    with and spoke out against--suddenly Democrats have discovered
    the First Amendment and my request would be maybe remember it
    when Democrats are in power, that the First Amendment is not
    simply a one-way license for one team to abuse the power and
    the other not. Instead, we should respect the free speech of
    all Americans regardless of party.
        Senator Kim. I agree with that statement you made, a lot of
    what you just said. I was not on the Committee at that time and
    I hope, going forward, as I am on this committee with you that
    we can work together to show that we do this regardless of who
    is violating, that we try to show that integrity to the
    process.
        The Chairman. That would be a wonderful development. I hope
    so as well.
        Senator Curtis, I believe.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure
    everybody will be disappointed. I am actually going to change
    subjects.
        Chairman, you were good enough to come to my office a few
    days ago and we talked about Section 230, and in that meeting I
    tried to bifurcate. I know a lot of people when you hear 230
    think of censorship, and for a minute just set that aside. I am
    not going to try to solve that. That is a very complex issue.
        But you and I talked about algorithms, and for those who
    were not there, the analogy that kind of comes to mind is the
    digital billboard. Originally, social media companies were to
    provide the venue for a digital billboard.
        Somewhere along the line that model changed. We compared it
    to the Post Office. If the Post Office is delivering a letter
    from you to me we, obviously, do not hold them responsible for
    that content.
        But if the Post Office opened that letter, read it, and
    then said, ``We are actually going to send this to a hundred
    million people,'' that is a different conversation.
        So my question for you is, from your perspective are we
    underestimating the dangers of algorithm-driven content?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for the question. I have gone
    back since our meeting and taken a look at your legislation
    again and I am happy to continue to meet and discuss with you
    on that.
        I do think I have expressed concerns over the years about
    how courts have sort of misinterpreted and given expansive new
    readings to Section 230 that are not in the statutory text, and
    I think there are some of those issues in your legislation as
    well that are worth looking at.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you. And to kind of, here again,
    bring everybody else up to speed that has not had the chance to
    do that, the question is should Section 230 protections apply
    to social media companies that employ harmful recommendations
    or cause harm by their recommendations, going beyond just the
    digital billboard but actually taking those now and sending
    them out to hundreds of millions of people?
        Mr. Carr. Yes, Senator, there is a debate to some extent in
    the courts as well about part of Section 230 that talks about
    platforms being liable if they have contributed even in part to
    the development and it is sort of a live issue--how does
    algorithms play into the contributed in part portion of that
    analysis.
        Senator Curtis. Yes, and as everybody here knows, Section
    230 goes decades and decades back and I do not think--I think
    it is clear to say we did not really see the world that we are
    in today, and so I just introduce that to you and to others as
    something that we need to start thinking about.
        Also, when you were in my office we talked about permitting
    reform and would love to ask you--you have had a chance to
    think about this--what is the role of Congress in assisting you
    in your permitting reform goals and what can we be doing on our
    side to make sure that we can actually complete these projects
    in a responsible way that are so important to you to complete?
        Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator.
        Look, I think it is--there is no question that it costs too
    much and it takes too long to build out not just broadband
    infrastructure but almost any infrastructure in this country
    and I think that is probably one of the most significant
    economic development efforts that this Congress can do is to
    continue to codify and streamline permitting regulations.
        We have a proceeding underway at the FCC. We are looking at
    NEPA, the environmental regulations, and how perhaps they have
    been misapplied in onerous ways over the years.
        We are looking at state and local requirements where
    potentially their fees and permitting structure might not align
    with the cost-based approach that we have used before. But we
    have to get back to turning dirt--and this is going to be an
    important work stream for us.
        Senator Curtis. Commissioner Trusty, how do you see
    permitting reform and how important is it that we figure this
    out?
        Ms. Trusty. It is essential. It is essential to meeting our
    universal connectivity goals. You know, as the Chairman
    mentioned, we have been working on simplifying rules, reducing
    regulatory burdens on businesses, and streamlining licensing
    and permitting processes to better advance broadband providers'
    buildout efforts.
        So we are looking at pole attachments, making those
    processes more cost effective and transparent. He mentioned
    environmental and historic reviews, making sure that those
    reviews are more predictable and efficient.
        And we are also looking at opening up access to rights of
    way, another barrier to employing broadband, deploying
    broadband and connecting homes and businesses across the
    country.
        Senator Curtis. Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with your
    colleagues?
        Ms. Gomez. Senator, I think getting access to affordable
    broadband as quickly as possible is very important.
        Senator Curtis. I am pleased that on our side this seems to
    be a bipartisan issue. There are still some hurdles, moving
    forward, but figuring out here again how to do it responsibly.
    Nobody is suggesting we should be irresponsible.
        Chairman Carr, in the few seconds I have left can you maybe
    educate us on what happens if we do not figure out permitting
    reform?
        Mr. Carr. Well, communities that have been stuck on the
    wrong side of the digital divide are going to remain there. The
    cost of building is going to be higher.
        That could raise prices, and it will slow down the buildout
    of these BEAD infrastructure projects that I think are going to
    be really important to the country. So we have got to get
    going.
        Senator Curtis. I would agree. I think we all agree. I
    would also point out this is not just in your world. In the
    energy sector, we have the same problem and we are really
    struggling as a country figuring out how to be able to allow
    things to move forward in a responsible way and I hope that
    here in the Senate we can figure out a path forward for
    everybody that needs this.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
        Senator Budd [presiding]. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt Rochester.

                STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE

        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to the witnesses.
        I come from the state of Delaware. We are--like many of my
    colleagues we are urban, we are suburban, we are rural, and we
    are also coastal.
        For me and a lot of members here, we have been working on
    the digital divide for a very long time and that is everything
    from investing in connectivity to looking at modernizing our
    maps.
        We have places in Delaware where you will drive and your
    call will drop. You know exactly where that spot is going to
    be.
        But the bottom line is if you have access but you cannot
    afford the services then you really do not have it, and so we
    are in the midst of an affordability crisis. Everything from
    rent to groceries to broadband Internet has gone up and it is
    clear that we have to be laser focused on affordability.
        So my first question is for you, Commissioner Gomez.
        Commissioner Gomez, Democratic leadership at the FCC in the
    past has emphasized affordability, competition, transparency,
    and closing the digital divide.
        Commissioner, from your perspective how do affordability
    policies under the previous Democratic-led FCC compare to the
    current administration's affordability policies and how
    specifically it relates to consumer outcomes?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        This administration has really lost its focus on consumer
    issues and particularly on affordability. We have not seen any
    action to address affordability.
        When we lost the Affordable Connectivity program millions
    of consumers lost their service--lost their support for their
    service. We are spending billions of dollars to deploy
    networks, but we are not going to have sustainable networks if
    people cannot afford to actually subscribe to the service.
        We need seniors to have access so that they can get health
    care services. We need students to have access to broadband so
    that they can prepare themselves for this AI economy that is
    coming. We need people to be able to access the Internet for
    jobs.
        I was just listening this morning to the head of the
    National Economic Council who said we are not going to have a
    problem with finding jobs because they can be found on the
    internet.
        And my thought at the moment was if you have access to the
    Internet schools and libraries need to have access to the
    internet.
        Instead, this Commission took back the ability to provide
    hotspots through libraries so that people could have Internet
    at home and so that students could have hotspots through their
    schools.
        Same thing with WiFi on school buses. We are not ensuring
    that people who cannot afford to be connected can get access to
    the internet.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. So not only will people not be
    able to afford the services and the tools that they need, but
    more people will be left behind?
        Ms. Gomez. Correct.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Commissioner, as connectivity
    expands through the Internet of Things, AI, the future 6G
    networks, cybersecurity risks to consumers grow significantly.
        Do you believe the FCC has taken the appropriate steps to
    future proof the cybersecurity of everyday Americans in an
    increasingly complex telecommunications ecosystem and why?
        And, Commissioner Trusty, I am going to ask you a similar
    question.
        Ms. Gomez. So this Commission has had a lot of focus on
    security, but at the same time it also has taken away the
    regulatory backstop to ensure that the companies actually have
    cybersecurity policies.
        This just happened with regard to the response to Salt
    Typhoon. This administration has been very concerned about
    Chinese equipment and it has looked for every opportunity in
    order to make sure that we do not have Chinese equipment and
    insecure equipment in our network.
        But when China actually hacks our networks this
    administration took away the rulemaking that would have
    actually required carriers to make cybersecurity front of mind.
        I am also concerned that we have put a pause on the cyber
    trust mark which is a way--a market-driven mechanism which I
    would think my Republican colleagues would actually really
    appreciate, a market-driven mechanism in order for consumers to
    have information about whether the devices they are using come
    from businesses that use good cyber hygiene.
        So I am hopeful that we will be able to get that going
    again because that is a really important public-private
    partnership in order to ensure security.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. I have very limited time.
        Commissioner Trusty, I am going to ask you this question
    for the record, which is you spoke about the need for the U.S.
    to keep pace with international telecommunications trends
    including cybersecurity and I was going to ask if you agree
    with Commissioner Gomez on her assessment and what else you
    would like to add? So I will follow up with you on that.
        But I do, in the interest of time, want to spend a moment
    because I am very, very concerned about, Chairman Carr, your
    focus on ending the----
        Was that you, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Budd. It was.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me
    a point of personal privilege because every single member
    before me went over time--like, every single member.
        Senator Budd. Briefly, please, and then you will submit
    that for the record.
        Senator Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And so I want to make
    sure that I say this on the record because I think when
    Commissioner Gomez talked about private companies doing
    employment matters, these are employment matters and your focus
    on diversity, equity, inclusion, and celebrating the real
    withdrawal of that I think has had an impact on women,
    veterans, people with disabilities, religious minorities.
        And I will ask of the record for Commissioner Gomez to
    explain how conditioning FCC approvals on the elimination of
    DEI programs undermines job opportunities, weakens our economy,
    and our competitiveness.
        With that, I will yield back.
        Senator Budd. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have to say, every so often in this place it almost feels
    like you are having an out-of-body experience where you are,
    like, watching something happen and you cannot believe it is
    happening.
        So the idea that my Democrat colleagues are so offended
    that the First Amendment may be or may not be violated by some
    comment you made I think is just extraordinary given the last
    four years that we lived through.
        I happen to know something about it. I filed the Missouri
    versus Biden lawsuit that a Federal judge--a Federal judge--
    ruled was the most massive attack against free speech in U.S.
    history where entire agencies--and we sat through the
    depositions--were weaponized against the American people on the
    instruction of the Federal Government, and not just one agency
    but a leviathan of agencies that had words and phrases that you
    shall not utter in the United States of America or you were
    censored.
        So you do not get to censor speech. You do not get to
    outsource that censorship to universities or social media
    companies, which is exactly what was happening, and go so far
    as to actually create--and I would challenge anybody in this
    committee if they raise the objection to this--literally a
    disinformation governance board in the United States of
    America.
        You remember the Mary Poppins character who was singing?
    That is what I am--in the United States of America, not like in
    1898, not in 1799, like, three years ago.
        And so to sit here and listen to all this stuff about, you
    know, wearing the white hat on free speech is laughable.
    Laughable.
        So anyway, that is not--I just--I cannot help myself
    sometimes. I just--I wanted to get to these questions first but
    just listening to this is incredible.
        So anyway, Mr. Carr, I do want to ask you about something
    that is--I do not think has been asked about. Currently, there
    is a draft piece of legislation currently being considered by
    the European Commission, the European Union Space Act, which as
    currently drafted would impose a regulatory framework that
    would apply not just to EU firms but also U.S. satellite
    operators providing services to European customers.
        It appears specifically targeted at U.S. companies due
    solely to their size and their success that they have had. From
    the FCC's perspective, what concrete impacts would these
    proposed requirements have on U.S. licensed systems operating
    globally, particularly where the EU rules may duplicate or
    conflict with current U.S. requirements?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, thanks for the question.
        You know, we all know that for years Europe has been
    engaged in protectionist conduct. They have been going after
    U.S. technology companies simply for being successful U.S.
    technology companies. What we are now seeing is the specific
    application of that same approach into the satellite sector.
        European regulators are using the rubric of European
    satellite sovereignty to suggest that you effectively have to
    be a European satellite company to do business in Europe.
        Unlike the technology space, there actually are national
    champion satellite providers in Europe that do business in
    America, and so if Europe continues to go down this
    protectionist path we are going to have to make sure that there
    is reciprocal and fair treatment.
        But it ultimately is holding back Europe itself and it is
    harmful to these U.S. businesses that are trying to have global
    operations. So there is significant pushback right now on this
    sovereignty effort taking place in Europe.
        Senator Schmitt. Well, and it is I think part and parcel of
    something much broader that is happening in Europe right now,
    which is under the NATO flag the United States is supposed to
    have sort of unconditional support no matter what.
        We are partners and this is an alliance. But when the EU
    flag goes up all of a sudden it is a very, very different
    story.
        And I hope you do sort of push back on this idea. Very I
    think ill-timed and likely illegal but we have levers in the
    toolbox, too. It should not be the case. But if they are going
    to go down this road, hopefully you all will make it clear to
    our European friends that this is not appreciated.
        I do want to briefly in the time I have left, Mr. Carr, the
    U.S. already has a--before that licensing framework that we
    currently have in the U.S. what is the status of securing a
    kind of equivalence decision if equivalency is not granted?
        Staying on the European track here, how would overlapping
    EU requirements affect FCC licensed systems operating globally?
        Mr. Carr. Well, for one, we are always going to look out
    for the interests of America and our consumers. So, for
    instance, we are looking at power level issues where perhaps
    Europe is in a different position than America.
        Europe may hold back on power levels in Europe but we can
    authorize them here in America so that our consumers at least
    continue to get better, faster satellite services including
    high-speed internet.
        We are also working inside the building to go much faster
    on processing satellite applications. When I took over as
    Chairman we had a massive backlog.
        We have already cut through about half of that backlog and
    we are changing our approach inside the building to be much
    more assembly line, like, clear, bright line rules.
        If you hit those you are going to get a green light from
    the FCC pretty quickly and, again, I think that is going to set
    us up to lead the world in these next-generation satellite
    technologies.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Budd. Thank you.
        Senator Peters, you are recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to our
    witnesses today, thank you, all three of you, for being here
    today.
        Chair Carr, in 2019 you tweeted--I am just going to quote
    your words directly from the tweet. You said, quote, ``Should
    the government censor speech it does not like? Of course not.
    The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the
    name of the public interest,'' end of quote.
        That was your tweet in 2019, and I will say I agree with
    that. I think that was a good tweet in 2019. I think government
    censorship is absolutely dangerous to our democracy.
        In fact, according to a book which you may have read, ``How
    Democracies Die,'' written by two eminent political scientists,
    historically, one of the key markers of a slide toward
    authoritarianism is attacks on freedom of the press. Part of
    the playbook.
        We have seen it over and over again, and that is why I was
    concerned about your actions this year. This fall alone you
    have suggested that the FCC go after broadcasters that do not
    punish comedians--we have heard that here in the hearing--do
    not punish comedians who make comments that the President does
    not like.
        In one case, you specifically mentioned the broadcaster's
    public interest obligation. You said, quote--in this instance,
    quote, ``We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard
    way,'' unquote.
        That may have been a line I saw in ``The Godfather.'' I am
    not sure, but that is--it is pretty similar to that when you
    threatened to use the FCC to do the very thing you said in 2019
    that the FCC should not ever do via a roving censor.
        So I hate to say this but ensuring broadcasters are
    operating, quote, ``in the public interest'' I do not believe
    that means ensuring that no one on TV is ever mean to the
    President or says something the President may not like.
        To act otherwise is to basically take a leaf out of the
    authoritarian playbooks that we have seen around the world.
    Vladimir Putin comes to mind as someone who openly intimidates
    and threatens folks in a similar matter, and this cannot
    happen, not in our democracy.
        So I am just going to ask you just a simple yes or no
    question. Will you commit here today that you will not move to
    revoke any media license for broadcasters or retaliate in any
    way against broadcast companies merely for choosing to host
    content that is critical of the President or says something
    that he may not like? Yes or no, very simple.
        Mr. Carr. Senator, any broadcaster that complies with the
    public interest standard is not in any risk at all. If a
    broadcaster is engaging in broadcast hoax or violation of news
    distortion policy or political equal opportunity there is going
    to work for the FCC potentially there.
        Senator Peters. So this should be a pretty easy question.
    Do you think the FCC should protect free speech?
        Mr. Carr. Yes.
        Senator Peters. OK. So you will not revoke licenses? So we
    can go back that you will do it? You will not revoke licenses
    or retaliate if they are simply engaging in free speech?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, first of all, the Supreme Court has
    expressly said there is no First Amendment right to an FCC
    license and the Supreme Court has said that the FCC enforcing
    the public interest standard on licensees is not a violation of
    the First Amendment or censorship.
        Senator Peters. And you get to determine what is the public
    interest. So if the President is offended you think, wow, that
    is the public interest. No one should ever offend a president.
        That seems to be counter to our whole history in this
    country. People are always critical. I do not care who the
    president is--a Democrat or a Republican, we should be able to
    make fun of them.
        That is what a healthy democracy is, you can make fun of
    your leaders--and speak truth to power so I do not understand
    that. This should be fairly easy, sir.
        Mr. Carr. When you say make fun of the President are you
    talking about the Kimmel issue? Make fun of----
        Senator Peters. I am talking about any president. If you
    have somebody as a comedian--you can use his example.
        Mr. Carr. Kimmel was not making fun of the President. What
    Kimmel said is we hit some new lows over the weekend with the
    MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie
    Kirk as anything other than one of them.
        It appeared to be an effort to mischaracterize the
    motivations of one of the most significant political
    assassinations, it is not.
        Senator Peters. We also know that the President does not
    like that kind of--and I do not want to make just the issue of
    the comedian because it is broader than that.
        Mr. Carr. That had nothing to do with the President.
        Senator Peters. The public interest is a lot broader than
    that and it should not be you that determines that. That is
    called the--in a democracy people are free to----
        Mr. Carr. But, Senator, Congress----
        Senator Peters. They are free to say things that you may
    not like, I may not like----
        Mr. Carr. But, Senator, Congress----
        Senator Peters.--but that is why we always defend that. I
    am running out of time.
        Commissioner Gomez--I am running out of time. Commissioner
    Gomez, it is in----
        Mr. Carr. Congress passed a law--Congress passed a law
    charging with the FCC with the enforcing of the public interest
    standard. If they want something different then they need to
    change the law.
        Senator Peters. Mr. Carr, I have got limited time here.
        Senator Budd. The Senator's time has expired.
        Senator Peters. Commissioner Gomez--could I have a few
    moments, Chair, given the filibuster here?
        Commissioner Gomez, it is true that the FCC has not
    actually followed through on threats to revoke broadcasters'
    licenses over content that the Trump administration disagrees
    with despite the Chairman's threats to do so.
        Could you discuss how public comments and actions taken so
    far by the FCC related to major broadcaster editorial choices
    have been received by the media and do you think the FCC
    actually needs to revoke licenses in order to have a chilling
    effect?
        Ms. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Senator.
        This administration has been on a campaign to censor
    content and to control the media and others, any critics of
    this administration, and it is weaponizing whatever levers it
    has in order to control that media.
        That includes using the FCC to threaten licensees and
    broadcasters are being chilled. We are hearing from
    broadcasters that they are afraid to air programming that is
    critical of this administration because they are afraid of
    being dragged before the FCC in an investigation. It will be
    costly.
        It is still unconstitutional to revoke licenses based
    solely on content that the FCC does not like. And let us be
    clear, we need to define what we mean by operating in the
    public interest if we are just going to use it as a means to go
    after any content we do not like.
        Broadcast hoaxes, that rule was put in place because of
    Orson Welles and the ``War of the Worlds,'' and our news
    distortion policy does not mean any content we do not like. It
    requires a very specific circumstance in order to be used,
    which is why it is really never used.
        The First Amendment governs what we do as does the
    Communications Act prohibition on censorship and this
    Commission is abusing that.
        Senator Budd. Thank you, Senator.
        Mr. Carr. Senator, look, if broadcasters are hesitating
    today before running broadcast hoaxes or news distortions or
    the news I think that is a good thing.
        Senator Rosen. It is my time.
        Senator Peters. I did not address a question to you.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. I am going to recognize myself.
    Thank you.
        Senator Rosen. Wait.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. TED BUDD,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA

        Senator Budd. Thank you. Let us talk about robocalls. I do
    not think you have talked about that today.
        You know, your testimony mentioned the work that you and
    the FCC are doing to protect the integrity of the robocall
    mitigation database, Chairman, and at nearly every telephone
    town hall that I do and including one last week the folks
    always bring up robocalls.
        They feel overwhelmed by them. They feel that they
    perpetrate real harm. They give examples. As I am around the
    state people talk about robocalls, huge concerns, especially as
    we have things like AI-generated personalized voices and the
    scams become more and more sophisticated and easier to carry
    out.
        So, Chairman, again, thank you all for being here.
    Chairman, what can the FCC do to proactively protect folks and
    how can you stay ahead of the curve with these changing
    criminal tactics?
        Mr. Carr. This is the number-one consumer complaint we get
    at the FCC. Historically, it felt like a game of whack-a-mole.
    We would put a technology solution in place. We would go after
    a single bad actor. But this would just pop up in another way.
        What we are doing right now is we are taking an approach
    where we are tackling illegal robocalls at every single portion
    of the call lifecycle. We are making it harder to get access to
    telephone numbers.
        We are making it more difficult for foreign robocalls to
    enter the U.S. We are looking at potential loopholes, including
    ones for non-IP networks, and one issue we have recently teed
    up is taking a look at any robocall, legal or otherwise, that
    originates from a call center overseas.
        Right now, when that comes up to your phone it can show up
    with a U.S. area code to fool you into thinking the call center
    or the call is here in America. And so we are looking at
    changing that so it would accurately display that it is a
    foreign call center.
        If United or any other business wants to put a call center
    abroad then they should be able to disclose that to the
    consumer, and if this helps with onshoring then that might be a
    good thing as well.
        But we are taking a real new approach including kicking out
    over 1,200 providers from our robocall mitigation database,
    which effectively cuts them off from the systems. We are trying
    to really tackle this at every portion of the call.
        Senator Budd. Thank you for that. I think you are talking
    about the SIM farms that we have seen recently. A lot of that
    is foreign originated. But is there any specific limitations
    that prevent your agency from doing more in this area?
        Mr. Carr. As of right now, we have a fair amount of legal
    authority in this area. It is simply about, you know, tracking
    down every single loophole that folks are exploring.
        We are working increasingly with state AGs on this. We are
    deepening our partnership and collaboration with FTC, the
    Nation's premier consumer protection agency, and we are going
    to keep at this issue.
        Senator Budd. Thank you.
        Shift gears a little bit, Chairman. You know, one of your
    first stops when you were confirmed was to western North
    Carolina after the devastating Hurricane Helene about 14 months
    ago and it devastated communications infrastructure.
        So one of the most difficult aspects of the immediate
    response was that folks they could not get a signal out to
    reach loved ones. They could not reach emergency services when
    they need.
        Can you highlight some of the work that you and the FCC are
    doing to enhance communication resiliency during and after
    natural disasters, please?
        Mr. Carr. Well, thank you, Senator.
        As you noted, my first trip as Chairman was to western
    North Carolina which was still hit hard and engaged in
    recovery. Went to Chimney Rock and that portion where it was
    total devastation.
        We are doing a couple of things. One, we have put into
    place before a new mechanism where carriers can more easily
    roam on each other's networks so if one provider does have
    service more people can connect that way.
        We are also looking at recovery efforts. What you see is
    oftentimes the telecom networks will survive the initial storm
    but as power and road crews come in to clear the way they can
    cut lines.
        And so we have been working to make sure that those
    different portions of recovery crews are collaborating better
    and communicating so they do not step on each other as much.
    There is a range of additional actions we are taking, too, to
    harden the networks.
        Senator Budd. Commissioner Trusty, how will the FCC's
    ``Build America'' agenda increase network resiliency? I think
    we talked about that in the office a little bit. If you would
    like to elaborate, please.
        Ms. Trusty. Sure. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        We are doing a lot through the ``Build America'' agenda to
    enhance network resiliency. We are embracing new technologies
    like satellite connectivity.
        So we are doing a lot to overhaul our earth and space
    station licensing framework to expand access to satellite
    connectivity, which can help enhance redundancy and resiliency.
        We are also pushing forward the IP transition. So we are
    streamlining copper retirement processes and legacy service
    discontinuance requirements to make room for IP-based networks
    that are more reliable and more resilient.
        We are also doing a top to bottom review of our emergency
    alert systems to make sure we can get Americans the information
    they need that is potentially life-saving in emergencies and
    disasters.
        I think all of that is covered under the ``Build America''
    agenda.
        Senator Budd. Great work. Is there any way that Congress
    can be a better partner in that mission that you are working on
    so diligently right now?
        Ms. Trusty. Sure. I think it all goes back to permitting
    reform.
        You know, when networks are destroyed or when they are
    compromised, not having to work through permitting delays and
    other bureaucratic issues is really helpful when trying to
    restore these communication services for Americans.
        Senator Budd. Thank you, all.
        Senator Rosen, you are recognized.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to remind the witnesses here today that the
    Constitution stands. The Constitution overrides regulatory
    bodies. The First Amendment is what we base our communications
    on. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights stands above all.
        I am going to build a little bit upon what Senator Peters
    talked about and others did, too, because I am worried about a
    threatening environment for our media and so I will say
    following Jimmy Kimmel's monologue on September 16, Chairman
    Carr, you publicly said this, ``We can do it the easy way or
    the hard way.''
        Now, maybe you like movies. Maybe you do not. Maybe you
    have never seen ``The Godfather'' but we all have. So I am
    going to just ask an additional question and I want you to
    clarify yes or no, please, because my time is limited here.
        Was this an implicit threat to ABC and its affiliates to
    take Jimmy Kimmel off the air or ABC and its affiliates face
    consequences such as losing broadcasting license or having
    proposed mergers blocked? Is this how government works now, the
    threat of losing your license? Yes or no, please, because I
    have more questions.
        Mr. Carr. Senator, thank you for the question. I was very
    clear there was no threat in there to revoke a license.
        Senator Rosen. Yes or no, please. Was it a threat to revoke
    the license? Was it an implied threat to invoke?
        Mr. Carr. There was no threat to revoke a license there.
    What I have been talking about was the FCC's news distortion
    policy.
        Senator Rosen. I will take that as a no, please. Thank you.
    Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I am going to move on
    to another question about edited interviews.
        Earlier this year, you reinstated a closed FCC inquiry into
    CBS News for alleged edits of an interview with Kamala Harris
    that Donald Trump claimed was done to help her. Many interviews
    are edited to fit in a time-frame of the news program.
        This is nothing new. CBS News ended up paying Donald Trump
    millions in the settlement over his dispute. Earlier this year,
    it came to light that Fox News also edited an interview that
    Donald Trump did last year in the middle of a Presidential
    campaign in which he was asked if he would release the Epstein
    files. The edited interview ends after Trump says, ``Yes, I
    would.''
        But the unedited version shows Trump hedging his support
    for releasing the files.
        So Chairman Carr, yes or no, please, given that this edit
    by Fox News was clearly meant to make Donald Trump look good
    right in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Will you commit
    to opening an investigation into Fox News for its deceptive
    editing of this clip?
        Again, yes or no, please, because I have questions for the
    other witnesses.
        Mr. Carr. No.
        Senator Rosen. No. So you are an elected bureaucrat. You
    are deciding that some investigations should go on and others
    should not, and are you basing this solely on the target or are
    you basing this--what are you basing this on?
        Can you answer that question? This was clearly edited. Why
    is one edit fine and one edit not in the middle of a
    Presidential campaign?
        Mr. Carr. Senator, it is based on the law. The Fox News
    interview was on cable. There is no public interest standard.
    There is no broadcast hoax rule. There is no news distortion.
    There is no role for the FCC there.
        Senator Rosen. Well, I think there is a rule for fairness
    and the American public understand what is fair and just and
    the same rules apply.
        Mr. Carr. Do you think there is a broad fairness rule that
    we should apply at the FCC to cable companies?
        Senator Rosen. So I am going to go on to mergers. I am
    going to go on to merger threats then, Chairman Carr.
        Is there a law that directs the FCC to consider editorial
    conduct when reviewing mergers? Yes or no because I have a
    follow-up question there?
        Mr. Carr. The FCC's job under the Communications Act for
    reviewing mergers is to make sure that they are in the public
    interest and that is the standard that we apply.
        Senator Rosen. And so can you clarify for us the lens
    through which you review public interest? Is there a set of
    principles? Is there a set of something that is applied the
    same equally and to every single merger that you look at?
        Are you using the same template? Because if you are not,
    then I have concerns with that. So can you share with us how
    you consider editorial conduct when you are looking to approve
    the mergers that--well, maybe they will get them, maybe they
    will not based on what? Your personal opinion?
        Mr. Carr. Well, again, the standard is the public interest
    standard and the FCC's decisional document approving mergers
    walks through all of the standards.
        It applies them and it is right there in black and white
    for everyone to do when we apply normal precedent.
        So, for instance, we have accepted commitments on----
        Senator Rosen. Well, I want to ask Commissioner Gomez,
    though, if Congress passed a law--so if we passed a law based
    on this directing the FCC to consider editorial conduct in a
    merger review, would that law violate the First Amendment and
    be considered unconstitutional?
        Ms. Gomez. In all likelihood, yes, the law would violate
    the First Amendment because the First Amendment protects
    against government interference with editorial decisions.
        Senator Rosen. Do you think that Nexstar made decisions
    regarding its editorial comment because it was concerned that
    the FCC might not approve its merger with Tegna--excuse me, if
    it aired content that the Trump administration opposed?
        Ms. Gomez. I think that the--that it was trying to curry
    favor with the administration by preempting Jimmy Kimmel when
    it did.
        Senator Rosen. Do you think the FCC used merger approval?
    They used merger approval as a lever to exert pressure on media
    corporations to threaten free speech in our democracy?
        Ms. Gomez. Without a doubt the FCC is leveraging its
    authority over mergers and enforcement proceedings in order to
    influence content.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you.
        Mr. Carr. If I could just add real quick to that answer.
        Senator Rosen. You are our witness here, sir. We ask the
    questions. Thank you.
        My time is up. I think it is on to Senator Hickenlooper.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
        Senator Hickenlooper.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all
    for your time and your service.
        The United States is remaining a global leader in
    innovation including AI. I think that is a goal that is broadly
    bipartisan.
        As a former Governor in Colorado, I recognize that states
    are, rightfully, the laboratories of democracy. The President's
    recent executive order on AI directs the FCC to consider
    withholding funds to states that have AI laws that could be in
    conflict with stated goals.
        Obviously, I think the FCC does have a role in how AI is
    involved in managing communication networks or blocking
    robocalls. I think it is questionable at best whether the FCC
    can regulate how AI models are used or developed.
        So let me start with Commissioner Gomez. Does the FCC have
    explicit jurisdiction under the Communications Act to preempt
    state AI laws? Why or why not?
        Ms. Gomez. The Communications Act does not grant explicit
    authority to the FCC to preempt AI laws. I am dubious of our
    authority simply that to be able to preempt AI laws simply
    because telecommunications carriers use AI in their networks.
        I think that what we would need in order for the FCC to
    have preemption authority is for there to be a comprehensive
    Federal framework of AI regulation that grants that authority
    to the FCC.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Exactly.
        Chairman Carr, do you state or perceive AI laws that have
    been enacted in states like Texas or Utah do these raise
    concerns for you?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I agree with you that I think we want the United States to
    continue to be the global leader when it comes to AI.
        In terms of the FCC, there is an executive order that asks
    us to initiate a proceeding to determine whether or not to
    adopt Federal reporting in disclosure standards for AI models
    and whether that would preempt conflicting, and we will start
    that proceeding and we will take comment on all sides of the
    issue.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Would that mean that the FCC could
    withhold Universal Service Fund funds from states that are--
    these are the funds that are meant to help low-income consumers
    and rural hospitals, schools, with their connectivity. Could
    those funds be interrupted as a consequence of this?
        Mr. Carr. Well, the issue I have heard raised there is with
    BEAD funds, which are going to be administered by Commerce. I
    have not heard that with respect to FCC USF funds at this
    point.
        Senator Hickenlooper. OK. This year we have seen a wave of
    tariffs on various imports in the United States and while trade
    negotiations may continue to reduce tariffs, that does not
    necessarily mean that the economic uncertainty that they create
    does not continue to impact manufacturers including those who
    manufacture electronics and communications equipment.
        So, Chairman Carr, is the FCC in the process or have they
    evaluated whether escalating tariffs on information and
    communications technology hardware has either lengthened time
    lines to build modern communication networks or raised
    operating costs for providers or consumers in rural areas?
        Mr. Carr. I think, Senator, in terms of hardwares, BLS CPI
    data shows that prices for smart phones themselves are down 7
    percent. I am sorry--are down over 7 percent year over year.
        And so we are not seeing a negative impact in that sector
    at this point.
        Senator Hickenlooper. So I was thinking more of building
    out the networks, the towers and the other communications
    equipment.
        Mr. Carr. I think if we see it there we potentially would
    have seen it in all forms of equipment. That is the data set
    that I have seen. But, look, generally, we are trying to find
    ways to drive down the prices for these services.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Good. I am glad to hear that.
        And then the last question for you, Chairman Carr. In 2021,
    the Marshall fire really devastated Boulder, Colorado, and
    forced countless number of families to evacuate their homes.
        The Marshall fire and numerous other disasters across the
    country has really shown a bright light on the key role that
    the Federal Government and first responders play in
    distributing key information during these types of emergencies.
        Oftentimes, that information saves lives. A lot of this
    includes or should include, has included, the National Weather
    Service and the FCC.
        The Marshall fire spurred action at the FCC, which we
    appreciate, to improve the location accuracy for how wireless
    emergency alerts--WEAs--are delivered to Americans and I think
    that action is welcomed. More work needs to be done.
        But just to make sure our communities receive timely
    information during disasters, what message would you share,
    Chairman Carr, with Americans on the FCC's work to improve
    these wireless emergency alerts?
        Mr. Carr. Thank you, Senator.
        This is important and we are pushing hard to always
    increase location accuracy, and one related issue to this
    actually has to do with GPS and this is an issue where, you
    know, Chairman Cruz has been leading for a long time.
        A lot of the location data some of it is cell site but some
    of it is GPS. And it is a great system but it is vulnerable and
    so we have been taking actions at the FCC to look up standing
    up either complementary or alternatives or secondary ways of
    getting that precision navigation and timing information that
    today is displayed by GPS.
        And so we are going to look at potentially next steps in
    trying to invigorate that work.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that. Thanks to all
    three of you again for your service. I yield back to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Thank you to all the Commissioners for your testimony here
    today. Senators will have until the close of business on
    December 19 to submit questions for the record. The witnesses
    will have until the close of business on January 7 to respond
    to those questions.
        This concludes today's hearing. The Committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

            The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
                                      Washington, DC, December 17, 2025

    Hon. Ted Cruz,
    Chair,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Maria Cantwell,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chair Cruz and Ranking Member Cantwell,

        On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a
    coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 240 national
    organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the
    United States, and the undersigned organizations, we express our deep
    concern with the operations of the Federal Communications Commission
    and urge the Committee to conduct vigorous oversight.
        We also ask for this letter to be entered into the record of the
    December 17, 2025, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation hearing conducting oversight of the Federal
    Communications Commission.
        Federal Communications Commissioner (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr has
    weaponized the Commission to fight a culture war for the administration
    instead of carrying out the Commission's true mission: to serve the
    people of the United States. As a chief author of the anti-democratic
    Project 2025, Chair Carr is committed to a vision of a nation that
    serves the interests of the powerful few. As civil rights advocates, we
    are deeply alarmed by his attacks on our values and our communities and
    urge this committee to take seriously its charge to conduct oversight
    of the FCC.
        Censoring the Press and Dissenting Voices: FCC Chair Brendan Carr's
    pressured American Broadcasting Company (ABC) affiliates to not carry
    Jimmy Kimmel Live. The FCC has significant influence over the
    broadcasting licenses of the affiliates, influence that should not be
    abused to silence dissenting voices for political gain.\1\ First
    amendment experts pointed to Carr's rhetoric and the subsequent
    (temporary) removal of Kimmel's show as a textbook example of an undue
    and violative form of pressure,\2\ and highlighted the many ways in
    which the FCC has attempted to police speech (both in the issuance of
    broadcast licenses and the approval of mergers).\3\ Carr did not learn
    his lesson to avoid pressuring broadcasters, and shared President
    Trump's post asking for Seth Myers to be fired on his own X account.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Press Release, ACLU, ACLU Responds to Trump Administration Move
    Censoring Jimmy Kimmel (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.aclu.org/press-
    releases/aclu-responds-to-trump-administration-move-censoring-jimmy-
    kimmel.
        \2\ Anna Branigin, ``How Cancel Culture Came for Everyone,''
    Washington Post (Oct. 1, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/
    power/2025/10/01/cancel-culture-kimmel/.
        \3\ Ted Johnson, ``Brendan Carr's Threats On Networks May Be
    ``Jawboning,'' And Courts Don't Like It, Legal Experts Say'' Deadline
    (Sept. 19, 2025), https://deadline.com/2025/09/fcc-brendan-carr-
    jawboning-jimmy-kimmel-1236549243/; Tom Wheeler, ``Trump's CBS Lawsuit
    Ties Media Freedom to FCC's Regulatory Power,'' Brookings (Feb. 19,
    2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trumps-cbs-lawsuit-ties-media
    -freedom-to-fccs-regulatory-power/.
        \4\ Brendan Morrow, Trump calls for NBC to fire Seth Meyers, FCC
    Chair Brendan Carr weighs in. USA TODAY (Nov. 17, 2025), https://
    www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/11/17/trump-seth-meyers-
    fcc-chair-brendan-carr/87315926007/#.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Gutting Media Diversity Rules: The FCC's media ownership rules play
    an important role in preventing individual companies from dominating
    national or local markets and fulfilling the FCC's obligation to
    promote media diversity. Eliminating the media ownership rules
    abdicates the FCC's statutory obligation, continuing to exclude people
    of color from broadcast ownership.\5\ Further, relaxing media ownership
    limits will exacerbate already-low competition, localism, and viewpoint
    diversity while also harming workers. Several pending mergers,
    including Nexstar's $6.2 billion deal to take over TEGNA would blast
    through existing ownership rules.\6\ We urge the Committee to ensure
    that the Commission will follow regular process and consider this
    transaction, and the media ownership rules, with a vote of the FCC
    Commissioners, a request consistent with prior positions of Chairman
    Cruz.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ George Winslow, ``Unions, Civil Rights Groups Argue Localism
    Will Be Hurt, Not Helped by Eliminating Ownership Caps,'' TV Tech (Aug.
    28, 2025), https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/unions-civil-rights-
    groups-argue-localism-will-be-hurt-not-helped-by-eliminating-ownership-
    caps.
        \6\ Keith Collins and Raj Saha, ``How a TV Merger Raised the
    Pressure on ABC to Suspend Kimmel,'' New York Times (Sept. 19, 2025),
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/19/business/media/abc-
    nexstar-kimmel.html.
        \7\ Press Release, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation, At Nominations Hearing, Sen. Cruz Blasts FCC Actions on
    Standard-General-TEGNA Deal, Calls Out Fraud-Risk in Affordable
    Connectivity Program (June 22, 23), https://www.commerce.senate.gov
    /2023/6/at-nominations-hearing-sen-cruz-blasts-fcc-actions-on-
    standard-general-tegna-deal-calls-out-fraud-risk-in-affordable-
    connectivity-program (``It is incumbent on this committee to only
    confirm nominees who will stand for procedural fairness, respect
    taxpayer dollars, and exercise regulatory humility'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Coercing Companies to Pull Back on Diversity and Equity: We also
    have serious concerns about the ways in which FCC leadership has
    weaponized the Commission's merger authority to pressure media and
    telecommunications companies into abandoning their diversity, equity,
    and inclusion (DEI) programs.\8\ Earlier this year, Chair Carr publicly
    stated he does not see ``a path forward'' to approve transactions for
    companies that maintain DEI programs, encouraging businesses seeking
    FCC merger approval to ``get busy ending'' their diversity
    initiatives.\9\ FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez has condemned this as
    government overreach that stifles free expression, noting that ``there
    is a freedom of speech component to diversity, equity, and inclusion''
    and stating that this approach represents ``control of a private
    company's employment practices'' that ``has nothing to do with what we
    do at the FCC.'' \10\ Despite plain civil rights mandates and an abject
    failure to meet them, the FCC has threatened or coerced many companies
    to eliminate their programs that aimed to ensure fair treatment of and
    equal opportunity for women, people of color, people with disabilities,
    and the LGBTQ community in order for their mergers to be approved.\11\
    The Leadership Conference made clear earlier this year that our
    Nation's civil rights laws remain in place and the Chairman's efforts
    to circumvent them is an affront to the Nation's commitment to
    fairness.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Commissioner Anna Gomez, Remarks at U.S. Hispanic Chamber of
    Commerce Summit, (March 25, 2025), https://www.fcc.gov/document/
    commissioner-gomezs-remarks-us-hispanic-chamber-commerce-summit.
        \9\ Cameron Coats, Carr: Broadcasters With DEI Programs Could Get
    Deals Blocked, Radio Ink, (March 24, 2025), https://radioink.com/2025/
    03/24/carr-broadcasters-with-dei-programs-could-get-deals-blocked/.
        \10\ Cameron Coats, Gomez: DEI Attacks Part of `Censorship and
    Control' Under Trump, Radio Ink (April 8, 2025), https://radioink.com/
    2025/04/08/gomez-dei-attacks-part-of-censorship-and-control-under-
    trump/.
        \11\ Inside Radio, Commissioner Urges Private Companies to Fight
    FCC Efforts to End DEI, (March 26, 2025), https://www.insideradio.com/
    free/commissioner-urges-private-companies-to-fight-fcc-efforts-to-end-
    dei/article_4be2f10e-9b92-46b7-9b0f-e70f019c54ed.html.
        \12\ Open Letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
    Rights to Leaders in Business, Philanthropy, Education, Law, Non-
    Profits, and Health Care (May 16, 2025), https://civilrights.org/
    resource/your-civil-rights-obligations-remain-in-force/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increasing costs and endangering communities by increasing phone
    and video prices: The Commission recently adopted higher prices for
    consumers which will likely lead to increased recidivism for
    incarcerated people. The Senate unanimously adopted the Martha Wright
    Reed Act in 2022 to lower rates and the Commission implemented that law
    in 2024. When the FCC proposed the changes in October, members of this
    committee denounced Chair Carr's rolling back the implementation of the
    Martha Wright Act.\13\ The law passed out of Congress on a bipartisan
    basis, and the FCC's 2024 Final Rule (2024 Rule) was adopted on a 5-0
    vote. Recent analysis of the FCC's changes found that they would lead
    to a 66 percent drop in call minutes, and the rates people would pay
    will increase by as much as 83 percent--costing consumers hundreds of
    millions of dollars annually.\14\ We urge Chair Carr to roll back the
    changes made and enforce the 2024 Rule as originally adopted by the
    Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Press Release, Senator Tammy Duckworth, Duckworth Leads
    Colleagues in Denouncing FCC Chair Brendan Carr's Unlawful Plan to
    Increase Costs for Law Abiding Americans with Incarcerated Loved Ones
    (Oct. 28, 2025), https://www.duckworth.senate.gov/news/press-releases/
    duckworth-leads-colleagues-in-denouncing-fcc-chair-brendan-carrs-
    unlawful-plan-to-increase-costs-for-law-abiding-americans-with-
    incarcerated-loved-ones.
        \14\ Press Release, Worth Rises, Worth Rises Releases Impact
    Analysis of the FCC's Proposed Revisions to Its 2024 Regulations on
    Incarcerated People's Communications Services and Rebukes the Revisions
    as Overly Broad and Misguided (Oct. 15, 2025), https://worthrises.org/
    pressreleases/2025/10/15/worth-rises-releases-impact-analysis-of-the-
    fccs-proposed-revisions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Aiding Ban on State and Local AI Laws: Chair Carr previously stated
    that he would be taking a look at how ``the FCC may be able to play a
    role in helping'' block state laws regulating artificial
    intelligence,\15\ and the FCC has followed up the Chair's comments by
    issuing two notices seeking to ban enforcement of state laws regulating
    AI.\16\ While the Chair may be eager to assist the White House in these
    efforts, the Communications Act does not grant the FCC authority over
    artificial intelligence, and it does not have the power to preempt
    state AI law.\17\ Further, public polling has made clear that the
    public wants more regulation of AI, not less.\18\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Chris Teale, ``FCC Chair Floats Preempting State AI Laws,''
    Route Fifty (Sept 30, 2025), https://www.route-fifty.com/artificial-
    intelligence/2025/09/fcc-chair-floats-preempting-state-ai-laws/408472/.
        \16\ Austin Bonner and Alex Tate, ``FCC Kicks Off AI Action Plan
    Efforts,'' HWG (Oct. 1, 2025), https://hwglaw.com/2025/10/01/fcc-kicks-
    off-ai-action-plan/.
        \17\ Harold Feld, ``Can the FCC Preempt State Laws on AI? No--
    Especially Not With Broadband As Title I,'' Public Knowledge (Sept. 19,
    2025), https://publicknowledge.org/can-the-fcc-preempt-state-laws-on-
    ai-no/.
        \18\ Benedict Vigers and Justin Lall, ``Americans Prioritize AI
    Safety and Data Security,'' Gallup (Sept. 16, 2025), https://
    news.gallup.com/poll/694685/americans-prioritize-safety-data-
    security.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We stand ready to work with Congress on policies that will protect
    civil rights, prevent unlawful discrimination, and advance equal
    opportunity. Should you require further information or have any
    questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact Jonathan
    Walter, senior policy counsel, at walter@civilrights.org.
                Sincerely,

    The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
    Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
    UnidosUS
    United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC
    Common Cause
    Communications Workers of America
    Hispanic Federation
    League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
    National Action Network
    National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians (NABET-CWA)
    National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients
    National Hispanic Media Coalition
    National Urban League
                                     ______

          Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Cruz to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Last month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    rescinded Chairwoman Rosenworcel's January 2025 Salt Typhoon
    Declaratory Ruling, which relied on a 1994 wiretap law to impose cyber
    requirements. That legal authority was, at best, creative, and the
    rules were issued outside the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
    process and after my pencils-down letter. The FCC is not a
    cybersecurity agency--it lacks real-time threat intelligence. It does
    not directly respond to network intrusions, as agencies like
    Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), National
    Security Agency (NSA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
    do.

        a. Given these limitations, along with the growing cyber threats
    from nation-state actors and criminal groups, do you agree that the FCC
    should not take the lead in developing cybersecurity regulations when
    it lacks both the operational expertise and statutory authority to do
    so? If you agree, please feel free to elaborate.
        Answer. Yes, I agree. National security agencies tasked with
    cybersecurity should take the lead in establishing cybersecurity
    standards. Instead of creating another set of standards that would
    potentially undermine and contradict the efforts of national security
    agencies, the FCC should work closely with carriers to ensure they can
    respond collaboratively and in real time when attacks occur.

        b. What risks could emerge from granting the FCC--an agency that
    wields broad regulatory powers over communications carriers--with new
    powers in cybersecurity?
        Answer. Instead of providing full transparency to Federal partners,
    carriers may try to obfuscate real problems to avoid adverse regulatory
    actions.

        c. What would be necessary for the FCC to instantly gain the
    technical threat intelligence necessary to provide effective guidance
    to telecom carriers?
        Answer. The FCC should be encouraging carrier to continue and
    deepen their collaboration with expert cybersecurity agencies.

        Question 2. The last few years have seen incredible growth in space
    commerce and satellite business cases. It is vital that the United
    States be the world leader in space commerce and innovation. The FCC
    regulates commercial satellite systems, and these systems frequently
    have to coordinate their spectrum use with government entities through
    an interagency process when applying for FCC authorizations.

        a. How would you assess the current state of coordination between
    FCC and other Federal agencies on spectrum usage, and how are you
    working to improve interagency coordination?
        Answer. The FCC works closely and collaboratively with NTIA and
    other Federal agencies to provide the maximum regulatory certainty in
    the most efficient manner. But there is room for improvement. Too much
    interagency review can lead to unnecessary delays. The FCC will
    continue to work with our Federal partners to streamline the
    interagency coordination process.

        b. How would you assess current efforts to improve the review and
    processing of space station license applications?
        Answer. When I became Chairman there was a major backlog of
    satellite applications, but we have since cut that backlog in half. We
    are reducing the time from filing to approval--the FCC recently
    approved a SpaceX application for a Next-Gen satellite constellation in
    less than half the time it took for the FCC to push through SpaceX's
    previous authorization for their Gen2 system. We recently launched a
    proceeding to look at ways to modernize the Commission's space and
    earth station licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy
    for today and tomorrow.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. The Universal Service Fund's high cost program is the
    lifeblood for many of South Dakota's telecom providers. What steps is
    the FCC taking to strengthen the high cost program and ensure that
    local telecom providers who are investing in their home states have the
    certainty they need from the program to connect unserved areas in rural
    America?
        Answer. The FCC's Universal Service Fund plays a key role in
    bridging the digital divide. Over the next couple of years, several of
    the FCC's legacy high cost programs will expire. So the FCC should be
    thinking about a future for the programs so that the agency continues
    to deliver on its statutory responsibilities to rural America.

        Question 2. Will you commit to working with Congress on legislative
    reforms to the Universal Service fund and ensure this critical program
    continues?
        Answer. Yes. The FCC is looking forward to briefing the bipartisan,
    bicameral USF working group at the end of January.

        Question 3. What steps have the FCC already taken or can take to
    address waste, fraud, and abuse and improve efficiency across Universal
    Service Fund programs?
        Answer. Over the last year, the FCC has been aggressively pursuing
    bad actors that are defrauding the FCC's USF programs. Furthermore, we
    have been undertaking a review of the programs to determine ways to
    address waste and abuse. First, we recently revoked California's
    ability to opt-out of the National Lifeline Accountability Database
    (NLAD) for the Federal Lifeline program. California passed a state law
    that prohibits the state from requiring the collection of social
    security numbers, which could be used to ensure that program recipients
    are legal residents, and from sharing relevant information with Federal
    agencies. Revoking California's opt-out status ensures that Federal
    dollars aren't paying for the state to abuse the Federal Lifeline
    Program. We are also teeing up a comprehensive review of the Lifeline
    Program to ensure that Lifeline dollars go to eligible Americans.

        Question 4. As Chairman, will you commit to opening Notice of
    Public and Comment Rulemaking proceedings to explore the efficiency and
    future needs of each of the four programs, including Lifeline, E-Rate,
    High Cost, and Rural Health Care.
        Answer. The FCC commits to conducting a comprehensive review of its
    USF programs to explore how each can be made more efficient. And some
    of these reviews are already underway. Separately, I am aware of the
    Congressional Working Group that is looking to put the four programs on
    sustainable footing from both the distribution and contribution
    perspective. I know they are receiving input from industry, and I trust
    they will find ways to make the four programs efficient and address the
    future needs of the program.

        Question 5. In July 2025, you unveiled your ``Build America
    Agenda'' in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Can you further detail the steps
    you have taken as Chairman to reduce regulatory burdens and strengthen
    the workforce for telecom infrastructure companies?
        Answer. With respect to reducing regulatory burdens, we have:

       Streamlined the process for retiring decades-old copper
            networks so that providers can transition consumers to new,
            high-speed networks on a faster timeline.

       Proposed a systematic overhaul of the FCC's outdated
            environmental and historic permitting rules that slow down
            wireless and space infrastructure builds.

       Updated pole attachment rules to make broadband deployment
            faster and more efficient. The new rules promote collaboration
            between broadband providers and utility pole owners, reduce
            delays, and help accelerate high-speed Internet access
            nationwide.

        With respect to strengthening the workforce, we have:

       Worked with communications providers, and America's tower
            and telecom crews on facilitating workforce reforms that will
            result in a more sustainable environment.

       Through merger approval process, secured valuable
            commitments by three major U.S. wireless carriers, Verizon, T-
            Mobile, and AT&T, to America's tower and telecom crews,
            including faster payment cycles and fairer pricing metrics.

       Secured new provider commitments to minimize layers of
            subcontracting, which will allow for greater oversight of
            crews, stronger safety protections, and closing loopholes that
            allowed foreign, fly-by-night groups to swoop in and undercut
            U.S. crews.

        Question 6. The historic Working Families Tax Cuts Act mandated the
    auction of 800 megahertz of spectrum. What steps has the Federal
    Communications Commission taken to meet this mandate? Additionally,
    please outline the benefits of bringing this spectrum into commercial
    use, particularly how those living in rural areas may benefit.
        Answer. The Working Families Tax Cuts Act specifically directed the
    Commission to grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding,
    before the expiration of the general auction authority for not less
    than 300 megahertz, including by completing a system of competitive
    bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act
    for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and
    4.2 gigahertz, which is known as the Upper C-Band. In light of this
    directive, the FCC has moved fast to execute, and in November we
    adopted the Upper C-Band NPRM to begin the auction.
        This auction will bring prices down, boost speeds, and bring
    expanded access to advanced wireless services, including 5G and,
    eventually 6G, to the American people, particularly those in rural
    areas.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Continuity of the Global Positioning System (GPS) depends on
    protecting its spectrum from interference. GPS interference may result
    from radio emissions in adjacent bands, intentional or unintentional
    jamming, or naturally occurring space weather. In 2020, President Trump
    issued an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to pursue
    complementary positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities to
    improve resilience in the event of GPS disruptions. The Federal
    Communications Commission (FCC) has recognized the significance of this
    issue, including in a March 2025 Notice of Inquiry.

        Chairman Carr, you have noted that the Commission is seeking to
    improve GPS and location data that support first responders, and you
    have acknowledged the GPS system's vulnerability to jamming, spoofing,
    and other disruptions. I believe this effort is important and will
    require a cross-agency approach. Can you provide details on how the FCC
    plans to move forward to address these issues while avoiding unintended
    consequences? Additionally, how would you engage industry, public
    safety, and civil stakeholders in this process?
        Answer. As you referenced, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in
    March 2025 to start building the record to understand what alternatives
    are out there and weigh the various pros and cons, as well as
    anticipate any of the consequences. Each of the various GPS
    alternatives will require different levels of coordination with unique
    groups of stakeholders. The NOI has given potentially impacted parties
    the opportunity to weigh in on how to work together to mitigate
    unintended consequences.

        The FCC is conducting its required four-year review of broadcast
    ownership rules under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996 through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Federal law limits
    a single entity from owning stations nationwide that reach more than 39
    percent of U.S. television households. This limit is known as the
    national audience reach cap. The NPRM does not propose any conclusions;
    rather, it examines whether the rules governing local television, local
    radio, and network ownership should be retained, modified, or repealed.

        Chairman Carr, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L.
    108-199) set the national ownership cap at 39 percent. Do you believe
    the FCC has the authority to change the cap? If so, could you detail
    the statutory or FCC rulemaking basis that grants the Commission this
    authority?
        Answer. The FCC has a number of proceedings underway where we have
    sought public feedback on both the FCC's legal authority and the
    relevant policy considerations.

        One of the primary functions of the FCC is to manage spectrum
    assignments and protect spectrum rights in the United States. This
    includes monitoring the unlawful use of, and interference with,
    exclusive-use spectrum.

        Chairman Carr, is the FCC working to resolve any Notices of
    Violation regarding carriers unlawfully using a third party's
    exclusive-use spectrum? Do you agree that if a company continues to
    ignore such violations, it could negatively impact the value of
    exclusive-use spectrum and revenues from future spectrum auctions?
        Answer. Exclusive-use spectrum is important because it provides
    licensees with the certainty to build and invest in networks that won't
    encounter interference from others. The FCC is periodically made aware
    of allegations regarding RF interference or unlawful use of spectrum.
    The FCC's Enforcement Bureau investigates those allegations in the
    normal course.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Deb Fischer to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. In January 2025, the Commission withdrew its Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking that considered a possible ban on bulk billing
    agreements for broadband services in multi-dwelling housing. Would you
    please explain how the Commission arrived at this decision, including
    any evidence found in support of bulk billing models?
        Answer. In March 2024, prior FCC leadership circulated a bulk
    billing NPRM that would have banned bulk billing agreements. The FCC
    has previously determined that these bulk billing arrangements benefit
    families living in apartments, condos, public housing, and other multi-
    tenant buildings because they allow them to take advantage of lower
    cost broadband services by enabling building owners to leverage their
    purchasing power. If these agreements had been banned, at least one
    study showed, Americans living in apartments could have seen their
    bills go up by as much as 50 percent.

        Question 2. Many NTIA BEAD subgrantees providing fixed wireless
    Internet services will rely on the Citizens Broadband Radio Service
    (CBRS) spectrum band, particularly the General Authorized Access tier,
    as part of their long-term network plans. Is the Commission examining
    any changes to the existing CBRS framework that could interfere with
    these plans and impact the ability of BEAD subgrantees to meet their
    buildout requirements?
        Answer. Back in 2024, the FCC sought comment on potential changes
    in the CBRS band that would allow for higher power operations. Any
    issues raised in that proceeding remain pending at the agency.

        Question 3. I appreciate the Commission's work to ensure the U.S.
    leads in satellite communications innovation globally. Within this
    effort, preserving the robustness of satellite operations for systems
    essential to our military and national security remains a crucial
    responsibility. What assessments so far has the Commission made to
    understand and recognize impacts on the mission readiness of the U.S.
    government users that depend on commercial satellite resources--
    including any changes to equivalent power flux density limits?
        Answer. The FCC has an active rulemaking proceeding to consider how
    complimentary technologies can be leveraged to improve operational
    resilience. In April 2025, the FCC sought comment on whether to modify
    the EPFD limits for NGSOs in light of the tremendous technical advances
    since the current rules were established in the 1990s.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. On November 20, the Commission adopted a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking proposing to make as much as 180 megahertz of the
    Upper C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz) available for terrestrial wireless flexible
    use via auction toward compliance with provisions of PL 119--21
    requiring the FCC to auction 800 MHz of spectrum. In that NPRM, the
    Commission notes the time constraints imposed by PL 119--21 will
    require ``broad-based and proactive engagement from relevant industry
    stakeholders as well as our Federal partners.'' As the NPRM goes on to
    communicate, those stakeholders include Upper C-band incumbents and
    adjacent band equities, particularly in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band, which is
    used by aviation stakeholders for operating radio altimeters. Please
    describe the Commission's engagement with industry and Federal aviation
    stakeholders, including the Federal Aviation Administration, to support
    continuity of operations for radio altimeters that currently use the
    4.2-4.4 GHz band.
        Answer. Completing an auction of the upper C-band on schedule
    requires seamless interagency coordination. The FCC is coordinating
    directly with stakeholders like the FAA. The FCC is also addressing
    other Federal equities through NTIA. President Trump has made it clear
    that getting results on these issues is a top priority. The FCC will
    continue to focus on efficiency and execution, including accommodating
    relevant incumbent users within a reasonable budget and completing a
    generational upgrade of radio altimeters through new standards that are
    fully resilient to 5G services for years to come.

        Question 2. Earlier this year, the Commission withdrew a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking that proposed banning bulk billing agreements,
    which are arrangements between Internet service providers and rental
    housing providers to enable bulk purchasing of Internet services for
    residents of multiple dwelling units (MDUs). How did the Commission
    arrive at this decision, and what are the Commission's plans with
    respect to bulk billing going forward?
        Answer. In March 2024, prior FCC leadership circulated a bulk
    billing NPRM that would have banned bulk billing agreements. The FCC
    has previously determined that these bulk billing arrangements benefit
    families living in apartments, condos, public housing, and other multi-
    tenant buildings because they allow them to take advantage of lower
    cost broadband services by enabling building owners to leverage their
    purchasing power. If these agreements had been banned, at least one
    study showed, Americans living in apartments could have seen their
    bills go up by as much as 50 percent.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Maintaining our country's leadership in the race to 5G
    and then 6G is critical for both our economic and national security.
    That is why this committee pursued such a robust spectrum agenda in the
    One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The spectrum mandates are purposely bold,
    and we need to ensure that they are implemented swiftly. One portion of
    the legislation provided funds for NTIA to study the 200 megahertz
    between 2.7 and 2.9 GHz. I understand that good progress is already
    being made in determining how and when to convert that band. Based on
    the work already being done, I'm hopeful that NTIA and the FCC can move
    even more quickly on that band than the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
    requires. The faster that this spectrum is made available, the quicker
    industry can begin using it to continue the United States' path to 6G
    leadership. If NTIA and the FCC act quickly on analyzing this band,
    will the FCC be ready to auction the 2.7--2.9 band, even if you are
    conducting auctions of other spectrum during that time period?
        Answer. If NTIA determines that Federal incumbents are able to
    relocate out of the 2.7-2.9 band, the FCC will move quickly to take the
    necessary steps to auction that spectrum.

        Question 2. The Upper C-Band proceeding involves a wide range of
    stakeholders and important technical considerations, including aviation
    safety. Can you describe how the FCC is coordinating with the FAA and
    other agencies to ensure those considerations are fully addressed as
    the proceeding moves forward? In addition, the Commission has received
    requests from some stakeholders regarding the current comment
    deadlines. How is the FCC evaluating whether the existing timeline
    provides sufficient opportunity for a complete and well-informed
    record, given the goal of finalizing the auction by July 2027?
        Answer. The FCC is coordinating directly with stakeholders like the
    FAA, as well as the aviation industry. The FCC is also addressing other
    Federal equities through NTIA. President Trump has made it clear that
    getting results on these issues is a top priority. The FCC will
    continue to focus on efficiency and execution to meet the statutory
    deadline of July 2027.

        Question 3. In the past you've talked about the changed media
    marketplace and the inequities that exist right now for local
    broadcasters in that larger ecosystem. It's incredibly important for my
    constituents across Alaska that our local, community-based broadcasters
    are able to thrive. You've critiqued prior FCC leadership for not
    upholding Congress' deregulatory mandate when it comes to media
    ownership. How is the FCC evaluating whether existing national and
    local broadcast ownership rules are keeping pace with changes in the
    media marketplace, while still protecting localism, competition, and
    diverse viewpoints--particularly in rural and remote states like
    Alaska?
        Answer. We have pending proceedings to evaluate these rules. My
    guiding principle when it comes to media policy is promoting localism
    and empowering local broadcasters.

        Question 4. What is the FCC doing to make sure that non-trusted
    PRC-made devices that could pose cybersecurity or data transfer risks
    are vetted before they receive equipment authorization?
        Answer. We've taken a series of actions to ensure non-trusted PRC-
    made devices do not receive equipment authorizations. First, the FCC
    has cracked down on ``Bad Labs,'' which are labs that review and
    approve electronics for use in the United States, but are owned or
    controlled by foreign adversary governments. The FCC also maintains the
    Covered List of communications equipment that is prohibited from
    receiving equipment authorization, because they threaten national
    security. The FCC rigorously enforces this prohibition.
        Additionally, late last year, the FCC took steps to close loopholes
    in the Covered List by prohibiting authorization of devices containing
    certain ``covered'' components and allowing the FCC to prohibit the
    import or sale or already-authorized devices.
        Beyond that, the FCC has also taken action to crack down on devices
    that try to enter the U.S. without equipment authorization. We also
    executed `Operation Clean Carts', in which the FCC worked with
    ecommerce platforms to take down millions of listings of devices on the
    FCC's Covered List or otherwise prohibited for sale in the United
    States.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Chairman Carr, I have heard about the growing incidents
    of, and attempts, at GPS spoofing and jamming. In the past, the
    Department of Transportation published a request for information
    seeking ``technology capable of providing critical infrastructure users
    and operators positioning and/or timing information that is derived
    independently from Global Navigation Satellite Systems.'' Has the FCC
    contemplated alternatives to GPS, and if so, has the FCC conducted any
    work to examine the feasibility of the technology?
        Answer. The FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry in March 2025 to start
    building the record to understand what alternatives are out there and
    weigh the various pros and cons, as well as anticipate any of the
    consequences. Each of the various GPS alternatives will require
    different levels of coordination with unique groups of stakeholders.
    The NOI gives impacted parties the opportunity to weigh in on how to
    work together to mitigate unintended consequences.

        Question 2. Chairman Carr, In Indiana, Fort Wayne station WODP-LD
    recently completed a year of experimental 5G Broadcast operations,
    demonstrating that 5G Broadcast can coexist with existing TV stations
    while delivering services to Hoosiers. As the FCC moves forward with
    implementing the spectrum auction authorities provided under the One
    Big Beautiful Bill Act, can you explain how local broadcasters can
    currently use existing spectrum allocations for their 5G broadcast
    operations like WODP-LD has done with their Low Power TV broadcasts and
    has the FCC contemplated any actions with respect to 5G LPTV
    broadcasts?
        Answer. I'm interested in examining the benefits of new
    technologies and giving licensees the ability to deploy their spectrum
    in innovative ways. In July, we sought comment on a petition from HC2
    Broadcasting Holdings Inc. to allow low-power television stations on a
    voluntary basis to use the 5G Broadcast transmission standard as an
    alternative to the currently authorized ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0
    transmission standards. We are considering the record in that
    proceeding.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Eric Schmitt to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Mr. Carr, as you know, I led an effort of 24 Members of
    the Senate and House to file a brief in the Sixth Circuit supporting
    parties seeking to overturn the Biden-era FCC's data breach rules. I
    was pleased to learn that your administration has committed to review
    and repeal those rules. Can you elaborate on your position regarding
    whether the breach reporting rules violate the Congressional Review Act
    (CRA), confirm that the FCC plans to roll back these rules that flout
    congressional intent, and provide a sense of when the FCC will address
    this important issue?
        Answer. I dissented on the Biden-era data breach rules because they
    violated both the CRA and the APA. The Biden FCC made no real attempt
    to explain how the data breach rule it adopted was not the same or
    substantially similar to the one nullified by the House, the Senate,
    and President Trump in the 2017 CRA. On October 7, 2025, the Sixth
    Circuit agreed to hold a case challenging the data breach rules in
    abeyance while the FCC considers how best to revise its rules.

        Question 2. Mr. Carr, thank you for your continued leadership in
    protecting American consumers from harmful foreign actors. Some threats
    are easy to identify--Huawei and ZTE, for example--but we are
    increasingly seeing foreign Communications Platform as a Service
    (CPaaS) providers and (Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) acquire
    U.S. entities in ways that let them present themselves as domestic
    companies. These acquisitions carry real risks: they can raise costs
    for legitimate U.S. businesses, and some of these foreign-owned
    entities appear to be contributing to the very problems you've been a
    national leader in combating--illegal robocalls and robotexts. Mr.
    Chairman, will you commit to examining whether certain foreign
    companies, operating under the guise of U.S. ownership, are exploiting
    the U.S. market, and whether their continued authorization to operate
    remains in the public interest?
        Answer. Yes, the FCC will continue to examine foreign-owned actors
    operating in U.S. communications networks. In fact, just this month the
    FCC will vote to adopt rules on Foreign Adversary Control, requiring
    all FCC licensees to certify whether they are owned by, controlled by,
    or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary--
    allowing the Commission to expose actors with opaque ties to foreign
    adversaries.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to

                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Having the most accurate understanding of where there
    is and is not broadband service in is imperative, especially in West
    Virginia. This is particularly true for mobile service, where measuring
    mobile service can be complicated by terrain and topography. Incorrect
    data affects everything from Federal funding for future deployments to
    real-time emergency services capabilities. Will you commit to requiring
    and using established mobile data for Federal programs that support
    mobile deployment? And how are you ensuring that coverage areas are
    accurate and not overexaggerated by providers, particularly by use of
    stationary data which currently qualifies under mobile metrics?
        Answer. Consistent with the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act
    (see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 642(c)(2)(B)), the FCC will rely upon mobile data
    submitted in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC) when making decisions
    for funding programs that support mobile broadband deployment.
        To ensure the mobile availability data providers are reporting in
    the BDC are accurate the FCC has relied on the mobile challenge,
    verification, and audit processes that Congress instructed the
    Commission to develop. Since the National Broadband Map launched in
    2023, consumers and other entities have successfully created over 400
    cognizable challenges against providers' reported coverage, which
    require the challenged provider to either submit on-the-ground evidence
    to rebut the challenge or to concede the challenge and remove its
    claimed coverage from the map. In addition to challenges submitted by
    consumers and other stakeholders, the Commission can also initiate a
    verification where there is a credible basis to believe the reported
    coverage may be in accurate. Recently, challenge speed test data
    collected by an entity in Alaska provided staff with a credible basis
    to initiate a verification against a provider in Alaska, which remains
    ongoing. Crowdsourced speed test data, even those not submitted for
    purposes of challenging coverage, have also resulted in FCC-initiated
    verifications.
        FCC staff also proactively review provider-reported mobile coverage
    from each filing round to identify significant changes in coverage and
    other potential anomalies in the data. In one case where staff
    identified large increases in a nationwide provider's 5G coverage, we
    initiated multiple verification requests to validate the accuracy of
    the newly claimed coverage. The provider collected and submitted
    substantial on-the-ground speed test data in accordance with our
    sampling instructions and successfully verified its new 5G coverage.
        Additionally, we have used the mobile audit process to randomly
    audit mobile coverage in counties across the United States. To ensure
    that coverage is not overstated, during an audit FCC staff and
    contractors review provider infrastructure data and conduct an
    engineering analysis of the providers' mobile coverage maps.

        Question 2. We spoke a little bit on the issues related to the
    challenge process, and I appreciate the willingness of the Commission
    to look at this issue. To get a better understanding of the current
    state of mapping, I had a few questions as it relates to the current
    status of challenges. Does the FCC still accept visual evidence of
    location fabric challenges?
        Answer. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission ensure
    the BDC challenge processes are ``user-friendly'' and designed to
    mitigate ``the administrative burdens placed'' on challengers, 47
    U.S.C. Sec. 642(b)(5)(A), (b)(5)(B)(i)(III). In accordance with these
    statutory requirements, FCC staff periodically the efficacy of the
    challenge processes and the associated burdens imposed on challengers.
        Since the launch of the Fabric, or location, challenge process,
    every request to add or remove a location has undergone a visual
    verification that involves images of the location in question being
    shown to multiple reviewers to determine if the location is a broadband
    serviceable location. Visual verification remains part of the FCC's
    challenge review process.
        To reduce the burden on bulk Fabric challenge process participants,
    the FCC decided in December 2024 to stop accepting evidence file
    submissions from bulk challengers. This change is not limited to visual
    evidence. Concurrent with this change, the FCC also began working
    closely with the FCC's Fabric vendor to identify internal process
    improvement opportunities, such as building in capacity for heightened
    staff review of challenge outcomes.
        We continue to review and refine our processes with the goal of
    balancing the burden and ensuring that Fabric challenge results are
    accurate.

        Question 3. Are you able to detail the total number of location
    challenges, as well as percentage of successful challenges, that have
    been made by reporting cycle and by state?
        Answer. Please refer to the attached ``Fabric Challenge Counts''
    (attached) spreadsheet for the requested metrics. We also make the data
    on particular location challenge outcomes publicly available each month
    on the data downloads page of the Broadband Map (https://
    broadbandmap.fcc.gov/data-download/challenge-data).

        Question 4. How does the FCC and any relevant contractor provide
    feedback to challenges to the National Broadband Maps, and how are you
    ensuring that providers receive the proper feedback they need to fix
    their challenges moving forward?
        Answer. When resolving location challenges, each challenge is
    assigned a ``response code'' that corresponds with a particular reason
    why the challenge was accepted or rejected. For bulk challenges, each
    unique request to add or remove a location, or to update the address,
    unit count or other information associated with the location receives
    its own response code. For more details, please refer to the following
    BDC Help Center article here: https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/
    articles/17077103993371-Fabric-Challenge-Response-Codes.
        Similarly, when resolving mobile or fixed availability challenges,
    the FCC assigns an adjudication code with the reasoning behind the
    adjudication decision. These outcomes are made available directly to
    the user submitting the challenges either within the BDC system's Filer
    or Broadband Map interfaces for users that have logged in, and we also
    send information via e-mail when the challenge is closed out. Lastly,
    the outcome of each challenge is made available in a publicly-
    accessible data download generated at the beginning of each month.
        The FCC provides technical assistance, support, and feedback to
    challengers and providers the BDC Help Center. The BDC Help Center
    staff is available to answer any questions or address concerns
    regarding submitting challenges or understanding challenge outcomes,
    and more complicated questions are escalated to and addressed by FCC
    staff with relevant BDC subject matter expertise.
        FCC staff have also met with a variety of providers and industry
    groups to discuss the challenge processes and how to improve location
    challenge process outcomes in particular. Feedback from those
    interactions has been used to inform the challenge process improvements
    discussed in our previous (above) response.
        The FCC remains committed to providing support to entities
    interested in filing challenges and those that have questions about
    previous challenge results. Please have anyone seeking assistance
    contact our Broadband Data team.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Cynthia Lummis to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. How would you assess the current state of coordination
    between the FCC and other Federal agencies on spectrum policy, and how
    are you working to improve interagency coordination, particularly when
    it comes to satellite permitting?
        Answer. The FCC works closely and collaboratively with NTIA and
    other Federal agencies to provide the maximum regulatory certainty in
    the most efficient manner. In order to meet the ambitious spectrum
    auction timelines of the Working Families Tax Cut Act, the FCC will
    need to be in lockstep with our partners across the Federal government.
    At the beginning of 2025, the FCC began engaging and coordinating with
    our partners at NTIA, FAA, Department of Transportation, the Pentagon,
    and elsewhere to ensure we are in lock stop as we begin the auction
    process. The FCC continues to work with our Federal partners to improve
    the interagency coordination process.

        Question 2. What steps is the FCC taking to ensure the U.S.
    maintains leadership in ITU forums including WRC-27?
        Answer. The FCC, in coordination with NTIA and the State
    Department, is already preparing for WRC-27. It is expected that space
    issues will dominate WRC-27. The leadership and clear vision of the
    Trump Administration will allow the U.S. to reestablish our leadership
    at WRC-27.

        Question 3. How will we ensure that U.S. delegates and sector
    members are able to attend WRC-27 safely?
        Answer. The FCC, along with other components of the Executive
    Branch, are actively working on plans to make sure that the U.S.
    delegation will be able to participate safely and securely at the WRC-
    27 in Shanghai.

        Question 4. Rip and Replace is a critical effort to secure American
    infrastructure. Due to permitting, workforce access constraints, and
    other factors, carriers not only in Wyoming but across the United
    States may require extensions to complete the work required. How does
    the FCC intend to ensure successful completion of the Rip and Replace
    program, and what actions might be considered to enable that success?
        Answer. When the Wireline Competition Bureau approved applications
    to participate in the Rip and Replace Program in 2022, demand exceeded
    available funding, which resulted in a significant funding shortfall.
    Between 2022 and 2024, recipients indicated that the funding shortfall
    was a significant impediment to their ability to timely complete their
    removal, replacement, and disposal projects. Congress authorized
    additional funding at the end of 2024. In May 2025, the Bureau issued
    an initial disbursement of the additional funds and gave recipients in
    Priority 1 until May 2025 to complete their projects. When allocating
    the additional funding, the Bureau encouraged recipients to move
    swiftly to complete their work under the Rip and Replace Program.
        Pursuant to the Secure Networks Act, a recipient may request an
    extension of time for ``up to'' or ``not more'' than six months if a
    recipient can show that it is unable to meet the deadline due to no
    fault of its own. In light of the additional funding, we expect the
    need for such extensions will lessen. However, recipients may request
    an extension if circumstances beyond its control impede its ability to
    finish the work. The Commission will closely scrutinize extensions on a
    case-by-case basis. The facts and circumstances supporting an extension
    request must include the specific obstacles faced by the recipient, how
    those obstacles, through no fault of the recipient, affected the
    recipient's ability to meet its term deadline, steps taken by the
    recipient to mitigate the impacts of the obstacles, and whether the
    recipient expects to meet a future deadline, if an extension is
    granted.

        Question 5. The Commission has emphasized that securing U.S.
    communications networks is both a national security and consumer
    privacy imperative. What concrete steps have you taken to harden
    infrastructure and better coordinate across the Commission on national
    security, and how have you improved supply chain transparency so
    providers, customers, and the public can understand and manage
    adversary exposure?
        Answer. The Commission has taken a range of actions to harden U.S.
    networks and coordinate on national security across the FCC's work. One
    of my first acts as Chairman was to set up a new Council on National
    Security within the FCC to leverage all of the agency's authorities,
    expertise, and relevant workstreams to counter the threats posed by
    foreign adversaries, including the government of China. With regard to
    transparency, just this month, the FCC will vote to adopt rules on
    Foreign Adversary Control, requiring all FCC licensees to certify
    whether they are owned by, controlled by, or subject to the
    jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary--allowing the
    Commission to expose actors with opaque ties to foreign adversaries.
        The FCC has also taken a variety of other national security
    actions:

       Cracked down on ``Bad Labs''--labs that review and approve
            electronics for use in the United States, but are owned or
            controlled by foreign adversary governments.

       Executed `Operation Clean Carts', in which the FCC worked
            with ecommerce platforms to take down millions of listings of
            devices on the FCC's Covered List or otherwise prohibited for
            sale in the United States.

       Adopted new rules on undersea cable security, following
            President Trump's America First Investment Policy Memorandum to
            accelerate the buildout of undersea cables, while protecting
            them from foreign adversaries.

       Closed two loopholes that provided no check on old models of
            covered equipment--potential spy gear--to be imported or sold,
            as well as allowed devices to be approved that contain covered
            equipment as module components.

       Banned authorizations for new models of foreign-produced
            Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) and their components to protect
            American Airspace Sovereignty.

       Worked directly with carriers to ensure that they are
            adapting their cybersecurity practices and hardening their
            networks against future attacks, in the wake of Salt Typhoon.

        Question 6. Chairman Carr, you have promoted ``Delete, Delete,
    Delete'' initiative to remove regulations that are outdated or
    unnecessary. How and in what ways has the public benefited so far from
    the initiative, and how do you expect it to in the future?
        Answer. Eliminating unnecessary regulation has facilitated and
    encouraged American companies' investment in modernizing their
    networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and
    advanced capabilities.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Affordability. Chairman Carr, the question I keep coming back to is
    simple: what are you doing to drive down costs for consumers? This
    week, I released a report showing how costs are going up across the
    board--broadband, wireless, cable, streaming--and you're not doing a
    thing about it.
        In the last year alone, streaming bills have increased by 13
    percent. Basic cable bills have more than doubled over the last ten
    years. Americans pay more for wireless service than almost every other
    peer country. And 23 million low-income households lost support on
    their broadband bills, and you've proposed nothing to replace it.
        In wireless, you called Dish/EchoStar's spectrum licenses into
    question, forcing EchoStar to sell them off and shut down its network,
    which was the fourth largest in the country. Your colleague, former
    Republican FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington, said, ``As a true fourth
    national network, EchoStar protects consumer choice and lower consumer
    prices. The FCC threatens such severe sanctions that they put
    EchoStar's financial viability in question and threaten to kill the
    company. This places every holder of a spectrum license in a riskier
    position and will raise consumer prices by forcing every licensee, not
    just EchoStar, to charge higher risk premiums.''

        Question 1. Yes or no, do you agree that when there is less
    competition in a marketplace, and companies have more market power,
    consumers pay higher prices?
        Answer. The FCC is advancing policies to increase competition and
    drive down prices for consumers.

        Question 2. Chairman Carr, since you took over, the fourth national
    wireless carrier has been eliminated. You've also proposed eliminating
    broadband labeling requirements that make it easier for consumers to
    spot hidden fees. And you're moving to approve more media
    consolidation. Which of those actions helps consumers pay less?
        Answer. The FCC is working on several fronts to increase
    competition and drive down prices for consumers.

        Broadband Affordability. In August, the Commission began its annual
    review of the pace and cadence of broadband deployment to assess
    whether broadband ``is being deployed to Americans in a reasonable and
    timely fashion,'' as required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996. As part of that review, you proposed to ignore the
    importance of affordability. For many Americans, the cost of broadband
    services is a greater barrier to closing the digital divide than the
    lack of availability.

        Question 1. After the demise of the Affordable Connectivity Program
    (ACP) and in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, why did the FCC
    exclude affordability from this year's review of broadband deployment
    in the United States?
        Answer. The FCC's 706 Report will comply with the relevant
    statutory provisions.

        Broadband Labels. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ensure
    transparency in billing. Chairman Carr, despite having previously voted
    in favor of the FCC's rules to implement that legislation, you have
    proposed to punch holes in the rules to implement that law, making it
    easier for big corporations to tack on hidden fees to Internet bills.
    In defending your actions, at the December 17, 2025, FCC Oversight
    hearing, in response to questions from Senator Lujan, you stated ``[w]e
    want clarity'' in the labels.

        Question 1. Chairman Carr, as costs are rising across the board,
    how does reducing the amount of information required in broadband
    labels and making them harder to access provide greater ``clarity'' for
    consumers?
        Answer. The FCC has sought comment on potential changes to the
    existing regulations but has not made any final decisions.

        Merger Authority. Chairman Carr, you infamously said, ``We can do
    this the easy way or the hard way,'' which led to Nexstar and Sinclair,
    the two largest broadcast ownership groups, preempting Jimmy Kimmel's
    late-night show for over a week, including on KOMO in Seattle.
        At that time, Nexstar had announced a $6 billion merger with Tegna,
    and Sinclair had also shown interest in acquiring another station
    group--deals that would require FCC sign-off to complete. Weeks
    earlier, you had held up the Paramount-Skydance merger until Paramount
    paid $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit filed by the President
    and appointed an ombudsman to oversee its news coverage.
        These broadcasters recognized that you control their fates and that
    they needed to fall in line, and that failure to comply risked you
    killing their deals.

        Question 1. Chairman Carr, yes or no, do you believe it's
    appropriate for a regulator to threaten a regulated entity, to threaten
    to take away their licenses, and to threaten to reject a merger--
    because of a joke?
        Answer. I don't think that we agree on what took place. Please see
    my letter for additional information: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
    attachments/DOC-415483A6.pdf

        Question 2. Yes or no, is it appropriate for a regulator to force a
    regulated entity to pay the president millions of dollars in order to
    get a merger approved?
        Answer. No and to the extent that your question suggests that
    something like that took place here recently, please see my answer
    above.
        You've cited the 2011 Comcast-NBCUniversal deal as precedent for
    requiring a ``bias ombudsman'' as a condition of the Paramount-Skydance
    merger. But in 2011, the FCC simply preserved an ombudsman that the
    company had already created as an internal firewall between the owners
    and the newsroom. In Paramount-Skydance, Paramount created a new
    position explicitly tasked with evaluating ``bias'' in news content and
    policing speech.

        Question 3. How are these comparable uses of the FCC's merger
    authority?
        Answer. In both cases, the FCC approved a transaction after the
    parties committed to establishing an ombudsman.

        Question 4. Have you spoken with the Paramount ombudsman?
        Answer. Despite some social media posts to the contrary, the
    ombudsman does not report to me or the President of the United States.

        Question 5. Do you expect to receive regular updates from the
    Paramount ombudsman about CBS's news coverage?
        Answer. As noted above, the ombudsman does not report to me or the
    President of the United States.

        Merger Commitments. Traditionally, FCC merger conditions relate
    directly to the company's ability to serve the public--such as
    requiring expanded coverage, infrastructure investments, or service
    obligations. But you have used merger review to extract concessions and
    leverage companies to change their internal hiring policies.

        Question 1. What specific language in the Communications Act
    authorizes the FCC to regulate a company's human resources or hiring
    practices through merger conditions?
        Answer. In 2021, the Biden FCC accepted as a merger commitment the
    extension of DEI practices.

        FCC Independence. Chairman Carr, you previously testified to
    Congress that the FCC was ``an independent, expert agency.'' You also
    testified that Congress placed the FCC's ``authority outside of the
    Executive Branch for a reason,'' such as not wanting technical
    decisions ``to be made in a haphazard manner or based on misinformation
    and short-term, political interests.''

        Question 1. Do you stand by your congressional testimony that
    Congress placed FCC authority outside of the Executive Branch to avoid
    being based on short-term political interests?
        Answer. As I have testified, Congress passed the Communications Act
    before the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor. And
    Congress chose not to include ``for cause'' removal protections for FCC
    Commissioners.

        Question 2. Do you believe it is appropriate for the FCC's
    technical decisions to be based on the political interests of the
    Executive Branch?
        Answer. The FCC's decisions are based on the facts, the law, and
    the agency's record.

        In 2021, you issued a public statement calling on your FCC
    colleagues to reject an ``attempt to inject partisan politics into our
    licensing process'' and called it a ``deeply troubling transgression of
    free speech and the FCC's status as an independent agency.''

        Question 3. Do you still agree with your public statement, and if
    not, why did you change your mind?
        Answer. It was wrong for Democrats in Congress to pressure the FCC
    to block the sale of a broadcast station license on the grounds that
    Democrats thought the sale would hurt them in the midterm elections.

        During the December 17, 2025, FCC Oversight hearing, Senator Kim
    asked you if you've ever had a conversation with President Trump or
    senior administration officials about using the FCC to go after his
    critics, and you declined to answer because you ``don't get into the
    specifics of conversations that I have.'' Setting aside whether the
    substantive deliberative content of your conversations with President
    Trump is privileged, factual information such as the existence of such
    a conversation and the identities of its participants is not
    privileged.

        Question 4. Consistent with the above, have you ever had a
    conversation with President Trump or senior White House officials
    relating to the FCC penalizing or taking any adverse action against one
    of President Trump's critics? If so, how many conversations were there,
    and for each conversation, who participated in them, when, and where
    did they occur?
        Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, I do not discuss
    conversations vel non with the President.

        Question 5. Consistent with the above, have you ever had a
    conversation with President Trump or senior White House officials
    relating to the FCC potentially revoking the station licenses for the
    owned-and-operated stations of any major news network, including but
    not limited to ABC, NBC, or CBS? If so, how many conversations were
    there, and for each conversation, who participated in them, when, and
    where did they occur?
        Answer. See answer above.

        Question 6. President Trump has made multiple public statements
    about FCC matters, such as license revocation and other directives. If
    the President is not satisfied with your performance implementing his
    direction or suggestion, does he have the right to fire you?
        Answer. A President can fire any Commissioner at any time.

        Question 7. Are you concerned that not implementing the President's
    directions or suggestions on FCC matters to target his political
    critics could result in your termination or dismissal?
        Answer. The FCC is focused on delivering great results for the
    American people.

        C-Band Spectrum. Chairman Carr, the FCC is planning to commence an
    auction of the Upper C-Band. Under current law, the auction is supposed
    to conclude with licenses awarded by 2027.
        I'm deeply concerned that this auction could literally cause planes
    to fall out of the sky. Former FAA officials and NTIA, in its comments
    to the FCC, have warned that new civilian and military altimeters need
    to be installed on likely all aircraft before cell companies can start
    using this band. Those new altimeters are still under development, and
    the standards are not even slated to be finished by 2027--the year this
    process is supposed to conclude. Given the previous C-Band auction
    nearly grounded air travel in the United States to a halt, I'm deeply
    concerned that we are about to see the same story unfold--but with far
    more dire consequences.

        Question 1. Has the FCC coordinated with the Department of Defense
    on the NPRM that the FCC released?
        Answer. Yes, the FCC has been running the appropriate interagency
    process.

        Question 2. How much will it cost to retrofit military and other
    government aircraft with new altimeters?
        Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and asks about a range of
    different issues.

        Question 3. Who is going to pay for those upgrades, and how long
    will that process take? Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and
    seeks comment on a range of issues.

        Question 4. Are you concerned that this process will negatively
    impact military readiness, given that the Chinese are anticipated to
    attack Taiwan in 2027?
        Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and seeks comment on a
    range of issues.

        Question 5. As military and civilian aircraft radio altimeters must
    be upgraded to address interference from any expansion of wireless
    service, do you commit to providing the aviation and defense industry
    the necessary time and space to safely retrofit the fleet operating
    within the United States?
        Answer. The FCC's proceeding is ongoing and seeks comment on a
    range of issues.

        AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
    moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
    tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
    99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
    directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
    through an Executive Order.
        Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
    theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr, you have been
    skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
    2024, you said that ``Congress does not operate like a sieve--
    inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's delegation
    of authority in these types of cases can no longer be implicit, it must
    be explicit.''

        Question 1. Yes or no, does the FCC have the authority to preempt
    state AI laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
        Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
    Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
    to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
    standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

        Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
    portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
    released?
        Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
    Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
    to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
    standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

        Question 3. Chairman Carr, given your prior statements regarding
    your skepticism of the FCC's authority over the Internet as a Title I
    service, where specifically in the text of the Communications Act do
    you find the authority for the FCC to preempt state AI laws,
    particularly post-Chevron deference?
        Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
    Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
    to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
    standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

        Question 4. Yes or no, does the FCC have the authority to adopt a
    Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
        Answer. The Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial
    Intelligence Executive Order calls on the FCC to commence a proceeding
    to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure
    standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

        Question 5. How many technical AI experts does the FCC have on
    staff?
        Answer. The FCC has a range of different professionals on staff.

        Investigations. Chairman Carr, you have opened and reopened
    investigations into several broadcast networks for the content of their
    programming.

        Question 1. How many investigations have you opened or reopened
    because of the content of a news program or other program?
        Answer. Any ongoing FCC investigations are based on the relevant
    portions of the Communications Act as well as FCC rules and precedent.

        Question 2. What is the status of these investigations?
        Answer. The FCC's open investigations remain pending.

        Question 3. How much staff time has been devoted to these
    investigations?
        Answer. The FCC's open investigations remain pending.

        Question 4. Have you updated the other Commissioners on the status
    of these investigations? If so, provide the dates of each status update
    and the individuals involved.
        Answer. I meet regularly with my Commission colleagues, and we
    discuss a range of FCC matters.

        Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
    stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
    regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
    independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
    that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
    of the station's community and result in the closure of local
    newsrooms.

        Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
    stay open?
        Answer. The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to meet
    their public interest obligations, including serving the needs of their
    local communities.

        Net Neutrality. Because the FCC refuses to protect consumers
    against unfair practices by broadband providers, my own state of
    Washington and other states have acted to protect their consumers with
    net neutrality laws. These laws protect consumers from harmful
    practices such as blocking and throttling of legal content and paid
    prioritization.

        Question 1. Chairman Carr, is the FCC planning to try to preempt
    state-level net neutrality laws?
        Answer. The FCC generally announces the agenda for any Commission-
    level, open meeting votes three weeks before any such vote.

        Question 2. Does the FCC have any authority to do so?
        Answer. The FCC has the authorities that have been delegated to it
    by Congress.

        Question 3. If the FCC has no authority to impose net neutrality
    conditions under Title I, as you have argued, where specifically in the
    text of the Communications Act do you find the authority for the FCC to
    stop Washington from doing so, particularly in a world without Chevron
    deference?
        Answer. The FCC has the authorities that have been delegated to it
    by Congress.

        Section 230. In your Project 2025 chapter, you wrote that the FCC
    should issue an order that interprets Section 230.

        Question 1. Do you still believe the FCC has authority to
    reinterpret the scope of Section 230 immunity under current law?
        Answer. I wrote that chapter in my personal capacity, consistent
    with guidance from FCC ethics staff. So, I have to be careful about
    discussing questions about it when I am responding in my official
    capacity.

        Question 2. If so, please identify the specific statutory provision
    you believe gives the FCC that power.
        Answer. Please see my answer above.

        Public Interest Standard. Chairman Carr, in your letters and
    tweets, you've identified several kinds of reporting that you see as
    not in the public interest, but you haven't explained what kind of
    reporting is in the public interest.

        Question 1. How do you define the ``public interest'' standard?
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        Question 2. Will you commit to completing a Commission-level
    rulemaking specifying the contours of the ``public interest'' standard
    for broadcasters?
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        DOGE Staff at FCC. Chairman Carr, on April 30, 2025, wrote in a
    letter responding to my March 31, 2025, letter that you had ``invited
    the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) into the building to get
    fresh eyes on the way we operate'' and ``two people from DOGE
    officially joined the FCC.'' However, recent reporting by The Verge
    based on 1,000 pages of FCC FOIA documents indicates three DOGE
    employees--Tarak Makecha, Jordan Wick, and Jacob Altik--were still
    listed in the FCC's public directory as of December 16, 2025.

        Question 1. How many DOGE employees did you invite into FCC's
    building and officially hire, and if it was not just two people, what
    explains the discrepancy with what you wrote in April 2025?
        Answer. As stated in my earlier letter, two people from DOGE
    officially joined the FCC and complied with applicable ethics rules.
    The FOIA documents reflect the fact that there was discussion early on
    about a third person joining the FCC, but only two people joined the
    FCC as previously stated.

        IPCS. At a time when the country is reeling from an affordability
    crisis, the FCC's own analysis shows that your recent order on
    implementation of the Martha Wright-Reed Act would cost families
    approximately $50 million in higher phone rates.

        Question 1. Doesn't this decision put company profits above making
    it affordable for children to speak with their parents?
        Answer. No.

        Salt Typhoon. Last month, you rolled back an FCC declaratory ruling
    and rulemaking adopted earlier this year in response to the Salt
    Typhoon attacks, the worst cyberattack on U.S. telecom networks in
    history. I requested the following documents and information from you
    no later than November 25, 2025:

      1.  A copy of any cybersecurity assessment the FCC conducted before
            moving to repeal its prior ruling. Please provide any
            documents.

      2.  Any documents the telecommunications companies shared with you
            that support their claims that they removed Salt Typhoon
            hackers from their networks, including, but not limited to,
            Mandiant digital forensic reports.

      3.  Documents and information sufficient to demonstrate the FCC's
            collaborative approach to cybersecurity with telecommunications
            providers ``continues to be effective.''

        As of December 18, 2025, you have not responded to my request.

        Question 1. When do you intend to respond to the request, and when
    do you intend to provide documents?
        Answer. I provided a written response to your letter on January 21.

        Question 2. Do you believe you have a duty to respond to
    congressional oversight requests, especially on topics critical to our
    national security and public safety?
        Answer. I believe that I or the FCC have already responded to every
    or nearly every congressional inquiry that we have received.

        Shutdown Operations. According to the FCC's September 2025 plan for
    orderly shutdown prior to a lapse in Federal appropriations, you
    anticipated that ``1,044 employees, or approximately 81 percent of
    [staff] on board before the plan was implemented, will have been
    furloughed and sent home.'' The 244 employees, or approximately 19
    percent of staff, retained under the plan were limited to specific
    tasks or exemptions, including protection of life and property, staff
    in the Office of Inspector General, auction staff whose salaries are
    not provided through appropriations, and certification of Universal
    Service Fund and Telecommunications Relay Service disbursements.
    However, on October 28, 2025, the FCC held an open meeting, at which it
    considered nine items ranging from nearly every Bureau in the agency.
    From the tentative agenda announcement on October 7 to the public
    release of the items following adoption at the October 28th meeting,
    each item required an opportunity for public comment, input from
    stakeholders, and staff to review and implement any necessary changes
    before the Commission's vote.

        Question 1. Did the FCC comply with the September 2025 shutdown
    plan?
        Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
    functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.

        Question 2. Please provide a breakdown of how many staff,
    regardless of furlough status, worked between October 1, 2025, and
    November 13, 2025; how many hours that staff worked; what the source of
    funds was to pay that staff; and how much funding was used to pay that
    staff.
        Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
    functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
        In prior lapses of appropriations, such as in 2018-2019, the FCC
    utilized holdover funds to keep the whole agency open until those funds
    were expended. Yet during the Fall 2025 shutdown, you apparently chose
    when and how to utilize holdover funds to maintain certain operations
    funded through appropriations while allowing other operations to cease
    until an additional appropriation was provided.

        Question 3. What legal authority do you, as the FCC Chair, have to
    determine which FCC directives or authorizations from Congress remain
    operational during the lapse in appropriations? Please cite the
    specific provision(s) of law.
        Answer. The FCC has those authorities that have been delegated to
    it by Congress.
        The lapse in appropriations also appeared to impact the operations
    of and public access to FCC online databases, such as the Universal
    Licensing System, Equipment Authorization System, and functionality of
    the broadband map.

        Question 4. Please list which of the FCC's online databases were
    reduced in operations between October 1 and November 13, 2025,
    including any reduction in maintenance or public access, and which
    databases were fully operating.
        Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
    functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.

        Question 5. Please also explain your rationale for determining
    which databases were at full operations and which were at reduced
    operations, if applicable.
        Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
    functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.

        Question 6. What were the factors you considered in making the
    decision to close FCC online databases, while you used carryover funds
    to continue to work on other appropriation-supported activities,
    including Commission-level votes to increase the rates paid by
    incarcerated people and their families, and opening a proceeding to
    repeal broadband consumer protections required by Congress?
        Answer. The FCC continued to perform and carry out limited
    functions during the shutdown consistent with the law and FCC guidance.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. In October the Commission voted to move forward with a
    rulemaking on eliminating broadband labeling requirements. How will
    eliminating requirements that Internet Service Providers tell consumers
    exactly how much they are being charged, including by providing an
    itemized list of fees, increase transparency efforts and bring prices
    down for consumers?
        Answer. The FCC has sought comment on potential changes to the
    existing regulations but has not made any final decisions.

        Question 2. Do you agree that transitioning to Next Gen 911 is a
    national security imperative that should remain a top priority for both
    the FCC and Congress?
        Answer. Completing the transition to NG911 will enable significant
    public safety benefits. The FCC has been taking actions to help promote
    the transition.

        Question 3. Would you support putting the proceeds from the Federal
    Communications Commission's spectrum auctions towards modernizing our
    9-1-1 infrastructure?
        Answer. I defer to Congress on any changes in the law regarding the
    spending of auction proceeds received by the FCC or the Federal
    government.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
    FCC Public Interest Authority
        Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
    under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard and the
    news distortion policy on numerous occasions.

        Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
    take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
    under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
        Answer. The FCC's public interest regulations apply to licensed
    broadcasters.

        Question 3. Following the preemption of the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show
    in September, you said we are ``. . . in the midst of a massive shift
    in dynamics in the media ecosystem for lots of reasons, again,
    including the permission structure that President Trump's election has
    provided. And I would simply say we're not done yet with seeing the
    consequences of that.'' Please elaborate on what you meant by ``the
    massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem.'' Does this include
    future decisions pertaining to programming?
        Answer. The FCC is working to empower local broadcasters to meet
    their public interest obligations.

        Question 4. In your testimony, you indicated that you consider
    Jimmy Kimmel's September comments to be in violation of the news
    distortion policy. Given that in that case there was no extrinsic
    evidence of an intent to mislead, is the FCC now adopting a standard
    that an opinion or mistake on broadcast television can constitute news
    distortion, even without malintent?
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's news distortion policy.

        Question 5. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
    FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
    on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
    you consider this to be censorship?
        Answer. The Supreme Court determined that the FCC's enforcement of
    the public interest standard does not violate the First Amendment.

        Question 6. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
    following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
    the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
    comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
    clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
    news distortion policy:

        a. A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
    manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
    distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.

        b. A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
    pertaining to violence or assault.
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
    distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.

        c. An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult
    to the President's policies or political positions.
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
    distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.

        d. A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their
    death because of their hatred for said politician.
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard and news
    distortion policy, which apply to licensed broadcasters.

        Question 7. Do you endorse President Trump's calls to NBC to fire
    Seth Meyers?
        Answer. NBC makes its own decisions about its employees.
    FCC Independence
        Question 8. If the President determines that broadcast programming
    content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
    distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
    the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
        Answer. The FCC bases its decisions on the law, the facts, and the
    record.

        Question 9. If, as you stated, the President can fire you for ``any
    reason,'' how can companies and broadcasters trust that your judgement
    will be fair, and not merely serve as a reflection of the President's
    opinions?
        Answer. The FCC bases its decisions on the law, the facts, and the
    record.
    Tribal Spectrum Windows
        Question 10. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
    priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
        Answer. Commission decisions are determined through a vote by the
    members of the Commission.

        Question 11. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
    with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
    of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
    the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
    separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
    areas only?
        Answer. The requested data is published as data downloads on the
    National Broadband Map. Specifically, the data downloads page on the
    National Broadband Map provides summary information about fixed or
    mobile broadband in Tribal areas, specifically in the Fixed Broadband
    Summary by Geography Type and Mobile Broadband Summary by Geography
    Type downloads: https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov
    /data-download/nationwide-data

        Question 12. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
    and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
    challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
    that have not submitted challenges?
        Answer. ONAP plans and leads the Commission's outreach to Tribal
    governments and organizations, with the objective of increasing their
    awareness of, and participation in, Commission programs and
    proceedings.
    Local Programming Carriage
        Question 13. Does the FCC plan to review any issues pertaining to
    the pricing of carriage for local broadcast stations by streaming
    services?
        Answer. The FCC publicly discloses Commission meeting items
    approximately three weeks before any such votes.
    Upper C-Band Auctions
        Question 14. Will the FCC extend the public comment period for the
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the implementation of the Upper
    C-Band rules for 2027 auction?
        Answer. On December 19th, the FCC granted a 15 day extension of the
    comment and reply comment dates in the Upper C-Band proceeding.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        In one of your first acts as FCC Chairman, you reinstated a
    complaint alleging that WCBS violated the FCC's news distortion policy
    in airing a CBS interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris on 60
    Minutes. The previous FCC dismissed this complaint, rightfully
    concluding that the agency had no role in policing WCBS's editorial
    decision-making. Moreover, for the FCC to find a violation of this
    policy, it must find evidence that the broadcast station ``deliberately
    distorted a factual news report.'' In addition, in its Hunger in
    America proceeding, the FCC further required a complainant to provide
    ``extrinsic evidence'' demonstrating an intent to distort the news.

        Question 1. Have you identified any extrinsic evidence of an
    intentional news distortion to justify this investigation?
        Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.

        Question 2. When does the FCC intend to make a determination about
    whether to proceed with or close this proceeding?
        Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.

        Question 3. Have FCC career staff provided any internal opinions or
    other materials on the validity of the complaint in this proceeding? If
    so, what was their determination?
        Answer. The relevant complaint remains pending at the FCC.

        Question 4. Have you had any private communication with President
    Donald Trump about this investigation? If so, has President Trump
    instructed you to take any specific action with respect to this
    investigation?
        Answer. Consistent with longstanding practice, I do not discuss
    conversations vel non with the President.

        In February, the FCC opened an investigation into KCBS's coverage
    of a Federal immigration raid. In an interview on Fox News at the time,
    you suggested that the radio station could have been in violation of
    its public interest standard obligation.

        Question 1. What is the status of this investigation?
        Answer. I do not have any new information to provide you at this
    time beyond what has been previously disclosed.

        Question 2. What evidence was the grounds for opening this
    investigation?
        Answer. See answer above.

        Question 3. Please describe how KCBS may have violated its public
    interest standard obligation. In particular, what aspects of its news
    programming may not have been in the public interest?
        Answer. See answer above.

        Question 4. In your Fox News interview, you appeared to suggest
    that KCBS may have violated its public interest obligation because it
    was reporting on the car models and location of immigration officers.
    There is no evidence that this reporting was inaccurate or a hoax. Has
    the FCC ever instituted an investigation or penalized a broadcast
    station for accurately reporting the news? If so, please provide
    examples.
        Answer. The FCC enforces the public interest standard.

        Question 5. If your concern with KCBS's coverage was that it may
    have interfered with immigration enforcement operations or endangered
    the life of Federal officers, has the FCC ever launched an
    investigation or penalized a broadcast station for such purposes? If
    so, please provide examples.
        Answer. The FCC enforces the public interest standard.

        Chairman Carr, before President Trump's second term, you were a
    vocal supporter of the TikTok ban, also known as the Protecting
    Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. For
    example, in 2022, you stated, ``I do not see a path forward for
    anything other than a ban. So, it is time for the Administration to act
    with the urgency that this national security threat demands.'' In fact,
    in March 2024, you wrote a letter to the House Energy and Commerce
    Committee in support of the legislation. Although the Federal
    Communications Commission is not charged with implementing the law, you
    remain an important advisor to President Trump on technology and
    telecommunications policy. Your views on the Trump Administration's
    implementation of the TikTok ban remain important.

        Question 1. Over the past year, President Trump has signed five
    executive orders directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to not
    enforce the TikTok ban against service providers (such as Apple,
    Google, Oracle, and others) who continue providing services to TikTok
    in violation of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary
    Controlled Applications Act. Do you believe that the DOJ has the
    authority to explicitly instruct companies that it will not enforce a
    law enacted by Congress?
        Answer. I would refer you to the DOJ for questions about the DOJ's
    authority.

        Question 2. You previously said the Biden administration should
    ``act with the urgency that this national security threat demands'' by
    banning TikTok. Would you classify President Trump's actions on TikTok
    as him ``acting with urgency''?
        Answer. President Trump has acted with urgency on many matters.
    Public Interested Standard
        Question 1. Please define your interpretation of the public
    interest standard.
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard.

        Question 2. Does the public interest standard include any test or
    rule around ideological or political bias?
        Answer. The FCC has provided definitions and decisions regarding
    the contours of the agency's public interest standard and related
    policies.
    Pole Attachments
        Question 1. The FCC has made progress streamlining the pole
    attachment process. What additional reforms is the FCC pursuing to
    ensure that broadband and telecommunications providers can obtain
    timely and cost-effective access to poles?
        Answer. Thank you for your support of these important efforts. The
    FCC is pursuing a range of actions to accelerate and streamline the
    cost-effective build out of infrastructure.
    AM Radio
        Question 1. Chairman Cruz and I have been working to pass our AM
    Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which would require vehicles to have
    broadcast AM radio. Our legislation has nearly four hundred cosponsors
    in the Senate and House. Does AM radio continue to play an important
    role in delivering emergency alerts across the country?
        Answer. Thank you for your leadership on this important matter. I
    support your legislation and agree that AM radio continues to play an
    important role in communities across the country.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Last month you chose to withdraw a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking established in response to Salt Typhoon--one of the largest
    and most damaging cyberattacks in U.S. history. The proposed
    regulations held covered companies responsible for basic cybersecurity
    practices, but you voted to roll back these protections, stating this
    was because providers have already ``demonstrated a strengthened
    cybersecurity posture.'' What, if any, do you think the FCC and
    Congress should be doing more to help prevent future lapses that allow
    our adversaries to infiltrate our networks?
        Answer. The decision that the FCC reversed was neither a lawful nor
    effective response. While I defer to Congress on the nature of any
    legislation, it is important that the private sector continue to take
    actions that harden and strengthen networks based on the evolving
    nature of cybersecurity threats.

        Question 2. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
    Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
    and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
    certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
    support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
    keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
    from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
    automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
    does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
    protecting our national and economic security.
        Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
    chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
        Answer. I would be happy to work with you on these issues.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Tribal communities face some of the most severe
    challenges in accessing reliable and affordable broadband internet. In
    Wisconsin, we host the Tribal Libraries, Archives, and Museums (TLAM)
    Project at the University of Wisconsin, and libraries are an important
    connector for communities when home without sufficient broadband. In
    the last few years, the FCC has taken steps to improve tribal library
    participation in E-Rate, updating the definition of library and
    creating a program--called T-LEAP, or the Tribal Library E-Rate
    Advocacy Program--to support Tribal applications for E-Rate. The
    Commission concluded it would issue data about the status of tribal E-
    Rate applications, yet we have not yet seen this data. A preliminary
    analysis of the E-Rate data available shows that while 79 percent of
    libraries in Wisconsin applied for E-Rate, only 1 of eight tribal
    libraries in Wisconsin applied for E-Rate. What is the current progress
    of this program?
        Answer. T-LEAP is in its third year of providing support throughout
    the E-Rate application and invoicing processes to Tribal libraries that
    have opted to participate. Tribal libraries are able to join any time
    during the year and receive individualized support. In funding year
    2024, 294 Tribal libraries participated in the E-Rate program, and they
    received over $13.7 million in funding (disbursements).

        Question 2. Robocalls and ever increasingly sophisticated scams
    pose a serious threat to millions of Americans, especially to our
    seniors. These scams can lead to significant financial losses including
    people losing their life's retirement savings, breach of sensitive
    personal information, and loss of peace of mind as people are bombarded
    by these spam communications. What is the FCC doing to support victims
    of these scams and prevent these calls in the first place?
        Answer. The FCC has been reinvigorating its work to crack down on
    illegal robocalls. We are now looking at every portion of the lifecycle
    of a call and taking actions that make it harder for bad actors to
    place illegal robocalls.

        Question 3. How would you define illegal Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion (DEI)? How have you determined which companies to investigate
    for potential illegal DEI programs?
        Answer. In the very first section of the Communications Act,
    Congress stated that it created the FCC for the purpose of regulating
    interstate and foreign commerce in communication ``without
    discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
    or sex,'' 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151. Promoting invidious forms of
    discrimination runs contrary to the Communications Act and deprives
    Americans of their rights to fair and equal treatment under the law.

        Question 4. Will you investigate companies that do not have a
    formal DEI program, but the make-up of the company appears that they
    have a de facto discrimination in hiring or promotion decisions based
    on race or gender--for example if it were all-white or all-male? If
    not, what is your justification for not considering it but launching
    investigations into DEI programs?
        Answer. The FCC will apply its regulations in a fair and even-
    handed manner.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
        Question 1. Please clarify how you determine what the FCC deems the
    public interest with regard to broadcast programming.
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        Question 2. How do you determine alignment with the public interest
    when considering mergers? Is there a standard applied the same to every
    single merger that the FCC reviews?
        Answer. The FCC has articulated the standard of review and public
    interest framework that applies to transactions pursuant to Section
    310(d) of the Communications Act.

        Question 3. Is it your view, as you seemed to express during the
    hearing regarding KCBS, that local reporting on ICE operations does not
    align with the FCC's public interest standard? Please elaborate on what
    specific statute or public FCC guidance related to the public interest
    standard that KCBS potentially violated which prompted the FCC to open
    an investigation.
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        Question 4. If you think KCBS' coverage of ICE crossed the line,
    how should local news outlets cover ICE operations in their
    communities?
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        Question 5. Please clarify to those who want to avoid violating the
    public interest standard--reporters, journalists, editors--how does one
    report in the public interest under this FCC? Do you plan to issue
    clear guidelines to specifically define what actions align or violate
    the public interest standard?
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.

        Question 6. The FCC has an open proceeding on SIP Interconnection.
    IP interconnection is a critical component in modernizing our
    telecommunications networks and realizing some of the innovations that
    can improve everything from public safety to combatting robo- and spam
    calls from fraudsters who prey on vulnerable Americans. As the FCC
    considers this proceeding, will you commit to addressing some of the
    causes of continued delays by carriers who have resisted this
    modernization?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 7. Will you consider incorporating policies to maintain
    competition in rural areas, prevent anticompetitive conduct even while
    the proceeding is pending, and setting reasonable protections for IP to
    IP interconnection to maximize the benefits to consumers?
        Answer. The FCC is examining all of the relevant issues.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
    FCC Independence
        (1) On the morning of December 17, 2025, I printed out and quoted
    the Federal Communication Commission's page ``About the FCC'' which
    stated that the Federal Communications Commission is ``[a]n independent
    U.S. government agency overseen by Congress.'' As of the afternoon on
    December 17, 2025 the same webpage states the Commission is a ``U.S.
    government agency overseen by Congress'' removing the word
    ``independent'' after you stated at the hearing that, ``the FCC is not
    formally an independent agency.''

       When was the decision made to change the FCC's website?
        Answer. The FCC's website is almost constantly changing.

       Who directed FCC staff to change the website while you were
            testifying? Was the decision made at your direction during the
            hearing? If not, who made that determination?
        Answer. As I noted above, the FCC's website is almost constantly
    changing and getting updated.

       How many individual web pages and/or documents did the FCC
            change to remove the word ``independent'' before, during, and
            after the December 17, 2025 hearing?
        Answer. See answer above.

       Please provide an archival screenshot of the page(s) before
            and after the change(s).
        Answer. The FCC's website is publicly available for review and
    viewing.

       How many staff members and staff hours were used to change
            the website page(s)?
        Answer. See answers above.

        (1) Please provide a list with citations and hyperlinks to all
    testimony, statements, speeches, opinion pieces, and law review
    articles that you authored or co-authored that state, mention, or in
    any way describe the Federal Communications Commission as an
    independent agency.
        Answer. Please see this page for links to my posted statements, op-
    eds, speeches, and related materials: https://www.fcc.gov/about/
    leadership/brendan-carr
    National Ownership Cap
        In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress set the
    national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this limit, not
    the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently you sought comment
    on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In November, President
    Trump posted on Truth Social and said he ``would not be happy'' if the
    FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the Radical Left
    Networks to `enlarge' ''. Please explain why the FCC is seeking comment
    on modifying the national ownership cap. Does the FCC or Congress have
    the power to raise the national ownership cap?
        Answer. The FCC's proceeding has sought comment on a range of
    different issues. The FCC has not reached a final decision.
    Broadcast Licenses
        President Trump has called upon the FCC to revoke licenses of ABC
    (Disney) and NBC for news reporting he deems unacceptable. In 2021--you
    said, ``a newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to
    frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official.'' Can
    you explain what statutory authority the FCC has to revoke licenses
    based on disagreement with editorial choices?
        Answer. The FCC has those authorities that have been delegated to
    it by Congress.

        In January 2025, the FCC dismissed complaints against CBS, ABC, and
    FOX stations. As Chairman, you unilaterally reopened the complaints
    against CBS and ABC but left the FOX complaint closed, even though the
    FOX matter involved proven falsehoods about the 2020 election. What
    objective criteria justified reopening only the complaints involving
    coverage unfavorable to President Trump?
        Answer. Please see the letter available at this link for detailed
    information that responds to your question and sets the record
    straight: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-410581A2.pdf
    Public Interest Standard
        On ``The FCC and Speech'' page of the FCC's website it states:
    ``The limitations on the FCC's power to restrict or ban speech begin
    with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which decrees that
    the Federal government `shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom
    of speech, or of the press.' Accordingly, Congress through Section 326
    of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 326, explicitly declared that
    nothing in the statute `shall be understood or construed to give the
    Commission the power of censorship over the [broadcast] communications
    or signals transmitted by any [broadcast] station, and no regulation or
    condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall
    interfere with the right of free speech by means of [over-the-air]
    broadcast communication.' Pursuant to these legal mandates, the FCC has
    long held that `the public interest is best served by permitting free
    expression of views.' ''

        You have frequently cited the public interest standard as the law
    you are enforcing, but never fully defined what it means. Please state
    how you define ``the public interest standard.''
        Answer. The FCC has defined the public interest standard on
    numerous occasions.
    U.S. Cyber Trust Mark
        In March 2024, the FCC adopted rules establishing the framework for
    the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark program. On June 13, 2025, UL Solutions
    submitted recommendations on Technical Standards and Testing
    Procedures, Label Design, and Post-Market Surveillance for the U.S.
    Cyber Trust Mark. What is the current implementation status of the U.S.
    Cyber Trust Mark? Please provide an updated timeline for implementation
    detailing the next steps.
        Answer. On December 19, UL Solutions filed a Notice of Withdrawal
    as Lead Administrator for the U.S. Cyber Trust Mark Program. In early
    January, the FCC opened an application window so parties interested in
    being the new administrator can apply.
    Broadband Labels
        The FCC recently adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    during the October 2025 Open Meeting that would seek to roll back key
    requirements for the broadband labels. In that FNPRM you sought comment
    on a proposal to eliminate the requirement that providers display the
    label in the languages in which they market their services.

        (f) Do consumers benefit from seeing the full price they will pay
    at the end of the month, with no hidden fees?
        Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.

        (f) Will you commit to keeping the rules that require broadband
    providers to publish the broadband label in the languages in which they
    market their services?
        Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.

        (f) How is the FCC monitoring providers compliance with the current
    broadband label rules? Please provide details and how many staff hours
    have been used to monitor compliance.
        Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.

        (f) Did the FCC do any studies of the broadband labels prior to its
    most recent proposals to modify or remove key price transparency
    requirements from the labels?
        Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.

        (f) How many consumer complaints has the FCC received regarding the
    broadband labels since the labels went into effect in 2024? Are the
    consumers complaining that broadband labels are hard to find? Are
    providers hiding the labels behind icons and/or links?
        Answer. The FCC has not made any final decision in this proceeding.

        (f) Please summarize all consumer complaints received to date on
    the broadband labels, organize them into categories, and provide
    samples of each.
        Answer. There is an open data platform for consumer complaints:
    https://open
    data.fcc.gov/Consumer/CGB-Consumer-Complaints-Data/3xyp-aqkj/about_data
    Cybersecurity
        In January 2025, the Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling that
    affirmatively required telecommunications carriers to secure their
    networks from unlawful access or interception of communications. The
    FCC also proposed rules to require covered communications service
    providers to submit an annual certification attesting that they have
    created, updated, and implemented cybersecurity and supply chain risk
    management plans. You have since reversed that ruling and withdrawn the
    proposed rules.

        (3) What are the Commission's plans to ensure that our networks
    remain secure from foreign threats?
        Answer. The FCC is taking action on several fronts to protect our
    networks from foreign threats.

        (3) Is it possible to win the AI race against China if providers
    are constantly leaking our IP to them through hacks in our telecom
    networks?
        Answer. The FCC is taking action on several fronts to protect our
    networks from foreign threats.

        (3) Does the Commission need additional authority to ensure the
    security of our communications networks?
        Answer. I want to thank you again for your leadership on
    legislation like the FACT Act. Legislation like that includes forward-
    thinking ideas that can promote the security of our networks.
    Public Safety
        (3) Emergency alerts are critical tools for protecting the public
    during disasters, but their effectiveness depends on reaching the right
    people at the right time, with clear, actionable information. Last
    month, the FCC concluded the comment period on a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking to comprehensively review the alerting framework and
    expressed an intent to modernize alerting systems from the ground up.
    Do you believe the FCC has sufficient authority under current law to
    adopt and implement the reforms it has proposed?
        Answer. I agree with you on the value and importance of emergency
    alerting. As the FCC continues to review the record in this proceeding,
    I will be mindful of areas where additional legislation would be
    helpful.

        (3) When an outage affects the public's ability to reach 9-1-1,
    emergency communications centers need timely, actionable information
    about the nature, scope, and location of the outage. Yet 9-1-1
    professionals often lack the detailed information necessary to respond
    effectively. This is why I supported the Enhancing First Response Act,
    which unanimously passed the Senate in September and included a
    provision directing the FCC to review the current outage notifications
    rules. In 2022, the Commission directed the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau to collect information on 9-1-1 outages, including the
    volume of 9-1-1 outages that go unreported and possible alternative
    outage reporting thresholds.

        (b) What is the status of the Bureau's efforts to collect this
    information, and will the FCC be putting forth any public analysis or
    recommendations based on the information collected?
        Answer. The Bureau is continuing to consider this issue, and the
    agency has issued detailed reports on major 911 outages, including
    here: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-issues-report-nationwide-att-
    mobility-outage

        (b) How will you ensure that 9-1-1 call centers receive useful
    information about the status of 9-1-1 outages, and what measures will
    the FCC take to prioritize these needed reforms?
        Answer. The FCC is consistently working to ensure that 911 call
    centers have the actionable information they need.

        (3) At the beginning of the year, the Association of Public-Safety
    Communications Officials International, the National Emergency Number
    Association, and the National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators
    jointly submitted a proposal outlining ways to improve outage
    notifications to 9-1-1 centers by incorporating visual representations
    of the outages and real-time information from service providers. They
    also requested additional rule changes to strengthen the outage
    notification framework. Can you provide an update on the status of the
    FCC's consideration of this proposal and the related rulemaking
    requests.
        Answer. The FCC is continuing to review a range of ideas for
    improving outage notifications.
    Multilingual Wireless Emergency Alerts
        In a recent Federal Register publication, the Federal
    Communications Commission set the compliance date for multilingual
    Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) as June 12, 2028. However, that same
    Federal Register publication states that ``47 CFR 10.480 (amendatory
    instruction 2) and 47 CFR 10.500(e) (amendatory instruction 3) are
    delayed indefinitely.'' Please explain why these rules are ``delayed
    indefinitely'' and what steps the FCC will take to secure a compliance
    deadline for those rules.
        Answer. The compliance date for the multilingual WEA template
    requirement is June 12, 2028. The rules that are ``pending
    indefinitely'' are minor rule changes adopted in the January 2025
    order, but because of the long lead time to compliance in 2028, the
    pending rules should be approved in the normal course well before
    compliance is required.
    Universal Service Fund
        On December 17, 2025, I sent a letter with Senator Fischer and
    Representatives Matsui and Hudson requesting a briefing from your staff
    to help inform our bipartisan, bicameral Universal Service Fund Working
    Group. I look forward to that briefing taking place no later than
    January 30, 2026. Ahead of that briefing, please provide a list of any
    current or future rulemakings/reforms to the USF programs under
    consideration by the Commission.
        Answer. The FCC is looking forward to this briefing.
    Tribal Connectivity
        The Affordable Connectivity Program delivered tremendous benefits
    to tribal members in my state and across the country during the
    pandemic, increasing access to telehealth, education, and other
    opportunities. Many tribal households cannot afford two telecom
    subscriptions and their only connection to the Internet is through a
    mobile device. So, even if BEAD investments eventually get improved
    broadband out to these remote lands, affordability remains a tremendous
    challenge. And it is not just in my state of New Mexico. There are
    remote tribal lands with tremendous demographic challenges in Arizona,
    Washington, Montana, Oklahoma, North and South Dakota, and others as
    well. Should the FCC invest its universal service support funding to
    support Tribal areas?
        Answer. Yes.
    Independent Programmers
        As consolidation continues across Big Tech, the telecommunications
    and entertainment industries, these large players gain even stronger
    leverage to negotiate with smaller and independent players. Nowhere is
    this more apparent than in the Pay TV market, where carriage in both
    the linear and streaming sectors continues to be difficult to negotiate
    for the smaller, independent programmers that are often more diverse in
    content and ownership. Would you consider taking a new look at the
    market and current negotiating practices to explore if there is a
    viable approach to address this issue?
        Answer. One step the FCC has recently taken on this front is
    opening a proceeding that asks about the relationship between licensed
    local broadcasters and national programmers.
    vMVPDs
        Last Congress, I led a letter, joined by 19 other senators
    requesting that the FCC examine the growth of streaming and the impact
    on local stations, given that these stations do not control pricing of
    the payments paid by the streaming services for carrying their
    stations. I remain concerned about this issue. Can the FCC examine the
    video marketplace and establish policies that address this vMVPD issue
    to ensure the viability of local broadcast stations?
        Answer. As noted above, the FCC recently asked for comment on the
    dynamics that are relevant to the relationship between licensed local
    broadcasters and the national programmers.
    Robocalls
        (1) We continue to see large volumes of robocalls and fraudulent
    activity originating from outside the United States. Many of these
    calls use U.S. communications networks and SIM farms to reach American
    consumers.
        (b) What steps is the FCC taking to prevent foreign-originated
    fraud and scams from reaching U.S. consumers?
        Answer. The FCC has proposed and is pursuing a number of actions
    that would focus specifically on the problem of foreign-originated
    illegal robocalls.

        (b) Are there specific limitations that prevent the FCC from doing
    more in this area? If so, can the FCC explain these constraints?
        Answer. The FCC is continuing to review the record regarding these
    proposals and will examine whether additional legislation would aid in
    the agency's efforts.

        (1) The Commission recently removed a large number of voice service
    providers from the Robocall Mitigation Database.
        (b) Since this purge, has the FCC observed a measurable decrease in
    fraudulent robocalls targeting American consumers? If so, can you
    quantify the results?
        Answer. The FCC is taking a number of actions that aim to reduce
    the number of illegal robocalls that Americans would otherwise have
    faced.

        (b) If not, what further enforcement actions does the FCC plan to
    take to achieve meaningful results for American consumers?
        Answer. The FCC is pursuing a number of additional actions aimed at
    cracking down on illegal robocalls.

        (1) Some international gateway providers continue to transmit high
    volumes of illegal foreign-originated traffic onto U.S. networks, often
    with inadequate know your customer (KYC) practices.
        (b) What steps is the FCC taking to identify providers that
    repeatedly allow this type of traffic into the US, and what enforcement
    measures are being used to hold these providers accountable?
        Answer. The FCC should continue to enhance and strengthen its KYC
    regulations.

        (b) What limitations prevent the FCC from imposing foreign
    ownership limits on, or even prohibiting foreign ownership of,
    international gateway providers?
        Answer. The FCC is looking at a number of ideas for cracking down
    on illegal robocalls from abroad.

        (1) All-IP networks enable more effective use of tools like STIR/
    SHAKEN and caller ID authentication, both of which are critical in
    identifying and blocking foreign-originated fraud and scams. What
    additional actions can the FCC take to accelerate the transition to
    all-IP networks and ensure these protections are implemented quickly
    and at scale across all providers?
        Answer. The FCC is pursuing a number of steps to accelerate the
    transition to all IP networks, including through our actions on copper
    retirement.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
                               Hon. Brendan Carr
    Low-Power Television (LPTV)
        5G innovation continues to unfold as expansive uses of 5G come to
    market. These solutions provide enhanced programming, datacasting, and
    connectivity for those who are often left out of cutting-edge
    technologies. One of these solutions is 5G LPTV Broadcast. Colorado is
    home to 38 LPTV stations, all of which represent opportunities to bring
    enhanced programming and new 5G connectivity options directly to
    Coloradans through new broadcast technologies. Allowing LPTV stations
    to pursue this technological step requires only permission from the
    FCC, with no mandates or impacts on other technologies.

        Question 1. How is the FCC ensuring that its regulatory processes
    are not delaying or discouraging innovative uses of spectrum, including
    5G LPTV broadcast technologies that could improve spectrum efficiency?
        Answer. The FCC has been working to empower local broadcasters to
    find innovative uses of their spectrum.
    Privacy
        As cyberattacks and data breach threats continue to evolve, we have
    seen repeated breaches of communications providers. With each breach,
    sensitive consumer proprietary network information (CPNI) could be
    exposed. These instances shine a spotlight over how the FCC exercises
    strong enforcement over data security and privacy rules versus securing
    quick settlements and voluntary commitments through consent decrees.

        Question 2. Why has the FCC relied on consent decrees in response
    to data-privacy violations--including those involving geolocation
    data--instead of imposing stronger penalties to deter repeat offenses?
        Answer. The FCC has issued CPNI penalties and has a range of
    enforcement actions it can take.

        Question 3. What incentives is the FCC creating to better promote
    data security, minimize unauthorized breaches, and better protect CPNI?
        Answer. The FCC has specific regulations that govern CPNI.
    Artificial Intelligence
        During your testimony, we discussed the President's recent
    Executive Order entitled, ``Ensuring A National Policy Framework for
    Artificial Intelligence'' (Executive Order on AI). We specifically
    discussed the Executive Order's directive in Section 6 requiring the
    FCC to ``initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal
    reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts
    conflicting State laws.'' Additionally, Section 5(b) requires
    ``Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall assess their
    discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special Advisor
    for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such
    grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the
    policy of this order.''

        Question 4. Does the FCC have explicit statutory authorization to
    adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard that specifically
    applies to AI models, in accordance with the Executive Order on AI? If
    yes, provide statutory justification.
        Answer. The FCC will be initiating a proceeding to explore the
    issues raised by the Executive Order.

        Question 5. During your testimony, you specifically stated the FCC
    is not an independent agency. As such, would the requirements for
    Executive Departments and Agencies within Section 5(b) of the Executive
    Order on AI apply to the FCC? Yes or no?
        Answer. I stated in the hearing that the FCC is not an independent
    agency, formally speaking.

        Question 6. Will the FCC consider withholding any amounts from the
    Universal Service Fund (USF) from eligible recipients in states with AI
    laws implicated by Section 5(b) of the Executive Order on AI? Yes or
    no? Please explain.
        Answer. The FCC has no relevant withholdings under consideration.
    Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF)
        The FCC has a coordination role with the Department of Commerce
    when Federal spectrum bands are transitioned to be available for
    commercial users. The Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) only allows a
    Federal department or agency to recover costs related to modifying
    systems using spectrum up to a ``comparable capability.'' The FCC plays
    a contributing role in overseeing the SRF as a member of the Technical
    Panel, along with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
    National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA).

        Question 7. If the SRF were amended by Congress so Federal agencies
    were able to recover additional relocation costs beyond a ``comparable
    capability'' in order to best fulfil their Federal mission, would the
    FCC continue to have successful commercial auctions of spectrum?
        Answer. There are a lot of considerations that go into whether a
    particular FCC auction will be successful.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. Will you commit to working with Congress on legislative
    reforms to the Universal Service fund and ensure this critical program
    continues?
        Answer. Yes.

        Question 2. What steps have the FCC already taken or can take to
    address waste, fraud, and abuse and improve efficiency across Universal
    Service Fund programs?
        Answer. In my time at the FCC, the agency has taken action at both
    the full Commission level and on delegated authority to ensure
    universal service support only is provided in accordance with program
    rules and requirements. These Commission actions include: coordination
    with other Federal agencies to eliminate duplicative spending, denying
    unlawful support requests, and requiring reimbursements for
    overpayments.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. The FCC collects data from broadband providers and from
    state, local, and Tribal governments, as well as through a newly
    established crowdsourcing process, to ensure more accurate and reliable
    broadband mapping. The FCC uses these maps when awarding funds, and
    other agencies are encouraged to use them for their programs.
        Commissioner Trusty, accurate mapping is essential to ensuring
    broadband funds are allocated where they are needed most. I know you
    are committed to ensuring the FCC's Broadband Data Maps reflect
    consumers' real-world experiences. Significant progress has been made
    in improving both accuracy and accountability for Federal investments.
    What metrics should the Commission, working with this Committee,
    prioritize to continue refining and approving these maps?
        Answer. One important metric is the stability in the broadband
    serviceable locations fabric. The ultimate goal should be for that
    fabric to require updates only to reflect new on-the-ground
    developments like new construction, which is consistent with the low
    level of changes currently being seen across different iterations of
    the fabric--approximately 1 percent. We've made significant progress on
    this issue and we need to ensure we maintain that consistency.
        We also need to continue improving the broadband availability
    challenge process. Based on what we've been hearing from stakeholders,
    the Commission, working with this Committee, should explore ways to
    streamline the challenge process and make it less costly and more
    efficient to test locations, ensuring timely updates to the maps to
    reflect the realities of where service is provided.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. PRC domestic law and cybersecurity infrastructure opens
    all devices made in the PRC or by PRC companies to the risks of the
    CCP's military civil fusion program, cybersecurity law, and
    counterespionage law, which require certain data be transferred to the
    government and infrastructure to be available to the government in
    times of conflict, regardless of whether it is located in the Mainland
    or abroad. In your view, does this domestic regulation mean that all
    PRC connected devices or PRC devices that transmit data or connect to a
    broader telecommunications infrastructure is at risk of CCP meddling?
        Answer. This is consistent with what other agencies have found.
    Equipment and services closely tied to the foreign adversaries, like
    China, and can allow the CCP to surveil Americans, disrupt
    communications networks, and otherwise threaten U.S. national security.
    The Commission continues to make updates to the Covered List of
    equipment and services that have been determined to pose unacceptable
    risks to the national security of the United States and its citizens.

        Question 2. The FCC's Covered List includes large PRC
    telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE. Given the explosion
    of PRC-made connected home devices that plug into this
    telecommunications infrastructure, should this list expand to include
    connected consumer products like routers, smart TVs, and home security
    systems?
        Answer. The Commission is concerned about the potential risks from
    technological devices linked to foreign adversaries, but we would defer
    to national security experts in Congress or throughout the Executive
    Branch to make specific determinations as to risks from certain
    equipment or services.

        Question 3. PRC manufacturers often produce devices sold under
    different brand names, making it hard to identify true origin. Or, PRC
    manufacturers engage in ``white labeling''--or manufacturing a product
    that another company then rebrands and sells under a non-PRC name. How
    does the FCC handle equipment authorization when the actual
    manufacturer is obscured?
        Answer. The Commission has made clear that re-branding or ``white
    labeling'' of any covered equipment does not change the status of
    whether the equipment is covered equipment. Covered equipment is still
    covered equipment even if it is sold under a different brand. If the
    FCC learns of white-labeling it can and will revoke equipment
    authorizations and take enforcement actions against those entities
    involved.

        Question 4. When looking at the supply chain around these devices
    and the need for the actual physical OLED and LCD displays and
    components that go into them, there are concerns over the potentially
    lower quality of PRC produced components getting into devices under
    different brand names. Companies like BOE and Tianma being key examples
    with an outsized hold over the global display component supply chain.
    What is the FCC doing to raise awareness and counteract this aspect of
    the connected devices ecosystem?
        Answer. I am monitoring this issue, and I am always willing to work
    with public and private national security experts to develop the best
    response to security concerns.

        Question 5. Many of the companies across the PRC connected devices
    supply chain like TP-Link, BOE, Hisense, Xiami, TIanma, or TCL, have
    manufacturing facilities capable of multiple purposes beyond connected
    device production. BOE in particular has potential to shift their
    fabrication plants from OLED display production, to potentially
    advanced semiconductor production. How is the FCC thinking through the
    various other lanes of national security that these companies may
    impact? How is the FCC coordinating with the rest of the U.S.
    Government to tackle these concerns as well?
        Answer. The Commission is always working with other government
    agencies to monitor threats to the communications supply chain and
    network infrastructure from foreign adversaries.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
    moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
    tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
    99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
    directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
    through an Executive Order.
        Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
    theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr has been
    skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
    2024, Chairman Carr said that ``Congress does not operate like a
    sieve--inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's
    delegation of authority in these types of cases can no longer be
    implicit, it must be explicit.''

        Question 1. Does the FCC have the authority to preempt state AI
    laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
        Answer. Under Executive Order 14365, the FCC has been directed to
    initiate a proceeding to seek comment on whether to adopt a Federal
    reporting and disclosure standard for AI models and preempt conflicting
    State laws. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
    the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
    and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.

        Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
    portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
    released?
        Answer. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
    the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
    and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.

        Question 3. Does the FCC have the authority to adopt a Federal
    reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
        Answer. I'm open-minded about both the Commission's authority and
    the policy merits of any action regarding AI reporting and disclosure,
    and I look forward to reviewing the record before making any decision.

        Public Interest Standard. Chairman Carr has publicly identified
    several kinds of reporting that he sees as not in the public interest,
    yet has not explained what kind of reporting is in the public interest.

        Question 1. Would you support the Commission opening a rulemaking
    specifying the contours of the ``public interest'' standard for
    broadcasters?
        Answer. Historically, the public interest standard has been
    implemented for broadcasters through a combination of requirements
    specified under the Act and FCC rules and individual decisions creating
    a body of precedent regarding that standard in the licensing context.
    Although that approach gives considerable guidance to broadcasters, I'd
    keep an open mind if the Commission wished to consider alternative
    procedural approaches to construing and applying the public interest
    standard in the future.

        Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
    stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
    regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
    independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
    that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
    of the station's community and result in the closure of local
    newsrooms.

        Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
    stay open?
        Answer. To ensure local broadcasters can survive, the Commission is
    working to modernize and update the broadcast regulatory framework to
    help broadcasters better compete against Big Tech for viewers,
    programming, and advertising revenues.

        Universal Service. Schools and libraries serve as anchor
    institutions in communities around the country--they are where students
    learn, job seekers apply for employment, and veterans seek care.

        Question 1. Please explain the role that E-Rate plays in ensuring
    that these anchor institutions have the connectivity they need to serve
    their communities.
        Answer. The E-Rate program provides discounts for
    telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections to
    eligible schools and libraries. It helps to connect students, teachers,
    and consumers to jobs, life-long learning, and information in the
    global digital economy.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. In your testimony you spoke about the importance of the
    USF working group instituting reforms to support rural communications
    networks. What steps should Congress take to make sure the USF program
    continues to help the most rural networks maintain the most secure and
    up-to-date networks?
        Answer. While I generally defer to the USF working group to take
    the lead on modernizing universal service, our Alaska Connect Fund
    program illustrates some helpful principles, including support for
    ongoing expenses of operating networks in rural areas and seeking to
    meet Americans' connectivity needs where they live, work, and travel.

        Question 2. How is the Commission working to improve data sharing
    and coordination between Federal agencies with broadband programs to
    ensure that the broadband maps being used for BEAD and other Federal
    funding programs are as accurate and up to date as possible?
        Answer. As discussed in a GAO report last Spring (GAO-25-107207),
    the FCC and other Federal agencies with broadband programs have been
    improving their coordination, but there still is more that can be done.
    The GAO report identified a number of recommendations, which the FCC
    agreed with and is working to implement.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
    under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
        Answer. Assuming the focus is on programming broadcast by FCC
    licensees, as directed by the Supreme Court, the FCC's approach to
    determining the public interest is a function of the purposes of the
    Communications Act, the requirements it imposes, and the statutory
    context. The public interest also includes the obligation for stations
    to meet the needs of their local communities and to not distort the
    news under the news distortion policy.

        Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
    take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
    under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
        Answer. For clarity, unless the comedians, satirists, or
    commentators were Commission licensees they would not be governed by
    the public interest standard, including the news distortion policy.
        In the case of FCC licensees that broadcast the speech identified
    in the question, because the initiation of investigations generally
    does not come up for a vote of the full Commission, I would direct you
    generally to the standards in provisions such as section 403 of the
    Communications Act and sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's
    rules.
        As a general matter, any Commission action against a broadcast
    licensee under the public interest standard, including the news
    distortion policy, would turn on the evidence of whether a violation
    occurred, coupled with the burden of proof and required procedure
    governing the action at issue (e.g., declaratory ruling, cease-and-
    desist order, denial of a license, license revocation, financial
    penalty).

        Question 3. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
    FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
    on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
    you consider this to be censorship?
        Answer. There are a wide array of legal and colloquial definitions
    of ``censorship,'' and a wide range of facts that might be relevant to
    applying a particular standard, so without more it is not possible to
    opine definitively.
        As an FCC Commissioner, my primary focus is on implementing the
    Communications Act, consistent with the First amendment, long-standing
    legal doctrine, and Supreme Court precedent.

        Question 4. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
    following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
    the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
    comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
    clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
    news distortion policy:

      a.  A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
            manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.

      b.  A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
            pertaining to violence or assault.

      c.  An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult to
            the President's policies or political positions.

      d.  A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their death
            because of their hatred for said politician.

        Answer. Given the range of obligations imposed on broadcast
    licensees, without more context and information it is not possible to
    definitively opine on whether a broadcaster's decision to broadcast
    such programming would violate obligations imposed on broadcast
    licensees under the Act or FCC rules or precedent.
        If a broadcaster wants guidance about how to comply with its public
    interest obligations, including with respect to the news distortion
    policy, it can look to the obligations imposed under the Act and FCC
    rules and precedent. It also is free to seek guidance or an
    interpretation from the Commission regarding a specific factual
    scenario.
    FCC Independence
        Question 5. If the President determines that broadcast programming
    content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
    distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
    the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
        Answer. As a FCC Commissioner, my job is to vote on matters that
    come before the Commission based on facts in the record, FCC precedent,
    and the law. I remain committed to that.
    Tribal Spectrum Windows
        Question 6. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
    priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
        Answer. I can commit to reviewing the record in future proceedings
    to determine if a Tribal priority window is in the public interest.

        Question 7. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
    with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
    of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
    the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
    separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
    areas only?
        Answer. This request is best directed to FCC Chairman Carr.

        Question 8. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
    and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
    challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
    that have not submitted challenges?
        Answer. I support ONAP's continued efforts, consistent with its
    role and available resources, and in collaboration with the Broadband
    Data Task Force, to provide information and technical assistance to
    Tribes regarding the National Broadband Map and the challenge process,
    as part of the FCC's broader goal of ensuring that all Americans,
    including Tribal communities, are accurately reflected and served.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
    Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
    and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
    certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
    support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
    keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
    from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
    automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
    does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
    protecting our national and economic security.
        Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
    chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. During the hearing, I referenced the concerning trend
    of the FCC approving mergers immediately after enacting policies
    favored by the Trump administration. Specifically, I highlighted the
    timing of the Paramount Global and Skydance Media merger coming only
    after Paramount agreed to pay the President $16 million to settle a
    frivolous lawsuit and Paramount agreed to change its news editorial
    policies, and the approval of AT&T's purchase of U.S. Cellular's
    wireless license just one day after AT&T terminated their diversity,
    equity, and inclusion policy. Do you feel the perception that companies
    need to make political concessions to the Trump administration
    undermines the independent of the FCC?
        Answer. My decision-making approach always involves applying the
    law and FCC policy to the facts before me, regardless of the parties
    involved. In the items I vote on, including the Paramount-Skydance
    Merger Order, the full justification for my decision is set forth in
    the item.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. What can Congress do to ensure that the U.S. has a
    strong and unified strategy in international communications policy,
    especially as we go into the next World Radio Conference?
        Answer. In advance of WRC-27, Congress can work to promote
    alignment among public and private sector interests; encourage pre-WRC
    coordination with international allies; and ensure the U.S. delegation
    to the WRC-27 has the resources to support technical and diplomatic
    representation.

        Question 2. How does inconsistent spectrum policy damage our
    ability to promote U.S. leadership globally?
        Answer. A consistent spectrum policy is important for promoting
    U.S. investment and innovation in allocated bands, and due to the
    spectrum provisions in the ``Working Families Tax Cuts Act'' and the
    Presidential Memoranda on ``Winning the 6G Race'', we're well
    positioned to promote U.S. leadership in spectrum policy.

        Question 3. How should we promote U.S. leadership on spectrum
    policy globally? What steps should we take to promote American
    innovation and build policy around trusted providers?
        Answer. To promote U.S. leadership, American innovation, and
    network integrity, the focus should be on the following: ensuring a
    predictable domestic spectrum policy by maintaining FCC auction
    authority and a long-term spectrum pipeline; leading in international
    standard-setting bodies; maintaining strong interagency coordination;
    and developing a regulatory environment that promotes investments in AI
    technologies to increase spectrum efficiency and network security.

        Question 4. Earlier this month, I launched the bipartisan Senate
    Wi-Fi Caucus with my colleague, Senator Ricketts. Wi-Fi is a uniquely
    American innovation, allowing spectrum sharing in real time and
    enabling new smarter tech like IoT. The U.S. has long been a leader in
    innovative spectrum uses. How can we build trust and enable more
    efficient uses of spectrum, without compromising critical defense uses?
        Answer. Artificial intelligence and capabilities, such as
    Integrated Sensing and Communications, or ISAC, can help increase
    spectrum efficiency without compromising Federal spectrum users.

        Question 5. What do you see as the future of U.S. spectrum
    innovation? How can we build on the successes of CBRS and other
    spectrum innovations?
        Answer. The U.S. has long been a leader in innovative uses of
    spectrum and CBRS is a model of that. Putting spectrum to its highest
    and best use and finding opportunities to increase the utility of
    unlicensed spectrum, by accommodating more unlicensed devices, can
    promote more spectrum innovation.

        Question 6. Having secure and resilient communication networks is
    critical to our national security. However, I am concerned that recent
    actions taken by the FCC could place these critical systems at risk
    without proper oversight. As Ranking Member on the SASC Cybersecurity
    Subcommittee, I understand the need to be able to react quickly and
    with increased flexibility to cyber threats from our adversaries. How
    can the FCC balance the need for flexibility while ensuring companies
    are improving their cybersecurity posture?
        Answer. The FCC can balance the need for flexibility in responding
    to emerging cyber threats and ensuring companies are improving their
    cybersecurity posture by engaging in public private partnerships and
    education campaigns to share threat intelligence information and share
    cybersecurity best practices.

        Question 7. How can we make sure we take a proactive response
    rather than reactive in securing our networks?
        Answer. A proactive response to malicious cyber actors includes
    engagement in public private partnerships, education campaigns, whole-
    of-government efforts regarding deterrence, and investments in
    artificial intelligence to automate threat detection and response
    strategies.

        Question 8. What milestones, goals, or objectives should the FCC
    have in place to ensure that these providers are making timely and
    meaningful cybersecurity updates to their networks?
        Answer. Malicious cyber actors are sophisticated and persistent,
    and constantly evolving their tactics to exploit vulnerabilities and
    weaknesses. Providers should remain vigilant, agile, and adaptable in
    responding to these threats, which may require routine or periodic
    updates to a provider's cybersecurity practices, depending on the
    provider's size, risk, and organizational posture.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress
    set the national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this
    limit, not the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently the FCC
    sought comment on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In
    November, President Trump posted on Truth Social said he ``would not be
    happy'' if the FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the
    Radical Left Networks to `enlarge' ''. Does the FCC or Congress have
    the power to raise the national ownership cap?
        Answer. Congress certainly has the power to raise the national
    ownership cap, and the Obama FCC concluded that the FCC also has the
    authority to do so. This issue is pending in a 2017 NPRM in which the
    Media Bureau recently refreshed the record, and I look forward to
    reviewing the complete record in reaching any decision.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to

                                 Olivia Trusty
        Question 1. Commissioner Trusty, you recently spoke about the need
    for the U.S. to keep pace with international telecommunications trends,
    including cybersecurity. Commissioner Trusty, do you believe the FCC
    has taken the appropriate steps to future proof the cybersecurity of
    everyday Americans in an increasingly complex telecommunications
    ecosystem?
        Answer. The FCC has taken great strides to protect our
    telecommunications ecosystem from malicious cyber threat actors. This
    includes efforts to enhance the supply chain integrity of
    telecommunications components, coordinate with national security
    agencies on emerging threats, and information sharing with
    international allies on network security matters.

        Question 2. Is there anything specific you think the FCC must
    implement to protect consumers' cybersecurity in this space?
        Answer. In the past year, the FCC has adopted a number of
    proceedings to help protect consumers' cybersecurity by improving the
    integrity of the communications supply chain integrity, boosting
    coordination with national security agencies and the private sector,
    and enhancing device and network security.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. PRC domestic law and cybersecurity infrastructure opens
    all devices made in the PRC or by PRC companies to the risks of the
    CCP's military civil fusion program, cybersecurity law, and
    counterespionage law, which require certain data be transferred to the
    government and infrastructure to be available to the government in
    times of conflict, regardless of whether it is located in the Mainland
    or abroad. In your view, does this domestic regulation mean that all
    PRC connected devices or PRC devices that transmit data or connect to a
    broader telecommunications infrastructure is at risk of CCP meddling?
        Answer. The issues you cite highlight the risk that Americans' data
    and access could be compelled from PRC-based companies, including for
    products sold abroad. While not every device may present the same level
    of threat, there is always the potential for coercion or interference
    when a device transmits data, receives updates, or connects into
    broader communications infrastructure. That is why we should approach
    PRC-connected devices with heightened scrutiny and a risk-based
    posture.
        The FCC can help reduce risk by strengthening the integrity of the
    equipment authorization ecosystem and by giving consumers clearer
    information about baseline cybersecurity. The Commission's bipartisan
    ``bad labs'' action is an example of closing a real vulnerability in
    the authorization process by preventing untrustworthy actors from
    exerting control over testing and certification. The Cyber Trust Mark
    is another practical tool designed to promote baseline cybersecurity in
    wireless connected products and to help consumers make informed
    choices. That effort, however, has stalled, and returning to and
    advancing that work would provide consumers with clearer information
    while encouraging stronger cybersecurity practices across the market.

        Question 2. The FCC's Covered List includes large PRC
    telecommunications companies like Huawei and ZTE. Given the explosion
    of PRC-made connected home devices that plug into this
    telecommunications infrastructure, should this list expand to include
    connected consumer products like routers, smart TVs, and home security
    systems?
        Answer. It is worthwhile to consider whether and how the
    Commission's existing tools, including the Covered List, can keep pace
    with the rapid growth of connected consumer products that plug into
    communications networks and handle sensitive personal data. Any such
    consideration should be grounded in clear statutory authority, a strong
    evidentiary record, and an understanding of how these products interact
    with networks and pose security risks.
        At the same time, not every concern is best addressed through this
    approach. The Cyber Trust Mark was intended to complement other
    national security tools by promoting baseline cybersecurity and
    informed consumer choice, but its delayed implementation by this
    current FCC has postponed those benefits, and the Commission should
    work to get that program back on track.

        Question 3. PRC manufacturers often produce devices sold under
    different brand names, making it hard to identify true origin. Or, PRC
    manufacturers engage in ``white labeling''--or manufacturing a product
    that another company then rebrands and sells under a non-PRC name. How
    does the FCC handle equipment authorization when the actual
    manufacturer is obscured?
        Answer. The Commission relies on accurate certifications, FCC
    recognized testing and certification bodies, and clear identification
    of the responsible party to ensure compliance with its rules. When the
    actual manufacturer is obscured, that undermines transparency and
    raises legitimate concerns about supply chain risk. Strengthening
    oversight of testing and certification, alongside renewed efforts to
    provide consumers with clearer security information through initiatives
    like the Cyber Trust Mark, would help address these challenges in a
    practical and scalable way.

        Question 4. When looking at the supply chain around these devices
    and the need for the actual physical OLED and LCD displays and
    components that go into them, there are concerns over the potentially
    lower quality of PRC produced components getting into devices under
    different brand names. Companies like BOE and Tianma being key examples
    with an outsized hold over the global display component supply chain.
    What is the FCC doing to raise awareness and counteract this aspect of
    the connected devices ecosystem?
        Answer. Concerns about the quality and reliability of components
    used in connected devices, including displays and other key inputs, are
    part of a broader supply chain challenge with implications for security
    and consumer trust. While the FCC does not regulate component
    manufacturing directly, it can play a role by promoting greater
    transparency and cybersecurity assurance at the device level. The Cyber
    Trust Mark was designed to do just that by signaling that a product
    meets baseline security standards, but delays in launching the program
    and the recent withdrawal by its lead administrator after months of
    unexplained scrutiny by this FCC have slowed its impact. Moving forward
    with this initiative would help raise awareness and encourage better
    practices across the connected device ecosystem.

        Question 5. Many of the companies across the PRC connected devices
    supply chain like TP-Link, BOE, Hisense, Xiami, TIanma, or TCL, have
    manufacturing facilities capable of multiple purposes beyond connected
    device production. BOE in particular has potential to shift their
    fabrication plants from OLED display production, to potentially
    advanced semiconductor production. How is the FCC thinking through the
    various other lanes of national security that these companies may
    impact? How is the FCC coordinating with the rest of the U.S.
    Government to tackle these concerns as well?
        Answer. The FCC has long coordinated with other Federal agencies on
    national security matters, and that coordination is essential to
    addressing risks related to supply chains, emerging technologies, and
    foreign influence. The FCC will continue to work closely with
    interagency partners on the broader set of national security challenges
    these technologies present.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        AI. The Trump Administration won't take no for an answer on a
    moratorium on state AI laws without a Federal standard. First, they
    tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, and we stripped it out by a
    99-1 vote. Then they tried to attach it to the NDAA. Now they're
    directing agencies like the FCC to attempt to preempt state laws
    through an Executive Order.
        Instead of trying to preempt laws that protect against AI fraud or
    theft, we need to be protecting consumers. Chairman Carr has been
    skeptical of the FCC's authority over new technologies in the past. In
    2024, Chairman Carr said that ``Congress does not operate like a
    sieve--inadvertently spilling grants of new authorities. Congress's
    delegation of authority in these types of cases can no longer be
    implicit, it must be explicit.''

        Question 1. Does the FCC have the authority to preempt state AI
    laws under Title I of the Communications Act?
        Answer. The Communications Act does not provide the Commission with
    express authority to preempt state laws governing artificial
    intelligence. Title I does not contain a general preemption provision,
    and the Commission's ancillary authority is limited to actions that are
    reasonably tied to explicit statutory mandates.
        Given those constraints, I am skeptical that the FCC has the
    authority to broadly preempt state AI laws under Title I. The
    Commission is seeking comment on this issue, and I look forward to
    reviewing that record. But any assertion of preemption authority would
    require a clear and compelling statutory basis, which does not appear
    to exist today.

        Question 2. Is that what Congress intended when it rewrote a
    portion of the Communications Act in 1996, 25 years before ChatGPT was
    released?
        Answer. When Congress updated the Communications Act in 1996, it
    did not contemplate artificial intelligence as it exists today. The
    statute does not reference AI, machine learning, or algorithmic
    decision-making, and there is no indication that Congress intended to
    grant the FCC authority to broadly preempt state laws governing AI
    technologies.
        Absent clear congressional direction, the Commission should be
    cautious about asserting nationwide preemption in this area. Decisions
    about displacing state AI laws are more appropriately made by Congress.

        Question 3. Does the FCC have the authority to adopt a Federal
    reporting and disclosure standard for AI models?
        Answer. The FCC has authority to act on Federal reporting and
    disclosure of artificial intelligence within certain narrow areas, just
    as it has exercised its authority in the past under the Communications
    Act, as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, to propose
    increased transparency through disclosure requirements related to
    political advertisements on television and radio. In contrast, adopting
    a broad Federal approach that would preempt state AI laws raises
    serious legal concerns and is a decision best left for Congress.

        Local News. Harvard's Shorenstein Center found that broadcast
    stations owned by large ownership groups produced more news at the
    regional or national level rather than locally. On the other hand,
    independent stations produced more news content locally. I am concerned
    that further consolidation could lead to more news production outside
    of the station's community and result in the closure of local
    newsrooms.

        Question 1. What is the FCC doing to ensure that local newsrooms
    stay open?
        Answer. Large corporate parents of local broadcast stations are
    advocating that the FCC raise or waive the Congressionally established
    nationwide audience reach cap (a single ownership group can reach no
    more that 39 percent of the households in the United States) and the
    local ownership cap (a single ownership group can own no more than 2
    broadcast stations in a single DMA) to facilitate further consolidation
    based on the misconceptions that the relevant market is the entire
    media ecosystem and that consolidation will allow economies of scale to
    support more local news.
        The assertion that the relevant market is the entire media
    ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital
    media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an
    oversimplification that ignores the complexity of the broadcast
    ecosystem. The regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed
    to, on the one hand, ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented
    by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a
    community and, on the other hand, support a balance of negotiating
    power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and
    entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally
    licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment
    content that is targeted locally.
        The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation
    on broadcasters' negotiations with Multichannel Video Programming
    Distributers (MVPDs) for retransmission consent payments for the
    distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an
    additional important source of support for free over the air
    programming. The MVPD community asserts that allowing consolidation
    into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased
    retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers.
        These arguments further ignore the longstanding policy goals of the
    Commission's media ownership rules that require broadcasters to operate
    in the public interest. The public interest for local broadcasters has
    long been defined as facilitating localism, diversity of viewpoints and
    competition.

       Localism means providing programming that serves the
            interests of the station's community of license;

       Diversity of viewpoints means that different broadcast
            station owners or ownership groups bring such owners'
            individual priorities in what programming to deliver to their
            communities of license. It is focused on the absence of common
            ownership, not any particular viewpoint.

       Competition means that having a diversity of viewpoints
            competing to serve local communities will result in programming
            that serves the interests of the local community because the
            broadcasters need to compete for their audience.

        The economies of scale broadcasters intend to use to save money
    include, among many things, the following:

       Using single studios for broadcast for multiple stations;

       Sharing equipment;

       Sharing reporters across stations;

       Sharing management personnel across stations; and

       Stations reporting to executives that are responsible for
            stations across geographically and demographically varied
            communities of license. Such management decisions are driven by
            profitably serving the corporate parent in light of all their
            stations.

        There are no simple answers for how to balance the interests of the
    public in the continued provision of locally generated news with the
    challenges of changes to the media ecosystem. The Commission should be
    examining these issues in their full complexity and working with
    Congress to target changes to further longstanding public interest
    goals.

        Broadband Affordability and Universal Service. A broadband
    connection is essential for life today. But for millions of Americans,
    the cost of connectivity is out of reach. Just last year, the
    Affordable Connectivity Program ended, leaving 23 million households
    without the support they needed to get and remain online. Now, families
    in every state and community are struggling to afford the connections
    they need for work, school, health care, banking, and more.

        Question 1. What is the FCC's role in ensuring service is
    accessible and affordable?
        Answer. Since I became a commissioner over two years ago, one of my
    top priorities has been working to close the digital divide and
    ensuring that everyone, everywhere has access to high quality,
    affordable broadband--regardless of income, background, or geography.
        As outlined in the Communications Act, the duty of the FCC is to
    make available for all people of the United States, ``without
    discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
    or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio
    communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.''
        Access to reliable high-speed Internet is a catalyst for economic
    growth and development. I see investment in broadband as an investment
    in the next generation's ability to learn, in rural communities' access
    to healthcare, and in working families' ability to thrive in an
    increasingly digital world.
        Moreover, global leadership on AI has been expressed as a clear
    bipartisan priority. For us to be leaders on AI, we must ensure that
    everyone, everywhere in the United States can access affordable
    broadband. We cannot expect to be leaders in this space if we do not
    build a strong digital workforce and equip people with the tools they
    need to develop digital skills.
        To achieve these goals, the FCC should take initiative in
    addressing accessibility and affordability concerns for consumers.

        Universal Service. With the end of programs that aimed to connect
    families at home, like the ACP and Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF),
    connectivity at community anchor institutions, including schools and
    libraries, is more important than ever before. Libraries in particular
    serve as the most welcoming place for the whole community to learn,
    grow, and seek care.

        Question 1. Has the end of ACP and ECF made FCC support for anchor
    institutions through the E-Rate program even more important?
        Answer. Certainly. Broadband is the infrastructure of opportunity.
    Across the political spectrum, lawmakers have acknowledged the
    existence of the digital divide--the gap between those who have access
    to affordable, reliable broadband and those who do not.
        For more than 25 years, the FCC's E-Rate Program has helped us
    narrow the digital divide by making telecommunications and information
    services more affordable for schools and libraries. It has connected
    library patrons, empowered teachers, and equipped students with digital
    skills.
        The ACP and ECF programs previously provided broadband support to
    low-income households. Since funding for these programs has lapsed,
    families have had to make tough decisions like deciding whether to buy
    groceries or to pay their Internet bill. In the absence of ACP and ECF,
    the FCC's long-standing E-Rate program's support for anchor
    institutions became all the more important.
        The Commission has long held that as technology changes, E-Rate
    funding needs to expand to cover new services, including those that
    provide off-site connectivity. Recognizing this need, the FCC under the
    last administration wisely chose to allow the use of E-Rate funding for
    hotspot lending to allow students and library patrons to use broadband
    at home and for Wi-Fi on school buses to allow children to complete
    their homework and continue learning on their commute to and from
    school.
        Tragically, in September, the FCC rolled back funding for hotspots
    and Wi-Fi on school buses. The decision ignored our Nation's
    educational landscape today and the need to equip students with digital
    skills for the future. Failing to provide this type of support to
    anchor institutions will make it harder for students to learn, harder
    for libraries to serve their community, and harder for us to close the
    digital divide.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. In your testimony you said, ``Whether in broadcasting
    or streaming, media consolidation should not erode the independence of
    the press or diminish the voices of local communities.'' What role
    should the need to preserve local journalism play in evaluating
    proposed mergers under the FCC's public interest standard?
        Answer. The FCC should consider the harms that will likely arise as
    a consequence of a merger, including the impact on local journalism.
        Large corporate parents of local broadcast stations are advocating
    that the FCC raise or waive the Congressionally established nationwide
    audience reach cap (a single ownership group can reach no more that 39
    percent of the households in the United States) and the local ownership
    cap (a single ownership group can own no more than 2 broadcast stations
    in a single DMA) to facilitate further consolidation based on the
    misconceptions that the relevant market is the entire media ecosystem
    and that consolidation will allow economies of scale to support more
    local news.
        The assertion that the relevant market is the entire media
    ecosystem because local broadcasters compete with national digital
    media platforms for advertisers and audience share is an
    oversimplification that ignores the complexity of the broadcast
    ecosystem. The regulatory structure underlying broadcasting is designed
    to, on the one hand, ensure a diversity of viewpoints are represented
    by precluding one entity from dominating the voices available in a
    community and, on the other hand, support a balance of negotiating
    power between large broadcasting networks that produce news and
    entertainment content targeting a national audience and locally
    licensed broadcasting stations that produce news and entertainment
    content that is targeted locally.
        The structure is further complicated by the impact of consolidation
    on broadcasters' negotiations with Multichannel Video Programming
    Distributers (MVPDs) for retransmission consent payments for the
    distribution of the broadcasters' content. These payments are an
    additional important source of support for free over the air
    programming. The MVPD community asserts that allowing consolidation
    into larger broadcast ownership groups will result in increased
    retransmission consent fees that will be paid by consumers.
        These arguments further ignore the longstanding policy goals of the
    Commission's media ownership rules that require broadcasters to operate
    in the public interest. The public interest for local broadcasters has
    long been defined as facilitating localism, diversity of viewpoints and
    competition.

       Localism means providing programming that serves the
            interests of the station's community of license;

       Diversity of viewpoints means that different broadcast
            station owners or ownership groups bring such owners'
            individual priorities in what programming to deliver to their
            communities of license. It is focused on the absence of common
            ownership, not any particular viewpoint.

       Competition means that having a diversity of viewpoints
            competing to serve local communities will result in programming
            that serves the interests of the local community because the
            broadcasters need to compete for their audience.

        The economies of scale broadcasters intend to use to save money
    include, among many things, the following:

       Using single studios for broadcast for multiple stations;

       Sharing equipment;

       Sharing reporters across stations;

       Sharing management personnel across stations; and

       Stations reporting to executives that are responsible for
            stations across geographically and demographically varied
            communities of license. Such management decisions are driven by
            profitably serving the corporate parent in light of all their
            stations.

        The Commission therefore must ensure that any proposed mergers
    further the Commission's goals of ensuring localism, diversity of
    viewpoints, and competition.

        Question 2. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included over $14
    billion for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided
    subsidies for Internet service to low-income households, helping more
    Americans get connected. The ACP ended in June 2024 due to a lack of
    funding. What reforms should the USF working group implement to make
    sure affordability remains a top priority?
        Answer. Affordability has been one of my top priorities since I
    became a Commissioner over two years ago. The Universal Service Fund
    (USF) is a key part of ensuring both access and affordability. The USF
    has become all the more important in the absence of ACP funding.
    However, the USF must be reformed to ensure long-term sustainability of
    the fund and its programs.
        USF reform should prioritize expanding the existing Lifeline
    support program. While Lifeline provides a crucial benefit for
    consumers, $9 a month is insufficient for families struggling to afford
    broadband. This subsidy should be increased to match the ACP's previous
    offering of $30 per month per household. I also strongly believe that
    any changes to the contributions base should not increase costs for
    consumers.
        Another technical reform for the program should eliminate the
    requirement for broadband providers to be deemed Eligible
    Telecommunications Carriers in order to participate in the Lifeline
    program. The ACP and ECF did not include this requirement, which
    enabled more providers to participate in the program.
        Importantly, Congress should be the one to reform the USF. I was
    encouraged by the proposals put forward last Congress by the
    bipartisan, bicameral USF working group. I stand ready to provide
    technical assistance to this Congress, and thank you for your
    leadership on this important issue.

        Question 3. What can we do to make our broadband data collection
    more efficient, including by ensuring that the Commission is addressing
    legitimate challenges to the broadband maps?
        Answer. To win the AI race and give every American the tools they
    need to succeed in a more inclusive digital economy, we must have
    accurate and reliable data showing where broadband is and is not
    available nationwide. Over the last few years and throughout multiple
    Administrations, the FCC has worked diligently to implement the
    Broadband DATA Act, resulting in the most granular broadband
    availability data in our history.
        In the past, the Commission relied on census block-level reporting,
    which assumed that if even only a single location in a census block was
    served, the entire block was served. That approach overstated
    deployment and made it difficult to identify communities that were
    truly unserved or underserved. Today, using the authority Congress
    provided, the FCC collects broadband availability data on a location-
    by-location basis and publicly discloses it through the National
    Broadband Map.
        The current framework also allows state, local, and Tribal
    governments, as well as consumers and other stakeholders with on-the-
    ground knowledge, to challenge reported data. The Commission regularly
    updates the map to reflect these challenges and supplements this
    process with audits and verification efforts to improve accuracy.
    Because this is an iterative process, the map continues to improve over
    time.
        At the same time, the FCC has learned important lessons through
    this implementation and is always seeking opportunities to make the
    data collection and the challenge processes more efficient, more user-
    friendly, and more responsive to legitimate concerns raised by
    communities. That is why the Commission is seeking comment on potential
    improvements to its mapping, challenge, audit, and verification
    processes. I look forward to reviewing that record.
        Accurate broadband maps are an ongoing effort, and I urge Congress
    to ensure the FCC has the resources it needs to address legitimate
    challenges and continue improving the data that underpins our broadband
    policy decisions.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
    FCC Public Interest Authority
        Question 1. What is the FCC's standard for evaluating programming
    under the public interest standard and news distortion policy?
        Answer. Any actions that the FCC takes based on broadcaster
    programming must be grounded in the First Amendment and Section 326 of
    the Communications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censoring
    broadcasters.
        The Commission has long construed its public interest standard to
    include consideration of whether the action at issue (e.g., broadcast
    license renewal or adoption of rules applicable to broadcasters)
    furthers localism, viewpoint diversity, and competition.
        A violation of the Commission's news distortion policy ``must
    involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect
    of the news report.'' In weighing the constitutionality of the policy,
    courts have recognized that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction
    between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
    opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if
    it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news
    report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not
    actionable.
        I released the following news distortion policy statement: Press
    Statement--Commissioner Gomez on CBS Fishing Expedition.docx

        Question 2. What conditions would trigger the FCC to investigate or
    take action against the speech of comedians, satirists, or commentators
    under the public interest standard or news distortion policy?
        Answer. The FCC is prohibited by law (Section 326 of the
    Communications Act) from engaging in censorship or infringing on First
    Amendment rights. Those protected rights include, but are not limited
    to, a broadcaster's selection and presentation of news or commentary.
        The FCC has authority to investigate when a broadcaster:

       Violates the Commission's news distortion policy. News
            distortion ``must involve a significant event and not merely a
            minor or incidental aspect of the news report.'' In weighing
            the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized
            that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction between
            deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
            opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to
            enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately
            distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or
            errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable.

       Violates the Commission's rules prohibiting obscene or
            limiting indecent or profane programming. It is a violation of
            Federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also
            a violation of Federal law to broadcast indecent or profane
            programming during certain hours. The FCC defines indecent
            speech as material that, in context, depicts or describes
            sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently
            offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for
            the broadcast medium.

       Violates the Commission's children's programming rules. The
            Children's Television Act requires each U.S. broadcast
            television station to air programming specifically designed to
            serve the educational and informational needs of children. It
            also limits the amount of time broadcasters, cable operators,
            and satellite providers can devote to advertisements during
            children's programs.

       Violates the Commission's sponsorships identification rules.
            When a broadcast station transmits any matter for which money,
            service, or other valuable consideration is paid or promised
            to, or charged or accepted by such station, Federal law and FCC
            rules require the broadcaster to announce, at the time of the
            broadcast, that such matter is sponsored, paid for, or
            furnished and the identification of the sponsor.

       Violates the Commission's political programming rules. The
            FCC's political programming and campaign advertising rules
            generally govern the circumstances under which broadcast
            stations and other regulatees air political-related
            advertisements. Broadcast stations, cable system operators, DBS
            providers, and SDARS licensees are required to maintain public
            inspection files, of which political files are a part.

        Question 3. If there is evidence that FCC action, or the threat of
    FCC action, towards broadcast television impacts programming decisions
    on non-broadcast media through financial ties between companies, would
    you consider this to be censorship?
        Answer. Yes. I am concerned that this FCC's unprecedented threats
    against broadcasters are already suppressing free speech by sending the
    message that media companies, including non-broadcast licensee
    affiliated entities, hosting content critical of the Administration
    will invite government retaliation. That is censorship and not what
    America stands for.

        Question 4. Please describe whether the FCC would consider the
    following scenarios on broadcast television as being in violation of
    the public interest standard or news distortion policy. If you cannot
    comment on these scenarios, please explain how programs can receive
    clarity about how to abide by the FCC's public interest standard and
    news distortion policy:

        a. A comedian, commentator, or satirist insults the President in a
    manner that is not obscene, profane, or indecent.
        i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.

        b. A comedian, commentator, or satirist makes offensive statements
    pertaining to violence or assault.
        i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.

        c. An artist has a performance that could be considered an insult
    to the President's policies or political positions.
        i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.

        d. A politician states that a murder victim ``deserved'' their
    death because of their hatred for said politician.
        i. Answer. No, this is protected speech.
    FCC Independence
        Question 5. If the President determines that broadcast programming
    content does not abide by the public interest standard or the news
    distortion policy, will you defer to the President's opinion? What if
    the President's opinion departs from FCC's precedent of interpretation?
        Answer. No. I swore and oath to support, defend and bear true faith
    to the U.S. Constitution and my actions as a Commissioner will be
    consistent with that oath.
    Tribal Spectrum Windows
        Question 6. Will the FCC commit to continuing to hold Tribal
    priority windows in future spectrum auctions?
        Answer. I support holding Tribal Licensing Windows in future
    auctions. The Federal government's Trust Responsibility to Tribal
    Nations is a legal obligation established by the Constitution, Tribal
    Treaties, and more than a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent.\1\
    As part of the Federal government, the FCC bears this responsibility.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3; Cherokee Nation v.
    Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 16 (1831); Seminole Nation v. United States, 316
    U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942); See generally, Cohen's Handbook of Federal
    Indian Law Sec. 5.04(3) (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Pursuant to this responsibility, the FCC engages with Tribal
    Nations and Native Hawaiians on a government-to-government basis, a
    practice known as the Trust Relationship, and is charged with carrying
    out the law in a manner that supports Tribal sovereignty.
        With regard to spectrum policy, the unique legal framework and
    relationship between the Federal government and Tribal Nations requires
    us to ensure that Tribal Nations, including Native Hawaiians, have a
    fair and meaningful opportunity to secure spectrum rights essential to
    their economic development, public safety, and cultural preservation.
    With respect to spectrum access over Native Hawaiian Homelands, the FCC
    granted a waiver of the ``eligible entity'' requirement that allowed
    the Department of Hawaiian Homelands to obtain licenses during the 2.5
    GHz Tribal Priority Window.
        I believe that holding a Tribal Licensing Window is consistent with
    and acknowledges our Trust Responsibility, and I support holding such
    windows in future auctions. A Tribal Licensing Window can occur before
    or concurrently with an auction because the tools that we would utilize
    to facilitate such a window have already been created by the
    Commission.
        Furthermore, and importantly, Tribal Licensing Windows help us
    close the digital divide and extend connectivity to the least served
    areas in the United States such as Tribal Lands. Absent a Tribal
    Licensing Window, Tribal Lands become part of larger license service
    areas and are often the last areas to see service, if at all. But with
    a Tribal Licensing Window, Tribal Nations get access to a license
    limited to the boundaries of their Tribal Lands which allows them to
    begin providing connectivity to residents rather than being forced to
    wait for a carrier to develop a business case to do so.

        Question 7. Please provide 1) the number of locations associated
    with individual Tribal areas; and 2) an aggregated rollup of the number
    of Tribal locations and Tribal broadband availability nationwide within
    the National Broadband Map, or to incorporate this information into a
    separate Tribal National Broadband Map that includes data on Tribal
    areas only?
        Answer. I understand that the Chairman's office is providing
    materials responsive to this question. I would be glad to assist your
    office with any follow up questions on this material.

        Question 8. Will you direct ONAP to provide educational outreach
    and technical assistance to Tribes to assist them with submitting
    challenges to the National Broadband Map, especially for those Tribes
    that have not submitted challenges?
        Answer. The Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) is
    responsible for planning and leading outreach to Tribal Nations and
    organizations at the Federal Communications Commission. The goal of
    such outreach is to increase Tribal Nation awareness of and
    participation in the FCC's proceedings and programs, such as the
    National Broadband Map, which ensures that Native views and interests
    are accounted for in the decision-making process. I support ONAP
    providing educational outreach and technical assistance to Tribal
    Nations in order to encourage their participation in the National
    Broadband Map, including assistance with submitting challenges to the
    map. I believe this is a prime example of the value and role of ONAP at
    the FCC.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Gary Peters to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. Earlier this year, the FCC requested comments on the
    Bureau of Industry and Security's rule related to connected vehicles
    and connected vehicle technologies, specifically whether and how to add
    certain technologies to the FCC's covered entities list. I strongly
    support the Bureau of Industry and Security's rule and believe we must
    keep Chinese connected and autonomous vehicles and vehicle components
    from entering our market. I believe the FCC must work closely with the
    automotive supply chain to ensure any action it takes in this space
    does not conflict with the BIS rule and achieves our goals of
    protecting our national and economic security.
        Will you commit to working with my office and the automotive supply
    chain industry as you decide what actions to take on this issue?
        Answer. I am committed to working closely with your office and with
    the automotive supply chain industry as the Federal Communications
    Commission considers this issue, particularly given the serious
    national security and consumer privacy risks that can arise from
    connected vehicle technologies tied to China.
        Protecting Americans' sensitive data and safeguarding our
    communications and transportation ecosystems requires close
    coordination with Federal partners, including the Bureau of Industry
    and Security, and careful engagement with industry to ensure actions
    are effective and do not conflict with existing rules.
        These challenges transcend party lines, and I believe our approach
    to national and economic security, especially where consumer privacy is
    at stake, should continue to be bipartisan and grounded in
    collaboration across government and industry.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. In 2021, Congress enacted the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act which created ``broadband labels,'' similar to food
    nutrition labels, that would allow consumers to quickly understand the
    costs and services provided. However, in October, the FCC adopted
    proposals to reverse several elements of the ``broadband label''
    requirements. Can you walk us through why you objected to these
    proposals and what approach you believe the Commission should have
    taken?
        Answer. The broadband labels are about empowering consumers. The
    goal of the labels is to provide critical information to consumers to
    help them understand their Internet bill and service, thus empowering
    them to make informed choices about the services they buy. But in
    October 2025, the Commission proposed to remove several requirements
    that provide transparency.
        First, the FCC proposed to undo the requirement that service
    providers read labels to customers that shop for broadband over the
    phone. The Commission proposed to do this by redefining the meaning of
    ``point of sale'' to exclude phone calls. In the 2022 Broadband Labels
    Order, the Commission defined ``point of sale'' as ``both ISP websites
    and any other channels through which their service is sold, including
    ISP-owned retail locations, third-party owned retail locations, and
    over the phone.'' \2\ That definition acknowledges the reality that
    some consumers looking for broadband service do not currently have it
    and thus rely on phone calls to find information about potential
    service plans. The practical result of the change the Commission
    proposed is that if a consumer calls a broadband service provider to
    ask about what is included in the cost of broadband Internet access
    service in their area, the company would no longer be required to
    provide the details to which they would have access via the label
    because the FCC believes sales do not occur over telephone calls.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 2022 Broadband Label Order, 13714, para. 88.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Commission also proposed to eliminate the requirement that
    providers itemize fees that they choose to pass through to customers.
    These are fees that broadband providers are not required to pass on to
    customers, but they choose to add to customers' bills so they can
    collect them without including them in their marketed price. With this
    proposed change, the FCC would allow companies to no longer explain
    these fees, line by line, or disclose them in detail, thus reducing
    price transparency for consumers.
        In the October NPRM, the FCC also proposed to eliminate the
    requirement that companies display broadband labels on customers'
    online account portals. This matters because at the time the NPRM was
    adopted, a broadband label is only available to consumers in two ways:
    at the ``point of sale'' when they are shopping for broadband service,
    and via an online account portal once the consumer has become the
    customer of a broadband provider that offers online account portals.
    Notably, a broadband label is not required to be displayed on a
    customer's monthly bill.\3\ I believe that if this proposal is adopted,
    much of the information that Congress wanted to ensure consumers could
    access to make fully informed decisions about the cost of their
    broadband service would no longer be available to them via their online
    customer portal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 2022 Broadband Label Order, 13717, para. 98.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        And finally, the FCC proposed to no longer require that a company
    provide its customers the label in a language other than English even
    if the provider marketed the service to that customer in a language
    other than English. This means that companies that have sought out and
    convinced customers to choose their service in Spanish, French,
    Vietnamese, or any language other than English would no longer have to
    provide this important consumer information about the service their
    customers are paying for, in that language. For this proposal, the FCC
    did not even explain why it was necessary or at the very least not
    harmful to consumers.
        If these proposals were to be adopted, the label would only be
    available to consumers at the point of sale which would no longer
    include purchases made over the phone; would no longer be available to
    consumers via their online customer portal; would not disclose every
    fee that a broadband provider chooses to pass through to customers; and
    would no longer be available in a language other than English even when
    the provider marketed the service in that language. I opposed these
    proposals because I believe that they are antithetical to transparency,
    consumer protection, and the spirit of the law that Congress directed
    us to implement.
        Instead of scaling back the information that consumers already
    receive, the Commission could have focused on making the labels more
    accessible to consumers--are they easy to find? Are they buried deep
    inside a company's website? I believe that information is power, and
    that the FCC plays an important role empowering consumers with the
    information provided in the broadband labels.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. The October decision to gut the Martha Wright-Reed Just
    and Reasonable Communications Act will increase the rates paid by
    incarcerated people and their families by up to 83 percent compared to
    the 2024 final rule. In fact, more than three quarters of prisons
    across the United States were already in compliance with the 2024 rate
    caps required under the law, meaning that most prisons can and do
    provide services under the 2024 rate cap. The FCC's reason for this was
    that the 2024 final rule created ``unintended consequences.''

        a. Can you outline any facts supporting this vague threat of
    undefined ``unintended consequences''?
        Answer. The facts were slim. As far as I could discern from the
    record of the proceeding, the Commission heard from two IPCS providers
    that the 2024 rate caps resulted in reduced access to revenue and the
    safety and security measures that providers offer to correctional
    facilities, which left some prisons considering stopping the provision
    of IPCS.\4\ But to be clear, the 2025 FCC Order does not cite to any
    incidents demonstrating unsafe conditions at correctional facilities as
    a result of the 2024 rate caps. Instead, the Commission relied on
    providers' claims of isolated facilities warning that they would not be
    able to pay for safety and security measures for IPCS services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Letter from Michael Pryor, Counsel for Securus Technologies,
    LLC, and Marcus Trathen, Counsel for Pay Tel, Inc., to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375 (filed Apr. 3,
    2025) (Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2025 Order cites a letter that points to a single facility in
    Arkansas that reported terminating access to IPCS--the Baxter County
    Sheriff's Office, which posted this decision on February 25, 2025 on
    its website.\5\ Additionally, in that same letter, Pay Tel asserts it
    ``was forced to cease IPCS services to four small jails in Arizona and
    New Mexico,'' and Securus asserts it was ``forced to end service to
    three smaller facilities for economic reasons,'' without specifying the
    location.\6\ Finally, both providers point to statements made by a
    North Carolina Sheriff and the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers
    Association that budgetary constraints in their jails would ``lead to a
    reduction in service.'' \7\ That is all the evidence provided.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 3. See also John
    Montgomery, Inmate Phone System Will Not Be in Use After March 30th
    (Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.baxtercounty
    sheriff.com/press-releases/inmate-phone-system-will-not-be-in-use-
    after-march-30th.
        \6\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 4.
        \7\ Securus and Pay Tel Apr. 3, 2025 Ex Parte, at 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This slim evidence is belied by the fact that, by one estimate, 76
    percent of prison systems across the country had already been in
    compliance with the 2024 rate caps, and only three states -Florida,
    Kentucky, and Oklahoma--have rates above the interim rate caps the
    Commission adopted in the 2025 FCC Order.\8\ This means that the
    majority of the prisons in the country can and do provide IPCS services
    within the 2024 rate caps.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Letter from Bianca Tylek, Executive Director, Worth Rises, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Sept. 15, 2025).

        b. Would you characterize the rates set by the 2024 rule as just
    and reasonable to families of incarcerated people and telecom
    providers?
        Answer. I believe the rate caps set in the 2024 Order were just and
    reasonable to both the families of incarcerated peoples and IPCS
    providers.

        c. Can you explain why you strongly opposed and voted against
    Chairman Carr's order that violates clearly defined statutory
    requirements governing the implementation timeline for my Marth Wright-
    Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act?
        Answer. The October 2025 Order claims that the FCC lacked
    sufficient data to support the decisions made in 2024, and yet without
    receiving additional or new data, the FCC decided to grant higher rate
    caps and provide additional benefits such as a two-cent additive and an
    inflation factor to the monopoly companies that have provided the
    supposedly insufficient data. The 2025 Order allows IPCS providers to
    recover costs that have nothing to do with making the calls, which
    violates the Martha Wright Reed Act.

        d. Do you know how old the survey was used that justified an
    additional two-cent-per-minute additive?
        Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the survey is over 10 years
    old as it was conducted in 2015.

        e. Did the survey collect data from prisons, or solely jails?
        Answer. To the best of my knowledge, the survey included data
    solely about jails.

        Question 2. In 2022 I was proud to lead the Senate to a unanimous
    vote in support of the Martha Wright Reed Act to lower predatory rates
    for phone and video calls with incarcerated people. Last year the FCC
    acted, as directed, to adopt rules implementing that law. The record
    showed that loved ones calling people in prisons, for example, would
    pay 6 cents per minute for calls.
        You--and Chairman Brendan Carr--voted for that decision. While
    Chairman Carr expressed concern over whether very small jails required
    different rates, he nevertheless both voted for the 2024 rule and when
    the FCC's unanimous decision was challenged in court, directed his
    General Counsel defend the rule--resulting in Chairman Carr's General
    Counsel, ironically, filing an extremely strong brief defending the
    FCC's decision in April.
        Then, suddenly, on June 30, 2025, FCC staff suspended all the rules
    implementing the Martha Wright Reed Just and Reasonable Communications
    Act without any valid reason, or even an explanation. This sudden,
    unexplained surrender was perplexing and surprising--since not a single
    industry filing submitted before the June 30, 2025, ruling asked for
    such a dramatic change.
        Chairman Carr's spineless surrender foreshadowed his flip-flop in
    reversing the FCC's position on the litigation--months after directing
    his General Counsel to draft and file a strong brief defending the FCC.
    Then, Chairman Carr ordered the FCC to notify the Federal circuit court
    that the FCC would adopt a new order, and Chairman Carr promised to
    share the draft proposed order with the court when it was released to
    the public.
        However, four days before the draft order was released to the
    public, Chairman Carr issued a press release that included quotes from
    outside organizations.

        a. Are you troubled that the FCC Chairman appears to be engaging in
    undisclosed contact with outside stakeholders that have key equities
    regarding pending FCC orders, and that this contact appears to involve
    Chairman Carr improperly sharing information with parties appearing
    before the agency?
        Answer. I am not aware of any undisclosed contact. To protect the
    fairness of FCC proceedings and ensure that FCC decisions are not
    influenced by impermissible off-the-record communications, the FCC's ex
    parte rules require stakeholders to disclose their communications with
    agency staff directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See FCC, Ex Parte Resources (Jan. 5, 2026), https://
    www.fcc.gov/proceedings-actions/ex-parte/general/ex-parte-resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        An ex parte is ``a communication directed to the merits or outcome
    of a proceeding that, if written, is not served on all of the parties
    to the proceeding and, if oral, is made without giving all the parties
    to the proceeding advance notice and an opportunity to be present.''
    \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In ``Permit-but-disclose'' proceedings, such as the IPCS rate caps
    proceeding, ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making
    personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure
    requirements such as the requirement that a copy of written
    presentations and a summary of oral presentations must be filed in the
    record. Additionally,

       Copies of written presentations or summaries of oral
            presentations must generally be filed no later than two
            business days after the presentation.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1206(b); See also FCC, How to File a Notice
    of an Ex Parte Presentation (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/
    reports-research/guides/how-file-notice-ex-parte-presentation.

       Copies and summaries should be filed electronically using
            the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Id.

       The summaries of oral presentations must list all persons
            present and describe the substance of the new data or arguments
            presented (or provide a citation to prior written filings
            containing the data or arguments) and not merely list the
            subjects discussed. Generally, more than a one or two sentence
            description is required.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1206(b)(2); See also FCC, How to File a
    Notice of an Ex Parte Presentation (Jan. 5, 2026), https://www.fcc.gov/
    reports-research/guides/how-file-notice-ex-parte-presentation.

        b. Has Chairman Carr provided you a clear and honest explanation of
    how private actors with business before the FCC were informed of the
    Chairman's plans and actions--even before the circuit court reviewing
    the FCC's 2024 rule was notified of Chairman Carr's flip-flop
    surrender?
        Answer. I have not had any conversations about this with Chairman
    Carr.

        c. Given Chairman Carr's current belief--which repudiates his own
    prior beliefs when serving as a Commissioner--that then-Commissioner
    Carr was wrong when he passionately and forcefully defended the
    importance of the FCC maintaining its independence as an independent
    Federal agency, do you believe that Chairman Carr coordinated his
    actions with political appointees at the White House or the U.S.
    Department of Justice?
        Answer. The FCC was created by Congress as an independent, expert
    agency to implement communications law. However, an executive order
    released on February 18, 2025, claims to eliminate the FCC's
    independence and directs the agency to ``submit for review all proposed
    and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information
    and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the
    President before publication in the Federal Register.''

        Question 3. This Committee's Chair, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, has
    been very critical of the FCC's decision to take actions at the Bureau
    level, which appears designed to avoid judicial review and sidestep the
    regular order of business.
        In June 2025, the FCC's Wireline Bureau acted in just this manner,
    overturning a full Commission order which implemented legislation
    adopted unanimously in the Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House
    of Representatives.

        a. Are you considered that Chairman Carr is empowering unelected
    and unappointed staff at the bureau level to block and overturn FCC
    rules necessary to ensure compliance with Federal law?
        Answer. In this instance, the Bureau waived the rules established
    by the full Commission in 2024. It is not uncommon for a Bureau to act
    on delegated authority, at the direction of a Chair. That is because
    the volume of decisions that the FCC must make in order to implement
    the law is vast and it would become prohibitive for the full Commission
    to gather to vote on every decision. However, a Bureau cannot make new
    or novel decisions even on delegated authority. A Bureau implements the
    decisions that the full Commission has made, but does not have the
    authority to make new decisions. Similarly, a Bureau cannot reverse the
    decisions on which the full FCC voted. In this instance, the Bureau, at
    the direction of the Chair, waived enforcement of the 2024 rules, but
    eventually it was the full FCC that decided to reverse the rule. I
    dissented from this reversal.

        b. Did Chairman Carr explain to the other Commissioners whether he
    directed the Wireline Bureau to take this action?
        Answer. My office received notice less than 24 hours before the
    Bureau's decision was released.

        c. Are you troubled that Chairman Carr may abuse bureau level
    action to conduct major actions, such as merger approvals, in a
    secretive manner that undermines transparency and bypasses full
    Commission processes, policies and procedures?
        Answer. While it is common for a Bureau to act on delegated
    authority at the direction of a Chair, a Bureau cannot make new or
    novel decisions or reverse the decisions the full FCC has made. A
    Bureau's role is to implement the full Commission's decisions. However,
    I am concerned that a Bureau's waiver of a rule posits a hurdle for
    stakeholders seeking recourse in court. Stakeholders can only seek
    review of a final Commission decision. Stakeholders cannot go to court
    to seek judicial review of a bureau order waiving a rule because itis
    not a final agency decision. This is a concern with bureau level
    decisions in the merger context as well.

        d. Have you requested that Chairman Carr ensure the FCC provides
    the parties impacted by his reconsideration of the FCC's compliance
    with the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act,
    with due process, including access to judicial review of the bureau
    level actions that reverse full Commission decisions?
        Answer. All stakeholders should have full access to judicial review
    and recourse through our court system. I am concerned that this
    Administration's use of delegated authority is leaving parties without
    recourse because they will have to wait for an agency to make a final
    decision on their requests, a process that can take years. Inaction can
    lead to a delay on accessing judicial review. And justice delayed is
    justice denied.

        Question 4. I am concerned that Chairman Carr has only paid lip-
    service to ending the pernicious practice of kickbacks or site
    commissions in the procurement of contracts for carceral facilities.
    For example, while I welcomed the FCC barring site commission payments,
    Chairman Carr paired this action with authorizing a new fee that
    appears to effectively be a site commission by another name.
        Answer. In addition to increasing per minute rates, Chairman Carr
    added two cents per minute to every phone and video call in the
    country. Supposedly these fees are to reimburse facilities for costs,
    but Chairman Carr failed to require providers submit evidence
    confirming the provider incurs costs necessitating reimbursement
    through a de facto site commission fee.

        a. Do you share my alarm that Chairman Carr's new fee may result in
    facilities being reimbursed for costs that never actually occurred?
        Answer. Yes, I do.

        b. Can you elaborate on the threat of waste, fraud and consumer
    abuse that will likely result from forcing Americans to pay fees
    authorized under the pretext of reimbursing facilities for
    unsubstantiated costs that lack documentation?
        Answer. I am concerned that the October 2025 Order will result in
    adding costs to the IPCS rate caps for functions that have nothing to
    do with the provision of IPCS. In 2024, the Commission allowed costs
    for CALEA compliance and Communications Security Services to be
    incorporated into the rate caps.\14\ In the 2025 Order, the FCC
    expanded the types of costs that providers can recover from the
    families of incarcerated persons and included five additional
    categories: Law Enforcement Support Services, Communication Recording
    Services, Communication Monitoring Services, Voice Biometric Services,
    and Other Safety and Security Measures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7825-7826, para. 339
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Based on information provided by IPCS providers themselves, the Law
    Enforcement Category includes expenses for ``search warrant
    processing'' and ``FOIA request processing.'' \15\ The Communications
    Recording Services Category includes expenses for ``storing recorded
    communications, transcribing such recordings, and converting recordings
    into digital formats to support investigation and litigation
    activities.'' \16\ And the Communications Monitoring Services Category
    is now predominantly ``used to aid investigations related to detention
    facilities,'' ``aid corrections and law enforcement agencies in
    investigation and litigation activities,'' and ``provide for skilled
    investigators.'' \17\ None of these functions serves to facilitate the
    actual provision of IPCS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7857, para. 394.
        \16\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7861, para. 398.
        \17\ 2024 IPCS Order, 39 FCC Rcd at 7864, para. 403.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, in September of 2025, the FCC adopted a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to allow correctional
    facilities to use jammers to block communications from contraband
    phones. The policy goal for this NPRM is to combat criminal activity
    aided by contraband phones in correctional facilities. While I support
    advancing this policy goal, should this proposal become a rule, I am
    concerned that the expenses that a correctional facility will incur in
    order to jam signals from contraband phones will inevitably be
    incorporated into the IPCS rate caps and thus passed on to the families
    of incarcerated people. Once again, asking the families of incarcerated
    people to cover the costs of functions that are unrelated to the actual
    provision of IPCS.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jacky Rosen to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. What is the threat to free speech and our democracy if
    journalists and broadcasters do not have a clear understanding of what
    is a violation of the public interest standard under this FCC?
        Answer. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides (emphasis
    added):

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
            religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
            abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
            of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
            government for a redress of grievances.

        A key way in which broadcasters serve their local communities is
    through the provision of local news. Local broadcast journalism is a
    central element of the United States' civic infrastructure that keeps
    our democracy strong.
        This FCC appears to be initiating investigations into potential
    violations of the ``public interest'' standard without defining what
    that means by making vague references to the Commission's news
    distortion policy as potentially applicable to any reporting that is
    critical of the Administration.
        A violation of the Commission's news distortion policy ``must
    involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect
    of the news report.'' In weighing the constitutionality of the policy,
    courts have recognized that the policy ``makes a crucial distinction
    between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of
    opinion.'' As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if
    it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news
    report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not
    actionable.
        The fear of an FCC investigation or threats to revoke a license
    will chill free speech because they likely cause the license holder to
    instruct their employees to ``be careful'' or ``not provoke'' the
    Administration. This is because revoking a broadcaster's license will
    end the broadcaster's business, including the provision of local news,
    as it cannot broadcast without a license. Additionally, litigation can
    be financially debilitating even if the broadcaster ultimately
    prevails.

        Question 2. Is there statutory authority or legal precedent for the
    FCC to revoke broadcast licenses because a station reported on law
    enforcement activity?
        Answer. No. The Commission's authority to revoke broadcast licenses
    is constrained by the First Amendment and Section 326 of the
    Communications Act, which specifically prohibits the Commission from
    censoring broadcasts.

        Question 3. As a member of the USF Working Group, I'm interested in
    how we can ensure people not only have access to a reliable Internet
    connection, but that they can also afford it. What parts of the
    Affordable Connectivity Program were successful, and what should
    Congress consider when reforming Lifeline, the affordability component
    in USF?
        Answer. Affordability has been one of my top priorities since I
    became a Commissioner over two years ago. The Universal Service Fund
    (USF) is a key part of ensuring both access and affordability. The USF
    has become all the more important in the absence of funding for the
    Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). The USF must be reformed to
    ensure long-term sustainability of the fund and its programs.
        The ACP was the most successful tool our country has ever had to
    address the digital divide. There are a few aspects of ACP that the USF
    Working Group should consider adding to the Lifeline program as it
    develops a proposal. The Lifeline support amount was set at a level
    sufficient to support plain old telephone service and is simply
    insufficient for broadband. While Lifeline provides a crucial benefit,
    $9 a month is not enough for families struggling to afford broadband.
    This subsidy should be increased to match the ACP's offering of $30 per
    month per household.
        Further, many broadband providers currently do not qualify for
    Lifeline support because they are not considered ``Eligible
    Telecommunications Carriers.'' This requirement stands in the way of
    more providers being able to offer an affordability support to the
    consumers that need it.
        And most importantly, any reforms made to the USF contributions
    base should not increase costs for consumers.

        Question 4. How do demand-side support programs ensure the success
    of broadband deployment programs like BEAD?
        Answer. When it comes to broadband, access is only one piece of the
    puzzle. Affordability and digital literacy are the others. The pandemic
    highlighted the importance of affordability, a lesson we cannot forget
    now. Failure to ensure affordability would disproportionately impact
    those who need connectivity the most, deepening economic and social
    inequalities. And to participate in the AI economy, digital literacy
    skills will be paramount.
        Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Congress invested
    billions of dollars in broadband infrastructure. Now, support for
    affordability and digital literacy are key to ensuring that this
    massive investment in infrastructure is put to its best use. Even if we
    build the fastest, most efficient network we possibly could, our
    efforts to close the digital divide will fall flat without support for
    affordability and digital literacy. And without this support, we risk
    having stranded investments and an unsustainable network. For these
    reasons, demand-side support programs are a crucial complement to BEAD.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 Congress
    set the national audience reach cap to 39 percent. Congress set this
    limit, not the Federal Communications Commission, yet recently the FCC
    sought comment on whether to modify the national ownership cap. In
    November, President Trump posted on Truth Social said he ``would not be
    happy'' if the FCC lifted the national ownership cap to ``allow the
    Radical Left Networks to `enlarge' ''. Does the FCC or Congress have
    the power to raise the national ownership cap?
        Answer. Only Congress has the power to raise the national ownership
    cap. As you correctly note, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004
    (2004 CAA) set the national audience reach cap at 39 percent and did
    not provide the Commission with authority to modify the cap.
        The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created both an initial national
    audience reach cap and a process that required the Commission to
    consider whether such cap continued to be in the public interest. In
    2003 the Commission raised the national audience reach cap to 45
    percent as part of the required review. In response, in the 2004 CAA,
    Congress modified the relevant sections of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996 in three key respects. First, it directed the national audience
    reach cap be set to 39 percent in the Commission's rules. Second, it
    removed review of the national audience reach cap from the required,
    now quadrennial, review. Finally, it prohibited the Commission from
    forbearing from the national audience reach cap. The forbearance
    prohibition language makes clear that the other two actions, lowering
    the audience reach cap and removing it from the established review
    process, were intended to prohibit the Commission from modifying or
    otherwise relaxing the 39 percent audience reach cap.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to

                                 Anna M. Gomez
        Question 1. Commissioner Gomez, Chairman Carr ended the FCC's
    promotion of DEI in January, 2025. Since then, the FCC has approved
    mergers and major transactions conditioned on companies eliminating
    internal DEI programs, an approach Chairman Carr has publicly
    celebrated. DEI initiatives have long supported opportunities for
    women, veterans, people with disabilities, and religious minorities.
    Veteran hiring preferences in the Federal government are one clear
    example.
        Commissioner Gomez, can you explain how conditioning FCC approvals
    on the elimination of DEI programs undermines job opportunities and
    weakens America's long-term economic competitiveness?
        Answer. Conditioning FCC approvals on the elimination of voluntary
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs risks undermining job
    opportunities by discouraging lawful, good-faith efforts to promote
    fair access to employment and to recruit from the broadest possible
    pool of qualified workers. Diversity and inclusion initiatives are
    fundamentally about fairness and equal opportunity, and many companies
    adopt them voluntarily to reduce barriers and reflect the communities
    they serve. When companies are pressured to abandon such efforts as a
    prerequisite for regulatory approval, particularly without any finding
    of unlawful conduct or failure to meet a defined public interest
    obligation, it sends a troubling signal and chills legitimate workplace
    practices.
        This approach also raises concerns about the appropriate scope of
    the Commission's transaction review authority and its implications for
    long-term economic competitiveness. Using FCC approval processes to
    influence internal workplace policies unrelated to the transaction at
    hand introduces uncertainty, deters investment, and risks politicizing
    routine regulatory decisions.

                                      [all]