[Senate Report 116-162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                      Calendar No. 311
116th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                   {      116-162
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

             BROADBAND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACT OF 2019

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 1294

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


               November 21, 2019.--Ordered to be printed 
                               __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                      
99-010                     WASHINGTON : 2019 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                     one hundred sixteenth congress
                             first session

                 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas                      RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah                       JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
                       John Keast, Staff Director
               David Strickland, Minority Staff Director





                                                      Calendar No. 311
116th Congress      }                                   {       Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                   {      116-162

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



 
             BROADBAND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ACT OF 2019

                                _______
                                

               November 21, 2019.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1294]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 1294) to require Federal 
agencies with jurisdiction over broadband deployment to enter 
into an interagency agreement related to certain types of 
funding for broadband deployment, having considered the same, 
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that 
the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    S. 1294 would require the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), and the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) to enter into an interagency 
agreement requiring coordination and information sharing 
between the agencies for the distribution of funds for 
broadband deployment under certain programs.

                          Background and Needs

    Over the past decade, several agencies have administered 
programs designed to promote broadband deployment in rural 
areas. The FCC currently funds rural broadband initiatives 
through its Connect America Fund programs, and the RUS at the 
USDA supports broadband deployment through loans, loan 
guarantees, and grants. The NTIA previously provided broadband 
deployment grants through the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program (BTOP), but that program has now lapsed.
    These agencies presently are not required to coordinate 
their funding decisions. As a result, funding from the programs 
is sometimes spent overbuilding areas that already have 
broadband service or will be served by a project funded by 
another agency. At a recent hearing, broadband providers 
offered examples of duplicative overbuilds by competitors using 
Federal dollars, some from multiple agencies.\1\ One witness at 
that hearing argued that such overbuilding ``can be wasteful at 
best, and perhaps even destructive, when the government is 
subsidizing one of the providers.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See, e.g., The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural America: 
Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 
Innovation, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Senate, Mar. 12, 2019, webcast (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/3/the-impact-of-
broadband-investments-in-rural-america) (testimony of Justin Forde, 
senior director of government relations, Midcontinent Communications) 
(``[T]here have been some areas where we've even been triple-dipped on 
from companies where they've used universal service fees, Connect 
America funds, and USDA loans to overbuild areas where we already 
provided deep service ... .''); id. (``[T]here was a recent example 
where we had provided gig service in an area and a competitor was able 
to get a USDA loan, Universal Service Funds and Connect America funds, 
to overbuild us in that area ... .''); id. (testimony of Denny Law, 
CEO, Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.) (``I recall 
talking with people who received grants from the Department of 
Commerce, BTOP Program many years ago. They were very proud of the fact 
that they were overbuilding and they were doing it because that's where 
the customers were.'').
    \2\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Dr. Mark Jamison, visiting scholar, American 
Enterprise Institute).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Federal funds are spent overbuilding an area, less 
support is available for other areas--which many believe 
undermines the purpose of these programs. A Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report examining past broadband 
deployment programs found that ``NTIA and RUS lack[ed] detailed 
data on the availability of broadband service throughout the 
country, making it difficult to determine whether a proposed 
service area is unserved or underserved.''\3\ A separate study 
found that ``more than 85 percent of households in the three 
[RUS] project areas [studied] are already passed by existing 
cable broadband, DSL, and/or fixed wireless broadband 
providers. In one of the project areas, more than 98 percent of 
households are already passed by at least one of these 
modalities.''\4\ And finally, one provider testified to the 
Committee that ``at least in the past, the RUS broadband loan 
program resulted in overbuilding of served areas rather than 
reaching unserved areas.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Government Accountability Office, GAO 10-823, Recovery Act: 
Further Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Oversight of Broadband 
Stimulus Programs at 2 (2010) (https://www.gao.gov/assets/310/
308512.pdf).
    \4\Jeffrey A. Eisenach & Kevin W. Caves, Examining the Cost-
Effectiveness of RUS Broadband Subsidies: Three Case Studies, Navigant 
Economics, Apr. 13, 2011 (https://prodnet.www.
neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/41311rus.pdf).
    \5\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Justin Forde).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overbuilding is especially harmful for unserved rural 
Americans. Some providers who receive Federal subsidies focus 
their deployment on rural areas that already have multiple 
providers. For example, until the Agriculture Improvement Act 
of 2018, the RUS program only required 15 percent of an 
applicant's targeted service area to be unserved to receive an 
RUS grant or loan, meaning the remaining 85 percent of the area 
could already have broadband service. As a result, a number of 
rural areas were left unserved, despite the fact that these 
areas were the intended targets of the RUS grants or loans. 
Although RUS's requirements have changed,\6\ the possibility 
that Federal dollars go to areas already served by multiple 
competitors instead of unserved rural areas remains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, section 
6201 (increasing from 15 percent to 90 percent the share of households 
in a proposed service area that must be unserved for broadband projects 
funded by RUS grants, loan/grant combinations, loans with subsidized 
interest rates, and payment assistance loans; and increasing 15 percent 
to 50 percent the share of households in a proposed service area that 
must be unserved for broadband projects funded by RUS loans or loan 
guarantees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many have suggested that better interagency coordination on 
broadband deployment funding should help prevent 
overbuilding.\7\ One provider recommended formalizing 
coordination, because without it, ``there will be gaps or there 
will be overlaps.''\8\ Another provider testified before the 
Committee that, ``[w]e have to have that coordination to 
prevent [overbuilding]. Otherwise, we're going to still have 
areas that are not going to be able to get broadband 
service.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\See, e.g., Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solutions: Hearing 
Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senate, 
Apr. 10, 2019, webcast (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/2019/4/broadband-mapping-challenges-and-solutions) (testimony 
of Chairman Roger F. Wicker) (``Increased coordination and information 
sharing would . . . assure Federal funds are targeted to unserved 
areas.'').
    See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural America 
(testimony of Senator John Thune) (``I have repeatedly said that 
coordination between these particular programs is essential if we're 
truly going to reach areas lacking sufficient access to broadband.''); 
id. (testimony of Senator Amy Klobuchar) (``[W]e know there's a lot of 
different funding sources designed to support broadband build-outs in 
rural areas, FCC, USDA, and while these programs all help reduce the 
digital divide, it's crucial they're working effectively together.''); 
id. (testimony of Denny Law, CEO, Golden West Telecommunications 
Cooperative, Inc.) (``[A] continued focus on coordination among Federal 
agencies is critical. It is essential to avoid the prospect for dueling 
Federal support programs and networks built in rural areas that cannot 
sustain either one without the assistance of Federal programs.''); id. 
(testimony of Justin Forde) (``[A]ll relevant agencies must coordinate 
with each other to avoid overbuilding.'').
    \8\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Denny Law).
    \9\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Justin Forde).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Information sharing, particularly regarding which areas are 
served and unserved, is believed to be an essential component 
of this coordination process.\10\ This information sharing 
should include information on project milestones, completion of 
required buildouts, and interim and final deployments.\11\ 
Sharing such information, according to one witness who 
testified before the Committee, will ``ensure that subsequent 
rounds of funding are not inadvertently used to overbuild hard-
earned progress.''\12\ It also has the added benefit of 
ensuring that ``the government as a whole is efficiently 
tackling the problem and not potentially working at cross 
purposes.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Carol Mattey, principal, Mattey Consulting LLC) 
(stating that agencies need to ``share information and specifically 
they need to share real information.'').
    \11\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Justin Forde).
    \12\Id.
    \13\See, hearing, The Impact of Broadband Investments in Rural 
America (testimony of Carol Mattey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    S. 1294 would do the following:
           Require the FCC, RUS, and NTIA to enter into 
        an interagency agreement requiring coordination and 
        information sharing between the agencies regarding the 
        distribution of funds for broadband deployment.
           Designate the FCC as the entity primarily 
        responsible for coordinating information sharing among 
        the agencies, and storing and maintaining access to 
        broadband deployment data.
           Direct the FCC to seek public comment on the 
        effectiveness of the agreement, with a report to 
        Congress on those comments.

                          Legislative History

    S. 1294 was introduced on May 2, 2019, by Senator Wicker 
(for himself and Senator Klobuchar) and was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate. Senators Young and Baldwin are additional cosponsors. 
On May 15, 2019, the Committee met in open Executive Session 
and, by voice vote, ordered S. 1294 reported favorably without 
amendment.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    S. 1294 would require the Federal Communication Commission 
(FCC), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 
enter into an interagency agreement to coordinate how federal 
funding for the deployment of broadband internet technologies 
is distributed. The agreement would cover data and information 
sharing among those agencies. As the group's coordinator, the 
FCC would be required to seek public comment on the agreement's 
effectiveness; it also would be required to evaluate public 
comments and submit a report to the Congress.
    Using information from agencies that would be involved in 
the agreement, CBO expects that implementing S. 1294 would cost 
$1 million over the 2019-2024 period. Costs would stem from 
creating the agreement, managing and sharing broadband data, 
and coordinating data sharing requests. Because the FCC is 
authorized under current law to collect fees sufficient to 
offset the appropriated costs of its regulatory activities each 
year, CBO estimates that the net cost to the FCC would be 
negligible, assuming appropriation actions consistent with that 
authority. CBO expects that spending by USDA and NTIA would 
total around $1 million over the next five years, subject to 
the availability of appropriated funds.
    S. 1294 also would require that the FCC's High Cost program 
administered through the Universal Service Fund (USF) share 
certain information with USDA and NTIA. The High Cost program, 
designed to expand broadband service in remote and underserved 
communities, is funded by revenues collected from 
telecommunications providers under permanent statutory 
authority. The revenues are available to be spent on authorized 
purposes without further appropriation. CBO expects that 
implementing the data sharing agreement mandated by S. 1294 
would have a negligible net effect on USF's revenues and direct 
spending.
    If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the 
costs of implementing provisions in the bill, S. 1294 would 
increase the cost of an existing private-sector mandate on 
entities required to pay those fees. Using information from the 
FCC, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate 
would be small--less than $400,000 annually--and would fall 
well below the annual threshold established in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act for private-sector mandates ($164 million 
in 2019, adjusted annually for inflation).
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are David Hughes 
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The 
estimate was reviewed by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

    S. 1294, as reported, would not create any new programs or 
impose any new regulatory requirements. Therefore, it would not 
subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations.

                            economic impact

    S. 1294, as reported, is not expected to have a negative 
impact on the Nation's economy.

                                privacy

    S. 1294, as reported, would not have any adverse impact on 
the personal privacy of individuals.

                               paperwork

    S. 1294, as reported, would not increase paperwork 
requirements for private individuals or businesses. The bill 
directs the FCC to file a report to Congress on the results of 
the comments filed in response to the proceeding on the 
effectiveness of the interagency agreement required by the 
bill. To the extent the bill increases paperwork burdens, 
though, it is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of various 
broadband deployment programs by preventing unnecessary 
overbuilding.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

    This section would provide that the bill may be cited as 
the ``Broadband Interagency Coordination Act of 2019''.

Section 2. Interagency agreement

    Subsection (a) of this section would define the key terms 
``covered agency'' and ``high-cost programs'' as they are used 
in section 2. The term covered agency, in particular, includes 
only the FCC, USDA, and NTIA.
    Subsection (b) would direct the covered agencies to enter 
into an interagency agreement within 180 days of enactment 
requiring coordination for the distribution of funds for new 
broadband deployment projects. The agreement would cover the 
FCC's high-cost programs, RUS programs, and NTIA programs. 
Although NTIA does not currently provide funding for broadband 
deployment, it has in the past, and the intent of its inclusion 
here is to bind the agency to the interagency agreement should 
it provide such funding in the future.
    Subsection (c) of this section would provide that the 
interagency agreement covers the sharing of information about 
existing or planned broadband deployment projects that have 
received or will receive funding through the relevant programs. 
Upon a specific request, covered agencies also would be 
required to share information with one another about: (1) 
entities providing broadband service provided in a project 
area; (2) the levels of broadband service provided in the 
project area; (3) the geographic scope of broadband service 
coverage in the project area; and (4) each entity that has 
received or will receive funds from programs covered by the Act 
in the project area. If one agency designates as confidential 
any information provided to another agency, the receiving 
agency would be required to protect the confidentiality of that 
information, consistent with the confidentiality protections 
for such information established by the initial agency.
    Subsection (c) also would designate the FCC as the entity 
primarily responsible for coordinating among the agencies and 
storing and maintaining access to deployment data. It would 
further direct the covered agencies to consider basing the 
distribution of broadband deployment funds in the relevant 
programs on standardized data. Finally, subsection (c) would 
require that the agreement be updated periodically, except that 
the scope of the agreement with respect to the FCC cannot 
expand beyond the high-cost programs.
    Subsection (d) of this section would require that, not 
later than 1 year after entering into the interagency 
agreement, the FCC seek public comment on: (1) its 
effectiveness; (2) the availability of Tribal, State, and local 
broadband deployment data and the inclusion of that data in 
interagency coordination; and (3) potential modifications to 
the agreement. Not later than 18 months after enactment of the 
Act, the FCC would have to review and assess the comments filed 
with the agency under this subsection, and submit a report to 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives detailing findings and recommendations from 
that assessment.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the 
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.

                                  [all]