[Senate Report 116-66]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                     Calendar No. 164
116th Congress      }                                     {    Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                     {    116-66
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


ELIMINATE FROM REGULATORS OPPORTUNITIES TO NATIONALIZE THE INTERNET IN 
                           EVERY RESPECT ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                 S. 918





[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]










                 July 25, 2019.--Ordered to be printed 
                
                               ______
	 		 
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
		 		 
89-010                      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. 164
116th Congress      }                                     {    Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session        }                                     {    116-66

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



 
ELIMINATE FROM REGULATORS OPPORTUNITIES TO NATIONALIZE THE INTERNET IN 
                           EVERY RESPECT ACT

                                _______
                                

                 July 25, 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. 918]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 918) to prohibit the President 
or a Federal agency from constructing, operating, or offering 
wholesale or retail services on broadband networks without 
authorization from Congress, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    S. 918 would prohibit the President or any Federal agency 
from creating or operating a wholesale or retail broadband 
network. It also would task the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) with conducting a study on the vulnerabilities of 
U.S. broadband networks to foreign threats.

                          Background and Needs

    American leadership in fourth generation (4G) mobile 
technology--mobile broadband service allowing high-speed, high-
definition video--is credited by one major U.S. wireless trade 
association with a $100 billion increase in annual GDP in 2016, 
an increase in total wireless-related jobs of 84 percent 
between 2011 and 2014, and ``$125 billion in revenue to 
American companies that could have gone elsewhere if the U.S. 
hadn't seized 4G leadership.''\1\ The U.S. wireless industry 
notes that these benefits are a result of private-sector 
investment in developing and deploying this technology. Federal 
Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has stated, ``[t]he 
lesson of 4G is that ultimately Americans benefited from the 
free-market approach.''\2\ Today, ``America's wireless industry 
supports over 4.7 million jobs and contributes $475 billion 
annually to the economy.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\``How America's 4G Leadership Propelled the U.S. Economy, Recon 
Analytics'', at 1 (https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/
Recon-Analytics_How-Americas-4G-Leadership-
Propelled-US-Economy_2018.pdf).
    \2\Dean DeChiaro, ``Nationalization question hangs over White 
House's 5G Announcement'', Roll Call, Apr. 15, 2019 (https://
www.rollcall.com/news/policy/nationalization-question-hangs-white-
houses-5g-announcement).
    \3\``The Global Race to 5G, CTIA'', at 4 (https://api.ctia.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Race-to-5G-Report.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some parties have suggested that the Nation would benefit 
from the Federal Government taking the lead in the deployment 
of fifth generation (5G) wireless networks.\4\ They have argued 
that the unique nature of 5G networks and their potential 
eventual use in nearly all facets of the U.S. economy warrant a 
secure, centralized network. These groups also argue that a 
centralized network would have greater speed to market. Many 
stakeholder groups oppose these contentions, citing the success 
the United States has had with the private model of wireless 
deployment.\5\ These groups also note that U.S. wireless 
carriers already are in the process of deploying 5G throughout 
the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Id.
    \5\David Shepardson, ``Trump team idea to nationalize 5G network to 
counter China is rejected'', Reuters, Jan. 29, 2018 (https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-5g-fcc/trump-team-idea-to-
nationalize-5g-network-to-counter-china-is-rejected-idUSKBN1FI1T2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This bill would express Congress's disagreement with the 
proponents of the Federal Government establishing its own 5G 
(and other broadband) networks to provide wholesale or retail 
service to consumers, and in so doing, would promote continued 
private sector investment, deployment, and innovation in wired 
and wireless broadband.
    This bill also would require that GAO study the potential 
threats facing United States broadband networks from China, 
Iran, Russia, and any other potential foreign adversary; and 
the risks associated with using foreign equipment and services 
in U.S. broadband networks. This report is necessary given 
concerns over threats to the security of mobile networks. 
Although mobile technology provides enormous benefits for 
consumers and the American economy, ``what is good for 
consumers is also good for intelligence services and 
cyberattackers.''\6\ A 2012 House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence report found that ``the risks associated with [two 
Chinese companies'] provision of equipment to U.S. critical 
infrastructure could undermine core U.S. national-security 
interests,''\7\ and encouraged U.S. network providers and 
systems developers ``to seek other vendors for their 
projects.''\8\ Indeed, security concerns related to wireless 
networks have been highlighted in the United Kingdom, and New 
Zealand and Australia have barred one Chinese company's 
equipment from their mobile networks.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\``In 5G Race with China, U.S. Pushes Allies to Fight Huawei'', 
New York Times, Jan. 26, 2019 (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/
politics/huawei-china-us-5g-technology.html).
    \7\``Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues 
Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE'', Report 
by Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, at vi, October 8, 2012 
(https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9762611).
    \8\Id. at vi.
    \9\``What is Huawei, and why the arrest of its CFO matters'', CNN 
Business, Dec. 9, 2018 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/tech/what-is-
huawei/index.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Summary of Provisions

    If enacted, S. 918 would do the following:
   Prohibit the President and Federal agencies from 
        constructing, operating, or offering wholesale or 
        retail service on a broadband network, without 
        authorization from Congress signed into law by the 
        President.
   Require GAO to conduct a study on the 
        vulnerabilities of broadband networks in the United 
        States to foreign threats.

                          Legislative History

    S. 918, the E-FRONTIER Act, was introduced on March 27, 
2019, by Senator Ted Cruz (for himself and Senator Cortez-
Masto) and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate. On April 3, 2019, the 
Committee met in open Executive Session and, by voice vote, 
ordered S. 918 reported favorably with an amendment offered by 
Senator Markey, which also was adopted by voice vote.
    This bill is identical to S. 3255, as amended, which was 
introduced by Senator Cruz (for himself and Senator Cortez-
Masto) during the 115th Congress.
    The House version of this bill, H.R. 2063, was introduced 
on April 3, 2019, by Representative Tony Cardenas (for himself 
and Representatives Brooks, Vela, and Banks), and was referred 
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives.

                            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. 918 would prohibit the President or federal agencies 
from constructing, operating, or offering wholesale or retail 
service on a broadband network unless an act of Congress 
provides the authority to do so. In addition, the bill would 
require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a 
study on the potential threats facing U.S. broadband networks 
from certain foreign countries and adversaries and to report to 
the Congress on methods to reduce the vulnerabilities of those 
networks.
    Based on the cost of similar activities, CBO estimates that 
the study and report would cost less than $500,000. Any 
spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriations.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is David Hughes. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    Because S. 918 does not create any new programs, the 
legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and will 
result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation 
will have no further effect on the number or types of 
individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of 
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals, 
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses. 
The bill would direct the Government Accountability Office to 
prepare a report to Congress on U.S. broadband network 
vulnerabilities.

                   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 ``Eliminate From Regulators Opportunities to Nationalize 
The Internet In Every Respect Act'' or the ``E-FRONTIER Act''.

Section 2. Prohibition against the President or a Federal agency 
        constructing, operating, or offering services on broadband 
        networks.

    Subsection (a) of this section defines four terms for 
purposes of this section. The following definition included in 
subsection (a) is of particular importance:

Broadband Network.--The term ``broadband network'' means a 
communications network, the primary purpose of which is to 
provide consumers with the capability to transmit data to and 
receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints. 
This definition expressly includes a next-generation mobile 
broadband network.

    Subsection (b) of this section would prohibit the President 
and Federal agencies from constructing, operating, or offering 
wholesale or retail service on a broadband network, unless a 
duly enacted Act of Congress signed into law by the President 
provides the authority to take such an action.
    The Committee intends for the prohibition on constructing 
and operating a broadband network also to cover situations 
where the Federal Government contracts with, or creates a 
partnership with, a private sector entity to construct or 
operate such a network, or otherwise takes steps (such as 
leasing or allowing access to wireless spectrum otherwise 
allocated to the Federal Government) that directly facilitate 
the construction of such a network by another private sector 
entity.
    Subsection (c) of this section sets forth five rules of 
construction limiting the prohibition in subsection (b). First, 
subsection (b) would not limit, restrict, or circumvent the 
implementation of the nationwide public safety broadband 
network, operated by the First Responder Network Authority, or 
any rules implementing that network. Second, subsection (b) 
would not affect the authority granted to the President under 
section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934.\10\ Third, 
subsection (b) would not prevent an agency from providing 
another agency with access to a broadband network. Fourth, 
subsection (b) would not prevent a private entity from 
obtaining access to a broadband network at a facility owned or 
operated by the Federal Government, but only if such entity is 
under contract to provide services at that facility. Finally, 
subsection (b) would not affect the authority of the Federal 
Communications Commission under the Communications Act of 
1934.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\47 U.S.C. 606.
    \11\47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3. Report on vulnerabilities of United States broadband 
        networks.

    Subsection (a) of this section defines two terms used in 
the section.
    Subsection (b) of this section would require that the 
Comptroller General of the United States conduct a study and 
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress (as defined in 
subsection (a) of this section) a report on vulnerabilities of 
U.S. broadband networks. That study and report must include the 
following: (1) a discussion and analysis of the potential 
threats facing United States broadband networks from China, 
Iran, Russia, and any other potential foreign adversary of the 
United States; (2) a discussion and analysis of the risks 
associated with using foreign equipment and services in U.S. 
broadband networks; and (3) recommendations, if any, on how 
service providers can reduce vulnerabilities in their U.S. 
broadband networks to foreign threats. The report must be 
submitted within 180 days of enactment of the E-FRONTIER Act.

                        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]