Strengthening Our Communications Networks to Meet the Needs of Consumers (Hearing, 2021)
Summary
The printed record of a hybrid hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, dated October 6, 2021 (Serial No. 117-51), on strengthening communications networks to meet the needs of consumers. Opening statements are listed for Hon. Mike Doyle, Hon. Robert E. Latta, Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr. and Hon. Richard Hudson; Doyle says the subcommittee is reviewing proposals its Members have authored. Witnesses are Tim Donovan of the Competitive Carriers Association, John Fogle of the National League of Cities, Todd Brandenburg of PocketiNet Communications, Inc. and Cheryl A. Leanza of the United Church of Christ. Submitted material includes H.R. 1042, the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Strengthening Our Communications Networks to Meet the Needs of Consumers (Hearing, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-strengthening-our-communications-networks-f760ff67ac/
, SHA-256 eb575ca88ca70d68402f908b48a470c6b291d1af6698d5d13646147526fc9ed6.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
CONSUMERS
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-51
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-446 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 9
Hon. Lizzie Fletcher, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement................................... 10
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina, opening statement........................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Tim Donovan, Senior Vice President, Legislative Affairs,
Competitive Carriers Association............................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 140
John Fogle, Councilmember, City of Loveland, Colorado, and Chair,
Information Technology and Communications Committee, National
League of Cities............................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Todd Brandenburg, President, PocketiNet Communications, Inc...... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Advisor, Office of Communications, Inc.,
United Church of Christ........................................ 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Submitted Material
H.R. 1042, the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act \1\
H.R. 1046, the Federal Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas Act
\1\
H.R. 1049, the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews
Act \1\
H.R. 1058, the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act
\1\
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act \1\
H.R. 2489, the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act \1\
H.R. 2501, the Spectrum Coordination Act \1\
H.R. 4208, the Section 331 Obligation Clarification Act \1\
H.R. 5028, the ISAAC Alerting Act \1\
H.R. 5058, the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act \1\
H.R. 5378, the Spectrum Innovation Act \1\
H.R. 5400, the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds
Act \1\
Letter of October 6, 2021, from Jim Nussle, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Credit Union National Association, to Mr.
Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................... 103
----------
\1\ The proposed legislation has been retained in committee files and
is available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=114108.
Statement of Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., October 6, 2021, submitted
by Mr. Pallone................................................. 105
Statement of Rick Roderick, President, National Association for
Amateur Radio, October 6, 2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle......... 107
Letter of October 5, 2021, from Todd Schlekeway, President and
Chief Executive Officer, NATE: The Communications
Infrastructure Contractors Association, et al., to Mr. Doyle
and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher...................... 113
Letter of September 24, 2021, from Todd Schlekeway, President and
Chief Executive Officer, NATE: The Communications
Infrastructure Contractors Association, et al., to Mrs.
Fletcher, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher........................... 116
Statements of support for H.R. 5058 from CCA, INCOMPAS, and WIA,
August 23, 2021, submitted by Mrs. Fletcher.................... 117
Statement of the March of Dimes by Stacey Brayboy, Senior Vice
President, Public Policy and Government Affairs, October 6,
2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle................................... 119
Letter of October 6, 2021, from ADAPT, et al., to Mr. Doyle and
Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.............................. 121
Letter of October 5, 2021, from Wade Henderson, Interim President
and Chief Executive Officer, and Jesselyn McCurdy, Executive
Vice President of Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 124
Letter of May 20, 2021, from James L. Madara, Chief Executive
Officer and Executive Vice President, American Medical
Association, to Mr. Butterfield, et al., submitted by Mr. Doyle 126
Statement of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, October 6, 2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle......... 128
Letter of October 5, 2021, from J. David Grossman, Executive
Director, GPS Innovation Alliance, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 133
Letter of October 6, 2021, from Jonathan Spalter, President and
Chief Executive Officer, USTelecom, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 137
Article of July 7, 2021, ``New Jersey, media desert,'' by Rep.
Bill Pascrell and Senator Robert Menendez, New York Daily News,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 138
STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
CONSUMERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:00 p.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Mike Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui,
Welch, Schrader, Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher, Pallone (ex
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Guthrie, Long,
Hudson, Mullin, Walberg, Carter, and Curtis.
Also present: Representatives Rush, Dingell, and Griffith.
Staff present: Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer
Epperson, Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; Mackenzie
Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; Joe
Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Chloe
Rodriguez, Deputy Chief Clerk; Johanna Thomas, Counsel; Kate
Arey, Minority Content Manager and Digital Assistant; Sarah
Burke, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron,
Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer Protections and Commerce,
Energy, Environment; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff
Assistant/Policy Analyst; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and
Office Administrator; Jack Heretik, Minority Press Secretary;
Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority
Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily
King, Minority Member Services Director; Bihan Koohmaraie,
Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations Chief
Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer
Protections and Commerce; Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Clare Paoletta,
Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Olivia Shields, Minority
Communications Director; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy
Director; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; and Everett Winnick, Minority
Director of Information Technology.
Mr. Doyle. The committee will now come to order. Today, the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a
hearing entitled ``Strengthening Our Communication Networks to
Meet the Needs of Consumers.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely via
online videoconferencing. Members who are not vaccinated and
participating in person must wear a mask and be socially
distanced. Such Members may remove their mask when they are
under recognition and speaking from a microphone. Staff and
press who are not vaccinated and present in the committee room
must wear a mask at all times and be socially distanced.
For Members participating remotely, your microphones will
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely will need to
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak. Please note
that once you unmute your microphone, anything that is said in
Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers in the committee
room, and subject to be heard by the live stream and C-SPAN.
Since Members are participating from different locations at
today's hearing, all recognition of Members, such as for
questions, will be in the order of subcommittee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the
email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Today's hearing presents us once again with the opportunity
to discuss and debate the communication needs of our Nation,
while reviewing the proposal our Members have authored to meet
those needs.
It is our responsibility on the subcommittee to highlight,
as we have in so many hearings, the issues important to the
people we represent, issues such as access to and the adoption
of broadband, resiliency, media localism, and more. And
imperatively, it is our duty to explore solutions we can
advance to address those issues in a way that makes progress
for the Nation.
On this committee, we have a bipartisan tradition that
recognizes no single party has a monopoly on good ideas. We
consider a large slate of bills specifically before us today.
The 12 bills--six authored by Democrats and six by
Republicans--span the jurisdiction of this subcommittee and
highlight so many issues of importance to Americans.
We have all seen the stark reality, highlighted by the
ongoing pandemic, that broadband is a necessity. We have made
important investments in funding for broadband deployment and
adoption, investments that will help our urban and rural
communities, our students and teachers, and those Americans who
otherwise could not afford a broadband connection.
To that end, we should examine how the proposals under
consideration could speed deployment of wired and wireless
networks and assist localities and broadband providers as they
facilitate buildout to consumers. We should examine how to
ensure incarcerated individuals can remain connected to their
families. We should examine the role of localism in the media,
and we should examine how we can use connectivity to keep us
safe during an emergency.
There are, of course, a few proposals I think deserve
highlighting. For example, I am proud that today we will be
considering the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. We must
give further consideration to enact upon proposals that ensure
that incarcerated population and their families have access to
communications services at a fair and reasonable rate.
Studies have shown that the ability to connect with family
and support reduces recidivism. That means a reduction in crime
and reincarceration. Families should not go into debt to
maintain contact with an incarcerated loved one. I believe
these are goals we can all support.
Perhaps a little more arcane but critically important, we
have to protect the Universal Service Fund from disruption by
extending the Antideficiency Act exemption. This is critical to
connecting rural hospitals, rural homes, schools, libraries,
and providing telehealth and discounted internet and phone
service.
I am also happy to see Mrs. Fletcher's bill before us, a
proposal that aims to treat our local governments as partners,
not adversaries, in the effort to deploy broadband.
And, of course, I am looking forward to hearing our
witnesses' thoughts on the Spectrum Innovation Act, which would
give consumers access to more spectrum leading to faster
speeds, better networks, and new innovative services. Midband
is of critical importance, as this Goldilocks spectrum can
cover substantial geographic areas and handle large amounts of
data.
We have sought unprecedented participation in the CBRS
auction last year, a record-breaking C-band auction earlier
this year, and an auction for the 3.45 band that just started
this week. We should build on those successes, and we should do
so with a process framework that will promote maximum usage of
this valuable band.
Ultimately, this should be a win for the Federal incumbents
of the band, consumers, our economy, and the U.S. Treasury. We
have an excellent panel before us today who will provide
valuable insight into the bills before us and the issues they
seek to address.
I also look forward to the feedback and questions of my
colleagues to ensure that the views of their constituents are
heard throughout this deliberative process. Thank you both to
the witnesses who are speaking with us today and to my
colleagues for their contributions to this hearing and their
thoughtful legislative proposals.
I look forward to continued collaboration on these
important topics, and that concludes my initial remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Today's hearing presents us once again with the opportunity
to discuss and debate the communications needs of our nation
while reviewing the proposals our members have authored to meet
those needs. It is our responsibility on this Subcommittee to
highlight, as we have in so many hearings, the issues important
to the people we represent--issues such as access to and the
adoption of broadband, resiliency, media localism, and more.
And imperatively, it is our duty to explore solutions we can
advance to address those issues in a way that makes progress
for the nation.
On this Committee, we have a bipartisan tradition that
recognizes no single party has a monopoly on good ideas. We
consider a large slate of bills specifically before us today.
The twelve bills, 6 authored by Democrats, 6 by Republicans,
span the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee and highlight so
many issues of importance to Americans.
We all have seen the stark reality highlighted by the
ongoing pandemic that broadband is a necessity. We have made
important investments in funding for broadband deployment and
adoption - investments that will help our urban and rural
communities, our students and teachers, and those Americans who
otherwise could not afford a broadband connection.
To that end, we should examine how the proposals under
consideration could speed deployment of wired and wireless
networks and assist localities and broadband providers as they
facilitate build-out to consumers. We should examine how to
ensure incarcerated individuals can remain connected to their
families. We should examine the role of localism in the media.
And we should examine how we can use connectivity to keep us
safe during an emergency.
There are of course a few proposals I think deserve
highlighting.
For example, I'm proud that today we will be considering
the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. We must give
further consideration to, and act upon, proposals that ensure
the incarcerated population and their families have access to
communication services at fair and reasonable rates. Studies
have shown that the ability to connect with family and support
reduces recidivism. That means a reduction in crime and
reincarceration. Families should not go into debt to maintain
contact with an incarcerated loved one. I believe these are
goals we can all support.
Perhaps a little more arcane, but critically important, we
have to protect the Universal Service Fund from disruption by
extending the anti-deficiency act exemption. This is critical
to connecting rural hospitals, rural homes, schools, libraries,
and providing telehealth and discounted internet and phone
service.
I'm also happy to see Ms. Fletcher's bill before us, a
proposal that aims to treat our local governments as partners,
not adversaries, in the effort to deploy broadband.
And of course I'm looking forward to hearing our witnesses
thoughts on the Spectrum Innovation Act, which would give
consumers access to more spectrum, leading to faster speeds,
better networks, and new innovative services.
Mid-band is of critical importance as this ``goldilocks''
spectrum can both cover substantial geographic areas and handle
large amounts of data. We saw unprecedented participation in
the CBRS auction last year, a record-breaking C-Band auction
earlier this year, and an auction for the 3.45 (three dot four
five) band that started just this week. We should build on
those successes and we should do so with a process framework
that will promote maximum usage of this valuable band.
Ultimately, this should be a win for the federal incumbents of
the band, consumers, our economy, and the U.S. Treasury.
We have an excellent panel before us today who will provide
valuable insight into the bills before us and the issues they
seek to address. I also look forward to the feedback and
questions of my colleagues to ensure the views of their
constituents are heard throughout this deliberative process.
Thank you to both the witnesses who are speaking with us
today, and to my colleagues for their contributions to this
hearing and their thoughtful legislative proposals. I look
forward to continued collaboration on these important topics.
Mr. Doyle. So the Chair will now recognize my good friend,
the ranking member for the Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, I thank my friend for today's hearing, and
also for our witnesses for appearing before us today. It has
been nearly 100 days since this subcommittee has held a
hearing, and I am glad we are back to discuss some important
issues within the communication and technology jurisdiction.
For over a decade, expanding broadband access has been a
shared bipartisan goal. We have enacted landmark legislation to
improve our broadband availability and mapping tools, took
steps to streamline Federal broadband deployment, and worked
together to ensure Americans did not lose service during the
COVID-19 pandemic. All this was done with thoughtful input from
Republicans and Democrats alike.
Yet, on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation investment in
broadband, as the President calls it, our committee, and in
particular this subcommittee, has been absent. We have held no
hearings to examine communication provisions included in the
Senate infrastructure bill that is being discussed among House
leadership. We have also held no markups to consider
improvements, despite a partisan bill on today's hearing that
aims to improve portions in the Senate bill.
In addition to the disappointment of not having input on
the Senate infrastructure bill, we have not heard directly from
the agencies on how they plan to implement this funding should
Congress provide it to them.
NTIA and the FCC, both agencies that this committee has
oversight, stand to receive tens of billions of dollars between
the Senate infrastructure bill and the partisan reconciliation
bill, yet, we have not had either agency before this committee
to testify under this administration.
We are missing an opportunity to deliver a truly bipartisan
success for the American people that reflects the expertise and
experience of this committee's members to close the digital
divide once and for all. So today, we will examine the missed
opportunities as a subcommittee and prepare for the hard work
of understanding the shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure
bill.
Earlier this year, Republicans introduced the Boosting
Broadband Connectivity Agenda to remove regulatory barriers to
broadband deployment, and I am pleased to see four bills from
that agenda on today's hearing: Mr. Curtis' Federal Broadband
Deployment in Unserved Areas Act would map Federal facilities
that can support broadband infrastructure in unserved areas;
Mr. Duncan's Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews
Act would expedite and prioritize reviews for requests to
deploy broadband on Federal land; Mr. Kinzinger's Wireless
Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act would make it easier to
invest in network resiliency; and Mr. Bucshon's Protecting
Critical Infrastructure Act would establish a 2-year prison
term for anyone who maliciously destroys a communications
facility.
While it is disappointing that we are not considering all
of the bills included in our package, this is a good first
step.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention the other bills
on today's hearing that, despite being historically bipartisan
issues, have been unnecessarily injected with partisanship.
The chairman's Spectrum Innovation Act takes meaningful
steps to improve the auction of lower 3-gigahertz spectrum that
was included in the Senate infrastructure bill. However, this
bill did not have the opportunity to receive Republican input
before it was placed in the partisan reconciliation tool as
part of the Democrats' $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree.
H.R. 5400 extends the Antideficiency Act exemption for the
Universal Service Fund, conveniently through the first term of
the Biden administration's FCC Chair, who still remains
unknown. Yet this subcommittee has not held an FCC oversight
hearing after giving record-level funding to the FCC through
partisan reconciliation spending with no confirmed share.
And then we have H.R. 4208, another attempt by the
Democrats to disregard the First Amendment by this time telling
broadcast agencies what type of news programming to distribute.
Mr. Chairman, the breadth and significance of these bills
demand much more than a last-minute legislative hearing,
including additional hearings on the individual topics we are
covering today. We have certainly had time over the last
several months to hold substantive hearings on the topics
contemplated in this legislation. I would urge you to do so
before the committee meets to consider reporting these bills to
the floor.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you very much for today's
hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. It
has been nearly 100 days since this subcommittee has held a
hearing, and I am glad we are back to discuss some important
issues within the communications and technology jurisdiction.
For over a decade, expanding broadband access has been a
shared, bipartisan goal. We have enacted landmark legislation
to improve our broadband availability mapping tools, taken
steps to streamline Federal broadband deployment, and worked
together to ensure Americans did not lose service during the
COVID-19 pandemic. And it was done with thoughtful input from
Republicans and Democrats alike.
Yet on the cusp of a ``once-in-a-generation investment'' in
broadband, as the President calls it, our committee, and in
particular this subcommittee, has been absent. We have held no
hearings to examine the communications provisions included in
the Senate infrastructure bill that is being discussed among
House leadership. We have also held no markups to consider
improvements, despite a partisan bill on today's hearing that
aims to improve portions of the Senate bill.
In addition to the disappointment of not having input on
the Senate infrastructure bill, we have not heard directly from
the agencies on how they plan to implement this funding should
Congress provide it to them. NTIA and the FCC, both agencies
that this committee oversees, stand to receive tens of billions
of dollars between the Senate infrastructure bill and the
partisan Reconciliation bill, yet we have not had either agency
before this committee to testify under this Administration.
We are missing an opportunity to deliver a truly,
bipartisan success for the American people that reflects the
expertise and experience of this Committee's members to close
the digital divide once and for all.
So today, we will examine the missed opportunities of this
Subcommittee and prepare for the hard work of understanding the
shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure bill.
Earlier this year, Republicans introduced the Boosting
Broadband Connectivity Agenda to help remove regulatory
barriers to broadband deployment, and I am pleased to see four
bills from that agenda on today's hearing. Mr. Curtis's Federal
Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas Act would map Federal
facilities that can support broadband infrastructure in
unserved areas. Mr. Duncan's Expediting Federal Broadband
Deployment Reviews Act would help expedite and prioritize
reviews for requests to deploy broadband on Federal land. Mr.
Kinzinger's Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act
would make it easier to invest in network resiliency. And Mr.
Bucshon's Protecting Critical Infrastructure Act would
establish a two-year prison term for anyone who maliciously
destroys a communications facility. While it is disappointing
that we are not considering all of the bills included in our
package, this is a good first step.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention the other bills
on today's hearing that, despite being historically bipartisan
issues, have been unnecessarily injected with partisanship.
The Chairman's Spectrum Innovation Act takes meaningful
steps to improve the auction of lower 3 gigahertz spectrum that
was included in the Senate infrastructure bill. However, this
bill did not have the opportunity to receive Republican input
before it was stuffed into the partisan reconciliation tool as
part of Democrats' $3.5 trillion dollar tax and spending spree.
H.R. 5400 extends the Anti-Deficiency Act Exemption for the
Universal Service Fund conveniently through the first term of
the Biden Administration's FCC Chair, who remains unknown. Yet
this subcommittee has not held an FCC oversight hearing after
giving record level funding to the FCC through partisan
reconciliation spending, with no confirmed Chair.
And then we have H.R. 4208, another attempt by Democrats to
disregard the First Amendment, this time telling broadcast
stations what type of news programming to distribute.
Mr. Chairman, the breadth and significance of these bills
demands much more than a last-minute legislative hearing,
including additional hearings on the individual topics we are
covering today. We have certainly had the time over the last
several months to hold substantive hearings on the topics
contemplated in this legislation. And I would urge you to do so
before the Committee meets to consider reporting these bills to
the floor.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes for his
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
Communications networks play an integral role in the lives
of our constituents, and today we are going to examine
legislation aimed at strengthening those networks to better
meet the needs of consumers. Today's legislative hearing, as
you mentioned, includes 12 bills, six of them led by Democrats
and the other six by Republicans.
First, I am pleased we will be discussing H.R. 5378, the
Spectrum Innovation Act, which was introduced by Chairman Doyle
and Representative Matsui. This committee has worked for years
to address the increasing demand for spectrum. This legislation
requires making at least 200 megahertz of new midband spectrum
available for auction, as well as requiring the opportunistic
use of those airwaves.
Representatives Hayes and Veasey have introduced H.R. 5400,
the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds Act. This
bill extends the Antideficiency Act exemption on the Federal
Communications Commission's universal service programs until
December 2024. Without this extension, the universal service
programs, including rural broadband, rural healthcare,
telemedicine, E-rate and Lifeline programs may be at risk.
And, as part of this committee's ongoing efforts to reverse
the alarming trends in maternal mortality, we will consider
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act. And this
bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Butterfield,
Bilirakis, and Blunt Rochester requires the FCC to consult with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to integrate
maternal health outcome data into the FCC's broadband maps.
I am also looking forward to discussing Representative
Rush's bill to address predatory phone rates and fees that
target incarcerated people and their families. It is well
documented that connections to friends and family during
incarceration help produce better outcomes for people after
they are released, including lower rates of recidivism.
H.R. 2489, the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act,
would require the FCC to issue rules to limit the costs that
may be charged to incarcerated individuals or their families.
And, finally, I would like to mention H.R. 4208, the
Section 331 Obligation Clarification Act, which was introduced
by Representative Pascrell in series. This legislation aims to
address the lack of local television programming for New Jersey
residents.
So I look forward to discussing today all these bills, that
we continue our bipartisan work to improve connectivity for all
Americans.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Communications networks play an integral role in the lives
of our constituents, and today we are going to examine
legislation aimed at strengthening those networks to better
meet the needs of consumers. Today's legislative hearing
includes 12 bills, six of them led by Democrats and the other
six led by Republicans.
First, I'm pleased we will be discussing H.R. 5378, the
Spectrum Innovation Act, which was introduced by Chairman Doyle
and Representative Matsui. This Committee has worked for years
to address the increasing demand for spectrum. This legislation
requires making at least 200 megahertz of new, mid-band
spectrum available for auction, as well as requiring the
opportunistic use of those airwaves.
Representatives Hayes and Veasey have introduced H.R. 5400,
the Preventing Disruptions to Universal Service Funds Act. This
legislation extends the Antideficiency Act exemption on the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service
programs until December 2024. Without this extension, the
universal service programs including Rural Broadband, Rural
Health Care, Telemedicine, E-Rate, and Lifeline programs may be
at risk.
As part of this Committee's ongoing efforts to reverse the
alarming trends in maternal mortality, we will consider H.R.
1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act. This bipartisan
legislation introduced by Representatives Butterfield,
Bilirakis, and Blunt Rochester requires the FCC to consult with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to integrate
maternal health outcome data into the FCC's broadband maps.
I'm also looking forward to discussing Representative
Rush's bill to address predatory phone rates and fees that
target incarcerated people and their families. It is well
documented that connections to friends and family during
incarceration help produce better outcomes for people after
their release, including lower rates of recidivism. H.R. 2489,
the Martha Wright Prison Phone Justice Act, would require the
FCC to issue rules to limit the costs that may be charged to
incarcerated individuals or their families.
Finally, I'd like to mention H.R. 4208, the Section 331
Obligation Clarification Act, which was introduced by
Representatives Pascrell and Sires. This legislation aims to
address the lack of local television programming for New Jersey
residents.
Mr. Pallone. And I would like to split the remainder of my
time between Representative Matsui and Representative Fletcher.
So I guess I will yield the minute and 15 seconds beginning
with Representative Matsui and then a minute and 15 seconds to
Representative Fletcher.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding
to me. And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for having this hearing.
Recently, I joined Chairman Doyle in introducing the
Spectrum Innovation Act to ensure we are making available as
much spectrum as possible for commercial use while recognizing
the needs of our Federal users.
Our bill lays out a balanced framework for freeing up much-
needed, midband spectrum in the lower 3-gigahertz band. By
requiring 200 megahertz of spectrum to be made available, we
are asserting a clear commitment to winning the race to 5G and
beyond. The bill also creates a path for new, innovative uses
of spectrum through opportunistic and flexible access. This
bill will help ensure that the United States has a healthy
pipeline of spectrum to boost innovation and job creation.
And with that, I yield my time back to Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Doris O. Matsui
Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
Recently, I joined Chairman Doyle in introducing the
Spectrum Innovation Act to ensure we are making available as
much spectrum as possible for commercial use while recognizing
the needs of our federal users.
Our bill lays out a balanced framework for freeing up much
needed mid-band spectrum in the lower 3 gigahertz band.
By requiring 200 megahertz of spectrum to be made
available, we are asserting a clear commitment to winning the
race to 5G and beyond.
The bill also creates a path for new, innovative uses of
spectrum through opportunistic and flexible access.
This bill will help ensure that the United States has a
healthy pipeline of spectrum to boost innovation and job
creation. And with that I yield back my time.
Mr. Pallone. I yield the rest to Representative Fletcher,
Chairman Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields to Congresswoman Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Chairman Pallone.
And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for holding this important
legislative hearing today where we are looking at useful
proposals to help keep our communities connected.
And I am glad that my bill, H.R. 5058, the Broadband
Incentives for Communities Act, is one of the proposals that we
will discuss today. This bill grew out of partnerships in my
community here in Houston where we have learned important
lessons in the effort to build our broadband networks.
And as this committee works to address the digital divide,
which we have seen the impacts of throughout the COVID-19
pandemic across communities across the country, and as Congress
has invested significantly in broadband expansion and is
continuing that work in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, we must ensure that our local governments are prepared to
take advantage of these efforts and these funds.
And my bill does just that. It provides grants to local
governments to support their processing of applications for
broadband deployment. These grants could be used to build
remote or electronic submission portals, or hire additional
staff to process applications, for example.
The program would be voluntary. It would not preempt any
local, zoning, or permitting processes. But it serves to make
sure that these crucial funds are efficiently and effectively
disbursed.
Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Fletcher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lizzie Fletcher
Thank you, Chairman Pallone for yielding to me, and thank
you Chairman Doyle for holding this important legislative
hearing today, where we are looking at useful proposals to help
keep our communities connected.
I am glad that my bill, H.R. 5058, the Broadband Incentives
for Communities Act, is one of the proposals we will discuss
today.
This bill grew out of partnerships in my community in
Houston, where we have learned important lessons in the effort
to build our broadband networks.
As this committee works to address the digital divide--we
have seen its impacts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic across
all communities-and as Congress has invested in significant
broadband expansion and is continuing that work in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we must ensure that our
local governments are prepared to take advantage of these
efforts and funds.
My bill does just that: it provides grants to local
governments to support their processing of applications for
broadband deployment.
These grants could be used to build remote or electronic
submission portals or to hire additional staff to process
applications, for example.
The program would be voluntary and would not preempt any
local zoning or permitting processes.
It simply serves to make sure that these crucial funds are
efficiently and effectively disbursed.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The chairman yields back.
It is the Chair's understanding that Mr. Hudson will be
claiming Chairwoman Rodgers' time. So, Mr. Hudson, you are
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Energy and Commerce Committee and this subcommittee
have a rich history of bipartisanship. We have come together
many times on solutions to tackle tough issues, like securing
our communications supply chain, combating robocalls, and
improving our broadband maps to ensure resources go to the
people who need them most.
We all share the goal to close the digital divide and
ensure all Americans are connected. I have concerns with some
of the proposals today and appreciate the opportunity to hear
from our witnesses and for a robust discussion and debate on
legislation from both sides of the aisle.
My colleagues and I are leading and support solutions to
lift the permitting and regulatory burdens to speed up the
deployment of America's broadband infrastructure. This is the
kind of approach we wanted before the Democrats chose to rush
through reckless levels of funding for proposals that lack the
critical, targeted funding necessary to ensure resources get to
the people who need them.
As we debated in our recent markup, the majority's partisan
go-it-alone agenda has the potential to fuel out-of-control
inflation while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a
partisan wish list. This will not drive results for reliable
broadband in communities like the ones I represent in North
Carolina.
In 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act under President Barack Obama and spent
billions of dollars on broadband through the BTOP. This Federal
funding was not targeted to unserved areas and not based on
accurate broadband maps. Across the country, this led to
wasteful overbuilding.
BTOP was a failure across the Nation, and without changes,
the Senate infrastructure bill and the partisan reconciliation
package is on the same path. This package gives nearly
unlimited discretion to the Assistant Secretary of NTIA and to
States to impose burdensome restrictions on carriers, such as
net-neutrality obligations. It prioritizes funding in areas
which already have access to broadband, which could lead to
overbuilding.
The problem is the market is already in these areas, and if
we are going to spend billions of dollars, then it needs to go
to areas that have no access. From broadband to energy to
nearly every sector that this committee has jurisdiction over,
the Senate infrastructure package lacks any improvement in
today's outdated permitting process and regulations.
Further, at a time when Congress is pushing an
unprecedented billions of dollars of broadband funding with
minimal guardrails to the executive branch, this administration
has yet to even nominate people for the top two most important
jobs for broadband, the Chair of the Federal Communications
Commission and an Assistant Secretary for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. This is the
longest it has taken any President in history to nominate an
FCC Chair.
Earlier this year, my colleagues requested that the Energy
and Commerce Committee hold an FCC oversight hearing, and today
I would like to reiterate that request. We should be leading to
ensure accountability.
We all want to close the digital divide once and for all,
and the people's House should have been allowed to have input
on these massive programs, included on permitting reforms to
spur development, which should have been included in the Senate
infrastructure package.
But the fact remains, this committee didn't write that
bill. The Democrats have taken a go-it-alone partisan approach
to borrow and tax to spend an insane amount of money in their
late package. We should work together in a bipartisan way and
honor the rich history of this committee.
And, finally, since Leader Rodgers is unable to be here, I
am thrilled to give a warm welcome to one of her constituents,
Todd Brandenburg, with PocketiNet, who is testifying before us
today. I look forward to hearing about his good work to deploy
broadband. Welcome to you, sir.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Hudson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Energy and Commerce committee, and this subcommittee,
have a rich history of bipartisanship.
We have come together many times on solutions to tackle
tough issues ...
... like securing our communications supply chain,
combatting robocalls, and improving our broadband maps to
ensure resources go to the people who need them most.
We all share the goal to close the digital divide and
ensure ALL Americans are connected.
I have concerns with some of the proposals today ...
... and appreciate the opportunity for a robust discussion
and debate on legislation from both sides of the aisle.
My colleagues and I are leading and support solutions to
lift the permitting and regulatory burdens so we speed up the
deployment of America's broadband infrastructure.
INFRASTRUCTURE
This is the kind of approach we wanted before Democrats
chose to jam through reckless levels of funding for proposals
that lack the critical, targeted funding necessary to ensure
resources get to the people who need them.
As we debated in our recent markup, the Majority's partisan
agenda has the potential to generate out of control inflation
while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a partisan wish
list.
This will not drive results for reliable broadband in
communities like mine in North Carolina.
BTOP
In 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act under President Obama and spent billions of
dollars on broadband through the BTOP [bee-top].
This federal funding was not targeted to unserved areas and
not based on accurate broadband maps.
Across the country, this led to wasteful overbuilding.
BTOP was a failure across the nation, and without changes,
the Senate infrastructure bill and Reconciliation package is on
the same path.
This package gives nearly unlimited discretion to the
Assistant Secretary of NTIA and states to impose burdensome
restrictions on carriers, like Net Neutrality obligations.
It prioritizes funding in areas which already have access
to broadband, which could lead to overbuilding. The problem is
the market is already in these areas and if we are going to
spend billions of dollars then it needs to go to areas that
have no access.
From broadband, to energy, and nearly every sector that
this committee has jurisdiction over. .the Senate
Infrastructure package lacks any improvements to today's
outdated permitting processes and regulations.
FCC
Further, at a time when Congress is pushing an
unprecedented BILLIONS of dollars of broadband funding, with
minimal guardrails, to the executive branch, this
Administration has yet to even nominate people for the top two
most important jobs for broadband: a Chair of the Federal
Communications Commission.and an Assistant Secretary for the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
This is the longest it has taken any President in HISTORY
to nominate an FCC Chair.
Earlier this year, my colleagues requested that the Energy
and Commerce Committee hold an FCC oversight hearing, and today
I would like to reiterate that request. We should be leading to
ensure accountability.
CONCLUSION
We all want to close the digital divide once and for all,
and the People's House should be allowed to have some input on
these massive programs ...
... including on permitting reforms to spur deployment
which should have been included in the Senate Infrastructure
Package.
But the fact remains that this Committee didn't write that
bill ... and Democrats have taken a go-it-alone, partisan
approach to print and spend an insane amount of money in their
linked-reckless package.
We should work together in a bipartisan way and honor the
rich history of this committee.
Finally, since Leader Rodgers is unable to be here, I'm
thrilled to give a warm welcome to one of her constituents,
Todd Brandenburg with PocketiNet, [pocket-i-net] who is
testifying before us today
I look forward to hearing about his good work to deploy
broadband.
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
be made part of the record.
Now, I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing. First, we have Mr. Tim Donovan, senior vice president,
legislative affairs, with the Competitive Carriers Association;
next, the Honorable John Fogle, councilmember, City of
Loveland, Colorado, National League of Cities Information
Technology and Communications Committee; third, Mr. Todd
Brandenburg, president and CEO of PocketiNet; and last but
certainly not least, Cheryl Leanza, policy adviser, United
Church of Christ, Office of Communications.
We want to thank our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening
statement.
Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system--and hopefully you are able to see this lighting
system--but in front of our witnesses is a series of lights.
The light will initially be green. It will turn yellow when you
have a minute remaining. Please, at that time, wrap up your
testimony. When the light turns red, your time has expired.
So, Mr. Donovan, you will lead it off. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF TIM DONOVAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN FOGLE,
COUNCILMEMBER, CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO, AND CHAIR,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF CITIES; TODD BRANDENBURG, PRESIDENT, POCKETINET
COMMUNICATIONS; AND CHERYL A. LEANZA, POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST
STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN
Mr. Donovan. Chairman Doyle, Republican Leader Latta, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
CCA represents wireless carriers ranging from small, rural
providers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional and
nationwide providers serving millions, as well as vendors and
suppliers throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
As the COVID pandemic altered our lives, connectivity has
never been more important. The bills under consideration today
will help preserve and expand service, particularly wireless
services and 5G, and set our country on a path to maintain
wireless leadership in the years ahead.
5G will impact every industry segment of our economy. Where
fully deployed, these networks will power significant benefits
and drive innovation. Conversely, insufficient service
threatens to deprive the communities that could benefit most
from enhanced connectivity.
As this committee's bipartisan leadership recently noted,
closing the digital divide remains a shared bipartisan goal. I
fully agree. Legislation pending before the committee addresses
three key policy areas to make this goal a reality: spectrum,
infrastructure, and universal service.
First, spectrum, the life blood of wireless services. 5G
services continue to drive massive increases in data use, and
carriers need additional spectrum to meet demands and prepare
for continued growth in the years ahead.
A significant portion of the midband spectrum most
important to 5G, the Goldilocks spectrum, as Chairman Doyle
just called it, is currently controlled by the Federal
Government. For example, the 3.45-to-3.55 gigahertz band is in
the process of being reallocated from Federal to commercial
use, with bidding beginning this week.
CCA strongly supports considering adjacent spectrum in the
3.1-to-3.45 gigahertz band for potential reallocation. I
commend Chairman Doyle and Representative Matsui for their
leadership on this issue through the Spectrum Innovation Act.
In addition to developing the spectrum pipeline, confidence
in the reallocation and coordination process is vital.
Unfortunately, as this committee's leadership noted in a
bipartisan letter earlier this year, the NTAI FCC coordination
process is broken. This has led to disputes where individual
agencies have presented claims of potential interference
outside of the NTIA process and contrary to science-based
studies. Such efforts distract from important policy goals and
undercut bidder confidence in FCC service rules and eventually
auctions.
Updating the memorandum of understanding on spectrum
coordination between the FCC and NTIA, as contemplated in the
Spectrum Coordination Act, can help improve the process for
resolving disputes and increase confidence from all spectrum
users.
Second, infrastructure. Carriers must also deploy,
maintain, and upgrade physical infrastructure to support
current and future demands. As Congress considers significant
additional resources to boost broadband deployment and close
the digital divide, it is more important than ever that
policies to review applications and permits are reasonable and
consistent. This includes oversight of Federal agencies to
ensure that they facilitate, not impede, deployment.
CCA thanks the committee for proposing solutions to address
barriers to deployment, including through bills on the agenda
today that make up part of the Boosting Broadband Connectivity
Agenda. CCA strongly believes that meaningful broadband
infrastructure reform need not pit carriers against States and
municipalities. As the number and scope of applications
increases, additional resources can make sure that an influx of
applications does not become a chokepoint that delays
deployments.
The Broadband Incentives for Communities Act proposes a
win-win-win for carriers, reviewing agencies, and ultimately
consumers by providing resources through grants to build
capacity to review applications. Congress also should clarify
that States and localities can use their allocations of the
$350 billion coronavirus State and local recovery funds for
these purposes.
Third, and finally, Universal Service Fund support will
continue to provide critically needed resources, not only to
preserve and expand broadband connectivity in rural and high-
cost areas but also to provide support for low-income
Americans, rural healthcare, and programs for schools and
libraries.
CCA commends this committee's bipartisan work to enact the
Broadband DATA Act, and work is well underway at the FCC to
collect reliable data. The resulting maps should be the
standard used across Federal agencies and programs. These maps
can also provide reliable data for other purposes, such as
proposed in the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act.
Congress should continue to exercise oversight over USF to
ensure that the universal service mandates are met by
supporting ubiquitous 5G and making sure that contribution
sources are equitable and sustainable. Congress also should
continue to exempt the Universal Service Fund from the
Antideficiency Act to ensure that support remains predictable
as mandated by the Communications Act.
In closing, strengthening our communications networks to
ensure that all consumers have access to critical broadband
services should remain a top priority for Congress. Thank you
for your leadership on these issues. I welcome any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows: ]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you for your testimony.
Councilmember Fogle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN FOGLE
Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member
Latta and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the City of
Loveland, Colorado, and the National League of Cities, thank
you for inviting me to speak before this body today. My name is
John Fogle, a member of the Loveland, Colorado, City Council,
chair of the National League of Cities Information Technology
and Communications Committee, and a member of the NLC Board of
Directors.
With Congress poised to approve a historic Federal
investment in our Nation's broadband infrastructure, the timing
could not be better for this committee to consider what further
steps are needed to strengthen the Nation's communications
networks and better meet the needs of consumers. Our cities,
towns, and villages urge Congress to partner with local
governments on this effort.
Over the past 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, local
leaders have stepped up to the plate, gotten creative, and
worked hard to connect their communities. We ask that Federal
solutions support and empower these local leaders rather than
imposing a one-size-fits-all edict.
One of the ways Congress can support and sustain this
locally driven broadband leadership is through increased access
to resources. Many communities are already investing
substantial funds in connectivity. These investments include
public broadband infrastructure, subsidized connections,
technical support, digital navigators, and digital literacy
training.
The funding made available through the American Rescue Plan
Act has bolstered these efforts. Funding for digital equity,
anchor institutions, and middle-mile broadband infrastructure
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build
Back Better Act will continue these efforts.
Congress must also ensure the Universal Service Fund
programs are sustainable for the long term so that households
and institutions may consistently access them in the future.
Congress should also consider funding broadband planning and
capacity-building efforts at the local level.
While governments will benefit from large, new grant
programs for broadband infrastructure, broadband is deployed at
the street level. Many communities, particularly smaller
communities, would benefit from increased Federal technical
assistance and funding for capacity building to assist them in
planning for their broadband futures.
Congress can also support local governments by removing the
barriers to local investment in community broadband programs.
PULSE, Loveland's city-owned municipal broadband system, was
approved by our council in 2018 and began connecting
residential customers in 2020.
Heading a community broadband network meant we were able to
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. We were able to take
advantage of a State grant to connect students living in a
remote canyon area and students living in a local mobile home
park where broadband access was not available and mobile
hotspots performed poorly.
In Colorado, we are fortunate to have the local authority
to overwrite State preemption, and the citizens of Loveland did
so by a vote of 82 percent, as have most Colorado cities and
counties. However, in more than a third of the States,
municipalities are blocked from investing in their own
broadband infrastructure. Until these State barriers to
municipal broadband are removed, the U.S. will continue to
fight the digital divide with one hand tied behind our back.
Finally, we urge Congress to support local broadband
connectivity by preserving local decision-making authority. No
one is more eager to adopt new technologies and improve
communication infrastructures than local leaders.
As the community on Colorado's front range, we have seen
the consequences of wildfires and extreme weather. We need to
know that our mobile networks will be there when we need them
to ensure an emergency alert system, or residents when they
need to dial 9-1-1. It is critical that efforts to improve and
expand communications infrastructure are done in cooperation
with local governments.
Cities, towns, and villages work hard to balance protection
of residents and public property with speed when working with
communications providers. Federal mandates preempting local
processes will harm that balance without significantly
improving infrastructure. Preemption creates an antagonistic
environment for negotiations between local governments and
providers.
When we partner with industry, we all succeed. In Loveland,
we mandated that PULSE work with all carriers to provide our
citizens the world-class municipal broadband they deserve. For
the future, PULSE may work with private broadband providers for
direct links between businesses and future needs for wireless
providers, making it easier for these companies to add wireless
infrastructure in our community as time goes on. These
partnerships cannot succeed in an environment of Federal
overreach and local preemption.
Again, I thank you for your attention on this important and
timely issue, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fogle follows: ]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Fogle.
Mr. Brandenburg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD BRANDENBURG
Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and esteemed
Members of Congress here on the committee. I am going to speak
to you directly here today and not read my notes here and tell
you a story a little bit about the work that we have been doing
for the last 21 years in eastern Washington, and this is from
an internet service provider.
PocketiNet Communications is a regional provider that
provides residents and businesses with that high-speed
broadband connectivity. So we have been doing the work of
actually serving our customers, and we try to do that every day
with 2 words: honor and respect. And during these pandemic
times, we were actually--we had put in place a network that was
able to scale to meet the demand, but I want to talk to you a
little bit about some programs that are coming down, you know,
from the Federal and State level.
From the Federal level, we have the infrastructure--the
looming infrastructure bill that really is defining 100
megabits by 20 megabits as the speed standard. And, by the way,
we serve customers throughout the region with fixed wireless
and fiberoptic technologies and are able to serve customers
anywhere from 10 to a gigabit of services.
So when this pandemic hit, we were all kind of not prepared
for the onslaught of demand because we had a lot of customers
that were forced to be at home, and a lot of those customers
were doing school at home for their children as well as work.
And so, we got calls routinely for increasing speeds, and we
took a pledge, and that pledge was not to turn down any
customer whether they could pay or not. So we honored that
throughout the year and actually are still doing that.
I think for the first time, I would like to talk frankly
about, I have never been threatened, I guess, by government
programs, but I do feel that way today in that--with the risk
of being overbuilt by municipal networks, or State networks,
and that is a concern to us because we have worked for 21 years
of reinvesting every dollar that we make putting back into the
network.
And, so, I have experience working with wholesale open-
access networks. And in the State of Washington, we actually
have retail authority for those cities, ports, counties, to
actually go direct to consumer. And I feel that we may have to,
at some point in time, compete directly with the local
government, and I don't believe that that should be allowed,
because it is government funds going directly against private
sector.
The other thing I would like to briefly talk to you about
is permitting. We have been tasked with building infrastructure
throughout the region, and we serve about 22 communities, about
200 miles across by 100, and we have been trying to put up
towers. And we have tried to work--we work really well with our
local authorities' permitting, but we have, in most cases, been
delayed by up to a year in processing those permits. And if
broadband is a priority, we must do something to do a better
job in that.
By the way, we are a member of WISPA, Wireless Internet
Service Provider Association, and we fully support additional
spectrum. We believe that there is a need for at least 200
megahertz of additional midband spectrum. We would actually
welcome that in auctioned and nonauctioned availability as
well.
The last thing I would like to just touch upon is something
that is very near and dear to our customers. They have been
plagued recently by ransomware attacks, and these ransomware
attacks are yielding lots of money, and we feel we have no
availability from the Federal Government to help thwart these
attacks. Just recently, in the last few weeks, tier 1 VOIP
providers have been attacked, taking down our Nation's
telecommunications infrastructure and being held for ransom,
and I believe that we must do something.
So thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity,
and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brandenburg follows: ]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Brandenburg.
And now we recognize Ms. Leanza. You are now recognized for
5 minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL A. LEANZA
Ms. Leanza. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Cheryl Leanza, and I am honored today to be
testifying on behalf of the United Church of Christ's 60-year-
old media justice ministry.
I commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing and for
its focus on strengthening communications policy to serve the
needs of consumers. Beyond being consumers, however, it is
important to remember that the people of the United States are
human beings, they are citizens, and they are always in need of
meaningful communication from affordable telephone calls
between each other to accurate and thorough local news and
information broadcasts.
I am here today, first, to strongly encourage the committee
to support and quickly pass Congressman Rush's Martha Wright
Prison Phone Justice Act, H.R. 2489. Currently, high costs and
egregious practices separate people inside prisons and jails
from connections with their families and loved ones on the
outside.
The need for this bill's passage is urgent. Rates are
atrocious. For grandmothers like Martha Wright herself before
she passed away, for clergy, for counsel making local calls,
the Federal Communications Commission found instances where a
15-minute local call cost as much as $24.80. The Prison Policy
Initiative's 50-State study found the average cost of a 15-
minute call was $5.74.
And even these smaller amounts add up when they are the
only contact a child has with a parent or a married couple has
with each other. Three $6 calls a week is over $800 a year.
Could you maintain your marriage on a few 15-minute
conversations per week? I don't think so, and neither can these
families.
Studies show families are going into debt to stay in touch
on top of already challenging hardships. This impacts everyone.
One in two adults have a family member who has been
incarcerated, and there are 1.4 million children in the United
States with an incarcerated parent. No matter what your parent
has done, you are better off hearing from them and maintaining
contact.
I am reminded of the words of Diane Lewis, a mother of an
incarcerated son. She explained she always paid her prison
phone account first before the electric bill. She said, and I
quote, ``I have seen the difference between my son, who has a
lot of support, and others in prison who can't make phone calls
or who never have family visits. There is a big difference, and
it is why they struggle while they are inside and often go back
after. It is the anger and depression that comes with doing
time by yourself and the lack of practical support needed when
you get out.''
Treatment of all people is a human--as human beings is a
moral issue. And as somebody representing a Christian
denomination, I would be remiss if I did not remind the
committee of the biblical teaching in Mathew 25--Mathew chapter
25, asking us to take care and look after the people who are
often considered the least of these among us.
In addition to supporting H.R. 2489, I want to turn to the
matter of accountability and local broadcasting. I am here on
behalf of a long line of advocates from the United Church of
Christ. Many of you may know that Dr. Everett Parker, who
founded our denomination's advocacy in the 1960s, he pressed
television stations at that time to serve all their viewers
when Black viewers could not get news about the civil rights
movement through their TV stations and through two seminal
court cases, UCC versus the FCC, established the right of
ordinary people to petition the FCC and establish
accountability for broadcasters.
For that reason, I urge the committee to give serious
consideration to Representative Pascrell's H.R. 4208. Decades
of neglect by the Federal Communications Commission has
rendered broadcasters' legal obligations often close to
meaningless, ignoring Congress' directive in law that
broadcasters serve the public interest in competition,
localism, and diversity. And nowhere is this more evident than
the failure of FCC to supervise section 331 stations.
Advocates from New Jersey came, showed their evidence to
the FCC in the--standing in the shoes of Dr. Parker, showed the
failures, and yet, the FCC turned a blind eye. Holding the
public trust should mean something.
And, finally, in my closing few minutes, I want to point
out that H.R. 5400 is an extremely important bill to ensure
that the FCC's universal service programs continue to function
without interruption and without running afoul of the
Antideficiency Act.
These programs provide critical subsidies for rural
telecommunications and telehealth for schools, for libraries,
and for low-income families. Connectivity is too important
particularly now to allow these programs to come to a
screeching halt.
Thanks very much for your time this morning.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leanza follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
We have concluded our openings. We now are going to move to
Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing myself
for 5 minutes.
The Spectrum Innovation Act seeks to ensure that the entire
350 megahertz of the 3.1 band are used as efficiently as
possible. Additionally, the bill provides flexibility to the
FCC and NTIA to balance not just the needs of the incumbent
Federal users and safeguard their operations, but also the
interest of all commercial wireless users.
Mr. Donovan, could you talk about why this flexibility is
important and what it would mean for your member companies?
Mr. Donovan. Of course. Thank you for the question.
Flexibility is absolutely vital as we are looking at
reallocating these bands. Spectrum is important, but it is also
finite, and we are not making any more of it.
So particularly when we are talking about midband spectrum
resources that are really the sweet spot for 5G services, that
flexibility is going to allow the FCC and NTIA to do what they
do best and structure a band plan that maximizes use by the
commercial industry while also protecting incumbent missions.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. You know, it is not just the portions
of this band that can be auctioned that are important for
consumers. Unlicensed spectrum is crucial for our in-home
devices and in developing new innovation.
Ms. Leanza, how do you see the opportunistic-use provisions
in this legislation benefiting consumers and other end users of
spectrum?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Mr. Doyle. As Mr. Donovan said,
spectrum is a very valuable resource as it is scarce. And
policies that maximize the number of users that then can
utilize spectrum are incredibly important, for example,
entrepreneurs that come from communities that face barriers in
access to capital, small businesses, new entrants.
And so, unlicensed-use and opportunistic-use standards
really maximize the amount of use for all the greatest number
of consumers. Opportunistic-use standards permit devices to
share spectrum in real time, and they are very helpful to make
the most of our valuable and scarce spectrum.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
I agree with the witnesses who noted today that speedy
broadband deployment is going to take collaborative work
between our towns who are closest to their constituents and
broadband providers. And I want to commend my colleague,
Congresswoman Fletcher, for her work in developing legislation
that embodies this principle.
Mr. Fogle, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this
proposal and how better Congress can provide support for
municipalities as they plan for their communities' broadband
futures.
Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Chairman. Locally directed funding to
build out and improve broadband networks is desperately needed.
Local leaders need to have a say in where infrastructure is
built and what locally needs to be done. Nobody knows our
communities better than the elected officials and the staffs of
our cities, towns, and local municipalities.
I think the best thing that Congress can do is to not
impose layers of prescriptive infrastructure or citing
requirements and/or onerous shot clocks on, or fee limitations
that limit local governments' abilities to deal with the
carriers in their regions.
Funding technical assistance programs for regional and
local areas, I think, is a critical piece that needs to be
added into the Federal infrastructure. This could include
capacities for activities like broadband planning, digital
inclusion programs, and incorporating new technologies from
municipal uses.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks. Mr. Donovan, do you have any other
thoughts you want to add on these deployment issues?
Mr. Donovan. Sure. So we agree that providing ways for
carriers to work with their local communities is the best way
to move forward. Many CCA members are based in the very
communities literally connecting their neighbors.
And so we appreciate Congresswoman Fletcher's bill and
efforts to make sure there's resources to process those
applications. And if there's further needs that municipalities
have in reviewing applications, we want to hear about them and
we want to find ways to fix that.
In addition, you asked about other issues for deployment. I
would be remiss if I didn't mention that just as localities
need additional people to review applications, the industry is
needed for additional wireless workforce to make sure to work
on these deployments, from tower climbing, delaying fiber, and
all across the board.
So efforts to boost the workforce are helpful, and efforts
to provide some more stability in supply chains, especially
right now. We are hearing from members from, you know,
seemingly random supply chain shortages on different issues
from fiber and other inputs. As we have resources to expand
broadband and timelines that are going to come with that,
making sure that we have access to a secure and stable supply
chain is going to be very important.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The Chair will yield back 15 seconds
as an example to my colleagues going forward. And I will now
recognize Mr. Latta, ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5
minutes to ask his questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to our witnesses for being with us today.
Over the last decade, this subcommittee has held numerous
oversight hearings on the failures of the Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program, BTOP, that was created in President
Obama's 2009 stimulus bill.
But instead of building on this committee's expertise
learning from past mistakes, we are bound to repeat them if the
House is able to pass the $65 billion broadband in the Senate
infrastructure bill. If not fixed, this bill has language that
gives the NTIA and Assistant Secretary vast authority to spend
the money as he or she wishes.
Mr. Brandenburg, in the BTOP program there were many issues
with how that funding was awarded because there were not
appropriate safeguards and the funding was not targeted. How do
BTOP funds affect the broadband landscape in eastern
Washington, and what were some of the challenges you faced when
you considered participating in the BTOP program?
Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Congressman Latta. Just to
speak directly to that, we did not, you know, apply for the use
of the funds at that time, but we watched it happen with a lot
of other carriers in the State. One carrier that did work with
was--you know, and applied for those funds was NoaNet,
Northwest Open Access Network. And they teamed with a lot of
communities, community leaders, libraries, schools, that type
to get letters of endorsement and built this middle-mile
extension, you know, throughout the State.
We thought that was great, and it has done some good work
to actually connect those cities, but it did not succeed in
actually providing residential and business services because it
only served anchor institutions.
When asked later on if we, as a service provider, could
access excess fiber for the--to connect some of our cities, we
were told that by NoaNet representatives that there was not
enough capacity. So they had purposely built the network with
low-count fiber, ultra-high-cost labor costs to extend this
network, and it didn't result.
So other than serving the anchor institutions and paying
for the construction to that, the anchor institutions did--
there was no funding to provide services for those libraries
and schools.
And I would further like to add, if a business wanted to
connect to that fiber, sometimes the costs were $5,000 to
$10,000 to connect to that fiber, and then on a wholesale level
they were $300 to $400 a month for a basic 100-meg service.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Donovan, your members have vast experience with Federal
agencies making funding decisions based on bad broadband maps
over the years. In fact, the FCC delayed awarding money through
its 5G fund until the Broadband DATA Act maps are complete, so
we now put money out before knowing where it is most needed.
Mr. Pallone. You need to increase the volume.
Mr. Latta. Will you please speak--oh, I am sorry. Would you
speak to the importance of targeting broadband support based on
accurate broadband maps and where the Senate infrastructure
proposals may fall short on targeting these funds?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
your past leadership on mapping issues, including with enacting
the Broadband DATA Act. I know you know from personal
experience that in the world of mobility fund and the 5G fund
that had funds gone out under the previous map, areas like in
your district that should receive support to make sure they can
get connected would be blocked from those resources simply
because the map said that coverage already exists there.
So I can't underscore enough the importance of having
reliable mapping data. We are pleased to see the FCC moving
forward on this issue as they continue work to come up with
collecting more reliable data. We are also encouraged to make
sure that there is some sort of firewall in the process so that
maps that overstate coverage aren't immediately sent to a
challenge process that requires burdensome demands for drive
testing from carriers and others, including localities, just to
prove what they already know and what you already know from
traveling around your district, that more support is needed to
make sure that there is ubiquitous coverage. So I agree that it
is significantly important that all funding programs should
flow and be based on the maps created by the Broadband DATA
Act.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And, again, those
maps are so absolutely important, and appreciate your work.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will submit my other questions for the
record, and my time has expired and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full committee
chairman, for 5 minutes for his questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
I want to ask Councilmember Fogle about interplay of State
and local government. Can you explain how the Federal
Government and local governments can work together in a manner
that promotes resilient ubiquitous broadband but doesn't
impose, I guess, what I will call a one-size-fits-all approach
of preempting State and local autonomy?
Mr. Fogle. I have got to remember to push my button.
Thank you. As far as the local city autonomy, NLC as a unit
supports local control, always has, always will. We want to see
local authority maintained so that each of our cities and our
counties and our States have the ability to make the decisions
that are important to them when it comes to broadband authority
and broadband rollouts.
As far as how the States work with the local cities, in our
State, the ability to override the State's preemptive
authority, in 2005, our State put in a preemption that it
didn't allow for municipalities to participate in the
communications space whatsoever. But, thankfully, they did have
the foresight to put in the ability for municipalities to
override that authority, and more than half of the
municipalities in our State have overridden that, and many have
taken off on doing their own broadband programs.
In northern Colorado, the four cities have formed their own
broadband networks, and all work cooperatively to provide
backhaul and all the needed resources to bring broadband as a--
broadband to the home utility to all of our customers to the
Northern Front Range.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks.
Mr. Donovan, I want to ask you about the FCC's Universal
Service Fund in this Antideficiency Act exemption. Can you tell
us what you think would happen to the millions of Americans who
rely on the high-cost program, the rural healthcare program,
the E-rate program, or the Lifeline program if we let the
Antideficiency Act exemption expire, and then should Congress
consider a multiyear extension?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I
don't need to speculate on what would happen were that to
expire. We can go back that when the determination was made by
the Office of Management and Budget, that the Antideficiency
Act should apply to the Universal Service Fund, the immediate
effect that that had in 2004 was a 4-month pause in funding
through the E-rate program.
In recognizing that, Congress did move at that time to
apply an exemption to the ADA for Universal Service Fund, some
that has now been repeated since that time through several
different processes, through appropriations bills and including
through work product that has come through this committee in
the past.
That is significantly important, especially as you talk
about the importance of a multiyear exemption. That would allow
for the continued scope of a lot of Universal Service Funds
that are not, you know, 1-year programs, aren't 6-month
programs, certainly aren't the length of a continuing
resolution if that is the way that the ADA is extended.
The multiyear extension allows for the network planning and
operations for all aspects of the Universal Service Fund. And
as CBO has mentioned and has been cited in previous work
product in this committee during process reform bills at the
FCC, that the exemption doesn't change the amount of money that
USF brings in or disburses. It merely adjusts the timing so
that it can be done in a reasonable way. So that is something
that we support and I would encourage moving forward with.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks. Let me try to get one more
question in. I would like to introduce the statement, Chairman
Doyle, for the record, from our friend Congressman Pascrell and
an op-ed from my Senator, Menendez.
And I would also like to ask a question to Ms. Leanza, why
localism is so important not just in New Jersey, but in every
part of the country, if you will.
Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congressman. Our country, of course, is
a democracy, and it is founded on local control and local
citizens participating. If you don't understand what is
happening in your local community through local news and
information, how can you make your views known? How can you
know what the school board is doing? How can you know what your
Governor or your State House is doing?
When Congress directed the FCC oh so many years ago to
license broadcast stations, they specifically licensed them to
particular communities, to licensees' communities and not as
a--it is not a national service, because we need that
information from our next-door neighbors on our local issues.
Mr. Doyle. Frank, I think you are muted, but your time is
up anyway.
Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to make sure we were able to
enter into the record the statements from Pascrell and
Menendez.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, without objection so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the
recognition. And I just wanted to reiterate what a couple of my
colleagues have already said, that we should do these issues
bipartisan. I know that we haven't had oversight of the FCC in
over a year, some of the other agencies. And I have been
working on spectrum and working bipartisanly on spectrum. And I
know in the reconciliation process, particularly in the Senate,
we haven't been going through regular order. And I just kind of
ask the committee to rethink that and hopefully we can get our
jurisdiction back into regular order.
I want to start with a question with Mr. Donovan. And,
yesterday, I introduced legislation that would create an
incumbent, informed and capability or spectrum-sharing system
in NTIA, so that Federal and non-Federal users know when and
where users are operating in a given band.
Mr. Donovan, do you think this system would be useful and
as we continue to look at ways to be more efficient with
Federal spectrum and make Federal spectrum more available for
commercial use? Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question and for the
introduction of that legislation. Any tools that we can have
more information for where incumbents are using bands is
ultimately going to be extremely helpful for industry, both in
opportunistic use where that is possible today, as well as you
are looking to reallocate bands and bring them to auction for
exclusive use in the future. It is an issue that we saw in the
run-up to the current auction that began yesterday of a need
for information about where incumbent government systems
operate, where there's going to be exclusion zones, and what
the impact is going to be for carriers that bid on and
ultimately win this spectrum, and where they can use it.
So I certainly encourage more sharing of information about
what Federal missions are using spectrum in what areas and
when, and a way to facilitate maximum use of limited spectrum
resources.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And I would like to ask a question
of Mr. Brandenburg. And, Mr. Donovan, if you weigh in as well.
The concern I have--I have a rural district. I have city areas
and rural areas. And one of the biggest concerns is just
getting broadband into rural areas, as we all have--are
focusing on this. One of the big questions is fixed broadband
versus fiber. Everybody wants fiber to their home. But today
with all the money that has been appropriated, and even the
money to the counties of the American Rescue Plan, most of my
counties' provisional money, and they want to spend it on
broadband and fiber.
And the question is, do we have enough capacity to get
broadband to every home, even though we have the financial
capacity to do it? And if the Federal Government prioritizes
fiber over fixed wireless, will that delay people in rural
Kentucky, rural America from getting access to broadband?
And Mr. Brandenburg, and then Mr. Donovan, if you have a
comment.
Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Representative Guthrie. Let me
just say that I think it is going to take a strategy based on
the rural parts of America of fiber and fixed wireless. And so
there is not a one-technology-that-fits-all solution. And, so,
we talk about access to spectrum, which is a very vital part of
this. We have been operating as a company on 20-some, 21 years
of unlicensed spectrum and, you know, and recently participated
in CBRS auction for licensed spectrum. So we welcome any
additional midband frequency allocations that--to be licensed
out.
But I do not believe that the Federal Government should be
specifying fiber or fixed wireless. It is let the provider
actually choose the right tool. My dad always as a farmer had a
toolbox, and he told us to go get the right tool. And I think
you have to use the right tool and the right application. And
having the flexibility for the service provider, I think, is
very important.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Donovan, if
you would comment.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, I completely agree that--with my
colleague that we need to have every tool in the toolbox. And
in many areas, fiber is going to provide a great--a broadband
experience. In some areas, fixed wireless is going to be able
to provide requisite speed in a manner that could be built
faster than fiber can be deployed.
I think the other piece to look at it, in terms of this, is
that there are applications that require mobile wireless
services that can't be met by fixed technologies of any fixed
speeds of any technology--fiber, wireless or otherwise. We talk
about the exciting new applications that are going to be
powered by 5G networks. So many of them are mobile. And if we
don't make sure that we have mobile connectivity as well as
fixed access in rural areas, those areas that could benefit
most from those benefits could be left behind.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you both for your responses. And I thank
the chairman for the recognition, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair, and I thank the
witnesses for the wide-ranging hearing this morning.
I am a cosponsor of Mr. Rush's bill, the Martha Wright
Prison Phone Justice Act. Earlier this year, California took
steps to reduce the rates that incarcerated individuals and
their families paid for calls, because these links
significantly increased positive outcomes for individuals after
the release from prison.
Ms. Leanza, I am concerned about families who have to go
into debt to maintain a link with incarcerated loved ones
paying outrageous and unjustified rates. Can you put this into
context with the financial challenges faced by these low-income
families?
Ms. Leanza. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for your
cosponsorship. A study out of the Ella Baker Center based in
California show that 1 in 3 families go into debt in order to
pay just for phone calls, let alone anything else. And the
carceral system falls more heavily on low-income people in the
first place who already have families who are struggling to
make ends meet, and then they have to take this additional
burden.
And it is particularly bad for folks who are in jail. They
haven't even been convicted yet, and they are trying to
maintain a connection with their family members, with their
jobs without--without phone calls and other communication that
cannot be done.
So we very much--the debt--oh, and Philadelphia also did a
study recently. And, I think, 87 percent of their respondents
said that they were going into debt in order to pay for phone
bills.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Ms. Leanza. Again, I
understand that in the previous administration, the FCC didn't
think it had the authority to halt egregious interstate rates.
Can you explain how this bill would address that?
Ms. Leanza. Absolutely. Thank you. The bill would clarify
something that Congress tried to do in 1996, which is that the
Federal Communications Commission would have authority over all
rates that are to and from carceral facilities, from jails,
prisons, and other detention centers.
A court decision that happened in about 2017 said that the
FCC did not have this authority, even though there already is
some provision for this in the Communications Act. So now we
are limited to Federal rules only about interstate calls, and
we need more broad authority to address this problem for once
and for all.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Good. Thank you for explaining that.
Mr. Fogle, I am proud of the work this committee has done
to bridge a digital divide. We can't be satisfied until all
Americans have access to the affordable, reliable, resilient,
broadband service. But to reach that goal, we shouldn't cut
corners by cutting out local governments.
In your testimony, you touch upon the role of local
governments in responding to emergency situations and
disasters, which I take seriously, as I have watched wildfires
devastate communities across California. Can you talk more
about the importance of productive relationships between
communication providers and local governments particularly, in
responding to disasters?
Mr. Fogle. In northern Colorado where I live, last year, or
a year and a half ago, we experienced massive wildfires, which
isolated some of our mountain communities completely. They had
no phone service. They had no internet service for up to a
couple of months. With our post-broadband, we were able to take
care of the local disconnects that occurred within our area,
but there were areas that were outside of our fiber reach that
were--we had no availability whatsoever. In fact, some of our
phone service to a large community west of us, Estes Park, was
cut off for a couple of months.
Previous to that, in 2013, we had a flood that devastated
all the river systems up and down the northern front range of
Colorado, and the mountain communities were totally cut off.
Since then, we have added fiber and redundant fiber up all
of those canyons to make sure that our mountain communities are
connected. So the ability of local municipalities to
participate in the fiber space has allowed installation of
redundant fiber systems that will keep those mountain
communities connected, even in the times of calamity. Thank
you.
Mr. McNerney. So would you say that that is going to be
saving lives?
Mr. Fogle. Oh, absolutely. One of the things that I think
Estes Park did experience was a loss of emergency services.
Because not only were they cut off physically because the roads
were closed, they also had no phone service to a good chunk of
their population during that time in 2013 when the flood cut
off all of their phone service for an extended period of time.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, I have to leave the
questions about maternal morbidity to others, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today we are
considering legislation that has little to no committee
process. It makes expansive changes to the Government, Mr.
Chairman. One bill would vastly expand the SEC's authority over
the interstate phone rates. One would allow them to continue
awarding Universal Service Funds through the end of
administration with zero oversight.
Mr. Doyle. Billy, we can't hear you. Your voice is cutting
out.
Mr. Long. Hello?
Mr. Doyle. OK. We can hear you now, Billy.
Mr. Long. OK. Today, we are considering legislation that
has had little or no committee process, yet make expansive
changes to Government authorities. One bill would vastly expand
the FCC's authority over interstate [inaudible] and one over
interstate phone rates. And one would allow them to continue
awarding Universal Service Funds through the end of this
administration with no oversight.
Another one, H.R. 4208, Section 331, Obligation
Clarification Act, would reinstate burdensome, outdated
mandates on broadcasters that the Trump FCC removed. Not only
does this bill mandate a specific number of hours of common
local programming, it mandates the hours of the day when such
programming must air. It takes it further and directs a
broadcast station to consult with community leaders to
determine said programming. Who are these community leaders?
Are the same people that follow [inaudible].
Mr. Doyle. Billy, I am sorry. You are cutting out again.
Mr. Long. I have got a good signal. I don't know what to
do.
Mr. Doyle. You know what? You can come back. Let's keep
trying.
Mr. Long. OK. I have got a good signal. I don't know what
to do. I have got a signal here. It looks like a good signal.
Anyway, the Democrats' bill purportedly takes aim at a TV
station in New Jersey owned by Fox, no surprise. What is next?
Programming mandates for cable news, more Rachel Maddow, less
Sean and Tucker, more Obama Library coverage, and less
accountability of this administration's failure in Afghanistan?
Sounds to me like another attempt by my friends on the
Democratic side to counter news programming they simply don't
like. This goes along with Democrats pushing their socialist
agenda through Congress with no Republican support. The Senate
infrastructure bill tied to the reconciliation package is going
the same route. This is not legislating.
If you are serious about working together, we should have
had hearings on these topics in the subcommittees throughout
the summer. Throwing controversial bills on a hearing to claim
that they have due process and try to shove them to the end-of-
the-year funding package isn't legislating, it is lazy and
irresponsible. I sincerely hope you take the reins back from
your leadership and stand [inaudible] for working together.
Mr. Doyle. OK. I think Billy finished. I didn't hear any
questions there, but I believe he is done. Is that right,
Billy? I don't----
Yes. All right. Let's see who we have next here. Let me
look through the list.
Congresswoman Rice, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here today. And I would like to direct my
first question to Ms. Leanza. The Antideficiency Act, among
other things, prohibits on officer or employee of the Federal
Government from obligating or expending funds in advance of the
appropriation of such funds. So in 2004, the FCC concluded that
the Antideficiency Act's limitations applied to the FCC
spending from the Universal Service Fund, which, through its
various programs, is intended to ensure that telecommunications
services, including broadband, are available and affordable
throughout the country.
That is why Congress has acted since then to exempt the
Universal Service Fund from application of the Antideficiency
Act so that these programs do not face any uncertainty.
So, Ms. Leanza, what would the lack of Universal Service
Fund support have on efforts to make broadband affordable? And
if Congress does not act, is it your opinion that the FCC may
have other tools to continue with the Universal Service Fund
program?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congresswoman. No, the FCC doesn't
really have many tools, except for just stopping funding. And
then, as Mr. Donovan mentioned, in 2004, that is what happened.
We had schools and libraries across the country had put in
their applications to get their E-rate funds, and all of a
sudden, disbursement letters were cut off. We all know schools
and libraries right now are relying incredibly on the need for
broadband connectivity. And to have their budgets, which are
done carefully on a year-to-year basis, suddenly left up in the
air because there was no funding available because of the
Antideficiency Act violation would be extremely problematic.
So, I think all of us have been understanding how important
the telemedicine efforts are. Everybody needs connectivity, and
we know that even more than ever in the COVID-19 crisis. So
there is not much alternative except for cutting off the
spigot. And it really doesn't change the amount of money that
is being spent, it just changes timing for what is being spent.
So it could be quite a problem. And Congress has been extending
this on a bipartisan basis, I think, since 2004. So it has been
well, well considered.
Miss Rice. Yes, H.R. 5400 would exempt USF, Universal
Service Fund, programs from the Antideficiency Act for 3 years
until December 31, 2024. And as you have pointed out, we have
done this on a bipartisan basis before. It is a simple bill,
but it is a bill that brings long-needed certainty.
Mr. Donovan, the Universal Service Fund has supported the
deployment of broadband networks to rural and remote areas. It
has also provided essential support to build out networks to
healthcare facilities that may otherwise go without service. If
we don't pass this bill, what would be some of the disruptions
felt in rural America, particularly, on rural healthcare as we
try to find our way out of the pandemic?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. So if the
exemption is not extended, then what you are really doing is
you are shrinking the window of timeframes for what the FCC can
obligate funds through for the Universal Service Fund. And as
we know that, broadband projects, whether from carriers
building to deploy services or healthcare facilities standing
up new operations, or ways to connect with patients to minor
health, especially as remote health has become so important
over this time, must be done within the current appropriations
window, or the current funding window, despite the fact that
the Universal Service Fund is an ongoing permanent
appropriation that raises funds through contributions on rate
papers, not from appropriated funds from Congress.
So it would have an immediate, disruptive effect and lead
to increased cost in the short term by reducing the windows
that you have to complete projects and uncertainty in the long
term to making sure that those projects can go on over
multiyear periods.
Miss Rice. Thank you so much to all the witnesses. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. And I thank her. The
Chair now recognizes Congressman Mullin for 5 minutes.
Markwayne, can you hear me? Are you available?
OK. I think we are going to move on to Mr. Walberg. Tim,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being here today as well.
Others like it, this hearing today, I would agree with a
number of my colleagues should have been held weeks ago. We are
now holding what seems to be a legislative hearing on bills
that have received little, if any, due diligence. That is not
to say that I don't support some of the legislation on the
agenda today. But many of these bills take substantial action
to address problems with broadband access and deployment.
A few of these bills, along with dozens of others not being
considered here today, were included in a legislative package
introduced by members of this subcommittee in February. Among
other things, our proposals would have removed barriers to
employment, streamlined permitting and the processes involved,
promote competition and consumer choice, enable broadband
facilities on Federal lands, and help close the digital divide.
A bill that I introduced, the Brownfield Broadband
Deployment Act, would help expedite environmental reviews for
broadband infrastructure projects in digitally unserved areas.
I am disappointed that this commonsense solution and many
others like these were not included on today's agenda. But it
is what it is.
So before today, none of these proposals had been
considered in this subcommittee, and none of them were included
in the Senate infrastructure bill either. Not only that, this
subcommittee will never--was never given an opportunity to
provide input or weigh the merits of the $65 billion in
broadband infrastructure and digital equity grants included in
the infrastructure bill that is now expected at some point to
go directly to the House floor.
So I would like to use what time I have left to ask a few
questions about the broadband provisions in the $1.22 trillion
spending bill.
Mr. Donovan, if the Senate infrastructure proposal goes
forward as it is, coupled with reconciliation proposal, do we
risk wasting $65 billion of taxpayer money without fully
closing the digital divide?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
your leadership on broadband issues. As cochair of the
Bipartisan 5G Caucus, we appreciate your efforts on that.
If the Senate-passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
moves forward as is, we agree that it is ultimately important
that we rely on data. And that comes back to the maps being
produced from the Bipartisan Broadband Data Act, work product
that was seriously considered in this committee. And the FCC is
now underway of contracting for the location fabric for fixed
locations as well as collecting data on updated and more
reliable parameters from our mobile providers.
So the way that that bill would get implemented would
ultimately be determined on its success by how the States use
their grant funding, since the bill does provide the funding
significantly through State setup processes, and how much it
does apply on being--following the map produced by the FCC and
making sure that that mapping exercise and the commission is a
success.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I would just add to that, I think what
you are saying is we are in trouble, at the very least. We may
overbuild. We may underproduce.
But let me ask further. Mr. Donovan, in your testimony, you
talk about how your member companies have been forced to
default on Federal broadband rewards solely because they were
unable to obtain the requisite permits from other Federal
agencies within the required timeframe for deployment.
Would having the ability to waive certain environmental,
historic preservation reviews, in circumstances where they
aren't necessary, have a significant effect on speeding up the
process?
And then, second, can you speak further to how regulatory
streamlining has an impact on deployment?
Mr. Donovan. Sure. So when the previous funding programs--
you know, our members have applied for funding because they
want to deploy service. And so it is extremely frustrating when
they are trying to get permitting through other Federal
agencies, that the timelines meant that they ended up having to
seek extensions. And then they default on those programs
because they could not get funding cleared--permitting cleared
through Federal agencies in that timeframe. I think it is
important to note that where we can streamline that, it is
really helpful.
For other Federal agencies like Department of Agriculture
or Department of the Interior, while broadband may not be their
primary mission, I think all of their missions are enhanced by
having access to broadband connectivity. So we should find ways
to work together to get it done, and efforts to streamline that
process are certainly welcome.
Mr. Walberg. I certainly agree. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
yields back. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. And I am excited. We are on
the precipice of passing the largest investment in broadband
infrastructure in our Nation's history. It was a bipartisan
process. And as a problem-solver, I got to work with several of
you who are on this committee and others across the aisle to
help have some input. Although our House input wasn't quite
what the Senators had, that is kind of the way it goes
sometimes.
Today, you know, we need to stop the whining and just
commit to extensive oversight to ensure that this funding gets
where it needs to go. The process is never perfect around here,
but the investments are something we all agree need to happen,
and that unites all of us, Republicans and Democrats.
I have rural areas just like you all do, in Osceola and
Polk Counties, and citrus and cattle country. I think of
students who, throughout COVID, at my wife's elementary school
were desperate to be able to try to learn from distance
learning and didn't have the internet they needed, particularly
in the rural areas. Persistent agriculture in our district,
where they are using GPS for cattle and they are using sensors
to determine when to water the groves and when they are ripe
and when to fertilize--that is all going to be done via WiFi.
And rural small businesses, from your feed lots to your local
general stores that want to take advantage of having better
internet.
Even some urban areas and suburban areas in our district
have fallen behind, even though it is the fastest-growing
district in the Congress. Issues like digital divide, access to
the internet, and telecommunications, boosting 5G, even a
spectrum sale to increase private-sector opportunities and
revenue to pay for this plan, are all on the agenda.
I want to thank you first, Councilmember Fogle, for your
testimony. I saw that Loveland is a fairly rural area. And
knowing that I have those two, I wanted to get an idea of how
critical you think that the bipartisan infrastructure package
broadband investment is to meeting our Nation's infrastructure
needs, especially in rural areas?
Mr. Fogle. Excuse me. In Colorado, in our rural areas, we
have also experienced the digital divide. It is not the digital
divide of economic and social status, it is the economic divide
that is caused by just simply distance.
In Colorado, the counties outside of our cities have to
override the State--you have to take advantage of the State
preemptions so that they can start providing broadband to their
customers.
The thing to keep in mind is that robust wireless simply
doesn't exist without robust fiber. So as the communities up
and down the Front Range add fiber connectivity to the home,
and we have four communities working together, big communities,
that will add fiber to the home within the next 2 years. We are
also running to the edges of those communities unused fiber
availability that can be used by the rural carriers and start
stretching out into the parts that I call the donut, which is
the unserved areas around our communities that have literally
hundreds of thousands of people in them.
So I am hoping that as the Federal Government brings
forward these funding sources, that the rural communities can
take advantage of those sources as soon as possible and tap
into the fiber broadband that is already being put in place by
the communities all around us.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much, Councilmember.
Mr. Donovan, thank you for being here. There are some great
opportunities for additional spectrum coming out. We know the
private sector plays a huge role in some of these rural areas.
Obviously, having some government support to these private
efforts is critical. How critical is passing the bipartisan
infrastructure package to your clients, your members, to get to
those last couple miles in rural America?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. And so, while a
lot of the deployment provisions in the Senate-passed bill are
focused on fixed broadband connectivity, I would like to tie
some specifically important aspects for mobile wireless
connectivity as well. And fixed wireless is eligible for
funding in several of those programs.
But, specifically, that bill also includes a billion
dollars for middle-mile support, including for access for a bad
call for 5G broadband connections and designates prep--that
special categorization for broadband deployment projects, as
those that can support 5G technologies and successful wireless
generations. So those efforts will add significant benefit to
rural wireless carriers as they seek to expand coverage.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much. For years, we have been
fighting for national infrastructure upgrades. Now, we have the
opportunity, and this committee will play a critical role. And
I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. OK. The gentleman yield back. The Chair now
recognizes Congressman Carter for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of the
witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Donovan, I want to start with you. Mr. Donovan, for
your information, I represent south Georgia. And as we always
say in Georgia, there are two Georgias. There is Atlanta, and
there is everywhere else. And south Georgia is very rural. I
don't have to tell you about the need for high-speed internet
and broadband in our rural areas.
And we can make this easier. We have got two bills we are
considering today that I think would actually help, H.R. 1046,
by Representative Curtis, that essentially would integrate FCC
broadband mapping data in a platform that shows which Federal
properties can support communication facilities. And also H.R.
1049 by Representative Duncan, that would prioritize reviews
for requested employee broadband on Federal land. Both of those
would help us in our goal of getting broadband to the rural
areas.
In your view, Mr. Donovan, are the Federal Government
departments and agencies who are charged with overseeing public
lands diligent enough about processing applications for rights-
of-ways to site towers?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. I agree that rural
parts of States like yours that certainly do need further help.
And a big part of that is that you can't have service in a lot
of these rural areas without crossing Federal lands. And you
need to have participation and support from Federal agencies to
get that done.
To that end, both of the bills you mentioned, H.R. 1046 and
H.R. 1049, they would help in terms of making sure we can both
identify the areas where there are Federal lands that don't
have sufficient coverage, so that we can then set up
collaborative efforts between carriers and those Federal
agencies, as well as make sure that there is oversight, that as
applications come in and carriers step up that want to work
with those Federal agencies to expand service, that they are
able to do so with certainty in a timely manner, with
confidence about the process that they are going into, the fees
they are going to have to pay, and the timeframes that they are
going to have to complete projects.
So we support those bill, and especially having an
interagency strike force of working with the departments like
Interior and Agriculture, with NTIA, to make sure that there is
accountability is going to help. We have had a lot of good
discussions here at high levels within the agencies about how
important broadband is. And then I hear a different story from
my members on the ground working with some of their local
offices. And sometimes they are cautious about even bringing
those stories forward because they need to find a way to work
together.
Mr. Carter. Well, Mr. Donovan, you are familiar with the
RAY BAUM'S Act, and you are familiar with the shot clock that
was established there for the Federal agencies. Do you feel
like they are complying with that?
Mr. Donovan. I think it has helped. It certainly has helped
to push pressure to make sure we get to decisions. If we can
revisit some of the shot clocks for Federal lands, especially
for places where there is previously disturbed land, other
construction, or ways that we can really expedite their view
process, we will certainly welcome that.
Mr. Carter. OK. Also, Mr. Donovan, I introduced a bill
earlier this year, H.R. 1043, the Proportional Reviews for
Broadband Development Act. Essentially, what my bill said was
that, if there are minor changes that are made to the
structure--to cabinets or to file cabinets or anything within
the physical structure--that you wouldn't have to go through
the whole review. And I am disappointed that my legislation is
not being considered today. And are you familiar with that
legislation? And if you are, do you think it would help?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, sir. We are familiar with that. And we
agree that minor changes to structures should not require going
through the permitting process again. That is going to have an
impact. As carriers upgrade facilities to 5G, that is going to
have an impact for carriers that have equipment that has been
deemed to pose a national security risk is removed and replaced
from their network. Especially in those scenarios, you need to
put up a new network before you can take down the old one.
So there will be modifications made to towers and
facilities in order to do that. But having to go through the
whole permitting process is going to frustrate that effort,
make it take longer, and make it cost more. Lastly, as we
face----
Mr. Carter. Well, that is important. And that is why I am
disappointed it is not being considered today. And I just want
to make sure I get that in.
Just one last thing very quickly. The Senate infrastructure
bill that requires that $42.5 billion broadband developed--
deployment dollars go to areas that are 80 percent unserved,
that means that up to 20 percent of those areas could be
served. Do you think that is an efficient use of taxpayers'
money? And I know we should have oversight on this, but we
haven't even had any oversight hearings. And what good is that
going to do?
Mr. Donovan. You know, that is going to come down to the
maps. That is going to ultimately show where money both--what
States get, what piece of that overall funding bucket, as well
as where the funds are going to ultimately be distributed.
There is always going to be some overlap, and I leave it to the
Congress to determine what is acceptable.
Mr. Carter. OK. Thank you very much. And I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Veasey.
And, Marc, I know we have heard there is been a shooting in
your district at a school in Arlington, and all of us here hope
that nobody, nobody is hurt. I don't think if you have any
update on that or not. But the floor is yours for your
questions, and if you want to add anything to that.
Mr. Veasey. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. Yes, there was a shooting at a high school just outside
of my district. And it looks like that everyone is going to be
OK. They are still looking for the gunman. But it appears that
the people that have been hospitalized, that they should be OK
is what the Arlington Police are saying right now. And thank
you for giving me the time to address that. You know, it is sad
that we are having to go through this yet again, but it shows
that we have a lot of work that we have to do in that area as
well. So thank you very much.
Mr. Doyle. Sure. You have your full 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this legislative hearing. I think that this is very
important, and I am glad to see that we are putting consumers
first by holding this hearing. And I know that some of my
colleagues have already touched on this, but I wanted to tell
you about the reason why I introduced H.R. 5400, along with my
good friend, Representative Hayes of Connecticut, to make sure
that the Antideficiency Act doesn't hurt low-income Americans,
schools, libraries, or other USF beneficiaries by stopping the
normal flow of those funds.
This isn't a new idea. We have been exempting Universal
Service Fund from the ADA for years. All this would do is bring
more certainty to these recipients so they don't have to worry.
We are in a very different time moving past COVID-19, and
Americans don't need any more roadblocks that will keep them
from living and thriving in our communities.
Ms. Leanza, do you favor a multiyear exemption over our
current year-by-year approach? And if you do, please explain
why.
Ms. Leanza. Thank you very much, Congressman. And thank you
for your leadership in getting broadband to low-income
families.
Yes, I think that the Antideficiency Act really should be
extended for a longer period of time. Year by year doesn't
really seem to be a wise use of congressional resources. Right
now, you know, the FCC is actually led equally by both
Republicans and Democrats. It is a two-two split. So I think
the oversight is happening within the agency itself. And the
Antideficiency Act exemption really just causes less red tape
for the communities that the program is serving.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. And I want to move on to
spectrum coordination. The last administration set a great
example of what not to do here. We shouldn't let that become
the norm, because it is imperative that we have a unified
approach.
Mr. Donovan, like you, I was disappointed with the FCC and
NTIA's lack of coordination of the Trump administration. In
your written testimony, you suggest that having these two
agencies embrace a unified approach is crucial for the
advancement of effective spectrum management policies. In
addition to improving the process for resolving spectrum
disputes and ensuring the efficient use of spectrum, what other
improvements could be made to the MOU to maintain a unified
approach between the FCC and NTIA?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you. A unified approach is really so
important that commercial users know how they are going to be
able to use spectrum that is being reallocated from previous
users, by Federal users or being shared with Federal users. So
we need increase in coordination, increase in information
sharing, timely action on that.
And previously, we have seen agencies go around that
typical NTIA process which express concerns after there has
already been service rules established, after there has been
agreement by the FCC as process is moving forward, sometimes
even as we are approaching auctions, and that risks undermining
the faith in the auction.
In addition to updating the memorandum of understanding, we
should also look to make sure that that has a way to provide
information for a potential commercial users as early as
possible and as complete as possible with flexible access to
make sure that we can get that information into the right
hands, as well as to make sure that there is a process in place
so that, if agencies do go around or after the IRAC,
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Council, made some determination
on how these bands should be used, that there's remediation
efforts so that the FCC and NTIA can make sure when the Federal
Government speaks on these spectrum issues, that they speak
with one voice so industry can have confidence in what they say
and move forward accordingly.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. And given the importance of
maintaining a spectrum pipeline and instilling confidence in
the spectrum reallocation and coordination process, do you
agree that the FCC and NTIA should move quickly to finalize
their update of the MOU?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, I do. We need to make sure that there is
an auction pipe--a spectrum pipeline going on to make sure that
we can continue to strengthen our networks, expand them to make
sure everyone has connectivity, and continue to keep up with
ever-growing demand from consumers, and in a 5G world from the
greater broadband Internet of Things as more and more devices
and functions are connected back to their wireless networks.
Mr. Veasey. But what is the appropriate time that you
recommend for the agencies to complete this work?
Mr. Donovan. Going off of current experience, as soon as
possible. We need to continue to work to identify additional
spectrum bands and reallocate them as quickly as we can to make
sure that we do have--as an industry know what bands are going
to be coming online and when they will become available.
Mr. Veasey. OK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Curtis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to
thank the subcommittee leadership for including my legislation,
H.R. 1046, the Federal Broadband Deployment in Unserved Areas
Act. The legislation introduces needed coordination
requirements to efficiently deploy broadband infrastructure on
Federal lands and reach unserved communities like those I
represent. I have shared with the committee before that about
80 percent of my geography in my district makes--is made up of
90 percent Federal land ownership, if you can imagine.
The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to
share broadband mapping data with other Federal partners. H.R.
1046 will enable providers to make smarter investments and
employ internet services in currently unserved communities
while avoiding overbuilding.
I recently heard from a local telecommunications
cooperative operating in my district about the experience they
had dealing with the Bureau of Land Management. I have to put
an asterisk by this. We love our local BLM and agents, but
sometimes they don't have the right resources to do their job.
The telecommunications cooperative attempted to build a
highway spanning multiple counties in my district. But the BLM
offices in different counties bounced the project accruals back
and forth for 6 months. This scheme of hot potato cost
companies resources and consumers reliable access to the
internet, which can save lives and keeps kids connected to
school. I know that my colleague, Mr. Duncan, has legislation
to address this very issue, and I thank him for his leadership
on this.
My Bipartisan Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act
that I have introduced with a fellow member of this committee,
Mr. O'Halleran, will also help providers looking to build on
Federal lands know how much they should expect to spend and
when they will have answers on their permit application. This
will be especially helpful to communities in Utah that wait too
long for responses from Federal agencies, like I have just
described, or heard stories of waiting up to 9 years for
permitting on Federal lands.
Once again, I thank the committee for holding this hearing,
and I urge my colleagues to consider supporting these
important, fiscally responsible permitting reform bills that
can solve real-world problems.
Now, a question or two. Mr. Brandenburg, before I ask you a
question, I would like to acknowledge your comments that you
made in your testimony about the frustrations you might feel
competing with local government on services.
Just to note, I served as a mayor of a community that had a
fiber network--a failed fiber network that I inherited. And in
addition to the frustrations you expressed, I can speak
firsthand to the difficulties of municipality running these
networks. And I think, oftentimes, they overlook things and
assume it is running. It is not too different than running the
power department or a sewer department. Then I can tell you
firsthand that they are very, very different.
A quick question, and Mr. Donovan, hopefully we will have
time for you to respond as well. As we seek to close the
digital divide and undertake sensible, good government reforms,
such as H.R. 1046, what should our expectations be if this
becomes law? And just as a quick example, should success be
defined by the number of permitting applications that are
currently unserved, or defined by how many permits are approved
and networks that are deployed?
Do we have the necessary accountability measures? And which
Federal agency should be responsible?
Mr. Brandenburg first.
Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Representative Curtis. I want
to just touch on this, maybe, just to kind of reciprocate some
of the challenges we have even tried to, you know, that your
bill would introduce. We have tried to put towers on DNR land.
And, basically, that was years ago, and we actually gave up in
the process because it was just too difficult. We couldn't get
anything passed because we were getting vague answers and vague
responses. And so, there needs to be some coordination and
research. I don't know what is the right method to do that.
When you were talking about--and, by the way, I just want
to add real quickly that broadband should not be a partisan
issue. We are all in this business to serve our customers, to
serve Americans that desperately needing this service at this
time.
So what agency should be involved? You know, I think,
perhaps, you know, that the FCC is probably the best equipped,
given that we have, you know, accurate data mapping, and not
just let service providers say what they have to service. And
that is how we got into this mess in the beginning. And we, for
one, you know, submitted accurate data. I will yield back so
Mr. Donovan can----
Mr. Curtis. Yes, Mr. Donovan, we have just a few seconds if
you want to weigh in quickly.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, so quickly, success should be on projects
deployed. And I agree, the FCC is the right source for that. I
appreciate and commend in your bill of having the FCC map be
the gold standard and providing that data to other agencies to
move forward.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you for your quick and precise answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking
Member Latta, for holding this hearing today. I am pleased to
see the committee working in a bipartisan fashion on these 12
bills. Expanding our network capabilities is a priority on both
sides. Both parties agree that broadband access is essential
for America's economic growth.
We all know that, when it comes to expanding our networks,
we have a lot of work to do, especially in rural and Tribal
areas. In my district, many households have no at-home internet
access. No broadband means that children can't do their
schoolwork, parents can't talk to their doctors, and new
businesses can't open. The result is in worsening education and
healthcare, economic outcomes for these communities. This is
why it is so important for the House to pass the bipartisan
infrastructure bill as soon as possible. This bill will provide
$65 billion to build out broadband networks and bring down the
cost of high-speed internet access. It would focus our
investments in communities with no broadband.
Once this bill is passed, we will need strong oversight to
ensure these investments are going to the right places. We also
need to make sure this money is spent in a timely fashion. That
means using high-quality data and minimizing project delays.
Every day a community has no broadband access is a day its
people are left behind.
Mr. Fogle, the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act will be
signed into law soon. As the broadband grants are rolled out,
how can we make sure the money is used effectively and wisely
by State and local governments?
Mr. Fogle. When it comes to Federal moneys, I would
encourage Congress to directly allocate those funds rather than
go through the State governments, because the State government,
at least in our State, adds another layer of delay to rural
broadband and to regular city broadband. If there is direct
access, we are proving that even through the Recovery Act funds
that communities throughout the country are able to directly
use the funds that have been sent to them, and they are doing
it much more effectively than going through the State levels.
I am fortunate to be in a community that received directed
funds from the recovery acts. And we have already put those
where the dollars were sent to us, and we put those dollars to
work. By sending the broadband funding directly to communities
or community organizations, for instance, the organization for
large communities in northern Colorado serving 400,000 people
that are currently deploying fiber, that money can be put to
work right away. Thank you.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. I agree with most of
what you have said. And I would hope that we have learned from
the pandemic funding that the State holds up the process for
much of the funding that went forward during the pandemic.
I hear a lot of talk about--Mr. Donovan, I hear a lot of
talk about the future of 5G. But right now, much of my district
is stuck with zero G. What is being done to expand wireless
access in rural and Tribal areas right now, and how can
Congress help to get that done?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you. And I agree, we have experienced
this morning during the hearing that in Mr. Long's district
that there is indeed maybe a signal, but not enough to complete
a call. I just read this morning that the President of the
United States, while traveling across Michigan, is dropping
calls. There is certainly a need for wireless service to be
expanded. And I really appreciate your leadership on calling
attention to that in rural and Tribal areas.
One of the things could help immediately, since funding
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is going to
flow through the States, the ideas contained in Congressman
Fletcher's bill in the Broadband Incentives for Communities
Act, to make sure that there's resources in place to process
applications, especially if there is an influx of them coming
in. It would be extremely helpful to clarify now that funding
already provided and already gone out under the American Rescue
Plan Act can be used for those purposes to make sure that as
additional funds come online, that municipalities and
localities are ready to work in collaboration with carriers to
make sure that service is expanded, including wireless service,
as soon as possible. And building on that, we should make sure
that there is still a role for the FCC and others to push to
expand mobile connectivity as well as to fix connectivity
targeted in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I
yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
I see Congressman Mullin is here. Markwayne, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. I am sorry. I
had--I had some phone issues a while ago, and I had to run out
and get a new phone real quick, ironically. The irony of that,
right?
Mr. Donovan, you mentioned in your testimony that
policymakers should consider ways to make sure that
contributors or contribution sources that provide resources for
the USF are equitable and sustainable. Have you considered the
edge providers that do not contribute to the Universal Service
Fund despite the fact that their high-bandwidth content or
content is driving up costs for rural providers?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you. That is an issue that we are
looking at. The contribution space right now is not sustainable
and should be looked at to make sure it is set up for the
mission that USF has put forward to expand--likely to expand
the contribution-based edge providers would require production
from Congress, an act of Congress, but is an issue that we
suggest continue to explore. I do know there is Senate
legislation currently pending that would require the FCC to
study the implications of moving policy in that direction. And
we certainly think that is worth taking a look at.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I can tell you from all my rural
providers is what they talk about and complain about
constantly, and what is jamming up the network, slowing them
down obviously. So what role do you think the edge providers
should play in ensuring the sustainability moving forward in
the USF fund?
Mr. Donovan. I think it is appropriate to look at the
companies that derive the greatest benefit from having that
connectivity have a stake in making sure that carriers are able
to build out and strengthen those networks to make sure that
all consumers are able to access the content that they demand
in the ongoing increasing use of applications as network use
continues to explode.
Mr. Mullin. So just, kind of--you said the Senate was
moving forward with legislation, which I am vaguely familiar
with. What do you think Congress should be looking at if we are
going to include the edge providers?
Mr. Donovan. Congress should look at what the future of
Universal Service Fund should be overall. What is the role of
both? What needs to be built to meet the mandate of reasonably
comparable services in urban and rural areas? That should
include mobile and 5G in today's mobile world. And then, you
know, once--after establishing what the Universal Service Fund
should be used to pay for, then look at the contributions
factor and see who it is that benefits from those services and
who should contribute to make sure that it is an equitable and
sustainable base to make sure that the goals of the Universal
Service Fund are met.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I appreciate that, and I don't have any
further questions. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes my good friend from California, Ms. Eshoo. You are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your
testimony.
First, Mr. Hudson raised the issue of not having a Chair of
the--we have an Acting Chair of the FCC, but the administration
has not named a permanent Chair. I agree with him. I think it
is troubling, and I have publicly and repeatedly called on the
administration to name a Chair. I have and continue to support
the Acting Chairwoman, and I think she would be absolutely
superb. It is a very important position. The FCC should not be
left without a permanent Chair being named.
Again, thank you to the witnesses. I want to say to Mr.
Fogle that I served for 10 years in county government, on the
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. I have such a deep
appreciation for local government. Telecommunications has
always been a Federal-local partnership, and I am really
pleased that you are with us today to represent the needs of
municipalities. I also want to add my thanks for your
leadership on municipal broadband and your support of the
Community Broadband Act, which I am the author of.
I would like to ask you, and just have you answer briefly,
your view on the two bills that are before us that directly
impact municipalities: 5058 and 1058. Will these, in your view,
these bills help municipalities? And if so, do you have any
suggestions on how those bills to be strengthened?
Are they good as they are written? Can you just comment on
that briefly?
Mr. Fogle. Thank you, Congresswoman. As far as 1058, that
is the Wireless Resiliency and Flexible Investment Act.
Ms. Eshoo. Right.
Mr. Fogle. I am assuming I have the right one there.
Ms. Eshoo. You do.
Mr. Fogle. NLC always has problems with shot clocks. The
60-day timeframe for State and local governments to receive a
complete eligible facilities request will cause problems at a
local level. And----
Ms. Eshoo. Why?
Mr. Fogle [continuing]. What I would like to see----
Ms. Eshoo. Why----
Mr. Fogle [continuing]. Because----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Can't the municipalities respond or
act in 60 days? That is 2 months.
Mr. Fogle. I think they can.
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Mr. Fogle. I think what happens is it sets up an automatic
antagonistic attitude by forcing them to do it. I haven't seen
anything in our community or communities around us where the
60-day shot clock would have even made a difference. But if
somebody comes into an area with historic preservation issues,
things like that, the 60-day shot clock might get in the way.
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Mr. Fogle. Other than that, NLC stands in support of this
bill.
Ms. Eshoo. OK.
Mr. Fogle. The 60-day shot clock is the only thing that we
would take exception with.
Ms. Eshoo. OK. That is wonderful.
To Ms. Leanza, thank you for your advocacy, for the reform
in prisons and jails. It is--I would just say to colleagues
that many of us know that the mother of this issue was
Commissioner Clyburn. And she raised it. And I sure hope we can
get this through, because in the words of my father, it is a
racket.
To Mr. Brandenburg, as all Members did, we read the
testimonies. I am not so sure what your top line is. Can you
state in one sentence what you think is the most important
issue that you have come to testify on?
Mr. Brandenburg. I think--in one sentence, I will try. I
think the top concern is access to spectrum, you know, and also
the role that government plays with public-private
partnerships. With private providers, I think it is right up
their end, because there is nobody that is in line with what
that means. And I think we could benefit greatly from that.
Ms. Eshoo. And to Mr. Donovan, is H.R. 5058 a bill that you
support?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, it is. And as well as in addition to
that, 1058, I appreciate your support for the concept of having
some backstop for a shot clock. That is helpful. If there is an
issue that arises, there is a process to move forward, but
carriers do need to have an answer so they can know which way
to go.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
convening this very, very important hearing. And thank you as
well to the witnesses for your testimony today.
I think I am going to spend my time, Mr. Chairman, with Ms.
Leanza, policy advisor for the United Church of Christ. I have
listened to most of your testimony today. And let me tell you,
I can feel your passion. And I just want to thank you very much
for all that you do for the underserved communities all across
the country.
You know, I have said time and time again, we are the only
industrialized nation with a maternal mortality rate that is on
the rise. Most countries are moving in the right direction, but
in the U.S. it is on the rise. Even more concerning to me are
the stark racial and the ethnic inequities in these outcomes.
African-American women are three times more likely and
indigenous women are more than twice as likely to die from a
pregnancy-related complication as their peers. Congresswoman
Robin Kelly talks about this all of the time.
In addition, a recent study confirmed by the Urban Rural
Disparity and Maternal Mortality finding that maternal
mortality increased with rurality, in rural communities. COVID-
19 pandemic revealed already existing correlations between
broadband accessibility and access to proper healthcare
services. Healthcare providers rapidly scaled up their use of
telemedicine. We have been talking telemedicine ever since I
have been on this committee for 14 years. But healthcare
providers rapidly scaled up their use of telemedicine in an
effort to minimize patients' exposure while continuing to
provide needed care, including OB/GYN. However, patients
without access to high-speed, reliable, and affordable
broadband may face barriers to accessing care through
telemedicine.
And, so, that is why I introduced the Data Mapping to Save
Moms' Lives Act, which will require the FCC to include maternal
mortality as part of its broadband health mapping tool. Now, I
know that took a long time to say, but I had to get it in the
record.
My question is, Ms. Leanza, how will advancing legislation,
such as the data mapping legislation that I have, expand access
to broadband activity and close the gap for populations that
already suffer a disparity in maternal health rates?
Ms. Leanza. Thank you very much, Congressman.
As we know, in addition to the terrible disparities in
maternal health, we also have disparities in the access to
broadband. So, unfortunately, those two problems overlap one
another. And they also are common to communities in rural
America and also in more urban settings where people cannot
afford broadband.
But, as you said, telemedicine, the ease of access to
healthcare, is a great way that we can bring down maternal
mortality and severe side effects of childbirth. In fact, I
think the CDC says that two out of three childbirth deaths are
preventable. So it is not that we lack the medical knowledge to
save these women; it is just, they lack the access to care.
So, if we can see how technology can make that care easily
accessible to them, then we can hopefully take one more step to
actually getting scientific knowledge we have to them.
Mr. Butterfield. I completely agree. By utilizing maternal
mortality data and broadband access data, we can better
understand the intersection--I think that is what you said--the
intersection between health and broadband and better develop
policy responses.
My final question, if I have time: The Emergency Broadband
Benefit Program has helped over 6 million households since it
started earlier this year. The program is a temporary one,
designed to provide assistance during the pandemic. However, we
know that many families will continue to need a program like
EBB to subscribe to broadband and remain online even after the
pandemic ends.
Do you feel that Congress should update the program and
provide additional funding to set it up for long-term success?
Ms. Leanza. Absolutely, sir. People will still need to pay
for that broadband even next year, even when the great work
that Congress did to establish the Emergency Broadband Fund is
over. And, you know, I strongly support and a number of the
civil rights community strongly supports continuing that
funding and hopefully keeping the funding at the level that it
is right now.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for that answer.
And, Mr. Doyle, you admonished us at the beginning of the
hearing to keep it within 5, and I therefore give you back 10
seconds. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doyle. I will thank the gentleman for that courtesy.
And the Chair now yields to Congresswoman Fletcher for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Doyle. And
thanks to you and Ranking Member Latta for convening today's
hearing to discuss this important slate of bills.
I have appreciated hearing so many of the witnesses and my
colleagues speaking out in support of my bill that I mentioned
earlier today, and really appreciate the robust conversation
about these bipartisan bills, and especially want to concur
with the comments of Mr. Butterfield just now about the
importance of having this data for maternal mortality efforts.
You know, what Mr. Butterfield was just saying, something
that we have noted over the last year and a half, we have seen
so much in this COVID-19 pandemic that has highlighted the
disparities and challenges that we face. And there is nothing
that is more clear than the highlight for the need for high-
speed broadband to connect people to their jobs, students to
their schools and their teachers and their classmates and
online resources just in every community across the country.
And Congress really has answered that call by providing
significant broadband funding in the recent relief packages.
And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would provide an
additional $40 billion to States to expand their broadband
connections, as we have discussed today.
My home State of Texas is estimated to receive at least
$100 million to connect Texans to broadband. And there are
approximately a million Texans right now who don't have access
to broadband. So I really support these provisions.
But part of the reason that I introduced this bill and that
it is important that we are talking about it today is that I am
concerned that with this incredible level of funding will come
a lot of applications to deploy the infrastructure--the towers,
fibers, small cells that are needed to provide these
connections--and that this will strain local offices tasked
with reviewing the applications.
And that is why I believe that my bill is so essential for
the effective deployment of these funds that we are investing
in.
And so I want to direct a couple questions, with the time I
have, to Mr. Donovan.
Can you explain or just describe some of the challenges
that your members have faced in obtaining the authorizations
necessary to deploy their networks in communities that they
serve and describe maybe a little bit about how legislation
like mine, H.R. 5058, would help address those challenges and
kind of prevent this bottleneck in delay at the local level?
Mr. Donovan. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank
you for your leadership on this important issue.
Our members have faced issues of uncertain timeframes for
receiving answers, which challenges how they plan their
networks for network deployment moving forward, even before
things shifted to remote.
And so some of the new ways that we have experienced
challenges in going through the permitting process is, some
systems that require, you know, wet-ink signatures or notarized
signatures in order to move forward or only in-person
submissions of applications or wet-stamp review of construction
plans--all things that we should look at how we can update to
make sure that it is a sustainable process and a collaborative
process.
As Councilmember Fogle mentioned earlier, when industry and
localities can work together, it is a win-win for all of us.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that. And, actually, you
took the words right out of my mouth, because this bill really
has emerged from a collaboration process that we have here in
Houston. It is modeled after what we have been doing here in
Houston, which really has been a leader in our State in terms
of 5G broadband deployment. And a key factor to that success
has been the close working relationship between city leaders
and the private sector in identifying the needs and
facilitating this deployment.
So, you know, our city's technology investments will be a
huge economic driver for our region for the years to come. And
I would be interested, Mr. Donovan or anyone on the panel, if
you can discuss the importance of these public-private
collaborative efforts to reach the goal of rapid 5G broadband
deployment in all communities, rural and urban.
Mr. Donovan. It comes down to resources. It's the resources
to process the applications, both in terms of the individuals
that are needed to process it as well as equipment and services
to process applications.
And that should be both in a conventional work environment
as well as in a remote work environment, so that processes can
continue to move forward even if there are additional shifts to
remote work, that that doesn't become a block to approving the
applications that we need to build out the broadband services
that, as you mentioned, are so critically needed.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific.
I have 30 seconds if anyone else wants to weigh in on that
question.
Mr. Fogle. I will add something, if I could, Congresswoman.
Well, many of the things that I talk about revolve around
municipal broadband. Municipal broadband is not the end-all-be-
all response on how to provide broadband to our communities.
Partnerships with the private sector are just absolutely
critical for ongoing rollout of the broadband infrastructure
throughout our country. Both should be treated with equal
importance going forward.
And I thank you.
Mrs. Fletcher. Yes. Thank you for that.
I have gone over my time, so, Mr. Doyle, thank you very
much for indulging me on that. And I would also like to enter
some statements in the record that we will email, as instructed
at the beginning of the hearing.
Thank you so much. I yield back, Chairman Doyle.
Mr. Cardenas. Chairman, you are muted again.
Mr. Doyle. I am sorry, Tony. The Chair recognizes you for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That was
interesting. Anyway. But we are on.
I want to spend some of my time talking about the Martha
Wright Prison Phone Justice Act. And one of the things--and I
apologize, I mean this in the best spirit possible, Ms. Leanza.
Some people might assume that your expertise or your approach
is completely emotional.
Although this is a very, very emotional issue, can you just
spend a little bit of time explaining the intricacies of why
this is so important and what it has to do with the technical,
not just the adverse effects when we don't allow people who are
preadjudicated or incarcerated to be able to communicate with
especially the next generation of their family?
Ms. Leanza. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Congressman.
So I think there are two important things to understand
here. First of all, folks from across the ideological spectrum
recognize and agree that the marketplace is broken. This is not
a marketplace that functions. This is not a marketplace that
brings prices down and improves technology for people, like the
marketplaces that most of us benefit from today.
And, in fact, for that reason, we have seen last year's
Chairman under the Trump administration, Chairman Pai,
advocated, said he wanted to work with Congress to fill the gap
in regulatory authority of the Federal Communications
Commission. We saw, last year, Americans for Prosperity, the
American Conservative Union, Right on Crime all supporting Mr.
Rush's legislation, which is unchanged from that time.
So it is very important that, when a jail or prison
negotiates for service for their facility, they right now are
able to offset the cost of the facility on to the backs of
people like Mrs. Martha Wright, a grandmother trying to keep
touch with her grandson. The provider will offer a bid in an
RFP to say, ``We will maximize the amount of money that we will
pay back to the prison to cover the cost of that prison.'' And
then the rate goes on the backs of the people who are paying on
the outside--the community members, the clergy people who are
on the outside who are paying for those bills.
So we have a marketplace problem that we need solved, in
this case with regulation. We all might prefer competition, but
competition does not solve this problem. We have seen this RFP
process actually work to the detriment of consumers.
Mr. Cardenas. The providers of this service, it sounds to
me as though they are gouging and they are actually welcoming a
wild wild west scenario, where there is no standard to which
they should comply. And, with all due respect, I call it a
standard of decency, for God's sake.
To be able to charge what they charge just so that a child
can speak to their parent already in a very difficult
situation, with a child having the stigma of their parent being
in jail or what have you, and then to have to not be able to
connect, and then create, in my opinion--and I think studies
have shown, when young people are able to communicate with
somebody who is either preadjudicated or incarcerated and
convicted, they are able to deal with it much, much better. And
so, less acting out, better attention in school, et cetera,
which is what I think everybody on this committee and everybody
in America wants for every child, is to not create extra
burdens, whether it be accidentally or for the lack of
regulation that should be and could be corrected, just like Mr.
Rush's legislation will do.
Ms. Leanza, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, which
is very recent, has helped over 6 million households since it
was started earlier this year. The program is temporary, one
designed to provide assistance during the pandemic, but we know
that many families will continue to need a program like EBB to
subscribe to the broadband and remain online ever after the
pandemic ends.
Do you agree that Congress should update the program and
provide additional funding to set it up for long-term success?
And can you just speak frank and say, is the program currently
perfect and can we make fixes and make sure that we make it
better as we go along?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks, Congressman.
Yes, the EBB is very important. It is very important for
the EBB to continue. And, in fact, one of the key ways that you
can make the program better, that Congress can make it better,
is to make sure that it lasts a long time.
It certainly takes some level of application. People need
to apply for the program. And, for them to do that, they want
to know that the program will be there for them over the longer
term. They don't want to go through the trouble of applying
and, you know, a fair amount of work and then discover that,
you know, their benefit is over.
So I think a benefit that continues at the level that
Congress already provided for and a benefit that is lasting a
long term. And a number of the modifications that Congress has
proposed in the infrastructure bill are quite beneficial and
will improve the smoothness of operations for the program so
that people have those connections that can do all these other
things.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Ms. Leanza.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
I understand we have some colleagues that are waving on
today, and I believe the first person to wave on is Mr.
Griffith.
So, Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate that.
And let me say, I have been very pleased to hear lots of
folks talk about robust oversight and that we have to do a lot
of oversight. As ranking member on the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee--I think Chairwoman DeGette would
agree with me--that, in order to do a lot of robust oversight
on this and other important projects that we oversee on the
Energy and Commerce Committee, because what we oversee and what
we have as jurisdiction is so broad, we might need some
additional staff and some additional committee slot times to
get all that in. But I am up for it, and I am pretty sure that
Chairwoman DeGette would be up for it too.
That being said, I do want to thank you, Chairman Doyle and
Ranking Member Latta, for allowing me the opportunity to wave
on today and be a participant in this hearing. I believe that
some of our most valuable bipartisan work that we can do is on
broadband and broadband expansion.
I was disappointed that my bill didn't make the list today.
Hopefully it will make the list at some point. But I have a
bill, H.R. 1051, that I introduced back in February called the
Broadband Leadership Act. My bill would make telecommunications
infrastructure investment more efficient by expediting local
permitting decisions in either 90 or 150 days, depending on the
type of site.
If no decision is made or an extension waiver is not
obtained, the provider would be granted a permit by default.
Additionally, it would ensure that permitting fees are tied to
actual processing and equipment maintenance costs.
Now, I heard somebody talk about a 60-day time limit
earlier. And if we need to put some protective language in
there for historic sites or something like that, I am more than
happy to work with people on that language.
Mr. Brandenburg, I know that any delay when burying fiber
or constructing fixed wireless can force a company to shift its
investment to a different area at the expense of the consumer,
particularly the rural consumer. And so you all know, most of
my district would be considered rural. I represent 29 different
geopolitical subdivisions across about a 4\1/2\-to 6-hour-wide,
depending on how you measure it, district.
Do you believe, Mr. Brandenburg, that delays in permitting
are sometimes used to favor certain providers over others, or
is site permitting just not a priority for those who are making
those decisions?
Mr. Brandenburg. Thank you, Representative Griffith.
I would say that, you know, from our experience, I do not
see any preference, you know, in the local authorities. By the
way, these guys are doing a great job, especially during the
pandemic. There was some comments made about being able to do
that remotely as well. I think those all need to be considered.
I just think that they are overwhelmed and understaffed.
And, in many cases, you know, if broadband is meant to be a
priority--and it needs to be--in this country, we need to, yes,
have those, you know, discussions with them about what we
intend to do in an inviting way, but we also, I think, do need
some kind of provisions for a shot clock so that we can move on
with the work that needs to be done.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. I appreciate that. Do you think that my
bill would help, then? It sounds like you do.
Mr. Brandenburg. I do, yes. I believe that we need some
kind of, you know, a mechanism to--and a single point of
contact, I might add, as well, so that we can not have to deal
with multiple agencies. Sometimes we are dealing with Federal,
State, and local, and sometimes there are cascading events that
happen in series, and I think a lot of those things could
happen in parallel.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that.
In dealing with a variety of municipalities at your
company, how have permitting processes impacted your expansion
decisions?
Mr. Brandenburg. So it is a great area of concern.
Sometimes we get capital authorized for, you know, for specific
projects, and if we cannot execute--and we have to build a
business plan, right, to be able to serve those customers. And
if we are waiting a year-plus for those projects to actually be
ready for construction, the business dynamics, just like a
grant application to the Federal Government, those dynamics
have changed. And nothing stands still for that period of time,
so it greatly affects our ability.
So timely investments require timely permitting.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. Well, I appreciate that greatly.
I see my time is just about up, and so, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for letting me participate, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
I see one of our subcommittee members has returned.
So, Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
You are muted. I think you are still on mute.
Ms. Clarke. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Doyle. We can hear you.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our ranking
member and our very distinguished panelists for being here
today and for providing this venue in which we can discuss
these matters that are critical to my district.
As more goods and services and opportunities shift from the
real world to cyberspace, broadband access and deployment is
one of the defining policy issues of our time. While this shift
to the digital realm has provided numerous societal benefits
and allowed us to remain more connected than ever before, it is
critical that we do not allow historically underserved and
underrepresented groups to be left behind.
Our efforts in Congress will determine if the continued
build-out of our wireless networks serve as the tide to lift
all ships towards a more equitable and inclusive society or
further entrench the inequities of the past.
One such inequity we have an opportunity to address today
are those related to maternal health outcomes. Currently, the
U.S. ranks as the worst place in the developed world on
maternal mortality, and Black women are 2.5 times more likely
to die due to childbirth complications than White women.
And that is why I am so encouraged to see this committee
look to better understand this issue and the role broadband
access may play in addressing this through legislation such as
H.R. 1218, the Data Mapping to Save Moms' Lives Act, introduced
by my distinguished colleagues on the committee, Mr.
Butterfield, Ms. Blunt Rochester, and Mr. Bilirakis.
This bill would allow for a better understanding of the
nexus between internet connectivity and maternal morbidity
rates by integrating related maternal health outcome data into
the agency's broadband data maps. To me, this legislation seems
like a commonsense approach to providing policymakers with
information critical to addressing the maternal health
disparities.
So my first question is, Mr. Donovan, is this proposal
something the Competitive Carriers Association would support,
and if not, why or why not--if so, why or why not?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, Congresswoman. So thank you for that and
for your leadership on this issue.
This is something that we would support. We want to see the
most reliable broadband maps available, especially for wireless
coverage. And then they can be used for a range of purposes,
including supporting positive health outcomes on the issues
that are so important like this.
Ms. Clarke. And, Councilmember Fogle, would the data
collected under H.R. 1218 provide information relevant to
policymakers at the local level seeking to better understand
health outcomes?
Mr. Fogle. Absolutely. The data mapping from the FCC has
been very limited up to now, so we definitely support and NLC
supports a more robust data-mapping system that can tell us
where the holes in the broadband infrastructure of the country
are. Because we can't fix what we cannot see.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely.
And, Ms. Leanza, I want to follow up on a question or a
point raised by Rep. Cardenas, the question about the EBB
program.
I would like to raise a concern received by my office about
the lagging participation in the program due to a lack of
maintenance of effort by internet providers in keeping the cost
of their internet service within the affordable realm that the
EBB program was intended to provide.
They have found that many of our carriers are anticipating
a hike in the cost of the internet service beyond the program
that has been provided by the FCC.
Can you give us any insight to how we can mitigate that? Is
it ultimately making the program permanent, or are there other
means by which we should be discussing this with our carriers?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks so much.
So I do think that we should make the program permanent. I
think we should maintain the current funding levels in the EBB
in the new proposal.
In addition, the infrastructure proposal has provisions
that enable the FCC to protect consumers, to look at whether
there is upselling or other kinds of anticonsumer practices in
the broadband industry. And I think it is really important that
we have the so-called cop on the beat to be sure that, when
consumers are using these Federal dollars to make sure that a
broadband is affordable, that the carriers on the other side
are putting good use to that money and it is not being wasted
on price hikes or things that are not justified in the
circumstances.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 7 seconds.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady.
The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
Bobby?
I think you need to unmute.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really appreciate
your allowing me to wave on to the subcommittee. I want to
thank the ranking member also. And I certainly want to thank
all of our fine witnesses today.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Ms. Leanza.
Ms. Leanza, as you know, I have been working on the prison
phone issue for a while. And, in April, I introduced the latest
version of my one, which is H.R. 2489, which you have already
commented on, you and others have commented on. But I have a
question that I want to address to you.
The question on the proper regulation of phone calls to
incarcerated people has been addressed before, as I said, at
least a decade earlier. Congress originally adopted section 276
of the Communications Act, which covers this issue, in 1996.
But even though Congress gave the FCC the authority to address
intrastate calls to prison and jail, the FCC has not been able
to address this issue fully.
What has been the impact of the GTL v. Federal
Communications Commission ruling by the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals? What does Congress need to do to improve this
situation?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks so much, Congressman. Thank you for your
bill and your leadership on this.
As you said, section 276 of the Communications Act
addresses this issue. It says that the FCC has authority over
inter- and intrastate pay phones, and pay phones includes calls
to incarcerating facilities.
But, unfortunately, a Federal court decision said that,
even though Congress gave the FCC authority over intrastate
calls in 1996, it concluded that Congress actually had to amend
the law in two places, not just one place, in order to
effectuate that change. So your bill amends section 2 of the
Communications Act, which makes clear that the FCC would have
authority.
And the reason that this is necessary is because, you know,
the Federal Government is often a really important player to
preserve the rights and needs of consumers and citizens across
the country. Everybody should be treated fairly, and everybody
should receive the same consumer protection against unjust and
unreasonable rates that all the other consumers in this country
receive under the Communications Act.
Mr. Rush. I totally concur.
Several studies, Ms. Leanza, going as far back as the
1970s, have shown that prisoners who were able to maintain
close contact with loved ones experienced better postrelease
outcomes and had lower recidivism rates. This is an important
aspect of rehabilitation, not only for those that are
incarcerated and for their loved ones but also for the
community where they will return to and where they reside in.
Can you please discuss how the current prison phone model
discourages this very close, extremely close, contact
relationship?
Ms. Leanza. Yes. There is no more effective way to
improve--and more cost-effective way to improve the outcomes
than to give people who are incarcerated close ties to the
community outside so that, when they get outside and they are
finished with their term, they can find a job, find a place to
live, their family relationships with their children, their
spouses, will continue to be strong and vibrant, and they will
be able to reenter society fully and successfully.
So it is a part of Safe Communities to allow people to
successfully reintegrate in society if they can keep those
communications vibrant while they are inside.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. I
yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
Let's see. Last but certainly not least, my good friend,
Congresswoman Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes to
close this hearing.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
the hearing, letting me wave on, and to all the witnesses that
testified today.
You know, it is essential that our communication networks
serve the unique needs of all of our communities, and I am
pleased that I have the opportunity to discuss the ISAAC
Alerting Act at today's hearing.
I have partnered with Ranking Member Rodgers on this
effort, because ensuring people with disabilities have access
to services they need has long been a priority of not only mine
and hers but this entire committee. It is especially important
when we consider emergency response services and how some of
our neighbors with disabilities might be best served if first
responders are aware of the special circumstances before
arriving on the scene.
Ms. Leanza, how is accessibility for people with
disabilities a civil rights issue, particularly as it relates
to 9-1-1 and emergency response services?
Ms. Leanza. Well, clearly, people with disabilities have
the same civil rights as everyone else in our country, and, you
know, the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, among
others, prohibits discrimination against them. And if a person
cannot get access to emergency communications and emergency
services, they might pay the ultimate price for not being able
to call an ambulance.
So there could be no greater deprivation of your civil
rights than to die because you couldn't get the same access to
services as everyone else.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you for that.
So, building on that, what should the committee keep in
mind as it considers ways to improve 9-1-1 and emergency
services responses to requests for assistance from people with
disabilities?
Ms. Leanza. Thanks.
First of all, you should absolutely work closely, as I am
sure you have, with the people with disabilities. There is such
a wide range of different kinds of disabilities. The needs of
somebody who is deaf, versus somebody who is blind, versus
somebody who is deaf/blind, versus somebody who has a cognitive
disability--all of those require different kinds of responses,
and all of those communities are the experts themselves about
what needs best serve them.
I do have a little bit of experience with this, in
particular, in working with, unfortunately, incarcerated people
who have disabilities. And the tragedy of somebody not being
able to communicate while they are inside, you know, turns a
prison term into a solitary confinement for multiple years.
So not being able to communicate with your loved ones,
whether that is because of a disability or some other way, is a
really significant issue.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
So I am going to ask all of the panel, please, to answer
this with ``yes'' or ``no.''
Do you consider connectivity and accessibility to public
safety networks and emergency 9-1-1 services a public health
issue?
We can go down the panel, whoever wants to answer first.
Ms. Leanza. Yes, I do.
Mr. Brandenburg. Yes, I do as well.
Mr. Donovan. With 80 percent of an estimated 240 million 9-
1-1 calls coming from wireless devices, absolutely, yes.
Mr. Fogle. Absolutely.
Mrs. Dingell. And, having time, I am going to ask Mr.
Fogle, is it correct to assume that disparities or gaps in
broadband access could lead to gaps in access to these
emergency services?
Mr. Fogle. Oh, I think you are absolutely correct that
areas that do not have worthwhile broadband services could not
only cause disparities in response times for emergency
services, it could cause disparities in reporting of
emergencies.
The areas outside of our communities, for instance, that
are in the semirural areas, there are gaps that are literally
150 yards away from good fiber connectivity, but because of the
transition between city and rural, the broadband connectivity
stops.
And as we move forward with broadband deployment across our
country, I think we need to especially concentrate on those
semirural areas where the facilities exist. It is just a
confluence of laws and confusion that cause those areas to not
be equally served even though they are so close to
connectivity.
So we can't have people's homes having issues and not
having great broadband service just because they are, you know,
a few hundred yards outside of a given area.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
And, Ms. Leanza, in the 16 seconds left, do you agree with
that?
Ms. Leanza. Absolutely.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you to all of you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my 6 seconds and look
forward to working on this subject with you.
Mr. Doyle. OK.
The gentlelady yields back. I thank her.
So I think that is everyone. I want to thank all the
witnesses for their participation in today's hearing.
I want to request unanimous consent to enter the following
records, testimony, or other information into the record: a
letter from the Credit Union National Association; a statement
from Congressman Bill Pascrell; statement from Rick Roderick,
president of the National Association of Amateur Radio; a
letter from NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors
Association to Representative Fletcher in support of H.R. 5058;
another letter from NATE to myself and Ranking Member Latta in
support of H.R. 5058; statements from CCA, INCOMPAS, WIA in
support of H.R. 5028; a letter from the March of Dimes in
support of H.R. 1218; a letter from grassroots advocates, civil
rights, consumers' rights, and faith-based organizations in
support of H.R. 2489; a letter from the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights in support of H.R. 2489; a letter
from the American Medical Association in support of H.R. 1218;
a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists in support of H.R. 1218; a letter from GPS
Innovation Alliance in support of H.R. 2501; a letter from
USTelecom in support of H.R. 5400; an op-ed in the New York
Daily News entitled ``New York News: New Jersey, media desert''
by Congressman Bill Pascrell and Senator Robert Menendez.
Without objection, this is so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. I remind Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared.
I would ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
questions you may receive.
At this time, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg54446_chrg-117hhrg54446.htm
- Size
- 185,175 bytes
- SHA-256
- eb575ca88ca70d68402f908b48a470c6b291d1af6698d5d13646147526fc9ed6
- Original
- No public link identified.