[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  STRENGTHENING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN 
                           WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND
                                 TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 23, 2025

                               __________

                            Serial No. 119-2
                            
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
58-876 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                        BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                 Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
    Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                     MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                     RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
                                 Chairman
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia, Vice         DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    Chairman                           Ranking Member
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DARREN SOTO, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey      KATHY CASTOR, Florida
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota            officio)
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of North Carolina, opening statement...........................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, opening statement...............................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the 
  Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Hon. Rick W. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Georgia, opening statement..................................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27

                               Witnesses

Michael K. Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer, NCTA-
  The Internet and Television Association........................    29
    Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   155
Brian Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA.....................    42
    Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   159
Diane Rinaldo, Executive Director, Open RAN Policy Coalition.....    53
    Prepared statement...........................................    55
Chris Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Public 
  Knowledge......................................................    62
    Prepared statement...........................................    64
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   163

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record.......................   129
Slide presentation on spectrum, CTIA.............................   130
Letter of January 23, 2025, from Tim Donovan, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers Association, to Mr. 
  Hudson, et al..................................................   135
Letter of January 22, 2025, from Brian Fontes, Chief Executive 
  Officer, NENA, The 9-1-1 Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al....   138
Letter of January 22, 2025, from David A. Wright, Policy 
  Director, Spectrum for the Future, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......   140
Letter of January 22, 2025, from Mary L. Brown, Executive 
  Director, WifiForward, to Mr. Guthrie, et al...................   143
Statement of WISPA...............................................   146
Report of the Satellite Industry Association, ``National Policy 
  Must Prioritize More Spectrum for the U.S. Commercial Space 
  Industry or the United States Will Lose the Space Race,'' 
  September 2023 (Updated January 2025)..........................   150

 
        STRENGTHENING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2025

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Richard Hudson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Hudson, Allen, Latta, 
Bilirakis, Carter of Georgia, Dunn, Joyce, Fulcher, Pfluger, 
Cammack, Obernolte, Houchin, Fry, Kean, Goldman, Fedorchak, 
Guthrie (ex officio), Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), 
Soto, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Kelly, Barragan, Carter of 
Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, McClellan, Castor, Pallone (ex 
officio), and Hudson.
    Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Professional Staff Member; 
Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Sydney Greene, Director of 
Finance and Logistics; Calvin Huggins, Staff Assistant; Megan 
Jackson, Staff Director; Noah Jackson, Clerk, Communications 
and Technology; John Lin, Senior Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Elaina Murphy, 
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Kate 
Harper, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jackson 
Rudden, Staff Assistant; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
Stakeholder Director; Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; 
Rasheedah Blackwood, Minority Intern; Keegan Cardman, Minority 
Staff Assistant; Jennifer Epperson, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Communications and Technology; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy 
Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority 
Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Minority Member Services and 
Outreach Manager; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Manager; Dan Miller, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Michael Scurato, Minority 
FCC Detailee; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of 
Communications, Outreach and Member Services; Johanna Thomas, 
Minority Counsel, Communications and Technology.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Hudson. Good morning, and welcome to the first hearing 
in the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the 119th 
Congress.
    I am honored to serve as the chairman of this subcommittee, 
where there is a rich history of identifying and addressing the 
most pressing issues raised in the communications and 
technology sectors. As technology continues to advance, this 
subcommittee will be at the forefront of solving tough issues.
    The subcommittee has historically worked in a bipartisan 
manner to solve many of the issues before us, and I plan to 
continue that tradition by working with my ranking member, 
Representative Matsui, who I respect very much, and have 
admired her work and accomplishments as a leader in this space. 
And I look forward to working together and learning from Ms. 
Matsui.
    I am grateful for the work Chairman Latta brought to this 
subcommittee, and I am looking forward to continuing it and 
learning from him as well.
    I am also excited to work with my vice chairman, Mr. Rick 
Allen, and all of my colleagues on this subcommittee on both 
sides of the aisle to advance important legislation in this 
Congress.
    Our Nation is the world's economic powerhouse, and we lead 
the world in innovation. America is home to the best technology 
companies, both large and small. These companies lead in 
everything from next-generation wireless technology to all of 
the emerging technologies that rely on connectivity, ranging 
from artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, to 
Next Gen 9-1-1 and precision agriculture.
    Our country's startup ecosystem is strong and should be 
fostered. This committee must advance thoughtful policy that 
continues to grow American innovation and productivity rather 
than stifle it.
    Next-generation wireless technology supports many of these 
technological advancements. It impacts nearly every sector of 
our economy, from powering everyday communications networks and 
advancements in healthcare and manufacturing to being used for 
our national defense. It is something heavily present in my 
district at Fort Bragg. We call it the epicenter of the 
universe, the home of our special forces, and the largest Army 
base in the world.
    But if our wireless networks are going to keep pace with 
the speed of innovation, we need to make sure they have 
additional spectrum resources. Spectrum is a crucial element 
for wireless technology to operate. Americans depend on 
connected devices in their everyday lives, and the congestion 
on our networks has skyrocketed. Our wireless networks need to 
keep up.
    As our wireless networks advance from 5G to 6G technology 
and beyond, the demand for spectrum will only continue to grow. 
We must remember these important resources are finite. Managing 
these limited resources is vital to maintaining our economic 
dominance and protecting our national security.
    We will take a balanced approach to making both licensed 
and unlicensed spectrum available. This includes working with 
our Federal partners, such as the Department of Defense, which 
must have enough spectrum to defend the homeland but also be 
held accountable to use their resources efficiently.
    Last Congress, the Federal Communications Commission's 
spectrum auction authority expired for the first time due to 
disagreements about how spectrum resources should be allocated. 
These auctions have historically brought in billions to our 
national economy, with the highest spectrum auctions raising 
over $80 billion from private companies.
    It is simple economics. There is limited supply, unlimited 
demand, and a willingness to pay. We need to reauthorize the 
FCC's spectrum auction authority immediately.
    We must also continue looking for ways to make unlicensed 
spectrum available. Unlicensed spectrum unlocks the Internet of 
Things and the smart-device economy on which Americans rely, 
providing tremendous economic growth.
    Under the first Trump administration, more than 1,200 
megahertz of unlicensed spectrum was made available in the 6 
gigahertz band, leading to massive opportunities for innovation 
for our farmers, industrialists, and communities.
    These successes are just the start. However, as we 
progress, our adversaries are constantly trying to undermine 
our leadership and international standard-setting bodies 
through IP theft and through cyber attacks. The U.S. must 
remain resolute in defending our leadership to safeguard 
democratic values, and this happens by trusting in our private-
sector partners to address some of our Nation's most pressing 
challenges.
    We recently learned about Salt Typhoon, which may be the 
largest Chinese-backed telecommunications hack in our Nation's 
history. As we deploy advanced networks and connected devices 
in an environment of great power competition, we have to 
thoughtfully secure our networks every step of the way.
    At the end of last year, I was glad to see Congress fund 
the removal of the remaining Chinese equipment in our 
communications networks. China is producing cheap 
communications equipment at the cost of our national security, 
and that needs to change. We need trusted alternatives.
    Companies are working to develop and deploy Open RAN 
technology, which is intended to promote an ecosystem of 
trusted vendors for communication network equipment. And I look 
forward to hearing an update on its progress today.
    The key to our success is working together with our 
stakeholders to deploy and secure our networks. As our 
adversaries seek to undermine U.S. leadership, we will continue 
to build a comprehensive spectrum policy in the United States 
and a unified position on the international stage.
    I look forward to discussing these issues more in depth 
with our witnesses today and discussing the future spectrum 
policy in the United States.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. I will now recognize our ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want 
to congratulate you as serving as the new Communications and 
Technology Subcommittee chair. I look forward to working with 
you this Congress.
    I am glad that we are starting with such a timely issue on 
which we have a strong bipartisan track record. The last time 
this subcommittee had a spectrum hearing, the FCC spectrum 
auction authority had just lapsed for the first time in 
history. Now nearly 2 years later, the FCC is still deprived of 
this critical tool to unlock the full potential of the spectrum 
airwaves, leaving U.S. economic and national security at risk.
    Spectrum is a key engine of wireless innovation. It 
supports a wide range of technologies from remote surgery to 
autonomous vehicles and broadband. Our consumers, businesses, 
and Federal agencies all stand to benefit when we maximize our 
spectrum use. This requires a comprehensive approach that 
strikes the right balance of licensed, unlicensed, and shared 
spectrum.
    We need a bipartisan solution that not only restores 
auction authority but also promotes a healthy spectrum pipeline 
and ensures our Federal Government speaks with one voice on 
spectrum policy. And we need to be forward looking by promoting 
technologies that will improve spectrum sharing and efficiency. 
Equally critical is our obligation to be responsible stewards 
of spectrum auction revenues.
    As a long-time advocate for the FCC's Rip and Replace 
program, I am proud of our role to use spectrum auction 
proceeds to remove unsecured Chinese equipment from our 
communications networks. Spectrum is a public good, and I am 
dismayed to see prospects floated that would use auction 
proceeds to provide tax cuts for the wealthy through 
reconciliation.
    Rather, we need to work as a subcommittee to use these 
funds to close the digital divide, protect national security, 
and support public safety communications. This includes 
expanding access to lifesaving technologies such as Next 
Generation 9-1-1 for faster and more accurate emergency 
responses.
    Last Congress, this committee unanimously passed the 
Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act, comprehensive spectrum 
legislation that would have accomplished these very goals. 
Disappointingly, the House Republican leadership never brought 
this bipartisan proposal to the floor for a vote.
    This Congress, we must build on our good work. I hope my 
colleagues will continue our history of bipartisan cooperation 
on spectrum.
    Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't highlight the 
important work of the national spectrum strategy. Even amidst 
an auction authority lapse, the Biden administration answered 
my call for a unified spectrum plan by launching the first 
comprehensive U.S. spectrum strategy in 6 years. This strategy 
offers a roadmap for securing U.S. leadership and spectrum 
innovation and ensuring that the Federal Government speaks with 
one voice.
    We can't afford to throw that progress away and return to 
the disarray that preceded the national spectrum strategy. The 
U.S. needs a unified spectrum position now more than ever to 
fight for our interest in international negotiations and to 
rally other countries to our vision. If we fail to maintain our 
global leadership on spectrum, we create a vacuum that China 
will happily fill.
    The stakes are high. It is time for all stakeholders to 
come to the table and for Congress to pass comprehensive 
spectrum legislation that has substantial bipartisan buy-in.
    Clearly, there is a lot of work ahead of us, but I am 
hopeful. This subcommittee has a proven track record of 
bipartisan cooperation that keeps America at the forefront of 
global innovation. Now is not the time to throw that aside. We 
have a chance to continue our tradition of working across the 
aisle, and I am committed to advancing solutions that secure 
economic growth, national security, and bipartisan funding 
priorities benefiting the American public.
    Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today, 
and I look forward to the discussion.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the ranking member for her remarks.
    And I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for his 
opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
bringing us together for this important hearing.
    And I thank you, to the witnesses, for your participation.
    I look forward to the work we will do this Congress to 
close the digital divide, protect our critical infrastructure, 
and ensure Americans are prepared to outcompete the Chinese 
Communist Party.
    I have long been an advocate for spectrum policy that 
serves both our national security and American innovation. I 
served for many years as the cochair with my good friend from 
California, Ms. Matsui. I enjoyed, always enjoyed working with 
you and look forward to continue working with you as we move 
forward this Congress.
    The United States needs a spectrum agenda that enables both 
big and small American companies to innovate and remain 
competitive globally. Ensuring that the U.S. continues to be a 
leader in next-generation wireless communications technology 
will create jobs and unlock new opportunities here at home, as 
reliable high-speed connectivity supports a range of cutting-
edge applications like artificial intelligence and advanced 
manufacturing.
    We cannot--and we will not--allow our adversaries, like the 
Chinese Communist Party, to dominate 21st century technological 
battle. As a first step, we must reauthorize the FCC's spectrum 
auction authority. Second, we must work together with Federal 
agencies and stakeholders to reallocate unused spectrum. And 
third, we need to look at innovative tools to better utilize 
and manage spectrum resources.
    I am looking forward to keeping our promises to Americans 
across the country that America is open for business, and I 
eagerly anticipate bold leadership across many industries, 
ushering in the next great American century.
    I will now yield to our vice subcommittee chair, my good 
friend, Vice Chair Allen, for a few opening remarks. I will 
yield my time to--the remainder of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK W. ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, for yielding. And 
Chairman Hudson, thank you for holding this important hearing, 
and I look forward to working with you.
    I am looking forward to working with this committee and 
this Congress to tackle the issues, the critical issues, like 
closing the digital divides, fighting robocalls, and 
strengthening our telecommunications infrastructure.
    Access to telecommunications isn't just a luxury. It is 
something Americans depend on every single day. Students need 
it to finish their homework; folks of all ages, especially in 
rural communities, rely on it for telehealth visits with their 
doctors; and small businesses use it to reach customers and 
keep the doors open. And let's not forget, we all use it to 
stay in touch with friends and loved ones.
    Additionally, when natural disasters strike, access to 
reliable communication becomes even more critical. Georgia's 
12th District saw firsthand just how devastating this can be 
when Hurricane Helene wreaked havoc in our communities last 
September. That storm caused significant damage to our 
communications infrastructure, leaving our residents unable to 
call for help, check in with family to let them know where they 
were and that they were safe, and in many cases made it 
impossible to receive helpful updates about accessible 
resources.
    Thankfully, we had satellite and other resilient emergency 
systems in place to help fill the gap with recovery efforts and 
that got underway.
    Spectrum is absolutely vital for the wireless services and 
devices we use today and for the technologies of tomorrow. If 
we want to maintain our leadership in the world and keep pace 
with China's advancements, we need to free up more spectrum for 
both licensed and unlicensed uses. Technology is like precision 
agriculture. Advanced manufacturing and next-gen wireless 
services all depend on it.
    Again, I look forward to tackling these issues as vice 
chairman of the C&T Subcommittee.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Guthrie. I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking 
member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes of his 
opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And we are here today to discuss spectrum, one of our 
Nation's most underrated and economically valuable natural 
resources. Discussion of current spectrum policy debates is 
important to better understand how our decisions impact 
America's standing in the world.
    But we can't ignore that this hearing comes at a time when 
House Republicans are considering using spectrum auction 
proceeds as a piggy bank to fund their costly tax breaks for 
billionaires and large, wealthy corporations. And I hope they 
reconsider going down that road because it would be a sharp 
departure from the way spectrum policy and auction proceeds 
have been handled by Congress in the past.
    Spectrum is such a valuable natural resource because it is 
an essential building block for connecting family and friends 
as well as delivering critical services like education and 
health to people across the country. It is also critical to 
everyday safety for first responders.
    Without spectrum, we would not have radio stations, smart 
phones, the app economy, or drones. And many of these 
technological advancements were developed by American 
innovators pushing the limits on the way spectrum could be used 
in new and exciting ways. But past performance does not 
guarantee future results. So America must remain a leader in 
spectrum policy.
    For more than three decades, Congress has granted the FCC 
the authority to make spectrum available using competitive 
bidding or auctions, and granting the FCC this authority has 
served both the public and the Nation well.
    Today, the United States is a global leader in delivering 
5G, advanced WiFi, Bluetooth, and other next-generation 
wireless technologies to consumers across the country. At the 
same time, spectrum auctions, which have raised over $230 
billion to the Federal Government, have helped fund important 
public communication priorities, including the Rip and Replace 
reimbursement program, the construction of FirstNet, and 
broadband infrastructure grants.
    And that is why spectrum policy has long been an area of 
bipartisan agreement. In fact, we have worked closely with the 
Republicans on this committee for the past 3 years on bills to 
extend the FCC's auction authority and use spectrum proceeds to 
pay for bipartisan spending priorities.
    And one of the areas of bipartisan agreement was the need 
to fund Next Generation 9-1-1. This funding would modernize our 
9-1-1 networks to allow the public to use modern-day 
communication tools, like sending text images and videos to 
first responders and emergency personnel. And this technology 
will reduce response times and equip first responders with 
lifesaving information before they arrive at the scene, which 
will better assist people in their critical time of need.
    The recent devastating wildfires in California are another 
reminder of how vital seconds can be in an emergency. This 
program clearly serves the public interest, and proceeds from 
auction of our public airwaves are ideal to fund it.
    Unfortunately, again, it seems that Republicans are now 
going to abandon this bipartisan work in order to march ahead 
to give tax breaks to the rich, and this is simply not the way 
these funds should be used. The auction of public airwaves 
should fund programs for the public good.
    Republicans should keep that in mind and reject proposals 
that would include spectrum in any reconciliation. Instead, 
they should work with us to set good spectrum policy and to use 
auction proceeds to fund vital programs that actually serve the 
public and not the wealthy few.
    And I don't think the stakes could be any higher. Failure 
to replenish the commercial spectrum pipeline risks our Nation 
falling behind our counterparts across the globe--of course, 
particularly China--because we want to produce cutting-edge 
consumer innovations and enhance our national security 
capabilities. And we can't allow that to happen.
    That is why--I mean, we can't allow to not have spectrum 
use for these good policy and public purposes, and that is why 
we should be working together.
    We should also work to ensure the advancements made 
possible by spectrum are delivered to all Americans regardless 
of their income or ZIP Code. Too often rural, Tribal, and low-
income areas are left behind as next-generation technologies 
are deployed and have to continue to work on making these 
services more affordable to everyone.
    So finally, I want to say, if I could take a minute, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to bid farewell to Jennifer Epperson, who is 
our chief counsel on this subcommittee. She is leaving the 
committee after 6 years of service, and during that time she 
has played an instrumental role in the historic broadband 
investments we made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the 
creation of the Affordable Connectivity Program, and our 
bipartisan Rip and Replace legislation that I mentioned.
    And we have accomplished a lot in this subcommittee, much 
of it bipartisan and throughout her time. I want to thank 
Jennifer for helping to make that happen. So I wish her nothing 
but the best. Of course, I don't want her to leave, but that is 
the way it goes. And, you know, I want to thank Jennifer for 
all her contributions.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the ranking member, and I join him in 
thanking Ms. Epperson for your service on the committee and 
wish you all the best in the future.
    We have now concluded our Member opening statements. The 
Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to the committee rules, 
all Members' opening statements will be made part of the 
record.
    We would like to thank our witnesses for being here today 
to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses will have 5 
minutes each to provide an opening statement, which will be 
followed by a round of questions from Members.
    The witnesses here before us today are the Honorable 
Michael Powell, who is the president and CEO of NCTA, the 
Internet and Television Association. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Brad Gillen, the executive vice president of CTIA. 
Thank you for joining us.
    Ms. Diane Rinaldo, executive director of Open RAN Policy 
Coalition. Thank you for being here.
    The Chair would also like to recognize Cole Peterman, a 
special guest joining us in the audience, Ms. Rinaldo's son. 
Welcome, Cole.
    And finally, Mr. Chris Lewis, the president and CEO of 
Public Knowledge. Thank you for being here today.
    I would like to note for our witnesses that the timer light 
on the table will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining 
and will turn red when your time has expired, and then I will 
start tapping up here and then eventually banging, but 
hopefully we won't get to that point. Thank you.
    Mr. Powell, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL K. POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
  OFFICER, NCTA-THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION ASSOCIATION; BRAD 
    GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA; DIANE RINALDO, 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN RAN POLICY COALITION; AND CHRIS LEWIS, 
    PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

                 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL K. POWELL

    Mr. Powell. Thank you, sir.
    Good morning, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, 
Chairman Guthrie, and Mr. Pallone and other distinguished 
members of this committee.
    I am Michael Powell, president and CEO of NCTA, The 
Internet and Television Association. I thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    I am going to discuss two topics central to America's 
leadership in wireless technology, WiFi and shared spectrum, 
which is an innovative way to get more spectrum more quickly to 
more users.
    WiFi has become the backbone of America's internet 
experience. It powers our homes, workplaces, schools, and 
public spaces, enabling nearly all modern digital interactions. 
WiFi allows multiple users to share a single connection and has 
democratized access to the internet, making connectivity more 
affordable and widely available.
    WiFi also drives innovation. By offering open, unlicensed 
access, it enables entrepreneurs to create smart devices and 
technology, from thermostats to virtual reality. Today, the 
average U.S. home has 17 connected devices and is projected to 
have 24 by 2027. Moreover, WiFi supports critical technologies 
like the Internet of Things, generating $2.4 trillion in annual 
economic value.
    The U.S. has led in WiFi innovation, creating systems that 
enable universal access without heavy regulation. However, to 
sustain this leadership, we must ensure enough spectrum for 
WiFi's continued growth, particularly as demand surges with 
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and virtual 
reality.
    WiFi, effectively, is the internet. It carries nearly 60 
percent of all the world's data traffic. It carries 10 times 
more data than all other wireless networks combined, and when 
using our smart phones, 80 to 90 percent of our data goes over 
WiFi and not the cellular network.
    And the best part is that WiFi is an American-led 
innovation. WiFi allows innovators to make devices that connect 
to the internet for free and without a license from the 
government. We, in America, harness the power of our citizens 
to publish, to produce, and to invent. This contrasts starkly 
with China, who prefers to spy on its citizens rather than 
empower them.
    WiFi brought us the future, and it will carry us into the 
AI intelligence age. America's spectrum policy should embrace 
our leadership and continue to furnish WiFi with the spectrum 
it needs to continue its explosive growth and meet consumers' 
high expectations.
    Now, it goes without saying America has a spectrum problem. 
Put simply, demand for it is shooting up, and supply of it is 
falling. Nearly all midband spectrum that we all want to use is 
used by critical mission government systems, most of it in the 
hands of our warfighters.
    Traditional approaches clearing government health spectrum 
for auctions are increasingly unsustainable. We can't 
compromise our combat capability in the face of a dangerous 
world. There are fewer places to move these critical systems, 
and moving them is costly and time consuming.
    For example, just clearing the lower 30 gigahertz band for 
exclusive use would take 20 years and cost $120 billion. We 
need a better way out of this problem. Shared spectrum is the 
solution. Advances in dynamic spectrum management allow 
government and commercial users to coexist, resolving conflicts 
and reducing delays.
    The success of Citizens Band Radio Service, CBRS, proves 
this approach works. It supports a diverse range of users, 
including schools, factories, and even disaster recovery 
efforts, while fostering competition and innovation.
    To maintain U.S. leadership, we must prioritize coexistence 
in shared spectrum models. Congress should extend the FCC's 
auction authority while embracing both shared licensed auctions 
and unlicensed WiFi designations. This includes allocating more 
spectrum for WiFi and exploring shared models in critical 
midband ranges like the 3 gigahertz and 7 gigahertz bands.
    By adopting forward-looking spectrum policies, we can 
accelerate deployment of technologies like 5G, 6G, WiFi 7 and 
8, strengthen national security, and sustain our global 
wireless leadership and our innovation.
    This committee has always embraced innovation, and we are 
on the cusp of a great innovation revolution, and we need an 
innovative spectrum policy to meet the moment.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

                    STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN

    Mr. Gillen. Good morning. Thank you and congratulations, 
Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Matsui, members of this 
subcommittee, it is a privilege to be with you.
    Mr. Hudson. Is your microphone on? I want to make sure.
    Mr. Gillen. It is a privilege to be with you, a privilege 
to be here on behalf of the wireless industry, 4.58 million 
jobs strong across this country. We invest $30 billion a year 
to make this and so much more better.
    And I really want to echo your opening comments. This is a 
conversation around spectrum, but it is a lot more than that. 
It is about economic opportunity for all. It is about our 
national security. It is about our global competitiveness. And 
it really comes back to connectivity drives so much of this 
conversation, particularly 5G connectivity. And spectrum, at 
its core, is our oxygen.
    I was here 2 years ago asking for more spectrum. I am back 
today and that ask is more urgent because we have stood still 
as a country the last 2 years. The rest of the world is moving 
forward aggressively, and so too are our American consumers, 
who use more and more of this each and every day, and we want 
to make sure we continue to meet that demand.
    Now, our screens today aren't 5G enabled, so we are going 
old school with pictures, but it is easier to explain through 
pictures. So if you think about how much traffic has been on 
wireless networks the last few years, this is where we have 
been.
    [Shows chart.]
    When I was here last time, we were in the orange. I 
actually bragged about just how much traffic was being carried 
on these 5G networks. We are now just 2 years later here, 100 
trillion megabits of traffic on these networks, almost doubling 
in only 2 years of time. I think the economists call that kind 
of growth bananas.
    We just don't see that kind of growth, and we were able to 
do that only thanks to the leadership of this committee. It was 
the auctions that you directed in 2020 and 2021 that gave us 
the oxygen in spectrum to actually meet that moment.
    So when you look forward to the next couple years, by the 
end of the generation, by the end of the decade, we are going 
to have almost three times more traffic on our networks than we 
do today. And the challenge we face right now is we don't have 
new auctions right now. The FCC doesn't have auction authority 
to meet that moment.
    So how do you actually meet that consumer demand? Part of 
it is our responsibility. We need to invest, and we do, each 
and every 20 or 30 billion dollars, to make our networks 
denser, to have more facilities throughout the country. We have 
40 percent more than we did a generation ago.
    We also, all of us, need to be more efficient with this 
finite resource. We are very proud of our record in doing that. 
We are 42 times more efficient with the technology we use on a 
per-megahertz basis than we were a generation ago. All of that 
is necessary, but it is not sufficient.
    If you plug that all in the traffic models, it reveals that 
we need roughly 400 more megahertz of spectrum by 2027 and over 
800 by 2029. Where does that spectrum come from? The Federal 
Government today reserves roughly two-thirds of this asset, the 
midband spectrum we are talking a lot about today, for their 
own use.
    So if you look at the slide in terms of who has midband 
right today [shows chart], the Federal Government has 600 
percent more than we do today. We are in the teal on the 
bottom, 450 megahertz. Unlicensed WiFi has 300 percent more 
than we do, thanks to the 6 gigahertz decision you alluded to.
    What is happening in the rest of the world? They see this 
same type of growth curve that we see, and they are building--
they are getting access to spectrum more quickly. Nowhere is 
that more true than with respect to China. In 2023, we were 
roughly even with China in terms of midband access. Looking 
forward now to where we will be in 2027, they will be in a 
position to have four times more than us. That is untenable 
from a global-competitiveness standpoint.
    So what do we need? We would love this committee's help. 
Over the last 30 years, the committee, on a bipartisan basis, 
has provided FCC auction authority, and each time you do that, 
you provide a plan, a roadmap of what you expect them to do 
with that authority, and that is critical.
    And now, this conversation gets very jargony fast. I am 
extremely guilty of that. But at its core, what this 
conversation is about, why we really care about spectrum, why 
we are excited about what wireless could be is because we have 
a role to play in almost everything you came to Washington to 
work on. Everyday household costs, we can help. Beating China, 
creating jobs.
    A new study just released this morning from NERA said for 
every 100 megahertz of midband spectrum released for 5G creates 
1.5 million jobs rippling throughout the economy, both those 
building those networks all across the country but also those 
innovating on top of that.
    And we also just want to close with there is a huge role 
here for the digital divide and the role of spectrum to play, 
both connecting Americans on the mobile and the home broadband 
side. This is too important technology for not everyone to be 
involved. So we want to partner with you to make sure that this 
resource is available to all Americans, that everyone has a 
fair shot at this.
    Greatly appreciate you including us, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Ms. Rinaldo, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF DIANE RINALDO

    Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you.
    Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and esteemed 
members of the committee, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to testify on America's leadership in wireless 
innovation. This hearing and topic are vital to the national 
and economic security importance to the United States, and I 
welcome the committee's interest on this subject.
    And also, thank you for recognizing my 10-year-old son, 
Cole. He is a budding telecom engineer. We take workforce 
development very serious at the coalition.
    So I have had the distinct pleasure of serving this body in 
a couple of different capacities. I was the lead cybersecurity 
and tech telecom staffer at the House Intelligence Committee. I 
was also the Acting Administrator of NTIA in the Executive 
branch.
    Today, I serve as the executive director of the Open RAN 
Policy Coalition, a coalition that promotes to drive the 
adoption of open and interoperable solutions in the radio 
access network. Our coalition represents a diverse group of 
communication and technology companies unified under a common 
goal: policy that can help dismantle technological and market 
barriers to cultivate a competitive, secure, and resilient 
marketplace.
    Since the launch of the Open RAN Policy Coalition, ORAN has 
experienced tremendous growth, with more than 100 global 
deployments. From the world's largest right here in the United 
States with 100 percent Open RAN 5G network that Dish's Boost 
Mobile has deployed nationwide, Open RAN has achieved its 
initial goal of providing additional vendor choice for mobile 
operators.
    This Congress and the new administration assume office at a 
pivotal time in the wireless communication space. The next 2 to 
4 years are critical to ensuring our country's continued 
leadership and competitiveness in the global contest with the 
People's Republic of China.
    Beijing's efforts to dominate the wireless space are 
simultaneously wide-ranging, prolific, and focused. The PRC 
seeks to supplant the United States as the world's leader in 
wireless innovation and market leadership. This is not about 
free market competition, but about state-sponsored market 
manipulation. Put simply, the PRC does not want to compete. It 
wants to rig the game to win.
    Throughout my testimony today, I will return to three 
critical themes. First is the pivotal role of U.S. in 
pioneering wireless innovation. The second is the necessity of 
leadership in spectrum policy. And lastly is the importance of 
public-private policies. We truly do need to work together.
    The United States has had a proud legacy of leadership in 
wireless technology, from the groundbreaking development of 4 
and 5G networks to the creation of global positioning systems, 
an innovation that transferred global navigation and timing. 
Our country has consistently been at the forefront of wireless 
advancements.
    These technologies have driven economic growth and job 
creation, contributing billions of dollars annually to our 
economy. Industries such as healthcare, transportation, and 
manufacturing have been revolutionized by wireless innovation, 
enabling new applications for remote surgery, autonomous 
vehicles, and smart factories. For example, estimates indicate 
that 5G alone will create millions of jobs and contribute over 
$1.5 trillion to global GDP by 2035.
    Looking ahead, the opportunities are boundless. However, 
achieving these advancements depend on one critical factor: 
secure and efficient access to spectrum.
    Now, the PRC's ascendancy is by no means destined for 
success. The strengths of America remain and have the potential 
to grow, provided they are carefully stewarded, encouraged, 
and, indeed, unleashed. It is Silicon Valley, not Shenzhen, to 
which innovators and industry flock.
    How can Congress and the Federal Government help maintain 
this edge? By fostering an environment conducive to innovation, 
removing roadblocks for growth, and aligning policies to 
facilitate the expansion. One fundamental element underpins all 
our aims, and that is spectrum leadership. Spectrum is the 
lifeblood of wireless communications driving innovation and 
economic growth and national security.
    In closing, the United States is at a pivotal moment. We 
are the world's leader in wireless innovation, but maintaining 
this position requires sustained effort, investment, and 
collaboration. By prioritizing superiority in optimizing 
spectrum, strengthening partnerships, and enhancing our 
participation in global forums, we can ensure that American 
innovation continues to define the future of connectivity.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Rinaldo follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewis, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening 
statement.

                    STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEWIS

    Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Matsui, 
I appreciate you inviting me here today representing Public 
Knowledge on a topic that I agree is jargony but wonderfully 
nerdy, and in Public Knowledge, that is always a compliment, so 
thank you.
    Over the last 30 years, the United States has led the world 
in wireless technology, and this leadership is no small measure 
due to the innovative and bound spectrum policies that have 
carried out a bipartisan basis--on a bipartisan basis over 
these decades. I will highlight three key factors from my 
written testimony that have led to this success, and then I 
look forward to the discussion.
    First, our system has managed spectrum, the public 
airwaves, as a public asset and in the public interest all 
while encouraging private investment and innovation. Other 
governments effectively nationalize their spectrum. Only the 
government could operate broadcast radio or authorize new uses 
of spectrum. These governments acted through ministries under 
the direct control of the country's chief executive.
    The United States, we went a different way. We created an 
independent agency to oversee spectrum use designed to strike 
the right balance between the many users of spectrum, such as 
public safety, local governments, broadcasters, to encourage 
innovation and private investment. Most importantly, Congress 
recognized that spectrum represents a unique, nonrenewable 
public resource.
    Congress enshrined the Communications Act, but the FCC 
managed the public airwaves for the public interest. This means 
that no one can own the public airwaves, policy on licensees 
are balanced with public needs and come with public interest 
obligations, and that spectrum policy, including auction design 
and proceeds, should make efficient use of the spectrum 
allocations and benefit the needs of the public under the FCC 
mandate to connect all Americans.
    Today's public needs to connect all Americans include 
deploying Next Gen 9-1-1, supporting infrastructure needs, and 
especially supporting digital inclusion funding needs in local 
communities. Local digital inclusion efforts actually lower the 
cost of deployment for broadband providers while giving 
communities, large and small, the support to realize the full 
potential of those infrastructure deployments.
    Second, the FCC has, with congressional authority, 
experimented with new regulatory models to create competitive 
opportunities in the market and foster innovation. There is no 
greater example of regulatory innovation than the success of 
WiFi.
    WiFi technology was invented in the 1980s, when the FCC 
opened unlicensed spectrum for experimentation by engineers and 
inventors. These unlicensed spectrum bands allow anyone to use 
any device for any purpose under rules authorized by the FCC to 
avoid interference with licensed services.
    WiFi carries 53 percent of all internet traffic and almost 
90 percent of wireless internet traffic. Without supporting 
WiFi and unlicensed spectrum innovation, we would not have the 
mobile communications revolution we now enjoy.
    In this century, newer regulatory models for spectrum 
access, like CBRS sharing models, are increasing access for 
small community institutions, rural and Tribal communities, and 
other private industry outside of the big wireless carriers.
    Third and finally, Congress has carefully divided spectrum 
between Federal and non-Federal users at NTIA and the FCC, 
respectively, requiring cooperation between agencies and 
between Federal and non-Federal users.
    The public may not follow the day-to-day operation of NTIA 
and the FCC, but they do put their trust in government to make 
sure this resource and the technologies that use it work 
efficiently. Thankfully, NTIA and FCC have worked to develop 
more than one MOU to support cooperation between agencies and, 
therefore, processes the balance Federal and commercial use 
needs. Without this coordination, we would return to chaos and 
governmental infighting.
    If America is going to continue its leadership in wireless 
technologies, we must continue to follow these proven 
principles that led to our success to date. Congress can lead 
in this direction by permanently restoring auction authority at 
the FCC. This is critical for enabling effective coordination 
between Federal and commercial users, driving efficient use of 
the public airwaves, and delivering public-interest benefits 
that connect all Americans to secure, reliable, and affordable 
communications.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
    We will now begin questioning, and I will recognize myself 
for 5 minutes.
    Listen, economic security is national security, and to lead 
in technology as a nation, I believe we need a balanced 
spectrum policy that benefits both licensed and unlicensed use 
of spectrum. Making licensed spectrum available is more 
difficult, but I don't think we should resort to making 
everything unlicensed just because of the challenges associated 
with it.
    Mr. Powell, recognizing that your companies primarily 
utilize unlicensed spectrum, would you talk a little bit about 
what advancements in technology happening in your industry that 
might increase a demand for unlicensed spectrum?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you for the question.
    It is interesting to note that the cable industry pursued 
the convergence that we all dreamed of in the '96 Act. It uses 
all forms of spectrum to compete. It uses WiFi, it uses shared 
licensed spectrum, and we also use exclusive licensed spectrum, 
which has allowed us to become the fifth--fourth most 
significant mobile service provider in the country offering 
competition.
    So we believe that going forward, you have to be creative 
in using all forms of spectrum allocation in order to be 
effective. And we look forward--we see a continuing conflict 
with what is available for the market to use quickly and the 
processes we are using to allocate that spectrum, which is why 
we are committed to advancing and advocating shared-spectrum 
models.
    Those models now use very sophisticated, dynamic spectrum 
technology in order to coordinate and manage among uses and 
competing uses, and it works quite effectively.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Artificial intelligence has been a topic receiving a lot of 
attention recently because it is revolutionizing so many of our 
industries. As a result, it is also putting significant demand 
on our Nation's resources.
    Mr. Gillen, does artificial intelligence require more 
bandwidth? And if so, will it need to be licensed spectrum?
    Mr. Gillen. We are going to need more bandwidth, period. 
When you think about what AI promises, it really is a good 
frame for this entire conversation, the ability of AI to help 
all sectors, much like 5G can help all sectors. But they really 
need to work together.
    When you think about--the Vodafone CEO of Europe talks 
about the risk in Europe of AI bottleneck because there is not 
enough cellular capacity to meet the data needs of AI.
    So absolutely, when you talk about the growth curves we are 
talking about, AI growth, we need to make sure our networks are 
strong enough to carry that, to drive that innovation. We want 
that innovation to happen here. And if that innovation is going 
to happen globally, who has the best networks? That has always 
been us, and we are in a great place on WiFi to continue to be 
the best. We need to do the same in 5G as well.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Congress and the White House need to take a leadership role 
in repurposing Federal spectrum for commercial use. Access to 
spectrum by Federal and commercial users is necessary to 
protect our national security, but Federal agencies are not 
actively looking for ways to be more efficient with their 
spectrum.
    Ms. Rinaldo, as a former Acting Administrator of NTIA and 
in your current role, you were responsible for managing 
spectrum used by Federal agencies while also looking for 
opportunities to repurpose spectrum for commercial use.
    What are the biggest challenges presented by agencies when 
trying to make spectrum available?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you, sir.
    Yes. So as an example, when I was at NTIA in August of 
2019, I sent a memo to all of the Federal agencies asking them 
to do an assessment of their spectrum needs. And just today in 
2025 are those bands finally being studied. So I would say it 
is just time. We need to make decisions a lot sooner in order 
to deploy.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    I will pose this question to everybody. So we will go down 
the line. But how does spectrum policy disputes domestically 
affect America's leadership on the global stage? And let's go 
in reverse order. Mr. Lewis, I will start with you.
    Mr. Lewis. I am sorry. How does spectrum policy what?
    Mr. Hudson. So disputes that we have here domestically, how 
does that impact our leadership on the global stage?
    Mr. Lewis. You know, I think history has proven that when 
we chart a path, that promotes innovation and promotes meeting 
a variety of needs with our spectrum policies that the world 
follows us. And so, you know, debate might be good, but I think 
disputes that frees us picking a direction that continues to 
promote those values in our balanced spectrum policy can hold 
up our opportunity for leadership as we look at the next 
generation of wireless technologies like WiFi 7 and 6G.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    I am about to run out of time here.
    Ms. Rinaldo. He is absolutely right. Debate has a type of 
purpose, but we need to be decisive when we go into standards 
bodies. We need to speak with one voice.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    Well, my time has expired. Mr. Gillen and Mr. Powell, if 
you all want to submit something.
    Mr. Gillen. I just think our adversaries are unified. Their 
government, military, and industry are working together. We 
need to be, too, to compete.
    Mr. Hudson. Good point.
    All right. Thank you all.
    Mr. Powell. I just think it was delay.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    My time has expired, and I can't hold my committee members 
accountable if I don't hold myself accountable. So I will stop.
    At this point, I will recognize Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes of 
questions.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before the Biden administration's national spectrum 
strategy, the United States went 6 years without any 
comprehensive spectrum strategy. During those 6 years, drawn-
out spectrum disputes compromised our ability to maximize our 
use of this vital resource. If America is to remain the pace-
setter for global innovation, we need to maintain consistency 
in our spectrum policy.
    Mr. Lewis, how is the national spectrum strategy keeping 
the U.S. on track to lead on their wireless technologies? And 
why is it important, critical, to continue its work?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, Congresswoman. The spectrum strategy was an 
important step forward. It laid a path for us to follow in 
studying five spectrum bands that could create a pipeline in 
the future. It talked about long-term planning and research 
into technological developments like dynamic spectrum sharing 
that could make the use of those bands more efficient and 
hopefully also points in the direction of continued cooperation 
between Federal and non-Federal users.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewis. So it is an important step forward. We need to 
continue to move on.
    Ms. Matsui. Continue it. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen and Mr. Powell, can the United States afford to 
delay studies of spectrum bands and undo the national spectrum 
strategy's progress in increasing spectrum access?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely no.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Mr. Powell. I agree with Mr. Gillen. It is important to 
quickly study these bands and get them into the market.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
    I have been a strong advocate for modernizing our 
telecommunications network through open interoperable solutions 
that diversify our supply chains and create new opportunities 
for American innovators to compete in the market.
    Ms. Rinaldo, the DoD has partnered with members of the Open 
RAN coalition to leverage commercial wireless technologies for 
secure, resilient networks. What next steps should U.S. 
spectrum policy take to ensure we can continue to enhance 
national security through commercial innovation?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. Thank you. Absolutely.
    The DoD has been incredibly bullish on Open RAN, 
interactively working with my member companies to deploy 5G 
around the world. Unfortunately, their budgets continue to get 
cut. So in 2025, I think people would be shocked how little 5G 
is deployed at our DoD bases around the world.
    So I would say continued funding, continued partnership. 
And it is great to see the two sides, the commercial side and 
the public side, working together to deploy commercial 
technologies.
    Ms. Matsui. Certainly. Thank you.
    Spectrum demands continue to grow, and there is no more 
easy spectrum to access. We must have a unified Federal 
spectrum policy to continue the work towards sustainable 
spectrum pipeline that benefits the American people.
    Mr. Lewis, how have American consumers and innovators been 
harmed in the past when the Federal Government fails to speak 
with a unified voice on spectrum policy?
    Mr. Lewis. I think our innovators are looking for 
reliability on where they can design, and so, the national 
spectrum strategy that you mentioned and setting up a clear 
path forward on what bands can be used in the future is 
important for providing that certainty for innovators.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen, I have worked collaboratively across the 
government for years to advance America's spectrum policy. Can 
you tell me why it matters that the government speaks with one 
voice, and why it matters what other nations do with spectrum?
    Mr. Gillen. For us to succeed, we need one voice. And I 
really appreciate your leadership, really pushing NTIA to be at 
the forefront. We need the experts making these calls and to 
get rid of some of the turf wars we are fighting.
    When you think about it, the U.S. is a big market, but we 
are only 4 percent of all the global wireless connections in 
the world. So in order to succeed, we need to amplify our 
voice. We need to make sure other countries are using our 
equipment, are using our spectrum, like Ms. Rinaldo said. So it 
is critical that we lead and we lead first.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
    Cutting-edge technologies like dynamic spectrum sharing 
hold great promise in efficiently using our finite spectrum 
resources. There are a number of possibilities to leverage 
emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to better 
manage spectrum, as published in the National Spectrum Research 
and Development plan.
    Mr. Powell and Ms. Rinaldo, how can--quickly answer--
investments in emerging technologies like AI improve spectrum 
efficiency and management? Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. I think it is critical. I mean, you can bet on 
technological innovation to resolve conflict, or you can rely 
on political regulatory conflict to resolve conflict. We think 
there's stunning advances in the ability to use spectrum more 
efficiently and, more importantly, to allow multiple users to 
use the same bands simultaneously without interference, 
allowing greater competition and greater innovation.
    Ms. Matsui. Ms. Rinaldo, you have got 7 minutes--7 seconds.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. I think with Open RAN, the use of 
AI, you are going to see a lot of use cases, especially in 
spectrum management.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair will recognize the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, for the recognition.
    And Ms. Rinaldo, it is great to see Cole here. Not many of 
us on this committee remember when you used to work for a 
member of this committee, and it is hard to believe I have been 
here that long, because he is 10 years old now. I remember when 
you were having him.
    So my question is--I know we have newer Members, and some 
of us need a refresher as well. So NTIA, which you were leading 
in the previous administration--well, now, I don't even know if 
it is still previous--45--it manages the Federal spectrum, but 
a lot of agencies try to manage their own Federal spectrum.
    Can you explain how that is not supposed to work and the 
problems of how it--what that causes when that happens?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
    So fragmentation is one of the worst things that we could 
do to move things forward. You would lose everything from the 
efficiencies that you gave through the IRAC, where all the 
Federal agencies come together and discuss management of 
spectrum, to national security concerns. Can you imagine if 
each agency was responsible for cybersecurity of their 
individual bands? It would be disastrous.
    Mr. Guthrie. But some agencies try to do that, right?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Some would like to use, yes.
    Mr. Guthrie. OK. So all right.
    So we heard Chair Hudson and Ranking Member Matsui talk 
about disputes going into these international bodies. And just 
kind of a refresher for some, and some are new to the 
committee. So we were at the 2023 World of Radio Communication 
Conference. There were disputes that went in that made us less 
effective.
    So if you would talk about what those--I know there were 
several, but kind of highlight a couple of the disputes, why 
that made us ineffective or less effective, and if we go into 
those international groups less effective, how China will take 
advantage of that.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
    So there is a lot of prep work that goes into these events 
years ahead of time. We work with others around the world to 
ensure that we can have a unified response, not just the U.S. 
but our partners as well. And so, if we are still arguing over 
policy decisions as we go into the standards bodies, then we 
are not able to speak with a unified voice.
    Mr. Guthrie. So what kind of policy discussions were 
happening? What were we arguing over?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Spectrum bands.
    Mr. Guthrie. Spectrum bands?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So the adversary wants the chaos because 
if there is chaos internal amongst us, that means we are not 
fighting them for our strongest hand and our position.
    Mr. Guthrie. So these international standard-setting bodies 
that the standard--because, obviously, spectrum knows no border 
because it is physics, in the air only. I know Mr. Obernolte 
can explain it. I can't.
    But we do know that it crosses borders. And so, what 
advantage does China have if they get the leverage? What could 
they do with having the leverage? What kind of standards could 
they influence that is negative to us and positive to them?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So it does advantage their vendor community a 
great deal. It is incredibly expensive to put together a radio. 
And so, if you are walking in and if you are standards-
accepted, you are going to have the first movers advantage, and 
that is what we want.
    Mr. Guthrie. So like what kind of standards? I mean, just 
kind of more details.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So whatever bands. So you are going to 
have transistors in all of your radios, and so that becomes 
incredibly expensive. You are going to want to ensure that you 
have--so other countries around the world are on the same bands 
that China is, and so that is what their aim is, is just to 
coalesce everyone together.
    Mr. Guthrie. So it is kind of like if they become the 
dominant player, then everybody else has to play. If you want 
to be interoperable, most people want to be interoperable with 
the dominant player.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Correct. You want to be the leader.
    Mr. Guthrie. And so, if they become the dominant player, 
then we have to follow them instead of them follow us?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Correct.
    Mr. Guthrie. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    I do have another minute if anybody wants the time. If not, 
I will yield back.
    I will yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chair will recognize the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am concerned by reports suggesting that Republicans would 
rather spend $70 billion in spectrum auction proceeds on tax 
cuts for the rich instead of investing this money in bipartisan 
public safety priorities, such as Next Generation 9-1-1, which 
is going to save the lives of a lot of Americans, including 
first responders.
    But let me go to Mr. Lewis. To the best of your knowledge, 
has Congress ever directed spectrum auction proceeds to pay for 
tax cuts for billionaires?
    Mr. Lewis. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Pallone. All right.
    And why is using spectrum auction proceeds to deploy NG 9-
1-1 networks a worthwhile investment, if you would?
    Mr. Lewis. I view NG 9-1-1 as an important public interest 
need that makes all Americans benefit from secure networks, 
faster emergency services, and it matches the mandate of the 
Communications Act that says that we should push to have all 
Americans connected to reliable, secure, affordable 
communications.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
    I mean, obviously, I am very proud of the fact that we have 
used spectrum in the past for public purposes and don't want it 
to be just used for tax cuts for, you know, corporate or 
billionaires.
    You know, we are debating spectrum policy, but--here in 
this committee, but as far as the people in my district are 
concerned, they just want to know what we are doing to make 
their monthly bills more affordable. That is what they care 
about, you know, the bottom line, You know, they can't afford 
things. They want us to bring prices down.
    So, Mr. Lewis, do you think that the FCC should require 
through licensing or other means wireless service providers to 
offer an affordable service option, that we should require 
that, if you will?
    Mr. Lewis. I think that would be OK. I don't think it would 
be a substitute for restoring the low-income subsidy for 
broadband that we lost last year. Even with a low-income 
option, there is a cost to low-income people in every State and 
every district. So, yes, but it is not all we would need.
    Mr. Pallone. You think some of those other things are just 
as important, certainly?
    Mr. Lewis. I think the subsidies are very important. It was 
proven. You know, over 20 million people signed up for it 
before it went away, and folks are making difficult budgetary 
choices without it.
    Mr. Pallone. Yes. I certainly agree with you that that was 
a major accomplishment, and we should try to continue or expand 
it.
    The last question I wanted to ask, and I could ask it to 
both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Powell possibly too, if you would like. 
The Biden administration made great strides in advancing the 
U.S. spectrum policies by adopting the national spectrum 
strategy, which got bipartisan support in this committee. And 
this strategy requires the Federal Government to undertake 
studies of certain spectrum bands before making any final 
decisions on whether or how they should be made commercially 
available.
    So let me start with Mr. Lewis and then Mr. Powell. We have 
got a couple minutes. Will completing these studies allow us to 
more effectively compete against China and other countries, and 
if so, how?
    If you could take a minute and we will ask Mr. Powell.
    Mr. Lewis. I would say yes, actually, for some of the 
reasons that Ms. Rinaldo was talking about, to point in a 
unified direction instead of the disputes we had between 
different agencies in the past. The studies can really set what 
the scientific facts are about how different bands will work 
and the technologies using it and then, hopefully, coordination 
can be built off of those scientific facts.
    Mr. Pallone. OK.
    Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. I would just quickly say that the bands that 
were being evaluated are the very bands that all of us are 
sitting here asking for the government to get into the market. 
We all have acknowledged those bands are heavily encumbered, 
and so there are complex questions associated with the current 
users and potential commercial use.
    So at some level, no matter what form it takes, there has 
to be continued evaluation of the viability of doing that and 
the appropriate approach to doing that.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you both.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Allen. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for yielding, and 
now we will get back to the subject we came to talk about.
    Mr. Powell, can you explain why it is important to our 
strategic competition with China for your members to have more 
spectrum made available for their use?
    Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. You know, I think attacking China is 
a multifront war, and I think, you know, to follow the advice 
of Sun Tzu, don't attack where they are strong, attack where 
they are weak. Our innovations in WiFi are unprecedented in the 
world. China does not appreciate or embrace that technology or 
approach, because it would empower their citizens in a way that 
they are unwilling to do in their Communist system. And this 
gives America an enormous competitive advantage because we 
harness the innovation potential of every one of our citizens, 
and they don't. They have a command-and-control, exclusive 
license regime because they want to maintain control----
    Mr. Allen. Right.
    Mr. Powell [continuing]. Of that regime. And they want the 
world to use their approach as well.
    Mr. Allen. Good. Thank you. Ms. Rinaldo, what--can you give 
me an answer to that question about why it is important for 
your members to have more spectrum to compete with China?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely. So if you want to get Open RAN, 
deployed, we would need new spectrum to bring online. It is 
updating networks. It is U.S. and our allied friends around the 
world, innovation that is coming to bear.
    Mr. Allen. OK. Today, I will be introducing the Spectrum 
Pipeline Act, which was originally co-led last Congress by 
Senators Cruz and Thune. This bill is designed to ensure the 
efficient allocation of midband spectrum, a resource critical 
for the advancement of 5G and next-generation technologies.
    While this communications technology is a cornerstone of 
our strategic competition with China, this bill lays out a path 
for us to promote wireless innovation while protecting national 
security interests.
    Mr. Gillen, can you explain why the Spectrum Pipeline Act 
is needed and how it would benefit the Nation's economic and 
national security interests?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And thank you for your leadership 
and for the bill. It is a really important thing to address a 
lot of the challenges we are talking about, that we--we need to 
move quickly, we need to move decisively, and it is Congress' 
role to set that direction.
    And that structure you propose is flexible. It allows the 
agencies to actually determine which bands are right, that we 
need to do together. But ultimately, when we are trying to talk 
about China, in our view, we need to be the best in the world 
in our license, and we are today. We also need to be the best 
in the world in 5G. We shouldn't be choosing. We need to do 
both, and we need to have the innovation available on both of 
those platforms.
    And so your bill would help equalize that imbalance we have 
right now on the 5G side to put us in a position. We lead the 
world today in unlicensed spectrum. We can again in 5G with 
this kind of bill. Thank you.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you. Mr. Gillen, my rural district still 
does not have consistent mobile phone service.
    What assurances can you give me that your member companies 
are making the necessary investments in upgrading their cell 
towers and building new ones as necessary?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. It is a project every day that we 
continue to build. It is one of the things why it is important 
when we talk about what kind of spectrum is available, why 
full-power spectrum matters. If you think about some of the 
models, the sharing models we are using, you need seven times 
more the facilities to cover this in geography.
    So when we are trying to get out beyond Augusta, what are 
we trying to do? How far that signal goes matters. There is 
also a role for the government, the 5G fund at the SEC, to help 
supplement and complement those places to help us push out 
faster.
    But absolutely, we need to get further than we are today.
    Mr. Allen. Is there anything Congress can do to help us--
help companies build more towers in the rural areas of the 
country?
    Mr. Gillen. Certainly continued work on permitting reform 
would help, to help cut down--modernize that process to let us 
build faster and get to more places and more full-power 
spectrum. It would be both.
    Mr. Allen. And then finally--I have got about a minute--can 
you explain the difference in the approach of a spectrum policy 
between the first Trump administration and the recent Biden 
administration, and what exactly needs to happen to get 
spectrum policy out of the gutter and back on track, and how 
long will it take?
    Mr. Gillen. We saw great success. The first Trump 
administration released more spectrum than any other 
administration, particularly some of the midband spectrum we 
are talking about under the Trump direction and Ms. Rinaldo's 
leadership. We saw 380 megahertz of spectrum--midband spectrum 
auction for over $100 billion.
    The spectrum directly adjacent to both of those is prime 
spectrum for that same opportunity again. So it came down to--
we had a lot of--we were speaking with one voice, and the White 
House pushed us all forward with a good plan.
    Mr. Allen. So it is important that this committee 
understand that we have got to move quickly with this, and we 
need to move in a bipartisan way and quit talking about 
political issues, and let's get this done and so we can lead--
lead the world in communications technology.
    And I want to thank each one of you for your being here 
today and for your input on this important subject, and please 
help us get this done. Thank you.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    I will now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr. 
Soto, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Spectrum is one of our 
most valuable commodities, our information superhighway. When I 
think about all the uses from cell phones and getting to 6G to 
AI and commercial rockets in Central Florida, by the way, 
telehealth streaming, gaming, internet, e-commerce, one of the 
greatest economic inefficiencies we have is buffering, the 
dreaded spinning wheel. I even remember when it used to be an 
hourglass. A lot of you may remember that.
    And so, it is critical for us to ensure access to spectrum 
for these commercial and technical uses. Unfortunately, 
Congress allowed the SEC's auction authority to lapse back 
nearly 2 years ago. And we saw, you know, the Department of 
Defense, our military, they need to defend the Nation. But with 
nearly 2 years of this lapsing authority, we need to work out 
these differences.
    There has been a history of using this funding for public 
safety, for national security that is communications-related, 
whether it is FirstNet, Rip and Replace broadband, and the new 
infrastructure law. I could tell you, in rural places in my 
district, like South Osceola and East Orange, where they have 
ranches and farms and groves, using this funding in a related 
way to communications not only makes sense, but it is the just 
thing to do.
    Communications are only going to require more investment as 
technology and competition advance, especially making our 
telecom system more resilient to cybersecurity hacks, like Salt 
Typhoon, which has been mentioned a bunch of times here.
    So we need to make sure we are reinvesting these in the 
telecom system and not seeing tax cuts for billionaires that 
will siphon this off.
    Most Americans and American small businesses will suffer 
identity theft, ransomware, spying, if we don't continue to 
reinvest.
    So first, Mr. Gillen, I was shocked to see--we would see--
China, over the last 3 years nearly 4 times the amount of 
midband spectrum for commercial use unleashed. And just so we 
are clear, there has been a bipartisan opposition in the 
Senate, through DoD, through Senator Rounds, I see Senator 
Hirono, too, who helped slow this down.
    How do we--what are the consequences if this continues to 
happen?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. I thought the 
consequences is where you started. It is the buffering 
hourglass. And when we talk about what these networks can do, 
it is inconvenient on a phone call when we want--with 5G, and 
we want connectivity to do in manufacturing and healthcare and 
transportation. We need these to be heavily reliable and 
resilient networks. So it has to work.
    And so, ultimately, at its core, that advantage in China is 
giving them a leg's up in their ability to innovate. There are 
14 times more 5G-connected factories in China than are in the 
U.S. You can draw a direct line back to our spectrum policy. 
They are continuing to move forward. There's forward global 
bands for 5G right now. They support three. We support zero.
    We need to get on the playing field. We need to start 
competing again.
    Mr. Soto. Ms. Rinaldo, you were head of NTIA. When you 
worked with the DoD on these issues, What was their hesitancy? 
I feel like there is--I get it. There is national security 
implications to this.
    But what are some of the things you can disclose of why 
there is still that tension there that is blocking a lot of 
this from coming forward?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. I feel that there is a lack of trust. 
They, of course, have national security aims that they need to 
protect, and the industry wants those protected too. But 
there's so many efficiencies coming online. How can we ensure 
all users, public and private, are taking advantage of these 
efficiencies?
    And so I think that is what we really need to get back into 
this conversation, is how do we get the trust back? We are all 
one country.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. Mr. Lewis, if you could have a top 
three reinvestment in a telecom and in communications systems 
with the proceeds of spectrum sales, what would it be?
    Mr. Lewis. Top three. Definitely NG 9-1-1, which we have 
talked about. Number 2 would be digital inclusion efforts on 
the ground, Congress' investment in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. And digital inclusion efforts on the ground 
was a first of its kind, but it is not permanent. Spectrum 
auction authority could create a permanent fund.
    And then other infrastructure needs: resiliency, there may 
be others. But spectrum auction proceeds are hard to predict as 
well. Those auctions, no greenfield space come with costs as 
well, so it would--prioritizing would make sense.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks. And I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes to ask 
your questions.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our 
witnesses for being with us today. This is really a great 
conversation.
    Our national security depends on the United States 
maintaining an edge in advanced technologies. This committee 
has acted decisively over the years to meet this goal. At 
times, the legislation securing Americans' data from Communist 
Chinese collection and advancing spectrum policies like the 
Beat China for 5G Act of 2020.
    The expiration of the FCC spectrum auction authority is not 
something I take lightly. An auction authority remains crucial 
for wireless technologies to have the ecosystem developed and 
thrive in the United States.
    If I could start my questioning with Mr. Powell. And there 
has been a lot of discussion back and forth, but I am going to 
get your--get your thoughts on this. In your testimony, you 
speak to the American innovations that have come to--thanks to 
unlicensed spectrum availability.
    Do you expect that, as technology continues to develop, 
coexistence of some sort of sharing in a band will be easier or 
have less interference?
    And before you answer--you really went in-depth in your 
testimony on shared spectrum. And--but the question--we have 
been going around and around on this for--oh, since I have been 
on this committee, for almost 15 years, especially with DoD. 
And we just heard from Ms. Rinaldo talking about, you know, 
having some kind of working relationship back and forth and 
having that trust. But how do we get there? Because we can do a 
lot of talking, but how are we going to get that? Because we 
are going to have to have this spectrum.
    Mr. Powell. Yes. I think if you look at the examples of 
WiFi and the CBRS spectrum, you will look at dramatic increases 
in our ability to utilize advanced technologies to allow 
conflicting uses to coexist cooperatively. That allows you to 
get the spectrum out, have all users who need it have access to 
it, and be able to provide services in new and innovative ways.
    I think one of the trust problems is that the Defense 
Department and others believe--I have worked with for them for 
many years, including when I was Chair of the FCC. They lose 
trust when they feel like people are hunting to take the 
spectrum completely away from them and not offer them an 
alternative. They are charged constitutionally with protecting 
our borders, protecting United States national security.
    And I can tell you, a cash--a flipping hourglass while you 
are watching a video is one thing. A loss of 3 milliseconds on 
a missile intercept means you miss. That is a very fundamental 
loss of capability. So you can understand the conflict. It 
takes talented leaders and policymakers to bring that trust 
back.
    But I would argue, looking more fully at shared spectrum 
models would allow them to see a future which they can continue 
to operate while coexisting with commercial users.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Rinaldo, similar to conversations we have had in the 
past related to the benefits of ORAN networks, how does having 
a diverse spectrum ecosystem strengthen our national security 
and protect against foreign cyber attacks?
    Ms. Rinaldo. You never want an overreliance on a single 
band. That is why it is important to diversify. I think all you 
have to do is look to GPS, where it is incredibly vulnerable 
because all of our eggs are in one basket. You don't want to 
create a high-value target.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that the United States 
cannot and should not try to act more like China when it comes 
to spectrum management. What are some of the areas we should be 
looking at to encourage that innovation here while spreading 
American wireless values abroad?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So they operate by fiat. They have a handful 
of companies as opposed to us. We have hundreds of companies in 
this space, so it is important to bring them together to 
collaborate, multistakeholder through government, public/
private partnerships. And so that is where we do have the 
innovative edge.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen, are there bands that have already been studied 
by NTIA that should be part of the spectrum pipeline?
    Mr. Gillen. Our studies have studies. Absolutely. When 
you--the structure really--there's many different ways you can 
structure the bill. You can direct--in the past, you have 
directed, you must auction this particular band. Sometimes it 
is a matter of spectrum within a range.
    The clear priority for us is that--that you include a plan 
with auction authority, and there's lots of different ways it 
can do it. In terms of specific bands, absolutely. The 3 
gigahertz band and the 7, 8 gigahertz band are two global bands 
that are both identified by the national spectrum strategy. We 
think those are key parts of the roadmap going forward.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And in this Congress, 
we have got to do, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, on our 
spectrum auction authority, to get this done, you know. It is 
just not for making sure that we have dollars coming in to 
the--on the Federal side, but it is also absolutely essential 
that we get the spectrum out there.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get this done this 
Congress. And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
    I will now recognize the Representative from California, 
Mr. Ruiz, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to serve 
on this subcommittee. I represent California's 25th District, 
the southeast corner of California, where far too many of my 
constituents are dealing with persistent issues of limited 
broadband access, inadequate cell coverage, and aging 
infrastructure. It is one of the most underresourced rural 
communities in the State of California.
    And in communities like mine, the lack of reliable high-
speed internet creates obstacles. Students are unable to fully 
engage in online education, small business struggles to remain 
competitive, and families are disconnected from critical 
services. The need to expand broadband access to Tribal Nations 
is particularly pressing because they face some of the lowest 
connectivity rates in the Nation.
    And addressing this digital divide will not only ensure 
equitable access to education and economic opportunity, it 
would also provide essential services, like telehealth, to 
communities that need it most. And especially our vulnerable 
communities during the pandemic, we saw that the lack of access 
made them even more vulnerable.
    And we must prioritize modernizing our telecommunications 
infrastructures to close this gap and build a stronger, more 
connected future for all Americans.
    Mr. Lewis, could you speak to how the absence of broadband 
access affects the community and, in particular, what the 
national security implications might be?
    Mr. Lewis. I think you started with some great 
explanations. I saw some of those examples firsthand. I served 
on the school board in Alexandria for 6 years and saw students 
who did not have connectivity and how it impacted their ability 
to--to compete and to get a full education.
    Broadband connectivity promotes economic development and 
the opportunities to reach a global marketplace for adults as 
well, and is incredibly important for communities.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you.
    Mr. Lewis. And, you know, we are here talking about 
spectrum policies. There are so many different ways to serve 
rural communities like yours. And certainly the investments in 
the BEAD program that get fiber hopefully out to as many 
communities as possible is important for wireless because you 
can't have wireless connectivity and towers without the fiber 
backbone that those towers connect to.
    And then finding other ways to use different sort of 
spectrum deployments, whether it is licensed spectrum, whether 
it is shared spectrum, whether it is WiFi, like unlicensed 
spectrum, like TV white spaces, the spaces between the 
channels--the TV channels is used for broadband performance. So 
there is so many different ways to----
    Mr. Ruiz. And we need those during disasters for----
    Mr. Lewis. Yes.
    Mr. Ruiz [continuing]. One of the critical things that we 
need them for.
    So these connectivity gaps also pose critical risks during 
emergencies, where reliable communication networks are 
essential for delivering timely information, ensuring the 
safety of all Americans.
    Last week, on January 10, 2025, due to various reasons, 9-
1-1 outages were reported in the Coachella Valley where I 
represent, particularly in Cathedral City and Indio. Residents 
who relied on AT&T and Frontier Services were unable to reach 
9-1-1 for several hours.
    First responders directed people to call alternate numbers 
or text 9-1-1, which are not always available or reliable 
options. And this is not the first time people in my district 
have experienced this.
    As an emergency physician, I have witnessed firsthand how 
every second counts during an emergency. Not being able to 
reach first responders is simply unacceptable.
    In the 118th Congress, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan 
basis, made significant strides towards providing Federal and 
State governments with the resources necessary to transition to 
nationwide, IP-based Next Generation 9-1-1 systems. This 
technology will modernize our outdated 9-1-1 infrastructure and 
will allow texts, photos, and videos to be sent to 9-1-1, 
improving communication during emergencies, and location 
tracking, and ensuring better coordination during natural 
disasters like the ones we experienced, Tropical Storm Hilary 
and then also the L.A. wildfires.
    So could you elaborate, Mr. Lewis, on the specific 
benefits, investments NG 9-1-1 will bring to our communities?
    Mr. Lewis. I think it starts with the idea that when an 
emergency happens, what do a lot of us do? We grab our phone, 
we take it with us. It is our--it is our lifeline to emergency 
services and our families.
    Mr. Ruiz. People are more likely to die when they are 
having a cardiac arrest and they can't get the paramedics to 
their home to help them because of lack of N11.
    So I think when we are looking at spectrum option, we 
should be using the funds to expand NG 9-1-1 and help save 
everyday American lives rather than trying to use those funds 
to give millionaires and billionaires more tax breaks, people 
that need it the least. We should be serving the American 
people who need it the most: everyday, middle-class, hard-
working Americans who rely on 9-1-1 systems to save lives.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    I now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr. 
Bilirakis, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it 
very much, and congratulations. You are going to make a great 
chairman.
    I have to admit, though, I was surprised that Congress let 
spectrum auction authority lapse, let alone for 2 years. At 
least we can say that the House did its job in trying to 
reauthorize spectrum auctions last Congress.
    But this clearly remains a top priority for members of this 
committee on both sides. As we move forward, we shouldn't just 
be simply thinking about reinstating auctions but also consider 
process reforms. In the past, Federal agencies have attempted 
to stymie auctions, sometimes even after an auction is held and 
bidders have won provisional licenses.
    Mr. Gillen, how does the uncertainty of post-auction agency 
meddling impact the value of a spectrum license, and what can 
Congress do to address these problems in the future?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. You are exactly 
right. Bidders hate uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty. And 
therefore, asking companies to spend tens of billions of 
dollars on an asset, there is expectation that they are going 
to be able to quickly then use that to deliver service to 
consumers. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case 
recently.
    I think it comes back to some of what Ms. Rinaldo said 
about the need for one voice at NTIA to make those calls. And 
ultimately, agencies and industry and everyone needs to live by 
that decision, and we need to get back to that place that you 
can help empower the spectrum experts at the FCC, at NTIA to be 
the ones that have to make the hard choices, how all of us want 
spectrum to be used.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Powell, in the aftermath of the historic double 
hurricanes that slammed Florida and North Carolina and other 
parts of the south and the wildfires that destroyed cities in 
California, these communities need to rebuild from scratch. How 
will permitting policies impact rebuilding efforts, and what 
can Congress do to more quickly and cost-effectively rebuild 
robust networks in these areas, potentially allowing them to 
achieve a citywide network like Charter has done in Charlotte, 
North Carolina? If you could answer that, I would appreciate 
it.
    Mr. Powell. Yes. I think you mentioned most importantly 
that efficient receipt of permitting is essential. Our members 
often, in communities, run into situations which they are ready 
to lay fiber across an enormous expanse of rural and you have 
been waiting for a permit for 2 years. This happens at both the 
Federal and the State level.
    I think there are other things about recovering 
infrastructure in disasters, like in Florida and North 
Carolina. For example, how do we get poles back up, and what 
quality poles do we put? Are we just going to put the same 
poles that blew down and broke, or are we going to improve 
those? Not only for withstanding the elements, but also being 
able to handle the expansion of broadband that we are all 
looking for in the BEAD program.
    We have had companies like Charter who have been on the 
ground in--both in L.A. and North Carolina who have learned a 
lot about how we improve coordination with power companies and 
utilities to avoid infrastructure being cut after it has been 
restored, which is something we run into a lot in these 
situations.
    So I think Congress and local governments can play a major 
role in improving the way we recover from these disasters.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
    During his first term, President Trump signed an Executive 
order that streamlined environmental permitting processes for 
infrastructure projects, particularly highlighting projects 
that increase public safety. Due to this Executive order, Pasco 
County, Florida, which is in my congressional district, was 
able to finally get a project shovel-ready after nearly 25 
years of bureaucratic red tape, if you can believe it.
    This streamlining was eventually rolled back by President 
Biden. On Tuesday, President Trump once again signed an 
Executive order significantly streamlining the environmental 
permitting process for infrastructure projects. Some experts 
are even suggesting this order could cut down permitting 
timelines from the better part of a decade down to 1 year, or 
under 1 year.
    Mr. Gillen, historically, about how much time and money is 
spent on the environmental review process as opposed to 
physically building the networks to reach new customers and/or 
improve service for existing customers?
    Mr. Gillen. According to the Commerce Department stats, it 
can take well over 2 years, which an often case is a decision 
of whether or not we are going to build or not. Particularly 
when we have the conversation, you dovetail spectrum policy, we 
are not getting spectrum out quickly and then how quickly can 
we actually deploy it on the permitting side to get sites built 
to build networks further out. And then oftentimes the cost is 
considerable, but the time is really what hurts and our ability 
to actually build out those facilities as quickly as we want 
to.
    So I think any steps to modernize those permitting programs 
to allow us to do that more quickly with more certainty, 
transparency, can be a game changer in terms of how quickly we 
can amplify what you do on spectrum.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    I now recognize the Representative from California, Mr. 
Peters, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward 
to working with you on this subcommittee.
    It is the first time I have been on this subcommittee. One 
of the benefits of seniority--besides creaky knees--is, when 
the third committee comes around, you can choose--choose a new 
one. So I am happy to be here.
    And throughout my time in Congress, I have prioritized some 
of the main pillars of our economy in San Diego, two of which I 
think are directly implicated here, just science and 
innovation, and also our military presence.
    In San Diego we take pride that our industries are at the 
forefront of innovation. Qualcomm is headquartered at my 
district. It plays a pivotal role in the progress of 5G and 6G 
technologies and what we can achieve with a balanced spectrum 
policy.
    Common complaint I hear from innovators like Qualcomm is 
that more spectrum is needed to meet demand from an 
increasingly online population and to be able to compete with 
competitors abroad, and we have already talked extensively 
about that in some ways.
    Mr. Gillen, can you describe a little bit about the 
increasing demand for low cost--low-cost, high-quality 
broadband services and how that relates to the need to make 
spectrum more commercially available?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. One of the exciting things 5G has 
created is our ability to compete in the home broadband market. 
So we can now provide an option in both rural areas and areas 
where we have not had as much competition as you have, 
traditional mobile space. But we have seen that to be a greatly 
attractive product. Ten million households have signed up to 
that product.
    But ultimately, at the end of the day, the ability to 
deliver that service, the promise of $8 billion by one study is 
savings to households if we could roll that out. We don't have 
enough spectrum to actually keep delivering that everywhere. We 
already have a company with a million-person waiting list. More 
spectrum means that person has broadband.
    Mr. Peters. Right. How efficient would you say the wireless 
industry is with the current spectrum holdings and what 
opportunities are there for the Federal Government to be more 
efficient with the spectrum that it uses?
    Mr. Gillen. It is a critical question. We all need to be 
more efficient. I think, if you think about it from our 
perspective, 20 years ago, this was cutting-edge wireless 
technology. We reinvent every 10 years. Our network gets 
created. We get more efficient. We are 42 times more efficient. 
We have government systems from the 1970s still out there.
    So it really is a matter for all of us to be in a position 
to make sure that those equipment--that we get the government 
better resources, better tools to be as efficient as we can be 
as well.
    Mr. Peters. I used to carry around a slide rule. That is 
really going back.
    The IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
directed the Department of Defense to study and plan for making 
specific segments of spectrum available for shared Federal and 
non-Federal use to potentially identify frequencies for 
auction.
    Mr. Powell, given your service in the military and as a 
former Chairman of the FCC, can you tell me why it is important 
for the Federal Government to take a comprehensive approach, 
including national security implications, when studying 
spectrum currently used by DoD for potential commercial use?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. I think we have all celebrated the value 
of spectrum, but we need to understand it is valuable for 
multiple important public uses. Not only commercial uses for 
consumers and businesses, but critical systems this Nation 
relies on, everything from NASA to OSHA to--the Oceanographic 
isn't what I meant--and our national security.
    I was a soldier in the field. I was a cavalry scout, and 
you know what I was trained to do when the Russians come 
through the gap? Find the antennas. I mean, it is critical to 
shut down command-and-control systems in the military because 
that spectrum is essential to their ability to operate. 
Similarly, that spectrum is essential to intercepting 
intercontinental ballistic missiles like the dome over Israel, 
for example. You imagine if they didn't have the effective 
spectrum for that system, things would be very, very different 
in that community.
    So it is essential with the military, and we have to work 
it out. There is no ``just take it from them and we will be 
fine,'' right? We have to have a public answer to how we 
replicate anything we compromise.
    And so the EMBRSS process in which--the EMBRSS report, in 
which the DoD studied the feasibility of sharing, came to the 
conclusion that it was possible to share.
    And, frankly, if we had accepted that recommendation then, 
we would be well on our way to providing a spectrum to market 
under a shared-spectrum model. But for whatever reason, 
including opposition by the wireless industry, it got restudied 
by the NTIA because somehow people didn't like the answer. But 
if we really wanted the spectrum, we could have moved off of 
that report.
    Mr. Peters. Well, I am looking forward to talking more 
about this with you. I have the military in my ear and Qualcomm 
in my ear----
    Mr. Powell. Yes.
    Mr. Peters [continuing]. And I think the people do send us 
here to work things out. And so that is what I like to do, and 
look forward to working with you all.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    I will now recognize the Representative from Florida, Mr. 
Dunn, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As a returning 
member of the subcommittee, I want to remind my colleagues, 
what we map out for national spectrum usage sets the stage for 
all telecommunications nationally and, importantly, for the 
entire world.
    I would like to emphasize the advantages that we enjoy in 
this particular Congress. We not only have Republican control 
of the House, Senate, and the administration, but we have a 
President who actually understands spectrum policy and was very 
successful in spearheading some innovative and competitive 
policies in his first term.
    I am going to read a statement from Brendan Carr, Chairman 
Carr, that highlights the successes. From '17 through '20, the 
FCC freed up roughly 6,000 megahertz of spectrum for licensed 
use alone, plus thousands of additional megahertz for spectrum 
for unlicensed use. The Trump administration put four times as 
much spectrum into the commercial marketplace for consumer use 
in one term than the last administration studied to put into 
use.
    Two years ago, Congress allowed spectrum auction authority 
to lapse for the first time in three decades. This is while 
China edges into the lead on spectrum occupation and the 
offerings of its associated technologies. It is on the members 
of this committee in this room to lead on spectrum policy, to 
direct or authorize the FCC to enact authorization to auction 
these critical and finite resources.
    And it starts by asking one general question: How much 
spectrum does the--America need for commercial use, and how 
much do we need for government use, and can they share the 
resource? And next: What are our licensed versus unlicensed 
needs for the commercial sector to innovate and grow? Can we 
strengthen sustained U.S. leadership in the field, or will we 
continue to lose ground in China?
    Three years ago--several years ago, the U.S. lagged as a 
country in adopting 3G technology. Europe got ahead of us. The 
tables turned when we switched from 3G to 4G, and America was 
ahead. So now as we get to 5G and 6G, we are competing with a 
cutthroat adversary, China.
    And I want to caution us that, as Americans, we may feel 
entitled to win every big tech race and advancement, but that 
is by no means guaranteed unless we protect the 
telecommunications infrastructure wireless ecosystem. And that 
includes working with the ITU and the World Radio Conference. 
It also includes addressing priorities like diversifying 
spectrum uses for streamlining, for satellites, space, AI, et 
cetera.
    All of this, you know, to keep foreign adversaries out of 
our telecom. And I believe, by the way, our adversaries have 
proven their hostile intentions by disrupting at least six 
submarine cables in the last few months alone.
    With my esteemed colleagues on this subcommittee enjoying 
bipartisan, pro-American approach to technological innovation, 
which is fundamental in finding solutions to inner-agency 
debates and political disputes standing in the way of America's 
global competitiveness, and I look forward to finding 
solutions. And I trust this panel to help us.
    Ms. Rinaldo, I was fascinated by your testimony. In your 
opinion, what is the safest and most secure path for the 
expansion of commercial use of spectrum bands, and given your 
expertise in Open RAN space, can you tell us what you see in 
the future for that technology, how we're expanding the usage 
of Open RAN, and where we go from here?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Well, if I could give you one little quick 
vignette to really get your mind wrapped around it. Canada in 
2022 banned Huawei. They are going to be replaced just like we 
are. One of the executives at Telus has publicly said by 2029, 
they are going to be 100 percent Open RAN because he never 
wants to be in this position ever again.
    Vendor lock is such a big part of this. So we talk about 
vendor diversity, but it is also about the vendor lock. It is 
going to allow you to be nimble, make updates as needed. So it 
really does have the power of national security concerns, as 
well as commercial connectivity.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much for that. You know, I am 
looking at a list of questions here. I know I am going to run 
out of time before I get there, but I am going to submit 
questions to everyone on the panel. And all too often, we do 
not get responses--I will say that--when we ask for written 
responses.
    This is not a gotcha moment. This is a chance for you to 
educate Congress, improve your government, and I am sure you 
recognize the need for that. So please think of us as a 
receiving antenna and not a--not a nosey, imposing government.
    And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    I will now recognize the Representative from Illinois, Ms. 
Kelly, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chair Hudson--and thank you for the 
peanuts--and Ranking Member Matsui for holding this morning's 
hearing, and thanks to all of our witnesses for participating.
    You have heard some concerns already about how spectrum 
auction proceeds will be spent. I think Congress should invest 
its money in ways that benefit local communities and public 
interest objectives. For instance, last Congress in our 
bipartisan spectrum bill, some auction revenues were directed 
towards HBCUs and other MSIs to help them increase broadband 
adoption in their local communities.
    As one of the cochairs of the Predominantly Black 
Institution or PBI Caucus, I know such funding would have 
enormous benefits, as these communities are too often 
underresourced and lack affordable, reliable internet 
connectivity.
    Mr. Lewis, do you agree that directing revenues towards 
expanding broadband adoption in communities served by HBCUs and 
MSIs is a worthwhile investment, and if so, why?
    Mr. Lewis. I would say yes. When I talked about digital 
inclusion efforts on the ground, many of them are being led by 
folks in and of specific communities, whether it is the Black 
community or Hispanic community, at HBCUs or MSIs. And so, yes, 
I think those dollars are incredibly important to--to support 
folks who know the local community well in getting people 
connected.
    Ms. Kelly. And my district is urban, suburban, and rural, 
and I have 4,500 farms in my district. So I can relate to what 
my colleagues on both sides have been saying about their 
constituents.
    The expiration of the Affordable Connectivity Program, or 
the ACP, poses a significant challenge for low-income 
households that depended on it to afford internet services. 
Unlicensed spectrum technology such as WiFi has provided 
connectivity across all income levels due to its wide 
distribution and deployment. We have seen schools and libraries 
utilize WiFi to help connect their students and patrons.
    Mr. Lewis, can you talk about the role WiFi can play in 
connecting the unconnected, particularly with the expiration of 
ACP?
    Mr. Lewis. It is a powerful tool. You see libraries and 
schools loaning out WiFi hotspots for students who don't have 
connectivity at home. I know we did that years ago in 
Alexandria when I was on the school board.
    The unlicensed is also important for continuing to support 
the next generation of diverse scientists and engineers. You 
talk about HBCUs. They are generating the vast majority of 
Black scientists and engineers in this country. If those 
schools don't have access to unlicensed spectrum to--to study 
new innovations and develop new devices and new innovations, 
then they miss out on those opportunities.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Mr. Powell, your written testimony 
notes that shared spectrum models are the key to meeting our 
growing wireless needs, and you go on to list some of the 
advantages of shared spectrum.
    What is it about these shared spectrum bands that make them 
attractive to a wide range of different entities, including 
ISPs, schools, libraries, and manufacturers?
    Mr. Powell. I think the important thing to emphasize is 
when you do shared spectrum like we did in CBRS, you attract a 
whole bunch of bidders who win licenses, not just a single 
company or couple of companies.
    So, for example, in CBRS, 228 companies or entities won 
licenses. And when you use those licenses, they are lower-
power, smaller geography, so it allows innovation in 
communities to set up their own wireless networks.
    For example, you referenced HBCUs. Howard University is 
using shared CBRS spectrum on its campus today as a consequence 
of the shared-spectrum policy and the CBRS option. You 
mentioned agriculture. There are places all over the country 
that are using CBRS to manage moisture control, automatic 
temperatures.
    These are bands that they would have never had access to 
but for the shared model.
    Ms. Kelly. You kind of--my next question was, How has the 
development of CBR service or CBRS advanced precision 
agriculture--you know, how has that been affected?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. As I mentioned, you know, there is a 
company called Hurst Greenery in Missouri that has 600 acres of 
greenhouses, and they use CBRS shared spectrum in order to 
control fertilizer feeds in order to check moisture of--
moisture in the soil as well as to automatically control 
temperature control. And they were able to access that as a 
consequence of that FCC auction.
    Ms. Kelly. My increase in farms join me to join my 
colleague, Rep Latta, in leading the House-passed Precision 
Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act, which asks the FCC to 
review its rules for certain satellite services to see if there 
are rule changes that can be made to promote precision 
agriculture.
    So thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking Member 
Matsui, for holding this hearing and to our witnesses for 
testifying.
    I appreciate that this subcommittee is starting with a 
topic that is clearly at the top of everyone's mind, and that 
is spectrum. The Energy and Commerce Committee has a long-
standing commitment to smart, bipartisan policies that both 
modernize and govern spectrum use. Our jurisdiction is on the 
issue, and it has a storied history. And I am looking forward 
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on 
this issue.
    Spectrum is a finite resource, and we must ensure that we 
are being innovative and thoughtful when forming any spectrum 
legislation moving forward. Solving this spectrum auction 
authority lapse and generating new spectrum policy is my top 
priority on this subcommittee, and I look forward to working 
with Chairman Hudson on getting this across the finish line.
    Mr. Powell, speaking of innovation, your members have 
leveraged spectrum and its high-speed broadband networks in 
many groundbreaking ways and are becoming fast-growing mobile 
providers. Can you describe this incredible growth and 
competition and the role that unlicensed and shared spectrum 
have been playing?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. You can look at how we innovatively use 
the spectrum that was available to enter the mobile telephone 
market as the fourth major player. So we use WiFi where 80 to 
90 percent of our traffic goes over that infrastructure. We 
should remember, 90 percent of the time human beings are 
indoors, and so they have access to that spectrum.
    And then we use shared spectrum and we use exclusive 
license spectrum. And by doing that, we have been able to 
create a service that is dramatically cheaper than other 
wireless plans. Plans from the cable companies on mobile 
services, on average, save consumers up to $700 a year on their 
mobile wireless services being offered by cable companies.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Gillen, can you speak to the ways in which 
your members have utilized licensed spectrum to innovate in the 
wireless space, and to what extent that--has the lapse in 
auction authority affected your ability to innovate?
    Mr. Gillen. It is a great question. I think we talked a 
little bit about 5G home, an example of providing the second or 
third choice in home broadband right now, thanks to the power 
of 5G home. The 20 percent of those subscribers are new to 
broadband altogether as an ability of wireless to get deeper in 
those communities makes a big difference, and the differences 
can be stark. It is up to $8 billion in savings to consumers 
thanks to that competition.
    As a practical matter, we already have companies out there 
that have waiting lists because there is not enough spectrum to 
continue to feed that competitive spirit. And so across the 
board, the more spectrum we have, the better we can compete 
both in the mobile space and in the fixed space.
    Mr. Joyce. And continuing, Mr. Gillen, during the first 
Trump administration, 100 megahertz of prime midband spectrum 
was auctioned in the 3.45-into-3.55 gigahertz band for $22 
billion. Estimated relocation costs by DoD were over $13 
billion, but according to NTIA, less than $300 million have 
been spent.
    Is that band currently operational by commercial users, and 
if so, are they currently operating with incumbent DoD 
operations?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. I think when we talk about shared 
spectrum, there's different types of shared spectrum. There is 
dynamic sharing, where it is actually real time and 
preemptible. That makes it hard for us to be used reliably.
    There is other spectrum like you are alluding to. Some 
systems are moving out their government system, some stay. And 
the best thing we can do is get engineer to engineer together 
as to which systems belong here, which systems can be used more 
smartly elsewhere.
    I think one of the auctions you just referred to is one of 
those places that the money that is left over right now is 
earmarked for the Navy to design a better radar that could help 
in the drone environment. And so, part of the magic of auctions 
is the Spectrum Relocation Fund Congress created creates win-
win opportunities that we can actually help the government get 
the tools they need for the modern warfare environment that we 
have now.
    So how do we get smarter? How do we share better? And we 
have a lot of tools available that we actually know can work, 
both the military radars can work, and we can coexist with 5G.
    Mr. Joyce. Do you think, Mr. Gillen, that the innovation 
that can occur with the United States Navy and other military 
is a byproduct of the additional funds that occur through 
spectrum auction?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. This is a key piece of the puzzle 
to help them continue to advance and improve what they need 
us--what we all need them to do: keep us safe.
    Mr. Joyce. Ms. Rinaldo, what policy priorities should 
Congress have when addressing development spectrum policies in 
this Congress? Are there issues in spectrum--with your 
experience, what you bring to the table--that have not been 
addressed and you want to be seeing in this Congress occurring?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say, first and foremost, good 
oversight. We need a plan, we need to implement that plan, and 
we need to make sure that we have oversight to hold everyone's 
feet to the fire.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this important 
spectrum hearing today.
    Mr. Allen [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. Joyce.
    And now I recognize Representative Barragan from California 
for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 
hearing on American Leadership in Wireless Technology. I would 
love to hear about the bipartisanship, and there is bipartisan 
agreement on the importance of extending spectrum auction 
authority to support our wireless networks and further 
innovation.
    However, I think it is critical the American people know 
how we plan to use tens of billions of dollars that will be 
raised from the spectrum auction, and I also have concerns 
about reports that Republicans may propose to use the revenue 
from spectrum auctions to give out tax cuts to billionaires and 
corporations. Instead, I believe that we should be using those 
dollars, investing in things to benefit all Americans such as 
through broadband and through public safety initiatives.
    Mr. Lewis, I am going to start with you. After witnessing 
firsthand the devastating impacts of the recent wildfires in 
the Los Angeles area, it is clear how important it is to have a 
strong emergency communication when disasters strike. We often 
hear about people on the wrong side of the digital divide and 
how they miss out on essential education, health, and commerce 
opportunities, and you touched upon this topic briefly, but you 
kind of ran out of time. So I want to follow up.
    If you could talk more about what it means when entire 
communities still have old, out-of-date 9-1-1 systems.
    Mr. Lewis. I think without NG 9-1-1 you have less--you have 
slower responses. You have missed opportunities to get location 
information from people's mobile devices, other communication 
beyond phones, like texting, that help people reach emergency 
services faster.
    And so it is incredibly important that we continue to 
deploy NG 9-1-1 everywhere.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I think that is one of the reasons 
we should invest money from things like spectrum auctions and 
important communications priority like the Next Gen 9-1-1.
    Mr. Gillen, I want to follow up with you. How do wireless 
networks support public safety communications and emergency 
alerts, and are there any additional measures we should 
consider to ensure people in emergencies receive timely, life-
saving information to improve response efforts?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. And I think the 
last few weeks have reinforced the importance of that program.
    The wireless emergency alerts, we have sent over 84,000 
during that program. And one of the things we have learned 
recently is we have continued to add more functionality to that 
program. So before it went out through a broad area, we 
increasingly allow smaller geographic areas to go out, we give 
options as to how often a message is broadcast in your 
community in case your phone is off or other things.
    I think some of the challenges we saw the last few weeks 
underscores that we need to partner with those public safety 
originators who actually start the alert process as to how the 
tools work and what actually happens. But I think at its core, 
it is a critical functionality that we are proud to be able to 
help.
    We need to always continue to work to make that program 
stronger both in terms of how the originators add to it and the 
functionality we create both for consumers and for the public 
safety.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Powell, there is a significant workforce shortage 
across the telecommunications sector, with tens of thousands of 
skilled workers needed to meet current and future demands. What 
steps are the companies you represent taking to address the 
shortage, and particularly through workforce development and 
engagement with underrepresented communities?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. This actually is a very serious problem. 
It is one of the big problems with the BEAD infrastructure 
program. Our expectations of what we are going to be able to 
build falls short of the amount of workforce available to build 
it.
    Consequently, our companies have focused on a number of 
significant workforce training programs. Some of them include 
particularly programs targeted at veterans. We have some 
programs targeted at young people to help them learn the skills 
and develop engineering talents that allow them to move into 
the cable industry. And we have very ongoing efforts daily in 
order to bring people into a company and train them.
    This is not simple cut-and-paste work. It is important, 
high-quality work, and we are committed to continuing to build 
a workforce that can allow us to bring broadband to every 
corner of the country.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen, is there anything you want to add about what--
the companies you represent, what they may be doing, any policy 
recommendations, how Congress can help fill the gaps?
    Mr. Gillen. I echo everything that Chairman Powell said. We 
need to be in a position to have the workforce ready. I think 
the Wireless Industry Association is a great apprenticeship 
program. I think we are all working together to get people into 
this. These are good-paying jobs. These are good opportunities.
    I think one of the things Congress can do is if we know 
over the next 5 to 10 years when spectrum is coming--those 
tower companies know when the work is coming. So right now when 
you talk about gaps in time between auctions and everything 
else, we don't know when the next one is coming. And so I think 
when you are looking at companies with tower builders across 
this ecosystem, the more certainty we can provide is a roadmap 
to, like, I can hire because I know the work is going to be 
there.
    So I think the more certainty you can provide, but we would 
welcome your support because the workforce is critical to 
achieving everything we are doing.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Representative Barragan.
    Now, I recognize Representative Fulcher from Idaho for 5 
minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the panel, thank 
you for being here today. We always learn something, and every 
time I listen to you all talk, I realize that I know about a 
fraction of what I need to know about some of these things. And 
so thank you for being here.
    A couple of questions just for clarification. Mr. Gillen, I 
come from a State with a lot of space. There is a lot of rural 
area in Idaho, but it is growing. And the needs are growing 
rapidly. It is a fast-growing State, a lot of open space, a lot 
of Federal land, all that.
    We have touched on some of this, but just for clarification 
purposes, would you just share, what is the cost of us doing 
nothing? What if we do nothing in regard to licensed spectrum 
shortage, identifying that? What is the cost of that?
    Mr. Gillen. The cost of it is, at its core, at some point 
this is going to stop working the way that you expect it to 
work. A lot of the innovation and expectations we want to talk 
about, whether it is AI or anything else, isn't going to have 
that platform to ride on. So that we are going to need to make 
sure from a licensed perspective and an unlicensed perspective, 
we have enough spectrum to actually meet our daily needs.
    The first thing you notice in high-traffic areas, you are 
going to see slowing down. And that is going to get 
progressively worse. But what it really is, we are accustomed 
to our wireless service getting better each and every year. 
Without more spectrum, that can't happen.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. So that just shows the 
urgency that we are under here. I wanted to clarify that.
    Mr. Powell, good to see you again. Thanks for joining us 
here today. On a similar topic, let's go to WiFi just for a 
moment. I would like to get your input. WiFi handles, as we 
have talked about, a lot more traffic than any other wireless 
technology. WiFi 7 is coming. Can you touch on that and just 
tell us what--what from your vantage point, what is that going 
to bring, and what does this mean for spectrum policies as we 
advance WiFi?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. If you had walked the floor of the 
Consumer Electronics Show this past January, you would have 
seen a ton of emphasis on WiFi 7. WiFi 7 is a next-generation 
technology that, in short, allows faster--faster use, faster 
data rates and wider channels.
    One of the things we are having to manage in the home is an 
explosion of devices that need to be utilized on the same 
network. So when you get wider channels, you are able to get 
applications that require lower latency. So, for example, 4K or 
8K video, or another example would be virtual reality systems 
of any type, and gaming.
    So WiFi 7 is essentially critical to the kind of devices 
that are coming into the home and coming into the market as we 
continue to innovate.
    Mr. Fulcher. And also important for research, research 
development, being unlicensed spectrum?
    Mr. Powell. Oh, 100 percent. You know, we continue to use 
WiFi in research environments, medical environments, 
environments that have heavy reliance on it. And the more we 
have these advanced systems, the better we will be.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Rinaldo, I would like to steer a question to you. The 
Open RAN situation is an exciting one. Personally, as I hear 
you talk and as I just think through some of the things we have 
been through, I am concerned about equipment made by some of 
our adversaries. You mentioned the Huawei and some of that, 
some of those things that, quite frankly, at least some of us 
don't think can be trusted.
    What steps, if any, do you think that we should be taking 
in a leadership role to encourage trusted equipment, American 
equipment--whether it is American or anybody else, but trusted 
equipment? What steps should we be taking?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So the two biggest things that we face right 
now is lack of the deployable spectrum here in the United 
States--how do we get spectrum authority back up and going, how 
can we make more spectrum available?
    Also, as we look internationally, I would say how we use 
our investments, our international assistance programs. For 
instance, EXIM Bank, they have risk caps associated with, and 
telecom is such an infrastructure-heavy industry, we always 
bump up against those caps, and so no telecom projects are able 
to get funded.
    So we are currently working with Congress on legislation 
that would allow EXIM to waive risk if we are going up against 
a Huawei or a ZTE. So those are a handful of items that could 
really help make a difference in getting Open RAN deployed 
around the world.
    Mr. Fulcher. Great. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I do have more questions but not enough time 
to ask them, so I am going to put those in written form. With 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Representative Fulcher, for yielding.
    Next is Representative Menendez from New Jersey.
    You have 5 minutes for questioning, sir.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Spectrum is one of our most valuable public resources. It 
has become a cornerstone of modern life for American families, 
enabling smartphones, navigation systems, telehealth services, 
emergency alerts, aviation systems like air traffic control, 
and the list goes on.
    How we manage our radio airwaves has a propound impact on 
access to and affordability of essential services, 
technological innovation, and digital inclusion, so it is vital 
that Federal spectrum policy is designed to support and benefit 
all Americans. This requires a range of spectrum access regimes 
that include both exclusive and shared-use licenses for 
reliable networks and access to unlicensed spectrum that 
supports innovation. Achieving the right balance is critical.
    Mr. Lewis, would you agree that if we use auction proceeds 
to invest in our digital infrastructure and programs that serve 
the public interest, we can further unlock the next generation 
of American innovation and close the digital divide?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes. I think it meets the mission of the 
Communications Act to do so and fills the gaps that we have in 
making sure that everyone is connected.
    Mr. Menendez. Great. And I agree. That is why I join 
Ranking Member Pallone in his concern of reports that our 
Republican colleagues are instead preparing to use 
reconciliation to put spectrum auction proceeds towards funding 
tax breaks for corporations and wealthy Americans.
    This is while we have heard a lot of talk from Republicans 
about affordability and putting America first. And here we are 
with a clear opportunity to invest in the public good in a way 
that will have a real impact on our constituents' access to 
affordable wireless services and on our Nation's ability to 
lead the world in wireless innovation.
    So this is a moment of truth, and I invite my colleagues 
across the aisle to make good on their promises and join us in 
making life more affordable for American families, to make our 
communities safer by improving FirstNet, and to maintain 
America's leadership in technological innovation.
    Mr. Lewis, I believe Federal spectrum policies must serve 
the public interest first and foremost. As we discuss extending 
the FCC's auction authority, we must be intentional about how 
licenses can provide the maximum benefit to our constituents.
    How should the FCC design spectrum licenses to ensure that 
wireless services are more accessible and affordable for our 
constituents?
    Mr. Lewis. I think it starts by using the new spectrum 
access models that have been studied to get the greatest 
benefit and the greatest efficiency of the use. We have heard 
at this hearing just how different bands can be used for 
multiple uses at the same time, including the military, while 
the mobile license carriers are using it, as well as unlicensed 
smaller power uses, all at the same time and managed through 
dynamic spectrum sharing.
    So finding the most efficient uses, I think, is incredibly 
important and then, after that, running auctions with the 
authority from Congress, hopefully, that produce additional 
public-interest benefits like NG 9-1-1.
    Mr. Menendez. That is great.
    And, building on that, how can licenses be structured to 
ensure that communities that tend to be underserved by 
commercial licenses are not deprived of digital opportunity?
    Mr. Lewis. I think the opportunity comes from those sharing 
examples. We have already seen some of this happen. You know, 
in the CBRS band, there are great opportunities for some of the 
most unconnected communities in rural areas--Tribal areas, 
especially, are our most unconnected--to use spectrum that is 
not being used, that may have licenses, but--prioritized, but 
creates opportunities for them to have community-owned built 
networks. And I think that is in the spirit of some of the 
relationships we have with our Tribal communities.
    So that is one example. There are many others.
    Mr. Menendez. Yes. That is great. And I would love to 
continue the conversation, but I am down to the last minute.
    In your past testimony, you noted that auctions, if 
designed correctly, have the potential to reshape the 
workforce. How can licenses be structured to promote a robust 
and diverse spectrum workforce and increase supplier diversity?
    Mr. Lewis. We have seen the FCC meet their statutory 
mandate to promote vendor diversity.
    They have the Office of Communications Business 
Opportunities that helps connect women and minority vendors to 
opportunities to work with larger carriers and big providers.
    They have created the ECIP program, which promotes taking 
licensed spectrum but creating a secondary market so that, if 
it is not being used by the large carriers, other groups can 
come and get access to that spectrum.
    So there are great opportunities if we design it and 
continue those programs.
    Mr. Menendez. That is great.
    I appreciate you all so much for being here.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
back.
    I now recognize the Representative from Texas, Mr. Pfluger, 
for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate 
the opportunity to have this hearing.
    I will start with Mr. Gillen.
    I would like to talk about the EMBRSS report. And, 
basically, DoD, NTIA concluded that the 3 gigahertz band 
couldn't be cleared for exclusive use. So I kind of want to 
talk through a sharing model or a segment model.
    And, really, what I want to hear is what needs to happen, 
especially from DoD. What do we need DoD to come back with? How 
do we need to work together? What settings are we expecting 
that to happen in?
    I am familiar with this band, I have used it in my 
professional career, and kind of want to get to the bottom of 
where we need to go processwise.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And I think there has just been a 
misunderstanding amongst everybody as to what our goal here is.
    You think about the lower 3 gigahertz spectrum. It is 350 
megahertz. That is almost as much spectrum as 5G has available 
for it. No one thinks all those radars should go away. That is 
a bad idea. And too much of this conversation is, ``Oh, we need 
$200 billion and 20 years'' to do something that no one is 
asking them to do. Ultimately, we need to get to a place that 
we have engineer-to-engineer.
    We think segmentation makes the most sense around what is 
happening globally. So, if you look at just the top 150, and 
then in that top 150, what are those systems? There are 
systems--there is a missile defense facility in Alaska. No one 
should move that. There is no need to move that. There is 
AWACS, there is the airborne system out there that is going to 
get replaced by Wedgetail in 2032. So let's talk about what is 
available in 2032.
    There are other systems--let's say it is using Channel 5. 
It is like an old TV. Can it work on Channel 3? Other systems, 
can we talk about--can we use it, smaller channels, if we 
actually invest? Some of the money from the last auction is 
going to the Navy to move S radars to X radars that are 
actually better in a drone environment.
    So we think that we have to get away from a binary choice, 
it is either the military or wireless. We need both. We just 
need to be smarter and more efficient.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen. And we need to start with getting engineers 
talking on a system-by-system basis, understanding your needs, 
understanding our needs, and making everybody stronger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, I couldn't agree more. And I think, 
working together--and I used those AI radars. I flew those 
aircraft. I used the services of aircraft like AWACS. And I 
think the time and geographic--the ability to bifurcate those 
and to separate--so I want to explore more on the segmentation 
process.
    Mr. Powell, I will let you answer there, and I have a 
question for Ms. Rinaldo after that.
    Mr. Powell. Well, I think I can only incrementally add 
that, I mean, the answer we just heard sounded a little bit 
like finding ways to share. And that is exactly what we are 
supporting.
    I think the big conflict is, are we going to move 
forcefully in that direction, following the examples and 
precedents we have had in the past to do so, or are we going to 
continue to fight over how much we can actually take away for 
full power and exclusive use by the commercial industry?
    I mean, I appreciate that you could go through system by 
system, but I think we also have to respect the military 
experts' judgments on what they need and how they need it. 
Those of us in industry, engineers or otherwise, aren't 
necessarily the best people to make those national security 
decisions.
    Mr. Pfluger. Do you feel like that we have been together in 
the right rooms at the right classification level to understand 
each other?
    Mr. Powell. I probably don't have enough direct experience 
to answer that question, but I would say, look, there is a 
component of what happens on the military side that stays 
behind the confidential curtain. You have to trust that people 
are protecting things that must be protected. But, typically, 
we learn enough about what they are doing to have a pretty good 
appreciation of what the sort of range of possibilities is.
    Mr. Pfluger. I am convinced that we can share. I am 
convinced that there is a plan that we can make work. And, 
actually, the benefit will be innovation, and that will benefit 
DoD as well. It is a finite band.
    Ms. Rinaldo, I will come to you. In your testimony, you 
talk about the role of standard-setting bodies, such as the 
World Radio Conference--Radio Communications Conference, and 
what that plays in shaping technology.
    I think there are some concerns about that process and 
concerns about getting to that conference and having the U.S. 
take a leadership role. What needs to change in that process? 
And how do we affect it better beforehand?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So I think there has been a lot of chaos going 
into the WRC. And it is so incredibly important that we go in 
and we have debate, right, we have the fight in the room. That 
is where great ideas happen.
    But then when we leave that room, we need to have a 
decisive decision, and people need to stick to that decision. 
And that has been the breakdown. So, if we are at WRC and we 
are still fighting, then our adversary is winning.
    Mr. Pfluger. Mr. Chairman, great hearing today. Our 
national security depends on this. I am convinced that 
innovation will result from moving forward with an auction.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. I appreciate the gentleman yielding back. And I 
appreciate your perspective on this. I think your experience in 
the military uniquely qualifies you to help us figure this out. 
And I think this committee is determined, on both sides of the 
aisle, to figure this out. So thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Virginia, 
Ms. McClellan, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking 
Member Matsui, for convening today's hearing.
    As many of you know, I began my legal career a little over 
a year after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed. That is 
how I started as a lawyer. I ended as a lawyer, right before 
coming here 2 years ago, figuring out how to implement the BEAD 
program and to expand broadband.
    I have witnessed first--I had a front-row seat at the 
table, witnessing the transition of the telecom industry from 
regulated monopoly, where mainly landline was the form of 
communication, to now a WiFi-based, wireless-based, data-based 
industry. And I have seen firsthand the explosion in the use of 
and the demand for more bandwidth, for more and more data, 
growing at an explosive rate.
    So I am very excited that my first hearing as a member of 
this committee has brought me back home, dealing with issues 
that I have dealt with since I was a baby lawyer.
    And, with that, I would like to first focus on the 
discussion we have had about spectrum being a finite natural 
resource that does form the foundation for technical innovation 
in our dramatically increasing digital world. Its allocation 
and utilization carries significant potential to either bridge 
or widen the digital divide, particularly for our rural, 
underrepresented, and marginalized communities.
    And so, for Mr. Powell and Mr. Lewis, could you elaborate 
on the benefits of unlicensed spectrum, including how it has 
historically driven innovation and expanded connectivity, 
especially in underserved, rural, and Tribal communities?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks. I am happy to go first.
    I would say a couple things real quickly.
    First of all, it is important to understand how much value 
WiFi brought to the typical American family over the way the 
internet first unfolded. When I was first at the FCC, you paid 
$60, you got a single connection, and you got one computer to 
operate on that connection. Today, that price is about the same 
and every single person in the house can use it. So you have 
dramatically increased the value and the affordability of the 
service for all communities.
    Secondly, the thing that we are learning is WiFi is very 
effective as a public resource. Anybody can get on it--in the 
airport, in the public park, in the library, in the famed 
McDonald's parking lots where students have studied at times. 
During the pandemic, we wouldn't have survived without WiFi 
being able to allow us to operate at home.
    The other thing is, as we move to share models, we are 
learning that people can take matters into their own hands. I 
have a great respect for the wireless industry. They are great, 
but they have challenges in building out infrastructure. But 
we, with CBRS, we empower local communities to set up their own 
wireless networks. We have small utilities who are able to use 
CBRS and provide services to their communities. We have small 
wireless internet service providers who use these bands that 
they are able to get at low cost to provide services to rural 
communities.
    So one thing to remember in the models that we are 
championing is that you allow anybody to take delivering 
wireless service into their own hands and use it privately--in 
manufacturing facilities, in stadiums, in football fields. The 
NFL is going to use it for all of their 24 stadiums. So it is a 
democratizing approach. And I think we think we see a lot of 
benefits that come from that.
    Mr. Lewis. Just to add on, it is democratizing in how it 
impacts folks who then get to innovate on unlicensed spectrum. 
We talked earlier about, you know, the important research that 
can be done to build new devices, and we want to see that 
happen everywhere, whether it is, you know, on HBCU campuses or 
in high schools around the country.
    It is benefiting in both rural and urban areas. You see 
WiFi create local networks in urban areas, like Harlem, and the 
most remote rural areas. Tribal communities are building on 
multiple bands. There is, in California, the EnerTribe, serving 
the Yurok and Karuk and Hoopa Tribes--``Hopa'' Tribes, I might 
have mispronounced it--where they have built their own networks 
using the shared CBRS structure but on the unlicensed level.
    Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    In my last 10 seconds, I would just like to ask, for Mr. 
Powell and Mr. Gillen, if you could share in written response 
back what steps Congress can take to ensure that vital programs 
like the now-expired Affordable Connectivity Program can foster 
greater competition in the wireless market and to drive down 
prices, while also ensuring providers have the resources 
necessary to deploy and maintain the networks that are 
necessary to provide those services.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Gillen. We will do that. Thank you.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    The gentlewoman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Georgia, 
Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And congratulations to you, Mr. Chair, on your chairmanship 
of this subcommittee. It is a great subcommittee, and I served 
as vice chair for a while last session. I will tell you, they 
have a great team too. So you have surrounded--they have 
surrounded yourself with good people. And we appreciate it, 
because it is extremely important. This area, as we all know, 
is extremely important.
    Mr. Gillen, I want to start with you. You said today that 
we, as the U.S., are watching other countries, whether it is 
allies or rivals, make more 5G spectrum available for their 5G 
networks than it is in the U.S.
    Can you talk more about that and why other countries are 
doing--what they are doing with spectrum, why it matters? And 
specifically about China.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, 
Congressman.
    You go around the world: England has twice as much of the 
spectrum that we do, Japan has three times as much. There has 
just been a recognition when you look at these demand curves, 
what are we going to need to actually meet that moment and also 
to create innovation?
    If you think about all the innovation in the sharing 
economy, all those apps, they happened in the United States 
because 4G was the best in the world in the United States. And 
we need to get back to that place in 5G.
    What we see in China is, both domestically they want to be 
able to deliver innovation, manufacturing--their pushing 
forward of the smart manufacturing--leveraging that spectrum. 
They also want to--as Ms. Rinaldo has talked about, they want 
to export their values, their equipment through spectrum 
policy.
    So, right now, globally, there are four 5G spectrum bands 
out there for the globe to use. China supports three of them. 
We support zero of them for 5G. We are not in the game right 
now to be able to help shape where our allies--where we go, 
which impacts our manufacturing base to have someone to sell 
equipment to. It impacts our ability to innovate. So----
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK.
    Mr. Gillen [continuing]. The faster we get back to more 
spectrum, the better off we will be.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great. Thank you for that 
explanation.
    Mr. Powell, how will the unlicensed and the shared 
community help us address the China threat as it was just 
explained?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you for the question.
    One example I would like to share, which is Georgia-based, 
is the United States Marine Corps at the Logistics Base in 
Albany, Georgia, is using CBRS shared spectrum right now to 
advance our warfighters' abilities to use robotics on the 
battlefield.
    I think it is important to remember that, you know, China 
is a threat on multiple fronts, and if they invade Taiwan, we 
are going to find out the most important one is whether we are 
able to meet that threat. So CBRS shared spectrum has been a 
solution on a number of military bases to allow them to set up 
their own private networks in order to train and operate 
equipment.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. Good. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Gillen, I want to go back to you. As you know, I 
introduced the American Broadband Deployment Act that takes 
steps to eliminate the bureaucracy and the red tape.
    And I will tell you, that is one thing we are--the Trump 
administration is going to address, is just all the permitting, 
all the regulations that go throughout all of our economy. I 
don't care if you are talking about healthcare, if you are 
talking about technology or energy--everywhere I go, everybody 
is telling me permitting, regulation is crushing us, crushing 
us.
    So, obviously, in the previous Trump FCC, they made great 
strides in this area, and Chairman Carr's leadership has been 
needed. I am wondering, do you think it is important to codify 
those changes, and should we go even further?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes. I think your bill is a key companion to 
this conversation around spectrum, that in order--particularly 
as we are waiting years to get spectrum access, we need to hit 
the ground running. And I think what Chairman Carr did 
previously on permitting reform, we need to do more. We need to 
go beyond small cells to macro cells, how do we get to Federal 
land.
    So I think your legislation is a key piece of how do we 
actually codify that commonsense modernization that we need to 
actually get people out building again.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. Do you think spectrum would be more 
valuable if broadband permitting was faster and more 
transparent at the local and the State level?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes. It gives us a roadmap to how quickly we 
can build; if you buy that asset, how quickly can you put it on 
the towers across the country, actually delivering service to 
consumers.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. I think that is very important, and 
I hear it all the time as well, about problems not only at the 
Federal level but at the State and local level as well, and we 
need to be assisting them in that as well.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely.
    Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And thank all of you for being here. Again, this is 
extremely important. We all know that, and we recognize that. 
So your input is very valuable, and we appreciate you taking 
time out to spend with us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from New York, 
Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, everyone.
    And thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank you, Ranking 
Member Matsui, for convening this important hearing.
    Let me also thank our panel of experts for joining us this 
afternoon.
    Finally, my warmest regards and welcome to all of my new 
colleagues on the subcommittee and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
    Spectrum policy is such an important part of this 
committee's jurisdiction and a fitting topic for our first 
subcommittee hearing of the 119th Congress, particularly given 
the continued lapse in the FCC's spectrum auction authority.
    While I am disappointed the Senate was unable to follow our 
lead in the 118th Congress on auction authority, I am proud of 
the work this committee has done in recent years on spectrum 
policy.
    The need to advance and enact legislation that reinstates 
auction authority and thoughtful spectrum policy is more 
important than ever, given the multiyear lapse, but it is 
equally important that we get it right.
    Spectrum is a public resource and must be treated as such. 
Our spectrum policies must carefully balance the needs of both 
Federal and non-Federal users while fostering new innovations 
that maintain our global leadership. Spectrum auction proceeds 
must also be reinvested for the public good and not as a pay-
for for additional tax cuts for billionaires.
    This committee has historically shown an ability to work in 
a bipartisan manner to establish a creative regulatory 
framework that fosters the kind of innovation and competition 
that made us global leaders in the first place. CBRS is a prime 
example of the kind of creativity that we can achieve when we 
work together. And I believe that, together, we can break this 
logjam and advance innovative spectrum policies that serve the 
public interest.
    At the heart of this impasse is the fundamental tension 
between critical national security needs and the priorities of 
wireless carriers. Reauthorizing spectrum auction authority 
requires addressing this tension head-on. And a successful 
framework must enable technologies to coexist, ensuring that 
neither side feels the need to obstruct future attempts to 
reauthorize the authority.
    Having said that, Chairman Powell, in light of your 
response to Rep. Pfluger, what are your thoughts on spectrum-
sharing frameworks like CBRS? And how can this help us chart a 
path forward?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. Thank you.
    Think about just the number of top-line benefits when you 
pursue spectrum in this way. Number 1, you help resolve the 
conflicts we have all been talking about. Rather than having a 
tug of war between two different important interests, we find a 
way to have them share.
    Secondly, it tracks a lot more investment. So, you know, 
when you had CBRS, you had 228 winners, not 1 or 2. They are 
all able, then, to provide a whole range of diverse services. 
You could provide wireless high-speed service, precision 
agriculture----
    Ms. Clarke. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Powell [continuing]. New networks for your school. And 
you allow people to do that without further permission from the 
government. These are enormous benefits.
    So, you know, I think, when you add that all up, it is a 
very important tool in the quiver of Congress and the United 
States Government as it tries to think about a forward-looking 
spectrum policy.
    Because, no matter what, when we resolve this band, we are 
going to be here next year and the year after talking about 
wanting more, and it is going to get harder and harder. The 
more we squeeze, the more we try to get more juice out of the 
lemon, you know, we are going to get to the pit. And we are 
going to have to find some new, creative way to continue to 
have spectrum roll off the assembly line and into the market.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. Thank you very much.
    As we all know, different communities have different needs 
when it comes to connectivity.
    Mr. Lewis, can you discuss whether and how different 
spectrum access models affect the ability of people from 
different backgrounds, regardless of socioeconomic status, to 
access the latest wireless technology?
    Mr. Lewis. Each community can use unlicensed spectrum in 
different ways. And we are seeing some of those different 
access models allow for that flexibility.
    In rural areas, we have seen the use of TV white spaces to 
get broadband deployment out to communities that don't have it. 
We have seen--I have talked about the Tribal communities, but 
also we have seen in urban areas folks build co-ops using 
unlicensed spectrum because of both sharing models as well as 
broad unlicensed bands that the FCC has reserved. We need to 
continue to do that.
    I can't overexaggerate, I think, the importance of WiFi 7 
that was talked about earlier, the broad channels that are 
needed to make that happen so that, when we get 6G, when we 
get, you know, gigabit broadband to a lot of places, you don't 
want to have that slowdown when you get to the modem inside the 
building. WiFi 7 allows for that.
    So all these different sorts of access models are just 
critically important to keep everyone connected, whether you 
live in urban areas, densely populated areas with co-ops and 
mesh networks, or rural areas with white spaces and community-
built networks.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Hudson. Thanks.
    Ms. Clarke yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Florida, 
Mrs. Cammack, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 
congratulations on the new role. It is so great to be back at 
work on so many important issues with our colleagues.
    And, of course, spectrum, as we know, is critical to our 
economic and national security. And it has never been a 
partisan issue, which is honestly why I was so disappointed to 
hear the ranking member and several of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle attempt to assert that spectrum auction 
authority will be used as a means, in his words, to quote/
unquote ``give tax cuts to billionaires'' by extending the tax 
cuts from the Trump tax cut plan.
    Now, that is clearly a hyperpartisan and false attack, and 
I highly doubt that the constituents of the ranking member's 
district in New Jersey 6 would appreciate the 19 percent annual 
tax increase across the board on working-class families, nor 
would the 98,800 families in his district appreciate their 
family's Child Tax Credit getting cut in half if we do not, in 
fact, extend the Trump tax cuts.
    A similar comment was echoed by my Democratic colleague 
from California, Ms. Barragan--which, again, I don't think that 
her constituents in California's 44th District would appreciate 
a tax increase, on average, of $1,621 annually.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I felt it appropriate to set the record 
straight, seeing as how we are only a few hours into the first 
hearing of the 119th, and attempts are already being made to 
turn this vital issue of both economic and national importance 
into a political wedge.
    So I am sure their constituents, just like mine, care 
deeply about the national and economic security and would 
appreciate folks staying focused on the primary mission here 
rather than partisan attacks.
    So, Ms. Rinaldo, you had started down a line of answering 
Representative Joyce's questions, and you had mentioned 
oversight, talking about what you would like to see Congress do 
more of in this space. Please elaborate on the oversight 
elements that you were alluding to.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So sometimes through--we have seen in the 
past, through an interagency process, the failure to come to a 
decision, and then you just get to a stalemate. I think when 
you are talking about these issues, it is so incredibly 
important to continue to move the ball forward. You, as Members 
of Congress, can provide that oversight to hold feet to the 
fire to make sure that we are able to move forward.
    Mrs. Cammack. Can you give any examples of a particular 
stalemate where a decision has kind of lingered?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So I think somebody else asked about--oh, 
actually, it was Chairman Guthrie--asked about other agencies 
looking to separate out of the IRAC system, which is the 
management of all spectrum management. That is so incredibly 
important, to keep that group together. You lose all 
efficiencies--and it does have national security implications--
if agencies are protecting on their own terms and not through 
the collective good of the entire ecosystem.
    Mrs. Cammack. So, a little bit in that same vein, you 
started discussing--I think it was Representative Fulcher who 
started talking about this--you started talking about the risk 
caps and how telecommunications infrastructure typically gets 
excluded, because it is so capital intensive, from funding 
opportunities.
    Obviously, that hinders our ability to compete with China, 
as you started talking about. Can you continue down that line 
for me?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Sure. So EXIM Bank--we have the tools. They 
already exist. We don't need to recreate the wheel. We just 
need to retool them to ensure that we are able to get capital 
out.
    So, again, the legislation would just allow--it doesn't 
require--would allow them to waive the risk caps if a company 
was up against Huawei.
    Mrs. Cammack. Now, let's say beyond EXIM, I mean, is the 
Development Finance Corporation also an area where this is a 
problem?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Correct. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Cammack. OK.
    Now, talking a little bit more in the Department of Defense 
realm, how can we--I know, obviously, you talked about the risk 
caps. What other ways can DoD and others--can we be competitive 
and support operations abroad?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So, again, I would say that DoD needs to 
be fully funded at their 5G department. The Open RAN Coalition, 
we have an excellent relationship with the 5G office and the 
FutureG office, but their budgets continue to be cut in half so 
they are unable to deploy 5G around the world.
    Mrs. Cammack. Do you feel that in the previous radio 
conference the United States was adequately represented?
    Ms. Rinaldo. I think there are lots of leadership changes 
that led to disorganization.
    Mrs. Cammack. And how would we address that disorganization 
going forward?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Again, it is ensuring that we get people 
identified and in position earlier.
    China has an advantage. They rule by fiat. But we go in 
through a multistakeholder process. Our process, at the end of 
the day, is going to create a broader, more impactful decision, 
but it does mean that we have to start earlier and we have to 
work harder.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
    My time has almost expired. I will submit the rest of my 
questions in writing.
    Thank you to all our witnesses for appearing before us.
    And I am so sorry, it is freaking freezing in here.
    Mr. Landsman. It really is. Amen.
    Mrs. Cammack. Can we do something about that?
    Mr. Landsman. So cold.
    Mrs. Cammack. It is freezing.
    Mr. Hudson. Well, the gentlelady has----
    Mrs. Cammack. I yield.
    Mr. Hudson [continuing]. Yielded back.
    I will assure you, it is colder outside than it is inside.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Florida, 
Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so looking 
forward to working with you and Ranking Member Matsui on this 
important subcommittee. It is really critical to innovation, 
keeping WiFi and the internet affordable for our families and 
small businesses, and to our national security.
    And I know this subcommittee did a lot of good bipartisan 
work last year, and you passed a spectrum auction bill 
unanimously out of committee.
    Why didn't it--why wasn't it brought to the floor? I would 
ask--I am just curious. What is your view on that, Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell [to Mr. Gillen]. What is your view of that?
    Ms. Castor. Mr. Gillen?
    Just quickly.
    Mr. Powell. You know, I think I would stand with our--we 
have been--we have all so forcefully seen the value of the FCC 
spectrum auction. I stewarded that responsibility at the FCC. I 
think it was a tragedy that we lost it.
    It is important to remember, when the FCC has auction 
authority, it is not just that they can move forward with an 
auction. They are empowered to find bands and spectrum to bring 
to auction. So they are stalemated in playing the leading role 
that they have always played.
    I think, unfortunately, we get back to this issue: There is 
a lot of conflict about how these bands should be used and who 
should be using them. And if people believe it is a political 
opportunity to bias the outcome of that study in a way that 
they might want or to protect constituencies, even those 
protecting the Defense Department, it can lead to political 
stalemate.
    Which is why we continue to believe that we have to start 
looking toward technological solutions like CBRS and shared 
spectrum to try to resolve those conflicts, as opposed to have 
them always thrown at your doorstep and ask lobbying and 
advocacy to produce spectrum policy.
    Ms. Castor. And you all have talked about it before, on the 
lack of trust. Is there something else that I was missing on 
all that, why it didn't--broadly bipartisan.
    Just quickly. Just quickly.
    Mr. Gillen. No, I think Chairman Powell covered it.
    Ms. Castor. OK.
    Mr. Gillen. A lot of the conversation right now is--we are 
having conversations around winners or losers, and we need to 
get to a place that these are win-win opportunities.
    Ms. Castor. Yes. I agree with that.
    Mr. Gillen. And so I----
    Ms. Castor. And that is one reason why we are concerned 
that spectrum proceeds could be used to fund tax cuts, 
whereas--Mr. Lewis started off, this is in the public interest. 
You use those proceeds in the public interest.
    And why we are bringing it up is, now, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee--there is a list and a paper out on the street 
that has it pegged, spectrum proceeds, as a possible pay-for. 
And that is why we are very concerned. It shouldn't go to fund 
tax cuts for big corporations and millionaires and 
billionaires. It needs to stay in the public realm.
    And I can tell you, back home in the Tampa Bay area, as we 
recover from the most damaging and costly hurricane season and 
we look out at the other damage across North Carolina, to our 
neighbors across--fellow Americans in southern California, no 
place has been immune to these extreme climate catastrophes. 
But, you know, we are learning a lot in the aftermath. In the 
aftermath, we learn how to better prepare and respond.
    And the Florida Department of Emergency Management and the 
University of Florida piloted a new tool to provide emergency 
responders and local governments with a dependable means to 
share alerts. I mean, information is critical during 
emergencies. They have the new Broadcast Emergency Alerting and 
Communication Operational Network, BEACON, that uses AI to 
quickly convert text into speech for AM radio broadcast, and it 
has the ability to translate into different languages.
    Automating these kind of critical safety broadcasts before, 
during, and after a disaster, they really help the first 
responders. They help get critical information to neighbors at 
a time of need. Cell phones go down, you lose the internet. And 
this is the kind of critical infrastructure that spectrum 
supports and that Congress should be encouraging.
    Mr. Lewis, in your written testimony, you say that spectrum 
policy is about innovation and connectivity and that revenue 
raised should serve the public interest. Is this the kind of 
thing you were talking about?
    Mr. Lewis. It is.
    You know, just with the public safety and emergency alert 
systems, when I was growing up--I am 45 years old. When I was 
growing up, emergency alerts came over the television. Now they 
come over your phone. And so, whether you are in your home or 
you are on the move, receiving those is critical, and so we 
want to support those and continue to build them.
    NG 9-1-1 is a part of that----
    Ms. Castor. Right.
    Mr. Lewis [continuing]. As well as other resiliency and 
infrastructure supports that we have talked about as public-
interest needs.
    Ms. Castor. Good. And I hope that is the tack we can take.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from South 
Carolina, Mr. Fry, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chairman. And congratulations on your 
chairmanship.
    I will note just for the record that I appreciate North 
Carolina peanuts, and they are good, but South Carolina peanuts 
might just be a little bit better.
    But thank you.
    This is a crash course, as a new Member, into spectrum and 
what that means for the country, and I really appreciate the 
discussion today. I am glad that this is a largely bipartisan 
affair.
    Mr. Gillen, earlier you talked about China a little bit and 
the risks that they pose in this space of spectrum. What are 
the consequences of China taking a lead in making 5G spectrum 
available to their carriers?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
    As someone with teenagers, I spend my weekend talking about 
TikTok. And, ultimately, at the core, that is China exporting 
technology. You know, if you go back to 4G, 3G, that was the 
U.S. in that position. That is TikTok.
    Now, imagine, extrapolate from that impacts on 
manufacturing, on ports, on how we are doing so many other 
different things. It is that innovation runs to connectivity, 
it runs to capacity. And so, really, it is, all the things we 
want to lead in going forward is going to go where the capacity 
and the connectivity are.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Chairman Powell, obviously, the internet economy has 
drastically changed over the last 12 years. Everything is 
different. The way we communicate is different. The amount of 
video content that we absorb is different. The way consumers 
use wireless technology is vastly different.
    How might our--other than--I think we have talked about 
auctions a lot. How might our policies change as well, given 
how the world is changing?
    Mr. Powell. Yes, I think one of the things that I would 
recommend to the committee is to keep the consumer at the 
center of the focus of the policy. How do Americans really use 
spectrum? What do they most depend on?
    I think one of the reasons we celebrate the WiFi story is 
that the vast majority of Americans' interaction with the 
internet goes over that infrastructure. We spend 90 percent of 
our days indoors, and when we are indoors, we are utilizing 
those services. If you are watching Netflix tonight, you are on 
WiFi. Frankly, if you are using your cell phone, 80 to 90 
percent of the time you are also using WiFi, not even the 
cellular network. It is the sort of workhorse of the entire 
internet economy.
    So, as you focus and align your spectrum policies, I think 
just keeping in mind the rapid innovation, the way consumers 
are evolving. You mentioned 12 years ago. The stuff in my house 
today, as opposed to 12 years ago, that expects to find and 
utilize my network is stunning compared to 12 years ago.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Rinaldo, how does access to spectrum allow innovative 
companies like those in the Open RAN Policy Coalition to 
continue to lead on the design of the next-generation networks?
    And, as a followup, as the spectrum environment gets more 
congested, could new technologies like AI-driven network 
management help manage the spectrum issues and lead us to more 
commercial spectrum on the market?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say that Open RAN is a nascent 
concept, really first rolled out by Rakuten and Japan in 2017. 
So we kind of missed the 5G wave. And so, as new spectrum bands 
come on line, we are able to build out using Open RAN. I would 
say, other than Dish, who has deployed 20-plus-thousand--AT&T 
has made an investment of $14 billion in Open RAN--we are 
really focused internationally at this point. So more bands, 
more Open RAN.
    And, as far as AI, it has been a great story for the 
telecommunications industry. We can use it for everything from 
management of spectrum, energy efficiency. And there is a lot 
of talk these days, as you can imagine, with concerns around 
drones, can we do detection using AI.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    And this is a broader question, I think, for the panel, but 
we will just go down.
    What specific actions would you recommend for us, as 
Congress, to take? I mean, obviously, we talked about some of 
the legal problems, some of the regulatory hurdles, some of the 
outdated regulations that may exist. What would you share with 
Congress about ways that we can modernize our system?
    We will start with you, sir.
    Mr. Lewis. I think we all agree, I hope auction authority 
is where you start.
    Mr. Fry. Correct.
    Mr. Lewis. And I would say, make it permanent. Provide the 
reliability that the FCC has the power to do it. And then how 
that then impacts band planning in the future.
    Mr. Fry. OK.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Auction authority, RNG, and then just working 
with our allies around the world to deploy safe and secure 
networks globally.
    Mr. Fry. OK.
    Mr. Gillen. Same. Auction authority with a plan associated 
with it, and permitting reform.
    Mr. Fry. Permitting reform. OK.
    Mr. Gillen. Yes.
    Mr. Powell. I would agree with that. I think auction 
authority, improvement in the interagency coordination process 
with appropriate congressional oversight, and assistance to the 
administration on developing uniform and single-voice policies 
when we appear at the next WRC in 2027.
    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Ohio, Mr. 
Landsman, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member, for 
this incredibly important hearing.
    The broadband/WiFi work that we do, probably one of the 
most important things we have to get right nationally. And, 
obviously, Congress has to play a big leadership role in that. 
And this has been, as one of my colleagues said, largely a 
bipartisan discussion, because it is a bipartisan issue.
    I mean, there are two pieces that are really important, 
that stand out for me.
    One is just the relevancy, the impact it has on our 
economy. I mean, growing economies are economies where there 
are massive investments in infrastructure and education. And 
broadband is obviously a huge, huge piece of the 
infrastructure, and it is core to our global competitiveness.
    The second is just the impact it has on our daily lives, 
which, Chairman Powell, you have talked a lot about. I 
represent southwest Ohio. It is a city, suburbs, rural Ohio. 
And it is one of the most important things that we do, to make 
sure that everyone has access, because of how important it is 
to their healthcare, to their education, to their connection to 
the world and to each other.
    Two big questions have emerged here for me. One has to do 
with reauthorization and, you know, how we divvy up the 
spectrum capacity. And the second has to do with what we do 
with that revenue, right? Those are two big questions that I 
think we will sort out in a bipartisan way.
    Let me start on the reauthorization question. Maybe each 
one of you could just talk a little bit about--give one big--I 
have heard a little bit from each of you about priorities, but 
one big priority. You know, I am new. So, if there is one thing 
you want us to really nail as we work on reauthorization, what 
would it be?
    Mr. Gillen. For us, it is key, when you go back, each time 
Congress has done this--1997, 2005, 2012--it has always been 
authority-plus.
    Sometimes you direct specific auctions. Sometimes you say, 
``You need to auction a certain amount.'' But particularly 
because the government controls so much of this, if you give 
the FCC, an independent agency, authority to auction without 
something to sell, it can be an empty tool.
    Mr. Landsman. Got it.
    Mr. Gillen. And so, for us, it really is that connection.
    Mr. Powell. I think the authority is important, but I would 
slightly disagree with Mr. Gillen. You know, the FCC, when it 
has plenary auction authority, it has the authority to find an 
auction spectrum without further direction from Congress. So I 
wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that you have to 
tell them what spectrum to authorize. They have been doing that 
for the better part of this century. So I think that is 
important.
    And I also think that if you entertain the idea of 
assigning specific spectrum bands, then you have to wrestle 
with the conflict we have spent all morning talking about. You 
have to figure out how you are going to resolve the complexity 
of the Defense Department systems. That needs to be done by 
experts down at the agency----
    Mr. Landsman. Yes.
    Ms. Rinaldo. So I would say that the NTIA Administrator 
needs to be an Under Secretary. And government titles matter, 
and it makes a huge difference. If you are the NTIA 
Administrator, you are having to brief the Deputy Secretary to 
talk to----
    Mr. Landsman. Yes.
    Ms. Rinaldo [continuing]. You know, an agency about an 
issue that they know nothing about.
    Mr. Landsman. Mr. Lewis?
    Thank you.
    Mr. Lewis. I would agree with that.
    Mr. Landsman. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. And with auction authority, I would say--I would 
agree with the former Chairman. You don't have to be 
prescriptive, because there is not a lot of new spectrum bands 
out there. Letting Ms. Rinaldo's old agency, the NTIA, and the 
FCC do the studies that point in the right direction is 
important. And preserving the balance of licensed, unlicensed, 
and sharing, WiFi 7, is a great opportunity but requires 360 
megahertz of spectrum band. Yes.
    Mr. Landsman. And then the second piece is on the revenue. 
Obviously, there is some consternation, some worry, because of 
a document that came out that maybe these dollars could be used 
for pay-fors.
    And on the tax piece, you know, I think there is broad 
support for tax relief for working folks, middle class, small 
businesses. It is the top 1 percent that I think folks like me 
struggle with.
    The revenue, assuming it stays here--and anyone, but, Mr. 
Lewis, start with you. Just--you mentioned a few big things. I 
mean, again, if you had to pick one major investment, I am 
assuming it is the expansion and then the inclusion, but I am 
curious what piece--where do those dollars need to go?
    Mr. Lewis. I usually highlight two. Definitely digital 
inclusion work on the ground needs long-term funding, as do 
other broadband--other----
    Mr. Landsman. That is really just making sure that more 
people have it.
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, addressing all three drivers of the digital 
divide--not just infrastructure, not just affordability, but 
adoption and helping people get it.
    But if I picked a second, NG 9-1-1. I mean, kudos to the 
chairman and former Congresswoman Eshoo for leading on the NG 
9-1-1 bill last year.
    Mr. Landsman. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from New 
Jersey, Mr. Kean.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Powell and Mr. Gillen, my district boasts some of the 
most capable innovators in the world. It also has areas that 
still face gaps in connectivity.
    How can technologies using licensed and unlicensed spectrum 
both supercharge our existing industries and generate growth in 
more rural areas?
    Whichever one of you would like to go first.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
    The power of wireless, particularly full-power 5G wireless, 
gives you the opportunity to push out broadband to other 
places.
    Rappahannock County, Virginia, rural Virginia, there is no 
terrestrial fiber cable services. Right now, because of 
broadband auctions you made possible, there is now 5G home 
service available. So roughly 20 percent of those new customers 
had never had broadband before, because that is an ability to 
scale and move quickly.
    So I would offer, it is one of the places that you can push 
out beyond where we are today.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you. Thank you.
    Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. I think one of the challenges in rural is 
always infrastructure. One of the challenges the wireless 
companies have is, in order to serve those communities 
effectively, you have to densify the network. You have to go 
out there and spend the money to put up towers to concentrate. 
That is expensive. That is a big capital expense for them. And 
so that has been slow.
    If you look at shared spectrum on CBRS, it covers 70 
percent of all unserved rural areas. That is why you are seeing 
projects that allow communities to take matters into their own 
hands. And in your own State, CBRS spectrum is being used at 
Newark International Airport without having to await the use 
from a commercial service.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you.
    Ms. Rinaldo, can you speak to the effect that adoption of 
Open RAN technologies could have on our supply chain and 
strengthening American wireless competitiveness globally? And 
can you also provide an update on where the development and 
deployment of these technologies now stand?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Absolutely.
    I think one of the biggest concerns is that we wake up one 
day and there is only one vendor for the entire world. So the 
concept of Open RAN, I believe, has been so successful because 
we have gone from a handful of vendors now to hundreds--a lot 
here in the United States, but also Japan, Taiwan, and Europe.
    So, since we launched this coalition, there are now over 
100 global deployments. I mentioned Tellis earlier. Tellis, 
they are going to deploy 100 percent by 2029. Viettel in 
Vietnam is deploying using Qualcomm and DeepSig to ORPC 
members.
    Palau, a small island in the South Pacific, they just put 
out an RFP, and the number of proposals they received were 
astonishing, because the competitiveness of Open RAN does allow 
more vendors to participate in the market. So it is really a 
win-win.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you.
    And then, Mr. Powell and Mr. Gillen, can you both speak to 
how licensed and unlicensed spectrum are used in emergency 
response in cooperation with first responders? And what needs 
to be done to make sure that spectrum is used as effectively as 
possible to keep Americans safe in the event of an emergency or 
a disaster?
    Mr. Powell. I think both are critical. I want to say that.
    I have been involved in these situations. I will give you 
an example just in the L.A. wildfire situation. Charter was 
able to open 35,000 WiFi hotspots immediately to try to improve 
communications when other infrastructure had been devastated.
    You know, that is really important, to be able to use every 
technological resource to get a network up quickly in these 
communities, often ones that are suffering without power as 
well as communications infrastructure.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen?
    Mr. Gillen. I agree with the chairman. This is a disaster. 
We all need to be working together, and all these technologies 
can complement each other.
    In terms of wireless, we are proud that 80 percent of 9-1-1 
calls are made on a smartphone today. The amount that we have 
invested to make sure that first responders can find you when 
you make that call with location accuracy. And the power of 
wireless emergency alerts to be an amplifier to voice--and Mr. 
Lewis talked about how far we have come in that program.
    And then in terms of the disaster recovery themselves, the 
technologies that we are leveraging now, there are COWs and 
COLTs--we put cell phones on wheels, we put cell phones on 
trucks--to go into an area to immediately have coverage. 
Because it is so critical. You have lost everything. You need 
that connectivity.
    And so we take that responsibility very seriously. And that 
situation--you know, we can disagree on a lot of things. When 
it comes to disaster relief, we all come together to serve 
customers.
    Mr. Kean. Thank you to all of our witnesses.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from Indiana, 
Mrs. Houchin, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking Member 
Matsui.
    And thanks to the witnesses for your testimony and for 
speaking with us today.
    I want to start my remarks first by saying how excited I am 
to be here as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. 
This is my first hearing as a member of E&C, and I look forward 
to working on the issues under this committee's jurisdiction.
    Back home, as a State senator, I worked on expanding 
broadband access, particularly in rural areas. I was proud to 
lead that fight, and it is a fight that I am excited to 
continue at the Federal level.
    I look forward to certainly working with each member of the 
committee, Mr. Chairman, on our shared priorities and hope that 
we can find some common ground to bring real and positive 
results for the American people.
    And I am glad we are starting this work this Congress on 
this issue of importance of both national security and global 
competitiveness, and that is spectrum.
    While we may not realize it, spectrum directly impacts the 
ways in which millions of Americans go about their daily lives, 
both at home and at work. From listening to the radio to 
watching television, to using cell phones and browsing the 
internet, spectrum determines how these devices carry data.
    That said, it is a limited resource. And I recognize that 
the United States must play a leading role in innovation 
relative to spectrum to maintain our position as the world's 
leader in new technology.
    So my first question is for Mr. Gillen.
    My district in southern Indiana is largely rural, made up 
of small towns and cities. And I am certainly proud of the work 
that we did in the State senate to level the playing field for 
rural parts of the State, but the truth is, we continue to lag 
behind the coasts and urban areas in access to the internet and 
the tools that spectrum can provide.
    How can your company's use of spectrum help with closing 
the digital divide for rural America?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question.
    NERA, earlier today, released a report that said, for every 
100 megahertz of new spectrum available, it can help create 
access for 275,000 households that don't have it today. And so 
the opportunity, particularly with the 5G home product, to get 
to places that home broadband hasn't gotten to yet--that the 
benefit of that opportunity, we can see that happen in real 
time.
    Accenture says that we can get to roughly 40 percent of 
houses without any help. And then the question is, Where does 
the help come, whether it is the 5G fund at the FCC or the BEAD 
fund at NTIA? We are going to need the government's help. But 
with spectrum, we can continually provide more and more 
coverage throughout the area.
    Mrs. Houchin. Great.
    Mr. Powell, do you have anything in addition to that to add 
about how the company's use of spectrum can help close the 
digital divide?
    Mr. Powell. Yes. As we talked about earlier, when you use 
some of the CBRS shared spectrum, you are allowed to let 
communities take matters into their own hands and build 
networks while they are awaiting commercial systems to come and 
densify their network.
    I also want to put a plug in--because it is equally in this 
committee's jurisdiction--it is getting the fixed 
infrastructure out there too. A lot of wireless needs fixed 
infrastructure in order to put those signals into the ground 
pretty quickly.
    So, with the BEAD investments that we are making, and the 
companies that I represent are deepening their penetration into 
rural America, these things have to be seen as complements. One 
will not survive without the other.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
    We have talked a little bit--my colleague from New Jersey 
talked about Open RAN. So I want to ask a few questions about 
that.
    I am excited by the prospects there to potentially increase 
vendor diversity, both in the United States and with our 
trusted partners around the globe, to open the door for new 
entrants into radio access and to the network marketplace.
    So, Ms. Rinaldo, how can ORAN technology help us stay 
competitive with China?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So, for so long, especially--so I used to work 
for the House Intelligence Committee when they wrote the Huawei 
report and then at NTIA. And it was the policy of the United 
States to go around the world and say, ``Don't use Huawei. It 
is a security concern.''
    Open RAN is the ``If not them, then who?'' We give people 
something to run to, as opposed to run away from. And I believe 
that is why it has been so incredibly successful.
    So, as we have 5G and as we look to 6G, it is software-
defined networks and virtualization.
    I will use an example about Tellis. Tellis is ripping and 
replacing right now, and an executive said they are going to 
move to Open RAN because he never wants to be in a position of 
vendor lock ever again. So we are bringing that national 
security, supplier diversity, as well as the opportunity that 
Open RAN can bring.
    Mrs. Houchin. Well, that lends particularly to my next 
question. Does the deployment of 5-to-6G help with deployment 
of Open RAN? I think the answer to that is yes.
    Are there any barriers that do stand in the way of 
deploying the networks currently? And when do you believe we 
might expect more widespread development?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes, so the inability to auction new spectrum 
and make new spectrum bands available, that is going to impact 
deployment.
    As well as, as we look internationally. I think it is 
important that we use diplomacy as much as possible to ensure 
that we are getting a supplied telecommunications chain out 
there.
    Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
    Thank you for your testimony.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representatives from Texas, 
Mr. Goldman.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I had about 100 questions that have all been asked already. 
But I do appreciate you all's time today and for being here 
today. I will ask a couple of quick questions, and we will move 
on to my colleague from North Dakota.
    This is both for Ms. Rinaldo and Mr. Powell.
    Ms. Rinaldo, if you will go first.
    How can we protect important national security missions 
while also fostering innovation? And how do shared spectrum 
approaches help us avoid those national security risks while 
still helping us find new spectrum for commercial use?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Yes. So there is currently an ongoing 
multistakeholder process that I am participating in that brings 
the private sector as well as the public sector together. They 
are going to start classified sessions soon.
    And so I think, as has been mentioned, you bring the 
engineers in the room, and then we can get things moving a 
little faster. So it is, how do we take the emotion, take the 
policy out of it, and get the engineers to, you know, pave the 
path forward?
    Mr. Goldman. Understood. Thank you.
    Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. I think the quick answer is coexistence. How do 
you allow people to live together and both be able to do and 
operate and provide the services that are critical, whether 
they are military/national security services or commercial 
services?
    Many of the bands we have had in the past have pioneered 
approaches to sharing. There are a lot of bands. Even in the 
CBRS band, we have protection of incumbent military systems, 
particularly naval, coastal systems. And it allows them to 
operate effectively while we are able to offer a commercial 
service.
    Mr. Goldman. Great. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Gillen, your testimony notes that significant 
demand for wireless networks and more commercial licensed 
spectrum is necessary to keep pace with that demand.
    Can you explain how the various types of spectrum auctions 
the FCC has used over the last decade work and how those 
address the American consumer needs?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely.
    The FCC has auctioned both commercial spectrum and 
government spectrum over the last 10 years, particularly in the 
3 gigahertz range. A lot of the spectrum we are talking about 
is midband spectrum today. We were able to work through a 
process with the military to auction 100 megahertz for $22 
billion in 3.45. And then C-band was satellite spectrum that we 
were able to repurpose for 5G.
    And that is the--you know, we have had 87 percent growth at 
our networks over the last 2 years. It was those spectrum bands 
that made it possible for us to have the capacity to meet that 
demand. And so, when we look at what is coming next, it is: How 
do we replicate the successes of those, and where do we find 
that spectrum? And we think both of those bands adjacent to it, 
we can run that same playbook in an effective way.
    Mr. Goldman. Interesting.
    Thank you all again very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
    The Representative yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the Representative from North 
Dakota, Mrs. Fedorchak.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
    Mrs. Fedorchak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
organizing this great hearing today.
    As a Representative from North Dakota, I am big into 
natural resources and resources. And spectrum is a very 
important national resource. So I appreciate the opportunity 
this hearing has to talk about how to best manage this resource 
for the benefit of American citizens.
    I will have to say that, you know, to the extent that 
managing this resource results in additional funding for the 
Federal Government, I am really confident that my host 
colleagues, especially in this committee and on the Republican 
side of things, are committed to putting any additional 
revenues that might be generated from the sale of those to the 
benefit of everyday Americans--the farmers, the ranchers, the 
coal miners, the oil field workers, teachers, nurses, those 
folks from North Dakota and throughout the country who are hard 
at work. I know that we will be very diligent to use those 
resources appropriately.
    So, for all of you, thank you for your time. You have been 
sitting here a long time now. You probably are thinking about 
lunch and bathrooms and other things, so I promise I will be--I 
just have two questions. But your expertise is really vital to 
helping us make the best decision on how to use these 
resources.
    So, quickly, I wanted to ask Mr. Gillen: Help me understand 
the need for the dedicated spectrum and what sort of uses you 
use in that space that can't be done in the open, the 
unlicensed spectrum, and what the interference is that is 
created in the unlicensed that causes problems for you.
    Mr. Gillen. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    I think, when we pick up our phones, we want that 
reliability. And what interference protection gives you is the 
security that you know that when we are going to build out that 
spectrum--$30 billion last year--we know that we control that 
spectrum and that our neighbors or others can't use that same 
spectrum. And so the certainty or reliability that you rely on 
every day comes from that licensed spectrum.
    And I think a lot of the conversation today--all spectrum 
is shared at some core. There is no cleared spectrum, really. 
It is just a matter of what different tools of shared spectrum 
you are using and whether or not government has preemptable 
rights, whether or not you have full-power ability to do it.
    So, for a lot of these conversations, it is, how do we work 
around the government, how do we work with systems to make sure 
that it is something that works for us to be able to compete 
against China but also safeguard incumbent users as well.
    Mrs. Fedorchak. OK. Thank you. That is helpful.
    And then the second question is to both you and Mr. Powell: 
If you were designing the proper mix between licensed and 
unlicensed, how would you do that? How would you separate it 
out?
    Mr. Powell. For my mind, as a former policymaker, I would 
evaluate the demand uses that American citizens make of the 
spectrum.
    It is not a simple matter of comparing who has how many 
megahertz versus who else has how many megahertz. You have to 
assign weights to that. You know, if 60 percent of all data is 
going over unlicensed networks and WiFi, if 80 to 90 percent of 
that cell phone data is going over WiFi, then it is a false 
equivalency to say they have exactly the same amount. You need 
to allocate more toward the highest and greatest demands.
    Now, I think there is a--just so I am not misunderstood--
there is a place for exclusive licensing and high-powered 
spectrum. It is about getting that right. But I think that we 
have underappreciated the significant uses that Americans make, 
and I would focus more on how to find shared solutions.
    Mrs. Fedorchak. OK.
    Mr. Gillen. You will be surprised to know I have a slightly 
different take.
    So, for our perspective----
    Mr. Powell. Really?
    Mr. Gillen [continuing]. We absolutely need both. And we 
lead the world today in WiFi access, and I think we need to get 
back to there on 5G.
    And so I think, in our minds, you look at where the data 
growth is on our networks, what the congestion is. I think the 
congestion and how much actual capacity challenges should 
dictate a lot of this conversation.
    And I think, absolutely, we use WiFi a lot on this device. 
Because when we are at home, we love these devices. You are not 
plugging into a desktop. So a lot of these statistics, no 
matter--you know, when you are out of your house, it is not on 
WiFi; you are on this. And we need both of them to work.
    So I think we need to work towards a policy that we are the 
best at both of these things.
    Mrs. Fedorchak. Awesome. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Hudson I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
    And I want to welcome Representative Miller-Meeks from Iowa 
to the subcommittee.
    And you are going to bring us home here. I recognize you 
for 5 minutes for your questions.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Chairman Hudson. It is wonderful to be back on this committee--
and Ranking Member Matsui, as well, for allowing me to waive on 
to this critically important hearing today--critically 
important because, as the chairman said, I am from Iowa, and I 
also happen to be a military veteran. So, both from the 
national security and the connectivity viewpoint, this is an 
important hearing today.
    And I also want to thank our witnesses for testifying 
before the subcommittee. You have been here a long time, so I 
will try to be brief.
    I am just going to make a mention of something Mr. Gillen 
just said. We don't want you to work around the government. 
That has a different context, when we say that. We want you to 
work with the government. Because we know that the DoD needs 
access to this spectrum and they may need to preempt other 
uses.
    In Iowa, our farmers depend on the latest technology to 
make their operations more efficient. Think precision ag, and I 
think you mentioned that, Mr. Powell. Our schools, our 
healthcare facilities rely on strong connectivity for 
educational tools and telemedicine. And businesses across the 
State need access to cutting-edge communication systems to 
remain competitive in the global market.
    When as a State senator in Iowa I passed broadband bills, I 
lovingly named these ``Please get Dr. Miller-Meeks better 
internet connection so her children will come home for more 
than a day.'' That is how bad it was. And I cannot tell you how 
many WiFi providers I switched, so--or satellite providers.
    Spectrum, which makes all of this possible, is a finite 
resource that must be responsibly managed.
    Mr. Powell, in your testimony you point out that the U.S. 
could potentially fall behind in 5G and 6G deployment. And when 
I have traveled overseas, I would echo that sentiment.
    Without embracing shared spectrum policies, what safeguards 
do you propose to ensure that critical national security 
infrastructure and government operations are not jeopardized in 
the process?
    Mr. Powell. Yes, I think the whole predicate, why we are 
champions of this spectrum policy approach, is that it 
fundamentally presumes that we will work together and share 
with those systems, as opposed to displace them or to minimize 
them.
    That doesn't mean that is always possible, but we think 
that is the going and effective approach when we know both have 
equally compelling uses. You should try to figure out if there 
is a way for them to coexist first.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mr. Gillen, you noted that 5G is helping 
to create high-paying jobs and economic opportunities in 
manufacturing and agriculture.
    And as an advocate for U.S. industry, as we both are, can 
you explain how 5G is specifically contributing to the growth 
of these sectors--you might have in your posters----
    Mr. Gillen. Yes.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks [continuing]. Particularly in the context 
of rural economies like Iowa's, and what additional spectrum 
could do to accelerate these benefits?
    Mr. Gillen. So, on the first piece, I think manufacturing 
is one of the places that we really feel opportunity. How do 
you bring manufacturing back? And you look at--Ericsson has a 
plant in Texas that has 120 percent employee productivity 
improvement. So it is one of those opportunities that is a 
roadmap for how we can do this.
    In terms of a rural, it really is a matter of the 5G home 
product is beginning to make a dent to the challenges that you 
faced in the State legislature. And the more spectrum gives us 
the ability--it is a capacity-starved service, and so you need 
to have--like, more capacity lets us do it for more people. So 
one provider has a million people on the waiting list right 
now. We could make those subscribers with more spectrum.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Ms. Rinaldo, in your testimony, you 
mention the PRC's aggressive efforts to dominate wireless 
technologies and markets through state-sponsored corporate 
theft and market manipulation.
    How do you propose the U.S. respond to these efforts? And 
what role can American companies and policymakers play in 
countering this state-driven competition?
    Ms. Rinaldo. Help support vendor diversity, and work with 
our partners around the world to do the same.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And given the ongoing cybersecurity 
threats from adversaries such as the PRC, what specific 
policies or investments would you recommend to enhance the 
security and resilience of the U.S. wireless network, 
particularly in protecting our vital communications 
infrastructure?
    Ms. Rinaldo. So Congress needs to reauthorize the 
Cybersecurity Act of 2015, which allows information sharing. It 
needs teeth.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. I was plugging that for you.
    Ms. Rinaldo. Thank you.
    Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Hudson. I thank the Representative for yielding back.
    Seeing that there are no further Members wishing to be 
recognized, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here 
today and staying for over 3 hours.
    I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the 
documents included on the staff hearing document list.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Hudson. I will remind Members that they have 10 
business days to submit questions for the record, and I ask the 
witnesses to respond to the questions promptly. Members should 
submit their questions by the close of business on Wednesday, 
February 6th.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]