[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    SPECTRUM NEEDS FOR OBSERVATIONS
                      IN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 20, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-26

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-184 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
    

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             July 20, 2021

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    11
    Written Statement............................................    12

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    13
    Written Statement............................................    14

                               Witnesses:

Mr. Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, 
  Government Accountability Office
    Oral Statement...............................................    16
    Written Statement............................................    19

Mr. David Lubar, Senior Project Leader, Civil Systems Group, The 
  Aerospace Corporation
    Oral Statement...............................................    28
    Written Statement............................................    32

Dr. Jordan Gerth, Honorary Fellow, Space Science and Engineering 
  Center, University of Wisconsin--Madison
    Oral Statement...............................................    40
    Written Statement............................................    42

Mr. Bill Mahoney, NCAR Associate Director and Director of the 
  Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) at the National Center 
  for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, Colorado
    Oral Statement...............................................    52
    Written Statement............................................    54

Ms. Jennifer Manner, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, 
  EchoStar Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC
    Oral Statement...............................................    66
    Written Statement............................................    68

Discussion.......................................................    75

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Andrew Von Ah, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, 
  Government Accountability Office...............................   112

Mr. David Lubar, Senior Project Leader, Civil Systems Group, The 
  Aerospace Corporation..........................................   120

Dr. Jordan Gerth, Honorary Fellow, Space Science and Engineering 
  Center, University of Wisconsin--Madison.......................   133

Mr. Bill Mahoney, NCAR Associate Director and Director of the 
  Research Applications Laboratory (RAL) at the National Center 
  for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), in Boulder, Colorado..........   136

Ms. Jennifer Manner, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, 
  EchoStar Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC................   137

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letters submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives
    GPS Innovation Alliance......................................   140
    American Weather and Climate Industry Association............   144
    American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, 
      and National Weather Association...........................   147

Letter submitted by Iridium Communications Inc...................   149

Letter submitted by the Aerospace Industries Association.........   152

Letter submitted by the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing 
  Society........................................................   154

 
                    SPECTRUM NEEDS FOR OBSERVATIONS
                      IN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 20, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

     The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, 
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Chairwoman Johnson. The hearing will come to order, and 
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at 
any time. Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note 
that today the Committee is meeting both in person and 
virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders to the 
Members about the conduct of this hearing. First, Members and 
staff who are attending in person, and are unvaccinated against 
COVID-19, must stay masked throughout the hearing. Unvaccinated 
Members may remove their masks only during the questioning 
under the five-minute rule. Members who are attending virtually 
should keep their video feed on as long as they are present in 
the hearing. Members are responsible for their own microphones. 
Please also keep your microphones muted until you are speaking. 
And finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for 
the record, please e-mail them to the Committee Clerk, whose e-
mail address was circulated prior to the hearing. I have a 
letter here from GPS Innovation Alliance to be entered into the 
hearing record, and without objection, so ordered.
     Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for joining 
us today. We rely on the radio frequency spectrum in countless 
ways every day. We use it for GPS (Global Positioning System), 
communicating with friends and family, scientific research, 
weather forecasting, and much more. But spectrum is a finite 
resource, and as more technologies are developed and deployed, 
like 5G, the demand for spectrum continues to increase. One 
might think of the radio frequency spectrum as similar to a 
trendy neighborhood that is attracting a lot of new people. As 
more residents seek to move in, you might rezone the size of 
the lots to make them smaller, and convert some parking spaces 
for bike lanes. You might have to install some new traffic 
lights. The longtime tenants understandably want to maintain 
their way of life, but they will inevitably have to make some 
adjustments. And if a noisy new tenant moves in, it's a problem 
for the house next door. It is analogous to the situations that 
have arisen due to increasing demands on the radiofrequency 
spectrum. This Committee recognizes the importance of 5G 
development, and supports advancing the technology, but we must 
be thoughtful about how we proceed. We must ensure that as we 
deploy 5G and other new technologies, we do not threaten 
critical Earth and space science observations.
     Meteorologists have expressed concern for years about 
increased demand and usage of spectrum. They understand the 
importance of protecting access to spectrum bands needed for 
scientific observation. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration) and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration) raised serious concerns to both the Committee 
and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) about the 
potential for critical satellite data loss as a result of 
interference from the 24 gigahertz band. In fact, former Acting 
NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs stated before the Committee that 
the proposed spectrum auction for 24 gigahertz would result in 
a degraded forecast skill by as much as 30 percent. Therefore, 
Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that FEC--FCC delay the 
auction until the concerns were addressed. Unfortunately, the 
FCC proceeded with the auction of 24 gigahertz with minimal 
limits on out-of-band emissions. Thankfully, the United States 
is party to an international treaty on spectrum use. Other 
nations advocated for a more stringent emissions limit at the 
World Radio Conference (WRC) in December 2019. The concerns of 
the science community should be partially addressed when the 
FCC conforms its emission limits with the international 
standards.
     But we're only in a better place for weather observation 
because of the advocacy of other Nations. The United States 
spectrum management process failed our Nation's forecasters, 
astronomers, and climate scientists. Ranking Member Lucas and I 
requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
conduct a report on how these concerns were considered and 
addressed during the 24 gigahertz auction process. The report 
was released yesterday. It makes clear that a number of Federal 
agencies have a lot of work to do to improve this process. I 
know the United States has what it takes to fix this. If we can 
establish a more coordinated, whole-of-government approach to 
spectrum management, we can enable U.S. telecommunications 
leadership and protect important Earth and space science 
observations. The Committee will be asking for accountability 
from both Federal science agencies and the FCC as well--as we 
all learn to live in a more crowded spectrum neighborhood.
     I am pleased we are joined by Mr. Von Ah of the Government 
Accountability Office, who can shed more light on their report. 
And our other witnesses can speak to the importance of 
protecting spectrum for existing Federal science applications. 
They will also help us consider strategies to better address 
these very legitimate concerns. Finally, I also want to thank 
Ranking Member Lucas for his staff for working arm-in-arm with 
me and my staff on the topic.
     [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for joining us 
today.
    We rely on the radio frequency spectrum in countless ways 
every day. We use it for GPS, communicating with friends and 
family, scientific research, weather forecasting, and much 
more. But spectrum is a finite resource. And as more 
technologies are developed and deployed--like 5G--the demand 
for spectrum continues to increase.
    One might think of the radiofrequency spectrum as similar 
to a trendy neighborhood that is attracting a lot of new 
people. As more residents seek to move in, you might rezone the 
size of the lots to make them smaller, and convert some parking 
spaces for bike lanes. You might have to install some new 
traffic lights. The longtime tenants understandably want to 
maintain their way of life, but they will inevitably have to 
make some adjustments. And if a noisy new tenant moves in, it's 
a problem for the house next door. It's analogous to the 
situations that have arisen due to increasing demands on the 
radiofrequency spectrum.
    This Committee recognizes the importance of 5G development 
and supports advancing the technology. But we must be 
thoughtful about how we proceed. We must ensure that as we 
deploy 5G and other new technologies, we do not threaten 
critical earth and space science observations.
    Meteorologists have expressed concern for years about 
increased demand and usage of spectrum. They understand the 
importance of protecting access to spectrum bands needed for 
scientific observation. NOAA and NASA raised serious concerns 
to both this Committee and the FCC about the potential for 
critical satellite data loss as a result of interference from 
the 24 gigahertz band. In fact, former Acting NOAA 
Administrator Neil Jacobs stated before this Committee that the 
proposed spectrum auction for 24 GHz would result in a degraded 
forecast skill by as much as 30 percent.
    Therefore, Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that FCC 
delay the auction until the concerns were addressed. 
Unfortunately, the FCC proceeded with the auction of 24 GHz 
with minimal limits on out-of-band emissions.
    Thankfully, the United States is party to an international 
treaty on spectrum use. Other nations advocated for a more 
stringent emissions limit at the World Radio Conference in 
December 2019. The concerns of the science community should be 
partially addressed when the FCC conforms its emissions limits 
with the international standard. But we're only in a better 
place for weather observations because of the advocacy of other 
nations. The United States spectrum management process failed 
our nation's forecasters, astronomers, and climate scientists.
    Ranking Member Lucas and I requested that the Government 
Accountability Office conduct a report on how these concerns 
were considered and addressed during the 24 GHz auction 
process. The report was released yesterday. It makes clear that 
a number of federal agencies have a lot of work to do to 
improve the process.
    I know the United States has what it takes to fix this. If 
we can establish a more coordinated, whole-of-government 
approach to spectrum management, we can enable U.S. 
telecommunications leadership and protect important earth and 
space science observations. This Committee will be asking for 
accountability from both federal science agencies and the FCC 
as we all learn to live in a more crowded spectrum 
neighborhood.
    I am pleased we are joined by Mr. Von Ah of the Government 
Accountability Office, who can shed more light on their report. 
And our other witnesses can speak to the importance of 
protecting spectrum for existing federal science applications. 
They will also help us consider strategies to better address 
these very legitimate concerns.
    Finally, I also want to thank Ranking Member Lucas and his 
staff for working arm-in-arm with me and my staff on this 
topic. I now yield to him for his opening statement.

     Chairwoman Johnson. I now will recognize Mr. Lucas for his 
opening statement.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you for holding a hearing on this 
important subject, Chairwoman Johnson. Spectrum allocation may 
not always receive front page news coverage, but it affects our 
lives daily. We use the spectrum for everything from 
transmitting cell phone signals, to broadcasting radio 
stations, to monitoring weather patterns. The farmers who use 
GPS to engage in precision agriculture rely on clear spectrum 
frequencies. Scientists use data from orbiting satellites to 
forecast severe weather events that rely on the spectrum also, 
and in the future rural Americans may receive faster, more 
reliable broadband internet thanks to orbiting satellite 
constellations using the spectrum.
     Today's hearing is timely, as it comes a day after the 
Government Accounting Office released a report, requested by 
this Committee, evaluating the interagency process for 
allocating spectrum when there are different interests at play. 
The report makes it clear that the existing process is flawed, 
and highlights a number of instances in which coordination fell 
apart. We can't afford to have this happen again. At our 
request for this, GAO evaluation was prompted by a continuous 
process leading up to the 2019 spectrum auction, which was 
intended to help spur the development of new 5G cellular 
technology infrastructure. All of this came before the 2019 
World Radio Communication Conference, where the U.S. was 
negotiating updated spectrum allocation regulations and 
coordination with countries around the world.
     Ahead of the auction, the weather community raised 
significant concerns about the potential loss of forecasting 
data due to the spillover from adjoining spectrum bands which 
would be used for 5G. This Committee heard testimony from 
Federal agencies such as NASA and NOAA about the potential 
negative effects of this auction. The acting Administrator of 
NOAA told us that our forecasting accuracy could be degraded by 
as much as 30 percent. That could have dangerous consequences 
for families and businesses, and our ability to protect lives 
and property in severe weather.
     As I said at the time, we all support the deployment of 
5G. Advanced wireless communications offers many economic 
development opportunities for our constituents, and helps us 
remain competitive with China. With the growth of remote work 
and education since the pandemic, having reliable and fast 
connectivity is even more important now than ever. But spectrum 
allocation decisions cannot be about choosing connectivity over 
forecasting. We have a responsibility to seek a balance between 
the needs of the Federal users and non-commercial users of 
spectrum for commercial users of spectrum.
     That's why the release of this GAO report is important. It 
identified a number of flaws and gaps in the processes for 
resolving interagency disagreements over spectrum allocation, 
as well as incidents in which agencies failed to coordinate 
effectively. The report also offers 11 recommendations for 
Executive action, which will result in an improved process in 
the future. It is critical that the Science Committee work with 
the other Committees of jurisdiction to ensure that the 
agencies address these recommendations. All stakeholders, from 
Federal agencies to private companies, need a spectrum 
allocation process that is fair, transparent, and provides 
certainty for decisionmaking, particularly as we negotiate 
internationally over spectrum issues. Regulatory instability is 
bad for business, and can be especially lethal to satellites if 
regulations are not internationally harmonized, since satellite 
signals do not stop at borders.
     It is important that we note that the issues surrounding 
the spectrum allocation process in 2019 were not the first time 
spectrum allocations have been the source of controversy, and 
will certainly not be the last time either. Indeed, the 
importance of spectrum allocation will continue to grow as face 
increased utilization of 5G devices and the Internet of Things. 
This is a challenging topic, and one which will require 
multiple Federal agencies working together to modernize 
existing processes, and multiple congressional Committees 
working in tandem, to ensure that we address these issues in 
the most effective manner, both nationally and internationally. 
That being said, I'm confident we can find a path forward.
     I want to thank our panel of witnesses for appearing 
before us today. They represent a variety of experts on 
spectrum issues who can speak to how the Federal interagency 
process is intended to work, and how it has worked previously, 
and ways Federal agencies and Congress can work to improve the 
process moving forward. With that, Madam Chair, I thank you, 
and I very much appreciate all of our work together, and I 
yield back.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you for holding a hearing on this important topic, 
Chairwoman Johnson.
    Spectrum allocation may not always receive front-page news 
coverage, but it affects our lives daily. We use the spectrum 
for everything from transmitting cellphone signals, to 
broadcasting radio stations, to monitoring weather patterns. 
Farmers who use GPS to engage in precision agriculture rely on 
clear spectrum frequencies. Scientists use data from orbiting 
satellites to forecast severe weather events rely on spectrum. 
And in the future, rural Americans might receive faster and 
more reliable broadband internet thanks to orbiting satellite 
constellations using the spectrum.
    Today's hearing is timely, as it comes a day after the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, 
requested by this committee, evaluating the interagency process 
for allocating spectrum when there are different interests at 
play. The report makes it clear that the existing process is 
flawed and highlights a number of instances in which 
coordination fell apart. We can't afford to have this happen 
again.
    Our request for this GAO evaluation was prompted by the 
contentious process leading up to the 2019 domestic spectrum 
auction, which was intended to help spur the deployment of new 
5G cellular technology infrastructure. All of this came before 
the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference, where the U.S. 
was negotiating updated spectrum allocation regulations and 
coordination with countries around the world.
    Ahead of the auction, the weather community raised 
significant concerns about the potential loss of forecasting 
data due to the spillover from adjoining spectrum bands which 
would be used for 5G. This committee heard testimony from 
federal agencies such as NASA and NOAA about the potential 
negative effects of this auction. The Acting Administrator of 
NOAA told us that our forecast accuracy could be degraded by as 
much as 30 percent. That could have dangerous consequences for 
families and businesses, and for our ability to protect lives 
and property in severe weather.
    As I said at the time, we all support the deployment of 5G. 
Advanced wireless communications offers many economic 
development opportunities for our constituents, and helps us 
remain competitive with China. With the growth of remote work 
and education since the pandemic, having reliable and fast 
connectivity is even more important now than ever. But spectrum 
allocation decisions cannot be about choosing connectivity over 
forecasting. We have a responsibility to seek a balance between 
the needs of federal users and non-commercial users of spectrum 
with commercial users of spectrum.
    That is why the release of this GAO report is important. It 
identified a number of flaws and gaps in the processes for 
resolving interagency disagreements over spectrum allocation, 
as well as incidents in which agencies failed to coordinate 
effectively. The report also offers 11 recommendations for 
executive action which would result in an improved process in 
the future. It is critical that the Science Committee work with 
the other Committees of jurisdiction to ensure the agencies 
address these recommendations.
    All stakeholders, from federal agencies to private 
companies, need a spectrum allocation process that is fair, 
transparent, and provides certainty for decision making, 
particularly as we negotiate internationally over spectrum 
issues. Regulatory instability is bad for business and can be 
especially lethal to satellites if regulations are not 
internationally harmonized since satellite signals do not stop 
at borders.
    It is important that we note that the issues surrounding 
the spectrum allocation process in 2019 were not the first time 
spectrum allocations have been the source of controversy, and 
will certainly not be the last time, either. Indeed, the 
importance of spectrum allocation will continue to grow as we 
face increased utilization of 5G devices and the Internet of 
Things.
    This is a challenging topic and one which will require 
multiple federal agencies working together to modernize 
existing processes and multiple Congressional committees 
working in tandem to ensure that we address these issues in the 
most effective manner, both nationally and internationally. 
That being said, I am confident we can find a path forward.
    I want to thank our panel of witnesses for appearing before 
us today. They represent a variety of experts on spectrum 
issues who can speak to how the federal interagency process is 
intended to work, how it has worked previously, and ways 
federal agencies and Congress can work to improve the process 
moving forward.

     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. If there are 
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 
statements will be added to the record at this point. Now we'll 
introduce the witnesses.
     Our first witness is Mr. Andrew Von Ah. Mr. Von Ah is a 
Director in the Government Accountability Office, the GAO's 
Physical Infrastructure team. He oversees a portfolio including 
the management and regulation of spectrum, deployment of 
broadband infrastructure, and emergency communications. He 
previously served as Acting Director of GAO's Defense 
Capabilities Management team, and Assistant Director for 
Physical Infrastructure. While at the GAO, his scope of work 
has included aviation, telecommunication, and surface 
transportation issues.
     The next witness is Mr. David Lubar. Mr. Lubar is a Senior 
Project Leader in the Civil Systems Group at The Aerospace 
Corporation. He advises on spectrum for the Program Offices of 
the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and the Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) System-R Series. He 
also delivers all aspects of spectrum support for space 
systems, with an emphasis on environmental satellite systems.
     Our third witness is Dr. Jordan Gerth. Mr. Gerth is an 
Honorary Fellow for the Space Science and Engineering Center at 
the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I will note that Dr. 
Gerth also serves as a physical scientist for the National 
Weather Service (NWS) under NOAA. However, his service began 
subsequent to the 23.8 gigahertz controversy in spring of 2019. 
He is appearing today in his capacity as a leading researcher 
on spectrum needs for atmospheric science, and not as a 
representative of the agency. I encourage Members to address 
their questions accordingly. His research focuses on the 
transition of meteorological observations, particularly remote 
sensing, into operational weather forecasting. He is currently 
developing the NWS requirements, and a mission concept for the 
next generation of geostationary weather satellites under the 
GeoXO Program.
     After Dr. Gerth is Mr. Bill Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney is 
Director of the Research Applications Laboratory at the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). He has led the 
weather-related R&D (research and development) programs for 
NCAR for more than 35 years on topics including aviation, 
intelligent forecasting--forecast systems, wildfire behavior 
prediction, and renewable energy. His experience includes 
scientific research, facilitating inter-laboratory science, 
technology commercialization, promoting diversity and 
inclusion, and supporting transdisciplinary sciences.
     Our final witness is Ms. Jennifer Manner. Ms. Manner is a 
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs of the EchoStar 
Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC, where her portfolio 
includes spectrum management, new technology, and market 
access. Previously she was a senior counsel to FCC Commissioner 
Kathleen Abernathy, with responsibility for wireless, 
international, and new technology issues. She has served on the 
Federal Advisory Committee for Communications Spectrum 
Management and World Radio Communications. She has also 
published several books on telecommunications issues, and on 
spectrum specifically.
     As our witnesses should know, you will have five minutes 
for your spoken testimony, and your written testimony will be 
included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed 
your spoken testimony, we will begin questions, and each Member 
will have five minutes to question the panel. We'll start with 
Mr. Von Ah.

                TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW VON AH,

          DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES,

                GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

     Mr. Von Ah. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to be here today as you 
examine the Federal spectrum management process. Regulating and 
managing the diverse uses of spectrum are complex and 
challenging tasks. They involve accommodating the growing needs 
of emerging technologies, protecting existing uses from harmful 
interference, and balancing the concerns of various spectrum 
users, all with the goal of promoting the most efficient and 
effective use of the spectrum resource in the public interest. 
The recent FCC proceeding known as Spectrum Frontiers revealed 
these challenges, leading to Federal agencies having 
disagreements about how to protect instruments on weather 
satellites from interference from 5G wireless signals in the 24 
gigahertz spectrum band. Leading in 5G and leading in weather 
forecasting are both important national goals, with billions of 
dollars of potential benefits associated with them.
     The disagreements came to light during the U.S.'s 
preparatory work for the 2019 World Radio Conference, where 
FCC, NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration), NOAA, and NASA did not agree on which U.S. 
studies and positions to present internationally. This created 
challenges for the U.S.'s ability to present a unified position 
or an agreed-upon technical basis for the conclusions the U.S. 
ultimately supported. My statement today is based on our report 
released yesterday, which examined the extent to which the 
Federal agencies followed leading practices and collaborating 
on potential interference effects on weather forecasting, and 
how agencies conduct and review technical studies that could 
predict and model the extent of interference.
     With respect to collaboration, we found that the 
mechanisms used by the agencies do not fully reflect key 
collaboration practices. For example, two key documents, the 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FCC and NTIA, and the 
General Guidance Document that guides technical and other 
preparatory work for international proceedings, have no defined 
and agreed-upon processes for resolving matters when agencies 
cannot do so. Indeed, it was because these mechanisms broke 
down with respect to reaching consensus that the U.S. could not 
present a position with an agreed-upon technical basis. 
Notably, the MOU and the General Guidance Document have not 
been updated in almost 20 years, despite growing demand on 
spectrum resources.
     Further, during the FCC proceeding, both internal 
processes and clear expectations were lacking for how and when 
NOAA and NASA were to participate and raise interference 
concerns. For example, FCC requested comments on actions it was 
considering related to the 24 gigahertz spectrum band as early 
as 2014, but NOAA and NASA did not submit comments until 
several years later. By the time the two agencies had provided 
comments, FCC had already decided to take action. Thus, the 
agencies missed opportunities to ensure that FCC received and 
considered their input. With regard to the agencies work on 
technical interference studies, in this case NOAA and NASA 
prepared studies for the 2019 conference following the guidance 
and standards developed by international parties. Although FCC 
was a party to the international groups that developed these 
guidelines and standards, FCC later disputed those ultimately 
used by NOAA and NASA in the design and preparation of their 
studies. Without agreed-upon procedures to conduct and review 
the studies, or clear steps on how to resolve the lack of 
consensus, the agencies were unable to move forward. As a 
result, the U.S. did not submit its studies on certain key 
issues to the final technical meeting, resulting in some 
stakeholders questioning whether the corresponding U.S. 
positions were technically rooted.
     In our report we made recommendations to FCC, NTIA, and to 
NOAA to address these gaps. Specifically, we made five 
recommendations to both FCC and NTIA. First, to establish 
processes for making decisions on spectrum management 
activities that involve other agencies, particularly when 
consensus cannot be reached. Second, to clarify and further 
identify shared goals for spectrum management activities. 
Third, to update the FCC/NTIA MOU to address the identified 
gaps, and to continually monitor and update this agreement. 
Fourth, to request that State initiate a review of the General 
Guidance Document, and in consultation with other relevant 
participants, and to continually monitor and update this 
document. And lastly, to establish procedures to help guide the 
design of spectrum sharing and potential interference studies. 
Additionally, we recommended that NOAA clarify and document its 
processes for identifying and raising concerns about potential 
interference to NOAA satellite instruments. We would note that 
NASA, during the course of our review, did just that.
     The agencies all agreed to work collaboratively to 
implement these recommendations, which we believe will at least 
create a framework where disagreements can be resolved based on 
agreed-upon technical findings. Madam Chairwoman, this 
concludes my prepared remarks. I'd be happy to answer any 
questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Von Ah follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. We'll now hear 
from Mr. Lubar.

                 TESTIMONY OF MR. DAVID LUBAR,

          SENIOR PROJECT LEADER, CIVIL SYSTEMS GROUP,

                   THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION

     Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 
Lucas, and Members of the Committee for this hearing. Thank you 
for the opportunity to contribute today. It is an honor to be 
asked to testify on an issue that brings together two areas 
that have been central to my technical work over the last 35 
years, the scientific use of passive sensed data from space for 
environmental applications, and the spectrum management aspects 
of space systems. I work for The Aerospace Corporation on 
spectrum management as it relates to meteorological satellites 
and space systems. For those who may be unfamiliar with 
Aerospace, we are a non-profit that was established by the U.S. 
Congress in 1960 to provide independent and objective technical 
advice to military, intelligence, and civil space programs. As 
a federally chartered non-profit, our only motivation is to 
help the U.S. achieve success in its space missions.
     My 35 years of spectrum experience includes two major 
environmental satellite programs for NOAA, one of which is the 
Joint Polar Satellite System, or JPSS. JPSS has a sounder 
instrument, specifically a microwave radiometer, which performs 
passive measurements worldwide in 22 passive frequency bands, 
including the 23.8 gigahertz spectrum. This sensor is essential 
to the timeliness and accuracy of weather predictions around 
the world, because making passive measurements of subtle 
atmospheric conditions from space requires listening very 
carefully for natural phenomena against a background of human-
created electromagnetic energy from our billions of radios. I 
have become very familiar with the International 
Telecommunications Union, or ITU's, study process, and have 
closely monitored the study reports and discussions through the 
ITU that resulted in the 24 gigahertz spectrum emission limits 
in 2019.
     Today I want to make three main technical points to the 
Committee. First, that the same regulatory protection limits 
cannot be applied to a space-based passive sensor and a 
smartphone or other communications receiver. Their operation 
and sensitivities are vastly different because passive weather 
sensors are measuring the very subtle noise floor. Most 
communication engineers consider the noise floor unusable, and 
would not be concerned with emissions at or below that level. 
Second, that moderate levels of contamination caused by radio 
frequency interference created by neighboring services are 
harder to identify, and hence more damaging than the very high 
or very low levels. And third, that there is no mitigation for 
such contamination of weather sensors. The best one could do is 
identify the contamination and avoid propagating that data into 
supercomputers and weather models.
     I also want to make the overarching point that scientific 
input into the spectrum regulatory process is essential for 
successful and informed outcomes. Communication receivers, such 
as those in our smartphones or in our ground stations, rely on 
an active transmitted signal originating from an antenna to 
carry our voice or videos, but space-based passive sensors are 
very different technologies that do not have the same 
functionality or protection requirements. Unlike communication 
receivers, these satellite microwave radiometers are extremely 
sensitive power measurement devices for detecting energy 
emissions. One analogy about the sensitivity of space-based 
passive measurements: It's like trying to hear a whisper in San 
Francisco while standing 500 miles away in San Diego. Please 
cue up the slide.
     [Slide.]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Passive measurement instruments seek to measure the minute 
natural variations in the noise floor. What is the noise floor? 
Well, this is a complex technical subject. The term ``noise'' 
refers to unwanted electrical signals that are always present 
in electrical systems. The primary natural source of noise in 
radio systems that cannot be eliminated is caused by the 
thermal motion of electrons. Space-based radiometers use the 
radio spectrum noise floor to measure the weak emissions of the 
atmosphere. From these data, temperature, water vapor, and 
other values may be determined. You may take down the slide.
    In closing, I would like to highlight that the scientific 
input into the spectrum regulatory process is essential. For 
example, in the future, the FCC may consider service rules for 
terrestrial services adjacent to passive bands, such as the 50 
gigahertz passive bands used to determine atmospheric 
temperatures. The passive measurements in that band are 
critical contributors to weather models. I'm heartened that 
this hearing is being held to examine these issues, and I would 
like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify. I 
look forward to answering your questions.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Lubar follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Gerth?

        TESTIMONY OF DR. JORDAN GERTH, HONORARY FELLOW,

             SPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTER,

                UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN--MADISON

     Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing, 
and thank you for the invitation to testify today. You 
implicitly recognize the importance of radio frequencies for 
Earth and space science applications. My testimony today will 
focus particularly on the criticality of protecting the clarity 
of Earth-emitted radio frequencies to maintain the quality and 
public confidence in weather warnings and forecasts, and the 
need for transparent processes to facilitate that objective.
     While visible or infrared satellite imagery as shown on 
the evening weather report partially contributes to the quality 
of weather forecast, the most valuable frequencies are 
microwaves, particularly those between 20 and 200 gigahertz. It 
likely comes as a surprise to many that the Earth's atmosphere 
emits microwaves, but they are naturally occurring, and not 
harmful to us. Improvements in numerical weather prediction 
performance over the past 20 years can be attributed to 
satellite observations, especially microwave sensing of water 
vapor, such as at 23.8 gigahertz and other frequencies. Today 
approximately 15 to 30 percent of the assimilated observations 
are from passive microwave sensing.
     If there is no observation of a portion of the atmosphere 
because of 5G signal interference there, it cannot be the basis 
for a weather analysis, and global and local forecasts may 
suffer alike, leading to a loss of lead time for storms. Using 
an--using a 5G inflated observation could lead to a worse 
forecast, unless numerical weather models are configured to use 
microwave observations, with a decreased confidence in their 
quality, a mitigation that would have far-reaching 
complications for weather forecasts beyond where there is 
interference.
     As part of the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation 
Act of 2017, NOAA is required to conduct an Observing System 
Simulation Experiment, or OSSE, before buying or leasing a new 
weather satellite. This directive could be expanded, 
potentially using spectrum auction revenues. NOAA, NASA, and 
other government agencies that operate satellites for 
environmental sensing should regularly audit the use of 
spectrum and recent peer reviewed studies from Federal and 
federally supported scientists to reflect the application and 
value of each radio frequency sensed.
     In light of the GAO findings and recommendations, I am 
left wondering what recourse NOAA or NASA has if the FCC and/or 
the Department of State does not allay their raised concerns 
about shared spectrum rulemaking proposals. Chairwoman Johnson 
and Ranking Member Lucas were rightfully concerned about the 
potential for radio--for weather forecast degradation, and 
calling for the GAO to investigate the governmental processes 
that have led us to this point. Yet, as a scientist, it is 
discomforting that the FCC can conduct rulemaking without 
studies that could have an impact on another agency to 
accomplish its congressionally directed mission. This Committee 
should consider whether oversight or involvement from the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal advisory 
committees, or other mechanisms that, at a minimum, conduct and 
make publicly available all relevant scientific studies prior 
to a rulemaking decision may facilitate a process with more 
integrity for all stakeholders.
     Despite the importance of maintaining the accuracy of 
weather forecasts, the weather enterprise is not a competitor 
of the telecommunications industry, and we should not 
characterize this issue as one of us versus them. The 
telecommunications industry is an essential partner in 
delivering urgent weather messages to Americans. I truly 
believe that with a better understanding of how satellite 
sensors collect weather information, and how those observations 
improve weather forecasts, that industry partners can work with 
us to deploy equipment outside of pre-existing bands for Earth 
sensing.
     In our national conversations about 5G we are forward-
looking into how technology will evolve the economy, expand 
opportunities, connect Americans, and improve society. We 
should apply the same mindset to weather prediction and 
satellite observations. The United States has been a leader in 
weather satellite observations that now extends back 60 years, 
a history that began in Wisconsin, the birthplace of satellite 
meteorology. We should continue our national leadership in 
demonstrating stewardship of our spectrum resources for science 
applications, and particularly weather sensing.
     Thank you for holding this hearing, and allowing me to 
explain the science that underlies the importance of passive 
microwave sensing for weather forecasting, and how processes 
that require scientific input can benefit from increased 
transparency. I appreciate your support in increasing 
confidence in our Nation's weather warnings and forecasts, and 
maximizing the value of the United States' investment in 
weather sensing from space. I look forward to your questions. 
Thank you.
     [The prepared statement of Dr. Gerth follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Mahoney?

                 TESTIMONY OF MR. BILL MAHONEY,

              NCAR ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DIRECTOR

         OF THE RESEARCH APPLICATIONS LABORATORY (RAL)

             AT THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC

             RESEARCH (NCAR), IN BOULDER, COLORADO

     Mr. Mahoney. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is William Mahoney, and I currently 
serve as an Associate Director of the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research. The National Center for Atmospheric 
Research is a federally funded research and development center 
of the National Science Foundation (NSF), and it is operated by 
the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is a 
non-profit consortium of more than 120 North American colleges 
and universities focused on research and training in Earth 
system sciences. I've also had the privilege of previously 
serving at--as the Commissioner of the American Meteorological 
Society's Commission on the Weather, Water, and Climate 
Enterprise, which is charged with addressing the needs and 
concerns of the public, private, and academic sectors of the 
United States weather, water, and climate enterprise.
     The Nation's economy and the public demand accurate 
weather information. Remote observations of the Earth that 
utilize radio frequency channels, such as those operating in 
the atmospheric absorption bands, provide critical data sets 
required for weather prediction and the provision of warnings 
to save lives and protect property. Protecting the Nation's 
ability to provide high quality operational weather data and 
accurate weather forecasts requires limiting interference in 
the passive microwave spectrum bands adjoining 24, 50, and 90 
gigahertz. The 24 gigahertz band is the only spectral band with 
high sensitivity to water vapor and low sensitivity to clouds, 
and it contributes to multi-spectral analysis of the physical 
characteristics of the Earth's surface, such as sea ice, snow, 
soil moisture, and vegetation state, which are also required 
for weather prediction. This unique spectral band is of very 
high importance to operational weather prediction, and is 
critically important for providing advanced warning of 
hazardous weather events. The laws of physics dictate these 
passive frequency bands. They're a gift of nature, and 
therefore there is no alternative other than protection.
     This is why the public, private, and academic sectors of 
the meteorological community are deeply concerned over 
increasing encroachment on weather-related radio frequency 
bands, and are urging the FCC and other bodies to recognize the 
need for adequate protection and mitigation efforts against the 
loss and shared use of this critical spectrum for observing the 
Earth's system. This threat is coming during a period when our 
country is facing significant increases in billion-dollar 
weather disaster events. Earth observations are required for 
weather forecasting, studies of climate change, for 
transportation, renewable energy, agricultural and food 
security, wildfire management, drought prediction, supply chain 
management, homeland security and defense, and many more uses. 
More than 90 percent of the Earth's observations used for 
weather modeling originate from satellites. A significant 
fraction of the improved forecast skill over the last 30 years 
is due to remote sensing of temperature and water vapor.
     Preliminary studies have indicated that the proliferation 
of terrestrial 5G systems using 24 gigahertz frequencies will 
make remotely sensed atmospheric data less accurate, or even 
unusable, unless 5G is rigorously implemented in a manner that 
protects the adjacent Earth exploration satellite service 
spectrum. At a time of increasing weather hazard vulnerability 
due to climate change and demographic shifts, it's an 
imperative that critical Earth observations be protected from 
interference. Investments in observational sensitivity studies 
must be done to fully flesh out the scope of the impacts. We 
knew forecast skill will be reduced overall, but we need to 
know more about the impacts in forecast skill for specific 
phenomena such as tornadoes, floods, derechos, droughts, 
hurricane track and intensity, wildfire risk, and others. The 
concerns of the weather enterprise and Earth sciences community 
need to be heard, and taken seriously, as the impact of 
contaminated or lost Earth observing data could be catastrophic 
for weather prediction, and those that rely on accurate 
warnings and advisories.
     Before I conclude, I would like to thank you for advancing 
H.R. 2225, the NSF for the Future Act, through passage in the 
House. This is an important piece of legislation at an 
important time for this country. Thank you again for your 
leadership, and for giving me the opportunity to testify before 
this Committee.
     [The prepared statement of Mr. Mahoney follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you so very much. Our next 
witness is Ms. Manner.

               TESTIMONY OF MS. JENNIFER MANNER,

          SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS,

        ECHOSTAR CORPORATION/HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS LLC

     Ms. Manner. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, as 
Committee Members, thank you for inviting me today. My name is 
Jennifer Manner, and I'm the Senior Vice President for 
Regulatory Affairs at EchoStar Corporation and Hughes Network 
Systems. It is my honor to discuss spectrum management during 
this momentous time in our telecommunications history. However, 
for the U.S. to continue its leadership, it must make 
appropriate reforms in its domestic and international spectrum 
management process. This is critical to private companies, such 
as EchoStar/Hughes, a global leader in broadband and narrowband 
satellite services, as well as U.S. Government users.
     I was a member of the Commerce Department's FACA (Federal 
Advisory Committee Act) on spectrum management called the CSMAC 
(Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee). The CSMAC 
prepared a report that recognized that the U.S. spectrum 
management approach does not effectively serve the needs of the 
stakeholder community, and would benefit from reform. We made 
three categories of recommendations. One, standing up a new 
agency, unifying U.S. spectrum management decisionmaking, two, 
repurposing either of the existing spectrum management agencies 
with broader jurisdiction over spectrum governance, and three, 
reforms that could stand on their own. Legislation is required 
for either of the first two options, but option three's 
proposals can be enacted without legislation, and primarily 
focused on revising the NTIA/FS--FCC MOU on spectrum 
coordination.
     Specifically, we recommended, first, increasing meetings 
of the agency's principles and staff to improve communications 
and planning. Two, having definitive notice periods for 
coordinating items. Three, including coordination on World 
Radio Communications Conferences, or WORCs, and international 
standards issues. Four, establishing an inter-agency working 
group on spectrum initiatives and spectrum planning. Five, 
holding annually a public workshop on spectrum research and 
coordination. And six, that the agencies should work together 
to gather increased information on spectrum demands, spectrum 
utilization, and sharing mechanisms. I would also personally 
make the following recommendations: increase the technical 
staff at the FCC and NTIA, and, two, take a broader and more 
balanced approach to spectrum management considering both the 
public interest, as determined by the FCC, and the national 
interest standard, determined by executive branch agencies.
     Turning to the international side, there is a more severe 
shortage of technical agency staff at the FCC, NTIA, and the 
State Department. State Department, the policy lead 
internationally, has traditionally served the role of 
decisionmaker if the FCC and NTIA disagree on a U.S. position 
for a meeting at the ITU, the U.N.'s organization for telecom 
and spectrum. This is an important role because State has a 
sense of the broad issues incumbent in the national interests, 
but State cannot mediate on a technical issue if it lacks 
engineering expertise. If the U.S. is to lead in these 
international settings, Congress should consider increasing 
appropriations for full time engineer employees, and travel 
budgets for all agencies with staff attending ITU meetings.
     When I attended my first WORC in 1995, U.S. leadership at 
the ITU was clear. However, other countries have gained 
influence in an increasingly competitive global 
telecommunications market. The U.S. must up its game to be 
successful by taking the following actions. One, develop a 
balanced approach to international spectrum management issues, 
especially at the WORC. The FCC, NTIA, and the State Department 
must coordinate on U.S. positions, with private sector input as 
appropriate. This will enable more effective operation of the 
U.S. ITU delegations, ensure greater success internationally of 
the U.S. Two, agency decisionmaking must be based on the public 
and national interests and achieve the balance of commercial 
and governmental interests that has made the U.S. the world 
leader in telecom. Three, train technical agency staff with the 
diplomatic skills to lead U.S. delegations to international 
meetings and act as issue spokespeople to facilitate U.S. 
leadership and success at the ITU.
     In closing, as you consider next steps, I urge you to 
consider the recommendations of CSMAC and those I proposed. 
Currently the U.S. approach results in favoring 5G terrestrial 
technology over other commercial services and critical Federal 
users. The recommendations I discussed today will greatly 
assist the spectrum management process. To lead in the spectrum 
arena, the U.S., in the international and domestic process, 
must be driven by a more collaborative interagency process that 
starts with agreed goals and spectrum sharing metrics. U.S. 
positions should seek outcomes consistent with a balanced 
national interest. Finally, there is a need for periodic review 
of spectrum governance more than once every 100 years. Thank 
you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to testify before the 
Committee today, and I look forward to the Committee's 
questions. Thank you.
     [The prepared statement of Ms. Manner follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. At this point we 
will begin our first round of questions. The Chair recognizes 
herself for five minutes. I have two letters to be entered into 
the hearing record. One is from the American Weather and 
Climate Industry Association, the trade association for weather 
professionals. The other is a joint message from the American 
Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, and 
the National Weather Association. These groups are dedicated to 
ensuring the protection of environmental satellites, and other 
weather observation technologies. And, without objection, so 
ordered.
     Many science stakeholders have pointed out that, for the 
24 gigahertz process, it is difficult to even get to the table, 
to even become aware of what was at stake, because the 24 
gigahertz proceedings was folded into a much larger Spectrum 
Frontier proposal, which covered many other bands. Even the 
lawyers need lawyers to help them understand exactly what is 
going on in some of these mega proceedings. Mr. Mahoney, do you 
believe that most weather and climate scientists who depend on 
the 23.6 GHz bands have the understanding of the FCC public 
comment process, and how best to weigh in on these proceedings?
     Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. Unfortunately, 
no, I don't think the scientific community is well aware of the 
details of these proceedings. Most scientists do keep track of 
their data sources and their technical specifications, or 
quality metrics and availability, and the scientific community 
also tracks research and development activities when 
anticipating new data sets, but the FCC process is very complex 
and confusing for the scientific community, and most scientists 
do not have the resources available to them, or advocates for 
such a process. So I think it's very clear that the scientific 
community needs to be engaged, particularly when Earth system 
science observational data sets that are critical for research 
and operations are threatened, and that new engagement 
mechanisms need to be developed.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Do you feel that the FCC 
could do more meaningful outreach to the scientific community 
about the proceedings that directly impact the science 
community, and what specifically should FCC do?
     Mr. Mahoney. Well, I strongly believe that the FCC should 
be much more proactive in engaging the scientific community 
when considering the sharing of spectrum for Earth science 
related matters. The FCC should really develop mechanisms to 
notify and educate the scientific community by working with 
Federal agencies and their stakeholders, university 
representatives, not-for-profits, and scientific associations, 
some of them which you just mentioned in the letters that were 
submitted. A lot more agencies depend on Earth system data than 
just NASA and NOAA. Other agencies need to be at the table, 
including DOD (Department of Defense), the USGS (United States 
Geological Survey), the USDA (United States Department of 
Agriculture), Department of Interior, National Science 
Foundation, and DOE (Department of Energy), just to name a few.
     And then there's the other parts of the scientific 
community, including, as you mentioned earlier, the American 
Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, AAAS 
(American Association for the Advancement of Science), National 
Academy of Sciences. There's the American Weather and Climate 
Industry Association, National Weather Association, University 
Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Association of American 
Universities. I can go on. But the number of dependents on 
Earth system observations is very, very large, and they 
absolutely need to be more involved in understanding and being 
actively--actively participating in the FCC proceedings.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Manner, or any other 
witness who would like to weigh in, while I understand that the 
FCC does have a specific function to do outreach to the 
American Indian community, should there be a function to do 
targeted outreach to the scientific community?
     Ms. Manner. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for your 
question. I think that's a very good proposal. It is not 
currently within the mandate of the FCC. They right now work 
through the IRAC (Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee) and 
NTIA. But I think in situations like this it would be an 
appropriate role for the FCC, if they have the staffing, and 
are able to do that. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Any other witness who would 
like to comment?
     Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, I would just note that I 
believe that there is an opportunity for the telecommunications 
industry, as they go before the FCC, to do that coordination 
with the academic community ahead of time. I think that 
creating a good, strong dialog starts with conversations early 
on in the process, and that's when industry is considering the 
prospective use. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. NOAA has a growing focus on 
enduring equity in weather information across the U.S., and 
this is important for the urban areas, where numerous billion-
dollar extreme weather disasters have threatened cities like 
Houston, New York in recent years, and these events have 
outsized impact of communities of color. Dr. Gerth, would you 
like to comment on that? Since 5G deployment will be the most 
concentrated in urban areas, does that mean that interference 
with passive sensors would negatively impact urban forecasts 
more acutely?
     Dr. Gerth. Chairwoman Johnson, thank you for that 
question. There's many, many Americans that live along 
America's coasts and in urban areas, and it's certainly not 
lost on me, during the heat waves of this summer, how many 
Americans are struggling in urban areas, potentially without 
air conditioning and accommodations as such. It's very 
difficult to know for certain exactly how 5G interference would 
lead to changes in predictability for different parts of the 
United States, and that's something that we certainly want to 
study. It is true, however, though that observations over land 
are generally more powerful in advancing numerical weather 
simulations of storms that may be over the ocean, moving toward 
land, and helping with evacuations and forecasts of--preceding 
those prospective landfalls. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
Mr. Lucas.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would note to the 
witnesses that many of the questions we ask in these hearings 
come at the--similar points from different directions, and 
that's our effort to build a case to drive the decisionmaking 
process. So first, Mr. Mahoney, in your testimony you state 
that weather data from satellites is the key reason for better 
weather model predictions, and these improvements have saved 
lives, protected property, whether from tornadoes, or 
hurricanes, or other severe weather, and its important drought 
predictions. And coming from Oklahoma, where we deal with 
virtually almost all of those issues, I am very appreciative of 
that. In your view--if you could expand even more, in your 
view, how can science and this critical national asset better 
inform spectrum allocation policy?
     Mr. Mahoney. Well, you're correct in noting that severe 
weather is of great concern to a large part of the United 
States. The United States has more severe weather in its 
midsection than almost any other continent. The data--
temperature and water vapor data from the passive spectrum is 
absolutely critical for severe weather prediction. Those data 
are assimilated into numerical weather prediction models, and 
the sensitivity of the data, especially at 24 gigahertz, toward 
water vapor near the surface, where that frequency can see 
through the clouds, provides atmospheric sounding information 
that can make or break a forecast from being clear all day to 
having absolutely severe thunderstorms, and even tornadoes. So 
the loss of the temporal and spatial resolution of the data 
that are provided from these remotely sent satellite systems 
really will degrade severe weather prediction in many cases.
     Of course, there are days when it's very dry and very 
stable, and the sensitivity of the forecast is not as high for 
these type of data sets on many days, especially in the spring 
and summer period. Data from these remote sensed units at 24 
gigahertz is absolutely critical for the forecast.
     Mr. Lucas. Continuing with you, Mr. Mahoney, how can the 
allocation process adopt a do no harm posture, which is your 
words, that requires evidence these commercial activities do 
not disrupt critical weather and Earth observations? Do no 
harm.
     Mr. Mahoney. Well, until we really have a mechanism in 
place, and the resources in place, to do substantial studies, 
observation sensitivity experiments, in which we can look at 
the impact of interference at different levels with different 
configurations of the 5G network, it's going to be hard to 
pinpoint exactly what the forecast impact is going to be on any 
particular extreme weather phenomena. So what needs to occur is 
first do no harm until we have a much better idea of what the 
impacts could be, and how much interference may be tolerated, 
if any.
     So at this point most of the studies that have been done 
have been pretty broad data denial experiments, or simplified 
interference experiments, and their results have been 
generalized to the general forecasting process, but a lot more 
needs to be done to really understand the specific impact of 
interference on very particular forecasts for severe weather.
     Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lubar, as I mentioned in my opening 
statement, farmers who use GPS to engage in precision 
agriculture rely on clear spectrum frequencies. We continue to 
see concerns that some of these commercial telecom services may 
be too powerful for GPS to be received accurately. In your 
opinion, would a degraded GPS signal for farming lead to a 
reduction in crop productivity, and, along that line, are there 
ways to mitigate this interference?
     Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. The 
GPS issue, and the interference in frequencies associated with 
that, as well as associated with the weather community, have 
been discussed for quite some time. Yes, I believe that there 
have been a great number of studies of concern that those GPS 
receivers could be impacted, especially in applications of 
precision farming, as well as in space. I think the weather 
community, though, has a different aspect to it, something in 
addition to the licensing that was done in April of 2020. That 
was only 75 percent of the spectrum that the requester desired, 
and one portion of that would impact the dissemination of 
weather, water, and wildfire sensors that are necessary, as 
well as dissemination and rebroadcast of some of the energy 
that Dr. Gerth talked about.
     Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My time has expired. 
I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Tonko.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Johnson and Ranking Member 
Lucas, for holding this important hearing, and thank you to the 
witnesses for joining us today. The world around us is evolving 
at a rapid pace. The deployment of 5G technology and next 
generation wireless service is undoubtedly going to change the 
way we live. This is an exciting prospect, but to build the 
interconnected world of the future, large swaths of spectrum 
will be required. As we have heard from our witnesses today, 
radio frequencies such as the 23.8 gigahertz band used for 
Earth and space science applications are vitally important not 
just for scientists and Federal agencies, but for the 
protection of the public and our Nation's economy. We know the 
damages of climate change are severe, and that they are costly. 
If we were to lose this critical spectrum for observing the 
Earth system, the ability to understand our climate, and 
predict increasingly prevalent and devastating natural 
disasters would be tragically diminished.
     So, Mr. Mahoney, you emphasized in your testimony that 
virtually every sector of the U.S. economy is weather 
sensitive, and that any degradation of Earth observation data 
will have significant negative financial and safety impacts. 
Can you explain how protecting spectrum for Earth observing 
satellites has broad economic implications for everyday 
Americans, for our businesses, and our governments at all 
levels?
     Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
think there's underappreciation within our society of the 
dependency on weather prediction information that's used by 
individuals every day to decide very simple things, from what 
to wear, how to send your kids off to school, whether or not to 
take a trip, but there are major industries, such as aviation, 
that depend on, you know, very accurate weather forecasts to 
avoid wind shear, and turbulence, and icing. Ground de-icing, 
snowstorms, the routing of aircraft around the country is 
highly dependent on wind speeds and temperature so that the 
aircraft will only need to tanker, or hold enough fuel, to get 
from point to point and have enough reserves. The subtleties in 
the forecast for certain ceiling invisibility, for example, at 
airports will determine whether an airport can operate at full 
capacity or partial capacity, or whether aircraft have to be 
sent to other airports if severe weather is likely. So very 
subtle decisions for the aviation industry are made every day, 
resulting in tens of millions of dollars of efficiencies and 
safety.
     You look at agriculture, where growing degree days, 
measurement for crop models, all kind of tie into decisions 
regarding seed selection, and harvesting time, and pest 
control, and the application of fertilizers as such. Weather 
information in very, very fine detail is utilized to optimize 
those operations. Renewable energy is extremely sensitive to 
weather. Wind energy requires information for wind shear, and 
turbulence, and wind speed very close to the ground. Solar 
energy requires information on clouds, and aerosols, and 
humidity to determine how much solar radiation is going to be 
converted to solar energy. I can go on and on, but the number 
of industries that are dependent on weather are in the tens of 
billions of dollars, and 3.4 percent of the U.S. GDP (gross 
domestic product) is sensitive to weather.
     And a lot of weather decisions are made when just 
fractions of a degree are at stake, so remote sensing of the 
Earth and--at the temporal and spatial scales that we get from 
these passive remote satellite systems is absolutely critical. 
We need to see the entire Earth to make accurate weather 
predictions.
     Mr. Tonko. All right. Thank you for that. And, Dr. Gerth, 
perhaps you can--other than economic impacts, perhaps you could 
tell us about the ways in which spectrum interference would 
hamper our ability to prepare for and respond to climate 
change?
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah. Thank you so much for that question, 
Representative Tonko. We need a very long record of the 
atmosphere at multiple levels. So we're not just talking about 
the surface, we're talking about the full depth of the 
atmosphere, even above where the planes fly, to understand how 
our climate is changing, and where the climate is changing the 
most. Microwave is very important in that sense because 
microwaves can traverse through the clouds, so we can get a 
whole of atmosphere approach when we use microwave data. 
Microwave observations are now about 40 years old. We've had 
satellites dating back into the 1970's, so continuing that 
without interference is critical to assessing how our climate 
is changing, and where it is changing the fastest. Thank you.
     Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And with that, Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Posey?
     Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Johnson, for 
holding this hearing. A question to all the witnesses, you 
know, we were discussing the redress options for government 
agencies that they have if their missions are disrupted by FCC 
action, but what about the private sector? What options exist 
for the private sector if their businesses, farms, or ranches, 
or whatever, are hurt--result of spectrum interference?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman Posey, thank you for that question. 
The private sector would have to appreciate the spectrum role 
in what was impacting their particular use of the weather 
information, and would have to appreciate that the Federal 
Communications had some kind of a public process. That might be 
a stretch too far for the average user to tie those events 
together. Perhaps an oversimplification, but, you know, the FCC 
process is somewhat like someone placing technical information 
on a sign on a given street corner for a particular period of 
time, and you have to be astute enough to understand where the 
street corner is, and be watching for that information, or pay 
someone to do so. For the average individual, that's a very 
difficult thing.
     Mr. Von Ah. Representative Posey, this is Andrew from GAO. 
I--one of the recourses that the--they would have would be to 
go through the FCC. Of course, it would depend on whether it 
was licensed or unlicensed spectrum that was at issue here, if 
they had a particular license and it was being interfered with. 
That's FCC's job, is to try to ensure that the--these license 
holders don't interfere with one another. But to Mr. Lubar's 
point, if it's sort of, you know, unlicensed spectrum being 
used, they would have to sort of understand exactly where that 
interference might be coming from, which might be quite 
difficult for them to do.
     Ms. Manner. Representative, just to add in, the other 
thing is there is a lot of effort between commercial entities 
to try and resolve interference, so if we know we're getting 
interference, and we can trace where it's coming to, we'll work 
directly with the interferer, so there's areas, you know, for 
sophisticated users, licensees in particular, where you don't 
have to go to the FCC. You're oftentimes able to work that out 
between the two licensees.
     Mr. Mahoney. And if I might add in the--one example of 
poor communication with the private sector was the 1675/1680 
band, and that's--that affects the downlink of data from the 
GOES satellite station. All of the focus was on ensuring that 
the NOAA ground stations were protected with blackout zones, 
however, the private sector has receivers all over the country 
in which they utilize the direct data receipt to minimize any 
delays in providing services and warnings, and they were almost 
completely left out of the discussion on solutions, and that 
can't take place going forward.
     Mr. Posey. Thank you. In the letter that Chairwoman 
Johnson entered into the record, the GPS Innovation Alliance 
states that ``GPS is vital to national and economic security, 
and relied upon by numerous industries, including aviation, 
agriculture, automotive, construction, electricity, finance, 
public safety, and transportation.'' The Alliance concludes 
that, through a truly shared decisionmaking process, no single 
agency would have exclusive authority over the spectrum matters 
where both commercial and Federal users were both involved at 
the same time. Does the FCC's authorization of the deployment 
of a nationwide 5G terrestrial wireless network demonstrate 
that the process needs reform, and could 5G networks in certain 
spectrum bands make our GPS system less accurate? Anyone care 
to pick up on that?
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber? Oops, 
sorry. Ms. Bonamici?
     Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking 
Member Lucas, and thank you to our witnesses for joining us 
today. We just had a record-breaking heatwave across the 
Pacific Northwest just last month, and it was one of the 
deadliest natural disasters in Oregon, and my heart goes out to 
the families of the 116 Oregonians who lost their lives, and 
many more in the region. And as temperatures surged to 
unprecedented triple digits, emergency managers and first 
responders, they needed accurate and reliable weather data. 
Unfortunately, though, the--extreme weather events like the 
dangerous heat dome and the early wildfires across our State 
right now are only expected to become more frequent and more 
intense because of the climate crisis, so accurate weather 
forecasting will continue to be essential, especially for our 
frontline communities.
     Dr. Gerth, I appreciate your testimony. You acknowledged 
the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, which I 
was pleased to co-lead with Ranking Member Lucas. As we crafted 
the bill, we focused on several issues that you highlighted 
today, including the importance of telecommunications industry 
partnering with weather enterprise to deliver informative, 
accurate messages to our communities. So there is a requirement 
in the weather bill for Observing System Simulation Experiments 
in connection with buying or leasing a new satellite, and you 
suggest expanding those provisions, and having NOAA and NASA 
regularly audit the use of spectrum, so how would this help to 
integrate the best available science into our decisionmaking on 
the spectrum issue?
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah, thank you so much for that question, 
Representative, and yes, I am watching what's going on in 
Oregon this summer as well, and my heart's go out to Oregonians 
that have been affected by the heat and the fires out there. 
With regards to the Weather Act, and expanding the directive to 
conduct more observing system experiments, the key thing there 
is the FCC timelines. These Notices of Proposed Rulemaking come 
up very quickly, and it is far, far shorter than the time it 
takes to conduct quality peer reviewed science. So--since the 
23.8 gigahertz issue has come onto the scene, we're just now 
starting to get some of that peer reviewed literature out of 
the academic community to kind of inform what the impact would 
be, and we have a lot more work to do in that.
     So by having NOAA and NASA be proactive, and really doing 
an audit of all of their spectrum holdings, if you will, 
spectrum uses, every five years or so, there will always be a 
relatively recent study that can be pulled off, and in--our 
private sector telecommunications industry can review that, and 
see what the risks are. And also we'll be able to know, from 
doing that, what pieces of the spectrum are more valuable than 
others. There's 22 bands in the ATMS, the Advanced Technology 
Microwave Sounder, that NOAA currently operates. We know that 
all those bands are valuable, but some of them are particularly 
valuable compared to others, and that's what we need to be very 
aware of, and by--NOAA, as their modeling systems are upgraded, 
by continuing to present the industry with that knowledge, can 
really assure that we have a baseline for decisionmaking moving 
forward.
     Ms. Bonamici. Sure. Thank you so much, Dr. Gerth. And, Mr. 
Mahoney, in your testimony you acknowledge the challenges with 
interference in the specific radio frequencies just below 24 
gigahertz, where substitution is not possible just because of 
the laws of physics. So what further research and development 
is needed to help address that interference, as well as 
interference of other frequencies, and what lessons can we 
learn from the challenges around 24 gigahertz, and how can we 
proactively apply those lessons to other spectrum bands?
     Mr. Mahoney. Well, Doctor--thank you very much for the 
question, and Dr. Gerth just mentioned a bit about the type of 
studies that need to be done, and the timelines for those 
studies. The way data are assimilated into models makes it a 
challenge to do global reforecasts. There's--there are a lot of 
resources that are required, and a lot of sensitivity studies, 
as I mentioned earlier, focused on specific phenomena. It's 
easier to do studies, although it still takes sufficient time 
and computing resources, to look at the general impacts of 
interference on a--on the general forecast, getting the weather 
patterns globally generally right, but to really focus in and 
do data denial experiments or sensitivity experiments focused 
on individual extreme phenomena will take even more time.
     The data assimilation process is a bit complicated, and 
one thing we need to know up front in doing these type of 
sensitivity experiments is exactly what assumptions to make 
about the 5G network. You know, what--how many towers, what is 
their geographical distribution, what are the power levels, et 
cetera, and it's very challenging to get the initial state 
correct for a capability that has yet to be deployed.
     Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you very much. I see my time 
has expired. I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber.
     Mr. Weber. Well, let me tell you up front, I need about 10 
minutes, but--so I'll try to cut it short. Let me start with 
you, Mr. Von Ah. You said in your remarks, and I was trying to 
listen to all the alphabet soup agencies, NOAA, NASA, FCC, NIST 
(National Institute of Standards and Technology), they didn't 
agree. There was no mechanism to come to an agreement, and 
somebody said I think we had to review it--we reviewed it every 
100 years. My question to you, Mr. Von Ah, is shouldn't 
Congress be that mechanism? And, of course, very biased here, 
shouldn't the Science Committee have a lot of input in that?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Weber. Yes, certainly the NTIA/FCC MOU has not been updated in 
over 20 years, nor has the General Guidance Document that 
guided the preparatory work for the World Radio Conference. 
This is certainly something that would be within Congress's 
purview, to direct the agencies to update that memorandum, or 
to make changes to it, and we've made recommendations to the 
agencies to do so. So, you know--and certainly where, you know, 
there are competing priorities for spectrum, the administration 
and Congress are the places where those decisions get made.
     Mr. Weber. Well, thank you. And I would argue that 
national defense is the No. 1 purview of Congress, per the 
Constitution. We want to keep Americans safe, and with enemies 
threatening to weaponize space, that our space capabilities 
should be first and foremost, so I guess I'll go to a second 
question and leave it open for the panel. Well, Ms. Manner, 
we'll ask you this. Decisions at the FCC, is it your opinion 
that they bias terrestrial communication services over space-
based or satellite communications?
     Ms. Manner. Thank you for the question. As I noted in my 
testimony, at this point in time, on spectrum issues, we do 
find a bias based on economic rationale, as opposed to other 
rationale, and I'll give you an example. I think the millimeter 
wave bands is a very good example. Chairwoman Rosenworcel from 
the FCC the other day just said, with regard to the millimeter 
wave bands, that if the 5G industry just had to rely on those 
bands, we would have a bigger digital divide than we do today.
     One of the other frequency bands that was at issue during 
the Spectrum Frontiers proceeding was a very important band to 
the commercial industry, 27.5 to 28.35 gigahertz, where the 
satellite industry operates their Gateway Earth stations. The 
FCC severely curtailed our use, despite a very, very heavy 
turnout on us explaining that we needed this harmonized 
spectrum. And yet, you know, just the other day we heard from 
the FCC Chairwoman that perhaps the spectrum isn't as important 
to 5G. It's in the same proceeding as the 24 gigahertz. So, 
yes, I have been seeing a bias on that. Thank you.
     Mr. Weber. Well, I would--thank you for that. I would say, 
look, we need to have a lot of those agencies come together, 
and--whether it's overseen by a Committee put together--a task 
force of the Science Committee--we need the Department of 
Defense. Obviously we need space folks involved, we need 
transportation people involved, because there's a move to, as 
you all know, use some of the bandwidth for traffic signals, 
and stuff of that nature.
     But let me jump up here real quick, as some of you may or 
may not know, I've been around a long time. I had my first cell 
phone in 1984. It was a huge thing, mounted in my truck in the 
air conditioning business. GSM (Global System for Mobile 
Communications) or CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) were 
the two types of cell phone signals that I remember, and I 
guess they're still prevalent today? Do you all know that? 
Anyone know that for a fact?
     Ms. Manner. They are being replaced over time, so not 
today so much. We're looking at LTE (Long-Term Evolution), and 
then the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) standards 
going forward.
     Mr. Weber. So if we got those together--I've often thought 
this, because, you know, you can never buy a cell phone and it 
transport from one carrier--one provider to the other, which I 
thought was by design, quite frankly. But nonetheless, if we 
got all of those carrier signals together, would that save 
bandwidth?
     Ms. Manner. I think it's two different issues. That's 
really a standards issue, so I think the good news is that 3G--
we now are working through a single standards organization, 
3GPP primarily, to develop 5G and beyond standards, and it's 
becoming a more technology neutral approach. But because of the 
great needs of spectrum, or the claims of spectrum, 
unfortunately, that's where we're having demand issues. So it's 
not a standard issue today, I think it's a spectrum needs issue 
and a spectrum assignment allocation issue. Thank you.
     Mr. Weber. OK. Well, thank you for that. I'm going to 
yield back, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Ross.
     Ms. Ross. Needed to unmute. Thank you very much, Madam 
Chairwoman, and thank you for having this very important and 
timely hearing, and thanks to the panelists for joining us. I'm 
from North Carolina, and we have kind of both ends of this 
conversation going on. So we have sea levels that have risen 
more than a foot on the coasts in the span of 70 years, and we 
have extreme weather events frequently because of hurricanes, 
and other things that come up. As a matter of fact, we're now 
considered winter peaking because of the effects of ice storms 
on our energy levels. And I'm deeply concerned about climate 
change, and want to safeguard our climate scientists' ability 
to conduct their important research without interference.
     My district also includes North Carolina State University, 
which is one of the Nation's largest mechanical and aerospace 
engineering departments, and is conducting groundbreaking 
research on the convergence of 5G technology and autonomous 
drones. And just last week the Triangle Area, where I'm from, 
received an Innovation Zone designation from the FCC intended 
to spur the development and integration of 5G network 
technologies and open radio access networks. So, suffice it to 
say, this topic is extremely important to the constituents, 
researchers, and universities in my district in North Carolina.
     And my first question is for Dr. Gerth and Mr. Mahoney. 
It's become a given in the discussions on Capitol Hill, and in 
the business community, that the value of deploying 5G to the 
economy is very high. But I'm concerned that we haven't been 
able to quantify and value weather forecasting to save lives 
and property. So how can valuations of weather forecasting be 
better considered and balanced in the spectrum regulatory 
process?
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah, thank you so much for that question, 
Representative Ross. I think there's several ways to do it, one 
of which is to look at how predictability of weather phenomena 
changes over time. So, for example, let's take hurricanes. Over 
time we've been able to use--and I'm just talking about the 
last 15 years or so--use weather satellites to really reduce 
what's called the cone of uncertainty, where the center of the 
storm is going to go, where the highest impacts are going to 
be. We can then take that information from our numerical models 
and then estimate what the costs of evacuating an area would 
be, because we know that evacuations have significant costs, 
and by that advanced warning, we can then give an actual value 
to the data that's coming from the satellites and how it's 
improving the weather forecast.
     So I certainly think that with NOAA routinely conducting 
studies about the value of the spectrum that's used on the 
weather satellites, and how the models are evolving, and their 
skill, we can really make a very concise case about exactly how 
much, in terms of taxpayer resources, are being saved by having 
those capabilities in this country. Thank you.
     Ms. Ross. Mr. Mahoney, if you have something briefly to 
add that'd be great, but I do have a question for Ms. Manner I 
want to get in in the next minute.
     Mr. Mahoney. Very--I'll just say very briefly the American 
Meteorological Society has done, and is working on, studies to 
really understand the impacts of weather, water, and climate 
prediction to the U.S. economy. And, as I mentioned earlier in 
my testimony, the U.S. economy's sensitive to weather 
variability, in the tune of about $600 billion. But more----
     Ms. Ross. Thank you.
     Mr. Mahoney [continuing]. Needs to be done.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you. We need to get that into the 
conversation. For Ms. Manner, in your testimony you state that 
the FCC allocates spectrum according to public interest, rather 
than national interest, a decision that sometimes values the 
short term needs of the public over solving long term systemic 
issues. What can Congress do to ensure that agencies like the 
FCC consider national interests on things like climate and 
weather forecasting when they do their work?
     Ms. Manner. So--thank you. So the public interest is 
actually the standard in the Communications Act of 1934, so to 
change that for the FCC would require a legislative change. But 
I do think through the improved coordination under the MOU, 
which is something, you know, we're urging, and I think is very 
important, as well as the international process, which is where 
a lot of the issues that we've had come up on things like 24 
gigahertz, if you can have an agency like the State Department 
act as the arbiter, they could take into account the broader 
national interest, which we do think is important. You know--
thank you for the question.
     Ms. Ross. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.
     Mr. Baird. Is it my turn? Thank you, Madam Chair, and 
Ranking Member Lucas, and I appreciate all the witnesses being 
here today, and having your expertise to share with us some of 
the direction that we might take. So I think this is an 
important hearing. I guess I'm going to start with Mr. Lubar.
     You know, we have a finite resource in the amount of 
spectrum that we have, in my observation, and--yet we're adding 
more and more wireless applications, and they come online, so 
we're going to need to allocate more spectrum to serve these 
applications, because that need is only going to grow. So, from 
your perspective, and your knowledge and experience, what are 
some of the technologies or strategies that either currently 
exist, or could be developed, to mitigate the demand for 
spectrum and solve the interference concerns that we're 
currently discussing?
     Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman Baird. That is a 
certainly complex question. If we focus on this particular 
problem of interference into the passive bands, the real 
important issue is to be able to identify that these bands are 
being contaminated, and there really are only two methods, in 
my opinion, to do that. That--you could place some type of a 
scientific package on the satellite gathering the data, and 
that device would identify the interference contamination, do 
some significant computation on the spacecraft, and flag that 
data so that it doesn't contaminate the downstream weather 
process. But I think in addition to that, you need to survey 
the RF (remote frequency) environment, you know, around these 
passive bands. It's a very, very difficult thing to make those 
kind of measurements, and the real complexity involved is if 
signals are of such a low level that the contaminate the data, 
but they don't contaminate enough that you could tell. That's a 
very dangerous situation, because then that data could be 
incorporated into the weather models and tools.
     Mr. Baird. Well, thank you for that. and I--if I might 
continue on in that same vein, do you think that commercial 
radio spectrum mapping satellites, such as the Hawkeye 360, 
could they be used to detect interference and improve the 
weather dating model?
     Mr. Lubar. The Hawkeye 360 system, which I'm familiar 
with, is limited to particular bands and particular 
applications. It would not include the bands in the so-called 
high band that we're talking about in this gigahertz range, and 
certainly not in the design they have. It is a very useful 
system, though, for determining ADS--B (Automatic Dependent 
Surveillance--Broadcast) and other type signals in bands below 
that.
     Mr. Baird. Well, thank you, appreciate your input and 
insight. Ms. Manner, the--I'm going to move to you. The FCC 
Chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, recently stated that it was a 
mistake to focus on the millimeter wave spectrum band for 5G 
auctions, which include the 24G--the gigahertz. She would like 
the FCC to pivot to mid-band spectrum, which many regard as the 
sweet spot for connectivity, and the key to access in rural 
areas. And, since I come from a rural area, that's extremely 
important to me, so I would just appreciate your perspective on 
the millimeter wave spectrum versus the mid-range.
     Ms. Manner. Certainly, and thank you for the question. So 
I would say that the millimeter wave spectrum--you know, as I 
mentioned just earlier, I--we fought very hard against it 
being--limiting the use of commercial satellite because we, of 
course, do provide service to rural areas like your district, 
you know, whether it's our system, or SpaceX, or One Web, you 
know, choose your favorite viasat--choose your favorite 
satellite system. And it has very poor propagation 
characteristics, for the most part, for commercial 
communications, because it's very high up, so the mid-band 
certainly has better propagation characteristics for 
terrestrial services, so that does allow, you know, broader 
communications, wider bandwidth, so it certainly can help.
     You know, I'm still of the view that there are certain 
places in this country where it's just not going to be 
economical to serve terrestrially, and you're going to have to 
rely on satellite, and I think the good news is--on that is, 
with systems like ours, and others who are having higher 
frequency bands--higher frequency--I'm sorry, who are having 
higher speeds and lower latency I think you're going to see 
better service, but there has to be spectrum to enable 
satellite--commercial satellite operators as well as 
terrestrial. So thank you for the question.
     Mr. Baird. Well, thank you very much for that response, 
and I really appreciate the optimism about maybe we could solve 
some of these rural remote area problems. And so, with that, I 
yield back, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Wild.
     Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this very timely 
hearing on some critical questions facing the rollout of 5G, 
and the new technologies, and the implications they may have 
for our scientific and research communities and enterprises. 
The FCC auctioned the 24 gigahertz band in May 2019 under a 
certain set of rules, and then in December that year the World 
Radio Conference parties agreed to apply more restrictive 
emission limits across the globe. The FCC has a comment period 
open now on the rulemaking that would conform the U.S. rules to 
the ones we agreed to with foreign governments, but the U.S. 
goes to the World Radio Conferences and negotiates with other 
governments because we are a signatory to the Constitution of 
the International Telecommunication Union. And as we all have 
talked about, and we know, weather is a global phenomenon. It 
does not stop at the border.
     So, Ms. Manner, with that prelude, and anyone else who 
cares to respond, are you aware of any instances of when the 
FCC did not follow the ITU spectrum regulations that had a 
global impact? And, as more 5G hardware gets deployed, what is 
being done now to monitor interference in the 24 gigahertz 
band?
     Ms. Manner. So thank you for the question. I could 
certainly focus on the first part. I'm not aware of an answer 
to the second. I'm not an expert on 24. But I am not personally 
aware, but what the FCC did with 24 gigahertz is they actually 
did not follow the global requirements. They've chosen as a 
country, which is something we're allowed to do, to take a 
different approach. And as long as it doesn't cause 
interference to other countries' communications it's allowed, 
but there's a bigger repercussion, and that's the lack of the 
ability to harmonize. And the fact these services are going to 
be impacted in the United States, just like we've seen with 
other satellite services--our own, when I was talking about 28 
gigahertz, that's of concern.
     So you do have the interference potential, of course, 
because we are doing something differently, but you also have a 
broader issue, which is you're not able to take advantage of 
the global or regional nature of satellite systems, and that's 
a growing concern, and something that we're seeing neglected by 
the FCC in its decisionmaking time and time again. Thank you.
     Mr. Lubar. Congresswoman, I could add to that, if you 
would----
     Ms. Wild. Please.
     Mr. Lubar. I believe that the 24 gigahertz, and the other 
bands in this region, certainly, as we've heard, are 
contributing to a global model for weather, and the way weather 
information is sensed, all the satellites and the various 
nations share that, under the terms of the World Meteorological 
Organization. And so contamination to this band not only 
affects our weather, but it affects the weather that other 
countries gather information, and, conversely, as we use their 
data, it's also potentially contaminated. And so I think that 
you have to look at that case in the overall picture of--it is 
a larger problem.
     I agree with Ms. Manner that, you know, an administration 
is allowed to do what they can to vary from the ITU rules as 
long as it doesn't impact another administration that is 
following those rules, but in the--in this particular case, the 
Europeans, for example, they took the ITU limits, and they 
decided to enforce the split level of requirement that the 
rules said would get more stringent in 2027, September 2027, 
and move it up to January 2024. Now, I mean, I'm not, you know, 
going to comment one way or the other on whether I think that 
was something that the industry could comply with, but the fact 
now that you would have one standard in Europe, where all the 
satellites, American and foreign, are gathering that 
information, as well as a different standard, then, in the 
Americas, or at least in the United States, you have to ask 
yourself what will that do to the information in that four year 
period?
     Ms. Wild. Thank you. And, Mr. Lubar, as long as I have 
you, to what extent do Earth observing satellites use--
approaches on orbit to mitigate radio interference before the 
data are sent down to the ground, and is there anything being 
done that can improve the capabilities as part of addressing 
radio interference?
     Mr. Lubar. Thank you for that question. As I alluded to 
earlier, you know, on this passive band contamination, there 
really is no way to detect it unless you have a device in 
space. The ideal way, anyway, to detect it is to add a device 
in space to the operational satellites. Now, there is no 
funding at the moment for a system that has been preliminary 
designed on the Joint Polar Satellite System, and I think time 
is of the essence to provide that funding to ensure that they 
make it in time for the upcoming launches. So that's one way, 
but that only flags the data, and then, of course, there's 
money and resources needed to take that flag and do something 
with it on the ground.
     Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Lubar. I'm out of time, and I 
yield back, Madam Chair.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Garcia.
     Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking 
Member Lucas, for pulling this together, a very important 
conversation. I've got a couple top level questions, and then 
some technical questions that I'd like to get to, so if we can 
make the answers short, that would be idea. Does anyone on this 
panel know where the $2 billion of proceeds from the auctions 
go to? Does it go directly to the Treasury, and then not 
reinvested into either techniques or characterization efforts 
that some of you have outlined?
     Mr. Von Ah. Yeah, Representative Garcia, I can answer 
that. It does go to the Treasury, to keep it short.
     Mr. Garcia. OK. So we don't get any sort of cut of that, 
or any, you know, rake on the take there from the options that 
actually feeds back into helping you guys manage the challenges 
here at all, from what you can tell?
     Mr. Von Ah. No, sir.
     Mr. Garcia. OK. I would submit that that's a weakness, and 
probably something that we as a team should look at and how to 
improve on. From a technical perspective, I think, Mr. Gerth, 
you mentioned ATMS on JPSS-1. I believe it's the same system 
that's going up on JPSS-2 next September launch. That, as you 
mentioned, is a 22-channel system. First--the first channel is 
right at 23.8 gigahertz, which is obviously in the heart of the 
envelope for what we're talking about here. Have we 
characterized the impact of some of the noise or jamming 
effects that the auction has had on channel one of ATMS yet on 
JPSS-1?
     Dr. Gerth. Not to my knowledge, because, as has been 
previously mentioned, the FCC is still finalizing the rules for 
adjacent interference.
     Mr. Garcia. How long would it be before we start seeing 
that feedback, and can start characterizing the impact? Is it a 
year, 5 years, or just a couple months?
     Dr. Gerth. I don't have a good idea of how long that would 
take. It would probably depend on how quickly the networks are 
rolled out.
     Mr. Garcia. OK. I would submit that this is a second 
weakness. I think this same ATMS system, still passive with 22 
channels, is designed for JPSS-3 as well, so I think as, you 
know, as we look at these we've got to look at how do we evolve 
these technologies and make them a little more agile on the 
ground before they get up into space. And I would also suggest 
that working with some of the defense labs, the classified 
programs, on electronic protection techniques, and 
incorporating that into some of these space systems is 
absolutely critical as well. That can be done and imported, I 
think, at an unclassified level once it's done, and just turn 
it into a black box. But there's labs like NRL (Naval Research 
Laboratory), Sandia that are working interesting solutions to a 
lot of these noise level floors that you're talking about.
     And then, Mr. Mahoney, this is a technical question as 
well. The--you know, why passive? Why not use L-band, which is 
typically used for clear air turbulence, or S-band, or X-band, 
which are also good for weather? I know C-band's an optimal 
range as well, right, the 4 to 8 gigahertz. Why--you know, help 
me out. I'm an RF guy, but I was an X-band kind of guy in a 
prior life. Why the passive side of this at this frequency 
range versus an active, you know, X-band or C-band? Why K-band, 
and why passive?
     Mr. Mahoney. Well, I'll--I'm not able to answer your 
question directly in terms of some of the alternatives. I can 
only speak to the uniqueness of the passive bands, and the fact 
that they're these distinct bands that are able to be observed 
where the temperature and humidity soundings can be made just 
by moving the frequency off the center point for these passive 
bands, and so you can get a sounding of the atmosphere, which 
is absolutely critical for weather forecasting.
     Moving into other bands may not have--you'll be outside of 
the passive bands, or the bands you can actually see the 
atmosphere, and it may be more transparent than necessary to 
receive the data back at the quality you need. It may be better 
for Jordan to respond to the details of the different 
frequencies.
     Mr. Garcia. Yeah, Jordan, I'll defer to you here for the 
last----
     Dr. Gerth. OK. Thank you. Yeah, I would just note that, 
again, we're talking about the collection of very specific 
atmospheric data, and that is--where we can collect that is 
driven by the physics of the molecules. So there are other 
bands out there. For example, water--for water vapor sensing, 
which is a key input for our numerical models, and there has to 
be an existing allocation there. It's not like the weather 
community can go say, well, there's water vapor observations 
over here, but if--it's almost certainly already allocated for 
some other use.
     Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Yeah, private space.
     Dr. Gerth. So we have to be very----
     Mr. Garcia. Yeah.
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah.
     Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you. And just in the last couple 
seconds, I will say I don't think we as a nation should be 
cooperating with China on our space endeavors, either on the 
commercial or defense side, but I will say we do need some sort 
of nexus in coordinating efforts in terms of bandwidth 
allocation and this RF spectrum management question. Otherwise 
these guys are just going to come into our neighborhoods, the 
Chairwoman eloquently described, and wreak havoc on us. I yield 
back. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Stansbury.
     Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 
Member, for convening today's important panel. I think it's 
been said already, but I'll repeat, you know, from the heat 
waves in the Northwest to the large-scale fires and drought 
across the West, including in my home State of New Mexico, 
climate change is already impacting communities across the 
United States. We can see these impacts in increased frequency 
of extreme weather events and their disproportionate impacts to 
our communities, including, of course, property damage, and the 
tragic, and preventable, loss of life. We need accurate weather 
forecasting and effective data gathering to predict these 
weather events, and plan for, and respond for--respond to the 
impacts of climate change.
     As we continue to invest in new technologies, including 
those that require the use of these spectrum bands, and work to 
increase their accessibility, we cannot risk putting our 
communities in danger by overcrowding or opening spectrum bands 
that negatively impact our ability to forecast weather and 
other data collection. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue examining how 
to improve Federal coordination with the spectrum auction 
process, and better involve our scientific, governmental, and 
community stakeholders in the process and conversation. And, 
Madam Chairwoman, my question is actually for Mr. Mahoney, and 
possibly Mr. Lubar.
     We've heard today that interference in the 23.6 gigahertz 
band could threaten data sources we need for day-to-day weather 
forecasting, Earth observing systems, and understanding and 
making predictions on long term climate train--trends. 
Communities across the U.S., including in New Mexico, are 
experiencing significant impacts, especially from climate 
change and our water systems, including reductions in snowpack 
and runoff, and increasingly irregular precipitation patterns. 
The climatic regimes of our infrastructure and management 
systems are rapidly changing, which is why we need high-
fidelity, real time monitoring systems and tools to manage our 
precious waters, to respond to extreme climate events, and to 
keep our communities safe. The health, and well-being, and 
resilience of our communities depend on it.
     So we've heard today a lot about the impacts to weather 
forecasting, but I'd like to ask Mr. Mahoney in particular, 
could you please speak to some of the other specific Earth 
observing systems that are managed and utilized by the USGS, 
NOAA, USDA, and others that are critical for planning and 
responding to climate impacts to our communities?
     Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Representative, for the question. 
There are many dozens of satellites that are in space that are 
utilizing spectrum. Not all of them in the same channel, 
obviously, but some of them are focused on--like Landsat, on 
visible imagery and multi-spectral channels that provide 
information for sea surface temperatures. They provide 
information for winds over the ocean. There are observations of 
soil moisture, soil temperature, vegetation state. All of these 
are important for understanding the land surface itself, and to 
characterize it in looking for changes in the land surface, as 
well as this is all--these are all ingredients for weather 
forecasting.
     A lot of times people think that just predicting the 
weather involves just the atmosphere, but the fluxes between 
land surface, the water surfaces, the cryosphere, and the 
atmosphere are absolutely critical, so actually the forecast 
process utilizes this--many, many of the data sets created from 
these multi-spectral channels across a lot of geosynchronous, 
as well as polar orbiting satellites. So there are different 
frequencies that are used for these different areas. The 18.6 
passive band, for example, is for sea surface wind speed and 
direction. The 23.8, as we've been talking about, is the water 
vapor channel. 36.5 is looking at tropical cyclone modeling and 
sea surface wind speed and direction, and we have the 50 to 60 
gigahertz bands looking at vertical temperature profiles, and 
then a large number of visible channels as well. It's all part 
of the data collection, analysis, assimilation, and prediction 
process.
     Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. So I just want to 
emphasize--to say that what we're talking about here has broad 
and sweeping implications for all of our communities and their 
well-being, from our farmers' ability to utilize water and grow 
crops, to put food on the table for our communities, to our 
ability to bring fresh water to our communities across the 
West, so it's critical that we address this issue. And with 
that, Madam Chair, I yield back, and am grateful for this 
hearing. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Feenstra.
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Ranking 
Member Lucas, for this hearing, and the request for the GAO 
report on frequency spectrum management. I also want to thank 
our witnesses for your testimony, and sharing your extensive 
research.
     Mr. Mahoney, in your written testimony you note the 
impacts of what spectrum interference and weather accuracy can 
have on the agricultural community. Similarly, I am currently 
drafting legislation trying to find technological solutions to 
weather radar blockages and ghost echoes. Getting accurate 
weather information can save both lives and livelihoods, and--
of those in my district. We saw several tornadoes last week in 
Iowa which were quite tragic.
     In 2019 a report sponsored by NIST suggested that we have 
lost the ability to rely on GPS due to an outage. It would cost 
our economy about a billion dollars a day if this happens. 
However, in Section Five of the report, it noted that an outage 
during the springtime planting season could increase losses 
closer to $1.5 billion a day. Can you elaborate on the reasons 
for the difference between the two figures, and can you 
elaborate on all the ways farmers and ranchers can utilize GPS 
in their operations, and how they could be impacted by spectrum 
interference bleeding over from these other frequencies? Thank 
you.
     Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Representative, for the question. 
I can't comment specifically on the financial differences, but 
I certainly can comment on the utilization of weather 
information and land surface information for precision 
agriculture. Certainly the invention of the GPS for navigation 
has provided farm machinery a lot more of an ability to 
identify exactly where, you know, on the land surface, and a 
lot of the sensing technologies has allowed farmers to 
understand what the chemical content is of their soil, the 
moisture content, the temperature. It's--information from 
remote sensing on where the pests are, and what the vegetation 
state is. Interference in any of those data sets is going to 
impact farming significantly.
     You mentioned the radars. Doppler weather radar in the S-
band, the NEXRAD (Next-Generation Radar) network. There are 
other weather radars that are operated as C-band and X-band. 
Interference at any of those bands is going to impact the 
ability not only to see the storms in real time, but to 
assimilate the storm data in the weather prediction process. 
Contaminating the data sets that are fundamental ingredients of 
the weather prediction process is going to affect millions and 
millions of stakeholders, and agriculture is very sensitive to 
severe weather, as well as day to day weather, in terms of 
temperature, humidity, wind speed, and land surface conditions, 
and so it's paramount that the spectrum be protected, and those 
data sets of a high quality for those purposes.
     Mr. Feenstra. Thank you for those comments, Mr. Mahoney. I 
do have a follow-up comment. Could the use of spectrum in 
weather forecasting be used as a tool to supplement incomplete 
or lost radar data, and how would Iowa farmers be adversely 
affected by the potential or diminished weather forecasts due 
to spectrum interferences?
     Mr. Mahoney. There are satellites that are essentially 
radars in space that can help fill in gaps where a terrestrial 
radar system may see interference, but they are often polar 
orbiting, and their return period is pretty long, and--the 
NEXRAD system, for example, operates where it collects an 
entire volume of the atmosphere about every 10 or 12 minutes. 
So I think it would be very hard to have a radar--a satellite-
based radar system with the fidelity of a ground-based radar 
system replace or fill in the gaps from interference.
     The passive channels are primarily focused on water vapor 
and temperature, and not specifically on hydrometeors or 
precipitation particles, and the severe weather events 
themselves. So I would--there are some methodologies that could 
be used to fill in some of the gaps, kind of the radar by radar 
basis, but using satellite assets to try to do that I think 
would be challenging.
     Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. I would agree. Thank you----
     Mr. Lubar. If I may add to that, Congressman? There are 
some interim measures from geostationary orbit combining two of 
the current sensors that can somewhat backfill for that case. I 
know in the instance where the radar in Puerto Rico was 
completely destroyed by a tornado--I'm sorry, by a hurricane 
that those alternate methods were helpful to the local weather 
forecast office.
     Mr. Feenstra. Very good accounts. Thank you so much, and 
thank you, and I yield back my time.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Sherrill.
     Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Von Ah, you 
discussed the report GAO recently published on spectrum 
management and agency collaboration, and in your report you 
discussed how impacted Federal agencies had multiple 
opportunities to comment through the IRAC and declined to do 
so, and one of your recommendations is that NOAA actually 
establish written procedures to deal with spectrum sharing 
issues, which they lacked at the time. What steps can Congress 
take to ensure Federal agencies are properly engaging in the 
spectrum management process so that decisions that are years in 
the making don't catch folks seemingly unaware?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Sherrill. Yeah, indeed I--there were numerous opportunities 
where NOAA and NASA could've raised concerns through the IRAC, 
through NTIA, and, in fact, NTIA's job is to represent Federal 
agencies' views and perspectives within--you know, in FCC 
proceedings. At the time NOAA decided not to do so because they 
didn't feel that they had the technical basis with which to 
challenge what was happening in the FCC proceeding.
     Also partly what, you know, our recommendation to NOAA was 
really for them to get some of their internal processes in 
order in order to--and, as I think was alluded to earlier in 
this hearing, it's--there's a lot going on. There's a lot of 
timeframes that you've got to meet. There's--you know, the FCC 
proceeding may open. It's very complicated. They give you a 
short window to comment. And so it really does require an 
agency to have some ability to track that regulatory 
proceeding. And NASA recognized this during the course of our 
audit, and actually did, you know, institute those kinds of 
internal procedures. And so we think those internal procedures 
are important, and I think it's important for the Committee to 
ensure that NOAA and NASA agencies--that, you know, you have a 
jurisdiction over, you know, do implement those kinds of 
recommendations so that they're ready when the time comes.
     Ms. Sherrill. And do you have any more recommendations for 
that, either formal or informal, that you didn't include in the 
report that could help prevent this kind of incident from 
happening in the future?
     Mr. Von Ah. Well, nothing that we didn't put in the 
report, I'll put it that way.
     Ms. Manner. Congresswoman----
     Ms. Sherrill. OK.
     Ms. Manner [continuing]. The----
     Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. Yeah?
     Ms. Manner. Can I make a suggestion as well, please?
     Ms. Sherrill. Please. Please.
     Ms. Manner. So, you know, we studied this pretty 
intensively at the CSMAC, and then I've been involved in the 
process both on the government and the private--you know, 
government side as well. I think there needs to be more staff 
to be able to support these efforts, technical staff. I think 
every agency involved is very short on staffing, and the 
ability at the ITU--to travel to the ITU and actively 
participate in meetings. That's one thing.
     But the other thing too is there really needs to be 
increased communications and improved communications between 
NTIA and the FCC not just at the principles level, but also at 
the staff level. And if you look at the CSMAC report, a number 
of recommendations we focused on were things to improve that, 
including doing some research together, you know, developing 
propagation models that could be used, automated sharing 
mechanism analysis, and so forth. So I really think having 
increased collaboration is good. I mean, at one point we even 
recommended that perhaps you put people in the same office 
building, if people are going back to work, or you do details 
to one another's agencies. And I think anything to increase 
communications will help over the long term, so thank you.
     Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. I appreciate it.
     Mr. Lubar. I have to agree.
     Ms. Sherrill. And then----
     Mr. Lubar. I'm sorry, I'd have to agree, just that the 
domestic process--they're very skilled professionals, as you 
mentioned, but you do have to ask the question, if the 
scientists had been aware of this problem, or if there was a 
scientific input available into the regulatory process, would 
they have flagged this earlier, and perhaps gotten their 
agencies to respond?
     Ms. Sherrill. And then--thank you very much. I just want 
to move on, I have 1 minute. Ms. Manner, compared to other 
nations, whether they're allies, like South Korea, or 
adversaries, like China, the U.S. Government provides 
relatively little R&D support around spectrum use and 
telecommunications in general. It's really different from other 
sectors, like energy, where we have the massive research 
functions of the Department of Energy, or health, where we have 
the National Institutes of Health. So should the Federal R&D 
enterprise be doing more, or does spectrum and telecom research 
need to stay more with the private sector?
     Ms. Manner. Thank you for question. I think both. My 
industry, the commercial satellite industry, wouldn't be around 
if it wasn't for the NASA research efforts. Must be in the 
1980's already--the ACSS system, the Advanced Communications 
Satellite Systems, that really form the basis for everything 
you're seeing today, from our systems--our Jupiter system, to 
Starlink, to whatever. It was all--back then. But I also think 
having the government actively involved in spectrum research is 
critical, and that's why both at the CSMAC and individually I 
would urge that we do advance the agencies for looking at 
things like modeling based on updated technologies, spectrum 
sharing analysis, so I think on both sides it would be helpful. 
Thank you for the question.
     Ms. Sherrill. Thanks to all our witnesses. I have more 
questions, but I'm going to have to submit them to the record. 
Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. LaTurner.
     Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My question is 
for Ms. Manner. The FCC Chairwoman recently stated that it was 
a mistake to focus on the millimeter wave spectrum band for 5G 
auctions, and this was touched on a little bit earlier, but I'm 
wondering if you could go into a little more depth. 5G 
utilizes, you know, 600 megahertz to 39 gigahertz. In your 
opinion, are we making a mistake auctioning off the 24 
gigahertz spectrum specifically, since we have such practical 
applications for it?
     Ms. Manner. Thank you for the question. I can't speak 
specifically to 24 gigahertz because I have--I don't have a lot 
of experience in it, but I would say overall, for the 
millimeter wave, I do think that the FCC's analysis on any of 
the bands--and it actually went up to 50 gigahertz, the 
proceeding--did not accurately or adequately examine or include 
in the analysis the impacts on commercial industries, like the 
satellite industry, as well as scientific industries, and that 
goes back to the balance issue that I talked about earlier. 
There needs to be a broader analysis that includes more than 
short term economic gains, which is often the case with 5G, and 
there needs to be a broader decisionmaking. And I think by have 
the MOU improved, I think you can start to get there. But, yes, 
I did have concerns about the proceeding, as someone who was 
actively involved in that proceeding.
     Mr. LaTurner. Well, I'll allow anybody to comment on this, 
if--and I don't know the answer, but if--obviously the mid-band 
is useful for commercial applications, and clearly above 24 
gigahertz is useful, why then are we--why is it necessary to 
auction off the 24 gigahertz? Can any of the--any of you 
comment on that?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman LaTurner, I can. Thank you for that 
question. Obviously growth in dissemination of this information 
at so-called 5G high-band frequencies plays an important role 
in the overall process. But besides 24 gigahertz, one of the 
most critical passive bands lies in the 50 gigahertz region, 
and upwards nearer 60, and that's where atmospheric 
temperatures are determined by these satellites. All these 
bands are used interactively. There really isn't a separate 
application for one versus the other, but the 50 gigahertz band 
would be extremely crucial, extremely crucial, if it 
encountered interference. And there are services allocated 
right up to the edge that currently do not have service rules 
applied to the FCC, but the approvals are already there.
     Mr. LaTurner. Well, let's stick with you, Mr. Lubar. Talk 
specifically, if you can, about the vulnerability that the U.S. 
military or scientific satellites could face from spectrum 
interference from an attack from a foreign entity.
     Mr. Lubar. Well, that's a bit of a different question, 
because----
     Mr. LaTurner. It's a wholly different question. I'm 
switching gears a little bit.
     Mr. Lubar. Yes, sir. It would depend on certainly the type 
of functionality on one of those given satellites, whether 
you're impeding a communication systems by actively jamming it, 
whether you were intentionally or unintentionally causing 
interference to something like we're talking about here in 
passive situations. It might be a little more difficult to 
implement that as ground-based interference from a foreign 
entity. But I think that, you know, the road map of spectrum 
allocations is intentionally designed to try to protect, for 
people that are following the road map, from causing those kind 
of issues.
     Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Von Ah, in the 
research that you've done about the process, is there any light 
you can shed on the question that I asked--that I started out 
asking Ms. Manner, in terms of why the focus on the 24 
gigahertz, or what the breakdown potentially is?
     Mr. Von Ah. Absolutely, Representative LaTurner. So, you 
know, as the--we--as 5G has--you know, sort of the promise of 
5G is, you know, more capacity, particularly in, you know, 
where there are, you know, heavy uses, a lot of population, 
these higher bands can carry more data, so they're desirable 
from that aspect. They require, you know, a lot more antennas, 
a lot more, you know, radios and so on that are, you know, 
within a very small area, which is what we're talking about 
here, which is what creates some of that potential interference 
to these passive bands. But that's the reason that they're 
looking for those higher wavelengths, those higher bands of 
spectrum, because of the higher data that it can carry.
     Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield 
back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Foster.
     Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess, as this 
Committee's physicist in residence, and maybe the only Member 
of Congress who actually used to be able to calculate thermal 
emission spectra, I'd just like to emphasize the real 
advantages for the government of having active researchers in 
their employment, if for no other reason simply having high 
quality technical advice available to government when decisions 
have to be made. And I have a technical question here for, I 
guess, Mr. Lubar, Dr. Gerth, or really anyone who wants to 
answer.
     It's--first off, how local spatially are the measurements 
that are being made here, and how bad is the contamination? 
Like, does one HAMSAT or one base station tower have the 
ability to puke up all of North America, or just the local 
county, or a few blocks around the piece of equipment, when you 
look at the resolution you're going for--spatial resolution?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman Foster, let me take that, and I 
might pass the gauntlet to Dr. Gerth afterwards. You have to 
understand that these passive measurements are power 
measurements made over a physical area, so no, I don't think 
you could tell that one transmitter, or one series of 
transmitters, were contributing to the problem. The real issue 
is it's not a communication's signal. It's not detecting what's 
individually occurring from the transmissions from a 5G system, 
OK? It's measuring the power, if you will, really the 
fluctuation, as we showed at the beginning in the noise floors.
     It's a very minute measurement, because, you know, you're 
trying to pick up the natural emissions of the atmosphere. And 
so you might get it over a very wide angle. It's going to be 
different whether the sensor's pointed straight down at nadir, 
or the type of sensor that scans, to some extent, where as it 
moves off to one side or the other covers an area measured in 
kilometers. It also dwells about 20 times faster than a 5G 
signal so, you know, you'd see a continuous change in----
     Mr. Foster. Well, yeah. So along those lines, it--there--
it seems like there may be a path--a class of compromises 
available here, where you essentially have 24 gigahertz quiet 
time, where, you know, the cell phone systems would agree that 
for a few milliseconds every minute, or something like that, 
they would just shut down and be quiet, let the scientists do 
their thing, and then start talking at 24 gigahertz again. I 
can't imagine those sort of discussions haven't taken place. Do 
they work, technically, from the scientific point of view and 
the cell phone performance point of view, and what are the 
tradeoffs there? From a policy point of view it has a huge 
advantage that you can then adjust the policy of the amount of 
quiet time, and the length of the quiet time after the 
equipment has been deployed. And so what is the--what's the 
technical status of that sort of----
     Mr. Lubar. Well, sir, yes, that is a feasible process, but 
you have to go back and look at how many of the non-polar 
satellite sensors are in space. Because it wouldn't help to 
just turn off if it was possible when a sensor was in view, 
say, for an American satellite from NOAA. You'd have to also do 
it for all the other satellites that are taking data in this 
band, because everybody uses the data from all of those 
satellites. So it could get to be, you know, somewhat more 
intrusive. You'd have to have the knowledge of the satellite 
paths----
     Mr. Foster. Well, we have pretty good software engineers 
in this country for----
     Mr. Lubar. [Inaudible].
     Mr. Foster [continuing]. Be able to handle things like 
that. You know, the information exists, and things can be 
planned ahead of time. And I was just wondering, in terms of 
the scientific capability to making that measurement, if you 
had an agreement that we're going to now shut down for the next 
few milliseconds all the cell phone equipment in Miami, and 
then anyone who happens to be focusing on Miami would just 
understand that this is the sweet time to make a measurement. 
That's why I was asking about the geographic selectivity of the 
antennas that are pointed down.
     And is this--you know, this is something, obviously, that 
has to be heavily negotiated, and something where I think the 
government has to do a better job of doing that kind of 
negotiation. So, you know, are there serious attempts to design 
such systems?
     Mr. Lubar. Sir, I'm not aware of it. I think it would be--
there are more elements involved in this. I think Dr. Gerth 
could make a few quick comments about it.
     Mr. Foster. Yeah.
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah. If I can, Representative, I would just 
note that, for the ATMS sensor, the pixel that's being sensed 
is somewhere between 10 and 50 kilometers. That partially 
depends on the frequency that's being sensed, and its distance 
from the satellite subpoint. Mr. Lubar made the good point that 
the satellites are moving, and there's lots, and there may be 
more satellites in the future. Comparatively, for the emission 
at 24 gigahertz, that probably would cover on the order of 
about a football field, so it would really depend on how many 
different transmitters are within that pixel.
     Mr. Foster. Um-hum. OK. Well, if you could think about 
that, or--and send me some information? And just in my last 
few--as a proud graduated of the University of Wisconsin--
Madison, is Ed Eloranta still shooting Lidar systems off the 
top of the engineering building there?
     Dr. Gerth. Yes, he is. There's a great green glow coming 
out of the building on some evenings.
     Mr. Foster. OK, great. Well, say hi to Ed. And yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Obernolte.
     Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
our witnesses. This hearing has been really fascinating. I want 
to ask a big picture question because--I mean, obviously we've 
been talking about the process, and how it broke down, and how 
we didn't get discourse between the various user communities 
here, but I want to talk about the bigger issue of how we make 
decisions as a government as to which uses to prioritize for 
different pieces of spectrum.
     And I know in Dr. Gerth's testimony he was careful to say 
it's not us versus them, and I understand that these user 
communities are not necessarily fighting against each other, 
but from a governance standpoint it is, you know, one group 
versus the other because we make these decisions about which 
group gets the spectrum and which don't. So Mr. Mahoney, I 
know, said there's no alternative other than protection for 
this particular use, but this isn't the only use, right? 
There's other basic science that relies on other pieces of the 
spectrum. So I'm just wondering, you know, how we can balance 
these different needs? And I'd like to start with Ms. Manner, 
because you said in your testimony something I thought was very 
interesting, about the need for balancing our national 
interests. So, in your opinion, how would--how should we come 
up with a policy that balances the needs of basic science 
against the needs of commercial uses for spectrum?
     Ms. Manner. So--and I do want to say that commercial 
interest isn't always against scientists, so--as a commercial 
operator, oftentimes we're in the same--you know, we're working 
together, and they--we may even be using the same systems. So I 
think there has to be a broader view. You know, there's just 
some certain facts--at the end of the day, a lot of this is 
driven by economics. The wireless industry is very strong, and 
very powerful, and, of course, there's an important need for 5G 
in the country. We want to be the leader in 5G.
     But I think when the FCC looks at this--and there's two 
different issues, there's the domestic and the international 
side--is can we expand the range of areas that we look to? And 
that's why I pointed out that the FCC has a narrower standard, 
the public interest standard, than executive branch agencies, 
which often have a national interest standard. So I think 
having those two come together--and we did look at more--I 
would say the CSMAC looked at more than just revising the FCC/
NTIA MOU. We also looked at the structure of the government. 
One of the unique things about the U.S. spectrum management 
process is we have a different agency that handles government 
allocations from one that handles commercial. I can't tell you 
I've made up my mind what the right approach is, but I do think 
looking at that, as well as what we're talking about here with 
the MOU, would be an important part of what I think Congress 
should be doing, is--and we haven't looked at this in 100 
years, and that's why I brought up the 100 years. So I don't 
have the perfect answer, but I think there are ways to improve 
things.
     Mr. Obernolte. Yeah. Thank you. I completely agree with 
you. And, like you, I don't think that pure economics is the 
right approach. Congresswoman Ross asked a related question, in 
which the discussion revolved around--trying to figure out the 
value of predictive weather science, you know, economically, 
which, you know, I think ignores the need to do basic science. 
But, you know, I agree that something needs to be done there.
     And, you know, a related question for Mr. Von Ah. So in 
your testimony you were talking about the need for agreeing on 
processes when we have parties and agencies that can't reach 
consensus. Do you believe that Congress needs to set guidelines 
in that case? And, if so, what should those guidelines entail, 
and who should determine them?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question. So at this point 
we don't necessarily think that Congress needs to step in. You 
know, we think that the agencies, within their authorities, can 
figure out the protocols and processes needed to come to 
decisions and make sure that all perspectives are being 
adequately considered. So within the MOU that FCC and NTIA have 
within the General Guidance Document that State is sort of the 
gatekeeper of, there are ways that you can sort of develop 
those protocols. It could be something as simple as, well, if 
we disagree, who's the next in line that we talk to, and then--
and when--and that--at--the corresponding person in the other 
agency, and so on and so on, until you come to some sort of 
resolution. Or, if you don't, what is the--you know, what is 
the--sort of the ultimate decisionmaker there? So we think that 
there are things that could be done within the agencies' 
authority.
     Ms. Manner. Can I add one piece, Congressman? Thank you. 
So I would say the international process is somewhat different 
because you have the State Department involved, and I've been 
on WRC delegation since 1995, and I've seen this evolve to 
where State Department was a mediator in the few times, 
including over government versus commercial spectrum uses, as 
opposed to now, where you just don't have State Department 
playing that role. So I know this is inconsistent with the GAO 
report, but, based on my experience, I really do think you have 
to have the State Department back into that role as a mediator 
for the WRC process because of their really broad view, 
including the international view, that they take where NTIA and 
the FCC, of course, are domestic agencies. But you have to 
staff the State Department appropriately, and right now I do 
not believe they have appropriate staffing to play that role.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Bowman.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mahoney, thank you 
for your testimony. You emphasized that remotely sensed weather 
data is crucial for integrating more wind and solar into the 
grid. Can you say more about the implications of the green 
energy transition for this discussion, as we quickly ramp up 
wind and solar to reach 100 percent renewable electricity? What 
does this say about the need to protect, prioritize, or even 
expand our Federal spectrum assets for gathering Earth system 
data?
     Mr. Mahoney. Thank you for the question, Representative. 
Wind and--variable generation energy like wind and solar are 
extremely sensitive to the weather and weather prediction. 
What--the utilities in the United States and around the world 
have always been challenged with integrating variable 
generation resources into a grid when they've been 
traditionally used to running generators at very precise levels 
to match the demand for power generation.
     So early on, when wind and solar were first being added to 
the grid at very small levels, the variations and the lack of 
predictability of those resources was not a very big deal. I 
mean, it really didn't affect the overall load very much 
because it was such a small fraction of the overall generation. 
But now, in various parts of the country, solar is, you know, 
heading toward 10 percent generation or more. You've got wind 
energy on some days over 50 or 60 percent of the power 
generation, and if the utilities cannot predict ahead of time 
when those resources are going to come, they may not be able to 
meet the demand. And so having very precise predictions of wind 
speed then converted--and turbulence and wind shear then 
converted to power output for wind energy is extremely critical 
to manage the load, and to balance the load, in these utility 
networks.
     Same for solar. It's very sensitive to aerosols, it's very 
sensitive to haze, and certainly clouds and precipitation. And 
those are very challenging scientific problems to really 
understand exactly when the clouds are going to pass by. Having 
the remotely sensed data, the passive channel data, available 
to the weather forecasting process significantly increases our 
ability to predict the wet processes in the atmosphere, which 
are very important for solar generation. So as we work with the 
Department of Energy and the utilities, we're seeing larger 
demands on forecast precision for atmospheric variables really 
important for renewable energy generation.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Mahoney. Dr. Gerth, can you--
thank you for your testimony as well. Would you like to comment 
on this?
     Dr. Gerth. I think, Mr. Mahoney, you summarized it very, 
very well. It--the predictability of weather is helpful for 
utilities to manage their demand in multiple areas. I know 
particularly in the Pacific Northwest there's a lot of reliance 
on hydroelectric, and some of that has to enter the grid 
because they have to control the river flows. So prediction of 
when they will--when certain types of renewable energy sources 
will be most beneficial to the utilities is a--is very 
important to know, and I think, in the context of this 
discussion, microwave data is one of the leaders in the 
predictability of weather phenomena to help them in the 12 hour 
to four day period. Thank you.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Mr. Von Ah, the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology operates a national spectrum test 
network called NASCTN (National Advanced Spectrum and 
Communications Test Network) in conjunction NTIA, NOAA, and 
NASA, and other agencies. I understand this test network wasn't 
operational during the 24 gigahertz saga. What do you believe 
should be the role of Federal spectrum test networks in the 
spectrum regulatory process?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Bowman. So we think they can play an important role, certainly, 
as we reported in our report, that there was sort of a lack of 
agreed-upon procedures and approaches, and agreed-upon methods 
and parameters for how to conduct the studies at issue of the--
for the 24 gigahertz band. And so organizations like NIST, the 
National Academy of Sciences, and others can be--can play an 
important role as sort of a third party arbiter, if you will, 
to help those agencies understand those parameters and how they 
should be used.
     So our recommendation was really for the agencies to kind 
of come to an agreement about what kind of approach to use. We 
didn't necessarily recommend that they use a third party, but 
they could certainly have that kind of benefit.
     Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Babin.
     Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, 
and I want to thank our witnesses as well. On September the 
8th, 2011 this Committee held a hearing on LightSquared's, 
which is now Ligado's, proposal to operate in the spectrum 
adjacent to the GPS signal. Federal science agencies were 
unanimous in their opposition to this proposal, and cited 
significant impacts to lives, property, the economy, and 
national security. Despite the agencies' assessments, the NTIA 
prevented the agencies from transparently communicating these 
impacts. In fact, this Committee had to hold a hearing and call 
each agency to testify to get them to communicate the risks.
     More recently, the Committee heard of similar risks to our 
Nation's weather prediction capabilities caused by the FCC's 24 
gigahertz auction. Once again, the agencies' impact assessments 
were prevented from seeing the light of day. This compelled the 
Chairwoman and Ranking Member to call for the GAO report that 
was released yesterday. The GAO's report reinforces the lack of 
transparency that this Committee has encountered. As we seek to 
open up more spectrum to enable the 5G economy, would it be 
beneficial for individual agencies to communicate their impact 
assessments directly to the FCC through the public docket, as 
well as the existing process where they submit their 
assessments to the NTIA for a whole of government policy on FCC 
decisions?
     I understand the importance of coordinating Federal 
positions, but as we've seen in the past, this process can be 
used to muzzle potential impact assessments. This Committee has 
a history of leveraging transparency and peer review. Would the 
Nation's spectrum management process benefit from these 
principles as well? Mr. Von Ah, I meant to mention your name at 
the beginning. This is a question for you. Thank you.
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Congressman. So, 
yes, there are--you know, the way that this is supposed to work 
is through the NTIA Committee, through the IRAC and NTIA as--in 
its role as--to represent Federal agencies' equities before 
FCC, you know, during--in FCC proceedings. That said, there are 
several examples where Federal agencies have submitted comments 
directly to FCC proceedings outside of the NTIA process, and we 
currently have some more kind of looking more closely at that, 
but--the reasoning behind it being that they felt they needed 
to emphasize the importance of their point of view and their 
perspective.
     When it comes to sort of the studies here at issue, I 
mean, we certainly think as a--as GAO, we tend to believe in 
transparency, and we believe that, you know, FCC should have 
all the relevant information before it before it makes 
decisions. In this case, of course, I would mention that these 
studies are sort of first of their kind studies that were being 
conducted, so we also, as GAO, appreciate accuracy and 
reliability in these studies, so--and that they're, you know, 
vetted through all affected parties, which is sort of where the 
IRAC is supposed to play its role. In this case we really think 
it was--you know, the coordination between NTIA and FCC, the 
use of the IRAC Committee, the use of just their, you know, 
everyday sort of ability to coordinate that really didn't bring 
these issues up, didn't really delve into these issues enough, 
and that's sort of where it broke down.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And, Mr. Lubar, there is 
considerable debate between Federal agencies regarding what the 
best emission limit for companies operating in the 24.25 to the 
24.45 band, the band which is adjacent to the 24 gigahertz 
spectrum restricted for Earth science and radio astronomy 
observations. NASA and NOAA argue that a minus 20 decibel watt 
emission limit would cause significant degradation of weather 
data, and forecasting accuracy, and call for a minus 52.4 
decibel watt limit. However, international treaties currently 
set the standard at minus 33 decibel watt. What do you believe 
is the best emissions limit?
     Mr. Lubar. Thank you, Congressman Babin, for that 
question. The ITU process in this case was a multi-year 
function, where administrations and interested parties supplied 
information to a technical working group, where they received 
information about the prospective systems from experts.Minus 
50,minus 40, there were a number of inputs in the initial parts 
of the proceeding up to the preparatory meetings in February of 
2019. With the U.S., the only one in putting--20 decibel watts. 
I don't know the strategy of what happened there, but I would 
like to point out that minus 20 decibel watts, and the 
requirement in the FCC rules, in Part 30, Section 30.203, are 
the same identical number, minus 13 decibel milliwatts. So 
there are some questions about how that number was derived.
     Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you. And it looks like I'm out of 
time, Madam Chair, so I will yield back. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Stevens.
     Ms. Stevens. Right. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 
to our panelists for today's hearing. Dr. Gerth, I understand 
you're from the Midwest, and I'm not sure how much you have 
heard about the rain that has been pouring down in Southeastern 
Michigan this summer, and how desperately so many Michiganders 
just want it to stop, particularly as many households in 
Southeastern Michigan are now flooding for the second time. 
However, if we really can't make the rain stop, as you know, we 
sure want to know about how much downpour is expected so that 
we can prepare. In addition to NASA's role in developing 
weather satellites operated by NOAA, NASA's own platforms, for 
example, the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission Microwave 
Imager, or GMI, rely on the 24 gigahertz water vapor band for 
basic Earth and climate science measurements. So, Dr. Gerth, 
how does spectrum interference affect NASA's basic science 
research with instruments such as GMI?
     Dr. Gerth. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman 
Stevens, and yes, I do appreciate the diversity of the weather 
in the Midwest, and how quickly it changes, and the effects of 
all of that. Broadly speaking about the value of weather 
satellites, there's really two roles, one of which is a--to 
look at longer term climate, and to understand the physical 
processes of the atmosphere. So we want to know, as scientists, 
the actual trigger mechanisms for what's called precipitation 
efficiency, for example. So we know there's water vapor in the 
atmosphere. We talked a lot about water vapor in 23.8, but 
that's not necessarily water in the ground, and so that water 
vapor has to be condensed into a thunderstorm, and then rained 
out, and then that's the impact.
     So NASA's missions is often looking at how do we conduct 
basic science to understand that process? We transition over to 
NOAA, it's about making those forecasts in real time, so taking 
what we learned from the NASA mission and using the NOAA 
missions to routinely update the weather prediction models, and 
then issue the warnings and forecasts that are needed to save 
lives and make the public aware.
     Ms. Stevens. Yeah. Thank you. And, Mr. Von Ah, the impacts 
to weather forecasts due to interference to 24 gigahertz are 
clearly a significant concern that's been talked about a couple 
different times today. And I understand that there are other 
spectral bands that these passive instruments rely upon, as 
well as what the FCC might be looking at to auction next. So, 
as a Congresswoman from Michigan, I'm certainly focused on--
concerned about our roads and our basic infrastructure, and 
that is why I'm also concerned about the FCC's decision to 
reallocate the 5.9 gigahertz band, which will pose serious 
risks to our transportation safety long term as we look for 
innovative ways to utilize technology to make our roads safer.
     So, Mr. Von Ah, is your sense that the United States 
spectrum management process are currently better structured 
than they were in 2019 to avoid another 24 gigahertz type saga 
in the future, and how can we improve this process to better 
results?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Stevens. So I don't think we would've made recommendations if 
we thought it was particularly better than it was in 2019, so, 
no, we do think that there are some areas for improvement for 
the agencies to better coordinate. We've tried to look into 
those in the report, in terms of having, you know, the ability 
to agree upon an approach for study, whether harmful 
interference does come up, and an approach for the agencies to 
better coordinate earlier on, and to be able to identify areas 
of disagreement and ways to resolve that disagreement. So we're 
looking for changes to the documents and protocols that guide 
the agency coordination.
     Of course, I mean, I would just mention, you know, the way 
that we've set up spectrum management here in this country is--
sort of leads to sort of necessarily having some needed 
coordination, right? And will have sort of questions over 
whether this use or that use is the best use, right? So 
strengthening these--the ability of these agencies to 
coordinate earlier on, particularly where there are a lot of 
competing interests, is sort of critically important to be able 
to avoid issues like we saw in 24 gigahertz. I would also just 
mention quickly, we have some ongoing work on 5.9 gigahertz 
band as well that we should be issuing sometime early next 
year.
     Ms. Stevens. Excellent. With that, I yield back. Thank 
you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
     Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to all our 
witnesses. Mr. Lubar and Dr. Gerth, I'd like to direct my 
questions to you, and I want to get your responses specifically 
to some comments that former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said about 
the auction off of the above 24 gigahertz spectrum. He 
specifically said that, ``The Federal Government and private 
sector have deployed nearly 40,000 high-powered fixed microwave 
links in the 21.2 to 23.6 gigahertz band, immediately below and 
actually adjacent to the 23.6 to 24 gigahertz passive band, at 
the same emission limit the FCC adopted for 5G operations. No 
interference has ever been reported.'' The FCC repeated that 
argument in a lot of public filings and in oral communications 
with Members of Congress.
     Now, obviously we're talking here about that satellite and 
weather observation band in the 23.8 range, where we have--but 
in the band just below, that Mr. Pai was referencing, we have 
point to point microwave links. So, Mr. Lubar and Dr. Gerth, 
I'd like to get both of your answers, and I have five 
questions. The first four are short, and then I'd like you just 
to sort of give me your feedback, so hopefully--if we could 
just be short on the first four, I would appreciate it. No. 1, 
do point to point microwave links in the lower frequency band, 
so below that band, tend to be noisy enough, and are enough--
are there enough of them to cause impact to measurements in the 
passive band, where the weather satellites are watching?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman, thank you for the question. The 
point to point microwave links wouldn't have the same density 
as a 5G system. Yes, it is somewhat possible that, when you 
compute all the apportionments of energy that might cause 
interference they might factor into the equation, but no, I 
mean, I think in general they're not anywhere near the type of 
violator that you would find in a----
     Mr. Casten. OK.
     Mr. Lubar [continuing]. System like----
     Mr. Casten. So no? And I'm sorry to be short, but I want 
to get through these quickly. So no----
     Mr. Lubar. No.
     Mr. Casten [continuing]. There. Dr. Gerth, do you agree?
     Dr. Gerth. I agree.
     Mr. Casten. OK. Are the telecom activity that are being 
deployed in the higher frequency band inherently noisier than 
the point to point lower microwave lengths?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman, it's a matter of what type of 
signal bounces upward. The signal in 5G isn't pointed that way, 
but they can bounce off the ground, or the building, or the 
terrain, and eventually be seen by the passive sensor.
     Mr. Casten. So is it--so, I'm sorry, is that a yes or a 
no? You----
     Mr. Lubar. [Inaudible].
     Mr. Casten. Are they noisier at the higher end?
     Mr. Lubar. It's a yes. It's a yes.
     Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth?
     Dr. Gerth. Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree.
     Mr. Casten. OK. Mr. Pai also noted that 40,000 devices, 
sounds like a big number, were deployed in the lower frequency 
band. How does that compare to the number of devices that will 
be deployed in the higher frequency band?
     Mr. Lubar. I would think it's a much smaller number. I 
mean, for a 5G installation you would require a particularly 
high density, and as buildout occurs, 40,000 would be a small 
number. It also would depend on what you could see 
simultaneously at one point in time in one of these satellite 
sensors.
     Mr. Casten. When you say smaller, are we talking factor of 
two, factor of 10, factor of 100, or can you speculate?
     Mr. Lubar. I don't know, sir, without----
     Mr. Casten. OK.
     Mr. Lubar [continuing]. May have to submit something for 
the record.
     Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth, on that one?
     Dr. Gerth. Yeah, I agree with Dr. Lubar--or with Mr. Lubar 
on that.
     Mr. Casten. OK. So these 40,000 devices in the lower 
frequency band were individually licensed, while the larger 
number of devices in the higher frequency band will not be. 
Will that make it harder or easier to mitigate potential 
interference from them in the passive band, the fact that 
they're not individually licensed?
     Mr. Lubar. Well, sir, you're not going to see interference 
from an individual sensor. As I said, these power--these 
radiometers are measuring power over a large volume, so it's 
a--it's the conglomerate contribution of all of them to cause 
the problem.
     Mr. Casten. OK. Dr. Gerth?
     Dr. Gerth. It's going to be much harder if they're not 
licensed. We--the only way to mitigate, or--really shouldn't 
even say mitigate--to eliminate interference is to know who is 
causing the interference in the first place. And if that is not 
known, then how are we going to do that?
     Mr. Casten. OK. So now to my larger question--I have 40 
seconds left--given all this, do you think that the FCC's 
comparison of the below band, the above band, was a 
scientifically robust apples to apples comparison, and do you 
find that to be a good faith argument on the part of Mr. Pai?
     Mr. Lubar. I'm not going to comment one way or the other 
on whether I think Mr. Pai made a good faith argument, but I do 
think that--no, I don't think they're equivalent, just because, 
as I said, the density and, you know, when you think of a 
microwave link, it's essentially like a flashlight beam being 
pointed parallel to the surface of the Earth. Not all of its 
energy has the same opportunity to bounce upward as a moving 
signal on the Earth.
     Mr. Casten. Dr. Gerth, any final comments?
     Dr. Gerth. It's a watermelons to grapes argument.
     Mr. Casten. Well said. Thank you very much, and I yield 
back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Perlmutter.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Madam Chair. And as I guess one of 
the token lawyers on the Science Committee, my question--and I 
don't want to embarrass the Coloradans on the panel, but I have 
a very simple science question, and I might embarrass the 
staff, but--I serve on several committees. One of them is the 
Financial Services Committee, where we're dealing with nano 
trading, that we don't want some entity to get ahead of 
everybody else in the trading and get some advantage. So my 
question is--there's a basic assumption here that the spectrum 
is a finite resource. So can somebody tell me why that is so? 
Can't we--in listening to everybody, there's the K-band, and 
the S-band, and the T-band, and--I'm not a ham operator or 
scientist, but why can't we just keep cutting thinner slices to 
have this, and is it the fact that the slices are so thin, 
that's why we have interference? So just a basic science 
question.
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman Perlmutter, first I'll say 
greetings to a fellow Coloradan. Yes, sir, the spectrum is such 
that we can't make any more of it. It is a finite amount. The 
nice thing about spectrum is, if you stop using it, you can 
immediately re-use it for something else. But it's already been 
cut and parsed by the way it is allocated, and so the simple 
decisions on spectrum sharing I think have already been made. I 
think that's really the crux of the matter.
     Mr. Perlmutter. So we couldn't keep slicing it thinner? 
We've already cut it up already?
     Ms. Manner. Can I----
     Mr. Lubar. No, sir.
     Ms. Manner. Can I add to that too? I'm sorry.
     Mr. Perlmutter. Yes----
     Mr. Lubar. Please.
     Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Please.
     Ms. Manner. So we can--so the allocations can change. 
That's what we do at the ITU, and that's what the FCC does in 
its rulemakings. It's the keeper of the allocation table. So we 
can change them, we can make more efficient use. We also have 
new technologies which come on which enable more efficient use 
of the spectrum. So, for instance, from satellite we went 
from--to spot beams, which increases efficiency. We also have 
sharing metrics. So there are ways to increase the efficiency 
of the use, but it's still a finite resource, and there is a 
fair amount of spectrum that, even though it's allocated and 
assigned to users, is not being used today. You know, there's 
analyses out there that certain industries have large portions 
of their spectrum that they're not putting to use today, so 
there's no policemen to make sure that it's being used 
efficiently, so----
     Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So, from a policy standpoint, 
we could ask to reallocate some of this that's not being used, 
is that what you're saying, Ms. Manner?
     Ms. Manner. Yeah. It has ramifications because people are 
licensed and so forth, but yes, theoretically you could.
     Mr. Perlmutter. OK. So I guess another kind of science 
question that I have, if what we're concerned about is 
interference, and that it bleeds from one band to another band, 
I mean, technologically--similar to Dr. Foster's question, 
where he's saying, well, you know, everybody go quiet for a 
second so that the scientists can do their work, or for a 
millisecond, or a nanosecond. I mean, are there other 
technologies that are helping us clear this interference, is--
or is that sort of impenetrable too? And I'd ask Mr. Lubar, Mr. 
Mahoney, I mean, what are we doing technologically to protect 
these scientific endeavors that we have?
     Mr. Lubar. Congressman, thank you for that question. As I 
mentioned earlier, one of the ways you can do it is to survey 
the RF environment, and just understand that--for the passive 
bands that contamination is occurring. Now, I happen to have 
something here that might be useful. As you know, Colorado has 
a lot of resources, both in atmospheric sciences and space, and 
I mentioned that an RF survey of the environment would be 
useful.
     This happens to be a fully functional full-sized 
radiometer that could fly on a small satellite, and it would 
detect and help identify if there were some issues in several 
of these bands. Obviously it can be flown on a small satellite 
fairly quickly. You're talking a device here that was built, 
actually, in Colorado, at one of our small companies, Boulder 
Environmental Sciences and Technology. I'd say a device like 
this is something about a half a million dollars to a quarter 
million dollar range, and I'd say a system to fly it would 
probably be in the few million of dollar range to operate.
     And so it--the real issue with the passive interference is 
you don't know today if it's occurring, and you need to 
understand whether you have that contamination, and whether 
it's getting into the data.
     Mr. Perlmutter. And something like that would help us 
figure out the passive interference?
     Mr. Lubar. This, along with what we suggested prior, to 
actually mount something on the satellite system of interest, 
right on the ATMS sensor, or next door to it.
     Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Thank you. And I appreciate--Mr. 
Mahoney, didn't get a chance to ask you any questions, but I'm 
glad we have two Coloradans on this panel. Thank you.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Beyer.
     Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I'd like to 
address the first concern to Ms. Manner. The--he--I loved your 
testimony, but it--you started with the really good point that 
we're virtually the only country that had both this bifurcated 
process, the FCC and NTIA, and then talked about the three 
categories, the unified agency, and then proposal to repurpose, 
and then the workarounds. And then we spent the rest of the 
time talking about the workarounds. Why don't we just merge 
them? What are the political battles to put it into one that 
manages this, rather than having to, like, put people in the 
same building and insist they talk to each other?
     Ms. Manner. So thank you, Congressman, for this question, 
and at the CSMAC this was--you'll notice, if you go to the 
CSMAC's report, we didn't have a recommendation on that issue 
because there are concerns. Some people--and it's really a 
question of where do you put it, and how do you weigh the 
equities? So one nice thing, as a commercial operator is, the 
FCC does understand, you know, purposes is on the commercial 
side, and public safety, and the government side is NTIA, so 
there is--do you really want--will you be able to balance the 
equities if you're in a single agency? It's a good question.
     So, you know, the question is whose jurisdiction? Is it an 
executive branch agency? There is something nice about having 
an independent regulatory agency that's not subject to 
political will, and I go back to a colleague of mine who 
remembers back in the day where, you know, you don't want 
someone's friend calling and asking for a political favor for a 
license, so you're trying to insulate from political will. So 
that would be one argument in favor of an independent 
commission. The executive branch, of course, has a broader 
mission in terms of, you know, national security and so forth. 
So it's a question. It's a very hard question, but we certainly 
could do that.
     Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Toward--this--for Mr. Von 
Ah and Dr. Gerth, one thing we learned from the 24 gigahertz is 
that there's no obligation on the part of the NTIA or the 
administration to make spectrum interference studies conducted 
by a Federal agency available to the public. So this community, 
and the stakeholder community, were aware for months that NOAA 
and NASA had prepared a study that suggests significant harmful 
interference would result from the FCC's proposed emission 
limits, but it wasn't made public by the FCC in their docket, 
nor by NTIA, and nobody in Congress laid eyes on them until 
very late in the process. Meanwhile, the study results from 
industry stakeholders seeking a slice of the 24 gigahertz were 
publicly posted by the FCC. Note that the NOAA and NASA studies 
were not deliberative policy documents, but technical analysis 
performed by agency engineers.
     So, Mr. Von Ah, as a general matter, would GAO tell us 
that more transparency is helpful or hurtful in trying to reach 
a more harmonious, whole of government approach to spectrum 
management?
     Mr. Von Ah. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Beyer. I mean, absolutely GAO would be sort of the side of 
transparency here, as well as the side of accuracy and 
reliability of studies. I mean, one of the things that you're--
with--that is at issue here is how the process works, and it 
works differently for the Federal agencies than it would for a 
private company. So the Federal agencies are--you know, when 
they're doing these studies in preparation for the WRC, they're 
working under the--sort of the authority, so to speak, of the 
General Guidance Document, which sort of outlines different 
roles and responsibilities. That's where--and there's technical 
committees that they're doing these studies for, whereas a 
private company can simply just submit something to the record 
in the FCC proceeding. Why and where, or when NTIA and the 
agency should have submitted something to the FCC proceeding is 
another question, but they decided they didn't have the 
technical basis to do so.
     Mr. Beyer. Well, that sounded--to me that sounded like a 
tee-ball question, so thank you for hitting out of the park. 
Dr. Gerth, you're an atmospheric scientist by training. What 
would the scientific process say we should know about making 
technical scientific studies available so they can be evaluated 
by anyone who wants to pick them up? How upset are you that you 
couldn't see these studies?
     Dr. Gerth. I was very upset about it, to be honest with 
you. Scientific process really dictates that any work that's 
conducted be made available to the community. And perhaps then 
it is open to criticism from the scientific community, but I 
consider that to be a good thing. And we certainly don't want 
preliminary work necessarily disseminated, however, to have a 
full and open record, it's really just a matter of scientific 
integrity, and I think NOAA and NASA really need to separate 
decisions from inputs, and scientific work is an input to a 
decisionmaking process. Thank you.
     Mr. Beyer. And I assume this is also scientific work paid 
for by the taxpayer?
     Dr. Gerth. Absolutely. In most cases it is, yes.
     Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, I yield 
back.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Kildee.
     Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 
hearing, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for being 
here today for this really important conversation. You know, 
for most of us we don't think about or talk about spectrum on a 
daily basis, but we all certainly use it in our everyday 
activity. Our phones, these computers that we're speaking 
through, televisions, everyday uses rely, obviously, on this 
critical asset. But as we discussed today, spectrum is not just 
for consumer use. Critical scientific observation relies on 
access as well, and--so I'm curious, with these size 
limitations that have been discussed, or some of the questions 
that come around capacity, I'm anxious to get thoughts on how 
we ensure that our scientific agencies have uninterrupted 
access to spectrum needed to perform their vital work?
     As the last few months have demonstrated, with extreme 
temperatures, parts of the country facing drought, wildfires, 
and then, as Congresswoman Stevens from Michigan, my colleague 
from Michigan, mentioned, serious flooding, the work of our 
climate scientists and meteorologists is critical for the well-
being of our planet. But climate science depends on cooperation 
between agencies. Not just between agencies in one government, 
but between countries. And I understand that we rely not only 
on both NASA and NOAA satellites for this essential 
information, for this data, but also on satellite measurements 
from our international partners. And I say this because my 
district borders Canada. Not on land, but our--we border Canada 
on--in my district in the middle of Lake Huron. The Great Lakes 
are a shared resource between our two countries, and both 
actively monitor conditions.
     And so, if I could address this to Dr. Gerth, how--if you 
could address how, if at all, do the spectrum issues that we 
were discussing during the course of this hearing today--how do 
those issues impact our collaboration with international 
partners, such as Canada, in weather and Earth science, in the 
collection of that data, and in the utilization of that 
necessary information? Dr. Gerth?
     Dr. Gerth. Thank you so much for that question, and it 
does touch on a very good point that we should make, is that 
many international--the United States uses many international 
satellite missions to contribute to the climate record and for 
weather monitoring, particularly satellites in Europe. If you 
look at the spectrum environment, if Canada were to pursue a 
completely different policy from the United States, and one 
country would have interference in a certain band where we're 
trying to measure the weather and the other wouldn't--you know, 
the weather doesn't stop halfway through Lake Huron, as I think 
most Michiganders probably know, so we have to be very careful 
to make sure that the U.S. is leading from a position that 
protects all of the Americas. And, quite frankly, if we're 
going to push the frontiers of weather forecasting to 10 days, 
to 14 days, we really need to have good observations not only 
with Canada, but also over Asia, Oceania, and so forth, so very 
good question. Thank you.
     Mr. Kildee. Thank you. I wonder if any of the other 
panelists have thoughts on this particular question?
     Mr. Mahoney. If I might add, maybe going back a little bit 
to the previous discussion, where we have NOAA in particular 
doing studies that aren't communicated more broadly to the 
scientific community, many of our Federal agencies have 
millions and millions--hundreds of millions of users of their 
data, and so I'm often concerned that if the agencies are 
worried about spectrum, they may be too focused on their own 
mission, but not the rest of the enterprise that utilizes the 
data flowing out of those agencies. We need to ensure that 
their voices are heard also in these discussions, how there----
     Mr. Lubar. I would----
     Mr. Mahoney [continuing]. Some private sector weather 
companies that are serving up weather products to over a 
billion people a day.
     Mr. Lubar. I would just add quickly, Congressman, that 
there are communication systems in Canada, as well as the 
modeling that Canada does itself with this data. It is 
certainly possible to have interference across the boundaries 
for critical things that the Canadians derive from joint U.S. 
and Canadian systems, such as water and fire sensors.
     Mr. Kildee. All right. Well, I--first of all, thank you 
all for your testimony at today's hearing. We really appreciate 
the work you do. Madam Chair, I appreciate your holding this 
hearing, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
     Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, and I believe 
that concludes our questions. But, before we bring the hearing 
to a close, I want to thank all of our witnesses for testifying 
before the Committee today. The record will remain open for two 
weeks for additional statements from the Members, and for any 
additional questions the Committee may ask the witnesses. The 
witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is adjourned.
     [Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]