[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                DEFENDING AMERICA'S WIRELESS LEADERSHIP

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 10, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-12
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                           

     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
53-393 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                             
                       
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                   CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                  Chair
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              ANNA G. ESHOO, California
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KATHY CASTOR, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                PAUL TONKO, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          TONY CARDENAS, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
GREG PENCE, Indiana                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota, Vice  LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    Chair                            DARREN SOTO, Florida
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               KIM SCHRIER, Washington
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
KAT CAMMACK, Florida
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                      NATE HODSON, Staff Director
                   SARAH BURKE, Deputy Staff Director
               TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                         ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
                                 Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia,   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    Vice Chair                       MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                DARREN SOTO, Florida
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             TONY CARDENAS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
KAT CAMMACK, Florida                     officio)
JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
    (ex officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, opening statement...............................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22

                               Witnesses

Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA-The Wireless 
  Association....................................................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   136
James Assey, Executive Vice President, NCIA-The Internet and 
  Television Association.........................................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   138
Monisha Ghosh, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Electrical 
  Engineering, University of Notre Dame..........................    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   139
Clete D. Johnson, Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and 
  Internationl Studies...........................................    65
    Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   141

                           Submitted Material

Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
Report of the Consumer Technology Association, ``Unlicensed 
  Spectrum and the U.S. Economy: Quantifying the Market Size and 
  Diversity of Unlicensed Devices,'' January 2022\1\
Letter of November 17, 2022, from Airspan Networks, et al., to 
  Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, Federal Communications 
  Commission, and Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary and 
  Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information 
  Administration.................................................   112
Slides, CTIA-The Wireless Association, March 2023................   118
Letter of March 10, 2023, from Mel Maier, Spokesman, Public 
  Safety Next Generation 9-1-1 Coalition, to Mrs. Rodgers, et al.   122
Letter of January 8, 2021, from Ms. Matsui to President-elect 
  Joseph R. Biden, Jr............................................   124
Letter of March 8, 2023, from Harriet Rennie-Brown, Executive 
  Director, National Association of State 911 Administrators, to 
  Mrs. Rodgers, et al............................................   126

----------

\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20230310/115463/HHRG-118-IF16-
20230310-SD006.pdf.
Letter of March 8, 2023, from George Kelemon, Executive Director, 
  Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, to Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al.................................................   128
Letter of March 8, 2023, from Brian Fontes, Chief Executive 
  Officer, National Emergency Number Association, to Mrs. 
  Rodgers, et al.................................................   130
Letter of March 10, 2023, from Tim Donovan, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers Association, to Mr. 
  Latta and Ms. Matsui...........................................   132

 
                DEFENDING AMERICA'S WIRELESS LEADERSHIP

                              ----------                              


                         FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Bob Latta (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, Walberg, 
Carter, Dunn, Curtis, Joyce, Weber, Allen, Balderson, Fulcher, 
Pfluger, Harshbarger, Cammack, Obernolte, Rodgers (ex officio), 
Matsui (subcommittee ranking member), Clarke, Veasey, Soto, 
Eshoo, Cardenas, Craig, Fletcher, Dingell, Kuster, and Pallone 
(ex officio).
    Staff present: Sarah Burke, Deputy Staff Director; Slate 
Herman, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Nate Hodson, 
Staff Director; Tara Hupman, Chief Counsel; Noah Jackson, 
Clerk, Communications and Technology; Sean Kelly, Press 
Secretary; Peter Kielty, General Counsel; Emily King, Member 
Services Director; Giulia Leganski, Professional Staff Member, 
Communications and Technology; John Lin, Senior Counsel, 
Communications and Technology; Kate O'Connor, Chief Counsel, 
Communications and Technology; Michael Taggart, Policy 
Director; Evan Viau, Professional Staff Member, Communications 
and Technology; Jennifer Epperson, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Communications and Technology; Waverly Gordon, Minority Deputy 
Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority 
Staff Director; Dan Miller, Minority Professional Staff Member; 
Elysa Montfort, Minority Press Secretary; Joe Orlando, Minority 
Senior Policy Analyst; Greg Pugh, Minority Staff Assistant; 
Michael Scurato, Minority FCC Detailee; and Johanna Thomas, 
Minority Counsel.
    Mr. Latta. Well, the Subcommittee on Communications and 
Technology will come to order. And the Chair recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
    But before we do, I just want to take a point of personal 
privilege to say to our former chairman of the full committee, 
Mr. Walden, glad to see you here.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    And a good--again, good morning and welcome to today's 
hearing on ``Defending America's Wireless Leadership.'' What we 
are talking about today impacts Americans in every part of our 
country, and properly managing our Nation's spectrum resources 
is an important responsibility. These public resources fuel our 
economy, enable communication services, empower important 
Federal missions. As technology develops, it is important that 
spectrum policy keeps pace and efficiently maximizes the use of 
these finite resources by unleashing innovation and protecting 
our national security.
    Over the past year, this committee worked to improve U.S. 
mspectrum policy. Last Congress, I co-led the Spectrum 
Innovation Act to accelerate commercial access to the lower 3 
gigahertz band and extend the FCC's spectrum auction authority. 
This range of frequencies is prime band spectrum that will 
improve mobile broadband speeds. The legislation included a 
measure championed by our good friend from Kentucky, the chair 
of the Subcommittee on Health, that would modernize our Federal 
spectrum management process by establishing an incumbent-
informing capability at NTIA to enhance commercial access to 
Federal frequencies. Last week, the House passed the--our full 
committee chair's legislation. The gentlelady from Washington 
would extend the FCC's auction authority to May 19th, and we 
are going to be talking about that, I'm sure, today and what 
happened last night.
    Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass both the Spectrum 
Innovation Act and Chair Rodgers' extension measure. We must 
now work quickly to agree on a long-term extension of spectrum 
auction authority that preserves congressional oversight of 
spectrum policy and directs auction proceeds to reduce the 
deficit and fund important initiatives. I look forward to 
continuing working on this important issue. It is also 
important to note that good spectrum policy is good for our 
economy.
    Our leadership in 4G added billions to our GDP, created 
tens of thousands of new jobs, and led to the development of 
the app economy. Leading the world and future generations of 
wireless services ensures greater investment in next-generation 
technologies. This means we will have more job and development 
opportunities right here in the United States.
    But the economic benefits do not end there. Auctioning 
spectrum resources also yields significant monetary benefits. 
Recent FCC auctions have netted over $100 billion for the U.S. 
Treasury, money that can be used to reduce our Nation's deficit 
and fund important priorities. In addition to making more 
licensed spectrum available, we must also look for 
opportunities to make unlicensed spectrum available. The 
majority of American internet usage happens indoors, and the 
use of unlicensed spectrum, such as Wi-Fi, plays a crucial role 
in providing connectivity for homes and businesses.
    One report estimates that unlicensed spectrum generates 
over $95 billion per year in a connected technology market. 
Good spectrum policy is not only important for our economy, but 
it is essential for American economic and national security. 
American leadership on spectrum policy can lead to the private 
sector setting technology standards that benefit American 
technological leadership. It means trusted companies that can--
that develop economies of scale, create jobs, ensure that the 
technology of the future promote American values and 
priorities.
    As we develop our spectrum policy, we need to help keep--we 
need to keep a number of principles in mind. First, we need a 
balanced approach between licensed and unlicensed use of 
spectrum. Both licensed and unlicensed spectrum are key to 
bolstering U.S. technological leadership, and each provides 
economic benefits for the American public. Next, we need to 
ensure we are utilizing every tool at our disposal to make 
spectrum available for commercial use. Advances in technology 
have made spectrum-sharing more feasible, which will become 
more important as the process for identifying bands for 
auction, exclusive use, becomes more complex, lengthy and 
expensive.
    Finally, we need to restore trust through the interagency 
spectrum coordination process. While Federal missions must be 
protected, the executive branch must speak with one unified 
voice so that spectrum management decisions are not called into 
question. As we look to extend spectrum auction authority and 
develop our spectrum policy, we need to ensure that all 
stakeholders are involved early in the process and that,f5 when 
decisions are made, agencies respect those decisions. I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses. And again, I want to 
thank all of our witnesses for appearing before us today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. And at this time, I yield back and will 
recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the 
gentlelady from the Seventh District of California, for 5 
minutes.

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

    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To say this 
hearing comes at an unprecedented time is no overstatement. We 
are here today under alarming circumstances during a lapse in 
the FCC's auction authority, something that has never happened 
before. Simply put, this is a failure. And it was a completely 
avoidable failure. Two weeks ago, the House passed a bipartisan 
bill to extend the FCC's auction authority through May 19th.
    This extension was intended to give us time to continue 
negotiating while preserving the vital authority of the 
Commission. Unfortunately, that bill fell on deaf ears. Not 
only did the Senate decline to vote on the bill, but it 
declined to vote on any extension. This is, in part, because 
Senators have been receiving conflicting messages from the 
executive branch, a problem that has been plaguing 
administrations of both parties for years.
    A little more than 2 years ago, I sent my first letter to 
the incoming administration. It was a letter to then-President-
Elect Biden urging him to develop a unified approach to 
spectrum policy and a clearly articulated process resolving 
interagency disputes. I'll be entering this letter into the 
record. It's just as relevant today as it was when I sent it 2 
years ago.
    Mr. Latta. Without objection.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Matsui. As I noted in the letter, more intensive use of 
spectrum has a potential to cause friction among Federal 
agencies and commercial users. And to some extent, this is 
unavoidable and healthy. Thoughtful debate about how to best 
utilize our limited spectrum resources will lead to better 
outcomes and more efficiency. But what can start as 
collaboration can quickly turn to conflict.
    When disagreements do arise, it is vital that all agencies 
are aware of administration policy and understand how to 
provide feedback in a constructive manner. But when this 
process breaks down or doesn't exist, we end up where we find 
ourselves today. The consequences of this lapse hold the 
potential to be severe and far-reaching. It undercuts economic 
growth and long-term national security. Companies with service 
footprints across the country are eager to put spectrum they 
acquired in the recent 2.5 gigahertz band to--but this lapse 
jeopardizes that.
    T-Mobile alone is waiting for the FCC to approve over 7,000 
licenses with a collective value of more than $300 million. In 
my district, they are waiting on five licenses that could--
supporting home broadband and connecting underserved areas. But 
of course, the problem just doesn't stop there. The global race 
to 5 and 6G is still quite hot.
    Satellite broadband service is taking off, and Wi-Fi is set 
to make strides that will be massive with consumers. If the 
U.S. cedes ground to our global competitors in any one of these 
spaces, the consequences can be measured in American jobs and 
national security. On the heels of the Mobile World Congress, 
we should all be reminded of just how competitive the global 
wireless communications marketplace is. If the United States 
and other market economies aren't setting the pace for global 
harmonization, standard setting, and innovation, we create a 
vacuum that China would happily fill.
    And while the FCC's auction authority isn't alone 
responsible for these issues, letting it lapse sets a dangerous 
precedent for our Government's values. Throughout this debate, 
people have asked me, ``Would letting this authority lapse 
really be that bad?'' My response has always been, ``I'm 
extremely concerned, and I think you should be too.'' I'm 
concerned about the impact on licenses waiting to be signed to 
slow erosion of long-standing jurisdictional boundaries and the 
United States standing as the global innovation leader.
    But I also think there is cause to be hopeful. This 
subcommittee has shown a bipartisan willingness to tackle tough 
issues that reinforce U.S. leadership, like extending the FCC's 
auction authority, for example. So I believe we have a chance 
to continue that track record to promote economic growth and 
national security. First and foremost, we need to assure the 
Federal Government is a driving force in maintaining a healthy 
spectrum pipeline. That means reasserting the NTIA's role as 
statutory manager of spectrum and developing a unified 
administration approach to spectrum policy. We need to keep the 
U.S. as anchor of innovation to stay ahead of our global 
competitors. I really want to thank the witnesses for being 
here today, and we can decide to dive in for what will be a 
timely and productive conversation. With that, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    The gentlelady yields back, and at this time, the Chair 
will now recognize for 5 minutes the chair of the full 
committee, the gentlelady from Washington.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Special welcome to the former chairman of this 
committee, Mr. Walden, and it's great to have your portrait on 
this side of the hearing room. Mm-hmm. Thank you to the 
witnesses for providing your expertise today.
    Today's hearing on ``Defending America's Wireless 
Leadership'' will help inform the Energy and Commerce 
Committee's work on spectrum policy, which is crucial to 
maintaining U.S. economic and national security. For the first 
time ever, the FCC's spectrum auction authority has expired. On 
February 27th, the House passed bipartisan legislation led by 
myself and Ranking Member Pallone to extend the FCC's authority 
to issue spectrum licenses until May 19th.
    This would have given Congress enough time to come to an 
agreement on a more comprehensive package addressing many 
issues in the communications and technology space. For reasons 
unknown to me, certain Senators decided to risk U.S. wireless 
leadership over a date change. A date change. It is 
unacceptable. We must come together and develop strong spectrum 
policy here in the United States that is informed by our values 
that support human flourishing and innovation.
    We cannot afford to cede leadership to China and other 
authoritarian countries who abuse their technology to suppress 
freedom and assert command and control over people's lives. I 
urge the Senate to act swiftly to pass H.R. 1108 to extend the 
FCC's auction authority through May 19th so that we can come 
together and pass a longer-term solution to this issue. It's 
the Senate's only option on the table right now to get us back 
on track.
    Make no mistake: Getting this right will be key to 
defending America's wireless leadership. For decades, American 
policies rooted in promoting economic security and competition 
have yielded breakthroughs in wireless technology. Thirty years 
ago, Congress and the FCC pioneered a bold new way to manage 
spectrum by auctioning spectrum instead of giving it away 
through a lottery system.
    This light-touch regulatory framework has brought billions 
of dollars into the U.S. Treasury through fierce competition 
and ensured that entities who have a spectrum license invest in 
technologies that utilize that spectrum as efficiently as 
possible. This approach has fostered innovation in everything 
from faster broadband speeds, precision agriculture, self-
driving cars and vehicles, and smart manufacturing.
    While the demand for commercial spectrum continues to rise, 
so do the needs of our military, our border agents, and our 
researchers. In each new generation of technology, we find 
innovative solutions to balance these needs and utilize 
spectrum resources in a way that fits our Nation's best 
interest. Spectrum policy is crucial to our national security 
policy. And we must stay true on the principles that have 
enabled our success in wireless technology, including by 
continuing to make spectrum available for commercial use.
    But our future economic competitiveness cannot rest on our 
past success. The Chinese Communist Party and other adversaries 
seek to undermine U.S. leadership, and they will stop at 
nothing for their domination. China, Russia, and other 
authoritarian countries have put forward a competing vision for 
technology built on a foundation of surveillance and control.
    State-backed companies seek to write the rules of the road 
that would use wireless technology to suppress free speech, 
surveil their citizens, and thwart the economic competitiveness 
of the United States and our allies. Their governments use top-
down command-and-control policies to make spectrum available on 
a moment's notice. They provide prescriptive regulations and 
guidance to where and when state-backed entities should deploy 
service. That is not how the United States operates.
    We believe in private-sector innovation. And spectrum 
policy is at the heart of technological innovation. If we do 
not take a leadership role in writing our wireless future, 
China will. And writing our wireless future starts here at home 
with comprehensive spectrum policy. I look forward to today's 
hearing. It is extremely timely as we again remind individuals 
in the Senate on the importance of America's spectrum 
leadership.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, and I would like to yield to the 
lady from Florida.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Chair Rodgers and Chairman Latta. 
Just as a point of personal privilege, I would like to 
recognize a very special guest today in the room with us. 
Yesterday, she was at the White House receiving the 
International Woman of Courage award. This is Brigadier General 
Bolor. She is the first general of the Mongolian Armed Forces. 
I met her several months ago. I met her several months ago in 
Mongolia at one of our training facilities, and she has been an 
inspiration not to her own country but to women and girls all 
across the world. So thank you so much for being here today, 
and thank you to the chair and chairman for allowing me the--a 
moment to introduce her. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. And the gentlelady from 
Washington yields back. At this time, the Chair will now 
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of 
the full committee, for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Latta. And it is good to 
see Chairman Greg Walden here today. Good to see you.
    Spectrum is one of our country's most underrated and 
economically valuable natural resources. For the last three 
decades, Congress has given the FCC the authority to make these 
airwaves available through the use of competitive bidding or 
auctions. Granting the FCC this authority has served both the 
public and the Nation well. And today, the U.S. is a global 
leader in delivering 5G, advanced Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and other 
next-generation wireless technologies to consumers across the 
country.
    And at the same time, spectrum auctions, which have raised 
over $200 billion for the Federal Government, have helped fund 
important public safety communications priorities. Yesterday, 
for the first time--as my colleagues have mentioned--since the 
agency gained this authority 30 years ago, Congress failed to 
extend it when the Senate refused to act. The Senate--the House 
did its work. We unanimously passed a bipartisan bill 
introduced by me and Chair Rodgers last month to extend the 
spectrum auction authority to May 19th.
    Our legislation would have prevented this lapse in 
authority. Now, I must say I am not--I am often a critic of the 
Senate. So I was not surprised that the Senate did not pass the 
House's bipartisan bill. They have a basic problem passing any 
legislation. In case any of you didn't know that, I'll 
reiterate it. But we cannot give up, and our work continues. 
And that's why I'm pleased that we are here today in a 
bipartisan fashion to shed some additional light on how our 
airwaves benefit consumers on a daily basis and keep Americans 
safe both here and abroad.
    Now, some Americans may not know that wireless calls--that 
wireless calls travel over spectrum as therefore the essential 
building block for connecting family and friends, providing 
access to emergency services during times of need, and 
delivering education and health services to Americans around 
the country.
    Without spectrum, we would not have wireless emergency 
alerts, the app economy, smart phones, messaging services, the 
Internet of Things, drones, and so many other things. Many of 
these technological advances were developed by American 
innovators because the U.S. was on the cutting edge pushing the 
limits of how spectrum could be used in new and exciting ways. 
And these are remarkable achievements of services people rely 
on every day.
    But our country's past performance in aggressively 
deploying wireless technology does not guarantee future 
success. Simply because our Nation led the world in providing 
consumers with access to 4G wireless technology and Wi-Fi does 
not mean that we'll achieve the same result of 5G, 6G, or Wi-Fi 
7. And the stakes could not be higher. Chairwoman Rodgers 
mentioned this. The failure to replenish the commercial 
spectrum pipeline and extend the FCC auction authority risks 
our Nation falling behind our counterparts across the globe, 
particularly China. And that's because, you know, in producing 
cutting-edge consumer innovations and enhancing our national 
security capabilities, we have to be ahead of China.
    Unlike the United States, the Chinese Communist Party does 
not govern with the fundamental values of democracy, free 
speech, and human rights in mind. So time is of the essence. We 
can't rest on past successes when China has already reportedly 
made three times as much spectrum available for 5G compared to 
the United States. Now, leading the world in advanced wireless 
technology must also include ensuring that these advancements 
are delivered equitably to all Americans regardless of income 
or ZIP Code.
    Unfortunately, too often, rural, Tribal, and low-income 
areas are left behind as next-generation technologies are 
deployed. And leaving these areas without these essential 
services denies them the many benefits that these technologies 
bring to others, including job and educational opportunities, 
health services, and so many other things that we've all come 
to depend on.
    Fortunately, programs like the Affordable Connectivity 
Program that was established in the bipartisan infrastructure 
law are helping connect these communities and the families 
living in them. The Affordable Connectivity Program has been 
incredibly successful since it was rolled out, connecting 
nearly 17 million families to high-quality and affordable 
broadband. In fact, every single Member on this subcommittee on 
both sides of the aisle represents thousands of families that 
are benefiting from this program today.
    And this is especially important to highlight given that 
low-income families are more likely to rely on a smart phone 
and a mobile plan than a home broadband subscription. So I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses. Obviously, we have a lot 
to do, and with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman, the balance 
of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back, and that concludes our opening statements. We have now--
we will now hear from our witnesses today. But the Chair would 
like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' opening statements will be made part of the record. 
And again, thanks for coming to testify before us today 
because, again, this is a day that you've heard from several of 
us already how important it is, especially with our spectrum 
auction authority.
    Today's witnesses will have 5 minutes to provide an opening 
statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from 
our Members. Our witness panel for today's hearing will include 
Mr. Brad Gillen, executive vice president with CTIA-The 
Wireless Association; Mr. James Assay--Assey, the executive 
vice president with NCTA-The Internet and Television 
Association; Dr. Monisha Ghosh, professor at the University of 
Notre Dame College of Engineering and former FCC Chief 
Technology Officer; and Mr. Clete Johnson, senior fellow at the 
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
    And at this time, we will start. And I'm also going to 
apologize about my allergies. As soon as they opened up that 
plane door the other day, 10 minutes later, they are here. But 
Mr. Gillen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you very 
much for being with us.

 STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA-THE 
 WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; JAMES ASSEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 
 NCTA-THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION ASSOCIATION; MONISHA GHOSH, 
    Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, 
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME; AND CLETE D. JOHNSON, SENIOR FELLOW, 
         CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

                    STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN

    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Matsui. 
And on behalf of the U.S. wireless industry, thank you for 
having a hearing on our favorite topic, spectrum, even if it is 
a bad day for spectrum policy. It was actually 50 years ago 
this year, a U.S. engineer walking down the streets of New York 
made the first phone call with one of these [holds up cell 
phone]. We led the world in wireless that first day. We lead 
today, and that is because of American ingenuity like that. It 
is also because of American investment.
    The wireless industry invested just $35 billion just last 
year, 4 years of record growth. That has benefited Americans 
with 5G 1.5 times faster than we benefited from 4G a generation 
ago. The other key, as alluded to in the opening statement, is 
this committee, your leadership. Thirty years ago, you created 
the FCC spectrum auction as the best way to allocate spectrum 
for commercial use. It has been replicated around the world, 
even won the Nobel Prize. We raised an astonishing $233 billion 
for the U.S. Treasury. It's helped drive everything we do from 
2G to 3G, 4G to now 5G.
    Now, spectrum policy gets way too wonky way too fast, as 
that last sentence indicates. At its core, spectrum is the 
fuel. It makes this go [holds up cell phone] and, as a number 
of the opening statements alluded to, it increasingly makes our 
economy go. We are projecting over 4.5 million new jobs this 
decade thanks to 5G innovation, from manufacturing to 
healthcare to agriculture and more. It is also creating entire 
new industries like 5G home, a new fixed broadband solution 
that is bringing more choice and is bringing--helping close the 
digital divide.
    The two fastest-growing home broadband solution providers 
today are not fiber companies. They are actually wireless 
companies. So that's the good news. It's actually the great 
news. We are really in a good place. The challenge is we are 
almost out of fuel--spectrum--at exactly the wrong time. You 
can see it is always easier with pictures. On the first slide, 
you can see on the left-hand side how much more data we used 
from the 2010 to 2021. It is in the purple.
    We used more and more each and every year. Where we are now 
starting in 5G economy here, we are going to have growth five 
times more over the next--by 2027. That is a staggering amount 
of growth. It indicates just how much more we are going to use 
all these devices. And the challenge we have as a nation is we 
do not have five times the amount of spectrum to build that 
cliff.
    In actuality, as the--you have already identified, we have 
zero more spectrum coming. And that really is the challenge we 
face. There are no FCC spectrum auctions planned today. And 
that is particularly important with respect to something we 
call midband spectrum. FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel calls it the 
ideal blend of capacity and coverage. It is. It goes far, and 
it carries a lot. It is the key to what we need to do. The 
challenge is today our spectrum allocation, as you can see on 
the next slide, is not in balance. When it comes to this key 
midband spectrum, we have 12 times more of it assigned to 
government users. We had seven more--times more to our license 
and Wi-Fi friends.
    And we do that little blue dot that's assigned to 5G today. 
We hope we can work with this committee to address this 
imbalance because we see other countries doing that right now.
    On the next slide, you can see what's happening around the 
globe. Other countries are moving more quickly to get 5G 
midband in folks' hands. And this is also part of their--they 
want to supplant U.S. leadership. Make no mistake. They see 
what it meant--is meant here, and they want to replicate it 
back home where they are. Currently, our deficit is over 300 
megahertz. That is roughly two major FCC auctions. And the 
hatch marks you can see by 2027, that deficit will grow to over 
500. Absent corrective action, China has plans to aggressively 
move forward and could have over 400 percent more spectrum than 
available to the commercial sector in the United States by 
2027.
    Now, a number of the solutions of how we fix this, you have 
already alluded to. And that was great to hear. The three 
things stand out in our minds.
    The first is today is the first day in the last 30 years 
the FCC does not have the basic tool to run auctions. That is 
an unfortunate thing. We need to quickly--and thank your 
leadership for all you did to keep--preserve that leadership. 
We need to get the FCC the authority back.
    And as key in doing that, the second piece is we need to 
have a pipeline of auctions to go with it. The FCC needs 
auctions to actually make this go. This committee in 1997 and 
2006, in 2012, designated specific auctions along with auction 
authority. It is critical to our success in the past and can be 
so again. Accenture has identified three bands that we believe 
are prime candidates for future use. Welcome the chance to talk 
about those today.
    And the third, it really goes to we need better 
coordination. We need to empower the FCC and NTIA to speak with 
one voice. They need to call balls and strikes and be the 
experts that they are.
    Too much of the challenges we have had the last few years 
is we have been looking backwards, relitigating past disputes, 
not looking forward as to how all of these things can push us 
forward, can help grow the economy, our economic security, our 
national competitiveness and our national security. There's 
very little things Congress can do other than spectrum policy 
to really move this country forward.
    We look forward to working with you and thank you for 
having us today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, and Mr. Assey, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JAMES ASSEY

    Mr. Assey. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Latta, 
Chairwoman Rodgers, Ranking Member Matsui and members--I'm 
sorry--Ranking Member Pallone and members of the subcommittee. 
My name is James Assey, and I am the executive vice president 
of NCTA-The Internet and Television Association. And thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today on this important topic. 
You know, over the past decade, the cable providers have 
invested over $172 billion to build, upgrade and extend fiber-
rich networks all across America that reach over 100 million 
homes today with gigabit technology.
    In the future, we will see that capability increase as 10G 
technology rolls out. But the reason I'm here is because the 
wire really only tells part of the story. The proliferation of 
internet-enabled devices, the consumer's unyielding desire for 
data, has fueled cable's investment in seamless connectivity. 
For over a decade, Comcast, Charter, and Cox have deployed 
millions of hotspots to deploy cable's secure Wi-Fi service.
    Smaller cables like Midco are using wireless to extend the 
reach of broadband in rural communities. And most recently, 
cable providers are offering highly competitive mobile services 
at attractive prices that deliver significant savings to 
customers. Comcast and Charter, each with over 5 million 
subscribers, are the fastest growing retail wireless companies 
in the marketplace. And Cox has just announced the launch of 
its mobile service in January.
    As this subcommittee considers how best to manage the 
spectrum resources, I would like to just focus on three points. 
First, demand is going to rise, and we have to rise to meet 
that challenge. Faster broadband, more users, more devices, a 
wealth of innovative applications will feed consumers' endless 
appetite for data. Network investment and technological 
innovation will help us meet those demands.
    But promoting robust, seamless connectivity all the way 
down to the device will also require renewed efforts to support 
commercial use and balance the needs of government users. 
Fortunately, Congress has long recognized the importance of a 
spectrum pipeline. The FCC and NTIA play key roles in 
identifying and studying new bands for commercial use. And NCTA 
strongly supports their continued coordination to identify 
additional spectrum and develop new strategies.
    Second, we have to have an all-of-the-above approach to 
spectrum management that includes exclusive license, shared 
license, and unlicensed spectrum models. These models are 
complementary. Exclusively licensed spectrum gives a single 
entity the exclusive right to use certain frequencies. It is 
used primarily by traditional wireless carriers, with the three 
largest carriers controlling 78 percent of all licensed 
spectrum below 6 gigahertz. Shared license spectrum is an 
innovative way to enable commercial use in Federal spectrum 
bands without moving incumbent government users. It was adopted 
in the FCC's framework for commercial broadband radio service 
and supports government use on a priority basis with commercial 
use managed through dynamic sharing with licensees and general 
users. With 4.6 billion collected from the auction and over 
285,000 base stations deployed, the CBRS approach demonstrates 
how a shared spectrum model can bring new spectrum online, 
attracting a diverse range of bidders to usher in new 
competition and support new commercial uses while protecting 
critical government facilities.
    Finally, unlicensed spectrum. For many, it is the internet 
in the form of Wi-Fi. It remains the engine behind many of 
today's most popular consumer technologies. And it is the rock 
that supports America's freedom to connect. The power and the 
ubiquity of unlicensed technologies generates substantial 
benefits to consumers and contributes well over a trillion 
dollars annually to the U.S. economy. As new innovations in Wi-
Fi usher in better security, lower latency and multi-gigabit 
speeds, it is critical we support America's continued 
leadership and expansion in this space.
    Finally, our wireless leadership will not be served by an 
approach that puts all our eggs in one basket. We support this 
committee's work in extending FCC's auction authority. But the 
benefits of shared and unlicensed spectrum clearly demonstrate 
that exclusive licensing can't be the sole focus of spectrum 
policy. The most effective way to defend and maintain America's 
wireless leadership will continue to be through a balanced 
spectrum policy that addresses commercial opportunities on a 
band-by-band basis and promotes ongoing competition and 
innovation.
    Thank you very much. Look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:]
   
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And Dr. Ghosh, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF MONISHA GHOSH, Ph.D.

    Dr. Ghosh. Good morning, Chairwoman Rodgers, Chairman 
Latta, Ranking Member Matsui, Ranking Member Pallone, and 
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is Monisha Ghosh, and I believe that I 
can offer a balanced perspective on the matters before this 
committee given my years of experience working in the wireless 
industry, government, and academia.
    I am currently a professor of electrical engineering at the 
University of Notre Dame. I took two recent leaves of absence 
to serve in government, first at the National Science 
Foundation and then as the CTO of the FCC. I continue to be 
actively engaged with both industry and government. I cochaired 
the FCC's Technological Advisory Council's working group on 
advanced spectrum sharing in 2022. I am an active member of 
industry's Next G Alliance, which is developing standards for 
6G, and the National Spectrum Consortium's PATH SS Task Group, 
where industry, academia, DoD, and NTIA are exploring efficient 
sharing solutions in 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz.
    Finally, I am the policy outreach director for SpectrumX, 
NSF's Center for Spectrum Innovation, led by Notre Dame. A 
memorandum of agreement among the NSF, FCC, and the NTIA 
ensures that the research undertaken in SpectrumX can directly 
impact policy. My testimony today will address developing a 
sustainable spectrum strategy, bridging the digital divide, and 
creating an entrepreneurial wireless ecosystem.
    A sustainable spectrum strategy is one that balances the 
needs of commercial wireless, Federal applications, and 
scientific uses while exploring all possible spectrum 
allocation options: exclusive licensing, shared usage, and 
unlicensed. It is increasingly difficult to relocate incumbent 
users and, hence, sharing mechanisms must be investigated for 
both unlicensed as in 6 gigahertz and licensed as in CBRS.
    There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And sound spectrum 
policy should be based on fundamental technical analyses, 
measurements, and testing, which includes all relevant 
stakeholders. National institutes like SpectrumX, NIST, and ITS 
can perform this unbiased technical analysis that is required 
to determine the appropriate sharing parameters and minimize 
the probability of interference and maximize spectrum 
utilization.
    We have current sharing schemes in the TV-wide spaces, 6 
gigahertz, and CBRS, which are based on database-mediated 
sharing, which may not be suitable for all situations since it 
is inherently less dynamic. We must consider newer technical 
approaches to sharing, such as exploiting the spatial dimension 
offered by smart antenna arrays. Furthermore, we need 6G-and-
beyond standards to be sharing native that is designed from the 
very beginning to operate in shared frequency bands with 
incumbents instead of solely in licensed or unlicensed bands.
    Here, the U.S., with its rich history of spectrum-sharing 
innovations in TV-wide spaces, 6 gigahertz, and CBRS all led by 
the U.S., is well positioned to be the worldwide leader in 
standards development. Bridging the digital divide will require 
attention to both availability and affordability of broadband. 
Wireless backhaul, satellite connectivity, and private networks 
should all be considered as potential solutions in both rural 
and urban communities. Each may require additional spectrum to 
fuel their growth--growth trajectories, and the right mix will 
be important.
    The availability of cost-effective spectrum will allow 
smaller providers and communities to deploy and manage their 
own wide area networks as bridging the digital divide. The 
Wireless Institute at the University of Notre Dame advised the 
city of South Bend to deploy a CBRS network that provides an 
alternative connectivity option to a thousand families who 
otherwise would not have access to similar levels of 
connectivity at an affordable rate.
    Newer devices required to access the latest networks are 
often more expensive, hence efforts such as the affordable 
connectivity program need to continue as well so that all 
segments derive equal benefits from the latest technologies. 
Finally, I would like to talk about creating an entrepreneurial 
wireless ecosystem that can leverage America's greatest 
strength: its start-up culture that unfortunately is not 
currently as vibrant in the wireless space.
    Here, Congress must ensure that there are synergies that 
can leverage the CHIPS and Science Act to encourage innovations 
in wireless chips. New applications areas for wireless require 
new chips that do not necessarily have the volumes required by 
mobile handsets but are an important and growing component of 
the wireless ecosystem. Disruptive applications in wireless are 
often harder to bring to the marketplace due to lack of access 
to chips.
    In conclusion, a spectrum strategy that considers all 
options, enables sharing with incumbents, and creates spectrum 
opportunities for emerging use cases will provide the best 
climate for innovation to flourish in the wireless ecosystem. 
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views, and I welcome 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Ghosh follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. And Mr. Johnson, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF CLETE D. JOHNSON

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member 
Matsui, Members. Really appreciate you having us here today to 
discuss American leadership in wireless, which I believe is a 
strategic imperative for the future of market democracy. And I 
also have special gratitude for your bipartisan approach. I 
think the most important and enduring solutions come from 
bipartisan action. And I am glad that two of our kids, Joe and 
Crosby, who are here today, get to see the way the Government 
is supposed to work. I will explain the Senate to them later.
    My own introduction to wireless communications was in 1998 
when I was a 23-year-old Army lieutenant in Germany and got a 
Nokia cell phone. Back then, 2G felt like science fiction in 
real life. Those were really heady days for Germany and Europe 
and market democracy. The Cold War was won. Berlin Wall was 
down. Germany was reunified. Europe was more stable and 
peaceful than any previous era of its history. NATO was 
bringing in new allies and keeping peace in the Balkans instead 
of preparing for war with the Soviets.
    In the year 2000, Vladimir Putin was elected to lead--was 
elected; important verb there--elected to lead Russia, and the 
U.S. and our allies put China on a path to join the WTO. 
Serbian people overthrew Slobodan Milosevic, who was thought to 
be Europe's last dictator. And the reunified government of 
Germany moved back home from Bonn to Berlin.
    Back then, we thought this all meant that market democracy 
would win out once and for all over authoritarianism, and the 
future would bring previously unimaginable freedom, peace and 
prosperity. But a lot has changed since then. China is now the 
most powerful authoritarian state in world history. And with 
China's OK, Russia launched the first war of conquest in Europe 
since World War II.
    Just before that invasion, President Xi and Putin pledged a 
friendship without limits. The post-Cold War peace is over. So 
now the security question of this century is whether we and our 
market democratic allies can set the world's course or if China 
and its supplicants will predominate. That question underlies 
every other policy question that we face. Will the future be 
freedom and innovation, or surveillance and control?
    I think the U.S. approach to 5G, the most secure wireless 
technology ever, will be central to answering that question. 
The ubiquitous connectivity driven largely by 5G wireless 
broadband and the data, AI, advanced analytics that will come 
with 5G will be a crucial domain for both autocracies and 
market democracies. Mobile connectivity is essential to modern 
society, and therefore it must be leveraged for dynamism and 
innovation. But the social control and information operations 
from exploitation of this technology is essential to China's 
autocratic ambitions. And China seeks global influence through 
this power and control of technology supply chains and 
information.
    China has a plan that it is executing with the brutal 
efficiency of a dictatorship. China is allocating spectrum, 
particularly midband, full-power spectrum crucial to 5G, to 
create an ecosystem for tech national champions like Huawei 
that it can use to encircle the world with its so-called 
Digital Silk Road. China sees an advantage in driving 5G 
deployments into midband spectrum that are--that's available 
commercially in China, such as the lower 3 and 4 gigahertz 
bands.
    It is crystal clear that China has a plan for the world's 
wireless future. What is our plan? We and our allies are the 
greatest source of technological innovation and economic 
vitality in human history. That is why we won World War II and 
the Cold War. It is why we are presently leading the global 5G 
economy. But we are hamstrung by disputes between agencies that 
have slowed 5G deployments and undermined the market certainty 
and investment that flows from a robust spectrum pipeline. And 
as many have noted, now we don't have authority to auction more 
spectrum.
    We formed NATO to protect market democracies after World 
War II. And now we must apply to today's technology environment 
the same commitment to principles of market dynamism, 
innovation, competition, and democracy.
    The world's future will be determined by whether the U.S. 
model of market democracy can harness human ingenuity and 
progress to prevail over restrictive authoritarians. People 
inherently crave freedom and opportunity. Market diversity and 
competition is the beating heart of innovation. And we need to 
leverage those ideals to our competitive advantage. What that 
means is we need more spectrum for commercial use. We need 
coherent government processes to approve commercial 
deployments, and we need global harmonization of spectrum so 
the U.S. is not an island.
    This is absolutely critical to our national security. We 
get this right, we will ensure economic and technological 
vibrancy that undergirds our overwhelming military strength and 
edge in weaponry. And if we do that, we will lead the world, 
the free world, in addressing the existential threat from the 
autocratic exploitation of technology, thereby securing the 
United States and our--and our allies as market democracies.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And that will 
conclude our witnesses' opening statements. And at this time, 
we will proceed with the Members' questions, and they will be--
will get 5 minutes. And, you know, I just want to ask a quick 
question of everyone if you just answer yes or no because, you 
know, you offered--all been talking. You have also talked about 
that--and our spectrum authority expired last night. We 
didn't--you know, we try to get to May the 19th, and we are not 
there.
    Can the United States survive on short-time extensions of 
our auction authority? Just yes or no. Can we?
    Mr. Gillen. No.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Mr. Latta. Let me ask this next question. You know, through 
the years I have served on this subcommittee, this question has 
always come up, that the United States was always leading in 
5G. Is the United States leading in 5G today, or are we behind?
    Mr. Gillen. We are leading today. With your help, we can 
continue to lead.
    Dr. Ghosh. I think we are definitely leading.
    Mr. Johnson. I think we are leading today because of the 
innovators, and the Government is holding us back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Let me, Mr. Gillen, start with 
something you had said in your testimony. And I think, again, 
it is important where we are today. In your bullet points, you 
say we should create a schedule of future spectrum--of 
auctions. And, you know, one of the things, of course, when you 
look at Huawei and the rip-and-replace--and we already have 1.9 
billion that was already given to the FCC by Congress for the 
rip-and-replace. But, however, we still need about 3.08 billion 
more dollars of fully funded.
    When you--when you see what Congress is doing, is that what 
you said that we need to have a schedule of future spectrum 
auctions?
    Mr. Gillen. I think yesterday showed we have a lot of work 
to do together to get to that place, that we need the FCC to 
have the tools to succeed. And I think there--we have bands 
available that we think could quickly get to auction to fund 
other government priorities to help support the Treasury. But I 
think, most importantly, to really make sure that 5G 
innovations are happening here.
    Mr. Latta. OK. Something--again, when I was reading the 
testimony last night, something I saw that caught my eye--and 
sometimes it's always by looking at verbs--verb tenses. And Dr. 
Ghosh, you said that the U.S. was the leader, recognizing that 
wide bandwidths were available in the millimeter waves--
wavebands can be harnessed.
    You know, are we falling behind? What's happening out 
there? You say that we were. That's all--and when I see those 
past tense, it always scares me.
    Dr. Ghosh. No. I think the U.S. is actually still the 
leader in millimeter-wave technology. The fundamental research 
and initial development developing 5G millimeter wave happened 
in the U.S. I still believe that the U.S. has the maximum 
number of 5G deployments in millimeter wave.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, also, when I was looking at--reading your--
going over your testimony last night. You know, you mentioned 
that you're--in your opening statement that, you know, we need 
to have more spectrum available for commercial use in the 
United States and that China has a plan that is executing with 
brutal--you say ``brutal efficiency of a dictatorship.'' China 
is allocating that spectrum, particularly in the midband and 
how crucial it is to 5G.
    Could you just--you know, again, what's happening from 
China to the United States kind of briefly, between the United 
States and China when you're looking at those--that issue?
    Mr. Johnson. I think China has a--as Chair McMorris Rodgers 
laid out in her opening, China has a strategy and a plan. The 
one benefit of an authoritarian regime is that they can do 
exactly what they want on a minute--on a moment's notice. That 
has significant downsides in other areas. But when you are 
trying to clear spectrum bands for their purpose of taking 
over, essentially winning the 5G leadership race, it means that 
they can target the lower 3 and 4 bands and expect the rest of 
the world to follow China's lead while the United States is an 
island and is not deploying 5G in those bands. So it's a 
methodical and strategic plan that they are executing. And they 
can because they are a dictatorship.
    Our system is a little more complicated. I think it works a 
lot better over the long term. But we need to have a plan that 
leverages our strength.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. And Mr. Assey, I'm sorry. In my last 
30 seconds, you said something again. But also reading your 
statement, we are looking at that. You said about--when you are 
looking at the unlicensed out there--and that is the engine and 
the rock out there. And when you look at our--from the Internet 
of Things, the AVs and everything else, you know, are we able 
to keep going to make sure we maintain that level? And I'm 
sorry. I've only got about 10 seconds left.
    Mr. Assey. No, thank you for the question. I think we have 
always been the market leader when it comes to unlicensed 
technology. The action that was taken by the FCC in 6 gigahertz 
was the first unlicensed band that we had opened up in a 
decade. And we are poised to extend that leadership not just 
here but also around the globe. I think there--it is a point 
where we face a lot of opposition, particularly from China, on 
a country-by-country basis that sees America's continued 
leadership on unlicensed technology as a threat. And I think it 
is an area where we can work to try to counter that influence 
and continue what has been an incredibly important technology, 
not just for this country but for the world.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. And my time has expired. And at 
this time, I'll recognize the gentlelady from California, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In both Congress and the executive branch, clear 
delineations of jurisdiction help promote efficiency and 
productive collaboration. I believe inconsistencies in these 
jurisdictional lines is in part to blame for breakdowns in 
spectrum governance.
    Mr. Gillen, briefly, in your opinion, does mission creep 
among Federal agencies affect the Federal Government's ability 
to speak with one voice on spectrum issues?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I greatly 
appreciate your leadership on this issue for a number of years 
now. You have really been the one to call out that we need to 
speak with one voice. And absolutely there has been mission 
creep. We have too many voices trying to get involved in 
spectrum discussions. We have expert agencies at the FCC and 
NTIA. We need to rely on them and let them make their 
decisions. And too often right now, they are being second-
guessed.
    And the sooner we get back to letting those experts do 
their job, the better we are as a nation in terms of addressing 
all the things Mr. Johnson said is happening around the globe.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. I introduced the CHIPS Act with 
Congressman Michael McCaul to reassert America's leadership in 
the semiconductor industry. Secretary Raimondo released the 
first notice of funding opportunity last week, and I'm excited 
about how this funding will boost advances in wireless 
communications.
    Professor Ghosh, can you describe how the CHIPS Act can 
encourage innovation and wireless chips and spectrum governance 
more broadly?
    Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. I strongly feel 
that, even though we made great advances in 5G and unlicensed 
and the standards have actually helped tremendously, there 
comes a point where innovations become much harder to get into 
the marketplace because there is so much of a standardization, 
you know, channel that--has to go through. So with the lot of 
the new spectrum that is becoming available, you need new 
wireless chip sets. Sometimes the 5G can handle those, 
sometimes they cannot.
    But what is happening today, I feel, is that the mobile 
consumer market is the dominating customer of wireless chips. 
And if something does not fit into that pipeline, it is much 
harder. And so you can see that in that there are very few 
wireless hardware startups and many software startups because 
they don't face this issue. So I would really like to see how 
the CHIPS Act could encourage--could create an ecosystem where 
these alternative wireless chips could be manufactured.
    Ms. Matsui. That is great. We are hoping for that. 
Professor Ghosh, again, I have been working on draft 
legislation, which I hope to release soon, that would make 
important updates to the spectrum relocation fund. This fund 
helps Federal agencies transition off spectrum to make it 
available for commercial use. I want to see this fund 
modernized to give agencies more flexibility and ensure they 
have the tools they need to meet their missions.
    Professor, do you think additional incentives for Federal 
agencies like upgraded technology could help free spectrum for 
commercial use?
    Dr. Ghosh. Absolutely. I think one of the problems we face 
when we look at spectrum sharing is you are trying to share 
between legacy systems, which are sometimes decades old, with 
very new systems that are much more agile, can share better. 
And we always have to be backward compatible. And so having 
funds that allow some of these legacy systems to upgrade or 
either relocate or even share better even if you wanted to 
share better with a co-, you know, allocee--and--that's a 
word--in the band if you have better front ends and better 
filters that will allow you to do that better.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Dr. Ghosh. So I think we should explore all possibilities--
--
    Ms. Matsui. Sure.
    Dr. Ghosh [continuing]. For doing this. Yes.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, can you discuss how 
spectrum harmonization informs geopolitical competition and 
what the U.S. can do to advance its interests abroad?
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. And I touched on this in the 
answer to Mr. Chair's question. Great question, ma'am. It has 
to do with global scale. It is related to what Dr. Ghosh just 
said about putting--putting chips and other components out that 
can reach global scale. If you have global harmonization of 
spectrum bands, then American and allied companies can compete. 
And often--almost always in a fair competition, the U.S. and 
allied companies are going to win that competition.
    If they have the global scale, then they are not just 
selling to one market. They are selling to the world. And that 
is going to be crucial for the success of the CHIPS Act. We 
need to have global harmonization of these bands for that to 
materialize.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much, and I am running 
out of time. And Mr. Assey, I wanted to ask you about scoring, 
but I will ask that later. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and what 
you are hearing is the votes are being called. What we are 
going to do is I am going to run over and vote first and then 
our vice chair, our good friend from Georgia, is going to sit 
in the chair as is the vice chairman. I will run over and vote 
and come right back, and Members are just coming back so we can 
keep the hearing going. Thank you.
    And at this time, the Chair will recognize the gentlelady 
from Washington, the chairman of the full committee, for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House recently 
passed our spectrum auction authority extension bill, the H.R. 
1108, and it failed to pass the Senate. So now we have FCC's 
spectrum auction authority expiring for the first time in 30 
years. So starting with Mr. Gillen, do you support this bill 
led by myself and Ranking Member Pallone to reauthorize 
spectrum auction authority until May 19th?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes. It is critical the FCC has its tool back.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. Yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mr.----
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes, yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Dr. Ghosh. I think it's important for both exclusive 
licensing and shared.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. Crucial to our national security.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mister--or Dr. Ghosh, I wanted to 
just follow up. You know, now we find ourselves needing to work 
quickly to reauthorize spectrum auction authority, improve 
interagency coordination on spectrum management actions, and 
restore trust in the process. The NTIA and FCC are expert 
agencies when it comes to the management of spectrum decisions. 
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized the 
auction of the lower 3 gigahertz band, provided uncertainty to 
the auction by requiring the Secretary of Defense to approve 
the auction moving forward.
    We need to restore the spectrum management process. NTIA 
must be at the helm in order to maximize efficient spectrum 
use. When decisions are made by expert agencies, they also need 
to be respected by all agencies and industry as final. So from 
a technical perspective, what can be done to inject confidence 
back in this process?
    Dr. Ghosh. I'm involved, as I mentioned in my testimony, in 
the discussions happening in part SS. And NTIA, FCC, and DoD 
are all in the room along with industry and academia. Spectrum 
decisions take time, unfortunately. And what we are trying to 
work out in the committee is what is the most appropriate 
method. Is it shared licensing? Is it exclusive licensing? And 
the technical analyses are being done as a community.
    So I think that process is working. And I hope that at the 
end of the process, the lead agencies, which are NTIA and FCC, 
when it comes to spectrum matters, are the ones that will take 
final decisions about how they proceed in that particular band. 
But as I said, it is not an easy decision to say that we should 
or should not do one form of licensing versus another. There is 
a lot of technical input that needs----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, in your testimony, 
you argue that the central question to security in the 21st 
century is whether the future will be one of freedom and 
innovation or surveillance and control. What are the risks to 
the United States if we fail to reauthorize spectrum auction 
authority and create a stable, predictable environment for 
investing in wireless technology?
    Mr. Johnson. Madam Chair, I think that if we don't--if we 
don't authorize more spectrum--more auction and therefore more 
spectrum--we will not lead in 5G. And if we don't lead in 5G, 
it is very simple. China and its authoritarian supplicants will 
predominate in the 21st century. That means an existential 
threat to market democracy, which means an existential threat 
to the United States because the future of technology is going 
to go in one of two ways, as you mentioned in your opening: 
freedom and innovation, or surveillance and control.
    And these two things can't exist together. So it is a 
crucial matter of national security. And it really goes down to 
weapon systems and military strength as well. We can't win the 
future without winning 5G and AI and quantum and everything 
that goes along with that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. As a followup, you also note in 
your testimony that we need global harmonization of spectrum 
bands so that the United States is not on an island. How would 
failing to reauthorize spectrum auction authority undermine the 
United States' efforts to lead on spectrum policy 
internationally?
    Mr. Johnson. To give one example, in the lower 3 and lower 
4 bands, China is seeking to harmonize the world without the 
United States. And it's--if they do that, they are--they are--
they will have a distinct advantage over the United States in 
5G. I would never bet against us. We are the--as I have 
mentioned before, we are the most innovative--the biggest 
source of innovation and advances in world history. But if we 
are doing it without us playing on the--on the globally 
harmonized bands, we are doing it with a hand--a hand tied 
behind our back or worse.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Right. Thank you. And thank you all for being 
here. Very timely. Yield back.
    Mr. Carter. [presiding]. The gentlelady is yield--the Chair 
now recognizes the ranking member from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman. Last week, the Energy and 
Commerce Committee advanced bipartisan legislation that 
overwhelmingly passed the House to extend the FCC's auction 
authority, restore the role of the NTIA as the arbitrator of 
Federal spectrum holdings, and use auction proceeds to pay for 
important public safety and national security programs and 
next-generation 911 and the rip-and-replace program.
    More recently, the House unanimously passed a bill 
extending auction authority to give House and Senate 
negotiators more time to continue negotiating a package. In 
both cases, the Senate failed to act on these important bills. 
So today, we are in a new world where the authority is expired 
for the first time in three decades, creating doubt and 
uncertainty about America's governance over spectrum and the 
ability to continue to lead in wireless innovation.
    So Mr. Johnson, does this expiration have the potential to 
give China and other countries a leg up in their global 
campaign to dominate the world's wireless future? And in your 
opinion, is the continued presence of Huawei equipment in U.S. 
networks a national security threat? And I know you have 
already talked about this. But I would like to have more 
detail.
    Mr. Johnson. I think the short answer is absolutely yes on 
both counts. And happy to elaborate on either of those. But 
again, I think the--on the question of Huawei, we need to have 
a future of trusted suppliers that are based in the United 
States and our allies, and therefore based in market 
democracies and operate under the rule of law. And the spectrum 
authority and the--leading the future of 5G is crucial to that 
because China has a plan to do--to go the other way and 
encircle the world with this Digital Silk Road led by Huawei 
and other national champions like ZTE and others.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And obviously we are going to 
continue to work on a bipartisan basis here in the House and 
try to get the Senate to do something.
    Mr. Gillen and Mr. Assey, can you both talk about how your 
members and, in turn, the American public will benefit from the 
stability of a long-term pipeline of spectrum and FCC auction 
authority? I'll start, I guess, with Mr. Gillen.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. The key for 
so much of the development we want with 5G jobs, with 
innovations around manufacturing and healthcare come back to, 
do we have the spectrum to actually support these 
functionalities? And so we are really excited about what 5G can 
be. And the key to making that go is additional spectrum 
auctions and the certainty this committee can uniquely provide.
    Mr. Pallone. Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. I think it goes to what I said in my testimony. 
The demand for data just continues to grow and grow. And we 
need all available technologies to be able to provide the type 
of seamless connectivity from providers all the way down not 
just to the household but to the device in the consumer's hand. 
We have a great opportunity to do that. But we need to be able 
to work on a balanced strategy that will unlock new spectrum 
for commercial use.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Well, let me get to my last 
question. As you know, I mentioned in my opening statement that 
most Americans rely on their wireless devices daily without 
even thinking about it. And as we consider how to ensure there 
is a spectrum available for all these uses, we have to ensure 
that certain communities are not left out of the incredible 
opportunities that wireless innovation will bring.
    In the short time that it's been in place, the Affordable 
Connectivity Program has helped nearly 17 million Americans 
afford broadband and ensure that the networks fueled by all 
this spectrum are put to good use in communities across the 
country.
    So on that note, again, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Assey, do you agree 
that this program has been successful in connecting people all 
over the country who might not otherwise be able to afford 
internet service? You have got about 30 seconds each.
    Mr. Gillen. It's been incredibly helpful. And as you 
alluded to in your opening, we are very proud that wireless is 
the on-ramp to the internet for millions of low-income 
Americans. We are proud that 55 percent of Americans are 
electing mobile solutions when taking advantage of this 
program. You see great work, countries--Navajo Nation, Cellular 
One connecting 40,000 that weren't connected before, expanding 
that access. So we are greatly appreciative of how that program 
is bringing more people online.
    Mr. Pallone. I appreciate you mentioning Indian country 
too, because it's so important to them.
    Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. Yes, we obviously are actively engaged in the 
ACP program and believe very strongly in broadband adoption. It 
is important not only to the consumers and the families that 
are on the program, but it is also important related to the 
work that this committee and this Congress has done in 
providing funding to build new infrastructure and to reach the 
unconnected, because those people are going to need to be 
online as well, and it is important that we follow through that 
program.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Carter. The gentleman's----
    Mr. Pallone. Good to see you in the chair.
    Mr. Carter. The gentleman's time has expired. Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it 
very much, and I do hope that the Senate is watching this 
particular hearing. Before today, we have never seen a spectrum 
auction authorization lapse before. It has been said several 
times. And there are a lot of questions about the extent of the 
disruption. It goes without saying that the FCC would not have 
authority to start new proceedings for new auctions.
    But my question for Mr. Gillen is, in your opinion, sir, 
would the FCC still have authority to process auctions that 
have already taken place to allow auction winners to receive 
the rights to the spectrum bands they have already paid for?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. And as you noted, 
this is an unprecedented day. We haven't been in this place in 
30 years. So I think, unfortunately, the answer is we don't 
know. There is a lot of uncertainty in industry. There is a lot 
of uncertainty at the FCC as to what the FCC can and can't do 
right now. This has been a critical tool in how they operate. 
It provides 25 percent of the funding for the agency. So the 
sooner we get the certainty back and we start moving forward, 
we can get those questions asked. The spectrum you alluded to, 
the spectrum that has been purchased and can be benefiting 
Americans today if it was in the hands of the licensee. And so 
those are some of the challenges that we have today that we 
have never had before.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. As a followup, Mr. Gillen, if it 
is ultimately determined the FCC did not have authority to 
process completed auctions, how does this impact private 
bidding in future auctions and the Government's ability to earn 
top dollar when licensing future bands when that authority is 
reinstated?
    Mr. Gillen. It is a great question. Uncertainty is not--
does not drive capital. So the more certainty we have that the 
FCC is going to have the authority to do the auctions, to 
license the spectrum--and also, a part of what this committee 
is really key is the certainty when those auctions are coming, 
what is coming next and actually have a schedule and a plan. 
And so that is not just giving the FCC the tool, it is also 
setting a schedule going forward as critical if we want to keep 
up with what's going around the world, if we want to meet the 
demand of American consumers. We just need that certainty and 
actually need the plan of how we are going to get the spectrum 
out in a way over the next few years that is meaningful.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Assey, spectrum auctions are one of the few things the 
Federal Government does that actually raises money. I am 
particularly interested in ensuring that Americans get the most 
from industry for these finite resources. The benefits are 
clear when exclusively licensed spectrum is auctioned off for 
revenues. But can you articulate how the American taxpayer 
benefits from shared licensed and unlicensed spectrum usages?
    Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. You know, I think if 
you go back to 1993, that is when auction authority really 
started. And you have to look at it as one arrow in the quiver, 
a tool that the Government can use. And for that time, we had a 
very strange process for assigning rights in spectrum, which 
was we had a lottery or we had comparative hearings. This was a 
mechanism for distributing the rights. But it is--there is no 
question that when you hold an auction, revenues are created 
when you distribute those rights. But that is a byproduct, not 
an end in and of itself. And I think one of the things that you 
have to look at is not just kind of the short-term upfront 
revenue that comes in but all the revenue that is created by 
the innovation that is unlocked when spectrum is made available 
for commercial use. You know, we talked about the unlicensed 
economy contributing over a trillion dollars annually to the 
U.S. economy.
    That is of great economic benefit. It is of great economic 
benefit to let a thousand flowers bloom, to have more 
competitors in a marketplace and to have a robust ecosystem 
that can support the development of equipment. That is what 
will make us successful for the long term.
    Mr. Bilirakis. I appreciate it very much, and I want to 
thank all of you for your testimony. Very informative. I yield 
back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Latta [presiding]. Thank you very much. The gentleman 
yields back, and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
New York for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. Good morning, and let me start by first 
thanking our panel of witnesses for joining us today, as well 
as Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Matsui for convening this 
hearing on America's wireless leadership at such an important 
time with the recent lapse in the FCC's spectrum auction 
authority. I am proud of this committee's previous work to 
advance thoughtful legislation around spectrum auctions and 
urge our Senate colleagues to do your job
    I mean, what is the problem? Follow the House's lead and 
pass legislation extending this critical authority.
    The wireless industry plays a vital role in our 
increasingly digital society. Innovation in a desperate--a 
disparate array of industries, including healthcare, 
agriculture, autonomous vehicles, gaming, manufacturing, and 
more, is powered by connectivity. As policymakers, it is our 
responsibility to ensure that long-time industry stakeholders 
and new market entrants alike have access to the resources and 
information necessary to maintain competitiveness globally and 
provide Americans with high-quality service.
    My first question is intended for Mr. Gillen, but any of 
our witnesses are welcome to respond as well. Mr. Gillen, given 
the wireless usage trends in the U.S., can you speak to the 
consequences from an industry perspective of continued inaction 
on spectrum auction authority?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congresswoman. You are exactly 
right. This uncertainty is going to have a direct impact on 
American consumers. We expect five times more growth between 
now and 2027. Our ability to meet that growth will be called 
into question if we don't get more spectrum. I think the bigger 
risk, as Mr. Johnson has alluded to, is you risk ceding our 
leadership and things going forward to China and other 
countries that are providing spectrum resources more quickly. 
And so it is really critical both from our global 
competitiveness but also just creating more jobs with 5G 
economy that we need to get going now.
    Ms. Clarke. Would anyone else like to respond to that? Dr. 
Ghosh?
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes. I would like to just support that statement 
and also point out that, when we talk about auction authority, 
it is not just for exclusive licensing. So even if we go down 
the route of shared spectrum, CBRS was auctioned and licensed. 
So it is--we need the licensed authority so that the FCC can 
investigate all these different ways of spectrum sharing, 
whether it's exclusive or not.
    Mr. Assey. I would agree with that. And I would just 
underscore that, you know, auction authority is a very useful 
tool in the toolbox. But the real end here is can we unlock 
more commercial spectrum. Can we develop new strategies that 
will allow us to share spectrum, to make more intensive use of 
spectrum, to become more efficient because that is really the 
only way that we are going to meet the demand for commercial 
services but also be respectful and responsive to the needs of 
government users.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Johnson, would you just comment on the 
global dynamic?
    Mr. Johnson. It is commercial spectrum and more commercial 
spectrum is indispensable to our economic and technological 
vitality in the--in the core center of the future of the 
economy and security. If we don't have it, we can't compete and 
therefore we can't win the future. I mean, we won World War II 
because we were the arsenal of democracy. We won the Cold War 
because market democracy works a lot better than the system 
that the Soviets had in place. You can just look at West 
Germany and East Germany, and it is the economy and technology 
that makes a difference. If we don't have spectrum, we are 
fundamentally hamstrung.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. As cochair of the Smart Cities 
Caucus, I want to ensure that we are leveraging next-generation 
technologies to improve lives and enable better living 
conditions for all. Even major cities like New York face unique 
challenges that are best addressed through technological 
advances like the Internet of Things and access to high-speed, 
affordable Wi-Fi.
    Mr. Assey, can you discuss the uses of unlicensed spectrum 
and other advances in technology that have the potential to 
power smart cities? And other panelists are welcome to chime in 
as well.
    Mr. Assey. Yes, Congresswoman. There is no question that, 
when we talk about seamless connectivity, we are talking about 
taking that fiber-rich network that has been built over the 
past decades and really just going beyond those boundaries and 
creating connectivity that is ubiquitously available to all. 
That can be via unlicensed spectrum. That can be via CBRS 
spectrum. That can be via 5G spectrum. But I think it's an 
immensely powerful position that we are going to be in to 
promote partnerships between providers and cities to deal with 
things like traffic management, to deal with things like sensor 
networks that will allow it to manage lights, to deal with 
venues and public information.
    This is a great, positive step forward. It is a wonderful 
set of services that is being developed. We are seeing evidence 
in the CBRS space. Cox Communications is partnering in Las 
Vegas to do just this, and we expect more of it in the future.
    Ms. Clarke. And I thank you for your response, and I have 
to yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan's Fifth 
District for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. This Congress I have had the 
honor to serve as a cochair of both the 5G Caucus and the Rural 
Broadband Caucus. The road to connection for all Americans will 
be paved by a number of technologies: wireless, Wi-Fi, fiber, 
satellites. But our country's full connectivity potential 
cannot be realized without establishing a coordinated and 
robust spectrum pipeline. And to that, we all agree.
    To that end, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Assey, what are the most 
underutilized frequencies by commercial or Federal users? And 
secondly, where should Congress focus its efforts on a spectrum 
pipeline bill?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congressman. Thanks for your 
leadership on the caucus as well. We think the focus needs to 
be on midband spectrum. It is what is being used around the 
world. I think there is imbalance today right now in terms of 
the Government has 12 times more control than available for 5G 
in the midband. In terms of specific bands, the lower 3, 4, and 
7 gigahertz, we think there are opportunities for--win-win 
opportunities for agencies. Dr. Ghosh alluded to a lot of the 
agencies are using not the most efficient systems in the world. 
Through auctions, we can help upgrade those systems and create 
better outcomes. So there is a lot of spectrum in those bands, 
and we think there's opportunities for both commercial and 
government success.
    Mr. Assey. I would agree that the 3 gigahertz band is an 
opportunity for us to unlock new spectrum. I think it is going 
to require sharing techniques that are going to allow us to be 
able to use for commercial use while respecting the needs of 
government users. I also think the 7 gigahertz band is an area 
where we could see that work that we did in 6 gigahertz, 
opening it up for unlicensed, extended, and pave the way for 
the next generation of unlicensed Wi-Fi technology, Wi-Fi 7.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Johnson, as I said earlier, I am cochair 
of the 5G and Beyond Caucus. My fellow cochairs recently 
reintroduced H.R. 1377, the Promoting U.S. Wireless Leadership 
Act, which would advance U.S. wireless competitiveness by 
directing the NTIA to promote U.S. participation and leadership 
in communication standard-setting bodies. Participation in 
these international groups--at least I believe--it is critical 
for our country to remain the wireless leader.
    If China is successful in setting spectrum policy and 
moving the rest of the world in a different direction than the 
United States, does that mean Chinese network gear like Huawei 
and ZTE will be the standard going forward? And secondly, what 
does that mean for the security of us and our allies?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. That is a great 
question. To answer--to take both parts of the question: On the 
standards processes, U.S. and allied innovators have long set 
the standard--literally set the standards in 3GPP and in other 
international standards bodies. China is trying to take kind of 
a government-centric approach to shape those standards 
processes. I think there has been a lot of talk about lots of 
Chinese entities like Huawei and ZTE sort of flooding the zone 
in these standards processes.
    That is a--it is a concern, but the innovation and the 
technical aspects of standard setting takes place with the best 
ideas and the best innovations. So, so long as we are at the--
we and our allies are at the--and those--those companies that 
are based in market democracies are at the table, I feel 
confident that they will set--literally set the standards in 
the future. We just need to make sure that they are there and 
there are a whole host of policy ideas that can make--help make 
that happen.
    On the second part of your question about Huawei and ZTE 
and other tech national champions from--based in China, the 
reason that they have a strategic objective to deploy the 
Digital Silk Road, as they put it, is because if the world is 
wired with gear and companies that are based in the People's 
Republic of China, the People's Republic of China can control 
those networks. It is really that simple. It is not about 
backdoors or, you know, is there some sort of, you know, 
espionage capability. Yes, there is, I think. But the real 
issue is control.
    You can think about it like Russia's gas pipelines. If they 
control the flow of gas to Europe, then they have got a 
strategic power over Europe. Same thing. That is why we don't 
want to have China and Huawei wiring the entire world.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that. More could be asked, 
but right now I guess we appeal for a functioning Senate. You 
can understand the challenges and at least help us start to get 
back on track. So thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 
Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. 5G is now beaming across 
much of the Nation. I know how much work it took for a lot of 
you in this room as well as our partners at the FCC and the 
Congress and the infrastructural laws extending high-speed 
internet to rural areas, including in South Osceola County, 
where I represent. These spectrum auctions have fueled economic 
growth, advances in technology and communications, and key 
revenue for critical programs. The spectrum is critical for 
faster downloads for Central Floridians for all Americans, for 
better connectivity for devices, advances in artificial 
intelligence, virtual reality, multiplayer gaming, commercial 
uses in commercial space, tourism, simulation and training, so 
many areas that we back home care deeply about.
    And we did our part in the House by extending the spectrum 
auction authority last week, yet the Senate let it lapse due to 
concerns by the U.S. Department of Defense. We obviously all 
want a strong defense of the homeland. But I would note that, 
until recently, this--these auctions have been a holy civilian 
process by the FCC. So I wanted to start by getting a sense 
from all of you.
    First, we'll start with Mr. Gillen. How well has the 
civilian process worked, and do you know of any security 
threats that arose from the process? Like has DoD reached out 
to you about that, because a lot of this is just coming to a 
head now.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And 
the FCC process works really well as long as there is access to 
spectrum to sell. And the challenge we have now is 12 times 
more of this critical asset is being controlled by the 
Government than is available to commercial use. So the only 
source really of spectrum right now is government users.
    And I think we have replicated, in this committee's 
leadership, with AWS-3 auction and the 3.45 auction, that we 
create opportunities, that we actually strengthen the mission, 
that a lot of the equipment that our military and agencies are 
using needs to be upgraded, needs--can be used spectrum more 
efficiently, and auction proceeds can go do that. So we tend to 
think, when engineers start talking about these on a system-by-
system basis, there are wins-wins. We can increase our 
warfighting capabilities and deliver advanced services to your 
constituents.
    Mr. Soto. Thanks. And Mr. Assey, how do you feel the 
civilian process has worked? And do you know of any security 
threats that arose from the civilian process to date? Has DoD 
reached out to the association or your clients about it, or 
what is your belief on those things?
    Mr. Assey. I mean, I think the process is--I won't say 
necessarily messy, but it is probably reflective of the fact 
that we have a lot of users and a lot of complicated, important 
national security interests to try to work through. Dr. Ghosh 
referred to the Path SS process that began over a year ago. My 
industry, Mr. Gillen's industry, and others are participating 
with DoD and NTIA and others and trying to work through that 
process. But it is extremely difficult, and we have some real 
challenges. There was a report today that, you know, it might 
take as long as 20 years and $120 billion to vacate that band.
    So, you know, we are going to have to really try to rely on 
the experts like Dr. Ghosh who have the technical expertise to 
try to deal with this issue and really do our best to figure 
out how we can make spectrum available.
    Mr. Soto. And we are going to pivot to Dr. Ghosh now. Can 
we do both?
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes, I believe we can. I think if vacating 
becomes impossible, we have to look at better ways of sharing. 
And just to address your question about, you know, has DoD 
reached out, have they complained? Let's take the example of 
CBRS. There have been 250,000 CBSDs deployed. As far as we 
know, there has never been any complaint of interference from 
the DoD. So clearly, sharing can work. Sharing can work to 
protect the incumbent, which is the DoD. It can also work in 
places like South Bend, where now you have, you know, 7 
terabytes of data being transferred over CBRS to low-income 
families, which you wouldn't have been able to do if that 
spectrum had been locked away.
    So we have to investigate how we can best use spectrum. I 
would encourage, you know, people not to take sides, that it 
has to be auctioned and licensed. There are many, many 
innovative ways that we can think about sharing spectrum,
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Chair, I would urge that we hold tight to our 
jurisdiction, not let this get away from us. This needs to 
remain a civilian process. And I would encourage us to have DoD 
be more plain about some of their concerns, that we can resolve 
this.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. And the gentleman's time 
has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
scheduling this meeting. The timing is obviously impeccable. 
Incredibly timely hearing. And as all of you have pointed out, 
Americans are very dependent on reliable connectivity. And we 
all understand that. And thank you for being here, and thank 
you for--for emphasizing that. And it's our job on this 
committee, in particular, to ensure that the agencies that are 
tasked with this responsibility of managing the spectrum have 
the resources that they--they need to be successful. And I'm 
just looking forward to continuing on that task for this 
committee.
    Dr. Ghosh, I'll start with you. Obviously, as an engineer 
and a researcher, not unexpectedly, you have highlighted the 
importance of making the spectrum decisions informed by 
unbiased and technical analysis. In fact, I will share with 
you--and I am running the risk of being a little self-serving 
here--but just 2 days ago this subcommittee voted to advance my 
legislation, the--to codify the Institute for Telecommunication 
Sciences, which you note in your testimony plays a crucial role 
in making spectrum available for commercial use.
    And I want to ask you, what role do you think this 
laboratory will play in America's ability to stay ahead of 
international competitors like China on spectrum--spectrum 
policy?
    Dr. Ghosh. I think ideas, along with other institutes like 
NIST and SpectrumX, have a huge role to play here. They have 
the expertise to actually do testing. Oftentimes, these sharing 
mechanisms on these systems are designed with very accurate 
simulations and analyses. But the real world, especially when 
you talk about RF signal propagation, there is not--you know, 
follow those analyses very carefully. So we do have to have 
processes in place where we have a way--platforms that can 
actually deploy and test some of these really complicated 
systems that we are developing.
    Mr. Carter. Great.
    Dr. Ghosh. So I would definitely encourage, you know, that 
ITS be central to these discussions as well as other research 
labs across the country, the universities and other places.
    Mr. Carter. Good. Well, thank you. Thank you. And thank all 
of you for making the point of how important this is for our--
for our competition with China, because I think one of the 
greatest threats to our country is just that, is China, and the 
threat that they--that exists there. And all of you have made 
that quite clear during this hearing today, and I appreciate 
that.
    I am a healthcare professional, a pharmacist, the oldest 
pharmacist in Congress, by the way. And you know, I have made 
it one of my top priorities to make sure that we are 
competitive in the pharmacy world and the pharmaceuticals with 
China. And we need to be competitive here as well. There is no 
question about that in the wireless space. But the consequences 
are great.
    Mr. Gillen, I'll ask you. For decades, Congress has 
designated NTIA to manage Federal agency use of spectrum. When 
it comes to extending auction authority and making more 
spectrum available for commercial use, why is it important to 
have one agency in charge of speaking for the executive branch?
    Mr. Gillen. It is critical that we can't have agencies 
fighting amongst each other. These are technical things, as Dr. 
Ghosh has alluded to, and we need to let the experts make those 
hard calls and to decide the interference rights and then 
commercialize the spectrum. And once that auction is sold, we 
need those that bought the spectrum be able to use it to start 
delivering services as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Carter. So what would it look like if we had--if--if 
each agency managed their own spectrum use?
    Mr. Gillen. I think we could all go home. We would be in 
a----
    Mr. Carter. Yes, exactly. No question about it. And thank 
you for making that point. Mr. Assey, I will ask you this. Two 
recent auctions of Federal spectrum for commercial use are in 
the CBRS band in the 3.45 to 3.55 gigahertz band. These two 
spectrum bands both involve spectrum sharing. But each band 
approaches the issue slightly differently.
    Could you please discuss the opportunities and challenges 
that are presented by each of these type of approaches?
    Mr. Assey. The CBRS auction, I can talk about.
    Mr. Carter. OK.
    Mr. Assey. Sure. I think the benefit of the CBRS auction 
was that we were able to get all manner of people to 
participate in that auction. We had not just traditional 
players. We had cable companies, we had schools, we had John 
Deere and manufacturers, we have the Port of Long Beach. So we 
are able to get many more people into the system to be able to 
bid on spectrum, to be able to use the spectrum and compete in 
providing services. And we are now starting to reap the 
benefits of that.
    Dr. Ghosh talked about the base stations that have been 
rolled out and the very many different innovative ways in which 
the spectrum is being put to use, including by wireless 
carriers. So I think that is an example of how we can have an 
auction but also recognize the share--the needs of government 
users and be able to share spectrum efficiency but unlock it 
for commercial use. If we didn't have that type of an 
arrangement, we might be at the same stalemate, and we miss the 
opportunity----
    Mr. Carter. Right.
    Mr. Assey [continuing]. To get more spectrum in----
    Mr. Carter. Well, I appreciate that. I am about out of 
time. Mr. Gillen, you want to add something?
    Mr. Gillen. Just real quick. And I do think--we look at 
sharing solutions. We also have to look at the opportunities 
lost and that sharing brings low power, particularly the 
complex sharing we are talking about. If you want to build out 
to rural America, it is one-seventh the power. It is a lot more 
time to get to more communities. It is also preemptable.
    So if you want to build a secure, reliable service, to know 
that the Government can come in and say, ``You can't use that 
anymore,'' it makes it harder to do things we're trying to do 
vis-a-vis China and driving these forward.
    Mr. Carter. Good, good. And I am out of time, but I would 
be remiss if I didn't recognize the fact that Mr. Johnson is 
from the State of Georgia. This is extremely important to our 
State. So thank you for being here, and thank you for 
participating.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman's time has 
expired. And the Chair will recognize now his friend, the 
gentlelady from California's 16th District, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have really been 
studious about getting the number of my district correct, so 
proud of you and thank you. I am the veteran of hundreds of 
congressional hearings. I want to compliment all the witnesses 
today because I think you have made this a highly instructive 
one, so thank you. Mr. Johnson, as--you have made several 
references to Huawei--and I have been on Huawei for at least a 
decade, maybe a decade and a half--and I think that the 
pressure that was brought to bear--first of all, placing a 
spotlight on them, or--not even a handful were appreciating 
what Huawei was doing. But I think the tackle and blocking and 
the cooperation of the FCC and what they put into place on a 
bipartisan basis, I am quite pleased about.
    So to Mr. Assey, I want to go back to this--the CBRS and, 
you know, what that represents. In your written testimony, you 
discuss the, you know, the deployment of shared license 
spectrum to enable obviously commercial use in Federal spectrum 
brands. You also--bands. You also discuss the FCC's commercial 
broadband radio service. [A cell phone rings.] I don't have 
time to shut that off.
    Can you build on what you have already shared with us, why 
you believe it is so effective and what the FCC should be doing 
to evaluate when considering expanding it?
    And then I want to go to Mr. Gillen because, in your 
written testimony, you showed skepticism of shared spectrum, 
particularly CBRS and why you think--why do you think Congress 
and the FCC should be skeptical of it? So away we go.
    Mr. Assey. I think it is an important model. And as I said, 
what we are going to need in order to succeed, in order to 
compete with China, is a balanced approach that really allows 
us to use every tool in the toolbox to make commercial spectrum 
available. When we have situations that will not allow for 
clearing or that will not allow for us to do that in a timely 
way, we are basically leaving on the table the ability to get 
spectrum out there and used by thousands of innovators who 
could use it to build systems and ports, to build networks and 
schools.
    So there is a real benefit to bringing spectrum online as 
quickly as we can. We obviously need the technologist to 
basically evaluate these bands. They are getting more crowded. 
There are lots of competing uses out there. But I think it is a 
wonderful testament to the ability of our country to innovate 
and figuring out ways where we can meet the needs of government 
users, critical government-use needs, but also unlock spectrum 
that can be put to use quickly and by lots of new competitors 
to the marketplace.
    Ms. Eshoo. But is this kind of a tug of war between 
different businesses?
    Mr. Assey. Well, just to follow up, I mean, it is a----
    Ms. Eshoo. And I want to get to Mister----
    Mr. Assey. Yes.
    Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Gillen.
    Mr. Assey. Sure. I mean, I--look, I think what we are going 
to have to do is go on a band-by-band basis and determine which 
approach is the best--is going to best meet consumer needs.
    Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Gillen?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. And I think 
everything Mr. Assey said is right. This is a valuable 
experiment, but it is still very much an experiment. The first 
in the world to do it. Roughly there are lots of good use cases 
out there, but it is also less than 5 percent of that spectrum 
is getting used today. We think we have that sandbox for 
innovation right now. The places that we need more attention 
right now is full power spectrum that is licensed. That is 
where we are really falling behind now.
    Ms. Eshoo. I see.
    Mr. Gillen. So I think, in our minds, we have the 
experiment. Let's focus on things that are full power. Let's 
focus on things that we know work as we let that experiment 
continue to develop.
    Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back, 
and the gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
say thank you, too, to an unusually talented panel that we have 
gathered today in front of us. So it is very incumbent on us in 
Congress to pave a path forward for American commercial 
enterprise to compete with China's rapid technological 
development. As most of us know, China's Digital Silk Road and 
technologies like Huawei are quickly acquiring the building 
blocks for 5G and digital dominance. There is a lot of talk all 
through Congress on the Select China Committee where I sit and 
elsewhere, basically everywhere, about the dangers of TikTok, 
which is important. However, if China wins 5G and develops a 
software that rides on top of next-generation networks, I worry 
that the Chinese Communist Party will leverage that innovation 
against the entire free world: all sectors, energy, healthcare, 
transportation, AI, everything.
    So I think this is the real risk if we don't make more 
spectrum available for commercial use. Every person in this 
room should be concerned about CCP dominance of 5G technology 
and what that means for national security and the future 
generations to come in America.
    My esteemed colleagues on this committee enjoy a 
bipartisan, pro-American approach to technological innovation, 
which is fundamental in finding a solution to this interagency 
debate and political disputes, you know, that--these things are 
standing in the way, honestly, in the way of America's global 
competitiveness. I look forward to finding a real solution that 
clears both chambers of Congress at this urgent time. With that 
said, Mr. Johnson, you mentioned in your testimony positive 
developments in global competitiveness for spectrum use include 
one more spectrum and two coherent government processes for 
improving commercial use. Let me say I agree that leveraging 
American free markets is a key development to a path forward. 
We hear, however, about China making large amounts of spectrum 
available through raw government command and control.
    Should we be following them down the path to making the 
same frequencies available, or should we just--can we rely on 
the market forces to determine what spectrum best serves 
American interests?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman. It is a very important 
question. And also want to commend you for focusing in on the 
CCP. When I say China, talking about the Chinese Communist 
Party, not the Chinese people.
    Mr. Dunn. We are sensitive about that on the China Select--
--
    Mr. Johnson. It is absolutely--it is absolutely crucial. 
The Chinese civilization is one of the great civilizations in 
history. Chinese Americans are going to be a crucial and very 
important part of our country's future.
    But this is about the system of government run by the 
Chinese Communist Party, as you note. And the short answer to 
your question about should we do it their way: Absolutely not. 
What we should do is have a coherent process that, when a 
decision is made, as I'm--fellow witnesses have said, that the 
decision sticks and that the U.S. Government process which is 
collaborative, which is multiagency, when it--when it arrives 
at a decision, that the decision is final, and we get to deploy 
in C-band, for instance, and not have a delay. That--and as for 
the global harmonization, I certainly should--we should not be 
following China's lead. We should be leading in the 
harmonization. And, you know, that happens in a variety of 
places. We have got some incredible public servants who are 
going to be doing that. Anna Gomez at the State Department. 
America needs to be leading. But in order to lead, we have to 
have spectrum available in order to lead the harmonization.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you for making that clear. I want to make 
sure that, you know, we were on the same page here. Mr. Gillen, 
the midband spectrum deficit in the U.S. is--was facing, you 
outlined in your testimony really is concerning. We are told 
now, by 2027 China is going to have four times as much 5G 
spectrum as we'll have. Can you explain how China is using 
spectrum policy to get ahead and what the risk is to the United 
States economically and to national security, in 30 seconds?
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. No problem. It is twofold. One is 
that they want the innovations that we have led in 4G. They 
want those innovations that happened there. They understand 
that spectrum superiority comes with technical superiority. So 
from a straight softwares perspective, they want robotics--and 
everything rides on these networks--to happened there first. I 
think it was all Mr. Johnson said. This is also--in terms of 
midband access, there are global bands being built around the 
world. We are absent from a lot of those conversations today. 
We need this committee to jumpstart us and get us into those 
discussions because, right now, we are ceding those 
conversations to China. We are ceding those conversations to 
the rest of the world.
    Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much. It was very succinct. I 
think our technology will be untrustworthy if we let China 
lead.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back the--his time. And at this time, the gentleman from 
Texas's 33rd District is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    Mr. Gillen, in your testimony, you talked a little bit 
about the Affordable Connectivity Program. I was hoping that 
you could expand on that a little bit and talk about the 
importance of that program and being able to connect some of 
these families--I think that 55 percent of Americans under the 
Affordable Connectivity Program now have access to reliable 
high-speed internet--how important and transformational that is 
for our country.
    Mr. Gillen. It is so critical. Everything we are talking 
about today is about the connectivity that will empower, 
improve education, improve healthcare outcomes. It all depends 
upon people actually being connected. And so ACP has been 
critical to get millions of Americans to stay on broadband and 
also millions to get on broadband. We are very proud that 55 
percent of Americans are picking wireless solutions. We have 
always been the on-ramp for the internet for millions of 
Americans. We think it is something that is very important. And 
so we very much appreciate the program's focus on making sure 
that all Americans benefit from the conversation we are having 
today.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much. I was also hoping that if 
you could elaborate on a different topic. But the tangible 
benefits that Americans are receiving because the FCC has--have 
the authority to conduct auctions in awarding spectrum.
    Mr. Gillen. The most recent one that it brings to mind is 
5G Home, because having more spectrum that has more 
capabilities allowed us to now enter the home broadband market. 
And that creates more competition. We have 90 percent of new 
home broadband adds were wireless companies this last year. It 
also is a great tool to help close the digital divide. Too many 
kids still outside McDonald's doing homework still today 
despite a lot of good work. Fixed wireless is a solution that 
can help address that really quickly. And so that solution is 
as good as the spectrum we have. And the more spectrum we have, 
the more robust that can go. And the more full-power spectrum 
we have, the further into rural America we can deploy that 
asset.
    Mr. Veasey. No, absolutely. And I know that the FCC's 
auction authority expired last night. But hopefully they will 
get that fixed over in the Senate soon and extend that. As 
Congress looks to a longer-term extension, how important is it 
going to be for us to create a pipeline of spectrum, and how 
will this help in reducing the current deficit the U.S. is 
facing in making midband spectrum available for commercial use 
as compared to our competitors around the globe?
    Mr. Gillen. It's central. Only this committee can do this. 
We have seen--each time you have extended auction authority for 
long term--2012 is the last good example. Because of that, the 
FCC had something to auction. We can't just give the FCC 
auction authority and then not have anything for them to sell. 
And it is critical for this committee to identify those 
particular bands, particularly midbands that can go far, can 
carry a lot, that's happened--being used around the world. And 
really this committee is uniquely situated to not only--as you 
guys have worked really hard to preserve auction authority but 
also make sure that we have a plan going forward to deliver on 
the promise that we are talking about.
    Mr. Veasey. No. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Ghosh, I wanted to ask you--you know, really appreciate 
all the work that you are doing to bring together researchers 
and staff from universities, including minority-serving 
universities at SpectrumX. And I was hoping that you could tell 
us, based on your research and experience working in the 
wireless field, what workforce developments are needed to 
further aid America's leadership in spectrum policy and 
wireless technologies.
    Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. Workforce 
development is a core activity within our center. And we are 
taking it down to even the middle school and the high school 
levels. We need to get kids excited about not just running apps 
on their phones but what makes phones work. And we are doing 
that through a number of initiatives. We are creating course 
content within the center that will--can be used by high school 
teachers to educate kids in high school. We are creating course 
content that can be used in community colleges, in four-year 
colleges, that can be used to educate people about spectrum.
    Spectrum is one of those interesting things where there is 
not one course that you can take that makes an expert on 
spectrum. It--you need to know about physics propagation. You 
need to know about electrical engineering. You need to know 
about software, and bringing all of those competencies together 
is very, very important. Within SpectrumX, we just kicked off 
an initiative last week, actually, among four of the MSIs. We 
are going to have undergraduate students walk around with 
phones and collect spectrum data, collect signal strengths, 
look at what the throughputs are so that they get an 
understanding of these networks that they depend on, how they 
actually perform in the real world. We feel that is extremely 
important activity that centers like SpectrumX can do.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes, well, thank you very much. And you also 
mentioned Affordable Connectivity Program in your testimony. 
And I really appreciate that. I just can't--I don't think that 
we can emphasize that enough. So thank you. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back the few seconds I have. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back, 
and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gillen and Mr. 
Johnson, you started off the hearing with your graph, Mr. 
Gillen, of data usage. And, Mr. Johnson, your 2G phone reminded 
me of my party line when I was young. Tonight you can go home 
and explain to your children what a party line--it was not a 
party, but we literally shared a line with our neighbors, and 
made me think of my first laptop computer. And I was proud 
today that I upgraded it from 32K to 64K. It was a RadioShack 
TRS 80 and certainly highlights the challenge--right?--that's 
ahead of us.
    I'd like to just briefly highlight something everybody in 
this room knows about, the Spectrum Innovation Act, and remind 
us that the bill made lower 3 gigahertz band available so that 
we could improve our 5G network and be competitive. It also 
tied together auction authority with funding for Next Gen 9-1-1 
and rip-and-replace and so that we can take the Chinese telecom 
equipment out of U.S. networks and replace them with clean and 
safe equipment.
    These programs, I think we should know, were funded with 
zero taxpayer dollars. It is pretty significant and without 
adding to our deficit. Unfortunately, as we have discussed 
today, the legislation didn't pass the Senate. The auction 
authority just lapsed, and we have still not fully funded rip-
and-replace. The delay is costing providers in my State and 
putting the coverage in rural areas in my district at great 
risk. We all talk about beating China, winning the 5G race and 
beyond, and securing the communication infrastructures. But 
when it really came down to it, Congress dropped the ball on 
this.
    Let me start with you, Mr. Gillen. One of the issues we are 
dealing with is making sure that small carriers have resources 
necessarily to remove and replace Huawei and ZTE from their 
networks. I understand we have over $3 billion shortfall. And 
if not fully funded by July, these carriers will have to make 
very difficult decisions about securing their networks. Can you 
help us understand the urgency for fully funding rip-and-
replace programs and why July is an important date?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congressman. This has been a 
priority of the committee for a long time. And you guys brought 
the focus on this from a national security perspective. We are 
greatly appreciative. Greatly appreciative.
    Mr. Curtis. Could you pull your microphone----
    Mr. Gillen. Sorry.
    Mr. Curtis. There. Thank you.
    Mr. Gillen. The challenge we have, as you alluded to, we 
can do a lot of good things with auction proceeds. And we just 
need more auctions on the books. And I think whether it's 
FirstNet that's helped first responders, there is lots of 
things that you guys decide what ultimately the auction 
revenues do. We need that spectrum, and we are happy to 
contribute. It is over $233 billion to the Treasury. And 
there's lots of good congressional priorities that that money 
can get used to----
    Mr. Curtis. Could you just briefly restate why the lapse in 
auction authority hinders U.S. leadership?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes, sir. Absolutely. It is--when we look at 
what is happening--not having the ability to have a plan, a set 
of instructions going forward--is really challenging. It is 
really problematic. We see our rivals moving forward with 
haste. They have a plan, and they are executing on it. And I 
think the concern Mr. Johnson said about us becoming an island 
is real, particularly when it comes to midband access. And that 
goes really far. It travels far. It is key to what we want to 
do to make sure this benefits all Americans. And so the faster 
we get midband in the hands of innovators, the better things we 
can do for all consumers.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, good luck explaining a party line to your 
kids. But for a minute, you know, the irony here is, you know, 
some of the protection of spectrum is for national security. 
But can you explain if we don't let go of that, why it hinders 
national security?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman. I think that might be 
the most important question here. And Department of Defense--I 
was born on an Air Force base, Army veteran, love the 
Department of Defense. The weapon systems and the services that 
the Department of Defense and its arm--and its uniformed 
services provide are obviously the best in the world, crucial 
to our national security, crucial to world peace, crucial to 
every aspect of what we do. That includes some of the 
capabilities that they--that are enabled by their present 
spectrum holdings. Related to that and underlying that is the 
economic strength and vitality of the United States and our 
allies. If we don't have that--and again, I think to look at--
look at the difference between the southern part of Korea and 
the northern part of Korea, the western part of former Germany, 
the eastern part. It is economic vitality and technology is 
what--is what provides us the ability to win strategic 
competitions and to win wars when necessary.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. I'm----
    Mr. Johnson. So it is absolutely crucial. I don't have--I 
don't presume to have the answer for how you--how you--how 
exactly technically we go. We have to find a way for that 
spectrum to be for commercial use.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Unfortunately, I am out of time. I 
would just like to quickly add my voice to the many compliments 
to all of you today for being here with us. And Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Chairman Latta and also Ranking 
Member Matsui for having this very, very important hearing, 
albeit probably pretty boring to most of the people in America. 
And hopefully we have at least seven listeners today live, 
hearing this important discussion. And I would like to thank 
the witnesses for coming forth with your opinions and your 
expertise as well and for all the work that you've done. Some 
of you have been in the private sector for some time, some of 
you in the universities and also in the public sector as well. 
So thank you so much for all that you've given to our country 
and to the progress and process that we are talking about 
today.
    We are talking about wireless networks and technologies 
that play an incredible role in everyone's life in America, yet 
at the same time Americans take it for granted. What we don't 
do here--what I hope and pray that we don't do in Congress--is 
take it for granted that everything is going to be just fine. 
We just saw the expiration happen because the lack of 
cooperation between two bodies, the House of Representatives 
and the United States Senate.
    Hopefully we can get that straightened out soon on behalf 
of the American people so we can continue to progress. We are 
not alone in this world. We talked a lot about China. And China 
isn't the only player on the planet but certainly a very 
dominant player. But yet again, we have heard, by testimony, 
that, yes, we have confirmed that the United States still is 
the dominant player, but we are not alone. And we could fall 
back, and falling back is not good for security. It is not good 
for the American people. It is not good for the economy. It is 
just not good.
    So with that, what I would like to do is start off with a 
question to Dr. Ghosh. In your testimony, you speak about how 
spectrum policy can help bridge the digital divide. In 
particular, you said spectrum policy that makes available cost-
effective spectrum to small providers and communities to deploy 
and manage their own wide-area networks can be very effective 
in bridging the digital divide in both urban and rural 
communities. Could you tell us more about what the FCC has done 
to ensure that smaller providers in local communities can 
access the spectrum and provide better service to lower-income 
and underserved communities like mine in the San Fernando 
Valley?
    Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. So the most recent 
example of what the FCC has done is through CBRS. By creating 
150 megahertz of spectrum in the midbands that can be available 
either through licensing or even through unlicensed through GAA 
licensees, you are allowing communities to deploy their own 
networks, which is exactly what South Bend has done on their 
city schools.
    So we talked a lot about exclusively licensed. We talked a 
lot about unlicensed. I think we need to explore the space 
between the two because there are a lot of applications that 
are not well served by either very well. And shared spectrum, 
more of that that's available, I know you mentioned the high 
power. High power is great if you want a nationwide footprint. 
But a lot of these applications--you have a rural community. 
You just want to get their citizens covered. Low power is fine 
for those applications.
    And just another concluding remark on that is that, in 
rural areas specifically, it is not a shortage of spectrum that 
is creating the digital divide. It is a shortage of 
infrastructure. And the reason there is a shortage of 
infrastructure is cost. So we have to balance how much spectrum 
we have and how do we make sure that infrastructure actually 
rolls out to the places where it is needed.
    Mr. Cardenas. And it can be done. And it can be done. Thank 
you.
    As you know, Dr. Assey, data tells us that certain 
communities such as Hispanic communities over-index on the use 
of mobile devices for their primary or sole connection to the 
internet. Mobile wireless competition in these communities is, 
therefore, absolutely critical. If any one provider dominates 
the marketplace, these communities get the short end of the 
stick. It is important to me that our spectrum policy in this 
country keeps this in mind and we prioritize intense mobile 
wireless competition.
    How, in your view, does shared license spectrum support 
mobile wireless competition that might benefit communities that 
rely heavily on mobile wireless access to the internet?
    Mr. Assey. Again, I think it goes back to what Dr. Ghosh 
was saying. It is bringing more providers into the marketplace. 
In the CBRS auction we had over 250 people who claimed 
licenses. That was 10 times what we had seen in prior auctions. 
But, you know, the real--the real acid test, I think, is in the 
mobile space. We are seeing Comcast and Charter grow. We are 
seeing them build out that connectivity all around cities and 
towns. And consumers are benefiting. They are able to provide 
very attractive rates and savings.
    And the other thing I think that's really important too 
is--and it is the reason that we need the balanced approach is 
because, when you are using this device [holds up cell phone] 
in your home, Comcast has 80 percent of the data that is going 
over here is going over Wi-Fi. It is not going over a licensed 
network. So we need to make sure that we make commercial 
spectrum available through all means possible.
    Mr. Cardenas. Once again, I think public-private 
partnerships are key in that effort of connectivity. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I went over my time.
    Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now--
pardon me--recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Spectrum plays a 
vital role in connecting Americans, especially those residing 
in rural areas like I represent in southwestern and south-
central Pennsylvania. It ensures that they have the necessary 
broadband access to work, to farm, to heal, to do their 
commerce, to learn from home, all which are a vital component 
of the world that we live in today, which is why the Federal 
Government must work together to establish an intergovernmental 
approach to ensure that all parties involved are on the same 
page when it comes to spectrum policy by having that whole-of-
government approach. It sends that clear message to 
stakeholders that, in the United States, we want to continue to 
be the leading innovator. It also shows the rest of the world 
to look to us in America when it comes to all things spectrum.
    Mr. Assey, can you talk on how having a balanced spectrum 
policy benefits the constituents in a rural congressional 
district like I serve in Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Assey. Absolutely. Obviously, having the availability 
of unlicensed spectrum is very important. It basically extends 
the reach of the wired networks that we we've built out and 
will extend the capabilities that your consumers are going to 
be able to use when they are subscribing to cable service. But 
it also--these new models, the innovative models like CBRS, are 
allowing us to take government spectrum that was previously 
locked away and unlock it and allow a host of different types 
of manufacturers or towns or schools to be able to build out 
networks and systems. So I think it is one of these areas where 
the more we make available to America's innovative spirit, the 
more we will be able to produce.
    Mr. Joyce. So are you paralleling the ability to have that 
access to spectrum with the ability of Americans to be the 
innovators, to be the entrepreneurs that we need?
    Mr. Assey. Absolutely. There is a reason the U-NII-3 band 
was called the innovation band, because it unlocked all manner 
of ideas and technologies that we could only dream of. We hope 
to replicate that.
    Mr. Joyce. I would like to continue with Mr. Gillen. So 
recognizing that we are talking about rural areas that are 
grossly underserved, how do we go home to these areas that are 
unserved or underserved and talk--particularly as a 
representative from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--how do we 
assure them that they are going to have the services that they 
see in Pittsburgh and in Philadelphia?
    Mr. Gillen. It is a great question, and it is a critical 
priority. All the things that we are talking about need to be 
available to all Americans. And I think, when we talk about a 
balanced policy, I share Mr. Assey's goal. We need the 
Government to have enough spectrum. We need unlicensed to have 
enough spectrum. We need licensed to have enough spectrum. And 
right now, unfortunately, we are imbalanced. Unlicensed has 7 
times more than we do. Government has 12 times more. So that is 
why we are just focused on the full-power license that we are 
seeing around the world being used. And for us, it is between a 
full power and a CBRS solution. The difference in power is 7 
times over. Our ability to get to more and more communities 
quickly is all tied to that power level, and that is why it is 
so important when we have these conversations. We want to get 
quicker to more communities. A lot of that conversation gets 
to--Dr. Ghosh is exactly right. It gets to infrastructure. But 
how much infrastructure you need goes to how strong that signal 
can go.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Johnson, you mentioned in your testimony of 
the potential danger that the world will face if we allow 
adversaries like China to lead on commercial wireless 
communications. How can this body empower domestic industries 
to ensure that the U.S. continues to be that global leader?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman. I think this body has 
done a lot already through the CHIPS Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. It--this body has done what it needs to do 
on spectrum authority. My former employer in the Senate needs 
to--need to make that happen. But it is what I said in my 
opening. We need more commercial spectrum. We need coherent 
processes for deployment so that, when spectrum is allocated, 
innovators can deploy and serve. And then we need to harmonize 
global spectrum bands.
    Mr. Joyce. I think you recognize that, from a bipartisan 
basis, from this subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, we are 
committed to doing that.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a few seconds of 
personal license if I may. One of my senior staff--this is his 
last day as part of our team. Mr. Fred Sottnick, who has been 
an integral part of my role here on Communications and Telecom, 
came to me over 4 years ago, suffered through a grueling 
interview, and was able to be part of the leadership team of 
our legislative staff. He is the son of proud parents, both Lou 
and Desiree. He hails from Wildwood, New Jersey, but he has 
made Pennsylvania and his commitment to Energy and Commerce 
part of his goals. And I would like everyone to join in with me 
in thanking Mr. Sottnick for--and wish him the best of luck.
    [Applause.]
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back, and the 
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am new to the 
committee, and I wasn't here for a lot of your all's testimony. 
So I'll probably have some redundancy. That is just a note from 
the Department of Redundancy Department before I start.
    But I want to start with you, Mr. Gillen. You said that--or 
I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson. You just said with Dr. Joyce here we 
need more commercial spectrum. And of course I'm coming up to 
speed on all this infrastructure and all the spectrum and the 
use of it. How do we--if it is a finite source, or--how do we 
get more?
    Mr. Johnson. The most basic answer is we need to have a 
strategy, a thoughtful, discerning, urgent strategy to free up 
commercial spectrum. A lot of that is held in by Federal 
agencies, including Department of Defense. Department of 
Defense operates a number of very important capabilities on 
that spectrum, and we need to find a way to free it up for 
commercial use because the core strength of our country is the 
economic and technological vitality that will come from 
commercial innovation. That feeds into DoD strength. It feeds 
into national strength. And even in--you know, to get real 
specific, it feeds into the strength of weapons systems, both 
defensive and offensive.
    Mr. Weber. Well, let me follow that up with that same--
thought. Are there companies that use the spectrum that, 
indeed, they're commercial companies, whatever you want to call 
them, that undergird some of the processes of Department of 
Defense?
    Mr. Johnson. Oh, absolutely. There is the defense 
industrial base is--is----
    Mr. Weber. That is a good term.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. A very important sector. It 
includes a lot of otherwise commercial companies than it 
includes what we traditionally know as defense contractors. And 
so absolutely it is a very important part of the----
    Mr. Weber. All right, thank you. Mr. Gillen, I am going to 
jump over to you. You said that you see full-power licenses 
around the world, I think was what you said earlier. Elaborate 
on that. But you don't see it here?
    Mr. Gillen. Not enough, sir. Right now, the focus is on 
something we call midband spectrum. It goes really far, and it 
carries a lot. So we talk about how we use these devices more 
and more every year. It is really helpful to get this out to as 
many Americans as possible. The challenge we have, as Mr. 
Johnson just alluded to, the Government controls roughly 12 
times more of this than the commercial industry does. And so 
how do we do what's happening across the world is that we can 
be--use that spectrum we have more efficiently. We are not 
making any more. You are exactly right. But we can be more 
efficient with it.
    And I think we have seen, working to this committee, win-
win opportunities where we can help agencies get more efficient 
systems, get new systems, and give a space--have commercial 
operations at the same time.
    Mr. Weber. Are there leaders and more efficient systems 
today?
    Mr. Gillen. I would say the commercial wireless industry 
has improved its efficiency 40 times over this last decade. I 
think it is something that, when you paid billions of dollars 
for something, you get everything you can out of it. So I think 
there is a huge amount of investment to use this as efficiently 
and effectively as we can.
    Mr. Weber. At some point, that radio frequency highway 
becomes super crowded and has rush-hour traffic. How far off 
from that are we?
    Mr. Gillen. Without this committee's leadership, we are way 
too close to that. I think we are--we are in a good place right 
now. But what you see, what's happening around the world, we 
need to keep getting spectrum out to commercial users to keep 
up with all the things we want these networks to do.
    Mr. Weber. Mr. Assey, I'm going to come to you. If you were 
the Chair of FCC, what would you do?
    Mr. Assey. You know, that is like lobbyist 101 is not to 
tell the Chair of the FCC what to do but, look, I think----
    Mr. Weber. The Chair is not listening.
    Mr. Assey. The Chair is always listening. You know, as I 
mentioned in my testimony, I think the basic mechanism that we 
have, we have the FCC that looks at the civilian uses of 
spectrum. We have the executive branch and NTIA, which deals 
with the competing uses among all the different government 
users and agencies. You know, that is the right structure.
    The problem we face is they are not making any more 
spectrum. Consumers are demanding data. Government users are 
demanding data. We all need it all the time everywhere, and we 
have to figure out new strategies that will allow us to be able 
to do both. You know, we----
    Mr. Weber. Let me break in. I have got 9 seconds.
    Mr. Assey. Sure.
    Mr. Weber. Is there a model to follow, whether it is China, 
the way they deal with spectrum, or any other country? Is there 
a model to follow?
    Mr. Assey. We have the best model, which relies on----
    Mr. Weber. Well, that is not encouraging.
    Mr. Assey. Well, it--we can make it work. I believe we can 
make it work.
    Mr. Weber. OK. Well, I appreciate that. I am 7 seconds--Mr. 
Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back--excuse 
me--and the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New 
Hampshire for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today to discuss the future of 
wireless networks in America. Unfortunately, that future and 
our Nation's ability to remain a global wireless leader came 
into question last night when the FCC's authority to auction 
spectrum was allowed to expire. As we discussed today, this is 
literally the first time that Congress has failed to protect 
this critical function of the FCC, and it is simply 
unacceptable.
    Spectrum is the backbone of our Nation's communication 
networks that millions of Americans rely upon every single day 
for work, for telehealth, for school, for education, for 
entertainment, and, most importantly for many of us, to connect 
to our loved ones. Mr. Assey, I appreciate your testimony and 
the importance of unlicensed spectrum to provide Americans with 
everyday technologies like Wi-Fi. Can you speak further to the 
FCC's role in ensuring that sufficient unlicensed spectrum 
remains available for this important service?
    Mr. Assey. Sure. This is an area where I think the FCC 
really showed itself to be a trailblazer and put us on a path 
back in the '80s to really open up this band for innovators and 
other people who could develop technologies and services that 
would use this technology. As I mentioned most recently, the 
FCC's action in opening up the 6 gigahertz band promises to 
usher in a whole new wave of innovation in this space. We have 
gone part of the way. We have developed rules that govern low-
power indoor devices that provide 3 times the amount of 
bandwidth, lower latency, more security. Companies like--cable 
companies like Comcast are actively rolling out those 
technologies to customers. And we have further advances in Wi-
Fi technology that are going to be yet another step change and 
unlock a whole new series of applications when we get to things 
like virtual reality and augmented reality. So the future is 
bright.
    And the benefit of unlicensed spectrum is that we can all 
participate in it, and we can all produce in it. And that is 
why we have always been a leader in the unlicensed space as a 
country. And that is why I think we have a great stake in the 
success of unlicensed, particularly not just at home but around 
the world as well.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your 
expertise. In my district in New Hampshire, homes in rural 
communities are often spread far from the nearest town or city 
center. This makes it difficult to provide fast, reliable 
broadband services to these households, to say nothing of the 
geography and Mount Washington in the middle. I want to ask Mr. 
Gillen, if I could, how wireless can help to close the digital 
divide for hard-to-reach rural areas. And it's not relevant in 
my district, but I'll add for my colleagues Tribal areas.
    And now that the FCC's auction authority has lapsed, how 
will this impact the ability of your wireless companies to 
provide broadband services to my constituents in New Hampshire 
or to other rural parts of the country?
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the question. It is critical. 
Spectrum is--we are only as good as, as much spectrum as we 
have. And as everything Mr. Assey said about the FCC 
trailblazing and unlicensed access, we would like that same 
focus now on license, that we want that same amount of spectrum 
that would be able to innovate and grow with. And I think fixed 
wireless is now a solution that can get to more and more homes 
quickly, that it is an opportunity now with 5G Home.
    We are seeing opportunities. Accenture projects that with 
additional spectrum that this could reach 43 percent of rural 
Americans in the next few years. And time is critical because 
those folks don't have connectivity today. And it also goes 
back to the BEAD Program that this committee drove, a 
technologically neutral approach. The implementation, we're 
worried, is not focusing on all the solutions available. We 
think that fiber is a place for that program. We also think 
wireless does too. Every community is going to need to make a 
difference between quickness, speed, what's available, and the 
finite amount of money that's available to them.
    So I think the more solutions we put towards rural America, 
the better we are because it is hard. And we all need to be 
working towards that because we need everyone connected to do 
all the things we want to do.
    Ms. Kuster. Is there any technological benefit of wireless 
over wired, if you will, for geography, for mountainous areas, 
for hard-to-reach places?
    Mr. Gillen. Every community is different. Every mix is 
different. I think absolutely that, if you have to get fiber 
all the way to the house, wireless has a benefit if it can be 
from a tower. There is topography and other challenges. There's 
other ways of doing it, but it really gets down to these hard-
to-reach communities are absolutely hard to reach. But 
absolutely wireless, if you can do it more quickly with--with 
a--you don't have to get all the way to the house, particularly 
in really expensive areas. That's a solution.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you very much. My time is up, and 
I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has 
expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chair Latta, and thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. Obviously, we are all 
disappointed that last night the FCC's authority to auction 
spectrum expired. You know, it looks like we have got a lot of 
players in this whole process, and trying to get everybody on 
the team has been difficult. As we work to make up for this 
lost time and developing--improving our spectrum technologies, 
obviously the agencies need to become more flexible, which is a 
bit of a problem everywhere in this administration. And 
responsive to the needs of our private partners, of course this 
latest development has moved us in the exact opposite 
direction. I understand that we are in a global race here.
    And I am proud that the House last week did pass H.R. 1108. 
And I hope the Senate will hurry along with that as well. But 
tell me about the midband spectrum. And how does--can it ensure 
the U.S. retains global leadership in the wireless industry, 
Mr. Gillen?
    Mr. Gillen. It absolutely can. It is critical. And why 
midband is important is that it is a blend of both capacity, 
that it can carry all the healthcare, everything we are trying 
to do with the spectrum. It can go further. We need to get from 
Augusta to Evans and beyond. And beyond is about--midband gets 
us there. Full-power midband is really the key to a lot of what 
the rest of the world is using because of those propagation 
characteristics. So a lot of the conversation is around midband 
because we don't have a lot of it available commercially in the 
United States. We see others using it. We think it is a key 
part of the solution to meet America's needs going forward.
    Mr. Allen. Well, now that the FCC's auction authority has 
expired, we must reauthorize it so that the FCC can take action 
on pending applications to provide service in the 2.5 gigahertz 
band. Isn't 2.5 gigahertz valuable midband spectrum that 
combines capacity and coverage, meaning it is particularly 
valuable to my rural areas in my district?
    Mr. Gillen. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Allen. OK. Mr. Assey, how does spectrum sharing work, 
and what are the challenges or opportunity with spectrum-
sharing technologies to get us out of this current restriction 
that we are dealing with?
    Mr. Assey. I think spectrum-sharing technologies have the 
ability to create win-win solutions when the alternative is 
kind of somebody has to lose. I think this is one of the great 
developments we have seen. And, you know, frankly we are not 
just seeing here, we are also seeing a lot of work going into 
this around the world as well. And the reason is because the 
uses that we have, both on the commercial side and the 
governmental side, continue to increase. And this is a 
promising technology of unlocking spectrum quickly so that we 
can get it to use rather than waiting around for, you know, the 
fifth of never.
    So the other--the other piece of that is that, you know, 
these technologies, particularly with CBRS, have the ability to 
bring many more people into the ecosystem to really develop 
that richness, that rich, competitive ecosystem in the wireless 
industry that not only benefits consumers but will benefit, you 
know, the broader industry as well. And that is a way in which 
we can support these types of experiments through a balanced 
policy that focus on everything.
    Mr. Allen. Mr. Johnson, is it possible that--of course we 
have got, you know, the private and then the public users of 
spectrum. Is it possible that the public users could get into 
sharing as well to free up some of that space?
    Mr. Johnson. I think it is not only possible, it is 
imperative. And I'm--you do not want to--a lawyer determining 
how you divvy all this up. But we have to have spectrum 
available for commercial use as a national security imperative. 
There are ways to do that, and we will let the experts to my 
right determine how that happens. But the key point is more 
commercial spectrum and as a crucial national security 
imperative.
    Mr. Allen. Exactly. But we can't lose this race----
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    Mr. Allen [continuing]. As I see it. Is that correct? Does 
everyone agree with that? OK.
    Mr. Johnson. I don't think it's an overstatement to say 
that, if we lose this race, we lose market democracy.
    Mr. Allen. OK. All right. Well, thank you so much for your 
time. And Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, panel, 
for your time and expertise here today. A question for Ms. 
Ghosh. I look at your resume, and you have got electronic 
engineering training, experience in the private sector, 
government, and academia. And that poses a background that I 
would like to explore in terms of your perspective on 
something.
    5G and its networking capability and access is something 
that is very exciting to me. Artificial intelligence and its 
potential processing capacity is very exciting to me. The 
potential of those two being combined is frightening to me. Can 
you take about a minute and tell me if my fears are warranted 
or not.
    Dr. Ghosh. So artificial intelligence, the way I look at it 
in terms of 5G and wireless, is really another tool that we can 
use to manage the performance of the networks much better. So I 
think the parts of artificial intelligence that we have to be 
very careful about is when you go into the human aspect of it. 
You know, are there biases being created? Is the artificial 
intelligence way of optimizing a network somehow going to 
automatically disadvantage people in a lower-income 
neighborhood because they are not paying, you know, top dollar 
for their services?
    So we definitely have to make sure that we are aware of the 
pitfalls of using artificial intelligence without any 
restrictions on it. But it is a powerful tool.
    Mr. Fulcher. If I could ask you, because I have some 
questions for the others: Are you frightened of that 
combination?
    Dr. Ghosh. No, I'm not.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK. Thank you.
    Dr. Ghosh. I am very hopeful that we will work out a way.
    Mr. Fulcher. OK.
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. I'm shifting gears now, and I would 
like to ask just a little bit less than a minute on this from 
each of our other panelists, please. If innovation and a free-
market competitive environment is our goal, what is the proper 
role of government in achieving that in your industry? And what 
is a bridge too far? I will start with Mr. Gillen. A little 
less than a minute, please.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. Access to 
spectrum is number one for us, is creating--empowering the FCC 
to auction spectrum, identifying spectrum for auction and then 
letting the highest bidder win and to take advantage of--and 
then leverage that to deliver service for America. So that is 
the key for us. That is the input we need to make a difference.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. I would say auction is one tool. But at a 
broader sense, it is making commercial spectrum available using 
a balanced approach that includes all of the above and also 
addressing the needs of government users and coordinating 
amongst many different government agencies.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Agree. And just stated maybe a different way, 
it is setting up the innovators for success. That means giving 
them the spectrum that they need. It means giving them 
processes that are coherent and final. And it means helping 
harmonize those bands globally.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you. And to the panelists, just--I'll 
just close with this comment. I am not a veteran on this 
committee. I have had some experience in the technology sector 
and in academia. But I am very sensitive and I think we as a 
committee are very sensitive to where those boundaries are for 
regulation. So easily sometimes we can stifle innovation and 
competitiveness. So finding that happy medium, finding that 
place where it's necessary but encouraging to competition and 
innovation is where we are trying to be. Please help us get 
there. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 
the witnesses for being here. Listen. This has been invaluable 
to me. I am a new Member as well, and I am the other pharmacist 
on the panel, the youngest. You know, when reading Mr. 
Johnson's statement about China allocating spectrum, it caused 
me to look into--a little deeper into 6G research. And I read 
an article that stated at the end of 2021, China's government 
had built the largest 5G mobile infrastructure in the world 
with 1.43 million base stations accounting for over 60 percent 
of the global total.
    And it also stated that, after having its 5G network up for 
a month, Beijing officially launched R&D into the 6G ahead of 
schedule. And this was probably the most frightening for me. It 
also stated that China has the most 6G patents in the world, 
and it has 40.3 percent of the 6G filings, mainly focused on 6G 
infrastructure. Now, this is a question for the whole panel. At 
the end of the day, Americans--you know, they can sell all the 
spectrum in the world. But if we can't build our infrastructure 
out, it is worthless.
    So my question is, how important is permitting reform to 
ensuring that any newly released spectrum results in a better 
and more effective experience? And I guess we can start with 
you, Mr. Gillen.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you. It is a really important question. 
And I think when you look at--in China, if they want to deploy 
a cell tower, they do it that day.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. That day.
    Mr. Gillen. There is no zoning. There is no anything. It 
just happens. That is not necessarily what we need to 
replicate. But we need to do faster here too.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen. Too many communities, it costs too much, it is 
too complex to process, and there's not time frames involved to 
make sure the communities' interests are addressed but also to 
let us get out and build faster. It also goes to the power and 
the propagation of these signals that there is some spectrum 
that just works better in rural areas than others, and we need 
to make sure we are focusing on those. And on your question 
about 6G, we have really smart engineers starting that 
conversation.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Gillen. Right now, we are in the first inning of 5G. 
This is really just the beginning of what we are doing. And so 
I think that we need to stay focused on 5G. There is absolutely 
the right engineers working towards what 6G future is. And you 
are exactly right in terms of patents, in terms of standards. 
China is trying to take a leadership role, and we need to be 
aware of that. You know, Mr. Johnson's call for warning on all 
those things is exactly right.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, let's hope the Senate watches this 
hearing so they will get on the stick. Yes, sir,
    Mr. Assey?
    Mr. Assey. I would agree with what Mr. Gillen said. I mean, 
spectrum is obviously an input. But really it is not--spectrum 
is only as good as the infrastructure----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Absolutely.
    Mr. Assey [continuing]. It's going to ride over. And we 
have to be able to build infrastructure efficiently with 
government permitting as well. But it is actually much broader 
than that because, you know, as Mr. Gillen said, if in China--
they can basically make it happen and put the pole up, you 
still have to get the pole--the wire attached to the pole. So 
there are a lot of other things that can impede our execution 
of actually following through and building on broadband. And 
permitting is one, access to poles is another, supply chain, 
and it goes on. So it is a--it is a very difficult problem we 
face. But in talking about spectrum, we should not lose focus 
on the need to execute on these strategies and actually build 
the infrastructure.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Absolutely. I don't even think deadlines 
would--they would respond to deadlines, as Mr. Gillen said. 
Yes, Doctor?
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes. There's a lot of 6G initiatives happening 
already in the U.S. I am part of the Next G Alliance that is 
already working on 6G standards, 6G interest groups in the 
National Spectrum Consortium. So I'm pretty comfortable that 
the U.S. is still in a leadership position on 6G. Going to 
infrastructure, I think that, especially when you are talking 
about rural areas and underserved areas, to me the fundamental 
problem of infrastructure there is one of lack of backhaul. You 
know, you cannot get fiber fast enough to most places. So we 
have to start thinking about alternative ways of getting 
backhaul. Satellite is one.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Dr. Ghosh. Fixed point-to-point links using, you know, the 
high frequencies where there is a lot of bandwidth and others. 
So we have to, you know, take a whole approach to spectrum and 
how it is best used.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, because we have to make decisions. I 
serve a rural area, and there is not broadband in a lot of the 
counties. And, you know, we have struggled on how to do that 
temporarily or do you do a--you know, an infrastructure that is 
good for a long, long time? So understand that. Yes, sir?
    Mr. Johnson. Same thing. Yes, ma'am. And I'm--we live--we 
presently live in Northeast Georgia----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Oh.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Close to Tennessee.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. You are right up my--I'm----
    Mr. Johnson. That's right.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. I get there in 4 hours.
    Mr. Johnson. We live in a little valley where we have--I 
still have--I have DSL internet.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Oh, my gosh. Son, you need to move.
    Mr. Johnson. Works OK, but it's--you know, there--there are 
times where the layout of the mountains and valleys----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Is going to determine what works 
best.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. It absolutely does.
    Mr. Johnson. So many on our--my fellow witnesses have said, 
it takes different approaches and different topographies. And 
so particularly the BEAD program, the implementation of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, needs to account for that. Not 
every valley----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Is the same so----
    Mrs. Harshbarger. No. I mean, East Tennessee is absolutely 
not like Chicago.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. Are you kidding?
    Mr. Johnson. And they all have to have broadband. Where we 
live, a lot of--a lot of kids do their homework in the 
McDonald's parking lot. It is not OK. It is not good. Back to 
my point, it is not good for national security if a big part of 
our country doesn't have access to broadband.
    Mrs. Harshbarger. I think he's tapping out. So with that, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Latta. The gentlelady's time has expired, and the 
gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to all our witnesses for appearing before the committee here 
today. I think it is pretty clear it is essential for us to 
lead as the United States on spectrum policy to remain 
competitive not just today but for tomorrow as well. And I am 
going to piggyback off of what my colleague from Tennessee was 
saying. So I represent North Florida, North Central Florida, 
the heart of the Sunshine State, and I also serve as a member 
of the House Ag Committee. So I am optimistic about the world 
that spectrum, both licensed and unlicensed, can play to 
support efficient production through precision agriculture. So 
I would like to direct this question to both Mr. Gillen and Mr. 
Assey.
    Can you speak to some of the current cases of spectrum in 
the agricultural production and future potential benefits in 
the sector? I'll start with you.
    Mr. Gillen. Thank you. One of the things we are excited 
about, the impact this can have on farming. I think to the 
conversation we just had, there has to be connectivity first.
    Mrs. Cammack. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen. That we can have the best solutions in the 
world. Until there is connectivity--we don't need that. So we 
need to make sure there is spectrum available. In terms of 
actually what is happening in precision agriculture, we see a 
new wave of innovators seeing what 5G can do. Some of the AI 
capabilities that the doctor spoke about a minute ago, that 
Trellis is one in Georgia that is helping farmers stay on their 
land, helping drive yield, increasing irrigation that helps--
gives the sensors--give them the tools to actually do their job 
in real time. And so we are seeing some of this first wave of 
innovators.
    You know, in 4G, we saw the sharing economy, app economy. 
We saw all those things happen on the 4G platform. 5G can do so 
much more in the enterprise space and to help businesses do 
their job. So we are just scratching the surface. But companies 
like Trellis give us a lot of encouragement we are on the right 
path.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent.
    Mr. Assey. Yes. I think it is an exciting area for 
innovation to kind of take hold. And it kind of goes to what I 
spoke in my testimony about the industry looking at not just 
getting broadband to the house but really creating the cloud 
around which you live. You know, we are going to use the BEAD 
program, and hopefully we're going to connect a lot of 
farmhouses. We're going to want to be able to go beyond that 
farmhouse to cover the fields and to help the farmers provide 
the information, the technology that they are going to need in 
the modern age.
    And I think that there is no one solution. You know, 5G 
will be a solution in some places. Unlicensed spectrum can be 
used to extend connectivity out of doors. And the--and CBRS is 
a great example of where we can bring more people into this 
ecosystem and allow them to develop the solutions that best 
meet their own needs.
    Mrs. Cammack. So I know this has been kind of touched on a 
couple different ways. But I think just to make it concise and 
clear, why is it so important that NTIA remain the sole manager 
of Federal spectrum rather than separate, independent 
management of agency spectrum? And we'll start here and go down 
the line.
    Mr. Johnson. I think what we saw in the C-band issue with 
deployment of 5G and FAA, the danger is that that plays out in 
every sector of the economy and therefore every regulator, 
every Federal agency. We all have, in--the further we get into 
the 5G era, the further we are going to be in an era where 
every sector has equities in spectrum. And we have to have 
coherent processes that determine how it's allocated. And once 
that process is finished, it needs to be finished.
    Whether it is Federal with the NTIA or commercial with the 
FCC, we have to have processes that end, and then deployment 
can begin.
    Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely.
    Dr. Ghosh. So the U.S. is the only country in the world 
that even has two agencies that regulate spectrum, one for 
commercial and one for Federal. It is bad enough, right? And 
now if you take every agency that NTIA represents and if they 
were all going to have a separate voice, it is just not 
manageable. So we have to be able to have a cohesive picture to 
the world. It makes the U.S. look very indecisive if we are not 
able to resolve, you know, our own conflicts between spectrum 
domestically. So absolutely, it is absolutely essential that 
the NTIA is the only agency that represents the Federal 
interests. Thank you.
    Mr. Assey. I don't think I can really add to that, but we 
have a lot of Federal users, and we need some way in the 
executive branch to coordinate the varying interests they have.
    Mr. Gillen. I agree with everything said. Just add the key 
to why it is important is certainty. If you are asking 
companies to spend billions of dollars on these assets, you 
need to know that what you actually bought, you are going to be 
able to use. And so having that one agency--or as Doctor 
correctly noted, we do have two, that we do--that in a way that 
creates certainty across the ecosystem for both agencies and 
the commercial sector.
    Mrs. Cammack. Absolutely. Thank you for making that point 
crystal clear. And thank you again to the chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back, and the 
Chair recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gillen, I would like to start with you. First of all, 
let me thank you for delivering your comments extemporaneously 
and not merely reading. I feel like when we are having a 
hearing like this, we do a much better job being evocative with 
each other if we don't merely just read to each other. I just 
want to let you know that we notice, and I appreciate it.
    You showed, at the beginning of your testimony, a graphic 
that I thought was really compelling showing a 5 times increase 
in consumer demand for data by the year 2027. And that is a 
theme that has been echoed in the testimony that we have heard 
today. In fact, I think Mr. Assey referenced consumers' endless 
demand for data, is the way you put it. And I think that is an 
important discussion to have because, as Congresswoman Clark 
mentioned when you and she were having a discussion, that 
really is what is driving the need for more commercial 
spectrum, which is kind of underpinning the theme of today's 
hearing.
    But I want to ask you about that because I don't see how--
why that should necessarily be true. If you look at the 
evolution of cellular data technology, we start with sending 
texts to each other. We--that grows to graphics when we had the 
bandwidth to do that. That grew to photographs. And then 
recently, video is commonplace, and we don't even think twice 
about viewing a video or a sports game on a phone.
    But what I see in the generation after this is the 
explosion of technology is like AI. It is very exciting to me 
that hobbyists have succeeded in getting AI stacks similar to 
ChatGPT to run on cell phones. So that is going to be amazing. 
But that doesn't necessarily mean that we need more data 
bandwidth to the device. So to what do you attribute this 
fivefold increase in demand in the next couple of years?
    Mr. Gillen. Sure. A couple things, and it is a great 
question. The--part of it is--as you alluded to, we just use 
these devices more and more every day. So as the device has 
more speeds and capabilities, we just use them more in a way 
that we didn't 2 or 3 years ago and continuing. What we are 
seeing with 5G is the proliferation of devices. It is not just 
this we are talking about. It is a lot of the sensors and other 
things we have talked about today, that this is the 
proliferation of devices, the Internet of Things we all talk 
about. This is the connectivity. Some of the connectivity is 
going to be 5G. Some of the connectivity is going to be 
unlicensed but that we are going to see an explosion of demand 
as enterprises take advantage of this information and 
connectivity that it is just going to be more and more devices 
talking to the network, not necessarily each individual device 
using infinitely more.
    Mr. Obernolte. But just to play devil's advocate----
    Mr. Gillen. Sure.
    Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. We can only use one device at a 
time, so it is not like my refrigerator is going to watch the 
49ers game, right? I'm watching it on my phone. I'm only doing 
it one--you know, I might switch to my iPad. I might switch to 
my computer. I might switch to my TV. But it is not clear to me 
that, you know, my refrigerator is going to have that same 
appetite for data.
    Mr. Gillen. Absolutely, and I think it is--we sort of 
talked about the precision agriculture example a little bit 
before. Those aren't using a lot of data, but those sensors are 
feeding data back in real time without our involvement at all. 
And so I think some of the things are the information--energy 
company using it to evaluate leaks in their system. There is 
going to be constant information flow coming, so absolutely. Us 
individually as individuals, it is all the things that we are 
going to be empowering with this technology that really drive 
that usage.
    Mr. Obernolte. All right. Continuing on that topic, Mr. 
Assey, you know, we have been using this rise in demand for 
data as a reason why we need to allocate more spectrum to 
commercial use. However, at the same time, we are pursuing new 
technologies that make more efficient use of the spectrum that 
we already have, things like better spectrum sharing, beam-
conforming technologies, larger phased or raised antennas, you 
know, that really potentially--especially in the 5G world have 
a potential to be game changers.
    How much do you think of this increased demand those 
technologies can satisfy rather than needing more bandwidth?
    Mr. Assey. I should probably defer to Dr. Ghosh on that.
    Mr. Obernolte. I'll allow you to.
    Mr. Assey. But I just--I will make the one point, which is 
that, you know--and it doesn't matter whether you are a wired 
network or a wireless network. We are both kind of hybrids of 
the same. But it is going to be in our interest to be able to 
be able to push more data through the mediums that we have 
because the alternative is to have to basically devote more 
capital to expanding and expanding and expanding. So there is a 
real market incentive for us to try to be more efficient. And 
that is why, you know, cable's next generation of technology, 
10G technology, is going to be even more efficient than the 
ones we have seen previously.
    Mr. Obernolte. Well, I think that this is a discussion that 
obviously we are going to continue to have. Let's look forward 
to taking the first step, which is to regain FCC authority to 
actually auction spectrum. And fingers crossed that the 
Senate--they will have another opportunity next week. John 
Dingell used to call them the Cave of Winds. I think they have 
an opportunity to prove him wrong. Let's hope they do it. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Balderson [presiding). Thank you. Well, next up, I'd 
like to recognize myself. It just so happened I came up to the 
chair, but it was my turn. Sorry, Mr. Pfluger. But thank you 
all for being here today.
    And the question--my first question is for the doctor. 
Representative Kuster and I introduced a bill that would 
increase coordination between NTIA and FCC and require them to 
update their spectrum MOU regularly. I am glad our bill was 
approved earlier this week during our subcommittee markup, and 
I am hopeful this will help prevent future issues like we saw 
with C-band. I would like to start, and then also hear from 
other witnesses. Outside of regularly updating their MOU, do 
you have any recommendations, Doctor, on how the FCC/NTIA can 
improve coordination on its spectrum issues?
    Dr. Ghosh. Thank you for that question. So I think one of 
the key points of debate that arise when you are talking about 
spectrum issues is the underlying technical reasons 
assumptions. As I mentioned in my testimony, centers like 
SpectrumX actually have joined MOUs with the NTIA and the FCC. 
So we actually convene both agencies together to really talk 
about what are the fundamental technical issues that need to be 
discussed.
    I think more regulations like that should be encouraged 
along with more dialogue between the agencies directly. 
Involving the broader community can only help make these 
decisions proceed better.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you, Doctor. Would anybody else on 
the panel like to add to that? Mr. Gillen?
    Mr. Gillen. I would really echo the doctor's comments. I 
think when you look--we want these folks to be our spectrum 
experts. They need the resources to do that. It is the ITS lab 
in Boulder. We need to empower these experts to be able to--one 
to make the calls and that everyone trusts that process. So it 
is critical that we have the underlying research and 
capabilities.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. In your testimonies, many of you 
referred to the importance of spectrum pipeline and including 
the lower 3 gigahertz band in that pipeline. As you all know, 
and we have talked about it a little bit, the lower 3 is being 
used in Europe, China, and other countries across the globe for 
5Gy, but it is not being used for the purpose in the United 
States.
    Can any of the witnesses explain the benefits of the global 
harmonization of spectrum bands and why it is so important? Mr. 
Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. It bears repeating, I think, that if 
the United States can serve that band, it--and it has--it has 
global scale, then U.S. companies and allied-based companies 
that have large presence in the United States can compete and 
win. If we are not in that band, then China and Huawei, etc., 
have the advantage. And it is just that simple.
    Mr. Balderson. It is. Agree. Doctor, would you like to----
    Dr. Ghosh. Yes. So I think it is important to realize that 
economy scale are really important. And not being in that band, 
I would--I would modify that statement a bit. I think pretty 
much all 5G technology that is being developed in the U.S. is 
actually capable of operating in that band. They don't because 
we don't have the license to do that. And I would reiterate 
that, actually, if we can even develop ways of sharing in that 
band, that puts the U.S. ahead. None of these other countries 
really have developed the sharing capabilities and expertise 
that the U.S. has. And we should leverage that more, whether it 
is in the lower 3 or in other bands to expand our capabilities.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Mr. Assey, would you like to add 
anything?
    Mr. Assey. Yes. No, I would agree with that. I mean, we 
have challenges in that band from a governmental sense that 
other nations may not. So we have to work through them. But the 
most important thing is, can we focus on ways that we can make 
commercial spectrum available? And can we develop these types 
of sharing win-win solutions that will allow us to open the 
band up sooner rather than waiting to do it later?
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Mr. Gillen, please?
    Mr. Gillen. It is a large block of spectrum. There is a lot 
of opportunities to both meet DoD's needs and meet the 
commercial needs, and that when we look--we need spectrum that, 
from a security reliability standpoint, is preemptable. A lot 
of the complex sharing we are doing today, Federal Government 
takes precedent and commercial sector can't use it. So if we 
want spectrum, we want to invest $35 billion a year in, we need 
to know we are going to be able to use it. And I think these 
experiments are really important for us going forward. But we 
also have to recognize the full power, nonpreemptable spectrum, 
is key to do a lot of things we wanted to do too.
    Mr. Balderson. OK. Thank you all very much. I am going to 
stop right there and yield myself back.
    Next up, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pfluger.
    Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for saving the best 
for last. And I appreciate all of your testimony and your 
written testimony. I will apologize right now, Mr. Johnson, Dr. 
Ghosh. A lot of the questions that I was intending to ask you I 
think have already been asked. And so I am going to focus a 
little bit--little bit differently. And let me just ask, for 
the two of you in the associations, that 3.1 to 3.7 gig range--
former Air Force pilot, spent a lot of time with spectrum, 
understand, you know, the dual use, the commercial versus the 
military very well. What are we competing against in the DoD 
side there that is--I don't want to get stuck on this one but--
--
    Mr. Gillen. In terms of what the military is----
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen [continuing]. Looking for? It is largely a radar 
band, both ground and air. So you have--AWACS is a big user of 
that. And that is one of those--when you talk about a system 
that is ripe for advancement and innovation, it is----
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen [continuing]. One of those that we think--the 
win-win situations come, is that we can get Wedgetail, use 
Wedgetail to use different spectrum than they are using today, 
that we have some more opportunities to open it up. But at its 
core, 3.1 to 3.7 has been a radar band.
    Mr. Pfluger. It is largely AI.
    Mr. Gillen. Yes.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes. And you think that with the Wedgetail and 
with some of the other innovations--I mean, is there an 
opportunity to share it?
    Mr. Gillen. There is absolutely options to share. I think 
there is geographic sharing.
    Mr. Pfluger. Yes.
    Mr. Gillen. There is more complex sharing that there--that 
we have heard about as well.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK.
    Mr. Gillen. I think it really comes down to--and what we 
find this committee is really helpful at is, system by system, 
engineer to engineer, what is the right solution? Some may 
retune. Some move. Some stay the same.
    Mr. Pfluger. Very quickly, because I want to jump to 
another one.
    Mr. Assey. And I was just going to say--and this is exactly 
what engineers like Dr. Ghosh are trying to sift through, 
through that--process.
    Mr. Pfluger. OK. It sounds like, from what I have heard and 
what I have read in your testimonies today, that there is kind 
of an all-of-the above approach. You know, there is an auction 
that's needed. There is, you know, other approaches, licensed 
and unlicensed. And I will just say, look, we spent billions of 
dollars the last couple years. And in an area like mine where 
we are truly a national security area, we produce the most 
energy out of any geographic region in the entire country.
    We have a tremendous amount of agriculture. But the density 
of population is very, very low. And I find myself driving 
through my own district, going ``What happened?'' You know? And 
so how do we--you know, how do we get to the point where we 
actually do compete with China, where we are actually doing 
what we said we were going to do and provide that coverage to 
that last mile? This is 1930 with a lack of electricity in 
those farmhouses. I mean, how do we do it, because I'm worried 
about it.
    Mr. Gillen. Exactly right. I think part of it is spectrum. 
But as the panel has talked about, it gets down to 
infrastructure, and the cost in rural areas can be prohibitive. 
And so what is the role of government? The BEAD program is part 
of it. Right now, that is only going to be fiber. So it is not 
going to fix wireless or mobile wireless. The FCC promised a 5G 
fund in 2011, I believe. We still haven't gotten money 
dedicated to building out wireless in those really expensive 
areas. So it--really going to take a partnership between 
government and industry to really reach all of those Americans 
while we continue to push forward.
    Mr. Pfluger. Because a lot of the--you know, we hear, 
``Well, this is for rural broadband, and this money was for 
rural broadband.'' And I'm like, ``I live in a rural area. 
Where is my broadband?''
    Mr. Assey. Yes. No, I think it is a great point. And the 
BEAD program provides us with a great opportunity. There is a 
lot of capital out there, but as you say, you know, we have 
kind of heard this before in the sense that money that is going 
to rural America never gets to rural America. And it is one of 
the reasons I think we have to stay laser focused on making 
sure that the capital that the Government has provided is 
actually dedicated to those unserved and underserved areas that 
have been so long without infrastructure and where the 
economics to serve are so hard.
    Mr. Pfluger. So am I to understand that the--the money has 
not been appropriated for those areas like Highway 158 between 
Garden City and Midland?
    Mr. Assey. The program has--we have allocated the money, 
and we are in the process currently. The Department of Commerce 
is about to allocate that money further among the States. And 
then it will be up to the States to distribute those funds 
pursuant to the rules that the Department of Commerce has set. 
And, you know, I think Congress showed great leadership when it 
passed that legislation to make sure when we say ``unserved and 
underserved America,'' we mean it.
    Mr. Pfluger. Well, thank you for that. And, you know, 
obviously this is a very--I believe a lot of what has been said 
today, we have to compete. We have to do it well, even in areas 
that may be more difficult and are not quite as economic to the 
companies that you represent. We still have to provide the 
coverage there, because they are actually providing something 
that is in the public interest, and that is energy and food. 
And we want people to move to those areas. And without 
coverage, many of the families don't do it because their kids 
can't learn, you know, in the school settings or their spouses 
can't work. They are remote. So I am very worried about that.
    I appreciate you all being there and going through the end. 
I think we are starting a second round of questions here 
shortly. I yield back, Chair.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Pfluger, for your humor also. 
All Members have been recognized. Seeing there are no further 
Members wishing to be recognized, I would like to thank all of 
the witnesses today for being here. Promise you don't have 
another round of questioning.
    I ask unanimous consent to insert the record the documents 
included on the staff hearing document list. Without objection, 
that will be the order. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Balderson. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind 
Members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for 
the record and ask the witnesses to respond to the questions 
promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of 
business on March 24th.
    Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                 [all]