communications in technology will now come to order and the chair recogs ins herself for five minutes for an opening statement and i do want to welcome each and everyone of you obviously a hearing of interest as we have a full room in front of us. and it is our first hearing in 2017 with a fully formed federal communications commission as often seems to be the case, the senate takes their dear ever loving time to get things done but i'm pleased to see that the commission is back up to speed and i'll tell you i am pleased that we have five members of this commission and they have different points of view to bring to the discussion on all things telecomrelated and i

think that's healthy for the telecommunications and technology industry. and we're here today to conduct oversight of the agency which is this subcommittee's primary role. it is very important that we fulfill these obligations. because we have given the fcc a critical mission and task to fulfill. from the commissions's disaster response efforts to supporting rural broad band to its efforts to streamline and modernize the regulatory environment, impacting some of the greatest recreators and innovators. you're all doing important work and we appreciate what you do. one of the many jobs is to regulate broadcaster whose accept and fulfill unique public interest obligation due to their use of valuable public spectrum. while we were in the final stages of planning for the routine oversight hearing, some

of my colleagues ask the committee hold an entire hearing about comments by the president on twitter regarding certain broadcasters' work. so i fully expect them to question the trump tweets and chairman pie since we have a very full slate of issues, my hope is you will address that concern so that we can focus on the work and responsibilities of the commission. the commission has conducted entirely appropriate oversight of broadcast licenses. there's -- unlike some in our chamber who have urged the fcc to adopt a new fairness doctrine, mandating they provide equal time to the opposition if they allow anyone to express any type of political opinion on air. the outrage over the president's twitter music stands in sharp

contrast to the silence as twitter cuts off the voices of conservatives, sexual assault victims and potentially anyone who posts something they just don't like for whatever reason. all this on a platform so powerful and far reaching that you could argue that it is the modern day public square. and some on twitter have even called to suspend the president's acount and after my recent experience i will say wouldn't put it past some people. the latest twitter scandal is an attempt to distract from the commission and the american people from the fcc's real work which is delivering on a mission to unleash american innovation. so no matter what questions are said, i hope we're going to stick to keeping our eye on the ball and making certain that we address things like media ownership rules, the lifeline program, the imperatives of expanding rural broad band and a

free and open internet. that is something we want to see done by the end of this year and at this time i yield one min that to vice chairman of this subcommittee, mr. lance. >> welcome to chairman pie and the now full compliment of commissioners. what a good looking group. thank you for appearing before us today. since our last oversight hearing in july, they've continued important work such as disaster relief and recovery. fraud prevention and closing the digital divide. moving forward in the process to roll back the misguided title to reclassification of isp's from the previous administration. here we have recently taken a bipartisan step forward in reauthorizing the fcc for the first time since 1990. i applaud the chairman and ranking member for their

leadership in this oversight tool. i also thanking o'reilly for joining me for a 5 g industry round table. i commend his leadership on infrastructure policies that will be importedant in winning our effort in the race to 5 g. i look forward to your testimony. >> gentleman yields back. mr. doyle, you're recing nuzed for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and for all the witnesses appearing before us today. let me say i really enjoy our time here together as i'm sure all of you do and i would encourage the chairman to continue to hold these get togethers far more often. welcome back. your work on the homework gap has been missed. commissioner carr, congratulations on your commission. i hope you remember that the guiding principal of the fcc is to act in the public's interest. it's a standard i will hold you

to as well. chairman pi, many people around the countrynercluding myself and many of colleagues are deeply alarmed by your response to president trump's threats against the media and specifically his tweet threatening nbc. in 2013 you wrote in the wall street journal that the government has no place in pressuring media to covering certain stories. you took six days to respond to the president's tweet and when you did, you did not directly directed the president's threat at all or the chilling effects on the media. while they can dispute the verasty of any story, even ones demonstraebl true, they cannot attack the free institutions that enable our democracy. as senator flake said yesterday it is time for our complicity and acceptation to end.

the commission's agenda under your leadership has already had a profoundly negative effect on our country. from increasing costs on small businesses, driving up the cost to family members in prison and claiming that wireless broad band is competitive, even when people in rural america know it is not. it seems at every fork in the road, you have choseen the path that leads to higher consumer cost, fewer choices and less innovation. and if it sounds as if the worst is yet to come, news reports suggest that you will unveil plans tomorrow to vastly alter the media landscape in this country, clearing the way for more media consolidation, including the sinclair tribune merger. yesterday they eliminated the main studio rule that had insured for 77 years that local news was gathered and reported locally. what good would a studio and reporters in new york have done

for broadcast stations in houston or florida after the hurricanes? what good is local news if it isn't local? other news reports suggest you will announce an order to repeal the fcc's open internet order around thanksgiving. madam chairman, i sincerely hope if this is true, we have a chance to talk to the commission in advance of a vote on that order. the idea that such a significant order would be voted on without oversight is ung kaungsinable and would be a dereliction of today's duties. if the chairman is intent to act, i believe his actions should be done under the scrutiny of congress and in the light of the public and i'm going to yield the remaining part of my time to ms. eshu. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding his remaining time to me. i want to associate myself with our ranking members' comments,

particularly to what the president said that was a direct assault on the first amendment and with all due respect to you, mr. chairman, your delayed and rather temped response to that. i want to place verbally in the record the first amendment of the constitution of our country. it was written -- >> without objection. >> -- thank you, december 15th, 1791. it is as new and important today as the day that it was adopted. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. they were very clear. they were very clear. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and

petition the government for redress of grievances. i hope you will choose to enlarge on the public statement that you put out and with that, i will yield back the balance of my time. >> gentle lady yields back to ranking good member. >> and i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, mr. walden, who has been in the chair all day long with the hearing down stairs. gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and welcome commissioner carr, welcome aboard and welcome back commissioner rosen. and we look forward to continuing our work with you and the other members. chairm pi, thank you for being here and for your leadership. i couldn't agree more that this commission has very important work to do. united states has weathered a large share of natural disasters this year including wild fires

that have devastated nearly hundreds of thousands of acres in my home state and we know the tragedies all across the west from these fires. they have shown the important of maintaining the most reliable communications systems possible. and we know the work going back to 2012. we need 250 make sure that works as planned. i look forward to hearing about the federal relief efforts underway as well as those impacted by hurricanes harvey and maria. although some of the effected areas are already back up to speed which is great thanks to a lot of hard work. we face a lot of challenges elsewhere inplases like puerto rico and the virgin islands as well as others on the mainland. we appreciate the commission's efforts to provide much needed assistance in these situations. we also appreciate the

commission's work in a bipartisan briefing we requested. and chairman pi's team did at the end of this month. we find ourselves waiting on a number of key items to emerge from the commission. in no way does this committee expect the oversight to delay the commission's important work. rather hearings like this are vital to exposing commissionsers and committee members alike to different perspectives. yielding better understanding and decision making. but we expect the commission's work to go on as it did under the preechbious administration. having just finished a markup on an fcc reauthorization bill for. i want to thank both side of the aisle as we work towards full committee markup soon. last month we held a hearing on the challenges and opportunities presented by the repacking process that the commission has embarked upon.

i commend the commission's continuing efforts to work with every broadcaster to insure their needs are being met as this transition evolves in a timely manner. your input will continue to be importabout as we look at options to solve the remaining issues. some of my colleagues may wish to use this opportunity as a forum to rehash opportunity for dumping cutting edge broad band internet service into the stale bucket which is title two. my position hasn't changed on that and i don't sense others have. this commission should not be dissuaded by the partisan maneuver which disregarded reams of legislative history to achieve the results demanded by then president barack obama. it's up to the commission to set the regulatory conditions and i hope to see a new bar set before the end of the year.

ultimately congress is where to solve the debate. i think you hear a little bit of that passion here on both sides. although my staff continues to engage in the various effected parties and discussions towards that ends. my colleagues have unfortunately seemed largely uninterested. door remains open. we're willing and able to codify protections and establish a federal framework in statute for providing certainty to all. i don't think we need title 2 to do that. we have the same end goal. preserving the internet as a free, open, dynamic environment to unleash innovation and drive our economy while doing everything we can to extend its benefits to every american. we should be able to work together and clear that issue off our plates. we're glad to see you fully constituted and confirmed. we have a lot of issues to hear

from you on . >> anyone seeking a remainder of the chairman's time? he yields back. >> thank you for holding this hearing today and i appreciate you're maintaining oversight of the fcc. know some people prefer you wouldn't. the fcc is on a path to take up a number of controversial issues in the next few months. it's curious this is schedule for today, just one day before chairman piis expected to make public at least one proposal that enriches a single company above others and that would clear out any last obstacles to sinclair's purchase of the company. this would be the single largest owner of broadcast station and they would be buying the second

large largest. he's claimed repeatedly that it's simply coincidence that his actions are all to benefit sinclair. if that's true, why can't we see the latest proposal before the commission with came before us and now he's refused repeatedly to respond about allegations about his relationship with sinclair and this kind of evasiveness does not help put anyone's concerns to rest. this is another example of how the fcc values large companies over small ones and always puts companies before consumers. chairman pi's commitment to eviserate net neutrality protections by the end 06 this year. it protects consumers, small businesses and free speech. and i hope the fcc is spending the time reviewing the millions of comments that have been filed including from the democratic members of this committee and i hope the fcc considers the thousand of consumer complaints that have been made public. these demonstrate that consumer

problems with broad band providers is much farlthder reaching than the prow posed rule making lets on. together they have the potential to drastically remake how they communicate. they must find a way to insulate itself from the political pressures from the president. chairman pi refuses to put any distance between himself and president trump whether it's net neutrality, sen claire or protecting a free press and that does not inspire confidence. i've said many times and i think i've told some of the commission members that i remember earlier this year when sean spicer at a press conference said the president would have the fcc repeal net neutrality. it seems everything is whatever the president wants and there's no independence at all on net neutrality or the other issues.

and the fcc has a long tradition of bipartisanship but unfortunately that's simply not the case today. hard working american consumers and future congress is sure to take a dim view at the fcc and it's time to restore that bispart zn pesition. i thank you for being here today and i'd like to yield a minute each to mcneerny and matsumy. >> i noticed a troubling trend in the recent actions. the very missions is in the public interest. in fact public interest appear over 100 times in the communications act. but by taking steps to limit access to information and content, the commission has gone against what i think public's interes interest. its further evidence by the steps the commission is taken to undercut locallism from

reinstating the uhf discount to eliminate the main studio rule. these and other actions signaling favorable treatment for sinclair and then the chairman's initial silence on the president's threat to revoke broadcast licenses on the base of view points, followed by the chairman reluct ntdly making a statement. one that was late and insufficient. i'm disappointed in these actions and the effect they will have on the information americans across the country have access to. >> thank you very much. thank you for yielding. in order to expand broad band across this country, it's important we free up spectrum. additional spectrum is necessary to expand wireless coverage across rural america and build capacity across all of america. and spectrum frequencies will allow new and innovative technologies to grow.

this means everything from safety communications, telehealth services, the internet of things and connected devices. all of this rely on spectrum invisible infrastructure. access would depend on the fcc allowing additional low, mid and broad band spectrum to be delivered. that is why congressman guthrie and i introduced the spectrum deposits act yesterday. without this fix, future actions will be put off indefinitely. i look forward to enact this into law. >> and i see no other members requesting time. so this concludes our opening statements. i would like to remind members that persunt to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made apart of the record. we want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here

today and for preparing for the hearing submitting your testimony, we do appreciate this. today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements, followed by the questions that are going to come from our members. our witness panel for today's hearing, the honorable brendan carr, commissioner cliburn, commissioner o'reilly, commissioner rosen. we appreciate that you all here for this and is the tradition of this subcommittee we will go in the order of seniority. so chairman pi, you will be firsted followed by commissioner cliburn and mr. o'reilly, carr and rosenworsel. chairman pi, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for holding this

hearing today. i appreciate the opportunity to update you on the fcc's work to advance the public interest. that work has been substantial. i outlined our progress in four key areas. promoting public safety, modernizing our regulations and combatting unwanted robo calls. i commended the subcommittee in reauthorizing the fcc. of particular importance is the provision that would allow the deposits placed in spectrum options to be sent to the treasury. woult this measure the fcc woebt be able to launch a large spectrum option for the foreseeable future. but this morning i'd like to address an area of concern for l members and me. the first amendment. i have said again and again and again that the first amendment must be at the heart of our work. that is why i oppose the prior fcc's critical information needs

study which would have involved sendsing government funded agents into news rooms to second guess editorial judgment. just last month i spoke about the importance of the first amendment. my record on these issues is clear. and these are not new. president kennedy targeted the washington post and nbc directly telling one of my pred seshers that a particular story was outrageous and to quote do something about it. more recently some have said the fcc should reject a transaction involving the transfer of broadcast licenses because of editorial judgments and six members of this very committee including the current ranking members once suggest i investigate a broadcaster on a story that hadn't even aired. let me be clear i stand on the side of the first amendment.

i firmly believe that journalists should he had their viewers, their listeners and their readers. not the dictates of officials in washington d.c. if you believe the federal government has no business intervening in the news, then we must stop the government from intervening in the news business and that's why this afternoon i shared with my fellow commissioners an order that will reform our media ownership rules. we will vote on this order at our november 16th meeting. the marketplace today is nothing like it was in 1975. newspapers are shutting down. many radio and tv stations are struggling, especially in smaller and rural markets. online distribution of news is greater than it was. and just two internet companies claim 100% of recent online

advertisi advertising growth. their digital ad revenue alone this year will be greater than the cap of the tire broadcasting industry. they presume the market is defined entirely by poke and rabbit ears. making the arc r argument the current rurals are out dated is easy. that was the new york times in 2003. if this order is adopted, the fcc will belatedly match our rules to the modern market place. it will once and for all eliminate the cross broadcast ownership rule. as president clinton's first chairman has ucplained, under currents conditions the fcc's rule is pruverse and the -- second, the item will eliminate the radio television cross

ownership rule, which is out dated in this marketplace. third, it will revise the local television ownership rult to eliminate the eight voices test and incorporate a case by case review of the prohibition. this better reflects competitive conditions in local markets. it will eliminate the role for joint television agreements. by allowing broadcasters to better serve their local markets. fifth, it will retain the disclosure requirement involving commercial television stations and sixth, it will finally, finally establish an incubator program to encourage greater diversity in and new entry into the media business and seek comment on what the details of that program should be and unlike under the prior administration i have ordered the text of this decisionby made publicly available tomorrow, three weeks before we vote on

it. that too is news that is fit to print. chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, thank you once again for holding this hearing and i look forward to answering your questions. >> we thank the chairman. commissioner you're recog nized for if i ever minutes. >> good afternoon. and thank you for the opportunity to once again appear before you today. we are nine months into a new administration, making it appropriate i believe to reflect on the tremendous change that has taken place when it comes to our outlook on consumers. beyond the washington acrunims, are a series of actions i fear. they're jeopardizing the fcc's role as a referee on the field protecting consumers in small business interests. i ask you nautd to take my word

about this. in my hand are 80 mostly hand written letters i've received in recent months. they express concern ranging fru fru from open internet and a lack of broad band in their communities. amid the many policy changes what may have gone unnoticered the enforcement actions that we have failed to take against the largest regulates where they have violated the public trust and the commission rules. in march for example, millions of consumers were unable to call 911 for five how ares. similar outages in the past few years resulted in the commission collectively fining companies more than $30 million. these past fines were a recognition that we depend on 91 within being available during times of greatest need. one of the largest fines ever.

no penalty and no report that addressed the question of whether the commission's rules were violated. now, i'm all for taking enforcement action whenever the public trust has been violated but what is clear that the majori majority's focus is on targeting individuals and small businesses where we are least likely to collect any fines. turning to policy. it is a source of great disappointment that as we approach the holiday season 2.7 million children continue to wait for this agency to make gooden its word to bring about real reform on the inmate calling regime. in april the fcc welcomed industry consolidation month by restating the technologically obsolete uhf discount. the resultopening the door for a

single broadcast station group to reach more than 70% of television house holds. in the same month we pave the way for huge rate hikes on formerly known as special access that will not only negatively impact small businesses but schools, libraries and police departments as well. instead of looking out for millions of little guys, the commission's majority once again chose to align with an interest of a handful of multibillion dollar providers. in august we began an inquiry that may actually put us on a path of lowering the bar for what we consider to be high-speed broad band. as i travl across the country the refrain i hear is service is too expensive and speeds are too low. we should be aiming to lead the world in having the fastest, most robust broad band, not head thing opposite direction bay

green lighting broad band service at excruseiatingly snail-like speeds. and last month the adoption of our latest report. ask those struggling with 2 g and 3 g service. what they want is reliable wireless connectivity. what they have is lackluster, noncompetitive service. simply put our reports' findings do not match the experiences on the ground and in the communities across this great nation. and if i am to believe the reports i'm reading and hearing in just a matter of days, the chairman will circulate a series of items that include rolling back the best elements of our media ownership rules. if try thea already consolidate idmarket will offer no discernible benefits to

consumers. our actions, most offen the ones that fail to make the headlines have real every day consequences. and while i will keep doing everything in my power to make sure that we do not dial back any further when it comes to consumer protections, just reasonable and phone rates for all of our citizens, media ownership opportunities and digital inclusion, i remain fearful in part because rhetoric is not in line with the actions. i have submitted a longer statement for thank the subcommittee for providing me the opportunity to testify today. i look forward, i believe, to answering any questions you may have. >> commissioner clyburn, you always look forward to the questions. and we are delighted you're here. commissioner o'reilly, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon. it's a pleasure to be before the subcommittee again. as it conducts further oversight

of the federal communication commission. before i discuss certain policy and other matters, i would like to address the recent tweets by the president of the united states, raising matters within the purview of the fcc. let me be clear. i do not speak for the president and i have never met him. however, i think it's fair to say that the new president and his administration have received what can be most kindly called unbalanced coverage from various media sources. but you don't have to take my word for it or corresponding studies showing the same. former president carter stated over the weekend, i think the media have been harder on trump than any other president, certainly, that i've known about. with that said, i do not believe that the commission's licensing decisions should be influenced or decided by politics. similarly, like my objections to the cozy relationship between the past administration and the commission, i continue to support the fcc as an independent agency. moreover, i strongly believe in the constitution of the united states, which includes the first amendment, and have sworn to support and defend it as part of my oath of office. but this is somewhat immaterial,

because the beauty of the constitution is that it's the highest law of the land and the rights that it affirms and provides supersede my belief or any action on the commission. it serves to protect us all, even the unwitting bystander. or active hostile. turning to substantive matters, a top priority of mine is to ensure that the electromagnetic spectrum is being put to the most efficient use possible. my overall goal of this work is to position the united states and our wireless carriers for overall success in the coming years. we know that internationally, several nations seek to corner the market on next-generation wireless technologies, commonly known as 5g. to reap the economic benefits and dictate the world's wireless future. i intend to ensure that the united states' ingenuity is not unfairly hampered by others' quests for this premier position. moreover, as the insatiable

demands for more mobility and broad band offerings continue, the commission has the arduous task of reclaiming, real locating and in some cases clearing and facilitating spectrum sharing. a prime location for such efforts is the mid bands, including the 3 dot 5, 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz bands. in terms of unlicensed spectrum, the time has come to determine whether the dsrc remains the best use of the 5.9 gigahertz band. if it no longer makes sense, the commission could combine with the 5.9 with the 6 gigahertz band to promote continued growth. once spectrum is made available, additional options will be needed to assign licenses. but as chairman pai testified, the commission faces difficulty in securing a financial institution to meet the statutory requirements to hold our up front auction payments. without a willing partner or a change in law, the commission believes that it's unable to announce a schedule for future spectrum auctions, much less

hold an auction itself. while the subcommittee has included a technical fix within its larger reauthorization bill, it's possible this larger legislation may take additional time. accordingly, i want to thank representatives guthrie and matsui for introducing the spectrum deposits act, a stand-alone bill for this purpose and express my support for moving this rightful shot in terms of process reform, i believe that the commission is more open and more transparent now than it has been since i started following its activities. however, i continue to believe that additional changes to the commission's procedures, both formal and informal are necessary and prudent. on that note, the commission's perpetual struggle over the excessive use of delegated authority continues. to rectify this, i have put forth what i consider to be a balanced plan to accommodate the competing interests of permitting commissioners to vote and resolving matters expeditiously. i would be pleased to work with the subcommittee on this and any

other process reform ideas. i thank the members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. so far he is winning the prize for most time yielded back. mr. carr, you're recognized. >> thank you. chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, distinguished members of the sub committee. it's a privilege to appear before you today. this is a particular honor for me, because this is my first opportunity to testify since i was sworn in as a commissioner in august. for the eight months before that, i served as the general counsel of the fcc after joining the agency originally as a staffer back in 2012. in my five years at the commission, i've enjoyed working with you and your staffs on policies that promote the public interest. i want to commend you in particular for your efforts to enact bipartisan legislation such as carrie's law, the improving rural call quality and

relike it act, and a most recently the markup of the fcc reauthorization bill. having served in various roles in both the majority and the minority at the fcc, these experiences have instilled in me an appreciation for the importance of bipartisan consensus and working towards common ground. i commit to carrying that forward in my time on the commission. in my testimony i want to focus on the ways the fcc can continue to incentivize broadband deployment. this is particularly important as we make the transition to 5g, a shift that will require a massive investment in both wired and wireless infrastructure. but if we get the right policies in place, this transition could mean $275 billion in network investment, 3 million new jobs and half a trillion added to the gdp. as i see it, there's at least three keys to getting there. spectrum, infrastructure and ensuring we have the skilled workforce in place to deploy these next-gen networks. first we need more spectrum into the market.

i'm pleased the fcc is pressing forward on this front. we have a proceeding under way that's looking at broad swaths of spectrum between 3 and 24 gigahertz and the chairman has announced we will vote later this year on opening up additional bands above 24 gigahertz. these are really great steps towards maintaining the united states' leadership in the global race to 5g. second, we must modernize the federal, state and local regimes that currently govern broadband infrastructure deployment. 5g is going to require a 10 to 100-fold increase in the number of cell sites in this country. the current regime is simply not tailored to support this type of massive new deployment. it costs too much, it takes too long. so we need to find ways to drive the regulatory, the unnecessary regulatory costs out of the system. we need to speed the time line for obtaining regulatory approvals. doing so will be particularly

important for rural america. one recent study shows that regulatory reform can shift the business case for entire communities. streamlining alone could make it economical for providers to deploy 5g to nearly 15 million more homes than under the existing and more burdensome regime. the lion's share of those would be in less densely populated parts of the country. third, we need the skilled work force necessary to get this transition across the finish line. last month, i participated in a round table hosted by the wireless infrastructure association outside of baltimore. a broad range of stakeholders from wireless companies to independent infrastructure providers all talked about the shortage of skilled workers that can deploy the small cells, distribute the an 1999 systems and other infrastructure necessary for 5g. while there's no direct regulatory role for the fcc here, i think we need to focus additional attention on this issue, including potential solution, including the role

that apprenticeships and other job training programs can play. and to that end, i'll be participating at an event next month at the department of labor on workforce development. one last point. while technology continues to evolve, one constant is the fcc's obligation to promote public safety. this has been highlighted the most devastating of ways over the past two months with the hurricanes that have overwhelmed communities across the country and now currently with the wildfires that we see. the fcc has been working hard since well before the first hurricane made landfall. and chairman pai has kept the agency focused on the immediate task of supporting restoration efforts, including by forming a hurricane recovery task force that is coordinating the agency's work. right now, the fcc is focused on the emergency situations in puerto rico and the u.s. virgin islands, while continuing to assess restoration efforts across the country. i'll see some of those firsthand on friday when i visit houston to hold a round table with broadcasters, meet broadband providers and visit a 911 call center.

i'll be taking stock at the progress that's been made and the ways the fcc can continue to support those efforts. so chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, commissioner carr. you did well in your first appearance. commissioner rosenworcel, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle, and the other members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. this is my first appearance before you since returning to the fcc. i had a little vacation, courtesy of your friends in the united states senate. of course, a little distance provides some perspective, and in my time off, one thing became abundantly clear. the future belongs to the connected. no matter who you are or where you live in this country, you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st century success.

but the fact of the matter is, that today too many americans lack access to broadband. let's put a number on it. right now, 34 million americans lack access to high-speed service. that number includes 23 million americans living in rural areas. that's just not acceptable. we need to do better. but, of course, statistics alone don't tell the whole story. to get a picture of just what it means to be consigned to the wrong side of the digital divide, consider kids and homework. today 7 in 10 teachers assign homework that requires internet access. but data from the fcc shows that as many as one in three households do not subscribe to broadband. where those numbers overlap is what i call the homework gap. and according to the senate joint economic committee, the homework gap is real, and it affects 12 million children all across the country.

i've heard from students in texas who do their homework at fast food restaurants with fries just to get a free wi-fi signal, and i've heard from students in pennsylvania who make elaborate plans every day to get to the homes of friends and relatives just to be able to get online. i've also heard from high school football players in rural new mexico who linger in the school parking lot late at night in the pitch-black dark, because it is the only place that they can get a reliable connection. these kids have grit. but it shouldn't be that hard. because today no child can be left offline, developing digital skills is essential for education and for full participation in the modern economy. so i hope that adds a human dimension to what it means to not have access to broadband. now, let me tell you what we can do about it. if we want to get serious about addressing our broadband problems, we need to know where those problems are most

pronounced. we need better mapping. nearly nine years ago in the american recovery and reinvestment act, congress had a good idea. it created a national broadband map. identifying where deployment has and has not occurred. but if you check that map online now, you will last see that it was updated three years ago. and i don't have to tell you, in the internet age, three years is an eternity. you cannot manage what you do not measure. so i think it's time for a national broadband map that offers an honest picture of both wired and wireless broadband across the country. and, of course, we can build this map with all sorts of data sets here in washington. but i think it would be great if we had a clearer picture on the ground. i am a big believer in the wisdom of crowds, so i think we should put it to the public. if any of your constituents have not been able to get service or live in an area that lacks it, help us make that map. and write us at

broadbandfail@fcc.gov. i set up this account to take in the public stories and ideas and i will share everything that comes in with the chairman and my colleagues. because i think it's time to turn every one of those broadband fails into something better. broadband success. finally, i want to point out that with broadband, speed matters. the fcc has a statutory duty to annually assess the state of broadband deployment. today our national standard is 25 megabits. but the agency has sought common on scaling this back to 10 megabits. that's crazy. we won't solve our broadband problems by lowering our standards. we need to correct this course immediately and start setting bigger goals if we want to do bigger things. let me close by thanking you for having me at this hearing today. i will look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> we thank everyone for the testimony, and this concludes

our testimony portion. and we're going into the q & a portion. and i will recognize myself for five minutes. chairman pai, i'm going come to you first. i want to stay with that freedom of speech theme. during the last administration, the commission had proposed a multimarket study of critical information needs. and you had made the comment that you thought it thrust the federal government into the news rooms across the country. and chairman upton, chairman walden and many members on this subcommittee, including myself, sent chairman wheeler a letter, calling the study -- what we thought would be unconstitutional and urging him to put a stop to the attempt to engage the fcc as the news police. fortunately, chairman wheeler did heed our call. and i want to know if you can -- he put a stop to it, but can you

tell us more about that project, how close was it to actually happening? how much money got spent on that project? >> thank you for the question, chairman blackburn, and thank you for your advocacy several years ago. the critical information needs study was a study that was conceived in the prior fcc. it spent approximately $900,000, as best i can discern it, and the project involved sending government-funded researchers into newsrooms to ask questions about why they were or were not covering eight different categories of news that the government thought were important, asking questions to news directors and the like about perceived bias, and asking a whole host of other intrusive questions. it seemed to me that this was not compatible with the agency's obligations under the first amendment so i wrote an op-ed about it and i'm grateful chairman wheeler ultimately scrapped that study but not before, as i said, a great deal of money had been expended and a rubicon of some sort had been crossed. >> okay. now, when chairman wheeler

pulled the plug on it, the fcc said some of the questions may not have been appropriate, and that the commission would be modifying the draft study. so what is the current status on this? >> that study will not proceed, and -- period. >> okay. i just want to ask for each of you on the commission, is there anybody on this current commission that would support such a study? >> well, madam chairman, one of the things that i take issue with is how that was couched. i was a part of that study, which was a study of -- started out being a study of studies, looking at what the commission gathered in terms of information about the entire media ecosystem. and as a result of us not having information, we have been kicked, you know, back several times into court about not having justification, not having information, not having data when it comes to certain policies.

the court has spoken. we don't have the information needed. we are making decisions by putting a finger up in the wind and seeing where the political winds are flowing and going in terms of -- in terms of information, in terms of our decision-making. >> okay. >> and that's why we have a uhf discount that is totally -- has no justification. and that is because we have no information that we are gathering. we're just making decisions based on political -- >> so you would support the fcc being in the newsroom. >> i will support the fcc not being in the newsroom, because i -- i am a first amendment prophet. i had a newspaper for 14 years, and dare not anybody come into my newsroom and tell me what to print. that is not what i'm saying. >> all right. let me ask you all this. in 2009, anita dunn, the white house communications director, said of fox news, we're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. we don't need to pretend this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.

this overall attitude culminated in the exclusion of fox news from access in numerous large and small ways. as deputy press secretary josh earnest wrote in an e-mail to a treasury official, and i'm quoting, we've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude fox news from significant interviews. did any of this raise first amendment concerns with any of you? yes or no? commissioner carr, start with you and go right down the line. >> i think it underscores the need for the commission to just stay focused on every action that the agency takes being consistent. >> okay. we're going to learn to do yes or no. commissioner clyburn? >> i'm -- hesitant about asking. i'm trying to grasp what are you saying. all i know is i am very consistent on first amendment principles. >> okay. so exclusion from asking questions or being included. would that bother you?

>> exclusion -- >> excluding a news outlet. would that bother you? >> excluding a news outlet -- that is not how i conduct myself. >> okay. all right. chairman pai? >> i agree with commissioner carr. >> okay. >> yes. >> yes. okay. follows instructions well. all right. chairman rosenworcel. >> tension between administration. >> yes or no? got to learn to do it. >> can you turn on your mic? >> it's as old as the republic. >> all right. >> nothing strikes me about what you've just described as being particularly new or unique. >> okay. that's unfortunate. all right. mr. doyle, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. commissioner o'reilly, in the spirit of chairman dingell, i have a number of questions that i want to ask you with just requiring yes or no answers. and i would appreciate you doing that as rapidly as possible.

>> yes. >> commissioner -- [ laughter ] >> thank you. you got it. you used to work on this committee. and you helped draft legislation that prevented one entity from owning broadcast stations that reach more than 39% of the national population, correct? that's a yes or no. >> yes. >> in response to a question for the record from me, did you state that you believe only congress can change the cap via the passage of legislation? >> yes. >> thank you. at that time that you worked on this legislation, did you understand that a uhf station signal, the ones above channel 13, could not travel as far as vhf signals? >> yes. >> were you aware at that time that the fcc did not count the entire reach of uhf stations against the 39% national ownership cap? >> yes. >> and in a twist of fate, since the dtv in 2009, digital uhf stations can now reach a larger

audience than vhf stations, right? >> yes. >> the uhf discount now allows a single entity to own stations that reach more than 39% of the national population, correct? >> yes. >> even though there's no technical reason for this discount any more, right? >> yes. >> so the uhf discount just allows companies to reach close to 80% of the national audience, right? >> yes. >> do you believe that congress intended to create a loophole in the law? >> i -- that's -- no. >> thank you. did you state -- did you state in a response to me that even though you think only congress can change the national cap, this entire issue may need to be litigated through the judicial process to determine which position is accurate? >> yes. >> did you also say that you suspect your position will ultimately prevail at the end of the day? >> yes, always. [ laughter ] >> does that mean you believe

the court will find that only congress can adjust the 39% national cap? >> both parts, yes. national cap and the uhf discount. >> but did you also state that you will support whatever action is necessary to see that the issue gets its day in court? >> yes. >> so are you saying that you're willing to vote to raise the cap, even though you think congress prohibited the fcc from taking that action? >> i'm saying that i need to see what the item is. i don't want to -- >> it's a yes or no question. >> well -- yes. >> thank you. if the 39% cap is statutory, as you and i both believe, will you oppose any attempts by companies to contravene congressional intent? >> i believe they comply with the law. >> specifically, if the sinclair tribune merger resulted in a combined entity reaching more than 39% of the national audience, that would contra vean congressional intent, correct? >> no.

>> why not? [ inaudible ] >> okay, thank you. i'll let you -- i'll let you get by on that one. so if that's the case, though -- if it did contravene the 39%, would you oppose the merger? >> i don't talk about any pending merger before the commission. >> if the sinclair merger goes through and the courts determine that you were right, that congress prohibited companies from exceeding the cap, should the fcc undo the merger? >> i don't talk about any pending mergers before the commission. >> let me just say, i think this is a dangerous path, because your response to my questions for the record and some of your answers here today suggest that you may take steps to evade the law by approving a merger, even though you and the majority of the commission agree that it would violate congressional intent. and i hope that you'll reconsider that. let me ask commissioner rosenworcel if she has anything she wants to add to the line of questioning i have regarding that merger. >> thank you. i believe that 39% is the figure

that congress chose to put in the law, and that this commission needs to abide by it. >> thank you. madam chair, i want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record five documents. one is the chairman's 2014 "wall street journal" op-ed, his response, a letter also that he sent regarding a letter that a number of members sent regarding the president's threats against the media. a letter from consumers' union, and the statement for the record that commissioner o'reilly had sent back to me. >> so ordered. >> thank you very much. i see my time has just about expired so i'll yield back. >> yes. it has. and now chairman walden, you're recognized. >> well, thank you, madam chair. yes or no, commissioner o'reilly. do you wish communications issues were as simple as yes or no? [ laughter ] >> yes. >> thank you. now, moving on. commissioner rosenworcel, i'm glad you raised the ara issue. i was on the committee at the

time when the stimulus bill came through and i fought like the dickens to get the maps done before the money went out the door and i failed in that effort. and so the money went out the door and they drew the maps. what i'm trying to figure out, why are the maps three years old? does the fcc not have a responsibility to keep those up to date? >> thank you for the question. i agree with you. i think we should be keeping them up to date. i think the fact that we spend billions of dollars on universal service fund every single year without having a full sense of where service is and is not is a problem. >> i fully agree. >> it's my understanding that the funds that were used to support that map at the department of commerce cease to be available when the american recovery and reinvestment act came to an end. and i think that the fcc has been collecting data through its own 477 process. but it is not -- >> and how valuable is that 477? >> compatible. >> there you go. >> with the data. >> thank you. >> from the department of commerce. i -- you know, i don't know, wherever you're sitting on this

issue, it just seems to me with better data we're going to make better decisions. >> thank you. >> and that's the point -- >> i actually agree with that and hope you all can figure out what the best reporting improvement mechanism is to get to those data points. so we shouldn't be overbuilding or wasting the rate payer's money. mr. chairman? would you want to comment on that? >> i'd be happy to. that's precisely why several months ago i asked the house and senate appropriations committees for reprograming of funds to enable us to discharge that important function. and i'm glad to report that each committee agreed with that recommendation, and that task is now under way. and certainly welcome commissioner rosenworcel's support for it. >> i just want to point out, that sounds terrific, but it's my understanding that is only for wired broadband and i think an adequate map has to include wired and wireless. >> certainly if the committees give us additional reprograming funds, we would love to pursue it. we cannot act in the absence of congressional authorization from our proprietors, as this committee well knows. >> very good. maybe we can get everybody on

the same page on this one. we stand ready to work with you on it. chairman pai, we have spent a lot of time together over the years before this committee. >> yes. >> and one of my concerns has been that the fcc did not always operate in an open and transparent way. i argued for making some of the proposed orders public. and so it actually circulated so commissioners could read it, the public could read it. have you done anything to improve that process down there? >> i believe i have, chairman walden. i announced a pilot project and the second week i was in office that -- for some of the upcoming meetings which would be publishing three weeks in advance the actual text on the internet. of these orders. >> had that been done before? >> it had never been done, and not only was it to potentially unlauchl for forbe it to be done, but it was also unwise. i think the success of the pilot for the program has disproved each of the claims of fear and just yesterday i announced that -- two days ago, rather, this would be a permanent project that we would be doing this on a permanent basis for every meeting that the fcc will hold into the future, so long as i have the privilege of leading

the agency. >> and you've also made -- have you made changes on -- there was issue about delegated authority and commissioners wanting to be able to take it off delegated authority. have you made any changes on that one? >> absolutely. one of the things that commissioner o'reilly and i noticed in the minority is if one of us or both of us requested that an item -- that was reportedly going to be done on delegated authority, if we requested that item be considered by the full commission, my predecessor would typically ignore that. and so i said if there are two commissioners who want to handle something on the full commission level, we will do that. and that's what we have done. >> good. main studio rule. >> yes, sir. >> i think i'm the only one on the panel that actually had to comply with that as an fcc licensee for more than two decades. had it -- obviously, you believe it outlived its purpose. i believe it outlived its purpose. it made no sense. we very seldom if ever had anybody come into the main studio for the purpose of looking at the public file. that's now online, i believe, right? >> absolutely right.

>> and so i'm trying to get to this issue of why some people think it was like the holy grail of local communication. because i don't see it that way. i didn't see it that way. we acquired three other stations and another market. it would have been nice to be able to consolidate an overhead and put the money like we did into more news gathering and into the programing and all of that. people still knew where we lived and we knew where we lived. and so i commend you for getting rid of that rule. i think there's a whole bunch of other antiquated rules that are legacy that make no sense in today's internet communication world that other providers and competitors in the market have no obligation to comply with. i don't see twitter with a local community rule in every community they serve or any of these others. i realize they're not licensed. but obviously there's a lot of debate going on now about how all these communication mechanisms work in today's environment. my time is gone. thank you, madam chair. thank you, commissioners, for all of the good work you do. we look forward to having you back up here on a regular basis. >> gentleman yields back.

mr. mcnerney, you're recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you for the hearing and the commissioners for your work. it's not an easy job. and it's interesting to see the different viewpoints you all have. mr. chairman, i recently had a chance to visit huddle, which is a co-worker space in my district where startups go together to bring innovative ideas and working hard to get their businesses off the ground. but they're very worried about the impact that doing away with net neutrality protection also do to their businesses. would you -- if net neutrality protections are weakened, as you propose, can you commit to me that small businesses and jobs will not be hurt in my district? please answer with yes or no. >> congressman, i didn't know that particular company, but obviously we support a free and open internet that allows small businesses like that to thrive. >> commissioner clyburn, do you think that that will hurt small businesses? >> i think if we shift gears that it would. that they would not have the certainty that they need. and i think that what doesn't get enough attention is the

impact on universal service. and we can talk about that later. but the chairman is not speaking, you know, clearly about what the impact on universal service would be. if we shift from title 2. >> thank you. commissioner rosenworcel, there have been a series of reports on the sinclair tribune merger. i'm concerned about the impact this merger would have. the fcc has a critical role to play in the merger of the process. from your perspective, how do you think the commission has handled the review of this merger and related proceedings? >> thank you for the question. frankly, i'm concerned. i think any broadcaster reaching more than 70% of the united states' households would be unprecedented. i'm also concerned that if you look at the series of media policy decisions that has been made by this commission, they all seem to serve sinclair broadcasting's business plans. from reinstating the uhf discount to changing the 39% rule that was enacted by

congress, to possibly foisting on all of our households a new broadcast standard for which they own many, many patents. i think it has reached a point where all of our media policy decisions seem to be custom-built for this one company. and i think it's something that merits investigation. >> thank you. that's a pretty strong statement. mr. pai, should the fcc be doing more to ensure local officials have resources to know how -- local resources know how to use the wia, the wireless merge emergency alerts? >> absolutely, congressman. that's part of the reason why i supported the proposal last year, to work cooperatively with local officials and stakeholders to see if we can strengthen that system. >> so we can count on your support in terms of producing resources and education. >> absolutely. our public safety bureau and i personally am committed to making sure that that system is robust as it can be. >> thank you. mr. pai, last september the fcc adopted a further notice of

proposed rulemaking that addresses increasing the wea geo targeting. the final round of comments was due on january 9th. when does the commission plan to move on that? >> we don't have a particular time frame, congressman. i will note two things, however. first, the reason we have that geo targeting proposal is because my office last year urged the full commission to include it. and that's part of the reason i was pleased to support it. the second thing is that we are still working very cooperatively with local officials, with stakeholders and others to figure out the right way forward. so while i can't give you a specific time frame, i do want you to know this is under active consideration, and we're going to do the best we can to make sure the system, as i said, is robust. >> well, would you commit to giving the committee a quarterly report on the progress of that? >> i would be more than happy to do so. >> thank you. chairman pai, during our last fcc oversight hearing, i asked you if you would commit to turning over to this committee any reports, requests, memoranda and server logs related to the

alleged 7 may 7th d-dos attacks on the electronic systems. you said that you had hoped to consult with i.t. staff and attorneys to see if there are any applicable, technical or legal prohibitions against you sharing information with this committee. you then committed to sharing the requested information with the committee, and to the extent that you could do so. so far, no one from your staff has followed up with my office regarding this matter. and we still have not received a single document in response to the request. did you -- do you recall consulting with the i.t. staff about this issue? >> i do remember meeting about this issue after the hearing. if you don't mind, i will take a look at it. my understanding is we had gotten in touch -- perhaps not with your office, with the committee. i'll double-check to make sure and we'll get you the information that you need. >> okay. well, i'll follow up on that then and make sure we get that information. >> okay. >> well, i'm going yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. lance, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman

blackburn. good afternoon to members of the commission and regarding the first amendment, let me say that i think you, chairman pai, and all members of the commission, are devoted to the first amendment as, of course, we are in congress. i'm proud that new jersey was the first state to ratify the bill of rights in 1791. regarding president kennedy, you mentioned president kennedy, chairman pai, and the "washington post." before you were born, and i would imagine before any member of the commission was born, and when i was a little boy, john kennedy cancelled his subscription to "the herald tribune," the great republican newspaper in new york, and my late father, who was involved in public policy in new jersey, sent him a subscription to "the herald tribune" and we have in our family files a very sarcastic and curt letter from pierre sallinger saying we should stay out of the subscription business of the white house.

and so from my perspective, all presidents on occasion criticize various news agencies. i don't find it necessarily attractive. my reading of american history is that this is done by various presidents. and i have great confidence in you, chairman pai, and in members of the commission in this regard. >> thank you, congressman. >> to commissioner carr and commissioner rosenworcel, congratulations on your confirmation. commissioner rosenworcel, you recently applauded the airwaves act introduced by senators gardner and hassan for identifying more spectrum that can be made available for wireless broad band. how would the airwaves act arm the fcc with tools to keep pace with consumers' significant demand for bandwidth and for the race to 5g? >> thank you for the question and the delightful family story. >> i hope i haven't bored you. >> you know, the best part of the airwaves act is something incredibly simple.

it's full of deadlines. it chooses certain spectrum pans and then it tells the agency that it has to auction them on a very clear calendar. i think that calendar is useful for all aspects of the wireless ecosystem, and i think it's vitally important. >> yeah. >> thank you very much. chairman pai, last month, i believe without warning, google blocked amazon's new echo showed devices from showing any youtube videos. as of november 2016, youtube was by far the leading internet video portal in this country with 79% market share. netflix was ranked second with 8%. the same study found that users age 25 to 34 years spent an average of 178 minutes each week watching online video. so access to youtube is a deal-breaker for video devices like the echo show. from your perspective, chairman

pai, should the fcc be involved in any way in this matter? >> congressman, our -- internet regulations do not apply to edge providers or to conduct of the kind you are describing. so as a matter of law, they simply don't at this point. >> thank you. and i think that this is a serious matter, and i don't know exactly the venue we should pursue, but is there any other member of the commission who would like to comment on this? thank you. madam chairman, i will yield back a minute and a half. >> we are rolling! you might get the prize. >> i hope so. please, everyone else, may i have the prize? >> okay. [ laughter ] >> now we're into a competition. i've got goo goo's in the office. we'll see who wins. mr. ruiz. you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman blackburn. and yes, i vote to give him the prize. this hearing is timely for a number of reasons, but i would

like to focus on the fcc's role in the ongoing recovery effort in puerto rico and the virgin islands. by way of background, i have training in humanitarian disaster relief from the harvard humanitarian initiative. i'm an emergency medicine physician, and i was on the ground in haiti as the medical director for the largest internally displaced camp in all of port-au-prince after the earthquake in 2010. so i've seen firsthand the challenges that arrive in a humanitarian crisis and the importance of communication systems and coordination amongst agencies, local governments and ngos in the field. two weeks ago, i flew down to puerto rico to see the conditions for myself, and to do a needs assessment based on my training and experience. and i found two things that i would like for you to carry back and figure out how we can work together to improve. one is a lack of clarity of leadership as to which agency is really running the show and taking the leadership on the ground. and two, a lack of coordination

amongst agencies, ngos, local governments, out in the field. not necessarily in san juan. and so my first question is for chairman pai. has the fcc been in the room during these conversations in leadership. what is your footprint in puerto rico, and what is the -- and what is your efforts in coordinating with the other agencies on the ground? >> thank you for the question, congressman, and thank you for your attention to this issue, including personal attention in the island itself. i've spent a lot of time over the last several weeks involved in puerto rico and the recovery efforts. i've regularly consulted with fema, puerto rican officials, with wireless companies, tower companies. >> regularly means what? are you invited to weekly, daily briefings? >> so we get daily briefings on some of the situation -- >> do you have people on the ground full time? >> yes, sir. >> do they go to those meetings in san juan? >> my understanding is they do liaise. >> do they go down into the periphery and the municipalities, as well? >> i know -- fcc staff i've

spoken with have described to me how difficult it was in some cases to go from place to place. >> it is very difficult. >> in some places the roads weren't even cleared. very difficult. >> so that's good to hear, that you're -- you personally are involved in getting calls for sure. >> absolutely. >> and in this case, we have some lessons learned that could save lives. i have also made some calls with telecommunication carriers that have run into a myriad of barriers, including -- and please take notes here. one is a lack of security. available to keep their engineers and equipment safe so they can make the repairs necessary to restore service. two, inconsistent coordination with power providers that could have freed up critical generators for use elsewhere on the island. and three, failures in the back hall infrastructure that have prevented towers from coming online, even when they are powered and repaired. and four, logistical delays that kept temporary satellite trucks which were utilized, for example, in texas and florida,

to provide temporary wireless service literally waiting on the boat for days. so while a disaster of these proportions is hopefully a rare occurrence, hurricane katrina and sandy have shown us that hope is not a luxury that we can rely on. two weeks ago, i submitted a proposal to have the fcc create a list of best practices for telecommunications infrastructure and preparedness in hurricane and disaster-prone areas. i hope we can work together on this proposal to find a common sense solution that fosters improved coordination and more efficient response efforts in the future. so chairman pai and to the other commissioners, will you work with me on this important issue? i'll go down the line. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> wonderful. i appreciate your willingness to work on this critical issue. finally, commissioner rosenworcel. >> that's it. >> you have been outspoken on

the need for fcc action in response to hurricanes harvey, irma, and maria. what do you think the fcc can do to help with recovery efforts as well as better prepare for future disasters? >> thank you for your question and your work on this subject. i think we just need to take a playbook from what we did with hurricane katrina and hurricane sandy. we held hearings. we held hearings and talked to people on the ground in locations that are different than washington, d.c. we came up with ideas. we put them in reports and then we changed our rules to make sure that we are better prepared the next time. while i appreciate that we have a task force, i am confident that all good ideas do not reside in our building on 12th street. and so i think we should be getting out, holding hearings, issuing reports and changing our rules to be better prepared in the future. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. shimkus. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman.

i appreciate you all being here. opioids, nda, and then here. i apologize for missing some of the opening statements. it's been a busy day. and i just caught the last end of the comments from you, commissioner rosenworcel. and chairman pai was out to my district, and i appreciate that, visiting on an issue that many of you know that i've been working on. 911 going back to when we made it officially a national cellular number all the way back to the next generation. the interesting thing about the trip was that it was a multiple counties, rural counties, working together to move forward. and then we had a round table. and the round table, from my point, it's the people who talked about vesting in the program. they said good and bad. people who hadn't yet joined talked about why, but why they're thinking about it. so i know you've made -- and this is to the chairman.

i know you've made a lot of trips to rural america. i'd like to know what some of your take-aways are, other than just the next generation 911, but other issues that have been raised in your travels. >> thank you for the question, congressman, for the hospitality you and your folks showed in harrisburg. the key takeaway i have from the trips i've taken, over 4,000 road miles in small towns across the country is the digital divide is real, and that is leaves human capital on the shelf, particularly in rural towns that don't have internet access. and that's why i'm deeply committed to doing everything i can and hopefully the fcc doing everything it can to bridge that divide. we've seen the payoff in places like harrisburg where 15 rural counties, predominantly rural income are created to band together and create a 911 system that enables everybody to be safer than they were before. we have seen the potential in education where rural communities that have high-speed internet access are able to give their kids distance-learning opportunities and better educational opportunities overall.

we have seen the change in telemedicine. i personally visited a town in southwestern virginia able to cut the sepsis rate by 34% by using advanced technologies like remote monitoring. and we have seen the power and precision agriculture. i've been in feedlots in allen, kansas, and farms in maryland and other places that tell me the notion of an analog tractor is long gone. right now technology is the key driver for agricultural growth. so to me t just reaffirms the mission of this agency so long as, again, i have the privilege of leading it, that the digital divide has to be our top priority. >> so let me follow up on the universal service fund issues that have been addressed. a lot of house members have talked about how it's insufficient, letters have gone back and forth. my colleague, congressman cramer, and i know congressman peterson from minnesota, has also taken an interest in this.

what do you have in the forefront of your plans to kind of address the funding issue on the universal service fund? >> it's a difficult question, congressman. obviously, some of the bigger picture initiatives that we have been able to get across the finish line, like the mobility fund phase two have been more successful in terms of getting off the ground. in terms of the budget issue for the rate of return carriers you're talking about, unfortunately, we are in a pickle. last year, the commission made a decision over my dissent, would i add, that i forecasted the time would leave us with a shortfall. and here we are and the shortfall is here. so one of the things i have suggested to my staff is that we should think about getting a notice of proposed rule making out by the end of year to be able to tee up before the end of the next budget cycle, which i understand ends at the end of july -- june 2018. to be able to address this issue in a timely way so that rate of return carriers, and more

importantly rural consumers have the certainty they need in order to participate in the digital age. >> and with my 54 seconds left, does anybody else want to -- i don't want to leave out the other commissioners. commissioner clyburn? >> what you're not hearing is a call for contribution reform. and that's the elephant in the room that no party, pun intended -- >> that's fine. >> you know, that nobody is talking about. and that we don't have a rational conversation about that. we're going to stay in a pickle. >> i appreciate that, commissioner. >> two parts. one, i believe there is an opportunity to use some of our reserves for rate of return to balance out both the legacy and the model side to provide -- we're not going to provide all the money they're requesting but i think there is some opportunity to increase the budgets. they have nothing to do with the reforms we adopted last year which mostly guard rails prevent bad behavior. and two in terms of contribution forms, since i happen to be the chair of the joint board on universal service, we are trying to move forward on that, but there is a great difference of opinion on some of those things. so we've had to sideline that for the time being. >> well, my time has expired. i think there is still a great difference of opinion.

a lot of members of congress do. so i appreciate the challenges, and i appreciate you being here. i yield back. >> mr. loebsack, five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. and i do agree with my friend mr. shimkus that we've got to deal with the funding issue. the question is going to be how we're going to do it. first, commissioner rosenworcel, great to see you back. appreciate that. i haven't seen you since you were actually in newton, iowa, way back in 2016. and people there were very happy to hear you talk about the homework gap issue and just generally speaking these rural broadband issues. i saw that at a recent field hearing you did highlight the need for better data collection, and now you've got this crowdsourcing proposal. after you mentioned that, i went to your twitter account and checked it out to see what was going on there. because i do want you to talk about that a little bit more. but before i do that, i am grateful that the subcommittee

took up my rural wireless access act and we did move it forward, thank you, madam chair. we've got to get that out of full committee. it's great to talk about making sure that we have better data. i remember chairman pai, you mentioned going through northwest iowa, going from southwest minnesota to northwest iowa, or maybe it was the other way. and you had a lot of problems with cell service. as somebody who has 24 counties in iowa, i'm fully ah wear of this problem, as are all of my constituents. but my bill, hopefully we're going to get out of full committee, get on the floor and get this thing enacted at some point hopefully sooner rather than later to make sure you folks have statutory authority as much as anything to do the things that you, you know, are talking about today. but can you elaborate a little bit on your crowdsource proposal? >> sure. listen, for a long time, the way that the fcc collected data about broadband, as we found, if there is one subscriber in a census block, we presumed that it was available throughout the block.

i think we all know that that is not a fair assumption any more. and we're leaving too many households behind. we also have been collecting data and shape files from wireless carriers, and sometimes they get it right. but sometimes, as you probably know, you can drive through places and find that you have no bars and no ability to make a call. we are going to have to work hard to have more precision in our maps to target our policy efforts and i think we should be asking the public for help. i think they know better than anyone else where they live, where they get service and they don't. and i feel like it's time to start incorporating public comment into our maps if we want to make them effective and accurate. >> i appreciate that. democratizing the process. and that's very important. i think we can all agree with that. thank you. for all the witnesses at the recent repack hearing we held, american towers witness said in his testimony there was a shortage of qualified tower crews. there are some of us who have some ideas how we can address that issue. do you agree with that assessment? and do we have enough crews to get the job done in 39 months,

if not what will happen to broadcasters who can't complete the transition in that time? any of you folks who would like to address that issue. yeah. go ahead. >> well, i'll simply say we tried to structure the phases such that we would be able to accommodate variations in terms of weather and availability of crews and the like. if we get information that there is a bottleneck like that, that might stand in the way of the 39-month deadline being able to be met, we will certainly work with congress and stakeholders to take the appropriate action. >> anyone else? >> i raised this issue a number of times with different industry groups to see where we were and i was concerned there was a shortage of crews and we haven't seen an increase in the number of crews. some of those sponsored by the wireless companies would like to take advantage of the licenses on an early basis. it has been relatively positive. but i think the chairman is exactly right. we have to get through some of the phases to see where we are. >> any of the other commissioners want to speak on that issue? it's a workforce development issue, too. we have to get the people trained so they can do that, and

i've talked to my friend, mr. shimkus about that, too. we've got to move forward on that. we'll we're on the subject of universal service fund and commissioner pai, you know i've written to you about moving the resources to the u.s. treasury. and some of the concerns i have about that, making sure that the funds actually are used as they're supposed to be used. would you like to address that issue? because i think that's a legitimate issue. if we move the funding, you know, to the u.s. treasury instead of from the banks, the bank, i think that's going to be a really difficult issue that we've got to resolve. go ahead. >> thank you, congressman. and i appreciate your concern. the issue, as i understand it, from a financial perspective, is that -- well, two-fold. number one, from a legal perspective, it is safer for federal funds of this kind to be stored with the united states' government as opposed to a private account. secondly, given some of the issues that arise when these funds are kept in the private bank account. for example, if there are

somebody who owes money to the irs and that person is also at the same time getting money from the fcc, the federal government is limited in its ability to have an offset, so to speak. keeping the money in that treasury account allows the -- essentially the federal taxpayer to be whole. that we're not sending money out the door at the end of the day congress might not want. and so we have been exploring with treasury and with others, the way to move forward on this. but obviously we're happy to take any input on ways to accommodate multiple interests. >> commissioner rosenworcel. you look like you want to say something. >> i appreciate what my colleague said. we've gotten conflicting advice. over the years on this from omb and jao. but i just want to make this point. we get about $55 million in interest income every year from the accounts as they are held today. $55 million can go far for rural broadband, for connecting schools and students. we are choosing to forego those dollars. i don't think that makes sense. >> if i may, congressman. if, god forbid, something were to happen to those funds when

they were in a private bank account and all of the billions of dollars of universal service funds somehow went away, we would be accountable to congress. and you would be asking me, as leader of this agency, why did you jeopardize taxpayer funds by keeping them in the private bank account when thousands if not millions of americans are depending on those funds. that's a tradeoff i've got to make. >> that's why we need to put this out for comment. >> thank you so much. it is a difficult issue. we've got to deal with it. thank you, madam chair. >> you're welcome. and mr. latta. five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman, for today's hearing. thanks very much to the commissioners for being with us today. as always, it's great to see you all. and just following up on my friend from illinois, i really appreciate mr. chairman and commissioner o'reilly for you coming out to my district, because i think, you know, you take an interest in this one case when the chairwoman was out with the very small rural telecoms that you met with.

and it wasn't where there were a round table. they were on a square table. but there were quite a few people there that day that you addressed and they appreciated it. and commissioner o'reilly for coming out and talking to the -- you know, our smaller broadcasters in the area. i appreciated that. so it's good that you listened to the folks back home. chairman pai, if i could start my questions with you. like you, i believe that modernizing regulations is critical to spur innovation. for instance, i would like to see the fcc streamline procedures for small entities to seek regulatory relief. the current waiver regime has a one-size-fits-all construction. it disproportionately burdensome on small entities and when needed diverts resources from infrastructure investment to regulatory compliance. do you believe there is a need for more efficient and expedited process that allows small entities to secretly from these unnecessary regulations?

>> congressman, i do appreciate the question. i do think consistent with my views we should minimize the regulatory burdens on small providers. that is an approach that has merit. >> thank you. commissioner o'reilly, what are your thoughts? >> i agree. i think it has incredible merit. >> thank you. commissioner o'reilly, in your statement on the commission's adoption of the mid band spectrum, noi, you noted that the six gigahertz band is adjacent to the unlicensed 5 gigahertz band. would you elaborate on the potential benefits if the 6 gigahertz band is made available on an unlicensed basis? >> so we have to deal with incumbency issues within 6 gigahertz, but i think that will be a tremendous benefit. by combining it with 5 gigahertz. wider channels provide opportunity for great speeds, latency reductions and consumer experience will go through the roof. we have a shortage of wi-fi spectrum or unlicensed spectrum going forward and we need to address that.

there's estimates by 2025 we need somewhere between 500 megahertz and one gigahertz of additional unlicensed spectrum. 6 gigahertz makes a great platform for that solution. >> so when you're talking about especially how badly congested that 2.4 to 5 gigahertz bands are already available to the unlicensed community, so the congestion is how bad would you say? >> so i don't have an exact measurement. when i talk to folks in the industry, they barely use 2.4. 5 gigahertz is popular, but that's becoming extremely more popular. so we're running out. that's why i spend a great deal of time on 5.9 and my colleague and i have worked hard on 5.9. but 6 gigahertz being right next door is a great platform. >> thank you. >> voice-activated virtual assistants like siri, alexa and google assistant are becoming an increasingly popular gateway to the internet. some day soon, they may even become consumers' preferred interface with the internet, leaving the age of the desktop

google search behind. you get yelp results in siri open table in google, tine-in radio from alexa. these interactions are occurring through private partnerships among these companies to have their apps interact. however, it creates a situation where whereby definition the consumers access to other internet content is limited or completely blocked. it's the question of whose answers siri's question when you asked siri something. questionk siri something. can the fcc do anything about this? >> congressman under the current internet regulations kek not. those do not apply to edge providers. >> commissioners, do you think this is a concern for the open internet? >> again. i'll jurisdiction is limited. i think there's an impact in an influence. but in term of our ability at

this limited to negative. >> this our jurisdiction does not extend to that. >> the gentleman yields back. you're recognized. >> thank you. and chairwoman. welcome to the you mr. chairman and all of the commissioners. commissioner car, congratulations to you. commissioner it's always an honor to have you here at the committee. and to know you. commissioner o ryely. terrific to have keep the irishmen together. and to commissioner rosen, it's terrific to have you back. all represents a win for the american people.

hopefully. mr. chairman, i have been debating something inside of myself so i'm just going to make a statement. i don't want to go on and on about it. i need to say something. to bring together president kennedy with donald trump. i don't think is pal letable. i'll leave it there. you know mr. chairman i have raised deep concerns about rt. our intelligence community is determined with high confidence. that is the highest level of agreement between all of the agencies. that they interfered and our democracy. the intelligence community described them as the quote

principle interarable propaganda out let. i wrote to you on may 8, urging you to consider applying broadcast tran parn si rirms to media out lets o so the american people would know whether foreign governments are behind the content they're revauing. i found your response to be ambiguous and i don't think you answered my questions. it's curious that i get a response to my letters at about 6:30 in the evening. the night before of the day of we're going to have a hearing with you. i think that this is a very serious issue. the intelligence community and owl of the members of the house participated in that briefing. it was a classified briefing. there was also an unclassified report that was put out. and that unclassified report was replete with rt.

now i don't know what i need to do to either impress upon you that this is a serious issue. and that you take it seriously. so i want to ask you, would you admit commit to us that you'll apply or consider applying broadcast tran parn si ri broadcast transparency requirements. >> thank you for the question. >> you're welcome. >> there's no jurisdictional hook. to transfer of license for example that allows. fcc -- >> what about those who have a license and carry them? doesn't the fcc have any say so in that? or is this as the intelligence community said, that they are a principle international propaganda out let. o they just fwoing it operate in the united states no matter what? >> under the communication act

and the constitution the first amendment, we do not have currently a jurisdictional hook for taking doing an investigation of that kind. if you are privy to classified information, the suggest there might be another agency that has obviously a direct interest in the issue and we're obviously happy to work with them. at the current time as i have been advised neither under the first amendment or communication act do we have the ability -- >> first amendment applies to free speech in our country. it doesn't mean a that the kremlin can distribute propaganda in the country through our air waves. i don't know if you're looking hard enough. maybe a commissioner car or the general counsel he could advise you better. i'm not going to give this up. i want to move to something else. that is this issue on media consolidation. three years ago mr. chairman,

the commission voted unanimously to prohibit two stations in a market from jointly negotiating retransmission consent. you were part of that unanimous vote. now by eliminating the rule, which reports indicate you're preparing to do, next month. you would permit two of the top four stations in a market to merge. so how do you explain this. >> the reports are inaccurate. when we publish an unprecedented fashion the actual text of document we're doing a case by case review. >> sin claire this will apply to sin claire? >> it applying to any broadcaster that enters into an agreement that -- >> dominance of a market how

does that fit? >> some argue we should get rid of the -- >> time expired. >> he can answer the question. >> some argue we get rid of the top four prohibition. my recommendation was to draft it so there's a case by case review. we wouldn't get rid of it. we would review particular facts a particular broadcaster bring to us. sdp presents a kocompelling cas. we'll take a look. otherwise the prohibition applies. >> i wish had i more time. >> thank you everyone for being her here. we look forward to working with you guys. first thanks for letting us know about the auctions and the unability for the financing fix you need. the chairman has in the authorizization bill. yesterday congresswoman did drop a bill specifically fix the

issues so we can move forward hopefully on the auction moving forward. in 2013, i was one of the households affected by this. a carriage dispute between cbs and time warner. block time warner internet cables from viewing shows through a web site. i couldn't get cbs or show time. on tv. the web site because time warner cable was the provider. internet and you couldn't go to cbs.com. it was blocked. to watch any of the shows. that's when new ones were out that august. we were trying to find that. some members of congress did bring this up. i think acting chairwoman was at the time. and said she didn't believe the agency had the jurisdiction to intervene. chairman do you think if it happened now do you think the fcc would have the opportunity to intervene in lar case? >> i think the illegal authorities have not changed to the extent the fcc gets a

complaint that a party is acting in bad faith. then we would be able to adjudicate it. the ab tense of complaint or authority from congress we couldn't take further action. >> the title is still in effect. >> currently yes. to be clear. our internet regulations wouldn't apply to that content to the extent you're talking about the block of online distribution. >> because it only applies to the service provider not the content? >> that's correct, sir. >> so to comment on that, being an advocate for the title 2, should it be expanded where it doesn't just affect internet service providers but also jurisdiction on the content side as well? it's good for one should be good for other. >> i'm not in a position to comment at this time. i just know what's in front of me. and what the rules of the road

are at this time. >> okay. same answer. >> no to be clear that behavior was problemic. from a consumer perspective. that stinks. i would point out that what we're talking about when we talk about telecommunication service and urpd title 2 is about the provision of service by a provider of broad band. the jurisdiction does not extend to the content provider. >> that was my point. on spectrum. cochair with congresswoman on the spectrum caucus. so we sent a letter last summer. commissioner pie. regarding a pending license modification pe fission for the l band. satellite net work. what's your ideal time line for getting information from the other agency you're working with? do you think the end of the year is reasonable? >> we don't have a specific time frame in mind. i can say that it is a matter

that is under active consideration. we're collaborating with agencies and private stake holders to reach a resolution. >> for all the commission. given the efforts of the spectrum congress i support a deep dive by the committee on wireless issues. could you give me what you think is the top spectrum issue that we should be focusing on this upcoming year. for moving forward on auctions. what's the top issue for the committee? >> sure. we have the hurdle in terms of authority to conduct auctions in terms of money. the top focus that i have over the next year is infrastructure deployment on the wireless side. we have a will the of progress that we can make. to help maintain leadership. >> for me as ensure that multiple providers no matter what size and if they have the ability to participate. so it would be contour the size

of the bidding area. >> good answer. >> the and the tried and true. the legislation is the number one issue. we cannot have spectrum auctions certainly of significance without that fix. it is a bottleneck for the agency. >> she might be next. that was a good pandering. >> my colleagues infrastructure and freeing more spectrum. >> all right. i agree. i want to quickly read you a list. 3.7 to 4.2 gigahertz. 37, 32. 42. 57. gigahertz. are all under consideration at the commission right now. what we need instead of that blitz of spectrum is a calendar that makes clear we have bands that we are going to auction earlier than others so the wirele wireless eco-system and markets can organize around it.

>> i yield back. >> thank you, madame chairman. my questions are to chairman pie. i want to discuss your reaction to the president attack on press. i have a number of questions. are you aware that the president said kp skp i quote net work news has become to by partisan, distorted fake. licenses must be challenged and if appropriate revoked? >> is that, sorry. from the tweet? >> yes the the dwe question is are you aware of the quote. >> yes. >> are you aware the president said it's frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write. and new york times and the enemy of the american people. that he said that. are you aware. >> yes. >> do you think the types of

statements are appropriate for the president of the united states to make? >> im going to speak to my own view. and my own words. my views are i stand with the first amendment. i won't characterize the views of anybody else. >> but, mr. chairman. you did say on another occasion that the american people are being misled about president obama plan to regulate the internet. you said that. >> because that was a direct compromise of the agency independence on a particular pending issue. where the agency was heading in a different direction. >> if you're not shy about speaking out against president obama. would you condemn attacks on the press if they had come from president obama? >> congressman, i always focus on the facts and the law. that is our job. and in term of licensing. >> i think it's a double standard. but before coming to the fcc you worked for senator jeff sessions, correct? >> yes, sir. >> when asked if he would jail reporters for doing that are job

he said he cannot make a commitment to that effect. >> i'm not aware of it. >> he said it. when you spoke at the center last week. did you say and i kwoek under the law the fcc doesn't have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast? >> yes, i did. >> do you understand why reporters might be concerned when the attorney general and the chairman of the fcc leave open the threat of punishment and even jail time? >> i'm not again i wasn't familiar with general sessions statement. and i'm not familiar with the perception of journalist. i'll say this fcc stands on the side of the first amendment. and that includes the ability of journalist to gather news as they see fit. >> the problem is the people raising this issue are concerned that your silence or responses contribute to a culture of intimidation that can chill free

speech. that's why i'm trying to clear the air. i'm concerned about the impact of either silence or overly lawyered responses. at the center, you said ul not act based on a particular newscast. would you revoke a license based on multiple newscasts? >> no. >> i have a working paper. i don't know if it's it the record. i'll ask you if we can enter it. >> so ordered. >> i have a working paper produced by the center. in the working paper the center suggests the fcc able to threaten free speech through other mechanisms like license transfer. do you commit your you will not threaten license transfer based on the content of reporting. >> absolutely. >> do you commit the commission will not launch investigations into companies based on the content of reporting?

>> yes. >> okay. do you commit that your commission will not take any acts of retribution against companies based on the content of reporting? >> yes. >> okay. and let me look. i appreciate working that out. that's important. so finally chairman, when you first took office you committed to me that you would be response to congress if a request came from democratic members. i have heard complaints from my colleagues that your responses to a number of letters have been evasive. and avoided multiple times answering my questions about your relationship with sin claire broadcasting. let me say, we'll look into your continued evasiveness on some of the important issues including sin claire. and i just want you to know that i'm not happy and i'm not going to tolerate the agency not

responding to us. because i don't really feel they have with regard to sin claire and so many other issues. that's my opinion. thank you. >> gentlemen yields back. >> thank you. i appreciate it. before i begin my questioning. chairman pie, i know you inherited a backlog of petitions related to the telephone communication. consumer protection act. this is an area of real concern. to many individuals. across various industries. i look forward to your response. and a future action to this topic. i'll moou on here. commissioner during the last over sight hearing, i had a discussion with chairman pie regarding interference complaints and pirate radio operations. i know this is an important area. i know you care about it very much. to resolve it. can you share the differences

between repercussion pirate radio operators face as compared to row bow callers. >> i'll gif you an example. on terms of radio we did one for the $1,414,000 for a pirate radio operating in florida. in terms of a row bow call it was 82 million. a cramming call behavior it was 3.9 million. the difference between the two are between the 3s is amazing. >> wow. okay. related to this topic again for you. commissioner. do you or any of the commissioners here on the panel know of any assistances where pilot radio operators interfere with public safety or military use frequency? >> technically it wouldn't be pirate radio. that's operating within the a.m. or fm band. they have violated the sangty of

public safety just recently we had action in new york. that was violating the new york public safety system. sdp they were fined. they had an enforcement action against them. they were actually there's still in prison at time. we'll see if we get the money. >> anyone else? i'll go to the next question. i regularly advocate for seniors and again improve quality of life for seniors. i think you know that. 5 g technology provides. what can the fcc do to advance specific technology. tell health technology. hike remote patient monitoring. to allow seniors to remain independent and age in place. >> that's a great question. it's a growing need as population ages. i don't want to steal her thunder. commissioner has been a leader on this.

and pioneering the -- she's been a leader on it. >> thank you. one of the things that we're proud of is the chairman has endorsed and the connect to health task force. one of the things that is doing is looking at that intersection of broad band technology and health. and another thing that's it's doing is helpful, it has developed a broad band mapping tool that looks at what's going on on the county by county basis in the united states. and looking at where broad band is available. where healthcare providers are or are not. and informing communities asked to how best to approach a different business model. different initiatives that might be needed nd a particular area. we're really on it's quiet as it's kept. people know about it. we are front and center on providing a means for people to be informed so they can make

better critical decisions. this will help us also on our healthcare connect fund. which we need to talk about. enhancing that. because in order to make all of these things ubiquitous. allow them to age in place. affordability is key. connectivity is key. i'm looking forward to working with you as we progress. >> everyone on board with this? anyone want to make a comment? >> the last point maybe the balance those things with our budget. so talk about expanding services we have to figure out how to pay for that. and the conversation on contribution. >> absolutely. >> i'll add to the able on the issue that i think the importance of remote monitoring cannot be over stated. if you are an older person who have difficulty coming into a hospital or had surgery and returned home. the worst thing that can happen for you is to get an infection or illness that will require you to come back. i have seen for myself how a

hospital center is using remote monitoring. and response to question to decrease the rate by 34%. i think among older individuals. and that's something if you can intervene quickly thanks to the technology. everyone is bert off. you're not spending money on in hospital rej min of treatment. it's something i'm excited abtd. i'm glad commissioner is a pie ner on the issue. >> wonderful. thank you. i yield back. >> miss dingle. five minutes. >> i have no voice. too much talking. it's great to have you here. i want to first start the important topic of privacy. i'm really worried about privacy. and i think you all need to be too. this new wrod cast standard

allows for internet, tv. personized add placement and for granule collection of data about who is watching what. chairman pie, if someone is looking to take advantage of this personalized content, they'd like to give up information about themselves would they not? if someone wants to use it. they have to tell the provider what personal information about themselves? >> the individual consumer? >> yes. the consumer. >> it dpepds on the particular. these are i don't know. >> personalized content. that's the -- it's going to be personalized content. >> right. yeah. >> how is the fcc considering privacy concerns as the commission looking at this new standard? >> great question. right now we're looking at technical standard. should we proceed with the new next generation tv standard.

if so what should the parameters be. i would imagine prooi si concerns and others like it have come to the fore the agency will look at that too. >> it's really important. my staff wouldn't let me ask the other questions i wanted to ask today. i don't think people realize that we have televisions watching us that there's reverse people are using all of these great new gadgets how much information is being collected about them. and who has responsibility for letting people know that kind of data is being collected? >> right. i think it's the first instance the federal trade commission has been the. >> so much of the this is with the fcc. you all have a responsibility to really look at some of this. and do you think this new data that's generated will be kept in house by the provider? or sold to third parties. >> again here it's a nay sense. the standard hasn't been adopted

so we're not sure. >> should this be part of looking at standard? >> as the service materialize, we'll be monitoring all those kinds of concerns. >> the last time you were here in july. you agreed to follow up on the steps you were taking to mitigate attacks. what updates can you share? >> we have provided a detailed response to the committee. we'll be happy to provide that to you with the particulars in that regard. but what i can say is our it staff is always vigilant to make sure we have the protocol in place. to make sure the systems are up and running. and appreciate the chance to work with this committee as well as the appropriators. to get the funding to make thur is continues to be the case. >> el live you off the hook. and ask. dwrou think the public interest standard requires that you look at the effective commission actions on small businesses and consumers? >> absolutely.

small businesses create two third of new jobs in the community. the commission should be thinking about the impact on small business. and the public interest incorporates that. >> i'm just going to make an observation. mergers of this scale are not always popular but i can't ever remember when everybody was so opposed to the idea. can any of you think of a merger with united opposition? >> no. >> commissioner clyburn? >> in my last eight plus years, this is the most energized i have seen diverse parties. >> anyone want to say something? >> i have seen it before which is why we have a 39% that was the result of the transaction

that caused the relationship between the network and affiliate and that is the reason congress stepped in at the time. the excitement, i have seen the energy level far beyond what it is today. >> i will yield back my nine second. >> mister johnson for five minutes. >> thank commissioners for being here, i heard some buzzwords, former chairman, full chairman walden talked about the complexity, and i agree with that. commissioner clyburn talked about how the technology is necessary to create

opportunities for americans particularly in rural america. it took me back a little bit and i have been thinking about this for the last several months, how important that job is, if you look at the 100 years of american history from 1868 to 1970. we started out in 1868 at the most divided deck our nation has been in at the end of a brutal and bloodied civil war. we healed our internal wounds to go into and fight off tierney in europe in two world wars mobilizing from scratch both times practically, did the same thing in korea. at the same time in that 100 year period from 1868 to 1970, we saw one of the most explosive, innovative periods in human history.

the lightbulb and all of it born right here, the lightbulb, combustion engine, automobile, mass production of automobiles, assembly-line process, industrialization of western cultures, the airplane, powered flight, space travel, landing a man on the moon, organ transplants, telecommunications and computing technologies, nuclear power. that, the case could be made that was one of the most innovative periods in human history. i talk about that a lot to people i represent in ohio because i follow with a question. what have we done since 1970? you know what answer i get most often? the internet, telecom. why is that the case? i believe that is the case because it is the one area the federal government couldn't

figure out how to regulate. go back to the 70s, that is when the epa came into being, when the department of energy came into being, when the deferment of education came into being, all of us sudden in the 70s washington kind of thought the american people had it wrong for all that time. instead of telling the american people what we should be innovating on and what we should be focused on to create opportunities for the american people, washington started talking about how to innovate, where to innovate, when to innovate, why to innovate and in many cases picking winners and losers and determining who should be able to innovate. i throw that out as a thought provoker to you folks, your job is so vitally important, we can't throw water on the campfire of american innovation and ingenuity. i would submit if we want to

create opportunities, if we look at our own nation's history, if washington would just get out of the way, in many regards, the american people are more than capable of creating their own opportunities through innovation and ingenuity and i think that is an important thing for folks to remember. i see the attitudes of the commissioner that is what you are trying to do. let me ask one quick question, it will be easy for commissioner o'reilly. in 2013 it was reported the justice department had spied extensively on fox news reporter james rosen collecting his phone records, two days worth of his personal emails and tracking his movements to and from the state department so in the 32 seconds i have

remaining, did this raise first amendment concerns for you at that time, yes or no? come on, follow mister o'rielly. >> being committed to the first amendment and everything we do for this agency. >> that is an interesting question, privacy and other concerns. >> yes, you are good. >> that is a disturbing tale. >> i yield back. >> miss dirksen senate office building 3. >> i want to welcome back brendan carr. as cochair of the special caucus with my good friend representative guthrie to

unleash new spectrums that help us get to 5g. we have introduced legislation to provide financial incentives to federal agencies to reallocate unused or underutilized holdings. commissioner o'rielly, will you work with us to strike an appropriate balance for the 3.5 ghz band that will be the foundation for 5g deployment? >> taking the lead, i work as an agency to dispose of the item we adopted yesterday so i will work with the committee in any capacity and take its reason into account in terms of my vote but to your point the incentives for federal agencies, i made the point that it is not just incentives but carrot and stick so we need more of the stick so those

pieces need to go hand in glove and i'm happy to work with you putting the stick in your legislation. >> we talked about this before. would you like to add a comment or two? >> carrots work better than sticks and when it comes to spectrum policy what we need to do is make federal users internalize the cost of their holdings. they need to report at some level what the value they have today is. and to give them incentives to see gain and not just loss of reallocation. >> everyone needs a broadband connection in every part of the country. i have 20,000 constituents utilizing lifeline programs and access to broadband. this is a program helping low income families access communications that are essential in a digital economy. the national eligibility verifier would be a significant

step towards this goal but would not be up and running until 2019. in august i wrote to the commission to request steps the fcc has taken to implement the verifier. i received your response last night, chairman ajit varadaraj pai. get the national verifier up and running and commit to providing me and the committee with regular updates in the future. >> yes, the quarterly reports will be forthcoming and staff talked about that going forward. in terms of the first point which is the update, we are on track. i have been advised, december 2017, the soft launch of the verifier for a full lunch in 2018, the first states that will be considered for the national verifier, six of them, colorado, mississippi, montana and new mexico, utah and wyoming. in 2018, we will rollout 19

states in the national verifier and stakeholders under our oversight with consumer groups and others to make sure that verifier serves consumers needs. we will be happy to work with you on this issue and thank you for your attention. >> commissioner, can you assure the lifeline program remains an option to access communication for broadband moving forward? >> we need to have the mechanism to encourage providers to be involved and provide more opportunity. you know in february we stopped providers who did nothing wrong from gaining access into offering opportunities and some had to discontinue service. we need to give states the power and ability pay need to

include lifeline providers for broadband and get out of the way, the fcc is not getting out of the way and allowing these reforms that have been laid out to happen. we are in the way of lifeline becoming a phenomenal program. >> thank you very much. i will yield back at this time. >> not in the running for the prize. mister flores. >> i want to welcome you to the commission. great to have you here. we know reliance on mobile networks growing at a breakneck pace. my question is what more does the fcc and congress keep up with consumer and business

demands? >> my focus, we have to streamline the rules, to millions of cell sites. >> we need to focus on areas for service, and we need to talk about affordability for the lifeline. >> critical inputs for 600 mhz to 95 ghz. >> we went through that. >> commissioner o'reilly. >> preemption to the spectrum we talk about, deciding what to do with the hardest to reach individuals we don't have a plan for today.

>> we should set time for auctioning the 28 ghz band, our first millimeterwave and so we can lead the world in 5g millimeter. >> is that correct? i want to go back to the first amendment conversation, and in 2013, they have been combing through the cell phone records of almost any associated press reporters in the fishing expedition. and for whistleblowers, the action save for you. >> committing to the first amendment acting consent. >> yes or no would be easy. >> yes or no. >> chairman ajit varadaraj pai. >> yes.

>> yes. >> that sells troubling. >> i appreciate the work you have been doing on revitalization, in february and september, what is the status of your efforts to revitalize? >> the translator window is a success. and we are processing those at the end of the year, processed and going forward with picture issues. from broadcasters, for consensus on those. >> what can this committee do to be helpful to encourage revitalization? >> we will take support from whatever quarter i can get it and i am never shy about the issue of revitalization so no need to encourage me, but

important to talk about the importance of the work broadcasters do in their communities. and call signs, kk ow, keeping the lights on and the communities. >> the entire commission is on board with that. >> across the board. >> where we have cohesiveness in the commission. for all of you countries moving rapidly, for 5g services, china, japan and south korea. and my question is this, two questions, the -- are we risking falling behind other countries, for spectrum

available for 5g? >> behind them spectrum, keeping the pedal down to move forward, proceedings, the chairman teed up that let us do that. >> the management policies have to be all of the above for the optimum use with optimal players. >> part of the equation, 3.742, we have to take action on those. >> not the only one on the list. >> we are a risk of falling behind, we need a calendar who is running at the same time. >> i need to work about that more, i yield back. >> gentleman yield back, ms. clark for 5 minutes. >> i think ranking member doyle and our commissioners, chairman

ajit varadaraj pai, commissioner brendan carr, welcome, commissioner rosenworcel, welcome back. good to see you. commissioner clyburn. talk about how important today tearing is, and is the sec authority on a daily basis, it has been quite instructive and interesting, listen to today's proceedings with these issues and significance facilitating announced changes. and cochair of the multicultural media caucus, and the media ownership changes, the commission is poised to take up the item to monetize

the local tv ownership rule at the meeting. and diversity of voices and ownership with delivery of ownership of one tv station, hypothetically, the commission, the local tv ownership, with a case-by-case approach, who should have the burden of proof? and seeking to maintain diversity of ownership. >> if the prohibition remains at the party seeking relaxation of that prohibition on case-by-case basis, that application is in public interest. >> let me ask do you have any substantive processed concerns with modification of local tv ownership rules. >> one thing we are demonized for was looking at the media

ecosystem, making wholesale changes looking at 67 women, broadcast stations, clearly our policies, diversity and inclusion in any stretch of the way. >> media ownership, says so much about who we are as individuals, and not the full diversity for the country. with more consolidation that won't get better, it will get worse. >> a comment to you, the situation is under current rules that have been in place, they haven't worked. we got to try something new. but here is the question. you are saying it hasn't

changed, we are not certain what you are proposing makes it worse. hard to get much worse. >> that is not the case. the numbers are really low and a lot of reasons they will go lower. >> that will transform that. what i am asking you is will your proposal transform that, is that what you are saying? this proposal is going to transform that? >> that is not my proposal. in general i'm asking -- the current situation is not working. >> the answer is yes. part of the reason we don't have more diverse city, suggesting an incubator program, and the diverse city the prior administration, for

stakeholders. and promoting diverse city of the broadcast business, and outlawed js as. >> are you saying there's is a pilot project or a wholesale change. >> seeking comment on the scope of these. >> a wholesale change with a pilot program. >> this is no -- a real program. >> let me move on to the next question. >> we talk about that further. in the us virgin islands, the sec engaged to assist puerto

rico, and the capabilities in the wake of last month's hurricane season, what must we learn from these hurricanes and their impact on existing communications infrastructure? >> personally i called the congressman's office, i talked to some stakeholders ever had in puerto rico, and others, in the us virgin islands, there are power issues in the virgin islands, the power requirements to be elevated, the into the island. and it is critical too. >> if we forwarded universal service, so people could build hard dollars to rebuild telecommunication systems. >> doing something similar for

the rate. >> thank you. >> you are welcome, miss walters. >> i think the witnesses for being here, two newest sec commissioners, it is deployment of the district, and the deployment has potential to create 2300 jobs in the district. and the 5g will improve business operations and competitiveness demonstrating the need of the technology. in the beginning of the year focusing on issues related to societies of 5g infrastructure and vetoed a bill that

established uniform standards for 5g equipment. this limit local governments from blocking antenna placement and gather installations for public property like traffic rates. and this is an issue. what 5g is placing. chairman ajit varadaraj pai, can the ftc work with states and localities to streamline citing process and briefly discuss to address these issues. >> we teed up last year with wireless infrastructure and different tools to streamline that approval process and relatively soon. >> congratulations on your confirmation, the importance of 5g with infrastructure to deploy, with local zoning efforts in california, with 5g

services. >> the small sale bill, we are going to see a massive new deployment of small sales, current regime, this is the real bottleneck with infrastructure deployment rules. and across the finish line. >> you touched on this a few minutes ago, as you know wireless networks in puerto rico, networks in east texas, by hurricanes irma and harvey and buyers in the state damaged wireless in california. and usf funds in puerto rico to accelerate rebuilding critical communication networks, will the sec contemplate

reconstruction in other states with the natural disasters. >> we are taking action if appropriate. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> and the winner is -- all right. way to go. mister welch recognized for five minutes. >> welcome to the full commission, tremendous to see you at full strength. congratulations on your confirmation, good to have you back, not just a swift process but had a end result. congratulations to you as well. net neutrality, we know the debate here, in my view the actions of the previous commission made a lot of sense but my understanding is the

commission is opening that up, you heard millions of comments, the question i have is the apprehension among the industry has largely been a new commission at some point that is overbearing, with statute, and privately and publicly, interfered with net neutrality, skepticism on their part with the durability of the current practice, isn't it fair for consumers to have skepticism when ceo changes these companies demanding of bitter return to their won't be pressure and the expense of the folks who need solid net

neutrality. >> the regulatory framework calibrated to preserve the free and open internet. >> why is it not body in statute? >> they are saying to you to maintain net neutrality. with the executive offices now, other people later and do you consider that valid concern who want to make certain with the neutrality. >> with the 2014 decision, with the rules of the road. >> i would say yes, the opportunity of the committee, what is going forward, that is what the committee is

contemplating. >> with the majority to act on that. >> the internet economy is the envy of the world with openness and the current rules support that sustained in court and wildly popular, not a loss we would take them away. >> a lot of us are from rural america, we started the broadband caucus. not only deployment but so lagging behind, it is the speed and there is movement toward reducing what is considered the adequate speed. that would be damaging in rural america. do you want to comment on that, commissioner clyburn? >> any talk about slowing

things down. and keeping and ensuring rural america, you haven't caught up and that is problematic and that is why this talk of losing standards of lowering speed is problematic and that is not the direction we need to go. >> you were in burlington, vermont, talking about the homeless where we have the issue, that is an urban area. like a lot of rural america it is slow and rural america and rural vermont is on it healed economically. we have to have this tool to have any shot at getting back in the game. slowing, lowering the standards. >> lowering the standard is crazy. you have to set audacious goals if you want to do big things and deciding we can get 100 mb to everyone in the country is worth the effort including

rural america. >> i'm hoping you won't be in favor of changing the definition for rural america. >> the actual proposal is to maintain 25-3 standard, no proposal other than that. in the criticism, when the prior majority had that ability to do something for folks in rural america in december 2014 allocating billions of dollars of funding for 10 mb per second, according to them that is not broadband but when we revitalized or reformed the lifeline program i specifically suggested we increase the speed to 25, the fcc saying this is broadband and consumers should get broadband, they specifically rejected that suggestion, it is a little hollow on this issue. >> i won't argue with you about that but you are in the chair now. >> proposal is to maintain a standard. >> is their assurance their won't be a suggestion to lower

the standard? >> congress charged us taking a look at conductivity and as part of that we have to see comments on the impact of broadband and what consumers use the internet for and applications to require 10 mb per second and other standards, that is what we are trying to do but the proposal to maintain the standard. >> gentleman yields back, mister olson for five minutes. >> i think the chair, welcome to our witnesses, special welcome, commissioner rosenworcel. i spent a couple weeks with my dad in icu, not a good time to have a parent in a hospital to thank you for coming, we are praying for you. my first question for ajit varadaraj pai, thank you for coming to houston to see the devastation of hurricane harvey

firsthand. parts of the district, parsed of the county, we can do better. what do you see with respect to the communication networks during hurricane harvey, one of the steps the fcc is taking to support the restoration and recovery efforts back home? >> appreciate your leadership on this and inform your constituents where they could get help. a few things, the fcc is working proactively to make sure we assist state and local partners in texas and personally visit and offered a few things we could do going forward. quite taken by a point at the harris county 911 center, the reason the networks relatively were reliable compared to florida and puerto rico was the fact that 33 trillion gallons of water in the houston

surrounding area, it was fiber based as opposed to copper-based and despite huge amount of weight placed on the networks because they were fiber, relatively more resilience, might have been degraded or disintegrated altogether. the second thing is we need to work together. i heard time after time, state and local partners in the industry relied on disaster information reporting service which was very helpful and also found it useful to have a point of contact at the fcc that could provide assistance. a lot of things we are excited about going forward in terms of the response and we apply that to puerto rico and have already. >> the network framework, the wildest industry initiative to better prepare a response for times of emergency. this restored coverage faster with recent natural disasters?

>> no question. i heard from wireless providers in texas how useful that had been. the other thing that was useful is the governor's office provided some of these wireless companies with information where the flooding was and some were able to overlay the information where they saw the networks, up or down and able to target in some places, we see flooding but people on the network, we need their help so that overlays the serendipitous benefit going forward we will take advantage of in other jurisdictions. >> and lessons learned, we could learn from harvey, anyone want to comment? he saw firsthand. >> i want to mention the wireless network resiliency you cited was the industry coming together in the aftermath of hurricane sandy. we have it in place because we learned from the past disaster and my hope is we will learn

comparably from this one. >> out of time here. commissioner brendan carr, go to texas, houston, see for yourself? >> i will be there on friday to hear about what the fcc can continue to do to support the recovery efforts. >> one thing i have to warn you about. can you say y'all? >> i will work on it. >> can you say beat la? >> yes. >> well played. >> dingell -- ajit varadaraj pai, you are a baseball fan. as i alluded to, the la dodgers are playing the houston astros in the world series. yesterday we had a rough day, didn't quite do as well as i wanted but that morning, over capitol hill, signs popped up about the game especially this one on the door of the majority

leader from california. in having jurisdiction over federal communications, have to make sure that is not a federal offense you are looking at, i neither confirm nor deny my involvement in those operations. one thing, just what is your prediction, astros in a 5, 6 or 7 games? >> i want to reiterate i stand in favor of the first amendment and your rights -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i like the word plastered. >> miss brooks, 5 minutes. >> thank you and congratulations to all of those who have recently gotten confirmed. i recently joined with my colleague across the aisle, debbie dingell to form of 5g caucus and forms with

congressional staff led by ctia. i am learning more and more, what is commonly understood among citizens of the country, and slide put up in the presentation that talks about global race being on for 5g, and has often been with leaders in the innovation. and it appears china and europe may be further along with 5g deployment, and curious whether or not these countries particularly china don't have division in government with federal, state and local, and how are we taking that into

account in congress. and the role in congress to better partner with state and local governments, struggling particularly in state legislatures, and understanding, and falling behind. and start with what we could be doing differently and better, and from responses today what we need to do a lot more and a lot better but what does it mean for us to fall behind and what should we be doing, in indianapolis that i represent the northern part of is a 5g test site. we are behind these other countries. >> thanks for the hospitality.

and the opportunity cost with american inertia. and more than happy to take that lead. and the other countries, they were eager to capitalize on what they see with the revolution that america was forward thinking with spectrum, and 50% of the subscriptions. and learning that with 5g. and infrastructure as well. not just the fcc to think creatively about this issue. and as pointed out in the testimony, a serious conversation with appropriate regulatory framework for 5g,

and is there a more streamlined account to consider? the equities are difficult, national competitiveness and wireless world, with difficult decisions. >> i appreciate the need for the calendar, and state legislatures, what is the fcc doing, might have missed part of that, and local communities, which did pass the legislation the past session, with local jurisdictions to the state legislature and fcc to maintain and educate the tough discussions, i don't know -- >> that the fcc is taking to take on this. we have representatives from

local government on that, to your broader point, what led the world in 4 g, the regulatory structures are the bottlenecked, i'm confident with the commission we have momentum to move forward, to streamline those, we can shift entire communities from being uneconomical for the private sector deployed to becoming economical by streamlining the deployment rules. >> is it important we win this? >> in that country in the world where it thinks innovation will find a home, yielding the return. it doesn't have to be the united states in the 21st century. >> the needs of all communities, the voices of all

communities that we win this race. >> unanimous consent on to the committee. >> so ordered. >> conducting a very important hearing and welcome to all of the commissioners and thank you for the service and very critical issues of the growth of the economy. commissioner rosenworcel, i recently introduced the broadband act in internet connectivity with telecommunications and education administration. under this bipartisan administration the office will coordinate broadband deployment programs, to make sure working together pulling in the same direction. do you believe the agencies could do better coordinating

with various programs? >> more coordination will make scarce dollars and that is particularly true with the fcc, and folks up the road from this is the agriculture department which runs grant and loan programs. the more coordination the better. >> any other comments from commissioners? >> we are green lighting those devices, and telemedicine, there are so many synergies as we leverage those relationships inside government. >> how many of these programs serve, so we have a better sense how people are connected

because of these programs with consumers who live. >> how many americans it helps to serve the america fund? >> the metric the legislation contemplates. >> to provide the office, the subcommittee, the committee, before the end of the year. >> that information being the number to provide what bears in a question. >> if put in the right context do you believe the information is valuable for policymakers, and the broadband programs. >> you can't manage that, better broadband data, with the communications policy and it can inform things like

healthcare policy. >> people without high-speed broadband at their homes, don't understand the benefits broadband can bring, the excess broadband act includes educational components and the difference it can make in the community towards economic recovery. and educational component for what we are attempting to do. >> with the educational component -- >> broadband awareness and what it provides. >> whatever you said is true. but sincerely, do you know what is possible? you don't know what is possible for the better is in place, if you are not aware of the

actions that you have, so many things from the educational standpoint and mention health, in real time. those things better empower individuals, you have a role to play the public is informed so they can be better able to live their lives more -- >> some exchange with a colleague from vermont, the commission is considering lowering the definition of broadband. to make sense of this proposal to make cause of constituents day in and day out, but faster broadband speeds deliver the definition of broadband, a faster internet access. are there other comments, the

definition of broadband. >> the proposal is to maintain the 23 standards, if you look at the decisions in terms of universal service fund, we are trained to push the envelope, $170 million in funding, so they can have the connectivity to take for granted. >> can you yield? >> mister engel for five minutes. >> the total cost estimate for the repacking process approximately $2.1 billion to $1.6 billion, it might be higher. do you think congress should provide additional funding?

>> thanks, that number could go up or down. it is not set in stone. what i said to other committees on the senate side, the extent that we don't have the ability beyond $1.75 billion in the relocation fund, additional funding from congress is necessary to meet the gap that broadcasters would have to pay out of their own pocket to fill. >> let me ask you this. congress provide additional funding, do you believe low-power tv stations and tv translators should be eligible for that funding? >> that is a decision for congress to make, congress decided not -- and reimbursement. and happily administer it. >> you don't have a position on this? >> they are in a tough situation so i can tell you

since september 28, 2012, we should the notice of proposedmaking whatever consideration the fcc can give them would be welcome. >> another group we heard about and acted by the transition but not included for the initial reimbursement funds. >> we heard those concerns that they are entitled but to the extent they are piggybacking on infrastructure by the broadcast television broadcaster, congress could provide some relief. >> let me ask commissioner clyburn how important it is to ensure there is money for consumer education in this transition? >> it is so obvious, looking at what impact if any, hopefully negligible that would happen as we move toward relocating and making the ecosystem more

efficient, the public needs to be aware. those who are not protected but impacted need to be informed and we need to do what we can to make sure they don't have to do relocation twice. all of these things are important for us to be at the forefront and ensuring the transition is as smooth as possible. >> i don't think anybody would disagree. let me talk about cyber security. commissioner rosenworcel, i will ask you a question. we have seen from high profile data breaches, like a québec that yahoo consumers have everything exposed, social security, to login names, passwords. do you think the fcc has the authority to address this security? >> thank you for the question. i do believe the first sentence of the communication act references our obligation to make sure we make available communications for the purpose

of national defense and protection of life and property. that encompasses what is modern which is cyber security and i recognize our cyberaggressors will always move faster than regulation. can we bring people together to come up with good best practices and implement them widely to make sure our networks are more secure? >> the congressional review act rescinding fcc broadband privacy rules have any effect on the fcc cyber security authority? >> good question. the primary problem is cybersecurity, my colleagues don't agree with me. in addition there is the fact our communication interoperability counsel used to be tasked with identifying good practices for cybersecurity but that is not part of the agenda. >> how does this impact the security of consumers private information? >> only time will tell but i'm worried about that as well.

>> thank you. >> gentleman yields back. they are going to call votes in 15 minutes. miss rogers is seeking the committee for asking a question. without objection so ordered. >> thank you for giving me the opportunity to join you today. the internet has revolutionized the lives of millions of americans it is vital to economic potential in the 21st century. in eastern washington, they live with digital divide limiting employment education and economic opportunities. ensuring hard-working families in eastern washington have reliable access to broadband technology is a top priority of mine and we must use every tool for greater opportunity.

that is why i am excited, the opportunity to build out from the incentive auctions to rural america. many individuals and families in the most rural parts of my district struggle to get a signal for cell phones let alone connect to the internet. i'm encouraged by the commitment private sector made in purchasing this spectrum of the practical effect in eastern washington. the infrastructure and technology as a result of the auction will support millions of jobs and generate billions in rural america. and technology and innovation with 5g network. a letter, and 54 colleagues urging fcc to continue to support the timeline for what is resulting from the action.

this is too important, and in eastern washington, with reliable broadband access in a matter of months. >> i think the fcc for putting renewed emphasis in the digital divide. and innovative ways, with 35 million americans without access. we have a great opportunity in a bipartisan manner. and the opportunity they deserve regardless of where they live. making that a reality. i want to submit to the commodity. with 54 colleagues. and i would like to ask you, on title 2, acted late in the

previous administration fostering broadband infrastructure. subject to light regulatory touch and achieve a level of broadband investment to deploy broadband deeper in rural areas with regulatory touch in the model. and fast and reliable internet. >> with the parallax promise in eastern washington. what is the best regulatory framework calibrated, to preserve as much infrastructure investment as possible in parts of the country the don't have it and a fair amount of public comments at this point with an

appropriate way forward. not just in this proceeding but every proceeding, closing the digital divide. and in opportunities, with a ring on the vine. it is weaker than on the capital shelf. the top priority is going to remain so. >> i will yields back. >> members wishing to ask questions about the panel, you have been generous with your time with the overpass 3 hours and thank you for being here today. unanimous consent, the following letters into the

record, and the letter from the lpt coalition for that letter. without objection so ordered. pursuant to committee rules, ten business days to submit additional questions, i ask witnesses submit responses within 10 business days upon receipt of the question. seeing no further business before the subcommittee without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> representatives from twitter, facebook and google testify before congress today as part of the investigation into russian influence on social media and the 2016 election, live coverage available on c-span networks,

today two hearings on c-span3 starting at 9:30 eastern, the test senate intelligence committee and at 2:00 pm the house sean averaget of twitter, and kent walker, general counsel for google. watch both hearings on c-span3 come online at c-span.org or listen live on the free c-span radio apps. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> now, live to london for british prime minister's question time. each week the house of commons is in session, we bring you prime minister teresa made taking questions from the house of