since every purchase help support c-span nonprofit operation.

i hearing on how american can broadcast frequencies or spectrum are regulated. scholars in all just testifying on spectrum part of a technological lease with china the senate commerce science and transportation hearing is about two hours.

senate committee on commerce science and transportation will come to order today the committee will consider the adoption of the budget for the 119th conference we will move into the hearing and examine the critical role of spectrum policy driving the same authorized expenditures out march 1, 2020 five 20 august 20, 2027 were given an allocation of the rules committee directs each committee to record authorization resolution for the end of my extensive remarks and ministerial task that will hopefully be lladopted by unanimous consent without blinking number for motion quirks and budget resolution committee on commerce science transportation be reported favorably there a second all those in favor say aye called josc no is agreed to this concludes today's vote.

we will move to the hearing. is auctioning spectrum most successful drivers economic growth and global technology spectrum option while enabling our nations wireless networks to deliver faster better connectivity fueling the rise of dues from my degenerative this is creating jobs start industries, position american companies in the forefront of globalization and improve the

lives of american maxillary sleep whether surgeries or air taxis may be just around whether americans will and whether it will be made here overseas, depends on will to unlock more spectrum stand today juncture it's been two years since the fcc lost function authority three years since the last meaningful spectrum to american gathering actions that are characteristic of the prior surgeon nothing. meanwhile, our spectrum renovation lacks the rest of the world. as china, adadversarial surveillance state threatens to control worldwide

communications networks. thanks to this new congress and the historic election of president trump we have an opportunity to build better and faster networks to ncreate ten of thousands of high-paying jobs and secure america's global technological. spectrum pipeline act which leader, senator (i introduced last year what restore fcc auction authority and end our spectrum dropped. through a clear pipeline mid bad spectrum american companies will have certainty they need to invest billions of their networks. and leave the world and revolutionary innovation. certain special interests aligned with adversaries like walc have possibly betrayed spectrum pipeline is a blunt entrustment to the private defense department of the spectrum it needs to engage in 21st century worker. to the contrary, our bill

ensures both consumer interests and defense capabilities are protected. bill has a generous timeframe for performing the necessary feasibility study so federal missions are not degraded. uses the existing deliberative process was carried out by technical experts across including reality to begin auctioning a fraction of underutilized federal spectrum. studies are not enough to spur action. we need clear goals. for many years now u.s. government incumbents particularly bureaucrats and had to go under the direction of general mark bailey. have insisted they are using every single megahertz as efficiently as possible and must maintain absolute control of their vast spectrum holdings. i am more than open to

compromise on what the aggregate pipeline target number should be but zero is objectively unreasonable. no institution should be afforded blinded deference especially one that can't even pass on the audits and claim that leaving billions in tanks and helicopters and weapons in afghanistan was more efficient than bringing them home. don't just take it from me, military analysts with first-hand expertise agree we are falling behind. both in terms of effective usage and in the development of intellectual property and wireless capabilities. the pentagon is not the only user of the airwaves globally. many of the bands you ideally currently are also used commercially in countries like taiwan and japan and korea.

if dod is technically unable to operate alongside wireless carriers using this ban domestically how on earth could we expect to prevail in the pacific conflict. it simply is not credible. there is also significant opportunity costs for our national defense and delaying spectrum auctions. pipeline. raising $100 billion or more that could go directly to rebuilding our military, funding border security and financing coast guard polar ice breakers. that's an incredibly valuable offset for the reconciliation process we are undergoing right now the risk of doing nothing is broader than lost revenue we are fighting the global technology race against communist china. if we do not catch up and lead, it will be walc that creates the backbone of tomorrow's

global communications network there which much of the world's economic traffic and indeed much of our own government's traffic chinese infiltrations like the recent salt typhoon attack and release of deep seek are but a small preview of a future where chinese equipment sets the standard and dominates global networks. negative ripple effects cascade indefinitely from their stop handicapping our efforts and other adjacent technologies like ai, quantum and semi conductors and threatening to make the america loser the 21st century technology race. we cannot allow that to happen, now is the time. the commerce committee as we take up reconciliation will move forward on spectrum.

it was a b and application of responsible need to do anything otherwise. we must move quickly and together to preserve the promethean flame of american technology and bolster our national security for years to come we must prevail in chthe race against china. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you for convening the support hearing. i look forward to hearing all of our expert witnesses and look forward to working with the chairman and all my colleagues in any way possible to resolve our previous conflicts on these issues. last congress the committee to expand commercial spectrum access while protecting rk critical department of defense and federal tosystem infrastructure and i think we can all agree on two facts, first commercial industry needs access to more nkspectrum to innovate and bring new technologies to market.

second, the vital national security aviation security and essential federal capabilities that rely on spectrum must be protected. one of our witnesses i think characterized it best, mr. clark in testimony said "the u.s. military will need to operate in additional areas of electronic electromagnetic spectrum to address the increasing challenges of the threat environment. i couldn't agree more during the last congress and work to try to balance those access issues with national security efforts many my colleagues on the committee have directed the department of commerce to have a larger role in trying to define the issues of agency overlap in this area of spectrum. that led to the department of commerce in the joint chiefs of staff agreeing on the

legislation that we put forward that would open up more spectrum for commercial use and study to study how we can work together on the spectrum sharing. i want to cecontinue to focus o how to get this right you to ensure our global leadership and advanced wireless technology against china is there, however, we need legislation and leadership that doesn't abandon our national security goals i know it's easy to say this is what i want to do but i'm firmly convinced when looking at the past history the only thing that's going to work is the collaborative hard-working efforts and probably test setting up technology that will allow us to get this right for the future. in 2019 fcc auction 24 gigahertz bands endangering our ability to track and predict hurricanes in 2020 the fcc approved legato petition to use

satellites for 5g and risks severely disrupting essential gps service the u.s. government is now facing a $39 billion lawsuit because of that debacle and in 2020 the fcc also rushed to auction the sea ban which is adjacent to spectrum use concerns about interference with the flightsafety systems merely because the faa dto ground all flights. it also put $81 billion worth of investment by wireless industry at risk doing the 5g into the united states. in early 2000 congress had to spend about $1 billion replacing the radar system need to stealth bomber because of uncoordinated changes to spectrum allocations. this is exactly what i'm talking about when we say we need to work together. we cannot continue to have this play out in a way where we are not thinking about our military capabilities. in ukraine we are seeing how sexual spectrum is everyday. the russians are jamming ukraine drones medications, gps

and satellite this all shows are military needs to be member more flexible if we are going to succeed in our operations and that kind of contested and congested spectrum environment. today our warfare does depend on spectrum enabled communications. "spectrum is no longer just an enabler of the warfare is the warfare". today's victories and battles really will depend on us getting this right and if we lose the spectrum war we lose the war. today's hearing is about how we keep the u.s. globally competitive while china and russia and other foreign adversaries are making inroads that to assert our leadership in the rest of the way. i would like to work thwith my colleagues on legislation that would help us get this right

and continue to move forward. i will also note that president trump, and mr. clark's testimony, has a line "the most challenging driver of u.s. spectrum policy access requirements will be the ftrum administration initiative to establish a comprehensive missile-defense architecture for the united states". i don't know how we can do that if we give the spectrum away. i look forward to today's hearing and think my colleagues in the chairman for this important hearing. >> thank you i will introduce the distinguished panel of experts we have testifying joining us today is doctor thomas hayes let. professor of economics at clemson university. served as the chief economist of the fcc and a noted expert at telecommunications policy. 's book what the political spectrum" chronicles the history of american spectrum regulation and how spectrum policy reforms such as public auctions generated explosive technological innovation and

economic growth. the second witness is doctor charles bayless a professor of electrical and computer engineering at baylor university the oldest continuing operating universit in the great state of texas. he currently serves as director of smart hub dod spectrum innovation center that organizes research efforts among 25 researchers across 15 universities to revolutionize the increasingly crowded spectrum used by both dod and nonmilitary. our third witness is not pearl director of the strategic technologies program at the center for strategic and international studies. mr. pearl has more than 14 years of government service including most recently as advisor to the national security council. prior to that mr. brown served as associate bureau chief of the wireless telecommunications

bureau at the fcc. he help transition the use of dod spectrum to include commercial while her lips used in multiple ban. our final witness brian clark is a senior fellow and director of the center for defense concepts and technologies at the hudson institute's. 1982 to 2013 he served in a variety of roles in the united states while in the navy mr. clark received the department of navy superior service metal and the legion of merit. >> thank you very much and i think everyone for their kind invitation to participate in today's discussion. radio spectrum is a vital component of the modern economy. yet artificial scarcity has been imposed by public policies that prevent entrepreneurs from moving underutilized spectrum resources into their highest valued uses.

such impediments have long been a problem dating to the 1927 radioactive facets of the long choir mother may i come of the term of art describes the slow process where an idle bandwidth was discovered defined and scoped and transitioned into productive employments. needless permissions on red tape too often limit markets and impede america's economic growth. forestry service enjoy exclusive frequency rights in new york city and today's some 35 channels from the tv allocation sttable 1952 are sti reserved for terrestrial over the air broadcasting. i love lucy may have benefited from this arrangement back in the day we now have more efficient means to deliver video using cable satellites and broadband internet.

these long lags continue to plague entrepreneurial ventures reduce competition and frustrate wireless consumers desiring more bandwidth for enhanced communication. yet the good news is that the u.s. policy has not been static american regulators have taken corrective actions to promote liberalization in particular market oriented policies and relaxed mandates for how spectrum must be utilized granting users and licensees wider discretion be a flexible use spectrum rights enormously valuable new competitive forms have been unleashed. today over 10 times as much bandwidth is available for mobile wireless in the mid-19 backs mobile ecosystems has as a result bloomed, in addition, competitive bidding auctions sign such rights replacing arbitrary distributions. recent decades abroad experiments with new methods and even the ones hidebound fcc has innovated in the early 1990s the instruction the introduction of what became

known as second-generation cellular or 2g wireless was held up for some years i protest registered by holders of microwave allotments.these incumbents claimed catastrophe was rebuilt from any change in band access rights. is often the case such claims were overwrought the situation was put in the clear focus i'm resolved by clutter fcc policy and overlay. this approach granted emerging 2g networks the right to utilize vacant treatment sees in the under flexible use. further the overlay is granted the new licensee secondary rights over spectrum occupied by the microwave transmissions. this protected incumbents gave life to entrance by defining spectrum access rights needed for bargains to be short.

the overlay npolicy has since been used in numerous context by u.s. regulators. the 500 ããoverlays were modified in auction 107 held in 2020 2021 the 500 megahertz allocated had appeared crowded and available to entrance in fact with incentive payments the entrance relocated winning bidders paid $94 billion for dollars for new licenses some $13 billion was passed through to the incumbents the reconfiguration of the ban took less than four years lightning fast and spectrum regulation time. such mechanisms have improved

incentives for cooperation in the process of radio spectrum reallocation many more targets of opportunity for efficient reforms and radio spectrum await. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> let's try that again good morning my name is doctors charlie bayless i serve as professor of electrical and computer engineering at baylor university director of smart hub the department of defense spectrum innovation center. smart stands for spectrum management with adaptive and reconfigurable technology. our unified mission is to make spectrum usage adaptive and reconfigurable. we are not a typical collection of academicians to quickly put

superior technology into the hands of our war fighters and hands of consumers. want to put america mefirst and spectrum. arguably the most important dimension of battle in a very valuable natural resource as a center we are creating adaptive and reconfigurable technology that will provide a win-win for a military dominance and economic growth. definitely enter provide flexible opportunistic spectrum capabilities to military systems and 5g and 6g commercial wireless. maximizing onperformance and whatever ban they operate. we can also simultaneously enable the construction of the iron dome for america two weeks ago demonstrated our initial technologies for the pentagon congress and defense industry right here in arlington. as example of some innovations we develop sensory act

metacognitive techniques to the best available spectrum for operation in real time. looking to ai trto beat spectru selection. we are developing a system that inform the real-time coordination of spectrum. we were gone reconfigurable plasma circuits and antennas handling high transmission power levels that allow us to maximize radar range and under a millisecond after changing frequencies to avoid wireless communications.we are pioneering novel measurement module allows to assess what we are transmitting to chavoid interference and improve assistance performance on the fly. these techniques allow both incumbent government systems and commercial wireless systems to have gyfunctionality to work around each other. technology innovation will convert congestion into opportunity. many edattempts to organize spectrum have been limited to regulation and reregulation but

adaptive and reconfigurable technology will revolutionize vector music will allow us to provide for the common defense and promote general welfare. as a developer of adaptive reconfigurable technology united states will gain enormous international advantage economically and technically. industries will develop the systems and sell technology worldwide. china has divided technology from chus. commercial wireless system and the military systems will be the strongest most agile in the world dominating most important dimension about the spectrum. how do we get this is a situation where we are today this is a question that ties a director of congressionally funded spectrum innovation center spent a lot of time considering and remembering to develop research innovation workforce development if it's like driving a car down the highway with other vehicles must develop an adaptive and cognitive techniques were devices through congested

environments. more congested environments like traffic light the dynamic spectrum management system will be useful for coordinating. how do we grow into this paradigm from earlier today? you can't expect a kindergartner to drive a car. we can expect rigid wireless technologies to coexist adaptively both cases maturation development is needed. we are mapping technology development trajectory using bloom's taxonomy. widely used by educators and cognitive development bloom's taxonomy shows the progression from knowledge which is the simple memorization of facts through evaluation mature cognitive adaptive approach to like. elementary middle and high school educators carefully plot the course of the students and subject such as reading writing mathematics science and physical education to develop cognitive and physical skills to drive the car down the road.

we would continue to partner with congress our president our nation to thank you for the opportunity to testify i look forward to answering questions you have. >> chairman cruz ranking monger o distinguished members of the committee is an guhonor to appe before you to discuss spectrum policy. center for strategic and international studies does not take policy position in my testimony i will explain the

importance of establishing u.s. leadership and spectrum policy draw attention to recent developments that undermine such leadership and urge congress and the administration to act to improve the u.s. position. and held 100 auctions that generated 233 billion dollars

for the treasury. in addition, congress repeatedly provided clearing targets for making spectrum available for, usually. the actions were critical to economic angrowth economic security and national security. spectrum played a critical role in fostering stable e results i economy while we take it for granted the same companies top app store on our phones spectrum played decisive role in enabling that to happen. we focused on option spectrum i

must always highlight the importance of unlicensed and satellite use. u.s. is also been a leader in federal expect in enabling u.s. companies to watch launch massive low earth orbit constellation while the u.s. house traditionally played a leadership role in spectrum we are now at risk of falling behind. in march 2023 the fcc's authority to hold spectrum auction flats edin addition man countries have watched 5g in prime ban spectrum of the u.s. is not made available. it's critical for congress to restore fcc auction authority and establish ambitious clearing targets. another threat to u.s. leadership involves lengthy delays and acting on request for satellite licenses which is another threat to our leadership. finally, i will address the

relationship between spectrum and national ecurity. we have suopportunity or expand capabilities while creating opportunities for commercial use. there's a misunderstanding about whether congress needs to provide new statutory production so spectrum reallocation doesn't threaten national security.

we only need to ensure that dot has continued access to spectrum to prevail in the electromagnetic domain. to prevail over adversaries dot only to leverage commercial innovation. >> mr. clark. >> chairman cruz rent thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and the rest of the committee. about spectrum policy.

the national security competition between u.s. and china in the electromagnetic spectrum is not just commercial one it's also military step always prominently military you could look at the future conflicts we might face against china and others. i look at the invasion of ukraine and how the electromagnetic spectrum is played out of that war early on russia had a lot of problems in its initial push that was because of a lack of spectrum management on its part the inability to use the spectrum effectively. later we see today the both sides of music sophisticated electromagnetic warfare against each other as ranking member cantwell talked about they use it to janet against u.s. and communications the recent offensive that ukrainian forces mounted and the curse was unable to march part by the ability to gain superiority operating in parts of the spectrum are the russians are trying to operate in operating outside their own parts of the

spectrum the russians were unable to jam them. the spectrum is increasingly where wars are to be worn and lost. to overcome its geographic and numerical disadvantages when you're fighting as the away team against china u.s. forces had to rely l on a lot of what call counter asr counter surveillances counters communications capability is. to degrade the ability of china's reconnaissance intelligence network to target and attack u.s. forces. if we can operate inside frequencies where the chinese operate outside our normal frequency silicate to see them hide forces and fdegrade their targeting ability, we are not to be able to mask the number of forces successfully to defeat them invasion of taiwan. fundamentally winning the invasion of taiwan comes down to the ability to control the

spectrum end western pacific region. in a lot of ways the deception campaign has to start here meaning we operate in parts of the spectrum that we would not normally operate in as part of an effort to begin the deception against the chinese forces. in addition, as we mentioned earlier, the iron dome for america great demands for electromagnetic spectrum to protect the united states from the soul attack there's opportunities to use technologies to be able to more efficiently use the spectrum and more effectively manage the surveillance network you need to protect the united states but requirements for terminal missile-defense and airborne moving target indication from space both create x-band frequencies we currently want to make available to commercial users. the needs for the od and the spectrum are becoming larger and more complex. that does not preclude that we would be able to share the spectrum between military and

commercial users it does mean we need to bring new technologies to bear we need to bring new policies to bear and there will be delivered our processes anwe can figure out which parts of the spectrum can be made available and which ones cannot. examples like cprs citizens ban radio service and leament are good examples where in the past if we been able to be conflict users in spectrum between federal and commercial users. or share spectrum by taking advantage of new technologies for detection and relocation of spectrum users. we need to be able to take the time and analysis necessary to make the mechanisms visible in the united states to support the operations we need to do for things like iron dome but all is well as training and preparation necessary to get forces ready to go overseas and fight in a war where they need the spectrum to make up the difference between their lack

of mass in the away team in the large mass available to the chinese and the home team. we shouldn't fall victim to getting into symmetrical competition with china over who is giving more of a particular part of the spectrum to the commercial users and we should not unilaterally disarm our military capabilities and the spectrum we need military and commercial uses can be taking advantage of ouour spectrum resources we can compete on both battlefields. what.i will be looking forward to your questions. >> thank you to all the witnesses for your helpful testimony we will move to questions, what are the specific economic benefits that putting more spectrum into the commercial marketplace would produce and how would my spectrum pipeline legislation that requires some full power spectrum to be made available to the commercial sector benefit everyday americans and american businesses.

>> additional spectrum particularly of the flexible use variety has been found extremely important to increasing american productivity it allows more things to be done with wireless applications and wireless networks. in fact, the reverse is also true when we had these delays that have come into the system we have actually taken the vital whinputs out and getting more spectrum into the marketplace allowing entrepreneurs and competitors to get access to expand that explains not only wireless revolution what we've seen with so much changing in terms of new innovations but it explains why going forward we have to keep our eye on the ball and make sure there is a pipeline and spectrum pouring into the market to be used in efficient ways, not the old locked in a

rigid definitions of old. >> would you agree that making more spectrum available to the private sector would result in billions of new investment and thousands of new jobs? >> accessible it's absolutely. >> history demonstrates that. >> consistently make the spectrum available and particularly as i mentioned with the example of the app economy being first really matters. >> does my pipeline bill preclude the department of defense from accessing the spectrum it needs to accomplish critical missions or are there ways full power commercial license use can accommodate the needs of dod? >> your bill allows for the possibility of exclusive use as well as shared use. so in terms of dod being able to continue oto use some or mo

of the ban in order to keep the capabilities it creates that opening. >> we also her concerns that reinstating auction authority could hinder president trumps initiative to create an american iron dome i'm a strong and passionate supporter of missile-defense i've been advocating for american iron done for some time. based on your experience both the national security council and the fcc auction room do you believe those concerns are well-founded that having an auction would prevent missile-defense here at home. >> absolutely hanot. as long as we have the proper interagency process and gimake sure that we can absolutely ensure we have iron dome as well with commercial use. >> coated iron dome system coexist with commercial 5g use subject to geographical and vocation carveouts like in the

ambient process. >> that potentially could. we do have some cases of countries that are using iron dome like the czech republic better using it quite close to those systems of iron dome so that's one possibility. there are wsome other ways you can design iron dome so you could have potential systems. >> so we are told by some of the defensive permit that if any of the vast spectrum may currently have use goes to the private sector that it will cripple the military's ability to defend our nation. the facts make that claim highly dubious. right now today about 50 nations across the globe operate commercial license 5g networks in the 3.3 to 3.45 gigahertz ban. take an example close to home mexico's 5g networks operate on frequencies between 3.353.45

gigahertz. at full power less than 30 miles away from fort bliss in texas where the u.s. operates ground-based radar systems in the lower third band likewise japan and south korea taiwan and the philippines also have 5g networks that operate between 3.3 and 3.45 gigahertz bands. given the fact that on much of the rest of the world there are commercial commercial players operating in those bands is incredible that our military cannot operate the pacific and we cannot operate commercial sector is operating in those bands. if china wins the race for 5g

and 6g and the global telecommunications network is huawei and chinese based is not good or bad d for national security and it bad, how bad? >> it's catastrophic for national security as well as dod and the intelligence community. we will not have access to advanced trusted security technology. it's true the u.s. will still ban huawei but the rest of the world will still use huawei it will become more events is not only telecommunications which are obviously very permit the pram the prc has with huawei is to leverage of control over telecom up the technology stack to be able to control other technologies. i would say it's absolutely catastrophic. >> ersoldiers use cell phones. >> yes. and that is something we discovered in ukraine is that a lot of the mobile technologies can be incredibly valuable they been used to triangulate drone

attacks they been used to create accurate geographic maps of the combat zone so we are already seeing how the cell phones are and mobile technology is critical. >> ranking member cantwell. >> thank you and thank you for this hearing i actually so appreciate the panel of witnesses doctor hazel it i think lots of members of the committee could give a critique of the fcc it would probably mirror yours. and the issues of challenges of the agency in addressing our most urgent needs. probably the fact it's good broadband mapping is a long line of concern. about the current fcc structure. i love that you are training the next generation of young people to understand this dynamic because we will need it

and there's a reason the information age is sucking up everybody out of college that now that you can produce keep producing them, mr. pearl thank you for this crystallization of i think your exact words were "ensuring we preserve critical military spectrum based capabilities while creating opportunities for commercial access to spectrum. that's what we are trying to do that's what we try to do in the bill the dod and and tia and the department of commerce agreed to. the challenge becomes, thank you mr. clark for your football analogy because, the away game, i think it really does give you a picture of what war fighters face but the one thing i struggle with is that, i feel like people misunderstand where we are it's like, i'm not saying were playing peewee league let's they were playing at the k-12 league right now

but the shift in the dynamics and capabilities of the warfare that is going to take place based on spectrum it's going to be you are knocking to be an k-12 football you u can be in t super bowl. how to get people here to understand, you can't unilaterally disarm i wonder if you could address a lot of people talk about we could just have dynamic spectrum sharing you could easily but there's a lot of ways that right now that is really detrimental to our efforts. >> right. a couple things on that, one is the military is gonna have to be much more dynamic in its use of spectrum so we have to maneuver a lot more in the spectrum to avoid where our adversaries are looking to get to our adversaries are so we can jam them using some of the

technologies doctor bayless is developing we will eventually be able to do the operations as well as maintained some ability of the commercial users operate in the same spectrum but we are not there yet. the reason being, our opponents like you see in ukraine is a constant cat and mouse game in the electromagnetic spectrum. you operate in one part of spectrum quickly get detected and jammed have to maneuver to another park in order to be able to continue to communicate with allies continue sensing targets and attacking your enemies. this cat and mouse game the spectrum requires you can't be isolated to a very narrow band of spectrum and we have to try to be able to conduct the same types of operation. >> but will grow in complexity, were just a very elementary level and now it's gonna grow in complexity so i don't think you're suggesting that we mandate auctions before we do all that technical feasibility studies are you? >> no i think we need to mandate clearing targets.

before you hold the auction you need to do the work of making sure we are not going to interfere with essential military capabilities. back to the hard work like ament and cprs how do we go forward here with the ideas because in one case and might be spectrum and we hear a lot of great things about this but there are paths forward but do we have to test back what we have to tdo to get this right and how do we do has mr. pearl is suggesting a more collaborative effort on the elevation of the private sector could drive. >> there's a lot of new modeling simulation tools and test spreading the capabilities will be really important. there's a path forward to be able to identify the opportunities for o spectrum sharing but for execs comes into it because certain parts of the spectrum are, lend

themselves to things like missile-defense or electronic warfare after jam an opponent where the system operates only limited by physics being able to maneuver anywhere in the spectrum to avoid commercial users. within the spaces where we can use the spectrum effectively in the military we need to figure out if there's a way we can coexist. >> the chinese kicked them out they just control everything i guess you could have the hierarchy we don't want the hierarchy. >> they have pla personnel embedded inside the management centers and industry who maneuver commercial users out of the spectrum whenever the military wants to conduct routine training operations development testing. >> that's our competitor that's why we have to beat them so we have to figure out how to take care of the defense issue, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator wicker. >> before we auction we still have to efdo the work. could you briefly explain what

that means and how long will it take. >> i think it's important to have clearing targets in the legislation of how much we are intending to make available i think that really substances the process. doing the work occurs at several different levels most important level is the engineers from the different agencies. the laws of physics are not t political or partisan, the laws of physics are what they are and you need engineers who are going to share rkinformation an work together and i've seen the most brilliant solutions, that some of the bands d we talked about. >> including engineers from dod. >> absolutely.se but you need the white house leadership to work with the heads of the departments and agencies so the engineers know to share information to be cooperative to work together. because what you don't want is

a situation where, there have been examples, where there isn't collaboration and as a result, often times decisions get made by the fcc or others that are less than optimal. >> okay. you don't speak for csis, you're giving us your own views, other persons learned persons with ncis csis who take the position the same position the admirals and generals from the defense department that absolutely no way this can be shared. i wouldn't necessarily say that he takes their side and everything. >> you are saying we could perhaps get him here or i could

call him but perhaps he would even say there is some scenario in which some of the spectrum could be shared? >> i think there is a willingness on the part through css to find the practical solutions so we can accomplish that. >>. >> do speak for smartphones or for yourself. >>. >> i believe i really tried to consult my team. >> the majority view during the doesn't agree. >> i believe we are unified or trying to adapt or reconfigure technology to solve the spectrum crisis. >> would it be helpful if you had somebody in the devils advocate that could bounce these absolute objections against you. >> devils advocate to what. >> i will tell you when we get the military in the skiff i'm

not giving away secrets it's ã ãwe can't give an inch on anything the anchairman might advocate being detrimental to national security. that's pretty much correct that's the testimony. >> i believe we have objective people on our team that would and do give me contrasting views when they need to be given i think we got a team that is working to e try to get the best technological solution to the problem. i think that's our sole goal. >> mr. clark tells about the idea of finding a solution a compression and compare contrast that to relocating stop compression or spectral efficiency is looking at ways to use digital technology to narrow the bandwidth that the

sensor is for radar to be able to put enough energy downrange to be able to detect a target and tracked it. using new digital technologies we are able to reduce the amount of spectrum that is something i need to be effective there is a history. >> yes over time has done this with different sensor technologies as replace and recapitalize the new generation of raters coming into dod right now they are more efficient. >> supplement your answer on that can be briefly talk about mr. bayless reference to life interference notices. >> the idea in real time be able to get a notification ãã normally when you view conflicts effectively attack the other user alout there that you have the response. you going to augment that with the notification comes from the

other user to automatically tell you i'm going to use the spectrum and here's the level and power i'm going to be at. the systems can coordinate between themselves instead of simply responding to what they see in the environment there communicating with each other to coordinate the spectrum in real time. >> do you subscribe to his point of view in that regard? >> the technology is certainly viable the challenge will be getting it implemented into defense systems that are multiple generations in some cases. >>. >> this is an ongoing problem of the general order. having an on prized asset and at a zero s price if opportunit costs are not niconsidered of course there's going to be overconsumption and no give. the fact is, there are social

costs there are economic costs there are also technology costs in terms of taking the trade-offs for compression, better radios better training better software there are other alternatives that everybody in the ogroom should have the incentives to pursue and that's where there has been progress and real good allocations made really bring efficiency but to say we are not, look at efficiency yet we need more and more and more, you're undermining the request for sufficiency. >> i realize i'm way over time. >> thank you. senator fisher. >> we know the context of this hearing is about whether and how to use spectrum and a

reconciliation bill. one key focus i'm hearing is on revenues hifrom a new spectrum pipeline that's only for exclusive commercial use i want to stress for my colleagues and must also weigh the cost and the timelines to relocate existing users for this type of pipeline. the department of defense is one of the users. with missile-defense radars and satellite ilconsolation critica abilities. dod losing access to new spectrum ban entirely vacating or clearing spectrum means, comes with huge risks and will end up it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars it would take that finish. pipeline estimated to raise by

cbo based on current proposals between 10 and $15 billion. .. >> access to this finite resource forever. mr. clark, what's specific military capabilities could we lose if lawmakers on this committee do not fully consider these realities before pressing ahead? >> well, senator, i think, you know, the key capability would be sensing technologies needed for air and missile defense. so in the lower s band, lower f band. >> could you explain. >> the lower, so lower part of

the three gigahertz range is important for air missile defense because it gives you confidence of resolution and range for attractive to incoming targets and we need operators into the 8 to 12 gigahertz range, to be able to differentiate small targets and to be able to target them and direct an interceptor like a patriot missile to hit them and shoot them down. >> so we have to see them and identify them. >> so you both need to see them and target them and track them and requires essentially two different sensor technologies to be in the same radars or different radar. and that's how the system works that the navy has. >> so if we were to relocate out of those parts of the spectrum. you lose the physics that allow those and we'd have to key those to come up with a different approach. so, that's why sharing might be an effective alternative, but relocating them entirely may not be feasible because of the

physics. >> you know, mr. clark, i have concerns about the role that china has played in influencing our spectrum policy in this country. we're being told that we have to keep up with china, that they have far more mid band spectrum available that their carriers can use the lower three for mobile networks and that there have been no negative impacts to china's national security. well, you know, in reality, china only has 10 more megahertz of mid band spectrum available for mobile networks. china also recently imposed restrictions in its lower three band, limiting commercial access to that lower-- low power, which is indoor use. >> right. >> and yet, we still here the china comparison from carriers and their effort to gain exclusive use of these bands, which are needed for our radar systems. if the u.s. blinds its radars

purely for economic reasons, that only helps for an adversaries like china. do you share my concerns? >> i do, i think that china could be playing a sophisticated game here where they're looking to get us to vacate parts of the spectrum that we need for our military sensors while they retain that access and we unilaterally disarm while they're able to retain their capabilities because as i said before they have the ability to move commercial users out of the spectrum basically whenever they need to for their routine government purposes. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i would like to submit some questions for the record to mr. clark about spectrum management and how thatle also impacts what we're talking about today, thank you. >> thank you. senators klobuchar. >> thank you, thank you ranking member for this important hearing. i know this has been a good discussion about spectrum, i

have a judiciary hearing at the same time. this is specifically important for our 911, and i chair the next 911 caucus with senator bud and we're dedicated to expanding emergency communications infrastructure yet, the ftc spectrum authority expired in march of 2023 as we all know for the first time in nearly 30 years and i'm concerned about this lapse in spectrum authority with the increasing needs for emergency authority. an estimated 240 million calls are made to 911 centers annually, however, this critical public service relies on outdated technologies. i've led legislation with senator cortez masto to help enable 911 call centers to better handle text messages, pictures, videos and modern communications. doctor, could you give us an

innovation at your lab that could help make our 911 system stronger and more resilience. >> i think what type of interferences the 911 systems are receiving. an innovation we're finding in our lab that could really be helpful, there's two of them. one, reconfigurable circuitry, that could reconfigure in a light millisecond and change frequencies and optimize performance at a new frequency. your circuit's designed to operate with the old frequency, if you change frequencies you may drain your battery because you don't have any efficiency and may not get the transit power that we need. that's one thing. and then i think that the dynamic spectrum management system innovations we're working on as well as our measurement capability allows us to see when we're causing interference and change our transmission and plug ai through that, those would help 911 systems as well as any system trying to reconfigure. >> thank you. >> just recently in the

aftermath of hurricane helene, many affected areas experienced local communications blackouts because the flooding was severe enough to override the internet providers' disaster contingency plans. how could we level spectrum management to assure that our wireless broadband networks are more resilient when things happen like natural disasters? >> i'm not aware of this particular-- and didn't research this. i would have to go in and see exactly what the problem was in terms of the technical lapse and then try to be able to bring a team to solve it. if it was an interference issues thing i think our team could deal with it. >> and getting the spectrum thing set would be helpful if we had more? >> i think in the sense that technology is behind regulation right now, technology needs to be developed and i think that's where our lapse is really. i believe that investment needs to be made in technology rather than just reregulating and

reregulating because we're slicing the bread thinner and thinner and thinner until it crumbles. >> thank you, mr. pearl and mr. clark, during president trump's first administration, there were interagency disputes regarding spectrum, we've seen the interagency disputes through democratic administrations as well, recognizing the importance of providing more order, the national spectrum strategy was released in november of 2023, and its implementation plan in march of 2024. could you discuss why it's important to improve planning and coordination and then mr. clark, how can this administration cultivate more agency buy-in to avoid the sorts of disputes that have arisen, especially when it comes to the department of defense, mr. pearl? >> so you can't work out these issues on an engineering level unless you have the proper interagency coordination and that has to come from the white

house, really, demanding that the agencies work together and participate in a robust way and have the right engineers who are there to work out the problems. and really mandate that they share information, that's something that we've run into in the past an agent that wants to continue to use the spectrum isn't willing to share information so they can work together collaboratively. and then you need a healthy interagency process where it starts at the lower levels and eventually escalates if you can't resolve problems. that's incredibly helpful because if you just have the white house weigh in without having all the information and having that refined skill set of issues that comes from the interagency process, then in some cases the right decisions don't get made. >> experiencing a little bit of that right now, but i'm not going to go there. okay, mr. clark. >> it requires leadership both in the white house and also the

departments. my discussion with the leadership of the current team in the defense department shows that they are very willing to engage in this interagency deliberation to figure out the best way to use the spectrum. and using the tools to help us figure out what are the opportunities for sharing and even co-existence in adjacent spectrum. >> okay, thank you. thank you, chairman. >> thank you. senator blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for this hearing. i think it is run of the things we need to focus on, what is our leadership going to be as a nation in this area. so, one of my concerns and i've talked about this with the chairman, is what i see as spectrum squatting with our federal agencies. they control most of the spectrum assets and they are failing to optimize this and i have for years advocated that

we do a good inventory so we know who is using what spectrum where and then be able to recoup it because it does not matter what project is being worked on, whether it is wireless, whether it is the muos system, whether it is leo, everybody in the dod is working with the private sector because they are leading the innovation and for federal agencies, mr. chairman, to squat on this spectrum and to not use it and to not want to yield it back and not want anybody to know what they're got, it disadvantages us as a nation and we know that recouping it, going through the auction process, would yield billions and billions of dollars, as much as $100 billion and we need that because we are in a

race for-- with china when it comes to leading in this area. and we don't have time to waste and we don't have time for squatters to bicker with what they're going to do with the spectrum. mr. pearl, let me come to you, this last world radio conference was a hot mess for the u.s. we were unprepared. we had not done our homework and if we're going to continue to be a world leader, we are going to have to be prepared. you mentioned this in your testimony and i appreciated that you did because i think it was embarrassing that we were unprepared for the leadership role. i want to hear from you, if you want to put that in writing, i appreciate that. but the last one and the steps we should be preparing for the

27wrc. >> yeah, i think one of the lessons we learned so the next work is work 27 and that's tomorrow in real terms, which is the preparatory process is incredibly quick in arriving at positions, it's going to give you a huge advantage vis-a-vis china. and so, i think it's just important to have congress, when it reauthorizes the option authority, as well as the white house to make sure that these issues are resolved early and you don't have the u.s. coming in late with positions. i also think that it's important-- >> and that we know what those positions are, rather than squishing through the whole thing, that would be helpful. >> yeah. >> okay. homework for each of you, you know, there are disputes, interagency disputes about how to use spectrum so each of you have touched on this, but in writing i want from you what

your recommendation would be to resolve these disputes. we have to recoup the spectrum. we have got to look at how we slice these bands and put more, mr. clark, as you were saying in that bandwidth. so, help us with your best thoughts on that. mr. pearl, i want to come back to you on ai because when we talk about ai and quantum and the utilizations that are there, we know more spectrum is needed and in tennessee we have, i repeatedly hear from innovators, whether they're working logistics, they're working on something for doe, or dod, or health care, they talk a good bit about this. but with ai i think it's important to get on the record

how spectrum constraints would actually hamper ai development and deployment. >> yeah, absolutely happy to submit that on the record. i think one of the important points is it would hamper things not only on the commercial side, but also on the dod side of the things, where you know, there are really interesting ai applications for first respond ers in terrorist attacks and things like that and leveraging it to make the right decisions, and that's something that's directly applicable to what dod does in the battlefield. another example, you know, we talked about spectrum, but to really advance what we need ai to do, is to take all the sources of information, spectrum, op-sack, cyberspace, thermal imaging and actionable insights. we can't do that unless we have

the commercial technology and we're winning the ai race with china. >> and now add to that the satellite system. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. senator rosen. >> thank you, chair cruz, ranking member cantwell. thank you to the witnesses for all of your work, your education, what you bring to the table here because our nation's spectrum, we know, is one of our nation's most important resources, so spectrum policy must be thoughtful and deliberative and unlocking our national security. i share some of my colleagues' concern, some of this administration, some in the majority want to side step the deliberative process and instead spectrum proposals merely to raise as much revenue as possible to fund massive tax breaks for balance billionaires. and we must look at spectrum sales will actually lower costs

for the american people. and last congress, this committee advanced to use spectrum proceeds to lower my state of nevada's internet bills and for first responders for r & d so we need to share safely with the department of defense. a foundation that we can and should build upon and there are key damages between dod and operations and one thing that i have been thinking about is dynamic spectrum sharing and where we're at with that. so where are we at on comprehensive spectrum sharing, how can we get there, dynamic spectrum sharing, to not undermine military access? we still want to unlock possibilities, but is this still a concept? are we testing it? where are we at in the dynamic

spectrum sharing world, please? >> yes, so, it's a relatively mature technology at this point. it's being used in applications like this and radio services, along the coast, between navy, radar that use the spectrum and also 5g providers that operate in that same spectrum. there's obviously new technology that are being employed that the doctor has done a lot of work to to make it more sophisticated in terms of that-- >> and more nimble. >> how seamless it can be and you can do that in narrower parts of spectrum, it gives the ability for users to jump around in different parts of the spectrum much more agilely. >> the implication, the technologies, not baking them into the case of the military. military spans multiple generations of technology so we have analog radar still in service and analog communication systems that don't blend themselves.

>> we would need a bridge to get there. we'd need a bridge to get there. >> recapitalization of the u.s. military's spectrum dependent systems over time better able to take advantage of these technologies. the question is how quickly can we accelerate that to make spectrum share more of a reality. >> thank you. >> so, thanks for the question. incumbent dod systems need technology development and i think i want to focus on that for a minute because in the research question, a lot of times we're very focused on helping the commercial wireless systems be more adaptive. smart hub has really taken what i think is a unique focus and looking at the incumbent systems and how do we improve the dod systems. given where they are today we want to see those adapt to a

reconfigurive model. how can we have the incumbent systems, with our partnerships, we have a quick pathway to put technology into the hands of the dod for the growth that our nation needs from the spectral bands. hopefully the technology development is a game changer to have our cake and eat it, too. >> to your point then, what are the risks associated with mandating the movement of certain bands or the alteration of certain bands prior to first having done the studies about what we can and can't do and how we need maybe a measured approach to get some of these legacy systems on where they can be nimble and more adaptive? >> technology development is the, i think, the big elephant in the room and we need to address it because if we don't, we can do a lot of things to posture, but we're not going to make improvement because we're just slicing the bread thinner and thinner. by having adaptive and

reconfigured technology, congress needs to fund work going forward with entities like smart hub because we'll bring it to the dod quickly and that's a game changer because the technology will supercede what we-- way supercede what we have today, it can be done in a reasonably short period of time. >> and investing in more things that you're doing at smart hub. thank you very much, appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator budd. >> thank you, chairman. thank the panel for being here, this is fascinating testimony. i think we're both trying to find the both/and here, how do we find the revenues from spectrum options that are needed and protect national defense. doctor, i want to follow up, thanks for your work at smart will you be. what is the time -- i didn't hear between mr. clark's answer and your answer, what's the timeline for dynamic spectrum

sharing if you saw great promise, how far out before an actual practical implementation of that? in your best estimation? >> yes, i would say as fast as possible. we're in a national-- >> yeah, do you have years? >> we're in a national crisis right now in terms of spectrum, we really are, so when you have an emergency you try to fix the problem as quickly as possible and that's what we're doing. we're trying to work as quickly as possible. having a center like this, and we have the top 25 researchers in my important to have a problem. you've got everybody working together and policy and experts alongside circuit experts and speed it up. a three time speedup, rather than one-off project works. i would say we can accelerate it. me being able to put a time scale as quickly as would be, i don't want to give you an exact number because i don't know exactly what that number is, but i can tell you in our six-month

demo we showed tremendous project. >> et these systems or get these technologies inco . >> to get theserp incorporated into the military systems that need them. it would take 10 to 20 years because you're going to take the ships off line, radars off line to upgrade them and we can't have that do it all at once so it takes time to get them all upgraded. >> mr. baylis, you mentioned that congress needs to fund more research on this. do you have a dollar amount on that? is there something that you're particularly asking for to more-- -- to do more research? >> thank you, appropriations right now, we've got one so far and with mr. sessions on the house side and asking $5 million for this year and working off $5 million budget. >> should the industry bear some of the burden of this? >> our transfer model is going to line up investors early on in

the process and industry, wooer a building industry partnerships quickly so eventually they'll pour in the funds and we're building dod contractor pipelines and pug it in the hands of the war fighter, but through the pipeline fund more research. we've got an eco system that needs a runway to get the plane to take off. and hopefully not coming for money. the reason stating a year, isn't for me to say hey, we've got to continue this infinitely with support. i want to be caution about promising anything and not delivering on it. >> you didn't give us a year, but you did give me a dollar. so thank you very much. mr. pearl, a question for you. i appreciate your statement that spectrum is critical for security. a foundation for u.s. companies to innovate. what is your assessment when innovation might be stifled given the increasing data traffic?

>> i think it hasn't happened yesterday because we've had some recent auctions in the last administration, but i would say probably in the next two years we would see some real impacts. although i would say congress has to act much sooner than that because it takes time once the north is restored to have the auctions, but in terms of when you'll really have an impact on our ability to-- of our networks to handle the loads, i think it could be in the next year or two. >> so would upgrades to existing 5g, would that buy us some time? >> it could, but you know, there are some fiscal constraints on that. the company spent $190 billion so far upgrading their networks for 5g and that's great, got us through covid and we have the wonderful fixed networks so just their ability to do that might be constrained and could to be that spectrum is the only solution at this time.

>> and mr. pearl, continuing, in your experience in spectrum management, how important is white house leadership for this and do we need more and more clear white house leadership than we had from the previous administration on this issue? >> white house leadership is absolutely critical although in my view, it does start with congress in terms of establishing some clearing targets and guidance, that strengthens the hand of the white house and in working with the agencies, but, yeah, without having from the president on down and having the willingness from people like the national security advisor, director of national economic to actually spend time on these issues and prioritize them with everything else that's going on, because that's ultimately how you get things done and have-- ensure that everyone in the inner agency has marching orders how to make progress. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, dr. baylis you told the senator is second ago,

that we are facing a national crisis in spectrum. could you articulate specifically what you mean by that, what crisis we're facing. >> we have amplycations that need to have spectrum real estate, so to speak, and we don't have enough bandwidth for all of them. way we're currently doing spectrum by spectrum not going to work moving forward. so we need technology to support the movement of devices in real-time between spectral bands. it's a paradigm shift. we really need a paradigm shift badly where we've got too much trying to use too little. >> thank you. senator schmidt. >> that you, mr. chairman. i really do believe that over the last three years, the u.s. has ceded a lot in spectrum policy and 5g and internationally, that's not good news. under the first trump

administration we want from stagnation to global leadership. congress passed-- i wasn't here, but congress passed the secure and trusted networks act, but in the time since then, the last four years, just the biden administration's failure to act and focus on, you know, divisive things like dei has really set us back. i am one of the members that serves both on armed services and senator budd, also, and commerce, and i think there's a bit of a balancing act. while i think that dod should have a voice in this process, i strongly believe that congress has already established the ncia as the primary authority for spectrum allocation and must lead as well as a rubber stamp for dod. and multi-facetted, economic security is national security and china's coming for our lunch in more than one way. i wanted to ask just a few

questions and i won't-- i'll try not to ask questions that have already been asked, but it's possible that i might. but dr. baylis, when we talk about spectrum management and enhancing the ability of commercial and defense users to so of co-exist in those shared bands, what role and how far have we come and how far do we have to go for that really to be effective with ai as those advancements proceed? >> it's interesting, ai can be used in multiple levels in the new adaptive and configured paradigm. one level is to assess, predict the spectrum available for our use and having that in commercial hands is useful. the second is inside the devices themselves. making sure they can reconfigure their frequency to maximize its range to detect targets far i don't out.

we can use ai to reconfigure the members on board the device. and in fact, we have one of the world's ai experts professor marks who has written, and he's part of and working actively to infuse ai into our decision making for our spectrum adaptive and reconfigured devices. >> and that allows you to maximize the bands of spectrum, perhaps rather than having overutilization in one space and underutilization somewhere else. predictive. >> ai has tremendous power and we need to marshal it for being able to use the spectrum efficiently and adapt our tech technology where spectrum is used. >> and i'll open it up for the four. on the topic for back home, i

actually think that this is one of those topics that it just doesn't come up in a town hall. it doesn't come up on the stump. but it is of critical importance for our country and so it's with those kind of topics then, how do you-- if you were in our position, how would you sort of crystallize why this issue is so important for the american people? and i'd open it up to any one of you. >> i'll take this quickly. i have to go out and tell people what we're doing and one of the things that i nay is, spectrum is the most important battle, if you win the spectrum, you're going to win the war, from the dod, it's unquestionable. in fact, space force, we're talking with space force people now. with space force, the only dimension of battle is spectrum. there are no tanks, there are no soldiers on the ground. it's just spectrum and we're going to have to be dominant in spectrum, so from the dod side,

that's really important. i can i think from the commercial side we're more convict -- connected than we've ever been with spectrum to connect with loved ones and other things. our society certainly sees the need for wireless devices. >> anybody else? >> i think the challenge comes into play where we have to afford the military the ability to be agile in the spectrum and be able to maneuver and keep our adversaries off their -- off balance which some of the technologies that dr. baylis is doing, and sharing more spectrum at home and agile creating problems for our enemies overseas. that's important, but take time when these can be incorporated into our military system. until then we will have to have some hybrid approach. >> thank you, mr. senator.

>> thank you, mr. chair, appreciate how busy you all are. i think this is one of the key discussions we're going to have here all year. the spectrum relocation fund, let me start with that, provides funding to federal agencies to research the feasibility of modifying and if necessary, upgrading the systems that use spectrum. so, srs, at least as we see it, seems limited by only reimbursing a federal agency for necessary costs to update a system of quote, unquote, comparable capability. so, not hire the next level. the comparable capability. many federal agencies have stated that the srs limits the ability to upgrade the systems to use spectrum to continue fulfilling their mission. do you believe that it could be better informed to incentivize agencies to share or reallocate

spectrum, why or why not? >> i would put it stronger and say that srs must be reformed. if we're going to resolve those issues. >> i was trying to say that myself, but i was being generous. >> oh. i think you identified one of the key issues is that the agencies need to be able to receive upgrades and have more advanced systems. some of these capabilities we're talking about could be paid for with auction funds. and i think it's necessary to give ntia the authority to fund the agencies and right now -- as several senators have said, it's really important and the ncia engineers are really looking at this from an honest broker protect perspective trying to get to the right answer. there's technical panel under the legislation, fcc, omb, they approve what the agency is going

to do when they do the study, but they need more oversight of the process after that because when things go off the rails and the study isn't going to be useful, you need that ability for the other agencies and engineers to weigh in and get back on track. >> absolutely, couldn't agree more. >> dr. baylis your testimony underscores how the academic community, between the government and the academic community helps enhance this spectrum innovation center you lead. you see firsthand how our universities educate and you know, create that work force pipeline that we need to maintain our leadership in all stem fields. computer scientists to enhance cyber security of wireless networks, radio frequency engineers develop new technologies for sharing spectrum and getting more efficient usage. as we debate, as congress debates how to study and share

and reallocate spectrum and try to be as fair and look at the greatest foods, the greatest number of people, how do you highlight the importance of ensuring that the u.s. grows, trains spectrum and cyber work force? >> thank you, appreciate the question. work force development is one of the important things we do and i think it starts with the fact that our faculty, our staff researchers, our students that are on this project are all u.s. citizens. you won't find that in many academic centers, we're a bunch of patriots and we want to see this country succeed and we want to see this country be the best in wireless technology. it starts there. i think we have to develop an american pipeline of students going to be work on the future spectrum paradigm. we've been doing a lot of efforts, one the national science convention is funding, undergraduate students around the country apply to and come to a four-day residential workshop

on one of our campuses, holding four this summer, one in your state, colorado state university is one of our universities and we'll be holding one there, you're welcome to come and check it out. >> i'll do that. >> we're involved with the army research laboratory who we've been commissioned through, an arl fellow, sometimes, a smart fellows program place students at the lab working with some of our brightest minds in the laboratory and working with each other so they can build cross-disciplinary expertise in spectrum and expanding that in other agencies, also. that's definitely a big part of being an adaptive and reconfigured paradigm. >> i appreciate that. i'm kind of out of time. mr. clark, i'll leave this, you can answer very, very concisely, this partnership between the federal government and the auctions around how spectrum gets divvied up, how do you look when you're evaluating spectrum use for a federal mission, how

important is it for the agencies to have a meaningful and collaborative role in that feasibility study? >> it's really important because the physics matter. fundamentally no matter how much spectrum sharing or spectrum efficient bands come, you still have to deal with the physics, certain bands are used for certain operations and can't just move to other part of the spectrum. physics matter and that's ultimately where it comes down to. >> thank you, i yield back to the chair. >> thank you, senator curtis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. our national security is a top priority, without it, we are a nation at risk of attack from those who would do us harm. i support the department of defense, when it comes to spectrum debate, dod and the commercial interest has been at stalemate for decades. after years of discussion, it seems unclear to me whying is can't be worked out. if feels as if there's something i don't know. i know the dod is not here today, but i suspect they're listening and i would challenge

them to better articulate just specifically what it is that they're not telling us. perhaps it needs to be classified, and if so, i'm game for that briefing, but i think it's fair to say that i don't see it and i think it's important that as a member of congress we better understand just exactly why we can't come to this consensus. mr. haslett, the united states won the 4g race which led to considerable investment and innovation that resulted in the economy being developed here in the united states. looking healed to the future of 5g and 6g technologies, i share a concern that many have that if the u.s. yields the technology dominance to china, future economies may develop abroad rather than at home. can you speak to the united states being the global leader on 5 and 6g technologies? >> we simply squander an opportunity to move ahead and to make the economy stronger, have

innovation here that, by the way, has benefits way beyond the auction revenues. so, in talking with scoring the auction revenues, my economist reaction is, you're leaving out the biggest part of this, which is surging the economy and in fact, getting tax revenues over time. these are routinely left on the other side. i just quickly say one thing, yes, this debate between civilian and military, it's been going on since, let's figure it out, before 1920. >> i had meant to say this question if i had enough time, but you brought it up so i'm going to hit it now. the cbo has consistently misscored the revenue and i understand you're talking about additional revenue that comes from that. how is it that we keep getting wrong by such dramatic numbers, the value of these? >> good question. i don't have an answer to that. >> they're scored 51% lower than

the average sale. all right, we'll let you off because i have a whole bunch of other questions. mr. baylis could you explain the difference between full power exclusive licenses versus spectrum sharing models and how the different policy approaches might impact the rollouts of the next generation of wireless technologies? >> so, i think what you mean by exclusive full power, that's the only device that gets to use the band and i think you mean by dynamic spectrum sharing there's some level of interplay. i would say that from my perspective as a director of a center of developing adaptive and reconfigured technology, what we need to do, we're here at your service to build the best technology that we can to help our country succeed and we're happy to inform you where the technologies are. in terms of choosing a signing that game, i prefer not to speak out on that, that's not my lane,

i'm trying to develop technologies that make me the best. >> mr. pearl, would you want to comment? >> yes, i would mention, i would separate a bit in terms of full power and low power and they both have benefits and advantages as we've seen with cellular and wi-fi. although full power doesn't need to be exclusive use. i'm not aware of a spectrum transition that's completely exclusive use that dod cleared out. you can look at it both way, where you're looking at full power, but not necessarily exclusive use, but vice versa with full power. >> thank you, that's helpful. while we're on it, let me ask you a question, dod is not here so we'll pick on you. the demand for mid range spectrum is high and not going away. dod says they can't afford to give up a single part of their spectrum without national security consequences. is dod truly using all the

spectrum with maximizing efficiency and what other considerations are leading dod to this conclusion? >> no, i don't believe they are and you know, if you get into the details with them in many cases, i think that they would concede that. and i think that, you know, it's necessary to work with all the right constituencies in dod. one thing i would mention, you're hearing one thing at the briefings, but there are people in dod that have a more innovative mindset and see some of the advantages here and i think figuring out how to empower some of those people and bringing them to the table a really helpful because that's how we can solve some of the problems. >> i'm out of time and i would like to close, i'm a dod supporter. i want them to have what they need, but i also think we can work this out. thank you all for your time. thanks, mr. chairman, i yield. >> thank you, senator kim. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to pick up where we

were. dr. pearl, we're trying to get a sense of the trade-offs that are out there and what we're hearing from dod and elsewhere and i guess i would just ask you, do you think that this committee would benefit from having a classified briefing, conversation with dod and try to dig into some of those other people that you're talking about that could try to bring to light some of what this is? i'm kind of curious your thoughts on that. >> i do. and i think it would be helpful to work with the right people and bring in some engineers, you know. to that process because what it really comes down to is not just the high level briefing, it's getting into, here is the critical system and here is the actual impact it would have on performance if it used less spectrum, and getting very precise about that. and then talking about some of the technologies that might be able to avoid that outcome and preserve the dod capability. but really focusing on some of those like, a small number of critical systems and getting

into those details because just to be told, we can't share any, we're using all of it at all times, i mean, to me, there are important systems in these bands and systems that are essential to our national security, but to say that we can't share any of it and we're using all of it, it's just not, that doesn't pass muster. >> i think you're right. that discussion is incredibly important when it comes to those decisions. mr. clark, what are your thoughts on this committee diving deeper in a classified way? >> yes, i think that's what needs to help. you get down to the level of the frequencies they operate at. what is the purpose. system and how would it work different if it's more agile in the spectrum. a lot of these need a band of spectrum to jump around and avoid enemy detection and

jamming. and in some they need more to do the anti-jam function, that means they're not using the frequency continuously. if you had spectrum sharing schemes and dynamic spectrum sharing you could do anti-jam operations to be able to free that up with other users if you're not employing it. >> if i could add one point, i think it's a worthwhile conversation. also looping in what are the possible ways that you could accommodate dod in other parts of the spectrum. if we talk about, for instance, lower three giga hertz, that's critical. a there is a band 400 below where dod is using it and also having a conversation where could dod potentially move, i think it would be really helpful. >> thank you for that. >> i agree, and mr. chair, i guess i would just, for your consideration, you know, as one of the newer members here on the committee. i was on armed services in the

house and still a lot here to unpack if we could consider whether or not that would doable to engage in a classified way to engage to make sure we're all trying to understand this and especially what dr. pearl said about the precision that's necessary here because so much is at stake. just in my final time here, dr. pearl, i wanted to ask you about your testimony, how critical it is to advance in wireless innovation technology and especially when it comes to the competition that we face with the p. rc. i would like you to expand, can you explain to us how the spectrum auction north is in that, and how is that with the broader ability for us to advance our position? >> so i would characterize spectrum auctions as the first step in a chain reaction that reverberates through the global economy, meaning that the auction is something that other than us insiders, no one is aware of, raises some money for

the treasury, but that is the opportunity for mobile operators to upgrade their networks. otherwise, it's too expensive. no reason to do it. once they've obtained new spectrum that they launch new services, expand their use of it and from there, reverberates into the app economy, into tech companies, into like what you can use all of that band with i had this for and ultimately that creates an eco system and we want an ecotechnology system, and it's a key component it terms of building that overall tech system that's going to outcompete and-- >> and that innovation is not just good for our nation, but to be able to export that and market share around the world, is that what you're saying. >> yeah, absolutely. so other countries are going to make decisions about what spectrum bands they use and wireless networks they procure

from, so having that eco system that's attractive to them means they'll choose the u.s. over the prc. >> great, thank you. i yield back, chair. >> thank you. senator moreno. >> thank you for holding this cheering, it's extremely enlightening. i know by the senate you're supposed to abide by the rules even though the point has been made, it hasn't been made by everybody. i'll break that tradition, thank the four of you, the exchange is fantastic and with that, i'll yield my time. >> very good. you may win the prize for brevity. [laughter] >> i must say i'm not sure you're going to make it as a senator. [laughter] >> i'm not going to follow that line. there are several things i want

to revisit. there was a claim mentioned earlier that it would take 20 years to develop advanced sharing technologies. mr. pearl, did it take 20 years to develop the ambit process? >> no. i think that was a matter of the study was done in about six months and it was completed within 12 to 18 months, if i remember it correctly. >> mr. clark, are geographic carve-outs another way to share? >> yes, they are, absolutely. and on the point about 20 years, i was just saying it would take 20 years potentially to upgrade the systems with the new technology, the new technology would be available more quickly. >> and was the ambit process successful in enabling dod with commercial and 5g co-existence. >> it did. >> some of my colleagues have discussed low power spectrum

sharing or cbrs. is that a panacea or do we need full power spectrum? >> we need full power spectrum as well. cbrs is is the first for dynamic spectrum sharing in a band where it's difficult. but you need both the high powered uses to really utilize the ability to penetrate buildings, walls, to really have the capital investment that the carriers need in order to offer a lot of those services, and so you need those high powered services, you need low powered services that we have in six gigahertz and elsewhere and boats are important, absolutely. >> dr. hazlett, i hear that it's you underutilized because-- do you share the concerns? >> there are problems that the fcc acknowledges, it's going to

try to see how it can fix it. the claims were that that was the solution, that that was going to really have a, what is called sharing, i'll just mention the fact that all spectrum is shared, okay? what's called exclusive use is not exclusive at all. you have networks in the united states with 100 million subscribers and they share these aggregations of bandwidth. in fact, there's all kinds of models that have developed between firms, between providers, when you do get the incentives to come together and make deals. and so, in terms of, yes, people coming in from the private sector dealing with government assignments, the fact is that paying to share, in other words, paying to separate the allocations between the new users and the existing users, that's a very effective form of sharing. so, it's really not just

science, it's incentives to come together. that's why things like overlays are so important and a better system of audit which has been talked about, this has been suggested 25 years ago to the fcc to, in fact, have by auction or assignment, have private firms come in and actually audit spectrum that's used by government agencieses to see if there are opportunities there for sharing, but maybe it's money coming to the agency in an improved version of the spectrum relocation process to get that out there. >> mr. clark we heard from my colleague, senator fisher, that a pipeline bill would require exclusive licensed use of and vacating or clearing dod out of bands. now, as you know, the spectrum pipeline act that i've authored requires a pipeline of full

power, not exclusive use and does not identify any specific bands. mr. clark, is there anything that that bill that's inconsistent with your testimony or senator fisher's concerns? >> no, i think the challenge would be implementation. to pay how much you ever target is to clear, it may prove difficult for the military and employers could use that spectrum and may not be attractive from the commercial company's perspective because the geographic patchwork, or the spectrum sharing requirements may be such it makes them too expensive to pursue. >> we had an exchange with mr. fisher and mr. clark, where they were discussing the theory that china's public push to lead in wireless technology is just a mind game that they're somehow baiting the united states with

ambitious plans and they're secretly holding back, trying to trick us into giving up spectrum to the commercial sector. i find that a particularly odd conspiracy theory given the actual facts of what we know. first of all, we know that huawei and other china manufacturers are actively and pushing adoption of 6g, and that wouldn't have been made without china commercial use and aggressively targeted our agencies, tapped the phones of president trump and vice-president vance and prompted this committee to fully fund a multi-billion dollar rip and replace program to remove chinese equipment from american networks. mr. pearl, would american national economic security be harmed if chinese firms like huawei and zte set the global

standard for 6g network equipment via this first mover advantage? how would that affect the global competitiveness of u.s. companies? >> so, it would have a great deal of harm and i would echo my agreement that i don't think this is a disinformation campaign. i fought the battle between huawei and zte for almost two years and in order for their businesses to be able to sell equipment outside of china, they need to be able to use these bands inside of china and get those economies at scale. but if they're successful in terms of setting the global standard, that means that the u.s. will have a siloed market with a few of its allies and partners and we'll have much worse technology, much worse networks. we'll have an inferior eco system and ultimately that means that we're going to be put at a military disadvantage because you know, as others have commented in a battle, the

electromagnetic domain will be decisive and we won't have the technology to prevail in that case. >> i want to thank the witnesses for the testimony. and senators have until the close of business, wednesday, february 26th to submit questions for the record and the witnesses close of business on march 12th to respond to those questions. with that, that concludes today's hearing. the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i think it is at this point a mrip political talking point that undermines american security. the pentagon has no good answer for, there are 50 nations worldwide who allow commercial use of major portions of the spectrum. and the pentagon contention that the military can't operate if the united states allows commercial use of the spectrum is absurd. it suggests that somehow our military can't operate specific, that's false. secondly i asked the pentagon in a classified briefing and i asked here, what are the consequences to u.s. security if

we lose the race for 6g, if china wins, if china sets the global standards for 6g, if china provides the global architecture for telecom and the answer is it's catastrophic, every soldier, sailor, airman, marine carries a control phone in their pocket. if china sets the global standards that has massive negative consequences for our national security. we can and must do both. i spent six years on the senate armed services committee, i care deeply about ensuring that we can defend this nation and defeat our enemies, but acting like luddites and pretending that global technology will freeze is not a strategy to defending this nation's national security, nor is it strategy to ensuring our economic

leadership. ... the world with 4-g and 5-g and that has produced hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment and it has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs. and there are very few if any policies that can have a greater positive impact, unleashing jobs in america, than opening up spectrum. and i think we have both an economic imperative and a national security imperative to do just that. >> thank