these are the expert agencies. to do the tough work of analyzing what bans and with what guidelines can be rolled out. it's really important because we have moved into a space where they are simply a lot of -- not a lot of opportunities to get greenfield spectrum. we have to be efficient, we have to be creative and we need to look at options such as sharing and a good mix of the license unlicensed. that takes careful planning by two agencies so that all the stakeholders are taken into account when we think about what spectrum bands can be used for, what they're used best for and how those allocations might be structured. >> appreciate that. miss baker, one of the most important tasks facing the fcc and ntia right now is the development of a coronated strategy on national spectrum management. the last few years have shown

us the tremendous cost one conflicting interests in spectrum are not resolved swiftly. one construction of critical infrastructure is delayed due to poor coordination between federal agencies. it is the people who rely on the infrastructure who suffer. miss baker, yes or no, do you recommend congress invest to increase the technological expertise had both agency so they can more efficiently address conflicts when they arise? >> yes, i do. i think that you have two great leaders and chairwoman and administrator davidson. i think enabling them to have more experts and more -- to show their it expertise, to show that congress actually wants them to be the final arbiter in spectrum disputes would go a long way. >> i appreciate that. i agree that we must ensure federal agencies have the capacity to do their jobs and both the american public and commercial interest demand regulatory certainty and consistency. i look forward to working with

our colleagues to ensure and tia and fcc are up to the task of managing this important resource. today, ntia and fcc, well on monday, they announced an updated memorandum of understanding threatening these agencies roles as the sole agencies in charge of managing our spectrum resource. the agreement also increases coordination and addresses many of the challenges from managing bands and have a significant federal agency equity. yes or no, does current statute clearly identify the fcc and ntia as leaders in regulating and managing national spectrum use? >> yes, does. >> i would like to submit for the record some of the reports that you highlighted that indicate the improvements that must be made at the fcc and ntia and given an opportunity a little later, i want to explore those a little bit more. thank you so much for that.

i'm going to turn this over. >> thank, you mister chairman. miss baker, mr. lewis, congress never let the fcc's auction authority laps. what is the impact if auction authority lapses and would have an adverse impact in our ability to lead in the deployment of next generation communication services? mr. lewis? >> i agree. it would be a shame to see the authority to lapse. that would be the worst-case scenario. i fear that impact would signal that we are not committed to removing or even moving away from this structure that has allowed us to create greater competition and greater diverse uses a spectrum. that would be a shame. it's also why i am advocating for a longer authority to signal that we want to continue into the future with the right studies in the right data. >> miss baker? >> it would cause uncertainty,

for certain. we do not know about licenses, we do not know about auctions. if they are not able to hold auctions, you're not gonna be able to build a 5g. that has an effect on our global competitiveness. we all want a strong and powerful fcc. it is why i am born -- forwarding an 18-month extension. >> very quickly, i mention this in my opening statement but i believe it's critical to get our wireless ecosystem fueled, which is why it's important that the short term extension as well while we are working on the longer term pipeline bill. very quickly, you support the short term extension? it's a low, if you do not? is that correct? >> i prefer a longer extension, even a permanent authorization. >> i think we all do but that may not be an option. miss baker, can you talk about the regulatory certainty

provided to commercial -- when congress provides the fcc direction on particular spectrum ban similar to what we did under the 2012 spectrum act? either any other benefits to congress mandating what spectrum bands are auctioned? >> thank you for the question. it's an important one. i feel -- i think we all want a longer term authority for the fcc but it's important that bans are tied to this longer term auction authority. the reason is exactly because when you did the spectrum authority in 2012, you tie three bands to it. those bands got done. the next, as we have heard so far today, the next bands are going to be more complex. they are hard. we have targeted the lower threes. the lower three is you have any spectrum innovation act. that is our number one goal. its prime mid-ban target. spectrum is adjacent to the three top 45. it will allow wider channels, but we would like to see the four gigahertz in the seven

gigahertz added as well. they are all government bans. government has two thirds of the prime advantage spectrum right now. not very many government agencies wake up and say, i'm going to repurpose my spectrum for commercial access today. i think it's really important for congress to mandate those options for us to make sure that we motivate and that these options actually happen so that we can keep up with the rest of the world. i also think it has a side benefit as you specified in the auction to have proceeds found firstnet. congress gets to dictate priorities to the proceeds if they specify the bands. in the last two years, h spectm auctions and none of those have gone to congressional priorities. i feel pretty strongly that a long term spectrum authority is good but it needs to be tied to specific bans. >> quickly, could you comment because there's a proposal up here by the democrats which

could be loaded on as early this week to textbook income and i know the way that spectrum has treated under the tax code allows it to be advertised over a period of years. what impact would this tax have on providers of wireless services? >> thank you for the question. it is a really big deal for our industry. it is currently structured. the tax provisions undermine pretty much every thing we are talking about here. we are building a 5g twice as fast as we build out 4g and that is to the tune of 60 billion dollars on infrastructure in the last two years. if 15% tax on the 200 billion dollars in spectrum investment,, that will absolutely -- when it's retroactive and it's a surprise, it will absolutely slow our build out. it will slow our holding digital divide. there will impact our level

competitiveness and certainly is going to impact our spectrum pipeline. as a congresses decided that broadband is an important infrastructure and put it in the infrastructure bill funding, i think that we would very much like to see that any technical correction would treat spectrum the same as any other infrastructure asset. >> presumably and i think when the tax code in 2017 act was passed, it was passed with an idea in mind to encourage companies to invest in filling out new technologies and that sort of thing. this is as has been suggested, closing a loophole. this was a specific design when congress passed a tax bill. could you speak very quickly -- my time i think has expired -- but there is a lot of funding as you pointed out being made available with mobile networks.

could you talk about whether or not you support efforts to streamline permitting requests so that consumers can reap the benefits of these new technologies more quickly? as you know, i have a bill that would provide for that but how much of an issue is that when it comes to bill lee out these new technologies? >> as you know, we support your bills strongly the faster we can build these networks, the faster we can bring 5g speeds which are hundred times faster and attach more. devices to these networks and lead the world in innovation. stream aligning is very important. >> mister chairman, my time has expired. thank you. >> thank you very much. next we will recognize senator fischer. senator fischer, you are recognized for questions. here>> thank you, mister chairm. i appreciate our witnesses being here today to discuss critical consideration for managing americas airwaves. miss baker, i want to talk a little bit about the value of

authorizing the fcc to continue holding the public spectrum auctions. you addressed that a little bit in senator thune's questions when you spoke about the fcc and the issues and what happens there with certainty et cetera, if that deadline is not met and it's not reauthorized. can you speak specifically to american taxpayers? how would they be negatively affected if we do not reauthorize the fcc spectrum authority? just to get past all the technical stuff and let people know why this is important. >> we are still in the middle of the race to 5g at this point. other countries have twice as much mid band spectrum which is where 5g is being built out across the globe. we simply need more to continue

to increase our speed and to continue to world the lead and innovation. the fcc cannot hold auctions and we will not have any more spectrum and we will be -- we will far fall far behind and lose our global leadership. it will mean quite a lot in 4g, with our leadership, that is why the all the innovative companies are here in the united states. it is why uber and all of the airbnb, they are all here. that is because we lead the world in 4g. we need to do the same in 5g. we need to continue to authorize spectrum and therefore they have to have the authority. >> thank you. looking at the overall spectrum management process, it is vital that all stakeholders feel fairly represented. we've seen spectrum fights have shown a lack of trust in the iraq process. motivating certain federal agencies to want to go around and tea ice a.

how can we strengthen the integrity of ntia's central managing federal spectrum needs and regain the trust from the federal stakeholders? >> thank you for the question, senator fischer. i think the mou announced today goes a long way to solving some of those issues. what we were really trying to emphasize is that coordination happened early on so that when bands are identified for federal agencies to the iraq process, can identify concerns early and get the various technical studies necessary done in a timely manner so that they can be ready when fcc does proceed with a proceeding. that was not really happening. we saw that they were not really regular meetings between fcc and ntia they were not occurring as regularly as they had. the reaffirmation of those two agencies to meet quarterly and monthly basis, i think it does go a long way and getting some of those issues resolved early.

and restoring the trust. >> i also served on the armed services committee and at times, i worry about losing deal deese that drum and putting some of that up for auction especially when we are looking at the advances we see in technology with regards to providing our war fighters what they need and also to meet the threats that this country faces from our adversaries specifically peer adversaries like russia and china. that is a concern that i have. i know that there has been good who work in the past with d.o.d.. how can you assure me that this good work is going to continue in the future and we can make sure the security of this country is going to continue to be our number one priority? >> i think the mou is a good first step. i could only say that it can

implement going forward. i think ensuring that those agencies do follow through on those monthly meetings that they do start to share information around technical studies can consider all the views. one of the recommendations we made that we did not, if not really part of the new mou was at ntia really explain to federal agencies for how it represents executive branch views before fcc. i think that will also go a long way for federal agencies to feel more comfortable about, okay, you had to make a decision about this so i understand it's more transparent. i would say those two recommendations would help. >> thank you. thank, you mister chair. >> thank you senator. next we will hear from some boroughs in. senator rosen, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you chair lujan and ranking member for really holding this important hearing and the witnesses being here today. the importance of spectrum

authority for bipartisan broadband programs, it's so important. last year congress passed the infrastructure investment and jobs act. who's brought to help with that. we job provision the law including my broadband deployment act and the broadband equity access and deployment program invested in the last mile infrastructure. this once in a lifetime investment in our nation's broadband infrastructure has a potential to finally close our digital divide. this question is for all of the witnesses. if the fcc authority were to lapse, what impact would that have on implementing the broadband provisions of the bipartisan infrastructure law including the program. the infrastructure program, the tribal broadband connectivity program of course as well as other so we can start with this miss baker.

miss baker? >> thank you for your question and thank you for all of the work that you did on the infrastructure bill. and also for mandating that it was technology neutral. as you know, wireless provides -- needs two parts for the service. we need the infrastructure itself as we build out, which we are spending 30 billion dollars a year in building of what we also need spectrum. if the sec does not have the option authority to provide us with more spectrum, then there is only so much we can do. it is very important for broadband going forward and for also the implementation of the fixed mobile side of the equation for states as they decide to have to spend the revenue, which again, 5g home is a really good option to serve rural and unserved areas with the b program. we look at those as an opportunity but it's important for the sec to continue to

offer spectrum. >> thank you. >> i thank you for that question. i do not think our work really spoke to that issue. i will defer to my colleagues on the panel. >> mr. lewis? >> thank, you senator and thank you for championing the middle mile broadband employment act. i agree that i do not think it has a direct impact but it has the complementary effect of if we do not have the infrastructure, then we do not have several areas. if you do not have the spectrum, then we cannot serve rural areas with the all above approach to make sure that folks are connected. fiber, wireless, fixed wireless are all part of the solution to make sure that everyone is connected. >> thank you. miss baker? >> thank, you senator. a auction authorities are an integral part of our spectrum management strategy.

it would be handicapping the development of the wireless sector did not include that for the policy makers for fcc's moving forward. that would buy us and handicapped the ability to rollout those programs. >> thank you. the minute or so i have left i want to talk about spectrum policy and the impact of the wireless workforce. while this industry has been significant driver of u.s. innovation. investments and wireless deployment has ushered and services and devices that millions of americans have extended. on a course all of our apps. the industry does rely on highly skilled workers to run and maintain our networks and our telecommunications workforce is aging. there are far fewer younger employees with experience needed to fill these positions in the wireless industry. mr. lewis, your testimony, you discussed a way that fcc could use option designed to encourage greater participation

under represented communities in the wireless injury story so what impact could our telecommunications workforce is aging. there are a strong u.s. central policy have on hiring, retaining, training workers in the wireless industry, particularly, as you look to a expand and diversify our workforce? >> thank you, senator. i believe there's a number of ways it could have an impact both on the hiring, as well as the ownership side. on the hiring side, setting the standards for hiring, contracting with vendors could set a high bar for companies that are receiving the public airwaves to live up to those sorts of standards on the structure that can impact the ownership side, in promoting competition, making sure we set up auction structures that allow for small, women, and minority owned businesses to completing the auctions through smaller -- bidding credits. and honestly, we may not have all the ideas, but i am interested in finding out what other ideas can be brought forward. i celebrate that we recently reinstated the advisory committee on digital

empowerment, those are the things we love to see if the fcc, we're all stakeholders can come together and come up with other packets to promote diversity. >> thank you, thank you mister chairman, my time is up. >> thank you, next, we will hear from senator blackburn. you recognize the question. >> thank you, mister chairman. i want to thank our witnesses for being here to talk about this issue today, and miss baker, i want to start with you first. an issue you have heard me talk about regularly is having an inventory of all the spectrum that is held by federal agencies, and i would like for you to speak to the importance of why we ought to do this as we look at re-upping this spectrum authority, and why it would be useful to have

this as we look at this 5g bill. >> thank you for the question, senator. it's an important one, and i will get back to you, the next spectrum we allocate needs to be mid band. the mid band is government spectrum. two thirds of the mid-band's government spectrum. we need to know what is. there and inventory would be very helpful, so we can know who is using that spectrum efficiently and who is not. that will help us as we used the spectrum relocation fund that this committee so brilliantly pass, and has been so useful and relocating agencies. i think, as we move forward, it's important to know what's. there it's important to know what the value is and how it's being utilized, so we know what is needed to reallocated. >> absolutely. and mr. vanna, i want to come to you. she mentioned the different federal agencies that competes, and recently, we have seen a lot of sharp -- between the o d and fcc, and ntia and let's see, faa and other agencies. the d. o. t.. why is it important for us? what are your recommendations to minimize this? how would and inventory

help us to minimize these differences between agencies in these turf battles that seem to be coming about over this mid band spectrum? >> thank you, senator blackburn, for that question. i would first mention there is an inventory of federal spectrum uses that ntia a holds as the government master file. we have some ongoing work, actually, that was mandated through the last ndaa for us to look at how various systems such as that are holding that information and making changes and updates to those systems. so, i would just mention there's a couple

of things that government you have to file may not have, that would be things like where the spectrum might be used, or the time at which that spectrum misused, and so that would be information that would be useful for reallocating spectrum in certain circumstances, or finding a place for spectrum can be shared. but i would go back to recommendations we have in our reports, with respect to how we can avoid some of these disputes between agencies in the future. that really goes to coordination amongst the agencies and ntia engaging with those agencies early on anticipating where fcc might be going with certain proceedings in terms of the reallocation towards non federal uses. i think the mou, again, goes a long way. it's a great first

step in terms of making those early coordination opportunities happen. >> well, and i think that one of the things you mentioned sharing spectrum, because we do have some agencies who believe that spectrum just lying on used. for a long periods of time. that is a spectrum that could be shared. doctor bazelon, i want to come to you. i'm interested in your understanding of the cbo score that you mentioned in your testimony, and it seems like with your prior career experiences at cbo that you would have some helpful insight into how scoring a factor into what up ventral reauthorization of the spectrum auction authority would look like. when i was in the house -- subcommittee there in energy and commerce, we worked on the ravens act, it was a big point of conversation, how this was going to end up. in regards to score. in your view, what are the pros and cons of an

18-month reauthorization, as opposed to going ahead and doing one year or four year reauthorization? >> thank you for the question. if the reauthorization for 18 months allows for the work to be done, to have more direct scoring in a longer bill, that could be useful. but we all appreciate, at the end of the day, we want spectrum authority to be there for a long time. even if you extend the authority for four years or ten years, there is still an opportunity for congress to come in and have directive relocations, and those relocations will score positively. they won't score as high as they would if they also included the authorization aspect of it, but they would still have a positive score. so,

it's a trade-off, and a judgment is to whether or not a longer term is necessary. >> okay, thank you, thank you mister chairman. >> thank you, senator blackburn. next, we will hear from senator klobuchar. senator klobuchar, your question. >> thanks so much, mister chairman. thanks for doing this really important hearing. i'll start with you, mr. lewis. so, i co-chair the 9-1-1 caucus with senator burr, and an estimated 244, 240 million calls are made to 9-1-1 centers annually. however, this critical public service we all rely on relies on our data technologies. some places, it doesn't support text message. you can imagine someone in an emergency, why wouldn't they use text message? and -- lead modernization to modernize americas 9-1-1 system to handle

texts, pictures, videos, other information sent by smartphones. mr. lewis, in your testimony, you see the auction revenue should be invested in public interest objectives. do you agree that 9-1-1 infrastructure is in dire need of modernization? >> yes, senator, and i would include in that in the list of public interest clauses. >> very good. thank you. i also want to thank you for your support for the american innovation choice online act. that's not the subject of our hearing, but i appreciate the support of you and many others. miss baker, in your testimony, you highlighted the 5g benefits to the u.s. including improvements to public safety. how could 5g and other technologies be leveraged to advance public communications? >> thank you for your question,

and thank you for your leadership on line on. we are grateful that you have raised these issues for the next generation of 9-1-1. as far as the funds go, it's up to congress to how they spent them. that is certainly a worthy cause, as well as rip and replace other things. i think the important thing, at my job, is to continue to bring people to the auction so you have the funds to spend as you wish to improve public safety. as i mentioned, we created opportunities for congress to spend these funds. they're a great opportunity to enact your priorities. >> thank you. back to you, mr. lewis. chairman wicker and i joined in introducing the precision act, the connectivity act, to identify gaps in coverage in the first brought plants to plymouth and farms and ranches. chairman lujan has done incredible work on broadband and has cared a lot about it, and especially when it comes to the precision act, it's going to help us manage water levels so we don't over

use water, and we are seeing so many droughts, as you know. how can we make certain our farmers have access to modern internet capabilities, take advantage of these new technologies, and what role does spectrum policy play here? >> senator, spectrum policy can play in important role in importing a variety of uses like precision act in rural areas. we have already seen precision agriculture make use of the cbrs spectrum band. that was under the third tier general access authority. that means they are hopefully working in concert with -- the prioritized incumbent prioritization, but it makes great use for rural farmers and precision agriculture. we are also seeing wi-fi is, in some areas, through tv white spaces in order to promote precision agriculture. setting up

auctions in the future, to make sure that sharing on licensed and unlicensed options are possible, given but lack of greenfield spectrum we have is critically important. >> thanks. last question, dr. bass along, as we develop new technology to deploy and maintain 5g, it is important to find innovative solutions that make the most available spectrum, especially as constraints on spectrum grow. in your testimony, as you suggest that new technologies are important to meeting our future spectrum needs. how can new spectrum sharing techniques deliver more consistent service for consumers?

>> the new technology, such as more creative, both the more creative and incentive options, but the database managed sharing systems are a new and innovative way to create more -- from spectrum. it's a way to find those uses of spectrum, different types of uses, that can live together. there will be a key feature going forward and making sure that we use the spectrum as efficiently as possible. >> all right. well, thank you very much. thank you again, mister chairman. >> thank you, senator, and thank you for the work you do every day in this space. next, we will hear from senator moran. >> senator lujan, thank you very much. our four panelists, thank you very much for your words of wisdom. i first want to states to my colleagues on this and the full committee that i am supportive of the 18-month auction authority extension to the fcc. it's probably the best path forward, but i also would indicate, and you said this, miss baker, and

i think it's important, certainly important to me, and i assume to my colleagues, that's i want congress to have a role in determining the spectrum auctions and where the proceeds go. and as you indicated, we have been left out. i also know in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we were unable to get any credit for offsets as a result of the fact that congress had no authority in that regard to how the proceeds were spent. my questions have generally been asked by my colleagues, but i turn to you, mr. van talk, but deployment of reallocated spectrum does not always go smoothly. we have seen that recently with the sea ban 5g deployment delay. one of the prime issues that gao found studying ntia and the fcc spectrum reallocation policies is there is inadequate federal

federal coordination. gao suggested a number of ways to improve -- june 21 and january 22 studies. to those recommendations, any of this recommendations account for the issues recently encountered by the sea ban 5g deployment? if, not how do you prevent similar occurrences in the future, in terms of agency coordination? >> thank you for the question, senator moran. it's hard to say exactly if it was an issue in the sea ban, but i think the recommendations could go to some of the issues that came up there. there is certainly opportunity early on for faa to express concerns. those concerns weren't expressed. so, more and earlier coordination between fcc, and cia, and a heads up from fcc to ntia too proceedings would allow ntia to, as well as faa, explore some of those issues and bring those issues to light in fcc proceedings. i think those recommendations can help. >> it sounds like the usual communications issue that we here regularly that fails to occur. i sponsored an amendment

in you second, you seek, or that would ensure that the u. s. is a leader in international standards. this is probably not new to you, mister von ah, including the national telecommunications union. this body set standards for cutting edge technologies and the lack of this leadership brings space for adversarial nations to implement standards to their pin communications and technology. my useca amendment was integrated in the chips -- that passed congress last week. you said in your testimony that lack of coordination has hurt federal standard setting bodies. can you indicate how a lack of federal coordination hurts the u.s. with these important international bodies, and what congress can do to ensure u.s. leadership is important in the spaces? >> thank you for that question. our work is specifically looking at negotiations around

the 44 gigahertz band. what occurred there was that there was no technical basis for the u.s. positions that were brought to that international proceeding. that is what undermined the u.s. position, at least, for some. our recommendations were not only for the fcc and ntia to improve their processes, but also for a turf federal agencies to evolve to improve their processes to ensure they work with fcc and ntia to agree on the kinds of technical studies and technical work that needs to go into those international proceedings. we also need recommendations to fcc and ntia to update the general guidance document, which governs those international proceedings, which is a state department document that gives the various players the roles they should be playing. we thought both of those things, the mou as well, and the guidance documentary, updated. >> have you said whether those

recommendations are being followed? >> we have not seen them being updated, yet but the mou has. >> and would you remind me why it is important for us to lead in these international agencies? maybe that's a policy issue for somebody else. >> perhaps at something beyond g. a. o. >> i think the issue we are talking about a 24 gigahertz in the world radio conference. the united states took a position, and then later, i guess, looking forward, the way that this can be helped is if ntia's final arbiter on spectrum decisions. when those experts make a decision, maybe we need to allow them to have more expertise, more experts, but when they make a decision, it needs to be final, and that's what congress's intent is. it's certainly processes that mr. von ah has mentioned that will help, but we need to, once a decision has been made, whether it's reallocating the sea ban

for the fcc, commercial type spectrum, whether it's federal spectrum and ntsb, they need to have the final space. we need to be the final arbiter. we can of agencies going behind them. all those discussions need to happen for those positions are taken and particularly, it's egregious or embarrassing in an international context. >> i'm an appropriator for ntia -- get their attention and influence in this circumstance. i would be interested in that. so thank, you. >> thank you, senator. next, we will hear from senator. mark senator mark, you are recognized for your question. >> thank you, mister chairman. very much. we are in an enormously rapid change, technologically, artificial intelligence, 5g, zoom, all of it moving very, very rapidly. but and also there's new developments now to officially use the spectrum, which we have. and to improve upon

competitiveness. mr. lewis, would you take that question and just explain how this recent technological changes of making more spectrum available for our use? >> first, senator, it's not just more. it's more efficient use of spectrum. we have -- very different spectrum market, it looks very different than it did a couple of decades ago or even a second ago. we have updated finer tuned in trumans. many of the fights we've seen between agents, as referenced by senators, could be solved with early planning and early engagement, as mr. von ah has said. but also making sure that we are looking at certain standards for the equipment issues. it's this needs to be done on a collaborative basis.

we need all stakeholders at the table, and it needs to be done earlier. i think this is why looking to a longer term auction authority can send a signal from congress that if needed and that we want to avoid those types of problems in the future. >> and on users are also important, using the spectrum. the disrupters. they are change agents. they are experiment there's, and we need to make sure that we carve out a space for them in this spectrum world that we live in. i'd like to talk, as well, if i could, about spectrum options, which do raise significance among money, less than in the past, but still, a ton of revenues are made available. and just look over at a real need. during the pandemic, we saw

that there were 12 to 17 million children who did not have the internet at home, and we were able, and i love the effort, to put in seven billion dollars to an emergency connectivity fund, so kids at home could have it. now, that funding is starting to run out. could you look at this, mr. lewis, and talk about whether or not some of these revenues should be dedicated to ensuring that we have a permanent emergency connectivity funds so no child, especially black, brown, immigrant children in our country, are left behind? >> sure, and thank you for championing the emergency connectivity fund center. i served my local school board for two terms, and we lived with the experience of students were not connected in the home, and the homework app was real

with the disadvantages that they had compared to their peers. i think there is a number of sources of funding that could be used to continue the dcf, but we have talked about the airways for equity idea, where auction revenue could be used and set aside for digital equity funds. that could include some of the educational needs from the ecf. of course, congress could always, because auctions don't come on a regular schedule, congress could always appropriate more funds to continue on that work. but certainly, it's a critical part of making sure that everyone is connected and sees the benefits of high speed, quality connectivity. >> we are going to have kids 20 years from now looking back at their childhood saying, they just left me behind! i wasn't connected, and it did harm them. with the revenues that are raised, we have to ensure we focused on ensuring that everyone gets access to it. that's with the emergency

connectivity fund is, and i think that that fund should get a part of any revenues. finally, that neutrality, everyone wants competition. they want to make sure that there is a -- dollar -- competition environment, and that neutrality is all about that as well. mr. lewis, i introduced legislation a couple of days ago with senator wine, and we have a couple dozen of our colleagues who have signed on talk about how important net neutrality to ensuring that we have a marketplace that allows every voice to be heard, every competitor to be able to compete. >> yes, then. her net neutrality is important to prevent harmful discrimination by the internet provider service gatekeepers to the internet. for years now, we've had internet providers committing to adhere to those principles. but we still have a number of examples over the years. what we have not had

clear net neutrality rules. that should be looked. that that should be investigated by an expert agency like the fcc. unfortunately, they don't have the authority to do certain things like restoring those rules, and that authority is essential. >> i agree with you. i think net neutrality just means nondiscrimination. it's just another way of saying it. we can't allow discrimination on the net, and will restore net neutrality and i will continue on with my colleagues to press for that to become the policy in our country. thank you, mister chairman. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you, senator. next, we will hear from senator capito. so >> thanks, mister. chairman thank you all for being here today. miss baker, i know this question has been asked earlier, but i would like to re-ask with a little different flavor. the tax foundations, book minimum tax model as opposed to a --

increased attack viability for spectrum license owner by 7. 2 billion dollars over ten years. like many west virginians, i'm concerned this tax increase will delay closing the digital divide assist companies who have fewer dollars to spend on resources to deploy 5g and others capabilities. is it your understanding that acting a 50% minimum tax on local income, as written in the tax and spend bill, will raise taxes on spectrum license holders, they are by raising prices on already financially strapped consumers? >> i am hopeful for a technical correction so we can consider spectrum auction holdings the same as other infrastructure holdings. >> so, it is meaning? what it will raise taxes? >> yes,. it's both retroactive on the 200 million, over 200 million that our carriers have

spent on spectrum, as well as proactively. i think it can harm -- they are going to have to come up with a tax to pay for what they actually already hold, that they were not expecting. i think that could harm broadband build out, that could harm the digital divide, that it will slow things down. going forward, it will have to be built into spectrum policy when you have spending on spectrum. >> thank you. again, miss baker, the infrastructure bill set forth a significant investment in high speed broadband and the u.s., and as a result, more americans are connecting. how can we ensure the conversations we've had today, is there sufficient spectrum to allow consumers and businesses to fully unifies broadband networks, particularly, as we know, in my state, a lot of unserved and underserved areas? >> we appreciate this committee's work on the infrastructure bill, and also, the system to make it technology neutral. it is fiber leaning, and we are working with the states it develop their plans individually to hope that they realize the power of wireless, and realize the power of 5g home broadband, they can serve unserved areas in sometimes a more efficient way. i think, as mr. lewis has

said, getting broadband to all of america is a big challenge, and it's going to require and all of the above process. so, we just want to be included in those decisions as they make their plans. >> i would say, as the panel asked this question, is there a question of whether there is enough spectrum to handle this, or will it be robust enough for the harder areas to reach? how do you all think about this? >> thank you for the question. in rural areas, the spectrum is not as constrained, because there is fewer users for the

same amount. there, it's a problem of economics. you need to fix the market imperfections that the allow markets to serve those areas. >> with that the affordability? is it for affordability types of issues? not enough customers? etcetera, et cetera? >> it's both, on one hand, it's affordability. making sure the infrastructure gets out to the rural areas, as we know, a wireless network is actually a wired network with a little bit of wireless at the end of it. but also, for the companies to invest in serving those customers, they need certainty that the customers will be able to afford what is there. so, the consumer side subsidies as. well >> it's not just getting it. there is keeping it there, and will maintain. >> thank you for the question. i would agree with doctor -- in terms of the economics of. it but i would also mention that there is, our work has shown there is great demand for spectrum all over the board for wireless communications, for internet, four devices, four uses and -- are evolving., sound management and trying to

find better and efficient ways, more efficient ways to use that spectrum. that's very important. >> and the other additional comments? go ahead. >> i would agree that what incident said there, that's a matter of getting it in there, because there are some areas that are very hard to serve. we know vestige and you have some of those places. maintaining those networks, we also need more spectrum. the -- an auction right now is very important. it would be great for rural areas. this is the end of the spectrum pipeline. fcc is about the loose spectrum auction authority. we need to make -- sure >> they have auction authority? >> yes. >> i would just add is important to make sure we are setting up our spectrum policy to make sure we are using spectrum officially. in a timely manner. so, setting bill that requirements so rural areas are not left behind. sometimes, they could be prioritized because of the lack of concentration will population. so, setting these sorts of standards and if spectrum is not used, or the

buildup is not done, spectrum can be shared or partitions and giving to others. we've seen the fcc recently with their other recent acip decisions. so, making sure we have those sorts of rules to make sure that the broadband, if it's wired or wireless, is rolled out in a quick manner. folks aren't left behind. that's important. >> thank you. thank you all very much. >> thank you so much,. senator next, we will hear from the chair of the -- senator -- >> i appreciate that. you are often very generous in that regulation. i appreciate that. [laughs] next, we will hear four senator for colorado, senator mccain. >> thank you, mister. tara thank you, madam chair, for your generous seeding of time and place. miss baker, let's

start with you. for access to spectrum is increasing day by day as we've discussed. it's a shared asset among federal and non federal users, and obviously, we need to increase research. we institute for telecommunications scientists, i p. s., as we talked a little bit about, is in -- the premier resource lab for us, for spectrum issues. currently, it's supporting the d. o. d. and faa to prevent spectrum interference on radar systems. so, how would monitor icing use of funds from the spectrum relocation funds supports the research mr. of i. t. s. to inform future spectrum policy decisions? >> thank you for the question. it's a really good. on the spectrum relocation fund has done an awful lot in really changing the way we manage the spectrum. there's a school of thought that says that they cannot use the funds for future spectrum management, to look to see when they might want to reallocate. the action is

already pretty much scheduled, and they know they are going to get the money back. that is when they can use the spectrum relocation fund. it might be worse this committee is time to look at the spectrum relocation fund and see if there are improvements that agents can actually look for future relocation when there's not an actual relocation that's going to take place, and those funds might be able to be used for that. interestingly, i also understand that wall and the agency can use spectrum relocation funds, and cia, which actually manages spectrum, cannot. so, one way or another, i think i'm a big fan of the i. t. s. labs and they are a great neutral arbiter of spectrum decisions and increased funding for them would be a good idea for this, as a priority. >> in the alignment of self

interest, doctor bob along, in your testimony, you discuss the value of unlicensed spectrum and need to consider those use cases with creating spectrum policy. what are some of the examples of how unlicensed spectrum has used benefits society, and how should the value of unlicensed spectrum be factored into reallocation decisions? don't let your superior education force you to overshooting these people, you went to the same college i did. [laughs] >> thank you for the question. the wireless uses creates value, but not in a way that creates demand to pay for spectrum at auction. the social value that consume, and that's worth saying that even for the commercial uses, where we see the large auction values, the hundreds of billions of dollars

spent, it's really ten, 20 times that that is the value of that spectrum that goes to consumers. so, when you think about the value of the spectrum consumers, significant amounts from license, but also, significant amounts from unlicensed. so measuring those, if not just the wi-fi that's sold, but the connectivity of your home, the value of the internet, things, devices that and on these frequencies. measuring that value to consumers is what policy makers should be weighing when they consider whether more spectrum needs to go for unlicensed versus license uses and how much. >> and how much. well, they need to go to both. that's the question of how much. >> right. got it. i agree completely. doctor von ah, and you earlier mentioned that the g. a. o. would pine on that. i think it's the first time, a relatively new here, but the first time i have ever heard the g. a. o. not -- on anything! there's never been a limitation to their opinion. anyway, the

g. a. o. reviews reviews of its or agency spectrum management management. clearly, identified a lack of collaboration process as you describe, and discussed already. disagreements over technical some shuns, interpretations of some of the data behind those assumptions. especially from vested interests. again, natural. at the root of these disputes, the city of recommendations to help resolve the inter agency disputes such as, in some form, independent third party analysis? >> thank you for the question, senator hickenlooper. we don't have question specific to a third party, but when we make recommendations to the agencies around trying to come together to have a comment understanding of what study should happen, we leave it to them to sort of determine exactly the best way to do that. so, they decide a third party would be a useful

tool in certain circumstances in terms of an arbiter, i think we will be supportive of. that and the new mou between fcc and ntia, we talk about a renewed focus on sharing technical information. thanks to the hundred visor committees of the other, and so i think that kind of goes a long way to getting at what you are talking about. >> great. thank you very much. i appreciate. it and you guys have discussed so many facets of inter agency collaboration, and i think that's the point we will all take away from this. one of many points. and i yield back the chair. >> thank you, senator. senator young. same for younger, you are recognized for questions? >> thank you, chair. the day, the fcc and ntia released a new memorandum of understanding inter agency coordination. miss baker, in your testimony, you highlight the importance of enhancing inter agency

coordination for spectrum decisions. director von ah, your testimony is titled, improve planning and inter agency collaboration. could strengthen spectrum reallocation efforts. i know that you come at this from slightly different directions, and i was wondering were you could both discuss the importance of inter agency spectrum coordination and how the u.s. can improve current efforts. mr. von ah? >> given the question, senator young, thank you. the importance of a collaboration is to ensure that we avoid conflicts that can be resolved, where you have agencies that either and, to be perfectly frank, jeopardize either national security or public safety in terms of the federal government use of that spectrum. and so understanding

the ways in which reallocating uses might effect users in adjacent bans is extremely important. ensuring that those views are expressed and considered, as fcc licenses, that spectrum and makes rules around power licenses and things. that's also important. we are very encouraged by the new mou. it does go directly to the heart of the recommendations we made. and, i think it's going to have a great impact on the level of collaboration. >> thank you. miss baker? do you have a complementary way to look at it? >> i agree that mou is -- we have two great leaders at the and cia and the fcc, and this mou, maybe it is in response to spectrum coordination, but it is also -- good step. it's a good first step. i do think there needs to be other steps taken. i think raising the level of the administrators drop to and undersecretary

shows the power that that office needs to have as being the final arbiter in federal communication, federal spectrum arguments. we need to empower both of those leaders to do their jobs. >> thank you. doctor bazelon, and miss baker, when congress gave the fcc option authority in 1983, it created what many of us see as one of the most valuable tools in the fcc's toolkit. raising revenue for the treasury, benefiting consumers, critical services and coverage, establishing a straightforward method of licensing and making sure spectrums held by those who value it most and put it to its most productive years. currently, the fcc's auction authority is set to expire in less than two months on september 30th. can you both discuss the importance of extending the fcc's auction authority? >> the fcc's auction authority is critical. that we need them to be powerful unable to do their jobs. we are support, i like the 18-month extension for

a couple of reasons, and they are allowed to do their jobs and by holds the rest of the stakeholders to the fire to make sure that they get a spectrum pipeline, because we need to have a spectrum pipeline, because the rest of the world is moving forward. so, i think it's critical to have, for the ftc, to have spectrum auction authority and support them to have a longer auction authority, but i think it really needs to be tied to specific bans so we can make sure those options happen. >> thank you. allowing an auction authority to expire would be a own goal for our policy makers. it is a critical tool in our spectrum management arsenal. the length of time of authority we have to extend it creates the benefit of the auctions, it creates the courage to make a reallocation happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise, by creating the budgetary incentives. those incentives will exist whether or not there is a long term extension done in the next,

whether it's 18 months or longer. of course, there will be a stronger budgetary incentive if you do an 18-month plan to reallocation afterwards. >> thank you. and miss baker, because my time is coming to a close here, the fcc's currently conducting an auction. what happens in terms of the beyond the ground reality, should the auction authority expire? >> thank you for your question. it is an important auction. we have over 80 bidders, over 80 companies bidding on that spectrum, which shows how important it actually is. the answer is, we don't. no auction authorities have never been allowed to lapse before, so, it creates an awful lot of uncertainties. and bitter stones don't need uncertainties. >> very good. thank. you. >> thank you, senator. next, we will hear from the chair of the full committee.

>> thank you, senator lujan. thank you so much for sharing this important hearing. what i love about this big committee is we also still get good attendance. important policy areas, my colleagues and i, particularly, senator young, has worked on major innovation act and this reminds me, doctor basil on, the same kind of question. we said we needed to modernize but u.s. advances in chip fabrication, and yet, a lot of people say the law is ending. we are not going to double capacity. what are we going to do? we have to look at new sub straits, new materials, new ways. how are we going to get more out of the chips, at a time when we are trying to say, we are going to have driver-less cars, and there's many different kinds of chips in the car into controlling information, and you have 5g? it's nearly impossible to think about all of, if you will, applications. i am intrigued by your testimony, because you are saying we are looking at this from a budget perspective. that is kind of a very narrow perspective. what would you say are the buckets, or areas of

how to take a look at spectrum need, need? spectrum need? then, you can get to these questions that we are kind of down on the weeds on, which are these uses. i'm not even sure we have a picture of what the need is or the possible need out there for us and where we might hit demand limitations. >> so, we don't use the spectrum just because it's fun. i'm a video operator, so maybe i do, in my summertime. but commercially, we use it because it creates value. so, it's about capacity on the wireless networks. capacity can be increased in different ways. you can add spectrum to the

network. that's what most of what we have been talking about here. but more efficient technologies, 5g, creates the through put on the spectrum much more efficiently. it also uses the bans in a more sensible way, so you have the longer, lower vans used for a longer term communications, and the higher bands used in the cities with the larger capacities. you can also invest in infrastructure dividing cell sites where you reusing the same spectrum more often. so, all of that capacity, that is the way we create capacity for all the different needs. those needs will be there. there's the once we know about, like the commercial wireless operators that most of our networks are on. but the new internet of things is going to have a completely different demands profile on spectrum. then, there is always the things we don't know about yet. >> right. this isn't slowing

down. >> no. this demands for communications is increasing. if you just look at any of the forecasts of usage of wireless data, it's explosive. and it's explosive in a way that is not going to be met by just spectrum, of course, or spectrum alone. it's many times the amount of usage now that's going to require, spectrum is going to require more infrastructure investment. it's going to require using spectrum technology much smarter than we are today. >> you are advocating, besides looking at budget issues, that some of those people should get whatever points or consideration based on that efficiency, or that we, as a government, should promote that just as we would promote more efficiency. we came up with a new material on chips that made it continue to the liver more effectiveness. >> yes. in the discussion about unlicensed, we want to look at the value from it. the budgetary incentives are, they

are certainly not the reason for, they're not the first reason for auctions from the spectrum policy perspective. the point is to get the spectrum reallocated into new users efficiently as possible, to the extent that auctions creates the will to do that. that is a good thing, but that's not the reason for spectrum policy in the first place. >> but what about allocations? we just heard some debated here. obviously, the 9-1-1 and other things. >> the next generation 9-1-1, the idea that we have iphones but we still have a network that doesn't universally use them, is just amazing. so, of course we have to invest in there. having the money come from the sector makes a lot of sense. value from spectrum gets spent in different. ways we've talked about the ability to

redirect the funds for programs such as that. but, they also get spent in other ways like when there is a built out requirement. a bitter will bid less for the spectrum, so that race value from what's being spence in the holistic. >> i think all of these issues are important, like how to figure out interference and more clear rule and how more predictability, but i think we have to get a better picture here on how much demand is coming at us. i think it's phenomenal. i think we are going to be pushed to figure out, what are those uses. if we feel like we are seeing competition and competitiveness and challenges and people throwing this over the rail at you, i guarantee you, it's going to be even worse in five or ten years. figuring out what is a good government policy, a way for us to input on that, it's about again, those big picture uses and what our

policies, besides just g. a. o. and the budget, what our policies that would help us of the nation think through this. >> thank you. >> my time is, up if you have 30 seconds, i'm sure the chairman would let you. >> the bigger picture policies issues is the wireless sector is going to continue to grow. we are going to have a robust wireless sector in this country in the future. we do have a choice as to whether or not he is going to be one that is based on low prices, high usage, and more usage, more fulfillment of the wireless capacity, or one that is a little more constrained, higher prices. a little bit less usage. but it is still going to grow either way. it's going to be a challenge to meet that demand. >> i'm sure people are going to say they want lower costs, but thank. you >> the preferable one. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair cantwell. next, we will hear from senator lee. you are recognized for questions. >> thank you, mister. chairman thanks to you for being here. miss baker, i would like to start with you, if that's okay. in your testimony, you have described the fcc and cia coordinating process, the

spectrum coordination that goes on. there you noted in the last few years, we've seen something about a repeat pattern, a cycle, if you will. specifically, you have seen that after ample review and number of measures that have been taken to make sure that all parties have been heard and all considerations have been evaluated, a last-minute objection from a federal agency usually claim either some pressing need for public safety, or, in many cases, national security interests, often articulated, national security interests, needs to come in and needs to halt the licenses. thus, undoing many years of cooperative agency action and preparation. how do these last-minute objections from federal agencies or presumably, at this point, operating outside the iraqi process, affect the deployment of wireless network? >> i think in the most recent case with the faa, we have seen the delayed 5g. so far, it has delayed the spectrum from coming in to fruition. six, six plus months. i think it does

delay, going forward, it's an interesting case, two. because if we look where the next targets are, there are all mid band. they are going to be government spectrum, government agencies. we really need to figure out how to empower ntia to be the final arbiter, or the fcc to be the final arbiter, of these decisions and stop the process from getting broken at the very end. >> i think that's right. we desperately need to fix this broken process. now, of course, at the reports of the fcc and ntia have updated the memorandum of understanding. i think that's. great it was a long time coming, but i'm glad we made that progress. but i remain concerned that these

very large, powerful agencies, are abusing the process. perhaps in some instance he's, even withholding relevant information from public view. or, from the fcc and the ntia with these very important attacks. would you agree with all these agencies, including the big and powerful once, really need to cooperate and be transparent both with the fcc and with the ntia? >> absolutely. when i was at ntia, the process worked. we need to get it back to a place where it worked. >> there may be some who might be tempted to conclude, now that the mou has been updated, there is no need for congress to act here. what would be the risks of doing that? what would be the risk of us not doing anything as a congress, just

resting on the fact that oath, there is an updated and muggy? >> clearly, your opinion is important. i think if you express your opinion at fcc and the anti i ar the final arbiters and these disputes, that would go a long way. >> and the stakes are huge. you've alluded to this. in your testimony, you noted just a moment ago that the united states is traveling our competitors in the clearing process, especially for mid band spectrum. our spectrum pipeline is nearly depleted, and that's our current coordination process and our lack of a pipeline, what does that do to us, in terms of our ability to compete globally? >> well, the rest of the world is moving forward, so we need to have a pipeline. i would say that the last dispute with the

faa on the c-band took attention away from those who were really necessary to put muscle and elbow to the table to get those government agencies coordinated to agree on the bans. so, we lost 6 to 9 months in building at that pipeline. and getting closer to adding spectrum we are going to auction next. it does hurt us. it hurts us globally, but we can still fix it. we can still move forward. i'm hopeful that we have made a lot of progress, and we've identified which bans we think are most viable for the next pipeline. that is the lower three gigahertz. is in the spectrum innovation band. it's four gigahertz and seven gigahertz. it's not easy, but we've made a lot of projects, and with your help, with the administration's help, and with some white house help i, think we can get. there >> thank you. i appreciate. that my time is about to run out, but i want to make clear. i want to make sure congress does not let fcc's auction authority laps. that is

something i hope and expect will be come before the senate, and i hope and expect this committee will have some involvement in. that i know you do too. if congress fails to address a lot of the spectrum policy issues that i've highlighted, i worry that would weaken the u.s. in the long run. so, would you agree with me that's in addition to meeting this reauthorization, we also need some pro growth spectrum policies to be adopted moving forward? >> we need to adopt the specific pipeline bans with the auction authority, so we can make sure they get done. they are not going to be easy to get done. we are going to need help, and mandating it from congress, making sure they actually get done. that will, without a spectrum pipeline, the rest of the world moves forward. the innovation goes elsewhere. our global leaders shift is lost. >> thank you very much. >> okay, senator. senator cruz, you're recognized for. question >> thank you, chair. welcome to each of the witnesses. i appreciate you taking time to be here today, talking about

these important issues. as you all know, in the communications act of 1934, congress charge the fcc with regulating radio operations in the united states in the public interest. for years, the fcc managed radio operations. that is, who was and who wasn't allowed to broadcast on the nation's airwaves, in a rather clunky, an efficient way, via the comparative hearing process that became more commonly known through the beauty contests and lotteries. but then, almost 30 years ago, all of that change when congress granted the fcc the authority to use auctions, to award licenses for the rights to use the radio spectrum. so-called spectrum auction authority. this market based approach fundamentally transform tough spectrum licenses are valued an aggregated. that is revolutionized telecommunications. as the fcc puts it, the 1997 report to congress, quote spectrum

auction authority has assured the telecommunications industry into a new era, an era in which competition, economic efficiency, and innovation have become the watch word for both the public and private telecommunications sectors. the fcc auctions programs has been a success for the american people. the fcc's new auction design and automated system won awards at home and have been studied license or copied worldwide. in most cases, experience has shown the fcc options have increased competition, provided opportunities for the entrance, and benefited customers. in other words, a pretty big success. unfortunately, though, in recent years, it has felt like we are beginning to take steps backwards in this area, as the number and volume of fights of close uses for bands of spectrum has grown. whether it's the 24 gigahertz fight between nasa, no, and the fcc, the 5. 9 gigahertz fight between the ot, the auto manufacturers, and the wi-fi device manufacturers, the six gigahertz fight between the department of energy, utility providers, and the wi-fi lobby, or most recently, the sea bands

fight between faa, t airlines, and the global broadband providers. these spectrum food fights are all having the same impact. injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and undermining the auction system. that helped resolution is not just american, but global telling the communications, over the last 30 years. so, my question to east of the witnesses pretty simple. is the spectrum management process in the united states today broken? i'd like to get an answer from each of you. >> senator, it's hopefully on the mend. we are seeing signs today with the announcement of the new mou between the ntia and fcc. i think we can ask policy makers to continue to take other steps to ensure that the discipline needed to address the technical issues that need to be examined and

determines on how spectrum works and whether this interference is as follows. we need leadership to make sure there is a long term commitment for those agencies to be the final authority on the technical suspects, and to follow that science and figure out, what is the need and how to make sure all those needs are met as best as possible. we have the technical capability to do it through sharing unlicensed and license spectrum. but we need the cooperation. >> miss baker? >> thank you, senator. it's a good question. i am always optimistic, so i would say it's broken, but i think it needs some help, and i think it needs some interest from this committee. i can't believe, by the way, it's 30 years ago for auction authority! that's amazing. i do think a lot of these are technological questions, and we need to empower more, there are answers. these are known

answers, and so it's important, as the mou is doing, having these problems raised earlier and making sure that we have the resources in the neutral way to test them. that is why i support more funding for ntsb, cuts it's a government agency that is testing it, and right, now it is funded usually by the people in the middle of the spectrum dispute. that doesn't seem. right it seems like we can do with a little more neutrally. i think we need to empower the fcc and ntia in a much greater. by their leadership needs to be the final say in the spectrum of disputes. and maybe we look at the spectrum relocation fund to see what future reallocation's are doing, so we could do the research earlier. >> miss -- >> thanks for the question, mr. crews. it's i would say it's broken, but it certainly failed, in these instances. we found that largely, these processes do work for routine matters, agencies do feel that ntia appropriately represents them, things get resolved very routinely. but when things get more complicated, when there is more agencies involved, when

there are technical questions that aren't resolved, and they can't come to an agreement, that's where this process breaks down, as we have seen over and over again here in the last few years. so, we have certainly tried to make recommendations to short that up, and i think the mou is a good first step towards. that >> doctor bazelon? >> our current system is pretty clunky and inefficient. we have to recognize it has gotten us to a recurrence system, which is a really incredible wireless, plugged in that work and the ecosystem. it could do a lot better in coming forward. it is going to be, it's cockiness is going to be an increasing detriment to doing the right management. >> thank you. that is helpful. >> thank, you senator. next, we will hear from senator sullivan. you are recognized for. questions >> thank you, mister. chairman

i appreciate the witnesses. testimony, that's important, but sometimes, complex. so, speaker, i want to follow up a little bit on what senator cruz was talking about and how the system has worked, but we are starting to see things maybe fraying in some ways. the fcc has had a spectrum auction authority since 1993 without lapsing. what would be the consequences, if the fcc authority does laps for the first time in 30, 40 years, in october? on a currently ongoing 2. 5 gigahertz auction, and more broadly, what's with the sense of confidence in the industry be if there was a lapse? >> thank you for the question. as you say, fcc authority have never lapsed. the uncertainty that brings is, i think, none

of us have the right answers to those questions. i think none of us want to find out the answers to those questions. it's really important they have the authority to do their job, and this two, five auction is a really important auction, we have a lot of people bidding on that spectrum and it is going to be very meaningful across the country, what is next is also important. this is an ever evolving dynamic industry, and devices are increasing five times by 2027. we are going to need to continue to rule out 5g faster, further, and to do that, we are going to need more spectrum. the fcc is going to have their authority. >> let me ask, for you, and then mr. lewis, mr. bazelon, a sumy we pass the short term extension, what do you think this committee's priority should be for a longer term bill? i think everyone agrees we should have a longer term bill. i think we do need a short term extension so we don't go into this situation

where there is lapsing authority. but prioritization on a few key issues, try to keep it somewhat short for the, as just mentioned, on the longer bill? >> so, we need the spectrum pipeline built to go along with the spectrum auction authority that needs to focus on mid band. most of the mid band, two thirds of the mid-, band is owned by the government. so, it's very helpful for congress to specify those bands so that actually gets done. when congress gives a deadline, specifies the bands, it gets done. so, i think we just have to focus on the three, four, five in the spectrum innovation act, and we hope to add four gigahertz and seven gigahertz to highlight them. >> mr. lewis? thoughts on that? >> a longer term authority, event, would send a great

signal from congress to the agencies, and by agencies, i mean across the government. you have a real commitment to doing the work, the trusted science work to determine what the spectrum pipeline to look like, and how it will work across with governments and private commercial and unlicensed use. so, it's really about certainty. senator wicker used the term bitter certainty earlier. but bitter certainty is not the only certainty that is important. it's important as but wireless industry providers, certainty for innovators, certainty for government, and uses of government and military, certainty for multiple sectors it's what we're looking for when we suggest we should have a longer term authority committed by congress. >> doctor bazelon, your view on this? >> thank you. the spectrum

pipeline does need to be filled. many of us can have ideas on what those relocations should be, but the practical matter, it's only once the fcc and cia and the government agencies do the hard work to examine why it would actually take to reallocate the band of spectrum. is it right for congress to then redirect the reallocation? assuring the agency said the resources and the ability to commit the plan they need, will be the key to being ready to have that longer term corrective authority. >> thank you. let me turn to mr. goa. one issue i think we need, both in terms of spectrum, but also in terms of allocating federal funds that are coming from infrastructure act and other areas is better, fcc, two ntia, and beyond that, federal agency coordination in this area. over the past year, the g. a. o. has released a number of reports on federal spectrum coordination or you made

recommendations, and cia, and the fcc to improve their collaboration on spectrum planning. can you talk on that? i'm not sure if you saw the five-page mou that was signed monday by mr. davidson and chair rosenworcel, i think that's an important step. so, can you comment that on that as well, if you have seen? and then the other coordination issues beyond just spectrum policy, i think, there is a whole host of areas where federal agencies, particularly those two agencies, need better coordination for more efficient use of our spectrum and telecoms industry for americans, alaskans, we are going to host a summit next week with fcc, a

ntia, all up in alaska. other federal agencies, on this issue of coordination, of the deployment of federal funds, at least as it relates to my state. >> thank you for your question, senator sullivan. absolutely. so, as far as our recommendations, we were really looking for the agencies to sure up their collaboration processes. >> do you think the mou health on that? >> i think. so i think it's great for. step >> you read the report inside the mou? >> i certainly read the report. they have given us a lot of comments on. it >> could job! seriously. >> one of the recommendations that is not really reflected in the mou is related to ndaa and have a coordinates with federal agencies. that's through the iraq processes. one of the things i thought was ntia explained and documented its procedures for how it represents its views for its agencies. so, they understands the types of studies that it might need to conduct so that i can understand whether their views are being adequately represented or how they are

being represented, or whether, what sort of trade offs were made by ntia in producing a final submission to the fcc. because we have seen agencies submit their own comments to fcc proceedings, which is not disallowed, by any means. but sort of reflects the idea that agencies aren't necessarily comfortable with where ntia is right now. having the ability for ntia to resolve those conflicts with the federal agencies it's meant to represent would be -- >> thank you for the work that you guys at g. a. o. have done. and mr. amiss chairman, i think it's important beyond the spectrum issue. we can do that, in terms of our oversight. for the coordination between federal agencies, particularly fcc and ntia and a whole host of issues, broadband deployment funding is another one that it's an important. thank. you

>> i appreciate, that. senator and i applaud what senator sullivan has put together and alaska during the august working period as well. many of the solutions that mr. sullivan will discover, create, demands, during that conversation will help hard to connect states like mine. and i want to thank you for that, and we are going to be watching closely, because we want it to be new mexico next. we appreciate that, senator sullivan. >> -- >> i appreciate, that sir. we will include the hearing. there's a few things i want to ask, based on conversation that we already had. so, with your indulgence, i hope not to go on more than 5 to 10 minutes. i want to follow up where senator sullivan concluded his question. with the g. a. o. reports. i do plan on introducing it to the record two of the reports produced by the g. a. o. on the urgent need

of improvement with coordination and the planning process for federal spectrum management. so, we will work with you to get that done. i would agree that -- the memorandum of understanding on spectrum is real progress. but the work is just beginning. i think that needs to be emphasized. while there is a good signature here, a good agreement on paper, on how this will be implemented and how the agencies will work together, will be watched by all. i think there is complete, bipartisan agreements on every aspect said about that. i know our friends are listening and watching, it wouldn't surprise any of them in the room today. i want to ensure both agencies, the ftc and ntia are empowered to prioritize the public's interest first in spectrum discussion as well. and how we get there, that's building off of the question that our chair asked, specific to the needs

and allocations. also, senator klobuchar asked a specific to some of these programs on how they should be prioritized, as did, i'm going to get in trouble with senator hickenlooper, senator markey, with families and communities across the country that did not have connectivity during the most recent health scare the country experienced with covid, but we should anticipate other needs down the road. what the promise of the bipartisan infrastructure bill puts says that 100 percent of the country will be connected. i hope that will be proven true. and 100 percent of the country will be connected, and your expertise is going to be needed to help provide that guidance and answer questions during the implementation. now, g. a. o.'s mission is critical here, and i appreciate your ongoing work to

provide congress with fact based, nonpartisan information that could help improve federal government performance and ensure accountability for the benefit of the american people. the hearing goes quite back to you a bit, the g. a. o.. now, miss baker, in your testimony, you advocate for promoting the minister of and cia to the position of undersecretary. can you explain why that is important? as a step going forward, for everyone to consider? >> i think it gives a number of different regions. thanks for the question. as an undersecretary, you are at a higher level. if you are dealing with a cabinet member, and you are and assistant secretary, the imbalance is already there. so, for elevating the ntia would help show the authority that this congress believes they should have in adjudicating federal spectrum disputes. >> i appreciate that, miss. baker there's some consistency here as, well, with recommendations that came out of the g. a. o.. again, i think this is an important area for people to pay attention, especially everyone that has been frustrated when something breaks down. it could be as simple as ensuring that someone at the table is truly respected by those doing work with them,

so, i very much appreciate that awareness. mr. lewis, from your testimony, i think you will agree that first and foremost, our priorities must be to put a scarce resource to all americans. i would emphasize all americans. it's congress's job to determine which solution will ultimately serve the public interest. so, in this discussion, i want to stress one thing. public safety must remain a priority. the importance of looking at safe and reliable communication networks and ensuring public safety professionals like firefighters, law enforcement, and medical professionals to do their jobs. in my states, like we do in many other states, we have a terrible problem with missing and murdered indigenous people. someone who may have a mobile device on them. but cannot make a 9-1-1 call. we have found a last text that may save their life. solutions to

triangulate where that person was, the last time they may have paying it off a tower, which could save their life. this issue is finally, and these families, are finally getting the attention of the federal government, in a way that should have been there from day one. with that question, when i say public safety, especially with the fires that we are seeing now in new mexico, which we're were started by the federal government, in this, case a controlled burn that got out of control. i'm told it is a very low percentage, but nonetheless, that low percentage started to fires in our state. recently, that cost people their homes. now, we are seeing flooding in those communities that are costing people their lives. with that being said, how can congress best ensure that the need of public safety i prayer or prioritized by the national spectrum policy? >> there are a number of ways, senator. certainly, investment

of dollars in next generation 9-1-1 as a public interest value is one we have highlighted today. an emphasis on resiliency, and thank you for your leadership on the resiliency of communications networks. we need to continue to emphasize that so that during natural disasters and other situations, folks can trust that the networks will be available, but also when talking about spectrum policy, the importance of setting the rules for prioritization on the network. we talked about the success of the cbrs band which has tears of access prioritization, by making sure that emergency communications and other public safety are prioritized, especially when those emergencies happen. i think that's an important priority. >> as part of that, mr. lewis, outside spending proceeds, your testimony pointed to something that caught my attention. that was with enhanced competition and incentive program, some

folks will refer to that as egypt. the chair of the fcc, chair rosenworcel, has highlighted how this program aims to increase access and competition to advance wireless services in rural and tribal communities. how can congress expand on egypt to promote competition? >> senator, i think a simple mandate to extend the same concepts and values we saw with the recent decision of the fcc would go a long way. this is the idea partitioning of spectrum, incentivizing license services to partition off that spectrum, so communities that don't have access when -- can use it when they are not using it. that can lead to partitioning and sharing opportunities. we need to enshrined that further into the rules on other spectrum bands.

>> i appreciate that. while there is a more robust conversation taking place with an injection of money like we have never seen in the united states to connecting the country, this is going to be critical if in fact assumptions that have been made, that still will not connect 100% of the country, in states that are hard to connect states, where some challenges exist with topography and geography, this is an area that could provide some solutions. i very much appreciate your attention there. one area that received a lot of attention from myself being proud to represent a state with many rural and tribal communities, especially pointing to the two and a half gigahertz auction as well. one of the questions that i have

based on conversations i have with different leaders, and those who have been hired and responsible for this work is that sometimes given the short timeline and build out requirements, there's challenges for connection and adoption. with the promise of what 2. 5 gigahertz means for connectivity for some of the issues i already raised, what recommendation does g. a. o. have for congress to ensure tribes can take advantage of similar programs in the future? >> thank you for that question, senator. there's a recent report that i think we reissued in july where we looked at tribal broadband issues. we looked at a -- all the federal programs that could support deployment of broadband on trouble lands. let me start by saying that the priority, tribal priority is a great idea. we have hundreds of tribes that really don't have access to spectrum that were able to get licenses. for many of them, and the work that we've done the. frustration has been that they got the license but they did not get any funding along with it. so they

had to sort of figure out what to do with it with a looming bill that requirements and timeframes associated with that license. the federal programs that could support that broadband infrastructure all have their own timeframes in terms of the ability for tribes to apply for it. a number of the tribes that got the license or ones where they don't necessarily have their own tell co-that serves the trouble lands, where they don't have a utility that can do, that where they don't have their own wireless network at this point. so they are hoping for the spectrum to be able to create that new wireless network. so they have a reliance, whether it be a local telcos or consultants, to help them figure out how to build this network. so our recommendations really were trying to focus on the way to leverage federal programs and investment here to address the kinds of problems that you see and barriers you see on tribal lands. we made a recommendation at the executive office of the president to

include a tribal focus and a national broadband strategy that we recommended they develop. we have also made recommendations to the department of commerce ntia at their office of internet connectivity and growth to bring trouble issues to bear in their ongoing coordination efforts with federal agencies across all these different broadband programs. so those at least make some headway into this important issue because those lands to fall behind in terms of connectivity across the country. >> it is my hope that several committees will show interest in this particular area. especially given the challenges that we know exist, and with infrastructure challenges still in front of the tribes, easement of approvals, things of that nature. this is another area we're getting that connectivity and being able to provide that support to more families will help us connect more people. i very muchre peop. appreciate that. i do have a question on the timeline with the house bill. i'm hoping to get a perspective from every one of the panelists that is able to answer this. 18 months was a time period that was

included in the house authorization bill. what i heard from some of my colleagues today is that that is a position that they support, but i also heard from a positions that said they don't want to see spectrum expire. they don't want to see this authorization go away. so as we all work together, my question, i will start with you mr. lewis, is even though i've heard your advocacy loud and clear, is are you open to a period longer than 18 months as the conversation moves forward and legislation is put together? i hope to pass before september 30th. >> definitely open. you heard my preference for a permanent authority, but yet the longer the authority the better i think. it sends the right signal that we are looking for a multi sector win here. for all stakeholders to be able to

take hold -- to be at the table in determining what the spectrum rules and spectrum pipeline looks like. i appreciate that. miss baker? >> 18 months has been agreed to buy the house. i like it. i think it makes some sense to keep the stakeholders at the table so we can have a long term spectrum pipeline, which is going to be very important as you have a short term extension to the longer extension. the longer extension really needs to have specifics to it. i think 18 months is about right. i'm not married to 18 months, so we can certainly see something worked there. >> i will fixate on the latter. so not married to 18 months, that's room for growth? >> yes, but we want to make sure we get a spectrum pipeline. that is important for our global competitiveness. we want to make sure people do not move on to another problem and don't focus on the fact that we've got to get a spectrum pipeline, and it's going to take a lot of work. >> i appreciate it. so i don't

want to misstate what i fixated on. >> [laughs] >> so open to a longer period as long as partners are at the table and having the conversation about what would be included as part of that? >> right, that is correct. when you have a longer term spectrum pipeline, which we should not wait too long, i would like to see one in the next year, because the rest of the globe is moving forward on 5g and we need to get our path. longer than 18 months? two years? that's fine, yes. >> or longer? >> let's see what we can do. >> i will leave it at that. i will stop pushing. i very much appreciate that answer. it means a lot. thank you. mr. andrew von ah? >> yeah, i don't think we would have any, we certainly think authorizing spectrum authority is important. we will say that we believe that whatever spectrum is decided on in terms of reallocation, should we go through the existing processes that we have in place, that the federal agencies are involved in determining what spectrum can be reallocated effectively.

>> doctor, you are no longer at g. a. o.. >> cbo. >> c o, so i hope that we won't get a similar answer here if you will, but what are your thoughts here? >> [laughs] i will try. thank you. we need long term option authority. we also need a spectrum pipeline. if 18 months is the only way you will get the focus of attention to do the work to get the spectrum pipeline, and that's a trade-off that is worth considering what it comes with some costs. in 18-month authority creates a problem for the fcc and nti that they do not have the authority to plan play -- past that. they cannot contract beyond 18 months. so it does throw some sand in the gears a little bit, but if it ultimately serves the bigger work of getting the pipeline together, maybe that's a trade-off worth considering. >> i appreciate that. that may be where my head is, the latter part of the response, which is

this is tough. this is not easy policy. it can be messy at times. what i've heard from everyone, all stakeholders i've had the chance to speak to, is what certainty provides and long term deals may be in place, but also in planning. given the bipartisan infrastructure bill, where we are with the work that is still happening on existing authorizations. the question i still have as well is what does that mean cup september 30th? does the authority allow to continue based on work they are doing? what happens then? i hope we get an answer soon. but because of the challenges the timeline, understanding the work that was done in years past. there's a difference of opinion, which always means how do you work together? and if there is a willingness to try

and find that, given the right conclusion to what this may mean to prevent a september 30th expiration, i know that i am speaking in this perfect world, but nonetheless that is how i operate. i'm an optimist. and the same way we had a very respectful hearing today. you've got a lot of people who are interested here. so how can everyone work together to include these ideas so we can get something adopted? i certainly don't want to see a world where september 30th comes and goes and then october comes and goes and november comes and goes. then december, than everyone is saying well don't worry, this will be done in the new year. that's the worst thing we could do. by the way, let's get a fifth sec commissioner while we are at

it. but i know this might be more divisive than what i'm asking for spectrum reauthorization that i'm -- oddly enough. but i'm hopeful we can get there and have a full operating commission. we can get spectrum reauthorization. we can move down the road in a way that optimizes how people are going to get connected in the country. and then one last thing, i was not anticipating bringing this up. but since there was an area of emphasis by several of my colleagues, this is back to ms. quaker. there was some question about changes in the tax law. the question was as such, and i'm paraphrasing here, but not all the members would feel that change with a? the 15%? >> -- >> i can ask it a different way. it's not my understanding that companies that have a billion dollars in profit, not revenue but profit, are those that would be included in the provisions that were distressed by several of our colleagues and being looked at with impact that. >> is your question, are the

smaller carry is not impacted by this? this is a larger spectrum holding issue? >> carriers that do not make a billion dollars in profit. >> i find that any retroactive tax on this critical infrastructure input does not seem like the right policy for building out broadband to all of america. >> i appreciate that, but the question that was asked by my colleagues, and it's my understanding, and i can pull the language here, is that it would impact for profit companies with one billion dollars in profit. that is

where the 15% would be levied. with that being said, your 220, 230 members, if i have my math right, or if i looked at the website correctly, based on my look at the website, six or seven major telecommunications companies that have exceeded one billion in profits, one that did not post a profit, that is a member back in 2020, but nonetheless that is my understanding of how this would get hit. i'm looking for clarification because one of the questions was asked such that when i heard the response, it felt like everyone would get hit by the 15%. i'm just looking to clarify the record that way. >> my expert says you are correct. my sunshine is that we are looking at those that are building broadband nationwide. so that would be a smaller

subset. >> i appreciate that. >> but i'm also happy to get back to you with more information on that. >> i look forward to hearing more, and we can submit something into the record so that we provide you an opportunity to -- respond to that. i understand clearly what you are saying in that the five or six that i have identified, there might be others, that exceed that, that they provide coverage all over the country. what i will make sure we submit that so we get a chance to be able to answer that thoroughly as well. i appreciate that. okay. with that being said, i want to thank everyone for their time today. i want to thank all the staff that were responsible for putting this together as they always are. everyone who showed an interest in covering this important issue, the record will remain open for two weeks to allow everyone to be able to submit comments and testimony, and our colleagues as well that wish to supplement that. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

live, sunday on in-depth. author, tv host, and abrams medium founder and ceo, dan abrams will be our guest, talking about u.s. legal history and the american legal system today. he's the author of several books, including lincoln's last trial, kennedys avenger, about the trial of jack rudy, and his latest, alabama versus king. martin luther king jr. and the criminal trial that launched the civil rights movement. join in on the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets for dan abrams. live, sunday at noon eastern on in-depth, on book tv on c-span two. >> coming up, insurance professionals testify before the senate banking committee on insurance regulations, policies, and practices within the industry. the committee also raises questions about the impact of private equity companies on the

retirement acid industry. >> comedian banking, housing, and rental affairs will come to order. i think my colleagues for joining us. most of them will be here checking in or doing something that's a remote, i mean, a hybrid hearing again. witnesses are here in person. thank you to the two of you for that. special call out who -- our office who is gonna fall over the last year, this is her

last year, she is ending with a flourish. so, thank you for your service to the senate and especially to our country. every american needs insurance, whether it's auto insurance to protect us one more on the road, or homeowners instruments to protect the biggest investment for most families, or life insurance to submit your family's financial security in the event of a tragedy. it's our job to make sure the industry is protecting americans hard earned money, not putting it at risk. american insurance companies are regulated by a state insurance commissioners, we know that. the state based system of insurance regulation is historic and ensures that local markets the needs are taken into consideration. the national association the shrinks commissioner, and i see, coordinates state commissioners across all jurisdictions to identify and address risks to the entire system. the wall street reform act, congress created a few years ago, a decade or so ago, they created the federal insurance

office within the treasury department to promote national coordination and the insurance sector. it is common sense, ensures operate across all state jurisdictions and internationally. i am pleased to have both the middle and commissioner, kathleen, on behalf of the and the ac, and director sites of f aisle testified today. thanks for your public service on a levels. if we're going to keep americans hard earned money safe, it is more important than ever that they work together. many topics will be explored today. for example, three months ago, transfer point point $3 million of its pensions to athena holy, an insurance holding company specializing in life insurance and owned by the private equity firm of powell global management. overnight, -- employees and retirees were notified that their pensions would be managed by athena no longer governed by a reset with the pension benefit guaranty corporation. many employees are very exceptionally nervous about that.

it's one recent example, equity giants expansion into peoples pensions and into the insurance industry. we know that workers and upwards of one wall street private equity funds can of all. we see over and over again in industry after industry. in march, i asked and i see enough eye out to look into private equity's, expansion, and similar pension risk transfer of transactions. we need to understand the risks to workers who financial service depends on pension and retirement programs. and i see enough i owe provided thoughtful responses to my letters. thank you for that. in a i.c.e. has been monitoring the risk taking behavior of private equity owned ensures, fiu has done similar worked and has looked for wider -- in reassurance markets across the world. those connections have added a systemic risk concern, because the u.s. insurance companies depend more on the financial health of insurance companies outside the u.s.. taken together or insurance stories or focus on these

emerging a complex risk to safeguard our economy. our communities are families relying on insurance companies to protect their loved ones, their homes, their small businesses, and so many parts of their lives. we cannot ignore wind builds up or firms behavior is a responsible. we know who always pays the price when they do, it's rarely insurance and secular, is it's not wall street, is not private equity executives, its workers and families, it is taxpayers who are forced to below -- a decade and a half ago. that should never happen again. it means looking around the corner to make sure industry and agencies are prepared for risks as they develop, as more americans face increasingly severe climate catastrophe is, wildfires, hurricanes, every year. we need to help communities prepare, we need to ensure that insurance watchdogs and the companies they oversee are also prepared. in the aftermath of some of these natural disasters we've seen instances where ensures either raise prices or actually stop offering insurance altogether, leaving families,

leaving businesses struggling to find affordable coverage as they work to rebuild their lives and rebuild their communities. we know this industry has a long history of racial discrimination, just like so many other big industries. black and brown families face more difficulty across the board in getting insurance. we've seen this happen in auto insurance, particularly earlier this year, the new york times reported customers and shortens agencies and employees sued state farm for discrimination the workplace and paying out claims. my colleague, chairwoman waters in the house has been working on wearing more on this as well. her committee recently requested information about large life and p&c in sharon's involvement in financing -- slavery. i'm glad they're also working on this. investigating through a special committee on race and insurance. i look forward to reviewing f iowa's upcoming report on availability and affordability. of auto insurance, i hope will shed more life on racial equity

in assessing this insurance, accessing this insurance. finally, this, year the international association of insurance supervisors will need to consider where the u.s. insurance systems or view of adequacy standards meets international criteria. because we regulate insurance differently in the united states. we are state and local markets, international markets are served by the same companies. it's important that representatives of the u.s. system, like you, like f i l, like an icy, advocate for fair treatment by -- has been confirmed. michael barr and the office is testifying here today will get to work with international counterparts in this process. all of these issues show how critical the work that you to do is to our economies health and stability. i expect f iowa and and a i.c.e. to prioritize monitoring these risks in their ongoing work. >> thank you, mister chairman. welcome to our witnesses, it has been a while since our committee has held a hearing on the insurance industry, i

welcomed the occasion this morning. there are a few topics in particular i would like to touch on today. one is the importance of the state-based insurance regulation that we have. efforts to develop international insurance standards, efforts to use the insurance industry to affect changes in social policy. proposals to create a federally guaranteed pandemic risk insurance program, finally, the importance of risk based pricing. so, i think it's important to start by reminding everyone, as the chairman alluded to, that insurance firms are primarily regulated at the state level. insurers have been chartered and regulated by the states for the past 150 years. when it comes to insurance, the federal government has a really very extremely limited regulatory role. i see little need to expand that. the system works well for our consumers and for the industry. that's one reason we need to pay close attention to efforts to develop mental -- and when international insurance standards by international bodies.

in particular, i worry, i'm not alone, that the insurance capital standards, or the iciest, currently being developed by the international association of insurance supervisors is incompatible with the u.s. insurance market. there is widespread concern that the iciness is too sensitive to short term fluctuations in markets uncertain asset categories and does not take into account certain aspects of the assets that ensures hold. the result is that the implementation of icy s and its current form would harm the availability of long term insurance products that americans rely on for financial security. are u.s. representatives need to make sure that i see us works for the u.s. market. by not allowing the proposal to go forward until it does, next, i would like to touch on some troubling -- to use our financial system to address climate change. there are some liberal activists, one pressure insurance companies and other financial institutions that deny services to traditional energy companies and other

carbon intensive industries. such efforts are profoundly misguided. addressing the difficult challenges posed by global warming requires political decisions involving important trade-offs. we've seen those trade-offs in action in recent months. soaring energy prices, european nations have made plans to reopen coal power plants and extend the lives of nuclear plants. likewise, in the u.s., we've seen the biden administration's hostility to new energy production contribute to shockingly high gasoline prices. that is a painful consequence of policy choices. in a democratic society, those choices and trade-offs associated with them must be made by elected representatives who are accountable to the american people. not an elected activist, bureaucrats or insurance executives for that matter. to be sure, ensures face financial risks in a form of national disasters. after, all that's the core business of property and casualty insurance industry. insurers must be allowed to set premiums that accurately

reflect these risks. and to the extent that climate change exacerbates these risks, they are gonna need to adjust their prices accordingly, higher premiums are an important signal to policyholders that won't have increased the fire, flood, earthquake, or other peril. further, they create a financial incentive to mitigate risk, it leads to safer more resilient communities and societies. bottom line is that a well functioning insurance industry is quite capable of addressing the national disaster risk that it faces today and in the future. i would also like to address plans to create a federally guaranteed pandemic risk insurance program. excuse me, as proposed, this program would be a -- risk insurance program or trio. as reminded, trio mandates that injures offered terrorism insurance and in the event of an attack the federal government there is an increasing share of the cost of claims depending on the severity. well a similar program for pandemics would be very very problematic. first of all, it's hard to imagine the insurers are well equipped to quickly distribute

hundreds or billions or maybe even trillions of federal dollars. recall that in a matter of months the paycheck protection program to distribute over half a trillion dollars by the banking system. thanks another financial institutions participated in a voluntary basis. compare that to the disastrous claims processing after super storm sandy. but more importantly, a federally guaranteed pandemic risk insurance program would encourage state and local governments to impose economically devastating shutdowns in the future. such a program when in fact incentivize state and local policy makers to quickly impose lockdowns with their jurisdictions, with the assurance that the federal government risk insurance program will bail them out. instead of considering policies all fissile take future lockdowns or repeat the mistakes of the past, we should be thinking about future mitigation measures that don't crush business workers and the economy, and don't harm our children's educations. let me conclude with this observation, a well functioning insurance industry is a critical component of economic prosperity and financial

security for all americans. everyone will be better off if we resist activists efforts to use insurance as a tool to pursue social policy goals. insurance is not a legitimate tool, as some have suggested, to decarbonize the -- or to mitigate wealth and equality. let's have ensures stick to the business of assurance. i look forward to discussing these issues today. >> thank you senator toomey. i'll introduce today's witnesses and then i'll begin their testimonies. the honorable kathleen is the marilyn insurance commissioner testifying on behalf of naic, she previously as a partner deal at -- and insurance administration in the maryland office of the attorney mr.'s even sites as the director of f iowa treasury. he joined f aisles director previously and worked up the office of the treasury and at the cftc. welcome to both of you. commissioner, please begin to

testimony. thank you. >> chairman brown, ranking member toomey, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. i'll use my time today to touch briefly on several issues we know of that interest members of the committee. first, we have an acting and monitoring the growth of -- our framework includes significant checks and balances to protect policyholders, including public disclosures, capital requirements, and conservative accounting requirements. which are used to assess all risks to, ensures, regardless of the type of ownership. as ensures of all types are searching for investment yield, to avoid raising prices, insurance regulators are reviewing existing guidelines and considering new requirements to ensure our ability to assess and address the risk of policyholders. the nfc is working with 13 regulatory considerations, applicable to both private equity owned ensures and other

insurers with similar features. we have extensive data reporting and analytical capabilities to review and assess alternative investments or unique structures and are continuing to refine those tools. we are confident in our system to appropriately oversee ensures, no matter how they are structured. we will certainly keep the committee a prize of our work in that regard. next, insurance regulators also recognize the importance of cybersecurity risk management and continue to upgrade data security safeguards. the any eye sees insurance data security model updates regulatory requirements relating to data security, the investment of a cyber event, and the notification to state insurance commissioners of cyber events, states continue to adopt the model, which now covers 83% of the market, as measured by gross written premium. the ending i.c.e. also created a new innovation cybersecurity and technology, h committee, which i chair, to address the

insurance implications of emerging technologies and cybersecurity. to ensure coordination and consistency among insurance regulators. the nerc also continues to facilitate tabletop exercises with insurers regulators andr pe risk. the naic facilitated -- which is now aligned to be -- these disclosures cover 80% of the market by premium help insurance assess risk and actions to mitigate crime -- climates risk. we recommended that wildfires be explicitly added to the framework for catastrophe risk exposure. we are creating a catastrophe model center of excellence to provide insurance regulators to access of information and training. another area of act