Transcripts For CSPAN3 Broadband 20240703 : vimarsana.com

The chair recognizes five minutes for an opening statement. Thank you for the witnesses for being here today. Americans rely on Internet Connectivity for work, education, healthcare. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars, Many Americans are still without a reliable broadband connection. Closing this divide is a bipartisan priority and significant federal resources have been dedicated to this effort. Unfortunately, a problem that requires an efficient response is overwhelming and scattered federal funding response as Ronald Reagan said, the government is not the solution to the problem but is the problem. In may of 2022, the Government Accountability office found there were over 130 broadband programs across 15 federal Government Agencies. These programs, the broadband equity access created an Infrastructure Investment and jobs and missed 42. 45 billion. One of the Top Priorities is making sure these programs administered effectively so that money dedicated to closing the Digital Divide achieves its goal. The main concern about whether that will happen. Some of these programs including outside trade of regular order, there is no discussion of 42 billion is the right number or debate on how the program should be administered. Very little of this money if any will support Rural Wireless carriers and provide Critical Services. Am also concerned that rising cost of labor and equipment will create changes taking money required for appointment. And i worry that the federal government will waste this opportunity to connect all americans. Oversight of these existing programs is crucial for the success. We also need to look toward the future to consider what federal funding for broadband should look like when programs like this conclude. For example, the universal service fund was created in 1997 and distributes approximately 8 billion per year. This supports four broadband programs starting in high cost areas, low income households and rural healthcare facilities. Many small world providers are dependent on the deployment and unserved areas. Over the past few years however, congress has been spending billions of dollars with the same efforts through the emergency connectivity fund, the Affordable Connectivity Program and covid telehealth programs. Congress needs to address whether we still need the usf and if so, what it should look like. This includes addressing what programs the usf should fund, how the usf should be funded and what reforms they need to do to ensure programs are running successfully and without waste, fraud or abuse. These are important questions for congress to consider. Answering them will require a serious bipartisan discussion. And pleased to announce today that the Ranking Member of the subcommittee and i are joining the bipartisan universal working group. I look forward to hearing from stakeholders in working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the capital to find a solution that will ensure sustainable economy universal service for years to come here todays hearing is looking toward the future of federal broad bid programs. I look forward from hearing the witnesses and i also thank you for being with us today. At this time, i worked to recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the gentle lady from california for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chair and i would like to welcome the witnesses who are here today. This is an issue that should be familiar to all members of the subcommittee. We had a version of this hearing before and we will need to keep having them and make sure all americans have equal access to the broadband regardless of their zip code. This issue is also very personal to me although i have a large urban footprint in my district, i also have small towns desperate for modern Internet Connectivity. When im back home, the people i meet can literally tell me neighborhood by neighborhood where the connectivity is and where there is not. But for far too long, their local knowledge has been undervalued and the request for service has fallen on deaf ears. Thankfully, congress acted and im more hopeful then i have ever been that we will be getting then the conductivity they deserve. The bipartisan infrastructure act provides 65 billion to expand access to broadband to new deployment and adoption efforts. This includes 42 billion for the program which supports the deployment of new broadband infrastructure projects. It addresses the fundamental impediment to broadband deployment economics. Rural areas are more spread out and companies that are private cannot afford to deploy or operate a network. Those areas, they dont provide the needed support to connect these residents. Is the single most powerful tool that we have to connect the unserved constituents. But it is imperative that we take a holistic look at the broadband support mechanisms to make sure they are solvent. That is i am excited to join representative of the house and the Bipartisan Working Group to modernize the universal service fund. The usf is one of the most effective models of extending expanding connectivity, whether it is rural areas or schools to support telemedicine or low income families, usf is connecting americans. However, without reform, usfs future is uncertain. Usf is the bedrock of a communication policy in the u. S. And it is imperative that we get it on solid footing. That is why the working group is so important. It shows that there are bipartisan, bicameral willingness to address these issues had on. I am excited that we will be joining the Ranking Members to advance this effort. And as we all know, usf isnt the only area that needs immediate attention. The Affordable Connectivity Program is helping millions of families with broadband connection. Whether it is for the first time or if you need a little help making ends meet, this program is working. But without additional funding, more than 21 million households could lose connectivity. The funding is set to be completed early next year and they should know that this is a service that could be going out in the height of the Holiday Season in december. That is a present none of us constituents deserve to receive. And committed to doing everything i can to find Additional Support to give us time to find a lasting solution to sustain this. It is a Bipartisan Program that helps rural and urban families alike and must be continued. Am also looking forward to a meaningful discussion about Broadband Access and if it is not just access and affordability but also adoption. My Digital Equity Foundation Act for establishing a Nonprofit Foundation that would channel public and private investments into Broadband Adoption efforts to close the Digital Divide. Not only because it is the right thing to do but because increased adoption means more broadband customers, which improves the Business Case for isp. So it is a vital leg of the conductivity and needs to be part of the discussion today. With that, and want to thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to the discussions and i yelled back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from washington. Five minutes please. Thank you mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses. Broadband conductivity is becoming essential for americans. People need to anticipate the bills and content of education and open a business or more. Get there are still so many communities, particularly in rural areas that lack a reliable connection that includes many in my district in eastern washington. Energy and commerce is committed to supporting policies that lead to better and faster Internet Access. Today, there are more than 130 federal broadband programs. Congress has dedicated an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars for funding the programs in recent years which include the 65 billion for broadband deployment, affordability and adoption in the iija, as well as existing programs such as the universal service fund or usf. As resources are made available and new funding programs are considered, be assured of taxpayer dollars are not being wasted or duplicated. The usf for instance has helped Internet Service providers connect rural homes and health centers, schools, libraries and low income americans across the country for more than 25 years. Now with some the other programs working to achieve the same or similar goal, it is important that we evaluate the necessities of the usf and consider what it should support to ensure federal resources are achieving the intended purpose. And that efforts are not being duplicated. When we address those questions, we can turn to how we fund usf. Usf is funded by contributions from providers based on resources that are declining causing the contribution factor to increase. In fact, next quarter, the contribution factor will hit a new record. The cost ultimately increases the cost of services. This means that americans will soon see the highest ever usf fee on their phone bills. This is not sustainable. Consider the future of the usf. It is important that we develop a Stable Funding mechanism that meets the needs of the program without raising cost for hard working americans. The affordable conductivity program or acp, it is also important in the context of todays discussion. This covid era program was supposed to be a temporary band aid to help families economically impacted by the pandemic that they connected to broadband. In congress, they made it permanent and has given it over 17 billion. That money will soon run out and we must consider the programs future. The program is in addition to the lifelong lifeline program, federal Subsidy Program under usf designed to ensure that low income americans can afford broadband and television service. Congress has a responsibility to make sure that these programs run effectively. And i do have questions about which program is most effective. However, to be consolidated or streamlined. And when a federal Subsidy Program for lowincome americans and what it should look like going forward. Analyzing duplicative spending, waste and fraud will make sure resources are using efficiently and serving as many people as possible. Otherwise, without careful evaluation careful evaluation, americans watch from a distance as technologies advance and kids will grow up without access to online Educational Resources and this part of Rural America will be left behind. As the Digital Economy booms and urban centers and across the globe. Todays hearing is an important step as we look to the future of Rural Broadband funding. All of us here share the same goal, ensuring conductivity for every american. This will improve life, strengthen the economy and ensure america wins the future. I look forward to our discussion and i think the witnesses for being here. I yelled back. Thank you. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the full committee for five minutes. Thank you chair. Today we continue to work the work of the committee and congress to make highspeed Internet Service available and affordable to all americans. We took a major step in making this a reality as a bipartisan infrastructure law and no one on the republican side is investing to bring high speed, reliable and affordable internet to every american household. That is critical because 24 million households today lack Internet Service in rural and tribal areas are further behind the divide. Thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law, National Telecommunications and Information Administration nta will begin to distribute more than 42 billion to all 50 states, d. C. And the u. S. Territories. This money will go first areas completely underserved. Communities the private market. These service will allow the community to grow their economies for the future and compete with areas that have had Broadband Access for years. And widely investing in technology for the future and not technology in need of replacement in just a few years. Even when the transformational investments bring Internet Service to the most rural and remote areas of the country, the mission of connecting all americans is far from finished. It remains to be one of the most prevalent reasons americans dont subscribe to broadband. They simply cant afford it. This is particularly true in Rural America where a variety of factors often lead to higher prices and lower speed. Is troubling when we have a strong correlation between Broadband Availability and positive economic outcome. The availability of High Speed Broadband Network opens the door to higher employment and creates better environments for business. Broadband adoption, actually signing up for the service and being able to afford each month is linked to higher incomes and lower poverty rates, civic and Community Engagement and enhancingeducational opportunities and better worker productivity. It is a bridge across the Digital Divide that connects communities and individuals with the opportunities for prosperity. The work to close the divide is not necessarily finished just because of these towers and other channels. The bipartisan infrastructure will address broadband affordability by creating the 14. 2 billion affordable conductivity program. This program is the largest and most Successful Program to address broadband affordability that we have seen. 21 million households benefit from the program almost equally and both in republican and democratic districts. And the fcc has reported that local households are signing up for the higher rates than urban households. We should all keep this in mind as we inch closer to the looming digital cliff of the affordable conductivity Program Running dry. The program has been so successful signing people up that it will run out of money sooner then we originally thought it would. Projections indicate the fund will be depleted early next year. If that estimate holds true, providers might have to start sending 90 day shutoff notices to consumers as early as december, the height of the Holiday Season informing them that they will lose the benefit in the monthly internet bill will go up. For many, this is out of reach and we simply cannot allow this to happen. So i hope democrats and republicans can come together to replenish the fund this year so that the 21 million americans and all Congressional Districts can continue to afford Internet Service. We usually talk to the committee about the opportunity and for those on the wrong end of the Digital Divide. We need to make sure the old communities have equal access to robust affordable Internet Service with the skills necessary to take advantage. I hope this is the beginning of a conversation about how the fcc universal service fund can continue to broach bridge the gaps in the country for years to come. I look forward to the opportunity to discussing the nations continued needs and the role that the usf program is playing and ensuring universal conductivity for all americans. I yelled back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. That will conclude the Opening Statements from the members. We will now turn to the witnesses who are with us today. We have the president and ceo of u. S. Telecom, mr. Justin 40, Vice President for medco. Mr. Scott walton, president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy institute and sara nichols, senior planner for Regional Council government. The chair also want the witnesses to know that the timer light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining and will turn red when your time has expired. And you are now recognized for five minutes for Opening Statements. Thank you chairman and Ranking Members. Thank you for the invitation to join this really important conversation. And proud to be here on behalf of u. S. Telecom for the broadband association. The Diverse Membership brings us to the publicly traded companies to Regional Companies and coops. Many of which have rural roots that go back literally generations. Our members truly have been leaders in connecting Rural America so we appreciate the opportunity for putting our experience and perspective. This morning. Federal funding for Internet Connectivity<\/a> for work, education, healthcare. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars, Many Americans<\/a> are still without a reliable broadband connection. Closing this divide is a bipartisan priority and significant federal resources have been dedicated to this effort. Unfortunately, a problem that requires an efficient response is overwhelming and scattered federal funding response as Ronald Reagan<\/a> said, the government is not the solution to the problem but is the problem. In may of 2022, the Government Accountability<\/a> office found there were over 130 broadband programs across 15 federal Government Agencies<\/a>. These programs, the broadband equity access created an Infrastructure Investment<\/a> and jobs and missed 42. 45 billion. One of the Top Priorities<\/a> is making sure these programs administered effectively so that money dedicated to closing the Digital Divide<\/a> achieves its goal. The main concern about whether that will happen. Some of these programs including outside trade of regular order, there is no discussion of 42 billion is the right number or debate on how the program should be administered. Very little of this money if any will support Rural Wireless<\/a> carriers and provide Critical Services<\/a>. Am also concerned that rising cost of labor and equipment will create changes taking money required for appointment. And i worry that the federal government will waste this opportunity to connect all americans. Oversight of these existing programs is crucial for the success. We also need to look toward the future to consider what federal funding for broadband should look like when programs like this conclude. For example, the universal service fund was created in 1997 and distributes approximately 8 billion per year. This supports four broadband programs starting in high cost areas, low income households and rural healthcare facilities. Many small world providers are dependent on the deployment and unserved areas. Over the past few years however, congress has been spending billions of dollars with the same efforts through the emergency connectivity fund, the Affordable Connectivity Program<\/a> and covid telehealth programs. Congress needs to address whether we still need the usf and if so, what it should look like. This includes addressing what programs the usf should fund, how the usf should be funded and what reforms they need to do to ensure programs are running successfully and without waste, fraud or abuse. These are important questions for congress to consider. Answering them will require a serious bipartisan discussion. And pleased to announce today that the Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee and i are joining the bipartisan universal working group. I look forward to hearing from stakeholders in working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the capital to find a solution that will ensure sustainable economy universal service for years to come here todays hearing is looking toward the future of federal broad bid programs. I look forward from hearing the witnesses and i also thank you for being with us today. At this time, i worked to recognize the Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee, the gentle lady from california for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chair and i would like to welcome the witnesses who are here today. This is an issue that should be familiar to all members of the subcommittee. We had a version of this hearing before and we will need to keep having them and make sure all americans have equal access to the broadband regardless of their zip code. This issue is also very personal to me although i have a large urban footprint in my district, i also have small towns desperate for modern Internet Connectivity<\/a>. When im back home, the people i meet can literally tell me neighborhood by neighborhood where the connectivity is and where there is not. But for far too long, their local knowledge has been undervalued and the request for service has fallen on deaf ears. Thankfully, congress acted and im more hopeful then i have ever been that we will be getting then the conductivity they deserve. The bipartisan infrastructure act provides 65 billion to expand access to broadband to new deployment and adoption efforts. This includes 42 billion for the program which supports the deployment of new broadband infrastructure projects. It addresses the fundamental impediment to broadband deployment economics. Rural areas are more spread out and companies that are private cannot afford to deploy or operate a network. Those areas, they dont provide the needed support to connect these residents. Is the single most powerful tool that we have to connect the unserved constituents. But it is imperative that we take a holistic look at the broadband support mechanisms to make sure they are solvent. That is i am excited to join representative of the house and the Bipartisan Working Group<\/a> to modernize the universal service fund. The usf is one of the most effective models of extending expanding connectivity, whether it is rural areas or schools to support telemedicine or low income families, usf is connecting americans. However, without reform, usfs future is uncertain. Usf is the bedrock of a communication policy in the u. S. And it is imperative that we get it on solid footing. That is why the working group is so important. It shows that there are bipartisan, bicameral willingness to address these issues had on. I am excited that we will be joining the Ranking Member<\/a>s to advance this effort. And as we all know, usf isnt the only area that needs immediate attention. The Affordable Connectivity Program<\/a> is helping millions of families with broadband connection. Whether it is for the first time or if you need a little help making ends meet, this program is working. But without additional funding, more than 21 million households could lose connectivity. The funding is set to be completed early next year and they should know that this is a service that could be going out in the height of the Holiday Season<\/a> in december. That is a present none of us constituents deserve to receive. And committed to doing everything i can to find Additional Support<\/a> to give us time to find a lasting solution to sustain this. It is a Bipartisan Program<\/a> that helps rural and urban families alike and must be continued. Am also looking forward to a meaningful discussion about Broadband Access<\/a> and if it is not just access and affordability but also adoption. My Digital Equity<\/a> Foundation Act<\/a> for establishing a Nonprofit Foundation<\/a> that would channel public and private investments into Broadband Adoption<\/a> efforts to close the Digital Divide<\/a>. Not only because it is the right thing to do but because increased adoption means more broadband customers, which improves the Business Case<\/a> for isp. So it is a vital leg of the conductivity and needs to be part of the discussion today. With that, and want to thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to the discussions and i yelled back. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from washington. Five minutes please. Thank you mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses. Broadband conductivity is becoming essential for americans. People need to anticipate the bills and content of education and open a business or more. Get there are still so many communities, particularly in rural areas that lack a reliable connection that includes many in my district in eastern washington. Energy and commerce is committed to supporting policies that lead to better and faster Internet Access<\/a>. Today, there are more than 130 federal broadband programs. Congress has dedicated an unprecedented amount of taxpayer dollars for funding the programs in recent years which include the 65 billion for broadband deployment, affordability and adoption in the iija, as well as existing programs such as the universal service fund or usf. As resources are made available and new funding programs are considered, be assured of taxpayer dollars are not being wasted or duplicated. The usf for instance has helped Internet Service<\/a> providers connect rural homes and health centers, schools, libraries and low income americans across the country for more than 25 years. Now with some the other programs working to achieve the same or similar goal, it is important that we evaluate the necessities of the usf and consider what it should support to ensure federal resources are achieving the intended purpose. And that efforts are not being duplicated. When we address those questions, we can turn to how we fund usf. Usf is funded by contributions from providers based on resources that are declining causing the contribution factor to increase. In fact, next quarter, the contribution factor will hit a new record. The cost ultimately increases the cost of services. This means that americans will soon see the highest ever usf fee on their phone bills. This is not sustainable. Consider the future of the usf. It is important that we develop a Stable Funding<\/a> mechanism that meets the needs of the program without raising cost for hard working americans. The affordable conductivity program or acp, it is also important in the context of todays discussion. This covid era program was supposed to be a temporary band aid to help families economically impacted by the pandemic that they connected to broadband. In congress, they made it permanent and has given it over 17 billion. That money will soon run out and we must consider the programs future. The program is in addition to the lifelong lifeline program, federal Subsidy Program<\/a> under usf designed to ensure that low income americans can afford broadband and television service. Congress has a responsibility to make sure that these programs run effectively. And i do have questions about which program is most effective. However, to be consolidated or streamlined. And when a federal Subsidy Program<\/a> for lowincome americans and what it should look like going forward. Analyzing duplicative spending, waste and fraud will make sure resources are using efficiently and serving as many people as possible. Otherwise, without careful evaluation careful evaluation, americans watch from a distance as technologies advance and kids will grow up without access to online Educational Resources<\/a> and this part of Rural America<\/a> will be left behind. As the Digital Economy<\/a> booms and urban centers and across the globe. Todays hearing is an important step as we look to the future of Rural Broadband<\/a> funding. All of us here share the same goal, ensuring conductivity for every american. This will improve life, strengthen the economy and ensure america wins the future. I look forward to our discussion and i think the witnesses for being here. I yelled back. Thank you. The chair recognizes the Ranking Member<\/a> of the full committee for five minutes. Thank you chair. Today we continue to work the work of the committee and congress to make highspeed Internet Service<\/a> available and affordable to all americans. We took a major step in making this a reality as a bipartisan infrastructure law and no one on the republican side is investing to bring high speed, reliable and affordable internet to every american household. That is critical because 24 million households today lack Internet Service<\/a> in rural and tribal areas are further behind the divide. Thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law, National Telecommunications<\/a> and Information Administration<\/a> nta will begin to distribute more than 42 billion to all 50 states, d. C. And the u. S. Territories. This money will go first areas completely underserved. Communities the private market. These service will allow the community to grow their economies for the future and compete with areas that have had Broadband Access<\/a> for years. And widely investing in technology for the future and not technology in need of replacement in just a few years. Even when the transformational investments bring Internet Service<\/a> to the most rural and remote areas of the country, the mission of connecting all americans is far from finished. It remains to be one of the most prevalent reasons americans dont subscribe to broadband. They simply cant afford it. This is particularly true in Rural America<\/a> where a variety of factors often lead to higher prices and lower speed. Is troubling when we have a strong correlation between Broadband Availability<\/a> and positive economic outcome. The availability of High Speed Broadband Network<\/a> opens the door to higher employment and creates better environments for business. Broadband adoption, actually signing up for the service and being able to afford each month is linked to higher incomes and lower poverty rates, civic and Community Engagement<\/a> and enhancingeducational opportunities and better worker productivity. It is a bridge across the Digital Divide<\/a> that connects communities and individuals with the opportunities for prosperity. The work to close the divide is not necessarily finished just because of these towers and other channels. The bipartisan infrastructure will address broadband affordability by creating the 14. 2 billion affordable conductivity program. This program is the largest and most Successful Program<\/a> to address broadband affordability that we have seen. 21 million households benefit from the program almost equally and both in republican and democratic districts. And the fcc has reported that local households are signing up for the higher rates than urban households. We should all keep this in mind as we inch closer to the looming digital cliff of the affordable conductivity Program Running<\/a> dry. The program has been so successful signing people up that it will run out of money sooner then we originally thought it would. Projections indicate the fund will be depleted early next year. If that estimate holds true, providers might have to start sending 90 day shutoff notices to consumers as early as december, the height of the Holiday Season<\/a> informing them that they will lose the benefit in the monthly internet bill will go up. For many, this is out of reach and we simply cannot allow this to happen. So i hope democrats and republicans can come together to replenish the fund this year so that the 21 million americans and all Congressional District<\/a>s can continue to afford Internet Service<\/a>. We usually talk to the committee about the opportunity and for those on the wrong end of the Digital Divide<\/a>. We need to make sure the old communities have equal access to robust affordable Internet Service<\/a> with the skills necessary to take advantage. I hope this is the beginning of a conversation about how the fcc universal service fund can continue to broach bridge the gaps in the country for years to come. I look forward to the opportunity to discussing the nations continued needs and the role that the usf program is playing and ensuring universal conductivity for all americans. I yelled back. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. That will conclude the Opening Statements<\/a> from the members. We will now turn to the witnesses who are with us today. We have the president and ceo of u. S. Telecom, mr. Justin 40, Vice President<\/a> for medco. Mr. Scott walton, president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy<\/a> institute and sara nichols, senior planner for Regional Council<\/a> government. The chair also want the witnesses to know that the timer light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining and will turn red when your time has expired. And you are now recognized for five minutes for Opening Statements<\/a>. Thank you chairman and Ranking Member<\/a>s. Thank you for the invitation to join this really important conversation. And proud to be here on behalf of u. S. Telecom for the broadband association. The Diverse Membership<\/a> brings us to the publicly traded companies to Regional Companies<\/a> and coops. Many of which have rural roots that go back literally generations. Our members truly have been leaders in connecting Rural America<\/a> so we appreciate the opportunity for putting our experience and perspective. This morning. Federal funding for Rural Broadband<\/a> really is critical, particularly for remote areas or Broadband Service<\/a> would otherwise not exist. These are sparsely populated parts of the country where the economics are building and maintaining Network Infrastructure<\/a> for miles and often challenging terrain simply do not add up unless the private sector and the government Work Together<\/a> shoulder to shoulder. A number of programs as used in this partnership. The chief among them is the universal service fund which includes funding to build and maintain login networks and connect Rural America<\/a>ns with power and promise of broadband. The acp helps ensure that low income families throughout the country are able to benefit from highspeed conductivity and the ones in a Generation Program<\/a> will b will help connect even more of the community. The question we have before us is how can our commitment to universal conductivity be secured and strengthened the long run . There are many challenges that come for this body and they do not have obvious solutions. But this one does. And it comes in three parts. Briefly. First, until a longterm solution is established to fund the acp, congress should find funding for the critical program. Today, nearly 21 million low income households in each and every one of the 50 states count on the acp to pay for Broadband Service<\/a>. And it is now with existing funds likely depleting early next year. Second, there is absolutely no question that the current contribution system needs to be a lot of noise to make those universal conductivity goals. To start, congress should give the fcc the authority to expand usf contribution including Tech Companies<\/a> that are the primary beneficiaries of the nations universal conductivity and not contribute to the fund. Broadening the base of u. S. Contributors in this way would minimize the burden on any one set of companies and by stabilizing the funds for the long term, the reform would ensure resources continue to be available and keep Rural Communities<\/a> connected, helping to maintain and upgrade Critical Infrastructure<\/a> over time for those who may question the value of universal service, i recently heard from one of our small broadband providers of edward u. S. Telecom and rural texas and without usf funding, prices for service would increase roughly 20000 per customer 3000 per customer. Congress should ensure effective limitation of the program to scratch taxpayer dollars and connect to many unserved or underserved homes and businesses as possible. This includes streamlining permitting, minimizing burdensome rules, maximizing provider participation and prioritizing experienced providers, experience matters. Unlike government owned networks, private sector providers have a proven track record of successfully building and operating networks that bridge the Digital Divide<\/a>. And i stated that this is a moment that matters u. S. Telecom and its members stand ready, willing and able to be constructive partners with the future of Rural Broadband<\/a>. I am an optimist that we will get the job done and happy of course to take any questions that you have. Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. You are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. Thank you members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today. My name is justin 20. Im the Vice President<\/a> of governor Government Relations<\/a> at medco. For the datacenter and Advertising Services<\/a> across five states. Kansas, minnesota, north dakota, south dakota, wisconsin. The majority of the number of 50 communities we serve are very rural. And we have invested more than 765 million in private capital in the last six years to upgrade the Fiber Network<\/a>. And proud to say that 100 of these homes and businesses have access. But the challenge of connecting of the homes and businesses that dont yet have any Internet Service<\/a> still exists. In the last two years, the federal government devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to create programs to get broadband infrastructure to the areas that lack. We cannot waste this opportunity by allowing the programs to lose focus or fail. There are seven pillars in the effort that we believe are key to achieving the nations collective goal of getting broadband to all americans. First, target fund areas truly lacking service. Grubbing program should target funding to areas where private investment is not going to occur. A High Percentage<\/a> of homes in the proposed project area should like service to qualify. Some Programs Fund<\/a> areas where 50 of the households already have Broadband Service<\/a>. Again, this takes funding away from areas that are truly underserved. Funding should also not be awarded in areas that are being built out because of other government awards or private investment. This was overbilled by reconnect and south dakota even though we were building a network that was funded by the ftc. Because they had not yet finished construction, the area was deemed unserved by usda. Thresholds also matter. Areas should only be eligible if they dont receive the basic level of rugby and service. Otherwise, providers will naturally pursue projects were upgrade services or overbuilt areas that already have Broadband Service<\/a>. Unserved areas again are at the back of the line. Number two, enabling ist participation. All programs should occur to the broadest position of qualified providers. Some programs have advantage government network, nonprofits or cooperatives the legal structure. This should be reserved for providers with a proven track record to get the job done right. Number three, coordinate approach. With numerous federal agencies in nearly all states dedicating funding to broadband deployment, the government must establish better communication and do not duplicate efforts. Programs, eligibility standards and requirements should be as consistent as possible to the applicant do not have to shop for the least restrictive program. Recently challenged parents under the reconnect program in north dakota. However, the provider took the exact same applications and applied for arpa funding to overbuilt areas that nitco serves great number four, remove regulatory impediments. Administering funding for programs must resist the temptation to layer on policies and regulations. Regulation interconnection and open Access Requirements<\/a> and burdensome labor rules discourage applicants like nitco from applying. Number five, no barriers to broadband clinic. When we secure an award, we must be specific or we risk forfeiting the funding. First we have to have the requirements to even gain the necessary access to the right ways to begin construction. We may have to rely on others for deployment. His regulations need to be streamlined. Number six. Cubanamericans connected. This acp Program Grants<\/a> low income households the subsidy and this has been a success. This is new services tailored to acp requirements, identifying qualifying households and help educate families about the opportunities broadband offers. Yet only a year later, the Program Risks<\/a> losing continued funding. Finally, lets retool before we refuel. When this tremendous influx of funds is in the market place, congress should evaluate its impact as to whether or not a program that is supported can be reduced or even eliminated. In particular, given the acp imposes substantial fee burdens directly on consumers, congress on the fcc should evaluate distribution reform. And weather continued distributions are needed or appropriated before considering any contribution reform pick in closing, i commend the subcommittee for its interest in ensuring that this post world looks different from the marketplace we see today. Thank you again for inviting me here. Thank you for your testimony. You are recognized for five minutes. Ranking members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today for broadband funding. My name is scott walston. And the president and senior fellow at the Technology Policy<\/a> institute. I have a phd in economics from stanford and i spent decades researching universal Service Programs<\/a> that were published widely on the topic. I hope my comments here today will be helpful. The act of 1996 and we have poured 100 billion into rural telecoms including broadband in 2011 yet independent and government studies find that we have little to show for that investment. Recent legislation has added another 100 billion, about 70 billion of which target rural buildout and as chair rogers noted, the recent notification of over 130 broadband Subsidy Program<\/a>s the cost 15 agencies. As many have said, this is a onceinalifetime opportunity to bridge the Digital Divide<\/a>. And although a lot of money is available, it is not infinite. And in any event, should be sent carefully and cost effectively. While state and failure federal agency staff are dedicated and working hard, i believe we are mostly not doing what is necessary. Research and experience suggests we should follow the following four guidelines. First, use competitive mechanisms to distribute money. It spurs competition and stretches dollars. We have served subsidy caused by over 50 . I know these options with reverse are not popular at the moment because of the problems in the world. But this is to weak eligibility rules. This will generate the most costeffective outcomes. Two, demand rigorous, unbiased evaluation. The vital measure is the real world of subsidies. It goes beyond merely verifying if recipients kept their promises. That is compliant. Which is important but not evaluation. Comparisons between a subsidized and unsubsidized area or whether trend lines have changed because of subsidies give us a real understanding of whether the subsidy made a difference. Originally, such studies should be billed to the programs on the beginning. Three, focus on broadband specifications based on what people want and value and not with the Technology Behind<\/a> it. For example, my research and that of others finds that people value speed increases. For example, jumping from one megabit per second up to 10 per second makes a huge difference and they value that a lot. Moving from 100 megabits per second to one gigabit, they value it but not as much for that increase. Additionally, times of service being available is important. Think about a family in a high cost area that has no service currently. Is a 120 connection tomorrow worthless to that family without service as opposed to a gigabyte connection in three years . I dont know the answer. But we can find out and let realworld guidance show us. Or we dont want the universal service fund to grow. In this area an air of new competition, it should be getting stronger. We must give reasons to ask for more later. For example, regular prices to satisfy vaguely defined terms like middleclass affordability. And arguing that they were required to operate in unprofitable network. Lets please not smart now to reduce the chances for these long time subsidies. We put a lot of taxpayer dollars on the table and i hope these guidelines will help policymakers invest the money carefully and efficiently yielding the maximum benefit possible. Thank you for your time and im happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your testimony. And ms. Nichols, you are recognized for five minutes. Chair and Ranking Member<\/a>, chair morris, rogers, Ranking Member<\/a>s and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to speak about the importance of Rural Broadband<\/a> and Digital Equity<\/a> funding. My name is sara nichols pick a senior planner who specializes in broadband and digital inclusion. I work this the Regional Council<\/a>, a local government develop a district that serves rural, mountainous counties in the Appalachian Region<\/a> of Western North<\/a> carolina. One of our regions greatest challenges is the lack of access to broadband. Broadband is essential to our residents. Especially those living in the most rural areas where broadband holds power to less lesson barriers posed by geographical differences. Broadband helps People Living<\/a> in our communities, work, learn, connect with loved ones and Access Healthcare<\/a> and Government Services<\/a> to get 13,000 households in the region still lack reliable broadband. My work is to make sure these committees are seen, heard and represented so the region will have all the opportunity and tools we need to thrive. In order to achieve this, we need a holistic approach to the Digital Divide<\/a> that includes infrastructure, affordability, devices and skills. Today, i want to address two key points. The importance of the affordable conductivity program and the need for continued funding for fiber, especially in Rural Communities<\/a>. First, i will address acp. Poverty is everywhere but higher in Rural America<\/a>. In our region, the reason most people cant adapt service is due to lack of affordability. This impacts more households than the lack of infrastructure alone. Acp has been an important part of the solution to this challenge. For example, there are 39,000 households enrolled in nc11. Even though the program is new, it has connected 21 million households to broadband across the country. It is a program we simply cannot afford to lose. For the more, Internet Service<\/a> providers in the region can deploy at a lower cost because they can anticipate higher adoption rates and low income areas. Despite its importance, the future of acp is in jeopardy. If congress does not renew it, it is excited to run out of funds and cease to exist. If this happens, it will lead to higher cross cost and the structure and flow down infrastructure and people have to wait longer to have broadband in their homes. And renewing acp, i recommend that congress consider making adjustments. And summaries of the region, 30 subsidy is enough to cover the cost of the service. In other areas, the subsidy is not nearly sufficient. I want to address the importance of continuing to invest in broadband infrastructure. Challenging terrain and low population density in the region makes broadband deployment expensive. As we continue to serve areas that have been overlooked, we can only expect that the costs will continue to increase. The Rural Communities<\/a> know to ask for fiber because other technologies failed them. Other fiber is the most expensive to deploy. Recent funding opportunities like the American Rescue<\/a> plan and the bipartisan infrastructure law has given us a chance for those connectivity issues. The opportunity for increased fiber empowers the rural areas to compete on a level Playing Field<\/a> with the urban counterparts and strengthening other technologies. We are extremely grateful for the immense support from congress toward closing the Digital Divide<\/a>. But this is not over. We need more funding to build fiber, not just in the last mile but middle Mile Networks<\/a> that connect the communities. Additionally, we are appreciative for the diversity of broadband programs but need congress is and their help to increase the efficiency of nationwide deployment. I urge you to continue to invest in broadband acp and Digital Equity<\/a> because the work is not over. It needs to evolve. And making these investments and your making a promise to the future, children and quality of life are worth investing in. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in raising awareness on this important issue. I look forward to answering any questions. Thank you for your opening statement. That includes the Opening Statements<\/a> for the witnesses which will now proceed to questions by the members of the subcommittee. I will recognize myself for five minutes. In 2020, congress created a number of new programs to create and give broadcast broadband needs for schools, hospitals and telehealth. We funded these for years to the universal service fund. Under recent broadband spending, do we still need the universal service fund and if so, which programs should continue . I certainly think we need to go back and evaluate the universal Service Program<\/a> and evaluate each of the programs to see which ones are truly needed in the service territories. For example, in the dakotas, the High Cost Program<\/a>, we serve the exact same areas. People that receive high cost under usf and that is to the tune of 1. 3 billion for high cost support. They could take over serving the entire areas and save the federal government 1. 3 billion under that scenario. Also, in regards to the low Income Program<\/a>s, as we touched on, one program that serves and works well for consumers and works well for providers, and works well for the government is what we need for low income. A Simple Program<\/a> that works for all to make sure we can keep all the folks connected. Wes welker and dr. Walston, what reforms from the usf should congress consider . What reforms should usf should congress consider . We have a great opportunity to move forward with the significant performance to usf. We need to move usf into the modern activity landscape and i think there are two fundamental things we need to do in order to be able to do so. First is Congress Needs<\/a> to provide Clear Authority<\/a> that it needs to be able to expand the contribution based. That is absolutely fundamental. We believe the contribution base should be expanded to not only include broadband providers but essentially must include dominant, internet big Tech Companies<\/a> that still do not contribute to americas quest for digital conductivity, affordability and equity. These will be essential mechanisms to actually have a sustainable usf program. One that will be able to fulfill its purpose of providing the funds necessary to ensure that our investments and Broadband Access<\/a> can be sustainable, durable and intact over time. Dr. Walston. Thank you for that question. I think the first thing we need to do is be aware that we should let it get smaller which is just about impossible currently because the rules themselves prevented. The 2011 reforms for the High Cost Program<\/a> set a floor on the amount of money the sec had to collect. The amount had been decreasing up to that point. So that needs to change for one thing. So that it can get smaller. As new competition comes online, it should be getting smaller. The areas that cannot support competitive broadband, there are fewer and fewer areas over time. In another way to do that is requiring evaluation. Nothing in the universal service fund is evaluated currently. But not the high cost fund. And if we dont do that, we dont know how effective it is for independent evaluations which certify it isnt very effective and there is room to be more so. And third, which is much more difficult, is to remove cost based support. We know cost models are bad. They radically overestimate the cost of providing service. They are measured with area. People think these are accurate estimates but they are not. And we see that with Competitive Bidding<\/a> because the subsidies always come down. I know it is a really hard lift to ever do that. But it is crucial to the universal service fund. Thank you. My last 20 seconds remaining, a quick yes or no. Is important for all federal agencies to use the fcc broadband map . Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you very much. My time has expired. And i now recognize the gentle lady from california, Ranking Member<\/a> of the subcommittee, for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. The affordable conductivity program, acp, is successfully helping millet more than 20 million families with internet connection. Ms. Nichols, does the acp have an impact on rural areas and is the expiration of funds impact the likelihood of future rural buildout . Thank you for the question. Yes. Rural households are disproportionately, have been systemically challenged by poverty issues. They are more likely to qualify for acp and participate in it if they have the broadband infrastructure to do so. Thank you. We know that in rural areas, the cost of broadband is high. And we talked about the impact the acp benefit can have . Yes. Can you repeat the question . Can you talk about the impact the acp benefit can have on consumers depending on the market they live in . Yes. Structure in rural areas is very high. We encourage providers to offer affordability plans in those areas. The real challenge is that they need to make their money back and they need to be the business of the provider. By offering the acp program, you lower their cost to infrastructure and allow the buy in. Thank you. The bipartisan infrastructure law established the program which is the single best tool to close the Digital Divide<\/a> we have had in years. Based on putting this funding to use, and i know members in both red and blue districts are excited about the conductivity. There have already been calls for states to return the funding. Yes or no. Do you think all funding appropriated for the program should be used to increase Broadband Access<\/a> . Absolutely, yes. Wonderful. Do you have concerns that if states are pressured to give up broadband funding for other causes like paying down the National Debt<\/a>, we could leave households unconnected . We unquestionably will leave households unconnected if we do so. Thank you very much. The Sacramento Region<\/a> is home to some of the most innovation. We are strengthening the pipeline from the laboratory to laboratory to the field and working on developments that will make a difference for farmers and consumers. The institute for food systems at uc davis is developing inexpensive wireless sensors to help. Miss nichols, given the rich history and agriculture, you believe connectivity and cropland would help the region better compete with larger players over the next few decades, a simple yes or no. Yes. Miss nichols, can you discuss the relationship between connectivity on farms and the ability of rural areas to attack attract younger talent . Yes. Advances in technology will help appeal to a younger audience. With the aging community, this is a critical component. Thank you. Introduce the Digital Equity<\/a> Foundation Act<\/a> to make sure Access Affordability<\/a> and adoption efforts receive the investments they need to succeed. While he made progress, this remains dependent on factors such as age, income and education and need to be addressed. Miss nichols, do you believe this should be a part of the conductivity alongside access and affordability . Yes. Can you talk about the relationship between adoption rates and broadband provider ability to serve the market . Adoption encourages infrastructure. As they work to close the Digital Divide<\/a>, it is imperative that the federal government as a partner and not an obstacle. And permitting can be extremely burdensome for public land. I introduce the digital application act to introduce needed transparency and accountability to the federal permitting process. The bill establishes a onestop shop online portal to make sure companies have the information they need to bring conductivity to communities. I am almost out of time. Perhaps my colleague can follow up later. Thank you very much. The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from washington for five minutes. Thank you. Today we have two Communication Programs<\/a> targeted at addressing Broadband Adoption<\/a> for low income households, acp and lifeline. Do we need two programs targeting the low income households . And if we do not, how should we address the duplication . Excellent question. In my perspective, the perspective is that we need to be able to extend the opportunities that the acp is now with 21 million households that have access to the program. The way we can do that i think is very straightforward. As i said in my indiscernible , we can have Congress Give<\/a> the fcc the authority that it requires to be able to expand the contribution base, integrating the acp within the usf program and their by allowing the potentially out of control contribution factor that will potentially bog down liability and longevity for the universal service on mechanisms. And in so doing, it can expand the contribution base efficiently to allow not only broadband but the development of big Tech Companies<\/a> to participate so that we would effectively fuse the affordable conductivity program with lifeline and do so in a way that would actually not require appropriated dollars from congress. Thank you. Dr. Wallenstein and mr. 40, do you agree . Yes. I think that when you look at the programs, one program is usually for consumers and customers to understand. Also the programs can be burdensome to providers as we have to work with the Government Agencies<\/a> and get folks qualified as well and i can take up time and resources from an internal perspective. Not focusing on the folks that truly need it. Any one can do all those things and serve the intended purpose. That is the way to go. It really is a good question. Lifeline and acp are targeted for the same things that makes sense to think of them together. The answer to how they continue it come one of the nice things from acp is that it comes from general revenue which is the way all support should go. And that has the broadest contribution base that you can get. And i know again that that may not be popular. Also, focusing on adoption, which i agree is important, absolutely. Other things matter as well. And we actually dont know a lot about that. All the different factors that keep low income people from adopting. The fcc has done some nice experiments in the past and have discovered that there is a lot we dont know and we should learn. Thank you. I have a lot of concerns about how the programs are being implemented also and i believe it is important that the technology is neutral. And that seems the administration is favoring some technologies over others and like my district in eastern washington, that just doesnt work when you have a lot of mix with terrain and mountainous regions. And is not going to work to ensure universal conductivity in a costeffective way. So why is it important for federal broadband programs to use all Available Technology<\/a> . It is absolutely essential for the government to be Technology Neutral<\/a>. We want to use the best technology for our consumers and your constituents to show the folks in rural areas and we have to take into consideration what is best for them. We love the availability of being a company that has multiple forms of conductivity to reach all of them in their intended needs. Many areas, the terrain and the cost thank you. I appreciate that. Im going to move on because im running out of time. Dr. Walston, i wanted to ask, in your perspective, should we first determine what we want the usf to subsidize before determining how to fund the usf . Or should we focus on the distribution reform over the contribution reform . We should be doing everything we can to know that we are finding exactly what it is we want to fund and the way we are doing it makes a difference. And so far, we are pretty much not doing any of that. A lot of money flowing. We need to answer the distribution question first. Thank you all for being here and providing your insight. I will followup with more questions. I yelled back at this point. Thank you. The gentle lady yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from californias 29th district for five minutes. Thank you chairman and Ranking Member<\/a>s for holding this very important hearing. And i want to thank the witnesses for imparting their knowledge and expertise and opinions with us, especially in front of the American People<\/a>. Several of you have made references in your testimony to the importance of continued funding for the affordable conductivity program, otherwise known as acp. A position i fully agree with. Across the trend, americans are paying 14. 2 billion for the buy parts and in the church a lot invested in the acp to access affordable broadband to the tune of 21 million households. In my district, 30 of households participate in the program. That is over 69,000 families that depend on these resources for their affordable broadband. As things stand, the program could run out of money and early 2024 and participants may begin receiving notifications as early as december of this year. If we want to talk about ensuring that no americans are left without Broadband Access<\/a>, we must talk about the importance of continued funding for the acp. Ms. Nichols, this program that is connecting millions of americans with affordable broadband, can you speak to the challenges that providers call participants and the fcc would encounter when we launch the program if it were to lapse and if the funding of the acp would run out . And would you like to speak to the same question ms. Vulture . Thank you for the question. Besides the fact that you would be cutting them off from Critical Services<\/a>, there will be massive trust issues from participants. In many cases, the people that struggle with affordability may have problems with other Digital Divide<\/a>s and aspects and they wont understand the complexities of what we are discussing today. Thank you for your question congressman cardenas. In the absence of access to the acp, at a time when we are closing the Digital Divide<\/a> fully and finally, it would be a devastating blow to the future of universal conductivity. We know that affordability is an aspect of why we have not been able to close the Digital Divide<\/a> and the acp is an essential program to allow that affordability mechanism to be extended to those families in need. Thank you. Can you describe the reparations being made to notify participants at funding for the acp expecting to run out in early spring . We have not gone to the point where we have started to address that with consumers. But certainly, we want to make sure that all of our friends and neighbors have access regardless of their income, to that program and certainly want to work to continue to provide conductivity for them. And frankly, acp is the best program we have for consumers and for the providers. There are folks that would go without that service if acp is not continued. We are dangerously close to keeping the government open. I would prepare if i were you. I dont know if we have high hopes that we will be able to continue the acp with all of the negotiations and bringing together of the minds of members of congress in both houses. So hopefully you can prepare sooner then later. Ms. Nichols, if we allow acp funding to last, what other affordable broadband options will be available for families who currently rely on the program today . There are many options fortunately. Lifeline would be able to help some people with conductivity needs. For many, this will mean that conductivity we would hope that providers would help us step up to the plate and offer affordability options but the optimism is low given the cost of deployment. This would be devastating and i would be looking for support for public wifi. I think it is important. When knew we were debating and coming up with the funding of the acp, we talked about the children who had to sit in parking lots and families who had to sit in parking lots of businesses in order for them to connect and get their homework done, just to get basic access to the things that some of us americans are fortunate to take for granted. Lets not forget that. I really appreciate the opportunity for us to discuss this with the American People<\/a> and over 21 million American Families<\/a> have been connected since we brought this into existence. I think it is important for us to understand that in order for us to continue to have trust with the American People<\/a>, we need to figure out a way to continue the program. Even if we change it. Even if we modify it or even if we learn from our mistakes and the things that may be archer today that were not yesterday. We have to come to grips with the fact that if we dont continue the program, we will lose the confidence of many families across america, people who need us the most. My time has expired and i yelled back. Time has expired and the gentleman from florida from the 12th district for five minutes. Thank you. I appreciated very much mr. Chair. Our committee has worked on closing the divide, the Digital Divide<\/a>, for decades, as you know. Yet millions of Rural America<\/a>ns remain on the small side of conductivity. For hernando and citrus counties, the counties i represent in florida, i also represent pasco county, reliable conductivity continues to be a toptier issue. All American Families<\/a> need access to reliable highspeed internet regardless of their zip code, focusing on closing the divide as quickly as possible. That is my goal and i believe it is the bipartisan goal. So that citizens stay connected and are off the hook. Speed is key. Disputes and delays can stall construction in their tracks and dis incentivize the build out to the communities we are trying to target with all of these federal programs. Delays result in the former chair of billions of dollars of economic gain every year. Gains that would otherwise benefit people across the country and across the commercial, agricultural, health and many other benefits. The importance of broadband is too great and the cost to taxpayers is too big do not consider commonsense reforms. Florida has recognized this and already acted to make some of these reforms for Broadband Access<\/a> to more residents. I have a couple of questions. Can you provide examples of exi loopholes have delayed or f exi prevented build outs to really unserved areas. Can you estimate the additional time and cost that result from these delays . Just recently, we heard from one of our midsouth members, a local provider that told us, shockingly that because a Rural Electric<\/a> coop that was a owner made it difficult for them to access those poles and the buildout program for an area where they were unserved and underserved residence was delayed by over a year and if we want to actually have a need for speed as you said, we have to actually make sure that congress does close the municipal and Rural Electric<\/a>al coop loophole within section 224 and remove this is a barrier to speedy and efficient and importantly comprehensive world broadband deployment. Thank you again. We have seen a few states most recently and in my great state of florida pass legislation to streamline and create a more uniform process for all market participants. Have you found that this has incurred buildout in those areas, and are there any other benefits to this action . Absolutely. The more we have a level Playing Field<\/a> when it comes to accessing poles and the deployment of poles, we will absolutely be able to expedite the process of Rural Broadband<\/a> deployment and do it more efficiently and at a lower cost and it is more important to move forward with these types of initiatives. At the end of the day, if we can lower the cost of the buildout, taxpayer money could be spent more effectively today and i think you can all agree on that so we no longer have to sacrifice more taxpayer money to this problem tomorrow. I do appreciate your having this hearing and giving the opportunity. The gentleman yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from floridas ninth district for five minutes. Thank you for hosting this hearing today and we have a big job to do and historic investments from the infrastructure for over 65 billion adding 10 billion from the American Rescue<\/a> plan and we have the capital to fundamentally alter america to make sure we bring internet to every american across the nation and our job is to make sure it is overseen right and in florida we have seen 2. 7 billion coming in to help with this buildout. Also, we look at the work that is being done in my own district in places like keenans bill and bull creek and deerfield among others and these are rural enclaves with just a few hundred people. But they didnt have access to internet and they are working hard to help feed america on our local ranches and doing great work to help with Wildlife Corridors<\/a> and hunting leases and other key areas of industry in the rural areas. It is about access. But it is also about affordability and that is where the acp is also a key part of this equation and as we look at nearly 70,000 households in floridas ninth Congressional District<\/a> and rolled through it acp, we appreciate the united way and a lot of our local cable and Internet Companies<\/a> for really helping seniors and people with disabilities and folks working every day and trying to make ends meet and in addition, i am cointroducing the rural internet at that merges the pilot reconnect program with existing programs to help through the department of agriculture to really bring this to the next level in rural areas and i know we are here today to talk about the future of universal Service Funds<\/a> among other things. But there is reason to be worried and the fifth circuit recently heard a challenge earlier this week to the constitutionality of usf and what aspects need to be modernized and this is helped countless schools and libraries provide Internet Connections<\/a> to students and the public to help buildout 5g and other Wireless Technologies<\/a> in Rural America<\/a>. What would the impact be if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs in this case and eliminates usf as we know it . I cant speculate on how the court will move this decision. Lets assume they strike down the program. What would be the result of that happened . It would absolutely be a force majeure and we would never be able to close the Digital Divide<\/a> in this nation if we dont have a viable, sustainable, resilient universal fund and Congress Needs<\/a> to be able to ensure that longevity and sustainability. The concern that was brought up about the gap in learning we saw during the pandemic of folks in many districts including some in mind and in parking lots of restaurants trying to catch a little bit of wifi so they can do their homework and more of this would happen if this goes down, correct . You can guarantee that will happen. I did introduce a bill with a congresswoman the rural improvement act of 2023 requiring the usda to use maps to determine eligible funding areas and why is this important for federal agencies to work off the same maps and secure new investments and how could this increase cord nation between agencies that distribute to these grants . We support that act and if everybody uses the same apps, it would be easier and it makes sure it ups the higher cost or ups the threshold of the number of people who could be overbilled, which is essential to get the percentage as high as possible to make sure that usda programs are not building over any other programs that we see a lot today and those few things and other requirements could eliminate that and we appreciate your support of that. And a lot of these areas were talking about those that are feeding america and extraction areas that help with new ev vehicles and other Major Industrial<\/a> products and how critical is it to our economy to make sure we get internet to these areas. It is essential we get after that and have to use or be Technology Neutral<\/a> and provide the right type of service to reach the right enduser with that. The chair recognizes the gentleman from michigans Fifth District<\/a> for five minutes. Thank you and thank you to the panel for being here. I have been known to be a dripping faucet to some of my colleagues and may be a pain in the keister on this issue or necessity of Rural Broadband<\/a> and i dont want our students going to parking lots of restaurants and libraries to do their work. But i dont see how we can get the combines and tractors today that need all of this technology as well and it just doesnt work well for harvesting or planting. So we need to continue pushing on this and make Rural America<\/a> a top priority. But we also cant waste our funding and efforts and there has to be coordination. That is why introduced a plan for broadband act that stems from what some of our witnesses mentioned and thats critical and the testimony and i appreciate that. How could a lack of National Strategy<\/a> with roles and objectives impact providers and their ability to connect to all of america . Yes. Thank you. All of these programs will have overlapping objectives and it will make it harder to achieve any particular goal and we will end up with waste and overbuilding and i dont want to imply it will be easy to have a National Strategy<\/a> and i was the economics director on the fccs National Broadband<\/a> plan of 2010. So coming up with a National Strategy<\/a> is difficult. But having these programs is clearly not the best way to go at least without having a strategy. Let me jump over to mr. Forde and ask you to elaborate on any coordination problems you have had as your Company Works<\/a> with these programs. It is challenging. In some cases you are playing defenses and defending programs in these areas and you put a lot of time and effort into the challenge process or show folks you have broadband and the speed and customer testimonials and you may be successful with one federal agency and then the provider will go to another agency and try to get funding to overbilled that same area and that is frustrating. So if agencies cant coordinate, we need to start stamping some of these areas served and to share that paperwork with us and notify us that this is a challenge that has been successful and notify the provider and federal agencies and this area is off the map in this area has been taken care of so we really need to get after that because otherwise these areas that truly dont have Service Still<\/a> remain that way and we have to have that strategy where people who have no broadband get served first and its not okay for folks to get a second or third or fourth bite of the apple to overbilled with all of the concerns for those folks that truly dont have broadband today. Acp has connected many people who couldnt previously afford it, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt explore reforms and the program currently provides a 30 subsidy to make broadband affordable for low income americans and midco participates in acp and how does this 30 subsidy influence how you design these plans. Do you feel you have appropriate flexibility . The acp is giving consumers a choice and that 30 and helps them provide the level of service they need so that does work well for providers and as i said before the tools that they offer are better than the other programs and a little bit easier to work with so again the right tool and price point that works for the three key constituencies in your constituents in our consumers and obviously they are easy to operate and they are easy to work through with our customers and also, of course, the taxpayer as well so if you can work for those three things that is what we need, a low Income Program<\/a> to make sure those low income folks can gain the benefit of that connectivity to find a job or school or do the things they need to do and we feel that is essential. Okay. I have two more questions. And we will submit that to get answers but i dont want to be a pain in the keister. I will yield back. He yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire<\/a> for five minutes. Mr. Walberg, you are never a pain in the keister. I want to focus my remarks today on the key message of this hearing, connecting every american to provide Broadband Access<\/a> nationwide and close the Digital Divide<\/a> and we need to address the unique barriers to access for the communities that are still unserved or underserved such as my district in a Rural Communities<\/a> and you specialize, ms. Nichols, in rural mountainous regions similar to my district in New Hampshire<\/a> and i know you understand the challenges these communities face and the importance of providing them with Broadband Service<\/a>s and in your testimony you stated we must take a holistic approach to closing the Digital Divide<\/a> by addressing both lack of access and affordability and can you speak to how the Affordable Connectivity Program<\/a> helps to address these dual barriers of affordability and available broadband infrastructure . Yes. We work a lot in the space of trying to get connectivity in places that needed the most including some mixes of technology and affordability so we find the high poverty rates in rural areas lend themselves to needing to take a 12 approach of access and affordability but even those things alone dont close the Digital Divide<\/a>. The acp is currently help to bridge the affordability gap and connect 21 million americans to the internet including over 18,000 in my district in New Hampshire<\/a> and congress have to invest in the acp and i join my colleagues in sending a letter to the president of congressional leadership urging them to come to an agreement to continue funding this program and prevent it from lapsing next year and i want to thank my colleagues in the rural caucus and the cochairs representatives craig and whitman for leading this and showing the necessary bipartisanship to get this done. And, mr. Chair, i want to submit this letter to the record. And thank you so much. Congress made major federal investments for broadband infrastructure like the middle mile program and bead and New Hampshire<\/a> was recently awarded 12 million grant to install fiber as the back bone of this regions Broadband Network<\/a> and investments like these will transform access to broadband for this rural region of my district and again, can you speak to how this investment and a fiber back bone will support the buildout of additional technologies needed to reach Rural Communities<\/a> . Middle Mile Networks<\/a> are excruciatingly not work dash work necessary and additionally they are effective to support other technologies such as wireless and are needed to help Emergency Management<\/a> support services. Thank you. For many those living in rural or underserved regions, the lack of Broadband Access<\/a> means that many of these streaming services are still out of reach and i am committed to providing Broadband Service<\/a> to every household in america and i do look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we dont take steps backwards in our efforts to close the Digital Divide<\/a>. With that, the yield back with over a minute to go. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back in the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, the vice chair of the subcommittee for five minutes. Inc. You and thank you for being here and this is extremely important. I do represent south georgia. We do have a saying in georgia that there are two georges, atlanta and everywhere else and i represent everywhere else. And that is rural. We are trying to close the Digital Divide<\/a> and that is what we want to do, making sure everybody has access. But we also want to make sure that these programs are working efficiently and effectively. I have to be quite honest. I like to simplify. Over 130 programs now . I mean, it seems like we have way too many. That is what really concerns me and i dont know why we need 130 of them. I think we are all after the same goal of closing the Digital Divide<\/a>, but 130 . Goodness gracious. Let me ask you, there have been all of these enrolled and how many of these enrollees are new subscribers . Do you have any idea . How many are just these subsidies are going to consumers already connected . We dont know the answer to that question. That is the kind of question i need answers to. I agree. There is an a mistake of confusing inputs and outputs. Yes. How would you evaluate whether the acp is a success or not . I think you are on the right track. We want to first know what the goal of the acp is and if it is to close the Digital Divide<\/a>, then the question is how many additional people are subscribing because of it . And how many people stayed on because of the acp and the latter is harder to know. So if that is the question, the former is not hard to do. No. It shouldnt be. Right. Right. What kind of reforms would you make to the acp to make it more effective you had if you have a chance . Let me start off by saying this. It is from general revenues which is appropriate and its a Voucher Program<\/a> which lets the consumer choose where they want the money to go and those are good things. But other things could change so it is a 30 subsidy i dont know whether that is too much or too little but we know it can only go to one company that any price between zero and 30 is zero dollars to the consumer. So it does have a not great effect on price competition on the low end and one possibility may be allowed the voucher to be split for example between two companies which could stir competition on the lowend of the market. I think things like that could be helpful. Do you have any suggestions . I think given the fact that the rollout for acp is still in its infancy, we need some time to do the kind of evaluation that he is suggesting that will be critical and if we will suggest any reforms we have the right kind of data to be able to do so. I would say, however, what is critical is that we extend the program so we can ensure that your constituents and others are represented by many of you and cant can have access and the choices over time. In your testimony you mentioned permitting information and i know you find this hard to believe but i have a bill for that and it would streamline these procedures and again i am wanting to simplify and streamline and how does this play a role in the future of broadband and how does it promote competitiveness . Thank you. That is key and we are working on a project in the beautiful black hills of south dakota and not different from the areas you serve and there was a road through the area but we were able to access that right away and we tried looking at drilling through the rock and it is 200,000 per mile to do that and found there were old poles that we could have access to but the company had challenges with hanging onto that to replace all of that because they were 40 or 50 years old at our expense and the reality is we were running and all of these different challenges to serve one of our last truly unserved places in america which puts a burden on the provider to solve all of those issues in a short period of time with government funding and it makes it difficult and if you had some of those challenges eliminated you could have service to those. Thank you. I am out of time but 130 is too many. Thank you. I do yield back. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois for five minutes. Thank you for holding this mornings hearings and thank you to our witnesses for participating. Over the years i, like many of my colleagues served on this committee and have been concerned can about the Digital Divide<\/a> in this country and my district in illinois has become increasingly rural and now i do represent more than 2000 farms and much of this farmland in my district and the rest of Rural America<\/a> has outdated services at high prices if they have it at all so as i have said before my constituents back home in illinois, there is no dispute that this access to reliable and highspeed Internet Service<\/a>s is one of the most beneficial things that can happen in my constituents and will make sure that all americans participate in the modern society and i commend the commitment of the Bidens Administration<\/a> to closing the Digital Divide<\/a> by signing into law the historic bipartisan infrastructure law which made a 65 billion broadband investment to bring highspeed Reliable Services<\/a> to every u. S. Household and the program is established by the law will pave the way for people of all socioeconomic backgrounds to have and effectively use Internet Service<\/a>s and one such program that i would like to highlight is the 42 billion broadband equity access and Deployment Program<\/a> to expand highspeed Internet Access<\/a> by funding the deployment of broadband infrastructure and this will have a substantial impact on all communities but particularly rural and unserved and underserved communities in my district starts in chicago and then goes three hours south and some amount of time less and in my home state of illinois 10 of households have no Internet Access<\/a> or device that connects to the internet and as it continues to rollout this program to address this very issue, can you discuss the importance of states and local governments working with the private sector to find the most Affordable Solutions<\/a> to connect rural, underserved, and unserved communities . Of the programs are complicated and there is a lot of work to be done. I do agree there needs to be a streamlined approach. But coordination between the federal, state, local governments and providers and residents of these communities is an effective strategy because collectively we can make the right map and buildout. Lets move to the acp program and there are hundreds of thousands of those in illinois and american households Access Internet<\/a> without for going necessities like food and groceries, medicine, utilities and housing. Given there are reports that acp could run out of funding as soon as mid2024, and i have heard as early as march, how important is it for congress to act to ensure the acp remains funded and after you give your answer if any other panelists would like to comment. It is a critical part of how Rural America<\/a> and america is getting access to those Critical Services<\/a> and losing it at this point would be devastating causing massive mistrust between the relationship we build with our communities. Thank you. Any other witness would like to comment . No . Okay. In your testimony you noticed it was important for congress to make strides toward getting universal connections and do you think americans are sufficiently aware and educated on ai as an important component of digital connectivity and literacy . It absolutely is important, not only of the future Digital Literacy<\/a> but the fundamentals about how the networks will be working and ai will be a driver significantly, and they have been integrated already internet works and for how we will actually be communicating across the future networks of our nation. Ai needs to be thought of comprehensively through as tuitt how can be an accelerator of connections and we need to take an approach towards it that i think is one of optimism to see what benefits it can bring rather than more of a regulatory instinct at first. When we do so, i think we will find potential benefits for the integration of ai into the future of america and connection. We need a lot more education and i have learned a lot since ive been in congress and there is more to learn but i think the public tends to be a little bit more afraid of it. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. The time is expired in the chair now recognizes the gentleman of utah for five minutes. Thank you and i need half a second here. This is an important topic to me and i had the opportunity to serve as mayor of a city. The city tried to bring broadband into the city and through a number of efforts that were sometimes not very successful we were able to bring gigs speed in 15 or 20 years ago into the city and offer Free Internet<\/a> to all of our residents and i am sure there is no other city that is actually done that. As i look at this program that we have to make sure everybody has access to internet, i can acknowledge all of the good in it and also i worry about the stability on the foundation that is underneath it. And maybe quickly could ask dr. Wallsten to talk about the foundation and how stable that is. I guess there are two parts and one is the current bead and other programs and i do worry about the long term and what will happen in the longterm because of that and we want to make sure these are subsidies to build out and not reasons to make the fund grow even more because it is easy to see Networks Coming<\/a> back in a few years and saying we need more money for this and it seems to be hard to say no to more money. So that is a problem. Somebody suggested that scc videos streaming platforms or other edge providers to help support broadband buildout or setting aside their authority and is it necessary or even a good idea . The current contribution mechanism is not going to work and the tax rate goes up. And the best option is for it to come from general revenues which is the way to spread across the largest tax base. Otherwise, i think we are getting into an antitrust style discussion of what this market looks like. That becomes really complicated. Mr. Spalter, how do you view the funding of this, the edge providers . Is a good idea . And if you set aside the authority of the fcc . I think the opportunity to expand the contribution base in a way that actually will reflect the modern connectivity landscape requires us to expand that is to include the big tech Internet Companies<\/a>. We do know that the dominant internet big Tech Companies<\/a> now have market capitalization in the axis of 9 trillion. If we want to have a universal service fund that is a fundamentally reformed and capable of doing its work, ensuring we can provide operational expenses to expand and upgrade and repair networks, it is time for those dominant companies to fairly and reasonably be part of the solution set. You are not at the table. There have been proposals to assess contributions paid for by broadband providers based on revenue generated from Broadband Service<\/a>s are based on the number of subscribers or connections provided, but what challenges do you see there and i will give you a chance to respond to that, dr. Wallsten. But what challenges are there . The inclusion of Broadband Service<\/a>s into the contribution base is important. But i dont think it is sufficient. We have seen modeling that suggests that effectually Broadband Service<\/a>s are included in the formula that establishes the contribution factor, we will be able to push that down but only temporarily and we need to actually go beyond that. I do appreciate your answer but i want to give mr. Wilson a chance to respond. The foundation of that mechanism doesnt make sense and we tax a service to provide a service. If we head down that road, the economics answer is the tax will have the smallest effect on consumer behavior. And it will have the smallest real effect on the economy. I wish we had more time to explore this and i would love to give you a minute so i will have to yield back. The gentlemans time has expired and votes have been called and i want to get a Ranking Member<\/a> of the full committees questions and we will recess and go vote and come back so the gentleman from new jersey, the Ranking Member<\/a> is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We already talked about the harm of letting the acp run out of funding especially right now as the bipartisan infrastructure law is set to bring affordable internet unserved areas across the country. Let me ask, how are Internet Service<\/a> providers factoring acp into their deployment planning decisions, and how does the uncertainty of the programs future affect that . The acp is an essential part of that plan and particularly in the context of bead where there are states requiring that access to that funding has to have a prerequisite of participation in the program. So those are tied together and an absence of clarity about the future of the acp, it will be enormously difficult for broadband providers small and large to plan successfully to make sure that their Investments Building<\/a> networks will be able to be planned in a way that will reach the underserved and low income families that are in those areas. We love to bring her services to more people who want them and more communities and of course anywhere where it makes sense so when we look at these areas to deploy and oftentimes under our franchising authority we go into the Community Ready<\/a> to serve the whole community and that means low income folks there and we certainly dont want anybody to go without services so it is something we take into account and we are working and for us it is better when we go into a new community. I have to say i am struck i the numbers we have heard today regarding the amount of money the country has spent over the last decade supporting internet infrastructure in rural areas but it seems to be that for too long we have supported good enough infrastructure that is kept these communities constantly behind the curve. I think that is an unfortunate use of Government Funds<\/a> so let me ask, and i think this is what you referred to in your testimony is some thing is better than nothing projects. Can you tell us how Government Investment<\/a> and future proof of internet infrastructure combined with a sustainable acp will help your area and local economies and role of economies and communities . I believe it is about not duplicating projects over and over and fiber is the most scalable and reliable future strategy we have so cost efficiency is lost when we have to keep coming to these hearings and reappropriating funding year after year to do technologies that only our band aid approaches to the solution. What would you like to see different . And what do you propose we do differently with existing programs or in the future . s the 25 three standard is already behind and the need for technology increases will keep going so put in a strategy that allows for that baseline to come in the play and the Fiber Network<\/a> solves that solution. So rather than keep putting in 25 320 put in the Gigabit Solution<\/a> now so we can spend it when the cost is the cheapest. My last questions about the universal service fund and there is an active conversation about the entities that should pay into the fund but i think its important to start with a vision of how it will continue to support universal connectivity into the United States<\/a> in the future. So i will ask, what kinds of programs do you think are important for the universal service fund to support in the future, it is a question that goes to the heart of what we talk about when we talk about reform and i think the critical programs will be those that will sustain and focus on operational expenses that allow us to continue to optimize those investments that we are making in the networks via the cat investments so we can maintain those in areas where its not economic to do so so i think the high cost is critical and affordability will be huge part of the future of usf and current we lifeline, if it can be integrated with acp in the future framework will be the best shot and actually ensuring that those of families and households that simply cant afford broadband are able to do so. I do agree with the affordability programs and i would add to the list other Digital Equity<\/a> tools such as devices and skills training and also Emergency Management<\/a> services such as towers. Thank you. The time has expired and we are in the first votes of the first series today so what i would like to do is we will recess and come back five minutes after the second voting starts if we can get that done. So folks can vote early and come right back. We will recess and come right back after this vote series. Taking a break on this hearing of funding Rural Broadband<\/a> service. More testimony when the hearing is back underway live on cspan3. We are back to talk about u. S. Deficit and federal spending. Lets begin with defining deficit versus debt. Do that intel is the difference. Thank you for having me. The deficit is how much we borrow each year. The debt is how much we owe and the sum of all of our past deficit so if you think about a credit card, the deficit is how much you have added in 2023 and the debt is how much you owe total. Where we are right now in 2023 with our deficit . There are different ways to measure it. But people like to talk about the federal debt which is 33 trillion and i like to look at debt held by the public as a share of the economy because the bigger your income the more debt you can afford and we are close to 100 , meaning that the debt is basically as large as a full years worth of output. Why . Why are we in this position . There is no one thing. But the covid crisis and the Great Recession<\/a> before that included a lot of onetime borrowing that got us far from our historical average of 50 up to our 100 and underlying that, we keep passing new tax cuts and new spending increases that widen the structural deficits and we have an aging of the population and rising healthcare costs that put pressure on some of the oldest programs like Social Security<\/a> and medicare to continue growing in cost over time. Are we paying our credit card . We are hanging it with new credit card so we are borrowing and will probably borrow about 2 trillion this year of new stuff, plus we will borrow additionally to rollover some of the debt from previous years. According to this new report that was put out last week from your organization, the deficit is rising faster than projected. Why . Last years deficit was 1 trillion and this year it will be 2 trillion and you have to remarry remove some weird student debt stuff that never happened but the debt has doubled in part of the reason as it turns out it was actually a high water point we had a good year in terms of tax collection from Capital Gains<\/a> from wages because inflation had gone into income first and now things are normal but unfortunately 2 trillion is the new normal but adding to that is the cost of Social Security<\/a> and medicare that went up sharply because inflation and the interest costs are as high as they have ever been at least since the 90s with the average Interest Rate<\/a> on new debt 4 or even 5. 5 in some cases. Who is to blame for this . We all are. We the voters need to take responsibility because we love to have low taxes and we love Government Services<\/a> and benefits. The politicians keep making promises they cant afford and they keep telling us dont worry about borrowing because this tax cut will pay for it self for this new Spending Program<\/a> is so important that we dont need to worry about that and frankly many of the economists are to blame because when Interest Rate<\/a>s are low, they said that borrowing is cheap and lets do it and it didnt occur to them that Interest Rate<\/a>s would rise and we would rollover with all of the cheap debt which is now very expensive. I want to show this chart from the report and it shows the divergence between spending and revenue over the years. What can you tell us about this . What is been happening . Two things are happening. The one is we keep cutting taxes so revenue has a built in growth and as incomes go up, revenue should grow and that doesnt happen if we keep cutting taxes. The other is we keep increasing spending and one of those is new Government Programs<\/a> and then there is a onetime relief which is the second and some of it made sense and some of it did not so for example with covid. And the third is we allow to some of our largest programs and in particular Social Security<\/a> and medicare and medicaid to continue to grow basically completely unfettered. We have known these programs are an unsustainable track and many of them have trust funds headed toward insolvency and is if you are in Social Security<\/a> now it wont be able to pay full benefits under the law because it will be insolvent and yet we have done nothing to bring those costs under control or raise more revenue in order to finance them. Why not . Because it is hard and it is fun to tell people he gave you a tax cut and i protected your Social Security<\/a> benefits. It is very hard to say in the interest of the greater good to save this program, we have to raise the retirement age by one month every two years and you will have to pay a little bit more taxes on your income. We can do it, especially for that if republicans and democrats got together and agreed not to beat each other over the heads, but it is politically tough because nobody wants to pay more taxes and nobody wants lower benefits. The latest round of tax cuts came during the Trump Administration<\/a> and President Trump<\/a> and republicans were in control and passed a package of tax cuts and there was a report in the paper last week about how much of those tax cuts will stay in place because President Biden<\/a> has said that nobody making less than 400,000 should see a tax increase. Their reporting said that much of President Trump<\/a>s tax cut package stays in place. I think that is possible. Republicans cut taxes by 2 trillion over 10 years and the Trump Administration<\/a> and they joined hands with democrats to increase spending and cut taxes by a combined almost 3 trillion more. Now, many of those are set to expire at the end of 2025. Although there has been some nice talk of pain for extensions, we havent seen how they will do it and if it is a big risk that the parties joined together not in the interest of responsibility or by making hard choices but by extending or expanding these. What you think happens on the spending side . We are eight working days away from a possible Government Shutdown<\/a> and republicans in the house and some conservative republican say we need to address at this and now and exactly what youre talking about and they want to spend 115 dash 115 million more. That act was a good start to get the spending and control and democrats and republicans came together on a plan to freeze spending levels for a year and then have them grow slowly next year. That wouldnt solve the debt but it would save 1 trillion 2 trillion over a decade. I think we ought to go forward on that deal and Work Together<\/a> on how to build on it. What is happening now is the house wants to spend below the deal and the senate wants to spend above the deal and they are taking all of this stuff and declaring it as an emergency even though it is ordinary spending. Nobody wants to abide by the deal and the first step is lets pass the spending based on the fiscal responsibility act and then go back for more because we have to cut spending a lot more if we will get the debt under control. I will talk about that in a minute but lets ask our viewers to join us in this conversation. You can text us at the number and include your first name and city and state and here we have mark here talking about deficits and if we were to continue this trend that we have seen over the next decade, where would that put us . Into an ugly place to remember right now that is about 100 of the economy and the record is 106 and we said that or set that after world war ii we had a plan pay it down and if we continue on the current project very trajectory, will be at 130 in within 30 years we will be somewhere between 180 and 300 of gdp and their is no historical example of that working and there isnt any international cases and the closest is japan on that low end and that is a recipe for slow and stagnant growth and rising interest costs and more bouts of inflation and possibly but hopefully not but possibly a fiscally created financial crisis. What would it take to get out of that and how long would it take . We should start now and if we were to put about 6 trillion of deficit reduction over the next decade, that would hold our debt to below the size of the economy which would be an unbelievably important start. It is an easy and it would mean we had to raise revenue are due more to restrict the growth of those appropriations and get serious about getting healthcare costs under control and restoring Social Security<\/a> solvency. We could do it if we act now. If we wait until a crisis moment, it will require devastating abrupt cuts that could put us in a recession and certainly wont feel good to the folks that are relying on various programs and tax provisions. We have a democratic color in arkansas. Jb . I do have a question that may seem offtopic but does apply to what he is talking about. This morning it was reported that we spent or gave iran 6 billion to release the hostages and what i dont understand about it is it said the money was in the gains of oil sales and the accounts were set up under the Trump Administration<\/a> and does this go into anything like that . I dont think so and it is pretty specific but to his point about spending money on aid to foreign countries, we have that debate happening right now with this continuing resolution and should include an additional 20 billion for ukraine on top of the billions that this government has been giving to that country so far in their fight against russia . I think he is asking about we owe iran some money during periods of time we were in conflict and i think the agreement was to release some of those funds but as to the broader point, foreign aid is 1 of the budget and we should have a serious debate over whether it is worth it or not and we should scrutinize every dollar and spend it efficiently. But we wont fix our debt and cutting foreign aid are getting rid of waste or billionaires to pay the taxes that we owe and fixing the debt requires doing things that some people feel changes the tax code or reforms to health care and we cant get it from these tiny pots of money alone. Has the Committee Looked<\/a> at what needs to be done on Social Security<\/a>, and what is your group recommend if so . We have the Social Security<\/a> reformer tool and you can go to the website and it allows anybody to design their own reform plan and people in high school have used it and members of congress have used it for the legislation and the cool thing about this is there are only a few levers, your age, tax rate how much income is subject to the tax and the structure of the benefit and the cost of living adjustment and you can basic fully tinker with any or all of those to reform it and me personally i am an all or above approach and i think we need more revenue into the program but i also think we need to adjust the benefit formula and the age and we can do all of this in a way that actually encourages Economic Growth<\/a> and we just put out a study late last week that said if you do pro growth thoughtful Social Security<\/a> reform, you can boost average income by 10,000 per person 30 years from now so if we do this right, there is a tremendous upside. What about healthcare . You mentioned that is one of the drivers of our nations deficit and debt. What you propose to do about that . The United States<\/a> spends 50 more in healthcare than the next highest spending country and about twice the average and there is an incredible amount of waste in our system so some of it is over payments in excess complexity and bad incentives. But we can start with a bunch of policies that both president obama and President Trump<\/a> have supported and for example right now the Medicare Program<\/a> pays more if you see a doctrine a hospital versus when you see the exact same doctorate in a private clinic and it makes no sense and we can equalize that what is called site neutral payments and is another example there is a private alternative to medicare called advantage and it is more efficient but yet it cost the federal government more money because of the way that they are recording their costs and just getting rid of some of that fraud and misreporting could save hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade. John in minnesota, an independent. I dont have an issue with the Government Shutdown<\/a> over the steps of federal spending. In my opinion the federal government has two jobs that help me which is securing the border and the sovereignty of our country is the first one and the second one is to protect the homeland with a Strong Military<\/a> and all of the other taxes i pay in wisconsin locally go toward all of my services i received locally and that is my opinion and i would like to know what your responses to that . The three largest Government Programs<\/a> are Social Security<\/a>, medicare and defense and the fourthlargest is medicaid and all of these serve this for people and it doesnt mean there isnt incredible waste poconos programs and outside of them and we should find spending cuts where we can but understand that most of what it does is send people checks and as for the Government Shutdown<\/a> unfortunately this wont resolve that because we will never have a permanent shutdown and if the government shuts down it may be for a week or month and then we will go back and pay the federal employees for not working over that time period and we will have these backlogs and it is an incredible waste with no upside unless it leads to serious policy change. You say it wont. It could. You never know how negotiations will go but the shutdown itself doesnt do anything and the only good that comes out of the shutdown is if it leads to an unrelated policy change like if there were a leverage point to lead to an improvement in policy and the shutdown doesnt make government more efficient but less efficient. We talked about this earlier with her audience about Discretionary Spending<\/a> versus mandatory and those two ledgers and what this debate happening on capitol hill about shutting the government down and the top line figure does that impact mandatory spending . Social security and medicare . People will still get their Social Security<\/a> checks and medicare in the case of a Government Shutdown<\/a> because it is not what is being shut down. People newly applying the Social Security<\/a> and medicare may have some trouble because we do through discretionary budgets fund the administration of these. Eric in minnesota, a democratic caller. Hello. I would like to give a finance statement as to whether it is the overspending or the cutting of taxes which is the blame for the debt and i want to point out that since the era of the Reagan Administration<\/a> which is when the first tax cut occurred, the number of billionaires in the United States<\/a> has increased. There were certain teen at the time of the Reagan Administration<\/a> and there are now 1000 and they are doing quite well during this same period the National Debt<\/a> has occurred so would like your response. So asking whether tax cuts or spending increases is to blame is like asking which side of the scissors does the cutting. The both are and it is the disconnect is the problem and we need to stop cutting taxes and focus on some extremely egregious tax breaks in the code that will benefit billionaires and we also keep spending more and more. We have done nothing or almost nothing to get under control the two largest Spending Program<\/a>s, Social Security<\/a> and medicare. An independent in south carolina. Hello. I wanted to talk about the National Debt<\/a> and the situation of spending cuts. I think it is really messed up to talk about cutting medicare spending and talk about cutting Social Security<\/a> spending because the United States<\/a> spends over 700 billion a year just in military spending and altogether even with the nuclear stuff and anything like that it ends up being about 1 trillion a year in federal spending just in military and we could be cutting that by a lot in order to help fund these programs that help working class people. Lets take that point. Has your group looked in the Pentagon Spending<\/a> . Thank you for the question. There is an incredible amount of waste in the Defense Department<\/a> and a lot of ways to bring that under control. But i do want to point out when it comes to medicare, there is so much we can do to save people money that isnt actually cutting benefits but improving the value of the program and it is exactly what we did in the Inflation Reduction Act<\/a> when we put in place essentially negotiations for drug crisis and capped it so they cant raise it faster than inflation and these are the kinds of ideas that president obama talked about before President Trump<\/a>. When it comes to medicare, there is room to lower costs in ways that improve benefits. When it comes to Social Security<\/a>, this program is 10 years from insolvency, which means if you dont touch it a law calls for a 17,000 cut for a typical couple retiring in 10 years so we have to get Social Security<\/a> under control for its own sake and we can do that both with benefit reforms that can be progressive and also in spending seriously. Do they have to do any sort of accounting for congress . No, congress, is appropriated every year. Every year they need to go back to congress. Congress actually does it into parts. They do something called the nda, the National Authorization<\/a> defense spending and then they prorated for the operations process. What they havent done successfully is audit the pentagon. That is something that is the law. The pentagon depends on it. That hasnt happened yet. And so, they should have to pass an audit. We should be cutting Weapons Systems<\/a> that are there because they are some in the Congressional District<\/a>, not because that is the best way to succeed in the mission. We should be cutting bureaucracy. We should be looking at benefits that dont make any sense. There is so much we can do to get Pentagon Spending<\/a> better under control. And that has to be on the table. Why havent they had to pass an audit yet . Basically, they cant. The pentagon is not budgeted ford in a way that they can plan for it. There are always some things the pentagon does that have to remain secret for National Security<\/a> purposes. And i think everybody understands that. They have, by tradition, been kept opposite the way you would normally do books. Roots in hemphill, texas, ruth . Hello. Im wondering if he is aware of this magic number of 37,000 that medicare as billed two people i know in the last month. One, the fatherinlaw died in a nursing home, and the family received a bill or 37,000. And the man only owned 5000 worth of property. The other is, my sister has asbestos, and has a tumor in her lung, and her first award came in this month. And medicare sent, took out 900 of the 1100 that she was awarded by the Bankruptcy Court<\/a> that handles these asbestos cases. And they said they will continue taking one third of whatever she gets until she has repaid 37,000. So, it seems to be a magic number, and nobody knows where it comes from and it is never heard of it. Mark goldline . Its not something ive heard of either, im happy to look into it. The first one might be medicaid, not medicare. That does sound like a lot of money but im not sure what the magic number 37,000 is. Mark, when was the last time the us wasnt in a deficit . In 2001 we had a balanced budget. On a bipartisan basis, started the hard work of balancing the budget, really in the late reagan era, we had a Social Security<\/a> plan we had some Debt Reduction<\/a> but especially starting in 1990 under george w. Bush. In the 1993 in 1997 under bill clinton. The combination of their efforts, plus a Strong Economy<\/a> brought us to balance the late 90s through 2001. And then we cut taxes, and then we had the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the Global Financial<\/a> crisis. And then we increased spending and then we cut tested and then we increased spending we cut tested, then we have a covid recession and now we are few trillion dollars adding to the deficit. In the days of balance seems so far out of reach. Even though was only 20 years ago. What would it take to get back to having a surplus . You would have to do the equivalent of spending cutting by about one quarter or increasing revenue by about one third. This is not realistic. Its not realistic in the broadest sense. If you take things like Social Security<\/a> and defense and veterans off of the table or if you say were only going to raise taxes on people earning 400,000 that goes from unrealistic to mathematically impossible. Were not going to get to balance anytime soon. That is okay. We dont need a balanced budget. What we need a budget where deficits are small enough that the economy can grow faster than the debt. So thats gdp thats about 100 comments going down. Word is a need to get to . Theres no magic number. I think the direction is what is matters. You can have a deficit that is growing faster than the deep dp indefinitely. The more we reduce of the bidders for longterm Economic Growth<\/a>. But in terms of sustainability, i think step one should be lets hold it out 100 of gdp and this try to get it down. Can go higher, and if so, what would happen . It can go higher, i would prefer not. We dont know where the breaking point is going to be. What we do know is the higher date that is, the higher Interest Rate<\/a>s will go. The less we have to borrow then we need to for emergencies, a recession and it will start our wage growth. We saw study a few weeks ago that the current trajectories going to slow Income Growth<\/a> by about one third. So incomes will keep growing but only at the two thirds pace which is significant reduction. So, we dont want any of that. At some point, that will be so high that it causes a financial crisis. A sickly, it causes Interest Rate<\/a>s and a massive selloff of debt. That would be devastating to think the Global Financial<\/a> crisis over a decade ago, but no with Us Government<\/a> to bail out the companies and the citizens in need. Theres no magic number when that happens. I hope it never does. But it the risk becomes increasingly likely. Kenneth is in texas, democratic caller, hi, kenneth. Hi, i just wanted to say any ceo who is granted money by the board in excess of the president s salary should not have any more than that salary the president s salary deductible from corporate taxes. That is just basically all i had to say. We actually do have a policy like that in the tax code. That limits the deductibility of executive compensation. I believe it is over 5 million to the ceo in 2 million from other officers, so you can lower to 4000, but we have the structure of that already in the tax code. Jennifer in ohio and independent. Question or comment here about deficits. I would like to say that jill and joe collected 54,000 on their tax returns. And also, im sure they cut off below 160 , i would also like to say of the refugee they bring in, the cuban refugee act awarded all the retirees that came over here Social Security<\/a> and all they did was call there brothers, sisters, mothers, and brothers, and they come over, now they get Social Security<\/a>. We should not be paying for the worlds retirement. All right, mark goldline, give me something there. Yes, the effects of immigration on the budget are really interesting. At the federal level, most of them are actually a net positive for the budget. Because the pay them Social Security<\/a> when they were, but not all of them can receive benefits. At the state and local level, its the opposite. Many of them are effectively being paid for medicaid through uncomplicated care during the School District<\/a> et cetera. And so, i do think we ought to have more comprehensive reform where we think about the best way to do immigration. We also might want to think about these discal affects and how they very Different Levels<\/a> and if theres a way to show that a little bit more evenly. Donnell is an indiana, republican caller. Good morning, how you doing . I have three things. Number one is that the government does not fund Social Security<\/a> and medicaid, we pay for that out of our paychecks. Number two, how much does the government still owe medicaid and Social Security<\/a> when they went in there borrowed it i dont think they ever gave it back. And number three, i know so many people that they are passing that medicaid and Social Security<\/a> out it like candy, that people shouldnt even be on it. Okay we will take your point. That is a great point, Social Security<\/a> is financed out of the payroll tax, not from income tax revenue. And it still is a 3 trillion deficit. The problem is, that payroll tax that pays for Social Security<\/a> its only covering about three quarters of the cost. And when that 3 trillion runs out, the government will pay it back, when it runs out. Social security is in trouble. The law says it cant so what that means is that there is a 23 acrosstheboard benefit,. 17,000 for a typical cult public retires and is 10 years. And thats why we need to get Social Security<\/a> solvent again, not to help the rest of the federal government but to help the Social Security<\/a> beneficiary so they are not debit understated bike across the court but the same way it affects young 62yearold millionaire. Emile in colorado says, what a bad idea to raise Social Security<\/a> age in an error of ai , artificial intelligence. Which will erase jobs for aging populations. We have essentially no Labor Force Growth<\/a> in this country. And if you look out in the market right now, you hear a lot of employer saying they are actually having trouble finding workers. As we age, its an economic problem and they are advantages to bringing in more segments of the population and the workforce including working parents, workers with disabilities, workers in the early 60s. Theres also huge personal advantage to working longer. Weve seen this in a lot of the literature. On average, people that work longer, stand little bit longer, they more money saved up, they are happier, they are healthier, they live longer, they have stronger social networks. They have lower divorce rates, because theyre not at home ignoring their spouse, they drink less, they watch less tv on every metric, people that are able to stay in the workforce longer or better off. Financially, physically, mentally prevent people that cant work longer they should be allowed to retire. Good morning again. The vote, we think the two boats are over right now. But at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes for questions. Enqueue chairman and Ranking Member<\/a>s for conducting todays hearing on broadband in the future federal broadband programs. The government made an historic investment our nations broadband infrastructure with the recent b program. Rural pennsylvania specifically is a beneficiary with 1. 16 billion gault went to the state, to my district to help those previously unserved by broadband. Conductivity has become a necessity for my constituents, since their livelihoods and as our economy becomes dependent on strong, fast, internet connection. Telehealth, work, agriculture, and more. However, our work is just starting. We must ensure that the government is being that responsible steward of the hard earned taxpayer dollars, and is only promoting broadband programs that will help the american public. Mister 40 . The fcc is entering the third iteration of the broadband. These maps not only show where the services being provided, but also the level of service and Technology Utilized<\/a> in a certain location. As we reevaluate, what funding is still needed to connect every american and what rules should the fcc maps to ensure limited overlap and waste between federal agencies. Yes, thank you for the question. We absolutely have everybody using the fccs map to make sure there is no overbuilding thats going on. If we have all of these programs work correctly, the resources are there to close the Digital Divide<\/a>. If we go after the Technology Neutral<\/a> manner and use all of our future proof technologies, all technologies are future proof, we would not deploy a connection that would not if we can do that and attack all of our unserved addresses, there is enough money to serve those areas and we can all use the same map and continue to make sure the areas on the map and theres no overbuilding this can be a goal that can be accomplished with the current funding that is out there. Mr. 40 , many Beer Companies<\/a> participate in the affordable connectivity or acp. In fact, as of august first of this year, pennsylvania alone has over 660,000 enrollees however despite this large number of household, that of artery enrolled in the program, it is unclear whether acp enrollees had previously described broadband before this benefit. Does your company keep track of how many acp subscribers existed before the implementation of this program . Yes. So would go has about 11,000 with cocustomers in about 2000 of them are new. You feel that should be the industry standards that we recognize how much this additional funding is going to encourage and allow additional individuals to participate . We certainly dont want anybody to go without a connection and want to make sure that we can provide our services for free so certainly to those low income individuals we want to make sure they are still access connectivity so they can do the things that they need to do with it to find a job and educate their kids. I agree with that. To find a job, to find a job, to have the telehealth access they need and engagement from rural broad band as well. We all need this. Every constituent and our commitment to make sure that the funds are adequately there. But also make sure that they are not overlap and overspending to occur. I think each of the members for being present today, i think all of the witnesses for being here today to further this enrollment and further the Rural Broadband<\/a> throughout pennsylvania and throughout and sylvania. You, mr. Chairman, i yield. Think you the chairman yields back the chart this time recognizes gentleman from ohios 12th district for five minutes for questioning. Take you, mr. Chairman, thank you all for being here today and everybody. My first question is, for mr. Forte, in your testimony you mentioned that Internet Service<\/a> providers should be allowed to participate in federal broadband programs. Fiber remains one of the most reliable ways to connect americans to the highest available speed given geographic differences in the time it takes to buildout it may not be a viable for everywhere. In my district a local fix wireless company, ohio tt has worked with the individuals of somerset to connect residents the internet. This was the first time my constituents in somerset were able to connect to the internet in their homes. It took just 29 days from getting approval from the village to getting the first resident connected. Ohio tt now serves large portions of kinshasa county where internet has been very slow. We always get our constituents connected as quickly as possible. As speed bailouts can be taking years, we can get rural customers connected in munford im a fan of fiber but i have also seen firsthand how its hard to reach these communities in my district. They benefit from a x wireless and to the federal government. Mr. Forte understand that medco operate some of the fixed wireless networks. Can you explain the benefits of these networks and understood what circumstances you might choose to build a fixed wireless network, whether than a Fiber Network<\/a> . I couldnt agree more. Again we want to use the best tools in the toolbox with what you said, during covid our folks hooked up thousands of customers for their Educational Needs<\/a> in a few days. We only have six months or so where we can build and most of our service area because of the weather. Thats a great reason to use a fixed wireless, we have agriculture communities and very sparsely populated homes who may be eight or 10 miles away where we can, we and eight along nine mile driveway. I dont think its a situation where the government should be looking at fiber similarly there might be folks that have very expensive Vacation Home<\/a> up the hill, talk about 200,000 a mile and another instances where fixed my wire is really the best choice. You hear a lot about instances of fiber, we totally use fiber throughout our network. But it isnt always the best tool in the toolbox because of all those challenges. You know, our fixed Wireless Technology<\/a> it is future proof. All technology we deploy we would not Deploy Technology<\/a> that isnt teacher proof. I myself am a wireless customer ive had it for 12 years ive had 27 odd connected devices on my small family farm. Three ipt tvs come i never had an issue at all with my connection. In fact if you ask my wife that you want to fiber the farm she would say no, we are not tearing up the yard. We want to keep her happy. My next question is for all witnesses. At i would like to move on to the rural Digital Opportunity<\/a> fund, this is intended to be a twophase auction, a total of nine point 2 billion for broadband being out to across Rural America<\/a>. For states receiving the funny, some are wondering if we should even move forward with phase 2. This is a question for any of the witnesses and can you tell me what you inc. Of it what you did right and what he did wrong and how we can improve future fcc funding programs including phase 2 if it happens. Gentlemen, my mother has taught me ladies first, please. Ms. Nichols . Thank you for the questions. In our area ties up a lot of the territory served into very long time frame. So my key complaint although we are seeing build off started to strategize is the funding could be implemented faster. So securing the areas in locking them up this emblematic. Thank you, doctor . The key problems with art off , with the eligibility rules, peep companies that werent allowed to do with a promised and the second was when the fcc changed its rules, about space execs, there was an argument of whether they should or should not of been created a real credibility problem. But, i think it is important to make sure that artoff and we dont overlap. Im going to skip you, mr. Sparta. I will reserve. Okay. Take you mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you gentlemen, your time has expired and am going to see another member coming to the door and another 30 seconds. Again to our witnesses i really appreciate your testimony today because this is a topic that we are very interested in, i know one of the numbers mr. Rancor if you would like 30 seconds, two if you like. Several years ago the number was about 1. 7 trillion invested by private industry out there to expand broadband. Today it is up to 2. 1 trillion. So the numbers going up. Anyone willing to make a comic . Thank you, mr. Chairman. As you all know, broadband is important and we have the funding and indeed were never going to get that at again. We really need to be smart about how we put this out and be intentional about it. I think we can look back and say there have been mistakes made but lets not make any mistakes this time. We understand what is critical here in the public is watching. And all these unserved areas, its incredible, i have a big urban presence, in the big cities of sacramento and two other larger cities, but i got a huge territory of smaller cities, actually towns and farms. And they are hungry. This is what they really want, and we have to be successful in those rural areas, so thank you. Take you purchasing that we have no other members present at this time, i asked to put in the record the documents included on this list without objection so ordered. I remind members that they have 10 Business Days<\/a> to submit questions for the record and ask any witnesses whose respond to the questions probably. Membership should submit answers with the close of business by october fifth. And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. And we are adjourned. Thank you. C spanners are unfiltered view of government. Monday, watch cspans new series in partnership with the library of congress, books that shaped america will feature the federalist a compliment and of essays written in 1787 and 7080, by alexander hamilton, urging for the ratification of the newly drafted u. S. Constitution. Judge gregory max, us court of appeals for the armed forces and colin sheehan, director for graduate studies, school of civic and economic thought at Arizona State<\/a> university will be our guest to discuss why those essays are considered one the most important references for interpreting and understanding the original intent of the constitution. Watch books that shaped america featuring the federalists, monday, live at 9 00eastern, c span, ceased and now, or online at cspan. Org. Also be sure to scan the qr code to the center companion podcast , we can learn more about the authors of the feature. A healthy democracy doesnt look like this, it looks like this. Where americans can see democracy at work and citizens, all the public lines. Get informed, straight from the source on cspan, unfiltered, unbiased, word r","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803406.us.archive.org\/5\/items\/CSPAN3_20230921_130100_Broadband_Industry_Officials_Testify_on_Funding_for_Rural_Areas\/CSPAN3_20230921_130100_Broadband_Industry_Officials_Testify_on_Funding_for_Rural_Areas.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20230921_130100_Broadband_Industry_Officials_Testify_on_Funding_for_Rural_Areas_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240703T12:35:10+00:00"}