look forward to your testimony today and I want to extend a special welcome or should I say welcome back or maybe even welcome home to Commissioner Olivia Trusty. Uh congratulations on your confirmation and uh welcome to your first oversight hearing in your old stomping grounds here at the Energy and Commerce. It's uh always great for us to see a a former uh staffer on the committee uh rise to such heights to be a commissioner on the SEC. We're really proud of you and appreciate you uh being here with us today. I know uh Mr. Atlanta is very proud of you as well. Um, the FCC had an active 2025 that can be summed up in one word, deregulation. Under Chairman Carr, the FCC has taken significant steps to reduce barriers to broadband deployment, modernize outdated regulatory regimes, and delete obsolete rules. These efforts include preempting state and local barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment, which I appreciate as some of y'all have heard me talk about. Uh, I'm too familiar with calls dropping too often when I'm driving around my own district. Um, reforming the satellite licensing process and ensuring the next generation 911 networks are reliable and interoperable. Another issue that I've made a top priority of mine over the years and chairman, I want to say thank you uh that the first official trip you took as chairman was to western North Carolina uh to look at Hurricane Helen impacts on our communications network. So, I appreciate the the priority you've put on this issue. Um, together, these efforts will accelerate closing the digital divide, unleash the new space economy, and strengthen America's wireless leadership. I applaud the FCC for this great work. The FCC still has significant work ahead, including modernizing outdated media ownership rules. Uh, last year I led a bipartisan letter with more than 70 members of Congress urging the commission to revisit its broadcast ownership caps. Local broadcasters remain the most trusted sources of news for most Americans. Yet, they now compete with an uneven marketplace shaped by well-resourced new entrance, most notably big tech. Burdened by outdated regulations, local broadcasters are increasingly unable to compete. A reality reflected in newsroom closures and the growing concentration of influence among national networks and social media platforms. Current ownership caps prevent broadcasters from combining or expanding operations, constraining their ability to invest in local journalism. Updating these caps would help ensure broadcasters remain viable and competitive without creating monopolies. It would empower local stations to better compete against dominant platforms. I urge the commission to keep these realities in mind as you continue your direct deregulatory agenda. A huge accomplishment this year was the working families tax cut act. Uh direction to the FCC to auction 800 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use. Making the spectrum available is essential to America's leadership in 5G and 6G. I'm pleased that the agency has already begun this work by identifying at least 100 megahertz for auction in the upper C-band. As the agency looks for remaining spectrum both on its own and in coordination with others, I know you have important decisions to make and I urge the FCC to be mindful of investment that has already taken place in existing commercial bands such as the six gigahertz band and the CBRS band. the proposal uh your agenda laid out this month to expand unlicensed operations in the 6G band is a great great first step. Uh finally, I'm a member of the bipartisan biccameal universal services fund working group USF overseen by the FCC help support uh broadband access to high-cost rural areas to schools and libraries, rural health centers and low-income households. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of USF, but uh it is past time to reform this program to ensure the long-term sustainability and ensure the funds are reaching the right people. Congress needs to reexamine what the USF supports and how it's funded. A sustainable USF is essential to ensuring all Americans have access to affordable, reliable broadband. Given the FCC's role in administering the fund, I look forward to discussing ways to ensure that USF remains viable for future generations. Today's hearing is an opportunity to discuss the many important issues before the FCC. Again, I thank the commissioners for being here today and I look forward to our conversations. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentle lady from California for her opening statement.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad we're holding this hearing. The Federal Communications Commission affects people's everyday lives. It determines whether you can call 911, whether your internet bill is affordable, and whether local news can do its job without political interference. Oversight is not optional. It is our responsibility. The FCC serves the public, not any president, not any party, and not anyone political agenda. It is supposed to be an independent expert agency that promotes competition, protects public safety, and expands connectivity to our role in urban communities. But President Trump and Chairman Carr have repeatedly abused the FCC's power. We don't have speech police in America. We have the First Amendment. Yet, under Chairman Carr, we have seen a pattern of pressuring the media to tow the administration's line. He warned Disney and ABC stations, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way to push them to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air." He threatened to investigate or revoke the license of local stations over content the administration doesn't like. And he's opened investigations into newsrooms routine editing decisions such as CBS condensing an interview for time. That's not calling balls and strikes. That's censorship by intimidation. Chairman Carr has stretched the standards of acting in the public interest and preventing news distortion beyond recognition. The FCC's own guidance sets a high bar for news distortion. The FCC can only go after deliberate distortion, not mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion. Yet, like the rest of the Trump administration, this FCC seems to believe it is above the law and the Constitution. That's why I introduced the Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act to draw a bright line. The FCC cannot target broadcasters based on viewpoint and the White House cannot use the FCC to settle political scores. The threats this FCC poses to journalistic independence have been local as well as national. In Sacramento, people rely on local stations for wildfire updates, flood warnings, and breaking news. Local news is a lifeline for communities. When a handful of companies control local stations, communities lose independent voices. newsroom face layoffs and viewers are left with fewer trusted sources. That's why Congress sets strict limits for how big any one TV station owner can get. No company can reach more than 39% of US households. That's the law. So, it's deeply concerning when the Trump FCC appears open to deals that weaken local independence and plainly violates the law. deals like NextStar's acquisition of Techna, which would create a media giant reaching 80% of US households. And in Sacramento, Nextar Techna would put two of our four English language local TV stations under the same owner. That should raise flags for anyone who believes in protecting local news and competition. Finally, I want to address cyber security. Our communications networks are critical infrastructure. They carry our calls, texts, and data. They support hospitals, small businesses, and emergency alerts. And they are under attack. After Salt Typhoon, the worst telecom hack in US history, the FCC began moving toward enforcable cyber security requirements for companies, not just voluntary promises. But Chairman Carr reversed course, leaving our networks more exposed. So today, we're going to put this record under a spotlight. The public deserves to know what Chairman Carr thinks public interest means and why he's using to pressure speech. Communities deserve to know why local voices are being squeezed by consolidation. And Americans deserve to know why cyber security protections were weakened at the moment we need them the most. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and I yield back.
>> Thank you. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky for five minutes for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank you for holding this important oversight hearing. And thank you to our commissioners for being here. Uh Commissioner Rossy, welcome back to the uh committee. We're glad to have you back here. And uh we always say, and it's true that we get the members of Managing Commerce get to work with the best people on Capitol Hill, and you were part of our group at one time. We appreciate having you having you back. And this is exciting time for the FCC. exciting time to be there. The working families tax act restored the FCC spectrum auction authority which had elapsed for more than two years. It also set a target of 800 megahertz of spectrum to be identified and made available for commercial use. These actions will help meet the growing demand for spectrum but also more importantly ensure the US continues to be a the leader in 5G and even developing 6G. Under the first Trump administration, the FCC made a significant amount of mid-band spectrum available for licensed use and opened up 1,200 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use. This strengthen our position as a global technology leader and American innovators have seized the opportunity. But in the years ahead, the United States must continue to lead in wireless innovation. Otherwise, adversaries like China will dominate this battle and set their own standards according to the values of the Chinese Communist Party. That is harmful to both our economic growth and our national security and I would say the security of the world. Uh facing these risks, we must act quickly. I am pleased that the commission under Chairman Carr has already started implementing aspects of this law and has prioritized security throughout the communication sector. Another area where the FCC is working to maintain and expand American leadership is in space. Under Chairman Carr's leadership, the commission has has been hard at work modernizing satellite regulations. We have als seen we have seen significant investment in innovation in space. In recent years, Americans have long relied on GPS and other satellitebased uh communication services, but today more Americans use satellite services for connectivity at home and on the go. I am pleased that the commission has made this a priority. Finally, I have uh noted several times during this Congress the urgency of updating media regulation to allow regulated industries the opportunity to compete against new platforms and specifically the big tech companies who are competing with broadcast and cable companies for advertising revenue and viewership. It is important to remove outdated regulations and I appreciate chairman's car's efforts to modernize these legacy regulatory structures to reduce burdens on incumbent industries. Uh this is important time for the FCC. I look forward to hearing from the commissioners and I yield back.
>> Thank you chairman. Now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes for his opening statement. >> Thank you, Chairman Hudson. One of President Trump's most defining qualities has been his contempt for American media and his hostility towards the First Amendment. Trump has repeatedly attacked and threatened late night hosts for making jokes that bruise his ego, dismissed reporting he does not like as fake news, smeared journalists for merely doing their jobs, and taking completely meritless legal action against news networks that do not bend to his will. And he's also debased the office he holds by resorting to bullying and name calling. Recently telling a veteran reporter who asked a question about the Epstein files and I quote, "Quiet Piggy on duty or I should say our duty here is to conduct oversight of the Federal Communications Commission." And that has never been more critical than it is today. Because in Trump's ongoing crusade to chill free speech, punish news networks, and vilify American journalism, there has been no greater ally than Chairman Brendan Carr. Over the last year, Chairman Carr has grossly distorted the power and purpose of the FCC. He has weaponized the agency to benefit Trump and punish anyone who challenges him. He has rubber stamped shady deals between media conglomerates when those deals have included monetary and political benefits for the president. He opened a sham or sham investigations into small local media outlets for simply reporting on publicly available information about ICE raids. He weaponized the FCC's public interest principles to bully news organizations. And Chairman Carr repeatedly violated the First Amendment by threatening and intimidating broadcasters who aired speech that the president does not like. Now, you don't have to take my word for it. There's a reason why a Republican Senator Ted Cruz said that Chairman Carr's actions have been, and I quote, right out of Good Fellas and dangerous as hell. This was never more apparent than when Chairman Carr threatened to revoke American broadcasters licenses if they did not take action against a comedy program, the Jimmy Kimmel Show, telling them, and I quote, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way." And let's be very clear about what happened there. The federal government threatened to wield its power to stamp out speech it did not like. And this is a violation of the First Amendment. This is censorship which does not belong in America. There was a time when my Republican colleagues would have been up in arms over all this when their allegiance to the First Amendment was greater than their loyalty to one man. But obviously that's not the case anymore. And to chairman's misdeeds do not end with his clear and dangerous violations of the First Amendment. After months of delay, Chairman Carr approved the Sky Dance Paramount merger only after President Trump was paid $16 million to settle a merit a meritless lawsuit, offered 20 million in free advertising, and received guarantees that CBS's editorial decisions would be tweaked in his favor. This is what we call a quidd proquo facilitated by Chairman Carr. And that's why Representative Raskin and I have opened an investigation into this merger's approval. The American people deserve to know the truth and that some of us in Washington still believe that billionaires should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Now, in some chairman Carr has abandoned the FCC's role as an independent agency and has instead turned it into an instrument for President Trump's own personal and political benefit. In fact, during his testimony before the Senate, he openly stated that the FCC is no longer an independent agency because the president says so. That's, in my opinion, madness. And it makes clear that the FCC is no longer operating in the public's interests. Quite the contrary, right now, the FCC is failing the American people, and Chairman Carr is failing his oath to the Constitution. So, while today's hearing is a good start, it's a pastime that this committee hold a media hearing, a media hearing, so we can dig deeper into these and other matters. So, finally, let me say Chairman Carr's decision to insert the FCC into policy debates where it has no authority to act while walking away from congressional mandates and existing FCC rules is also very disturbing. While President Trump and Chairman Carr may wish that the FCC could preempt state and local laws on artificial intelligence, Congress has not given the agency that power. The FCC also does not have the power to raise the 39% national TV ownership cap, which can only be changed by Congress. So, frankly, Americans deserve a lot better than this. They deserve an FCC that upholds their constitutional rights, that acts in their interest, not in the private interests of the president. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you. Uh we've now concluded with member opening statements. The chair reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements will be ma made part of the record. We'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses will have five minutes each to provide an opening statement which will be followed by a round of questions from members. The witnesses here before us today are chairman Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, Commissioner Anna Gomez, commissioner at the FCC, and Commissioner Olivia Trustee. Trustee Commissioner at the FCC, Chairman Carr, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. >> Thank you, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matts Suie, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the invitation to testify. While this is not my first time appearing before the subcommittee, is my first time doing so uh as chairman. Like my colleagues, I have fond memories of this room. I started as an intern here over 20 years ago. Now, I also want to start by saying how proud I am of the FCC's dedicated staff and everything they accomplished for the American people last year. The FCC delivered an historic set of wins in 2025 thanks to them. I also want to applaud the important work that the subcommittee has accomplished this Congress. For instance, thanks to Chairman Hudson, Chairman Guthrie, and many of their fellow members, the FCC's Spectrum Auction Authority has now been restored through President Trump's Working Families Tax Cut Act, a major legislative accomplishment. In terms of the FCC's work, the agency has been following President Trump's strong leadership and moved quickly to execute on an ambitious set of reforms. We're advancing a Build America agenda, a concrete plan to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds in communities across the country. We're reinvigorating the AY's consumer protection work, including cracking down on illegal robocalls. We're empowering broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. We're strengthening America's national security. And we're eliminating waste while modernizing agency operations. Much of this represents a significant change in the Biden administration policies. Indeed, when I took over as chairman of the FCC a year ago, the FCC faced several serious challenges. For instance, the Biden administration had allowed the US to fall behind when it comes to one of the most important features of our economic strength, national security, and connectivity goals, spectrum. The FCC Spectrum Auction Authority had lapsed two years earlier. The Biden administration had failed to tee up a single new spectrum ban for auction. And President Biden's national spectrum strategy committed to freeing up exactly zero megahertz of spectrum. On top of that, permitting reform was going nowhere. The Biden administration was layering on heavy-handed regulations that only made it harder for broadband builders to start turning dirt. To make matters worse, the Biden administration was pushing policies that would make services more expensive for Americans. We had to turn things around and fast. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we're doing exactly that. As I detail in my written testimony, the FCC's build agenda focuses on unleashing the nation's broadband builders. It does so by advancing several core goals. For one, we're modernizing permitting rules and cutting red tape. For another, we're freeing up the airwaves that are necessary for America to lead the world again. We now have a massive new spectrum pipeline and are working on multiple new spectrum auctions. In fact, the FCC just voted at the end of last year on a plan to auction up to 180 megahertz of spectrum in the upper Cband. In the secondary markets, we're now seeing large chunks of spectrum move into the hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. Indeed, one carrier alone announced that they built out Spectrum they gained access to late last year to over 23,000 cell sites in record time, boosting 5G speeds by up to 80%. In all of this, President Trump and the FCC are looking out for America's blueco collar workers. In this job, I've had the chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string lines with some of the country's most talented and hardworking telecom workers, and also some members of this committee as well. So, it's important to me that the FCC do its part to strengthen the nation's telecom workforce. We're already seeing changes. Providers are now adopting faster payment cycles. They're closing loopholes that allowed foreign fly by night groups to swoop in and undercut US workers and they're improving safety. Finally, the FCC is now pushing the largest deregulatory effort in the agency's history. To date, we've teed up for removal over a thousand rules. In all of this, we're seeing good results, including on affordability, where data just out shows that prices for wireless plans are now down over 4% since last January. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my commission colleagues and the agency staff to deliver on this important agenda. And in closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
>> Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Gomez, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> Thank you, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Palone, Chair Hudson, Ranking Member Matsoule, Vice Chair Allen, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is worth stepping back and asking where the FCC has been directing its a energy. Too often that energy has gone into culture war fights rather than protecting consumers and expanding access to reliable, affordable broadband. From my perspective, the FCC has drifted from its mission in ways that should concern this committee. Let me begin with the First Amendment. For months, this FCC has asserted an apparent roving mandate to police speech that this administration does not like, invoking an undefined and unchecked concept known as the public interest standard. The standard is being treated as a license to weigh in on content, viewpoint, and editorial judgment. The FCC's job is not to police content, root out media bias, or guarantee favorable coverage for any administration. Its responsibility is to regulate communications infrastructure and markets, not censor the speech that flows through them. Both the First Amendment and the Communications Act protect against the FCC interfering with speech and engaging in censorship. In a free society, the government does not get to decide what speech is acceptable or aligned with its views. When the government's media regulator claims the power to judge content or to police bias, we move away from oversight and toward censorship and control. That is why it is so important for the commission to define what it means by the public interest standard, something I have called on it to do repeatedly. It is also why Congress must insist on guard rails and protect against the FCC acting as an arbiter of free speech. I do want to acknowledge the commission's continued bipartisan work on robocalls, which remain the FCC's top source of consumer complaints, but beyond that, we are seeing the FCC retreat from core responsibilities that help make communications more affordable, more transparent, and more accessible. Affordability is now one of the biggest barriers to staying connected. Programs like the affordable connectivity program helped millions of households afford basic service. When that support lapsed, the impact was immediate. Yet the commission has failed to treat that loss with the urgency it demands. Instead, what we have seen is a clear pattern of retreat from practical consumerfocused initiatives. The commission eliminated -ate support for school bus connectivity and hotspot lending by schools and libraries. For many students, seniors, and families, these programs were the only reliable connection to the internet. Ending them removed one of the most effective tools we had to help people participate in the digital economy and to avoid being left behind. The commission has rolled back limits on exorbitant prison communication rates. These communications are often the only way for those in prison to stay connected to the support they need to return to society without turning back to crime. Vulnerable families will now be paying higher phone rates because of this FCC's actions. The commission has proposed weakening the broadband nutrition labels it previously adopted, making it harder for consumers to compare prices, speeds, and fees before they sign up for service and making it easier for prices to rise. The commission has stalled the cyber security trust mark after years of bipartisan work, leaving consumers without a practical tool in an increasingly risky digital marketplace. And in a nation that is home to millions of non-English speakers and that welcomes millions of international visitors each year. The commission has delayed bipartisan efforts to provide consumers with multilingual emergency alerts. As we prepare to host the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, language barriers should not become a public safety risk. None of the policies this administration has sidelined was symbolic. The roll back reflects a commission spending less time on consumer needs and more time on ideological priorities and the needs of billiondoll corporations. Without sustained attention to affordability and consumer protection, even the largest investments in broadband deployment, including the bead program, risk becoming digital bridges to nowhere. If students cannot afford broadband, if families cannot trust the security of their devices, if incarcerated individuals are cut off from support, and if emergency alerts fail to reach whole communities, then no amount of deregulatory policy will close that divide. We should measure success from AI and other investments in human outcomes. Who is connected, who is protected, and who is fully included. That is the standard the FCC should be held to and the responsibility it must return to if it is to fulfill its mission. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Trusty. You're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> Thank you, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It has been six months since I was sworn in as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. During that time, I have focused on policies to advance access to high-spe speed connectivity, strengthen the resilience of the nation's communications networks, and restore US leadership in next generation communications technologies. A critical part of that work has been the opportunity to travel across the country and around the world to engage directly with those who build, maintain, and rely on our communications infrastructure and technologies. From Jackson, Mississippi to Eek, Alaska, and abroad, I have seen firsthand how fixed mobile and satellite connectivity is delivering on the promise of job creation, technological innovation, and economic prosperity. In Jackson, Mississippi, I saw how broadband is delivering quality, life-saving care straight into the homes of Mississippian across the Magnolia State. Doctors at the University of Mississippi Medical Center are treating chronic illnesses, managing high-risisk pregnancies, and delivering mental health care by video to rural communities that would otherwise go without these essential services. In Bethl and Eek, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the most rugged and hard-to-reach terrain. And broadband is enabling Alaskan natives and non-natives alike to contribute to and benefit from the global digital economy while maintaining their treasured culture and way of life. And last fall, I traveled to Baku Azerban to represent the United States at the International Telecommunication Union's World Telecommunication Development Conference. There ministers and regulators from around the globe highlighted their progress on closing the digital divide within their nation's borders. They also used this forum to seek US guidance and leadership on maximizing spectrum efficiency, building trusted networks and secure supply chains and creating a regulatory environment that invites continued innovation, investment, and competition while protecting consumers and enhancing public safety. These are issues we confront at the FCC in almost every proceeding. They also inform the three priorities guiding my work. Universal connectivity, network resilience, and US leadership. Ensuring that every American has access to communication services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding. In addition to the Universal Service Fund, removing regulatory barriers that impede broadband deployment is critical to connecting every American. I commend members of this subcommittee for advancing several legislative proposals to reform the permitting process which will help accelerate the delivery of high-speed broadband services to homes and businesses across the country. In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving universal connectivity requires increased focus on the deployment of trusted and resilient network infrastructure. Our communications networks are the backbone of both our economy and our defense. From robocall scams to foreignade network components to infrastructure vandalism and copper theft, the threats are evolving rapidly. recent commission actions to remove foreign adversaryowned labs from our equipment authorization process, to block illegal robocalls from exploiting American consumers, and to garner commitments from broadband providers to harden their network infrastructure will enhance network integrity while allowing us to maintain agility in responding to new and emerging threats. US leadership in next generation technologies, 6G, AI, emerging commercial services in space, and more hinges on our ability to deploy high-speed and resilient communications infrastructure to every corner of the country. Thanks to President Trump and members of this subcommittee, the commission's general spectrum auction authority has been restored along with the creation of a long-term spectrum pipeline. This positions America to lead in wireless innovation and beyond. Our continued success in technological advancement will ultimately be determined by a domestic and international regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation, competition, and global cooperation. Importantly, US leadership isn't inevitable. It must be earned. I look forward to working with members of this subcommittee, the full committee, and our inter agency partners to ensure that the United States is positioned to capture first mover advantages in technologies that will define the future of our economic and national security. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions.
>> Thank you very much. I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege and welcome someone I see in the audience here, former chairman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee, Greg Walden. Welcome back. Good to see you, sir. Um we will now uh begin questioning and I recognize myself for five minutes. Uh Chairman Carr, for the United States to maintain its leadership in wireless innovation, we need to make both licensed and unlicensed spectrum available for commercial use. Can you tell us why a balanced spectrum policy is so important? >> Yeah, US leadership in wireless is part and parcel of our geopolitical leadership. We need the full toolkit out there, both licensed and unlicensed. In fact, on the unlicensed side, we're going to be voting at the FCC later this month to supercharge Wi-Fi so Americans get better, faster, more powerful Wi-Fi. I think it's a great complement to the other work that we're already doing on the license side. >> Appreciate that. Uh, Commissioner Trusty, do you have anything to add to that? >> Sure. Thank you for the question and thank you for your leadership on spectrum policy. I've been a proponent of an all of the above approach to spectrum policy where we can accommodate a variety of users, use cases, and technologies. Our immediate priority is the AWS3 spectrum auction that'll uh start in June. And we're also working on rules for the upper Cband auction which will create opportunities for license spectrum. But we also need more spectrum for unlicensed uses. So to support Wi-Fi and IoT based applications and we need spectrum for satellite connectivity and space-based applications. So I think that having licensed unlicensed satellite spectrum is important for promoting innovation, investment and competition and strengthening US leadership in next generation technologies. >> I agree. Uh, Chairman Carr, the White House recently released a presidential memorandum on 6G. How does this action affect your collaboration with NIA on identifying additional bands for auction? >> Well, thanks again to the work of you and this committee and and President Trump, we now have a real concrete spectrum pipeline 800 megahertz. And as part of that, we are collaborating very closely with NTIA, with commerce, with the White House to make sure we're identifying the right target bands, studying them uh and staying on track. And so that's a really good thing. Again, we as a country were behind a little bit uh on 3G, but we've caught up on 4G, we've caught up on 5G. Now, President Trump is making sure that the US leads the way on next generation technology, too. >> Great. Um, Chairman Cart, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I'm part of the um bipartisan biccameal universal service fund working group uh that's trying to implement long-term reforms to ensure uh sustainability for USF into the future. Um, how does the USF ensure that broadband remains affordable for all Americans? The >> Universal Service Fund has played a a key role over the years ensuring connectivity for Americans all across the country. We're doing work right now including making sure that we're ending any uh unlawful expenditures we're taking place. We are policing better for waste, fraud, and abuse in this programs. We are going to work collaboratively uh with the bipartisan biccameal task force that you talked about. And more generally on affordable, we are making some really good progress there. Again, just recent data out, wireless cell phone plans are down 4% since January 2025 alone. They're down over 7% from Biden era highs. Right when we came into office, we ended a Biden era plan that could have spiked the price of internet services for Americans living in apartment buildings by at least one study up to 50%. So, there's a lot more work to go, but I'm I'm glad that we're heading in the right direction. >> Great. What What reform ideas should Congress consider, particularly on the distribution side, as we evaluate the future of the USF? Well, one thing that's important I think Congress is focusing on should focus on is technology neutrality. You know, we want high-speed fiber connections in so many parts of the country, but there's other places where you're going to have fixed wireless or a new generation of low earth orbit satellite or 5G or 6G. So, we want to do this in a way that makes sure that Americans get the connectivity they expect and deserve, but we do it in the most efficient way possible. >> I agree. Uh, so public safety communications also a top priority of mine. um includes everything from upgrading our 911 systems uh to NG 911 to ensuring that we quickly restore communications following a disaster. Um again, appreciate your visit to Western North Carolina looking at this issue. Um what are your top priorities in improving our public safety communications? Well, your your call to 911 absolutely always has to go through. That's a system that we never want to see fail and we're taking a lot of steps to harden that. uh we are working to collaborate across different industry segments including power and utility and telecom crews so when you rush into a place like western North Carolina after Helen u that we're making progress and not stepping on each other so we're encouraging that and we're taking other efforts to encourage this broader transition to all IP networks which again can really strengthen the resilience and performance of the 911 and public safety system. >> Great. I appreciate that. Uh my time is is getting very low and I can't hold everybody else accountable if I go over. So I believe I'll stop and uh recognize our ranking member uh Miss Matsui for five minutes for your questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the Trump administration is weaponizing the FCC to punish speech it doesn't like. The free press is supposed to hold power accountable. Commissioner Gomez, President Trump has threatened to revoke the licenses of NBC and ABC, claiming they're biased and give him only bad publicity or press. Yes or no? Does the FCC have the power to take licenses away from network affiliates solely for their content of their news coverage? >> No, they do not. >> Okay. Chairman Carr has consistently used the FCC's news distortion policy to justify investigating broadcasters. Can you briefly describe the news distorting policy and whether in your view it allows the FCC to revoke or not renew a broadcast license for perceived bias? Uh thank you for that question. So the news distortion policy um covers uh local broadcasters broadcasting um a news a sign news about a significant event but it requires intentionality to mislead about a significant event not merely an incidental event. And it also um cannot be uh used if you just simply disagree with the content and if it's just an incidental mistake. Now the courts have looked at um the constitutionality of the doctrine and what they've said is under the constitutional scrutiny because we are looking at deliberate distortion and not just mere inaccuracy or a difference of opinion that that it would uphold the constitutionally of the news distortion policy. Under this FCC, however, we appear to be using the news distortion policy to go after any content that we don't like and using that in conjunction with this vague public interest standard. >> Okay. Um, Chairman Carr, the Communications Act requires broadcasters to serve the public interest. Does that standard allow the FCC to censor or interfere with broadcasters free speech under the First Amendment? I just want a yes or no here. What what the Supreme Court has said on this issue is that quote there no one has a first amendment right to a license. So the FCC enforcing the public interest standard on broadcasters according to the Supreme Court doesn't violate the first amendment and doesn't constitute. >> So where do you come down? Is it yes or no? Just your I want to just hear from you. Yes or no? >> Could you repeat it? >> Yes or no? I mean just don't quote the Supreme Court. Where are you? Yes or no? Look, the FCC has an obligation to enforce the public interest and that's very unique as to broadcasters. Again, if you step back, broadcasters are unique among all other distributors of news information. >> I don't need a speech now. Does the public interest include informing the public about what their government, including ICE, is doing in their local community? Yes or no? The core ingredient of the public interest standard is to identify the needs of your local community and make sure you're meeting that. >> Okay. So, it's a it say yes. Right. >> Broadcasters have an obligation to identify and meet the needs of the local communities they serve. >> Okay. When you talk about the public interest, does the public include Americans who disagree with the president? I just want a yes or no here. Does the the does the public include people that disagree with >> who disagree with the president? When you talk about public interest, >> does that include Americans who disagree with the president? I just want a yes or no. >> Yes. The public includes people that disagrees with the president. >> In 2021, you wrote that a newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official. Do you stand by that today? Yes or no? >> Yeah. In that context, there were members of this committee that wrote
letters to cable companies, which again aren't broadcasters, no public interest obligation, and they pressured those cable companies to drop cable channels, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, because the members of this committee described them as right-wing outlets. I think when the Democrats on this committee did that, it was wrong.
Okay. So to recap, we agree that broadcasters are protected by the First Amendment. Is that right?
The public interest includes informing communities about government action. Correct. And the FCC, a government agency, shouldn't influence newsroom decisions. Correct. Okay. So, why did the FCC open an investigation into KCBS in San Francisco after it covered the January 26 ICE raid in San Jose?
The FCC, I believe, received either a complaint or we heard concerns about that specific radio station and we've raised those concerns. I believe we've heard back from that radio station. We have nothing new to share to update on that investigation.
Okay. Okay. So, that's Tom. Excuse me. Did I lose my time?
Okay. You see if I... Your time is expired. All right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, chair, and now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Guthrie for five minutes for your questions.
Thank you. Thank you for being here. So Chairman Carr, I appreciate your commitment to meeting the 800 megahertz target established in the working families tax cut. Can you talk about how the consumer benefits that making spectrum more available for commercial use brings to hardworking Americans, but focus on how it will impact prices for hardworking Americans?
Thank you very much for the question. Prices according to new data just out on the wireless side in particular are already down over 4% from January 2025 alone. And part of this is our work to make more spectrum available both through auction and secondary markets. When you introduce new spectrum into a market, the data shows that it drives down prices for consumers significantly. And so both in our work in the secondary markets and our work in the upcoming auctions, pushing more spectrum into the marketplace is going to be really good for consumers.
Okay. Thank you. So, Commissioner Trusty, the US has led the world in wireless innovation, including through unlicensed uses of spectrum. Wi-Fi is a great example of unlicensed. It's changed the way people connect to the internet and led to an ecosystem of new devices that we all rely upon. So could you, how can we foster, how can we continue to foster this innovation investment to ensure the United States continues to lead the world in wireless?
Sure. Thank you for the question and thank you for your leadership in spectrum policy because we have the spectrum provisions in the working families tax cut act that gives us the foundation we need to lead the world in wireless. And so to build on that, we need to maintain predictability in our spectrum policy. So continue to have auction authority and a long-term spectrum pipeline. We need to be leading in international standard setting bodies. We also need to maintain strong interagency coordination. And I think we need to be investing in artificial intelligence so that we can increase spectrum efficiency. And I think AI will define the future of things like 6G, AI native networks and capabilities like integrated sensing and communications. And to build on that, I also think we need to continue to build trusted and secure infrastructure and develop coalitions with our international partners and allies so that our preferred technologies and standards achieve harmonization and scale. I think all of those things will position us well to lead in wireless innovation.
Okay. Thank you and welcome back to the committee. Hope you're enjoying it from that side. And I enjoy working with the ranking member of this subcommittee. We still work together, ranking member Matt Matsui, on spectrum policy. That's been a good, good work for us. And so Chairman Carr, could you speak to the importance of media modernization and why it's critical to remove outdated regulations for incumbent industries to allow them to better compete with big tech?
Well, one of the main concerns I have with respect to media policy is you have on the one hand all these individual licensed local TV stations. On the other hand, you have these national programmers, Disney, Comcast, a handful of others. And over the years, historically, we had a balance between the national programmers and the licensed local TV stations. But recently, what we've seen is those national programmers have just consolidated and amassed a massive amount of power. We're losing that balance between the national programmers and the actual local TV stations. In some cases, they're becoming just a mouthpiece for programming being produced by those national programmers. So, the thing that we're trying to push the hardest on our media policies is to re-empower those local TV stations to compete in this modern media marketplace.
Okay. Thank you. And also, Chairman Carr, space is expected to dominate the coming upcoming World Radio Communications Conference. I think Commissioner Gomez told me yesterday. He has been very involved in the radio communications conferences. I'm deeply concerned about what China and Russia are doing in space. And that being said, our friends across the Atlantic have been making it difficult for the American companies to operate in the European market. Chairman Carr, from your perspective, how do we posture the US for success? And do you think there's still room for partnership with our partners in Europe?
One thing I give credit to my predecessor, Chairwoman Rosenworcel. She stood up a new space bureau inside the FCC. And one thing that we're doing is really supercharging those efforts there. Right when I came in, we cleared out over half of the backlogs that had been there. We recently approved a next generation constellation into low Earth orbit. We did that in roughly half the time that it had taken the FCC to approve the prior updated constellation. And so, as you point out, China wants to dominate in low Earth orbit and up and down all orbital slots.
I have about 30 seconds. So, what in this area, what can the committee do to help? Is there a legislative need for you or what can we do to help you?
You know, the FCC needs to continue to move faster in this space and legislative efforts to help lock that in would be a good thing.
Okay, thank you. I have 15 seconds left and I will yield them back.
I appreciate that, Chairman. Chair now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Palone, for five minutes for your questions.
Thank you, Chairman Hudson. Chairman Carr, I did want to get into the local broadcasters that you mentioned, but just a simple yes or no initially. You recently stated that the FCC is not an independent agency. True. Yes or no?
I said the FCC is not formally speaking an independent agency.
Okay. But to me that is very much contradictory to what you said in 2022 when you testified before this various subcommittee and you made it clear that Congress made the decision that the FCC is truly independent, not the president and certainly not you, that it is an independent agency. So, I think you, you know, you're kind of hedging a little bit when you say that you think it is an independent agency because I think you've repeatedly said that it's not, but whatever. Let me get to Commissioner Gomez. Can you discuss the importance of the FCC's independence from political interference, if you will.
Thank you for your question. Congress set up the FCC as an independent agency because it feared that the agency should not be subject to the whims of one person or one political party. That is why we have an independent multi-member expert body that regulates our communications medium. So when we declare that we are not independent, what we are doing is we're not recognizing what Congress wanted when it created this independent agency, but we are also putting way too much power into one person and then doing their political whims.
I appreciate that and I do think, Chairman Carr, that your repeated comments do not suggest that you think it is an independent agency but I don't want to get into all the details because I do want to get to this local broadcaster issue which you mentioned before because I think local broadcasters are some of the most powerful voices shaping public opinion at the local level and the FCC has adopted and enforced ownership restrictions to ensure the needs of local communities are met and that's why I have concerns with any further relaxation of that ownership and I also want to remind you that Congress set the maximum reach for entities owning TV stations at 39% of national television audience households and only Congress can change that threshold. So let me ask you, Chairman, do you agree that only Congress has the authority to raise the national ownership cap?
The position of the FCC consistently over the prior four chairs, Republican and Democrats alike, has always been that the 39% cap is a rule that the FCC has on our code of regulations. And as a general matter, I really agree with you on the need to reinvigorate...
Right? But you're saying then that you don't think, you think you can raise it on your own. The commission can.
These are issues that we're looking at right now. I'm just saying...
Well, I mean, the answer or no, you believe that you can raise the cap on your own. Are you saying it's a regulation, not a statute?
We're looking at that right now. I'm saying that if you look at the last, you know, four FCC chairs across Republican and Democrat, the FCC has consistently been...
No, I don't think you're answering my question, but again, let me move on. Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with Chairman Carr? And well, I guess he didn't really say anything. So, let me ask you, what impact do you think any relaxation of this 39% would have on consumers?
Thank you for that question. So yes, the 39% ownership cap is in fact in the statute. The Congress amended the Communications Act when it imposed the 39% ownership cap. So I don't think that we have the authority to waive that. It is not just a rule. Rules are how we implement the act.
I believe consolidation is worrisome. I travel all over the country and I meet with local broadcasters and I am always so impressed with their commitment to their communities and to serving their communities. What I fear is that this consolidation is going to enable behemoth corporate parents to take those local broadcasters and to create quote efficiencies that will in fact water down local news and then lead to less service for their communities, not more.
Well, thank you. Let one more question. And I have a lot of discussion with the chairman about the public interest or the public interest standard, but I really believe that under Chairman Carr's leadership, the FCC has really not served the public interest, but rather the personal or political interests of President Trump. So, let me ask you Commissioner Gomez, has the FCC under Chair Carr's leadership been guided by the public interest standard as you would expect, especially when it echoes President Trump's threats to take away broadcast licenses for merely criticizing him. How was that in the public interest?
Fundamentally, it's important to note that we are subject to the First Amendment and to the Communications Act prohibition on censorship. We cannot use this vague and undefined and unchecked term the public interest in order to go after any content we don't like. What we are seeing under this administration is retaliation against speech and reporting that this administration doesn't want in order to get coverage that this administration wants. That is not a good use of the public interest standard and we need to define what we mean by that.
The gentleman's time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank the gentleman. Chair and I'll recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Allen, for five minutes for your questions.
Thank you, Chairman Hudson. And also Chairman Carr and other members of the commission for being here today. And anyway, thank you for your service. It's great even under the duress that you're dealing with. But which I really apologize for. But anyway, Chairman Carr, last March, 73 members of Congress, including myself, sent a letter to your commission calling for immediate action to update outdated ownership regulations.
Our letter emphasized the need for rules that reflect today's competitive media landscape where local broadcasters face unprecedented challenges competing with the unregulated big tech platforms. Could you provide us with a status update on this issue? And as I understand it with the local broadcasters, it's a matter of survival. I mean this is a real problem. Could you update us on that?
Yeah, thank you Congressman for the question and for your leadership on this issue. The FCC has a couple of active proceedings underway where we're looking at this. Again, my north star through all this media policy is I'm not interested in seeing the national programmers, Disney and Comcast amass any more power than they already have. I think one thing that we have to try to look at, whether it's this proceeding or otherwise, is how do we create some better structural competition to them? Because to your point, if you look at local news right now, it's principally being driven by local broadcasters. We used to have thousands of local newspapers across the country. I know in your experience, you're seeing them close down or at least stop physically printing by the dozen. What I don't want to see, I think the conversation that we should have in Congress is if we care about local news and local reporting, how do we make sure that those local TV stations continue to be economically viable because we don't want them to go the way of so many newspapers. I don't think we'd be better off as a country if we lost them. And you know again, it's run by local folks who live in the community, who work in the community, who contribute to the community. And I don't see how being part of a bigger organization to survive, you know, the current turmoil, if you would say, in this industry and expansion in this industry is, I think it's important that we have that local influence.
You've made empowering local broadcasters a centerpiece of your agenda. One such way has been your oversight of retransmission consent fees, ensuring that they are used as Congress intended, that is by local broadcasters for program that serves the local community. Can you update us on your oversight of the retransmission consent regime and explain why this is so important?
Well, one issue that we're looking at is those agreements, the affiliate agreements between the local TV stations on the one hand and those national programmers on the other. We're looking at lots of different ways to help empower that. Retrans is a very complex issue. On the one hand, we're seeing declining revenues at a lot of local TV stations. At the same time, the national programmers will say they need to maintain scale themselves to continue to compete for expensive sports rights. And so we have to try to find a right balance between having the financial capability of local TV stations to invest in local news and reporting, but also making sure that they have, you know, the national sports rights that people expect and demand. It's a complex issue, but we're looking at it.
Yeah. Yeah. There's nothing worse than having the national championship and then all of a sudden you find out, oh, I can't get it on my television. Yeah. We know that in 2027, China will host the next world radio conference, an international conference that will set global rules for using spectrum. Under the last administration, domestic disputes between federal agencies about how spectrum should be used sidelined the United States and allowed other countries to pick the spectrum bands for next generation networks. As a result, the United States now trails the world on mid-band spectrum for wireless broadband. What does the United States need to do to ensure it is ready for the next World Radio conference? How can we ensure that the United States and not China is driving global spectrum focus at this conference?
Thank you, Congressman. I think you're right. If you look back at past radio conferences, there was some gaps between different federal agencies in terms of their positions. That doesn't put us on the strongest possible footing. You know, thankfully, President Trump has been very clear to every agency that the United States is going to lead the world in next generation technology and that's resulted in a lot of close collaboration from the FCC, NTIA, Commerce, the White House, and hopefully, you know, we continue to make a very strong unified position because we know China and others are going to be very unified going into that. And so we need a strong US position as well.
Good. Time is expired. Yeah. Thank you for your service and I yield back.
Thank you, chair. And I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Steube, for 5 minutes for your questions.
Thank you, chairman. President Trump has the most corrupt administration in modern history, $2 billion cryptocurrency scandal, pay-to-play pardons, pardoning January 6 insurrectionists, and Epstein pedophile coverup, White House ballrooms that are lavish, and the Trump family getting rich off of official US foreign policy in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and beyond. And when the national media like CBS, ABC, and NBC cover these egregious scandals or use satire, FCC chairman Brendan Carr tried to crush them using his power as FCC chairman. CBS covers the cryptocurrency corruption pardon of the Binance founder. Then CBS is forced to install a bias monitor two days after the merger approval under pressure from Carr and Trump along with an extortion payment of $16 million. ABC's Jimmy Kimmel uses satire to criticize Trump. Carr threatens their license. NBC's Seth Meyers uses satire to criticize Trump. Chairman Carr echoes Trump's call for Meyers's ouster. Chairman, you've turned the FCC into Trump's attack dog to crush First Amendment rights through FCC extortion. The Chinese Communist Party would be impressed. There was a time when you passionately defended First Amendment rights. In fact, you and I tangoed over COVID and issues related to that. So, how do you justify using the FCC to censor news and satire of Trump's rampant corruption?
have an obligation to operate in the public interest. And in 2021...
Is it not the public interest right here to the FCC asking us to take action when there's a transaction pending at the FCC involving a Spanish language radio station in South Florida?
Is it not in the public interest for people to know about the corruption that's happening to step in and say to win in 2022, this must stop pressuring the FCC to block a sale because Democrats thought it would be bad for claiming my time. You serve the American people. What is that issue? Is blatant corruption by the Trump administration and you trying to hide it and everybody knows it. Commissioner Gomez, one day Chairman Carr's reign of un-American censorship will be over. How do we restore public confidence in the FCC after this national censorship scandal?
Oh, thank you for that question. I think that Congress can really help us here by putting guardrails on the FCC so that it cannot violate the First Amendment and censor content on broadcasters.
And what do you think those guardrails should be?
I think defining what it means to serve in the public interest would be very helpful.
Do you think highlighting corruption is in the public interest?
I think the FCC should stay out of content whether we like it or not. And that is the problem is this administration wants to retaliate against news organizations that have the temerity to report factually about this administration.
Well, the history books will not be kind to that. It's been over a year since Trump took office and we still don't have rural broadband in rural communities like mine and others. You came to my district a while back in Orlando to hear from veterans who utilize internet to help with their health care. What has the effect been of the BEAD program still not being rolled out across America with regard to consumers?
Yes, it is so important for us to be able to participate in this economy today, the digital economy, to have access to affordable broadband. And the communities that don't have that are getting further and further left behind. And as you know, when we came, we were talking about the affordable connectivity program and how important that was to veterans to be able to make their meetings and their health care appointments without having to in fact travel. It saved them days of painful travel. So we need to focus on this issue so that every American can have access to affordable and accessible broadband especially if we want to be world leaders in artificial intelligence. It is so important.
And what happens to rural businesses, farms, ranches when they don't have access to high-speed broadband.
If you don't have access to high-speed broadband, you really are at risk of being left behind. It is an imperative in today's economy, in this digital economy, to have access to broadband.
Thanks, chairman. I yield back.
Thanks, gentlemen. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta for...
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the commission for being with us today. Chairman Carr, Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Trusty, and congratulations. It's great since you've been in my office years back to follow your career. Congratulations, Chairman Carr, to start off with the BEAD program. How much shovels in the ground were there in the Biden administration?
The BEAD program was President Biden's $42 billion plan to connect millions of Americans to high-speed internet. And after over a thousand days of the Biden administration implementing it, not a single shovel's worth of dirt was turned. Now, President Trump and Secretary Lutnick and NTIA Administrator Roth have come in and they've turned that program around and we're finally going to be seeing dirt turning and Americans getting connected.
So I just want to make sure I heard that correctly. Nothing happened in the Biden administration. Let me turn to another topic. I know you and I talked through the years especially when we had this spectrum auction authority lapse. You know, because how far did we fall behind in this country? We didn't have that authority to sell spectrum. And the other question I'd like to ask is this because it's always one of the things we all worry about. How much money did we lose in that time frame from not having that auction authority?
Yeah. During the Biden administration, the FCC's spectrum auction authority lapsed for the very first time ever. And that enabled other countries, China and others, to leapfrog the United States. We fell several hundred megahertz behind them. But thankfully, this Congress came together, President Trump came together and passed a working families tax cut that created a strong pipeline of 800 megahertz. And again, every time you bring spectrum online, that drives down prices for consumers. And so that's what we're doing right now.
Sorry, I answered that correctly. It was during the Biden administration that authority lapsed. Let me ask you another question because this just came in. I know that we talked about this for years and I worked on legislation on robocalls and trying to protect the public out there. And I know that in reading your testimony that the commission wants to move forward and make sure that we protect people out there from these robocalls that people are getting.
Well, thank you. Robocalls obviously are our number one consumer complaint and right now we're building on the long-term bipartisan work of the agency on this. One thing we're doing is historically the FCC would focus on a very small number of robocallers that generated a lot of calls and they would fine them hundreds of millions of dollars, but those fines would largely go uncollected. And what we're doing now is we're picking up on something we did in the last administration, which is to kick providers out of our robocall mitigation database if they're not doing enough to fight illegal robocalls. That effectively cuts them off from the US telephone network. And more generally, we're going at every single portion of the life cycle of illegal robocalls and making it harder for the bad actors to get their calls through, including we're looking particularly at foreign originated illegal robocalls.
Well, I know the American public out there is going to appreciate your work on that because I know I just got a call the other day from a constituent that had problems with robocalls coming into their business. Commissioner Trusty, you know where I'm from and what my area looks like, and there's areas out there, of course, that we don't have broadband, and I know I worked years back making sure that we had accurate maps before we'd spend money to make sure that dollars were spent. And in your testimony, you talk about some of the things you're really focusing on. And one of the things I think it's really important you talk about is when we talk about rural health care and telehealth. And I know when I'm in my rural hospitals, they can't afford to have a lot of different programs you might say or docs doing certain procedures or especially on the mental health side. Could you just elaborate a little bit on the mental health side and the telehealth side?
Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. As you know, the rural health care program ensures that rural patients have access to modern quality health care including telehealth. And the FCC has made some process improvements to improve access to this essential program by extending the application deadline, by making sure funding aligns with demands. And we've been able to roll over unused funds for this year or for 2025 to ensure that we increase access to this important service. I think as part of the USF congressional working group, there's another opportunity to explore additional reforms that can be made to this program to ensure that Americans in rural communities across the country have access to the quality care that they need.
Well, thank you. If I could just return to you, Chairman Carr, just real quickly because we had discussions when we talked about 4G, 5G, 6G, and I'd always ask this question. Are we winning the race? I mean, you know, who's our competitor out there? We got to win this race. So, are we winning this race out there when we talk about 6G?
We are. We had fallen behind in my view during the Biden years and now we've hit the accelerator and we are going to be leading the world once again in next generation technology.
Thank you very much. My time has expired and I yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank you chair and I recognize representative from New York, Miss Clark, for five minutes for your questions.
Good morning and thank you Chairman Hudson, ranking member Matsui for convening this hearing. Given the actions of the FCC under Chairman Carr, it's long overdue. Less than one year into his tenure, the FCC under Chairman Carr has given this committee many worthy avenues of exploration and oversight, most of which appear to stem from his new role as an obsequious partisan fulfilling President Trump's desire to exact revenge on his perceived enemies and lining the pockets of the oligarch class. While appearing before this committee less than four years ago under the Biden administration, then Commissioner Carr rightly acknowledged the independence of the FCC free from executive branch interference, but recently made clear that under the Trump administration, that independence is gone. While this may seem like a shocking about-face, it shouldn't be that surprising given Mr. Carr's role as author of the horrific Project 2025 manifesto as well as the frankly bizarre choice to wear a golden lapel pin bearing President Trump's face. The weaponization of the FCC under Chairman Carr is not just frustrating but dangerous. Dangerous for the nation and the ideals upon which it was founded. Individuals' freedom of speech and a press corps free from political intimidation are vital to a democracy. It's what also allows informed citizens to speak their minds without fear of government reprisal and serves as an important check on those in power. Unfortunately, these ideals are lost under this iteration of the FCC, which appears bound to the whims of a president intent on punishing those who report accurately on his unsettling behavior. Because my time is limited, I can't possibly list every example of the weaponization of the FCC in the last year. But a few that come to mind include reinstating complaints against news organizations that were critical of Trump during the election while failing to reinstate a petition filed against the president's media outlet of choice, Fox. Ordering baseless investigations into NPR and PBS. Using mergers to extract political revenge and more such as withholding approval of the Paramount Skydance merger until Trump's personal lawsuit was settled with financial payment, launching a ridiculous investigation into KCBS in San Jose for merely reporting on ICE activity in their own community, threatening to unilaterally alter national media ownership limits, which would reduce diversity in media and further endanger local news, overtly partisan reinterpretations of the FCC's public interest standard and news distortion policies to enact a regime of censorship, and most notably the overt threatening of licenses of broadcasters for carrying Jimmy Kimmel Live. To the last point, Senator Cruz, who I rarely agree with, aptly described Chairman Carr's threats as akin to something out of a mafia movie. And let me just say, I don't see any Michael Corleone in this room today, only afraid of. So my question is to Commissioner Gomez. For nearly 90 years, the FCC has functioned as an independent agency to insulate communications policy from political pressure. Can you explain why the FCC's independence is essential to its credibility and effectiveness and what potential risks arise as that independence is eroded?
Thank you for that question. You know, when Congress created our predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, it considered putting the commission under the Department of Commerce. And Herbert Hoover at the time said it was a terrible idea because it was dangerous to have the regulator of the most important communications medium at the time being overseen by a single person. And so that's why it created an independent agency. It's important to have an independent agency because we must be seen as an expert body that makes decisions based on that expertise and not based on the political whims of one administration.
Commissioner Gomez, how do FCC media ownership caps support diversity of viewpoints and locally focused news? And what do communities risk losing if these limits are weakened?
Our core principles when we talk about the public interest in local broadcasting are localism, diversity of viewpoints and competition. The caps ensure that we have multiple voices in every market. That is why we have them. We want to ensure that we have that. If we lose those caps, what we are going to lose is that diversity of viewpoints and we risk having one voice funneling all the information to our voters.
With that, I yield back.
Thanks, gentle lady. Chair, now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for five minutes for your question.
Thank you very much. My questions are for Chairman Carr. In addition to serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I'm a member of the Select Committee on China. Under that role, I recently led a letter with Chairman Moolenaar to your office regarding specific concerns about Chinese fiber technology entering our country and the security concerns it brings to the United States. The FCC and Congress has already done a great job to protect our networks from these threats, but the concern remains. Just last week, the Financial Times reported a new China-backed hack of congressional staff email accounts. Can you outline, Mr. Chairman, what actions you are continuing to take to identify and address adversarial threats to US telecommunications infrastructure? And can you confirm that you'll continue to have all the necessary tools at your disposal to adequately address these concerns without additional congressional approvals?
Thank you, Congressman, for the question, for your leadership on this important issue. One of the very first things I did as chair was to stand up within the FCC a new council on national security that brings together all of our bureaus and offices and their expertise to bear on this issue because China and other foreign actors are constantly poking and prodding and looking for ways into our communications network. We've taken actions on what we call bad labs to try to kick out equipment authorization bodies that aren't trustworthy. We've taken action to implement the Secure Equipment Act. And with cybersecurity in particular, we work directly with carriers to ensure that they're taking renewed actions to accelerate the patching of vulnerable equipment, updating and reviewing their access controls, disabling unnecessary outbound connections. And the key there is we have to be very, very nimble and make sure that carriers and our country's national security expertise including CISA and DHS are very closely collaborated because you need very quick reactions given the types of threats we're seeing.
Very good. Again, question for the chairman. In your written testimony, you devoted a section to the deregulatory actions the FCC has engaged in under your leadership. This includes removal of over 1,000 rules and regulations. I applaud these actions especially as this committee is working on its own permitting reform package to streamline the process beyond the baseline number of regulations removed. Is there any way to quantify how much time and or money is saved by these actions? How would you describe these changes to the typical American taxpayer and internet users? I think that's very important. If you could respond, I'd appreciate it.
Yeah, thank you. The easiest way to put it is that historically it just costs too much and takes too long to build out internet infrastructure in this country. And that means communities that are on the edge case of new or additional or better service can get left behind. And so, we're working hard at the FCC on permitting reform and cutting red tape. And that's going to be key to making sure that we keep driving down prices for Americans.
Very good. For the last several weeks, the news has been inundated with the discovery of mass amounts of fraud within our federal programs. What are the safeguards at the FCC to help guard against fraud? And in light of what is happening with the improper payments within other agencies, is this something you're considering taking a look at and updating?
We're in the midst of continuing to reinvigorate our work to detect and root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Just recently, we took action, for instance, with respect to California. California had a state lifeline program that had decided that they were going to stop sharing relevant information with certain federal agencies and that opened the door to potential waste, fraud, and abuse. So, we revoked California's ability to opt out of that program. Now, we're putting everybody through this national database. We're also finalizing some work right now on some additional steps we can take with respect to our lifeline program to make sure those benefits are flowing only to those Americans that Congress intended them to.
Very good. Thank you very much and I yield back.
Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes for your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important oversight hearing. In 2021, Congress voted to invest a total of $65 billion in the broadband equity access and deployment program or BEAD to advance universal broadband access with over $1.8 billion reserved for my home state of California. By the end of the Biden administration, state deployment offices had made progress through the long process requirements, guidelines, and mandated studies, including in the law. They made awards to grantees who were committed to building fiber lines to hard-to-reach areas and strengthening connectivity in underserved areas. However, lamentably, there were no shovels in the ground, and I was one of the people who joined Republicans to criticize how long it had taken for that to happen and to be an advocate for permit reform in this field and in others. But by the beginning of 2025, states were ready to begin their buildouts, and the Trump administration decided to issue new regulations which halted any progress. So, we're back where we started. We're no better off, and progress is still stalled today as the administration holds the BEAD program's funding hostage. The Federal Communications Commission is guided by the principle that all Americans should have access to communication services. The Trump administration's pause on BEAD funding broadband build out for over a year goes directly against this principle. It continues the very things I joined Republicans to be critical of under the Biden administration.
Commissioner Gomez, how do delays in broadband deployment affect the FCC's abilities to meet its goal of making affordable connectivity accessible to all Americans? And how can we ensure that people have the skills to take advantage of broadband once it's deployed?
Thank you for that question. We want to get broadband to every community everywhere as soon as possible because we really risk leaving people further and further behind. And I'm afraid that we'll go from having a digital divide to a digital chasm if we don't do that. But I'm glad that you raised the totality of what Congress did with the broadband equity and access program because one thing we cannot ignore is that we need affordability and we need people to have the digital skills in order to take advantage of the broadband that will give them access to this digital economy. And I'm afraid that this administration has completely lost its focus on that. And that is why I say I'm afraid that if we don't ensure that these networks are sustainable, but making sure that everyone can use them and afford them, we are going to be building bridges to nowhere.
Right. Well, I share that concern and thank you. And I think it's critical we invest and continue to improve programs like the universal service fund to support affordable rates in underserved areas and rural access to hard-to-reach areas. And again, when I first came to Congress, we were all talking about rural broadband and how important that was. I think the pandemic showed us that the digital divide exists even in wealthy neighborhoods like the ones that I serve. And I think we should get at it. Along the lines of permit reform, last year, I joined with my colleagues, Representatives Joyce and Lamm, to introduce the bipartisan Broadband and Telecommunications Rail Act. We've heard that when broadband companies try to build out communications infrastructure across railroad crossings, the cost and approval times skyrocket. To streamline the deployment process between broadband providers and...
Railroad carriers, the bill would implement firm timelines, conflict resolution processes, and fee scales to help the FCC move faster in support of the public interest. It would outline the responsibility of each party and give the FCC authority where it previously had none. Commissioner Gomez, how would granting the FCC authority over this process speed up access to fast, reliable, and affordable connectivity? And are there other areas in broadband deployment that the FCC does not currently, but should have jurisdiction?
Thank you for that question. And I am very supportive of streamlining approvals, and particularly of your bill's focus on making sure that the costs that are being recovered are actually the costs of providing those approvals. And that, I think, is very important. So I think it's very helpful when Congress gives us instructions on what it is that we're supposed to do, particularly in the area where we are in fact acting to either preempt local regulations or tell others what we think that they should be doing. So I look forward to working with you in the future on this.
Great. Maybe Commissioner Trusty, any other areas in broadband deployment where the FCC needs jurisdiction, we need to give you jurisdiction.
Well, thank you for the question and thank you for your work on this bipartisan legislation. The commission is working on a number of fronts to remove regulatory barriers that impede the deployment of broadband, whether it's pole attachments, environmental or historic reviews, and expanding access to rights of way. I think all of these things will help us accelerate access to connectivity.
Keep us posted on that. I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you.
Thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the representative from Georgia, Representative Carter, for five minutes for your question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for being here. Chairman Carr, there's been a lot of ink here recently in the past few months or so regarding the streaming market and competition, and there's been a lot of confusion about regulatory jurisdiction in this space. Do you care to give us a view on the current landscape?
Well, streaming is something that we stay apprised of at the FCC, adjacent to markets that we directly regulate, and it's intertwined. And I think there has been concern increasingly expressed recently about consolidation in the streaming market and potentially further consolidation in the streaming market that could potentially harm consumers.
Great. Thank you, Chairman Carr. And I'm going to jump straight into some of my next inquiry regarding broadband permitting reform. And as you know, I've introduced the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025 to help cut red tape and speed broadband buildout and to close the digital divide across America, which has been passed on to the full committee and awaits consideration. Chairman Carr, I appreciate your support of my legislation and in your testimony. And I want to ask you, why is it important for Congress to pass my legislation codifying your reforms? And what kinds of steps is the FCC exploring to address state and local barriers to fixed and mobile broadband deployment?
Well, thank you, Congressman, for your leadership on permitting reform. I had the chance to visit with you in Georgia and actually splice fiber at an active build, as we saw there and in other places around the country. And we have to make sure that's a tough job. It's a difficult job, but we shouldn't have red tape standing in the way. I continue to think one of the most important things that can happen is to pass that package of permitting reform bills to make sure that we keep turning dirt.
I want to highlight another permitting national security issue regarding undersea cables. This is something that I've taken an interest in because it's critical broadband infrastructure that carries over 95% of international data traffic. I've got a bill. It's called the Undersea Cables Protection Act, which will eliminate the need for redundant five-year special use permits in National Marine Sanctuaries to streamline duplicative permitting that is significantly slowing down the deployment of cables. Chairman Carr, can you explain why slow-rolling subsea cables...
People probably don't realize it, but to your view, over 95% of all internet traffic ultimately travels over undersea cable. So we're working at the FCC right now to incentivize secure investment, new undersea cables, cybersecurity requirements for some of the technology that is in there. I think your legislation would go a long way to promoting greater secure buildout of that critical infrastructure.
And a lot of this information is in financial markets as well, isn't it?
Commissioner Trusty, I want to ask you, the commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on subsea cables that also addressed the importance of speeding the deployment of cables. Can you talk a little bit about how the FCC plans to expedite the permitting and licensing process generally, and why facilitating the deployment of cables is so important?
Yes, absolutely. And thank you for your leadership on this issue. So last year in August, the FCC adopted a proceeding where we streamlined the licensing and permitting processes for undersea cables. We updated outdated rules. We established faster processing timelines for eligible applicants, and we cut unnecessary administrative steps or disclosures. And that helps to promote the fast and efficient deployment of undersea cables, which is essential for our economic and national security. This positions us to be able to promote more U.S.-led cable projects to diversify our subsea traffic routes, so in the event of sabotage or compromise, there's no single point of failure, and it means we can strengthen our disaster recovery and emergency response plans. So it really helps with redundancy in this critical infrastructure.
And it would be naive of us to think that this wouldn't be used as a weapon at some point.
Well, thank you, Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trusty. I'm going to do the chairman a favor and give him back almost a minute. I yield back.
I appreciate that. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, I want to begin by addressing the troublesome direction Chairman Carr has taken the FCC. He is a tool of President Trump's Project 2025 agenda to suppress freedom of speech and those who criticize Trump, and to forcefully favor Trump's billionaire friends and supporters in order to control the content. One, publicly criticizing Jimmy Kimmel Live over their content criticizing Trump, leading ABC and some affiliates to pull the show out of fear of a Department of Justice lawsuit and threats of pulling their license. Two, reopen complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates for alleged, quote-unquote, news distortion while ignoring similar complaints against other networks that support President Trump. Three, link investigations to license reviews and look into platforms like YouTube and Comcast NBCUniversal, sending a message that what companies say or do could be closely watched, overly scrutinized by the FCC.
And finally, four, overseeing and facilitating media consolidation. Specifically, the proposed Nexstar-Tegna merger, which is owned by one of Trump's besties and supporters, and would give one company unprecedented reach to over 80% of households in America, controlling the content, threatening competition, weakening local journalism, and driving up costs for consumers. The Trump administration does not care about everyday Americans. They care about power, about control, and their billionaire friends. They care about making the rich richer and pushing their own agendas to suppress criticism of Trump and limit what Americans see on TV to control the message and push his propaganda. That is not America. And that shouldn't be happening in America. Americans deserve an FCC that protects free expression and ensures all communities have access to diverse content. Commissioner Gomez, what concerns do you have on the Nexstar-Tegna merger and Chairman Carr raising the national audience cap from 39 to 54.5% illegally on a special deal to benefit Trump's friends?
Thank you for that question, Congressman. What we fundamentally want is we want local communities to get information about their local communities. And what happens when we have too much consolidation by these national corporations that own these local broadcasters is we lose the diversity of voices and we lose that local news content that we have. Couple that with the defunding of public media, and we are also losing even more voices in our local communities. Now, the 39% ownership cap is in the statute. I don't think we can waive it. I think it would take an act of Congress in order to allow us to be able to grant a transaction of this size because of the fact that not only is the 39% cap in the statute, it's also we were forbidden from forbearing from that cap.
Thank you. Thank you. The Trump administration has failed to ease the financial burden on everyday Americans. Their actions have raised costs. Specifically, they have posed several federal initiatives, including the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, state broadband price regulation, and the Universal Service Fund, all of which would raise costs. One of these programs, the USF, is crucial for ensuring that communities in the Coachella, San Jacinto, and Imperial Valleys have access to reliable and affordable broadband and telephone services through programs like Lifeline. USF provides direct discounts to low-income households, helping students, agricultural workers, and families stay connected, while also supporting broadband deployment in rural and underserved areas where service would otherwise be too costly. USF alone helps expand essential services and promotes more affordable and competitive broadband options for residents. Commissioner Trusty, in your confirmation, you highlighted your commitment to, quote, considering adjustments to USF programs to better target resources to underserved communities. Do you still maintain that commitment?
Thank you. And would you commit to working with members of Congress before the FCC releases any rulemaking or public notices on changes to USF programs?
I'm always happy to work with Congress.
Will you commit to work before any changes are made?
I'm always happy to commit to work with Congress.
I'll take that as yes, and I'm going to take your word for it.
I'm always happy to work with Congress.
Without these programs, households face barriers to education, telehealth, and emergency communications, leaving them disconnected from opportunities in civic life. We cannot discuss fairness and media oversight without addressing the systemic barriers that leave communities behind. And I am tired of seeing time and time again how the Trump administration hurts Americans and makes their everyday life more costly. It is time to hold them accountable. Thank you, and I yield back.
Thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Representative Fry, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Chairman Carr, commissioners, really appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. Commissioner Trusty, I understand that you recently attended a conference in Dubai. And I'm curious your thoughts on that conference just briefly, and what we need to do to ensure that the U.S. has a more unified position going into the conference in 2027. It seems critically important given the conference is being held in China of all places.
Yes, thank you so much for the question. So, as you know, the WRC-23 was held in Dubai. And the unfortunate issue for the United States was that we didn't have auction authority. We didn't have a long-term spectrum pipeline, and we didn't have a unified strategy. And so, we were sidelined from very important discussions, which meant that we couldn't emerge from that conference with wins. Now, thanks to leadership from members of this subcommittee, we have auction authority. We have a long-term spectrum pipeline. And I think that gives us a foundation to develop a unified strategy where we can focus on key U.S. interests, working with our international allies in advance of WRC-27 to emerge from this conference with wins.
Thank you for that. Obviously, you know, during the first Trump administration, they unlocked an additional six gigahertz of bandwidth. In 2020, when the first Trump administration made that available, nearly 70 countries followed our lead. Now China is trying to undermine those efforts in Europe. And we're hearing good things, obviously, now out of the Trump administration defending that abroad. But you've talked about the importance of Wi-Fi to American innovation. Can you explain why it's pivotal that America lead on Wi-Fi?
Absolutely. So, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, I've been a proponent of an all-of-the-above approach to spectrum policy where we are accommodating a variety of users, use cases, and technologies. When you look at things like CBRS, you know, the United States has long been a leader in innovative uses of spectrum, and CBRS is a model for that. It accommodates the military, transportation, logistics, tracking, schools, hospitals, and much more. And so, my job at the FCC is to ensure spectrum is being put to its highest and best use. But given all of the use cases, I think it emphasizes the meaningful benefit of CBRS and unlicensed spectrum.
Thank you so much for that. Commissioner Gomez, I appreciated your comments earlier about, I think, that maybe the mission in your opinion of the FCC has shifted, that you're not supposed to police speech, that you're drifting from the mission. Those are some of the comments that I think you made. But I'm curious. In 2023, Senate Majority Leader and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sent a letter to Fox News regarding their coverage of the 2020 election, pressuring private news outlet owners to order specific shows and hosts to change their political coverage and issue compelled on-air statements solely because they disagreed with that coverage. Although you were not on the commission at the time, based on your opening statements, do you condemn those attempts by Democrats to censor free speech and journalism?
The First Amendment prohibits government interference in free speech. And so, in my view, the FCC should not be engaged in any activities that lead to either policing bias or pressuring newsrooms into how to report the news. So, we should not be regulating content.
So, it would be fair to say that you would disagree with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' letter to Fox News.
I think that to the extent any actions to pressure news by the government has led to the abuses that you are seeing under this administration, we should reconsider it.
Thank you for that. I'm glad to hear that you disagree with that. Would you also... In 2023, progressive activists petitioned the FCC to deny the renewal of WXF-TV's broadcast license, Fox 29 out of Philadelphia, arguing that Fox News' 2020 election coverage rendered the license unfit for the public interest and character standards. The FCC issued a public notice, treated the matter as a permit-but-disclosed proceeding, and formally invited public comment on whether Fox 29's license should be renewed. It was only after the 2024 election that the commission dismissed the petition and renewed that license. Commissioner Gomez, during that period when the petition was pending and the FCC was actively taking comments on whether Fox 29's license should be renewed based on coverage, did you issue any public statement condemning the use of the public interest and character standards to attack the station's license over election-related speech?
I'm so glad you raised the issue of the Fox petition to deny by an outside party because it gives me the opportunity to talk to you about what is different today. That was a petition to deny a license renewal, and it was treated like other petitions to renew licenses. In this case, what we are seeing is the FCC using complaints by a partisan group in order to police content and in order to harass and in order to affect how these stations are actually giving us the news. And that is light years different. What you didn't see under the last administration was the last administration investigating news outlets for the content of their broadcasts. You didn't see them using the public comment cycle in order to ask them, did a station violate any FCC rules. That is not what we do.
No, they just did that directly.
Gentleman's time is expired.
You just said that directly from time to say that they did not engage in...
The gentleman's time is expired. I gave a lot of extra time for the witness to answer, but we will now recognize the representative from Michigan, Representative Dingell, for five minutes for her questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the commissioners for being here today. This committee has a very serious responsibility to conduct oversight of the FCC. And while we made a lot of progress under the last administration, I'm deeply concerned that under this administration, the FCC is moving in the wrong direction. I'm going to associate myself with the previous comments by my Democratic colleagues and move to some areas that I'm very deeply concerned about that are impacting people's lives. As vehicles become increasingly connected and reliant on wireless communications, we have a responsibility to ensure these technologies are not weaponized to harm people, especially survivors of domestic violence. Survivors have reported that their abusers have used connected vehicle services to track their movements, stalk them in real time, or remotely disable their vehicles. Yet today, there is no clear, consistent, or confidential process for survivors to cut off an abuser's access to their vehicle services. In 2024, I sent a letter to the FCC urging it to take proactive steps to address the threat of domestic abusers exploiting connectivity tools and vehicles to harass and intimidate their partners. While I worked with the FCC on this issue, the lack of a clear, survivor-centered process is why I introduced the bipartisan Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act with Congressman Dan Crenshaw. The bill is designed to create a secure pathway for survivors to disable connected vehicle access tied to wireless-enabled vehicle technologies while providing clarity for automakers and service providers. Commissioner Gomez, from the FCC's perspective, how serious is the risk that these wireless-enabled vehicle technologies can be misused to facilitate stalking, coercive control, or other forms of abuse?
Thank you so much for that question and thank you for your leadership on this issue. It is so important to be able to protect survivors of domestic abuse. As you know, we took action in the previous administration to require companies to sever the cell phone accounts of victims of domestic abuse and also to not allow information in the abuser's bill to be given about the victims, and that is so important for their safety. So what you are doing is you are promoting now that we do this with vehicles. We sought comment on that issue, but I would welcome working with you and some guidance from...
Okay. I'm going to ask you a brief question because I want to get to another issue. But given the FCC's jurisdiction over wireless services, does the FCC currently have the authority to address these harms? Are there limits to your authority without congressional action?
Thank you for that question. I do believe we have authority to address them. It's always helpful when it's outlined in the statute directly.
I would encourage the FCC to please act, and we'll come back with Congress and try to get that done too. Chairman Carr, I want to talk about serious broadband buildout failures affecting people not only in my district but across the country. Bridgewater Township is in my district, but like so many places across the country, they were promised broadband service through the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, also known as RDOF. We are now in 2026. They were promised, by the way, my community was promised service by the end of 2024, and we're now in 2026. And this particular community only has 32% of that access that has been given. Let me be clear. This isn't just a failure by one company, which I've written about, but it's a failure of FCC oversight. The FCC is responsible for ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are dedicated to broadband buildout and the money that's there is used as it's intended, and that communities actually receive the broadband service they were promised. Instead, communities across the country are being left behind without reliable internet for school, work, or health care. Chairman Carr, what concrete enforcement actions is the FCC taking to hold those vendors that are being given contracts for their RDOF obligations? How are you making sure that communities like mine are not punished for losing access to other federal broadband buildout programs because of companies' false promises and FCC enforcement inaction?
Yeah. Thank you, Congressman, for the question and your advocacy on this. It's very important that the FCC take enforcement action in those types of cases. I can assure you that we have a number of enforcement matters going. If you made a promise to a community to deliver, then the FCC needs to hold you accountable to that. We've also been working to make sure that NTIA and Commerce, as these BEAD dollars come online, there's opportunities to pick up communities through that. We should collaborate on that. But my goal is the same as yours, is people should get the broadband that they were promised.
Well, I hope... Time's expired. I know, but I just... I know you'll look at Bridgewater now, but let's look at all those communities. You're two years behind. Thank you.
Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
I have a consent request.
To add an article into the record titled 'Democrats Want Feds to Block Miami Latinos from Hearing Conservative Radio.'
Without objection. So ordered. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to our witnesses today that I had a markup in another committee that I had to be at. So I've got an update on what's going on. Chairman Carr, I represent a lot of small jails that are concerned with the cost of operating a phone system for the inmates, which is a tough balance. I understand the need for prisoners, particularly inmates awaiting trial, to have reasonable communication rates. And I get that. But can you briefly talk about the useful and all your standards and what you've been doing to try to make sure that smaller jails in rural areas, et cetera, have the ability to meet that balance, to be able to provide it? Because some of my jails have talked about not allowing them, you know, any communication because they can't afford the equipment to make sure that the calls are made in a safe manner and in a proper manner. And as a former criminal defense attorney, I'm concerned because I don't want to have to go to the... If I were to return to that practice of law, I wouldn't want to have to go to the jail every time I needed to talk to one of my clients.
Well, thank you, Congressman, for your work on this. And this is an issue that is very important. It's very complex. As you note, on the one hand, we want to make sure that incarcerated individuals and their families can continue to communicate. At the same time, we have an obligation to jails and the broader community to make sure those communications take place with technology that ensures safety. The FCC over the years has tried to strike the right balance, and it's been difficult. There's been at least six different FCC actions, I think four different court cases or challenges. Congress came together in the Martha Wright-Reed Act and gave us additional authority, and the FCC recently revised some of the rates. The rates are higher than the rates that were initially set the first go-round by the Biden administration. They are... sorry, they're lower than the rates initially set by the Biden administration. They're higher than the rates the Biden administration set at the end. But to your point, what we were seeing with that last round of Biden rates is that they were too low in some circumstances, that inmates were getting denied calling services because the jail couldn't afford it or they couldn't afford the technology to make sure the communications are safe. So it's a complex issue with, you know, really well-intentioned people on all sides of this, and we have a proceeding right now to see if we can't, you know, once and for all strike a right balance here.
Thank you. And as I said before, I have a fairly rural district. It's pretty large, got some mountains in the way of some of this stuff. And so we've had some success, and some of my folks really like Starlink, but we need competition in order to... competition is always good for bringing down prices. What is the FCC doing to try to promote additional providers in that space? And what are your goals on reforming the satellite licensing and so-called Earth-link connections?
Yeah, thank you, Congressman. One thing that we're doing is taking a technology-neutral approach. There's many, many portions of this country where a high-speed fiber connection makes sense. But we have to be open-minded where cost per location exceeds a certain point, in which case you need to then look at other technologies like fixed wireless, like LEO systems. And that's what we're doing, making sure people can compete on a level playing field.
And I appreciate that because there are some areas of my district where there's one house, two houses, maybe three houses up a holler, and it would cost us a minimum of a hundred, maybe as much as $200,000 just to get fiber to those couple of houses, and there's no way you'd ever recoup the costs. So I appreciate that. I appreciate also that the commission has opened a docket to tighten foreign ownership standards for FCC licenses. Could you explain the difficulty in sorting out increasingly complex ownership structures sometimes used by licensees?
Yeah, we have rules and regulations on the books to try to make sure that we can process that. We obviously want investment in this country, but we need to make sure that there are security checks in place, and we've been taking a number of actions, again, to try to strike that right balance.
I appreciate that. I will tell you, my team thought we ought to have a little bit of fun. So I was requested to ask, and I have some questions to put for the record, but you don't have enough time to answer them with what I have left. But I was requested to ask, which one was your favorite in eliminating FCC regulations? Did you prefer or have more fun eliminating regulations on phone booths or telegraph lines?
It's funny. I was going to... before you said it, I was going to say telegraph. Yeah, we had so much dead wood in our regulations that there were still rules that tied back to telegraph service. I think that was a good one to get rid of.
Yeah, I agree. And that's why sometimes you have to take a look at everything and eliminate those things that are no longer appropriate. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Excuse me, Madam Chairman.
The chair now recognizes Ms. Bryant for her five minutes of questions.
Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, I'd like to start with you and follow up to that last interaction. The chairman said that families should be able to communicate with their families when they're in prison. Wasn't there an effort to raise cost or the caps for prisoners to be able to make calls to their families, which could lead to them costing more, make it more expensive to communicate with family?
Yes. Congress in the Martha Wright-Reed Act directed the FCC to lower the cost of the IPCS, which is the prison services pay phone and video calls, to make sure that they were just and reasonable and that they fairly compensated these providers. This administration and the last administration did that. We substantially reduced the cost of the calls. We had three mandatory data collections to get the correct data so that we could determine whether the rates were just and reasonable. This administration reversed what we did and said, well, we don't have enough data, so we're going to give the payphone providers everything they want. And the problem with that is what the payphone providers are doing is they are providing to these prisons and jails services that are not related to the cost of making those calls. We're forcing families of incarcerated people to pay for search warrant processing, to transcribe, convert into digital format to support litigation and investigations, to aid in investigations, and to provide for skilled investigators. That has nothing to do with the making of these calls. But this administration decided that they would provide that because we don't have enough data after three mandatory data collections. So we are forcing families to pay for these big costs because the providers are monopoly providers that provide these services for free to these prisons and to these jails on the backs of these families.
So these families are paying more to communicate with their...
Yes, they are. The costs have gone up.
...their family members. Thank you. Commissioner Carr, you have said that you think the agency should focus on information that consumers want and need. Is that accurate?
And you have also said they should have information so they can make an informed decision. Is that accurate?
Okay. I want to show you one of these. You know what this looks... You know what this is, I'm sure, right? A nutrition label, the broadband label. Okay. One of the pieces of this label is an early termination fee, on whether there is one or not. Do you see... It's down here. I don't know if you could see it from where you're at, but certainly you must be familiar with that. Correct.
Okay. Do you believe that consumers should know if there's going to be an early termination fee on a plan that they're signing up for?
What we're focused on is making sure that consumers have clear, concise...
Do you think that a consumer should know that there's going to be a cancellation fee? It's very simple.
This is an issue that we're looking at right now. What we want to reach is a point at which consumers have all of the information.
You don't have an opinion on whether consumers should know if there's going to be an early termination fee. That's shocking. Commissioner Carr, let me tell you why. This company too has an early termination fee up to $750 depending on the device and the contract. So to have the chair of this agency not have an opinion on whether consumers should have informed information on a cancellation... You just confirmed to me... I am not... There is no question pending, sir. There is no question pending.
You just told me the consumer should have the information to make an informed decision. I can tell you in my congressional district where people are working class and they're low income, they're going to want to know if there's an early termination fee, and they're certainly going to want to know if there's a $750 early termination fee. So, Commissioner Gomez, I'm going to turn to you. Do you think consumers should be able to know if there is an early termination fee on their plan?
And isn't there a proposal now to eliminate that requirement that would read to consumers whether there's an early termination fee?
Yes, what it would do is obfuscate the fees by pulling them all up into one category. Now, I believe that companies, carriers should compete on price and quality, not on being able to hide information from their consumers.
Okay. And I now want to turn to these same labels. There are companies that go out and they market to consumers in Spanish language, and then these customers come in and sign up for service. Should those consumers be able to get this information in their language that they were marketed in?
Yes. The proposal that the FCC has just adopted would eliminate that requirement, even though the companies are marketing in another language.
Great. Thank you. I agree that I think consumers should know this. I would like to enter into the record this article, October 10th, 2022, from The Verge. It's titled 'Brendan Carr Wants to Let Internet Providers Charge Hidden Fees Again.'
Thank you. I yield back.
So ordered. All right. The chair recognizes Representative Kamik for her five minutes of questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to our witnesses. Commissioner Carr, great to see you again. You could hardly get a word in edgewise a minute ago. So, would you like to take 30, 45 seconds or so to respond to the representative's accusations?
Well, because a gentleman, I'll say this: there's a lot of discussion here about prices and affordability, but thanks to President Trump, that's changing. Since January 2025 alone, prices for wireless plans are down over 4%. They're down over 7% from Biden-era highs. Prices for smartphones are down 9%, and speeds are up. So prices are down, speeds are up, and competition is intensifying. With respect to broadband labels, if you look at the chart that was held up, it's very confusing. And that's the point that we're looking at, is how do we get the information that consumers want, whether it's ETF or other information, so they can find it and see it accurately and quickly. Let's separate the wheat from the chaff. And that's what that proceeding is about.
Absolutely. And we've seen an immense amount of deregulation, which is good for consumers because it helps foster that competition. I know you have spoken to me about the REINS Act and the work that is being done there. Talking about REINS Act being the largest regulatory reform effort in American history, what would the passage and adoption of that bill, which would require Congress to have an up-or-down vote on any major rule or regulation that has an industry impact of $100 million, what kind of impact would that have at your agency?
I think it's important, again, as we just talked about, we did a sweep through all rules and regulations on the FCC's books. We've eliminated over 1,000 rules or regulations or teed them up for removal. We have over 2,000 inactive proceedings. Again, you think about one agency, the FCC, it's actually a relatively small agency. And you spread that out across the federal government. So some mechanism to make sure that needless regulations aren't getting on the books and staying on the books would really help unlock further economic growth for the country.
And I just want to repeat that again for folks watching back home. You guys took over 1,000 regulations off the books, and prices are coming down. It's almost like the smaller government gets, the better it gets for people across America. Right.
Okay. I love that. Well, another issue that you and I have talked about, and I know everyone can really understand, is the issue of robocalls and scam texts. I must get half a dozen or a dozen a day, and it makes you want to throw your phone across the room. Talk to me about the work that the agency is doing to stop the scam texts and the fraud that's taking place there, and what authorities or additional authorities your agency would need in order for us to crack down on these robocalls and these scam texts.
This is an issue that across the Trump administration and really every administration we've had, there's been a lot of work to crack down on illegal robocalls. Now, we're coordinating across the federal level, whether it's the FCC, FTC, working with state attorney generals as well. And again, we are tackling this issue at every single portion of the life cycle of the call. We're looking at things like know your customer. So we're going to onboard a business to allow them to place calls to U.S. subscribers. We're pushing to make sure those telephone companies know much more about those businesses, both so that they're legit and if there's an issue, we can then track it back. So I think Congress could potentially legislate more on the KYC, know your customer rules, to strengthen those even further. But there's some room for the FCC to push, and we're going to do that.
Well, and I know so many of these robocalls and some of these scam texts originate from overseas. We've really graduated from the Nigerian prince who just needs $5,000 and then he'll, you know, make you a millionaire. We've really graduated the scams, right? Talk to me about your coordination efforts with your counterparts overseas and what we need to do here in Congress to strengthen that.
Well, one idea that we are pursuing at the FCC is the idea that if you get a call on your phone from abroad, it shouldn't necessarily, in my view, display a U.S.-based area code because that could mislead someone to think that this is a call originating in the U.S. So if you're a company and you want to have a call center overseas, at least be truthful and honest with your customers. So we're looking at that. We're looking at potentially doing standards for call centers to make sure that foreign call centers are compliant with our customer service regulations. So there's a lot of efforts we're taking on that front.
