Business meeting to consider an original resolution authorizing expenditures by the committee during the 119th Congress.

1[Senate Hearing 119-116]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-11656                            AMERICA OFFLINE?7                  HOW SPECTRUM AUCTION DELAYS GIVE CHINA8                        THE EDGE AND COST US JOBS910=======================================================================1112                                HEARING1314                               BEFORE THE1516                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,17                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION18                          UNITED STATES SENATE1920                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2122                             FIRST SESSION2324                               __________2526                           FEBRUARY 19, 20252728                               __________2930    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and31                             Transportation3233[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov3637                                 __________3839                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4061-206 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254142-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4344       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION4546                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS4748                             FIRST SESSION4950                       TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman51JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,52ROGER WICKER, Mississippi                Ranking53DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota54JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii55DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts56MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan57TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin58TED BUDD, North Carolina             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois59ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada60JOHN CURTIS, Utah                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico61BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado62TIM SHEEHY, Montana                  JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania63SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ANDY KIM, New Jersey64CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware65                 Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director66           Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director67                     Liam McKenna, General Counsel68                   Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director69                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director70                     Jonathan Hale, General Counsel7172                           C O N T E N T S7374                              ----------75                                                                   Page76Hearing held on February 19, 2025................................     177Statement of Senator Cruz........................................     178Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     379Statement of Senator Wicker......................................    2980Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    3181Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    3282Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    3483Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    3684Statement of Senator Budd........................................    3785Statement of Senator Schmitt.....................................    4086Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    4187Statement of Senator Curtis......................................    4388Statement of Senator Kim.........................................    4589Statement of Senator Moreno......................................    479091                               Witnesses9293Prof. Thomas Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed Professor of94  Economics, Clemson University..................................     595    Prepared statement...........................................     696Charles P. Baylis, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical and Computer97  Engineering, Baylor University, and Director, SMART Hub........     898    Prepared statement...........................................    1099Matthew Pearl, Director, Strategic Technologies Program, Center100  for Strategic and International Studies........................    11101    Prepared statement...........................................    13102Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute.....................    17103    Prepared statement...........................................    19104105                                Appendix106107Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Thomas Hazlett by:108    Hon. John Thune..............................................    51109    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    52110    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    52111    Hon. Tammy Baldwin...........................................    53112    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    53113Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Charles Baylis by:114    Hon. John Thune..............................................    54115    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    55116    Hon. Ted Budd................................................    56117    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    57118    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    58119Response to written questions submitted to Matthew Pearl by:120    Hon. John Thune..............................................    59121    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    60122    Hon. Ted Budd................................................    60123    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    61124    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    63125    Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    63126    Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester....................................    64127Response to written questions submitted to Bryan Clark by:128    Hon. Todd Young..............................................    64129    Hon. Ted Budd................................................    65130    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    65131    Hon. Brian Schatz............................................    66132    Hon. Edward Markey...........................................    68133    Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester....................................    68134135                            AMERICA OFFLINE?136    HOW SPECTRUM AUCTION DELAYS GIVE CHINA THE EDGE AND COST US JOBS137138                              ----------139140                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2025141142                                       U.S. Senate,143        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,144                                                    Washington, DC.145    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:11 a.m., in146room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,147Chairman of the Committee, presiding.148    Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Wicker, Fischer,149Blackburn, Young, Budd, Schmitt, Curtis, Moreno, Sheehy,150Cantwell, Klobuchar, Peters, Baldwin, Rosen, Lujan,151Hickenlooper, Kim, and Blunt Rochester.152153              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,154                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS155156    Chairman Cruz. All right. We will now move onto the157hearing. Good morning.158    Auctioning spectrum has been one of the most successful159drivers of American innovation, economic growth, and global160technology leadership. Spectrum auctions have unlocked billions161for the Treasury while enabling our Nation's wireless networks162to deliver faster, better connectivity, fueling the rise of163breakthroughs from the iPhone to generative AI. This has164created millions of jobs, spurred new industries, positioned165American companies at the forefront of global innovation, and,166most importantly, improved the lives of American consumers.167    The next wireless leap, whether it is driverless cars,168remote surgeries, or air taxis, may be just around the corner.169But whether Americans will reap the benefits--and whether it170will be made here or overseas--depends on our will to unlock171more spectrum.172    We stand today at a critical juncture. It has been two173years since the FCC lost auction authority and three years174since the last meaningful auction of spectrum valuable to175American consumers. The dithering and the inaction sadly176characteristic of the prior administration yielded nothing.177Meanwhile, our spectrum innovation lags the rest of the world178as China, an adversarial surveillance state, threatens to179control worldwide communication networks.180    Thanks to this new Congress and the historic election of181President Trump, we have an opportunity to build better and182faster networks, to create tens of thousands of high-paying183jobs, and to secure America's global technological lead.184    The Spectrum Pipeline Act, which Leader Thune, Senator185Blackburn, and I introduced last year, would restore FCC186auction authority and end our spectrum drought. Through a clear187pipeline of mid-band spectrum, American companies will have the188certainty they need to invest billions in their networks and189lead the world in revolutionary innovation.190    Certain special interests, aligned with adversaries like191Huawei, have falsely portrayed a spectrum pipeline as a blunt192instrument to deprive the Defense Department of the spectrum it193needs to engage in 21st century warfare.194    To the contrary, our bill ensures both consumer interests195and defense capabilities are protected. The bill has a generous196time-frame for performing the necessary feasibility studies so197Federal missions are not degraded. And it uses the existing198deliberative process, which is carried out by technical experts199across the Federal Government, including DoD, to begin200auctioning a fraction of underutilized Federal spectrum.201    But studies are not enough to spur action: we need clear202goals. For many years now, U.S. Government incumbents,203particularly bureaucrats at the Pentagon under the direction of204Mark Milley, have insisted they are using every single205megahertz as efficiently as possible and must maintain absolute206control of their vast spectrum holdings.207    Look, I am more than open to compromise on what the208aggregate pipeline target number should be, but zero is209objectively unreasonable. And no institution should be afforded210blind deference, especially not one that cannot even pass an211audit and that claimed that leaving billions in tanks,212helicopters, and weapons in Afghanistan was more efficient than213bringing them home.214    But do not just take it from me. Military analysts with215firsthand expertise agree that we are falling behind, both in216terms of its effective usage and in the development of217intellectual property and wireless capabilities. Further, the218Pentagon is not the only user of the airwaves globally. Many of219the bands used by DoD currently are used commercially in220countries like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. If DoD is technically221unable to operate alongside wireless carriers using these bands222domestically, how on Earth can we expect it to prevail in a223Pacific conflict? It simply is not credible.224    There are also significant opportunity costs for our225national defense in delaying spectrum auctions. A pipeline226would be lucrative, raising $100 billion or more that could go227directly to rebuilding our military, to funding border228security, and to financing Coast Guard polar icebreakers. That229is an incredibly valuable offset for the reconciliation process230we are undergoing right now.231    But the risk of doing nothing is broader than lost revenue.232We are fighting a global technology race against communist233China. If we do not catch up and lead, it will be Huawei that234creates the backbone of tomorrow's global communication235networks through which much of the world's economic traffic--236and indeed, much of our own government's traffic--will flow.237Chinese infiltrations, like the recent Salt Typhoon attack and238the release of DeepSeek, are but a small preview of a future239where Chinese equipment sets the standards and dominates global240networks. Negative ripple effects cascade indefinitely from241there, handicapping our efforts in other adjacent technologies242like AI, quantum, and semiconductors, and threatening to make243America the loser in the 21st century technology race. We244cannot allow that to happen. Now is the time.245    Let me make a final point. The Commerce Committee, as we246take up reconciliation, will move forward on spectrum. It would247be an abdication of our responsibility to do anything248otherwise. We must move quickly and together to preserve the249Promethean flame of American technology and to bolster our250national security for years to come. We must prevail in the251race against China.252    I recognize the Ranking Member.253254               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,255                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON256257    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for258convening this important hearing. I look forward to hearing all259our witnesses and your expert testimony on this subject, and I260look forward to working with the Chairman and all my colleagues261in any way possible to resolve our previous conflicts on these262issues.263    Last Congress, the Committee worked to expand commercial264spectrum access while protecting critical Department of Defense265and Federal system infrastructure, and I think we can all agree266on two facts. First, the commercial industry needs access to267more spectrum to innovate and bring new technologies to market.268But second, the vital national security, aviation security and269essential Federal capabilities that rely on Spectrum must be270protected.271    One of our witnesses, I think, characterized it best. Mr.272Clark, in his testimony, said, ``The U.S. military will need to273operate in additional areas of electronic electromagnetic274spectrum to address the increasing challenges of the threat275environment to overcome its numerical and geographic276disadvantages to China.''277    I could not agree more. During the last Congress, I worked278to try to balance those access issues with national security279efforts, and many of my colleagues on this committee have280directed the Department of Commerce to have a larger role in281trying to define the issues of agency overlap in this area of282spectrum.283    That led to the Department of Commerce and the Joint Chiefs284of Staff agreeing on the legislation that we put forward that285would open up more spectrum for commercial uses, and study286basically how we could work together on spectrum sharing. So I287want to continue to focus on how we get this right. We need to288ensure that our global leadership and advanced wireless289technology against China is there. However, we need legislation290and leadership that does not abandon our national security291goals.292    I know it is easy to say this is what I want to do, but I293am firmly convinced, when looking at the past history here, the294only thing that is going to work is the collaborative,295hardworking efforts and probably test bedding of technology296that will allow us to get this right for the future.297    In 2019, the FCC auctioned 24 gigahertz band, endangering298our ability to track and predict hurricanes. In 2020, the FCC299approved Ligado's petition to use satellite spectrum for 5G and300risk severely disrupting essential GPS service. The U.S.301Government is now facing a $39 billion lawsuit because of that302debacle.303    And in 2020, the FCC also rushed to auction the C-band,304which was adjacent to spectrum used by airline altimeters.305Concerns about interference with those flight safety systems306nearly caused the FAA to ground all flights. It also put $81307billion worth of private investment by wireless industry at308risk, significantly delaying the deployment of 5G in the United309States.310    In early 2000, Congress had to spend about a billion311dollars replacing the radar system on the B-2 stealth bomber312because of uncoordinated changes to spectrum allocations. This313is exactly what I am talking about when we say we need to work314together. We cannot continue to have this play out in a way315where we are not thinking about our military capabilities.316    In Ukraine, we are seeing how essential spectrum is every317day. The Russians are jamming Ukraine drones, communications,318GPS, and satellites. This all shows that our military needs to319be nimbler, more flexible, if we are going to succeed in our320operations in that kind of contested and congested spectrum321environment.322    And let's face it. Today our warfare does depend on323spectrum-enabled communications. As one brigadier general who324is in charge of cyberspace and war fighting said, ``Spectrum is325no longer just an enabler of the warfare. It is the warfare.''326    So today's victories and battles really will depend on us327getting this right, and if we lose the spectrum war, we lose328the war.329    Today's hearing is about how we keep the U.S. globally330competitive, while China and Russia and other foreign331adversaries are making inroads that we need to assert our332leadership in the rest of the world. So I would like to work333with my colleagues on legislation that would help us get this334right and continue to move forward.335    I will also note that President Trump, in Mr. Clark's336testimony, has a line, quote, ``The most challenging driver of337U.S. spectrum policy access requirements will be the Trump338administration's initiative to establish a comprehensive339missile defense architecture for the United States,'' end340quote. Well, I do not know how we can do that if we give the341spectrum away.342    So I look forward to today's hearing, and I thank my343colleagues and the Chairman for this important hearing.344    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. I will now introduce the345distinguished panel of experts we have testifying.346    Joining us today is Dr. Thomas Hazlett, Professor of347Economics at Clemson University. Dr. Hazlett served as the348Chief Economist of the FCC, and is a noted expert in349telecommunications policy. His book, ``The Political350Spectrum,'' chronicles the history of American spectrum351regulation and how spectrum policy reforms, such as public352auctions, generated explosive technological innovation and353economic growth.354    Our second witness is Dr. Charles Baylis, a Professor of355Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University, the356oldest continuing operating university in the great state of357Texas. Dr. Baylis currently serves as Director of SMART Hub, a358DoD Spectrum Innovation Center that organizes research efforts359among 25 researchers across 15 universities, to revolutionize360the increasingly crowded spectrum used by both DoD and non-361military users.362    Our third witness is Matt Pearl, Director of the Strategic363Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and364International Studies. Mr. Pearl has more than 15 years of365government service, including most recently as advisor to the366National Security Council. Prior to that, Mr. Pearl served as367Associate Bureau Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications368Bureau at the FCC, where he helped transition the use of DoD369spectrum to include commercial wireless use in multiple bands.370    And our final witness, Bryan Clark, is a Senior Fellow and371Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at372the Hudson Institute. From 1982 to 2013, he served in a variety373of roles in the United States Navy. While in the Navy, Mr.374Clark received the Department of Navy Superior Service Medal375and the Legion of Merit.376    And we will start, Dr. Hazlett, with you. You are377recognized.378379           STATEMENT OF PROF. THOMAS HAZLETT, HUGH H.380381            MACAULAY ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS,382383                       CLEMSON UNIVERSITY384385    Dr. Hazlett. Thanks very much, and I thank everyone for386their kind invitation to participate in today's discussion.387    Radio spectrum is a vital component of the modern economy,388yet artificial scarcity has been imposed by public policies389that prevent entrepreneurs from moving underutilized spectrum390resources into their highest-valued uses. Such impediments have391long been a problem. Dating to the 1927 Radio Act, facets of392the law require ``Mother May I?'' The term of art describes the393slow process wherein idle bandwidth is discovered, defined in394scope, and then transitioned into productive employments.395    Needless permissions and red tape too often limit markets396and impede America's economic growth. Bands have been reserved397for maritime communications in Utah. The Forestry Service has398enjoyed exclusive frequency rights in New York City. And today,399some 35 channels from the TV Allocation Table of 1952 are still400reserved for terrestrial over-the-air broadcasting. I Love Lucy401may have benefited from this arrangement back in the day, but402we now have more efficient means to deliver video using cable,403satellites, and broadband internet.404    These long lags continue to plague entrepreneurial405ventures, reduce competition, and frustrate wireless consumers406desiring more bandwidth for enhanced communication. Yet the407good news is that U.S. policy has not been static. American408regulators have taken corrective actions to promote409liberalization, in particular, market-oriented policies have410relaxed mandates for how spectrum must be utilized. In granting411users and licensees wider discretion via flexible use spectrum412rights, enormously valuable new competitive forms have been413unleashed. Today, over ten times as much bandwidth is available414for mobile wireless than in the mid 1990s. Vast mobile415ecosystems have, as a result, bloomed. In addition, competitive416bidding--auctions--assigns such rights, replacing arbitrary417distributions.418    Recent decades have brought experiments with new methods,419and even the ones hidebound FCC has innovated. In the early4201990s, the introduction of what became known as second-421generation cellar, or 2G wireless, was held up for some years422by protests registered by holders of micro-wave allotments.423These incumbents claimed catastrophe would result from any424change in band access rights.425    As is often the case, such claims were overwrought. The426situation was put into clearer focus and resolved by a clever427FCC policy, an ``overlay.'' This approach granted emerging 2G428networks the right to utilize vacant frequencies in the micro-429wave band under ``flexible use.'' Further, the overlays granted430to the new licensee secondary rights over spectrum occupied by431the micro-wave transmissions. This protected incumbents but432gave life to entrants by defining the spectrum access rights433needed for bargains to be struck. Investors in 2G networks were434able to pay incumbents to move aside, using alternative435technologies or other frequencies, so as to free up bandwidth436for higher-valued services. The holdup ended, airways became437available, and the U.S., then lagging EU countries in digital438wireless, began to innovate and forge global leadership in439emerging networks service.440    The overlay policy has since been used in numerous contexts441by U.S. regulators.442    Overlays were modified in Auction 107 held in 2020-2021.443The 500 MHz allocated there had appeared crowded, congested,444and unavailable to entrants. In fact, with Incentive payments,445the entrants relocated. Winning bidders paid $94 billion for446the new licenses. Of that, some $13 billion was passed through447to the incumbents.448    The reconfiguration of the band took less than 4 years,449lightning fast in spectrum regulation time.450    Such mechanisms have improved incentives for cooperation in451the process of radio spectrum reallocation. Many more targets452of opportunity for efficient reforms in radio spectrum await.453Thank you very much.454    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hazlett follows:]455456 Prepared Statement of Prof. Thomas Hazlett, Hugh H. Macaulay Endowed457               Professor of Economics, Clemson University458    Thank you for your invitation to participate in today's discussion459of radio spectrum allocation. I am an economist who has studied this460and related issues, publishing numerous research articles and books on461the topic,\1\ formerly serving as Chief Economist of the Federal462Communications Commission, and currently serving as a co-principal463investigator of SpectrumX, an NSF Spectrum Innovation Center.464---------------------------------------------------------------------------465    \1\ See, e.g., Thomas Winslow Hazlett, The Political Spectrum: The466Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies, From Herbert Hoover to467the Smartphone (Yale University Press, 2017).468---------------------------------------------------------------------------469    Radio spectrum is a vital component of the modern economy. The470airwaves through which communications flow--enabling mobile networks,471connections to Internet services, satellite links, and a host of other472stunningly useful applications--is limited in supply. But regulatory473restrictions have made it even more restricted than nature and economic474demand alone. Artificial scarcity has been imposed by public policies475that prevent entrepreneurs from moving under-utilized spectrum476resources into their highest valued uses.477    Such impediments have long been a problem of traditional spectrum478allocation. Dating to the 1927 Radio Act, a statute still dictating the479basic structure of regulation, many facets of law require Mother May I?480The term of art describes the slow process wherein idle bandwidth is481discovered, defined in scope, and then transitioned into productive482employments. Needless permissions and red tape too often limit markets483and impede America's economic growth. Bands have been reserved for484maritime communications in Utah. The Forestry Service has enjoyed485exclusive frequency rights in New York City. And today, some 35486channels from the TV Allocation Table of 1952 are still reserved for487terrestrial, over-the-air broadcasting. I Love Lucy might have488benefited from this arrangement back in the day, but we now have more489efficient means to deliver video using cables, satellites, and490broadband Internet.491    But too often such opportunities are greeted with a spectrum492strategy of ``hurry up and wait.'' The famous scientist Edwin Howard493Armstrong could, in the 1930s, invent FM radio, a hi-fidelity494technology superior to the old AM, only for FCC machinations to prevent495its eventual blossoming until the 1960s. The World War II invention of496cellular radio ran into a licensing roadblock that delayed wireless497telephone networks until the 1980s. Spectrum wars in bureaucratic498trenches pit industries against each other, with the upshot that vast499bands--and better networks--may go idle for a lifetime.500    These long lags continue to plague entrepreneurial ventures, reduce501competition, and frustrate wireless consumers desiring more bandwidth502for enhanced communications. Yet, the good news is that U.S. policy has503not been static. American regulators have occasionally taken corrective504actions to promote liberalization. In particular, market-oriented505policies have relaxed mandates for how spectrum must be utilized. In506granting users and licensees wider discretion via ``flexible-use507spectrum rights,'' enormously valuable new competitive forms have been508unleashed. Today, over ten times as much bandwidth is available for509mobile wireless use than in the mid-1990s. In addition, competitive510bidding--auctions--assigns such rights, replacing arbitrary511distributions prior to 1994. The trick, however, is that in the512underlying allocation process itself, administrative designations are513still largely used to define the nature, location, and rules governing514what technologies, services, and business models are to be made515available for deployments.516    Recent decades have brought experiments with new methods, and even517the once hidebound FCC has innovated.\2\ In 1994, the introduction of518what became known as second generation cellular, or 2G wireless, was519held up for some years by protests registered by holders of micro-wave520allotments. The incumbents claimed catastrophe would result from any521change is band access rights.522---------------------------------------------------------------------------523    \2\ Former FCC Member (and Chair) Jessica Rosenworcel summarized524the new spirit of change this way: ``When it comes to wireless policy,525we have a history of embracing the ideas that are cool, kooky, and new526before anyone else. After all, it was more than two decades ago that we527took the academic ideas of Ronald Coase and ushered in a whole new era528of spectrum auctions. We also pioneered the use of unlicensed529spectrum--the airwaves we now know and use every day as Wi-Fi. More530recently, we blazed a trail for two-sided incentive auctions.''531Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, FCC 19-96 (Rel. Sept.53227, 2019), p. 34.533---------------------------------------------------------------------------534    As is (was) often the case, such claims were overwrought. The535situation was put into clearer focus, and resolved, by a clever FCC536policy, an ``overlay.'' This approach granted emerging 2G networks the537rights to utilize vacant frequencies in the micro-wave band under538``flexible use'' rules. Further, the overlays granted the new licensee539secondary rights over spectrum occupied by the micro-wave540transmissions. This protected incumbents but gave life to entrants by541defining the spectrum access rights needed for bargains to be struck.542Investors in 2G networks were able to pay incumbents to move aside--543using alternative technologies or other frequencies--so as to free up544bandwidth for higher valued services. The hold-up ended, airwaves545became available, and the U.S.--then lagging E.U. countries in digital546wireless--began to innovate and forge global leadership in emerging547network services.548    The overlay policy has since been used in numerous contexts by U.S.549regulators.\3\ The 2016-2017 ``Incentive Auction'' moved 70 MHz550allotted to TV broadcasts to flexible use spectrum rights won at551auction by mobile carriers; broadcasters were paid to economize on552airwave usage with funds bid by the new licensees. Incentive payments553to incumbents were also paid from auction revenues in Auctions 101554(2019) and 103 (2020). Overlays were then modified in Auction 107 held555in 2020-2021, restructuring the Satellite C-Band. The 500 MHz allocated556there had appeared crowded, congested, and unavailable to entrants. In557fact, with payments to incumbents, some 280 MHz of prime mid-band558spectrum became available for reallocation to entrants. Winning bidders559paid $94 billion for the licenses. Of that total, some $13 billion was560passed through to the incumbent users of the band, satellite operators.561The transfer enabled the companies to upgrade their systems while562reducing their spectrum footprint--``relocation costs and incentives''563in FCC parlance. This capacious tranche of new flexible-use spectrum564was the largest ever released by the FCC for auction in one proceeding,565and it energized U.S. 5G build-out. The rapid manner in which the566policy was crafted and executed was also notable. From a Notice of567Inquiry in July 2017 to the conclusion of bidding in Feb. 2021, a568relatively short timetable departed from the long delays that the FCC569has too often witnessed.\4\570---------------------------------------------------------------------------571    \3\ Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, 276-287.572    \4\ Even a generous accounting led the FCC to estimate standard573delays as 6-11 years. See: FCC, National Broadband Plan (March 2010),574p. 79.575---------------------------------------------------------------------------576    Such mechanisms have improved incentives for cooperation in the577process of radio spectrum reallocation. They lubricate transitions that578enable the adoption of advanced methods of spectrum sharing, a term579that is too often narrowly seen as top-down administrative rules. Most580significantly, they help identify where consumers most value airwaves,581revealing opportunities for new models and increasingly useful582technologies. With attention to economic incentives, demonstrated in583both encouraging and disappointing results exhibited in spectrum policy584experiments, pro-consumer strategies have been discovered. Many more585targets of opportunity for efficient reforms in radio spectrum await.586587    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Dr. Baylis.588589STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. BAYLIS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ELECTRICAL590               AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, BAYLOR591              UNIVERSITY, AND DIRECTOR, SMART HUB592593    Dr. Baylis. Thank you and good morning. My name is Dr.594Charlie Baylis, and I serve as Professor of Electrical and595Computer Engineering at Baylor University, and Director of596SMART Hub, a Department of Defense Spectrum Innovation Center.597    SMART stands for Spectrum Management with Adaptive and598Reconfigurable Technology, and SMART Hub consists of 25 U.S.599citizen researchers across 15 universities in 13 states. Our600unified mission is to make spectrum usage adaptive and601reconfigurable, from policy all the way through circuits. We602have been established through congressional appropriation603support and commissioned through the Army Research Laboratory.604We are not a typical collection of academicians. We do not605desire merely to publish papers on technology that will606stagnate in a laboratory, but to quickly put superior607technologies into the hands of our warfighters and into the608hands of consumers. We want to put America First in spectrum,609arguably the most important dimension of battle and a very610valuable natural resource.611    As a center, we are creating adaptive and reconfigurable612technologies that will provide a ``win-win'' for military613dominance and economic growth. By adapting, we aim to provide614flexible, opportunistic spectrum capabilities to military615systems and 5G and 6G commercial wireless systems, maximizing616performance in whatever band they operate. We can also617simultaneously enable the construction of the Iron Dome for618America.619    Two weeks ago, we demonstrated our initial technologies to620the Pentagon, Congress, and the defense industry right here in621Arlington. As an example of some of our innovations, we have622developed sense-react-and-avoid, sense-predict-and-avoid, and623metacognitive techniques to choose the best available spectrum624for operation in real time, and are looking to AI to speed625spectrum selection.626    We are building a Dynamic Spectrum Management System, or627DSMS, that will include live interference reports to inform the628real-time coordination of spectrum. We are working on629reconfigurable plasma circuits and antennas, capable of630handling high transmission power levels, that allow us to631maximize radar range in under a millisecond after changing632frequencies to avoid wireless communications. We are pioneering633a novel measurement module that, when placed inside a634transmitter chain, will allow us to assess what we are635transmitting to avoid interference and improve our system636performance ``on the fly.'' These techniques will allow both637incumbent Government systems and commercial wireless systems to638have the functionality to work around each other.639    Technology innovation will convert congestion into640opportunity. Many attempts to organize spectrum have been641limited to regulation and re-regulation, but adaptive and642reconfigurable technology will revolutionize spectrum use. It643will allow us to both provide for the common defense and644promote the general welfare.645    As the developer of adaptive and reconfigurable technology,646the United States will gain an enormous international advantage647both economically and tactically. U.S. industries will develop648these systems and sell their technology worldwide. China will649have to buy the technology from us. Commercial wireless systems650will realize heretofore uncomprehensible bandwidths. And our651military systems will be the strongest, most agile in the652world, dominating in the most important dimension of battle,653the spectrum.654    How do we get to this situation from where we are today?655This is a question that I, as the Director of a congressionally656funded Spectrum Innovation Center, have spent a lot of time657considering and mapping to direct our research, innovation, and658workforce development. If spectrum coexistence is like driving659a car down a highway with other vehicles, we must develop660adaptive and cognitive techniques to maneuver devices through a661congested spectrum. In less congested environments, device-to-662device interaction can be used to coexist, just as cars can663pass each other autonomously in uncrowded highways. In more664congested environments, like a traffic light, a Dynamic665Spectrum Management System will be useful for coordinating. So666how do we grow into this paradigm from where we are today? You667cannot expect a kindergartener to drive a car, and we cannot668expect rigid wireless technologies to coexist adaptively. In669both cases, maturation and development is needed. We are670mapping a technology development trajectory using Bloom's671Taxonomy. Widely used by educators in cognitive development,672Bloom's Taxonomy shows the progression from knowledge, which is673the simple memorization of facts, to evaluation, the mature674cognitive and adaptive approach to life.675    In elementary, middle, and high school, educators carefully676plot the course of these students in subjects such as reading,677writing, mathematics, science, and physical education to678develop the cognitive and physical skills the children will679need to eventually get behind the wheel of a car and drive the680car down a road adaptively. In a similar manner, we are moving681quickly toward evaluation ?-cognitive and adaptive use of the682spectrum.683    In conclusion, in the race for spectrum superiority,684America needs to win. The opportunity is now, and we must seize685it or be left behind. There are 25 patriot scholars in SMART686Hub, with their U.S. citizen students, that are determined and687working hard to see this happen. With God's enablement and688provision, we look forward to continuing to partner with689Congress, our President, and our Nation to ensure American690superiority.691    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look692forward to answering questions that you have.693    [The prepared statement of Dr. Baylis follows:]694695Prepared Statement of Charles P. Baylis, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical696  and Computer Engineering, Baylor University, and Director, SMART Hub697    Good morning. My name is Dr. Charlie Baylis, and I serve as a698Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University699and Director of SMART Hub, a Department of Defense Spectrum Innovation700Center. ``SMART'' stands for ``Spectrum Management with Adaptive and701Reconfigurable Technology'', and SMART Hub consists of 25 U.S. citizen702researchers across 15 universities and 13 states. Our unified mission703is to make spectrum usage adaptive and reconfigurable, from policy704through circuits. We have been established through Congressional705appropriation support, and commissioned through the Army Research706Laboratory. We are not a typical collection of academicians. We do not707desire merely to publish papers on technology that will stagnate in a708laboratory, but to quickly put superior technologies into the hands of709our warfighters and into the hands of consumers. We want to put America710First in spectrum: arguably the most important dimension of battle and711a very valuable natural resource.712    As a center, we are creating adaptive and reconfigurable713technologies that will provide a ``win-win'' for military dominance and714economic growth. By adapting, we aim to provide flexible, opportunistic715spectrum capabilities to military systems and 5G and 6G commercial716wireless systems, maximizing performance in whatever band they operate.717Two weeks ago, we demonstrated our initial technologies to the718Pentagon, Congress, and the Defense Industry in Arlington, VA. As an719example of some of our innovations, we have developed sense-react-and-720avoid, sense-predict-and-avoid, and metacognitive techniques to choose721the best available spectrum for operation in real time, and are looking722to AI to speed spectrum selection. We are building a Dynamic Spectrum723Management System (DSMS) that will include live interference reports to724inform the real-time coordination of spectrum. We are working on725reconfigurable plasma circuits and antennas, capable of handling high726transmission power levels, that allow us to maximize radar range in727under a millisecond after changing frequencies to avoid wireless728communications. We are pioneering a novel measurement module that, when729placed inside a transmitter chain, will allow us to assess what we are730transmitting to avoid interference and improve our system performance731``on the fly.'' These techniques will allow both incumbent government732systems and commercial wireless systems to have the functionality to733work around each other.734    Technology innovation will convert congestion into opportunity.735Many attempts to organize spectrum have been limited to regulation and736re-regulation, rather than innovative technology to revolutionize737spectrum use. Adaptive and reconfigurable technology provides a better738alternative. It will allow us to both ``provide for the common739defense'' and ``promote the general welfare.''740    As the developer of adaptive and reconfigurable technology, the741United States will gain an enormous international advantage both742economically and tactically. U.S. industries will develop these systems743and sell their technology worldwide. Commercial wireless systems will744realize heretofore uncomprehensible bandwidths. And our military745systems will be the strongest, most agile in the world, dominating in746the most important dimension of battle: the spectrum.747    How do we get to this situation from where we are today? This is a748question that I, as Director of a Congressionally funded Spectrum749Innovation Center, have spent a lot of time considering and mapping to750direct our research, innovation, and workforce development. If spectrum751coexistence is like driving a car down a highway with other vehicles,752we must develop adaptive and cognitive techniques to maneuver devices753through a congested spectrum. In less congested environments, device-754to-device interaction can be used to coexist, just as cars can pass755each other autonomously in uncrowded highways. In more congested756environments, like a traffic light, a DSMS will be useful for757coordinating.758    How do we grow into this paradigm? You cannot expect a759kindergartener to drive a car, and you cannot expect rigid wireless760technologies to coexist adaptively. In both cases, maturation and761development is needed. We are mapping a technology development762trajectory using Bloom's Taxonomy. Widely used by educators in763cognitive development, Bloom's Taxonomy shows the progression from764``knowledge,'' which is the simple memorization of facts, to765``evaluation,'' the mature cognitive and adaptive approach to life. In766elementary, middle, and high-school, educators carefully plot the767course of these students in subjects such as reading, writing,768mathematics, science, and physical education to develop the cognitive769and physical skills the children will need to eventually get behind the770wheel of a car and adaptively drive down a road. In a similar manner,771we are moving quickly toward ``evaluation''--cognitive and adaptive use772of the spectrum.773    In the race for spectrum superiority, America needs to win. The774opportunity is now, and we must seize it or be left behind. There are77525 patriot scholars in SMART Hub, with their U.S. citizen students,776that are determined and working hard to see this happen. With God's777enablement and provision, we look forward to continuing to partner with778Congress, our President, and our Nation to ensure American superiority.779Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to780answering questions that you have.781782    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Pearl.783784 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW PEARL, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES785    PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES786787    Mr. Pearl. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell,788distinguished members of the Committee, it is an honor to789appear before you to discuss spectrum policy. The Center for790Strategic and International Studies does not take policy791positions, so the views expressed here are my own.792    In my testimony I will explain the importance of793establishing U.S. leadership in spectrum policy, draw attention794to recent developments that undermine such leadership, and urge795Congress and the Administration to act to improve the U.S.'s796position.797    U.S. leadership in spectrum is critical because the798People's Republic of China is spending tens of billions of799dollars to subsidize Huawei in an effort to control the future800of this strategically vital technology. The U.S. is not, and801should not, take the PRC's approach of massively subsidizing a802single company. However, the U.S. should make available its803other policy levers to counter the PRC, and spectrum is804particularly critical.805    Until recently, our country was at the forefront of806spectrum policy. Since Congress authorized the FCC to conduct807auctions in 1993, it held 100 auctions that generated $233808billion for the Treasury. In addition, Congress repeatedly809provided clearing targets for making spectrum available for810commercial use. These actions were critical to economic growth,811economic security, and national security. During the period of8124G, for instance, U.S. networks supported 20 million jobs and813were responsible for 10 percent of GDP growth.814    Further, spectrum has played a critical role in fostering a815stable, resilient U.S. economy. While we take it for granted816that U.S. companies top the App Store on our phones, spectrum817played a decisive role in enabling that to happen. In 2008, we818were the first country to auction the 700 MHz band, giving us a819head start in building high-power 4G networks. As a result,820U.S. innovators were able to develop the first mobile apps.821    While I have focused on auction spectrum, I must also822highlight the importance of unlicensed and satellite use. We823were the first country to adopt unlicensed use, leading to the824development of ubiquitous, low-power technologies such as Wi-825Fi. The U.S. has also been a leader in satellite spectrum,826enabling U.S. companies to launch massive, low-earth orbit827constellations.828    While the U.S. has traditionally played a leadership role829in spectrum, we are now at risk of falling behind. In March8302023, the FCC's authority to hold spectrum auctions lapsed. In831addition, many countries have launched 5G in prime mid-band832spectrum that the U.S. has not made available. It is critical833for Congress to restore FCC auction authority and to establish834ambitious clearing targets.835    Another threat to U.S. leadership involves lengthy delays836in acting on a request for satellite licenses, which is another837threat to our leadership.838    Finally, I will address the relationship between spectrum839and national security. I have strong views on this question840because during my service at the National Security Council one841of the areas that I oversaw was electronic warfare. Some have842taken the position that making spectrum available for843commercial use is undesirable because DoD uses the remaining844bands. I agree that it is critical for DoD to maintain the845capabilities it needs to accomplish its mission. However, we846have an opportunity to expand those capabilities while creating847opportunities for commercial use.848    There is also a misunderstanding about whether Congress849needs to provide new statutory protections so that spectrum850reallocation does not threaten national security. As one851example, under an existing statutory provision, DoD cannot852surrender spectrum unless the Secretary of Defense and the853Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certifies that they will maintain854essential military capabilities.855    The biggest misconception we confront is that we only need856to ensure that DoD has continued access to spectrum to prevail857in the electromagnetic domain. The reality is that our858military's budget is dwarfed by the commercial sector when it859comes to technology, meaning that to prevail over our860adversaries, DoD will need to leverage commercial innovation.861For instance, wireless networks will be critical to the AI race862because developing sophisticated AI services will require more863data be sent to and from mobile devices. DoD will need to864leverage the most advanced AI technologies, but this will not865happen unless we make commercial spectrum available.866    I look forward to your questions.867    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pearl follows:]868869 Prepared Statement of Matthew Pearl, Director, Strategic Technologies870        Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies871    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, distinguished Members of872the Committee, thank you for allowing me to share my views with you on873spectrum. I have worked on spectrum issues for nearly 15 years, and so874it is a special honor to testify in front of the Senate committee that875has repeatedly adopted legislation to ensure that the United States is876at the forefront of spectrum policy and wireless technology. The Center877for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) does not take policy878positions, so the views represented in this testimony are my own and879not those of my employer. In my testimony, I will 1) explain the880importance of the United States taking a leadership role on spectrum881policy for U.S. economic growth, economic security, and national882security; 2) draw attention to recent developments that threaten the883ability of the U.S. to out-compete and out-innovate its adversaries in884wireless technology; and 3) urge Congress and the Administration to885take several key actions so that the United States leads the world in886wireless innovation.887Spectrum and U.S. Leadership888    It is critical for the United States to play a leadership role in889spectrum policy. In recent years, for example, the People's Republic of890China (PRC) has spent tens of billions subsidizing Huawei, as part of891an effort to destroy the non-PRC wireless industry, dominate the global892market for wireless services, and control the future of this893strategically vital technology. The U.S. is not--and should not--take894the PRC's approach of picking a winner and providing that company with895massive subsidies. The threat posed by the PRC, however, makes it896absolutely critical for the U.S. to use the other policy levers it has897available to advance our position in wireless innovation and898technology, and making spectrum available for commercial use is one of899the key ways to ensure that we are able to do so.900    Over most of the past thirty years, our country has been successful901in leading the world in spectrum policy. During that time, our Nation902was able to make a massive amount of spectrum available for commercial903use, thus providing great benefits to the American people, while at the904same time preserving and expanding Federal spectrum-based905capabilities,.906    In 1993, Congress authorized the Federal Communications Commission907(FCC) to allow competitive bidding for spectrum licenses, and we became908the first country to hold a major spectrum auction. Since 1994, the FCC909has held 100 spectrum auctions that raised over $233 billion for the910U.S. Treasury. Moreover, the total cost of the auctions program was911less than 1 percent of what the auctions brought in. That represents an912incredible return on investment for the American taxpayer.913    Auctions have been even more instrumental, however, in promoting914technological innovation and economic growth. If we look at the period915between 1985 and 2020, when the United States made a tremendous amount916of high-power spectrum available, wireless operators invested over $600917billion in their networks.\1\ The contribution that the wireless918industry made toward the larger U.S. economy was even greater--919according to one estimate, U.S. networks supported 20 million jobs,920contributed $700 billion to the economy in a single year, and were921responsible for almost 10 percent of the GDP increase that the U.S.922economy experienced during the period of 4G/LTE deployments.\2\ Looking923forward, another study estimates that by 2030, 5G will add between $1.4924trillion and 1.7 trillion dollars to U.S. economic growth.\3\925---------------------------------------------------------------------------926    \1\ https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Compass-927Lexecon-Licensed-Spectrum-Report.pdf928    \2\ https://apnews.com/press-releases/pr-newswire/4g-wireless-929transformed-americas-economy-new-study-shows-930fbf58a1343f9e7ae38129b48aa1d6b62931    \3\ https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/accelerating-the-5g-932economy-in-the-us#::text=The%933205G%20economy%20is%20the,trillion%20in%20US%20economic%20growth.934---------------------------------------------------------------------------935    While holding auctions has been critical to economic growth, there936were other factors that made the United States a success in wireless937policy. In many cases, the United States was successful at achieving938international harmonization for the spectrum bands we adopted here,939which allowed us to create a global equipment ecosystem and benefit940from economies of scale. Moreover, Congress has repeatedly provided941guidance to the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information942Administration (NTIA), and the many agencies that use spectrum on943making spectrum available, including spectrum that was made available944for high-power use, and has given the FCC and NTIA authority and945flexibility to orchestrate complex spectrum transitions and determine946the rules of the road Each time Congress reauthorized the FCC to hold947auctions--in 1997, 2006, and 2012--it provided a statutory target for948making spectrum available for commercial use, enabling the FCC to make949high-power spectrum available.950    Congress also expanded the ability of NTIA and FCC to manage951complex spectrum transitions, such as giving them the ability to952reimburse Federal agencies for relocation and sharing expenses in the9532004 Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and expanding on the954activities that were able to be reimbursed in the Bipartisan Budget Act955of 2015. Finally, Congress expanded on the FCC's authority to hold956auctions, authorizing it to hold incentive auctions in 2012. Congress957has also recognized and preserved the Commission's ability to adopt the958rules of the road, so that engineering rather than politics determines959the technical details of spectrum management. These actions were all960critical to ensuring that the United States adopted a forward-leading,961innovative approach to spectrum policy.962    I have focused thus far on licensed terrestrial spectrum, but I963would also like to recognize the key role of low-power, unlicensed964spectrum, as well as spectrum for satellite use. First, the U.S. was965the first country to adopt rules for low-power unlicensed spectrum,966which has powered innovation and our economy. The FCC first adopted967rules for ``junk'' bands that were undesirable and unused in the9681930s--the concept was that anyone would be allowed to use the spectrum969without obtaining permission from the government, provided that the970equipment they used could not cause harmful interference to licensed971users. During the 1980s, we began to see use of these frequencies for972common household applications such as garage door openers and baby973monitors. More significantly, beginning in the 1990s, we saw the974development of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. By leveraging the permissionless975innovation that the FCC provided in its unlicensed rules, the976developers of those technologies have greatly increased our977connectivity and contributed nearly $100 billion per year to the U.S.978economy.\4\979---------------------------------------------------------------------------980    \4\ https://www.cta.tech/Resources/Newsroom/Media-Releases/2022/981January/Unlicensed-Spectrum-Generates-95-Billion-Per-Year982---------------------------------------------------------------------------983    Second, the U.S. has also been a leader in licensing spectrum for984satellite technology. As a result, U.S. companies built and launched985many of the pioneering communications satellites in the 1960s. Now,986U.S. companies have launched, or are in the process of launching,987massive low earth orbit (LEO) constellations that can provide broadband988Internet on a global basis. These constellations are particularly989useful in rural and remote areas. Thus far, LEO is a critical market in990which we have outcompeted the PRC, though I would note that continued991leadership in satellite spectrum is critical as the PRC attempts to992launch clones of our successful LEO networks.993    While the U.S. has traditionally played a leadership role in994wireless, I believe that--regretfully--we are falling behind the rest995of the world in spectrum policy. As you know, in March 2023, the FCC's996authority to hold spectrum auctions lapsed. Many countries have997deployed new networks in prime mid-band spectrum such as the lower 3998GHz band that we have not made available for commercial use,999threatening to leave the United States behind. There is a lack of logic1000for failing to make that spectrum available in the U.S., given that key1001U.S. allies have already deployed in this spectrum using many of the1002military systems that we use to protect the homeland. It is critical to1003restore FCC auction authority and to create new opportunities for1004licensed and unlicensed spectrum use, particularly in mid-band1005spectrum. We need Congress and the Administration to set ambitious1006goals for making spectrum available for commercial use, so that we can1007make spectrum available for high-power and low-power use. At the same1008time, we must empower the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies to proceed in a1009systematic way based on sound science and engineering, and preserving1010key capabilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) and other1011departments and agencies.1012    Another area that threatens U.S. leadership involves delays in1013licensing spectrum for satellite use. As noted, U.S. companies1014currently have a strong leadership position in providing broadband1015Internet globally, but they won't be able to maintain that lead if they1016are unable to obtain timely access to spectrum. In this context, it is1017important to note that satellite operators have faced significant1018delays when making requests to modify their licenses--in fact, it has1019taken an average of three years for the FCC to grant or deny many1020requests.1021Spectrum and Economic Security1022    As I mentioned, spectrum plays a critical role in ensuring that our1023economy grows, and that provides a strong rationale to adopt forward-1024leaning spectrum policies. However, I would also note that spectrum is1025important to our economic security--that is, our ability to ensure that1026the United States has a stable and resilient economy. Economic security1027requires the United States to control key technologies so that home-1028grown companies can protect and sustain our economy in the face of1029potential global risks, shocks, and dislocations.1030    Spectrum is critical to economic security because it provides a1031foundation for U.S. companies to innovate. Take, for instance, the app1032economy. Many Americans take it for granted that U.S. companies such as1033Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb are at the top of the app store charts. Few1034understand, however, that it was spectrum policy that played a decisive1035role in enabling American innovators to make that happen. In 2008, we1036were the first country to auction the 700 MHz band--and this band was1037critical to wireless leadership at the time because it enabled mobile1038providers to broadly deploy new wireless services to the public across1039wide geographies. After we moved first on this spectrum, the United1040States quickly built 4G/LTE networks. Once these networks became1041available, U.S. innovators were the first to experiment and develop1042mobile apps, enabling U.S. companies to lead the world in the app1043economy, and unlocking hundreds of billions of dollars in economic1044benefits.1045    Looking forward, wireless networks will serve as the proving ground1046for the next technology that is central to our economic security:1047artificial intelligence (AI). For AI to be fully integrated in our1048daily lives, AI-enhanced services and the data traffic they generate1049will need to be sent to--and from--the mobile devices that we carry1050around with us. Such devices will be able to rearrange our schedules1051better than any human assistant, edit our photographs with more skill1052than any professional photo editor, and get us home faster and more1053safely than the most experienced professional driver. But U.S.1054companies won't be able to develop and deploy all those AI applications1055unless we make additional spectrum available to handle all that1056increased data traffic, particularly so that there is uplink capacity1057from devices to mobile networks. Unless the United States is a leader1058in spectrum, we risk losing the ability to easily develop such1059applications, and with it control over this strategic technology.1060Spectrum and National Security1061    As discussed, the connections between spectrum, on the one hand,1062and economic growth and economic security, on the other hand, are1063underappreciated. When it comes to the role of spectrum policy in1064protecting our national security, however, we unfortunately face many1065misunderstandings and misconceptions. I have strong views on this1066question because I have seen the role that spectrum policy plays from1067the national security perspective. I spent ten years at the FCC1068managing spectrum transitions and auctions. I'm incredibly proud of the1069work we did to advance the U.S. wireless industry there; for instance,1070in Lower C-band, our efforts resulted in the largest spectrum auction--1071and likely the largest auction of any type--in world history, with over1072$81 billion in gross bids. More recently, however, I moved over to the1073National Security Council, where I oversaw policy related to spectrum1074and satellite use, including electronic warfare and other national-1075security related uses of spectrum. I have a deep appreciation for the1076critical role that spectrum plays in safeguarding the United States and1077its allies and partners.1078    Some stakeholders have publicly taken the position that making1079spectrum available for commercial use is no longer desirable given that1080most of the commercially-attractive frequencies are used by DOD. I1081agree with them that DOD uses spectrum to protect our nation, and that1082it is critical that we ensure that DOD has all the capabilities it1083needs to do so. Please note, however, that the key term I used is1084``capabilities''--unfortunately, some stakeholders have confused things1085by implying that to preserve all of DOD's ``capabilities,'' we need to1086prevent commercial users from ever gaining new access to the spectrum1087that DOD uses. To the contrary, it is possible to preserve and even1088expand DOD's capabilities by modernizing the systems it uses, while1089creating more opportunities for commercial use.1090    Take, for instance, the Airborne Warning and Control System1091(AWACS), which is a key, airborne radar system that operates globally1092and provides an early warning to the United States, as well as its key1093allies, regarding potentially hostile ships, aircraft, vehicles, and1094missiles, in addition to serving a critical command and control1095function during aerial combat. DOD deployed the first production-model1096AWACS in 1977, meaning that right now we're still relying on a radar1097system that was put into service when Happy Days and Three's Company1098were on television. As DOD plans to upgrade this system, we have a1099critical opportunity to ensure that we are operating the most advanced1100radar system in the world, and that such a system is spectrally1101efficient and future-proof. After all, to address challenges by1102competitors such as the PRC and adversaries such as Russia, we need to1103deploy these systems not only in our homeland, but also to key U.S.1104allies, many of which have already deployed 5G in mid-band frequencies1105that we have not auctioned.1106    I would note that AWACS is only one system and that DOD has many1107other systems in the mid-range spectrum bands that are being targeted1108for commercial use. There are numerous issues for the FCC, NTIA, and1109the agencies to work through, and the spectrum transitions that will1110result will be complicated. Nonetheless, I've seen technical experts at1111the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies successfully work through these issues1112many times in the past, and I am confident that they can do so again1113now. It is important for Congress to set goals and timelines so that1114the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies know what to aim for, and so that1115industry has sufficient certainty regarding the future availability of1116spectrum. It is equally important for the Administration to make it1117clear to the agencies that spectrum is a priority and that political1118actors should not block engineers from working through technical1119challenges on behalf of the President.1120    There is also a misunderstanding about whether Congress needs to1121provide additional statutory protections to prevent the spectrum1122repurposing process from threatening our national security. Under1123Section 1062 of the 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, which is a1124provision that remains in effect, spectrum that DOD uses cannot be1125surrendered for commercial use unless the Secretary of Defense and the1126Chairman of the Joint Chiefs jointly certify to key congressional1127committees that they will have access to other spectrum that maintains1128essential military capabilities. This is only one example of the1129numerous statutory protections that Congress has already adopted to1130ensure that our military can maintain its spectrum-based capabilities.1131    Another misconception about spectrum and national security is that1132we only need to ensure that DOD has access to spectrum and can procure1133equipment, and this will be sufficient to protect our national security1134needs. This view is extremely short-sighted, as in the future the U.S.1135military will no longer have the budget to meet all its future needs1136but rather will need to leverage commercial technology to prevail over1137our competitors and adversaries. If we look at the example of1138semiconductors in the 1960s, the U.S. military dominated the market,1139purchasing all the integrated circuits that were produced. By the11402020s, that number had fallen to 2 percent of the U.S. market. The1141trend was inevitable across the entire technological sector: as1142technology has exploded across economic markets, both in the United1143States and abroad, our military simply no longer has the purchasing1144power to consistently move markets and ensure innovation. Instead, DOD1145needs to take advantage of commercial innovation from our companies to1146ensure that it stays ahead of our competitors and adversaries.1147    In the domain of wireless technology, we're already seeing this1148play out in the battlefield in Ukraine, where commercial wireless1149networks and smartphones have directly transformed command, control,1150communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance and1151reconnaissance. For instance, we have seen smartphones used to1152crowdsource information to predict UAS attacks, serve as nodes in a1153network that create accurate geospatial maps of developments on the1154battlefield, and triangulate enemy positions. In the future, as1155wireless networks carry actionable insights from AI and quantum1156computing, the side in a conflict that can leverage the most advanced1157commercial wireless technology will have a significant, and in some1158cases, decisive advantage. In wireless technology, DOD will not be able1159to leverage commercial innovation unless the wireless industry has1160access to spectrum, given that spectrum will serve as a critical1161determinant of whether the wireless industry is able to develop and1162deploy innovative technologies. Ensuring that we preserve critical1163military spectrum-based capabilities while creating opportunities for1164commercial access to spectrum is therefore essential to our ability to1165prevail in future conflicts.1166                            Recommendations1167I. For Congress1168  1.  Restore the FCC's ability to conduct spectrum auctions.11691170  2.  In such legislation, provide targets, goals, and associated1171        timelines for making spectrum available, particularly for mid-1172        band spectrum, including the ability to make spectrum available1173        for high-power and low-power use. This will serve as critical1174        guidance to the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies as they work1175        together on spectrum policy. It is important for these targets1176        to be informed by discussions with the FCC, NTIA, and industry.11771178  3.  Adopt requirements that would apply to Federal agencies to1179        cooperate with NTIA and the FCC as they attempt to make1180        spectrum available.11811182  4.  Preserve the discretion of NTIA and the FCC to determine the1183        specific bands made available, and the ability of the FCC to1184        determine the technical rules that would apply to spectrum.11851186  5.  Update the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act by offering1187        agencies the opportunity to receive reimbursement under the1188        Spectrum Relocation Fund (SRF) for upgrading their systems1189        beyond what they are currently capable of doing, allowing NTIA1190        the ability to receive funds to conduct studies and analyses of1191        spectrum use, and providing the Technical Panel that reviews1192        studies and transition plans further oversight over process1193        after they have approved such studies or plans.11941195  6.  Elevate the Administrator of NTIA to an Undersecretary to improve1196        the interagency process on spectrum.11971198  7.  Require streamlined procedures for granting satellite1199        applications and shot clocks for granting or denying licenses.12001201  8.  To further advance our wireless capabilities, develop a1202        comprehensive ``system of systems'' for position, location, and1203        timing, which can back up and compliment GPS, and therefore1204        mitigate vulnerabilities and enhance reliability for both1205        Federal and commercial users.1206II. For the Administration1207  1.  Adopt ambitious goals and timelines that are informed by1208        discussions with the FCC, NTIA, and industry.12091210  2.  Provide guidance and an escalation process to ensure that1211        disagreements or disputes between the FCC, NTIA, and/or the1212        Federal agencies that use spectrum are quickly and properly1213        resolved.12141215  3.  Ensure that planned spectrum transitions preserve critical1216        national security, public safety, and other Federal mission1217        capabilities.12181219  4.  Develop a process that will enable the United States to arrive at1220        positions on international spectrum allocations well in advance1221        of the 2027 World Radio Conference.12221223    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Clark.12241225           STATEMENT OF BRYAN CLARK, SENIOR FELLOW,1226                        HUDSON INSTITUTE12271228    Mr. Clark. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, thank1229you very much for the opportunity to speak today, to you and1230the rest of the Committee, about spectrum policy.1231    The national security competition between the U.S. and1232China in the electromagnetic spectrum is not just a commercial1233one. It is also a military one, and in a lot of ways it is1234predominantly a military one, as we look at the future1235conflicts we might face against China and others.1236    If you look at the invasion of Ukraine and how the1237electromagnetic spectrum has played out as the centerpiece,1238essentially, of that war, early on Russia had a lot of problems1239in its initial push toward Kyiv. In part, that was because of a1240lack of spectrum management on its part, the inability to use1241the spectrum effectively. Later, we see today now that both1242sides are using sophisticated electromagnetic warfare against1243each other, but as Ranking Member Cantwell talked about, they1244are using jamming against GPS, they are using jamming against1245communications. The recent offensive that Ukrainian forces1246mounted into Kursk was enabled, in large part, by their ability1247to gain superiority in the electromagnetic spectrum, so1248operating in parts of the spectrum where the Russians were1249trying to operate, and operating outside their coms, putting1250their own coms in parts of the spectrum where the Russians were1251unable to jam them. So the spectrum is increasingly where wars1252are going to be one and lost.1253    Against China, the U.S. faces a much more powerful1254competitor, in general, and also in the spectrum, than Russia1255poses. To overcome its geographic and numerical disadvantages,1256when you are fighting as the away team against China, U.S.1257forces are going to have to rely on a lot of what we would call1258counter-ISR, counter-surveillance and reconnaissance, counter-1259communications capabilities, to degrade the ability of China's1260reconnaissance intelligence network to be able to target and1261attack U.S. forces.1262    If we cannot operate inside frequencies where the Chinese1263operate, and outside of our normal frequencies so we can1264deceive them, hide our forces, and degrade their targeting1265ability, we are not going to be able to amass the number of1266forces successfully to defeat them in an invasion of Taiwan. So1267really, fundamentally, winning that invasion of Taiwan comes1268down to the ability to control the spectrum in that Western1269Pacific region.1270    We need to be able to build the capabilities for that and1271train with them here in the United States before we go1272overseas, and in a lot of ways that deception campaign has to1273start here, meaning we are operating in parts of the spectrum1274that we would not normally operate in, as part of an effort to1275begin that deception against the Chinese forces.1276    In addition, as we mentioned earlier, the Iron Dome for1277America is going to create new demands for electromagnetic1278spectrum to protect the United States from missile attack.1279Obviously, there are opportunities to use those technologies to1280be able to more efficiently use the spectrum, and more1281effectively manage that surveillance network, we need to1282protect the United States. But requirements for terminal1283missile defense and for airborne moving target indication from1284space are both going to create demands on S-and X-band1285frequencies that we currently want to make available to1286commercial users.1287    So the needs for DoD in the spectrum are becoming larger1288and more complex. But that does not preclude that we would be1289able to share that spectrum between military and commercial1290users. It does mean we need to bring new technologies to bear.1291We need to bring new policies to bear. And there will be some1292deliberative process so that we can figure out which parts of1293the spectrum can be made available and which ones really1294cannot, because of physics and because of the number of systems1295we might need to be able to conduct the operation.1296    Examples like CBRS, the Citizens Band Radio Service, and1297AMBIT are good examples of where, in the past, we have been1298able to deconflict users in the spectrum between Federal and1299commercial users, or share spectrum by taking advantage of new1300technologies for detection and relocation of spectrum users.1301    But we need to be able to take the time and the analysis1302necessary to make those mechanisms feasible in the United1303States to support both the operations we need to do for things1304like Iron Dome, as well as the training and preparation1305necessary to get our forces ready to go overseas and fight in a1306war where they are going to need the spectrum to make up the1307difference between their lack of mass as the away team and the1308large mass that is available to the Chinese, or the home team.1309    So we should not fall victim to getting into a symmetrical1310competition with China over who is giving more of a particular1311part of the spectrum to the commercial users, and we should not1312unilaterally disarm our military capabilities in the spectrum.1313We need to work out ways so that both military and commercial1314uses can be taking advantage of our spectrum resources, so we1315can compete on both battlefields.1316    With that I will be looking forward to your questions.1317Thank you.1318    [The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]13191320   Prepared Statement of Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute1321    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished members1322of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the1323committee on the topic: America Offline? How Spectrum Auction Delays1324Give China the Edge and Cost Us Jobs.1325Summary1326    The U.S. military will require more, not less, access to the1327electromagnetic spectrum in the coming decade. Facing numerical and1328geographic disadvantages against an opponent like China, U.S. forces1329will need electronic warfare systems that can jam, decoy, and deceive1330enemy sensors by operating outside traditional U.S. frequencies and1331inside those used by adversaries. At home, the U.S. military will need1332to continuously operate high-power sensors and defenses from S through1333K band to defend U.S. territory from air and missile attack as part of1334the Trump Administration's Iron Dome for America initiative.1335    China's leaders want the U.S. government to unilaterally disarm by1336further constraining the Department of Defense's spectrum access.1337Beijing disingenuously claims that it has given more spectrum to1338Chinese telecommunication companies when in fact the People's1339Liberation Army (PLA) retains the authority and mechanisms to routinely1340displace commercial spectrum users. Instead of engaging in a1341unproductive spectrum competition against China in S-band, the U.S.1342government should ensure military and commercial users can co-exist in1343U.S. spectrum through sustainable and executable sharing schemes.1344Telecommunication companies should be prepared for the cost and time1345needed to implement these approaches, especially as military demands1346for spectrum are likely to grow.1347Winning the Fight for Sensing and Sensemaking1348    Militaries have always depended on the electromagnetic spectrum to1349communicate and coordinate operations, navigate over vast distances,1350and attack or avoid enemies. Starting during World War II, electronic1351warfare made the spectrum itself a battlefield when jammers and decoys1352emerged as new tools to prevent an opponent from coordinating1353operations or sensing and understanding its environment.1354    The war in Ukraine highlights how the electromagnetic spectrum is1355now the domain in which battles--and wars--are often won or lost.1356Russian and Ukrainian troops routinely use vehicle-and drone-borne1357electronic sensors to detect enemy forces by their radio transmissions1358and enable attacks with artillery or rockets. To protect themselves,1359troops on both sides have developed work-arounds that enable them to1360transmit on unexpected frequencies where the enemy is not looking, use1361directional antennas, or avoid radio communications altogether.\1\1362---------------------------------------------------------------------------1363    \1\ Vikram Mittal, ``Ukraine Is Now Dominating The Drone And1364Electronic Warfare Domains,'' Forbes, August 21, 2024, https://1365www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2024/08/21/ukraine-is-now-dominating-1366the-drone-and-electronic-warfare-domains/.1367---------------------------------------------------------------------------1368    Russian and Ukrainian forces are also extensively jamming each1369other in the spectrum. Traditional radio communications are often1370impossible near the front lines.\2\ Ukrainian forces stopped using US-1371provided guided weapons like the Excalibur artillery round and Joint1372Direct Attack Munition until they are modified to be more jam-resistant1373or incorporate multiple modes of navigation.\3\ Both militaries have1374turned to using radars or cameras on drones for guidance, sometimes1375augmented by a human operator connected via a fiber-optic cable to1376avoid radio jamming.1377---------------------------------------------------------------------------1378    \2\ Chris Panella, ``A 'hidden electronic warfare battle' is raging1379in Ukraine and demanding more from the soldiers fighting it, special1380drone unit says,'' Business Insider, February 8, 2025, https://1381www.businessinsider.com/hidden-electronic-warfare-battle-demanding-1382more-of-ukrainian-soldiers-2025-2.1383    \3\ Thomas Withington, ``Jamming JDAM: The Threat to U.S. Munitions1384from Russian Electronic Warfare,'' RUSI, June 6, 2023, https://1385www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/jamming-jdam-1386threat-us-munitions-russian-electronic-warfare1387---------------------------------------------------------------------------1388    China is a much more challenging electromagnetic adversary for the1389United States than Russia. The PLA fields a growing array of electronic1390warfare aircraft, drones, and satellites that can listen and jam across1391relevant areas of the spectrum at long range.\4\ China's navy, coast1392guard, and maritime militia ships are equipped with electronic sensors1393to surveil U.S. and allied communications and radar transmissions.\5\1394And the Chinese government's space-based electronic surveillance1395architecture over U.S. territory and the Indo-Pacific region is growing1396faster than its U.S. counterpart.\6\1397---------------------------------------------------------------------------1398    \4\ Kristin Burke, ``PLA Counterspace Command and Control''1399(Montgomery, AL: U.S. Air Force China Aerospace Studies Institute,14002023), https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/1401Research/PLASSF/2023-12-11%20Counterspace-%20web%20version.pdf.1402    \5\ John Christianson, ``Fighting and Winning in the1403Electromagnetic Spectrum,'' War on the Rocks, December 5, 2022, https:/1404/warontherocks.com/2022/12/fighting-and-winning-in-the-elec-1405tromagnetic-spectrum/1406#::text=The%20Chinese%20concept%20recognizing%20the,the%20Chinese1407%20coastline%2C%20is%20a.1408    \6\ J. Michael Dahm, ``China C4ISR and Counter-Intervention,''1409Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review1410Commission,'' March 21, 2024, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/14112024-03/J.Michael_Dahm_Testimony.pdf.1412---------------------------------------------------------------------------1413    China's electronic surveillance network in the air, on the water,1414and in space is part of an overall Reconnaissance-Intelligence System1415that leaders in Beijing rely on to assess their opponents' operations1416in peacetime and target enemy forces in wartime. As shown in Figure 1,1417this system is one of several systems the PLA plans to use in a1418potential conflict such as an invasion of Taiwan. China's leaders rely1419on a systems approach to warfare in part due to their well-publicized1420lack of confidence in PLA commanders' abilities to engage and defeat1421enemy forces without suffering unsustainable losses.\7\ Chinese leaders1422would prefer to centrally manage a war, using the Reconnaissance-1423Intelligence System to find enemy forces, predict their future actions1424and operations, and target them for long-range precision attacks by the1425Firepower Strike System.\8\1426---------------------------------------------------------------------------1427    \7\ Jackson, Kimberly, Andrew Scobell, Stephen Webber, and Logan1428Ma, Command and Control in U.S. Naval Competition with China. Santa1429Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2020, pp. 23-49. https://www.rand.org/1430pubs/research_reports/RRA127-1.html; Larry Wortzel, ``The PLA and1431Mission Command: Is the Party Control System Too Rigid for Its1432Adaptation by China?,'' Association of the U.S. Army, March 2024,1433https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-159-The-PLA-1434and-Mission-Command-Is-the-Party-Conrol-System-Too-Rigid-for-Its-1435Adaptation-by-China.pdf.1436    \8\ Joel Wuthnow, ``System Destruction Warfare and the PLA,''1437Institute for National Strategic Studies, June 2024, https://1438keystone.ndu.edu/Portals/86/PLA%20Systems%20Attack%20-%201439JW%20update%20June%2024.pdf1440---------------------------------------------------------------------------1441Figure 1: China's warfare systems\9\1442---------------------------------------------------------------------------1443    \9\ Jeffrey Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and System Destruction1444Warfare (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2018), https://www.rand.org/pubs/1445research_reports/RR1708.html.14461447    China's hierarchical approach to command and control creates1448vulnerabilities that U.S. and allied forces will try to exploit.\10\1449Chinese leaders depend primarily on their signals intelligence and1450imaging satellites to build an operational picture because these space-1451based systems offer continuous coverage of the Indo-Pacific region and1452do not depend on the competence of ship, aircraft, or ground-based1453sensor crews. However, U.S. and allied militaries could confuse these1454sensors by operating their radars and radios in unexpected areas of1455spectrum; deploying decoys that simulate signals or radar returns from1456U.S. ships, aircraft, or ground troops; and using jammers against PLA1457sensors and communication systems to obscure the location of real U.S.1458or allied forces and prevent Chinese sensor fusion.\11\1459---------------------------------------------------------------------------1460    \10\ Jon Harper, ``Counter-C5ISRT is top priority for nominee to1461lead Indo-Pacific Command,'' DefenseScoop, February 1, 2024, https://1462defensescoop.com/2024/02/01/counter-c5isrt-samuel-paparo-indo-pacific-1463command-nomination/.1464    \11\ This approach is detailed in Bryan Clark, ``Winning the Fight1465for Sensing and Sensemaking,'' (Washington, DC: Hudson Institute,14662024), https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/winning-fight-1467sensing-sensemaking-fielding-cyber-electronic-warfare-c5isr-bryan-1468clark.1469---------------------------------------------------------------------------1470    Faced with an unreliable operational picture, China's leaders would1471turn to ground-based sensors and ships and aircraft to verify real vs.1472false targets. U.S. and allied forces could use the same counter-sensor1473approaches against these systems, although with less effect. However,1474the impact will already be felt as China's leaders begin to question1475their centrally-controlled ``fire and forget'' military strategy.1476    U.S. forces will need to sustain counter-sensing and counter-1477sensemaking operations over months or years to translate Chinese1478leaders' temporary doubts into an enduring lack of confidence that1479could deter them from pursuing aggression against U.S. allies. As shown1480in Figure 2, the U.S. military will need a large number of diverse1481electronic warfare tools and techniques to support a jamming and1482deception campaign.1483Figure 2: Importance of a deep magazine of electronic warfare effects1484        in a campaign14851486    Electronic warfare techniques are often short-lived in wartime, as1487demonstrated by the electromagnetic spectrum competition during World1488War II and more recently in Ukraine.\12\ After one side fields a new1489jammer or decoy, the other side quickly develops a countermeasure or1490work-around. To sustain the move-countermove competition shown in1491Figure 2, the DoD will need to develop and test systems, train and1492certify relevant units, and sometimes conduct operations in the United1493States to create a deep magazine of diverse electronic warfare effects.1494These efforts will require access to diverse areas of spectrum not1495currently or often used by U.S. forces.1496---------------------------------------------------------------------------1497    \12\ John Stillion and Bryan Clark, ``What it Takes to Win:1498Succeeding in 21st Century Battle Network Competitions,'' (Washington,1499DC: Center for Strategic and budgetary Assessments, 2015), https://1500csbaonline.org/research/publications/what-it-takes-to-win-succeeding-1501in-21st-century-battle-network-competitions.1502---------------------------------------------------------------------------1503China's long con for spectrum superiority1504    U.S. and allied electronic warfare operations threaten the1505effectiveness of China's war plans. To prevent the U.S. from fielding1506these critical capabilities, China is attempting to convince the U.S.1507government to unilaterally disarm in the spectrum.1508    Numerous studies and industry white papers have asserted during the1509last decade that the United States is ``losing the spectrum1510competition'' with China. These studies argue that the Chinese1511government has made more spectrum available for commercial1512telecommunications use compared to the United States--especially in the15133-5 Ghz band.\13\1514---------------------------------------------------------------------------1515    \13\ Accenture, ``The Case for Global Spectrum Harmonization,''1516CTIA, January 2024, https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1517Advancing-US-Wireless-Excellence-Global-Harmonization.pdf; James Lewis,1518``Spectrum Allocation for a Contest with China,'' (Washington, DC:1519CSIS, 2023), https://www.csis.org/analysis/spectrum-allocation-contest-1520china.1521---------------------------------------------------------------------------1522    Mid-band spectrum in the 2-8 Ghz range is coveted by commercial and1523military system developers because it offers an attractive combination1524of range, data rate, and resistance to interference. Higher frequency1525signals can carry more data or achieve higher resolution in radars but1526suffer higher attenuation due to atmospheric heating and are more1527susceptible to interference because they tend to bounce off obstacles1528rather than passing through them. Lower frequency transmissions can1529travel much farther distances, but carry less data and achieve lower1530resolution.1531    By the mid-2030s, China's government reportedly plans to make up to15321,500 Mhz more mid-band spectrum available for commercial1533telecommunications use compared to the U.S. government.\14\ But this1534potential disparity is an illusion. In China, all frequency1535allocations--like all commercial endeavors--are contingent. The1536government retains the authority to force commercial users off the1537spectrum when needed, and maintains organizations and processes for1538doing so.\15\1539---------------------------------------------------------------------------1540    \14\ Clete Johnson, ``Next Steps to Close the Gap with China on1541Licensed Spectrum for Commercial 5G,'' Center for Strategic and1542International Studies, February 12, 2024, https://www.csis.org/blogs/1543strategic-technologies-blog/next-steps-close-gap-china-licensed-1544spectrum-commercial-5g.1545    \15\ Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT),1546``Radio Regulation of the People's Republic of China (2016 Revision),''1547http://106.15.139.130/Law/LawShowEn?id=222067.1548---------------------------------------------------------------------------1549    Under the concept of military-civil fusion, China's regional radio1550management centers are charged with clearing spectrum to enable1551military and civil defense operations whenever needed for training,1552exercises, system development, or crisis response. To enable rapidly1553removing commercial users, each radio management center includes a PLA1554reserve frequency management unit. These units are led by a core of1555active-duty PLA officers and mainly comprised of reserve soldiers whose1556civilian jobs are in the telecommunications industry. Their civilian1557experience is intended to enable these reserve operators to quickly1558kick commercial users out of needed spectrum in support of PLA or other1559government needs.\16\1560---------------------------------------------------------------------------1561    \16\ John Dotson, ``Military-Civil Fusion and Electromagnetic1562Spectrum Management in the PLA,'' Jamestown Institute, October 8, 2019,1563https://jamestown.org/program/military-civil-fusion-and-1564electromagnetic-spectrum-management-in-the-pla/.1565---------------------------------------------------------------------------1566    At the same time its government reserves the right to use any1567spectrum at will, China's political and industry leaders suggest that1568China is building a lead in 5G and future communication technologies1569because the country makes more spectrum available to national champions1570like Huawei and ZTE. The U.S. government should not unilaterally disarm1571by taking mid-band spectrum away from U.S. military uses in an effort1572to win this non-existent spectrum race against China.1573    Another argument for making more U.S. mid-band spectrum available1574for commercial use is to align with the frequency allocations of other1575countries, including numerous U.S. European and Indo-Pacific allies.1576The World Radio Congress (WRC) has recommended that wide swaths of1577spectrum in relevant frequency ranges for 5G and potential future 6G1578communications, which many countries have adopted in their own radio1579regulations.1580    However, this argument incorrectly assumes each country has similar1581needs for spectrum outside of commercial functions. As the world's most1582sophisticated force and the largest one outside of China, the U.S.1583military incorporates a more numerous and diverse portfolio of1584electromagnetic spectrum systems than any of its allies. For example,1585the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) maintains more than 100 high-power1586jamming aircraft, which is more than its European and Indo-Pacific1587allies combined. The U.S. Navy and Air Force include more than 1001588airborne radar surveillance aircraft and nearly 100 air defense1589destroyers and cruisers carrying high-power radars. To follow through1590on its alliance commitments, the U.S. military requires access to1591spectrum across large areas of the country for training, concept1592development, maintenance, and operations.1593Enabling the Iron Dome for America1594    The most challenging driver of U.S. military spectrum access1595requirements will be the Trump Administration's initiative to establish1596a comprehensive missile defense architecture for the United States.1597Announced by executive order last month, the ``Iron Dome for America''1598is intended to field a system of systems that can defeat hypersonic,1599ballistic, and cruise missiles as well as emerging airborne threats1600such as drones. The proposed architecture would include weapons to1601engage enemy missiles soon after launch, in mid-flight, and in the1602terminal phase when they near a target in the United States.\17\1603---------------------------------------------------------------------------1604    \17\ Donald J. Trump, ``The Iron Dome For America,'' January 27,16052025, The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/16062025/01/the-iron-dome-for-america/.1607---------------------------------------------------------------------------1608    The U.S. military already maintains a ballistic missile detection1609and tracking system as part of the national missile defense system,1610which mainly uses infrared satellites to detect launches overseas and1611radars in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to track ballistic missiles1612coming over the North Pole. The Iron Dome architecture would build on1613this existing network by adding satellite-borne sensors that the DoD is1614already developing for tracking ballistic and hypersonic missiles.\18\1615These space-based and forward-deployed sensors would probably not1616require new frequency allocations to the DoD.1617---------------------------------------------------------------------------1618    \18\ Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, ``Fact sheet:1619U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense,'' Center for Arms Control and Non-1620Proliferation, June 12, 2023, https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-1621u-s-ballistic-missile-defense/.1622---------------------------------------------------------------------------1623    However, the Iron Dome for America will require a dramatic increase1624in radar surveillance and tracking in the S and X bands to support1625terminal defense against ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Terminal1626defense systems like SM-6 or PAC-3 interceptors engage ballistic and1627hypersonic missiles in the atmosphere at ranges of only 100 to 2001628miles, which requires that they be positioned near the targets they1629defend. Planned space-based sensors can detect and initially track1630incoming hypersonic and ballistic missiles, but they cannot provide1631interceptors the target missile's position and movement precisely or1632quickly enough for an engagement.\19\ Existing surveillance radars used1633to manage commercial air traffic lack the responsiveness and precision1634needed to track ballistic and hypersonic missiles. To guide terminal1635defense interceptors, the DoD will need to operate military radars such1636as the U.S. Navy's SPY-1, 6, and 7 or carried by airborne warning and1637control aircraft including the E-2D or E-3 in the interior of the1638United States.1639---------------------------------------------------------------------------1640    \19\ Planned space-based radars or infrared sensors cannot1641precisely determine the elevation of missiles they are tracking, which1642is needed to direct an interceptor to the target, and they lack a1643mechanism for sending target information to the interceptor in flight1644in real-time.1645---------------------------------------------------------------------------1646    Greater spectrum access will also be needed to defeat cruise1647missiles and ``other next-generation aerial attacks,'' which could1648include advanced drones like those Russia is using against Ukraine. The1649DoD may need to use airborne or ground-based S and X-band radars to1650track these threats.\20\ But the more significant challenge will be1651shooting them down. As recent operations in the Middle East, Ukraine,1652and around the United States suggest, an opponent could attack U.S.1653bases, government facilities, or public gatherings using hundreds of1654drones and cruise missiles.\21\ To defeat these large salvos the DoD1655would likely need to turn to high-power microwave (HPM) systems that1656generally transmit pulses across the X through K (8-27 Ghz) bands also1657used by some mid-band and millimeter-wave 5G networks.\22\1658---------------------------------------------------------------------------1659    \20\ Cruise missiles and drones are generally too small to be1660tracked by space-based radars to track and too slow to generate an1661infrared signature that could be detected by satellite sensors. Space-1662based electro-optical sensors could track cruise missiles and drones,1663but would need to be cued to the threat's exact location. Existing1664civilian air surveillance radars can often track cruise missiles and1665drones, but are not dedicated to that mission and do not provide data1666in the form needed for an interceptor to engage the target.1667    \21\ Jim Garamone, ``Reports of Drone Incursions Taken Seriously,1668DOD Spokesman Says,'' DoD News, December 17, 2024, https://1669www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/40088167036/reports-of-drone-incursions-taken-seriously-dod-spokesman-says/.1671    \22\ Office of Naval Research Code 35, ``Directed Energy Weapons:1672High Power Microwaves,'' Office of Naval Research, https://1673www.onr.navy.mil/organization/departments/code-35/division-353/1674directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves.1675---------------------------------------------------------------------------1676    The commander of U.S. Northern Command testified earlier this month1677that one of his most significant challenges was air domain1678awareness.\23\ Closing that gap and establishing the Iron Dome for1679America will require operations by military systems in multiple1680commercially-relevant frequency ranges across large parts of the United1681States. In contrast to today's needs for episodic military training,1682testing, and certification, these missions would create a continuous1683need for spectrum access.1684---------------------------------------------------------------------------1685    \23\ Gregory M. Guillot, ``Testimony on the Posture of United1686States Northern Command and United States Southern Command in Review of1687the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2026 and the Future1688Years Defense Program,'' February 13, 2025, https://www.armed-1689services.senate.gov/hearings/to-receive-testimony-on-the-posture-of-1690united-states-northern-command-and-united-states-southern-command-in-1691review-of-the-defense-authorization-request-for-fiscal-year-2026-and-1692the-future-years-defense-program.1693---------------------------------------------------------------------------1694Reconciling spectrum demands1695    The U.S. military will need to operate in additional areas of the1696electromagnetic spectrum to address an increasingly challenging threat1697environment. To overcome its numerical and geographic disadvantages1698against China, U.S. forces will need to develop, test, and train on1699systems that emit outside traditional U.S. military frequencies and1700inside adversary bands as part of its effort to undermine Chinese1701sensing and sensemaking. The DoD will also need to operate radars and1702HPM systems in S through K bands across the United States as part of a1703comprehensive domestic air and missile defense architecture.1704    However, the DoD's growing need for spectrum does not preclude1705commercial uses in the same or adjacent frequencies. For example, some1706regions of spectrum like 6 Ghz could be more efficiently segmented1707between government, commercial, and unlicensed users. In these1708frequencies, the government could apply the approach demonstrated by1709the 2020 White House-DoD America's Mid-Band Initiative Team (AMBIT)1710initiative.\24\ Using the results of AMBIT, the Federal Communications1711Commission established procedures that allow military and commercial1712users to both operate in the 3450-3550 Mhz range by separating their1713emissions in time and geographically.\25\ Advances in the spectral1714efficiency of military and commercial systems could allow static1715allocation models like AMBIT to be implemented in additional1716geographies or frequencies.1717---------------------------------------------------------------------------1718    \24\ C. Todd Lopez, ``AMBIT Gambit Pays Off, Advances U.S. 5G1719Efforts,'' DoD News, August 10, 2020, https://www.defense.gov/News/1720News-Stories/Article/Article/2306902/ambit-gambit-pays-off-advances-us-17215g-efforts/.1722    \25\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Second Report And Order,1723Order On Reconsideration, And Order Of Proposed Modification,'' Federal1724Register, March 21, 2021, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-172521-32A1.pdf.1726---------------------------------------------------------------------------1727    New technologies can also allow for dynamic spectrum sharing1728between commercial and military users. For example, the Citizen's1729Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) allows military, civilian, and1730commercial users to share spectrum from 3550-3700 Mhz in some regions1731using a combination of procedures and automated controls that move1732priority and general access commercial or private users to other1733frequencies when incumbent government users are detected in the band.1734This process allows periodic military operations in the spectrum while1735minimizing the impact on commercial applications.\26\1736---------------------------------------------------------------------------1737    \26\ National Telecommunications and Information Administration,1738``An Analysis of Aggregate CBRS SAS Data from April 2021 to July17392024,'' NTIA, November 18, 2024, https://www.ntia.gov/report/2024/1740analysis-aggregate-cbrs-sas-data-april-2021-july-2024.1741---------------------------------------------------------------------------1742    Models like CBRS could be employed in other tranches of spectrum,1743such as 6Ghz, or other geographic regions where military and commercial1744users could share spectrum. However, as identified by the 2023 DoD1745Emerging Mid-Band Radar Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) study, the government1746will need to evolve the CBRS model to enable the industrial base to1747experiment with and test new electromagnetic systems, accommodate fast-1748moving airborne radars, and ensure coordination in more complex1749electromagnetic environments compared to the current applications of1750CBRS.\27\1751---------------------------------------------------------------------------1752    \27\ DoD Chief Information Officer, ``Emerging Mid-Band Radar1753Spectrum Sharing (EMBRSS) Feasibility Assessment Report,'' (Washington,1754DC: U.S. DoD, 2023), https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/1755Library/DoD-EMBRSS-FeasabilityAssessmentRedacted.pdf.1756---------------------------------------------------------------------------1757    The challenge for regulators and Congress will be creating spectrum1758sharing schemes that protect necessary DoD access while remaining1759financially attractive for the telecommunications industry. Time and1760geographic constraints such as under AMBIT or the need to periodically1761relocate to other frequencies under CBRS will require companies to1762maintain access to additional frequency bands, establish automated1763sensing and control systems, and manage a patchwork of different1764frequency coverage and control mechanisms across the Nation. The time1765and investment needed to implement these approaches will reduce the1766value of spectrum at auction. This cost and complexity will only grow1767as the DoD's need for spectrum increases as a result of new operational1768concepts and missions.1769Conclusion1770    The Congress should not fall victim to China's disinformation.1771China's telecom companies suggest they are winning the 5G race because1772they can use more frequencies than their competitors in the United1773States and Europe. However, the PLA retains access to the1774electromagnetic spectrum whenever and wherever needed, enforced by1775military personnel at China's radio management centers and in its1776telecommunications industry.1777    The U.S. government should not unilaterally disarm in militarily1778important segments of the spectrum. Chinese leaders want to degrade the1779DoD's ability to conduct electronic warfare and radar operations that1780could undermine China's Reconnaissance-Intelligence System and protect1781the U.S. homeland from air and missile attack. Spectrum sharing schemes1782could allow the U.S. government to protect its military operations and1783support commercial uses, but companies and U.S. policymakers should1784ensure they account for the associated costs and complexity.17851786    Chairman Cruz. Thank you to all the witnesses for your1787helpful testimony. We will now move to questions.1788    Dr. Hazlett, I want to start with you. What are the1789specific economic benefits that putting more spectrum into the1790commercial marketplace would produce, and how would my spectrum1791pipeline legislation, which requires some full-power spectrum1792to be made available to the commercial sector, benefit everyday1793Americans and American businesses?1794    Dr. Hazlett. Additional spectrum, particularly of the1795flexible use variety, has been found extremely important to1796increasing American productivity. It allows more things to be1797done with wireless, wireless applications, and wireless1798networks. And, in fact, the reverse I also true. When we have1799had these delays that have come into the system, we have1800actually taken the vital inputs out of the sector, and the1801progress has been stymied.1802    So, in fact, getting more spectrum into the marketplace,1803allowing entrepreneurs and competitors to get access to expand,1804that explains not only the wireless revolution that we have1805seen, with so much changing in terms of new innovations, but it1806explains why, going forward, we have to keep our eye on the1807ball and make sure that there is a pipeline, there is spectrum1808pouring into the market, to be used in efficient ways, not in1809the old locked-in, rigid definitions of old.1810    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Pearl, would you agree that1811making more spectrum available to the private sector would1812result in billions in new investments and thousands of new1813jobs?1814    Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely.1815    Chairman Cruz. And history demonstrates that.1816    Mr. Pearl. Yes, no, consistently. You make the spectrum1817available, and particularly as I mentioned with the example of1818the app economy, being first really matters in that because1819then you have innovators that take advantage of the1820capabilities that they can use in that spectrum.1821    Chairman Cruz. And does my pipeline bill preclude the1822Department of Defense from accessing the spectrum it needs to1823accomplish critical missions, or are there ways full-power1824commercial license use can accommodate the needs of DoD?1825    Mr. Pearl. So your bill allows for both the possibility of1826exclusive use as well as shared use. And so in terms of DoD1827being able to continue to use some or most of the bands in1828order to maintain their capabilities, it absolutely creates1829that opening.1830    Chairman Cruz. Now, Mr. Pearl, we have also heard concerns1831that reinstating auction authority could hinder President1832Trump's initiative to create an American Iron Dome. I am a1833strong and passionate supporter of missile defense, and have1834been advocating for an American Iron Dome for some time.1835    Based on your experience at both the National Security1836Council and in the FCC auction room, do you believe those1837concerns are well founded that having an auction would prevent1838missile defense here at home?1839    Mr. Pearl. No, absolutely not. As long as we have the1840proper interagency process and we make sure that the engineers1841work together, we can absolutely ensure we have Iron Dome as1842well as increased commercial use.1843    Chairman Cruz. And could an Iron Dome system coexist with1844commercial 5G use, subject to geographical or location1845carveouts, like in the AMBIT process?1846    Mr. Pearl. Potentially it could. We do have some cases of1847countries that are using Iron Dome, like the Czech Republic,1848that are using 5G quite close to those systems of Iron Dome,1849and so that is one possibility. And there are some other ways1850that you can design Iron Dome so that you could have potential1851coexistence.1852    Chairman Cruz. So we are told by some in the Defense1853Department that if any of the vast spectrum that they currently1854have use of goes to the private sector that it will cripple the1855military's ability to defend our Nation. The facts make that1856claim highly dubious. Right now, today, about 50 nations across1857the globe operate commercial licensed 5G networks in the 3.3 to18583.45 GHz bands.1859    Take an example close to home. Mexico's 5G networks operate1860on frequencies between 3.35 and 3.45 GHz, at full power, less1861than 30 miles away from Fort Bliss in Texas, where the U.S.1862operates ground-based radar systems in the lower third band.1863Likewise, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines also1864have 5G networks that operate between the 3.3 and the 3.45 GHz1865band.1866    Now, given the fact that in much of the rest of the world1867there are commercial players operating in those bands, is it1868credible that our military cannot operate in the Pacific, and1869we cannot operate if the commercial sector is operating in1870those bands?1871    Mr. Pearl. As long as the process is done responsibly,1872absolutely not, it will not cripple the military.1873    Chairman Cruz. Let me ask you, finally, what would the1874consequences to national security be if China wins the race for18755G and 6G, and if the global telecommunication network is1876Huawei and Chinese-based, is that good or bad for national1877security, and if bad, how bad?1878    Mr. Pearl. It is catastrophic for national security as well1879as both DoD and the intelligence community, because we will not1880have access to advanced, trusted, secure technology. It is true1881that the U.S. will still ban Huawei, but the rest of the world1882will use Huawei. It will become more advanced. And it is not1883only telecommunications networks, which are obviously very1884important. But the plan the PRC has with Huawei is to leverage1885its control over telecom up the technology sack, so to be able1886to control other technologies.1887    So I would say it is an absolutely catastrophic risk.1888    Chairman Cruz. And soldiers use cellphones.1889    Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely, and that is something that we1890have discovered in Ukraine is that a lot of these mobile1891technologies can be incredibly valuable. They have been used to1892triangulate drone attacks. They have been used to create1893accurate geographic maps of the combat zones. So we are already1894seeing how these cellphones and mobile technology is critical.1895    Chairman Cruz. Ranking Member Cantwell.1896    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman., and again,1897thanks for this hearing. I actually so appreciate the panel of1898witnesses. Dr. Hazlett, I think lots of members of this1899committee could give a critique of the FCC and it would1900probably mirror yours, in the issues of challenges of that1901agency in addressing our most urgent needs, and probably the1902fact of good broadband mapping lacking. And even when Microsoft1903produced one by ZIP code they still did not use it. So there is1904a long line of concern here about the current FCC structure.1905    Dr. Baylis, I love that you are training the next1906generation of young people to understand this dynamic, because1907we will need it. And there is a reason that the Information Age1908is just sucking up everybody out of college, now that you can1909produce, so keep producing them.1910    Mr. Pearl, thank you for this crystallization of, I think,1911your exact words are, quote, ``ensuring that we preserve1912critical military spectrum base capabilities while creating1913opportunities for commercial access to spectrum.''1914    So that is it. That is what we are trying to do. That is1915what we tried to do in the bill that DoD and NTIA and the1916Department of Commerce agreed to.1917    So the challenge becomes--and thank you, Mr. Clark, for1918your football analogy, of the away game, because I do think1919that really does give you a picture of what warfighters face.1920    But the one thing I struggle with is that, if you could, I1921feel like people misunderstand where we are. I am not saying we1922are playing a Peewee League, but let's say we are playing at1923the K-12 league right now. But the shift in the dynamics and1924capabilities of the warfare that is going to take place, based1925on spectrum, you are not going to be in K-12 football. You are1926going to be in a Super Bowl. And how do we get people here to1927understand, as you said, you cannot unilaterally disarm if the1928ascending technical capabilities and challenges.1929    And I wonder if you could address white space. A lot of1930people talk about, oh, well, we could just have dynamic1931spectrum sharing, and you could easily. But there are lots of1932ways that right now that is really detrimental to our effort.1933    Mr. Clark. Right, yes, Senator Cantwell. So a couple of1934things on that. One is that the military is going to have to be1935much more dynamic in its use of the spectrum. So we are going1936to have to maneuver a lot more in the spectrum to avoid where1937our adversaries are looking for us, or to get to where our1938adversaries are so we can jam them. Using some of the1939technologies that Dr. Baylis is developing, we will eventually1940be able to both do those operations as well as maintain some1941ability to have commercial users operate on that same spectrum.1942But we are not there yet. Those technologies are not fielded1943yet.1944    The reason being that our opponents, like we see in1945Ukraine, it is a constant cat-and-mouse game in the1946electromagnetic spectrum. So you operate in one part of the1947spectrum, you quickly get detected and jammed, and you have to1948maneuver to another part in order to be able to continue to1949communicate with your allies, be able to continue sending1950targets, and attacking your enemy.1951    So this cat-and-mouse game in the spectrum requires you to1952be maneuvering back and forth, and you cannot be isolated to a1953very narrow band of spectrum during operations, and we have to1954train to be able to conduct those same types of operations.1955    Senator Cantwell. But we are going to grow in complexity1956here, right?1957    Mr. Clark. Right.1958    Senator Cantwell. We are just at a very elementary level--1959--1960    Mr. Clark. Right.1961    Senator Cantwell.--and now it is going to grow in1962complexity. So I do not think, Mr. Pearl, you are not1963suggesting that we mandate auctions before we do all those1964technical feasibility studies, are you?1965    Mr. Pearl. No. I mean, I think we need to mandate clearing1966targets and then do the analysis. But certainly before you hold1967the auction you need to do the work of making sure that we are1968not going to interfere with essential military capabilities.1969    Senator Cantwell. Which is what I think DoD was requesting1970of us and why they supported the legislation.1971    But Mr. Clark, back to this work, hard work, like AMBIT and1972CBRS, how do we go forward here with those ideas? Because in1973the one case it is Navy spectrum, right, and we hear a lot of1974great things about this. But there are paths forward, but do we1975have to test bed? What is it that we have to do to get this1976right, and how do we do, as Mr. Pearl is suggesting, this more1977collaborative effort on the innovation that the private sector1978can drive?1979    Mr. Clark. Well, there is a lot of new modeling simulation1980tools, and obviously test bedding these capabilities is going1981to be really important. So there is a path forward to be able1982to identify the opportunities for spectrum sharing. But physics1983comes into it also, because certain parts of the spectrum just1984are not going to lend themselves to things like missile defense1985or to electronic warfare--I have to jam an opponent where his1986system operates. So we will be limited by physics and being1987able to just maneuver anywhere in the spectrum to avoid the1988commercial users.1989    But within those spaces where we can use the spectrum1990effectively in the military, we need to figure out if there is1991a way we can coexist or share.1992    Senator Cantwell. Yes, and the Chinese just falsely kick1993them out, right. They just control everything. I mean, I guess1994you could have that hierarchy. We do not want that hierarchy.1995    Mr. Clark. China's approach to spectrum management is they1996have PLA personnel embedded inside the radio management1997centers, and in industry who then maneuver the commercial users1998out of the spectrum whenever the military wants to conduct1999routine training operations, development, testing, et cetera.2000    Senator Cantwell. Yes. Well, that is our competitor, and2001that is why we have to beat them. So we have to figure out how2002to take care of this defense issue.2003    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2004    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Wicker.20052006                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,2007                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI20082009    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Mr. Pearl, before we auction we2010have still got to do the work. Could you briefly explain what2011that means, and how long will that take?2012    Mr. Pearl. Yes. I think it is important to have clearing2013targets in the legislation of how much we are intending to make2014available. I think that really focuses the process. But doing2015the work occurs at several different levels. The most important2016level is the engineers from the different agencies. The laws of2017physics are not political or partisan. The laws of physics are2018what they are, and you need engineers who are going to share2019information and work together. And I have seen just the most2020brilliant solutions come out of that, in some of these bands2021that we have talked about.2022    Senator Wicker. Including engineers from DoD?2023    Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely, including engineers from DoD.2024But you need the White House leadership to work with the heads2025of the departments and agencies so that the engineers know to2026share information, to be cooperative, to work together. Because2027what you do not want is a situation where--and there have been2028examples--where there is not that collaboration, and as a2029result oftentimes decisions get made by the FCC or others that2030are less than optimal.2031    Senator Wicker. OK. You do not speak for CSIS. You are2032giving us your own views. Are there persons, learned persons,2033within CSIS who take the same position as the admirals and2034generals from the Defense Department, that just absolutely no2035way this can be shared? Do you have colleagues that believe2036that?2037    Mr. Pearl. So I think Clayton Swope, who does a lot of our2038work on the defense side would certainly advocate for some of2039the defense equities, although I would not necessarily say that2040he takes their side on everything.2041    Senator Wicker. So you are saying--and we could perhaps get2042him here, or I could call him--but perhaps he would even say2043there is some scenario in which some of the spectrum could be2044shared and not2045    Mr. Pearl. Yes. I think that there is a willingness on the2046part, through CSIS, to find those practical solutions so that2047we can accomplish that.2048    Senator Wicker. Mr. Baylis, do you speak for SMART Hub or2049for yourself today?2050    Dr. Baylis. That is a good question. I believe I have2051really tried to consult my team.2052    Senator Wicker. Is there a minority view there that does2053not agree with you?2054    Dr. Baylis. I do not believe so. I believe we are unified2055in the sense that we are trying to develop adaptive and2056reconfigurable technology to solve the very spectrum crisis we2057are convening.2058    Senator Wicker. Would it be helpful if you had somebody2059inside the team who was the devil's advocate and could bounce2060these absolute objections against your people?2061    Dr. Baylis. Devil's advocate as to what?2062    Senator Wicker. I will tell you. When we get the military2063in the SCIF, I am not giving away any secrets, they say it is2064just absolutely impossible, we cannot give an inch, and2065anything that the Chairman might advocate would be detrimental2066to national security. Am I pretty much correct that that is2067their testimony?2068    Dr. Baylis. I believe we have objective people on our team2069that would give me, and do give me, you know, contrasting views2070when they need to be given. I think we have got a team that is2071working to try to get the best technological solution to the2072problem, and I think that is our sole goal.2073    Senator Wicker. Mr. Clark, tell us about the idea of2074finding a solution by compression, and compare and contrast2075that to relocating.2076    Mr. Clark. Yes. Great point, Senator. Compression of2077spectral efficiency is looking at ways to use digital2078technology to narrow the beam width or bandwidth that a sensor2079needs for, for example, a radar, to be able to put enough2080energy downrange to be able to detect a target and track it. So2081using new digital technologies we are able to reduce the amount2082of spectrum that a sensor might need to be effective.2083    Senator Wicker. And there is a history to this.2084    Mr. Clark. Yes. Over time the DoD has done this with2085different sensor technologies. As we replace and recapitalize2086the new generation of radars that is coming into DoD right now,2087they are more spectrally efficient.2088    Senator Wicker. Supplement your answer on that. Can you2089briefly talk about Mr. Baylis' reference to live interference2090notices?2091    Mr. Clark. Yes. So the idea would be can you, in real time,2092be able to get a notification. Normally what happens when you2093try to deconflict spectrum is you just detect the other user2094out there, and then you have to respond to that. You would want2095to augment that with a notification that comes from that other2096user to automatically tell you, I am going to use the spectrum2097now, and here is the level and power and the frequency I am2098going to be at. And then the systems can coordinate between2099themselves. So instead of simply responding to what they see in2100the environment, they are communicating with each other to2101coordinate their use of the spectrum in real time.2102    Senator Wicker. Do you subscribe to his point of view in2103that regard?2104    Mr. Clark. I think, definitely, that technology is2105certainly viable. The challenge will be getting to implement it2106into the defense systems that are multiple generations, and in2107some cases, old.2108    Senator Wicker. Just quickly, if Dr. Hazlett and Mr. Pearl2109could respond and perhaps supplement on the record as to that2110question.2111    Dr. Hazlett. Sure. This is an ongoing problem of a general2112order, and it is having an unpriced asset, and at a zero price,2113if opportunity costs are not considered, of course there is2114going to be over-consumption and no give. But the fact is there2115are social costs. There are economic costs. There are also2116technology costs in terms of taking the tradeoffs for2117compression, better radios, better training, better software.2118    There are other alternatives here that everybody in the2119room should have the incentives to pursue, and that is where2120there has been some progress and there have been real good2121allocations made that really do bring efficiency. But to say2122that we are not going to look at efficiency, yet we need more2123and more and more, you are undermining the quest for2124efficiency. That is undermining both civilian and military2125applications.2126    Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I realize I am way over time.2127    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Fischer.21282129                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,2130                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA21312132    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the2133panel for being here today.2134    We know the context of this hearing about whether and how2135to use spectrum in a reconciliation bill. One key focus I am2136hearing is on revenues from the new spectrum pipeline that is2137only for exclusive commercial use. I want to stress for my2138colleagues that we must also weigh the cost and the timelines2139to relocate existing users for this type of pipeline.2140    The Department of Defense is one of the users, with missile2141defense radars and satellite constellations providing critical2142capabilities. DoD losing access to its spectrum bands entirely,2143which is what vacating or clearing spectrum means, comes with2144huge risks and will end up costing us more. Replacing national2145security systems, if that is even possible, would cost hundreds2146of billions of dollars, and we all know it would take decades2147to be able to finish.2148    So a pipeline estimated to raise, by CBO, based on current2149proposals, between $10 and $15 billion in a 10-year budget2150window may actually take 20 years to transition. I agree there2151are technologies that could make sharing spectrum possible. But2152DoD must have a seat at the table when its spectrum bands are2153studied and tested. Otherwise, we lose them, we risk losing2154access to this finite resource forever.2155    Mr. Clark, what specific military capabilities could we use2156if lawmakers on this committee do not fully consider these2157realities before pressing ahead?2158    Mr. Clark. Well, Senator, I think the key capability would2159be sensing technologies needing for air and missile defense. So2160in the lower S-band, lower X-band----2161    Senator Fischer. Could you explain what S and X-band are?2162    Mr. Clark. Right. So the lower part of the 3 GHz range in2163the S-band is really important for air and missile defense,2164because it gives you that combination of resolution and range2165that allows a radar to be pretty effective at tracking incoming2166targets. And then we need radars that operate up in the X-band,2167which is the 8 to 12 GHz range, but the lower part of that2168generally, to be able to differentiate small targets and be2169able to target them and be able to direct an interceptor like a2170Patriot missile to go hit them and shoot them down.2171    Senator Fischer. So we have to see them and identify them.2172    Mr. Clark. Right. So you need to both see them and then2173target them and track them, and that requires essentially two2174different sensor technologies to be either combined in the same2175radar or be in different radars. That is how the Patriot system2176works. That is how the AEGIS system works that the Navy has.2177    So if we were to relocate out of those parts of the2178spectrum, you lose the physics that allows those sensors to2179work effectively, and we would have to either have more sensors2180or come up with a different approach.2181    Senator Fischer. Right.2182    Mr. Clark. So that is why sharing might be an effective2183alternative. But relocating them entirely may not be feasible2184because of the physics.2185    Senator Fischer. You know, Mr. Clark, I have concerns about2186the role that China has played in influencing our spectrum2187policy in this country. We are being told that we have to keep2188up with China, that they have far more mid-band spectrum2189available, that their carriers can use the lower 3 for mobile2190networks, and that there have been no negative impacts to2191China's national security.2192    Well, you know, in reality, China only has 10 more MHz of2193mid-band spectrum available for mobile networks. China also2194recently imposed restrictions in its lower 3 band, limiting2195commercial access to that low power which is indoor use. And2196yet we still hear that China comparison from carrier and their2197effort to gain exclusive use of these bands, which are needed2198for our radar systems.2199    If the U.S. blinds its radars purely for economic reasons2200that only helps foreign adversaries like China. Do you share my2201concerns?2202    Mr. Clark. I do. I think China could be playing a very2203sophisticated game here, where they are looking to get us to2204vacate parts of the spectrum that we need for our military2205sensors while they retain that access. So we unilaterally2206disarm while they are able to retain their capabilities,2207because as I said before, they have the ability to move2208commercial users out of the spectrum basically whenever they2209need to for their routine government purposes.2210    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to2211submit some questions for the record to Mr. Clark about2212spectrum management and how that also impacts what we are2213talking about today. Thank you.2214    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar.22152216               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,2217                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA22182219    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, thank2220you to Ranking Member Cantwell, for this important hearing. I2221know this has been a good discussion about spectrum. I had a2222Judiciary hearing at the same time. But this is specifically2223important to our 911 system. I co-chair the Next Gen 911 Caucus2224with Senator Budd, and we are dedicated to expanding and2225improving emergency communications infrastructure.2226    Yet the FTC spectrum authority expired in March 2023, as we2227all know, for the first time in nearly 30 years, and I am2228concerned about this lapse in spectrum authority with the2229increasing needs for emergency authority.2230    An estimated 240 million calls are made to 911 centers2231annually. However, this critical public service relies on2232outdated technologies. I have led legislation with Senator2233Cortez Masto to modernize America's 911 system, to help enable2234911 call centers to better handle text messages, pictures,2235videos, and modern communications.2236    Dr. Baylis, can you give an example of an innovation at2237your lab that could help make our 911 system stronger and more2238resilient?2239    Dr. Baylis. So I think this depends on what types of2240interference the 911 systems are receiving. But an innovation2241that we are finding our lab that could really be helpful--well,2242there are two of them. One is we have got reconfigurable2243circuitry that can reconfigure within under a millisecond, and2244that would allow us to actually frequencies and then optimize2245our performance at a new frequency.2246    What happens is your circuit is designed to operate at the2247old frequency, so if you change frequencies you may drain your2248batter because you do not have any efficiency, you may not get2249the transit power you need. So that is an example of one thing2250we are doing, is reconfigurable circuitry.2251    And then I think that the Dynamic Spectrum Management2252System innovations we are working on, as well as our in-situ2253measurement capability, which would allow us to actually see2254when we are causing interference and change our transmissions,2255and be able to plug AI in through that. Those would help 9112256systems as well as any system that is trying to reconfigure.2257Thank you.2258    Senator Klobuchar. You know, just recently, in the2259aftermath of Hurricane Helene, many affected areas experienced2260local communications blackouts because the flooding was severe2261enough to override the Internet providers' disaster contingency2262plans. How could we leverage innovation in spectrum management2263to ensure that our wireless broadband networks are more2264resilient when things happen like natural disasters?2265    Dr. Baylis. I am not aware of this particular. I did not2266research this. I would have to go in and see exactly what the2267problem was in terms of the technical lapse and then try to be2268able to bring a team to solve it. If it was an interference2269issue or frequencies not being available, then I think our team2270has the solutions we could deal with it.2271    Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm, and getting the spectrum thing2272set would be helpful, if we had more----2273    Dr. Baylis. I think in the sense that technology is behind2274regulation right now, technology needs to be developed, and I2275think that is where our lapse is, really. I really believe that2276investment needs to be made in technology rather than just re-2277regulating and re-regulating, because we are slicing the bread2278thinner and thinner and thinner until it crumbles.2279    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Pearl and Mr. Clark,2280during President Trump's first administration there were2281interagency disputes regarding spectrum. We have seen these2282interagency disputes through Democratic administrations, as2283well. Recognizing the importance of providing more order, the2284National Spectrum Strategy was released in November 2023, and2285its implementation plan in March 2024.2286    Mr. Pearl, can you discuss why it is important to continue2287to improve planning and coordination, and then, Mr. Clark, how2288can this administration cultivate more agency buy-in to avoid2289the sorts of disputes that have arisen, especially when it2290comes to the Department of Defense. Mr. Pearl?2291    Mr. Pearl. You cannot work out these issues on an2292engineering level unless you have the proper interagency2293coordination, and that has to come from the White House really2294demanding that the agencies work together and participate in a2295robust way, and have the right engineers who are there to work2296out the problems, and really mandate that they share2297information. That is something that we have run into in the2298past, where an agency that wants to continue to use the2299spectrum is not willing to play ball and share information so2300they can work together collaboratively.2301    And then you need a really healthy interagency process2302where it starts at the lower levels and eventually escalates if2303you cannot solve problems. That is incredibly helpful because2304if you just have the White House weigh in without having all2305the information and having that refined set of issues that2306comes from the interagency process, then in some cases the2307right decisions do not get made.2308    Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. Yes, we are experiencing a2309little bit of that right now, but I am not going to go there.2310OK, Mr. Clark.2311    Mr. Clark. It requires leadership, both in the White House2312but also in the department. My discussion with the leadership2313of the current team in the Defense Department showed that they2314are very willing to engage in this interagency deliberation to2315figure out the best way to use the spectrum. And there are a2316lot of modeling and simulation tools that Dr. Baylis and others2317have that could help us to figure out what are the2318opportunities for sharing, and even coexistence, in adjacent2319spectra.2320    Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.2321    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Blackburn.23222323              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,2324                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE23252326    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you2327for this hearing. I think it is one of the things we need to be2328focused on is what is our leadership going to be as a nation in2329this area.2330    So one of my concerns, and I have talked about this with2331the Chairman, is what I see as spectrum squatting, with our2332Federal agencies. They control most of the spectrum assets, and2333they are failing to optimize this. And I have, for years,2334advocated that we do a good inventory, so we know who is using2335what spectrum, where, and then be able to recoup it. Because it2336does not matter what project is being worked on, whether it is2337wireless, whether it is the MUOS system, whether it is LEO--2338everybody in the DoD is working with the private sector,2339because they are leading the innovation. And for Federal2340agencies, Mr. Chairman, to squat on this spectrum, and to not2341use it, and to not want to yield it back, and not want anybody2342to know what they have got, it disadvantages us as a nation.2343    And we know that recouping it, going through the auction2344process, would yield billions and billions of dollars, as much2345as $100 billion, and we need that because we are in a race with2346China when it comes to leading in this area. And we do not have2347time to waste, and we do not have time for squatters to bicker2348with what they are going to do with this spectrum.2349    Mr. Pearl, let me come to you. This last World Radio2350Conference was a hot mess for the U.S. We were unprepared. We2351had not done our homework. And if we are going to continue to2352be a world leader, we are going to have to be prepared. You2353mentioned this is in your testimony, and I appreciated that you2354did, because I think it was embarrassing that we were2355unprepared for the leadership road.2356    So I want to hear from you, and if you want to submit this2357in writing I would appreciate that, but the lessons we should2358have learned from this last one and the steps that we should be2359taking to prepare for the 2027 WRC.2360    Mr. Pearl. Yes. So I think one of the lessons we learned2361is, so the next WRC is WRC 2027, and that is tomorrow in real2362terms, which is the preparatory process in incredibly quick in2363arriving at positions. It is going to give you a huge advantage2364vis-a-vis China.2365    So I think that it is just important to have Congress, when2366it reauthorizes FCC auction authority, as well as the White2367House to make sure that these issues are resolved early and2368that you do not have the U.S. coming in late with positions.2369    I also think that it is important as we are----2370    Senator Blackburn. And I think that we know what those2371positions are, rather than squishing through the whole thing.2372That would be helpful.2373    Mr. Pearl. Yep.2374    Senator Blackburn. OK. Homework for each of you. You know,2375there are disputes, center agency disputes, about how to use2376spectrum. So each of you have touched on this, but in writing I2377want from you what your recommendation would be to resolve2378these disputes. We have to recoup the spectrum. We have got to2379look at how we slice these bands and put more--Mr. Clark, as2380you were saying--into that bandwidth. So help us with your best2381thoughts on that.2382    Mr. Pearl, I want to come back to you on AI, because when2383we talk about AI and quantum and the utilizations that are2384there, we know more spectrum is needed. And in Tennessee, we2385have--I repeatedly hear from innovators, whether they are2386working logistics, they are working on something for DOE or2387DoD, or health care, they talk a good bit about this.2388    But with AI, I think it is important to get on the record2389how spectrum constraints would actually hamper AI development2390and deployment.2391    Mr. Pearl. Yes, I am absolutely happy to submit that on the2392record. I think one of the important points is it would hamper2393things not only on the commercial side but also on the DoD side2394of things, where there are really interesting AI applications2395for first responders in terrorist attacks and things like that,2396and leveraging it to make the right decisions. And that is2397something that is directly applicable to what DoD does in the2398battlefield.2399    Another example is, you know, we have talked about2400spectrum, but to really advance what we need AI to do is to be2401able to take all the sources of information--spectrum, OPC,2402cyberspace, thermal imaging--just all of these things and2403generate real actionable insights. And we cannot do that unless2404we have those commercial technologies and we are winning the AI2405race with China.2406    Senator Blackburn. And I will add to that the satellite2407systems.2408    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.2409    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Rosen.24102411                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,2412                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA24132414    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cruz, Ranking Member2415Cantwell. Thank you to the witnesses for all of your work, your2416education, what you bring to the table here because our2417Nation's spectrum we know is one of our Nation's most important2418resources. So spectrum policy must be thoughtful, it has to be2419deliberative, and unlocking innovation while protecting our2420national security.2421    I share some of my colleagues' concerns that this2422Administration and some of the majority want to sidestep having2423a deliberative, fact-based process, and instead advance2424spectrum proposals merely to raise as much revenue as possible2425to fund massive tax breaks for billionaires.2426    So we must instead take our time to find the right policy2427that ensures that revenues from spectrum sales actually lower2428costs for the American people. Last Congress, this committee2429advanced legislation to use spectrum proceeds to lower my state2430of Nevada, Nevada's Internet bills, to help our first2431responders that is so important, and invest in the R&D that we2432need to share spectrum safely with the Department of Defense.2433That is a foundation we can and should build upon.2434    And we know there are key challenges between the DoD,2435commercial operations. One thing that is particularly2436concerning, that I have been thinking a lot about, is dynamic2437spectrum sharing and where we are at with that. Mr. Clark, then2438Mr. Baylis, where are we really at, in reality, with our2439capabilities on dynamic spectrum sharing, and how can we2440deploy, when we get there, dynamic spectrum sharing, to ensure2441that efforts to expand access do not undermine military access?2442We still want to unlock possibilities, but is it still a2443concept? Are we testing it? Where are we at in the dynamic2444spectrum sharing role, please?2445    Mr. Clark. Yes, Senator. Dynamic spectrum sharing is a2446relatively mature technology at this point. It is being used in2447applications like the Citizens Band Radio Service, where along2448the coast we have dynamic spectrum sharing between Navy radars2449that use the spectrum and then also 5G providers that operate2450in that same spectrum.2451    There are obviously new technologies that are being2452employed, that Dr. Baylis has done a lot of work in, to make it2453even more sophisticated in terms of how that spectrum sharing2454happens----2455    Senator Rosen. And more nimble.2456    Mr. Clark.--and how seamless it can be, right, and how you2457can start to do that in much narrower parts of spectrum because2458it gives the ability for both users to jump around into2459different parts of the spectrum much more agilely than they2460could today.2461    The challenge is always the implementation, because now we2462have got to take those new technologies and got to bake them2463in, in the case of the military, military systems that span2464multiple generations of technologies. So we have analog radars2465still in service, and analog communication systems that do not2466lend themselves. They are on the digital back end.2467    Senator Rosen. So we would need a bridge to get there. We2468would need a bridge to get there.2469    Mr. Clark. Right. We are going through this2470recapitalization of the U.S. military's spectrum-dependent2471systems that will, over time, make them better able to take2472advantage of these technologies. And the question is how2473quickly can we accelerate that in order to make dynamic2474spectrum sharing more of a reality.2475    Senator Rosen. Thank you.2476    Dr. Baylis. So thanks for the question. Incumbent DoD2477systems need technology development, and I think I want to2478focus on that for a minute because in the research question a2479lot of times we are very focused on helping the commercial2480wireless systems be more adaptive. SMART Hub has really taken2481what I think is a very unique focus, and looking at the2482incumbent systems, actually how do we improve the DoD systems?2483Given where the DoD systems are today, we want to see those2484move to an adaptive and reconfigurable model. So we are working2485on flexible circuitry. We are working on flexible communication2486strategies. We are trying to figure out how can we put AI into2487actually predicting the spectrum, so these incumbent systems we2488can hopefully, and with our industry partnerships, we have got2489a quick pathway to put technology into the hands of the DoD to2490facilitate the types of economic growth that our Nation needs2491from the spectral bands.2492    So hopefully the technology development is a game-charger,2493where we can have our cake and eat it too.2494    Senator Rosen. Well, to your point then, what are the risks2495associated with mandating the movement of certain bands, or the2496alterations of certain bands, prior to having first done these2497studies about what we can and cannot do, and how we need maybe2498a measured approach to get some of these legacy systems where2499they can be nimble and more adaptive?2500    Dr. Baylis. Technology development is, I think, the big2501elephant in the room, and we need to address it, because if we2502do not we can do a lot of things to posture but we are not2503going to make improvements because we are just slicing the2504bread thinner and thinner. By having adaptive and2505reconfigurable technology, what Congress needs to do is to fund2506work going forward with entities like SMART Hub, because we are2507going to bring it to the DoD quickly, and that will be a game-2508changer. We will not have to have these discussions anymore2509because the technology will supersede, way supersede what we2510have today that is available. And it can be done in a2511reasonably short period of time.2512    Senator Rosen. So investing in smart, more things that you2513are doing in SMART Hub. Thank you very much.2514    Dr. Baylis. Thank you.2515    Senator Rosen. I appreciate it.2516    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Budd.25172518                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED BUDD,2519                U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA25202521    Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman, and again I thank the2522panel for being here. This is a fascinating testimony.2523    I think we are all trying to find the ``both/and'' here. I2524mean, how do we find the revenues from the spectrum auction2525that is much needed, and how do we secure and protect national2526defense.2527    Dr. Baylis, I want to follow up. Thanks for your work at2528SMART Hub. I did not hear, between Mr. Clark's answer then your2529answer, what is the timeline for dynamic spectrum sharing? If2530you saw great promise, how far out before an actual practical2531implementation of that, in your best estimation?2532    Dr. Baylis. Yes. I would say as fast as possible. We are in2533a national----2534    Senator Budd. Do you have years----2535    Dr. Baylis. We are in a national crisis right now in terms2536of spectrum. We really are. And so when you have an emergency2537you try to fix the problem as quickly as possible, and that is2538what we are doing. We really are trying to work as quickly as2539possible.2540    I will say that having a center like this, where we have2541convened the Nation's top 25 spectrum researchers, in my2542opinion, to solve a problem, you have got everybody reading off2543the same sheet of music, working together. You have got policy2544and economics experts alongside circuit experts. That is really2545going to speed it up. I say that is going to give you a three-2546time speed-up rather than a program director funding one-off2547projects somewhere.2548    So I will say we can really accelerate it. May be able to2549put a time scale, I would say as quickly as possible. I really2550do not want to give you an exact number, just because I do not2551know exactly what that number is. But I can tell you at our 6-2552month demo we showed tremendous progress.2553    Senator Budd. Mr. Clark, do you have a number?2554    Mr. Clark. I can give you a number. To get these2555technologies incorporated into the military systems that need2556them it would take 10 to 20 years, because you are going to2557take these ships offline, these aircraft offline, these radars2558offline, to go upgrade them. And we cannot have them all do it2559at once, obviously. So it takes time to run them all through2560the process of being upgraded.2561    Senator Budd. Thank you. Mr. Baylis, you mentioned that2562Congress needs to fund some more research on this. Do you have2563a dollar amount on that? Is there something that you are2564particularly asking for to do more research in dynamic spectrum2565sharing?2566    Dr. Baylis. Well, thanks for asking. SMART Hub is annually2567funded by an appropriation right now. We have gotten one so2568far, and we are in this bill coming from the House side, with2569Mr. Sessions, and we are asking for $5 million for this year.2570We have been working off of a $5 million budget.2571    Senator Budd. Should industry also bear some of the burden2572of this?2573    Dr. Baylis. So our technology transfer model actually is2574going to line up investors very early on in the process. And2575also industry, we are building industry partnerships quickly,2576so that essentially investors will start pouring their funds in2577when they see the technology. And we are already building DoD2578contractor pipelines that will not only put the technology in2579the hands of warfighter, but through this pipeline we will fund2580more research.2581    So we have got an ecosystem that just needs a runway to get2582the plane taking off.2583    Senator Budd. Thank you.2584    Dr. Baylis. And we are not going to be, hopefully, coming2585to you infinitely for money. That is not my goal. The reason2586for me not stating a year is not for me to say, hey, we have2587got to continue this infinitely, with support. I think I just2588want to be cautious about promising anything and not delivering2589on it.2590    Senator Budd. You did not give us a year but you did give2591me a dollar, so thank you very much.2592    Mr. Pearl, a question for you. I appreciate your statement2593that spectrum is critical to economic security, and I am2594quoting you, because it provides a foundation for U.S.2595companies to innovate. So what is your assessment of when2596innovation might be stifled, giving the increasing data2597traffic?2598    Mr. Pearl. So I think that it has not happened yet because2599we had some recent auctions in the last administration. But I2600would say probably in the next 2 years we would see some real2601impacts. Although I would say Congress has to act much sooner2602than that, because it takes time, once auction authority is2603restored, to have the auctions. But in terms of when you will2604really have an impact on our networks to handle the loads, I2605think it could be in the next year or two.2606    Senator Budd. So would upgrades to existing 5G, would that2607buy us some time?2608    Mr. Pearl. It could but, you know, there are some fiscal2609constraints on that, which is that the companies spent $1902610billion so far upgrading their networks for 5G, and that has2611been great. That got us through COVID. We have all these2612wonderful, fixed networks. So just their ability to do that2613might be constrained, and it could be that spectrum is the only2614solution at this particular time.2615    Senator Budd. Thank you. And Mr. Pearl, continuing, in your2616experience in Federal spectrum management, how important is2617White House leadership on this, and do we need more and more2618clear leadership from the White House than we had in the2619previous administration on this issue?2620    Dr. Baylis. So White House leadership is absolutely2621critical, although I would say that in my view it does start2622with Congress in terms of establishing some clearing targets2623and some guidance. That really strengthens the hand of the2624White House, and working with the agencies. But yes, without2625having, from the President on down, and having the willingness2626from people like the National Security Advisor, Director of2627National Economic Council to actually spend time on these2628issues and prioritize them with everything else that is going2629on. Because that is ultimately how you get things done and2630ensure that everyone in the interagency has their marching2631orders of how to make progress.2632    Senator Budd. Thank you, Chairman.2633    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Dr. Baylis, you told Senator Budd2634a second ago, you said that we are facing a national crisis in2635spectrum. Could you articulate explicitly what you mean by2636that, what national crisis we are facing?2637    Dr. Baylis. We have applications that need to have2638spectrum, spectrum real estate, so to speak, and we do not have2639enough bandwidth for all of them. So the way we are currently2640doing spectrum, by fixed allocations of spectrum, is just not2641going to work moving forward. So we need technology to support2642the movement of devices in real time between spectral bands,2643and it is a paradigm shift. We really need a paradigm shift2644badly, where we have got too much trying to use too little.2645    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Schmitt.26462647                STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,2648                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI26492650    Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really do2651believe that over the last 3 years the U.S. has ceded a lot of2652leadership in spectrum policy and 5G innovation, both2653domestically and internationally. That is not good news. Under2654the first Trump administration, we went from stagnation to2655global leadership. Congress passed--I was not here but Congress2656passed the Secure and Trusted Networks Act. But in the time2657since then, the last 4 years, the Biden administration's2658failure to act and focus on divisive things like DEI has really2659set us back.2660    I am one of the members that serves both on Armed Services,2661with Senator Budd also, and the Commerce Committee, so there is2662a bit of a balancing act, I think, that goes with this. And2663while I think DoD should have a voice in this process, I2664strongly believe that Congress is has already established the2665NCIA as the primary authority for spectrum allocation, and it2666must lead rather than act as a rubber stamp for DoD. I think2667that is one of the issues. National security has been heard2668today. It is very multi-faceted, economic security is national2669security, and China is coming for our lunch, in more than one2670way.2671    I wanted to ask just a few questions, and I will try not to2672ask questions that have already been asked, but it is possible2673I might. Dr. Baylis, when we talk about spectrum management and2674enhancing the ability of commercial and defense users to sort2675of coexist in those shared bands, what role and how far have we2676come, and how far do we have to go for that to be really2677effective with AI, as these advancements proceed?2678    Dr. Baylis. So it is interesting. AI can be used in2679multiple levels in the new spectrum sharing--or I should say2680the new adaptive and reconfigurable paradigm. One level is to2681assess, predict the spectrum that is going to be available for2682our use, and having this technology in the DoD and commercial2683hands is very useful.2684    The second is actually inside the devices themselves, to be2685able to optimize their performance, to make sure a radar2686transmitter can reconfigure its circuitry after it has to move2687in frequency to maximize its range so it can detect targets far2688out.2689    We can use AI to help us reconfigure the circuits quickly2690and take measurements on board the device. So a lot of our2691technology development is actually equipped with this plug-in2692of AI. In fact, we have one of the world's AI experts,2693Professor Bob Marks, who has written great books on AI that2694Congress actually is on the recommended reading list. He is2695part of SMART Hub and working very actively with us to infuse2696AI into our decisionmaking for our spectrum adaptive and2697reconfigurable devices.2698    Senator Schmitt. And, of course, that allows you to2699maximize, right? It allows you to actually maximize the bands2700of spectrum, right, as opposed to having maybe overutilization2701in one place and lack of utilization somewhere else. It is a2702predictive modeling.2703    Dr. Baylis. It really could. And I think AI has tremendous2704power, and we need to marshal it for being able to use the2705spectrum efficiently and to adapt our technologies to where the2706spectrum is maximally being shared.2707    Senator Schmitt. And I will throw this open for any one of2708the four. One of the things on a topic like this, to try to ask2709the question. Back home, I actually think this is one of those2710topics that it just does not come up in a town hall. It does2711not come up on the stump. But it is of critical importance for2712our country.2713    So it is with those kinds of topics then, how do you, if2714you were in our position, how would you sort of crystallize why2715this issue is so important for the American people? And I would2716open it up to any one of you.2717    Dr. Baylis. I will take this quickly. I have to go out and2718tell people what we are doing, and one of the things that I say2719is spectrum is the most important dimension of battle. If you2720can dominate the spectrum, you are going to win the war. So2721from the DoD side it is unquestionable.2722    In fact, the Space Force, we are talking with Space Force2723people now. The Space Force, the only dimension of battle is2724spectrum. There are no tanks. There are no soldiers on the2725ground. It is just spectrum, and we are going to have to be2726dominant in spectrum. So from the DoD side that is really2727important.2728    I think from the commercial side, we are more connected2729than we have ever been through spectrum. We learned that during2730the pandemic, because we had to use the wireless spectrum to2731connect with loved ones and other things. So I think our2732society certainly sees the need for wireless devices.2733    Senator Schmitt. Anybody else?2734    Mr. Clark. I think the challenge comes into play where we2735have to afford the military the ability to be agile in the2736spectrum and be able to maneuver and keep our adversaries off2737balance, which some of the technology that Dr. Baylis is2738developing could help us to do. So if we were to field those it2739would make our military more agile when it comes to sharing2740spectrum at home and also more agile when it comes to creating2741problems for our enemies overseas.2742    So that is really important. It will take time to get to2743the point where those technologies can be incorporated into our2744military systems. Until then, we are going to have to have some2745hybrid approach.2746    Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2747    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Hickenlooper.27482749             STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,2750                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO27512752    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you2753all for being here. I appreciate how busy you all are.2754    I think this is one of the key discussions we are going to2755have here all year. The Spectrum Relocation Fund, let me start2756with that, provides funding to Federal agencies to research the2757feasibility of modifying and, if necessary, upgrading the2758Federal systems that use spectrum. So SRF, at least as we see2759it, it seems limited by only reimbursing a Federal agency for2760necessary costs to update a system of, quote/unquote,2761``comparable'' capability. So not the next level but comparable2762capability. Many Federal agencies have stated that the SRF2763limits their ability to upgrade their systems that use2764spectrum, just to be able to continue fulfilling their2765missions.2766    Mr. Pearl, why don't I start with you. Do you believe SRF2767could be reformed to better incentivize agencies to share or2768reallocate spectrum? Why or why not?2769    Mr. Pearl. Yes, and I would put it stronger and say that2770SRF must be reformed, I think if we are going to resolve these2771issues.2772    Senator Hickenlooper. I was trying to say that myself, but2773I was being generous2774    Mr. Pearl. But yes, I think you identified one of the key2775issues, which is that the agencies need to be able to receive2776upgrades and have more advanced systems. Some of these2777capabilities we are talking about could be paid for with2778auction funds.2779    I think it is also necessary to give NTIA the authority to2780get funding in order to do studies. Right now, only the2781agencies can get SRF money to do studies. But as several2782Senators have said, it is really important, and the NTIA2783engineers are really looking at this from an honest broker2784perspective and trying to get to the right answer. So allowing2785them to do that would be really helpful.2786    And then I think the last thing is that there is a2787technical panel under the legislation--NTIA, FCC, OMB--and they2788have proved what the agency is going to do when they do the2789study. But they need more oversight of the process after that,2790because when things to off the rails and the study is not going2791to be useful, you need that ability for the other agencies and2792the other engineers to weigh in and get things back on track.2793    Senator Hickenlooper. Absolutely. I could not agree more.2794    Dr. Baylis, your testimony underscores how collaboration in2795the academic community and within government and the academic2796community helps enhance this Spectrum Innovation Center you2797lead. You see firsthand how our universities educate and create2798that workforce pipeline that we need to maintain our2799leadership, in all STEM fields--computer scientists to advanced2800cybersecurity of the wireless networks, radio frequency2801engineers--to develop new technologies for sharing spectrum and2802getting more efficient usage.2803    As we debate, as Congress debates how to study and share2804and reallocate spectrum, and try to be as fair and look at the2805greatest good for the greatest number of people, how do you2806highlight the importance of ensuring that U.S. grows a trained2807spectrum and cyber work force?2808    Dr. Baylis. Thank you. I appreciate the question. Workforce2809development is one of the important things we do, and I think2810it starts with the fact that our faculty, our staff2811researchers, our students that are on this project are all U.S.2812citizens. You will not find that in many academic centers. But2813we are a bunch of patriots, because we want to see this country2814succeed, and we want to see this country be the best in2815wireless technology, so it starts there.2816    I think we have to develop an American pipeline of students2817that is going to be able to work on the future spectrum2818paradigm. We have been doing a lot of efforts, one of which the2819National Science Foundation is currently funding, where we2820actually have undergraduate students from around the country2821apply to and get the opportunity to come to a 4-day residential2822workshop on one of our campuses. And we will be holding four of2823them this summer. Actually one in your state, at Colorado State2824University, is one of our universities, and we will be holding2825one there. So you are welcome to come and check it out if you2826would like.2827    Senator Hickenlooper. I will do that.2828    Dr. Baylis. We are also involved with the Army Research2829Laboratory, who we are even commissioned through. We have a2830SMART Hub fellows program, where we actually place students at2831the lab, working with some of our brightest minds in the2832laboratory, and working with each other so that they can build2833cross-disciplinary expertise in spectrum. And we are expanding2834that to some other agencies now, also.2835    So definitely that is a big part of bringing in the new2836adaptive and reconfigurable paradigm. Thank you.2837    Senator Hickenlooper. I appreciate that. I am kind of out2838of time. Mr. Clark--and I will leave this and you can answer2839very concisely--this partnership between the Federal Government2840and the auctions around how spectrum gets divvied up, how do2841you look when you are evaluating spectrum used for a Federal2842mission, how important is it for the agencies to have a2843meaningful and collaborative role in that feasibility study?2844    Mr. Clark. It is really important because the physics2845matter. I think that fundamentally, no matter how much spectrum2846sharing or division of the spectrum into more efficient bands2847comes, you still have to deal with the physics of certain bands2848are going to be useful for certain operations, and you cannot2849just move to another part of the spectrum. So physics matter,2850and I think that is fundamentally what it comes down to.2851    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you so much. I yield back to2852the chair.2853    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Curtis.28542855                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CURTIS,2856                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH28572858    Senator Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our national2859security is a top priority. Without it we are a nation at risk2860of attack from those who would do us harm. I support the2861Department of Defense. But when it comes to spectrum debate,2862the DoD and the commercial interests have been at a stalemate2863for decades. After years of discussion it seems unclear to me2864why something cannot be worked out. It feels as if there is2865something I do not know.2866    I know that DoD is not here today, but I suspect they are2867listening, and I would challenge them to better articulate just2868specifically what it is that they are not telling us. Perhaps2869it needs to be classified, and if so I am game for that2870briefing. But I think it is fair to say that I do not see it,2871and I think it is important that as a Member of Congress we2872better understand just exactly why we cannot come to this2873consensus.2874    Mr. Hazlett, the United States won the 4G race, which led2875to considerable investment and innovation, that resulted the2876app economy being developed here in the United States. Looking2877ahead to the future of 5G and 6G technologies, I share a2878concern that many have that if the U.S. yields its technology2879dominance to China, future economies may develop abroad instead2880of at home.2881    Can you speak to the importance of the United States being2882the global leader on 5G and 6G technologies?2883    Dr. Hazlett. Well, we simply squander an opportunity to2884move ahead and to make the economy stronger, have innovation2885here that, by the way, has benefits way beyond the auction2886revenues. So in talking about scoring the auction revenues, my2887economist reaction is you are leaving out the biggest part of2888this, which is surging the economy, and, in fact, getting tax2889revenues over time. These are routinely led on the other side.2890    I would just quickly say one thing. Yes, this debate2891between civilian and military, it has been going on since----2892    Senator Curtis. Let's figure it out.2893    Dr. Hazlett.--before 2020.2894    Senator Curtis. So I had meant to say this question if I2895had enough time, but you brought it up so I am just going to2896hit it right now. The CBO has consistently mis-scored the2897revenue, and I understand you are talking about additional2898revenue that comes from that. How is it that we keep getting2899wrong by such dramatic numbers the value of these?2900    Dr. Hazlett. Good question. I do not have an answer to2901that.2902    Senator Curtis. Their score is 51 percent lower than the2903average sale. All right. We will let you off because I have a2904whole bunch of other questions.2905    Mr. Baylis, could you explain the difference between full2906power, exclusive use spectrum licenses versus potential2907spectrum sharing models, and how those different policy2908approaches might impact the rollout of the next generation of2909wireless technologies?2910    Dr. Baylis. So I think what you mean by exclusive, full2911power is that is the only device that gets to use the band. I2912think you mean by dynamic spectrum sharing that there is some2913level of interplay.2914    I would say that from my perspective as a director of a2915center that is developing adaptive and reconfigurable2916technology, what we need to do, we are here at you service to2917build the best technology that we can to help our country2918succeed, and we are happy to inform you where the technologies2919are. In terms of choosing a side in that game, I prefer not to2920try to speak out on that, because that is not my lane. I am2921really trying to develop technologies that will make us the2922best.2923    Senator Curtis. OK. Mr. Pearl, did you want to comment?2924    Mr. Pearl. Yes. I would just mention that I would separate2925a bit in terms of full power versus low power, and they both2926have their benefits and advantages, as we have seen with2927cellular networks and Wi-Fi, although full power does not2928necessarily need to be exclusive use. And I am actually not2929aware of a Federal spectrum transition that is completely2930exclusive use in the sense that DoD completely cleared out.2931    So I do think you can look at it both ways, where you are2932looking at full power but not necessarily exclusive use, and2933vice versa with low power. So I just would mention that.2934    Senator Curtis. OK, good. That is helpful. While we are on2935you let me ask you a question that was mentioned. DoD is not2936here, so we will pick on you. The demand, as we all know, for2937mid-range spectrum is high, and it is not going away. DoD says2938they cannot afford to give up a single part of their spectrum2939without negative national security consequences.2940    Is DoD truly using all of its spectrum with maximizing2941efficiency, and what other considerations are leading DoD to2942this conclusion?2943    Mr. Pearl. No, I do not believe they are, and, you know, if2944you get into the details with them, in many cases, I think that2945they would concede that. And I think that it is necessary to2946work with all the right constituencies in DoD.2947    One thing I would mention is that you are hearing one thing2948at the briefings, but there are people in DoD that have a more2949innovative mindset and see some of the advantages here. And I2950think figuring out how to empower some of those people and2951bring them to the table is really helpful, because that is how2952we can solve some of these problems.2953    Senator Curtis. Good. I am out of time. I would like to2954just close with, I am a DoD supporter, right. I want them to2955have what they need. But I also think we can work this out.2956    Thank you all for your time. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield.2957    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Kim.29582959                  STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,2960                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY29612962    Senator Kim. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Actually, I just2963want to pick up where we were there. Dr. Pearl, I mean, we are2964trying to get all this sense of the tradeoffs that are out2965there and what we are hearing from DoD and elsewhere. And I2966guess I would just ask you, do you think that this committee2967would benefit from having a classified briefing conversation2968with DoD and try to dig into some of those other people that2969you are talking about that could try to bring to light some of2970what this is? I am just kind of curious your thoughts on that.2971    Mr. Pearl. I do, and I think that it would be helpful to2972work with the right people and bring in some engineers to that2973process. Because what it really comes down to is not just the2974high-level briefing. It is getting into here is a critical2975system, and here is the actual impact it would have on2976performance if it used less spectrum, and getting very precise2977about that. And then talking about some of the technologies2978that might be able to avoid that outcome and preserve the DoD2979capability. But really focusing on some of those, like, a small2980number of critical systems and getting into those details.2981    Because just to be told, ``We can't share any. We are using2982all of it, at all times,'' I mean, to me, you know, there are2983important systems in these bands. There are systems that2984absolutely are essential to our national security. But to say2985that we cannot share any of it and we are using all of it is2986just not--that does not pass muster.2987    Senator Kim. Yes, I think you are right. That precision is2988incredibly important when it comes to these decisions.2989    Mr. Clark, I guess I would ask you the same question. What2990are your thoughts about us, in this committee, diving in deeper2991in a classified way?2992    Mr. Clark. Oh yes, yes, sir. I think that is absolutely2993what needs to happen, is to get down to that level of precision2994of what do the systems do, what frequencies do they operate it,2995what is the purpose of the system and how does it work in the2996war fight. And then how could it operate differently if we were2997to try to make it more agile in the spectrum?2998    So a lot of these systems, they need a band of spectrum2999that is available so that they can jump around and avoid enemy3000detection or avoid enemy jamming. So in some cases these3001systems are not efficient, because they have to have more3002spectrum made available to them so they can do this kind of3003anti-jam function. But that means they are not using the3004frequency continuously. So if you had spectrum sharing schemes3005and dynamic spectrum sharing you could still do anti-jam3006operations while being able to free that spectrum up for other3007users when you are not employing it.3008    Senator Kim. OK.3009    Mr. Pearl. If I could just add one point on having--because3010I think it is a worthwhile conversation. Also looping in what3011are the possible ways that you could accommodate DoD in other3012parts of the spectrum. So if we talk about, for instance, lower30133 GHz, which is a really critical area of discussion, there is3014a Federal band that goes 400 MHz below where is DoD is using3015it. So also having a conversation about where could DoD3016potentially move I think could be really helpful.3017    Senator Kim. Yes. Thank you for that. I agree. I mean, Mr.3018Chair, I guess I would just, for your consideration, you know,3019as one of the newer members here on the Committee, you know, I3020was on Armed Services on the House, but still a lot here to3021unpack. So if we could consider whether or not that might be3022doable for us to engage in a classified way, that might be able3023to make sure that we are all really trying to understand this,3024especially what Dr. Pearl said about the precision that is3025necessary here, because so much is at stake.3026    Just in my final time here, Dr. Pearl, I guess I just3027wanted to ask you, in your testimony you talked about how3028critical it is for the U.S. to advance our position in wireless3029innovation and technology, especially when it comes to the3030strategic competition that we face with the PRC. I guess I3031would like you to just expand. Can you explain to us how the3032spectrum auction authority fits into that goal? How is that3033embedded within that broader ability for us to advance our3034position?3035    Mr. Pearl. So I would characterize spectrum auctions as the3036first step in a chain reaction that reverberates through the3037global economy, meaning that the auction is something that,3038other than us insiders, no one is aware of, raises some money3039for the Treasury. But that is the opportunity for mobile3040operators to upgrade their networks. Otherwise, it is too3041expensive. There is no reason to do it. It is once they have3042obtained new spectrum that they launch new services, expand3043their use of it. And then from there it reverberates into the3044app economy, into tech companies, into like what you can use3045all that bandwidth for.3046    And then ultimate that creates an ecosystem, and we want a3047technology ecosystem outside the PRC that is the most advanced3048and robust. So it is a key component in terms of building that3049overall tech ecosystem that is going to be able to outcompete3050and out-innovate the----3051    Senator Kim. And that innovation, that is not just good for3052our own nation but that helps us be able to try to export that3053and be able to get market share around the world. Is that what3054you are saying?3055    Mr. Pearl. Yes, absolutely. So other countries are going to3056make decisions about what spectrum bands they use, what3057wireless networks they procure from. So having that ecosystem3058that is attractive to them means that they will choose the U.S.3059over the PRC.3060    Senator Kim. Great. Thank you. I yield back, Chair.3061    Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Senator Moreno.30623063               STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,3064                     U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO30653066    Senator Moreno. First, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding3067this hearing. I am glad I sat through the whole thing. It was3068extremely enlightening. And I know in the Senate you are3069supposed to abide by the rules that even though a point has3070been made, it has not been made by everybody. I will break that3071tradition and thank the four of you for your testimony. I3072thought the exchange was fantastic. We learned a lot. And with3073that I yield my time.3074    Chairman Cruz. Very good. You may win the prize for3075brevity. I must say, I am not sure you are going to make it as3076a Senator.3077    [Laughter.]3078    Chairman Cruz. I am not going to follow that line. There3079are several things I want to revisit.3080    There was a claim mentioned earlier that it would take 203081years developed advanced sharing technologies. Mr. Pearl, did3082it take 20 years to develop the AMBIT process?3083    Mr. Pearl. No. I think that was a matter of--the study was3084done in about 6 months, and it was completed within 12 to 183085months, if I am remembering it correctly.3086    Chairman Cruz. Mr. Clark, are geographic carveouts another3087way to share?3088    Mr. Clark. Yes, sir, they are, absolutely. And on the point3089about 20 years, I was just saying it would take 20 years,3090potentially, to upgrade all the systems with the new3091technology. The new technology would be available more quickly,3092obviously.3093    Chairman Cruz. And was the AMBIT process successful in3094enabling DoD and commercial 5G coexistence?3095    Mr. Clark. It did. Yes, sir.3096    Chairman Cruz. Some of my colleagues have also discussed3097low-power spectrum sharing or CBRS. Mr. Pearl, do you think3098CBRS is a panacea, or do we also need full-power spectrum?3099    Mr. Pearl. We need full-power spectrum, as well. CBRS was3100the first really serious effort to do dynamic spectrum sharing3101in a band where it was really difficult. But you need both3102those high-powered uses to really utilize the ability to3103penetrate buildings, walls, to really have the capital3104investment that the carriers need in order to offer a lot of3105those services. So you need those high-power services, you need3106low-power services, which we have in 6 GHz and elsewhere, and3107both are important, absolutely.3108    Chairman Cruz. Dr. Hazlett, I have heard concerns that CBRS3109has been underutilized because providers lack the certainty3110they need to invest in their CBRS spectrum. Do you share these3111concerns?3112    Dr. Hazlett. Well, there are some problems, as the FCC is3113acknowledging, and it is going back to try to see how it can3114fix it. You know, the claims were that that was the solution,3115that that was going to really have what is called sharing. I3116will just mention the fact that all spectrum is shared, OK.3117What is called exclusive use is not exclusive at all. You have3118networks in the United States with 100 million subscribers and3119they share these aggregations of bandwidth. And, in fact, there3120are all kinds of models that have developed, between firms,3121between providers, when you do get the incentives to come3122together and make deals.3123    So in terms of, yes, people coming in from the private3124sector dealing with government assignments, the fact is that3125paying to share--in other words, paying to separate the3126allocations between the new users and the existing users--that3127is a very effective form of sharing.3128    So it is really not just science. It is incentives to come3129together. That is why things like overlays are so important. It3130is why a better system of audits, which has been talked about,3131this has been suggested 25 years ago to the FCC to, in fact,3132have, by auction or assignment, have private firms come in and3133actually audit spectrum that is being used by government3134agencies to see if there are opportunities there for sharing.3135But maybe it is money coming to the agency in an improved3136version of the spectrum relocation process, to get that out3137there.3138    Chairman Cruz. Mr. Clark, we heard from my colleague,3139Senator Fischer, that a pipeline bill would require exclusive3140licensed use of, and vacating or clearing DoD out of bands.3141Now, as you know, the Spectrum Pipeline Act, that I have3142authored, requires a pipeline of full power, not exclusive use,3143and does not identify any specific bands.3144    Mr. Clark, is there anything in that bill that is3145inconsistent with your testimony or Senator Fischer's concerns?3146    Mr. Clark. No. In theory, it is not. And I think the3147challenge will be implementation, because depending on how much3148your target is to try to clear, it may prove difficult to be3149able to work out an arrangement so that the commercial and3150military users can both employ that spectrum. And the auction3151may not be attractive from the commercial companies'3152perspective because the geographic patchwork they may end up3153with or the spectrum sharing requirements are going to be such3154that maybe it makes it too expensive for them to pursue.3155    Chairman Cruz. So, Mr. Pearl, we had an exchange with3156Senator Fischer and Mr. Clark where they were discussing the3157theory that China's public push to lead in wireless technology3158is just a mind game, that they are somehow baiting the United3159States with ambitious plans, and they are secretly holding3160back, trying to trick us into giving up spectrum to the3161commercial sector.3162    I find that a particularly odd conspiracy theory, given the3163actual facts of what we know. First of all, we know that Huawei3164and other Chinese manufacturers are actively and successfully3165pushing worldwide adoption of Chinese 6G equipment standards.3166That would not be possible without China having made its3167spectrum available for commercial use.3168    Second, China has aggressively targeted our3169telecommunication industry, has tapped the phones of top3170officials, including President Trump and Vice President Vance,3171and prompted this committee to fully fund a multibillion-dollar3172rip-and-replace program to remove Chinese equipment from3173American networks.3174    Mr. Pearl, would American national and economic security be3175harmed if Chinese firms, like Huawei and ZTE, set the global3176standard for 6G network equipment via this first-mover3177advantage? And how would that affect the global competitiveness3178of U.S. companies?3179    Mr. Pearl. So it would have a great deal of harm, and I3180would echo my agreement that I do not think this is a3181disinformation campaign. I fought the battle against Huawei and3182ZTE for almost 2 years. And in order for their businesses to be3183able to sell equipment outside of China they need to be able to3184use these bands inside of China and get those economies of3185scale.3186    But if they are successful in terms of setting the global3187standard, that means that the U.S. will have a siloed market3188with a few of its allies and partners, where it will have much3189worse technology, much worse networks. We will just have an3190inferior ecosystem. And ultimately that means that we are going3191to be put at a military disadvantage, because as others have3192commented, in a battle the electromagnetic domain can be3193absolutely decisive, and we just will not have the technology3194to prevail in that case.3195    Chairman Cruz. Well, I want to thank all the witnesses for3196very helpful testimony. Senators will have until the close of3197business on Wednesday, February 26, to submit questions for the3198record, and then the witnesses will have until the close of3199business on Wednesday, March 12, to respond to those questions.3200    And with that, that concludes today's hearing. The3201committee stands adjourned.3202    [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]32033204                            A P P E N D I X32053206     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to3207                           Dr. Thomas Hazlett3208    Question. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to3209both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable3210innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed3211technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?3212    Answer. The unlicensed bands benefited from two reforms in the32131980s, wherein devices using the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, and3214Medical) frequencies -which had been regulated so as to exclude3215advanced technologies--were significantly deregulated in terms of3216formats adopted. The particular driver was permitting ``spread3217spectrum'' technologies. These now enable our local area communications3218(Wi-Fi) as well as wide area wireless networks (2G, 3G, 4G, 5G). The3219innovations specifically in the unlicensed bands revolve around3220wireless local area network (WLAN) applications--signals designed to3221work within a house or office, a Bluetooth transmissions linking a3222smart phone to a car speaker, ID tags, off-load for wide area networks3223(including the Internet, wireless and fixed), security cameras,3224doorbells, and on and on. These products are purchased by millions and3225generate significant benefits.3226    The more difficult part comes in separating the distinct impact3227(``marginal value'') of a specific spectrum allocation. With3228unlicensed, the allocations are typically imposed by regulators who3229make an administrative judgement that the spectrum is better under one3230set of rules than under another. But the popular use of local area3231networks, and products such as mentioned above, have developed in3232parallel with other expanding wireless ecosystems. There are multiple3233ways for an additional dollop of bandwidth to fortify wireless3234services. Each allocation specifically crafted for unlicensed uses and3235business models of one sort (including local area networks rather than3236wide area networks) confronts an opportunity cost. Those costs are3237generally invisible to regulators and are poorly estimated (in many3238cases) by the FCC.3239    For instance, in 2002, the FCC announced it would allocate the3240large, unoccupied bandwidth set aside for TV broadcasting in the 19523241TV Station Allocation Table for ``white space'' device use. The3242regulatory model would by non-exclusive access rights permit unlicensed3243devices into the set aside spaces, free of charge. Devices would comply3244with power limits and technology restrictions (checking with a database3245for instructions as to which channels were available for use,3246dynamically in time, e.g.).3247    While the approach promised to introduce valuable new services--3248``Wi-Fi on steroids''--virtually no devices have been made or sold in3249the nearly quarter-century that the FCC has sponsored the ``TV White3250Spaces'' policy. Meanwhile, an adjacent 70 MHz block of former TV3251spectrum was transitioned to an alternative rights model--with3252exclusive, flexible-use rights--over 2010-2020. This allocation not3253only received market feedback in the $20 billion in winning bids3254generated by their sale, but demonstrably boosted mobile network3255capacity, intensified wireless broadband competition, and supplied3256billions of dollars in economic gains. This far outperforms the 210 MHz3257of over-the-air TV dedicated to the video distribution model of I Love3258Lucy, on the one hand, and TV White Spaces, on the other.3259    Hence, the choices about how to allocate spectrum must carefully3260consider appropriate margins, recognize spectrum substitution3261possibilities, account for opportunity costs, and incorporate the3262transaction costs consumed in administrative delays.\1\--TWH3263---------------------------------------------------------------------------3264    \1\ Thomas Hazlett & Michael Honig, Valuing Spectrum Allocations,326523 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 45 (2016-2017); Hazlett, Benefit-3266cost analysis in the 5.9 GHz band, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis3267(2025): 1-24.3268---------------------------------------------------------------------------3269                                 ______32703271     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to3272                           Dr. Thomas Hazlett3273    Question. Dr. Hazlett: In your testimony, you mention success of3274market-oriented policies like spectrum auctions and overlays. What3275reforms do you believe are necessary to further accelerate U.S.3276leadership in wireless innovation?3277    Answer.32783279  1.  More overlays. Take the 35 channels still dedicated to over-the-3280        air (OTA) television, as per the TV Station Allocation Table of3281        1952. It's been a quarter century since OTA was a thing, as3282        cable and satellite TV had nationwide footprints already3283        supplying 90 percent of U.S. households. Today, of course, much3284        video traffic has further migrated--to the Internet. Now the3285        ``TV Spectrum Allocation'' is positively harming video delivery3286        in the U.S. by constraining networks--both incumbent and new3287        entrants--from delivering more wireless product to U.S.3288        households (in both urban and rural areas). Overlays would3289        allow entrants to get access to a large tranche of effectively3290        unused bandwidth and prove beneficial to consumers, media3291        competition, and U.S. economic growth. And incumbent TV3292        stations would not be harmed. With an overlay, the licensees3293        only make bargains that benefit them.32943295  2.  More FCC deregulation. Allow the licenses being sold by the3296        Commission to be technology-neutral and business model-neutral.3297        This requires a few changes, like eliminating build-out3298        requirements that block entrepreneurs from bidding on spectrum,3299        winning, and then supplying more ``plug and play'' services3300        analogized to ``unlicensed'' use. The build-out requirements3301        have themselves been ineffective and the better way to get3302        networks built is to provide a competitive space--with more3303        access to spectrum--that allows for innovation in business3304        models.33053306  3.  3rd party Audits for Government Spectrum assignments. Private or3307        public organizations should bid for the rights to audit3308        spectrum holdings of the DOJ, DOD, Forestry Service--all3309        organizations that face zero opportunity cost in holding on to3310        valuable resources. The difficulty in negotiating with such3311        parties is not that the officials in the agencies are wrong or3312        ill-informed, as sometimes charged. It is that they rationally3313        defend ``free options'' that may perform some valuable function3314        (now or in the future) and cost their agencies nothing. It is3315        predictable that such actors over-protect these assets in3316        pursuing the mission of their agency--they would virtually be3317        violating a public trust not to, given the circumstances in3318        which they operate. (Certainly this is the viewpoint of3319        constituencies within the agency.) The way out is to allow3320        motivated outsiders, perhaps firms with interest and subject3321        matter expertise, to evaluate the costs and benefits facing3322        such firms in making wireless trades. These might include3323        ceding some proportion of bandwidth assignments to other3324        parties in exchange for a new radio system, or a specific3325        funding request, or a change in rules that allows greater3326        efficiency in operations. Companies like, say, Haliburton,3327        might pay to conduct this (presumably CLASSIFIED) audit of the3328        DOD (as it could yield commercially valuable information in3329        forming proposals for transactions post-audit), or the GAO3330        (with expertise in audits) or GSA (expertise in managing3331        government assets) might be selected to evaluate Department of3332        Transportation use of spectrum. These are the sort of ideas3333        that spectrum policy experts do propose.--TWH3334                                 ______33353336    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to3337                           Dr. Thomas Hazlett3338    Question. You have contended that commercial providers are often3339better positioned to deploy spectrum quickly and at scale.3340    In your opinion, if Congress wants to ensure broadband expansion in3341Tribal areas, how would policies that encourage partnerships between3342private industry and Tribal governments-such as infrastructure3343investment incentives, spectrum-sharing agreements, or Federal funding3344for public-private partnerships-be more effective than direct Tribal3345spectrum allocation?3346    Answer. The best short answer I can give to this provocative and3347interesting question is: allow Native Corporations in the Tribal areas3348flexibility in devising contracts for cooperation with wireless service3349providers.\1\ This should, of course, be nested in a productive, pro-3350consumer business environment in which the Corporations have3351appropriate incentives to well serve their customer base, develop3352advanced services, and earn sufficient returns as to make the company3353effective in delivering services for decades to come. Selection of the3354Corporations might be by competitive bidding, either in money (a3355procurement auction) or in franchise bidding.\2\3356---------------------------------------------------------------------------3357    \1\ Failure to do so has led to disappointing results, both for the3358Tribal population and the investors/owners of the firms. Jonathan3359Karpoff & Edward Rice, Structure and Performance of Alaska Native3360Corporations, Contemporary Economic Policy (July 1992).3361    \2\ Harold Demsetz, Why Regulate Utilities? 11 Journal of Law &3362Economics (1968): 55-65.3363---------------------------------------------------------------------------3364    Using service contracting models to supply public safety radio, an3365analogy to the idea of extending wireless networks in Tribal areas with3366contracts or awards of FCC licenses, is an experiment undertaken in the33672017 award of the FirstNet contract to AT&T. The set-up has AT&T, a3368major commercial wireless network, service its large base of3369subscribers and then fold-in additional obligations to provide3370emergency radio service to first responders. The structure aims to3371achieve economies of scale, and standard efficiencies evolving in the3372commercial sector, while applying such beneficial developments to3373supply solutions to fire, policy, emergency medical services and other3374efforts of keen ``public interest'' importance. The challenges,3375successes, and failures of the FirstNet effort offer insights, I3376believe, for how other such initiatives--tackling important social3377problems via efficient marketplace platforms--might best proceed.--TWH3378                                 ______33793380    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tammy Baldwin to3381                           Dr. Thomas Hazlett3382    Question. As an advocate for bringing Internet access to all3383Wisconsinites, I am a strong supporter of measures to bridge the3384digital divide and expand broadband access in rural and underserved3385communities. In the interest of boosting access and affordability for3386unconnected Americans, how do you see increases in commercial access to3387spectrum through the proposed sharing measures impacting ongoing3388efforts to increase rural network capacities?3389    Answer. There is no doubt that making more radio spectrum available3390for productive use is a key in spreading and improving broadband3391coverage in the U.S. This is true in urban and rural areas, and with3392respect to both terrestrial and space-based delivery networks.3393    The problem with resolving to expand spectrum availability through3394particular sharing mechanisms is that the rules chosen by regulators3395may not facilitate the task designed or hoped for. First, all spectrum3396rights models incorporate ``spectrum sharing.'' That is as true for the3397exclusively assigned, flexible-use rights purchased at FCC auction and3398intensely utilized by mobile carriers as it is for Wi-Fi, supporting3399localized networks distributing broadband data through a house or3400around a campus.3401    Second, all such systems have strengths and weaknesses, and3402categorical claims that technology solves all coordination plans--in,3403e.g., ``bandwidth sharing''--has been a costly error. In one important3404instance, TV band white spaces, channels that have been unoccupied3405since the 1952 TV Allocation Table, were thought by the FCC to be3406perfect to host new unlicensed devices yielding valuable new services--3407``Wi-Fi on steroids.'' That decision, initially launched in 2002, has3408proven virtually a complete failure. There is today no substantial3409``white space device'' use, and vast ``white spaces'' in the over-the-3410air TV Band lie fallow. Overlay rights transferring these open spaces3411to exclusively-assigned, flexible-use licenses would have--and still3412could--generate billions of dollars in annual consumer welfare--by3413effectively introducing band-sharing mechanisms well developed3414elsewhere in the wireless marketplace.3415    Hence, choosing the right set of rights for the task at hand should3416be informed by economics, history, and the experiences gained in3417previous endeavors.\3\--TWH3418---------------------------------------------------------------------------3419    \3\ My book goes into some detail on the regulatory choice of3420spectrum rights in supporting wireless services: Thomas Hazlett, The3421Political Spectrum: The Tumultuous Liberation of Wireless Technologies,3422from Herbert Hoover to the Smartphone (Yale, 2017).3423---------------------------------------------------------------------------3424                                 ______34253426   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to3427                           Dr. Thomas Hazlett3428    Question 1. Dr. Hazlett, I appreciate your testimony highlighting3429the need to optimize our processes for freeing up and assigning more3430spectrum. Spectrum is a limited natural resource, and if we want to3431fully address our economic needs while safeguarding our national3432security, we have to invest in innovation. This includes not only3433exclusive use but also shared and unlicensed spectrum, which are vital3434to technological development and economic growth.3435    Do you think it is possible for the FCC to structure auctions in a3436way that incentivizes innovation and technological development, and do3437you believe that can be done in a way that still maximizes economic3438benefit & auction revenue?3439    Answer. Thank you for inviting me to testify.3440    YES--auctions for FCC licenses (adopted in 1993 by congressional3441legislation) are a positive innovation in public policy, but they can3442be improved. Specifically, they can reveal--discover--the relative3443values of what are commonly called ``licensed'' and ``unlicensed''3444spectrum. Three things need to be reformed.3445    First, the licenses offered for sale in auctions need to be3446technology-neutral and regime-neutral, such that they can be used as3447competitive market conditions suggest. (We are not far from this and3448the tweak is easily achievable.)3449    Second, the winner (high bidder) for a particular license cannot be3450subject to ``build-out requirements'' of the type imposed today. This3451regulatory approach assumes that one type of usage will result from the3452license distribution--a business model wherein the licensee builds and3453manages a network. In fact, many call this is ``licensed use model.''3454But it isn't. There are other ways to use licensed spectrum, and some3455of them look like the way ``unlicensed spectrum'' is utilized. In other3456words, a license winner may sponsor a ``spectrum park'' (or, as some3457might say, a ``commons'') that hosts access for radio users conforming3458to certain device standards. The build-out requirements make this model3459essential a violation of FCC regulations. (The regulations, by the way,3460do very little to encourage actual service build-out.)3461    Third, the bidders participating in FCC auctions should have3462authority to create their own business models, not to be constrained to3463those imposed by the Commission. That is, a licensee who forms a3464consortium to buy more ``unlicensed'' bandwidth and pay for it by3465assessing license fees on the equipment used (perhaps manufactured by3466companies in the consortium) should not be impeded by FCC rules about3467what an ``unlicensed spectrum band'' must be, which would block the3468business case for the consortium. This more open, competitive way to3469develop innovative forms of organization was suggested in an important34701992 FCC policy paper.\4\ It is time to give it a run.--TWH3471---------------------------------------------------------------------------3472    \4\ Evan Kwerel and John Williams, A Proposal for a Rapid3473Transition to Market Allocation of Spectrum, OSP Working Paper 38 (Nov34742002).34753476    Question 2. Do you believe it makes sense for spectrum auction3477revenues to be reinvested in priorities like innovation?3478    Answer. In general, I do not favor such dedications. Outlays should3479be considered on their merits, against all other outlays (by the3480Federal government). The one exception is where the dedicated3481expenditures are useful in creating the transactions generating the3482gains in question. Using auction revenues to compensate firms, as in3483FCC Auction 107 (2020-2021), where satellite carriers were paid to3484update their equipment, making more bandwidth available for other3485parties; and in the 2016-2017 ``incentive auction,'' paying TV station3486licensees to give up broadcasting rights) or government agencies (as in3487FCC Auction 66).3488    Innovation is encouraged in two other ways. By conditions hosting3489robust entrepreneurial activity, and by support for basic research with3490organizations like NSF and NIH.--TWH3491                                 ______34923493     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to3494                           Dr. Charles Baylis3495    Question 1. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to3496both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable3497innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed3498technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?3499    Answer. Wi-Fi and other unlicensed technologies, such as Bluetooth3500and Ultra Wideband, have been great innovations. Wi-Fi sharing was3501developed in part of the 5 GHz band, as well as eventually in the 6 GHz3502band. In the 6 GHz band, Wi-Fi was shared with incumbent point-to-point3503microwave links. Sharing was coordinated using an Automated Frequency3504Coordination (AFC) System.3505    The AFC used many lessons learned from the Spectrum Access System3506(SAS) that coordinated spectrum use in the Citizens Broadband Radio3507Service (CBRS) band.3508    Unlicensed spectrum usage has been a significant benefit to the3509economy. Unlicensed bands have allowed devices to use and share a band3510effectively on an as-needed basis. There are numerous unlicensed users3511that share small ranges of frequencies, and now are able to share even3512other frequencies (such as 6 GHz) with incumbent users. This seems to3513allow for expansion of Wi-Fi unlicensed applications.35143515    Question 2. National security and wireless innovation are not3516mutually exclusive. Please detail how the technology you are advancing3517at Baylor University's SMART Hub will ensure spectrum policy remains a3518``win-win'' for both the defense industry and the economy at large.3519    Answer. The adaptive and reconfigurable technology we are3520developing at SMART Hub is heavily focused toward DoD incumbent systems3521in the 3 GHz band. As such, this will allow DoD systems to adapt to the3522surrounding environment given our prescribed approach, examined in part3523by research preceding SMART Hub, includes the ability to sense and even3524predict locations and frequencies of other users. If a system can3525locate bands in which it can operate, it can then reconfigure its3526circuits and systems to, for example, maximize radar range after3527changing frequency. This allows the DoD systems to function with3528maximum performance and be flexible in frequency and spatial3529operations.3530    Many of the same concepts we are working on that are applicable to3531DoD systems are also applicable to commercial wireless systems. As3532such, when systems can work around one another adaptively, they use the3533spectrum more efficiently. It is through an adaptive and reconfigurable3534technology approach that we can do more with less, and accomplish a3535``win-win'' for both defense and commercial wireless users.3536                                 ______35373538     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to3539                           Dr. Charles Baylis3540    Question 1. Dr. Baylis: In your testimony, you highlight the3541potential benefits and exciting new opportunities that technological3542innovation can unlock in the realm of spectrum management.3543    From your perspective as a researcher and technical expert, how can3544AI help transform our management and use of spectrum?3545    Answer. Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used in several ways3546within a spectrum-use ecosystem. First, it can predict spectrum and3547spatial use of a wireless system. The ability to predict how other3548spectrum users perform, and evaluate different predictive methods to3549choose the correct one, is an area that SMART Hub members Professor3550Robert Marks from Baylor University and Professor Mike Buehrer from3551Virginia Tech have worked on.3552    Secondly, AI and Machine Learning (ML) can be used to reconfigure3553systems and circuits. In optimizing an array of reconfigurable3554circuits, AI may be useful in cutting through the multiple dimensions3555of optimization to select a ``best'' setting for range, efficiency,3556spectral performance, and/or spatial performance, for example. An3557adaptive and reconfigurable environment must be based on automation,3558and AI and ML can play a significant role in making these optimizations3559efficient.3560    The present thrust toward AI technologies and the need to better3561optimize spectrum use and spectrum use systems are coming together at a3562very useful time. As a national center committed to solving the3563spectrum crisis, we are working to marshal AI in addressing these3564issues.35653566    Question 1a. What are some of the risks or challenges policymakers3567should consider?3568    Answer. Policy should be developed in parallel with and3569complementary to supporting technology. One danger that should be3570avoided is where policy outruns technology. Technological limitations,3571such as propagation challenges and antenna size, must be considered in3572band allocations; allocations must be reasonable given these3573limitations. Given this, however, advancements in technology can be3574enablers for new, advanced policy approaches.3575    Regulating a small amount of available spectrum will not provide a3576long-term solution to the problem we are facing currently in the3577midband spectrum. Innovative adaptive and reconfigurable technology3578will allow flexibility in wireless communications and radar systems3579that will support new policy.35803581    Question 2. Dr. Baylis: In your testimony, you also mention the3582importance of the United States winning the spectrum superiority race.3583Can you elaborate on this point? What is needed by Congress to ensure3584continued leadership on spectrum technology?3585    Answer. Spectrum superiority requires having the best technology:3586technology that can flexibly use the spectrum. The ability to flexibly3587use the spectrum allows our radar and communication systems to gain a3588tactical advantage in wartime: we can avoid the enemy's jamming3589maneuvers by finding open spectrum and using it. Additionally, in3590peacetime, being agile allows us to use the spectrum more efficiently.3591We can reconfigure both radar and communication systems to use3592available spectrum opportunistically, rather than being confined to a3593single band.3594    Adaptive and reconfigurable spectrum use is the new paradigm that3595is on the way. The nation that builds the technology for this paradigm3596will be able to sell it to the world. America needs to be the Nation3597that builds this technology first. If America is the first to build it,3598we will benefit both economically and (for wartime) tactically. If3599China wins this race, we will be buying systems from China to build the36006G backbone that may be compromised from a security perspective. We3601also will no longer have an edge in wartime.3602    Congress should prioritize funding for research and development in3603spectrum technologies to ensure America builds the backbone technology3604for the adaptive and reconfigurable spectrum use of the future.3605Congress should supervise the results of this funding, ensuring that3606this funding does not merely create innovations that die in a3607laboratory, but instead move from academia, through industry, and into3608the hands of warfighters and consumers. Innovation that has happened at3609the fundamental level must move to the applied level and then into3610industry production. The development of this type of pipeline for these3611technologies must involve universities and industry (both commercial3612wireless and defense contractors).3613    An example of this type of model is SMART Hub, which was initially3614funded by Congress and consists of 15 universities with 25 U.S.3615citizen, multidisciplinary spectrum researchers across the country,3616spanning 13 states. SMART Hub is also building industry partnerships3617that can move technology into the hands of the warfighters and3618consumers, but it will need additional funds to continue to continue3619this important work. Congress should appropriate additional funding for3620these types of activities, as well as consider legislation to authorize3621additional funding for spectrum technology university-industry3622partnerships.3623                                 ______36243625      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to3626                           Dr. Charles Baylis3627    Question 1. Can we get to a point where full-power spectrum use can3628be efficiently shared in a way that allows wireless buildout without3629excessive negative impacts to national security systems? If so, how far3630away are we?3631    Answer. It is possible to get to a point where full-power spectrum3632use can be efficiently shared without excessive impacts to national3633security systems. New technology would enable this type of sharing.3634Adaptive and reconfigurable technology is a ``game changer''. It would3635render the current arguments about ``auction versus defense'' moot.3636Spectrum surveys show that very little of the spectrum is being3637simultaneously used in a given geographic region. Yet, problems exist3638because present incumbent military systems are significantly rigid,3639and, as such, demand to always have the same part of the spectrum3640available for their use.3641    Some of the key developments that will be required to get to this3642point include: (1) spectrum sensing and/or prediction capabilities to3643be aware of other users' spectrum usages; (2) spectrum coordination3644mechanisms for congested bands; (3) reconfigurable circuits, antennas,3645and arrays (including reconfigurable circuits capable of handling high3646power levels for radar) that enable increased spectral and spatial3647flexibility and control of wireless transmissions; and (4) the ability3648to measure device performance in-situ (on board the device) to assess3649transmissions to inform reconfiguration algorithms. The good news is3650that many of these developments are already at the Technology Readiness3651Levels TRL-2 through TRL-4 and are ready to be carried forward to3652industry for the buildout of new radar and/or communications systems.3653Spectrum sensing and prediction has been effectively demonstrated3654through sense-react-and-avoid and sense-predict-and-avoid methods. We3655have been able to demonstrate how future Dynamic Spectrum Management3656Systems (DSMS) can build upon the existing CBRS approach while allowing3657for incumbents to provide real-time interference reports, enabling a3658more responsive, closed-loop coordination of the spectrum. In terms of3659reconfigurable circuits, a high-power reconfigurable circuit, capable3660of handling 20-68 W that can reconfigure from 2-4 GHz in less than a3661millisecond provides an entire 2 GHz of reconfiguration capability.3662This breakthrough means that radars could, using this circuit, optimize3663their transmission range, within matching limitations of the circuit,3664anywhere between 2-4 GHz within a millisecond after changing3665frequencies. If a radar has the ability to move this widely in3666frequency, then coexisting with communication systems becomes a much3667less complex problem. Finally, we have demonstrated an in-situ3668measurement approach to assess signals entering an antenna as part of3669the reconfigurable circuit chain.3670    These technologies must now be taken from their current innovation3671level into actual system implementation. This will not only allow3672radars to more flexibly use their own bands, but provide them with3673opportunistic access to bands outside their current assignments. The3674range of frequencies that will be able to be flexibly used will3675increase drastically. If we are successful, China will have to buy this3676technology from us, and we will have the advantage on the battlefield3677and in the ability to coexist in our homeland. Yet, it will take3678foresight and investment from Congress. Continuing to regulate and re-3679regulate current frequency usages with present legacy systems without3680this newly updated technology will only yield temporary gains, and our3681foreign competitors will build this technology before we do. We need to3682build it first to give ourselves the best defense systems and to expand3683commercial access to frequencies. We should strive to win this race,3684sell this technology worldwide, and build the backbone of 6G and the3685world's strongest military wireless technology.36863687    Question 2. What lessons can we learn from CBRS in opening up3688spectrum to commercial use in congested bands?3689    Answer. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) sharing with3690Navy radars in the 3.55--3.7 GHz band has provided useful lessons. One3691significant lesson is that bands whose primary users are in limited3692geographical regions can often have a second use. Because Navy radars3693are not usually found inland, it is advantageous to allow communication3694device access to these frequencies when away from the coastlines.3695Additionally, the ability to design a third-party system, known as a3696Spectrum Access System (SAS) in the CBRS case, to coordinate spectrum3697usage has now been successfully demonstrated.3698    This lesson should be applied with limitations. First, if3699geographic limitations of a band-user are known, it makes sense to3700allow the same band to be used outside of these geographic limitations3701by another user. Second, third-party coordination can be an effective3702use to ensure spectrum coexistence, provided its time-frame is fast3703enough to ensure spectrum to a primary user when needed.3704    Ideally, the time-scale of spectrum brokering should strive for3705improvement over CBRS. It would be ideal for such spectrum assignments3706to approach real-time. However, spectrum assignments should be based on3707accurate understanding of positions, propagation models, and potential3708victims of interference.3709    Caution should be used in applying the CBRS model to other3710scenarios. The CBRS model, with current wireless systems, works well3711when geographic separation of systems needing to use the band is3712present. Additionally, the Dynamic Spectrum Management System (DSMS)3713needs to be fast enough to parcel spectrum at the needed time-scales3714(and with appropriate security) for the primary user to gain access3715when needed.3716    Another lesson learned from CBRS is that if spectrum sharing is3717adopted, the technical parameters that govern the sharing, such as the3718propagation model, should not be based solely on worst-case3719assumptions. This can result in inefficient spectrum use. In the case3720of CBRS, after four years of operations, the propagation models were3721successfully refined, allowing better use of the spectrum while not3722interfering with critical DoD systems in the band.3723                                 ______37243725   Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to3726                           Dr. Charles Baylis3727    Question. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting3728mission-critical Federal users and national security?3729    Answer. Spectrum bands are overcrowded, and reallocation of3730spectrum bands will eventually meet its limit. We need a paradigm shift3731in how spectrum is used. Currently, spectrum allocations may be drawn3732with very broad strokes to ensure spectrum is available in certain3733bands and regions in case it is needed. However, this leads to large3734portions of the spectrum being reserved but underutilized. The adaptive3735and reconfigurable use of the spectrum will allow more spectrum to be3736available to more users when they need it by allowing allocations to be3737specified more precisely in time, frequency, and location.3738    The key to unlocking this spectrum availability is the innovation3739and development of adaptive and reconfigurable technology. For example,3740researchers now part of SMART Hub have developed reconfigurable3741circuits that can handle higher power levels (toward the power levels3742needed for radar operation) to optimize their detection range, within3743the limitations of the impedance matching coverage, after changing3744frequencies in a 2-4 GHz octave. If radar systems operating in the 3.1-37453.45 GHz band could move to another band and optimize their performance3746within a millisecond, this would make more and more frequencies3747available to wireless communication. The inflexibility of current radar3748system technology limits the growth of wireless communication3749infrastructure, and it also limits the tactical advantage of our3750military.3751    However, with additional investments in innovating, developing, and3752producing this technology, the financial benefit will dwarf the current3753argued amounts.3754    The approach of developing adaptive and reconfigurable technology3755transcends the present arguments about spectrum allocations. If systems3756are flexible, they can use whatever band is available, reducing the3757amount of spectrum that must be held in reserve on a ``just-in-case''3758basis. The capability of both DoD systems and commercial wireless3759systems to use available bands would give the U.S. a technological3760advantage in battle, as well as the ability to form a new spectrum-3761coexistence model that will enormously benefit the American economy.3762Immediate, sustained focus and investment in innovation and the3763development of adaptive and reconfigurable technology will reap3764enormous economic and national security benefits.3765                                 ______37663767   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to3768                           Dr. Charles Baylis3769    Question 1. Dr. Baylis, can you elaborate on SMART Hub's current3770sources of funding?3771    Answer. SMART Hub was initially funded by a $5 million3772appropriation in the FY 2023 budget. Our 6-month research demonstration3773in February 2024 in Arlington, Virginia showed Pentagon, Congressional,3774and industry spectrum leaders how adaptive and reconfigurable3775technology is being developed to assist warfighters and to promote the3776economic benefits of adaptive and reconfigurable technologies for3777spectrum usage. We are in near-term need of additional funding to allow3778SMART Hub's innovation to continue.3779    The SMART Hub leadership team considers Congressional funding as3780``anchor'' funding and has launched an ecosystem by which other funding3781sources will eventually grow to sustain SMART Hub. For example, the3782National Science Foundation funded a grant of over $340,000 for3783spectrum workforce development through an Undergraduate Spectrum3784Workshop known as the ``Spectrum Sizzle''. Four SMART Hub universities3785will host this immersive, residential, four-day, hands-on experience3786for undergraduates from across the country in Summer 2025, and we3787expect 160 undergraduate students to be trained in fundamental spectrum3788technology and policy principles this summer. With our team working3789together and demonstrating results from our work, we have submitted3790additional proposals since our first round of anchor funding arrived,3791and we are in the process of establishing industry partnerships that3792will further grow the ecosystem through technology transfer and3793industry sponsored research. We have begun the process of building3794partnerships with both DoD contractors and wireless network providers,3795with the goal of continued industry investment in our innovations that3796will result in technologies placed in the hands of American warfighters3797and consumers. This ecosystem is designed to thrive on its own after3798several years of Congressional investment.37993800    Question 2. Is it important to your work that Congress pass a full3801FY25 funding package?3802    Answer. We currently have funding pending in the FY 2025 DoD3803appropriations bill to continue investments in SMART Hub. If Congress3804does not pass a full FY 2025 funding package that includes this pending3805funding in it, SMART Hub may have to make difficult decisions about its3806operations in the future. It is crucial to our development of adaptive3807and reconfigurable technology that Congress pass a full-year funding3808package with funding for our work included in it. We encourage Congress3809to act soon to continue to invest in adaptive and reconfigurable3810technologies, building American leadership in this area.3811    Unfortunately, a Continuing Resolution is not helpful to SMART3812Hub's operations, given we are looking for new funding to carry on3813SMART Hub innovation. Should Congress decide to move forward with a3814year-long CR, we encourage appropriators to include an explicit3815provision for SMART Hub funding.38163817    Question 3. Should the government continue to play a role in3818developing innovative technologies to solve both commercial and defense3819spectrum challenges?3820    Answer. The innovation of adaptive and reconfigurable technology is3821the key to U.S. global leadership in spectrum. Arguments about3822allocation and re-allocation do not provide a long-term economic or3823national security solution. It is imperative that the U.S. solve the3824spectrum crisis by developing innovative technology that transcends3825these arguments by using the spectrum differently: adaptively and3826flexibly. If the U.S. possesses this capability, then more bandwidth3827will be available to meet the needs of commercial wireless providers as3828well as national security systems, such as radar. The investment by3829Congress in American innovation will spur jobs, science, and3830technology, as well as create national leadership in spectrum.3831Importantly, U.S. industries will be able to sell this new technology3832worldwide, which will build the backbone of 6G, and its commercial3833wireless industry, defense industry, and technology suppliers will3834thrive.3835    If Congress sees this potential and invests in it now, the3836dividends reaped down the road for American industry will far outweigh3837the cost of present investment.38383839    Question 4. Do you believe it makes sense for spectrum auction3840revenues to be reinvested in priorities like innovation?3841    Answer. Yes. If spectrum is auctioned, revenues should be heavily3842invested in innovation. Innovation is what will allow America to be the3843best: in commercial wireless and in national security. The benefits of3844innovating new systems that can share the spectrum in an adaptive and3845reconfigurable way will far outweigh the costs of this investment.3846                                 ______38473848     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to3849                             Matthew Pearl3850    Question 1. There have been concerns about expanding commercial3851access to spectrum and its implications for our national security and3852defense capabilities.3853    Can you clarify the National Telecommunications and Information3854Administration's role in administering spectrum? Specifically, when a3855conflict arises between wireless and defense use of spectrum, how do3856agencies coordinate to resolve the issue and ensure that U.S. national3857security is not compromised?3858    Answer. NTIA plays an indispensable and underappreciated role in3859resolving disputes over conflicts regarding interference between3860commercial and government users, including DOD users. NTIA is3861responsible for managing the radio spectrum that is used by the Federal3862government, and it also serves as the President's principal advisor on3863telecommunications issues. When there are new proposed commercial or3864Federal uses that could potentially cause interference between the3865Federal or commercial users (respectively), the FCC and NTIA coordinate3866before any new access is granted. In the case of an FCC proposed action3867that is coordinated with NTIA, the draft proposed action is shared by3868NTIA with the relevant Federal agencies for comment. NTIA then compiles3869those comments and, assuming any agency concerns have a technical3870basis, they work with the FCC to resolve the disagreements. As part of3871the process, NTIA and the FCC convene meetings, including with the3872agencies who have expressed concerns, to work through any technical3873issues.3874    In most cases, NTIA and the FCC resolve such conflicts using the3875mechanisms described above. In some cases, however, disagreements3876remain over whether there will be interference to commercial or Federal3877systems from a proposed action. Historically, in those cases, the White3878House--led by the National Security Council, with the participation of3879other components such as the National Economic Council and the Office3880of Science and Technology--convenes a formal interagency process to3881resolve those disputes. FCC, NTIA, and agencies who have equities in3882the relevant spectrum band are all included in this interagency3883process. At every level (beginning at lower levels), there is an effort3884by the White House to resolve as many disagreements as possible, and3885then--if necessary--to escalate any remaining differences to a higher3886level. This process reduces, clarifies, and refines the issues that3887must be resolved at the higher political levels, ensuring that3888principals' (and, in some cases, the President's) efforts are spent on3889the key issues and that the best information is provided before a3890decision is made.38913892    Question 2. As the Federal Communications Commission looks to3893expand access to additional licensed spectrum, would you expect the3894same coordination to continue across agencies to ensure national3895security is not compromised in the future?3896    Answer. Yes. The current MOU between the FCC and NTIA remains in3897effect, and the White House continues to have the ability to use the3898interagency process to resolve disagreements and disputes. If these3899processes are diligently followed by the White House, FCC, NTIA, and3900the agencies, they provide a highly effective mechanism for ensuring3901that actions that are taken on spectrum do not compromise national3902security. Ensuring that the right decisions are made requires high-3903level White House leadership, so that all the agencies involved3904understand that they are required to share information, work through3905technical issues in good faith, and abide by decisions that are made by3906the White House.39073908    Question 3. I have long been an advocate for increasing access to3909both licensed and unlicensed spectrum. What are some of the notable3910innovations in the unlicensed spectrum space, and how have unlicensed3911technologies, such as Wi-Fi, benefitted our economy?3912    Answer. The United States was the first country to adopt unlicensed3913rules, beginning in the 1930s, and these rules have been a tremendous3914benefit to the American economy because they allow anyone to experiment3915and use the spectrum without obtaining permission from the government,3916provided that the equipment they use cannot cause harmful interference3917to licensed users.3918    We first saw the benefits of unlicensed rules to the American3919economy in the 1970s, when bands in which unlicensed use was authorized3920began to be used in everyday consumer applications such as baby3921monitors and garage door openers. While these devices wouldn't normally3922come to mind as examples of disruption innovation, a significant number3923of U.S. companies sprung up to produce the equipment used for these3924purposes, and the devices they old offered practical solutions that3925benefitted millions of Americans.3926    Even more importantly, in the 1990s, innovators developed Wi-Fi and3927Bluetooth. By leveraging the permissionless innovation of unlicensed3928spectrum, the developers of those technologies have greatly increased3929our connectivity, and contribute nearly $100 billion per year to the3930U.S. economy.3931                                 ______39323933     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to3934                             Matthew Pearl3935    Question 1. Mr. Pearl: During the previous administration, progress3936on strengthening our spectrum leadership slowed, with few actionable3937steps taken. While my colleagues have worked tirelessly to advance3938meaningful spectrum legislation, much remains to be done and we are3939eager to see it done under the current administration.3940    If we were to implement an ambitious spectrum policy, how quickly3941would we see tangible benefits?3942    Answer. If Congress reauthorizes the FCC to hold auctions and sets3943ambitious goals and timelines for making spectrum available, we could3944see auctions within one to two years, thus generating billions of3945dollars for the American taxpayer, and we could see tangible benefits3946to the American consumer within months of those auctions, as licensees3947would begin to deploy spectrum in some areas. There are a variety of3948bands where some of the spectrum could be made available. While it will3949take some time for FCC, NTIA, and relevant agencies to do technical3950analyses regarding which of these bands (and, in some cases, which3951parts of these bands) to make available, and the conditions under which3952they do so, it is possible to make progress quickly so that Americans3953do not need to wait to be able to use these frequencies.39543955    Question 1a. What would those benefits look like for the American3956people?3957    Answer. The benefits to the American people would include greater3958ability to use their mobile devices regardless of the location they are3959in, and the ability to transmit more data than they can today. By3960enabling those more data-intensive uses, innovators will be able to3961develop new applications that benefit consumers in two ways: 1) they3962will benefit from the capabilities that those apps offer, and 2) they3963will also benefit from the economic gains that accrue to the American3964economy, including the jobs created and the increased value of the U.S.3965stock market, from those new apps. Further, this new spectrum will3966enable businesses, universities, and other organizations to build3967better private networks, enabling those businesses to benefit from the3968capabilities that such networks offer, including increased security and3969reliability. Additionally, those private networks will enable those3970organizations to be more efficient, thus increasing their economic3971efficiency and enabling them to pass on economic gains to their3972employees and shareholders.3973                                 ______39743975      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to3976                             Matthew Pearl3977    Question. Why are power levels important as we consider making new3978investments of spectrum in mobile wireless connectivity?3979    Answer. Power levels are a critical aspect of spectrum policy. High3980power levels are necessary to enable wireless carriers to provide wide-3981area coverage, and to enable them to penetrate walls, foliage, and3982other objects. Higher power levels thus enable networks to reach3983consumers in a variety of places--which is a significant benefit in our3984highly mobile society. The ability to penetrate walls is particularly3985critical because we spend roughly 90 percent of our time indoors, and3986when we are not at home or work (where we often use WiFi), we still3987need to be able use those devices indoors. Thus, to build networks that3988satisfy the needs of their customers, carriers need spectrum with high3989power levels. Unless the spectrum that carriers obtain is useful to3990their customers in all the places they move during the day, it does not3991make sense for carriers to spend billions of dollars investing in their3992networks.3993    Providing access to spectrum at lower power levels for unlicensed3994use is also important, particularly for enabling indoor use of3995spectrum. When we are at home or in the office, we frequently rely on3996low-power uses of spectrum, such as WiFi. I should note, however, that3997low-power use complements high-power use, rather than serving as3998substitute for it, and vice versa.3999                                 ______40004001   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to4002                             Matthew Pearl4003    Question 1. Relocation Risks are Real. Mr. Pearl, you worked at the4004National Security Council and with the Department of Defense and other4005Federal agencies. And from that perch, you've seen firsthand the4006complexities and interplay between commercial and Federal users of4007spectrum and know how important it is to get coordination done and done4008right.4009    Do you believe that without a smart, evidence-based, well-4010coordinated spectrum policy we could put critical national security4011capabilities at risk?4012    Answer. The United States has essential national security4013capabilities in some of the bands that we are currently examining for4014commercial use. For example, DOD uses lower 3 GHz for high-power radars4015that play an essential role in protecting our homeland. Therefore, I4016agree it is absolutely critical that the Administration and the FCC4017have the right process in place, including ``smart, evidence-based,4018well-coordinated'' spectrum policy, so that as they make decisions that4019enable new commercial use, they do not jeopardize national security.4020    At the same time, to enable the Federal Government to create new4021opportunities for commercial use (which are urgently needed to compete4022with the PRC in the economic domain), Congress should set clear,4023ambitious goals to offer an impetus for the Federal Government to make4024spectrum available for commercial use, while building in flexibility4025that enables the United States to fully accommodate national security4026uses. Providing such an impetus is important to ensuring agencies that4027use spectrum understand they must cooperate in good faith and find ways4028to make spectrum available without harming their operations, rather4029than preserving spectrum in cases where they have no current or4030anticipated use for it. By providing flexibility, such as allowing the4031FCC and the Executive Branch to satisfy the requirements of any4032clearing targets by making the spectrum available for either exclusive4033use or shared use, Congress can ensure that--before an FCC auction4034takes place--the Executive Branch has determined how to preserve4035critical national security uses in bands when relocation proves to be4036infeasible.40374038    Question 2. Do you think it's wise to auction Federal spectrum,4039before technical studies are finished, to determine the viability of4040relocating Federal systems? And have you seen this result in the public4041being put at risk?4042    Answer. I do not believe it is prudent to auction spectrum before4043technical work has been done regarding the conditions under which it4044will be made available. I should note, however, that all the major4045bills that are currently under active consideration (of which I am4046aware) do not propose to hold auctions before the FCC, NTIA, and the4047agencies do such analyses. For instance, some proposed bills set4048clearing targets for making spectrum available across a broad range of4049spectrum--which includes bands that are used for exclusive Federal use,4050bands that are used for exclusive non-Federal use, and bands that are4051shared by Federal and non-federal users--and they allow for the4052possibility that Federal uses will still have access to bands (on a4053shared basis with new commercial use). Following the passage of a bill,4054the interagency process and associated technical work would take place4055to establish the conditions under which spectrum may be made available,4056including ensuring--before any auction takes place--that commercial use4057will not jeopardize national security.40584059    Question 3. Spectrum Warfare. We are seeing spectrum's importance4060on the battlefield, the Russians are jamming Ukrainian drones,4061communications, and satellite services. We also know that China is a4062real threat to U.S. innovation and national security.4063    Could auctioning Federal spectrum put critical DoD capabilities at4064risk and potentially disadvantage the United States in a conflict with4065our adversaries?4066    Answer. If the FCC were to auction spectrum without collaborating4067with NTIA and following the interagency process, it would potentially4068put DOD capabilities at risk and potentially disadvantage the United4069States in a conflict. If the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies4070conscientiously abide by the FCC-NTIA MOU and the interagency process,4071and there is White House leadership on spectrum issues, I am confident4072that we can make additional spectrum available for commercial use4073without compromising any DOD capabilities or ceding an EW advantage to4074our adversaries.40754076    Question 4. How might this affect our deterrence capabilities? And4077are there any examples you are aware of where this has happened, and if4078so, can you share them?4079    Answer. I am unaware of any examples where auctioning spectrum put4080critical DoD capabilities at risk. It is possible that poor decisions4081about auctioning spectrum could affect our deterrence capabilities; for4082instance, if we undermined the effectiveness of EW capabilities by4083providing insufficient spectrum for testing and training at DOD bases,4084then we may be unable to deter efforts by our adversaries to jam,4085spoof, or employ other malicious methods to undermine the United States4086military's spectrum-based operations outside of the United States.40874088    Question 5. Interagency Cooperation. We can avoid the mismanagement4089of the past by creating a coordinated approach to domestic spectrum4090policy, where agencies with critical missions such as the FAA and DoD4091work together with NTIA and FCC--cooperatively--on spectrum.4092    Have you witnessed instances where poor government coordination led4093to decisions that unknowingly compromised our national security?4094    Answer. In the 15 years I spent working on spectrum policy, I did4095not witness any instances in which poor coordination of domestic4096spectrum policy compromised national security missions. In the case of4097C-band (3.7-3.98 GHz), a lack of coordination involving the FAA led to4098a public controversy over whether the FCC's actions to authorize4099commercial use would interfere with radio altimeters, which are used on4100both civilian and military aircraft. In that case, however, prior to4101deployment of any 5G operations in the spectrum, there was extensive4102coordination between FCC, NTIA, DOT/FAA, and the mobile industry, and4103issues of potential interference were addressed to the satisfaction of4104the agencies. Thus, while this case involved a potential compromise to4105national security, the interagency process was successful in preventing4106an actual instance of compromising national security.4107    There were also claims made that the FCC's grant of authority to4108Ligado near GPS frequencies in 2020 could jeopardize national security,4109given that both the commercial sector and the military rely on GPS to4110obtain position, time, and navigation. I was not involved in working on4111those decisions during my government service. According to reports,4112however, Ligado never launched in that spectrum, so this decision did4113not jeopardize national security.41144115    Question 6. Did those decisions put Federal systems and the public4116at large at risk?4117    Answer. I have not witnessed instances in which decisions actually4118compromised national security.41194120    Question 7. What specific interagency coordination mechanisms would4121you recommend to prevent similar risks in the future?4122    Answer. First, it would be helpful to have a continuing, robust4123role for the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Group (IRAC) and4124Interagency Spectrum Advisory Council (Council). The IRAC is essential4125in enabling agencies to advise NTIA as it develops policy, particularly4126on technical issues. The Council offers an interagency forum for high-4127level officials from agencies to resolve any spectrum policy issues4128that cannot be resolved at the working level. Further, for4129disagreements and disputes that cannot be resolved by the IRAC or the4130Council, it is essential for the White House--led by the National4131Security Council--to use the interagency process to ensure the right4132decisions are made to prevent risks to government missions, including4133national security missions.4134    At the same time, I would recommend that we remain open to4135incorporating new mechanisms, particularly if such mechanisms enhance4136White House leadership on spectrum, to ensure robust, effective4137coordination of spectrum policy decisions. While we should not replace4138any of the mechanisms above without thoughtful deliberation, there is4139always room for new approaches to ensure that effective spectrum4140coordination takes place.41414142    Question 8. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting4143mission-critical Federal users and national security?4144    Answer. Based on most of the instances in which we have4145successfully made commercial spectrum available without jeopardizing4146Federal uses of spectrum, we need to take several actions:41474148   Congress should establish ambitious clearing targets, so4149        that the Executive Branch has guidance on making spectrum4150        available and agencies know that they must cooperate and share4151        information in order for the legislation to be implemented4152        within the timeline set by Congress.41534154   The heads of the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies should4155        regularly meet and establish good-faith, transparent, and4156        cooperative relationships so that they are able to avoid4157        disagreements and disputes when possible.41584159   The heads of these agencies should also empower their4160        engineers to work closely with engineers from other agencies so4161        that they can solve technical problems.41624163   NTIA should play the role of an ``honest broker'' when4164        agencies and the FCC have differing views, and should use its4165        technical expertise to solve engineering challenges.41664167   The White House should provide robust leadership, including4168        by instituting an interagency process to resolve disagreements4169        and disputes.4170                                 ______41714172    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to4173                             Matthew Pearl4174    Question. Should the Federal Communications Commission consider the4175national security implications of our existing GPS system in making4176spectrum allocation decisions?4177    Answer. Yes. GPS is used both by our military and the civilian4178sectors, including for national security operations. In making spectrum4179allocation decisions, the FCC should consider whether such decisions4180could interfere with GPS. At the same time, because GPS is extremely4181susceptible to malicious signals such as jamming and spoofing, it is4182critical that we develop a comprehensive ``system of systems'' for4183information on position, navigation, and time. Such a system could be4184used to back up and supplement GPS, and therefore reduce risks of4185interference. It could enhance the accuracy and reliability of4186position, navigation, and timing for both Federal and commercial users.4187Finally, I would note that quantum sensing may provide an alternative4188to GPS that is far more accurate and not susceptible to interference,4189though unlike other technologies to make GPS more accurate and4190resilient, it is challenging to predict precisely when quantum sensing4191will be ready for commercialization.4192                                 ______41934194   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to4195                             Matthew Pearl4196    Question 1. Is it important that we complete thorough studies on4197spectrum bands before the FCC moves forward with auctions?4198    Answer. I do not believe it is prudent to auction spectrum before4199solid technical work has been done regarding the conditions under which4200it will be made available. All the major bills that I am aware of under4201active consideration, however, do not require auctions before the FCC,4202NTIA, and the agencies to do such analyses. If a bill sets clearing4203targets for making spectrum available under a reasonable time-frame and4204allows flexibility for preserving Federal use in auctioned bands when4205necessary, such as by allowing shared use, then the FCC and the4206Executive Branch will be able to complete studies and ensure that4207Federal capabilities are preserved prior to any auction.42084209    Question 2. Is it important that the relevant Federal agencies are4210coordinating and sharing information with each other regarding spectrum4211management?4212    Answer. Yes. It is critical that Federal agencies that use spectrum4213provide fulsome information regarding their use, plans, and analyses4214regarding co-existence issues with NTIA and the FCC. Some of our4215coordination challenges in the past, such as the conflict between the4216FCC and NOAA over 24 GHz, arose from an unwillingness to share the4217assumptions that went into agencies studies with the FCC and NTIA. This4218delays spectrum decisions and makes it difficult to get the Federal4219Government to adopt a ``whole-of-government'' view regarding how to4220proceed on specific spectrum decisions.42214222    Question 3. Should industry and government partners be investing in4223developing innovative technology to solve spectrum challenges of today4224and prepare for new challenges down the line?4225    Answer. Yes. Both industry and the government have a vital role in4226developing innovative technology. First, government needs to make4227early-stage investments in R&D that would be too risky for industry, so4228that the United States is the first to develop new spectrum-based4229capabilities. Such investments should occur in close cooperation with4230the private sector. This will enable industry to invest in implementing4231those innovations in their networks and products when they are ready4232for commercialization. Further, it is important for the private sector4233to invest in R&D, given that they are sometimes able to identify4234opportunities to innovate in spectrum use, and close coordination with4235the Federal Government will ensure that there is complimentary rather4236than duplicative spending on R&D.42374238    Question 4. Should this administration continue the last4239administration's work in the National Spectrum Strategy to increase4240transparency around Federal spectrum usage?4241    Answer. Yes, efforts to increase transparency around Federal4242spectrum usage will help to ensure the Federal Government adopts the4243right spectrum policy. It is critical that, for unclassified government4244uses of spectrum, that those efforts capture not only when the spectrum4245is used for, but also the precise times, places, and technical details4246of such use. To capture that information, it is important for NTIA and4247the agencies to leverage advanced sensing technologies, which can4248accurately capture all the details of spectrum use.42494250    Question 5. In spectrum reauthorization legislation, should4251Congress consider setting a dispute resolution process in statute4252similar to what was included in the National Spectrum Strategy under4253the prior administration?4254    Answer. I agree that it would be helpful to the Executive Branch4255and the FCC to codify long-standing procedures around dispute4256resolution. I should note that many of those procedures did not begin4257with the National Spectrum Strategy, but rather were captured and4258formally adopted in the Strategy. Having Congress codify those4259procedures will help to ensure that the dispute-resolution process is4260consistently used when proposed spectrum actions are being considered4261by the FCC, NTIA, or the agencies that use spectrum. While I agree that4262codification of procedures is a helpful step for Congress to take, it4263is also necessary for the White House to have high-level commitment to4264following those procedures, so that they are effectively implemented.42654266    Question 6. Should this administration continue the last4267administration's work to bolster the spectrum workforce?4268    Answer. Yes. For the United States to be competitive in next-4269generation networks, it is necessary to attract, educate, and grow the4270spectrum workforce. This will require extensive collaboration between4271the Executive Branch, the FCC, universities and other research4272institutions, think tanks, and civil society organizations.4273                                 ______42744275Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to4276                             Matthew Pearl4277    Question. Congress typically waits to have technical feasibility4278studies regarding spectrum allocation in hand prior to authorizing4279auction authority to avoid problems. A number of studies are under way4280now. If we were to go ahead now without waiting for the studies, then4281what are the risks we could expect regarding commercial spectrum use?4282What are the risks to DoD systems or other Federal spectrum needs?4283    Answer. I agree that we should not auction spectrum before4284technical analysis has been done on the specific conditions under which4285such spectrum will be made available. There are numerous risks that4286could occur to national security and other Federal uses of spectrum if4287such an approach were adopted. For instance, we could interfere with4288the ability of DOD to test next-generation radars on its military4289bases, thus putting us at a disadvantage with the PRC as it attempts to4290leapfrog over our radar capabilities. As another example, we could4291effect the Department of Energy's Power Marketing Administration, which4292markets and delivers hydropower to dozens of U.S. states.4293    I would note, however, that all the major bills that are currently4294under active consideration in Congress (of which I am aware) would4295enable the FCC, NTIA, and the agencies to conduct such analysis before4296auctions take place. For instance, bills that set clearing targets for4297making spectrum available can build in flexibilities, such as allowing4298the FCC to make the bands available for exclusive non-federal use or4299shared use. Following the passage of a bill, the interagency process4300and associated technical work should take place to establish the4301conditions under which spectrum may be made available, including4302ensuring--before any auction takes place--that commercial use will not4303jeopardize national security.4304                                 ______43054306     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to4307                              Bryan Clark4308    Question. Mr. Clark: My understanding is that China's strategy for4309wireless technology has been to secure exclusive licensing rights4310globally while restricting access. What is your perspective on China's4311approach?4312    Answer. China's approach to spectrum allocation has made similar4313portions of mid-band and high-band spectrum available to commercial4314mobile network operators (MNO) as in western countries.4315    However, China's government intends to dramatically increase the4316amount of spectrum available for Chinese MNOs over the next decade,4317which some fear could create an advantage for Chinese telecomunciations4318companies by allowing them to mature technologies that exploit wide4319areas of spectrum for mobile broadband and obtain revenue that allows4320them to make more inroads into telecommunication networks of U.S.4321allies.4322    An element of Chinese spectrum management that is often not4323discussed is the role of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in4324controlling spectrum access. The PLA has reserve personnel embedded in4325China's radio management centers around the country and in Chinese4326MNOs.4327    These personnel are in place to move commercial users out of4328military frequencies whenever needed. In addition to during4329emergencies, which is similar to the United States, these reserve PLA4330personnel also move commercial users out of military spectrum for4331routine testing, training, and other operations.4332                                 ______43334334      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ted Budd to4335                              Bryan Clark4336    Question. In your written testimony you state ``Beijing4337disingenuously claims that it has given more spectrum to Chinese4338telecommunication companies when in fact the People's Liberation Army4339(PLA) retains the authority and mechanisms to routinely displace4340commercial spectrum users.'' Can you expand on this and explain the4341differences between the Chinese and U.S. mechanisms to displace4342commercial spectrum users for national security purposes?4343    Answer. An element of Chinese spectrum management that is often not4344discussed is the role of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) in4345controlling spectrum access. The PLA has reserve personnel embedded in4346China's radio management centers around the country and in Chinese4347MNOs.4348    These personnel are in place to move commercial users out of4349military frequencies whenever needed. In addition to during4350emergencies, which is similar to the United States, these reserve PLA4351personnel also move commercial users out of military spectrum for4352routine testing, training, and other operations. See John Dotson,4353``Military-Civil Fusion and Electromagnetic Spectrum Management in the4354PLA,'' Jamestown Institute, October 8, 2019, https://jamestown.org/4355program/military-civil-fusion-and-electromagnetic-spectrum-management-4356in-the-pla/.4357                                 ______43584359   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to4360                              Bryan Clark4361    Question 1. The Spectrum Pipeline is Flawed. We have seen firsthand4362how a fractured domestic approach to spectrum management threatens4363domestic and national security. The former Administration's hands-off4364policies resulted in interagency disputes.4365    Mr. Clark, what risks to national security and American defense4366strategy can arise from decisions to relocate spectrum currently relied4367upon by military systems?4368    Answer. Military radars, radios, and electronic warfare systems are4369essential for military operations at home such as countering missile,4370drone, and air threats as part of the Trump Administration's Golden4371Dome initiative. These systems operate predominantly in the S-band4372(especially the lower 3 GHz band) and X band (8-12 Ghz), which are4373attractive to commercial telecommunications for the same reasons--4374effective range, relatively high-bandwidth--that makes them valuable4375for military operations. Relocating them to new frequencies will take4376more than a decade and cost more than $100 billion. But forcing4377military systems to operate in the presence of full-power 5G4378telecommunications will create interference and prevent effective air4379defense.4380    U.S. forces need to train with radars, radios, and electronic4381warfare systems in and around U.S. territory to enable them to fight4382effectively overseas. If they are unable to use the spectrum currently4383allotted for sensors and communications, they will not be able to train4384in the same way they would fight, reducing their proficiency when4385troops arrive at the battlefield.4386    Military operations overseas also increasingly depend on U.S.4387forces being able to operate in unexpected parts of the spectrum to4388avoid enemy detection and classification--operations ships and aircraft4389need to train for in the United States. Moreover, countering adversary4390sensors will require jammers that operate in adversary frequencies,4391such as C-band to deceive synthetic aperture radar satellites. U.S.4392forces will need to begin these electronic warfare operations in U.S.4393territory to ensure their deception operation is effective. If U.S.4394forces cannot use these frequencies, they will be easier to track and4395target.43964397    Question 2. How do shared spectrum approaches help us avoid those4398risks while still helping us find new spectrum for commercial use?4399    Answer. Shared spectrum can allow military operations to continue4400unimpeded while affording access for commercial users. Military systems4401do not need continuous access to S and X-band frequencies, for example,4402in all geographic regions. Spectrum can be shared statically, by4403establishing time and geographic limitations for different users, such4404as under the America's Mid-Band Initiative Team (AMBIT) effort.4405Spectrum can also be shared dynamically, as in the Citizen's Band Radio4406Service (CBRS), by adopting technological and procedural solutions that4407enable commercial communications to proceed most of the time, but4408automatically shift them to another band when a military system4409energizes in the area.4410    Spectrum sharing approaches like these can enable commercial users4411to gain at least periodic or geographically limited access to new areas4412of spectrum. This requires industry to incorporate additional4413technology or combine multiple regions of spectrum, but is the4414compromise that allows both military and commercial activities to use4415the same valuable regions of spectrum.44164417    Question 3. How do we advance commercial spectrum while respecting4418mission-critical Federal users and national security?4419    Answer. By adopting geographic and time constraints, as in the4420AMBIT program, or by using dynamic spectrum sharing, as in CBRS, the4421government can create commercial opportunities while protecting4422incumbent Federal users like the military and law enforcement that face4423an increasingly challenging threat environment at home as well as4424overseas.4425                                 ______44264427    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to4428                              Bryan Clark4429    Question 1. The Department of Defense (DoD) has significant4430equities in Hawaii and the Indo-Pacific, including systems that are4431being actively funded and built with specific spectrum parameters in4432mind.4433    How would modifications to DoD spectrum allocations impact existing4434requirements for ongoing projects related to cruise and ballistic4435missile radar detection systems that the DoD has established project4436timelines and appropriations for to develop and procure?4437    Answer. The DoD operates an Aegis Ashore radar and interceptor4438launcher at the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) in Hawaii to test4439the Aegis Weapons System's ability to defend against cruise and4440ballistic missile threats. The facility was primarily built to test4441Aegis Ashore systems that were established in Eastern Europe but is now4442used to test new capabilities for shipboard Aegis systems as well. The4443radar for this system operates in the lower part of the 3 Ghz band for4444search and in the X-band (8-12 Ghz) for targeting. Relocating the4445system to other frequency bands will increase the system's cost by4446hundreds of millions of dollars and introduce years of delay in4447testing.4448    The DoD is considering using the Aegis Ashore installation at PMRF4449to also support homeland missile defense, where it could be4450incorporated into the Trump Administration's Golden Dome initiative. In4451addition to increasing the system's cost, changing its frequency bands4452will reduce its performance in defending the United States from4453ballistic and hypersonic missile threats.44544455    Question 2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)4456operates earth observation satellites that are crucial to weather4457forecasting, including tracking extreme weather events.4458    What technological capabilities currently exist to allow in-band4459sharing of spectrum?4460    Answer. Earth observation satellites depend on downlinks in the L4461(1-2 Ghz) and S (2-4 Ghz) bands to send data to earth. Government and4462commercial users could employ technologies for dynamic spectrum sharing4463like that used by the Citizen's Band Radio System (CBRS) to both4464operate in these bands.44654466    Question 3. What technological capabilities currently exist to4467block or attenuate out-of-band emissions?4468    Answer. Radars and radios use a combination of digital beamforming4469and antenna design to reduce out-of-band emissions from being4470transmitted or received. For example, by using software and phased4471array antennas, radars and radios can control the emissions from each4472antenna element and use destructive interference to narrow the physical4473beam of energy being transmitted or received by the system. This can4474help reduce the likelihood emissions will exceed geographic bounds4475established under static spectrum sharing schemes like the AMBIT4476program.4477    To reduce the likelihood of signals leaving outside their assigned4478frequency bands, radars and radios can used digital radio frequency4479systems on a chip (RFSOC) and software-defined radios (SDR) that4480program their waveforms to include more data in each channel or4481frequency. These systems can also increase their power level to allow a4482higher reliability of data transfer and thereby transmit more data on4483each channel (or frequency) and reduce the need to transmit data over4484multiple channels simultaneously.44854486    Question 4. In light of potential impacts to adjacent bands,4487shouldn't emissions that cross into adjacent bands trigger the need for4488a spectrum sharing agreement similar to in-band sharing? In other4489words, if one party's use of a band includes both in-band and out-of-4490band components, shouldn't the Spectrum Relocation Fund be fully4491compensated for both?4492    Answer. All radio transmitters experience some level of out-of-band4493emissions because of imperfections in antenna hardware. Spectrum4494allocation schemes like those used by the FCC have employed ``guard4495bands'' to prevent signals from one assigned set of frequencies from4496spilling over into adjacent bands. Digital RFSOC and SDR technologies4497allow the signals generated by radars and radios to be narrowed, which4498allowed the FCC to shrink or eliminate guard bands in some areas of the4499spectrum. This creates the potential for out-of-band signals4500interfering with adjacent frequencies. When this happens, compensation4501should be triggered if the power level of the out-of-band emission is4502such that it interferes with the adjacent band's uses.45034504    Question 5. Tribal lands, including reservations, Hawaiian Home4505Lands, and Alaska Native Corporation lands, account for roughly 114506percent of all land in our country. Private sector investment and thus4507access to spectrum here is historically low.4508    What national security and economic risks does the digital divide4509in rural and Tribal areas present, especially those that are near4510military installations?4511    Answer. The governments assignment to the military of frequencies--4512especially in L, S, C, and X-band--for radars and radios on training4513ranges and other large facilities can disincentivize telecommunications4514companies from investing in adjacent territory. To implement dynamic4515spectrum sharing schemes as in CBRS, mobile network operators (MNO) may4516need to build more infrastructure to allow transmitters to operate at4517low power because each tower's coverage will be lower than a high-power4518installation. If they implement a static sharing scheme like AMBIT,4519MNOs would need to establish a more complex architecture using4520different power levels and frequencies around the military installation4521to avoid conflicts with military systems.4522    However, MNOs are also disincentivized from investing in these4523areas due to the low population density, which would offer few users to4524fund the infrastructure to provide mobile communication services.4525Bridging this digital divide will likely require government support to4526build out mobile communications infrastructure and help mitigate the4527costs of implanting spectrum sharing schemes in rural areas around4528large military installations.45294530    Question 6. Do you see a role for dynamic spectrum sharing in4531Tribal areas, especially those that border military spectrum4532allocations?4533    Answer. Yes, static spectrum sharing schemes like AMBIT and dynamic4534spectrum sharing like CBRS could be employed in these regions. However,4535both will impose costs on network operators.4536    Government support may be needed to ensure MNOs can recoup their4537investment in building out these networks.45384539    Question 7. Given the growing competition for mid-band spectrum4540between military and commercial users, how should policymakers view4541Tribal governments in this dynamic?4542    Answer. Tribal governments should be viewed as a partner in4543allocating spectrum in their regions, although spectrum still needs to4544be allocated nationally since radio transmissions do not recognize4545tribal or state boundaries. Tribal governments should be brought into4546collaboration with regulators, users, and industry to develop4547approaches for providing telecommunication services on tribal lands,4548especially mobile communications that are needed for safety and4549security. Spectrum Relocation Funds may need to be employed to help4550compensate network operators for the cost of building out4551infrastructure on tribal land and incorporating spectrum sharing4552technologies.45534554    Question 8. Do Tribes represent a unique category of spectrum4555stakeholders, and what role does direct access to spectrum for them4556play in expanding competition in underserved areas?4557    Answer. Tribes are a governmental entity and should therefore have4558a voice in deciding how spectrum is allocated in their region. This is4559especially true for regions near military installations where a4560combination of low population density and spectrum sharing requirements4561disincentive network operators from building infrastructure.45624563    Question 9. As the U.S. seeks to expand broadband to underserved4564areas--including Tribal lands--while also ensuring sufficient spectrum4565for national security and commercial purposes, what policies should4566Congress consider to balance these competing needs?4567    Answer. Congress should consider ways to incentive industry to4568invest in a combination of spectrum sharing schemes and network4569infrastructure that can address these underserved areas while4570protecting the need of military users to periodically access priority4571regions of spectrum.4572                                 ______45734574    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to4575                              Bryan Clark4576    Question. Should the Federal Communications Commission consider the4577national security implications of our existing GPS system in making4578spectrum allocation decisions?4579    Answer. Yes. The GPS system operates in the L band (1-2 Ghz), which4580is also a popular frequency band for satellite communications because4581it offers a combination of long-range and relatively high data rates.4582GPS signals are also very low power, which makes them very susceptible4583to jamming and interference, as seen in Ukraine and Eastern Europe due4584to Russian electronic warfare operations.4585                                 ______45864587Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Lisa Blunt Rochester to45884589                              Bryan Clark4590    Question 1. Congress typically waits to have technical feasibility4591studies regarding spectrum allocation in hand prior to authorizing4592auction authority to avoid problems. A number of studies are under way4593now. If we were to go ahead now without waiting for the studies, then4594what are the risks we could expect regarding commercial spectrum use?4595What are the risks to DoD systems or other Federal spectrum needs?4596    Answer. The risks of auctioning spectrum that DoD is currently4597using are significant to extreme, depending on the mission. U.S.4598military forces depend on access to commercially-valuable spectrum--4599such as S-band (2-4 Ghz), C-band (4-8 Ghz), and X-band (8-12 Ghz)--for4600radars and radios. U.S. forces need to train on these systems in and4601around the U.S. to prepare for combat overseas. If they cannot train in4602the United States, they will be less proficient and effective.4603    More important, the military needs access to these regions of the4604spectrum in the United States to support homeland defense. Initiatives4605like the Trump Administration's Golden Dome air and missile defense4606system will depend on access to S and X-band around priority defended4607locations around the country and potentially over the whole country if4608satellite-based radars are used as part of the architecture. If this4609spectrum is unavailable over the U.S., Golden Dome will only be able to4610engage threats as they enter the U.S. and would be unable to shoot them4611down once they are over U.S. territory.4612    For U.S. military systems to move out of these frequency ranges4613will take more than a decade and nearly $100 billion, and in the end4614they will be less capable because they will use less useful part of the4615spectrum.46164617    Question 2. Maintaining our economic competitiveness globally and4618creating conditions for innovation are important, and I am open to4619strategies to put our country in the best possible position. Still, a4620top priority must be ensuring that we are prepared in the event of4621aggressive actions by an adversary. Mr. Clark, in your testimony, you4622noted that ensuring the military has the spectrum they need is4623important for countering China. Can you expand on how China would4624benefit if DoD's spectrum access was overly constrained?4625    Answer. If the U.S. military is limited to narrower ranges of4626frequency, the Chinese military could more easily detect and classify4627U.S. forces by their emissions. One of the techniques U.S. forces might4628use to confuse Chinese sensing and sensemaking is to move to other4629areas of the spectrum and use different waveforms than normal. Although4630U.S. commanders would not want to routinely operate using these ``war-4631reserve modes'', their forces would need to periodically train on them4632in the United States and their capabilities would need to be evaluated4633on DoD ranges.4634    Electronic warfare operations require that U.S. forces emit in4635frequency ranges that U.S. forces do not normally use. Chinese radars4636and radios use similar frequencies to U.S. systems because their4637physical properties are beneficial, but Chinese systems do not use the4638same frequencies. If U.S. forces are constrained to a narrow band of4639frequencies, then they cannot train or develop electronic warfare4640systems that are effective against Chinese sensors and radios.46414642    Question 3. Mr. Clark, in your testimony you cited spectrum-sharing4643as a strategy to move forward. Do you think it is feasible that both4644DoD needs and commercial needs could be met through carefully planned4645spectrum-sharing?4646    Answer. Yes. DoD operations in the United States (except perhaps4647for Golden Dome) are not continuous and do not happen across the entire4648country. Static spectrum sharing schemes like AMBIT that use geographic4649and power constraints to prevent spectrum conflicts could be employed4650outside the areas around military installations. Dynamic spectrum4651sharing arrangements like CBRS could be employed in areas in or near4652military installations, where commercial and civilian users are forced4653to move to another frequency when a military user begins emitting.4654However, these schemes create complexity and cost for mobile network4655operators, and reduce the value of the associated spectrum. The auction4656approach and timing need to account for the time and investment needed4657to establish these schemes before commercial operations commence.46584659    Question 3a. Do we have the feasibility studies needed to move4660forward with spectrum-sharing? If not, what do we need to do?4661    Answer. These studies are underway now, but these studies may be4662too open-ended to provide actionable recommendations. The study4663parameters may need to be adjusted to provide analysts clear goals for4664the amounts of spectrum they should seek to make available and in which4665regions, as well as accounting for the costs associated with4666implementing appropriate spectrum sharing arrangements.46674668                                  [all]