tv House Energy Subcommittee Hearing on Wireless Infrastructure Security CSPAN October 1, 2019 11:07am-12:24pm EDT
people have stronger background checks and it is very important. no one interested in taking away your guns. we want to make sure they don't get in the hands of the wrong people and we need stronger restrictions on automatic weapons. they have one purpose and that is to kill. >> voices from the campaign trail, part of the battleground states to your. >> up next to look at proposed legislation to try to protect the nation's wireless infrastructure from foreign interference with the house energy panel hears testimony from technology and voting individuals, mike doyle of pennsylvania. [inaudible conversations]
>> subcommittee on technology will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. welcome to the subcommittee on communications and technology legislative hearing on legislating to secure america's wireless future. the security will consider a number of legislative proposals that address challenges from spectrum management to secure our nation's telecommunications infrastructure. the proposals before the subcommittee today are hr 4462, study how to harness airway resource efficiency act or the share act which i introduced with my good friend ranking member latta which would
require in cia to establish spectrum sharing strategy using advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, automated frequency coordination and environmental sensing to facilitate more efficient spectrum sharing and used by the federal government. the bill would also require the fcc to report to congress on the feasibility of using existing sharing technologies on several important spectrum bands. as we look towards the future it is necessary for every licensee to use spectrum more efficiently the federal government being chief among them. we need to find ways to modernize how the government uses and shares spectrum amid agencies and department as well as with the commercial sector. the cprs band is a great example of how sharing can effectively accommodate a wide range of users and a wide range of uses. yesterday the fcc voted on
order to sell licenses in the cprs band and a few weeks ago launched commercial operations. this will combine licensed, unlicensed users in one band while protecting incumbents rights and ensuring the spectrum is always available for use. my hope is the share act can act as a bridge for future innovative sharing scenarios. next we have hr 4461, the network security information sharing act introduced by myself and my colleague, this legislation would establish an information sharing program at the department of homeland security, share the supply chain security risk information with the telecom industry. this would help all providers, but most importantly small and rural providers that lack the resources and expertise to
engage in washington with what has largely been closed-door discussions related to threats of entrusted equipment vendors. my hope is by creating a program with an inclusive mandate these providers will be more able in the future to avoid the point in technologies that pose an outside risk to customers in the nation. after that we have hr 4459, the secure and trusted communication network act introduced by chairman pallone drinking a member walden which would require the fcc to create a list of equal and and services that pose a neck set the risks to national security. it would authorize a funds to enable carriers with unsafe equipment and their networks to remove it and replace it with trusted equipment and services. telecom service is too essential for any of our nations carriers to be used in entrusted islands in their network. the subcommittee will consider
hr 2881, introduced by representative spannmeyer, o'halloran, it would require the government to work with strategic allies to secure their 5g networks and ensure that us 5g networks are secure and work with industry to guard against political influence. next we will consider the promoting united states wireless leadership act 2019, and consider hr 2063, introduced by representative brooks and finally we will discuss house resolution 575 expressing the sense of the house that all stakeholders in the deployment of 5g should consider and adhere to the fraud proposals introduced by representative florez and soto. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
roberta stempfley is with the engineering institute of carnegie mellon university in pittsburgh which is the heart of my congressional district. we are glad to have someone from cmu on the panel. previously she served as acting assistant secretary in the office of cyber security and communications at the department of homeland security and she established and led the department of defense computer emergency response team. i want to thank her for appearing before the subcommittee today. i look forward to discussion of all these proposals and now the chair recognizes mister latta for his opening statement. >> thank you, mister chairman and thank you for calling today's hearing and thank our witnesses for being with us today as we discussed legislation on our network supply chain security management of spectrum resources. there are several bipartisan bills that address the
challenges we face to ensure critical communications infrastructure is secure from vulnerability. i am especially pleased our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from pennsylvania on hr 4462, the share act, to empower our agencies to facilitate innovative spectrum sharing strategies to more efficiently use our airways. is the executive branch agency principally responsible for advising the president on spectrum and telecommunication matters, in cia should play collective government approach to managing the federal government access to these resources. this bill helps mpower in ta to use that to meet that in the 26 century. today's hearing offers several bills to address vulnerabilities and communication networks such as the inclusion of insecure equipment. many providers and networks
contain equipment for foreign carriers. however, this is only because the provider didn't understand the associated risk. the bill before us to prevent this type of situation from occurring on a forward-looking basis, understandably these providers are in a period of uncertainty and although they may want to protect financial security they may need help doing so. the sec has voiced concern about the proposed provision of the us recipients from using controversial equipment. as winners of the latest connect american funds to reverse auction comes to grip with the requirements accompanying these funds. it is google we work in a bipartisan way to ensure they can revisit how those conditions impact the winning bid in order to keep the equipment free from security vulnerability. not only do we prevent the federal funding to pay for
something that might pose a national security risk but we do not want winners of caf auctions to be put in an untenable position of not being able to meet requirements now that cost estimates may have changed. i want to thank our witnesses for being with us today and the testimony today and i will yield the rest of my time to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mister chairman. the security of america, of american communications and information networks is paramount to national security. the field i know from my time in the military but the sword cuts both ways. as we have seen through the years certain foreign adversaries have systematically coerced their equipment, manufacturers, to invest that was another capable is under their product which were later purchased by american companies and integrated into our networks was no foreign actor should have the ability to eavesdrop on us citizens and our government or use these backdoors to launch cyber attacks or disrupt our communications in an effort to
help the private sector avoid purchasing or installing dangerous equal and, i worked with the chairman to introduce hr 4461, network security information sharing act which will be part of the discussion today. i look forward to that discussion and yield back to my friend. >> the gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes mister pallone for his opening statement. >> thank you. today we are considering a series of bills to secure america's wireless future, ensure the government manages federal and commercial spectrum more efficiently to promote innovation and better serve all americans, guarantee our wireless networks are secure from foreign adversaries who may wish to spy on americans or do us harm. i applaud the work of chairman doyle and ranking member latta in introducing the share act, the policy that our nation's key agencies, national telecommunications and
information administration and federal communications commission responsible for spectrum policy. these agencies can act as impartial judges to balance the demands and interests of spectrum stakeholders such as department of defense, federal aviation administration, public safety and commercial carriers. we heard the management of federal government spectrum require strong central voice that in tia. and the mission-critical needs of government agencies, in modern way. the sec likewise must remain in the drivers seat when it comes to commercial spectrum. the share act requires the sec to look for ways to expand the revolutionary spectrum sharing techniques rolled out on citizens broadband radio service. and i want to thank ranking member walden and
representative matsui for working with me, our legislation will suspend federal dollars on suspect communications equipment and services that security. our bill establishes small carriers to remove compromise settlement and replace with secure alternatives. as we heard, much of the global supply chain for telecommunications equip and close for china at one point or another. in chinese industrial policies, state run manufacturers like huawei self-respect equal into american providers cheaper than everyone else. many of the bigger carriers avoided these threats, it is still a significant issue for smaller and moral carriers who built their networks using the suspect equipment. communications networks are interconnected meaning one week link can harm the whole system. we must tell topic areas remove suspect equipment for the good of the country.
chairman doyle have legislation on this point that will help the federal government better share supply chain risks information with the communications providers. i look forward hearing from our witnesses and i want to briefly recognize or mention that later on today's panel, the fellow monmouth county new jersey native, good to see you today, welcome. with that i yield the balance of my time to mister matsui. >> thank you very much. thank you for considering hr 4459, secure and trust communications network. this will create a new fund providing financial incentives to small wireless providers replace certain equal in like huawei with new equipment that includes secure hardware and software capabilities. we must consider policies as per us leadership and innovation at the 5g rate. hr 4459 would help provide additional security for the telecommunications provider,
more needs to be done with regard to the spectrum policy has both licensed for 5g and beyond. my bill strikes the right balance, and supported by stakeholders including public interest groups and stakeholders. i work with chairman doyle on this issue. we introduced the spectrum now act to provide a pathway to maintenance on 100 mhz spectrum available. a balanced approach to the international wireless services is not only critical but necessary for expanding use in the 6 ghz span. i continue to focus on a 20-year-old debate over the 5.9 ghz band. i yield back to the chairman.
>> chairman yield back, the gentleman yields back. i recognize my good friend mister walden. the ranking member of the committee for five minutes. >> on-time, on budget right here. your insight will be another input, and the infrastructure represents the lifeblood of an open society. this should be taken as undermining liberty is. the commitment we began in last congress, to have a bipartisan process to mitigate these threats and secure the sector going forward. moreover i know chairman alone, the energy coverage committee
is singularly able to speak to these topics in congress and with those sides working together with staplers ranging to civil society we can do so successfully. everyone can agree on securing the nation security network from vulnerable equipment and we heard testimony two years ago on vulnerabilities that exist in these networks and also heard of the impact on rural providers who may be more disproportionately impacted by calls to replace these existing equipment to stay in their budgets. not to mention and federal programs to decline the most effective products. our adversaries have no reservations about subsidizing their pet companies and they become attractive options for the budget sensitive providers. broadband providers in my own state are trying to make ago providing broadband networks and stretching limited funds to ensure they connect with most constituents in some of the
hardest to reach places and you can find those in my district. many of these providers don't have an army of consultants with necessary security clearances to fully appreciate the vulnerabilities that do exist and how to inform their purchasing decisions. for those who receive federal support for broadband networks in broadband areas, we cannot set them up for failure by requiring them to select options for uncle sam to -- not that lowest cost equipment. we need to get this right. hr 4461, the information sharing act facilitated the information sharing needed for rural providers. this is the centerpiece of bipartisan discussions in the last congress. and the comedic asians sector, which i'm a sponsor of to address this problem by setting
up reimbursement program to rip and replace vulnerable equipment from these networks and still have details to work out on the way to market, the program is modeled on the fcc so far successful broadcast for the reimbursement program. we need to get this right. it is critical to our national security but also competitiveness as we roll out new technologies. this brings me to another topic raising the july spectrum hearing of how russia is seeking to influence public discourse on deployment of next-generation networks. the congresswomen shared my concern at that hearing to close the digital divide, we must be prepared to prevent threats to diminish america's standing in the world. my staff saw this card posted on a bulletin board, in this campaign, list a litany of issues where 5g is supposedly
bad. one of those stories about a community -- stopping a 5g rollout in australia while at the same time the world health organization stated they should not be any health risks for 5g. the cornell university research showed 5g networks to be safer than previous networks. i hope the committee will look at other efforts being pursued to stifle internet architecture. i look forward to hearing about other bills, as thoughtful approaches to these challenges so thanks again for having this hearing and i hope the full committee or oversight committee or this committee will do some looking into what is being pushed on the public side and who is behind it. >> the chair will remind
members, it will be part of the record. i want to introduce witnesses for the hearing, bobby simply of the software engineering institute, thank you for being here today and mister john nettles of pine belt wireless, thank you for being here and mister harold bell, and mister dean brenner, spectrum strategy, thank you. we want to thank you for joining us today and look forward to your testimony. the chair will recognize each witness for five minutes and provide opening statement. before we begin i want to explain the lighting system in front of you as a series of lights, the light will initially be green at the start of your opening statement. it will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining, please wrapup your remarks at that point and when the light turns red we are going to cut
your microphones off. so you are recognized for 5 minutes. hit your microphone button. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity, the telecommunications industry. i have been a public servant working on information technology focus on application of information and technology to national security and public safety missions for more than 25 years. i'm serving as managing director at the cirque division at carnegie mellon university software engineering institute where we focus on government industry about government organizations and academia doing applied research to approve security systems information networks. the telecommunications sector is a global system made of
companies, suppliers and users that make communications possible. because the telecom industry is responsible for the flow of information and inexorably linked to how we work, play and live, the financial operations of society. the explosion of devices and methods of computing in the infrastructure has only increased the attack surface stand the responsibility of telecom to participate in the overall defense efforts. ultimately the supply chain for the telecommute occasion industry is vital to achieving security at scale. they have been largely procedural such as licenses and legal resource have reasonably assured, unfortunately these controls are increasingly inadequate when applied to global supply chains in communications technology. that underpin critical technologies in this industry.
ever-expanding supply chain means external dependencies must be really measured and strategically manage it for an organization to remain resilient. this addresses key areas in manufacturing, in-service supply chains and soccer supply chains. it is anywhere in the comedic asians infrastructure will be on the deck of origin to affect entire nations, businesses and private citizens. this addresses the hardware and the software and services as well. those including the secure and trusted to medications that work to 2019 and network security information sharing act of 2019 are good first step in the security. as we put in supply chain security encouraging resilience as a criterion at every stage of development and supply of information and security technology continue to be the forward leaning focus of service and software and supply chain assurance effort.
attacks against our supply chain, suppliers and search of scalable beans for securing information about ict risk with negligence. and standardized method for conveying information on common issues related to the hardware and software of ict. including nonconforming products that contain counterfeit or defective components and can cause subsequent harm. even though the methods to accomplish them are not. suppliers reduce supply chain risk, product provided by suppliers are acceptably secure. the methods of distribution and or transmission of the product to the passenger, guard against every other product or service is used or sustained with acceptable security.
the security framework and external dependency management element of cyber resilience management model which was developed and validated through research and by researchers demonstrates the following practice areas are elements of a mature supply chain risk management efforts. establishment and management of key relationships, engineering practices thomas secure product operation sustainment and understanding and management of supply chain technologies and overall infrastructure. as private and public functions are evermore inseparable from the information technology systems that support the healthy public-private partnerships, and cyber threats involves a layered approach. the government's role is to share information and enhance security and resilience while identifying and addressing gaps by the marketplace. information on the supply chain such as vulnerability, suppliers, security information
should be shared with mitigation plans to those who need it and usable information sharing must recognize differing abilities and roles of all participants and key to successful sharing programs. lastly we must guard against the false choice between security and innovation. >> you are now recognized for five minutes. >> members of the subcommittee, and the support needed to keep rural america connected. it is a family-owned and operated company established by my father in the late 1950s. in the years since we work hard to keep pace with technology and to keep the company in the family. lone star wireless network in 1995 with three analog sites covering two counties, we have grown it to 65 sites and provide for glc across five county the concluding many areas where it is the only signal present. our customers depend on the
network and on an average day we provide service to wireless data connectivity, is not passing through. and the telecom networks, robust cyber security for potential national security threats. in the industry buzzes with excitement for 5g network build up. we and many small companies across the country have been virtually since last year, currently deployed equipment. and the modern network was built just a few years ago with equip and from the te, and the phase i process, the reverse option for those showing the lowest to serve the greatest number of road miles was the performance criterion provide as much coverage as possible as inexpensively as possible. we solicited closure from different vendors.
no restrictions at the time on the use of this equipment facing several deployment challenges them our selection was a no-brainer. this enabled us to meet our mandated buildup in requirements but also a reliable platform, to deploy lgt and despite the challenges of low-density footprint we are optimistic this experience would allow us to provide the latest services to our community for the balance of the current generation and provide solid foundation for the next. as the uncertainties of grown regarding whether we can continue to use the te equipment my optimism has diminished. when we should be focused on expansion and upgrades we are instead concerned with whether we will continue to provide any services at all. such would squander 20 years of network expansion and $20 million in wireless investments. we find ourselves in this
because under the program we did our best to do what the government required of us to bring service to our neighbors. with news of the bills being discussed today i can sincerely report my optimism is returning. i'm confident my working with the small affected carriers, congress and appropriate federal agencies will establish reasonable and sound policies that provide essential financial resources needed for those carriers to secure their networks. legislative efforts pending before the subcommittee take significant steps to plot a path to the future for the secure and trusted communication summit reimbursement program determining a list of covered communications quit or services mitigating administered burdens on small rural carriers targeting network risk and supporting implementation sharing. congress acts on these critical issues it is important for solutions are implemented in a timely manner to support national security. they are executed in the right order to maintain services and
sufficient resources are allocated to get it right. with several efforts already underway including through the executive order and pending proceedings to prohibit use of this equip and there's no time to waste in funding replacement equipment and while many referred to the process as being in place i say perhaps we need to be talking replace and then rip otherwise services will indeed be disrupted. finally, as commissioner stark noted in a public same last week this is a national problem that deserves a national solution and we shouldn't expect small carriers who acted legally and in good faith to replace their insecure equip and on their own. it is therefore critical that congress act swiftly to provide resources for replacement of covered equipment particularly for this moral carriers unable to cover the cost without assistance. i believe the legislation for the subcommittee today a competent these goals and i applaud your work to legislate to secure wireless future.
i appreciate the opportunity to share the story of my family's company and welcome any questions you may have. >> thank you, mister felton, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for inviting me here today. i applaud the subcommittee for moving forward with a set of bills designed to promote innovation and security in 5g network. i want to focus on the following bills, the share act, the network security information sharing act, the secured trusted medications network act and the new frontiers act. the share act. everyone here is familiar with the problem of our increasingly crowded airways, our efforts to find sections where 5g deployment cause conflict and uncertainty among federal and commercial users, investing in the developed of sector sharing technology is a necessary investment to resolving these problems going forward. in addition to research and sharing by federal users with other federal users, study of the wristbands will contribute enormously to understanding how
to create a win for all sector him -- spectrum uses. the development process balances the interests and concerns of multiple stakeholders and attracted early investment from licensed and unlicensed users while protecting federal interests. to meet our spectrum needs going forward we need to set aside old feuds and embrace systems that accommodate everyone and maximize spectrum uses. this process tells us we can do it and we should build on the success. importantly we should not think about the share act as a means of bringing a more federal spectrum for commercial use. the technologies developed should be seen as the first step in rethinking federal spectrum management to move from the current stale and status system of specific assignment to a dynamic sharing system that allows the federal government to leverage economies of scale and provide federal agencies with spectrum they need to meet their responsibilities.
these are both good ideas to address credit issue of supply chain security and us communication networks with regard to the secure and trusted communication network act, we suggested slight modifications that would clarify a mechanism so entities that cover supply chain security risks can be removed from the list was nothing in the statute is written to prevent this process it is always best to clarify these things to avoid confusion. we also suggest expanding to include purchases made after all -- august 2008 to and to ensure small carriers could be reimbursed for the purchase of equip and that was not listed at the time of purchase. network security is a shared responsibly and benefits us all. these changes would review public interest and protect national security. we look forward to continuing the committee on these issues. e frontier, it is often repeated the most important rule of legislating is first do
no harm. the sweeping language used in the statute creates potential barriers to federal provision of emergency communication services and ways to leverage existing federal assets and rural communities to address the digital divide but the proposal does not violate the law or cause delay and prevent this action. for example if the federal government were trying to make federal fiber available to commercial carriers in the immediate aftermath of a natural disaster no one would want to introduce the uncertainty where legal counsel debate a wholesale network under the act. nor could any future it ministration do so without appropriation from congress. they provide no additional benefits to offset the risk of unintended consequences, we strongly recommend the bill not move forward. >> you are recognized for five minutes.
>> members of the subcommittee, i am here on behalf of qualcomm, the world's largest supplier of chips and modem system for smart phones and other wireless devices in the world's leading inventor and licensor of new wireless technologies. technologies we develop especially 5g and the chips we design all depend on one key input controlled by the government, spectrum. as the subcommittee has recognized, enabling a steady stream, and licensed and shared for the rapid broad 5g rollout with a feverish pace but work depends on a steady stream, thank you for continuing to make spectrum a high priority. 30, 5g networks with national operators on stand are
expanding, 20 manufacturers are selling or developing 5g devices, six times as many as in them for g's first year. qualcomm was with 5g devices that have been or soon will be launched including hotspots and fixed wireless devices. the support 7 ghz and later waves, the us was the first country to launch 5g in millimeter waves. 5g is delivering better mobile broadband at a lower cost. let me explain several game changers which we will launch soon and further accelerate the 5g rollout. dynamics from sharing enables an operator to run 5g in spectrum. instead of having to mda 4g spectrum band before launching 5g which could take 10 years or more, this one able it to be used simultaneously for both 4g and 5g. enhanced millimeterwave will enable 5g fixed wireless to be used for rural broadband while developing new antenna modules
which enable 5g fixed wireless service 1 mile away covering a much larger area than anyone thought possible. the new version of 5g optimize for unlicensed spectrum will enable 5g to be launched for ultralow latency ultra reliable 5g in factories, warehouses and other venues. this technology along with new forms of wi-fi developing would be deployed in new 6 ghz unlicensed spectrum under consideration by the ftc. qualcomm's 5g cell chips will expand 5g to more people and more locations particularly indoors using millimeterwave. the last cellular vehicle for everything or x technology, first with 4 g and 5g enables cars to communicate with other cars and infrastructure with greater range and reliability than possible with older technology. cv to ask to be deployed the fcc must waive or change its rules for 5.9 ghz allow
deployment of the src. the 5g security has been a high priority for qualcomm ever since we started working on 5g even though we don't manufacture core network equipment. qualcomm has worked on 5g security internally with many other companies and in global standards group which that's 5g standards. in addition for many years qualcomm has been an active participant, the fcc communication security reliability and operability counsel. most recently we appreciated the bipartisan may 9th letter sent from the chairman and ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee to fcc chairman pie asking to examine 5g security. the only one of our engineers was appointed to lead the working group on managing security risk on emerging 5g implementation. members of this group include experts from dhs and county governments, a nonprofit government contractor, network operators, tech companies, standards groups and trade
associations. we look forward to advancing 5g security through this group. qualcomm has been working on spectrum sharing for many years. we worked directly within tia, dod and other government agencies and private sector colleagues. often spectrum been analyzed for sharing involves multiple cabinet departments and multiple entities in those departments. over the years and tia has played a coordinated role gathering input from government players, working with industry, leading joint public-private technical work and speaking with a single voice for the executive branch to make greater progress. this process, needed most recently in the initial commercial deployments in the cprs band, a great developer and increasing the amount of mid-band spectrum for 4g and 5g. we are interested in the heightened interest across the federal government and look forward to continuing to work through this process to enable more intensive spectrum sharing. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions.
>> we concluded our openings. we now move to member questions. each member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. i start by recognizing myself or five minutes. roberta stempfley, what risks are posed by interested equipment in our nation's telecommunications networks and what kind of things can hostile foreign actors do if they have access to that equipment? >> i want to thank you for the question. as i said in my testimony the telecommunications infrastructure provides great interconnectivity and serves as the foundation of many other elements of -- it also has cascading dependency with other infrastructures and present the key area of focus. the supply chain concerns are equally within that are difficult to identify and could
provide a great deal of access, not just to the environment, the services provided with management infrastructure underneath, it goes without saying they are of great concern to us. >> we heard reports that hostile for actors are accessing our nation's electrical grid and infrastructure. whatever political sectors could they access if they access the carrier network through a compromised equipment? >> unfortunately the work we do couldn't give you an answer to that. the piece we all understand the telecommunication sector or financial sector are interdependent and that speaks to the potential cascading effect. >> what are the benefits of establishing a strategy for the
federal government to develop these testbeds for more efficient spectrum sharing and what benefits do you see applying the lessons we learned in the cprs band and federal bands? >> the need for more sharing is obvious, but the benefits of sharing go beyond simply ensuring the federal government can maintain its current function. the dynamic spectrum sharing and other technologies mister brenner referred to allow the federal government potentially for the first time to act as a single spectrum user rather than analyzing spectrum allocations in our current system. additionally the cprs band demonstrates the importance of accommodating federal users, licensed protected users, unlicensed users which has been the holy grail of spectrum policy.
the ability to let everybody do what they need to do and what they want to do is the ultimate goal of spectrum policy and lease sharing technologies will make that possible. >> mister nettles, how do you see the security sharing act benefiting your company going forward in mitigating risks to your supply chain? >> thank you, mister chairman. it would be tremendous to us. we are a pretty small company, we have 15 employees that govern all lines of business, half of which are dedicated to our wireless networks. it is difficult to say the least, to keep up with information coming out that is not shared openly, you don't know what you don't know and that is where we found ourselves a few years back. >> roberta stempfley, the believe the information sharing
act will help smaller telecom providers to receive important information related to the supply chain security threats? what are the challenges you've seen in communicating these threats to companies that don't have resources and personnel? >> the focus on ensuring information is actionable and usable to all parties is an important part of the bill and any information sharing related program. the key thing that i have found in building these sharing activities is recognizing the capacity the organization has to take action. is it clear what they should do and communicated to them in a language and method they can receive it in? >> thank you very much. i will yield 25 seconds back as an example for the rest of the committee and now yields to my good friend, mister latta. >> thanks for being with us
today. mister brenner, if i could start with you. the wireless industry has prospered due to market-based technological innovation policies that incentivize growth, led the way with spectrum auctions in the early 1990s and more recently with the successful aws one and 3 options. homeport are the tools given to and tia for continued wireless leadership? >> thank you for that question. the tools are vital but i suggest the list of the tools in section 106 of the bill needs to be added to include two more. the first we call look before talk. today the way and unlicensed channel would be shared of the four of us were sharing i would get to use it one fourth of the time and have to be quiet the other three forests, same for harold feld or mister nettles
or roberta stempfley that we have this new radio we are transmitting in a highly directional manner. we demonstrated this technology, as long as all four of us on the panel, each are able to detect in which direction the other will be using the spectrum can all four of us could use the spectrum at once thereby dramatically increasing the utilization for everyone. we call that look before talk, the technical name for it is coordinated multi-decca. the second tool is synchronization. if we all synchronized our watches while sharing the channel, the time-based aspect of spectrum sharing, if we were in sync with one another we would minimize the amount of time on the channel and all of us would be able to use the channel more which would be a benefit to everyone. >> thank you very much. roberta stempfley, with your prior experience in the office
of cyber security and communications that dhs, would you discuss how hr 4461 functions with existing executive branch -- to facilitate information sharing for small providers? >> i appreciate the focus on the small rural provider. it is an important part of our nation's infrastructure. within the information sharing programs that exist, sharing typically happens between a government entity or consolidated group or trade association and information is disseminated from there. the way this bill would work would be to ensure the complete path exists and is successful so the end provider cannot only receive the information but can provide feedback back into the government that the full set of activities have occurred and i
appreciate that. >> another question. hr 4459 calls for disposal of suspect equipment. do you have concerns about the sequence being resold on the secondary market and from a technological perspective, could the equivalent be sanitized and resold or destroyed entirely? >> there are many nuances in your question. i appreciate the depth of it. there is always a concern. if you listen to many areas you must address in the supply chain from relationship management to operation practices there is always a concern that equipment that is vulnerable could be used in another place and that should be addressed directly. the idea of how to sanitize or destroy the important equal it is an important question. it is unclear whether it will
be sanitize a double. it depends on the risk of the supply chain that you're dealing with. in some instances you can do something as simple as change software or firmware. in other instances it can be more profound as an engineering plot and that would be a more severe response. >> lead us off quickly with that, with how one would do it? what would be the expertise one would have to have to make sure it is totally sanitized? >> i believe you would need network expertise, cyber security expertise and some level of software programming expertise. >> mister chairman, i yield 17 seconds and questions for the witnesses. >> thank you, mister latta. another good example from the leadership committee. mister mcnerney recognized for five minutes.
>> i represent a district that has a lot of rural areas, wireless carriers agree with you about the need for additional resources to replace this equipment. do you think the high cost program under the universal service fund has contributed to these problems and if so could you explain a little? >> i most definitely think it contributed to it. the direction seems a little askew the policy -- providing the most service to as many people everywhere as you can. the areas that are generally the most underserved are those that lack economies of scale, the abandonment of the notion of rate of return seems counterintuitive or backwards. to say what is the least amount
of money i want you to service area that is on -- i am going to -- the least amount of money you will take to do it doesn't quite add up to me. >> thank you. roberta stempfley, a major factor of the cheapest equipment has led to equipping with the weakest security and we are seeing that over and over. how do we go about ensuring in the future that the equal it is more affordable, secure equip it is more affordable? >> you hit upon one of the most of a challenges insecurity and that is trying to ensure we understand what security warrants existed we engineer them from the beginning. we talk about the fact organizations have accepted security debt that is handed to them when they purchase insecure components where security was not considered from the beginning. bringing those requirements into the engineering and design phase is the most important way.
>> this could be more competitive with huawei and cte. do you agree? >> the problem here as other people focus the economies of scale and ability -- >> talk into the microphone a little bit. >> sorry, yes. i agree that cost is a big concern. we need to make sure security is affordable and if we don't take steps to try to equalize the playing field for countries like china that subsidize equipment or have their own economies of scale ultimately consumers will pay the cost either needing to buy higher-priced equipment or from insecure networks. >> you earlier were singing the praises of spectrum sharing among federal users. >> we are going to hear --
leave this for a short pro forma session which is part of our commitment to live gavel to gavel coverage of congress. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 1, 2019. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable josh hawley, a senator from the state of missouri, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: chuck grassley, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 4:30 p.m. stands adjourned until 4:30 p.m. >> the senate gaveling out after a brief pro forma session. senators are in a two week district work period. they will be back on tuesday october 15 to follow live
coverage of the senate here on c-span2. now back to a house hearing on u.s. wireless infrastructure security. >> right now the unlicensed spectrum to provide because that equipment is affordable and available in because they are in areas that the larger license carries simple you don't want to serve, , they don't provide enoh rate of return. but these guys were actually part of the committee and small businesses can make it work if we allow them to make it work. giving them access to this additional spectrum capacity will be a huge boost in their ability to provide service in these rural areas. >> before i closed i just want to make a plug for the digital equity act what to introduce yesterday and then broadband adoption. >> and which public knowledge, thank you very much in fully support. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes the ranking member for five minutes. >> thanks again to all the witnesses.
mr. nettles, a close within per. >> program completed within a year. with your staffing and the funds suggested in the draft how confident are you could replace all your equipment in that timeline? >> thank you for the question. it's going to be a challenge. there's no other way to put it. i guess in part it depends on when his day zero in that process. if we have a bleak also a provision the fcc up to a year to establish what was in the equipment. at this stage not knowing which of the components within the network action will have to be replaced, it would be difficult. if it involves our core, i would say it's impossible to do it within a year without just concentrated effort from
suppliers, the -- >> equipment shortages, labor shortages. we've been through through a cf these types of transitions with the repack broadcasters and all and you give them 39 months and everybody rushes out to get it done. >> labor shortages probably be the most probable situation. >> if we are able to address this uncertainty to provide relief to providers especially when they use mobility fund, one, money to build the network, what could happen? what should we be aware of? could this lead to a loss of 911 coverage if providers like you are the only provider in that area? >> most definitely. if we are required to rip it out and then putting replacement equipment, it would be like selling your car before you buy your new one. you're going to be walking. >> got it. mr. brenner, i want to come to
you with a question on spectrum management h.r. 4462, that share act. as a competencies every angle in this debate from licensed spectrum use invitee to the unlicensed spectrum that will offload traffic to the shared spectrum of federal users, how important is it that ntia have full visibility and control over federal access to spectrum or gain the most efficient to a still beating the missions of the agencies? >> thank you for the question. it's extremely important. ntia was created in the late 1970s because each federal agency was, had their own spectrum system and there was no single coordinator bud for sure we would not have been able to achieve the success with the cprs band without having ntia play that role. as you mentioned, as paul, we will provide one as i mentioned in my testimony. it's great to hear the defense
department has a revolution attitude about spectrum sharing but these of rick obligate situations. in the two bands that are mentioned in the shared asked him what of them seven gigahertz has 8700 federal assignments of spectrum. 3.1-3.5 band has 450 assignments of spectrum. ntia in august sent a memo, tell us, we've got all these assignments. who is using the spectrum? the has to be a single voice. it has to be -- >> somebody overseeing it. i won't put you on the spot. i don't have to. we are in this bit of a struggle right now where dod at least allegedly wants to grab more control over management of spectrum. and some of us believe that's sort of an agency crap away from ntia. we witnessed this in the last congress when they wanted to
avoid fda approval of drugs and medical devices for battlefield needs because they were irritated with the slowness, which we can't resolve but the wanted to go be their own fda. i think it's bad public policy that you do not respond to that because you work with all of them. i think if there's a couple things brings us together, republicans and democrats on this subcommittee, this is one of them, a couple of them. it's something a lot about. finally, mr. chairman, in light of the votes on the forthcoming i will yield back but again thank you to all of you for your testimony. >> thank the gentleman. mr. veasey, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. really appreciate it, and happy that we are here today to talk about this very important subject. i'd like to thank our witnesses for coming here to share your experiences and expertise as we talk about this very critically
important infrastructure, this wireless infrastructure that too important for our future. i wanted to ask ms. stempfley come in your chest when he discussed the need to manage risk across the entire global chain regarding wireless infrastructure including manufacturing and integration of supply chain. currently the only other major suppliers of 5g networking equipment are huawei, zte, gnocchi in, ericsson and all of those are foreign companies. as i understand it there are no major u.s. producers of this telecom technology. secure and trusted communications networks act will mandate no federal funds can use for communications equipment and serve an unacceptable risk to national security. given that lynwood and lack of u.s. producers telecom equipment, what manufacturer can we use to ensure we will not
face the same issue later on after the risk equipment has been removed and replaced? >> i appreciate the question. unfortunately, that is not really my area of expertise and i could only speculate. i regret that i'm not in a position to talk about the suppliers in the market. >> okay. are there any, anybody can answer this one. are there any u.s. producers of this equipment that can pick up the slack that will be created in the market by prohibiting certain foreign-made products? if so, how long do you think it would take for that producer to great enough infrastructure to replace all the equipment that is contemplated being replaced? >> if i may, i'll go back to the answer i gave a few minutes ago. it depends on, not sort of, it depends on what we have to replace. if we have to replace the radios
and the core, that's one order of magnitude. if it's just the core, that would be a little more manageable. including the ability to rehome our networks to existing chords in place for infrastructure sharing standpoint. there are some niche vendors and use that makes parts, parts of the network. one of the challenges a small company that we have is when you buy components from different vendors, it makes, it adds a level of complexity in making everything worked together that makes it almost unmanageable. it's my understanding as far as the major vendors, nokia and ericsson and even samsung has been one that's been mentioned as one that would be based on democratic country would be one that would be considered a favorite equipment or favorable.
>> in your chest when you discuss the challenges of providing wireless service to rural committees and the cost considerations of certain wireless equipment over others. he also discussed the concerns about the ability of small providers to make upgrades to facilitate next generation services in rural areas. could you give your opinion regarding whether the provisions in the secure trusted and communications networks act would delay funds and other wireless deployment to unserved and underserved communities? >> would it delay? >> yes. >> no sir. it would make it even more possible. right now i'm looking at doing even try to stay in a business or do i just get what i can for and walk away. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> tank the gentleman. the chair recognizes mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing.
mr. brenner, as you know, the share act calls for the establishment of an integrated spectrum automation enterprise strategy with at least one test bed to facilitate the sharing of spectrum by more than one federal entity. can you touch on the importance of establishing a sharing testbed? what are some of the potential consequences if the sec and ntia don't require this capability before federal entities attempt to share the same spectrum space. >> thank you, congressman, for the question. at qualcomm we constantly, passively, 24/7 we have tests going on of new technologies all over the place. largely intercampus in san diego but also around the world. our whole business is inventing new technologies and testing and testing and testing them to make sure they're going to work to
convince providers like mr. nettles that they are beneficial to be deployed, to convince vendors to deploy them. that is the approach that's been successful to establishing united states leadership in the wireless space, and having the same kind of capability occur so that the testing can occur on the federal side, i i would say wod be vital. >> you gave a good explanation of why it's important, , but wht happens if we don't do that? what are the consequences if the fcc doesn't require this capability for federal entities attempt to share that same spectrum space? >> the fcc can't require federal entities to do testing. that's what number one. number two, if no one else, sec is an independent agency, has no authority over the executive agencies, like second of august don't have that capability in the executive agencies, in what you have is what we've had for the last several decades, which
is federal governments continue to use old legacy systems and they don't have a modern wireless communications capability that we have in the commercial sector. that's bad in and of itself. the second thing that leads to is when we want to have sharing, it becomes extremely difficult because the commercial sector has state-of-the-art technology whereas the federal government has older legacy systems and were never designed for sharing. >> mr. feld, any thoughts? >> yes. i completely agree with everything mr. brenner said. i also want to stress that the enormous opportunity here for the federal government to leverage its vast economies of scale requires that there be this focused, simple testing. somebody has to be responsible for making it happen and it can't be left to the vagaries of
the agencies. we need to understand for most agencies they are not interested in spectrum policy. they are trying to get their mission accomplished, and they're trying to do it within budgets for which upgrading of equipment are testing equipment is simply not there. there is no reason to believe that these things will happen without a statutory mandate to make it occur. >> ms. stempfley, in your testimony you talked about the importance of having a full view of the dependencies and complexities of supply chains as they change moving into the future. what role does or should ntia continue to play coordinating a software or hardware bill of materials? >> i would like to commit ntia for the work they been doing on the materials. in our experience in handling risks, particularly software oriented risks that exist, , without the software materials
is causally the most effective way to understand the complexities and the nature of all the technology that exist in place. it provides the foundation to integrate material with other hardware bills of material and multimodal bills of material and would like to get you to see ntia play a a leadership role within the government. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ibg. i gave back 35 seconds and i yield back. >> the chair deb recognizes mr. soto for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. house permanent select committee on intelligence has stayed that china has quote the meats, opportunity and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes, unquote. by show fans how many of you agree with that assessment? interesting. >> sorry, i missed the question. >> the question again is, the house permanent select committee on intelligence has stated china
has quote, the means, opportunity and motive to use telecommunications companies for malicious purposes. please raise your hand if you agree with that statement. okay. it would be great to hear first from mr. brenner on why you disagree with that statement. >> yeah, congressman, thank you. it isn't that i disagree or agree. i don't have any information about china as a country, their capabilities to infect our communication system. i obviously would think that would be a horrible thing and i think the u.s. government should do everything in its disposal to make sure that doesn't happen. when you say china, another reason i didn't raise my hand is qualcomm, we sell chips to vendors, some of them are chinese vendors, and they are deploying our chips in phones in china. i have no information -- i think it's a very good thing for u.s.
leadership and i have no information obviously there are any security issues in any of our chips. i completely assure the concern if china has the capability to on united states of what the united states to do everything they can to prevent that. >> ms. stempfley, what is your opinion on that statement? >> i believe that there are a number of security risks within the infrastructure, and we should everything we can to reduce them and to make it more difficult for anyone who is means, , motive and opportunityo take advantage of us. >> there's been a growing movement within congress whether it's in the national defense authorization act or other major bills to encourage national boundaries, to encourage manufacturing of high tech equipment here in the united states, in my district we have the bridge project which is creating tamperproof sensors. mr. feld come how critical is we
continue to develop national boundaries here to develop next-generation technology in the telecommunications industry and beyond? >> we and the united states have long tradition of our leadership in this area. we want to maintain that obviously. it's very important come just us government have a role in fostering the creation of the internet and in fostering the development of many technologies in which we now have a leadership role, i think that there is a role for policy and encouraging these sort of boundaries as well. >> we have a bill with congressman floors, h.r. 575 which is encouraging with the development of 5g to adopt the prague 5g security recommendations. how many of you all by show of hands agree that we should be adopting the prague 5g security
recommendations as we develop 5g in this nation? please raise your hand. okay. i notice, ms. stempfley, you didn't -- please, , give us your opinion on that. >> i'm not familiar enough with the details of it to speak intelligently. >> sure. i'm going to yield back now. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman. so we have multiple votes on the house floor, which could keep us down there and our or maybe a little bit longer. we have pulled the membership of both sides to see if they are comfortable with waving their five minutes for questions. so if i don't hear any objections from either side, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the record. an article from zero 5g.com referenced earlier by ranking member walden, apply regarding 5g referenced earlier by ranking member walden. a letter from the international associations of fire chiefs.
without objection, so ordered. i want to thank all the witnesses for their participation in today's hearing. i want to remind members pursuant to committee rules they have ten business days to submit additional question for the record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared, and i would ask each witness to respond promptly to any such questions you may receive. at this time the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> i i, family of teachers and i think when you went to college come with the went to school to become an educated they were not thinking part of their job is going to have to be a security officer. so i can like i stated in my testimony once before, we had an army officer in my school. when you came to that moment of fight or flight, he went away. so the idea that teachers having guns would solve this issue is the same idea as giving another person a gun to solve gun violence, the issue, if you know what i'm saying. when we hear those things like two gun to protect the majority of people from one bad guy with a gun, it's kind of just unlike we're trying to turn everything individually or in this case every single teacher into an armed vigilante. that something that teachers should have to be. and also i just cannot imagine
if teachers were armed, the amount of incidents that would take place, that would be then telling the student didn't happen to be the perpetrator of the violence and to think that would just be more violence coming out of that if teachers were armed. >> you can watch this entire hearing on gun violence and school safety from the senate homeland security subcommittee hearing tonight at nine eastern on c-span. a reminder you can watch all of our programs online at c-span.org and listened with the free c-span radio app.
>> president trump spoke yesterday at the swearing in of the new chair of the joint chiefs of staff, general mark milley. vice president mike pence, outgoing joint chiefs chair general joseph dunford and defense secretary mark esper were also on hand for the ceremony at joint base myer-henderson hall in virginia. >> state your name? >> having been sworn as a tomb of the joint chiefs of staff, having been upon the tomb of joint chiefs of staff. >> do solemnly swear that i will support and defend the constitution of