[VIDEO] [AUDIO]

Sen. Cantwell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and congratulations on your nomination. Welcome to your family, all coordinated there, and this crucial role that NTIA plays in administering billions of dollars in broadband expansion and managing the use of federal spectrum. You have a good advocate next to you, who we miss having here on the committee, and we look forward to hearing from Senator Blunt in a few minutes.

Ms. Roth, I expect to have a very substantive conversation about your vision and priorities for NTIA and want to hear from you about your plans for leading this agency. You have worked on and spoken publicly about many of these issues for several years, so I expect we can have that robust discussion. The $42 billion BEAD, [Broadband], Equity, Access and [Deployment], program, I'm sure, is top of mind for many members here today, as it is for me. But just to clarify, when Senator Wicker and I were working together as the Chair and Ranking Member for this Committee we did not pass this legislation out of committee, it was worked by a group of bipartisan members on the Senate Floor.

I think it's safe to say that both Senator Wicker and I objected to that process because we thought the committee of jurisdiction should be listened to, and that there would be some haphazardness with the program as it then would be implemented. In my home state, where Microsoft has better broadband maps than the FCC, it's frustrating to my constituents, but we do not agree with Secretary Lutnick's announcement to just clear out the changes to the broadband program.

One of the proposals in the broadband program we think is being worked successfully, is the Middle Mile program by our colleagues, Senator Rosen and others, that was also sponsored by myself and the Senator from West Virginia, because we think that fiber broadband is a really good solution for lots of different reasons, certainly on the security level.

So we do believe that changes could undermine the goals of helping states achieve these goals and connect all their residents. I hope that you will commit today to allowing states to proceed, not just Washington, or states like Delaware, Nevada and Louisiana, which are ready to do shovel-ready projects, but hear from you about how you see those plans being carried out.

My concerns about delays and uncertainty of the program is that while Elon Musk and others have solutions in the marketplace, they certainly have been deployed in my state, people want to understand and make sure there are not conflicts of interest there, and want to understand how those policies and prospects are going to be dealt with.

I'm also concerned that President Trump's tariffs will impact the cost of materials and ultimately cost us more in driving up broadband costs. A new study by Price Waterhouse Coopers indicates that the proposed tariffs could cost about $126 billion or more across the technology and telecommunication sector. Ultimately, tariffs mean higher costs, and higher costs mean the dollars won't go as far.

Also, the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program is of great interest. It is critical to advancing broadband deployment on tribal lands, as well as important internet adoptions and skill rates. 19 tribes in Washington have received funds from the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program to ensure that high speed, reliable internet is affordable across tribal Indian country. So there's also about $1 billion left to award, and NTIA must expeditiously, in my opinion, award those tribal dollars.

Mr. Chairman, there's many times that this Committee and the Indian Affairs Committee go back and forth over this, and I would say that the summation of this has been a lot of frustration about telecom policy not getting carried out in Indian Country. And then there being the more directive $2 billion program that was part of the BEAD package, saying to NTIA, “No, no, you do this. We want direct accountability.” So we will want to hear about that direct accountability in Indian Country.

There are other issues that we'd like to hear about, particularly on the issue of cybersecurity and cyberattacks, including the one at SeaTac Airport and the nationwide Salt Typhoon attack. These are just only increasing in frequency.

NTIA is also responsible for managing spectrum, as you mentioned Mr. Chairman, and this job that Ms. Roth is seeking will serve as the President's Principal Advisor on these issues. I've long advocated for an evidence-based approach to spectrum management and the many challenges we face. During the first Trump Administration, the race to bring spectrum to commercial market without proper studies or interagency coordination, most notably auctioning of the C Band for 5G without coordination with the FAA. The risk of this interference and confusion that it means to grounding flights is something we need to avoid in the future.

We also need to have a clear conversation about our national security interests, and I know that this is something that Ms. Roth has had a lot of attention on, as here in the Committee we've had a discussion about middle band spectrum. So, I look forward to asking you about how we preserve our national security agenda.

That is why I believe that the NTIA Administrator on this issue is so critically important. There's a lot to do to achieve security and competitiveness for our nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Q&A

[VIDEO] [AUDIO]

Sen. Cantwell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Roth, in your testimony, you basically said a couple of times you want to make sure everybody gets covered. It's not the direct responsibility of NTIA, but do you think we should have allowed the ACP program to end?

Roth: Senator, I've been nominated to NTIA, which didn't administer the ACP. That was the FCC’s role. I agree with the goal of ensuring that broadband is affordable to all Americans.

Sen. Cantwell: So if you had your preferences, you would prefer that a program like that, even if it wasn’t ACP, you would prefer a program like that existed?

Roth: Senator, I haven't been confirmed. I don't know. I don't think that the administration has taken a position on this. I think broadband should be affordable for all Americans. It's something that requires an all of the above solution. The particular way you go about it is something that I'd be happy to work with you on.

Sen. Cantwell: Yeah, well, I don't think it has been as affordable for a segment of the population that is below, let's say $40,000 to $50,000 of income. The studies and analysis show they can't afford it, and so I think that's where the gap is, and my personal opinion is that's what we should have focused on as we were looking at BEAD.

I don't agree with the critique of the Chairman about the BEAD program in the length of time and the deployment, because basically we -- instead of letting the FCC, who I also agree wasn't doing a good enough job answering this question -- we basically said, “Okay, we're going to take it out of the hands of the FCC. And now we're going to give it to states, and now they have to set this up, and then they can get the money, and then they can start the deployment.” And that took longer.

So I personally thought we should have drilled down on this little problem, which is the affordability issue for -- you could call them late adopters, I call them just people who cannot afford broadband. And we should have focused more on that as a as a Congress, but our colleagues, who were also frustrated, Maine, Alaska, various states, very frustrated, basically said, “Oh no, we’re just going to get our states involved.”

Well, when states get involved, it becomes complex, and I also don't agree about the Starlink example of not being something to be concerned about because we had in our state -- look, Starlink deployments are very good for particular areas that, and we could see a lot more competition in the future. So we're not even ruling that out, but we had decisions made where tribal areas basically went ahead and pushed with the state to get a satellite solution, only to find that they had to have a back call out that nobody had calculated, when they made that decision to make that commitment to Starlink.

So I do think we have to have, really smart and technical people involved in this. I really do think that we have to figure out how we're going to get broadband connectivity to lower income Americans. And I hope that you will think about this for the record, about how you can commit to that because even though you're not the core entity, I do think this committee has said over time, they're kind of tired with us not having the solutions, and they want NTIA to play a larger role.

And so we're not giving you that responsibility, but we are saying they do hope that NTIA plays a larger role on broadband in general. And I think that's because they're frustrated.

So that gets me to the next question about technical expertise. You're a policy person, right? Is that -- I don't know everything about your background, but you're mostly a policy realm, right?

Roth: I think that's pretty accurate.

Sen. Cantwell: Yeah. Okay. So what do you think that you will do at NTIA to get a more technical team. The last person in your job was a very technical person. I'm not saying one thing or another about that. I'm just saying, what are you going to do to build the technical expertise under you or with you at NTIA?

Roth: Thank you, Senator. I have had the honor of working with so many technical experts at NTIA over the years, particularly in the Office of Spectrum Management, at the ITS, I look forward to working with NTIA’s distinguished career staff and working with them. It's something at the FCC as well, there were attorneys, and then there were technical experts and we all have to work together to find the right the right solution.

Sen. Cantwell: We we got into arguments with agencies. It was NOAA’s scientist versus somebody else's scientist. What is the type of expertise you think we have to get at NTIA so that we are forward leaning and building that kind of expertise that we can use to get coordination within the federal government?

Roth: Thank you. No, it's a good question. I think we need a mix of different expertise to address the tremendous challenges that we face on spectrum, on getting broadband connected. I look forward to working with your office on ensuring that we achieve these goals.

Sen. Cantwell: But you agree, if NTIA is going to play this role, which I think our committee thinks that it should, and historically, we've been moving towards this, that NTIA has to have the technical horsepower to help succeed in the policy development?

Roth: Yes, if confirmed one thing I look forward to is getting to know NTIA staff better. I've gotten to know some of them over the years, and I would welcome the opportunity to better understand NTIA’s staffing needs.

Sen. Cantwell: Well, one of the reasons I bring this up is the Chairman earlier this morning at a hearing on the fatal crash at DCA, General Braman confirmed that, despite FAA warnings, the Secret Service and Navy have been actively jamming spectrum used by aircraft collision avoidance systems at DCA. So if confirmed, you will play a vital role in that coordination process. So do you agree that national security and public safety risk, that we have to figure out how to work on these issues, and that NTIA has to help resolve these issues.

Roth: Absolutely, NTIA has to work with other federal agencies to resolve technical disagreements, to ensure that national security and public safety are protected. It's essential part of the interagency process.

Sen. Cantwell: So in that regard. Do you agree that NTIA -- well, first of all, the report that NTIA did that was about dynamic spectrum sharing, did you review that? I'm assuming you did. I can't remember if you were part of our secure brief last year on this.

Roth: I'm not immediately familiar with which particular report you're referring to. Of course, NTIA has done a lot of research on spectrum innovation that I'm familiar with.

Sen. Cantwell: So do you agree that NTIA, DoD, and other agencies must complete ongoing studies of the low gigahertz, you know, three gigahertz and seven and eight gigahertz band before making a decision to reallocate that spectrum.

Roth: If confirmed, I look forward to figuring out what the status of those studies are and learning more. I know NITA has some very accomplished technical experts that are that are working on studies, and I look forward to working with them.

Sen. Cantwell: So do you think that before we do an allocation that we should have that information?

Roth: I believe that any allocation of spectrum needs to take feasibility studies into account and ensure that our national security is protected as well as federal missions.

Sen. Cantwell: Well, I'm bringing this up because I think it was your witness, Matt Pearl, Director of [Strategic] Technology at CSIS, was at a recent hearing, and he basically said, “Yes, before we move forward.” Obviously, the Chairman does have a proposal to move forward without doing that study and analysis. So I'm just trying to understand whether you think that that's vital to do because in reality, your job is going to be the person who's going to try to help solve all this, right? So I'm just trying to get a sense of whether you are going to move from one position here, to this larger coordination position, and whether you're going to make sure that the analysis so important to DoD gets done.

Roth: Senator, I believe that national security needs to be paramount in any effort to reallocate spectrum. And spectrum studies are and interagency coordination are a huge part of that.

Sen. Cantwell: Okay, so I'm going to ask you for the record and give you a little more time to just say yes or no whether that has to be completed. I'll write it up for you. And on the three gigahertz and seven and eight, whether that has to be completed before Congress goes ahead and does the allocation.

So there's, there's a couple different ways that this could work. I mean, you certainly could write into the reconciliation bill that all that would have to be done. We're saying it has to be done and obviously, that's the that's what we accomplished in the last administration, is getting DoD and NTIA to agree.

So we'd like to see the very technical analysis that has to happen be done, given the given the complaint. So just for the record -- my colleagues have asked a lot about BEAD funding. That's great. That means I don't have to ask as much. The BEAD funding allocations under law include $3.3 billion to Texas, $405 million to Nebraska, $451 [million] to Kansas, $1.2 billion to West Virginia, $1 billion to Alaska. These are commitments that have been already committed in households. So, will you commit to preserving these allocations that NTIA made to each state in 2023, including I think about $1 billion dollars to my home state of Washington?

Roth: Senator, I will abide by the law.

Sen. Cantwell: Is your interpretation of that law, that, yes, you will go ahead and make those allocations.

Roth: I can't commit to any specific outcome, as I haven't been confirmed, but I will certainly –

Sen. Cantwell: You're saying you don't know what the administration is going to do, is that what you're saying?

Roth: I haven't been confirmed yet. I haven't had an opportunity to look into this issue yet, but I, I will absolutely –

Sen. Cantwell: Well you know the policy, though. You do know the policy, right? You know that was our intent, and the money has now been allocated. So it's a question of whether you think that those commitments made in 2023 should be upheld.

Roth: If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing those allocations and ensuring that the program is compliant with the law. I will always abide by the law, Senator, and I look forward to working with you on the BEAD program.

Sen. Cantwell: Thank you. I would have liked a stronger commitment, but we'll get back to you on the three gigahertz in a written answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Cruz: Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I will note that Senator Cantwell mentioned my pipeline legislation, said it did not require a feasibility study. Under the terms of the legislation, it actually directs the interagency to identify 600 megahertz that can be made available to the private sector and to engage in that interagency discussion. And that includes, necessarily, a technical and feasibility study. What it doesn't do is give DoD the ability to slow walk studies into eternity and block spectrum from being made available for job creation and to ensure that America beats China in 5G and 6G.

I will also note earlier that that Senator Markey, somewhat oddly, claimed that that the Biden Administration's partisan and political blacklisting of Starlink because they dislike Elon Musk, which had the consequence of denying many Americans broadband connectivity, he claimed it was somehow consistent with the statute.

I just want to read into the record the language of the statute 47 USC 1705, 2,  Section Four, which reads “Covered broadband project. The term ‘covered broadband project’ means a competitively and technologically neutral project for the deployment of fixed broadband service that provides qualifying broadband service in an eligible service area.”

So that was written directly into the statute that it was meant to be technologically neutral. And if Elon Musk had decided to be a ginormous Democrat donor, I have no doubt that the Biden Administration would have pulled out a pinata and celebrated Starlink providing broadband, but because he was on the other side politically, the American people paid the price and didn't get connected to the internet.

Sen. Cantwell: Mr. Chairman, if I could just on this issue, I think your example this morning at an earlier committee hearing, we do have interference, and it does affect the safety of aviation and could affect the safety of other things.

And so I just hope that we will get to this point where we're working to make America competitive by having the dynamic spectrum sharing and the best expertise as a nation, but trying to put one cart in front of the other without answering those technical questions is a big concern, I think for a lot of people here.

Listen, Starlink, as I mentioned, is providing service in my state and doing so in in great capacity, but I do think that states -- I'm not as big a personal fan of what happened because we moved the technical expertise from a very technical group of people, albeit they weren't moving fast enough, the FCC, to another group of people at states. And then they also didn't necessarily answer some of these questions.

So I do think that communities need to know what they're getting, and they need to know that the solution, particularly on fiber, that they may need to have down to have their data also transferred out of the community, is an important point.

So I think the safe to say, we're going to have a lot of conversations about spectrum, about broadband, and continuing this, but I really hope that that these various sectors would work together. I do believe in the CHIPS and Science Act. I do believe that one of the competitive things for our nation is to get deployment, but also get national security. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sen. Cruz: And it is certainly right that we have to do these technically correct. I will note that we had interference at DCA because the Navy screwed up and didn't listen to the FAA, and that that is not how this is supposed to operate.