Securing U.S. Leadership of Communications Technology

Subcommittee will come to order. The chair recognizes himself for an opening statement. First, I want to apologize for being a couple minutes late. I had some fire chiefs show up that weren't on my schedule, but they're from the district, so I had to say hello. And I apologize for starting four minutes late. Good afternoon and welcome to today's bipartisan subcommittee hearing examining strategies for the U.S. to lead the future of communications technology. This subcommittee has jurisdiction over the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA, and the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. Both are integral to our nation's spectrum management policies. The FCC also plays a critical role in overseeing the communications industry. In addition to these domestic agencies, there's also international treaties, meetings, and bodies that help establish global rules that govern these services. The International Telecommunication Union, ITU, is the United Nations agency responsible for international coordination of communications services. The ITU manages a global table of spectrum allocations reflecting international agreement on identified uses of spectrum frequencies across the world. The ITU also allocates satellite orbits. The ITU meets every four years to set its strategy for the next four and hold elections for the organization's five top officials, the 48-seat council membership, and 12 Radio Regulation Board members. The ITU also holds the World Radiocommunication Conference every four years to review and update international treaties governing spectrum and satellite orbits. The WRC-27 is expected to cover a variety of topics, including discussions to identify additional spectrum bands for International Mobile Telecommunications, IMT, service. WRC-27 will also feature a number of important agenda items related to the satellite services. The satellite industry has been in a period of robust growth and innovation over the last decade, with the U.S. companies leading much of the world in these developments. Satellite technology plays an increasingly important role in our communications infrastructure, including broadband and other critical services. Satellite communications services have also been transformational for our first responders. In my home state of North Carolina, when Hurricane Helene devastated terrestrial-based infrastructure, satellite was able to bridge the gap and keep first responders connected. Demand for these services has resulted in the deployment of thousands of new satellites. Satellite-based services are a global enterprise, and these deployments require close coordination with the ITU and other countries. Our nation is the world's economic powerhouse, and we lead the world in innovation. The United States is home to the world's best technology companies. These companies have led in the creation of new devices and services that we rely on every day. On our committee, we are working in a bipartisan way to ensure we continue to lead in new technologies of tomorrow. China wants to surpass the U.S. as the global technology leader. Under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, China has subsidized and stolen technology across a wide range of industries, including communications technologies. CCP-affiliated companies like Huawei have exported communications equipment around the world, giving support to the CCP's espionage activities. The CCP also seeks to sideline the United States in international telecommunication and technology standard bodies. If successful, our allies and partners around the world may increasingly turn to CCP-linked entities for telecommunications and satellite solutions and digital services. This is bad for American business, bad for Americans who rely on these devices and services for their daily lives, and ultimately undermines our economic and national security. The CCP notched another win in this column last year when the ITU announced it would hold the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference, WRC-27, in Shanghai, China. As the host country, China will serve as chair of the conference, allowing the CCP to steer these critical discussions. Given this, the U.S. should be an active participant in all upcoming ITU engagements. As I mentioned, WRC-27 will consider a number of agenda items related to communications services, including spectrum allocations. Key decisions will be made at these meetings to establish technical rules for communications technologies. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about what is at stake in these upcoming engagements and what success looks like for the United States. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentlelady from California, for her opening statement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad we're holding this hearing today on a deeply bipartisan priority, ensuring the United States is ready to lead at the next World Radiocommunication Conference. For many people, the WRC may sound far removed from everyday life, but the decisions made there have some very real consequences for America's economy, national security, innovation ecosystem, and ability to shape the rules for communications technology on the world stage. The WRC is where countries come together to update the global rules that govern spectrum and satellite orbits. Those rules help determine how nations coordinate, how a variety of advanced technologies, from Wi-Fi to 6G to satellites, grow and compete worldwide, and whether open, democratic countries like ours will continue to lead. Quite simply, if the United States isn't helping write those rules, someone else will, and we all know China is eager to fill that vacuum. That's why this process matters so much. When the United States comes to the table prepared, aligned, and working closely with our allies, we can be incredibly effective. We can rally support around a shared vision rooted in openness, transparency, innovation, and the rule of law. And getting this right matters even more as AI becomes increasingly embedded in the technologies people rely on every single day. AI is being integrated into our devices, our networks, and the communications systems that power our economy. That means the infrastructure decisions we make today will shape how securely and effectively those technologies develop for years to come. If the United States wants to lead in AI, we also have to lead in the communications foundations that support it. That's why we can't afford to wait until the last minute to build consensus. We need serious interagency coordination, early engagement with allies, and a clear sense of our priorities well before WRC-2027 begins. As a co-chair of the Spectrum Caucus, I've long believed that spectrum policy is about more than any single piece of technology. It's about whether America has a durable, forward-looking strategy to stay competitive in a rapidly changing world. The importance of WRC discussions go beyond communications here on the ground. Satellite issues will make up 80 percent of the conference agenda, and America's leadership in space is one of our great strategic advantages. Our satellite companies are driving innovation, expanding connectivity, and helping define the future of global communications. We should be making sure international rules support U.S. leadership, not undermine it. To put a finer point on it, WRC-2027 will be held in Shanghai. That alone should focus our attention. The United States can't be scrambling to catch up when China works to shape the field around us. So today, I hope we can focus on what it will take for the United States to succeed: early preparation, strong diplomacy, coordinated agenda setting, and a commitment to entering WRC-2027 with one voice. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to the discussion. With that, I yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for five minutes for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Hudson. I appreciate you holding this important bipartisan hearing on strategies to ensure the USA leadership in communications technologies. In recent months, we've heard from previous participants and industry stakeholders about the need for strong U.S. participation in the International Telecommunication Union meetings and elections this year as well as the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference. And this is a bipartisan hearing working on together. Ranking Member Pallone and I both sent a together a letter to President Trump highlighting the strategic importance of U.S. participation in these fora, these forums, and requesting an update on the administration's strategy for these engagements. And my, can't go without my good friend the ranking member, Ms. Matsui. We've worked together on spectrum for quite a bit, making sure we have that spectrum to win the battle for communications in the future. But the CCP-controlled, the Communist Party-controlled Chinese government has put significant effort into building its influence in international institutions, including the ITU. Coupled with the ITU's decision to hold the World Radio Conference 27 in Shanghai, the PRC is going into these meetings with an advantage and specific intention of boxing out American interests. Governments and industry are understandably concerned about the risk of attending the WRC. Nevertheless, U.S. participation is essential to maintain American global leadership. So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about what the U.S. needs to do to be successful at these upcoming international engagements and ultimately how we maintain our competitive edge against adversaries like the Chinese. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member, for five minutes for his opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today the subcommittee continues its important oversight of our communications networks by ensuring that our country and communications companies are actively participating on the global stage to shape the international policies that will develop the next generation of innovative technologies, including artificial intelligence. And these global policies are decided through a United Nations agency called the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU. And this agency has done tremendous work in its 160-year-old history to ensure seamless connectivity across the world and to help connect those who are unconnected. Our ability to easily call friends and family living abroad, to use the same phone when we travel across borders, or to rely on satellite broadband in even the most remote locations is all thanks to the work of the ITU. Now, given the ITU's role in shaping global communications policy, it's critical that the United States, as one of the 194 member states, must continue to actively engage with this body. The ITU's current Secretary-General, Doreen Bogdan-Martin, is a very qualified American with a distinguished career at the ITU. She's also from my home county of Monmouth in New Jersey, so I'm prejudiced. She's up for reelection later this year, and we must strongly support her candidacy. Also, the ITU will hold the World Radiocommunication Conference, WRC-27, next year, and during this conference, the ITU member states will make several decisions impacting both the wireless and satellite industries. Given this, both the elections and the WRC-27 are clearly important, as they collectively will establish the ITU's leadership for the next four years and set policies that will either help or hamper America's standing in the global communications marketplace. Now, unfortunately, in recent years, we've seen our foreign adversaries, as mentioned by my colleagues, we've seen our foreign adversaries try to use bodies like the ITU to sideline the United States and our allies by shaping global communication policy decisions to benefit their countries and their companies, like Huawei. And I suspect we'll see similar behavior during the ITU's elections this year and at the WRC-27 next year. And that's why Chairman Guthrie and I sent a letter last week to the president asking for a briefing on the administration's efforts to prepare for these upcoming engagements. The U.S. must have an agenda heading into these forums that is unified and aligned with our priorities so that we can secure our country's dominance in information and communications technology for years to come. And among other things, this agenda must support the reelection, as I said, of the Secretary-General as well as all the other Americans running for ITU leadership positions, and it matters who is in charge. And as history has shown us, early adopters and developers of technology define the marketplace. They drive innovation, and they reap economic benefits, and so we have to continue to lead. But for the United States to be successful, we have to maintain strong ties with our allies, and that's something I'm very concerned about right now, especially with a president's war in Iran. These ties are important because each country at the ITU retains one vote. We'll not be able to enact our agenda unless we work with other countries and gain their support. And therefore, the head of our delegation must exhibit strong diplomatic skills and identify our top objectives while also understanding where we can compromise. We know our country will not be immune at the ITU from its larger foreign policy decisions, so we'll need to be strategic to successfully achieve our policy priorities. And finally, I appreciate how challenging it will be for government and industry representatives to attend the WRC-27 given the conference's location in Shanghai. Sadly, this is another indication of just how much our adversaries want to control the agenda in this global arena. And therefore, it will be imperative for the U.S. to negotiate strong protections for itself and our allies through the host country agreement with China. Among other things, we have to ensure that there are strong safety protections in place so that we can have robust participation from government officials and private sector delegates. So the decisions, as we said, made at WRC-27 will help shape the next decade or more of technology policy, so we have to take our seat at the table and make sure we have a lot of people behind us. So I look forward to today's hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Thank you. We've now concluded with member opening statements. The chair will remind members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses will have five minutes to provide an opening statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from members. The witnesses here before us today are Ambassador Steve Lang, senior advisor at Crest Hill Advisors; Fiona Alexander, distinguished policy strategist in residence in the School of International Service at American University; George John, a partner at global regulatory at Hogan Lovells; and Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Space Federation. Thank you all for being here. Ambassador Lang, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you very much, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to share my perspectives on this important topic. I had the honor of leading our delegation to the 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference and recently retired from the State Department after a 30-year career serving under five presidents. I'm honored to testify today on my own behalf based on those experiences and not on behalf of the clients of Crest Hill Advisors. The World Radiocommunication Conference may be the most consequential international negotiation that most people have never heard of. At the WRC, ITU members negotiate updates to the international radio regulations, a treaty-level instrument that allocates and harmonizes radio frequency spectrum to enable new services, prevent interference, and promote interoperability. As you know, spectrum is a finite resource, and with the rapid advancement of ever more data-intensive technologies and the accelerating growth of mobile and wireless devices, it is increasingly precious to an ever-growing number of industries, government agencies, scientists, and consumers. Radio frequency spectrum harmonization through the WRC has allowed industries ranging from mobile phones to Wi-Fi to achieve global economies of scale, driving billions in investment. It ensures our military that its radar and communications systems can operate reliably and without interference, and increasingly, the WRC is critical to unlocking the space economy from new satellite technologies to a human presence on the moon. Like other multilateral bodies, the ITU and WRC are flawed, but there is no other mechanism that can realistically open global markets to wireless services. Private companies can join the ITU as sector members and participate in the WRC, an unusual feature for a UN organization that has worked to our advantage. The stakes are high. China is aggressively promoting its approach to digital technology around the world, an approach that uses technology to restrict speech and repress dissent. It has targeted the ITU as a venue for expanding its global technology reach. That's why it was a significant blow to U.S. interests when the ITU Council voted to accept China's offer to host WRC-27 in Shanghai. A Chinese official will now be the presumptive chair for the conference, and information security will be a serious concern. But these potential obstacles must not deter us. They should drive the United States to recommit to winning at the WRC. China's offer to host in the first place was motivated in part by the successful U.S. effort in 2022 to replace the Chinese Secretary General of the ITU with Doreen Bogdan-Martin, a uniquely qualified American citizen and former Department of Commerce official. China's offer to host the WRC was aimed at reasserting its influence. With advanced preparation and planning, effective leadership, and a high-level commitment to success, the United States can achieve all of its objectives at WRC-27. I believe there are four critical steps that the U.S. government must take to win. First, keep the pressure on China. China won the vote to host by a narrow margin of only 25 votes of the 48 ITU Council members, and its legitimacy as host is already in question. We must continue to hold China accountable and press like-minded partners to do the same while urging the ITU to do so in its negotiation of the host country agreement. Second, accelerate U.S. preparations. The U.S. delegation in the past has too often been disadvantaged by delays in developing U.S. positions. Senior leadership of U.S. agencies, including the FCC, Departments of Commerce, Defense, and State, need to commit with White House support to developing U.S. positions as quickly as possible. Third, build coalitions early. We cannot win this contest without friends and allies who share our priorities and are committed to standing up to opposition. The earlier we start building those coalitions through persistent high-level diplomatic engagement, the more successful we'll be. And finally, identify leadership now and build the right team. I understand that the administration has been working to identify the head of delegation for WRC-27, and I hope we'll see an announcement soon. The sooner that happens, the better. It will also be essential to make sure that he or she has the right team in place and is fully resourced to engage diplomatically on a global scale. The ITU is far from perfect, and the WRC is frustrating and often difficult. However, with a high-level commitment to action now, the United States can emerge from WRC-27 stronger and more competitive in the global tech race. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Ms. Alexander, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Good afternoon, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on securing U.S. leadership of communications technology. While I'm currently affiliated with American University, I previously spent nearly 20 years at NTIA where I worked extensively on ITU matters. Imagine your typical congressional session week. You use the inflight Wi-Fi to stay connected, your staff sends you updates on your schedules and votes, constituents contact your office for assistance, you do a live nationwide TV interview, and you get in your car and rely on the navigation system to get you safely to your evening's events. None of this happens without the work done at the ITU, making the ITU the most important organization most people have never heard of and an institution critical to the national and economic security of the United States. While many are focused on the 2027 World Radio Conference given its importance to spectrum and space issues, it's equally important not to lose sight of this year's ITU Plenipotentiary meeting in November. Work at the ITU is continuous. What happens at one meeting impacts the next, and one of the biggest risks to U.S. success at WRC next year is an unsuccessful Plenipotentiary this year. Success at the ITU is years in the making. It requires long-term planning, endless preparation, and sustained engagement with allies. With that in mind, I offer four specific actions for consideration. First, assemble our team. The key to success at both meetings is strong, committed political leadership willing to take an all-hands-on-deck approach. It's encouraging that the Trump administration has nominated NTIA Deputy Assistant Secretary Adam Cassidy to be the Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy. His swift Senate confirmation is needed so clear policy goals can be articulated and understood by all. Additionally, appropriate resources across relevant U.S. government agencies must be secured. All agencies have lost key personnel through retirements and downsizing. Compounding this, the U.S. has constrained itself by limiting delegation size and the participation of contractors and lobbyists, something no other country does. These restrictions should be revisited if the U.S. is to truly adopt the all-hands-on-deck mentality needed to succeed. Second, have a plan. The plan needs goals that serve as North Stars and policy positions against which the U.S. can negotiate. A robust interagency process with meaningful input from U.S. industry and stakeholders must be established early so that disputes can be elevated to senior levels and thoughtful decisions made in a timely manner. When the delegation arrives on the ground, parochial agency and industry concerns must be set aside. It has to be one team, Team USA. Third, know your audience. Just as legislation requires negotiating committee processes and building cosponsors, the ITU requires similar coalition building across regions. For the United States, this means working through CITEL, the regional group for the Americas. Sustained effort must go into securing regional positions and working with allies and partners. Beyond CITEL, issue-specific allies can often be found in surprising places if genuine engagement is made. Finally, play a complete game. Just as in the congressional process, if you want to be able to influence the outcome, you must have a seat at the table. In Congress, those are conference committee assignments. In the ITU, it's by submitting proposals. There's always a package deal to be made. The same as legislating, nothing is final until everything is final, and you want to be in the game until the end. Reflexively rejecting certain phrases or concepts could take us out of the conversation entirely. Successful ITU campaigns also require every country at every opportunity for support, engaging not just telecom agencies and foreign affairs departments, but defense agencies and presidential offices in national capitals worldwide and at embassies here in Washington. This is exactly what made our campaign for Doreen Bogdan-Martin to become the director of the ITU's Development Bureau a success. And on a personal note, Doreen's election is one of my proudest moments as a U.S. government employee. Political leadership in the first Trump administration, David Redl, Ajit Pai, and Rob Strayer, set aside agency differences, aligned on a common goal, divided up the world, and went to work together. That's what it'll take to secure her second term as Secretary General and for the U.S. to be successful at WRC. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Congressional engagement tells the world there's a strong unified support from all quarters of the U.S. government for wins across the ITU, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Mr. John, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is George John. As mentioned earlier, I am a partner at a law firm called Hogan Lovells in their communications, internet, and media practice group. In addition to that, I was recently appointed as the chair of the federal advisory committee over at the FCC that handles WRC matters. All that said, I am testifying in my own personal capacity today, and these are my own views. So with that context, it's important to remember what's at stake here. Every time a satellite takes a picture of the Earth, a phone or computer connects to wireless broadband, or a plane navigates safely, they all depend on the rules established at the ITU. When that framework stays clear, technically grounded, and timely, innovation scales and deployment accelerates. When it becomes outdated and fragmented, interference risks increase, equipment and manufacturing costs rise, investment slows, and strategic leverage can shift to our rivals. So that's why we have the ITU Plenipotentiary, as mentioned, and the World Radiocommunication Conference to ensure that these frameworks best suit American interests now and going forward. So the Plenipotentiary is very important. It's the ITU's governance conference. It's where we're going to be selecting top leadership, we're going to be setting budgets and strategy that make very, very important outcomes for how the next cycle of the ITU will work, and in my personal belief, will be a good counterbalance to what China and others are trying to do internationally. The twin pillar to that is the WRC. And the WRC is the treaty-level rulemaking conference. That's where we're going to actually go ahead and refresh the radio regulations that allow us to operate internationally. It's where we're going to establish sharing compatibility conditions and the various procedures that manufacturers, operators, and regulators will be abiding by going forward. So the reality is that international outcomes are largely set through years of preparation, not only during final conference sessions in 2026 at the Plenipotentiary or 2027 at the WRC. And so I will gift you all with some recommendations as we go through our testimony today, but I wanted to make a few observations based off of recent ITU cycles and three specifically. The first is the Plenipotentiary and the WRC really have to be active multi-year campaigns and much of the decisive work really needs to be completed today, not at the end of this year or not next year. The second thing is we need to prioritize outcomes that really do modernize the ITU radio regulations and are accommodating these evolving and emerging technologies, but we're ensuring that the incumbents are properly protected. While we're doing this, I think it's very important going forward to start actually looking at the underlying technical study assumptions that we're using in a timely manner and making sure that those are grounded in actual sound engineering principles and evaluating them against any of the existing interference protection criteria. And we should actually consider potentially incorporating them into our studies for this upcoming cycle to make sure that we are actually making the most efficient use of spectrum as mandated by Congress for both the FCC and NTIA as well as our mandate at the ITU. And so if we were to use any type of new study assumptions, they would have to be grounded in technical justification as well as consensus. And the last observation is we do need sustained congressional involvement here and I appreciate the letters that have gone out in the fall of this year or last year, excuse me, and as well as two or three weeks ago. And in addition to that, some of this oversight would preferably be non-public, could be in terms of roundtables or other interactions that staff might have with industry. It also would be check-ins with the relevant agencies to make sure that we are hitting milestones and those milestones are not next year, they are this year. And so I thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement and I really do appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to securing America's technological future and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Mr. Cavossa, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Thank you, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to speak on behalf of the commercial space industry and the Commercial Space Federation. While I feel like a novice or a rookie sitting at this table when it comes to the ITU, the WRC, Plenipot, CITEL, I think I'm probably one of the experts when it comes to the impact those organizations and those deliberations are going to have on the commercial space and satellite industry that I represent at CSF. CSF is the trade association representing the U.S. commercial space and satellite industry. Our members represent every sector of the space economy including launch and reentry, remote sensing, spaceports, satellite communications, in-space research and manufacturing, commercial space stations, data centers in space, space solar power, and space situational awareness. Space companies are already providing direct-to-cell connectivity and internet service to locations difficult to reach with wired technologies throughout the world today. And soon, space solar power providers will be beaming down energy to the earth to supplement our grid and data centers will be moving into space to help relieve some of the energy and natural resource consumption issues we're seeing here on earth today. Commercial space is essential for establishing a lunar base and manufacturing materials in space and will improve life on earth. The only limit to U.S. commercial space innovation are physics, red tape, and access to spectrum. Space services all require a pipeline of low, mid, and high-band spectrum and each band plays a unique role in satellite connectivity. In the U.S., the FCC and NTIA must manage spectrum access to promote efficient communications and continued innovation. Both are actively modernizing outdated rules and delivering spectrum abundance for satellites and as Chairman Carr recently called it, weird space stuff. The FCC's groundbreaking regulatory and space modernization efforts are designed to root out and replace outdated and overly restrictive rules with bold action to adopt modern, efficient spectrum sharing rules that promote U.S. companies first and foremost. CSF applauds these actions as well as those included in the Senate's SAT Streamlining Act that supports growth in the American commercial space industry. To win in the global space race, however, regulatory innovation cannot end at the U.S. coastline. As the committee is aware, the deliberations for the WRC are critical to the future of the U.S. commercial space industry and over 80 percent of this upcoming WRC agenda is focused on satellite and space issues. While many agenda items seek to modernize outdated and overprotective rules, incumbents and foreign adversaries are seeking to block reforms and impose new harmful restrictions. It is essential that America has a strong, unified voice for the WRC and this is supported by a recent Trump administration executive order on space superiority that includes a priority to, quote, "demonstrate spectrum leadership across space applications to promote United States technology competitiveness, spectrum management efficiency, and global market access." Congress has repeatedly directed U.S. agencies to promote American innovation and efficient communication both domestically and abroad and to fulfill their mandates, the FCC and NTIA must take a first principles approach to WRC. CSF urges the entire U.S. delegation to adopt positions that reflect the following key principles. Number one, requiring WRC-27 preparatory studies to reflect modern capabilities, real-world assumptions, and sound engineering. Number two, modernizing or removing outdated, inefficient, and overprotective interference protection criteria. And number three, enabling us to rapidly innovate, deploy, and compete by promoting global harmonization of innovative U.S. spectrum sharing frameworks. I have included CSF's specific consensus recommendations in our written testimony, but I want to conclude by summarizing the stakes involved. A strong pro-innovation U.S. strategy at the ITU is necessary as our international competitors, particularly China, are working to advance their own space capabilities to compete with the United States. As CSF illustrated in our recent Redshift report, China has decided that space and AI are two of the areas that they want to be global leaders on and unseat the United States in those roles and WRC is one step in the direction that they're going to take to do that. Thank you all for inviting me again here today and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much. We'll now begin questioning and I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. Cavossa, I appreciate your testimony, enjoyed reading your written testimony. Can you talk a little bit more though about what happens to American satellite companies in the U.S. if we opt to not actively participate in these upcoming engagements?

Sure, thank you for the question. When it comes to sort of space and satellite communications providers, we are inherently global players, right? We're not just serving one country. The business case in space and satellite closes most effectively when we can serve dozens or hundreds of countries. And the ITU tends to be the leader that most other countries use to set their domestic regulation and policy around spectrum. So it's very important that the U.S. push forward our positions that are pro-satellite, pro-space at the ITU and the WRC because it impacts so many other countries and how they set up their standards going forward.

And so how does this impact consumers here in the United States?

I mean, the easiest way to think about it as it was noted I think in several of the opening remarks is that space and satellite are integral to your everyday life right now and the Chinese are standing up and other countries are standing up competitors to U.S. satellite and space companies and there's very much a coordinated strategy and investment to push those companies forward to beat the likes of SpaceX and Starlink and Blue Origin and Rocket Lab and other U.S. companies. So it's imperative for the U.S. consumer that those U.S. companies maintain a leadership role, otherwise Chinese companies could take that on and I'm not sure that's where we want to be communicating through.

Well, I agree with you. I don't think U.S. consumers want to have the only option being Chinese satellite companies, so I agree with you on that. This week, I sent a letter to Secretary Rubio along with my colleague Mark Veasey and a group of bipartisan members highlighting the role the U.S. government, including our diplomats, can play in getting our partners and allies to take seriously threats to their communications infrastructure posed by untrusted equipment. Mr. John, can you talk about why letting China lead, you mentioned this, but expound upon why letting China lead at ITU and WRC can further entrench CCP-affiliated network equipment?

Sure, appreciate your efforts on this front. So if China is leading in these global communications standards development efforts, right, its companies are going to be the ones that benefit and they're the ones that are going to be developing the standards and the equipment and everything else that goes through with it. And so that creates this type of long-term lock-in that reduces competition and increases reliance on these Chinese vendors and that's not good. And the analogy I was thinking of is if one country drives the plug shape and the voltage assumptions, right, all the manufacturers are going to build to that standard first and everyone else ends up buying adapters or rebuilding later. It's inherently inefficient.

So the world buys products made somewhere other than the U.S. is what you're saying. Exactly. Ambassador Lang, is there anything you would like to add about the work the department plays in these conversations, I guess from a State Department point of view?

Yes, the State Department actually leads and coordinates the effort for all of our engagement with the ITU. We have sort of a two-pronged process when it comes to preparations for the WRC specifically. We have the FCC coordinating industry stakeholders and NTIA coordinating the views of federal users and then State Department oversees that process as it comes together and then leads our diplomatic engagement.

That's very helpful. Mr. John, going back to you, in your testimony you talked about why the ITU and WRC-27 are important to our industry. Can you drill down, talk about how this impacts Americans in their daily lives? I think we've all kind of touched on this in your testimony, but if you're an American sitting home watching this hearing, what's the bottom line for you if we don't participate, if we allow the CCP to write policy and dominate these conferences?

What we'll see is less innovation, less competition, higher prices for consumers, and all that is a no-go.

It all sounds bad to me. Thank you very much. I will now recognize ranking member on the subcommittee, Ms. Matsui, for five minutes for your questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Shanghai hosting WRC-27 creates real challenges. We all know China is not just another host country, it's a strategic competitor whose influence as host raises serious concerns about information security and broader strategy and efforts to shape the field to its advantage. Ambassador Lang, how can the United States most effectively hold China accountable in its management of the conference?

Well, thank you very much for that question. I think it's a very important one. The United States, first of all, we need to work with the ITU as it negotiates the host country agreement and make sure that that agreement includes every kind of guarantee that we can possibly think of that we might need. As we go into the conference, the delegation will need to be aggressive and persistent in making sure that it's in every conversation, every consequential conversation that's taking place in the conference and that it's not shut out of any negotiating sessions. I think that we will want to make sure that we're using the steering committee for the conference. There is a steering committee that works with the chairman to oversee that. Traditionally, the United States has been a member of that steering committee. We want to make sure that we're on it again and that we work closely with our allies and partners throughout this process to make sure they're delivering the same message about their concerns. Need to make sure we're keeping a close eye on China. We need to have our legal advisor there on the ground and keep in touch with the ITU and its legal advisor and basically just be on top of China the whole time.

So it's a lot of preparation and management, right? Okay. For the United States to succeed at WRC, we need trusted partners, we need regional support, and we need to build those relationships long before the conference begins. Ms. Alexander, from your experience, what does effective coalition building actually look like? And where should the U.S. be investing its diplomatic energy right now?

Microphone, yeah. Thank you very much for the question and the opportunity to answer. From my experience in doing this, it's all the hard work that we've been talking about. It's showing up, it's making your decisions on priorities, it's engaging with your friends and allies, it's finding partnerships where you can find them. I'll tell you for my team and my staff, not just for ITU treaty conferences, but for every international organization that we participate in, every meeting small or big, my staff had a call sheet and they had to call people ahead of the meeting and understand where are you, what's important for you this meeting. And a lot of times issues that matter to friends and allies weren't top of mind for us, but we could find ways to work with them. So it's important that the staff and the teams do that now and do that quickly. In the context of where is it important to prioritize, obviously for the ITU, CITEL is critical because we do submit proposals through that regional group. But we're also running for election at Plenipot and we're running Doreen for ITU Secretary-General, running Jennifer Warren for Radio Regulations Board, and we're running for a seat on the ITU Council. So that means the United States has to engage everyone everywhere because the voting in the ITU is through a paper ballot through a box that comes from Geneva and you deliver your paper ballot in a clear box. You get called up country by country in French alphabetical order. So you have to put in the work to get these election results. So you have to talk to everyone and you need to do it now.

Okay, it's a lot of personal engagements. Okay. I've long believed that the United States government needs to speak with one voice on spectrum policy. If we fail to do that going into WRC-27, we risk undercutting our own advocacy, weakening our ability to build coalitions, and giving China more room to shape the outcome. Ambassador Lang, where do you see the biggest choke points in the United States interagency process today? And what would you recommend to ensure we're developing positions early enough to be effective abroad?

Thank you very much for the question. I think that our system actually has a lot of strengths. It has robust stakeholder input which I think is to our advantage. The problem is that it can be slow and that especially when we get to tough issues, it can take more time to resolve them. So I think what's important is to identify what are those tough issues that are going to be difficult to reconcile, make sure they get elevated to higher levels quickly and that they get senior level attention at our agencies and that they prioritize sorting them out as quickly as possible.

Okay. Quickly, Mr. Cavossa, I know I don't have much time here, but your testimony links satellite modernization to next generation wireless including direct-to-device communications to reach people in emergencies. How should the United States approach WRC in a way that supports both our ground-based wireless technologies and our commercial space leadership rather than forcing these priorities into separate silos? I have 14 seconds.

In 12 seconds.

You have time to answer.

Okay. Positions that are focused on administration policy, sound engineering, reflect modern technologies that have been introduced and real-world assumptions.

Okay. Well, thank you very much and I yield back.

Thank you. Now recognize Mr. Guthrie for five minutes to ask your questions.

Thank you, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And this is first for Ms. Alexander and then Ambassador Lang would add. So Doreen Bogdan-Martin is running for reelection of Secretary-General of the ITU. There are also other Americans running for positions. Why is it important to have Americans in these roles, in these leadership positions? And if you and Ambassador Lang would answer that. Why is it important to have Americans in these roles?

Sure, I'm happy to go first. Thank you very much for the question. And I will just say that leadership starts at the top in every institution, whether it's here in Congress or in the administration, and the ITU is no different. So it's important to have someone in these positions that shares our values and that shares our agenda and what we're working for in terms of innovation and economic growth. Doreen in her first term as Secretary-General has made a lot of progress in trying to make the ITU more accountable, provide some auditing and provide some oversight. And it's important that we have that and we have that continue.

I really don't have too much to add. I would just underscore the importance of sound management of the organization. Doreen has taken some important steps to strengthen that management and to make it more transparent. Transparency is something that we very much lacked when a Chinese citizen was head of the organization.

Okay, thank you. This is also Ms. Alexander if you'll go first on the next question and Mr. John if you'll have anything to add. So several of you have mentioned the importance of relationships and working with partners and allies in advance of ITU meetings this year and the WRC-27. At the same time, work is ongoing with U.S. government to develop our official positions. And Ms. Alexander, can you talk about how, about why U.S. participation is still essential at this stage and how these engagements can be productive? And Mr. John, if you'd comment too.

Sure. So again, the ITU and all the components of it are always meeting. There's always a conference. And our region is CITEL, there are other regions and we can go to those conferences and those meetings as well. So it's important to show up, it's important to understand what other countries are trying to pursue, it's important to understand how what they're trying to pursue might impact what you're trying to pursue. You need all this intelligence and you need all this information to develop your strategy once you decide what your clear positions are.

Yeah, if we were to consider this like a trial, you just don't show up to the closing argument, you got to develop the record beforehand. And so we have a dual track process that occurs in the three to four year cycle before a WRC and also the Plenipot. And so if we focus on just the WRC, the working party process I'd mentioned my opening or my written statement, that's where the technical studies are actually conducted. And that's where we try to drive results that lead to conclusions that allow us to develop the regulatory text, the potential no change or the potential changes to the actual radio regulations. And so in parallel with that, there's the second track which we reference as the CITEL track. And that's where the FCC has its WAC process and the NTIA has its RCS process. And that is where we take those technical study results and try to actually concoct the regional, or excuse me, the regulatory text, right? And we'll have a U.S. proposal and that U.S. proposal has to then we have to build a coalition around it. And that's why we go to CITEL and try to get other North, Central, South American administrations, specifically at least five of them, to actually join our particular U.S. proposal and that gets sent to the ITU. And so something that I thought that was helpful yesterday, one of our industry colleagues said at the Senate hearing is, yes, America first, but cannot be America alone. And that's very important to highlight.

All right, thank you. And I'll ask this for you again, Mr. John, then for the panel if you'd like to comment. As you know, work remains to reach consensus among industry and our federal stakeholders. Can you talk about how China views these international engagements and forums and why it's important that the U.S. and our partners, why it's important for our U.S. and partners to offer alternatives to adversary-led positions? And what's at stake? Kind of what's at stake in this if you'll start and the rest until we run out of time. Mr. John.

Sure. So China is very involved, not only at the ITU, but 3GPP and the various standard setting bodies. And in addition to that, it builds wide coalitions, whether it be its peers in Asia or other countries through BRICS or through Central America, for example. And that is how it's been able to apply this pressure. And I think the hearing memo covered that very well. And what's at stake here is for industry, the predictability, the scale, the market access that all of us yearn for, that's at stake. And so U.S. leadership really needs to be focused on being early, being technically credible, and being focused on this coalition that I was alluding to before.

Anybody else like to comment what's at stake? I got 15 seconds, so one quick comment on what's at stake. Anybody got it? All right, thank you and I yield back.

Thank you. And now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for five minutes for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that some of what I wanted to ask has been covered, but maybe not other parts of it. So let me just mention that last week Chairman Guthrie and I sent a letter to the President regarding the administration's prep for both the upcoming elections at the ITU and the WRC-27. In the letter, we stressed that U.S. must be focused on these upcoming ITU engagements to ensure that our country remains a tech leader on the global stage. And to help achieve that, Ambassador Lang, you mentioned that we have to keep the pressure on China at ITU. Obviously I agree with you, so have so many others who've already asked you questions. I think you've explained how American consumers and our country's telecommunications companies will suffer if we fail to meet this objective. But I don't know, did you want to add anything to that?

Well, I guess I, thank you for the question. I would like to add something. I do think that thinking broadly about the second and third order effects of these events and the impact they have on our strategic competition with China overall. I think that technology now is the foundation for our strategic competitiveness. And what's at stake is more than the competitiveness of our industries, it's more than our economic prosperity, it's our national security. And if China is successful in promulgating its approach to digital technologies around the world, I think our democratic values are at stake as well.

All right, thank you. Let me go to spectrum. The subcommittee's worked on a bipartisan basis in the last few years to ensure that the FCC and the NTIA are routinely coordinating on spectrum. And I think that's important given next year's World Radio Conference. So let me ask Ms. Alexander, what additional actions do you recommend the subcommittee take to ensure that NTIA and the FCC are coordinating on spectrum policy so that our country can speak with one voice at WRC-27 if you would?

Thank you very much for the question. I would say hearings like this are a great start. I would say the letters that you guys have been sending are helpful and it puts the pressure and it raises the profile and the priority on the issues and it's important. And I would say one of the biggest challenges that I see on the spectrum side is this bifurcated process between the NTIA and the FCC and the need to have a deconfliction process early. I think often those process will go, processes will go and go and go and then there's a conflict and we deconflict very late in the process. For the rest of the ITU, we do not have a bifurcated process. We have a single process and a single interagency to get ready for everything. So I think if you're going to continue to have a bifurcated process, I would just encourage a senior level assessment of having a deconfliction process much earlier so that when people like Ambassador Lang have to lead the delegation, they're prepared early on with the positions that they need to advocate for.

Well, thank you. Mr. John, did you want to add anything on the spectrum policy that I mentioned?

Yes, please. And so Ms. Alexander actually highlighted the levers that you all can pull. And I think some of the substance of like what you would do in those hearings or letters or other outreach is important to highlight here. The first is we've all kind of hit on it, moving early is very important. But what does that actually mean? Plenipotentiary is in November of this year. We should have most of our if not all the final positions developed and concluded by the middle or if not the beginning of this summer. For the WRC-27, we have our second CITEL meeting in December. Again, we should be having our positions finalized as soon as possible this year so we have time to go and build these coalitions. And so driving some type of milestone-based schedule and making sure the agencies are sticking to it is very important. Another thing is staffing and expertise. These folks at the agencies, they're very good, but they're overwhelmed with the amount of work. And so we want to make sure that they are properly staffed and they have the wherewithal to be able to participate in all these different processes that are ongoing simultaneously. Another thing that you had highlighted was the bifurcation of the FCC and NTIA in some of these processes. And one thing that I've observed and talked to some of the folks that have been doing this for a while is the RCS process with the NTIA, it happens in a closed room and FCC is an observer to it. And each of the members are allowed to bring an observer or two as long as they're disclosed at the beginning of the meeting. And so perhaps a simple change is the FCC is allowed to bring a couple of its constituents to the meeting and they observe so they can actually hear what's happening and they can try to actually address these issues in the other forum. And in the FCC WAC process, the NTIA folks and its stakeholders are actually able to be observers in our process. And what we need to do is obviously develop these positions where we have non-reconcilable or non-consensus positions. We need to identify those issues very early, as I think Mr. Lang was saying earlier. And so we need to identify those, we need to escalate them early. And if there are tradeoffs that need to be made, we need to take a step back. It doesn't need to be a zero-sum game all the time. Why don't we look at, for example, the FCC spectrum management principles that they established a couple years ago, right? There's always going to be a little bit of interference. There's responsibilities that both the transmitter and the receiver have to take. And all of these studies need to be grounded in some type of sound engineering. And so those are the different things that we need to be keeping in mind when we talk about substance.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. John. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Allen, for five minutes for your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for holding this hearing on the importance of U.S. preparation and participation in the World Radiocommunication Conference. And I thank all the witnesses for being here and testifying. Ambassador Lang, can you talk us through the Department of State's role in leading the delegation and how they work with other federal agencies, including NTIA and the FCC, to ensure that the U.S. is adequately prepared for WRC? And then what role should Congress play in that process?

Thank you very much for the question. It's an important one. The State Department oversees the process overall. It is a continuing process. Immediately after the preceding WRC, the process begins to prepare studies and inputs for the next WRC. So there are a series of global ITU meetings in preparation and we have an internal process that continues throughout the four-year cycle. The State Department, as I mentioned, oversees bringing the two tracks together led by FCC and NTIA. I think we have great teams in all those agencies who have worked together very closely for quite some time. And the State Department, the head of delegation for the WRC, is the final decider on a lot of those issues. And I think Congress has an important role to play. Your raising attention to this important topic I think is very helpful. But I think this year we need to be mindful of resources as well. The teams need to be resourced both in terms of personnel, and Ms. Alexander highlighted some of those needs, but they'll also need resources to be able to engage effectively diplomatically. There is a lot of travel that needs to take place in the months and years preceding the conference that is costly. And then we should also be creative about other types of diplomatic engagement. There's been some discussion of the potential for a spectrum summit hosted in the United States that could bring parties together and look for areas of common ground and build coalitions. We should consider things like providing training to regulators who will be participating in the conference. So there are a number of different resource implications that Congress should be aware of.

Ms. Alexander, if the U.S. were to reduce its engagement at the conference, what countries are most likely going to fill that vacuum and what are the national security implications associated with their increased influence?

Thank you very much for the question. And I'll just observe in my 20 years of doing ITU work, what I've seen is a marked engagement of Asian countries and in particular China. So in some cases when the U.S. or U.S. companies don't come, China comes and China comes even more. And I think that will happen in this case as well if we were not there and we don't show up, they will and they'll show up in big numbers and that will be bad for national security in the long run for us.

Thank you. Mr. John, do you have anything to add to that question?

Could you repeat that question?

Yes, I'll repeat. If the U.S. were to reduce its engagement at the conference, what countries are most likely going to fill the vacuum and what are the national security implications associated with that increased influence?

I don't have anything.

You don't have anything. Okay. On a similar note, the next WRC will be held in Shanghai, China. Several of you mentioned in your testimony that the location of the conference raises broader geopolitical and security considerations. Mr. John, how is industry thinking about its participation in Shanghai? Are companies still planning to participate?

Great question. So security, access, operational feasibility are the things that they're considering. So think about use of VPNs or what kind of currency am I going to be using? Am I going to be surveilled? Will I have easy entry and exit opportunities? So these are things that the host country agreement do need to establish. And in the end, I do believe most of U.S. industry will participate. It's a global-level treaty-making conference and they have huge stakes at play. And just from my experience, WRC-19 is relevant here. It was held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. To get into my hotel room, I had to go through two sets of security. I could only take certain buses to the conference venue and back and we weren't allowed to leave at all. And so it's not quite the same level of security issues, but there have been these types of situations in the past and State Department and others have been able to overcome.

Okay. So precautions are taken. Ms. Alexander, what is the most likely outcome if the U.S. arrives divided on high-priority agenda items? And I've got 16 seconds.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the question. I would say, you know, consistency matters and if the United States shows up and different people in the U.S. are saying different things, then people don't take the U.S. seriously. And that has happened when other countries have taken the microphone and one person says something and someone says something else from that same country. So we don't want that to be us.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for five minutes to ask your questions.

Thank you, Chairman. Every day the world gets a little smaller thanks to getting more interconnected because of technology, especially telecommunications. In Central Florida, we're proud to host the busiest spaceport in the world. 90 percent of all spaceflight is happening there with SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA. We see Starlink growing by the day, Kuiper belt starting to move along as well, which is why I was proud to sponsor the Launch Communications Act with Dr. Dunn where we were able to streamline the FCC permits for each of these launches. We had over 100 last year. So satellite spectrum obviously a huge part of the agenda going into the World Radiocommunication Conference. It's so critical for the free world led by the United States to be able to take these issues to Shanghai, China. You know, obviously the venue can be ominous when we're talking about that. But I do question how free things are back home right now. We saw Chairman Carr has turned the FCC into the Federal Censorship Commission. He's attacked the free press for asking critical questions about the Iran war, quote, "broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions, also known as the fake news, have a chance now to correct their course before their license renewals come up." He's threatening major broadcasters for protected speech under the First Amendment for news activity that is critical for the American people to remain informed. And you add in the censorship of bad press to President Trump trying to fire Jimmy Kimmel and other late-night talk show and comedy hosts and then a $16 million extortion payment that went to Trump personally. How can we lead the free world abroad when we are struggling and seeing an administration attacking it at home? And this Congress continues to do nothing. Ambassador Lang, how important is it for us to defend freedoms at home if we're going to go abroad and tell folks like China and Russia that, you know, we stand for freedom, we stand for making sure that we could have interconnectivity, rule of law? How critical is it for us to make sure we're protecting these values at home as we're negotiating abroad?

Well, thank you for the question. I guess I would just say that political issues can have an impact on our engagements internationally in the ITU, but in general these are very technical conversations, especially for the WRC. What's important is that we engage frequently with our partners and allies and also cast the net broadly to work with countries that may not have made, in the middle ground, that may not have made decisions yet on how they stand on some of the issues that we're working on. But that diplomatic engagement is absolutely critical throughout the process to make sure that we can promote the positions that we have decided are our priorities for the conference.

Sure. These are technical goals, but this is a diplomatic forum. Relationships matter. We have to win elections, which was talked about already. Changing the subject, Mr. Cavossa, thanks for being here. Appreciate the work you're doing to help out Central Florida industries and commercial space. You talked a little bit about low band and high band spectrum. Can you go a little bit more into our priorities for this to make sure we could continue American space and telecommunications dominance?

Sure. Thank you for the question and thank you for your support of the Launch Communications Act. As you noted, Central Florida, key location for the commercial space industry. There were over 200 launches last year in the United States and Florida the vast majority of those and that will continue to grow, I think, sir, within the next five years we're anticipating getting to multiple hundreds of launches a year, maybe 1,000 launches per year from the United States in the near future. So your work on the Launch Communication Act is very helpful. Also, we know you're referring to commercial space and the Artemis mission is a great example. We are going back to the moon here in the next year or two and the Artemis missions are very commercial focused.

Sure. And hopefully a launch in April too. We're all keeping our fingers crossed.

Exactly. Hopefully April 1st or soon after. The commercial industry is a huge piece of the Artemis and NASA's mission going forward and the spectrum on the lunar surface, spectrum in cislunar space, very important to the commercial space industry that it be protected and those fights will happen at this WRC coming up.

We may have to establish moon time too, although I don't know we'll be able to do it at this conference. I was curious, how do you beam solar power down to the Earth? You had mentioned that in...

There are three different companies right now working on capturing solar energy and then either beaming it to satellites in low Earth orbit or beaming it back to the Earth. Way too complicated for me to get into in this meeting, but it's very cool stuff.

I just wanted to clarify that that is actually a thing that we're working on. Incredible. Thanks. I yield back.

Thank you. Sounds like a pretty cool thing. But thank you for your questions. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for five minutes.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for our witnesses for being with us today. You know, it's kind of unsettling. I remember sitting here several years ago talking about some of these issues that are before us today. And if I could start with you, Ambassador. In your testimony, you said, and it's kind of interesting, you like other multilateral bodies, the ITU and the WRC are flawed. Their bureaucracy has grown bloated over the years. Politics occasionally bleeds into technical conversation. Adversaries like Iran and Cuba have equal seats at the table. If I'm not mistaken, have there been about 10 WRCs that have taken place?

I don't have the count for that. That sounds about right. I think the first one was in 1993.

Well, then my question is, because you know, what we're hearing today is a lot of conversation of what we've been doing wrong. Have we been doing this wrong for over 10 of the WRCs or what's happened?

Well, I thank you for the question. I do think that the organizations are flawed, but I don't think that there is a better way to globally harmonize spectrum at this time. I think we do have to have wide representation internationally to make sure that we can deal with interference questions wherever they come up. I think we do need to have a government-led process that brings our national, that can include our representation from our national security agencies and our transportation agencies that have critical interests in this space. And we also need to make sure that we have binding commitments that only governments can agree to. So although I guess maybe it's not a perfect system, but I think it's the best one that we have at this time.

Well, you know, again, in reading your testimony, I found it interesting because again, you know, you said that we have to recommit to win, which is I'm never sure we should have ever said that we have to recommit, we should have always been in the position that we think about we wanted to win to begin with. But you also said, I found this interesting too, what you said when you in your number one paragraph on the critical steps. You said that in talking about China nearly winning with 25 out of the 48 votes and its legitimacy as a host is already in question. Could you explain that?

Well, I think my point is mainly that in general, the offer to host has been accepted essentially unanimously by the council without any kind of a vote whatsoever. Votes are quite rare in the ITU and it general means that there has been a problem in the process. So I think to have China win that vote so narrowly does call into question its position as the host.

Thank you. If I could turn to you, Mr. Cavossa. Again, I found your testimony interesting too because you know that we all know that everything's changing out there at breakneck speed. It's just we can't look at things that happened yesterday. The great thing about serving on this committee, we're always should be looking over the horizon five to 10 years because that's where the innovators and the entrepreneurs are out there. And you know, I think that if you could talking about U.S. positions in the past because you say a strong pro-innovation U.S. strategy at the ITU is especially necessary as our international competitors, particularly the CCP, I'm going to abbreviate it down, advance their own space capabilities. Are we doing enough and what should maybe what should Congress be doing to help you and to help as we go there?

Well, we're not doing enough, but hearings like this are a step in the right direction. Obviously there was a hearing on the Senate side yesterday as well on this topic. But you know, what we see, sir, is that at the end of the day, the administration has come out very aggressively in support of a national policy in support around satellite communications and space and driving this country forward. We want to see that reflect in the U.S. delegation's approach to the ITU and this committee talking about that issue and bringing it up and sending letters is a great step in the right direction, sir.

Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Alexander, my last 29 seconds. Are we as you're looking at what's happening right now, are we prepared?

Thank you for the question. I think we're never fully prepared because we're always preparing. You have to always do the work, you have to show up, we're always doing something. And I think one of the things that I've observed over my the years and in your question that you asked Ambassador Lang, I think we have succeeded in the United States or in the ITU over the last 20 years. Doreen's election both to the development sector and as the first woman to ever run this institution is a testament to the work that we've done to make this happen. But we have to keep at it. Nothing is given. You have to show up, you have to do the work, you have to keep fighting. Just because you win once doesn't mean you win the next time. You always have to do everything and you always have to make put in the hard work.

Well, thank you. My time is expired and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes the representative from New York, Ms. Clarke, for five minutes to ask your questions.

Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Hudson and Ranking Member Matsui, for holding this important hearing. And thank you to our panel of witnesses for joining us today. The work of the International Telecommunication Union, ITU, may not always make headlines, but the decisions made by this body help power our daily lives and technologies we use, including wireless networks and satellite systems. Simply put, what happens at the ITU, including their upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference, the WRC-27, will help determine who writes the rules for the next generation of global communications technologies. At first glance, discussions about spectrum allocation and satellite coordination at the and the WRC-27 may seem highly technical. But the reality is that these decisions have direct daily consequences for the American people that can affect the cost of your wireless bill, the speed and reliability of your internet connection, whether you have in-flight Wi-Fi and it works, whether first responders can communicate during crises, and whether underserved communities, both here at home and globally, can access the digital economy. As we approach WRC-27, we must be clear about what it will take to succeed under a one-country, one-vote system: diplomacy, coalition building, technical credibility, and sustained engagement. The U.S. delegation must show up unified across agencies, prepared with clear priorities and ready to lead. That leadership starts at the top. It is critically important that we support the reelection of Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin. Her continued leadership is essential to furthering our interests and we at a moment when having a leader who understands both the technical and diplomatic dimensions as Secretary-General Bogdan-Martin does is more important than ever. At a time when other nations are actively working to shape the rules of the road in ways that may not align with our interests or values, we cannot afford to retreat. We must strengthen alliances, engage developing nations, and ensure global frameworks remain open, interoperable, and innovation-driven. To do this, we must ensure that here at home, we are resolving interagency differences, fully resourcing our delegation, and engaging industry and technical experts. If we can move on one accord and prepare correctly, we can lower costs for consumers, expand access to connectivity, strengthen U.S. innovation, and ensure that the global communications ecosystem reflects our values. If, however, we get it wrong, we seek ceding that leadership and the consequences will be felt directly by American households and businesses alike. I think that sums up what I've heard from you all today. So my question, Ambassador Lang, given your experience in this space, is what does effective coalition building actually look like on the ground? Are we doing enough today to build those relationships and what do you see as the biggest gap in our current diplomatic engagement?

Well, thank you very much for the question. And I think that we are doing a lot right now, but we need to keep doing more to be successful and that need that pace needs to increase as we get closer and closer to the conference. And a lot of it is retail diplomacy going out and meeting our counterparts in the various preparatory meetings that are taking place around the world. We need to make sure that senior-level U.S. officials are are brought into the process as well and able to engage with with their counterparts. And another important part of this, as Ms. Alexander mentioned earlier, is we need to listen to our counterparts and hear from them on what their priorities are and look for places where there are common ground and that we can work together.

Very well. I hope that that is happening. You know, I really, really do. I don't want to be cynical. But I think that, you know, we have got to see ourselves as one team to make this really, really happen. And anything short of that, we lose. We have to make that clear to everyone. Anything short of that, from the White House to the Congress, we lose. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, for five minutes to ask your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the panel for being here and for your input. Appreciate you so much. And I do have some concerns that I'd just like to flush out a little bit with you. Ms. Alexander, in your testimony, you mentioned that the U.S. is ITU's largest contributor. I think it was in the neighborhood about 14 million. Do you have any idea how much China sources would contribute and perhaps maybe who rounds out the top five if you know that information?

Thank you for the question. I don't know that I have the specifics offhand anymore. Ambassador Lang may remember more specifically than me. The 14 million that we pay to the ITU a year is a self-assessed contribution and we decide how much to give the ITU, just like every country decides how much they give. We're the largest contributor at 14 million a year with the current currency conversion and that's about seven percent of the ITU's budget. I think the traditional other large donors historically had been Canada, France, Japan, Germany, but over the years, those countries have slowly reduced their contributions. I think it's just the U.S. at 30 units. The Chinese government was never a large donor, they've always been a smaller donor. You can also give money to the ITU through what are called voluntary contributions, which are directed contributions for specific activities, and I believe some countries have gone that route versus contributing to the general budget.

Does the amount that a country contributes tend to have an impact on its influence with the ITU?

Not under the rules of procedure, but obviously sure, it definitely matters if you're the person that, you know, gives a lot of money to the institution and you have a sway. What matters though is showing up, showing up in force, showing up educated, and showing up knowing the rules of procedure to know how to make the institution work for you.

Sounds like a good E&C committee member, by the way.

I was always reminded over the years that my job at NTIA was very similar to your job over here.

Yeah, I don't know. Mr. Lang, you have any comments on that subject matter?

I think Ms. Alexander has summed things up very well. Thanks.

Okay. Mr. Lang, in your testimony, you note the ITU's bureaucracy has grown bloated, that was that quote, over politics occasional obedience to technical conversations, adversaries like Iran and Cuba have seats at the table. Do you foresee at the WRC-27, do you think Iran and Cuba are going to have seats at the table?

Yes, they in all likelihood they will be there and will be in the negotiations.

You list four critical steps for the U.S. government to win, topping the list is keeping the pressure on China, which I think most of us agree on that. Take a minute if you would and with holding China accountable as kind of the pretext of this question, can you describe like a worst case, best case? Best case if we hold them accountable, worst case if we don't, what happens? Best case, worst case.

Well, I think the worst case we need to prepare for is that China would structure the informal conversations that take place on the side of the conference in such a way that the U.S. would not have a seat at the table and that at some point the U.S. would be presented with something that other parties were looking at as an agreed consensus and that we would be pressured to accept. So I think what's important is for us to make sure that we have a seat at the table at every in every single conference that takes place.

That's a worst case. What's a best case?

Best case is that they actually conduct it in a transparent and fair manner. I think that they will be under a lot of pressure, they will want this conference to be viewed as a success widely. So I think there is reason to think that they will want to have a successful conference that is viewed favorably.

Got another minute, if anyone else on the panel has a wants to weigh in on that, I'm open to it, if not, I'll yield. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Chairman, with that I yield.

The gentleman yields. Now recognize Mr. Menendez, you're recognized for five minutes for your questioning.

Thank you, Chairman. Every four years the International Telecommunication Union convenes the World Radiocommunication Conference so that stakeholders from around the world can harmonize spectrum for wireless and satellite uses. While the WRC is an event only a selected group of policy experts are involved in, its work has a direct daily impact on how Americans communicate. Our district has a high concentration of critical infrastructure and is home to a diverse population, including many residents born outside the United States. This makes the WRC's work to support trusted suppliers, expand access to connectivity, and enable seamless international wireless communication vital to the communities I have the privilege of representing. We've heard today about the importance of the United States entering the WRC with a strong, unified message to support America's edge over China and promote our national economic and security interest. Doing so will benefit all American families. Ambassador Lang, just yes or no, is collaboration with our global partners at the WRC to support trusted suppliers important for protecting Americans living in areas with extensive critical infrastructure?

Yes.

Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, I think that what's on the topic of trusted supply, which I think is very critical, what we want to make sure is that China does not gain an advantage for its suppliers through the process. If China is successful in promoting its approach to radio frequency spectrum through the WRC, then their domestic champions like Huawei and ZTE will have greater economies of scale by being able to produce the same equipment internationally that they produce for their own domestic market. And if that gives them an advantage in third country markets around the world, then that is a problem for us and for critical infrastructure in those countries.

And what are some what are some specific ways that you think that we can we can better the balance, achieve that when we go into these conversations?

I do think it's pretty much the same recommendations that we've been talking about to make sure that we have our positions lined up as early as possible and that we're engaging aggressively.

All right, appreciate that. Another critical priority is expanding access to reliable connectivity and innovative digital technologies. Mr. John, just yes or no, will the WRC's work to make more spectrum available for wireless and satellite uses help close the digital divide by ensuring that all people have access to connectivity and digital technologies?

Yes.

Thank you. Mr. John, in a few words, how can the United States advance policies at next year's WRC that ensures all American families have equitable access to connectivity and digital technologies?

Connectivity comes in all forms and colors. We have different agenda items that are highlighting mobile broadband as well as the converged mobile and satellite types of connectivity. And so as we've discussed a couple times here, we can get the international economies of scale that we seek to lower the costs for consumers and increase the speed in how we can deploy these facilities. And all of this is couched in us doing studies early, getting these positions done this year as opposed to next year, and making sure that we build these coalitions early and fortify them so they can withstand China and others.

Appreciate that. Seamless and reliable international communication is critical for the communities I represent. This will be on full display when thousands of fans from around the world travel to New Jersey for the FIFA World Cup finals this summer. Ensuring that these fans can stay connected to family and friends will be essential, not only for convenience but also for accessing critical services, including public safety. Ms. Alexander, in a few words, as fans from around the world travel to the U.S. for the FIFA World Cup this summer, how do international spectrum decisions made through the WRC process support reliable connectivity and interoperability for international visitors to the U.S.?

Thank you very much for the question. And we've come a long way since my first international trip for work where I was given a government device which I'm pretty sure was a Blackberry that did not work when we were in Japan. So we're way beyond that because the decisions that are made at the ITU ensure interference-free, efficient, and equitable use of wireless services worldwide. So when those international spectators come, they'll be able to rely entirely on the global coordination to seamlessly connect their devices to local networks and access essential services when they are here.

Great. I appreciate that and I appreciate today's bipartisan collaboration to examine how best to advance U.S. interests at the WRC. It is essential that the U.S. delegation speaks with a unified voice that strengthens American competitiveness while prioritizing secure, reliable, and equitable connectivity for American consumers. Thank you and I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Now recognize Representative Pfluger for your five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses. In September I sent a letter to the administration regarding China's hosting of the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference in China and the related national security and economic competitive risk associated with that. And as noted, this event allows China influence agenda setting and policy decisions raising concerns about potential espionage. And I request that the letter and the U.S. Economic and Security Review Commission report, China's Management of Electromagnetic Spectrum Resources, be entered into the record, Mr. Chairman. Both the letter and the report.

Yes, no objection.

The report highlights that one of China's four main spectrum objectives is to promote the adoption of Chinese standards for electromagnetic spectrum management at international organizations. And I've been working on legislation to promote the U.S. participation in priority in priority international standard setting bodies and to grant the Secretary of State authority to withhold funds from organizations led by adversaries. While this bill focuses heavily on government-led participation, it is important to recognize that private industry-led bodies such as 3GPP and IEEE are equally considered for U.S. technological competitiveness. And furthermore, we know that China subsidizes its industries' participation in those bodies through state-backed companies like Huawei and ZTE. Mr. Lang, I'll start with you, does the current U.S. approach adequately address that gap and is there a role for Congress in leveling that playing field?

Well, thank you for the question. I think this is a very important topic and I do think that when I left government in the State Department, we we had increased the level of attention that we were paying to those standards bodies such as 3GPP and IEEE. I do think that there's more work that can be done there, that the United States can be more effective in encouraging industry participation and in facilitating communication and coordination among our participants. It is I think we don't want to replicate China's model, but I think we can learn from what they have done in some of the standard bodies.

Well, I appreciate that. You kind of alluded a little bit to it, but do you think that the legislation actually reaches into private standards well enough? Are there revisions, things that you would do? I mean, what's your assessment of the provision, how would you address it in that aspect? Governmental versus non-governmental, if I will.

Thank you. I guess I would I would just say that I do think that there is room for the U.S. government to be more proactive in terms of working with industry to make sure that U.S. strategic interests are protected in industry-led standards bodies such as 3GPP and IEEE.

Okay, thank you. The United States obviously is the largest financial contributor to the UN, and yet adversaries have systematically secured leadership positions in these organizations that are funded by American taxpayers. In addition, the legislation that I'm discussing authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold contributions from any standards body chaired by a national by someone of a foreign adversary or state sponsor of terrorism. And this provision is intended as a leverage tool, not a withdrawal strategy, but China contributes far less to these bodies than the U.S. does, yet gains disproportionate influence through coordinated delegations, leadership appointments, and block voting. Ms. Alexander, I'll point to you in this, in your experience engaging with the ITU, do you believe that a credible and legally available threat of withholding U.S. contributions would meaningfully strengthen the hand of U.S. diplomats in leadership elections?

Thank you very much for the question. I think it's hard to answer that specifically because each institution is very different, right? The ITU is an intergovernmental institution that allows private sector members, 3GPP, IETF, other institutions work differently. I don't think withholding funds necessarily gives leverage to better outcomes for the United States. What I think wins the United States is being prepared. And when it comes to standards development processes, our historical support for bottom-up, industry-led standards has worked and worked well for us. What could be enhanced is what Ambassador Lang has referenced is coordination and making sure that the U.S. government is working with and working in lockstep with industry to achieve our objectives.

Well, talking about the WRC that's upcoming and the coordination that you think needs to happen, I mean, how behind are we and what needs to happen in order to be to catch up?

For WRC, I, you know, again, I'm not as intimately as involved as some of the folks on the panel as the WRC preparations and the committees, but my observation historically is that these processes can be slow and they can be cumbersome because spectrum is hard, right? You guys know that better than I do. And it's hard to sometimes deconflict and resolve these competing priorities, but that needs to happen and it needs to happen faster for us to be effective in these environments.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentleman yields. Now recognize Representative Ruiz for his five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the world continues rolling out 5G networks and begins planning for 6G, the U.S. is at an important moment. The decisions we make today about spectrum, the airwaves that carry wireless signals, will shape our economy, our infrastructure, and our ability to compete globally for decades to come. These issues will also be front and center at the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference 2027, or the WRC-27, where countries from around the world will meet to discuss how different positions of spectrum should be used. Put simply, spectrum is what allows our phones to connect to the internet, our first responders to communicate, and our wireless networks to function. When countries align around the same spectrum bands for similar technologies, it allows equipment to be built at scale, reduces interference, and ultimately lowers costs for consumers. The United States has already taken several important steps. We have identified spectrum for 5G and 6G deployment, including portions of the C-band, and we opened the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use, supporting faster Wi-Fi and new wireless technologies. Unlicensed spectrum plays a critical role in everyday life. Hospitals, for example, rely heavily on Wi-Fi operating in unlicensed spectrum to connect medical devices, patient monitors, and internal communication systems. I'm a physician, so I bring up the hospital example. This reliable wireless connectivity can be essential for delivering timely care and ensuring hospital operations run smoothly. At the same time, spectrum policy often requires balancing several competing uses: commercial wireless services, government systems, satellite operations, and unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi that all together support hospitals, schools, and businesses. Mr. John, as our country starts to develop proposals for the various WRC-27 agenda items, how should U.S. policymakers approach these tradeoffs to ensure that global spectrum policy supports innovation while also maintaining sufficient spectrum for all of these critical use cases?

Thank you very much for that question. And you highlighted the very robust situation we have here in the United States with so many different spectrum users. And in the past, it's been, as I mentioned before, like a zero-sum game. One party has to win, another party has to lose. And so I think we need to go back to the fundamentals. A, let's put aside the rhetoric that we hear in a lot of the different processes and actually get down to the technical, the engineering. And so if you look at those spectrum management principles, there's considerations of interference on both sides of the link, the transmitter as well as the receiver. And so that, plus us grounding our studies in realistic assumptions as opposed to always having the worst-case type of scenario that was envisioned in the 1960s or 1970s, we need to move past that. And when we're able to actually combine these two things, we don't really have to pick winners or losers. Let the science, let the math actually define it.

Thank you. You know, at the same time, other countries are moving quickly. China has allocated a large portion of the upper 6 GHz band for mobile services, and Europe has also begun identifying parts of that band for mobile use. Ambassador Lang, given your experience working on international telecommunications policy, how important is it for the U.S. to lead global discussions on spectrum as we approach the next World Radiocommunication Conference?

Well, thank you for the question. I think it's absolutely critical that the United States lead these conversations. If we don't, then somebody else will, and China will be first in line to...

And so what are the risks if China are able to use WRC-27 to advantage their homegrown companies like Huawei, who would like to dominate the global market for mobile infrastructure networking services? What are those risks?

Right. I think we already see that Huawei and other Chinese champions like ZTE are very competitive in markets around the world. And we need to continue to push back against...

Is that a national security risk?

It is definitely a national security risk. Well, it means that it gives the Chinese government access to data traveling over their networks and increases the access that China has to intelligence and also increases risks to critical infrastructure in those countries that use that equipment in their networks.

Ambassador Lang, will you be there at the WRC-27?

I don't have plans to be there right now.

Okay. Bummer. All right. Well, I hope the people that are there understand the assignment. Thank you.

The gentleman yields. And Mr. Goldman of Texas is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. I'll be brief. Mr. Cavossa, you talked about that the Senate had a hearing, was it yesterday, on this very subject? After hearing all this, what did the Senate talk about that we haven't brought up that we need to know? Since we don't, you know, we're not watching the Senate.

Yeah, I have to plead ignorance myself in that I wasn't watching the hearing, but I assume it was much of the same, sir.

Okay. Was it anyone else on the panel watch the hearing yesterday in the Senate? Yes, sir, Ambassador. But what do we need to know that you maybe learned yesterday that we haven't talked about today?

I think this conversation has been quite comprehensive and no major gaps are coming to mind.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Ambassador. Mr. John, given the rapid growth of the satellite industry in low Earth orbit constellations, why have key International Telecommunication Union regulations for satellites not been updated in over 20 years?

So the ITU Radio Regulations, four volumes deep, thousands of pages long, hundreds of footnotes, and it's very hard, right, to get through a four-year process and try to update all of it simultaneously. And so that's why this particular WRC agenda is very important. There's a substantial effort here to modernize a lot of those outdated or irrelevant rules that we see.

And how does this lag affect innovation, competition, and space safety?

So on the first two points about competition and innovation, we're hindering our own companies, right, from providing maximum capacity for broadband connectivity, for example. And in terms of innovation, there are plenty of companies that have not been actually able to take off. My colleague here had highlighted a number of the new weird space companies and they just don't have access to spectrum because there aren't allocations or there aren't rules written for the way they want to actually operate, even though they have very innovative opportunities here. On the topic of space safety, it's actually very interesting because right now it's not within the ITU's mandate. And it's something that Brazil has been coming to the forefront at the Plenipotentiary and at the actual ITU to try to get it more involved. And so historically, I think, and for the past couple years, the U.S. position has been the ITU is not the appropriate forum. UNOOSA, or the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, is the appropriate forum. And so TBD on how the U.S. progresses on that front for space safety.

Well, that's what I was going to ask. So what steps does the U.S. need to take to modernize the rules?

For space safety or for just satellites regulations in general?

No, all of the above.

So I have to be careful here because we're still developing the positions through the FCC WAC process. But the general principle is we need to take a first-principles approach here. And we want to ensure that we're looking at actual sound assumptions. We're not using assumptions from the '60s or '70s. We want to make sure that the conversations we're having are data-driven rather than rhetoric. And if you're able to do that, you can push aside one party having to win all the time. You could actually have multiple people coexisting and all thriving in the same environment.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. Those are all my questions.

The gentleman yields. And Mr. Landsman, Representative Landsman, you're recognized for five minutes for your question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the Ranking Member and all of you for being here. So the conference, you know, we've talked about preparing and what needs to be true, really from a security and competitiveness standpoint. So because you've talked about almost everything, I don't want to be... I don't want to just, you know, go over things you've already covered. So question is around what's missing, you know, what... similar to Mr. Goldman's question, what haven't we talked about? But the one piece that stands out to me, and maybe this isn't an issue, is that you've got you've got all these big companies that participate or are in a position to participate. But mid-sized companies and certainly small businesses cannot. And or they don't. Or maybe they do. I don't know. So I'm curious what that means, you know, is it is it bad that they're not in the room? Are they in the room? How do we make sure if if they need to be in the room, they're in the room? What should we be, you know, thinking about or or advocating for as it relates to these mid-sized companies that don't have the same capacity to get over there? And I'll start with you, Mr. Ambassador.

No, thank you for the question. I think that is an important one. And I think it is a matter of resources that small and medium-sized companies just don't have the capacity to match what the big companies can do in this process. I think that's where it becomes all the more important for the United States government and its representatives in the process to be thinking about the impact that this has on smaller companies and the innovation environment more generally. I don't know of a of a silver bullet to enable them to be a part of the process. So I do think there is an additional need for our U.S. government officials to be very cognizant of that issue.

And maybe that's just, you know, as we're advocating or checking in that we're we're, you know, asking, pushing on this question about how additional companies beyond the big the big folks, how they're, you know, involved and their input is being pursued.

Thank you for the question. And I think it's important to understand for these major conferences and treaty negotiations, the U.S. can have a very large delegation. Not everyone has to be on the ground. You can have a home team, which we always have as well. The State Department runs a very fulsome process. Trade associations are also part of this conversation, not just companies themselves. And the way these conferences work is you have a plenary, you have multiple working groups, you have working parties, you have drafting groups, you have ad hocs. You can have 10 or 15 conversations happening at the same time. So you need everyone there. You need a U.S. spokesperson for every issue. You need a spokesperson surrounded by some government industry experts. You need everyone there. And you can also sort of role-play and game these conversations out. When I first started doing ITU work, there was no phone bridge. You had to show up in person. It was two hours every Tuesday and Thursday with industry working through the papers, writing the positions, and then a government meeting on top of that after that. The U.S. delegation also will meet every morning at 8:00 a.m. and coordinate what's going to happen for the day. So you need to be properly resourced, right, whether you're a government agency or whether you're a company. So I think that's something that we really need to make sure we're doing and that we have taken care of that we haven't covered today.

Yeah, I hadn't I hadn't considered the trade associations or and certainly didn't know about the home base and the alternative ways to participate. So very helpful.

Actually, on the trade associations, you have one right here. But more importantly, there's an organization called the USITUA and it has I think a very nominal fee to join or no fee to participate and make sure you're at least staying educated on these matters and you don't have to actually go to the WRC. Then you have at least the info flowing and you can contribute through that avenue. There's another organization called Commercial SmallSat Spectrum Management Association, where they can have an observer status and you don't actually have to pay anything and you can participate. Separately from the trade associations, something that's very unique about the FCC WAC process is yes, you have to apply to become a member and there are plenty of companies that might not be paying attention and don't become members, but that's okay. Once the WAC establishes its recommendations, it submits them to the FCC. The FCC then places it on public notice, so it's published in the Federal Register, a lot of the news outlets pick it up. It's a good way for companies that might not want to be always participating, they can contribute as needed.

Last 10 seconds. Sorry.

No, just to hit on the trade association comment. We represent over 80 space companies and we're a consensus-based organization, so we actually do some of that work of building consensus before even going.

I was just the other trade associations too, I suspect, could participate. So all right. Thank you. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields and Ms. Fedorchak, you are recognized for five minutes for your questions.

Thank you all. Thank you for your participation today and taking time out of your busy schedules to join us and share your wisdom and experience. A lot of my questions have been asked, so I'm just going to stick with the couple that I feel haven't been addressed yet, at least when I haven't been here. So Mr. John, you outline a pathway where the U.S. works through CITEL to build regional alignment ahead of the WRC-27. Given China's growing economic and infrastructure presence in Latin America, can we assume those countries will align with us or are we already competing for their support?

Thank you for the question. And so we did see last WRC cycle that there were certain countries in the CITEL region that did side with China on certain issues. And so we're again trying to build up new coalitions. We are having our next CITEL meeting down in Dominica in about two or three weeks and so we'll have a better idea of where things stand. But we know behind the scenes surely China is going to be making its best efforts to try to build as big of a coalition not only in the CITEL region but as many of these different ITU regions.

And what are they using to successfully get people on their side? And how are their positions different from what we want?

So in terms of what they're doing, we've seen things like subsidies, we've seen other things in just support in negotiations and so that's how they've been able to influence outside of their own relative region. And I'm sorry, it looks like he has something to contribute.

If I can also add, I mean, the Chinese have something called the Belt and Road Initiative and they have an equivalent of that in the space realm called that they sort of call their Space Silk Road where they are investing in the space programs of developed and developing nations and supporting them and by no surprise those nations tend to lean toward the Chinese when it comes to these deliberations.

Okay. Sticking with you, Mr. Cavossa, the ITU rules apply globally, so in theory they should constrain all countries equally. Why do you believe that those rules disproportionately disadvantage U.S. companies and how might competitors like China still gain an edge under a framework that is supposed to apply to everyone equally?

Yeah, I'll just say that we often, you know, tie our own hands behind our back in the United States when it comes to deliberations and positions with the ITU and the WRC that we go through a very thorough process here in the United States of debating and coming to consensus. Other countries don't go through that same process and there's very much a top-down approach to here's the industries or the technologies we're going to support. In the United States, you know, we have a much more thorough process that slows us down, as Ambassador Lang said, nothing's perfect, but it's the best we can come up with. But it just means the U.S. has to U.S. satellite space companies have to fight quite a few battles at home before they can even start to fight those battles on the international stage and compete internationally.

Okay. And so what's the solution to that?

I think that this administration in particular has been very vocal about supporting the space industry in U.S. space policy broadly defined and I'd love for this delegation to take this administration's positions and move very aggressively forward in support of the space and satellite industry.

Thank you all for your participation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlelady yields and Representative Barragán, you are recognized for five minutes for questioning.

Thank you. The upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference will set up global rules for spectrum use and satellite services that directly shape how Americans connect and companies compete. This is especially true in my district where K2 Space builds satellites that support American defense missions and broadband networks. So we need to ensure that the U.S. is driving the conversation at WRC, not reacting to it. But I have to say when I first got the information for this hearing, I said what's WRC and what exactly do they do? So I want to start with you, Ambassador. Why should my constituents care about the WRC?

Thank you for the question. And I think we've cited some of the examples, but there are so many. It's important to companies that are trying to put out new products like wearable devices or self-driving cars. It's important to consumers who, as we've mentioned, want to get off a plane in a foreign country and be able to connect to the network right away. It's critical to our military and our national defense that their radars and communications systems be able to operate without interference. Our transportation safety, both maritime and aviation, depend on communications and navigation systems that use radio frequency spectrum. Weather satellites use spectrum as well so that we can have accurate weather forecasts. So there's so many. And then there's the commercial side of it is that if the United States can be successful in promoting our approach to spectrum allocation around the world, then our companies have an advantage.

Great, thank you. My next question is for Mr. Cavossa. The Port of Los Angeles is in my district and it uses satellite services for everything from vessel navigation and cargo release to environmental monitoring and port security. Could WRC satellite decisions also impact the port's operations?

I mean, the simple answer is yes. I mean, if those companies that are providing those services today don't get the outcome that we need out of this WRC, then their health of those businesses will be challenged and therefore providing services to the port would be challenged and it could turn into a foreign company that provides that in the future.

And how do the decisions at the WRC impact the competitiveness of American satellite manufacturers and in particular, you know, companies that are in my district like K2?

No, K2 is a great example of a new player that's building potentially hundreds or thousands of satellites for, you know, U.S. customers, U.S. military, U.S. government going forward. And again, I want to reiterate that the space and the satellite marketplace is very much a global marketplace. We want to be able to sell services and satellites to not just U.S. customers but customers across the globe and we need sort of a very stable regulatory environment that favors satellite communications and favors the use of satellite communications in order for this to be a success going forward.

Great, thank you. Ambassador, the 2028 Summer Olympics will take place in my district and throughout Los Angeles area. How might WRC outcomes impact the Olympics and the experience of international visitors traveling to my district for the events?

Thank you. I think that's super exciting and it will be important in the facilitating the travel and people being able to connect, people being able to fly airplanes that can use their navigation and communication systems. And I understand that there will also likely be a 6G demonstration during the Olympics and I think that will be a great opportunity to see what these new technologies can do and why we need spectrum for them.

Great. And my last question for anybody who wants to chime in is what can we do as lawmakers to make sure that WRC is successful and anything that we could really do?

I think the most important thing is to make sure that our team is well resourced when it goes to Shanghai and has a fully funded diplomatic strategy in the months ahead of it as well.

Great, yes. And I think it's, you know, we need to not lose sight of the fact that we have a treaty conference this year as well. It's not just WRC next year and the U.S. needs to succeed this year in November to succeed next year at WRC. And that means getting the positions we want, that means getting the election results that we want, and that means getting our candidates elected. And you all go out and you travel the world, you meet with foreign officials, they come and meet with you. So to the extent you can also advocate for the U.S. candidates for Doreen, for the ITU Council, for Jennifer to the RRB, those are great things that you can do that can help the team.

Great. Thank you all so much. I yield back.

Gentlelady yields and now recognize the Representative Peters for your five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the witnesses for coming out and help us think through this important conference coming ahead. It's critical for us to understand the decisions that are made at the WRC will shape global wireless networks, satellite services, and emerging technologies for decades. I'm proud to represent San Diego, which is widely recognized as one of the world's leading center for wireless communications, telecommunications research and development. Our region's home to innovators like Qualcomm and has played a central role in the development of 3G, 4G, LTE, 5G, and now 6G technologies. When the U.S. sends its delegation to the World Radio Conference, we know decisions made abroad will affect our American companies. These spectrum decisions determine the extent to which U.S. technology or technology promoted by our adversaries can scale globally. And we've heard that during the 2023 World Radio Conference, the U.S. was underprepared with limited concrete policy positions for which to advocate, letting countries we previously relied on to warm up to policy positions of our adversaries like China. Ambassador Lang, briefly can you recap for us the importance of front-end preparations and negotiations with our allies and what are the two or three steps you think we should be taking right now to make sure a year and a half out from the conference that we're ready to work with like-minded countries to protect ourselves?

Well, thank you for the question. Broadly speaking, I think we need to make sure that our process to develop our positions is working quickly and identifying those tough issues that need to be elevated quickly so that we can finalize our positions as early as possible. And then on the other hand, we need a strong diplomatic campaign that is global that engages broadly with both our traditional partners and allies, our military allies that want to make sure that we have interoperable systems, countries in our region that want to make sure that we don't have interference problems on our borders, countries that are eager to develop new technologies and want to share our interests in an innovative ecosystem. So that diplomatic campaign is important and is taking place right now but needs to continuously ramp up as we get closer to the conference.

Okay, I want to talk to Mr. John a little bit about the development of the content of our policy positions. Leadership at the WRC ensures global spectrum rules support economic competitiveness, national security, American innovation. We need to integrate feedback from experts on the ground who turn these policies into action. So Mr. John, how does the FCC's advisory committee integrate industry feedback into its policy recommendations and what do you do when industry actors disagree among themselves? How do you resolve that and come up with a national strategy for us?

Thank you for the question. I also have to say Qualcomm has been super involved in the various prep processes and so we're thankful to them as well. And in terms of the FCC, we have a federal advisory committee called the WAC, the WRC Advisory Committee, and that is where members of that committee can actually develop the different positions for the United States and the specific regulatory changes that we want to see made. As you've alluded to, it's not a straightforward process. There are going to be contentious agenda items. And we have one currently where we had three different views established. And that is how we start trying to dissect, hey, we have consensus on all these topics but there's still one or two, three things that we need to actually address. And so those three views are then put forth from the WAC to the FCC, which then publishes it for public notice. And at that point, anybody in the public can actually comment and side with one of the views or think of a compilation of all the views. One interesting aspect is if the NTIA is able to advance its RCS process and get its own proposals over, they're typically submitted to the WAC process. And we would like to have the opportunity to actually review them in conjunction with all the commercial interests. And so in the end, we put together all the views, we present them, they go for public notice and comment, and then it goes up to the higher levels at the State Department, NTIA, and FCC.

So you feel that there's a way to smooth that out. I would just say, you know, this highlights one of the challenges we have as a country where, you know, we don't have the government involved directly in this. We rely on in many cases private companies like Qualcomm to do our 5G, 6G research. And we have sort of this a lot of people giving views in a public way. I just hope you're conscious that to the extent we can hone our, I'm sure you're conscious, to the extent we can hone our position as acutely as possible ahead of time, the better off we'll be. Thank you all for being here and thanks for your good work and wish you the best. I yield back.

Gentleman yields and now recognize Representative Carter for your five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our witnesses today. As the co-chair of the Wi-Fi Caucus, it's priority for me that the United States remains at the forefront of the Wi-Fi technology battle that every American relies on every single day. Now more than ever, we know that Wi-Fi is not a luxury. It's a necessity. The upcoming World Radiocommunications Conference or WRC-27 will have significant implications for the future of the entire 6 gigahertz band for Wi-Fi and other unlicensed uses that drive technological innovation and boost our economy. We also know that China and other countries are actively working to build coalitions at the ITU to advance their priorities, undermining this critical technology. The United States must have a strategy in place to defend Wi-Fi on the global stage and remain competitive. Doing so strengthens our position to lead internationally and to shape the future of telecommunications. We need to be ready. Mr. John, we're just 18 months away from the WRC. Is now the right time for the U.S. to set its priorities and develop a plan for how we achieve them?

I'd say the best time was actually yesterday. And it's important because we've been very focused on China here, but actually one of the regions that gets ahead of everybody is Europe.

Are we behind the nefarious actors?

Right now I think we're about equal. No one has really come out with proposals for each of the agenda items, but you will see in the next...

Equal's not good. We need to be ahead, right?

Agreed.

Message received. Mr. Lang, can you please discuss what steps NTIA and FCC and the State Department must start taking now that we can have a unified approach to advance United States position at WRC-27, including protecting the 6 gigahertz band?

Thank you for the question. I think the critical step that needs to take place as soon as possible is to identify where those thorny, challenging issues are that don't have a clear path forward, elevate them in our internal intergovernmental interagency process to make sure that we can reach, reconcile differences and reach final positions in a timely way that enables us to engage early with our partners and build consensus around our priorities.

Optimal word, timely way.

I'm sorry?

Optimal word you used, in a timely way. Are we in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, this committee and beyond, are we acting timely enough? Or are there things that you would direct and ask us to do now that you have a listening ear of knowing and understanding the importance of this? Give us direction. That's what we're here for, not just to talk to or at you, but to listen to you.

I think the important thing for Congress right now is to continue to pay attention to these issues and make sure that the administration is aware of your interest and support for U.S. success at this conference, to make sure that our team is fully resourced. And I think Fiona, Ms. Alexander, had a great point as well for you to help us with engagement, especially for elections coming up at the end of this year.

Are you concerned about elections and the integrity of them?

I think we need to make sure that we continue to engage. We can't rest, but I think we have strong candidates.

Got it. Ms. Alexander, what should United States be doing immediately to ensure that international spectrum policies continue to advance U.S. interest?

Thank you very much for the question. And as some of the things we've covered before, we need to decide what we want and we need to make those choices and we need to make them quickly. We need to actually identify who's going to be leading our delegations. There's a lot of good career staff across the interagency that have been working hard on this, but it's important that those teams and those teams build their relationships and they understand who their leader in the process is. And I think if we can identify our leadership and if we can identify what our positions are, then we naturally go to build our coalitions and that gets us out in front.

So how does this benefit the American consumer and our economy?

Choices made at the ITU impact everything you do related to communications and you want those choices to reflect democratic values and American innovation. You don't want them to reflect the choices and values of adversaries to the United States.

Are we missing anything?

I mean, we could always be doing more and I think it would be behoove everybody to do more and it would be great for folks to actually just work back. You know, we know when the meeting's happening. We know when positions should be submitted. We know when it makes sense to put deadlines in place. We should develop that schedule and we should hold people accountable to that schedule.

My time's expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield. Thank you.

Gentleman yields and now recognize Representative McClellan for your five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Matsui for holding this hearing. The beauty of being one of the last members in seniority is your questions get all asked. I do have one. But before I get there, I just want to say that as the United States enters the World Radiocommunications Conference in 2027, we must enter it with a unified voice, a clear forward-looking policy agenda that modernizes global spectrum frameworks, ensures safe, interoperable, and resilient communications networks, and continues to drive innovation and economic growth both here and around the world. And we have to acknowledge that the United States is not starting from a position of strength, unfortunately. As many of my colleagues and our witnesses have noted today, and it is not lost on me, that the next conference will be held in Shanghai. This context matters. Our strategic competitors are not only investing heavily in next-generation communications technology, but are also actively shaping international standards and governance models in a way that may not reflect our values of openness, transparency, and the free flow of information, as Ms. Alexander alluded to. Mr. John, given the enormous economic value that unlicensed 6 gigahertz spectrum generates for the United States, how should policymakers think about the growing global competition between the U.S. model of unlicensed Wi-Fi in 6 gigahertz and China's model of licensed-only cellular use?

Thank you for the question. And one helpful thing this cycle is there is no 6 gigahertz agenda item, so we're able to continue protecting what we had established the past four years. But you do highlight a very valid point. You see this dichotomy of countries that continue to do mobile IMT in 6 gigahertz and then the others that are doing Wi-Fi unlicensed use. And I think the key difference nowadays is when we were advocating for WRC-23, we said, yes, 6 gigahertz unlicensed, but we didn't have alternative spectrum to point toward. I think the narrative has changed quite a bit in this administration, thanks to you all, spectrum auction authority being restored and renewed focus on additional bands that could be available, right, for IMT. And so as we go forward, we now have multiple options at our behest. So it's possible that 6 gigahertz does get greater traction across the world and we can move and have IMT in non-6 gigahertz bands.

And what's at stake for the American technology leadership if more countries follow China's approach?

I think we've highlighted global scale, device costs, market access. These are all at stake.

Thank you. And for any of the witnesses in my last couple of minutes, is there anything we have not asked you that you think we should have asked you as we prepare for the conference? Yes, Ms. Alexander.

So we spent a lot of time talking about WRC because of the importance of spectrum and space, and we've talked about the Plenipotentiary Conference and the importance of elections and U.S. leadership. But there are other decisions that are going to be made at the Plenipotentiary that have the potential to impact America and Americans. And one of those is whether or not to convene the third treaty conference of the ITU that we have not discussed, which is the World Conference on International Telecommunications. And that updates the international telecom regulations. That doesn't happen on a routine basis. It has to be a decision of the Plenipot to convene that treaty conference. That conference has not been the most pleasant for us. In 2012, we actually walked out of that conference with 50 allies and did not sign that treaty because there were provisions that would have regulated the internet in ways that we don't like. And we can expect the Plenipotentiary to have that conversation again. And in addition to bad proposals on internet or cyber, we have to be concerned that there might be a treaty conference to regulate AI. So again, this is why I keep saying Plenipot is important, not just the WRC. So it's important that we look at this cycle of meetings.

Thank you for that. And I yield back.

Gentlelady yields and now recognize Representative Joyce for your five minutes of questioning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Matsui for allowing me to join this important hearing. Securing U.S. leadership of communications technology is critical as we continue to engage in what you have all outlined this afternoon as a significant competition with China and global leaders. China has invested significant resources in the development of advanced technology throughout the communication fields, specifically to the point of our conversation in AI innovation. The United States cannot and must not lose the AI race. We must reduce barriers to innovation and invest in the development of these technologies that are leading to important advancements in manufacturing, advancements in healthcare, and in economic growth right here on American soil. Pennsylvania stands at the forefront of the AI revolution in the United States with the historic $92 billion investment announced by President Trump in the Commonwealth last year. Pennsylvania is set to attract more jobs, more domestic companies, and more energy production. Investments like this are critical and as we work to innovate our technology beyond the capabilities of China. As the U.S. approaches the ITU conference in Qatar and the World Radiocommunication Conference in China, we must have a unified vision that places innovation at the forefront. We must have the ability to be prepared. That leadership that you talked about has to be in place long in advance before these meetings. In the midst of the technological revolution, I appreciate the focus coming out of the White House and President Trump's executive orders ensuring U.S. leadership on AI and the ongoing work within the U.S. government to ensure that America remains the global tech leader. Mr. John, can you describe the stakes of the U.S. not being successful? Is this a doomsday scenario if we don't step up right now and have the capabilities to develop the team to be in place at these conferences?

Yeah, if you are using your example for AI, for example, that is something that's going to be heavily dependent on having access to a lot of bandwidth. And so if we're not able to secure that bandwidth and make sure that bandwidth is globally harmonized, it's going to be these companies in your state that are going to be the ones suffering because they will have to design different chipsets, they'll have to design different base stations, they'll have to design, they'll have to go through different equipment bodies to get certifications. This all increases costs, it delays deployment timelines, and in the end, the American consumer is the one that's going to be suffering.

So Mr. John, how can the U.S. use these upcoming conversations to cement our status in the AI race against China? Is this that opportunity right now? Is that what we're looking down the scope at?

So with respect to AI, it's not currently, at least to my knowledge, within the mandate of the ITU, and I'm sure it might come up at Plenipotentiary, and so it's something the United States will have to gather its thoughts and have a position on. But I can tell you the underlying, the bloodline to what's going to help a lot of these AI applications and features is spectrum. And so there, there will be direct implications and we need to be ahead of the game.

Ms. Alexander, you talked about forming a cohesive group, developing that leadership right now. How important is that for these conferences to be successful for the United States?

Thank you for the question, and I think it's critical because the other thing that's important to keep in mind is that these ITU meetings are constant. You're always seeing the same people over and over, and you have to develop your relationships with them and your personal working relationships with them. And while we have a lot of career staff across the agencies, everyone wants to see your ambassador and your head of delegation. So getting that person in place, getting that person on a plane, getting that person in front of people to meet them and develop those relationships and that rapport is fundamental to us winning.

I thank all of you for your participation in this discussion here today. And as the United States approaches important international engagements at the ITU conference and the World Radiocommunication Conference, I think it's important that we place our focus on encouraging innovation to secure and maintain our leadership among global communities in technology. We must utilize this, and this is an opportunity to continue to advance our development of AI technology so once again that the United States can maintain that leadership position and dominance in the age of AI. Thank you all for your participation. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to participate here and I yield back the remainder of my time.

All right, the gentleman yields. And now I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, so ordered. Seeing there are no more, no further members wishing to be recognized, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and your expertise in sharing with us on this important matter. I remind members that they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record and I ask the witnesses to respond to those questions promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on April 1st, April Fool's Day, 2026. So maybe you'll get some April Fool's questions. And with that, without objection, this subcommittee is adjourned.