Hearings to examine the World Radiocommunication Conference 2027

The hearing to order. Welcome everyone and thank you for being here today to discuss the United States' preparation for the twenty twenty-seven World Radio Communication Conference. The World Radio Communication Conference, convened by the International Telecommunication Union every four years, is one of the most consequential consequential global forays into spectrum policy. The decisions made at these conferences shape the international rules governing how radio frequency spectrum is allocated and shared around the world. Those decisions have far-reaching implications for United States' economic competitiveness, national security, scientific research, and the continued leadership of the United States in wireless and satellite technologies. Next year's conference will be hosted in Shanghai, and the Chinese Communist Party will certainly be prepared to advance positions meant to undermine the United States' leadership. The United States must enter these negotiations with a strong position. This requires a tightly coordinated inter-agency process. This process, which is led by NTIA, begins with federal agencies providing technical input and operational perspectives on each agenda item under consideration for work twenty-seven. The United States' final position should reflect the full range of national spectrum interests. Among agencies, the Department of Defense plays a particularly significant role. DOD is the largest federal user of radio freq- frequency spectrum within the federal government. And many of its most critical capabilities, including satellite communication, radars, radars, I had a dog named a radar, radars and missile warning systems depend on reliable and interference-free spectrum assets. As the work agenda looks to address space-related services and satellite operations, the intersection between international spectrum policy and national security becomes even more pronounced. National security missions cannot simply be engineered around certain commercial spectrum priorities. This is exactly why Congress exempted seven dot four to s eight dot four gigahertz band from FCC auction authority last year, in addition to the lower three band. Other federal agencies also contribute essential expertise to the inter-agency process. NASA and NOAA depend on spectrum for scientific satellites and weather monitoring systems that are crucial for forecasting and climate observation. The FAA relies on spectrum for aviation safety and navigation systems that support the integrity of the global aviation network. Each of these missions must be carefully considered as the United States evaluates proposed regulatory changes at the international level, where they will inevitably impact the domestic use of America's airways. The challenge and the responsibility of the inter-agency process is to reconcile these diverse needs and translate them into a cohesive position that advances American innovation and resilience. This unified position will allow the United States to engage effectively with regional partners build coalitions with allied nations and advocate confidently for outcomes that protect United States' interest. Those interests are substantial. The regulatory frameworks adopted at the conference will influence how the next generation of satellite constellations operate, influence the coexistence of emerging communications services, and influence how spectrum policy supports both economic growth and national security. That is why preparation for work twenty-seven is not a short-term exercise. Today's committee hearing examines how best to support the inter-agency in the coming months. We all share the goal of advancing US leadership in spectrum and in space. Thank you and I look forward to your testimonies. And now I recognize my friend, ranking member, Luhan. for your opening statement.

Chair Fisher, thank you so very much for calling this hearing and to all of our witnesses. Thank you for being available today to discuss how the United States will be preparing for the International Telecommunication Union's World Radio Communication Conference at the end of two thousand and twenty seven. Now, United States has long been the world's leader in communications technology, developing advanced networks and devices used by billions of people that have been critical in shaping the modern digital economy. We must not take that leadership role for granted. That's why we must take a hard look at the role the United States will play at the WRC two thousand twenty seven being held in Shanghai, China. Now, hosting the conference gives China a clear home field advantage in a form that carries enormous geopolitical weight. China understands the international standard bodies are strategic areas where economics and geopolitical powers can be built for decades. Congress has already acted to protect our own infrastructure from China, providing four point nine eight billion dollars for the secure and trusted communications network reimbursement program, known as rip and replace, to help small and rural providers remove equipment from Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE. The People's Republic of China has made it a national priority to surpass United States' dominance in the technologies that will define global connectivity. This would threaten our national security, which is why our engagement in the United States at the WRC twenty seven matters. Success requires a clearly executed strategy, coordination and accountability across our government, active partnership with the private sector, and most critically, strong coalitions with our allies, as we are learning in the time that we are speaking, that matters. That's why I'm deeply concerned that the Trump administration has been careless and outright reckless in its approach to our global relationships. While the president has touted this as a America first agenda, the execution is doing real damage to our alliances and to Americans at home. Over the last few months, the administration has cut tens of billions in global aid, conducted illegal military strikes across multiple regions, including in Nigeria and Iran, and imposed tariffs that hurt small businesses and families. If we continue on this path, The logical conclusion is self-imposed isolation to our own detriment. Congress must ensure that the Trump administration, the FCC and TIA and the State Department are fully coordinating and accountable in their preparation for the WRC twenty seven. The United States must engage in the lead-up to the conference with clarity and purpose. The outcome of WRC twenty seven is not predetermined, but what we know for certain is that it will shape the future of global The United States must advance a unified strategy to promote US innovation in space and wireless technologies, and protect our national defense interests. If we fail to act, we will arrive in Shanghai divided and unprepared, handling our competitors a strategic advantage. This should not be a partisan issue. What matters now is whether we will step into our role as leaders in communication technology or willingly cede that ground to China. We are fortunate to have an expert panel with us today, and I look forward to productive conversation. And again, I thank you all for being here. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Lujan. I would like to now introduce our witnesses for today. Our first witness is Ambassador Grace Ko, Grace Ko, former head of the US delegation to the two thousand nineteen World Radio Communication Conference. In this role, she managed inter-agency discussions to develop United States' positions and oversaw negotiations at the conference. Ambassador Ko currently serves as Vice President of Government Affairs at Sienna. Our second witness is Ambassador Stephen Lang, former US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy. In this capacity, he led the United States delegations to several international conferences, including the twenty twenty-three World Radio Communication Conference. Ambassador Lang currently serves as a Senior Advisor at Crest Hill Advisors. Our third witness is Doctor James Lewis, a distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. His current work focuses on strengthening American foreign policy and examining how innovation shapes global competition. And our final witness is Mister Michael Calabrese Calabrese? Am I saying that correctly?

Calibrese.

I'm sorry?

Calabrese.

Calabrese.

It's a little bit westward.

I was trying to be East Coast. I'm sorry. Mister Michael Calabrese. Close?

Yeah, it's a little bit west.

OK. OK. Director of Wireless Future and Senior Advisor of Technology and Democracy at New America. Uh, with that, uh, Ambassador Coe, you are recognized for five minutes to give your opening statement. Welcome.

Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on US leadership at the World Radio Communications Conference twenty twenty seven. My name is Grace Koh. I am Vice President of Government Relations at Ciena, and I did have the privilege of serving as US Ambassador and Head of Delegation to work nineteen. I am here in my personal capacity. My employer has no significant stake in the outcomes of work twenty seven. So, I will make two points. why consensus is essential at the work, and why it's so hard to achieve, and why we must prepare early, given the added risks of holding work twenty-seven in Shanghai. The world r radio communication conference is among the most technically complex treaty negotiations in the world. Nearly two hundred administrations participate and the outcomes set global rules for spectrum use and satellite operations. These outcomes are almost always reached by consensus, A vote is widely viewed as a failure, not just as a matter of tradition, but because the system cannot work without broad buy-in. Spectrum roles only matter if countries implement them, and signals cross borders, satellites operate globally. If roles were adopted by a narrow margin, dissenting countries would have little incentive to comply, driving more interference and less predictability for everyone. Consensus produces durable roles. But it is hard. And the work starts years before the conference begins. Yeah, in the United States, work preparation pulls together federal agencies, engineers, and private sector stakeholders with competing priorities. Carriers want capacity for mobile networks, satellite operators want globally harmonized roles for new systems. Federal agencies must protect missions tied to national security, aviation, safety, and weather. And reconciling those interests takes time. Technical studies, policy trade-offs, and hard negotiation. parties test limits and hold positions. Progress requires persistence, credible analysis and practical compromises, and it also requires making hard calls. But this work strengthens the US position. By the time we arrive with a proposal, the toughest objections have been surfaced and addressed. We show up with a position that is technically credible and resilient at the negotiating table. At the conference, negotiators must turn those different proposals into operating roles for four weeks in four weeks. That's why the final days can run late into the night. But consensus is usually reached because everyone understands the alternative, the possibility of no roles and more interference. For work twenty-seven, the takeaway is simple. Uh, start early. Consensus takes sustained work in the US uh, with US stakeholders and with other delegations, and we can't afford the delay. Here's why. Shanghai adds a real operational and political risk. Um, including a uh, including the fact that this host government has interests that diverge sharply from ours. We should assume that devices communications may be monitored, and that raises significant cyber security risks for a delegation that depends on laptops, phones, and shared technical documents. We should also plan for constrained connectivity. Common US collaboration tools may not work reliably. Delegations may have limited access to remote technical support so key experts need to be on the ground. to respond to late breaking proposals. Export controls may further limit discussions and state media may try to shape the narrative. The response is preparation and discipline. Resolve sensitive policy issues earlier, not in Shanghai. Train the delegation early, name the delegation head early, staff the delegation to cover parallel sessions and train the team throughout the cycle. Issue clear guidance on communications and export compliance and at the conference enforce tight information handling practices the State Department will also need to intensify its engagement with ITU leadership to protect a transparent roles-based conference and plan now with like-minded partners for contingencies like unexpected political disruptions early decisions also let US negotiators build support and shape regional priorities positions before uh work twenty seven. That requires a full strength leadership at both the NTIA and the FCC. In work nineteen, NTIA did not have a confirmed administrator, in work twenty three, the FCC spectrum auction authority had lapsed. Thankfully, Congress has restored the FCC's auction authority and confirmed an NTIA administrator. Going forward, both agencies should be fully expected to respe- represent federal and private sector equities. We enter the work twenty-seven cycle with major strengths. World class technical expertise, a transparent preparation process, and strong government industry collaboration. If we start early and plan rigorously for the Shanghai environment, we will be well positioned to shape global spectrum policy in ways that advance our, uh, innovation, growth and national security. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Ambassador. You were right on point there with your five minutes. Thank you. Ambassador Lang, welcome. You are now recognized for five minutes.

Uh, thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee. I'm honored and grateful for the opportunity to share my perspectives on this important topic. I had the honor of leading our delegation to the twenty twenty-three World Radio Communication Conference, and recently retired from the State Department after a thirty-year career serving under five presidents. I'm honored to testify today on my own behalf based on those experiences, and should know that I'm not testifying on behalf of clients of Cresthill advisors. The World Radio Communication 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 v- bit data-intensive technologies and 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 WiFi to achieve global economies of scale, driving billions of dollars in investment. It ensures our military that its radar and communication 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 That's why it was a significant blow to US interests when the ITU council voted to accept China's offer to host WRC twenty-seven in Shanghai. A Chinese official will now be the presumptive chair of 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 by the successful US effort in twenty twenty two 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 twenty seven. I believe there are four critical steps that the US government must take to win. First, keep the pressure on China. China won the vote to host by a narrow margin of only twenty-five votes of the forty-eight 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 negotiations of the host country agreement. Second, accelerate US preparations. The US delegation in the past has too often been disadvantaged by delays in developing US positions. Senior leadership of US agencies, including the FCC and departments of commerce, defense and state, need to commit with White House support to developing US 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 coalitions through persistent, high-level diplomatic engagement, the more successful we will 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 twenty seven and I hope we'll see an announcement soon the sooner that happens the better. It will also be critical to make sure that he or she has the right team in place,

Thank you, Ambassador. Uh, next we have Doctor Lewis. Uh, Uh, welcome, welcome, and you are recognized for your opening comments. and you are recognized for your opening comments.

Thank you, and I thank the committee for the opportunity to testify. My testimony will discuss four issues, the environment in Shanghai, uh, issues for Leo constellations and six G, and process goals for the WRC. Um, we've entered an era of ubiquitous global connectivity. The economic opportunities and the security implications are immense. The suppliers of ubiquitous connectivity will gain strategic advantage. And this is perhaps the subtext that drives the work. It's also a central part of competition with China. China recognizes the importance of technological leadership. It was, as you heard, narrowly able to win the work chair. And we use this to shape the conference and strengthen its influence at the WI at the ITU. Negotiating in China poses unique security challenges. Chinese espionage efforts can circumvent most defenses. Any un-encrypted communication is subject to interception. Technologies that allow for surveillance without the device owner's cooperation or knowledge, suggest that even physically securing a device is insufficient. The US can help reduce this risk by ensuring that all delegations are aware, and by suggesting possible means to counter it. The outcome of the work will be shaped in part by the state of international relations, eighteen months from now. The works negotiating contain will negotiating terrain will be difficult, but not impossible. One important point to make is that the US can insist on equitable and transparent processes and emphasize the need for the Chinese chair to play by the rules and respect consensus. Sovereignty and competition in space are defining issues. China and other nations suffer from startling envy, fearing that the US commercial dominance will crowd them out of low earth orbit. In response, China submitted filings in late twenty twenty five for roughly two thousand and three satellites to challenge the US. Um, they don't actually have the satellites in orbit, but they filed the claim. Another issue will be how to regulate satellite providers, as they increasingly compete with terrestrial providers. One controversial proposal suggests requiring national approval for satellite operations. This is an effort to shut off Starlink and a response to events in the ukraine finding a way to accommodate sovereignty concerns without putting us companies at a disadvantage is one of the challenges for the work spectrum allocations i don't need to tell you spectrum allocations are always contentious this will be the last work people say six g will appear in twenty thirty and if that's true this will be the last work before it's deployed six G sect spectrum disputes will be similar to the issues seen previously over five G spectrum Chief among these, not the only, but chief, is that the US government occupies spectrum that other countries see as commercial. China will likely try and force the US to defend these national uh allocations. The administration is moving quickly and is working to appoint the US head of delegation. This is a viable first step. A head of delegation with support from the administration and congress can ensure consistency in the US position and in the US delegation. The next step is to reach consensus on US work positions. Work twenty seven will require nimble negotiating skills and a willingness to work with allies and partners to achieve the best outcome. With that, thank you.

Thank you, Doctor Lewis. Next we have Mister Calabrese. Uh, welcome, and you are recognized for your opening statement.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman Fisher. I direct the Wi- Wireless Future Program at new america a non-profit policy institute here in washington uh decisions at wr c twenty seven concerning the allocation of spectrum for licensed cellular wifi and satellite services will have a substantial impact on the global competitiveness of leading us industries the itus harmonization of spectrum drives global economies of scale for equipment and consumer products ITU rules also determine whether our nation's dominant low earth orbit or LEO satellite providers will have the spectrum and global market access access they need to scale up lower costs and innovate both at home and worldwide. It is therefore crucial that the US quickly finalize unified positions on priority issues, select a senior official as head of the delegation far sooner than in the past, and begin consulting widely with allies to build coalitions early. To succeed in Shanghai, we'll need to overcome several key challenges. The first is to develop clear, unified US positions as soon as possible, so that the State Department can first submit them for consideration by CITEL, the group of nations in our own ITU region too. There are also important issues that are not formal agenda items. The most salient are the ITU rules that govern spectrum sharing, between traditional geo-stationary satellites or GSOs and the increasingly prevalent Leo constellations launched by SpaceX, Amazon and others. As the Space Bureau has acknowledged, the ITU's twenty five year old sharing rules are over protective, needlessly reducing Leo satellite power, capacity and operational performance. It remains possible to modernize satellite spectrum sharing rules at wr c twenty seven but this will require a focused us effort a second challenge is the appointment of a senior official to lead preparations regardless of the short term nature of the formal appointment us should have that future delegation head on board at least twelve to eighteen months prior to the conference a third challenge is the imperative to build coalitions in support of us priorities this must focus initially on consensus among the nations in our own region too through the CETL process. A fourth key challenge is developing and managing priorities. The US must resist making concessions, particularly early, on one set of issues if it undermines another vital industry or interest. An example is the global market for telecom equipment. The US dominates the world market for enterprise WiFi, equipment and services. In contrast, for cellular equipment, China's Huawei controls a larger share of the global market than Europe's Nokia and Ericsson combined while the US has no significant share. Not surprisingly, China is using the WRC process to push more nations to allocate the upper six gigahertz spectrum for licensed cellular, spectrum the US allocated for unlicensed and and WiFi use in twenty twenty. This effort undermines six gigahertz as a global super-band for next generation WiFi. Agenda item one point seven proposes to change the allocation of seven point one to eight point four gigahertz to International Mobile or IMT, for regions two and three only. This would restrict the flexibility of member nations to use portions of these bands, to expand WiFi capacity. Mobile industry representatives on the FCC's WRC advisory committee support this change, despite the fact that the one big beautiful bill specifically excluded seven point four to eight point four gigahertz from reallocation to imt to protect national security operations. Um, as chairman fisher mentioned at the outset. We believe the us position should oppose a change to imt that us law prohibited just nine months ago. moreover the results of nta nti's ongoing studies of the lower seven gigahertz band will be available later this year making a position now other than no change premature at best finally it's notable that eighty percent of the entire wrc agenda is focused on space-based and leo satellite issues my written testimony describes three agenda items that should be us priorities because of their potential impact on our world leading Leo satellite industry. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Uh, we will start our first round of questioning now, and I will begin five minutes for questions. Uh, first, thank you for all your testimonies. I want to emphasize the point that the United States' influence at work depends on the strength of the inter-agency coordination. Ambassador Ko, what happens when other countries perceive that the United States has not fully aligned its domestic stakeholders before these negotiations begin?

Thank you for the question, Chairwoman. Um, I can speak personally from experience when uh I was able to uh when I was ab had the honor of representing the delegation that when people do perceive government is not aligned uh the uh the positions and proposals that the us offers at regional conferences are not taken seriously and uh not considered for uh for adoption by other administrations readily this can be countered to some degree by uh very frank discussions negotiations between seasoned negotiators who can discuss with each other where things are going and where things are laid out. That is the beauty and um and and use of having seasoned professionals at these negotiations. Uh but at the same time the truth is that the that the the the position is not um is not settled. And other delegations can make hay with that where where they will. Uh the best course of action obviously is to have a seasoned leader pushing those positions into place at the inter-agency domestically. Thank you.

You, can you tell me, do you know if um other nations have their teams together already?

Madam, um, the other teams do not have the same uh spectrum regulatory structure that the United States does. As uh every young telecommunications attorney knows uh allocation of spectrum policy is is uh is um is divided between the ntia and the fcc uh with the federal spectrum uh responsibility at the ntia and private spectrum uh uh responsibility at the fcc the two have always been uh a bit at odds with each other uh given the value of spectrum resources as such uh i did point out in my testimony that the the discussion between the two entities can be fierce must occur among equals in order to be able to bring the best positions to light. And when the resolution does come, and it does, because the alternative is worse, um, when it does come, our positions are stronger and more resilient as a result.

As we look at the priorities of federal agencies ahead of work twenty-seven, we know that national security space operations rely on that seven dot four to eight dot four gigahertz band. And that's why that band, as was mentioned, it was specifically excluded from the FCC's current auction authority in statute last year. Ambassador Koch, can you tell me, has the United States ever gone into a w- a world radio communication conference and advocated for a position that directly contradicts its own domestic law? Yes or no?

No, ma'am.

And what would that mean for American leadership? globally and our credibility if that would happen.

Uh, I I think that that's a that's a self-explanatory, madam, uh, that we would uh it would undermine our own positions.

Thank you. Uh, Doctor Lewis, when DOD's spectrum needs, such as protecting certain radar bands or high-priority military, um, satellite communications, when they diverge from the global harmonization How should the delegation, how should our delegation balance those tensions while at the conference?

Uh, thank you for the question. So far the US has been successful in defending its national allocations, and in some ways IT rules uh permit that in a way. We're such a big country, we can get away with it. There is a first mover disadvantage for the US, which is we develop spectrum applications for government purposes, for defense. decades before other countries and their positions now diverge one of the options that has come up in the past is the potential for spectrum sharing this is something that every administration since the bush administration has been working on every year gets a little better so perhaps there's a technical solution but at the moment it's in our interest to defend the national allocations from and china will try to exploit that

mmm

it's an obvious target But we can probably be successfully defended.

I hope so. Um, that day hasn't come yet, uh, to have that, uh, tech uh, technology present for the spectrum sharing. It, uh, I support that and I support as we continue to, um, look at research and be able to accomplish that goal. Thank you. Senator Lujan, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Fisher. Now, this question will be for each of the witnesses. In your testimony, you all clearly laid out the important role the United States played in previous world radio conferences a treaty level international forum every four years. However, President Trump just this past January through a recent memorandum announced that the United States is withdrawing from a long list of international organizations conventions and treaties that are, and I quote, "contrary to the interests of the United States". This is in addition to the United States withdrawing from the World Health Organization at the start of this administration. My concern is this, that the administration will not have the discipline necessary to be impactful in Shanghai in work twenty seven. So the question I have for each of you, Ambassador Ko, what are the consequences if i- if the United States withdraws from the World Radio Conference?

Thank you, Senator Lujan, for the question. Um, uh, this is a this is a concern that I have long-tracked. Uh, it is ext- uh International coordination on spectrum and satellite operations are not really a policy choice. It's a science. Uh, spectrum does not respect borders, and satellite operations impact large swaths of the uh s of of the Earth as they orbit. Uh, without international coordination, wireless networks and satellite systems, aviation communications, weather satellites, they can't work. So we really don't have a choice. our national security systems depend heavily on our ability to maintain interference-free operations.

Appreciate that.

Ambassador Link. Um, thank you for the question, Senator. I think it's an important one, and I fully agree with everything that Ambassador Ko has said, and and would also add that we would be ceding the field to China and that it would be able to take advantage of that to to promote its approaches to spectrum allocation, which would give its firms a clear advantage in markets around the world and provide them enormous aco- economies of scale in in production.

Thank you, sir. Doctor Lewis.

Well, to be a little contrarian, there was some deadwood in the international system that probably needed to be cleared out. And certainly there was bloat, uh, particularly at the UN. I actually got a phone call, uh, last week about an agreement that I negotiated is now on the chopping block. So it's a bit shockfully shocking when you see one of your own children at risk, but it does make some sense. We have eighteen months to work this out. over the long term nations will vote their national interest and if we play their cards right most countries will realize their national interest does not lie with china so that's a shot that's a difficult question but i think we can do it and i conclude by saying america first does not necessarily mean america alone so you're right to emphasize the importance of partners in these negotiations

so doctor lewis if i can read into your response it's not a good idea that the united states withdraw from work twenty seven

Definitely not a good idea.

Appreciate that. Mister Calabrese.

Yes, I mean, on the one hand there's no question that multilateral organizations like the um WRC and the ITU can be very frustrating. Um, at the same time this, you know, we should be very motivated to engage here because, you know, as was said, this spectrum knows no borders. Um, global harmonization of spectrum policy is in the is in the interest of the US. probably more than any other country because of economies of scale uh for uh for for some of our largest uh industries um as i mentioned because eighty percent of the agenda is concerning satellite issues we're leading the world on that and the rest of the world is just they're just you know lying in wait to some degree to trip us up to slow us down while they subsidize their national champions uh in the sky who are running so many years behind us So we have to be there at a minimum to defend ourselves and hopefully to push uh things further ahead.

Mister Lang, why is it important for the white house to nominate a work ambassador early in the process? I'm sorry for yes. We need uh leadership in place to oversee the development of our positions, to make sure that we have uh unity in our delegation and that we're able, I think, most importantly, to begin

diplomatic engagement around the world to build global support for our priorities.

Ambassador Koch. Same question.

Absolutely agree with Ambassador Lange on the uh on the need to bring somebody in early. Uh, there is something about having that leader that actually forces the delegation to start paying attention and start realizing that things are nearing the end, and they need to actually compromise. This person also does need to be a little bit practiced at cracking heads.

I appreciate that. Um, Ambassador Ko, can you provide your top recommendation for this administration, eh, for work twenty seven?

I think it's all in prepare early. Do uh, especially because this is in Shanghai, we need to be logistically ready, we need to be diplomatically ready.

Appreciate that. Ambassador Link.

Uh, yes, I think accelerating our preparation process, making sure that we have our positions in place and unified support for them as as quickly as we can, and then begin that diplomatic engagement.

Dr. Lewis.

Same thing, uh, early preparation, early appointment of a strong leader.

Mr. Calabrese.

Yes, um, very much the same, early positions, especially into the regional process. Well, which proved to be very important last time, whether we had support from our, you know, ITU Region two or not. And even if this ambassadorial position is is six months, the the person should be on, like I said, at least twelve to eighteen months ahead. driving not only preparations but establishing these relationships, uh, in, you know, in the Americas and then globally.

Appreciate that. And, Chair Fisher, thank you for your thoughtfulness in calling this hearing. I look forward to the follow-up, uh, from this as well going forward. Thank you for your time today, everybody.

Thank, thank you, Senator Lujan. As we, uh, wait for more commite- Oh, Senator Blackburn's coming in. Senator, would you like us to ask a question before you sit?

I'm

Are you ready to go?

ready.

OK. OK, welcome, Senator Blackburn. You are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and as Ms. Ko and many on this panel know, I am never short on questions on this topic because I do think that it is vitally important. Ambassador Lang, I wanna come to you first because um I think you know I was very concerned last time around, Miss Gomez's departure and just kind of uh throwing sticks to the wind, if you will, as we were getting ready for the WRC. And I thought it was a bad timing and a very poor choice. and left our nation in a disadvantaged position. So, um, you stepped in, took over, had that short runway. So, I want you to talk for a moment about your experience and the challenges that you had by having to truncate that preparation for the WRC and then follow that with why it is important to go in ready for the fight.

Um, thank you very much for the question, and thank you for your support for this process and for your attention to this important topic. I really do appreciate that. Um, and it was certainly a challenge stepping in after uh Anna Gomez uh had to step down after her confirmation as FCC Commissioner. Um, and my recommendations for twenty for twenty twenty-seven reflect some of the challenges that that we had during that experience. Uh, we uh weren't able to develop our positions for twenty twenty-three as quickly as I would have liked. Um, I was unfortunately unable to uh fully participate in uh a robust uh series of diplomatic engagements in the the months uh preceding the conference,

OK, I wanna jump in right there.

which I was gonna get late.

Miss Ko, I wanna ask you to step in. You talked in your response to the chairwoman earlier about seasoned negotiators. So, I want you to weigh in on what he just said about that preparation and that continuum, that is so necessary for that.

I Uh, thank you, uh, uh, uh, Senator Blackburn, for the question. It is It it was a tough, uh, situation that Ambassador Lang was put into, but he had been aware, been involved in the discussions beforehand. It is not the same as being first. This by no means was the ideal situation for the leader of the work um uh delegation for the United States. Uh fortunately for us, the State Department does offer a seasoned rank uh a seasoned uh bench of negotiators and uh people who are willing and able to step in to that the in to those shoes. But they do have to be activated with the Right leadership with the uh with the political support above and with really good staff beneath to be able to use and deploy within the delegation.

And then uh Ambassador Lang coming back to you, what kind of challenge did having to do this truncated process actually put you in as you got to the WRC?

Well, I I think one of the greatest challenges was I had not been able to uh attend many of the preparatory meetings leading up to the conference, especially the the final year before the conference, there's a series of regional meetings all around the world, uh, to prepare positions regionally, like our CTEL process and the Americas. Um, I was not able to attend those series of meetings, uh, and, uh, unfortunately hadn't fully developed all the relationships that I would have liked to have had leading into the the conference. I had a a shorter runway and needed to do a lot of that on the ground.

So it is important to realize this is not a one and done prep. This is something that depends on the US having a solidified front, a strong position,

Mm-hmm.

and a well-seasoned team who realizes that it is imperative we put our interests first. Correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. Doctor Lewis, I wanna come to you. Uh, we've got China. as the host for this, and I think that, um, this is something that is going to present some unique situations and problems. We all know that China is primarily a surveillance state. And they make, um, they they don't try to hide that. And I've supported the development of technology through the Open Technology Fund for, for years. I think this is important. I think Ms. Koh probably remembers those days in the house when I fought furiously to be certain that we were doing this. And of course we've seen that, um, pay dividends as we've looked at the situation in Iran. But as we look at the situation in China, with the surveillance state mentality that we have. Give a uh brief assessment of what you think the security threat is to our delegation as they go into the WRC.

Thank you, Senator. The last time I was in China, I was a little annoyed because they weren't following me anymore, and I thought, gee, I must not be important. And when I got back, uh a friend told me, they're not following me because they don't need to. Their surveillance is ubiquitous. It's digital. It's electronic. So the environment you go into in Shanghai will be one of complete coverage by the Chinese state. And I think a lot of the smaller nations may have trouble understanding that. One of the technologies that's most interesting to me, and that rises objections is you don't need to cooperate for them to tap your phone. You can have software implanted on your phone, even if it's not on, that would let it become a communications device for the chinese state. So this is, as uh my colleagues have said, um a serious obstacle for the US moving forward because China uh is probably a peer when it comes to communications intelligence now, a peer with the US.

OK, so how do we mitigate that?

One way is to, thank you, one way is to uh insure that all the delegations, I mean the friendly delegations know that You can overestimate how much people are aware of this threat. And I do that routinely. We live with it. Um, it's not clear that every delegation feels that way. There are some technologies, as you have said, that allow you to communicate more securely. Uh. Not necessarily the mass market technologies, but certainly some of the some of the things that you can buy on the market and encouraging people early to think about that level of security. Finally, there'll need to be an attention to how you meet, where you meet, who you meet with, uh, to take this place. So there are steps we can take to manage the risk. But again, and I think one of the themes of this hearing is it needs to be done early, so that people are prepared.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for letting me go way, way over.

We're happy you're here, S- Senator. Thank you. I think we can begin a second round of questions, and when we're joined by members we will I understand there's some on their way. Uh, Ambassador Lang, I have a question for you. Moving forward, what principles should guide US policy when commercial demand for spectrum intersects with bands that support critical national security or scientific missions? How do you um, balance that out, because the United States um, obviously uh is advancing very quickly in technology, we have these bands set up already, how how do you deal with that at an international conference?

Well thank you for the question, I I don't think there is an easy answer, uh it's always a a trade-off, uh I would note that I believe that having uh spectrum available for commercial uses is also important to our national security, that we need strong innovative a a strong environment for technical innovation in the united states that is fueled by spectrum in order to be competitive globally in that it contributes directly to our national security

thank you and ambassador co at past conferences uh you mentioned negotiations and tradeoffs and the importance of of uh firming up the position um within the united states delegation before before we get there Um, how, how does that support our national security or scientific missions when you have those competing interests? How, how do you rate the trade-offs?

Uh, rating the trade-offs is a very difficult question, and and and thank you for the um, for raising this important topic, Senator. This is uh, one of the things that I would constantly say during my time as head of delegation, was that we have to do it all. not um it's not an option to do one or the other but we have to figure out how to have both uh important weather satellites and weather sensing uh services in addition to allocating spectrum for advanced telecommunications the possibilities are there inter when we look at technical studies that allow us to understand the the parameters to which these services can operate. Spectrum has always been shared. It's always been shared and it's going to continue to be a shared resource. The problem is, do you get everything that you want out of your service because you were able to get all of the technical resources technical parameters that you would like? Or will you be able to operate part of your service? Um, there has to be an acceptance of limitations regardless because there are different competing priorities. That is why the technical studies are not the end of it. it is also the political priorities and the public policy priorities that these, that the administration brings to bear and that is why seasoned leadership, practice political eye is necessary in these discussions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Senator Lujan, um, is it okay if we call him Senator Rosen? Okay. Thank you. Senator Rosen, you are recognized.

Well, thank you, Chair Fisher, Ranking Member Lujan. This is uh such an important issue, it's fundamental to our national security. and to our leadership in technology as a whole. And I wanna thank all of the witnesses for being here again for having this hearing. You know, because advocating for a harmonized global spectrum standards, it's essential for protecting American investments. Protecting investments specifically in trusted technology like WiFi, which our adversaries we know seek to undermine us. So I'm gonna ask each of you, I'll start with Ambassador Ko first. about the risk of failure here the risk of failure so think about this for a second i want you to think about um some context the upcoming world radio conference what are the stakes what happens if we the united states fails to protect the six gigahertz band and other key bands we're invested in and so what would that mean for american leadership in telecom cause we wanna be the world leader so ambassador koh if you start with you and I only have five minutes so you can each maybe I know it's a very long answer but uh uh maybe you can give some perspective.

Thank you, Senator, and that is an important question, particularly as one of the big biggest issues that faces work twenty seven. Um the uh obviously the economic impacts will be significant as we have become quite dependent and interested uh and and committed to the use of WiFi and expanding the use of WiFi in the United States and have

Mm.

put our regulatory um efforts behind creating that ecosystem. Uh, in addition uh, I guess I I might leave it to others to speak to the reservation process as well,

OK.

but uh, cuz I don't want to take up all of the time,

Yeah.

but happy to come back to that another point.

Thank you. I just the stakes are really high. We have to succeed. So just wanted to start off a little bit on that, give a top line.

Um, well thank you, Senator.

That's right.

I would emphasize that this uh is an important uh arena for competition with China. That China is aggressively promoting its approach to technology in the ITU and the WRC, and wants to see a global harmonization that reflects its own domestic allocations.

Mm-hmm.

That would give its country, its companies a huge advantage in the in the international marketplace,

Mm-hmm.

uh one that would set us back in terms of our national security, our our own innovation environment, our economic prosperity,

Mm-hmm.

and I actually think it is a potential threat to our democratic values as well.

Thank you, Doctor Lewis.

Thank you, Senator. Um, we've learned from the experience in uh Ukraine, in Venezuela, and now Iran of the importance of spectrum. And one of the interesting things uh to me is first, electronic warfare has come out of the closet and is now crucial. Electronic warfare is electromagnetic spectrum. Second, what we've seen is a blend of commercial and military technologies, and that's been one of the sources of US success. the chinese know that the russians know that and so they will be trying to exploit that the outcome of the work will immediately affect our national security and our economic competitiveness so it's a much more high profile event than might be judged from its press appearances

yeah

yeah senator the the stakes are high on the issue that you mentioned we know that china will be making an effort um to get more countries to um opt for an allocation of imt uh which precludes wifi in the upper six gigahertz

mmm

uh band that's this is one of those issues i i mentioned in my oral statement that that are not on the formal agenda it's not a formal item but should be a priority for the us which is to work against um china's effort to get more and more countries to to uh jump aboard those footnotes to designate imt in the upper six because they on one hand they want to undermine

mmm

um uh us uh wi-fi which we lead the world by far in in in equipment enterprise equipment and chips um and at the same time they they're the only major economy that has not even adopted the lower six for wi-fi

well

let me get a last quick question in to you then mr. calabrese Um, the United States develops its WRC positions through multi-agency process, FCC, NTIA, State Department, other federal agency, industry, other stakeholders. How well is the current inter-agency process functioning as the US prepares for WRC twenty-seven and what can we do to be sure agencies uh to help, be sure that they are um coordinating effectively.

Yeah, we um we have a greater challenge be- because we have this dual track consultative process uh as you mentioned i mean it it seems to be going well well except for the fact that there are these non consensus positions on things that don't make sense to me to be non consensus um uh you know as chairman fisher mentioned earlier about seven point four to eight point four for imt when in fact that's that was prohibited by the one big beautiful act Similarly, um, we need to make it more clear on defending WiFi, uh, allocation up to at least seventy-one, twenty-five.

Mm-hmm.

So, um, so anyway, the the the process is going apace, but it needs to accelerate and become unified.

Thank you. Well, if there's things we could do to help, uh, please let us know. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rosen. Um, hopefully current statute will be a basis from which the delegation can come together and um achieve that consensus before they attend the conference. So thank you for that. Senator Moreno, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Uh I'll start with you, uh Dr. Lewis, uh what what are your thoughts on just generally speaking, getting out of the weeds a little bit, on China and how they're doing with uh telecommunications infrastructure, spyware, et cetera.

Thank you for the question, it's an important one. One of the problems we have is that very often we tend to overestimate China's capabilities when I speak to Chinese friends, I kid them that a grown-up power doesn't need to float a balloon if they're gonna do spying. Um but they we also can underestimate their ability to improve rapidly. So for a conference occurring in Shanghai on Chinese networks, owned and controlled by the Chinese government, uh the risk is immeasurable.

well and and for example like uh uh when you travel to china uh would you take your personal cell phone with you or would you have a different phone that you would use just to go there

on one of my trips the chinese complained that i never brought my phone so they gave me a chinese phone and that's what i take

well my my point if i were if i were travelling to china or or uh any of my colleagues were travelling to china

i would not

uh would it surprise you that the advice from uh the military liaisons is not to bring our government phones not to bring our personal phones

so a friend who works for an intelligence agency thought he would test your theory this was some years ago and see how many times his phone was probed between when he got off the airplane and when he got to his hotel he he had didn't have to do the full test because it was probed four times in the walkway between the plane and the terminal so any device going to china will be subject to some kind of intrusive activity.

And then, uh, shifting to, uh, the world that I hold near and dear to my heart, which is the auto industry. A lot of automobiles, people don't realize how much cars have really transitioned into really portable telecommunications devices, connected vehicles, et cetera, with cameras and things like that. Uh, what are your thoughts on, uh, where these Chinese car manufacturers are doing, and why it's so important to keep them out of the US market?

one indication of what's going on senator is that the chinese have banned uh teslas for military and government installations that's because as cars become more and more digital as they become autonomous as they are loaded with sensors and many of them have wireless connectivity the car is now a collection device uh the chinese know that um i'm not sure everyone here does

right and i'm i'm hoping my colleagues on uh this committee will support my efforts later this month and maybe next month to make certain that we don't allow the threat of chinese automobiles to enter the us market for the reasons that you just stated and i think you you you're pretty familiar i'm sure the rest of you are with what's happened in other markets with chinese made automobiles where the market share has gone from basically zero to thirty forty percent and climbing, are you familiar with that what are your thoughts

the chinese uh subsidize in uh different fashion from the way we would use government subsidies but it's created uh rampant competition in china that leads to vicious price cutting and an effort to find global markets so uh the term dumping occurs china china itself makes enough cars to supply the entire world you don't need germany you don't need japan you don't need the us or korea and so they have to find a home for those cars to pay off the debts

and this is extraordinarily predatory and and i'll uh start with you ambassador go uh from the conversation you just heard anything that you'd wanna add or subtract

uh no actually thank you for the question senator this is exactly what china needs to do uh this is not for the for for the uh for the chinese government this is existential you do need to have a fully functioning economy with the significant exports so this is not going to change uh uh the behavior of the chinese economy will not change um it's it's on uh i think the united states and other like minded countries to be able to contain the economic aggression uh that is coming from the country

so if you look at our auto industry i know this is not the topic i'll land a plan i promise uh uh chairperson on bringing this back to the topic at hand but um four american auto companies lost sixty billion dollars chasing electric vehicle mandates sixty billion dollars that has already made our industry less competitive than the chinese who didn't lose sixty billion dollars who actually got massive probably two three four x that subsidies from the government i guess my question to all of you would be and where this ties in is why on earth would we have a conference in china when they're a obvious bad actor i mean it would be like the hens having a conference at the wolf's den seems like a really really bad idea thoughts in my last few seconds here

you you don't always win senator and this was one where the chinese it was exceptionally close out of as as steve said out of forty eight votes the chinese got twenty five that means they won by one vote right so it was very close and we just uh didn't make it

Thank you, Senator Moreno. Uh, Senator Lujan, your recognize.

Thank you. I I appreciate that last question from my colleague. I'll I'll answer the question. The United States got rolled. This vote happened under President Trump's first term. Whoever the president was when twenty seven happened, this this is what happened. I don't mean to point fingers at the at our at the current president, Bernie. What every article that I read about this says that the chinese conspired with the rwandans that this is normally a consensus vote by atu and you all tell me if i'm wrong about this and at the last minute the rwandans withdrew opened the door for the chinese to roll in they got the bid i would stand by the united states got rolled and this is something colleagues for us to look for the next one to be ready whoever the president is um so that the united states is not in this posture in this position again and and i have concerns about that Now there was a question earlier that was a little critical of the previous president. Um, um, I don't think it was at you, Ambassador Lang, but the the question that the Biden administration that, um, this maybe could have gone better. Uh, maybe on the planning side, but let me ask you this. Um, the United States, um, in in work twenty-three were was the United States able to beat back China's attempt to repurpose the six gigahertz band?

Um, well, thank you for the question, Senator. Uh, I believe that we had important successes in twenty twenty three in uh, preserving the six gigahertz band for unlicensed use.

What about expanding connectivity?

Um.

The United States did okay there?

Uh, I think we we did. Uh, I think we had successes both in on the unlicensed side with the six gigahertz and also

What about what about unlocking the space economy?

Um, yes, I think we had some important achievements in twenty twenty three with regard to uh various satellite communications.

I think Elon Musk should be thankful to you and so should Jeff Bezos, because without the work you did, we wouldn't have SpaceX and we wouldn't have Amazon launching satellites today, because of the great work that you and the United States did in that space. And lastly, what about protecting spectrum used for national security? Did you do OK there?

Um, I think we did, we were able to make sure we preserved some critical protections, even as we uh identified additional spectrum for uh various uh other telecommunications uses.

And the proof will be what happens after this one. I hope that the list is longer than the one that I just read, coming out of work twenty seven. Now, what I will say from the critical nature of of that question is planning is important. And this should have been done much better under the Biden administration on the planning side. And I certainly hope that the Trump administration is taking note to all of your testimony today, and also what we learned that could have gone better in preparation of twenty three, Cuz to me it just feels like we're lacking a little bit. And I certainly hope that the thoughtfulness again of our chair, of Senator Fischer, calling this hearing is just a reminder, hey everybody, time to get to work, roll up your sleeves and let's get at this as well. So I very much appreciate the time for the second round of questions.

Thank you, Senator Lujan. If I, if I can close the hearing, in unless one of our colleagues tries to get in here under the wire. But if I could just close the hearing and ask each of you, you know, we've we've talked about this during the the hearing, how important it is for the delegation to work together, to work with our allies, uh, to be able to have a strong leader. If we can just go down down the panel here and you tell me what, uh, we need to see in the background of a strong leader besides cracking heads. what we need to see in a in their background and what you would hope to see uh in our delegation that is chosen for this uh very very important work ambassador

uh uh thank you chairwoman uh i would hope to see uh a willingness to um i think what i would like to see is discretion and a willingness to see past the surface arguments

Thank you. Ambassador Lang.

Thank you very much for the question. Uh, for the head of delegation I think we need somebody who understands how uh the telecommunications industry works and how radio frequency spectrum works, appreciates the important strategic uh consequences of this of this event, and is a is a great negotiator. And he or she will need a a team that is fully equipped across the US inter-agency uh with strong experts with good negotiation skills. Um, they'll need to be uh aggressive and persistent in inserting themselves into every conversation at the WRC. Uh, they'll also need to be good diplomats. And I think they will also need, uh as a group, the resources to engage globally on a diplomat- diplomatically on a global scale. Um, that is gonna take uh significant funding for for travel. Um, and then there are other creative tools that we should be thinking about. for engagement things like uh we've heard uh suggestions of a a spectrum summit hosted in the united states in advance of the conference i think that would be a great idea uh we should be looking at opportunities like providing training for other other delegations members in advance of the conference so uh a strong diplomatic strategy leading up to the the the conference i think is absolutely critical

thank you talk to lewis

uh thank you senator for your question thank you Um, when you're taught negotiating skills, they always tell you that you are engaged in two simultaneous negotiations, one with the other side and one with the people back home. And so a negotiator will need to have the authority, the discipline, the skill to make sure that the American delegation sticks to consensus positions. It's exceptionally damaging if other agencies go off the reservation and say things that are contrary. Um a second part of that is that multilateral negotiations are a a different art. You need people who have some knowledge of how multilateral negotiations work, that need not be international. I was talking in preparation for this with people that said the the skills that you bring to the legislative process, you need a similar set of skills, the ability to sense positions, cut deals, uh identify things. So you need basically a negotiator who has both the domestic skills and the international skills. They can be learned. I'm less worried about the technical side. We're not technical experts. But the ability to forge that deal, forge that agreement with other countries is essential.

Thank you, doctor. Mister Calabrese.

Um, well, the early public identification of of a leader with all the experience that Steve uh Ambassador Lang outlined, uh, but um, But I would add, who puts a particular focus on on building relationships, diplomatic relationships early, um, starting next month at CITEL with the Americas, you know, with these other countries engaging in their perspective, we were, I think, surprised in some cases, uh, uh, uh, last time around Mexico, Brazil, and others. Um, and China is going to be trying to pull more of those those tracks. And so I think very early engagement and and relationship building in those places, particularly to anticipate where the Chinese might have backdoor influence.

Thank you very much. I appreciate all of you, the witnesses, for their testimony here today. Thank you. Senators will have until the close of business on March twenty fourth to submit questions for the record the witnesses will have until the close of business on april seventh to respond to those questions this concludes today's hearing and the committee stands adjourned