SAT Streamlining Act: Modernizing Satellite Licensing for the Final Frontier
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
We're talking about whether businesses in hard-to-reach areas can compete and whether patients can access telehealth. For many communities, especially rural ones, connectivity still isn't guaranteed. But modernization must be more than just speed for speed's sake. My goal is a licensing process that is more efficient and predictable, while still preserving the FCC's ability to ask tough questions, rely on expert judgment, and give additional scrutiny when a proposal truly warrants it. We must also ensure that states can continue enforcing important affordability and consumer protections for satellite broadband services.
If we get this right, we can support innovation, strengthen connectivity, and make sure the process is delivering real results for the American people. That's the balance we should be aiming for, and I'm encouraged that this continues to be an area of bipartisan interest. I look forward to hearing from witnesses on how we can improve the process and to make sure a licensing framework is delivering for the communities that need it most. And with that, I go back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank you, Rankin Member Metsui, for holding this important hearing. And the US satellite industry has undergone a period of robust growth over the last decade, and companies continue to innovate. While the satellite industry has long provided essential services, we are increasingly relying on satellite-based services to help those who need to close the digital divide and offer support in moments of crisis. We're also seeing new partnerships between satellite operators and mobile carriers as emerged to provide direct-to-device services to help improve coverage in communities that were previously unserved. Today, we're considering the SAT Streamline Act, which would update the Federal Communications Commission's licensing rules for space.
I wanna thank ranking member Polone for agreeing to work with me on this legislation. Since the SAT Streamlining Act was originally introduced by this committee a few short years ago, a lot has changed. This is just the beginning of the conversation, and I wanna thank ranking member Plone for his commitment to work on this bill in a bipartisan fashion. We wanna engage with industry and government stakeholders alike to make sure we get those reforms right and that our efforts to modernize reflect the current and future technological landscape and the challenges impacting space. This is an imperative national security issue that will help us maintain our competitive edge against adversaries like the People's Republic of China.
Mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chairman. I now recognize a gentleman from Florida who will be providing an opening statement on behalf of the ranking member, Mister Palone. Representative, so you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, chairman. This committee has a long tradition of working in a bipartisan fashion to enhance technological innovation in this country. And today's hearing marks the start of another important endeavor, as we begin exploring the next frontier of commercial space industry. We know that for a fact in Central Florida with over 104 launches last year by NASA, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, and more. Most of those were telecommunications satellite missions, and so, the stakes could not be higher for American space innovation. I saw firsthand, with the recent Artemis 2 mission where several space companies partnered with NASA to ensure the crew had a successful mission around the moon, the first moon mission for most of us in our lifetimes, and to make sure we have significant advancements in the ability of satellites to provide broadband and other critical services to American consumers.
And, of course, space is top of mind. While these developments are beneficial for many reasons, advancements in satellite communications are especially helpful for those living in areas where other types of technologies haven't been built yet due to geographic considerations and other factors, like in rural areas. I expect consumers to rely on satellite technology even more in the years to come, as wireless carriers and phone manufacturers continue to add this capability to their networks and devices. Fortunately, with this technology, mobile consumers can rest assured that if they find themselves in an area without service, whether it is because of a lack of coverage, the result of a natural disaster, or some other reason, they will continue to have the ability to reach first responders and loved ones during their times of need. This is especially important for consumers as they have come to depend upon mobile connectivity to receive emergency alerts with lifesaving information.
This additional layer of protection is a welcome sign, given that the climate crisis is causing more frequent and severe disasters, especially in my home state of Florida. Resilient communications networks can be the difference between life and death when the unexpected strikes, and satellite systems will be crucial in helping consumers navigate through these challenging moments. There is no doubt that satellites have an important role to play in keeping America safe and secure. So I am glad that we are considering HR 8255, the satellite and telecommunications streamlining act today. A bipartisan bill by chair Guthrie and ranking member Palun was introduced last week.
This legislation would streamline the satellite licensing process at the Federal Communications Commission for certain satellite applications. It responds to the increase in applications for innovative space systems that are being filed with the FCC. To ensure that these systems are built and licensed in the United States, we must have a reasonable and balanced approach to evaluate them, and this legislation provides an important framework for achieving this. By simplifying the satellite licensing process, the SAT act will accelerate innovation and strengthen the competitiveness of the United States satellite industry on the global stage. And this is imperative because other countries, including our foreign adversaries, are making aggressive moves to dominate the industry.
In fact, over the last several years, China's presence in space has grown over 600%. Quite simply, failing to ensure that The United States remains a market leader in this sector risks our nation falling behind our counterparts across the globe, including China, in producing cutting-edge consumer innovations and fortifying our public safety and national security capabilities. Therefore, I am glad that we have agreed on a bipartisan basis to legislation that will make sure that the American public safely benefits from the space and satellite advancements of today and tomorrow. And I look forward to hearing feedback from today's witnesses and other stakeholders. And we are determined to continue to work with chairman Guthrie and other members of this committee to make any necessary edits to the SAT act so that we could ensure the United States leads the rest of the world in the satellite communications industry, because time is certainly of the essence.
It's clear we have a lot to discuss this afternoon. I welcome our witnesses and yield back the remainder of our time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. We have now concluded with members' opening statements. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the 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 each to provide an opening statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from members of the committee.
The witnesses here before us today are Mister Tom Straub, president, Satellite Industry Association, Miss Kara Levin Azakar, vice president of regulatory and public policy, Iridium Communications, and Mister Shiva Goyul, partner of Wiley Ryan. And, we appreciate all of you for being here and making the time. Mister Schraup, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 5
Chairman Hudson, ranking member Matsui, Chairman Guthrie, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. I'm Tom Straub, the president of the Satellite Industry Association. Satellites are the backbone of modern society. We rely on them for communications, position, navigation, and timing, and remote sensing across the globe.
Satellites provide critical services to hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of people around the world every day. With over 14,000 active satellites on orbit today and plans for tens of thousands more through the end of the decade, we're in a time of tremendous innovation and growth in the industry. The scale of this growth over the past decade is without precedent in the history of communications, and it is precisely why congressional attention to licensing modernization is so timely and important. The number of satellites in orbit has grown almost tenfold in the last 10 years. And looking ahead, the pace of growth is set to accelerate further.
Operators have announced plans to deploy over 40,000 additional satellites in the next four years. In addition, applications have been filed at the FCC for data centers in space for upwards of 1 million or more satellites. This unprecedented growth is why the regulatory framework governing this industry must keep pace. The current licensing regime was not designed for a world in which thousands of satellites are launched in a single year, and constellations are replenished on multiyear cycles. SIA applauds the FCC's creation of the space bureau to provide additional resources and focus in our industry, as well as its ongoing space modernization for the twenty-first century proceeding, which proposes to replace the legacy satellite rules with a new framework.
Congress can reinforce this progress by signaling its expectation that the FCC finalized a framework that is faster, more predictable, and technology neutral. As the number of satellites in orbit has grown dramatically, so too is the importance of coordinating the safe operation of these satellites and managing the shared environment of low Earth orbit. The Office of Space Commerce within the Department of Commerce is playing an increasingly vital role through its work to develop a civil space situational awareness capability and space traffic management coordination framework for the United States. SIA strongly supports the Office of Space Commerce's mission and encourages Congress to ensure it has the resources and authorities it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. While the US has long led the space sector, China is closing the gap with similar investments in space technologies that will challenge our national security community, while also undermining democracy around the globe.
China is now actively deploying two major LEO broadband constellations that will offer services to developing nations and Chinese allies at below-market or subsidized rates. It is critical for congress to support continued domestic innovation and to avoid regulations that put US providers on an unequal playing field internationally. SIA's members are dedicated to advancing national interests, including the competitiveness of satellite companies in the US and globally, and driving progress for the benefit of all Americans. In furtherance of these goals, we have five priorities. First, promote American space innovation through streamlined regulations without unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy.
Second, lead standards development internationally. With WRC 27 preparations now underway and 80% of the agenda addressing space services and technologies, the stakes could not be higher. SIA urges Congress to ensure the FCC and executive branch agencies have the resources and direction needed to present a unified pro-innovation position at WRC 27. Third, advance responsible space traffic coordination, and advocate for the adoption of similar policies internationally. The office of space commerce has worked to develop a modern space traffic coordination framework, deserves robust congressional support.
Fourth, streamline space system procurement for greater efficiency and government acquisition. And finally, spur development and investment through access to sufficient spectrum resources. The US should ensure sufficient spectrum allocations are available domestically and internationally to support innovative and rapidly growing commercial satellite operations. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the satellite industry, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Miss Azakar, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Speaker 6
Chairman Hudson, ranking member Matt Swee, chairman Gauthier, ranking member Pologne, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today about the vibrant space marketplace and the SAAT Streamlining Act. My name is Caroline Benazakar, and I am the vice president of regulatory and public policy for Iridium. For decades, Iridium has been a leading American-founded and American-based MSS communications provider, now serving roughly 2,500,000 subscribers, including the US government, individuals, and private entities around the world. Iridium's US-licensed second generation constellation of 66 non-geostationary orbit satellites provides services in the L band, includes Ka band feeder links, and satellite-to-satellite cross links.
Iridium's ubiquitous network provides reliable, weather-resilient communication services, including safety of life, aviation, maritime, and other services to areas where terrestrial wireless or wireline networks do not exist or are limited. With our reliable portable coverage, we connect people, organizations, and assets to and from anywhere in real time, including in areas where terrestrial based services have been damaged due to natural disasters. Iridium offers all of these capabilities with less than 9 megahertz of L band user link spectrum. Iridium continues to expand by developing new and innovative uses for our network and the next generation of networks to come. For example, Iridium NTN Direct is our new 3GPP standards-based narrowband Internet of Things and direct-to-device service that is set to debut later this year.
It will extend the reach of cellular carriers to the entire planet, unlike any other network. Off the shelf cellular devices will connect to Iridium's low earth orbit constellation, providing a standardized solution offering SMS and IoT functionality. Iridium also offers the first truly global low earth orbit position, navigation, and timing or PNT solution, providing exceptional reliability and high security with a signal strength that is a thousand times stronger than GPS. This service is protecting critical infrastructure globally today against GPS jamming, spoofing, and timing disruption. Commercial launch of Iridium's revolutionary ASIC chip is imminent, further enabling support of resilient primary or backup PNT capabilities in an ultra-compact chip that can be easily embedded in GPS-dependent devices.
As a global leader in the space industry, Iridium appreciates the role of US global leadership in Space Race 2.0 and welcomes the increasingly competitive space marketplace. To ensure that the satellite industry continues its rapid development of new and more robust offerings, it is essential that laws and regulations facilitate the evolutionary and revolutionary growth of the space industry, not inhibit it. Space is a bipartisan issue. The previous administration created the FCC's space bureau and initiated satellite streamlining initiatives. Now, under the leadership of chairman Carr, the space bureau has moved to reduce backlog and develop a comprehensive space modernization proposal.
Iridium supports these initiatives. Prioritizing reforms through legislation will further ensure that future FCC administrations remain focused on rapid, carefully crafted decisions that will drive US leadership in the evolving global space economy. Consistent with these views, there are several core priorities that this subcommittee and the FCC should emphasize to fuel competition and advancement in the US space economy. First, ensure that critical mobile satellite services, or MSS, are protected from harmful interference. This requires clear technical protections, coordination obligations, and enforceable compliance mechanisms that preserve high levels of service reliability and continuity.
Second, free up additional MSS spectrum where feasible, and drive more efficient use of existing MSS allocations. This should be done through technology-neutral rules, modernized service and technical requirements, and streamlined licensing to foster competition, enhance capacity, and improve end-user outcomes. Third, promote future access to satellite spectrum via transparent, predictable, rules-based processes. The FCC should fully evaluate the merits of applications while still providing process certainty and reliability for all operators. And finally, encourage innovation in alternative P and T solutions across all use cases.
Market-based mechanisms that prioritize resilience, redundancy, and rapid adoption of new technologies are essential, especially where such use cases implicate national security and public safety objectives. With these priorities in mind, Iridium supports Congress' efforts to modernize space and earth station licensing to unlock American ingenuity and capabilities. Essential to the effort is ensuring that any change in FCC rules adequately protects operators like Iridium that are already providing valuable services to the American public and to federal stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Mister Goyul, you're recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Guthrie, ranking member Palone, chairman Hudson, ranking member Matt Suwe, distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Sheva Goyle, and I'm a partner at Wiley Rein. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspectives on this, and thank you to my fellow witnesses as well for their thoughtful input. As a former NTIA Spectrum official and FCC adviser and as a lawyer who has helped companies big and small navigate this approval process, I've been following the effort to modernize and streamline commercial space licensing for years and with great interest.
I strongly believe that what started out as a good government effort to unlock innovation and connect the unconnected has, over time, taken on even greater strategic importance and has now become a policy imperative that is nothing short of essential to our nation's success. Recent developments suggest that the golden era we thought had just started in commercial space is poised for yet another rebirth. I won't repeat what you've heard from Miss Mister Stroop and Miss Azakar about the tremendous things going on in the space industry, but it should suffice to say that we're seeing limits being pushed across the board, whether that's in broadband, direct to device, orbital servicing, optical, earth observation, and many more areas. And we're seeing capabilities grow not just on payloads, but also on the bus, supporting broader power, size, and mass ranges, which creates more opportunities for a broader variety of missions to get done. At the same time, launch capacity is expanding, so all of this can actually go up.
And if you look at the markets, you'll see participation from a broader and more mature base of investors as well. These are all tremendously positive signs, but none of this growth is guaranteed. And to reach our potential, the government has to move as fast as the innovators it oversees. My concern is that at the rate that they're moving, failing to keep up won't just create a bottleneck. It will impose a structural constraint on our ability to compete and secure ourselves in a new space era.
The FCC has been working tirelessly and across administrations to solve this problem, and its leadership and staff dedication, in my view, have been extraordinary. So has this committee's steadfast focus on legislation. Regulatory reforms and legislation can work hand in hand, with the FCC addressing specifics and root causes, and Congress building lasting expectations and accountability in a way that industry will trust. As we look ahead, I think there are three principles that should guide our reforms. First, we have to recognize that long licensing timelines cost us much more than we think.
We tend to measure the cost of regulatory delay in terms of extra capital burned, and maybe even a missed launch window. As intolerable as those costs may be, they pale in comparison to the losses we never see. The breakthroughs never attempted, the companies never formed, the architectures never designed, because the regulatory risks and timelines prevented the economics from penciling it. The fact is, the more time a company has to budget for licensing, the less time and resources it has to innovate. And the way these timelines work in practice, if you can make a licensing practice take half as long, you can easily double or triple the amount of time people have left to build and iterate and improve what they're doing, all while reducing uncertainty and risk.
We can't afford not to act on improvements. The PRC is prioritizing space as a domain of strategic competition, with absolutely no daylight between what they're doing commercially and their national security capabilities. China doesn't make companies wait years for a license, and if we're serious about maintaining leadership, nor should we. Second, while speed is important, licensing efficiency is not the same thing as a rubber stamp. Space is and always has been a shared environment.
If we want to attract continued investment, we can't just compress the timeline. We have to reach the right result in the end. So we need to leave room for careful technical review, especially in challenging cases, as we reform. Finally, efficient and effective NTIA coordination is essential to modern space licensing. As this body knows, NTIA coordinates commercial requests for spectrum access with federal agencies that use the same or nearby spectrum.
That job has always been important. It's becoming even more so with the growth that we're seeing. For years, space innovators have relied on S band and X band frequencies that are heavily used by federal agencies, and we're seeing greater interest in sharing with the feds in higher frequencies as well. At the same time, the US government continues to transition from owning and operating its assets to buying services commercially, which could lead to even more commercial interest in using federal bands. A predictable, efficient framework that expands access and protects federal interests is critical.
Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We'll now begin questions, and I'll recognize myself for five minutes to ask my questions. I am proud to represent Fort Bragg, caught the home of the Airborne and Special Forces, the largest army base in the world. Miss Azacar, you mentioned national security interests in your testimony. Can you talk about why it's so important the US has a robust commercial satellite industry, and how does that impact our warfighters and enhance our national security?
Is your mic on? I'm not sure.
Speaker 6
Good. Thank you for that question, Chairman. Apologies for that. Iridium is a proud partner of the US government. The US government business has been a cornerstone of Iridium's business from the very beginning.
And the way that we view it is that our commercial business and our government business go hand in hand. The innovations that occur in our commercial business can be used in our government business, and the innovations that occur in our government business can be used in our commercial business. That has enabled us to grow as a company and to participate in a variety of different missions, including recently, Iridium was used on the Artemis mission, which was very exciting for us in a Summer Labs device that was used. We also partner with SDA, and we do their operations and integration. And that has been an expansion based on our experience as a satellite operator for over 25 years.
We see our national security mission growing and the solutions that we can provide as growing, and we look forward to partnering with the federal government in that effort.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you for that. So the Guthrie Palom version of the SAT streamlining act pairs shot clocks with a provision allowing for tolling of applications and modification requests in certain circumstances. Miss Azakar, what is the value of tolling, and how can it be constructive and provide certainty in the licensing process while also effectively dealing with the challenges that may arise, such as coordination challenges?
Speaker 6
A key piece of satellite streamlining and reforming the licensing processes for satellite licenses and earth station licenses is regulatory certainty. And regulatory certainty occurs when licensees and applicants alike can feel confident in the rights that are being granted to them. Shot clocks or deemed-granted provisions are key to speeding up the process. But without a tolling provision that enables additional analysis in complex situations that require additional technical analysis. It could result in what Shiva mentioned, which is a rubber stamp.
And when an application is rubber stamped, it results in petitions for reconsideration, which results in uncertainty for licensees that have licenses that may conflict with the application, and the applicants that just got a grant can't rely upon it. So a tolling provision, like what is in the bill, enables the FCC additional consideration to ensure that regulatory certainty for all because technical considerations have been fully developed and decided upon.
Speaker 1
That's helpful. Thank you. We've heard today about the steps industry has taken to advance directed device services to supplement the terrestrial coverage. These services are essential for our first responders. I mentioned the example of Hurricane Ellen when it tore through North Carolina.
Satellite based services help keep our first responders connected when the terrestrial networks were wiped out. The FCC has adopted a framework for supplemental coverage from space, and many wireless companies have announced partnerships with satellite operators. Mister Schropp, is there anything else Congress can do to support the deployment of these services?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question, and I would emphasize the points that have been made in terms of regulatory certainty. I think that the directed device services are ideally suited to emergency situations where other systems are knocked out, and just ensuring that when applications are submitted that they are dealt with in a timely manner is one of the best ways of ensuring that.
Speaker 6
Thank you for allowing me to add to that. So Iridium's direct-to-device solution, NTanDirect, is an MSS direct-to-device solution that utilizes our existing network and our existing spectrum. We didn't deploy any new satellites, and we didn't require any additional licensing. What it did require was participation in international standards bodies, which I hope we can speak about further. I think the key piece that I would like to add on to what Tom has indicated is that direct to devices can be much broader even than emergency situations.
We're hoping ours will be used extensively in an Internet of Things context, and also, we'll have the SMS functionality in the event of emergency situations.
Speaker 1
Great. Well, I see my time's about to expire, so I'll call my time and recognize our ranking member. Misrepresent Matsu. You were recognized for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This bill is highly relevant to LEO Internet constellations, who can help connect communities that are difficult to reach with fiber. But when a company like SpaceX wins over $700,000,000 in federal funding, only to seek special treatment to get around the rules. That raises real concerns. Mister Goria, how can we strengthen this bill to make sure that government at every level, federal and state, has the tools they need to hold satellite broadband providers accountable for delivering affordable, reliable service.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question. I completely agree with you that affordability is paramount here. The goal cannot be to just grant licenses on paper. It's got to be to get as many services out there from as many providers as possible to as many consumers as possible. In my view, the best affordability plans tend to be nationwide plans.
That's how you really tackle and solve this problem. I know that's an area where you've shown a lot of leadership over the years in protecting and improving low income programs nationwide to make sure everyone has the connectivity they need to participate in modern society. And, I think those efforts are extremely important, and thank you for the question.
Speaker 2
Thank you. We often talk about satellite licensees, a question of speed. It's also a question of where innovation happens, who gets to compete, and whether the United States stays the place where the next generation satellite systems thrive. Mister Straub, what are the risks if our permitting process remains too burdensome and satellite companies increasingly decide it's easier to get licensed abroad than in United States?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. I think it starts with potential loss of employment, potential loss of a tax base, and the innovation that is spun off into other companies. That's one of the things that we've seen within the space sector generally, is that one company ends up spawning off several other companies. If this is pushed offshore, we lose out on the potential for that innovation, that industrial base, as well as the other things that I mentioned in terms of tax base and employment. Okay.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Mister Goriau, people often focus on what this bill would do for large low-earth orbit satellite providers like SpaceX or Amazon. But what would it mean for small satellite operators, including startups, university missions, and other experimental users?
Speaker 7
Congresswoman, I actually think they might be the biggest beneficiaries of this bill. Smaller companies in particular have much more to lose and are much more vulnerable to delay. They don't have war chests. They need to show their investors and customer base that they have a license and that they're ready to go. And they also need predictability and certainty about when they're actually going to be able to operate.
So I think this is actually quite important for them. I would also add that smaller companies are also the most vulnerable to license denials. And if you had a situation where statutory deadlines were pushing the FCC to act on a complex application that wasn't ready, and it just denied an application, I think the big guys could probably survive that. I think some of the small ones would just go away. And that's why I think tolling and some of the flexibility and balance, added to this bill, are really important from the small provider perspective.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Miss Alzakar, as you modernize the FCC licensing process, what do we need to get right? Shall we move faster without undermining the reliability and interference protections that existing operators and critical services depend on?
Speaker 6
Thank you, congresswoman, for the question. I think the key here is to ensure that there are fair, flexible, and stable regulations underlying the licensing process, to ensure that it balances the existing space economy that exists within the United States and the newer entrants that are coming in, to have a more robust US space economy and to succeed, in the space race 2.0.
Speaker 2
Okay. The SEC is already severely understaffed. And last year, the space bureau of knowledge limited staff resources, even as earth station applications grew by 72%. And the administration proposed budget cuts to push staffing down even further. Ms.
Azakhar, this bill would let some applications be approved automatically if the FCC does not act in time. What safeguards are needed to ensure FCC staff have the necessary information and capacity to review applications quickly and thoroughly? And you've got 15 seconds to answer.
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question, and thank you for the ten seconds that I have left to answer. We, I think I'd like to follow up with you on that discussion.
Speaker 1
Lady yields back. The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full committee, mister Guthrie, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 3
Thanks. So the first question is gonna be for mister Straub. Since the first version of the sat streamlining act was introduced a few short years ago, the FCC has undertaken several initiatives to modernize space, including a notice of proposed rulemaking currently under consideration at the commission, that aims to modernize the licensing process. At the same time, the Supreme Court's 2022 decision, EPA versus West Virginia, made clear that major agency actions must be rooted in statutory authority. Do you think there is, so there's a question.
Do you think there is value in Congress passing legislation like the SAT streamlining act that codifies satellite licensing authority?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question. And, absolutely, I think that we've seen other instances where the intent of Congress has been questioned, and I don't think that, you know, we talked testified previously about the importance of stability in the regulatory process. And I think this will help ensure that there's an understanding that the rules that are adopted in the modernization, new rulemaking at the FCC continue into the future. Absolutely.
Speaker 3
Thank you. So, Miss Askar, this is for you. How does modernizing the licensing process help make the United States the best place for satellite companies like Iridium to do business? Are there other barriers we should be thinking about as we consider legislation?
Speaker 6
Thank you, chairman, for that question. Yes. There are other areas to consider, and streamlining licensing will enable, as I've already mentioned, a fair, flexible, and stable environment for doing business. There is the concern that operators will go elsewhere to license. And in doing so, they will have more or less regulation in which to operate in space.
Space is a complex environment in which to operate, and while it is vast, it is not infinite. We operate in low earth orbit, which is becoming congested, and we were the victim of a collision in 2009 and have led on space situational awareness and orbital debris mitigation. This is a critical area for the sustainability of satellite orbits, and we believe a critical piece of oversight that is not taken up sufficiently by many countries and certainly by our adversaries, and something to consider in the legislation.
Speaker 3
Okay. Thank you. And this is also for you and for mister Golio. So switching gears, we've heard a lot about the complicated process of working with the interagency process, particularly when it comes to shared spectrum bands. So these two, I'll ask both questions, let you guys answer.
Miss Asgard, if you go first. So, Asgard, what has been Iridium's experience navigating the interagency process, and are there ways we can improve the coordination? And then for mister Golio, do you have any I'd like for you to add based on your experiences at FCC and NTIA, kind of answer, is there ways we can improve the coordination with the interagency process? Miss Azacar, if you'll.
Speaker 6
The interagency process is a critical piece to licensing. It's critical because of the shared use of space that mister Goel has mentioned previously and because of the shared spectrum that exists. Iradium works closely with all of the different agencies to ensure that its operations meet all regulations, standards, and technical requirements, and we have had a positive experience in doing so. But I know that others may not have, and mister Goa only have a different perspective.
Speaker 7
So I look. I think NTIA, I'm somewhat defensive of my old agency. They do a tremendous job. They work very hard. They try to move things quickly.
What I think they could do better, and what the whole interagency could do better? Well, one is I think people need a front door, especially the smaller companies that everyone's been talking about. They need a front door. They don't know who to reach out to. They don't know how to get guidance on what the process is and what to expect based on other applications that have been filed.
There's nobody a law that they can sort of look to and say, this type of application and this frequency band tends to get treated by this agency this way. Right? That type of information, I think, could be tremendously helpful. Number two, I think we could add capacity and support to the spectrum officials at the federal agencies themselves. Spectrum officials at federal agencies don't just do spectrum.
When they're doing spectrum, they don't just try to figure out how to give it away. Right? There needs to be incentives, priorities, and manpower, to make sure that they are prioritizing this work and recognizing that, allowing commercial the commercial sector to share free frequencies isn't a bad thing. As long as we can protect federal users, it's a great thing for the nation. It could even be a great thing for their agency if they're buying services.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, mister Soto, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, chairman. You know, every day, Floridians experience having issues with cell phone reception in rural areas, natural disasters out at sea, which is why we're so thrilled that last year had 104 launches from Cape Canaveral, mostly launching telecom satellites. We saw SpaceX lead the charge with over 10,281 satellites up through Starlink, with 42,000 approved. Blue Origin with Kuiper, 239 satellites would have planned 3,236, and many other operators. And we welcome more competition into this, which is why I got to work on what Doctor Dunn, the launch communications act, which we passed last term, that helped streamline FCC permits for launches.
And now we need to help streamline satellite licenses at the FCC as well, which is why the SAD Act is so important. Mister Straub, how would you describe the holdup to our constituents on barriers to satellite licensing coming online?
Speaker 4
How would you describe the barriers, administrative barriers to satellites becoming licensed at the FCC?
Speaker 5
I think that the time that it has taken previously to address the work on the applications. I mean, certainly, give the FCC credit, as noted before. There were approximately 64,000 applications pending at the time that the space bureau was created, and the FCC has done a tremendous job of dealing with the backlog. But that doesn't address the workload that is coming on a going forward basis. And I think that the streamlining act addresses many of those.
And I think that the modernization NPRM rulemaking will also help address those.
Speaker 4
So the regulatory streamlining is important, but we also probably need more folks there to help process these, you think. Right?
Speaker 5
I am absolutely supportive of additional resources for the FCC, especially in the space bureau.
Speaker 4
Sure. Miss Assacar, I know you mentioned safety. That's something I was going to bring up. You know, satellites do crash into each other sometimes, so we do wanna make sure that we do get these applications right. You had mentioned adversaries.
Right? We have control over our own satellites, maybe coordination with our allies. I wanted you to elaborate on things we could do to ensure we don't have crashes with satellites of our adversaries. What could we be doing better?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Congressman. Orbital debris mitigation and space safety is critical to the stability of the US space economy and the international space economy. Orbital debris mitigation requires the sharing of data on the locations of the satellites so that space situational awareness can be used for what are called conjunctions, or the movement of satellites away from other objects. When we were collided with in 2009, it was due to a rogue Russian satellite that had not been properly deorbited. And we led the charge.
The reasoning for that was because the data about that had not been properly shared with us in a timely manner. We led the charge on working with our federal partners in gathering and sharing data about our systems with other operators within the United States. And we believe that a federal system for space situational awareness is critical to the stability of the US space economy.
Speaker 4
Absolutely. And we also have to work internationally. Right? Because some of these are different countries that are our adversaries. Mister Goel, you know, we have telecom, defense, GPS, weather, broadcasting, earth observation, so many different uses of satellites.
What are you seeing as far as trends in the top demand for satellites right now? Which areas are the hottest areas that people want satellites up for? I think it's extremely hard to pick because so much is going on. I mean,
Speaker 7
And I think if you view it from a competitive lens, everybody's getting into the same game. China launched over 100 earth observation satellites last year. They sold the IRGC, an imaging satellite during the conflict that was already on orbit, and it's being used for intelligence. Right? I don't think we can pick a favorite and bet on that horse and hope that they really went out.
We need to be pushing on everything, from d to d to broadband to imaging, the whole nine yards because everybody else in the world sure is doing it too.
Speaker 4
Sure. That's helpful. So across the board, we're seeing high demand for all these different types of satellites?
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, representative of Georgia, mister Allen, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman Hudson, for holding this hearing, and I wanna thank the witnesses for being here to testify in your expertise. As chairman Hudson outlined, hurricane Helene wreaked havoc in Georgia's 12th District, causing significant damage to our communications infrastructure, leaving our residents unable to call for help, check in with family to let them know they were safe, and in many cases, made it impossible to receive helpful updates about available resources and services. I remember our first press conference, and the director of disaster management was talking about the shelters, food, and water, and that they were located in various places. And someone asked the question, well, how do we know where they are? He said, go to our website.
We had no website. And, thankfully, to Elon Musk and Starlink, he gave folks the opportunity to have three months free satellite service that a lot of folks took advantage of, and those things came up pretty quickly. And, we had systems in place to help fill the gaps with recovery efforts, and that got underway. But, basically, power-wise, we were down ten days in most places, in some places three weeks in rural areas. Mister Strup, are there any barriers to further expanding these services, and what would those barriers be?
Speaker 5
There are a couple restraining factors that I would note. And, as Miss Azakar noted, there are a couple of different ways of providing direct-to-device services. One is using MSS spectrum, and the other is partnering with mobile terrestrial carriers to utilize their spectrum. Being able to negotiate those agreements and ensure that they're providing service and not causing interference to adjacent systems, not necessarily something that's driven by the regulatory process, but is something that is time-consuming and being able to provide service. So that is one that I would note.
Speaker 8
Mister Goel, do you have any further thing to add about any barriers to further expanding these services?
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question. I think licensing reform will help. I know, the FCC has its supplemental covered from space framework, that initially focused on the easy cases. And there's, you know, more and more attention about, okay, how do we fold in the hard cases, too? I think, movement on that could certainly help.
I think NTIA coordination tends to be a factor in the limited number of spectrum bands where you can do a direct-to-device deployment. And I think speeding that up and providing more transparency and certainty certainly will help as well. And to your point about emergency response, this is a unique technology that can be deployed anywhere on a dime. And, with no infrastructure deployment, they're already there, and mass accessibility as soon as you turn it on. And I think, improving the framework, is really important.
So, thank you.
Speaker 8
Well, you just answered my next question to you about innovation in the industry and new interest to the market, which has helped bring communication services to previously unserved Americans like my constituents in rural Georgia. This direct to device and broadband services is rapidly developing. And further to expand on that question, what can Congress do to help encourage this innovation and provide for new interest into this marketplace?
Speaker 7
I think Congress is doing the right things. I think this bill will help on the FCC licensing side. I think it'll even have spillover effects on NTIA, where, you know, there's always a dynamic where you almost need an excuse to hurry up the feds at the other agencies and say, I've got a deadline. And this bill is gonna do it, and I think, really improve, outcomes here.
Speaker 8
Right. Good. Okay. Thank you again, very much. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, the chair. Now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Ruiz, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent the Coachella, Imperial, and San Jacinto Valleys. These are communities of hardworking families, farmworkers, small business owners, and students. And in far too many of these communities, reliable broadband is not given. A lot of them struggle.
They're under-resourced, underdeveloped rural areas. The data makes that clear. In the Coachella Valley, most neighborhoods do not have the fast or reliable internet that families need. In fact, only five areas in the entire valley meet the federal government's basic standard for high-speed Internet. In the Imperial Valley, the situation is even more stark.
When people do not have Internet at home, the consequences are real and immediate. They cannot have a video call with a doctor. Their kids cannot do their homework. This is not an abstract policy. This is real life for many in our country.
Statewide, low-income, and Latino households have seen virtually no gains in broadband access since 2019. In communities like mine, too many families are still being left behind. The FCC's own 2024 competition report confirmed we are entering a new space age, one where satellite partnerships can reach places terrestrial infrastructure simply can't. This is a promise worth fighting for, but it only matters if people can actually afford it. The communities I represent cannot pay premium prices for connectivity that wealthier ZIP codes get from the grid.
So as we streamline this licensing process, I want to make sure we are not simply accelerating a market that leaves rural and low-income Americans behind. Mister Stroup, as we lower regulatory barriers to entry and grow this market, what specific mechanisms exist today or should exist to ensure that rural and underserved communities actually see lower prices, not just expanded service footprints on a map?
Speaker 5
Thank you. Thank you for the question. And, I have a particular interest in the point that you're making, having grown up in rural North Dakota, understanding that there are areas of the country that are just not going to receive broadband service unless it is provided by satellite companies. Just given the tremendous amount of capacity that's been deployed, the increase in the number of companies that are providing satellite-based broadband services, pretty much everybody in the country is gonna have access to multiple broadband service providers.
Speaker 9
Access only exists if it is affordable. It can be there, but if people can't afford it, they don't have access to it. So how, so what are some mechanisms that we can ensure affordability in acquiring this satellite broadband?
Speaker 5
I agree completely, and I believe that it's providing some form of subsidies for those who are unable to pay or unable to afford the service. Satellite broadband service starts at approximately $50 a month today. There are multiple companies that are providing that service. In some instances, the terminals are provided at no charge. But I absolutely understand that there are some people who are not able to afford that.
Providing some form of subsidy, I think, would be the way of ensuring that they do have not only access, but actual broadband service.
Speaker 9
Miss Azocar, Iridium has long operated in some of the most remote and connectivity-deprived regions. What does genuine affordability look like in practice for satellite broadband, and how can Congress structure this legislation to incentivize pricing models that work for low-income households?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Iridium operates in less than nine megahertz of spectrum and focuses on narrow band, low latency, low bandwidth applications, not broadband. However, iridium is moving towards a standards based direct device solution that will become online later this year. And one of our reasons for doing that and for moving in that direction is that standards based devices are lower cost, smaller, and are more easily affordable by end users. So a move towards a direct-to-device solution where it is built into existing devices that end users already have or that they can easily afford is one way to achieve the goal that you.
Speaker 9
Thank you. In my last thirty seconds, mister Goal, from a regulatory and legal standpoint, there are provisions we should include in this bill that would tie streamline licensing to meaningful affordability commitments?
Speaker 7
Thank you, Congressman. I completely agree with you on affordability. I would love to see the affordability problem solved on a nationwide basis. I think that's how you push a needle on it after ACP, ended. There's data showing people are reducing service or canceling service.
Speaker 7
I would prefer dealing with affordability on a more comprehensive basis, rather than tying it to licensing, which might not get us all the way.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, mister Obernaulty, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. I've really enjoyed this hearing on what I think is a critically important topic. Mister Straub, you and your testimony had some pretty strong words about the need for responsible space traffic management. And when we think about the fact that we're transitioning to an environment of thousands of new satellites being launched every year, the need for that management becomes pretty clear.
And I also found it compelling that Miss Azakar was talking about the collision in 2009 between an Iridium satellite and a Russian satellite. That's gonna become more and more prevalent if we don't get this problem under control. Obviously, we're gonna have a growing need for the office of space commerce to take up some of the slack there, but it's been pointed out that this is gonna require international cooperation, because we're not the only ones who are launching satellites. So, could you walk us through how you see that problem being solved, and where the different responsibilities are going to lie when we do get it solved?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question, and it's an extremely important issue. I would recommend that we start by funding the tracks program, moving forward with implementation of it, and then starting to work with allied nations to be able to utilize what information that we've gathered, shared it with them, and expand it on a global basis. There have been discussions about whether this should be done on a global basis, an international basis, starting with the ITU. And there's a great fear within the industry that it will take far too long to implement a global basis, a global system, and, therefore, we need to start with implementing something in the United States.
We spent over 10 years trying to identify which civil agency was gonna take on this role. Fortunately, we've identified the Office of Space Commerce as the one to do it. But in order for them to be successful, we need to fund the TRACs program.
Speaker 11
And do you see a role for automated decision making through technologies like artificial intelligence in solving this problem? Because it seems like a problem that AI would be very good at solving. And, obviously, you'd prefer to solve the problem ahead of time. But, if you had an autonomous system that was continuously monitoring it, you might be able to avert a collision at the last second if, you know, that it occurred through a human air. Is that something that might be possible?
Speaker 5
I think there's absolutely a role for AI to be able to help address the issue. Some of the conjunctions can be addressed by onboard decisions within spacecraft. But, ultimately, we need to know where each of the different objects in space is.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Mister Goyle, I was really interested in the different principles that you laid out in your testimony. And two of the principles in particular are principles that were echoed by other members here of the panel. The frustration with long licensing timelines, and you had some pretty poignant examples of the consequences of those licensing timelines. But you also highlighted the need to leave room for careful, technical review, particularly as the use of these satellite technologies becomes more diverse.
But, I mean, obviously, those two ideas are intention. We can't complain simultaneously about needing to do a more detailed technical review. At the same time, we're complaining about the fact that the licensing timelines are too long. So, how do we balance the need to do both of those things at the same time?
Speaker 7
Thank you, Congressman. I take the point, and I think balance is the right word and is hard to achieve. The bill as drafted now has tolling provisions which allow the FCC under some circumstances to extend the timeline, and place his accountability checks on the FCC's ability to extend so they can't just do it willy nilly. I think that's the right approach. You know, most market participants can look at this bill and say, I'm still gonna get a license in time.
It might not be twelve months if I'm proposing something really novel, but, even if there's an extension, there are limits on it. So, but achieving that is critical because what's the alternative? Right? If the FCC can't pull the trigger because something's too complicated, they haven't run the traps. They're gonna deny the applications.
And, you know, I don't think that helps anybody. I think it's particularly damaging to smaller companies whose investors, whose customers are suddenly gonna say the FCC isn't buying what you're selling. So there’s gotta be that balance. And, you know, I think tolling and similar safety valves are the way to go.
Speaker 11
Right. Well, I agree with you. I also think that if we examine the reason for the long licensing timelines now, the reason why those timelines are unreasonably long is not that there is a too thorough tactical review going on. So, I do think that there's room there to accomplish most of those goals, but I appreciate your perspective. I see my time's expired.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The chairman, I'll recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Peters, for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, mister chairman, for calling and supporting the hearing. The SAT Streamlining Act is a bipartisan proposal that aims to standardize the regulatory review process and prevent unnecessary licensing delays in the satellite sector, which supports vital services from GPS and weather forecasting to secure military communications. The reforms in this bill will help ensure continued American innovation, industry investment, and U.S. leadership in the global space economy. In the last few years, China's satellite presence has grown over 600% after the Chinese government identified satellite broadband as one of its top priorities and dedicated significant investment to the sector. If we in America wanna keep pace with China, it's critical we reform our licensing, prop processes and equip US companies with the tools they need to compete on the global stage.
Mister Goel, in your testimony, you described a regulatory bottleneck. When you were at the FCC, what challenges did you witness within the existing regulatory process for issuing satellite communications licenses? What are the real world costs of a convoluted and complicated licensing process in the United States?
Speaker 7
Thank you, congressman. My insight from the FCC was all of the pain points that industry has with the licensing process, the FCC experiences too as pain points. If the rules are unclear and nobody knows what the requirements are to the service they're proposing, well, the FCC's gotta deal with that too when the rules are jumbled. Clarity's gonna help. When there aren't clear standards on what counts as interference, or what you have to put in your plans, and what exactly you have to say in an application.
Well, industry is scratching their heads, and, you know, they're litigating the issue before the FCC and spending a lot of time and money doing it. And the FCC, the poor FCC is, you know, in the middle, trying to pick out who's right and pull out data there. So, this is what contributed to just-in-time licensing. Yeah. A practice that I think the FCC is trying to move away from and ought to do, quickly, but it's very much a slowdown.
Speaker 10
What would you say to San Diegans and Americans are the cost of that? How would you reflect the cost of that?
Speaker 7
So I think the costs are less capacity to innovate, services that don't come out at all or come out less quickly, greater opportunity for our rivals, including China, to grab international spectrum and orbital resources, and disadvantage economically and militarily against our rivals.
Speaker 10
Yeah. Time is money, I always say too. And we sit in a lot of context in this committee. Innovation in the commercial satellite sector strengthens the economy and empowers US leadership in an interconnected world. An example of this is how mobile wireless providers like AT and T, Verizon, T Mobile partner with satellite companies to provide broadband and voice service to Americans who live in rural and hard-to-reach areas where we lack terrestrial coverage.
Satellite technology also enables first responders to improve their emergency response efforts, and at UC San Diego, in my district, it helps researchers improve health outcomes. But as we've heard today, regulatory complexity and delays, in addition to rising costs, spectrum scarcity and coordination, and supply strain supply chain constraints, can slow down innovation in this vital industry. Miss Azakar, how does the current regulatory landscape prevent innovation in your company, and how would the proposal today help address that?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question, Congressman. Iridium partners with over 500 companies to develop and deploy solutions that connect to our network, companies like Viavi in California. So Iridium operates in less than 9 megahertz of L band spectrum, and we have utilized that spectrum to innovate in our network due to the regulatory certainty that we have through our license. Regulatory certainty through something like the sat streamlining act, which gets fair, flexible, and stable licenses into the hands of new entrants, will enable not just satellite operators, but also their partners to develop and deploy solutions that benefit the American consumer throughout the US economy.
Speaker 10
Mister Shroup, do you have anything to add on behalf of the group you represent?
Speaker 10
I was asking how the proposal before us today would help spur innovation.
Speaker 5
Oh, okay. Regulatory certainty. I think absolutely knowing that from the time one raises an investment with a concept to the time that they're able to obtain a license is crucial to being able to move forward with any innovative product. Alright.
Speaker 10
My time has expired. I think we're all dedicated in this committee to close the digital divide, I think this will be a big step forward, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlemen. Unfortunately, votes have been called. We have got four minutes left on the first of three votes. So I'll ask the indulgence of our witnesses. We will go vote and stand in recess until five minutes at the end of the third vote.
So, the committee stands at recess.
Speaker 12
The subcommittee will come to order, and the chair will recognize himself for five minutes of questions. And, mister Schropp, if I could start my questions with you, that, you know, I have the honor of working with the general lady from Illinois' 2nd District when, on the satellite precision agriculture legislation. And, you know, when you look at what we can do out there on the agricultural front for our farmers, especially with precision agriculture, and then you bring in the satellite. I'd like to get your perspective on that, on agriculture and especially with satellites.
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question. And precision agriculture is an example of many different uses of satellite technology, starting with the remote sensing capability to be able to image fields, as well as utilization of GPS services, and then ultimately, communication services. So I think it's one of the great applications in many different sectors of the industry.
Speaker 12
Well, thank you very much. Mister Goroy, if I could, turn now to you. You know, one of the great things about serving on the energy and commerce committee is that we are really looking over the horizon by five to ten years when you're up here on the dais. We gotta make sure we get things right. And, you know, in your testimony, I thought it was interesting what you mentioned.
It says it requires us to move as fast as the innovators we oversee. And that's what we wanna make sure is that we're not hurting the innovators and the entrepreneurs out there with the legislation and the regulations that follow. What do you see, again, especially when we talk about licensing processes, you know, that's one of the things we've been really talking about in this congress, is on permitting and getting these things done. And when you're looking at, you know, how long it takes to get something done, how far that put us behind, especially when you think about, like, Communist China and what happens over there?
Speaker 7
I think it puts us behind by a lot. Right? It makes everything cost more. People waste their money on lawyers like me when they should just be able to tell what the rules are and what the requirements are and file an application and, you know, deal with some back and forth and get a license. Your point about China, I think, is extremely well taken.
They have, they are, you know, relying on both state-owned enterprises and private industry, and they are not waiting for a license. And, you know, I think it's pretty safe to say that the United States industry is well ahead of China right now in space, but you are seeing extremely deliberate and focused planning in China from launch to broadband to imaging across the board to AI in space. And, you know, they're getting their universities involved. They're getting the private sector involved. They're getting their military involved, and they're breaking down the barriers between the three with a lot more force and requirements than, you know, we do here in the United States.
So, I don't think we should be slowing down. I think people should be able to tell when they'll be able to provide service based on what they see on paper. And I think that's what streamlining is really gonna accomplish and unlock a lot of benefits.
Speaker 12
Well, because, again, you mentioned when you talk about your hidden cost of regulatory delay, you know, again, which I think you just answered the question because they don't worry about that because you said in your first sentence here, we tend to measure the cost of regulatory delay in terms of extra capital burn, fees, and payroll, and then even a missed window for lunch. And what we're looking at there is none for them because they just do it. I think that it's a really important factor that has to be considered when we're looking at the legislation and what we have to be doing in the future to make sure that The United States doesn't fall behind. And if I could go back to you, Mr. Straub.
You know, when you say, and we just heard from Mr. Goyle that you we were seeing that the US has long led the space sector, but China is closing that gap. How fast are they closing the gap?
Speaker 12
Well, how fast is China closing the gap with the United States? I only got 35 seconds left.
Speaker 5
I think as noted in my testimony, with respect to broadband services rapidly. They've got two constellations that are already in the process of launching, soon to be deploying most likely subsidized service throughout the world. Certainly, with respect to launch, they're the second in the country with the second most launches. So I think that, you know, the United States has an advantage with respect to innovation. But as noted by mister Gould, they have the ability to be able to deploy tremendous resources in an effort to catch up.
Speaker 12
Well, thank you very much. My time has expired, and I yield back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois' 2nd District for questions.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chairman, ranking member, for holding this afternoon's hearing, and thanks to our witnesses for participating and your patience. The satellite industry is evolving, and the stakes for rural America are real. In my district alone, there are 4500 farms. The majority of them are family-owned, they are the backbone of our food supply. Ensuring they have access to the latest agricultural technology is just not an economic priority.
It is a food security priority. That is why I introduced alongside Rep Lata, the bipartisan Precision Agriculture Satellite Connectivity Act to help our farmers maximize yield, efficiency, and profitability through satellite-enabled precision agricultural tools. But that innovation is only possible if we have a licensing process that can keep pace. A slow or cumbersome FCC process does not just create backlog. It pushes investment and jobs overseas and leaves our rural communities waiting longer for the connectivity they need.
Mister Stroop, you discussed yes. Straub? Sorry. You discussed how satellite-enabled precision agriculture is transforming productivity in rural America, particularly in areas beyond the reach of terrestrial networks. How does the SAT Streamlining Act ensure that new and emergent satellite providers, especially those focused on agricultural and rural communities, can enter the market and compete, rather than having that capacity concentrated among a few large operators?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question. And I think a good example would be the utilization of IoT services to be able to sense the level of moisture or the amount of fertilizer that may be needed. If you're a start up company, not knowing how long it would take to be able to get a license authorized, it could be the difference between you actually having a viable business or not. Satellite Stream and Lightning Act should be able to address that by setting a time frame and some certainty for new entrants into the industry to be able to raise the capital, deploy the equipment, deploy their services, and ultimately provide service to farmers.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Mister Gaul, you have highlighted the high regulatory cost for a small satellite company, and that uncertain licensing timelines can effectively erase innovation by discouraging startups before they even get off the ground. What specific reforms in the SAT Streamlining Act would most directly reduce those barriers to entry for new and smaller satellite companies?
Speaker 7
Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it's the combination of certain time periods for reviewing a license with the safety valve for licenses for license applications that are very complicated. You, if you're a start-up, you can look at the provisions in the act, and you can see what the FCC is doing in parallel with modernization. And you can say, this is how long it's gonna take for me to get a license. And you can look at it and say, if I'm playing by the rules and I have a reasonable proposal, I'm not gonna have my license denied, which the FCC tends not to do and generally prefers not to do, but would be under pressure to do if it was under shock clocks without a safety valve.
And so I think those two provisions in parallel could really help startups.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. Now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mister Lansman, for five minutes for your question.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate all of you for being here. It's a good bill. The you know, both The United States and the Chinese have launched a ton of satellite capacity, and, the bill clarifies. And I think in a very important way, the licensing processes at the SEC take into account the national security concerns.
And like banning Chinese company market access to The United States and creating stricter foreign ownership review process, we, I think, you see or hear here bipartisan support for the bill. I just had a couple of questions, and anyone can answer this, but maybe miss Assacar Azark. It's like sugar in Spanish, but at yeah. But then. Sorry.
You either everyone can, but I was thinking about you. What are some things that we and the FCC should be doing to ensure space-based communications are redundant and resilient? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 6
Yes. Yeah. Thank you for that question, Congressman. And I just wanna note that Iridium has a partner in Ohio called Safran that we're very happy to partner with. And so we have a bit of a presence there.
They build P and T equipment that connects to our network. So resilience and redundancy is the core of Iridium's, I would say, brand. In addition to how our network is architected for resilience and redundancy of 66 satellites, we have 14 in-orbit spares. We have multiple ground systems when we really only need one or two, and we have multiple lines of fiber from each of those ground systems. Mhmm.
So building resilience and redundancy into the satellite ecosystem is a part of who we are as a company. But from a regulatory perspective, a huge part of resilience and redundancy is having a competitive market-based approach that allows new entrants and competition, so that there can be multiple ways to achieve the same goal.
Speaker 5
Thank you. I would add that having a healthy industry with capabilities at multi orbits is one of the ways of being able to ensure redundancy and resiliency. That is one of the major growth areas of the industry that we haven't talked about today, and ensuring that there's capability, terminals that are capable of communicating with both geo and non geostationary satellites is one of the ways. And that's achieved with a healthy industry.
Speaker 7
Thanks. I have nothing to add. I think the points have been covered well. This is an inherently resilient and redundant technology. Thank you.
Speaker 14
These when talking about the satellite capacity, to the extent that any of you can talk about this in an unclassified setting, what capabilities do China and Russia possess to your knowledge that we don't or we should be working on?
Speaker 6
Honest. But what I will say is that the US economy is robust, and China is doing it in a different way. China is funding its own actors, and it is deploying systems in a risky way that doesn't collaborate sufficiently internationally. I think the ways that the US government can support the US space economy is to provide a voice for the US companies like an American company like Iridium on the international stage, such as at the WRC and at three GPP standard setting bodies. And while I don't have an example of a way that China is beating us at this time, without that type of support, we would be concerned that we could be in that position.
Speaker 5
That I would note that is publicly available is utilization of maneuverable spacecraft, in both GEO and non-geostationary orbits. There have been stories that have been published about the capabilities that the Chinese have deployed. Their potential dual use definitely have implications for security purposes.
Speaker 7
And, look. This is not a specific capability, but one thing China has been very good at in our telecom history has been exporting their ecosystems to places around the world. You we've seen that with GPS and the Baidu system. We've seen that, with Huawei and ZTE, terrestrially when we took our foot off the gas.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And the chair would like to welcome in the gallery Christian Kurth. He's a senior at Langley High School in McLean, Virginia. His father, Tim, some of you may know, was the chief counsel on this subcommittee. So, welcome, Christian.
Glad to have you with us. At this time, the chair will recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for five minutes.
Speaker 15
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you for the witnesses joining us here today. Satellite technology is constantly evolving, and The United States must remain at the forefront of this critical infrastructure. I represent Southeast Louisiana, where we're no strangers to hurricanes and to other devastating natural disasters. Satellites provide early warning and accurate forecasts as well as vital connectivity for first responders and residents. These systems enable communities to prepare for natural disasters and respond more effectively during recovery efforts.
Last year, I was vocal in my opposition to the Trump's administration's plans to cut crucial hurricane forecasting satellite data, a decision that would have been disastrous if they had followed through. We must continue to fund and support innovations in satellite technologies because I've seen firsthand how reliable systems and connectivity save lives. This is why legislation like the satellite and techno telecommunications streamlining act is so critical. By responsibly modernizing the satellite approval process, we can accelerate innovation and deploy advanced satellite technology faster while ensuring our communities are equipped with the most advanced tools in times of crisis, in times of need, in times of challenge. These are not just things to say.
This is real. These are people's lives. Mister Scroop, I was proud to introduce Next Generation 911 Act with Chair Hudson that modernizes our emergency alert system. How can satellite infrastructure expand access to 911 in underserved areas, as well as a backup for emergency communication networks?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question and your leadership on this issue. I'm starting with the second part of your question, first. I think that satellites have the ability to provide a backup for 911 systems. There are thousands of fiber cuts per year in this country.
Some of them have impacted 911 systems. And so I think that satellites have the ability to provide the backup. Also, there's clearly the communication capability with direct-to-device services. When systems go down, often satellites, because their infrastructure is in space, are the only means of being able to communicate. And I think that's really one of the best means that the satellite industry can help address, the ability to call 911 when there is no other system available.
Speaker 15
Do you all agree that the notion that we would get rid of satellites in forecasting, that we will remove satellites from NOAA and get rid of current agencies that forecast and give us the idea of where storms may come, where the strength, that is not good sound policy.
Speaker 5
I think that satellites are crucial to provide weather forecasting. Much of the information that is gathered is only capable of being gathered from space. And so I absolutely am supportive of continuing to fund.
Speaker 6
It's not necessarily an area of expertise for myself or Rividium with respect to weather forecasting, but support.
Speaker 6
As a citizen and as a participant in the satellite industry, funding for satellites and for the advancement of space infrastructure is critical to the future of the US space economy.
Speaker 7
Miss Cowell? Completely agree that weather forecasting from space is essential.
Speaker 15
And while I'm with you, Miss Goel. Yeah. With the fast pace of innovation in satellite technology, why is it important for regulatory processes to be responsive to this innovation? And how does the Streamline Act encourage satellite manufacturers and startups to build and license their systems in America?
Speaker 7
It gives them more time and more money to focus on building and innovating. It gives them the certainty they need to attract investment and to attract customers, and it provides them the flexibility they need to change their plans after they get a license without having to repeat a years long process.
Speaker 15
In this fast moving, technological age that we find ourselves in, what can we, and a bipartisan effort under the leadership of our chair, can we do to assist in amplifying the voices of the professionals to make sure that we're waiting through the politics and the partisan noise to make sure that technology is forefront, that we are ahead of the game, not behind the game, not chasing. If you had an opportunity to tell us what to do today, how can we help you better? And you can all take a quick crack at that in 13 seconds.
Speaker 7
Quick. Keep doing what you're doing, a balanced approach that gives certainty, and focus on people, whether that's through affordability or.
Speaker 6
Fair, flexible, regulatory regulation, that gives certainty to existing providers and new ones alike.
Speaker 15
Now when you're leaving here today, you're gonna say, dang it. I had a chance to tell those guys what to do, and I didn't give it all. Thank you all very much. Mister chairman, are you?
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mister Pfluger, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses for being here. There's a company in Midland, Texas called AST Space Mobile, and they've testified before this committee before in doing some amazing work. I've followed their progress closely, visited a couple of times. And this week, we had a bill, the Mystic Alert Act, that passed the house incorporating space-based direct-to-device capability into the wireless emergency alert system.
And space based broadband is exactly the type of American innovation that I think we expect, and that Republicans and the Trump administration are working hard to accelerate. Streamlining the satellite regulations is critical to making that work, and I'll start with miss Assakar. How will the Sat Streamlining Act directly impact companies like AST Space Mobile, and how will the implementation of laws such as the Mystic Alerts Act be affected if we don't fix the licensing process underlying them?
Speaker 6
Thank you for the question, Congressman. I just wanna start with, just ensuring you understand that iridium has been part of the natural disaster response since Hurricane Katrina. So while it's discussed extensively today as a direct-to-device solution, we've been doing this now for decades. And in the instance of the Texas flooding, for instance, we were used not just for critical communications during the restoration, but also drones utilize Iridium for seeing what has happened, and also for search and rescue. So there are a variety of different use cases in natural disasters.
The streamlining of licensing will enable more providers to provide a variety of different services to end users in the event of a natural disaster because, as Tom has indicated, satellite service by its nature is resilient and redundant in a natural disastrous scenario.
Speaker 16
Thank you. And I'll just kinda go one step further, you know, on the deemed grant provision. If the FCC misses a deadline, then the license is automatically approved upon the applicant's written notice. But after the floods where we lost communications, you know, I'm kinda looking at the agencies missing deadlines, and how that technology could have saved lives. So can you explain how the provision is necessary to give these shot clocks real teeth, and what that effect would have just overall on safety?
Speaker 6
Yeah. Shot clocks are an important part of satellite streamlining, but they're not without potential consequences. So while it's beneficial to the US space economy for licensing to occur quickly, it also needs to be deliberative and to resolve all concerns so that the licensee that receives the license and existing licensees have regulatory certainty to rely upon that to innovate the way that Iridium has been able to do for the last 25 years.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much. I'll go to another topic to not kinda into the novel space activities topic. And, mister Stroop, as we consider the SAAT Streamlining Act, how should we think about addressing novel space activities, and how can we complement what chairman Carr and the FCC is already doing and what they're specifically trying to do with the part 100 proceeding?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question. There are a number of novel space activities proposed. One good example is space data centers. And, I think that from the time we started discussing, satellite streamlining to today, we've seen a sea change in terms of the potential scope of the applications and the size of constellations.
And so I think ensuring that there is sufficient coordination among the various governmental organizations that have an interest and that the streamlining act accounts for the ability to be able to gather additional information from the time an application is initially submitted is going to be key to supporting some of the novel space activities, which provide a great deal of excitement and opportunity within the industry, but also create some additional challenges for the industry.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Certainly, just the sheer scope and size of some of the constellations that are proposed. It raises issues with respect to the impact of using optics for connectivity. NASA filed a response in one or more of the applications that have been filed. They'd be able to monitor all of those satellites.
I mean, today, one of the satellite operators has had over 300,000 maneuvers in the course of one year. If we're looking at hundreds of thousands or a million satellites, being able to make sure that we know where all of those objects are, in order to be able to make sure that we ensure the safety of space, is definitely one of the challenges.
Speaker 16
Mister Gole, I'm sorry. I was gonna talk to you about the regulatory environment, our competition with China. And if you'd like to follow up in writing, on that. Specifically, if we fail to get the environment right, with these novel space activities, what's the risk that we're opening ourselves up to? So my time has expired, and I'll yield back.
But if you want, if you'd like to follow up in writing, that'd be great.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Virginia, Representative McClellan, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two weeks ago, the world watched as the Artemis 2 mission successfully completed its ten-day lunar mission. This was a clear signal that the United States remains a global leader in space and is ready to take on the new frontier. And I'm pleased to see this committee prioritizing legislation that supports our continued progress in space. The SAT Streamlining Act does just that by clarifying the FCC's role in space and strengthening its statutory authority in reviewing satellite and earth station applications, ensuring a more efficient, predictable, and timely licensing process.
And at a time of intensifying global competition, particularly from nations like China who are moving aggressively to expand their presence in orbit, we can't afford unnecessary regulatory delays that slow innovation or deployment. And this legislation will help provide certainty to the industry, support emerging technologies, and accelerate the deployment of next-gen connectivity, particularly for rural and underserved communities that stand to benefit the most. So simply put, if we wanna lead in space, we must be able to move at the speed of innovation here on Earth. And so, miss, you said it, and I messed it up already. Azakar?
Yes. Ranking member Doris Matsui raised concerns about reduced staffing at the FCC and proposed budget cuts that could further strain the agency's capacity, but we didn't fully explore the issue. So can you walk us through what specific safeguards are needed to ensure that the FCC has the workforce, technical expertise, and resources to review and act on applications both quickly and thoroughly? And what are the risks to innovation, deployment timelines, and US competitiveness if those constraints are not addressed?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. And I just, since you mentioned Artemis and you're from Virginia, we are a proud Virginia-based company with three offices now there, and having expanded a lot within Virginia, that also participated in the Artemis mission. Somewhere Labs had a device that was used in the NASA capsule recovery team. So I just wanna make sure you're aware of those pieces. But in terms of the resources at the FCC, reviewing applications is a resource-intensive process, and space is complex.
We operate as a mobile satellite service provider, but there's a fixed satellite service. There's geostationary, non-geostationary. There's LEO, MEO, you know, the acronyms never end. And having sufficient resources to process applications is critical to the speed. So we share your concern about ensuring that the FCC has the resources to do so.
Speaker 17
Thank you. And, mister Goyle, I'm pleased to see that the FCC is working to increase the speed at which it processes space and Earth station licensing. And, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be enough, and you might need more intervention. I appreciate the work that ranking member Palone and chairman Guthrie are putting in for to this legislation, and these dual tracks should send a clear signal to the industry that both congress and the FCC recognize the urgency of this issue. Can you elaborate on how these two tracts work in tandem, and how the SAT Streamlining Act will offer clear statutory authority to assist the FCC in its rulemaking process?
Speaker 7
Thank you, Congresswoman. I think the legislation, the legislative piece, is actually really important. It creates incentives for the FCC to really put streamlining at the top of the agenda, to compress those timelines as much as possible, and to actually address the root causes. And what you'll see is this FCC, you know, to its credit and to the credit of staff, didn't just tinker around the edges. They said, we are gonna replace this entire rule part with an entirely new rule part.
And I think the message sent from Congress helped with that. I would also say if you look through the communications act today, you will scarcely see the mention of the world's satellite in space given how much the FCC is doing in this area. In this environment, in this administrative law environment, it is never a bad idea to give the agency some cover when it's being engaged this much in a topic that the statute doesn't really talk about. And the last thing I would mention is legislation is enduring. Space is hot right now, to be casual about it.
It's popular. It's trendy. But it's also an industry where you make long-lived investments. Legislation tells the industry that, five years from now, ten years from now, even if you're not as popular as you are today, you're still gonna get the same treatment from the FCC, you're gonna get your licenses through. So, thank you.
Speaker 17
So you point to one of the very reasons I've been pushing so hard for us to modernize the telecom act as quickly as possible. So thank you for that. And I don't have a question, I mean, I don't have time for a question for you, mister Stroke, but I will submit some for the record because I don't want you to feel left out. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, representative Kamick, for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my apologies for rolling in hot. I had a munchkin in tow. So we'll start with, I know, you, mister.
Speaker 18
Know what? She's probably more productive than most members here. So, I'm gonna start with you, mister. Is it Guel?
Speaker 18
Well, thank you. So you had noted earlier, and I when I was watching, that regulatory delays don't just slow innovation, but they can actually prevent it from happening at all. We know that the regulatory environment strangles the life out of basically every industry, and this is no exception. So given that China is aggressively advancing its satellite capabilities and filing for spectrum internationally, how urgent is it that we streamline our licensing processes, and what specific risks, and I want you to detail that very carefully, do we face if we fail to keep pace?
Speaker 7
I think the urgency, it's extremely urgent. You know, we can't we we've had a lot of discussion at this hearing about China being on its heels, about a very broad based push by the Chinese to develop and expand their space based capabilities. And we are seeing militarily, whether it's in the Iran conflict or whether it was in the war in Ukraine, about just how critical satellite connectivity and satellite and space-based services are to our national security. I mentioned before the Chinese sold an imaging satellite to the IRGC during the period of this conflict. It turned out to be more advanced than people really thought.
Broadband satellites are being used for battlefield communications, for drones. You know, this is the future of modern warfare. Sensing in space is gonna be tremendously important as well. So, the urgency is now. We gotta get this right, and we cannot lag behind.
Speaker 18
Do you think, just as a follow-up to that, do you think that we have the signals intelligence necessary to really understand exactly where they are in their development?
Speaker 7
That is an extremely good question, congresswoman. And I am hesitant to say this, but I just don't know. I, you know, I hope we know where they are, and I hope we feel confident that we're better. And this is a race we're winning, and we're making sure we're just widening the gap. But to tell you the truth, I just don't know.
Speaker 18
Well, and I think you'd agree with me that hope is not a strategy. And to your point, we definitely need a strategy to make sure that we are keeping pace.
Speaker 18
Absolutely. Turning to you, mister, is it Stroop? Stroop. Stroop. I'm just messing up all the names today, but thank you for correcting me.
So the satellite industry is experiencing unprecedented growth, with thousands of satellites already in orbit, tens of thousands planned in coming years. From an industry perspective, what are the biggest pain points in the current FCC licensing process, and how would a more predictable assembly line framework change investment and deployment decisions for US companies?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you for the question. And I think that the length of time that it is taken to process applications has been one of the big issues. And part of the.
Speaker 5
The length of time. So, examples have been cited taking over two years to get an application either denied, approved, just some kind of a response. So that's one of the issues that the industry has encountered. Another, because the industry shares spectrum, often the time that it takes to coordinate with federal agencies because the federal government is also using the same frequency bands is one of the issues that I've heard as a pain point from our members.
Speaker 18
Okay. I appreciate that. And I'm gonna come back to you if I can make the time work on this, but I'm gonna turn to you. Azacar? Yeah.
One out of three. Miss Azacar, your testimony highlighted the importance of protecting existing satellite services, especially those tied to public safety, national security, and critical infrastructure. Now as we move to streamline the licensing, which is critically needed as has been talked about so far, and expand access to spectrum, how can we ensure that we're not creating harmful interference or undermining the reliability of these mission critical services, particularly for first responders and federal users? And I'm asking this as the wife of a first responder.
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. And as a working mom, I love this. I'm so pleased and impressed by you. So in terms of protecting existing operators that provide safety of life communications, Iridium prides itself on a near 99.99% availability everywhere on the globe, pole to pole. And we have the Global Maritime Distress Service.
We're the only American company that provides that. We provide aviation safety services, safety of life services, and natural disaster services. So interference to us means the safety of life. Protecting from harmful interference necessitates a proper process at the FCC. While we agree that proper process must be quick and rapid and meet the needs of the growing US space economy, it also needs to have sufficient technical analysis to ensure that harmful interference doesn't occur to existing US operators and users, which requires involvement by federal agencies and by technical experts.
Speaker 18
I appreciate that. Thank you. I believe my time is over, so I'll submit the remainder of my questions for the record. With that, I yield, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair, now I recognize the gentlelady from North Dakota, Miss Fedorchak, for five minutes for your question.
Speaker 19
Thank you all. I appreciate your expertise and the time you're spending with us today, and thank you for organizing this great hearing, Mr. Chairman. I have questions for all three of you, so I hope to get through them all. Starting with you, mister. Is it Goel or Goel? Goal.
Goel. Goal. Alright. You've argued that regulatory delay can prevent ideas from ever becoming commercialized. In a global race, particularly with China moving aggressively in this space, what is the real cost of these lost ideas?
And then are we already seeing companies or innovation shift overseas because of our regulatory delays and timelines?
Speaker 7
I think those are great questions. Think the cost is this, right, when we're looking at it vis a vis China. If we can get this right, we'll have more services brought to market quicker and less opportunity for China to secure scarce spectrum in orbital resources globally, which we know they're trying to do. Militarily, we will have an edge, and expand our edge, in satellite technology, which has a much more important impact on both offensive and defensive strategies in wartime. And we will have greater opportunity to make sure it is trusted and friendly and, hopefully, US based ecosystems that are being trusted around the world before China tries to export their own.
I think those are the biggest benefits that we'll see. And in terms of, is this already happening? I mean, I think the answer is yes. You know, I'm not revealing client confidences, but I've had clients come to me with ideas. They're trying to break the mold.
It doesn't fit exactly within the regulation. And, you have to tell them honestly what the timeline and the road to approval could look like and how fraud it is. And then sometimes you don't hear back on that idea ever again. Mhmm. So I think this is happening.
Speaker 19
Miss Azakar, you've talked about Iridium operates globally using a relatively small amount of spectrum. What lessons did that offer for spectrum policy more broadly, and are there regular regulatory barriers preventing more efficient use of the spectrum?
Speaker 6
Thank you, Congresswoman. And we're grateful to partner with the University of North Dakota to hire students for high-skilled jobs at the SDA facility in Grand Forks. So thank you for your partnership with the office. Excellent. Ivadium uses a small amount of spectrum, as you note, and we do a lot with it.
We have 2,500,000 subscribers and many lines of business, and we are innovating regularly to add on position navigation and time and NTN Direct. The lesson there for us is NTN Direct is our direct-to-device solution. The lesson there for us is that the regulatory stability and certainty in the license that was granted to us by the FCC as an American-based and American-licensed company has enabled us to innovate. And that has required ongoing conversations with the FCC about whether new solutions that are coming to market require modifications to our license, and also protections from interference when new applications come into play that could interfere with us. So having flexible licenses that are granted quickly is going to be the correct balance to enable others to use the spectrum efficiently.
But we would also take additional spectrum to do more if it was available.
Speaker 19
Very good. As I'm sure many others would as well. Okay. Finally, Mister Straub, the FCC is moving toward a more streamlined assembly line model for approvals. What does that actually look like in practice for companies filing applications, and where does it succeed, or where could it fall short?
Speaker 5
Thank you for the question, and thank you for an opportunity to testify before a fellow North Dakota graduate. North Dakota Green. So the idea is to be able to rapidly change the licensing process. It's known, the system was established for a limited number of applications filed per year, typically for geostationary satellites. And, you know, the assembly line is intended to be just exactly what it's how it's characterized, that it will be dealt with rapidly.
There will be boxes to check, certifications that are made, and, most importantly, the process will move forward much more quickly.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I ask your name's consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing document list, without objection. So ordered, seeing there are no further members wishing to be recognized, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. Thank you for indulging us through the vote series. Really appreciate your testimony both written in and today.
And, I remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record and ask the witnesses to please respond to those promptly. Members should submit their questions by the close of business on 5/05/2026. Without objection, subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.