Office of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer
At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) questioned experts about the congressional push to auction off critical U.S. spectrum currently utilized by the Department of Defense. She urged her colleagues to reject attempts to include hastily drafted and short-sighted language in an upcoming reconciliation bill, citing the critical role that the sought-after airwaves play in safeguarding our national defense.
In her remarks, Senator Fischer mentioned more practical solutions such as sharing the valuable airwaves with commercial stakeholders instead of an outright clearing of the spectrum for private exclusive use, an outcome sought by carriers and their allies.
During the hearing, Senator Fischer asked Bryan Clark, a senior fellow and director at the Hudson Institute, about the harm to our military capabilities if the Department of Defense is excluded from the process, risking permanent loss of the Department’s airwaves and its ability to protect our country.
She also asked about misleading influences from foreign adversaries like China in pressuring the U.S. government to auction off exclusive mid-band spectrum that are essential to our national security missions—ultimately, disarming the United States.
Click the image above to watch a video of Sen. Fischer’s questioning
Click here to download audio
Click here to download video
Senator Fischer questions experts:
Senator Fischer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel for being here today. We know the context of this hearing is about whether and how to use spectrum in a reconciliation bill. One key focus I’m hearing is on revenues from the new spectrum pipeline that’s only for exclusive commercial use. I want to stress for my colleagues that we must also weigh the cost and the timelines to relocate existing users for this type of pipeline.
The Department of Defense is one of the users, with missile defense radars and satellite constellations providing critical capabilities. DoD losing access to its spectrum bans entirely, which is what vacating or clearing spectrum means, comes with huge risks and will end up costing us more. Replacing national security systems, if that is even possible, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and we all know it would take decades to be able to finish. So, a pipeline estimated to raise, by CBO, based on current proposals, between 10 and 15 billion dollars in a 10-year budget window may actually take 20 years to transition.
I agree there are technologies that could make sharing spectrum possible. The DoD must have a seat at the table when its spectrum bands are studied and tested, otherwise we lose them. We risk losing access to this finite resource forever. Mr. Clark, what specific military capabilities could we lose if lawmakers on this committee do not fully consider these realities before pressing ahead?
Mr. Clark: Well, Senator, I think you know, the key capability would be sensing technologies needed for air and missile defense. So, in the lower S-Band, lower X-Band…
Senator Fischer: Could you explain what S- and X- Band are?
Mr. Clark: Right. The lower part of the three gigahertz range in the S-Band is really important for air missile defense because it gives you that combination of resolution and range that allows a radar to be pretty effective at tracking incoming targets. And then we need radars that operate up in the X-Band, which is the eight to 12 gigahertz range, but the lower part of that generally, to be able to differentiate small targets and be able to target them and be able to direct an interceptor like a Patriot missile to go hit them and shoot them down.
Senator Fischer: So we have to see them and identify them.
Mr. Clark: Right. So, you need to both see them and then target them and track them. And that requires essentially two different sensor technologies to be either combined in the same radar or be in different radars. That’s how the Patriot system works. That’s how the Aegis system works that the Navy has. So, if we were to relocate out of those parts of the spectrum, you’ll lose the physics that allows those sensors to work effectively, and we’d have to either have more sensors or come up with a different approach. So that’s why sharing might be an effective alternative, but relocating them entirely may not be feasible because of the physics.
Senator Fischer: You know, Mr. Clark, I have concerns about the role that China has played in influencing our spectrum policy in this country. We’re being told that we have to keep up with China, that they have far more mid-band spectrum available, that their carriers can use the lower three for mobile networks, and that there have been no negative impacts to China’s national security.
Well, you know, in reality, China only has 10 more megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for mobile networks. China also recently imposed restrictions in its lower three band, limiting commercial access to low power, indoor use. And yet, we still hear the China comparison from carriers in their effort to gain exclusive use of these bands, which are needed for our radar systems. If the U.S. blinds its radars purely for economic reasons, that only helps foreign adversaries like China. Do you share my concerns?
Mr. Clark: I do. I think China could be playing a very sophisticated game here where they’re looking to get us to vacate parts of the spectrum that we need for our military sensors, while they retain that access. And so, we unilaterally disarm while they’re able to retain their capabilities. Because, as I said before, they have the ability to move commercial users out of the spectrum basically whenever they need to for their routine government purposes.
Senator Fischer: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit some questions for the record to Mr. Clark about spectrum management, and how that also impacts what we’re talking about today. Thank you.