ROBERT J. WITTMAN 
1ST DISTRICT, VIRGINIA 
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITIEE 
CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE 
SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES 
SUBCOMMITTEE 
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMIITEE 
ENERGY AND MINERAL 
RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE 
<nnngrts.s nf tltt 11lnittb &tutt.s 
llnus.e nf m.epr.es.eutatiuts 
Bas4ingtnn. m<!t 2U515-46Dl 
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS, AND 
INSULAR AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE 
CO-CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL 
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED CAUCUS 
CO-CHAIR. CONGRESSIONAL 
SHIPBUILDING CAUCUS 
The Honorable Tom Wheeler 
Federal Communications Commission 
Chairman 
445 12th Street SW 
Washington, DC 20554 
Dear Chairman Wheeler: 
September 18,2014 
'ved & Inspected 
n: tul4 
9oom 
WASHINGTON OFFICE: 
2454 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 
WASHINGTON, DC 20515 
(202) 225-4261 
DISTRICT OFFICES: 
STAFFORD OFFICE 
2777 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY, SUITE 105 
STAFFORD, VA 22554 
(540) 659-2734 
PENINSULA OFFICE 
401 MAIN STREET 
P.O. Box 494 
YORKTOWN, VA 23690 
(757) 874-6687 
MIDDLE PENINSULA OFFICE 
508 CHURCH LANE 
P.O. Box 3106 
TAPPAHANNOCK, VA 22560 
{804) 443-0668 
WWIN.WITIMAN.HOUSE.GOV 
In conversations with the local governments and constituents across our Districts, we 
have become increasingly aware of a potential action by the Federal Communication 
Commission (FCC) that will have a negative impact on the states we represent. 
Specifically, we refer to the expansion of FCC i3-ii3 Rates for interstate inmate Calling 
Services to include capping inmate intrastate calling rates inclusive to an as of yet undetermined 
structure and the potential abolishment of associated revenue share. 
While we appreciate the FCC's attempt to consider outside interests, we believe that all 
stakeholders involved in this discussion must share the Commission's objectives. It would be 
useful for the FCC to hear from the localities and residents on how this potential administrative 
rule may impact their communities. It is also our hope that in common dialogue and good faith 
we can establish policy decisions that truly speak to the needs of all citizens impacted and in 
doing so, help the FCC find a fair and equitable solution to its concerns. 
We are concerned about the financial implications of the proposed rule change and the 
potential impact it may have on spending priorities of already financially restricted cities and 
counties in our Districts. As you may be aware, the financial impact of an intrastate call rate 
revenue share restriction proposed by FCC i3-ii3 is estimated to be over $13.5 million dollars a 
year just for Virginia's localities alone. This rule change comes at a time of major revenue short 
falls for many localities that have already had to force spending cuts of significant proportions. If 
the rule change is implemented, hard decisions must be made that will impact every citizen; law 
enforcement, correctional services, public education, social services and public health spending 
may have to be sacrificed should the change be permitted. 
Second only to education, public safety forms the foundation of the social contract 
between local government and the citizens of that jurisdiction. Across our Districts there is grave 
concern that this rule may have a major adverse impact on law enforcements' ability to interdict 
and prosecute crime, inside and outside of the state's correctional facilities. 
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
As many states like New Mexico, Alabama, and California are moving to address the 
FCC's concerns within their authority, we feel that our local governments can also work with the 
FCC to help develop policies that address the Commission's concerns in manners that also 
reflect the priorities and objectives of those jurisdictions. 
To this point, we respectfully ask that the FCC consider the following suggestions as it 
considers the proposed rule change to restrict intrastate inmate call rates: 
I. Refer to individual state utility commissions to establish policies and practices that 
address the concerns ofthe FCC; that reflect the policy priorities of the state or 
locality; and, most importantly, take into account the will of the governed; 
2. Grace period implementation - If the Commission sees the need to proceed with the 
rule change, a grace period of 18 to 36 months is absolutely vital to prevent serious 
local economic dislocation. Similar federally mandated rules on localities typically 
have implementation periods that span years. Without a compelling governmental 
interest, of which none exist, there is no objective practical reason not to apply the 
same standard; 
3. Cost recovery on incurred costs- As the FCC is considering allowing a narrowly 
defined application on incurred cost recovery allowances limited to the provision of a 
call exclusively, support for a more liberal definition that would include costs 
associated with crime interdiction and prosecution phone technologies would make 
sure that local law enforcement and state attorneys would continue to have acce.ss to 
these vital public safety tools. Incurred costs for system provision versus incurred 
costs for call provision; 
4. Clarity and transparency- I respectfully ask the FCC to consider articulating a 
potential rule on the issue of revenue share or commission. It would be extremely 
beneficial for the FCC to establish a clear, concise and unambiguous public position 
on this issue for all interested parties to increase understanding, reduce animosity and 
promote cooperation. 
We appreciate your full consideration of these concerns and recommendations. Should 
you have any further questions, please contact Congressman Wittman's office at 202-225-4261. 
With kind regards, I am. 
Sincerely, 
• ~ 
Richard B. N ent 
Member of Congress