FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable G.K. Butterfield 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2305 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Butterfield: 
July 27, 2015 
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's efforts to modernize the universal 
service Lifeline program. I share your desire to ensure that Lifeline continues to assist low 
income consumers with access to affordable communications services. Your views are very 
important and will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the 
Commission' s review. 
I wholeheartedly agree that Lifeline helps eligible low-income consumers connect to the 
nation' s communications networks and delivers essential assistance to millions of Americans 
who otherwise could not afford phone service. Access to communications helps people find 
jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children' s schools, and call for 
help in an emergency. Without Lifeline, many low-income consumers would not have access to 
services that are essential to stay connected in today' s world. That is why transforming Lifeline 
for the 21 st century is key to the future of this vital program. 
One of this agency' s fundamental responsibilities is to ensure that all Americans have 
access to vital communications services. We also have a duty to manage public resources in an 
effective, efficient manner that advances the public interest. As you note, the Commission' s 
2012 Lifeline Reform Order fulfilled these responsibilities by engaging in programmatic reforms 
which have produced significant and measurable savings for the Universal Service Fund. These 
reforms provided a much needed boost of confidence in the Lifeline program among the public 
and interested parties, increased accountability, and set the Lifeline program on an improved 
path to more effectively and efficiently provide vital services to the Nation' s low-income 
consumers 
On June 18, 2015, the Commission further honored its statutory mandate, when it 
adopted the 2015 Lifeline Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Order. This 
action marked a significant step to modernize and evaluate the effectiveness of the Lifeline 
program, seeking comment on restructuring the program to better support 21 st Century 
communications while building on existing reforms to continue strengthening protections against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Page 2-The Honorable G.K. Butterfield 
I understand and appreciate your opposition to a cap that would result in denying 
otherwise eligible households from participating in the program. We sought comment on a 
budget to ensure that all of our goals are met as the program transitions to broadband, including 
minimizing the contribution burden on ratepayers, while allowing the Commission to take 
account of the unique nature and goals of the Lifeline program. Adopting a budget for the 
Lifeline program raises a number of important implementation questions. For example, as you 
note, not every eligible household participates in the Lifeline program. We want to avoid a 
situation where the Commission would be forced to halt support for individuals that otherwise 
meet the eligibility requirements. That is why we asked a number of questions about what data 
we should use in determining the size of the budget, and what should be the consequence of 
reaching the budget. 
You also identified one of the key issues that we need to address: eligibility verification. 
The FNP RM proposed streamlining and tightening the process of verifying consumer eligibility 
by taking it out of the hands of providers. Removing that decision from the Lifeline provider will 
eliminate one potential source of waste, fraud, and abuse from the program while creating more 
efficiencies overall in the program administration. We sought comment on establishing a third­
party "national verifier," coordinating with other federal needs-based programs, considering the 
use of direct subsidies to consumers through vouchers, and a number of additional ways to 
increase the efficient administration of the Lifeline program. 
Finally, I agree that competition among providers on price and service offerings would 
benefit Lifeline subscribers and would ensure ratepayer dollars support an efficient program. 
Therefore, the item sought comment on how to encourage providers to participate in the program 
and how to encourage participation by the states. It is our hope that this FNPRMwill allow us to 
reform and modernize the Lifeline program to make it more efficient, accountable, and effective 
at helping low-income consumers access the communications technology they need to participate 
in today' s society, while proposing additional protections against waste, fraud and abuse. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further 
assistance. 
Sincerely,. //A/ 
- -p;~ ! ~eeler "1-
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2351 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congresswoman Clarke: 
July 27,2015 
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission' s efforts to modernize the universal 
service Lifeline program. I share your desire to ensure that Lifeline continues to assist low 
income consumers with access to affordable communications services. Your views are very 
important and will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part of the 
Commission' s review. 
I wholeheartedly agree that Lifeline helps eligible low-income consumers connect to the 
nation' s communications networks and delivers essential assistance to millions of Americans 
who otherwise could not afford phone service. Access to communications helps people find 
jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children' s schools, and call for 
help in an emergency. Without Lifeline, many low-income consumers would not have access to 
services that are essential to stay connected in today' s world. That is why transforming Lifeline 
for the 21 st century is key to the future of this vital program. 
One of this agency' s fundamental responsibilities is to ensure that all Americans have 
access to vital communications services. We also have a duty to manage public resources in an 
effective, efficient manner that advances the public interest. As you note, the Commission' s 
2012 Lifeline Reform Order fulfilled these responsibilities by engaging in programmatic reforms 
which have produced significant and measurable savings for the Universal Service Fund. These 
reforms provided a much needed boost of confidence in the Lifeline program among the public 
and interested parties, increased accountability, and set the Lifeline program on an improved 
path to more effectively and efficiently provide vital services to the Nation' s low-income 
consumers 
On June 18, 2015, the Commission further honored its statutory mandate, when it 
adopted the 2015 Lifeline Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Order. This 
action marked a significant step to modernize and evaluate the effectiveness of the Lifeline 
program, seeking comment on restructuring the program to better support 21 51 Century 
communications while building on existing reforms to continue strengthening protections against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Page 2-The Honorable Yvette D. Clarke 
I understand and appreciate your opposition to a cap that would result in denying 
otherwise eligible households from participating in the program. We sought comment on a 
budget to ensure that all of our goals are met as the program transitions to broadband, including 
minimizing the contribution burden on ratepayers, while allowing the Commission to take 
account of the unique nature and goals of the Lifeline program. Adopting a budget for the 
Lifeline program raises a number of important implementation questions. For example, as you 
note, not every eligible household participates in the Lifeline program. We want to avoid a 
situation where the Commission would be forced to halt support for individuals that otherwise 
meet the eligibility requirements. That is why we asked a number of questions about what data 
we should use in determining the size of the budget, and what should be the consequence of 
reaching the budget. 
You also identified one of the key issues that we need to address: eligibility verification. 
The FNP RM proposed streamlining and tightening the process of verifying consumer eligibility 
by taking it out of the hands of providers. Removing that decision from the Lifeline provider will 
eliminate one potential source of waste, fraud, and abuse from the program while creating more 
efficiencies overall in the program administration. We sought comment on establishing a third­
party "national verifier," coordinating with other federal needs-based programs, considering the 
use of direct subsidies to consumers through vouchers, and a number of additional ways to 
increase the efficient administration of the Lifeline program. 
Finally, I agree that competition among providers on price and service offerings would 
benefit Lifeline subscribers and would ensure ratepayer dollars support an efficient program. 
Therefore, the item sought comment on how to encourage providers to participate in the program 
and how to encourage participation by the states. It is our hope that this FNP RM will allow us to 
reform and modernize the Lifeline program to make it more efficient, accountable, and effective 
at helping low-income consumers access the communications technology they need to participate 
in today's society, while proposing additional protections against waste, fraud and abuse. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further 
assistance. 
-~ly#4? 
Torn Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Bobby L. Rush 
U.S. House of Representatives 
2268 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Congressman Rush: 
July 27, 2015 
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's efforts to modernize the universal 
service Lifeline program. I share your desire to ensure that Lifeline continues to assist low 
income consumers with access to affordable communications services. Your views are very 
important and will be included in the record of the proceeding and considered as part ofthe 
Commission' s review. 
I wholeheartedly agree that Lifeline helps eligible low-income consumers connect to the 
nation' s communications networks and delivers essential assistance to millions of Americans 
who otherwise could not afford phone service. Access to communications helps people find 
jobs, access health care services, connect with family and their children' s schools, and call for 
help in an emergency. Without Lifeline, many low-income consumers would not have access to 
services that are essential to stay connected in today's world. That is why transforming Lifeline 
for the 21 st century is key to the future of this vital program. 
One of this agency' s fundamental responsibilities is to ensure that all Americans have 
access to vital communications services. We also have a duty to manage public resources in an 
effective, efficient manner that advances the public interest. As you note, the Commission' s 
2012 Lifeline Reform Order fulfilled these responsibilities by engaging in programmatic reforms 
which have produced significant and measurable savings for the Universal Service Fund. These 
reforms provided a much needed boost of confidence in the Lifeline program among the public 
and interested parties, increased accountability, and set the Lifeline program on an improved 
path to more effectively and efficiently provide vital services to the Nation' s low-income 
consumers 
On June 18, 2015, the Commission further honored its statutory mandate, when it 
adopted the 2015 Lifeline Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Order. This 
action marked a significant step to modernize and evaluate the effectiveness of the Lifeline 
program, seeking comment on restructuring the program to better support 21 st Century 
communications while building on existing reforms to continue strengthening protections against 
waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Page 2-The Honorable Bobby L. Rush 
I understand and appreciate your opposition to a cap that would result in denying 
otherwise eligible households from participating in the program. We sought comment on a 
budget to ensure that all of our goals are met as the program transitions to broadband, including 
minimizing the contribution burden on ratepayers, while allowing the Commission to take 
account of the unique nature and goals of the Lifeline program. Adopting a budget for the 
Lifeline program raises a number of important implementation questions. For example, as you 
note, not every eligible household participates in the Lifeline program. We want to avoid a 
situation where the Commission would be forced to halt support for individuals that otherwise 
meet the eligibility requirements. That is why we asked a number of questions about what data 
we should use in determining the size of the budget, and what should be the consequence of 
reaching the budget. 
You also identified one of the key issues that we need to address: eligibility verification. 
The FNPRM proposed streamlining and tightening the process of verifying consumer eligibility 
by taking it out of the hands of providers. Removing that decision from the Lifeline provider will 
eliminate one potential source of waste, fraud, and abuse from the program while creating more 
efficiencies overall in the program administration. We sought comment on establishing a third­
party "national verifier," coordinating with other federal needs-based programs, considering the 
use of direct subsidies to consumers through vouchers, and a number of additional ways to 
increase the efficient administration of the Lifeline program. 
Finally, I agree that competition among providers on price and service offerings would 
benefit Lifeline subscribers and would ensure ratepayer dollars support an efficient program. 
Therefore, the item sought comment on how to encourage providers to participate in the program 
and how to encourage participation by the states. It is our hope that this FNP RM will allow us to 
reform and modernize the Lifeline program to make it more efficient, accountable, and effective 
at helping low-income consumers access the communications technology they need to participate 
in today' s society, while proposing additional protections against waste, fraud and abuse. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further 
assistance. 
Sincerely, 
~eeler