G RE G WALDEN, OREGON FRAN K PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY CHA IR MAN RANKING MEMBER ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS (!Congre5'5' of tbe Wntteb $tate5' 406 ~ou.se of l\epre.sentatibe.s COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 2125 R AYBURN H ousE OFFICE Bu1Lo1NG W ASHINGTON, DC 20515- 6115 Majority 1202) 225- 2927 Minority 1202) 225-3641 May 22, 2018 The Honorable Aj it V. Pai Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Pai: As Members of the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, we are concerned about your repeated evasive responses to our inquiries and your outright refusal to respond to some members of this Committee. Oversight of the agencies within our jurisdiction is one of the most impo1tant responsibilities of the Committee. Oversight hearings and letters ensure agencies within our jurisdiction are accountable to the American people and provide answers on some of the most critical issues affecting our constituents. Whil e we appreciate your continued willingness to testify before our Committee, we are concerned that you have been unable to give complete responses to verbal questions, questions for the record, or oversight letters from our members. We take our oversight responsibilities very seriously, and we expect witnesses before the Committee and recipients of our letters to treat their responses the same way. As you noted earlier this Congress, "the Commission is a creature of Congress, and it is therefore impo1tant that we keep Congress informed about what the FCC is doing." You also committed to "strive to be responsive to all Congressional inquiries to the extent that I can within the law and Commission rules." To date, your responses to our requests, in the instances when we receive them, do not meet the very commitment you made to us, and we hope that will change. The Honorable Aj it V. Pai May 22, 2018 Page 2 Accordingly, we have attached a collection of letters that you have yet to answer completely, or at all. Please provide complete written responses by June 4, 2018. We appreciate your attention to this important matter. Should you have any questions, please contact Gerald Leverich of the Democratic Committee staff at (202) 225-3641. Sincerely, :+Ml-r~'-. Frank Pallone, Jr. r Mike Doyle Ranking Member Ranking Member Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Peter Welch vet e D. Clarke Member of Congress ber of Congress ;Jtllk Dave Loebsack Raul Ruiz, M.D. Member of Congress Member of Congress ~D~ ~.,:U__ Debbie Dingell Bobby Rush Member of Congress Member of Congress The Honorable Ajit V. Pai May 22, 20 18 Page 3 O ma~E<Jic,,...,,.,o- t% t . 6~ Anna Eshoo Eliot L. Engel Member of Congress Member of Congress ~tt~~ Doris Matsui Member of Congress Jn~ r McNerney ember of Congress Cltonrrrcss of tfJc ~l n iteb ~tn tc s 237 m ilsl)111uto11, Zi)~ 20510 March 22. 20 I 7 The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chainnan Federal Communicati ons Commissio n 445 12th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Pai. As Members who are ac ti ve ly engaged on 911 issues, we write to share our serious concerns regarding the recent outage of 9 11 emergency services for AT&T wireless customers on March 8. We commend the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for taking swift action to launch an investigation on March 9 and we look forward to the discussion of the outage at your upcoming Open Meeting. To the greatest extent possible, the results of the investigation should be made publically avai lable so consumers are aware of the cause and impact of the outage. In addition, we request you provide us \Vith a forma l briefing on the FCC 's findings, including the cause of the outage; how many custom ers were affected nationwide; how many 911 calls were disrupted; and how affected customers were no ti fi ecl of the outage. We also seek your recommendations on how future 9 11 wireless outages can be avoided. With an estimated 70 percent of the 240 million emergency 911 calls each year placed from wireless phones, and nearly 50 percent of Americans livi ng in cell -phone-only households, it is critical that wireless 9 11 services are a reliable li feline for co nsumers. We thank you for your attention to thi s matter and we look forward to yo ur prompt response. Sincerely. G6G . ~ >buchar p nna G. Eshoo tates Senator Member of Congress COMMIITEEON WASHINGTON OFFICE: ENE RGY AND COMMERCE 239 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE B UILDING W ASHINGTON, DC 20515 SuocoMM1rrtrs: 12021225-21 35 ENFAGY ANO POWER 336 CO.MMUNIC" llONS A>~O TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICES 2637 EAST CARSON S lllEET Co·CHAIR: ~ongress ~tates PlnSOURGH, PA 15203 COAll noN roR AUTISM of tbe Wniteb (4 121 390-1499 RESEARCH ANO EDUCATION J[)ousc of i~cprescntatiue.s 11 DUFF ROAD CONGRESSIONAL CAUC:US ON ROBOTICS PENN HILLS, PA 15235 M IKE DOYLE (d 121 241-6055 DISTRICT, PENNSYlVANJA 1'1fll 627 l YtiLE BOULEVARD M c l<E CSPOAT, PA 15132 April 24, 20 17 (4 12) 664-4049 The Honorable Ajit V. Pai Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Pai: I write to express my concern regarding media reports indicating that you recently shared yo ur proposed plans to undermine the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order. These reports specifically indicate that you met with both telecom trade associations 1 and several large internet companies2 to brief them on your plans to scale back net neutrality protections. When specifically asked about those meetings, and why there was no record of those meetings filed with the Commission, you responded that you "didn't discuss the merits of any pending proceeding." You, however, went on to say that you were "not going to comment on the specific nature of the conversation." Regardless of what was or was not discussed in your meetings, the Commission has a greater duty to brief Congress. In response to a letter from my office earlier this year, you noted that "the Commission is a creature of Congress, and it is therefore important that we keep Congress info1med about what the FCC is doing." I request that your office fu ll y brief Congress about these discussions and document any conversations that you have had with outside groups on the issue of rolling back, or in any way modifying, the FCC's current net neutrality protections. I further request those documents be made publicly available on the Commission's website. 1 FCC Head Ajit Pai Reportedly Outlines Plans to Roll Back Ne/ Neutrality Rules, The Verge (Apr. 7, 20 17) (www. theverge.com/201 714171 152153 16/fc c-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-title-ii-plans-roll-back). 2 FCC Chairman Pai Mel with Facebook and Others to Discuss Net Ne111rality Changes ro Cvme, Recode (Apr. 20, 20 17) (www.recode. net/2017/4120/ 15373502/fcc-chairman-aj it-pai-met-facebook -google-nct-neutrality­ open-intemet). Contact me through: http://www.cloyle.house.gov PRINTCOON R[l~ ,·CLEO PAl-'ER C!tongr£E5 nf fq.e 1ltnit.e!l $tat.es lmhisl1h1gto11 , Dill 211515 May 3, 2017 Mi\Y Q8 Z017 The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman FCC Mail l .oorn Federal Communications Commission 445 12m Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Pai, It is a fundamental principle in the American broadcast system that the public has a right to know who is behind programming on our public airwaves that is designed to persuade them. This principle is embodied in the sponsorship identification 'requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 and the associated regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).1 We write today to inquire whether the FCC's sponsorship identification and public file ownership disclosure requirements should be applied to foreign state-sponsored broadcast content, such as RT (formerly Russia Today), which U.S. intelligence agencies have determined was used in an effort to influence the American public in our national elections. Intelligence agencies have been clear about the role RT played in the U.S election. In a declassified report from January, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence referred to RT as " [t]he Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet."2 The report also notes the lengths to which RT has worked to obscure its ties to the Russian government, including changing its name from "Russia Today" to " RT'' in 2008 in an effort to "stop scaring away the audience."3 Given RT's efforts to hide its true intentions, we believe it is critical for the American people to have a clearer picture of the trne source of this channel's programming. As staunch defenders of the First Amendment, we are not suggesting that any broadcast speech should be suppressed, but the airwaves are a public trust that have always carried with them special obligations to the public with respect to content broadcast over them. Sponsorship identification is one of those special obligations which extends back to the earliest days of broadcast regulation in the United States.4 Requiring broadcasters to maintain a public inspection file with information like ownership data goes back more than forty years.5 With RT broadcasting over-the-air in certain markets, we ask whether you believe the FCC's rules should be applied to foreign state-sponsored channels. The American people deserve to know who is attempting to influence them. 1 47 U.S.C. § 317 and 47 CF.R § 73. 1212. 2 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution, at 4, January 6, 20 17. Hereinafter the ODNI Report. 3 ODNI Report at 12. 4 See§ 19 of the Radio Act of 1927. s See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526; https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Thank you for your attention to this important inquiry and we look forward to your timely response. Michael . Doyle Member of Congress Member of Congress David N. Cicilline Member of Congress Member of Congress y Panetta mber of Congress MarkTakano Doris Matsui o;;;ffiz Member of Congress Peter Welch ~L/~ric Swal Member of Congress Member of Congress L David Loebsack Member of Congress ~~e.M q/ dtJ ~ed ~at~ J'?oaoe q/ ~~edatiued .91,//la ~ ~ko ~~/ 9.~ 2tJ5~5 Wwb,utd ~ldt;-id ~44-ma M ay 251 1017 The Honorable Ajit Pai1 Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 Ilch Street1 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Pai1 l'm writing to follow-up on the letter l sent to you on May 3rd along with ten other Members of Congress relative to RT, the Russian State-sponsored news agency. As l stated in my original letter1 our intelligence agencies have described RT as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and found that it played a prominent role in the effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. Just as disturbingly, RT has taken steps to obscure its ties to the Russian government in an effort to confuse viewers in the United States about its true intentions. The American people deserve to know the truth about who is behind RT's programming. l believe the FCC has tools at its disposal that can help do exactly that. Please respond to my.original letter as soon as possible to this critical issue. Sincerely, G~~ Anna G . Eshoo Me~ber of Congress Enclosure illott!:Jrt.sJJ of Ure Nnifch :§tateJJ l!mcu.tlrington, ID@ 20515 July 17, 2017 The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12 111 Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Pai, On May 3, 2017, we wrote to you regarding RT, the Russian State-sponsored news agency, asking whether the FCC's Sponsorship Identification rules and broadcast public file ownership requirements should be applied to this station. This also follows Congresswoman Eshoo's letter of May 25th asking for a response to our original letter. To date, we have not received a response from you. It is an established fact that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election, with RT playing an impo1tant role in that effort. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a declassified report in January, 2017 entitled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US. Elections. This rep01t is replete with references to RT, including the fact that it is the principle international propaganda outlet for the Russian government. In this capacity the channel consistently used its platform on behalf of the Trump candidacy and lauded his win in the election as " ... a vindication of Putin's advocacy of global populist movements."1 Stunningly, RT and the Russian government were able to use the airwaves owned by the American people as part of their attempts to influence our citizens. In light of these actions, it is disturbing that RT has taken steps to obscure its ties to the Russian government, including changing its name so that it no longer includes an explicit reference to Russia. This is a very serious issue and it's why we wrote to you earlier this year. It is essential for the American people to know the truth about who is behind RT' s programming. We consider this to be a matter of national importance that deserves your attention and we once again ask you to provide us with a response to our original letter. Sincerely, Michael F. Doyle / mber of Congress Member of Congress 1 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections, at 4, January 6, 2017. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PllPER ine Ju92t:4 ~ Member of Congress Member of Congress )n= &or'6 [{)cd:su.L ~z/£ Doris Matsui Peter Welch Member of Congress Member of Congress Davidlk~ Loebsack Member of Congress cc: The Honorable Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission The Honorable Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission GREG WALDEN, OREGON FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CO NGRESS cteongress of tbe 'mlniteb ~tntes J!)ou£)e of l\epre£)entatl\.Je£) COMMITTE E ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 2125 R AYBURN H ousE O FFICE B u tLDING W ASHINGTON, DC 20515- 6115 Majority 1202) 22&-2927 Minority (202) 225-3641 May 11, 201 7 The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon Clyburn Chairman Commissioner Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Washington, DC 20554 The Honorable Michael O'Rielly Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Pai, Commissioner Clyburn, and Commissioner O'Rielly: We write to urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide sufficient time for Americans to respond to the latest proposal in the Open Internet proceeding. The draft proposal circulated by Chairman Pai on April 17, 2017, gives only 30 days to reply to initial comments. Under this deadline, these replies would come due in the middle of August, when many small business owners, students, internet users, and workers are away. yve therefore request that you extend this ·comment period by at least one month, as consistent with applicable law. Chairman Pai has recognized that net neutrality has been the "subj ect of a fierce public debate." 1 But more than that, the issue is critically important for the millions of Americans who do not no1mally participate fo FCC proceedings and who cannot afford Washington lawyers to file comments on their behalf. We should all agree that their opinions should count nonetheless. The Commission's website also recently crashed, making it impossible for the public to submit 1 Federal Communications Commission, Remarks as Preparedfor Delive1y by Chairman Ajit Pai on the Future ofInternet Freedom (Apr. 26, 2017) (transition.fcc.gov/Dail y_ Releases/Daily_ Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf). The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon Clyburn The Honorable Michael O'Rielly Mayll,2017 Page 2 comments for some time.2 Understanding tl1ese facts, during its Open Internet proceeding in 2014, the FCC gave the public from May to July for initial comments and then from July to September to reply to those comments. This comment cycle not only gave Americans time to more fully consider their responses, it allowed the public to retum to school, to home, and to work from their August travel. We believe the Commission should provide the public the same com1esy when reconsidering the existing protections. As Chairman Pai has said, the question the "FCC must answer is what polices will give the American people what they want."3 We urge you to extend the FCC's cunent comment period by at least one month so that the American people can adequately info1m the Commission how to answer this question. Developing a fulsome record that gives everyone a fair chance to weigh in should be in everyone's interest-no matter where they ultimately fall in the net neutrality debate. Sincerely, 1"'1J!~J~ Mike Doyle Ranking Member "d" Ranking Member Subcommittee on Communications and Teclmology 2 John Oliver Just Crashed the FCC 's Website Over Net Neutrality-Again, Motherboard (May 8, 2017) (motherboard.vice.corn/en_ us/article/john-oliver-just-crashed-the­ fccs-websi te-over-net-neutralityagain). 3 Federal Communications Commission, Remarks as Prepared for Delive1y by Chairman Ajit Pai on the Future ofInternet Freedom (Apr. 26, 2017) (transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily _ Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pd±). QCongrtss of tbt Wniteb ~tate.s ~ ou se of l\epresentatibes 528 masbinnton, :m.«:. 20515 June 26, 2017 The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn Chairman Commissioner Federal Communications Commission Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW 445 12th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Washington, D.C. 20554 The Honorable Michael O'Rielly Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Pai, Commissioner Clyburn, and Commissioner O' Rielly: We wlite to express concerns about the Federal Commw1ications Commission's (FCC) cybersecurity preparedness, and the multiple reported problems with the FCC's website in taking public comments in the net neutrality proceeding. Recent events have raised questions about the security of the FCC's network, and we have serious concerns that the FCC's website failures deprive the public of oppo1tunities to comment on net neutrality - an issue that affects everyone who uses the internet. Problems with the FCC's net neutrality docket made headlines last month after comedian Jolw Oliver implored his viewers to file comments about net neutrality with the FCC. Multiple media outlets reported that the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System "went down" 1 after the segment, noting that "the FCC's servers appeared to be overwhelmed by the fl ood of traffic."2 The following day, on May 8, 20 17, the FCC's Chiefinformation Officer aimounced that the FCC "was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks," a situation that made it 1 Ali Breland, FCC site crashes after John Oliver segment, The Hill (May 8, 2017). See also, Sam Gustin, John Oliver Just Crashed the FCC 's Website Over Net Neutrality-Again, Motherboard (May 8, 2017). 2 Jeff John Roberts, John Oliver Gets Fired Up Over Net Neutrality-and FCC's Site Goes Down, Fortune (May 8, 2017). The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn The Honorable Michael O' Rielly June 26, 2017 Page 2 "difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC."3 In response to an inquiry from Senators Wyden and Schatz, the FCC recently released more information about the alleged cyberattacks.4 Yet the FCC's response raises additional questions, and there are other areas of concern about the net neutrality docket for which we seek answers. For example, recent repo1ts have also indicated that as many as 150,000 comments had disappeared from the FCC's net neutrality docket,5 and that automated comments were submitted to the FCC using names and addresses ofreal people without their knowledge or consent.6 Even with all of these problems and irregularities, the FCC has given only until the middle of August for the public to provide initial comments on the FCC's net neutrality proposal, despite receiving calls to extend the deadline.7 Further, Republican Congressional leaders have not held hearings to examine these issues, despite receiving calls to do so.8 We ask you to examine these serious problems and inegularities that raise doubts about the fairness, and perhaps even the legitimacy, of the FCC's process in its net neutrality proceeding. Giving the public an opportunity to comment in an open proceeding such as this one is crucial - so that the FCC can consider the full impact of its proposals, and treat everyone who would be affected fairly. It is also required by law. The FCC must comply with Administrative 3 Federal Communications Commission, FCC CIO Statement on Distributed Denfrtl-of­ Service Attacks on FCC Electronic Comment Filing System (May 8, 2017) (press release).. 4 Letter from Ajit V. Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, to Senators Wyden and Schatz (June 15, 2017) (https://www.politicopro.com/f/?id=OOOOO l 5c-d59b-de74- al 7f-ddbba4380001) (FCC Response). 5 John Eggerton, FCC 's Network Neutrality Docket Appears to Shrink, Broadcasting & Cable (June 8, 2017). 6 Dominic Rushe, 'Pretty ridiculous': thousands ofnames stolen to attack net neutrality rules, The Guardian (May 26, 2017). 7 Letter from Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Mike Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Teclmology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, to Ajit V. Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (May 11 , 2017). 8 Letter from Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Diana DeGette, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Mike Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Yvette Clarke, Member of Congress, to Rep. Greg Walden, Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Tim Murphy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce (May 17, 2017). The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon L. Clyburn The Honorable Michael O'Rielly June 26, 2017 Page 3 Procedure Act requirements to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment, as well as to respond to those comments.9 This is important, especiall y where the FCC is considering changing rules that affect everyone who uses the internet. It is also critical that the FCC take all appropriate measures to secure its networks from cyberattacks. At a minimum, the FCC must meet cybersecurity requirements under the Federal lnfom1ation Security Modernization Act (FISMA). The Chairman of the FCC is ultimately responsible under FISMA to provide information security protections for the agency. 10 This is especially important given that the FCC's Chieflnformation Officer stated that the FCC experienced a cyberattack that made it difficult for members of the public to file comments with the agency in an open proceeding. 11 We therefore request responses to the following questions by July 17, 2017: 1. According to the FCC's response to Senators Wyden and Schatz, the May 2017 incident was a "non-traditional DDoS attack" where bot traffic "increased exponentially" between I !pm EST on May 7, 2017 until lpm EST on May 8, 2017, representing a "3,000% increase in normal volume." 12 What "additional solutions" is the FCC pursuing to "further protect the system," as was mentioned in the FCC's response?13 2. According to the FCC, the alleged cyberattacks blocked "new human visitors .... from visiting the comment fi li ng system."14 Yet, the FCC, consulting with the FBI, determined that "the attack did not rise to the level of a major incident that would trigger further FBI involvement."15 What analysis did the FCC and the FBI conduct to determine that this was not a "major incident?" 9 5 U.S.C. § 553. See, e.g., Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir) (2007) (remanding final rule to the FCC after finding the FCC had failed to comply with obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act to give interested parties notice and a reasonable oppo1tunity to comment in the rulemaking process); Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir.) (1977) (vacating rule for failure of the FCC to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's notice and comment requirements that are intended to "provide fair treatment for persons affected by a rule."). 10 44 U.S.C. § 3554(a). 11 FCC Press Release, supra n. 3. 12 FCC Response, supra n. 4. 13 Id. 14 Id. ls Id. The Honorable Ajit V. Pai The Honorable Mignon L. Clybtm1 The Honorable Michael O'Rielly June 26, 2017 Page 4 3. What specific "hardware resources" will the FCC commit to accommodate people attempting to file comments during high-profile proceedings? Does the FCC have sufficient resources for that purpose? 4. Is the FCC making alternative ways available for members of the public to file comments in the net neutrality proceeding? 5. Did the FCC contact the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center's Hunt and Incident Response Team (HIRT) at the U.S . Department of Homeland Security to investigate the May 8, 2017 incident, and if so, on which date(s) was such contact made? If the FCC did not contact HIRT to investigate the May 8, 2017 incident, please explain why it did not do so. 6. What were the findings from any forensic investigative analyses or reports concerning the May 8, 2017 incident, including how and why a denial-of-service attacks were declared, and from what attack vectors they came? 7. Did the FCC notify Congress of the May 8, 2017 incidents as provided by FISMA? 16 If so, how did the FCC notify Congress? If not, why not? 8. Did the FCC notify its Office ofinspector General (OIG) of the May 8, 2017 incidents, and if so, when did it notify the OIG? Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to receiving a response. If you have any questions, please contact the minority committee staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee at (202) 225-3641 and the minority committee staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at (202) 225-5051. Sincerely, · t~~f~ .. ~ Frank Pallone, Jr. " Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce 16 44 U.S.C. § 3554(b)(7)(C)(iii)(III).