By Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jack Reed, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Mac Thornberry The FCC granted Ligado (formerly known as LightSquared) permission to repurpose spectrum adjacent to GPS frequencies for a terrestrial cellular network -- framing this proposal as essential to "winning the race to 5G." But what Ligado has done is conflate two different and important spectrum issues: the sharing of mid-band 5G spectrum by the Department of Defense and commercial industry, and harmful interference of Ligado's signal with the low-band GPS signals used in nearly every aspect of daily life. The result: some members of Congress, members of the administration, and the public are now confused about the real and immediate impacts of Ligado's proposal. So, we wanted to clarify things: domestic 5G development is critical to our economic competiveness against China and for our national security. The Pentagon is committed working with government and industry to share mid-band spectrum where and when it makes sense to ensure rapid roll-out of 5G. The problem here is that Ligado's planned usage is not in the prime mid-band spectrum being considered for 5G -- and it will have a significant risk of interference with GPS reception, according to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The signals interference Ligado's plan would create could cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and require the replacement of current GPS equipment just as we are trying to get our economy back on its feet quickly -- and the FCC has just allowed this to happen. Think of all the ways Americans use GPS each and every day. GPS satellites provide free precise timing and navigation that powers thousands of functions: making financial transactions at our banks, keeping the lights on in our homes, traveling around the country -- the list goes on and on. Studies show GPS satellites contribute at least $1 billion to our economy every single day. GPS also forms the backbone of countless military operations and applications -- to get supplies to our war fighters on the battlefield, guide unmanned aircraft and vehicles, target its precision weapons, and much more. It would be practically impossible to identify and repair or replace all of the potentially adversely affected receivers. It would "needlessly imperil [Department of Defense] GPS-dependent national security capabilities," per Secretary Esper, putting the war fighter, U.S. Space Force, military readiness, and even the defense of our homeland at risk. American families and businesses would lose coverage or be forced to use systems from our strategic competitors, China and Russia, jeopardizing our global leadership in precision timing. We're not the only ones with serious concerns. Nine federal departments and agencies have completed extensive engineering tests and analyses on Ligado's proposal; and the results are clear: Ligado's plan would interfere with millions of GPS receivers across the nation. The Departments of Defense, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Homeland Security, Energy, and Transportation -- as well as NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration -- all strongly object to Ligado's plan. What kind of precedent is the FCC setting by disregarding near unanimous opposition of federal agencies to this proposal? It's not just the government, either -- industry leaders representing GPS, satellite communications services, automotive companies, commercial aviation, and weather data have also voiced concerns over Ligado's proposal. We would expect that the FCC listen not just to Ligado's privately funded research, but also broad-based, in-depth research from experts in national security and other fields. This makes it all the more confusing -- why is the FCC ignoring all the evidence, especially now, at the height of a global crisis? The Ligado application highlights the need to use a technical, data-driven approach to balance the use of the spectrum between war fighter requirements and commercial needs, rather than strong-arming a proposal through the process like the FCC just did. We can expect this issue to be an ongoing national security challenge. If we want to strike a responsible balance moving forward, the U.S. government must modernize the infrastructure needed to manage and share spectrum efficiently, promote policy and technology innovation, and improve the ability of military systems to operate alongside commercial systems. Considering the risks, it's clear the FCC commissioners made the wrong decision regarding Ligado's plan, which will set a disastrous precedent while impeding ongoing work on spectrum sharing. The vulnerabilities to our national and economic security are not worth the risk, particularly for a band of spectrum that isn't necessary to secure a robust 5G network. We encourage the FCC to withdraw its approval of Ligado's application and take this opportunity to work with the NTIA and other federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense and Transportation, to find a solution that will both support commercial broadband expansion and protect national security assets. Moreover, we expect the FCC to resolve Department of Defense concerns before moving forward, as required by law. If they do not, and unless President Trump intervenes to stop this from moving forward, it will be up to Congress to clean up this mess. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Events in the Indo-Pacific region have a profound influence on the U.S. and the rest of the world, as the COVID-19 pandemic reminds us. The Defense Department made the Indo-Pacific its "priority theater" in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, reflecting not just concern about China but also the opportunities for working with partners and allies in the region for the broader good. But there still seems to be a reluctance to "put our money where our mouth is" when it comes to the Indo-Pacific. China, as well as Russia, are working to undo the international system that was largely established by the U.S. and its allies in the aftermath of World War II. That system has led to unprecedented improvements in longevity, quality of life, and security across the globe, including in China, as well as an increase in self-government in much of the world. Even as Americans shelter in place, however, China is using dubious data about its own COVID-19 response and its propaganda machine to undermine U.S. leadership and to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies and partners. Now is the time for the United States to demonstrate its dedication to the Indo-Pacific region and to our allies and partners there. Today, I am releasing draft legislation to charter and fund an Indo-Pacific Deterrence Initiative. My bill would mandate a U.S. presence in the region, set out a training and exercise regime with our allies, preposition equipment, invest in infrastructure, and strengthen ally and partner capacity. It will clearly identify the specific resources required to enhance deterrence with China. When facing similar challenges from Russia in Europe, Congress and the Obama Administration created the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), announced in 2014 as the European Reassurance Initiative, as a collection of policies and programs to cumulatively deter an increasingly aggressive Russia. EDI expanded partner capacity and restored important infrastructure needed in time of conflict. By pooling and directing the resources dedicated to countering Russia, EDI continues to serve as an important barometer of American commitment to the region, sending a clear signal to our allies and adversaries alike. It is time we do the same in the Indo-Pacific region. In fact, Congress already did. In the Fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress created an Indo-Pacific Stability Initiative that required the Pentagon to provide a plan similar to EDI for the activities, capabilities, and resources necessary to deter China in the Indo-Pacific region. But the Pentagon has never requested any funds for the initiative. It seems that Congress will have to direct funding for what is supposed to be the "priority theater." This funding builds on President Trump's own budget request for the region with the additional requirements identified by our regional commanders and service secretaries. It also utilizes information in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command's investment plan required by Congress and delivered last month. In total, it calls for spending $6.09 billion in fiscal 2021, including approximately $1 billion to enhance missile defense, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, information operations, and the presence of rotational forces; $1.5 billion for prepositioning, logistics, and munitions; $2.1 billion to invest in infrastructure with $10 million for strategic construction planning and design; $350 million for programs to strengthen capacity and engagement with allies and partners; and $1 billion for training and exercises. Obviously, defense resources are limited, and we cannot do everything in one year. There also may be other needs I have not identified. But the important thing is to get started. Having a specific, dedicated fund, such as with Europe, makes transparency and oversight easier and provides a benchmark with which to measure progress and what remains to be done. When Congress is able to reconvene, it is poised to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for the 60th year in a row. No other piece of legislation has a similar bi-partisan track record. In the next 60 years, America's fortunes will be greatly influenced by what happens in the Indo-Pacific region. It would be fitting if we mark this milestone by implementing a new strategic approach to this vital part of the world. Rep. Mac Thornberry is the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, where he previously served as chairman. He plans to leave Congress after more than 15 years in office.

By Rep. Mac Thornberry The primary job of the federal government is to provide for the common defense, yet today only 15 percent of the budget is devoted to that task. While our military personnel will always try to do whatever is asked of them, years of inadequate and unpredictable funding have taken a real toll. Much of their equipment is old and worn out, and too often they have not been getting the training they need to do what the nation asks. In 2017 about four times as many service members lost their lives in routine training and operations than in hostile actions. Defense Secretary James Mattis testified recently that "our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare -- air, land, sea, space, and cyber." Others have put our position compared with rival states, such as Russia and China, in much starker terms. There can be little doubt that this erosion of American military strength has encouraged a variety of adversaries to be more aggressive and that the world has grown more dangerous as a result. The budget agreement recently passed by Congress and signed into law begins to reverse this decline. At the same time, sufficient resourcing comes with additional responsibility, for both the Congress and the Department of Defense. While the added funding will allow us to begin to repair our planes, ships, and equipment, we must also continue to drive significant reforms needed within the Department and other agencies to stay ahead of rapidly changing technologies and a wide range of current and anticipated future threats. In addition, the first full audit of the Department will occur this year, which will help uncover areas for financial improvement. Over the past three years, Congress has enacted significant reforms with strong bipartisan support. We have modernized military benefits, reorganized much of the Defense bureaucracy, and reformed the way the Pentagon buys goods and services. All of this was done with a goal of making the Pentagon, and especially the acquisition system, more agile. As a result, anyone entering military service today will witness these reforms, over the course of their career, save the taxpayer billions. We have more work to do, and top officials in the Department seem willing to work with Congress towards this important goal. A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically. Still, some have opposed restoring military budgets by trying to revive the old "guns versus butter" debate. In fact, American economic prosperity and our national security are more like the chicken and the egg -- we cannot have one without the other. We need a strong, vibrant economy to produce the tax revenue to fund our military. We also need economic growth and innovation to ensure that our military technology stays ahead of authoritarian, directed economies like China's that can force a whole-of-nation effort against us. But a strong military is also an essential prerequisite to a healthy economy and to our quality of life. Since World War II, the rules-based international order created and maintained by the United States has benefited peoples around the globe and none more so than Americans here at home. We are living longer with a higher material standard of living than ever before. When we talk about the necessity of a strong military, it is not only to protect our people and allies from North Korean missile and terrorist attacks. It is also to guarantee freedom of navigation in the sea and in the air and to ensure that there are fair, enforceable international rules that give American companies and American workers a fair chance to compete. Allowing our military strength to continue to wane adds fuel to China's narrative that America is a nation in decline so that Asian nations would do better to enlist in China's alternative economic and military order. If China sets the rules for much of the world's economy, America will feel the consequences in our pocketbooks as well as in our security. A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically. That is why Congress came together this month and ended the era of asking our troops to do too much with too little. To make the most of that investment, we must now apply equal effort to agility driven reforms. The brave men and women in the military serve the nation unconditionally, and our support for them should be unconditional as well. They deserve the best training, equipment, and support that our nation can provide. By providing that kind of support for them, we are also helping ensure that future Americans will inherit a country of growth and opportunity.