Introduction The detection of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in some public water supplies has generated public concern and increased congressional attention to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to address these substances. Over the past decade, EPA has been evaluating several PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to determine whether national drinking water regulations may be warranted. EPA has not issued SDWA regulations for any PFAS but has taken various actions to address PFAS contamination. Using SDWA authorities, in 2016, EPA issued non-enforceable health advisories for two PFASâperfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)âin drinking water. The 116 th Congress has held hearings on PFAS and passed legislation to address PFAS contamination issues through various authorities and departments and agencies. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 ( P.L. 116-92 ) includes several PFAS provisions involving the Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies. Of the EPA provisions related to drinking water, Title LXXIII, Subtitle A, directs EPA to require public water systems to conduct additional monitoring for PFAS and establishes a grant program for public water systems to address PFAS and other emerging contaminants. On January 10, 2020, the House passed H.R. 535 , a broad PFAS bill that would direct EPA and other federal agencies to take numerous actions to address PFAS. Among its provisions, H.R. 535 would amend SDWA to direct EPA to regulate PFAS in drinking water and would authorize grants for communities for treatment technologies. Other bills would variously direct EPA to take regulatory and other actions under several environmental statutes, including SDWA. Similar to H.R. 535 , multiple SDWA bills would require EPA to establish final or interim drinking water regulations for some or all PFAS, require monitoring for more of these substances, or authorize grants to assist communities in treating PFAS in drinking water. (See Table 1 .) PFAS are a large, diverse group of fluorinated compounds, some of which have been used for decades in a wide array of commercial, industrial, and U.S. military applications. Since the 1940s, more than 1,200 PFAS compounds have been used in commerce, and about 600 are still in use today. The chemical characteristics of PFAS have led to the widespread use of these substances for beneficial purposes (such as firefighting) and in the processing and manufacture of many commercial products, such as nonstick cookware, food wrapper coatings, stain-resistant carpets, waterproof clothing, and food containers. The two PFAS most frequently detected in water supplies are PFOA and PFOS. Since 2002, U.S. manufacturers have phased out the production and most uses of PFOS. In coordination with EPA, manufacturers completed the phase-out of PFOA production by 2015. EPA reports that food and consumer products represent a large portion of exposure to PFOA and PFOS, while drinking water can be an additional source in the small percentage of communities with contaminated water supplies. Among the thousands of different PFAS, few have sufficient health effects studies for determining a threshold at which adverse effects are not expected to occur. Most studies of potential health effects of PFAS have focused on PFOA and PFOS because of their predominant historical use. For those PFAS for which scientific information is available, animal studies suggest that exposure to particular substances above certain levels may be linked to various health effects, including developmental effects; changes in liver, immune, and thyroid function; and increased risk of some cancers. A discussion of these studies and their results is beyond the scope of this report. In 2016, EPA reported that public water systems in 29 states had detected at least one PFAS in their water supplies. In total, 63 public water systems serving approximately 5.5 million people reported detections of PFOA and PFOS (separately or combined) above EPA's health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA has reported that PFAS contamination of drinking water "is typically localized and associated with a specific facility." According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, PFAS may have been released to surface or ground water from manufacturing sites, industrial use, use and disposal of PFAS-containing consumer products (e.g., unlined landfills), fire/crash training areas, wastewater treatment facilities, and the spreading of contaminated biosolids. A discussion of PFAS use, including at U.S. military installations, and PFAS disposal is not included in this report. Uncertainty about potential health effects that may be associated with exposure to specific PFAS above particular concentrationsâcombined with the absence of a federal health-based drinking water standardâhas posed challenges and created uncertainty for states, water suppliers and their customers, homeowners using private wells, and others regarding treatment or other potential responses. State drinking water regulators and others have called for greater federal leadership to address these substances through several federal laws and, specifically, have urged EPA to set federal drinking water standards for one or more PFAS under SDWA. Representatives of public water systems have supported EPA's commitment to follow the statutory process for regulating contaminants in drinking water, which prioritizes regulating those that occur at levels and frequency of public health concern. SDWA provides EPA with several authorities to address emerging contaminants in public water supplies and drinking water sources. These include the authority to (1) issue health advisories, (2) regulate contaminants in water provided by public water systems, and (3) issue enforcement orders in certain circumstances. For more than a decade, EPA has been using SDWA authorities to evaluate several PFASâparticularly PFOA and PFOSâto determine whether national drinking water regulations may be warranted. To date, EPA has not promulgated drinking water regulations for any PFAS but has taken a number of related actions. In February 2019, EPA issued a PFAS Action Plan, which identifies and discusses the agency's current and proposed efforts to address PFAS through several statutory authorities, including SDWA. These actions range from potential regulatory actions to public outreach on PFAS. Many of these actions support EPA's evaluation of PFAS for potential regulation under SDWA. These include research and development of analytical methods needed to accurately measure substances in drinking water, development of additional toxicity information to increase understanding of potential health risks associated with exposures to different PFAS, and research on drinking water treatment effectiveness and costs for various PFAS. EPA also plans to generate occurrence data for more PFAS to determine their frequencies and concentrations in public water supplies. Further, EPA is working with federal, state, and tribal partners to develop risk communication materials on PFAS and plans to develop an interactive map on potential PFAS sources and occurrence. Table A-1 includes EPA's selected actions and associated timelines relevant to addressing PFAS in drinking water. The challenges of regulating individual substances or categories of PFAS in drinking water are multifaceted and may raise several policy and scientific questions. Technical issues involve availability of data, detection methods, and treatment techniques for related but diverse contaminants. Scientific questions exist about health effects attributed to many individual PFAS and whether health effects can be generalized from one or a category of PFAS to others. Policy and regulatory considerations may involve setting priorities among numerous unregulated contaminants, the value of establishing uniform national drinking water standards, and the ability to demonstrate the relative risk-reduction benefits compared to compliance costs to communities associated with regulating individual or multiple PFAS. The absence of a federal health-based standard can pose challenges for states and communities with PFAS contamination. State drinking water regulators have noted that many states may face significant obstacles in setting their own standards. This report provides an overview of EPA's ongoing and proposed actions to address PFAS under SDWA authorities, with particular focus on the statutory process for evaluating PFASâparticularly PFOA and PFOSâfor potential regulation. It also reviews PFAS-related legislation introduced in the 116 th Congress, with emphasis on bills that would amend SDWA. This report does not address the status of scientific research on health effects that may be associated with exposure to one or more PFAS, nor does it discuss federal actions regarding other environmental statutes, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Addressing PFAS Using SDWA Authorities SDWA provides EPA with several authorities to address emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies and sources. The act authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations that include enforceable standards and monitoring requirements for contaminants in water provided by public water systems. For contaminants that are not regulated under the act, SDWA authorizes EPA to issue contaminant-specific health advisories that include technical guidance and identify concentrations that are expected to be protective of sensitive populations. In addition, if the appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect public health, SDWA authorizes EPA to take actions to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health from "a contaminant that is present in or is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water." Evaluating Emerging Contaminants for Regulation SDWA specifies a multistep process for evaluating contaminants to determine whether a national primary drinking water regulation is warranted. The evaluation process includes identifying contaminants of potential concern, assessing health risks, collecting occurrence data (and developing reliable analytical methods necessary to do so), and making determinations as to whether or not regulatory action is needed for a contaminant. To make a positive determination that a national drinking water regulation is warranted for a contaminant, EPA must find that a contaminant may have an adverse health effect; it is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the EPA Administrator, regulation of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by water systems. Identifying Contaminants That May Warrant Regulation SDWA Section 1412(b) requires EPA to publish, every five years, a list of contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the act. Before publishing a final contaminant candidate list (CCL), EPA is required to provide an opportunity for public comment and consult with the scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board. In 2009, EPA placed PFOA and PFOS on the third such list (CCL 3) for evaluation. In preparing the CCL 3, EPA considered over 7,500 chemical and microbial contaminants and screened these contaminants based on their potential to occur in public water systems and potential health effects. EPA selected 116 of the contaminants on the proposed CCL based on more detailed evaluation of occurrence, health effects, expert judgement, and public input. In 2016, EPA published the fourth list, CCL 4, which carried over many CCL 3 contaminants, including PFOA and PFOS. EPA carried forward these contaminants to continue evaluating health effects, gathering national occurrence data, and developing analytical methods. Monitoring for Emerging Contaminants in Public Water Systems To generate data on the nationwide occurrence of emerging contaminants in public water supplies, EPA is required to administer a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. SDWA directs EPA to promulgate, every five years, an unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR) that requires public water systems to test for no more than 30 contaminants. Only a representative sample of systems serving 10,000 or fewer people is required to conduct monitoring. EPA uses data collected through UCMRs to estimate whether the occurrence of the contaminant in public water supplies is local, regional, or national in scope. UCMRs set a minimum reporting level (MRL) for each contaminant. MRLs are not health based; rather, they establish concentrations for reporting and data collection purposes. EPA makes the UCMR monitoring results available to the public and reports the number of detections above the MRL and also detections above EPA's health-based reference levels (discussed below), where available. The act includes an authorization of appropriations to cover monitoring and related costs for small systems (serving 10,000 persons or fewer). However, large systems pay UCMR monitoring and laboratory costs. In 2012, EPA issued the third UCMR (UCMR 3), under which 4,864 public water systems tested their drinking water for six PFASâincluding PFOA and PFOSâbetween January 2013 and December 2015. Among these systems, EPA reported the following monitoring results for PFOA and PFOS: 117 of the public water systems reported detections of PFOA at levels above the MRL of 20 ppt, and 95 reported detections of PFOS at concentrations above the MRL of 40 ppt. Overall, 63 of the 4,864 (1.3%) water systems that conducted PFAS monitoring reported at least one sample with PFOA and/or PFOS (separately or combined) concentrations exceeding EPA's health advisory level of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS. Actual exposures among individuals served by these systems would be expected to vary depending on water use and consumption. EPA estimates that these 63 water systems serve approximately 5.5 million individuals. Of the 63 systems: 9 reported detections of both PFOS and PFOA above 70 ppt; 4 reported detections of PFOA above 70 ppt; 37 reported detections of PFOS above 70 ppt; and 13 reported detections of PFOA and PFOS (combined but not separately) above 70 ppt. Systems with PFOA or PFOS detections above 70 ppt were located in 21 states, the Pima-Maricopa Indian community, and 2 U.S. territories. EPA's PFAS Action Plan notes that the agency intends to propose monitoring requirements for other PFAS when it proposes the next UCMR (UCMR 5) in 2020. As of January 2020, EPA has developed an analytical method to detect 29 PFAS in drinking water supplies. The plan states that the agency would use the monitoring data gathered through UCMR 5 to evaluate the national occurrence of additional PFAS. The agency is currently working to develop analytical methods to support monitoring for additional PFAS. Regulatory Determinations SDWA requires EPA, every five years, to make a regulatory determinationâa determination of whether or not to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulationâfor at least five contaminants on the CCL. To consider a contaminant for a regulatory determination (RD), EPA requires, at a minimum, a peer-reviewed risk assessment and nationally representative occurrence data. In selecting contaminants for an RD, SDWA requires EPA to give priority to those that present the greatest public health concern while considering a contaminant's health effects on specified subgroups of the population (e.g., infants, children, pregnant women) who may be at greater risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to a contaminant. As noted above, to make a positive determination to regulate a contaminant, EPA must find that (1) a contaminant may have an adverse health effect; (2) it is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that it will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and (3) in the sole judgment of the EPA Administrator, regulation of the contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by water systems. SDWA directs EPA to publish a preliminary determination and seek public comment prior to making an RD. EPA may also make RDs for contaminants not listed on the CCL if EPA finds that the statutory criteria regarding health effects and occurrence are satisfied. EPA has issued RDs for CCL 1 through CCL 3. EPA published final determinations that no regulatory action was appropriate or necessary for nine contaminants on CCL 1 (2003) and 11 contaminants (including perchlorate) on CCL 2 (2008). In the most recent RD (2016), EPA determined that regulation was not needed for four of the 116 contaminants listed on CCL 3. EPA delayed a determination on a fifth contaminant, strontium, "in order to consider additional data and decide whether there is a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction by regulating strontium in drinking water." In 2014, when EPA published preliminary RDs for contaminants on CCL 3 (including PFOA and PFOS), UCMR 3 monitoring was underway and national occurrence data were not available. EPA did not include any PFAS among the contaminants selected for the third RD. In November 2016, EPA included PFOA and PFOS on the agency's list of unregulated contaminants for which sufficient health effect and occurrence data were available to make RDs. The next round of RDs is scheduled for 2021, although SDWA does not prevent EPA from making determinations outside of that five-year cycle. In the Fall 2019 Unified Regulatory Agenda , EPA expected to propose preliminary determinations for two PFASâPFOA and PFOSâby the end of 2019, followed by final determinations by January 2021. Developing Regulations and Standards for Emerging Contaminants Once the Administrator makes a determination to regulate a contaminant, SDWA allows EPA 24 months to propose a "national primary drinking water regulation" and request public comment. EPA is required to promulgate a final rule within 18 months after the proposal. SDWA authorizes EPA to extend the deadline to publish a final rule for up to nine months, by notice in the Federal Register . For each contaminant that EPA determines to regulate, EPA is required to establish a non-enforceable maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) at a level at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety. An MCLG is based solely on health effects data and does not reflect cost or technical feasibility considerations. EPA derives an MCLG based on an estimate of the amount of a contaminant that a person can be exposed to on a daily basis that is not anticipated to cause adverse health effects over a lifetime. This amount is derived using the best available peer-reviewed studies and incorporates uncertainty factors to provide a margin of protection for sensitive subpopulations. In developing an MCLG, EPA also estimates the general population's exposure to a contaminant from drinking water and other sources (e.g., food, dust, soil, and air). After considering other exposure routes, EPA estimates the proportion of exposure attributable to drinking water (i.e., the relative source contribution). When exposure information is not available, EPA uses a default assumption that 20% of exposure to a contaminant is attributable to drinking water. EPA applies the relative source contribution to ensure that an individual's total exposure from all sources remains within the estimated protective level. The MCLG provides the basis for calculating a drinking water standard. Thus, EPA's ability to develop a drinking water regulation for a contaminant is dependent, in part, on the availability of peer-reviewed scientific studies. Drinking water regulations generally specify a maximum contaminant level (MCL)âan enforceable limit for a contaminant in public water supplies. SDWA requires EPA to set the MCL as close to the MCLG as feasible. When assessing feasibility, the law directs EPA to consider the best available (and field-demonstrated) treatment technologies, taking cost into consideration. If the treatment of a contaminant is not feasibleâtechnologically or economicallyâEPA may establish a treatment technique in lieu of an MCL. Each regulation also establishes associated monitoring, treatment, and reporting requirements. These regulations can cover multiple contaminants and, generally, establish an MCL for each contaminant covered by the regulation. Regulations generally take effect three years after promulgation. EPA may allow up to two additional years if the Administrator determines that more time is needed for public water systems to make capital improvements. (States have the same authority for individual water systems. ) The law directs EPA to reviewâand if necessary reviseâeach regulation every six years and requires that any revision maintain or provide greater health protection. Health Advisories For emerging contaminants of concern, data may be limited, particularly regarding a contaminant's potential health effects and occurrence in public water supplies. SDWA authorizes EPA to issue health advisories for contaminants in drinking water that are not regulated under the act. These advisories provide information on a contaminant's health effects, chemical properties, occurrence, and exposure. They also provide technical guidance on identifying, measuring, and treating contaminants. Health advisories include non-enforceable levels for concentrations of contaminants in drinking water. EPA sets health advisories at levels that are expected to protect the most sensitive subpopulations (e.g., nursing infants) from any deleterious health effects, with a margin of protection, over specific exposure durations (e.g., one-day, 10-day, or lifetime). These non-regulatory levels are intended to help states, water suppliers, and others address contaminants for which federal (or state) drinking water standards have not been established. Some states may use health advisories to inform their own state-specific drinking water regulations. Health advisories may be used to address various circumstances: to provide interim guidance while EPA evaluates a contaminant for possible regulation, to provide information for contaminants with limited or localized occurrence that may not warrant regulation, and to address short-term incidents or spills. EPA has issued health advisories for more than 200 contaminants to address different circumstances and subsequently established regulations for many of these contaminants. In May 2016, EPA issued health advisory levels for lifetime exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. EPA established the Lifetime Health Advisory level for PFOA and PFOS at 70 ppt, separately or combined. In calculating the health advisory level, EPA applied a relative source contribution of 20% (i.e., an assumption that 20% of PFOS and/or PFOA exposure is attributable to drinking water and 80% is from diet, dust, air or other sources). These levels are intended to protect the most sensitive subpopulations (e.g., nursing infants), with a margin of safety, over a lifetime of daily exposure. The Lifetime Health Advisories replaced Provisional Health Advisories that EPA issued in 2009 to address short-term exposures to PFOA and PFOS. Emergency Powers Orders SDWA Section 1431 grants EPA "emergency powers" to issue orders to abate an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health from "a contaminant that is present in or is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water" and if the appropriate state and local authorities have not acted to protect public health. This authority is available to address both regulated and unregulated contaminants. The EPA Administrator "may take such actions as he may deem necessary" to protect the health of persons who may be affected. Actions may include issuing orders requiring persons who caused or contributed to the endangerment to provide alternative water supplies or to treat contamination. When using this authority, EPA generally coordinates closely with states. EPA reports that it has used its emergency powers under Section 1431 to require responses to PFOA and/or PFOS releases and related contamination of drinking water supplies at four sites, three of which involved the Department of Defense (DOD). Warminster Naval Warfare Center, Pennsylvania. In 2014, EPA issued an administrative enforcement order directing the U.S. Navy to address PFOS in three drinking water supply wells at and near this National Priorities List site. Former Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire. In August 2015, EPA issued an administrative enforcement order to require the U.S. Air Force to design and construct a system to treat water systems contaminated from releases of PFOA and PFOS at the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire. Horsham Air Guard Station/Willow Grove, Pennsylvania . In 2015, EPA issued an order directing the Air Guard/Air Force to treat onsite drinking water wells and to provide treatment for private offsite wells. Chemours Washington Works Facility , West Virginia/Ohio. EPA issued three emergency orders to this facility in 2002, 2006, and 2009âand amended the 2009 order in 2017 to incorporate the 2016 Lifetime Health Advisory levelârequiring DuPont and Chemours to offer water treatment, connection to a public water system, or bottled water where PFOA concentrations exceeded 70 ppt. Related Legislation in the 116th Congress In the 116 th Congress, more than 40 bills have been introduced to address PFAS through a broad range of actions and federal agencies. The NDAA for FY2020 (P.L 116-92) and House-passed H.R. 535 include provisions to reduce exposures to PFAS in drinking water and to prevent or remediate the contamination of groundwater, surface water, and drinking water supplies from releases of these substances. This discussion focuses primarily on legislation that amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) or otherwise affect public water systems. Table 1 briefly describes relevant provisions of such bills offered in the 116 th Congress. In the context of SDWA, congressional attention has focused primarily on whether EPA might set drinking water standards (MCLs) for PFOA, PFOS, and/or other PFAS. SDWA directs EPA to follow a regulatory development process for contaminants, which includes consideration of technical feasibility and the assessment of health risk reduction benefits and costs, among other factors. On occasion, Congress has directed EPA to promulgate a regulation for a particular contaminant within a specified time frame. Congress has used this approach to prompt EPA to regulate certain contaminants already under review and/or to specify a deadline for issuing regulations under development. In the case of PFAS, representatives of public water systems and others have cautioned against bypassing SDWA's science-based and risk-driven process. As regulatory compliance costs are borne by communities, public water suppliers have urged that regulations be data-driven to better ensure risk reduction benefits. Others have urged "federal leadership" to provide more certainty to states and communities with contaminated water supplies. State drinking water regulators have noted that some states may lack the resources to assess and/or the authority to regulate drinking water contaminants that are not federally regulated, including PFAS. As with certain other contaminants, some states have urged EPA to set national standards. A further concern is that state-by-state actions could create public confusion regarding the safety of drinking water. National Defense Authorization Act Enacted December 20, 2019, the NDAA for FY2020 ( P.L. 116-92 ) contain PFAS provisions specific to DOD, EPA, and several other federal agencies. Some NDAA provisions involve the use of aqueous film forming foam, while others address DOD remediation of PFAS-contaminated drinking water, groundwater, and surface water. Among the EPA provisions, the NDAA addresses drinking water as follows: Section 7311 requires EPA to add to UCMR 5 all PFAS or categories of PFAS with validated test methods. Section 7312 amends SDWA to establish a grant program within the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to assist water systems in addressing emerging contaminants with an emphasis on PFAS. Section 7312 authorizes appropriations of $100 million annually for FY2020-FY2024 for this purpose. House-Passed H.R. 535 On January 10, 2020, the House passed H.R. 535 , a broad PFAS bill. H.R. 535 contains a range of provisions that would address PFAS using multiple authorities, including several EPA-administered laws. Regarding drinking water, the bill includes several specific provisions, some of which would amend SDWA: Section 5 would amend SDWA to require EPA, within two years of enactment, to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS with standards for PFOA and PFOS at a minimum. It would establish a separate regulatory process for PFAS to accelerate EPA's promulgation of drinking water standards. Among other provisions, this section would require EPA to propose a regulation for a PFAS within 18 months (rather than 24 months) of making a determination to regulate it. This section would allow EPA, when developing regulations, to rely on health risk information for one PFAS to make reasoned extrapolations regarding the health risks of other PFAS. It would also direct EPA to issue a health advisory within a year of finalizing a toxicity value for a single PFAS or class of PFAS. Section 6 would prohibit EPA (but not states) from imposing penalties for violations of PFAS drinking water regulations until five years after the date of promulgation (to allow systems time to make capital improvements as needed for compliance). Section 7 would add SDWA Section 1459E to direct EPA to establish a competitive grant program to assist community water systems with installing treatment technologies to address PFAS contamination. To support this program, Section 7 would authorize annual appropriations of $125 million for FY2020 and FY2021 and $100 million for FY2022-FY2024. EPA would be required to give funding priority to community water systems that (1) serve a "disadvantaged community or a disproportionately exposed community," (2) provide at-least a 10% cost share, or (3) demonstrate the capacity to maintain the treatment technology. Other bills introduced in the 116 th Congress would variously require EPA to establish an MCL for specific PFAS or for PFAS as a group. These include S. 1507 (as reported), S. 1473 , and H.R. 2377 . Additionally, S. 1507 and H.R. 2800 would require public water systems to conduct monitoring for more PFAS in drinking water. Several billsâincluding S. 1507 , H.R. 2533 / H.R. 2741 (Title II), and H.R. 1417 / S. 611 âwould authorize grants for public water systems and/or households to treat PFAS in drinking water. In contrast, H.R. 2570 would direct EPA to establish PFAS manufacturing fees to support the "PFAS Treatment Trust Fund." Amounts in the trust fund would be available to EPA, without further appropriation, to make grants to community water systems and municipal wastewater treatment works for costs associated with PFAS removal. Appendix. Selected Drinking-Water-Related Actions by EPA


Introduction The digital divide âa gap between those who use or have access to telecommunications and information technologies and those who do notâaffects every region of the United States. Since the internet became publicly available in the 1990s, an increasing amount of information that individuals access for work, school, and entertainment is digital and hosted online. Members of Congress have expressed continuing interest in ensuring that their constituents have access to broadband internet, and in the 116 th Congress, they have introduced legislation (see the Appendix to this report) and held hearings on opportunities to expand broadband deployment and close the digital divide. Although Congress has provided federal funding for multiple broadband infrastructure initiatives, the gap between those who can access broadband and those who do not still persists. Ensuring access to broadband is not the only barrier to closing the digital divide. Other challenges include increasing the adoption of broadband (where it is available) and training for digital literacy. According to the National Digital Inclusion Alliance: We do need to address the lack of broadband infrastructure in rural areas. It is a serious problem. But, it is just one barrier to individuals and communities being able to fully participate in society today. The other common barriers, no matter where one lives, are the costs of internet service and devices, plus digital literacy skills. Simplistically equating "the digital divide" with just one of these barriers increases the division in our country. Broadband infrastructure initiatives funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5 ) have concluded, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Rural Utilities Service (RUS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture) continue to have active programs that provide federal funding for broadband. There are few current federal funding initiatives to address other aspects of the digital divide, however, such as digital literacy and digital inclusion and the homework gap. States are playing a crucial role in efforts to expand broadband access, encouraging broadband investment, and helping to bring more of their residents online. Each state approaches broadband access and deployment differently, and state efforts may provide models for any future federal initiatives. This report analyzes selected state-level and local initiatives that have used different approaches. It does not attempt to include broadband initiatives from all 50 states. Rather, it highlights selected examples to illustrate programs that could serve as templates for potential federal initiatives. Broadband Technologies The term broadband commonly refers to high-speed internet access that is faster than dial-up access and is immediately accessible. In 2015, the FCC defined broadband as 25/3 megabits per second (Mbps), i.e., 25 Mbps (download rate) and 3 Mbps (upload rate). About 21.3 million Americans currently lack access to broadband at those speeds. Broadband includes several high-speed transmission technologies, such as: digital subscriber line (DSL); cable modem; fiber; wireless; satellite; and broadband over powerlines (BPL). The Digital Divide The term digital divide refers to a gap between those who use or have access to telecommunications and information technologies and those who do not. Many areas of the United Statesâparticularly rural areasâhave either limited or no access to broadband infrastructure. Several factors contribute to the digital divide, including terrain, population density, demography, and market factors. Additionally, there are citizens in areas with high broadband penetration who are unable to access it due to socioeconomic factors. Ensuring access to broadband is not the only barrier to closing the digital divide. Other challenges include increasing the adoption of broadband (where it is available) and training for digital literacy. Although strides have been made in the deployment of broadband, the digital divide persistsâprompting a variety of federal broadband initiatives to address barriers and push communities across the digital divide. Federal Broadband Programs and Initiatives Federal Communications Commission The FCC has several broadband programs aimed at bridging the digital divide and expanding universal service principles. Universal Service Fund The concept of universal serviceâthe principle that all Americans should have access to communications services at reasonable ratesâunderpins a category of FCC programs that aim to bring broadband and voice services to parts of the country that may otherwise have difficulty getting connected. The universal service concept was conceived in the Communications Act of 1934 to apply to voice telephone service, but in more recent years it has expanded to include high-speed internet. The Universal Service Fund encompasses four programs: The High Cost/Connect America Fund provides support for high-cost (typically rural) areas. The Low Income (Lifeline) program provides support to help eligible low-income consumers gain access to and remain on a broadband network. The Schools and Libraries (E-rate) program provides support for eligible elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, as well as libraries, for internet access, internal connections, and telecommunications services. The Rural Health Care program provides support to eligible rural health care providers for telecommunications and broadband services . Although the Universal Service Fund programs are federal programs, their funding is not appropriated by Congress. Rather, it comes from mandatory contributions by interstate telecommunications providers, in amounts based on their end-user interstate and international revenues. The telecommunications providers may, but are not required to, pass these charges directly to their subscribers, typically in the form of a feeâfor example, on a wireless phone bill. Rural Digital Opportunity Fund On January 30, 2020, the FCC adopted the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which directs $20.4 billion over 10 years to fund the deployment of high-speed broadband networks in rural America through a two-phase reverse auction (i.e., the lowest bidder wins). Phase I of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund is scheduled to begin in October 2020 and is to target census blocks that are wholly unserved with fixed broadband at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps. This phase is to provide up to $16 billion in overall funding to census blocks to solicit bids for fixed broadband buildout where existing data shows there is no such service available. Phase II of the program is to make at least $4.4 billion available to target partially served areas, i.e., census blocks where only some locations lack access to 25/3 Mbps broadband, as well as census blocks that do not receive bids in the first phase. 5G Fund for Rural America In December 2019, the FCC announced the proposed 5G Fund for Rural America. The proposed fund would make up to $9 billion available to carriers to deploy advanced 5G (fifth generation) mobile wireless services in rural America. Similar to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, monies from the 5G Fund would be allocated through a reverse auction and would target areas that are remote or challenging to reach. The 5G Fund would replace the planned Mobility Fund Phase II, which has come under some scrutiny. In August 2018, the FCC published initial eligibility maps for Mobility Fund Phase II, which were to be used in allocating up to $4.53 billion for rural wireless broadband expansion in areas lacking 4G service. In December 2018, the FCC announced it would launch an investigation into whether one or more major carriers violated the Mobility Fund reverse auction's mapping rules and submitted incorrect coverage maps. In a report released on December 4, 2019, the FCC found that the 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) coverage data submitted by providers is not sufficiently reliable for the purpose of moving forward with Mobility Fund Phase II; it terminated that fund and replaced it with the 5G Fund. Proposed details of the 5G Fund are still forthcoming from the FCC. Rural Utilities Service The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has multiple broadband connectivity programs: The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program funds the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide service in eligible rural areas. The Community Connect Grants program funds broadband deployment to rural communities where it is not yet economically viable for private sector providers to deliver service. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantees program funds the construction, maintenance, improvement, and expansion of telephone service and broadband in extremely rural areas with a population of 5,000 or less. The Distance Learning and Telemedicine program principally funds end-user equipment to help rural communities use telecommunications to link teachers and medical service providers in one area to students and patients in another. The ReConnect program furnishes loans and grants to provide funds for the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide broadband service in eligible rural areas. Congress authorizes RUS programs and provides funding for them in annual appropriations bills. Eligibility requirements vary by program. For example, the Community Connect program defines an eligible area as a rural area that lacks any existing broadband speed of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, which was the FCC's broadband speed benchmark previous to 25/3 Mbps. Community Connect grant funds may be used to build, acquire, or lease facilities, spectrum, land, or buildings used to deploy broadband for residential and business customers, as well as critical community facilities (e.g., public schools, fire stations, or public libraries). The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantees program defines an eligible area as a rural area or town with a population of 5,000 or fewer without telecommunications facilities. Funds from this program can be used to finance broadband-capable telecommunications services. The RUS also managed the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). Approximately $2.5 billion was allocated as loan, grant, and loan/grant combinations to deploy infrastructure in rural areas, with an emphasis on infrastructure projects to provide service directly to end users. The RUS required all BIP projects to be completed by June 2015. National Telecommunications and Information Administration American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ), the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) was an approximately $4 billion grant program administered by NTIA to help bridge the digital divide. Projects funded by BTOP deployed broadband infrastructure, enhanced and expanded computer centers, and encouraged the sustainable adoption of broadband. The BTOP program no longer has funding available; out of 233 funded projects, two remain active. BroadbandUSA As the BTOP program came to a close in 2015, NTIA launched BroadbandUSA to respond to demand from communities seeking to ensure that their citizens have the broadband capacity they need to attract employers, create jobs, improve healthcare, advance development, and increase public safety. Although BroadbandUSA does not provide funding, it provides broadband technical assistance to communities, as well as a funding program guide, broadband resourcesâsuch as information on permitting and monthly Practical Broadband Conversations webinarsâand a National Broadband Availability Map. Funding for BroadbandUSA is appropriated annually. Selected State and Local Broadband Initiatives: Common Approaches and Prototypes Increasingly, state governments have taken action to ensure that all residents, regardless of where they live or socioeconomic factors that may inhibit adoption, have access to broadband. While many state broadband initiatives focus on broadband infrastructure deployment, some address other aspects, such as adoption, mapping, feasibility, digital equity and digital inclusion, gigabit broadband initiatives, and the homework gap. This section describes selected state and local broadband initiatives, using the selected programs as examples to illustrate common approaches. The states and programs described are not intended to be a comprehensive list. Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Broadband infrastructure deployment programs, targeting areas that do not currently have broadband service, are the most common type of state broadband initiative. State broadband infrastructure projects typically allow applicants to apply grant funds toward building infrastructure assets, such as conduits, fiber-optic cable, and wireless towers. State programs also typically require that applicants provide last-mile broadband access to households that are unserved. Some state programs stipulate speed requirementsâusually, but not always, 25/3 Mbps in alignment with the FCC definition of broadband. Example: New York In 2015, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo established the $500 million New York Broadband Program. The program provides state grant funding through a reverse auctionâsimilar to the method the FCC plans to use for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The program's intent is to support projects that deliver high-speed internet access to unserved and underserved areas of New York State at speeds of 100 Mbps in most areas and 25 Mbps in the most remote areas. Nearly 90% of this program's funding has been awarded to projects that will address unserved areas of the state, connecting these locations for the first time. Â Public-Private Partnerships for Broadband Buildout Building out broadband infrastructure in some areas of the United States may prove challenging for broadband providers, due to aspects such as terrain, cost, or lack of density, which have a negative impact on return on investment. This may leave some communities with limited or, in some cases, no options to subscribe to broadband. In such areas, some states have sought out alternatives, such as entering into public-private partnerships, to help expand broadband to their communities. According to the North Carolina Broadband Infrastructure Office, "a partnership means that the county or municipality builds community support, identifies its needs, and offers its resources to the broadband provider to make broadband deployment more financially attractive to the provider. In return, the broadband provider brings its technical expertise, innovation, equipment, and capital investment into under- or unserved areas in the community. In the end, both partners share the risks and costs of broadband deployment." The North Carolina Broadband Infrastructure Office offers several examples of potential public-private partnerships: For example, a city or county may offer a cost-sharing opportunity to broadband providers, in which the municipality contributes an agreed upon portion of the costs of broadband expansion to an under- or unserved region. A community anchor tenant, such as a school system, community college, hospital or a public safety system, might offer a stable starting point for the network and a gathering place for residents seeking wireless broadband access before the network is built or expanded.... [T]he town, city or county can choose to lease rights of way at no or reduced cost for the installation of broadband infrastructure. Further, the municipality can make its vertical assetsâtall buildings, water towers, etc.âavailable to broadband providers at no or reduced charges, for the installation of fixed wireless internet equipment. The municipality has several policies available that can encourage forming public-private partnerships, and expand broadband access. Example: New Mexico In February 2020, the New Mexico Department of Information Technology announced a new public-private partnership aimed at building out broadband in the southeastern portion of the state. The partnership, between ExxonMobil, the state of New Mexico, and Plateau Communications, is to develop a $5 million fiber network offering advanced broadband to businesses along a 107-mile route, with completion scheduled for August 2020. Leveraging Existing Infrastructure Assets It can be difficult to build out new broadband infrastructure in certain areasâespecially in suburban or rural areasâdue to terrain or other hindrances, such as limited or prohibited access to land that is publicly or privately owned. One option to address this challenge could be to leverage existing infrastructure via a rights-of-way or permitting process. A rights-of-way grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of public land for a specific project, such as electric transmission lines, communication sites, roads, trails, fiber optic lines, canals, flumes, pipelines, or reservoirs. Federal assets such as tower facilities, buildings, and land can also be made available via permits that allow their use in deploying broadband infrastructure to lower the cost of broadband buildouts and encourage private-sector companies to expand broadband infrastructure. Through the American Broadband Initiativeâa comprehensive effort to stimulate increased private sector investment in broadband âthe NTIA has been working with other federal agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security, to streamline the federal permitting process and make it easier for network builders to access federal assets and rights-of-way. Example: Arizona Arizona's Smart Highway Corridor Program intends to leverage the highway system as a route for broadband infrastructure. On January 13, 2020, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced nearly $50 million in funding to enable the Arizona Department of Transportation to install more than 500 miles of broadband conduit and fiber optic cable along designated highway segments in rural areas of the state. The new corridors will enable future broadband capacity in Arizona's rural and tribal areas. Broadband Adoption While broadband accessibility across the United Statesâespecially in rural areasâhas been a continuing challenge, another challenge facing communities is that of barriers to broadband adoption, even where service is available. Broadband adoption can be defined as residential subscribership to high-speed internet access. Barriers that may prevent consumers and businesses from adopting broadband include the affordability of broadband subscriptions, a lack of awareness of the benefits broadband can bring, age, unfamiliarity with digital devices and digital skills, and a lack of training in how to use such devices and the services they enable. Example: California California's Broadband Adoption Fund is a $20 million program created in 2017 through Assembly Bill 1665. The Fund's purpose is to assist communities with limited broadband adoption by providing grants to increase publicly available or after-school broadband access and digital inclusion, such as grants for digital literacy training programs and public education. The California Public Utilities Commission gives preference to programs and projects in communities with demonstrated low broadband access, including low-income communities, senior citizen communities, and communities facing socioeconomic barriers to broadband adoption. Broadband Mapping Pinpointing where broadband is and is not available in the United States has been an ongoing challenge. Current data on national broadband availability is provided by private telecommunications providers, collected by the FCC, and displayed on the FCC's Fixed Broadband Deployment Map. Difficulty in accurately mapping broadband availability has been attributed to a number of factors, including the adequacy of census block data, the lack of independent data validation outside the FCC, and the absence of a challenge process for consumers and others who believe that the Fixed Broadband Deployment Map may overstate availability in their area. In early 2019, it came to the FCC's attention that inaccuracies in the Fixed Broadband Deployment Map's data may cause broadband deployment to be overstated. The Fixed Broadband Deployment Map may indicate that areas have access to broadband when in reality, they do not. Inaccurate data on broadband deployment could lead to overbuilding in areas that currently have broadband, while leaving other areas underserved or unserved. The FCC has taken steps to address broadband mapping issues in the forthcoming Digital Opportunity Data Collection, but it may be several years before a more accurate and granular national broadband map is realized. In the interim, states have been developing their own broadband maps to determine the actuality of broadband availability in their communities. Example: Georgia In 2018, the Georgia legislature passed the Achieving Connectivity Everywhere (ACE) Act, which seeks to obtain an accurate representation of where broadband connectivity is lacking within the state. To achieve this, the Georgia Broadband Deployment Initiative developed a database of all premises located within three targeted pilot counties: Elbert, Lumpkin, and Tift. Information was obtained from county and municipal officials to identify which premises were commercial, single-family, or multi-dwelling units. Next, the State of Georgia developed specific agreements to obtain data on locations that receiveÂ service from the seven companies providing broadbandÂ in the pilot counties. Georgia's pilot program differs from the FCC's approach because it surveys whether individual locations have access to broadband rather than collecting data only by census block. The three-county pilot showed that the FCC maps misidentified about half of the locations without broadband. A statewide map for Georgia is expected to be completed in June 2020. Broadband Feasibility One of the first steps in laying the foundation for broadband access may be to determine broadband needs that are unique to a state or community. This analysis can lead to a long-term vision and goals, help with the maximization of resources, and lay a framework for a state or community feasibility study. A feasibility study can aid the state or community in determining how best to invest in broadband, evaluating ways to deploy new broadband networks, and defining the pros and cons of a proposed approach. Questions that may be considered include What problem or problems are you are trying to solve? Are you trying to bring broadband to parts of your community that are unserved, underserved, or both? Do you have a digital equity and utilization problem? Are consumers in your community dissatisfied with their current internet provider? Â Example: Vermont In Vermont, the Department of Public Service's Broadband Innovation Grant program is designed to help communities conduct feasibility studies and create business plans related to the deployment of broadband in rural, unserved, and underserved areas within the state. The Vermont state legislature approved $700,000 in grant funding to the Department in Act 79 ( H.R. 513 ) of 2019. The program awards up to $60,000 per grant to eligible grantees, which include -profit organizations, for-profit businesses, cooperatives, distribution utilities,Â communications union districts, and other government entities. Grantees are to deliver a feasibility study that proposes new broadband systems with minimum speeds of 25/3 Mbps in unserved or underserved areas. If a study indicates that a project could become cash-flow positive within three years, the Department is to request an actionable business plan from the grantee. Studies are to conclude within six months of receipt of the award and findings are to be reported to the Commissioner of Public Service. Digital Equity and Digital Inclusion According to the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), a nonprofit community engagement organization, digital equity is a condition in which all individuals and communities have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in society, democracy, and the economy. Steps taken to achieve this are known as digital inclusion, which NDIA defines as including access to affordable, robust broadband internet service; internet-enabled devices that meet the needs of the user; digital literacy training; quality technical support; and applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration. Digital equity issues vary by region, and, as a result, so too does the work that state and local governments are doing to address them. Example: Michigan The Detroit Department of Innovation and Technology, a department within the City of Detroit government, envisions making its efforts a national model for digital inclusion. According to Joshua Edmonds, Detroit Director of Digital Inclusion The recipe for successful digital inclusion in every city boils down to four things: partnerships, funding, engaged residents, and political will. I believe Detroit has every one of those points in excess. I'm excited to build relationships and do something bold. The Director of Digital Inclusion is to work with the Detroit Department of Innovation and Technology to develop a citywide strategy to expand computer and internet access to Detroiters who lack it, as well as develop methods to track and evaluate progress. The Director is to also work with the city's Office of Development and Grants to identify possible funding. According to the City of Detroit, action items include a three-pronged approach to bring change to the city by providing internet access, devices, and digital skills to residents (see Table 1 ). Gigabit Broadband Initiatives The FCC's definition of broadband is 25/3 Mbps, which is sufficient for activities such as telecommuting and streaming high definition video. However, higher speedsâsuch as gigabit speedsâmay allow for multiple devices to simultaneously access data-intensive online content through a single network access point. A gigabit connection transmits data at one billion bits per second, which translates to lower latency (i.e., less lag time) when streaming video, video gaming, or using immersive media such as virtual reality. Example: North Dakota The state of North Dakota is using a state-run network to provide gigabit access. According to North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum's office, in July 2019, North Dakota became the first state in the nation to deliver one-gigabit service to all K-12 schools within the state. This was the result of an effort announced in March 2018 by the governor for a 100-gigabit upgrade to STAGEnet, which is the state government's closed broadband network. This upgrade allowed for one-gigabit connectivity to all K-12 schools, higher education institutions, and government agencies state-wide. The upgrade was completed in collaboration with the North Dakota Information Technology Department (ITD) and Dakota Carrier Network's 14 owner companies. Homework Gap Many schools assign students homework online; however, some students have a difficult time completing these assignments because of lack of access to broadband at home. The cost of broadband service and gaps in its availability create obstacles in urban areas and rural communities alike. As K-12 officials in many state close schools and shift classes and assignments online due to the spread of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) , they confront the reality that some students do not have reliable access to the internet at homeâparticularly those who are from lower-income households. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel stated I have heard from students in Texas who do homework at fast food restaurants with friesâjust to get a free Wi-Fi signal. I have heard from students in Pennsylvania who make elaborate plans every day to head to the homes of friends and relatives just to be able to get online. I have heard from high school football players in rural New Mexico who linger in the school parking lot after games with devices in the pitch-black dark because it is the only place they can get a reliable connection. These kids have grit. But it shouldn't be this hard. Because today no child can be left offlineâdeveloping digital skills is flat-out essential for education and participation in the modern economy. Example: North Carolina To help address the homework gap, Caldwell County, NC, has piloted the first program in Western North Carolina to place Wi-Fi access on school buses. The Caldwell Education Foundation, along with Google, spearheaded and funded the program. In addition to Wi-Fi on buses, Chromebooks are available free of charge for any students to use while riding. The school bus initiative allows students in rural areas with long travel times to and from school to do online homework and computer exercises while commuting. Additionally, there are plans to park the Wi-Fi-equipped school buses in key areas, when they are not transporting students, to create Wi-Fi hot spots to enable local resident access to the internet. Options for Congress Should Congress choose to consider state broadband initiatives, a variety of potential options would be available. Hold Hearings on State Broadband Initiatives Congress has implemented multiple broadband programs at the federal level to help expand broadband access, but state broadband initiatives could provide templates for any future federal broadband programs. Congress may choose to expand aspects of current federal broadband initiatives to incorporate themes states have addressed, or Congress may choose to develop new broadband initiatives. As there is no single broadband initiative that solves the digital divide issue, Congress may hold hearings on state initiativesâto examine their successes and challenges and to consider possible approaches to adopt at the federal level. Additionally, Congress may consider enabling a universal method for states and localities to share ideas with Congress or federal agencies. Establish Pilot Federal Broadband Initiatives As state experiences demonstrate, broadband needs can vary, and so can initiatives to address them. Congress may seek to develop one or more pilot broadband initiatives to test the feasibility of different approaches before developing and funding a nationwide program. These pilot initiatives might tie funding to specific goalsâsuch as adoption or digital inclusionâin contrast to federal programs that currently mostly fund broadband deployment. Increase the Sustainability of State Broadband Initiatives Congress may consider providing federal funding and resources for broadband initiatives directly to the states. An infusion of federal funding and resources directed toward state initiatives could result in the expansion and sustainability of state efforts. Attaching federal funding to state broadband initiatives, as well as conducting federal oversight, could aid states in maximizing their potential. As expressed by the Director of Digital Inclusion for the City of Detroit: These are examples of how local leadership has called on industry to fill in where the federal government is silent. In Detroit, we have developed public-private partnerships without any government funding, but it's an unsustainable model. We need federal resources to continue our work. If we were to receive additional funding, we could do more robust outreach, and incentivize more localized funding from philanthropic organizations. Address Duplicative Funding Although continuing funding from some source would be necessary to build out broadband infrastructure and implement broadband initiatives, concerns have been expressed that some areas may receive duplicative funding from multiple broadband programsâpotentially resulting in overbuild in some areas while other areas remain unserved. This challenge is highlighted by the implementation of the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), when the Commission sought to exclude from RDOF any area that the Commission "know[s] to be awarded funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ReConnect Program or other similar federal orÂ state broadband subsidy programs, or those subject to enforceable broadband deployment obligations." As stated by Harold Feld, Senior Vice President at Public Knowledge Read broadly, this surprise last-minute change impacts almost every state in the Union. Nearly every state either has its own broadband subsidy program, receives funds under the Department of Agriculture ReConnect program, or receives other federal funding for broadband. Even read narrowly, this would appear to cut off millions of unconnected rural Americans from a program designed explicitly to help them. According to a Pew Report published in December 2019, 35 states have funds that directly subsidize broadband. Numerous other states have funds that might qualify as a 'subsidy' or 'enforceable broadband deployment obligations,' depending on how the FCC Order defines these terms. Another aspect of the debate regarding duplication of funds and potential overbuild is targeting funding to areas that are truly unserved by broadband, versus directing funds to areas already served by an existing provider. FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly stated I have been closely following all federal broadband funding programs, including the ReConnect's grant and loan disbursements, to ensure that funds are distributed as efficiently as possible and directed foremost to those communities lacking any broadband service, rather than those areas already served by an existing provider. To that end, I have voiced concerns to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) over the use of scarce ReConnect Program funding to overbuild existing networks, whether built through private investment or via government subsidies. Rather than targeting scarce federal dollars to the truly unserved, the new 90 percent [unserved] threshold will likely lead to subsidized overbuilding and leave the most remote areas without service. There is a risk that provisions in federal broadband programs that seek to address duplication may unintentionally exclude unserved or underserved communities. In considering policies for future broadband programs, Congress may consider possible conflicts between ensuring that funding is not duplicated and avoiding the exclusion of areas that remain unserved. Concluding Observations States have been attempting to bridge the digital divide through their own broadband initiatives. While the majority of federal funding addresses network deployment, state broadband initiatives may demonstrate that other approaches can be complementary. Whether Congress decides to enact new broadband funding or initiatives remains to be seen; however, there appears to be an opportunity for states to share lessons learned from their approaches with Congress and/or federal agencies. Leveraging the wide variety of state policies and initiatives as potential models for federal broadband initiatives could have the potential to help close the digital divide. Appendix. Legislation in the 116th Congress Aside from annual appropriations legislation, the following are selected bills introduced in the 116 th Congress relating to the state broadband issues discussed in this report. H.R. 1328 (Tonko), introduced on February 25, 2019, as the Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand Act (ACCESS BROADBAND Act), would establish the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within NTIA at the Department of Commerce. The Office would provide outreach to communities seeking improved broadband connectivity and digital inclusion; track federal broadband dollars; and facilitate streamlined and standardized applications for federal broadband programs. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Passed by the House on May 8, 2019. H.R. 1508 (Blumenauer), introduced on March 5, 2019, as the Move America Act of 2019, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for bonds and credits to finance infrastructure, including rural broadband service infrastructure. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 1586 (Butterfield), introduced on March 7, 2019, as the Building Resources Into Digital Growth and Education Act of 2019 (BRIDGE Act of 2019), would establish a digital network technology program within NTIA which would award grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to eligible institutions to assist such institutions in acquiring, and augmenting use by such institutions of, broadband internet access service to improve the quality and delivery of educational services provided by such institutions. Referred to the Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. H.R. 1693 (LujÃ¡n), introduced on March 12, 2019, would require the FCC to make the provision of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-rate support. Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. H.R. 2601 (Peterson), introduced on May 8, 2019, as the Office of Rural Telecommunications Act, would direct the FCC to establish the Office of Rural Telecommunications, which would coordinate with RUS, NTIA, and other federal broadband programs. Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. H.R. 2661 (Tipton), introduced on May 10, 2019, as the Reprioritizing Unserved Rural Areas and Locations for Broadband Act of 2019 (RURAL Broadband Act of 2019), would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to restrict the use of RUS grants or loans to deploy broadband infrastructure that would overbuild or otherwise duplicate existing broadband networks. Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit. H.R. 2921 (Kilmer), introduced on May 22, 2019, as the Broadband for All Act, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit to consumers to reimburse a portion of the cost of broadband infrastructure serving limited-broadband districts. Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4127 (LujÃ¡n), introduced on July 30, 2019, as the Broadband Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2019, would establish a broadband infrastructure finance and innovation program to make available loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for the construction and deployment of broadband infrastructure. Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. H.R. 4283 (Pence), introduced on September 11, 2019, as the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act of 2019, would require federal agencies with jurisdiction over broadband deployment to enter into an interagency agreement related to certain types of funding for broadband deployment. Referred to the Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit. H.R. 5243 (Meng), introduced on November 21, 2019, as the Closing the Homework Gap Through Mobile Hotspots Act, would establish a mobile hotspot grant program to provide grants to eligible institutions. A grant provided to an eligible institution would be used to provide a hotspot device to an enrolled student, or the family or guardian of an enrolled student, which would be portable and not contain a data limitation. Referred to the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.Â S. 146 (Hoeven), introduced on January 16, 2019, as the Move America Act of 2019, would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for bonds and credits to finance infrastructure, including rural broadband service infrastructure. Referred to the Committee on Finance. S. 454 (Cramer), introduced on February 12, 2019, as the Office of Rural Broadband Act, would establish an Office of Rural Broadband within the FCC that would coordinate with RUS, NTIA, and other FCC broadband-related activities. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 738 (Udall), introduced on March 12, 2019, would require the FCC to make the provision of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-rate support. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 1046 (Cortez Masto), introduced on April 4, 2019, as the Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand (ACCESS BROADBAND Act), would establish the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth within NTIA at the Department of Commerce. The Office would provide outreach to communities seeking improved broadband connectivity and digital inclusion, track federal broadband dollars, and facilitate streamlined and standardized applications for federal broadband programs. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 1167 (Murray), introduced April 11, 2019, as the Digital Equity Act of 2019, would establish an NTIA state-based and competitive grant programs to support national digital inclusion, digital equity, and broadband adoption programs. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 1294 (Wicker), introduced on May 2, 2019, as the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act of 2019, would require federal agencies with jurisdiction over broadband deployment to enter into an interagency agreement related to certain types of funding for broadband deployment. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. S. 2018 (Collins), introduced on June 27, 2019, as the American Broadband Buildout Act of 2019, would provide federal matching funding for state-level broadband programs. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 2344 (Peters), introduced on July 30, 2019, as the Broadband Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2019, would establish a broadband infrastructure finance and innovation program to make available loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit for the construction and deployment of broadband infrastructure. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. S. 2385 (Wyden), introduced on July 31, 2019, as the Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act, would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to improve access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, including by encouraging the provision of broadband loans and grants. Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. S. 3094 (Merkley), introduced on December 18, 2019, as the Community Broadband Mapping Act, would authorize the Rural Utilities Service to make grants to government or telecommunications entities that serve a rural area (with less than 25,000 population) to foster data collection about where broadband infrastructure is located and which homes have non-satellite broadband service. Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. S. 3362 (Van Hollen), introduced on February 27, 2020, as the Homework Gap Trust Fund Act, would establish the Homework Gap Trust Fund, administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to provide funding for measures to close the digital divide and promote digital equality with respect to school-aged children. Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.