[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S135-S136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     SPECTRUM: A NATIONAL RESOURCE

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, balancing the budget is all about sacrifice. 
To paraphrase Webster's Dictionary, that means surrendering things we 
prize for a higher purpose. Sacrifice is also about fairness. We call 
this share, and share alike.
  It makes no sense to me then that Congress would create a giant 
corporate welfare program when we are reforming welfare for those 
trapped in a failed system. But, that is exactly what would happen if 
we pass telecommunications reform in it current form.
  No doubt about it, balancing the budget the passing 
telecommunications reform will ensure America's place as the world's 
undisputed economic leader. They are both bills that look to the 
future, not to the past.


                           TELECOM GIVE-AWAY

  With that said, however, I question whether telecommunications reform 
is worth the television broadcaster's asking price. The 
telecommunications conference report gives spectrum, or air waves, to 
television broadcasters that the Congressional Budget Office has valued 
at $12.5 billion. Many say that figure is low, including the Federal 
Communications Commission which believes it is worth almost $40 
billion. That is $40 billion with a ``B.'' Other estimates run even 
higher, up to $70 billion and beyond.
  The bottom line is that spectrum is just as much a national resource 
as our Nation's forests. That means it belongs to every American 
equally. No more, no less.
  If someone wants to use our resources, then we should be fairly 
compensated.
  The broadcasters say they need this extra spectrum to preserve so-
called free, over-the-air broadcast and are just borrowing the spectrum 
and will eventually give it back. The problem is the telecom conference 
report is vague and there is no guarantee that America 

[[Page S136]]
will ever get this valuable resource back.
  Even if a guarantee can be secured, the report language still would 
not fairly compensate taxpayers for lending this resource to the 
broadcasters. From a technical standpoint, when the broadcasters 
transition from an analog to the more efficient digital signal, they 
can pump our several new TV stations. In short, broadcasters will trade 
their existing one station for an many as five stations. I am told the 
FCC believes the number can reach as high as 12 stations.
  Interestingly enough, the broadcasters secured language in the 
telecom bill that would exempt them from paying fees for any of these 
new broadcast stations so long as they are supported by advertising 
dollars. Let me get this straight. America lends the broadcasters a 
national resource so they can increase their profit margins, but they 
do not think its fair to pay rent.
  Mr. President, at a time when we are asking all Americans to 
sacrifice and we are all trying to balance the budget--I just heard the 
chairman of the Budget Committee speak Senator Domenici; the American 
people want us to balance the budget--it does not make any sense to 
give away billions of dollars to corporate interests and succumb to 
their intense media lobbying effort.


                           COST TO CONSUMERS

  This policy will also cost consumers billions of their own dollars. 
Federally mandating a transition to digital broadcast will ultimately 
render all television sets in the country obsolete. Consumers will be 
forced to either buy new television sets or convertor boxes to receive 
free, over-the-air broadcasts.
  The impact will be dramatic. There are 222 million television sets in 
the country. The average digital television set's estimated cost is 
$850, while the less expensive convertor box will cost about $100. 
Replacing every television set with a digital one would cost $189 
billion. Using the less expensive convertor box would cost $22 billion. 
No doubt about it, consumers won't be happy that Congress made this 
choice for them.


                               CONCLUSION

  Mr. President, in closing, I wish to inform the Senate that while I 
want to work with those who put together, I think, a good 
telecommunications bill in many respects, I know there are some Members 
in the House who have some reservations about parts of it and there are 
some Members in the Senate who have reservations about parts of it. I 
do think we should resolve this spectrum issue before the bill is 
considered.
  It is going to be very difficult, when we are looking at Medicaid, 
looking at Medicare, looking at farm programs, looking at welfare, all 
trying to save money here and money there, that we would at the same 
time say, oh, that is OK because these are big media interests, we will 
give it away, whether there is $12.5 or $40 billion, whatever it may 
be.
  The telecommunications conference committee is still open, so we 
still have the opportunity to appropriately address this spectrum 
issue. I hope that we will. I would like to see it resolved before we 
bring this bill up. I know the chairman, Senator Pressler, has done an 
outstanding job. It is a very difficult task. The Presiding Officer is 
a member of that committee. It is a very important bill, probably the 
most important bill we will consider this year in 1996. But let us, for 
the sake of the taxpayers and for the sake of the American consumers, 
fix this one corporate welfare provision before we ask Members to vote 
on it.
  Mr. President, the Democratic leader will be here in a moment or two. 
I will just go ahead and do these unanimous-consent requests.

                          ____________________