[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 36 (Friday, March 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2207-S2208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

 Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, on February 8, the President 
signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act has been 
my highest legislative priority for the 104th Congress. I am very 
pleased with the great strides we are making in deregulating and 
fostering competition in this critical field. But our work is not over. 
I ask to have printed in the Record the article I wrote for Roll Call 
detailing what lies ahead for telecommunications reform.
  The article follows:

                    [From Roll Call, Mar. 11, 1996]

              Telecom Reform: It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

                      (By Senator Larry Pressler)

       Historic. Massive. Landmark. Sweeping. Adjectives such as 
     these were often used by journalists and lobbyists alike to 
     describe the recently passed Telecommunications Act of 1996. 
     So often, in fact, I think that some began to wonder if we 
     had placed them in the bill's formal title.
       The truth is such adjectives got a lot of ink because they 
     captured the scope and direction of the bill. As well they 
     should. Congress had been so long about the business of 
     updating the nation's antiquated communications laws that, 
     when we were finally able to get a bill moving, it had no 
     choice but to be ``historic, massive, and sweeping'' if we 
     were to have any chance of keeping up with the pace of 
     technological development.
       Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was my 
     highest legislative priority in the first session of the 
     104th Congress. On Feb. 8, that priority became law.
       Thanks to my bill, the communications industry will see an 
     explosion in new investment and development. Who are the 
     winners? The consumers. There will be more services and new 
     products at lower costs. All of this economic activity will 
     mean new jobs.
       Competition is the key for this development. My bill 
     unlocked the regulatory handcuffs restricting the 
     communications industry--now, competition will bring 
     everything from lower costs and new products to better 
     education opportunities to the public.
       But we are not done. Passage of the act does not mean 
     Congress can now wait another 62 years before looking at 
     telecommunications issues again.
       On the contrary, we must regard telecommunications reform 
     as a work in progress. Although our legislative calendar may 
     be somewhat attenuated this election year, the list of 
     telecommunications priorities facing the second session of 
     the 104th Congress is as impressive as it is imperative.
       Among the priorities for the Commerce Committee this year 
     are ensuring that the Federal Communications Commission 
     carries out Congress's intent when it sets the rules to 
     implement the Telecommunications Act; determining federal use 
     and allocation of the full spectrum; and re-examining the 
     rule barring foreign investment in US telecommunications 
     firms.


                    Telecommunications Act Oversight

       First and foremost, Congress needs to make sure that what 
     the American consumer won on the legislative battlefield 
     isn't lost on the regulatory drawing board. In other words, 
     we need to make sure that the FCC carries out the intent of 
     Congress as it implements the tenets of the 
     Telecommunications Act.
       This is no small task. Nor is it frivolous. There were many 
     hard-fought battles by various segments of the industry 
     during the drafting of the Telecommunications Act. Now that 
     the scene shifts from the legislative to the regulatory 
     venue, the temptation to refight lost battles beckons many an 
     interest group.
       Congress must be vigilant and hold fast against the 
     possibility of regulatory revisionism as the FCC proceeds 
     with its rule-making processes.
       The battle flags already are flying. For instance, the FCC, 
     in initiating a rule-making intended to accelerate the 
     ability of Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) to offer 
     long-distance service outside their monopoly operating areas, 
     is proposing to require the RBOCs to set up separate 
     subsidiaries to provide such services.
       As I pointed out in a recent letter to FCC Chairman Reed 
     Hundt, this is totally contrary to provisions in the 
     Telecommunications Act that specifically exempt the RBOCs 
     from having to provide out-of-region, long-distance services 
     under a separate subsidiary.
       In another potential regulatory overreach, the FCC is 
     considering requiring broadcasters to increase the amount of 
     air time dedicated to public interest programming, as well as 
     possibly requiring more children's programming. Such 
     government-mandated content control would be enforced through 
     the station license renewal process.
       The issue here is not whether more children's and public 
     interest programming is desirable, but whether these goals 
     should be mandated by the FCC as part of the broadcast 
     license renewal process.
       In fact, Congress was quite clear about its intentions in 
     the license renewal provisions of the Telecommunications Act. 
     The act requires license simplification, not license 
     complication. The FCC's direction in carrying out this 
     provision seems to be headed in the direction of re-
     regulation instead of deregulation. It is the latter approach 
     Congress clearly intended.
       As to the issue of program content, I think the best public 
     policy is to keep the government's involvement to a minimum 
     and let the industry and the public determine the content of 
     programming. I support providing parents with the necessary 
     technological weapons, such as the ``V-chip,'' to help them 
     control what their children see on television. Of course, the 
     ultimate ``V-chip'' already exists on every television set in 
     America--the on/off switch.
       Currently, a plethora of flexible, quickly evolving, and 
     market-driven parental blocking technologies are available. 
     Some are already incorporated into many televisions and 
     VCR's. Other are sold as separate add-on devices. We must be 
     mindful that government does not dry up the market for such 
     devices by mandating one technology over all others.


                               fcc reform

       Another major focus for the committee this year will be to 
     examine the overall performance and needs of the FCC as it 
     carries out its duties. We will look closely at the agency's 
     repeated requests for additional money to implement the 
     Telecommunications Act.
       As I have told Chairman Hundt, I am concerned about the 
     FCC's alarms over possible budget shortfalls and calls for 
     more personnel and other resources to carry out its mission.
       The FCC has requested a budget of approximately $224 
     million for fiscal 1996, supporting some 2,300 employees. 
     This is roughly two-thirds more than the FCC's budget in 1993 
     ($134 million) and includes an additional 600 employees over 
     the 1993 staffing level (1,700).
       In fact, since 1992, FCC expenditures have risen at a 
     compounded average annual rate of 15.2 percent, compared with 
     an average of 10.4 percent for the communications industry 
     itself.
       Should the growth of a federal agency outstrip the very 
     industry it regulates by a margin of three to two? No. 
     Particularly in an era of federal budget austerity in which 
     the watchwords for most other federal agencies are ``smaller 
     but smarter'' government.
       Clearly, Congress will have to look closely at the FCC 
     during this second session and see what efficiencies can be 
     realized in its operations.


                 overview of federal spectrum policies

       Another major task facing Congress this year is a thorough 
     examination of federal policies regarding the use and 
     allocation of the electromagnetic spectrum. The 
     electromagnetic spectrum, generally defined as the range of 
     electromagnetic frequencies between three kilohertz and 300 
     gigahertz, is one of the nation's most valuable resources.
       I believe the federal government has a responsibility to 
     ensure that the efficient management of this resource 
     provides adequately for the national defense, the protection 
     of the taxpayer, and the continued maintenance of America's 
     technological leadership.
       The full committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     is planning to hold hearings on this complex subject, 
     beginning in March.
       During these hearings, we will examine the government's 
     management and allocation of the entire spectrum, not just 
     that small portion of it used for radio and television 
     broadcasting. This includes supporting: civilian emergency 
     services; scientific and satellite uses; merchant marine 
     emergency and navigation uses; aviation uses; truck and 
     railroad uses; cellular phone and personal communications 
     services; military and intelligence uses; and specialized 
     data-transmission uses, such as telemedicine services.
       Much of the focus of this spectrum review naturally will 
     gravitate toward the issue of

[[Page S2208]]

     digital television and how portions of the finite spectrum 
     should be allocated to broadcasters for the development of 
     digital transmission.
       I have long been a supporter of protecting the taxpayers in 
     allocations of the spectrum by the FCC. In fact, I proposed 
     an auction earlier in the year as part of the budget 
     reconciliation process.
       While I believe the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was 
     clear in that it did not mandate any giveaway of the digital 
     spectrum, it is important that Congress revisit this issue 
     this year and establish a clear national policy on spectrum 
     assignments to the private sector.


                              other issues

       There are a number of other telecommunications issues that 
     will occupy the committee's attention this year, including a 
     look at whether current rules restricting foreign investment 
     in US broadcasting are good for the nation.
       It may well be that we should allow more foreign investment 
     in US broadcasting, provided US broadcasters have the same 
     investment rights overseas. This could open more foreign 
     markets to US telecommunications products and services. The 
     committee may hold hearings this year on this issue.
       The committee also will consider reforming the 
     Communications Satellite Act of 1962. When that act was 
     passed, no one thought private companies would launch and 
     operate satellites. Today, we have private companies 
     competing with the international government-owned satellite 
     systems, INTELSAT and INMARSAT. We need to re-evaluate how 
     competition should operate in the international satellite 
     market.
       The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a major legislative 
     step forward in modernizing America's ancient 
     telecommunications laws. But we cannot rest on our 
     legislative laurels if Congress is to provide a regulatory 
     infrastructure that helps, rather than hinders, America's 
     telecommunications industry. Our work has just begun.

                          ____________________