[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 66 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E954-E955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY BROADCAST FREQUENCY ASSIGNMENT BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JANE HARMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 15, 1997

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Julian Dixon, and I are 
frustrated by the failure of the Federal Communications Commission to 
act on applications from emergency broadcasters to use several unused 
common carrier frequencies. Because we are persuaded that the 
allocation of these frequencies is critical to protect the safety of 
our constituents and our police, we are introducing legislation 
establishing standards to assign them to emergency broadcasters in 
Southern California and the State of New Hampshire. In the absence of 
FCC action or the prospect for any action in the near future, this 
avenue seems to be the only way left for us to proceed.
  The South Bay Regional Communications Authority [SBRCA], one of the 
petitioners to the FCC, is comprised of law enforcement and public 
safety agencies in the cities of El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, and 
Manhattan Beach. Three of these cities are in my Congressional 
district.
  In June 1995, the Authority filed an application with the FCC 
requesting assignment and authority to use four vacant Public Land 
Mobile Service [PLMS] channels for critical public safety 
communications needs.
  In an order released April 24, 1996, the Commission denied the 
application. The Commission cited as its reason an ongoing 
``refarming'' proceeding that will presumably benefit the Authority by 
increasing the number of frequencies devoted to emergency broadcast 
requirements. SBRCA appealed the decision and filed an application for 
reconsideration. That application is still pending.
  What is disturbing about the decision is the reference to the 
``refarming'' proceeding. ``Refarming'' may not be completed for 
several more years and, once announced, may require emergency 
broadcasters to purchase new equipment in order to avail themselves of 
the increased number of frequencies. In the meantime, public safety 
agencies, including the South Bay Authority, have a critical need for 
new frequencies. At present, there are no common police and fire voice 
channels available for interoperability among these agencies and 
neighboring jurisdictions in the South Bay. According to the police 
chiefs in my District, interoperability and greater capacity are among 
the most critical problems facing the Authority now.
  Because the public safety cannot wait for the Commission to finalize 
its ``refarming'' proceeding, on at least two occasions, Mr. Dixon and 
other members of the LA County Congressional Delegation joined me in 
requesting

[[Page E955]]

the Commission to review its rules so that the frequencies requested 
may be awarded to the Authority on a temporary basis.
  Such a Commission decision is not unprecedented and occurred, for 
example, when the Commission granted a waiver to allow New York City 
area public safety agencies to use vacant UHF television channel 16 for 
land mobile operations. Granting a similar waiver and assigning 
additional frequencies would be invaluable to the Authority as it meets 
its obligations to protect the public safety.
  In response, and clearly misunderstanding my reference to the New 
York City precedent, the Commission replied that the Authority had not 
requested the use of vacant UHF television channels.
  The State of New Hampshire has had a similar request pending before 
the Commission for more than three years. The State wants to construct 
and operate a new statewide mobile radio system to serve the public 
safety needs of its citizens. The petition was denied in May, 1996, the 
Commission saying that these needs would be addressed in a yet-to-be-
issued rulemaking concerning public safety spectrum needs through the 
year 2010.
  Also weighing-in on this matter, and underscoring the importance to 
law enforcement nationwide, then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick 
wrote to the Commission in support of South Bay's application. In her 
August, 1996 letter, Ms. Gorelick reiterated that from law 
enforcement's perspective the Commission's ``solution'' to increase 
spectrum availability is still several years away. ``In the meantime, 
law enforcement and public safety agencies in densely populated areas 
such as that served by South Bay are being faced with immediate and 
very real problem of insufficient spectrum.''
  This should be a simple issue for the Commission. Under the policies 
outlined in its February 9, 1995 report on ``Meeting State and Local 
Agency Spectrum Needs Through the Year 2010,'' the FCC said that one of 
its policies is to handle critical public safety spectrum requirements 
on a case-by-case basis, including allowing the use of non-public 
safety frequencies where necessary. This seems to me to be a 
reasonable, common sense policy. The policy, however, has been 
implemented only in one recent instance involving a New York City 
request and, more recently, the FCC Wireless Bureau denied two similar 
requests, which are the basis of this legislation. This inconsistency 
raises questions about the adequacy of the FCC's existing policy and 
whether it is being applied in a fair and evenhanded manner.
  Complicating this matter further is the Commission's just-announced 
plans for the transitioning to digital television and the reallocation 
for public safety use of 24 MHZ of spectrum--4 existing unused TV 
channels--in the lightly used Channel 60-to-69 range. Unfortunately, 
because of the understandable need to accommodate all existing Los 
Angeles area television stations, it now appears that the plan will not 
work in Los Angeles and that no channels in the 60-to-69 range will be 
available for public safety use. This makes the full implementation of 
the Commission's Policy Statement even more important. As the most 
spectrum-congested region in the country, the Commission must be in a 
position to use whatever tools are available to make vacant spectrum 
available to meet public safety needs in Los Angeles.
  If there was ever a circumstance warranting application of Policy 
Statement's preference for case-by-case waivers, this is that 
circumstance. But both the New Hampshire and South Bay decisions by the 
Wireless Bureau seem to be premised on a contrary policy of handling 
spectrum use matters only through general allocation proceedings.
  Let me quote from the decision ``In the Matter of License 
Communications Services, Inc. and South Bay Regional Public 
Communications Authority'' in which the FCC said that ``rather than 
undermine our existing allocations framework by permitting ad hoc 
private use of commercial spectrum, we believe the public interest is 
better served by increasing frequency availability through the 
rulemaking process.''
  In the same order the FCC said ``the creation of additional 470-512 
MHZ frequencies by the Commission's actions in our `refarming' 
proceeding will benefit part 90 licensees, such as South Bay, that seek 
additional frequencies for system expansion. We, therefore, are denying 
the South Bay Petition for Waiver.''
  Last, let me also quote from a May 1996 letter to me in which the FCC 
said ``South Bay will have increased opportunities to expand channel 
capacity within existing frequency allocation as a result of our 
`refarming' proceeding.''
  The Commission can't have it both ways. How can it square these 
inconsistent policy statements? How long do public safety agencies have 
to wait before the FCC makes up its mind as to which policy should 
prevail? Why can't the Commission grant operating authority, even 
interim authority, for the frequencies requested by South Bay Regional 
Communication Authority and the State of New Hampshire?
  Mr. Speaker, the answer to these questions may be months, even years, 
away. Consequently, there is a need for the bill Mr. Dixon and I are 
introducing today. Emergency broadcasters in southern California and 
New Hampshire, and the public, have waited long enough.

                          ____________________