[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2129-H2132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUCTION REFORM ACT OF 2002
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill
[[Page H2130]]
(H.R. 4560) to eliminate the deadlines for spectrum auctions of
spectrum previously allocated to television broadcasting, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4560
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Auction Reform Act of
2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Circumstances in the telecommunications market have
changed dramatically since the auctioning of spectrum in the
700 megahertz band was originally mandated by Congress in
1997, raising serious questions as to whether the original
deadlines, or the subsequent revision of the deadlines, are
consistent with sound telecommunications policy and spectrum
management principles.
(2) No comprehensive plan yet exists for allocating
additional spectrum for third-generation wireless and other
advanced communications services. The Federal Communications
Commission should have the flexibility to auction frequencies
in the 700 megahertz band for such purposes.
(3) The study being conducted by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration in
consultation with the Department of Defense to determine
whether the Department of Defense can share or relinquish
additional spectrum for third-generation wireless and other
advanced communications services will not be completed until
after the June 19th auction date for the upper 700 megahertz
band, and long after the applications must be filed to
participate in the auction, thereby creating further
uncertainty as to whether the frequencies in the 700
megahertz band will be put to their highest and best use for
the benefit of consumers.
(4) The Federal Communications Commission is also in the
process of determining how to resolve the interference
problems that exist in the 800 megahertz band, especially for
public safety. One option being considered for the 800
megahertz band would involve the 700 megahertz band. The
Commission should not hold the 700 megahertz auction before
the 800 megahertz interference issues are resolved or a
tenable plan has been conceived.
(5) The 700 megahertz band is currently occupied by
television broadcasters, and will be so until the transfer to
digital television is completed. This situation creates a
tremendous amount of uncertainty concerning when the spectrum
will be available and reduces the value placed on the
spectrum by potential bidders. The encumbrance of the 700
megahertz band reduces both the amount of money that the
auction would be likely to produce and the probability that
the spectrum would be purchased by the entities that valued
the spectrum the most and would put the spectrum to its most
productive use.
(6) The Commission's rules governing voluntary mechanisms
for vacating the 700 megahertz band by broadcast stations--
(A) produced no certainty that the band would be available
for advanced mobile communications services, public safety
operations, or other wireless services any earlier than the
existing statutory framework provides; and
(B) should advance the transition of digital television and
must not result in the unjust enrichment of any incumbent
licensee.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF DEADLINES FOR SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.
(a) Communications Act of 1934.--Section 309(j)(14)(C)(ii)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
309(j)(14)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking the second
sentence.
(b) Balanced Budget Act of 1997.--Section 3007 of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (111 Stat. 269) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``This section
shall not apply to the band of frequencies between 698 and
806 megahertz, inclusive.''.
(c) Consolidated Appropriations Act.--Paragraphs (2) and
(3) of section 213(a) of H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress, as
enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of an Act making
consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes (Public Law 106-
113; 113 Stat. 1501A-295), are repealed.
SEC. 4. TERMINATION OF SCHEDULED AUCTIONS.
(a) Termination.--The Federal Communications Commission
shall not commence or conduct auctions 31 and 44 on June 19,
2002, as specified in the public notices of March 19, 2002,
and March 20, 2002 (DA 02-659 and DA 02-563).
(b) Report.--Within one year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Commission shall submit a report to the
Congress--
(1) specifying when the Commission intends to reschedule
auctions 31 and 44; and
(2) describing the progress made by the Commission in the
digital television transition and in the assignment and
allocation of additional spectrum for advanced mobile
communications services that warrants the scheduling of such
auctions.
SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH AUCTION AUTHORITY.
The Federal Communications Commission shall conduct
rescheduled auctions 31 and 44 prior to the expiration of the
auction authority under section 309(j)(11) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(11)).
SEC. 6. PRESERVATION OF BROADCASTER OBLIGATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve
television broadcast station licensees of the obligation to
complete the digital television service conversion as
required by section 309(j)(14) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
General Leave
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Auction Reform Act of 2002 will eliminate the statutory deadlines
that have prompted the FCC to schedule auctions in June for spectrum in
the 700 megahertz band currently occupied by television broadcasters.
This legislation should not be necessary to stop the FCC from
conducting the auctions in June. The FCC currently has the authority to
delay these auctions and should do so on its own, many of us believe,
but in addition to asking the FCC to use its own authority to delay the
auctions, 52 members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce introduced
this legislation to remove the deadlines from the statutes. Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to report that the bill was passed by voice
vote by the Committee on Energy and Commerce just last week.
It is true that the auction of the upper portion of the 700 megahertz
band has been delayed five times, but, Madam Speaker, conducting the
auctions for both the upper and lower parts of the 700 megahertz band
in June would be bad telecommunications policy and bad spectrum policy.
These auctions should not go forward.
Let me address some of the reasons why these auctions should not take
place.
One, no comprehensive plan exists for allocating additional spectrum
for third generation wireless and other advanced mobile communications
services. The 700 megahertz band may prove to be the commercial mobile
wireless commercial industry's only viable option for obtaining
additional spectrum for advanced mobile communications services if
spectrum from other bands below 3 gigahertz is not allocated for such
purposes.
Two, the study being conducted by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, NTIA, and the Pentagon to determine whether
the Pentagon can share or relinquish additional spectrum for third
generation wireless and other advanced mobile communications services
will not be completed until after the June 19 auction date for the
upper 700 megahertz band and long after the applications must be filed
to participate in the auction.
Third, it is difficult for wireless carriers to make sound business
decisions concerning what options are available for spectrum for third
generation and other advanced mobile communications services until the
NTIA/Pentagon report has been released and then evaluated.
Fourth, the Commission is also in the process of determining how to
resolve the interference problems that exist in the 800 megahertz band,
especially for public safety. One option being considered for the 800
megahertz band would involve the 700 megahertz band. The Commission
should not hold the 700 megahertz auction before the 800 megahertz
interference issues are resolved or a viable plan has been approved.
Next, the 700 megahertz band is still occupied by TV broadcasters and
will be so until the digital transition is complete. This situation
creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty concerning when the spectrum
will be available and reduces the value placed on the spectrum by
potential bidders. The encumbrance of the 700 megahertz band reduces
both the amount of money that the auction would be likely to produce
and the probability that the
[[Page H2131]]
spectrum would be purchased by the entities that valued the spectrum
the most and would put the spectrum to its most productive use.
Last, Madam Speaker, the Commission's rules governing voluntary
mechanisms for the vacation of the 700 megahertz band by the
broadcasters produced no certainty that the band would be available for
advanced mobile communications services, public safety operations and
other purposes any earlier than the existing statutory framework
provides.
Madam Speaker, the FCC and the administration clearly have a lot of
work to do with respect to allocating and assigning additional spectrum
for advanced mobile communications services and with respect to
speeding the transition to digital TV. Until more progress is made in
these areas, the 700 megahertz band auction simply should not occur.
The FCC should use its own authority to delay these auctions, and we
are making clear that holding the auctions within the FCC's designated
time frame is contrary to both sound regulatory policy and contrary to
the Communications Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I do so in order to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton) for his excellent work on this legislation, along with the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member.
This legislation has very broad based support across party lines,
across ideological lines. It is a critical piece of legislation to
pass.
Madam Speaker, the reason that we are here today is to take action to
correct a mess that Congress created in 1997, when Congress and the
Clinton administration used illusory spectrum revenues to cook the
books when it enacted the flawed 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Simply put,
the Clinton OMB and Congressional budget scorekeepers put the cart
before the horse.
The 1997 proposal required the FCC to auction off the airwave
frequencies occupied by television channels 52 to 69 many years before
those airwave channels were due to be clear of those incumbent
broadcasters, and the 1997 law contained no provisions to assure would-
be bidders or taxpaying consumers that the digital TV transition would
be timely and successful.
Instead, the budgeteers simply assumed that everything would work out
and pushed for auctions on a calendar date convenient for scoring
purposes of all the revenue that would come in from holding the
auction. Forget about telecommunications policy, though.
Today we know that the digital TV transition is woefully off
schedule. The current FCC policy for clearing out the broadcast
television spectrum in the area of 52 to 69 channels on our dial seems
to be to simply sell off the frequencies and then authorize unseemly
windfall profits to the lucky incumbents who, having gotten digital
television spectrum for free, only elect to vacate their old analog
channels for a price paid to them by auction winners.
Under this policy, the term ``auction winner'' may well be an
oxymoron. What one wins by being the highest bidder in this auction is
the right to be subjected to a high tech hold-up by the incumbent
broadcaster who will not move unless paid. To make this FCC policy even
worse is that when that broadcaster agrees to vacate the area for a
handsome fee, the broadcaster may not even broadcast in digital format
on its so-called digital pair, the digital spectrum which they have. It
may obtain FCC permission to continue analog broadcasting, the same
broadcasting we have had since 1948. We will just continue to see the
highlights of the first 75 years of NBC broadcasting for the next 75
years and the same television channels with no new digital technology.
I think this whole notion offends most people's sensibility, and I
think it underscores the fact that the Commission needs additional time
to rethink its mission in this area.
Moreover, we also do not have anything remotely resembling an
overarching spectrum plan to address key policy goals, such as
fostering a more competitive wireless policy or enhancing public safety
needs. We do not yet have a policy to promote new wireless services
such as third generation, or 3G, mobile services or other innovative
new wireless technologies and services for broadband connections of
video applications.
The reality today is that our lack of progress in accelerating the
digital television transition is holding two revolutions in check, both
the interactive digital television market, which all Americans are
waiting for, that inexpensive digital television set costing $300, $400
that they have been promised for 20 years, still not affordable to the
average American family, still being denied to them by these terrible
policies, and advancing the wireless market; that is, the two-way wrist
TV that Dick Tracy and his cartoonist Chester Gould promised us in
1960. That still is not possible because we do not have a spectrum
policy, and it really is turning into a telecommunications disaster.
Disaster.
The utter failure to follow through effectively on the industrial
policy we started when we gave the broadcast industry an extra 6
megahertz each, each, for the transition to digital technology means
that we are literally holding back the future. No digital television
and no third generation wireless. Unbelievable for a country which is
supposed to be the leader in new technology.
We are now paralyzed as a Nation. We are stifling innovation. We are
stunting growth and we are needlessly depressing the entire high tech
sector of the American economy. We must free up this spectrum but in a
way in which we know it is going to be used, both for digital TV and in
the wireless area.
It is time to put the telecom policy horse in front of the auction
cart. Today, we will pass legislation that wisely deletes the budget-
mandated auction dates in the law and requires a report to Congress
describing the progress made by the Commission in speeding the digital
television transition, as well as identifying slices of spectrum for
advanced wireless services, including mobile services such as 3G.
Again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton),
along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all the members of our committee who
are working together now on a policy that hopefully will now free up
this spectrum. Unless the Federal Communications Commission begins to
listen to us, unless the Bush administration starts to listen to us,
then unfortunately all we are going to do is continue to repeat the
mistakes that were made during the Clinton administration, and I am
just afraid that we are not going to see this high tech sector, this
telecommunications sector, this NASDAQ sector get off its back unless
the Bush administration puts in place a set of policies that gives
incentives to hundreds of companies and entrepreneurs across the
country to once again invest in this high tech sector.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just note that I am convinced that the Bush administration
does not want to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration. I
look forward to working with the gentleman as we deal with this issue
in the future.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Up to this point there is no evidence that can convict the Bush
administration of not repeating the same mistakes as the Clinton
administration. The only problem is that this high tech boom ended in
2000 and that millions of Americans are now waiting for the next
generation of technologies, and unless the policy is forthcoming from
the Bush administration, I am afraid we could go through this entire
decade and not see a revival.
I think that is a very dangerous prospect, and I am hoping today, on
a bipartisan basis, we can send a message to the Bush administration
that they can put together a comprehensive policy.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H2132]]
I would just like to reiterate that Secretary Evans very strongly
supports this legislation. We expect the President to sign it should we
get it through the other body.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4560, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________