[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4933-S4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           SPECTRUM AUCTIONS

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I just filed an amendment to S. 1323 to BRAC 
the spectrum. This would give us the maximum auction revenue and access 
to spectrum for economic development and deficit reduction. I am proud 
to have the amendment endorsed by Americans for Tax Reform.
  It is very important for the Congress to authorize spectrum incentive 
auctions. While we should protect broadcasters who choose not to 
participate in such actions and their customers who rely on over-the-
air broadcast for entertainment and public emergency information, 
incentive auctions would free up much needed spectrum for the civilian 
side in making sure that broadband communications are fully available 
in the United States.
  It should be, in short, the policy of the United States to offer the 
widest

[[Page S4934]]

amount of broadband spectrum to empower the 21st century economy here--
cell phones were invented in the United States, in fact, mostly in my 
home State of Illinois--and making sure this is the country where not 
just 1G and 2G and 3G were invented and deployed, but to make sure 5G 
and 6G and 7G are also deployed first in the United States and not in a 
country such as China or India.
  According to the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. Treasury 
has already collected $50 billion in spectrum receipts since 1993. 
Senator Reid's plan does authorize such auctions, but it is missing a 
key element to ensure they are very successful. Unfortunately, like 
many other agencies in the administration, the Federal Communications 
Commission has worked to promulgate regulations that stifle innovation 
and economic growth. It is important for Congress to prohibit the FCC 
from establishing new, similar rules or conditions that are outside the 
scope of technical, ethical, or geographic qualifications. Such 
conditions, for example, the ``net neutrality'' provisions, will only 
serve to depress the market value of the spectrum; therefore, 
decreasing government revenues and lowering our ability to reduce the 
deficit in this way.

  One recent study found that ``Congress has tremendous discretion 
about the amount of proceeds it could raise in exchange for spectrum'' 
because ``the amount of money that an auction can raise for the [U.S.] 
Treasury [and the government] is impacted at least in part by 
controllable decisions about how the auction configures the spectrum 
for sale and the conditions imposed on it.'' The study analyzed a 
previous spectrum auction to estimate the potential receipts from 
future actions based on conditions the FCC may or may not impose. The 
researchers found that the full auction potential of the broadcast 
spectrum with no conditions imposed would raise as much as $91 billion, 
whereas the same auction with heavy and unappealing conditions, such as 
net neutrality, would only raise $26 billion. That is a difference of 
$65 billion. We could raise, to lower our deficit, 250 percent more in 
funds with an incentive auction if we ensure that the FCC does not 
impose market-killing restrictions.
  My proposal would place limits on the FCC, in addition to 
establishing a number of other prohibitions to make sure the FCC does 
not artificially reduce the spectrum value, to lower our deficit. The 
Kirk amendment would prohibit the FCC from restricting participants in 
any auction and from prescribing certain rates, terms, or services that 
may be offered by bidders in order to encourage the most robust 
participation and license bidding. To avoid future devaluation of 
spectrum licenses, the amendment would also prohibit the FCC from 
changing the rules of the game after an auction was completed.
  But simply selling spectrum voluntarily given up by broadcasters is 
not enough to solve our credit crunch. We know that wireless 
subscribership in the United States has increased more than 400 percent 
in the last 15 years, and experts expect mobile data traffic to be 35 
times higher in 2014 than it was back in 2009. Yet only 22 percent of 
all viable wireless frequencies are licensed for mobile broadband. 
Industry experts anticipate spectrum will be exhausted in the most 
populous markets by 2014. Such a restriction then would stunt wireless 
and other technological development in the United States because we 
will not have enough bandwidth to continue innovating. Internet service 
will then slow and calls will be dropped. We should not let this 
scenario unfold. We should reach our full technological potential 
because broadband development is a key job creator for the 21st 
century.
  According to one estimate, the information and communications 
industry contributed more than $1.7 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic 
product in 2009 or over 12 percent of our total national income. 
Another study found that broadband provides additional annual consumer 
benefits of roughly $32 billion per year. It is widely acknowledged 
that wireless broadband also generates productivity gains of 
approximately $28 billion annually, and one cost estimate even puts 
productivity gains from the development and use of wireless broadband 
at almost $860 billion in 2016. In my own State of Illinois, this study 
estimates that the savings from increased productivity will reach about 
$5.8 billion in 5 years. This demonstrates that every sector of our 
economy benefits from wireless development.
  For example, broadband development will vastly improve health care 
services for seniors. One study finds that reduced medical costs, 
reduced costs of institutionalized living, and increased output 
generated by seniors and disabled individuals will save about $927 
billion between 2005 and 2030. Advancements in wireless technologies 
aim to reduce the burden on the chronically ill by providing remote 
monitoring of medical functions and to save lives through public safety 
interoperable networks.
  Yet very little of this will be achievable unless we make more 
spectrum available to the civilian sector. Not surprisingly, the 
Federal Government itself is the largest and most stubborn squatter on 
the spectrum. According to the Technology Policy Institute, the 
government currently has exclusive or shared ownership of more than 
half the ideal spectrum for wireless development.
  Much of the spectrum is not even being used or used efficiently by 
the government. Unfortunately, it is largely unknown how exactly 
Federal agencies and departments are using the spectrum and which 
spectrum we could better use on the civilian side.
  My amendment, in short, would establish a process identical to the 
successful Base Realignment and Closure Commission to determine which 
Federal spectrum should be offered for sale or shared use by the 
private sector. While the government has much of this authority, it 
consistently fails to utilize it.
  A BRAC-like commission for the spectrum is a key model for its 
reallocation and would help accelerate the development of broadband in 
the United States, without the standard congressional roadblocks that 
would inhibit development.
  The amendment also provides assurances that the government will 
vacate spectrum once the process is complete and requires the Office of 
Management and Budget to intervene in the relocation process if 
agencies are failing to comply with the relocation plan and penalizing 
agencies if they do not meet the BRAC timeline.
  The Kirk amendment would provide the telecommunications industry with 
a certain path forward for reliably clear spectrum to advance 
employment in the United States through wireless advancement.
  I urge congressional leaders to consider this proposal. It comes from 
neither Republican nor Democratic sides. It is one of the most valuable 
assets that the government is currently squatting on and could be part 
of an overall deficit reduction plan totalling upward of $90 billion, 
but I think that benefit understates the true potential. Because if we 
set a goal of the United States being the country that offers the most 
broadband wireless spectrum, then we ensure that this critical 21st 
century industry remains in the United States and that the pace of 
innovation in wireless always is fastest in America as opposed to Asia 
or Europe.
  That is why I put the amendment forward. I would seek its adoption as 
part of our deficit negotiations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________