[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6547-6548]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2686. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, today Senator Inouye and I introduce 
the Communications Act of 2006. Just over a month ago, the Senate 
Commerce Committee concluded a series of 15 hearings on the state of 
our Nation's communications laws. We looked at what changes in the law 
would be required to spur innovation, encourage competition, and 
provide better service at a lower price for consumers. Senator Inouye 
and I, and the members of our committee heard from dozens of witnesses 
and still more who have offered comments and suggested language. Our 
staffs met with literally hundreds of people representing every point 
of view.
  The measure we introduce today is a working draft intended to 
stimulate discussion and is open for comments and suggestions for 
change. It attempts to strike a balance between competing industries, 
consumer groups and local government. Both Senator Inouye and I may 
propose additional changes based on comments offered by our members or 
interested parties. We will hold two hearings to take testimony on the 
draft bill and will listen to proposed changes. It is our hope that 
through a process of collaboration, we can draft a bill that represents 
a bipartisan consensus.
  The bill includes elements from a number of bills introduced by 
members of our committee from both sides of the aisle. The Call Home 
Act that Senator Inouye and I introduced last week would allow the FCC 
to take any action short of price regulation to reduce rates for 
members of our Armed Forces who call home. The measure includes 
thirteen cosponsors from our committee and another twenty-five 
cosponsors from the Senate at large. The Call Home Act has been 
endorsed by twenty-five military and veterans organizations.
  The overarching theme of the bill we introduce today is deployment of 
broadband nationwide. Today the United States is less than 16th in 
adoption of broadband worldwide. We are not only behind most of the 
developed world, we even lag behind some of the less developed parts of 
the globe. To address this broadband gap, the bill we introduce today 
will allow local governments to offer their own broadband service, so 
long as they do not compete unfairly with the private sector. The 
provision is based largely on Senator McCain's and Lautenberg's bill, 
S. 1294, cosponsored by Senator Kerry, but includes elements to protect 
the private sector from unfair government competition from Senator 
Ensign's bill, S. 1504 cosponsored by McCain, Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.
  Senator McCain was also very helpful in crafting the interoperability 
section of the bill. After Hurricane Katrina and later Wilma and Rita, 
the committee held a series of hearings on problems communications 
companies had in restoring service and the difficulties first 
responders had in talking to one another even when service had been 
fully restored. During those difficult times, Senators Lott and Vitter 
played an important role in highlighting the importance of 
interoperability in times of crisis. As part of the reconciliation bill 
adopted last December, this committee addressed the interoperability 
problem by dedicating $1 billion to interoperability programs. However, 
because of the Byrd rule, it was not possible to provide guidance on 
how the money should be spent. The interoperability bill we introduce 
today adopts many of the recommendations offered by a variety of groups 
from the 911 Commission to the recent White House report. It embraces 
key concepts such as Planning and interoperable equipment grants which 
have been discussed with the Department of Homeland Security and 
various public safety groups.
  The bill will also crate prepositioned technology caches in every 
State in the Union with some redundant regional caches for national 
emergencies--an idea offered by Senator Inouye and his staff. These 
caches will include equipment like satellite telephones that work even 
when towers and power lines have been destroyed.
  Senator Kerry has also been in involved in the interoperability 
discussion, and I believe he will have suggestions as we move forward 
on how to build redundancy into our communications system.
  One of the centerpieces of the legislation is video franchising 
reform. The bill is based largely on legislation introduced by Senator 
Ensign, S. 1504, cosponsored by Senators McCain, Lott, DeMint, and 
Vitter. Senators Smith and Rockefeller introduced a similar measure. 
Consistent with the Inouye/Burns principles, the measure retains local 
franchise involvement, but is based off of the Alaska model which uses 
expedited procedures, consistent with the shot clock principles in the 
Inouye/Burns principles.
  By using a standard application, but preserving the cities' right to 
manage their own rights of way and providing the revenues needed to 
operate their institutional networks as well as their PEG channels, the 
bill seeks to balance the needs of those who want to deploy broadband 
networks for video services and the desires of cities to continue the 
services they offer today. We also sought to address the needs of the 
existing cable companies by offering them the same terms as new 
entrants immediately upon approval of the competitor's franchise 
application. Additionally, a cable company can avail itself of the new 
streamlined rules after its current franchise agreement expires.
  Another issue addressed in the draft bill is access to video content. 
While satellite companies are barred from hoarding exclusive sports 
programming, the so-called terrestrial loophole does not impose the 
same mandate on cable companies. As a result, through acquisition of 
regional sports networks by cable operators, competition with satellite 
providers is stymied. The Sports Freedom Act included in this bill is 
patterned after a provision in the Ensign bill cosponsored by McCain, 
Lott, DeMint, and Vitter.
  Also critical to providing compelling content is the broadcast flag. 
Broadcasters are reluctant to offer their best programming over the air 
for fear it could be stolen and distributed worldwide over the Internet 
with no regard to copyright protection. This has been a critical issue 
for Senator Inouye on the video side and for Senator Frist on the audio 
side. Senators Smith and Boxer took on this issue and developed a draft 
bill which became the basis for the legislation we introduce today. It 
attempted to strike a balance between the needs of broadcasters and the 
desires of the consumer electronic industry not to have the Federal 
Government pick technology winners and losers. While interested parties 
may have suggestions for improving the bill, we believe it is a good 
first step in addressing their concerns. I commend Senators Smith and 
Boxer for their hard work on this issue.
  The measure includes a white space provision modeled after S. 2327, 
the

[[Page 6548]]

Allen-Kerry WIN Act supported by Senators Sununu, Dorgan, and Boxer. It 
adds some protections the broadcasters requested to prevent harmful 
interference by requiring any new device to be tested in an FCC 
certified lab before deployment. The concept of using vacant TV 
channels for broadband deployment through Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and other 
technologies is strongly endorsed by consumer groups and the technology 
community. Also, each can play an important role in bringing broadband 
to rural America.
  The legislation includes guidance on the DTV transition that was not 
possible in the reconciliation bill because of the Byrd rule. Much of 
the language we included is based on a provision Senator Inouye worked 
on to Address consumer education issues. It also includes an 
international coordination element requested by Senator Hutchison to 
address interference on the US-Mexico border that will also benefit 
other border states, such as Alaska, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, 
and Maine. In addition, we have included S. 900, Senator McCain's 
Television Information Enhancement for the visually impaired act which 
Senator Inouye and I cosponsored, along with Senator Smith. That bill 
authorizes an existing FCC rule requiring TV stations to offer some 
video description of television shows so blind listeners will be able 
to follow the action. The existing rule was struck down by the courts 
on the grounds that the FCC lacked authority for such a rule. Today we 
provide them the authority they need. As the son of a father who was 
blind for a period of time, this is an issue of personal interest to 
me.
  Last, but most important to me is universal service reform. Our 
measure is based on a series of bills. The contribution mechanism we 
adopted is based on S. 2256, the Burns USF bill and S. 1583, the Smith-
Dorgan measure which was also cosponsored by Senator Pryor. It allows 
the FCC to adopt a contribution mechanism based on revenues, numbers, 
or connections. Such a step is needed to stabilize this important 
program. it also includes Senator Smith's concept of a separate broad-
band fund to address the needs of unserved areas.
  We have included S. 241, the Snowe-Rockefeller ADA exemption after 
failing in our efforts to work out this issue with the Administration. 
While the Burns and Smith-Dorgan-Pryor bills were the basis for our USF 
title, we also used important concepts from H.R. 5072, the Terry-
Boucher bill, and we applaud them for their leadership in the House and 
thank them for their contribution to this effort. Lastly, we have 
included S. 2378, the Inouye measure that will improve the e-rate 
program for Native Americans. Senators McCain, Dorgan, and I joined in 
cosponsoring that bill.
  This bill includes provisions throughout that will benefit consumers. 
It encourages competition and cost savings in the video market. It 
addresses some critical needs in rural America. And, it encourages 
deployment of broadband so that our Nation can remain competitive.
  This is a comprehensive bill, as indicated by my comments, that we 
have researched. The bill is introduced by every Member of the Senate. 
We are attempting to collate them so we can have one communications act 
for this year. This will be the Communications Act of 2006.
  I urge the Senate to review it. We look forward to having their 
comments.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I have agreed to cosponsor 
telecommunications legislation introduced by Senator Stevens. I do so 
in a spirit of bipartisanship because I believe that bipartisanship 
will be required if we are to successfully update our Nation's 
communications laws. My cosponsorship, however, is not a demonstration 
of support for the bill itself.
  This is the draft of the majority staff, and I have numerous, 
substantive objections to the bill in its current form. Given that my 
colleagues and I have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on this 
critical legislation, I consider its introduction the very beginning of 
the legislative process.
  Now that the majority staff's draft is no longer a secret, we can 
begin a full review of the bill and address the many issues important 
to me and my colleagues. At first glance, some provisions will need to 
be deleted or changed substantially and some issues still need to be 
addressed.
  For example, we cannot ignore concerns about the potential for 
discrimination by network operators, but the draft appears to do just 
that by failing to create enforceable protections that will ensure 
network neutrality. Similarly, I believe that the provisions addressing 
video franchise reform must follow more closely the principles Senator 
Burns and I offered earlier this year. At a time of increasing 
consolidation in the communications industry, it is essential that we 
guarantee rights of interconnection, promote competition, and restrain 
anticompetitive behavior, particularly in markets where the Bell 
Companies continue to have significant market power. The legislation 
must promote the availability of affordable, broadband services and 
extend consumer protections on a competitively neutral basis.
  Again, I recognize and honor the chairman's prerogative to set this 
legislative process into motion. The chairman is aware of my many 
concerns and has assured me that this will be a bipartisan process, and 
the Democrats will be at the table. I look forward to our discussions, 
and I am hopeful that we can develop a final product that everyone on 
our committee can support.

                          ____________________