[Senate Executive Report 105-3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                               Exec. Rpt.
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                      105-3
_______________________________________________________________________


 
   INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION

                                _______
                                

                October 20, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


          Mr. Helms, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,

                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                   [To accompany Treaty Doc. 104-34]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations to which was referred 
the Constitution and Convention of the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU), with Annexes, signed at Geneva 
on December 22, 1992, and amendments to the Constitution and 
Convention, signed at Kyoto on October 14, 1994, together with 
declarations and reservations by the United States as contained 
in the Final Acts, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with two understandings, two declarations, 
and one proviso, and recommends that the Senate give its advice 
and consent to the ratification thereof as set forth in this 
report and the accompanying resolution of ratification.


                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary..........................................................4
 IV. Entry Into Force and Termination................................13
  V. Committee Action................................................13
 VI. Committee Comments..............................................13
VII. Resolution of Ratification......................................15
VIII.Appendix........................................................17


                               I. Purpose

    The Constitution and Convention of the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) are intended to restructure the 
United Nations Telecommunication Union to make it more 
effective in responding to the changes taking place in 
telecommunications. The
Constitution and Convention replace the ITU Convention signed 
in Nairobi in 1982. The 1992 Constitution and Convention 
represent the first basic instruments of the ITU intended to be 
permanent. It establishes in the ITU three sectors--
Radiocommunication Standardization, Telecommunication 
Standardization, and Telecommunication Development--that 
replace the previous permanent organs.

                             II. Background

    The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the 
principal international organization in the area of 
telecommunications, providing a forum for global cooperation 
and coordination and the promotion of more effective and 
efficient use of telecommunications generally. The ITU, which 
has over 180 members, was founded in 1865 and became a 
specialized agency of the United Nations in 1947. The ITU's 
primary missions are:

   managing the radio-frequency spectrum and recording 
        frequencies, and preventing and eliminating harmful 
        interference;
   facilitating worldwide standardization of 
        telecommunications; and
   fostering efforts to provide technical assistance to 
        developing countries with the aim of developing 
        domestic telecommunications infrastructures.

    Originally, the basic instrument of the ITU was its 
Convention, a document that was revised and adopted at the 
conclusion of each ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (normally 
held every 5 years). In 1992, Members agreed not only to 
fundamentally restructure the ITU but also to bifurcate its 
underlying legal document into a Constitution and a Convention 
and to make these two instruments permanent.
    The current effort to restructure the ITU was undertaken in 
the late 1980's in response to significant changes and 
developments in the telecommunications area. In 1989 ITU 
parties appointed a High Level Committee (HLC), of which the 
United States was a member, to examine ways to modernize the 
Union. Its report, titled ``Tomorrow's ITU: The Challenges of 
Change,'' was issued in 1991. Among other things, the HLC cited 
a number of developments as having a significant impact on the 
ITU's ability to carry out its mission and serve its Members. 
As summarized by one commentator, these were:

          (1) the globalization of telecommunication networks 
        and services and the concomitant blurring of the 
        distinction between national and international 
        regulatory regimes; (2) the accelerating pace of 
        technological changes stemming from the convergence of 
        telecommunication and computer technologies and the 
        spawning of new services, products, and user demands 
        therefrom; (3) the increasing importance of the role of 
        telecommunications in the information economy and 
        society; (4) the rising importance of other 
        organizations having authority over telecommunication 
        or telecommunications-related issues; (5) the widening 
        of the development gap between industrialized and 
        developing countries; and (6) the increasingly diverse 
        nature of the participants in Union activities due to 
        the liberalization, privatization and deregulation of 
        telecommunication services, equipment providers and the 
        users for the new services.

    The 1992 Geneva Plenipotentiary Conference, which was 
convened to consider restructuring proposals made by ITU 
Members and contained in the HLC report, recommended that ITU 
Members adopt a new permanent two-instrument Convention that 
would embody the ITU restructuring and allow Plenipotentiary 
Conferences to amend the instruments if necessary. Amendments 
to the Constitution must be approved by 2/3 of the voting 
delegations. The Convention is more amenable to change, 
requiring only a majority vote for amendments.
    The 1992 Constitution and Convention reorganized the ITU by 
creating three new vertical sectors: the Radiocommunication 
Sector, the Telecommunication Standardization Sector, and 
Telecommunication Development Sector. The Radiocommunication 
Sector continues the work of the CCIR and the IFRB; the 
Telecommunications Standardization Sector continues the 
activities of the CCITT and a portion of the CCIR's 
standardization work; the Telecommunication Development Sector 
carries forward the work of the former Telecommunication 
Development Bureau.
    The ITU's supreme organ continues to be the Plenipotentiary 
Conference. Its Administrative Council has been given new 
policy responsibilities and renamed the Council. The General 
Secretariat has been carried forward, given added 
responsibilities and resources, and charged with serving all 
sectors. Administrative conferences are now functions of each 
sector and world conferences on international telecommunication 
are made a part of the ITU's basic structure. The Constitution 
and Convention require that administrative conferences be held 
more frequently and facilitate ITU decision-making, which had 
been governed by consensus voting.
    In general, the restructuring appears to have reconfigured 
what had been considered to be a somewhat unwieldy bureaucracy 
by consolidating the primary activities of the ITU into three 
specific bodies, directly managed by their Directors, with a 
Coordinating Committee (consisting of the Secretary General, 
his or her deputy and the three sectoral Directors) acting as 
an advisory ``internal management team,'' and the Secretary-
General charged with overall administrative and financial 
management of the ITU. Among other changes the Constitution and 
Convention require the use of strategic planning for the 
organization, place the budget on a biennial cycle, and allow 
for increased participation of private sector and international 
organizations in ITU activities.
    The Constitution and Convention were adopted at the 1992 
Geneva Plenipotentiary Conference; several amendments to the 
Constitution and the Convention were later approved at a 
Plenipotentiary Conference at Kyoto in 1994. The Geneva 
Conference agreed that provisions of the new documents 
addressing structure and working methods would go into effect 
provisionally as of March 1, 1993. The Constitution and 
Convention entered into force July 1, 1994 between ITU Members 
who had deposited their instruments of ratification or 
accession before that date. The Kyoto amendments entered into 
force as a whole on January 1, 1996, between those parties to 
the 1992 ITU Constitution and Convention who had deposited the 
necessary instruments before that date.
    Signatory Members that did not deposit an instrument of 
ratification for the Constitution and Convention within two 
years of the date these instruments entered into force are not 
entitled to vote at any ITU conference, Council session, 
sectoral meeting, or consultation by correspondence until an 
instrument of ratification is deposited (Constitution, Art. 
52). Rights other than voting rights are not affected, however. 
The United States signed both instruments when they were first 
open for signature, but the Clinton Administration did not 
transmit the treaties to the Senate for advise and consent to 
ratification until September 1996--two months after the United 
States had lost its vote under ITU rules.

                              III. Summary

      a. constitution of the international telecommunication union

    The Constitution of the International Telecommunications 
Union sets out general principles governing the purpose, basic 
structure and functions of the various organs comprising the 
ITU. As complemented by the ITU Convention, it is the basic 
instrument of the Union, with which all activities must be in 
conformity. The document consists of nine chapters: Basic 
Provisions (Arts. 1-11); Radiocommunication Sector (Arts. 12-
16); Telecommunication Standardization Sector (Arts. 17-20); 
Telecommunication Development Sector (Arts. 21-24); Other 
Provisions Concerning the Functioning of the Union (Arts. 25-
32); General Provisions Relating to Telecommunications (Arts. 
33-43); Special Provisions for Radio (Arts. 44-48); Relations 
With the United Nations, Other International Organizations and 
Non-Member States (Arts. 49-51); and Final Provisions (Arts. 
52-58).

Structural Changes.

    In amending its governing constitution, the 1992 
Plenipotentiary Conference of the ITU significantly revised the 
organizational structure of the body. Most significant, the 
conference divided the principal working organs of the Union 
into three distinct sectors: the Radiocommunication Sector; the 
Telecommunication Standardization Sector and the 
Telecommunication Development Sector.

    Radiocommunication Sector (Articles 12-16) ITU activities 
related to the use of the radiospectrum are now conducted by 
the Radiocommunication Sector, whose primary purpose is to 
``ensure the rational, equitable, efficient and economical use 
of the radiospectrum by all radiocommunication services.'' 
(Article 12) The work of the newly created sector is 
accomplished primarily through world and regional 
radiocommunication conferences which convene to consider 
revisions to the radio regulations and other items related to 
its agenda.
    While the predecessor of the Radiocommunication Sector--the 
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC)--convened to 
conduct business on an ad hoc basis, the world 
radiocommunication conference is required under the 
constitution to convene every two years. (Article 13) Working 
in conjunction with the radiocommunication conferences are the 
``Radiocommunication Assemblies.'' Replacing the function of 
the International Radio Consultative Committees (CCIR), the 
assemblies are primarily responsible for the provision of the 
``technical bases for the work of the [conferences]'', are also 
required to convene every two years ``in place and time'' with 
the radiocommunication conferences. (Article 13)
    Also within the Radiocommunication Sector, the Radio 
Regulations Board assumes the responsibilities of the 
International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB). The 
constitution requires that members of the Board be ``thoroughly 
qualified in the field of radiocommunication . . .,'' and that 
each member be familiar with the ``geographic, economic and 
demographic conditions'' of a particular area of the world. 
(Article 14) While the former IFRB was directly responsible for 
the recordation and registration of frequency assignments, the 
new constitution appears to limit the Board's role to the 
promulgation of rules of procedure, including technical 
criteria to be used by the newly created Radiocommunication 
Bureau in making frequency assignment registrations.

    Telecommunication Standardization Sector (Articles 17-20) 
The Telecommunication Standardization Sector carries out the 
activities of the Union related to telecommunications 
standardization. Essentially, subsuming the responsibilities of 
the former International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative 
Committee, the sector is charged with ``studying technical, 
operating and tariff questions and adopting recommendations on 
them with a view to standardizing telecommunications on a 
worldwide basis.'' (Article 17) Similar to the 
Radiocommunication Sector, much of the work is accomplished 
through world telecommunication standardization conferences, 
which convene every four years. (Article 18) In addition, the 
Sector consists of telecommunication standardization study 
groups and the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau, the 
responsibilities of which are set out in the Convention. 
(Article 19-20)

    Telecommunications Development Sector (Articles 21-24) 
Under its revised constitution, ITU development activities have 
been consolidated into the Telecommunications Development 
Sector. In addition to fulfilling the purposes of the Union 
with regard to telecommunications development, the Sector is 
charged with carrying out the Union's dual role as the United 
Nations' Specialized Agency for telecommunication and the 
``executing agency'' for implementing UN development projects. 
(Article 21) Sector activities are carried out through world 
and regional telecommunication development conferences, study 
groups and the Telecommunication Development Bureau. (Article 
22) World development conferences are to be convened every four 
years, between Plenipotentiary Conferences, to produce 
conclusions which take the form of ``resolutions, decisions, 
recommendations or reports.'' (Article 22) Regional development 
conferences are convened ``subject to resources and 
priorities.'' (Article 22) The specific duties of the world and 
regional telecommunication development conferences, as well as 
the study groups and the Telecommunication Development Bureau 
are set out in the Convention. (Articles 23-24)

    Other Structural Changes In addition to the permanent 
sectors, the constitution authorizes world conferences on 
international telecommunications which may revise the 
international telecommunications regulations and deal with 
telecommunications questions of a worldwide character. (Article 
25)
    A number of modifications were also made with respect to 
operating procedures and responsibilities of ITU leadership. 
For instance, Plenipotentiary Conferences, formerly convened 
every five years, are now required to be held every four. 
Moreover, additional authority has been provided to the 
Administrative Council, renamed ``the Council'', to ``consider 
broad telecommunications policy issues,'' an area in which it 
historically has not played a major role.

Constitutional Amendment Process.

    Provisions were also added governing the process of 
constitutional amendment. Under Article 55, proposed amendments 
to the constitution must ``reach'' the Secretary-General no 
later than eight months prior to the scheduled opening date of 
the next Plenipotentiary Conference. Upon receipt of the 
proposed amendment, the Secretary-General is required to 
forward the proposal to Union Members no later than six months 
prior to the opening date. A quorum of one-half of the 
delegations accredited to the Plenipotentiary Conference and 
approval by at least two thirds of such delegations, which have 
the right to vote, is required for consideration and adoption 
of a constitutional amendment.
    Amendments adopted at the Plenipotentiary Conference are 
entered into force at a date determined by the conference and 
are subsequently subjected to the process of ratification, 
acceptance, approval and accession normally applicable to the 
constitution as a whole. Under this process, signatory Members 
of the Union have two years from the date of entry into force 
to ratify the constitution (or amendment) in accordance with 
the Member's own constitutional rules. At the end of the two 
year period, Members that have not submitted an instrument of 
ratification to the Secretary-General lose all voting rights 
until the instrument has been so submitted.

       b. convention of the international telecommunication union

    The Convention of the International Telecommunications 
Union builds on the ITU Constitution and generally addresses 
the functional and procedural matters that were contained in 
the second part of earlier conventions titled ``General 
Regulations.'' It consists of six chapters: Functioning of the 
Union (Arts. 1-22); General Provisions Regarding Conferences 
(Arts. 23-25); Rules of Procedure (Art. 32); Other Procedures 
(Arts. 33-35); Various Provisions Related to the Operation of 
Telecommunication Services (Arts. 36-40); and Arbitration and 
Amendment (Arts. 41-42). Key provisions are highlighted below.

ITU Conferences.

    The Convention expands on Constitution provisions that 
place ITU administrative conferences on a regular schedule, 
making clear that between Plenipotentiary Conferences the 
following will take place: two world radiocommunications 
conferences, one world telecommunication standardization 
conference, one world telecommunications development conference 
and two radiocommunication assemblies, associated in time and 
place with the world radiocommunication conference (Article 3). 
It also provides a process for canceling one world 
radiocommunication conference and adding a standardization 
conference (Article 3). World telecommunication conferences, 
which may revise the International Telecommunications 
Regulations and deal with any other relevant global issue in 
the area, may be held if so decided by a Plenipotentiary 
Conference (Article 3). These will be subject to conference 
procedures applicable to radiocommunication conferences 
(Article 3).

Radiocommunication Sector.

    The Convention elaborates on the activities of the six 
entities that compose the Radiocommunication Sector: the world 
radiocommunication conference, the radiocommunication 
assemblies, the regional radiocommunication conferences, and 
the Radio Regulations Board, and the radiocommunication study 
groups, and the Radiocommunication Bureau (Articles 7-12). The 
major activities of this sector are the allocation of 
terrestrial radio spectrums (the complete range of frequencies 
of electromagnetic radiation useful in radio communication), 
and the allocation of satellite orbital positions.
    The Convention places world radiocommunication conferences, 
which are normally to be convened every two years, on a four-
year planning cycle, requiring each conference to submit agenda 
items to the Council for a period of this length (Article 7). 
The general scope of the agenda is to be decided four years 
before the conference, with the final agenda to be approved by 
the Council two years in advance with a concurrence of a 
majority of Members (Article 7). Radiocommunication assemblies, 
which provide the technical work for world conferences, 
consider and issue recommendations on questions adopted under 
their own procedures as well as questions referred to them by 
the Plenipotentiary Conference, any other conference, the 
Council or the Radio Regulation Board (Article 8). Regional 
radiocommunication conferences may deal only with questions of 
a regional nature and may not consider non-agenda items 
(Article 9). Agendas are drawn up and adopted pursuant to the 
procedures in place for world radiocommunication conferences 
(Article 9).
    The Convention increases the membership of the Radio 
Regulation Board (formerly the International Frequency 
Registration Board) from 5 to 9 Members, though the Board now 
operates on a part-time basis due to the increasingly routine 
nature of its work (Article 10; Constitution, Article 14). 
Members are elected by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Article 
10). In addition to duties listed in the Convention, the Board 
considers reports from the Director of the Radiocommunication 
Bureau on investigations of harmful interference carried out at 
the request of one or more of the interested administrations of 
Members of the Union and formulates recommendations as to these 
matters (Article 10). The Board normally convenes four meetings 
a year, at which at least two-thirds of its Members are to be 
present, and may carry out its duties using ``modern means of 
communication.'' Board decisions should normally be unanimous, 
but if this fails, decisions may be made by (and only by) a 
two-thirds vote of the Board (Article 10).
    The Convention sets forth the duties of the 
radiocommunication study groups, which are set up by 
radiocommunication assemblies (Article 11). These groups study 
the spectrum use, characteristics and performance of radio 
systems, operations of radio systems, and radiocommunication 
aspects of distress and safety matters, but do not generally 
address economic matters unless this issue arises in the 
consideration of technical alternatives (Article 11). 
Recommendations are submitted to radiocommunication assemblies 
for adoption but may also be adopted by national 
administrations in the interim (Article 11). The Convention 
contemplates cooperative activities with other 
telecommunication organizations and with the work of other ITU 
sectors (Article 11).
    The Convention spells out the functions of the 
Radiocommunication Bureau, which organizes and coordinates the 
work of the Sector (Article 12). Bureau functions include, 
inter alia, undertaking preparatory activities for 
radiocommunication conferences; supporting the work of the 
Radio Regulation Board; coordinating and organizing of the work 
of study groups; carrying out studies as to the maximum 
practical number of radio channels with the aim of eliminating 
harmful interference and attaining equitable and effective use 
of the geostationary-satellite orbit; and providing technical 
support to the Telecommunication Development Sector (Article 
12).

Telecommunication Standardization Sector.

    The Convention details the activities and functions of the 
Telecommunication Standardization Sector, which consists of 
three bodies: the world telecommunication standardization 
conference, telecommunication standardization study groups, and 
the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (Articles 13-15). 
World telecommunication standardization conferences consider 
the reports of study groups and approve, modify, or reject 
recommendations contained therein; approve work programs 
arising from existing and new questions; decide, on the basis 
of these work programs, whether to maintain, terminate or 
create study groups, and allocate work to them; group questions 
of interest to developing countries to facilitate their 
participation in work programs (Article 13). This sector is 
primarily responsible for the adoption of standards for 
telecommunications equipment and systems.
    Telecommunication standardization study groups study and 
prepare recommendations which may be approved by world 
conferences or by administrations in the interim (Article 14). 
They are charged with studying technical, operating and tariff 
questions and prepare recommendations with a view to worldwide 
telecommunication standardization (Article 14). This work and 
the technical work of radiocommunication study groups is to be 
kept under regular review by the Telecommunication 
Standardization and Radiocommunication Sectors with a view to 
reaching common agreement on changes in the distribution of 
matters under study (Article 14). Study groups are also charged 
with paying ``due attention'' to matters dealing with 
telecommunication infrastructures in developing countries and 
to cooperate with other national, regional, and international 
standardization organizations working in the area, all the 
while maintaining the ITU's primary global role in 
telecommunication standardization (Article 14). As with the 
Radiocommunication Sector, the Convention contemplates 
cooperative activities with other telecommunication 
organizations and with the work of other ITU sectors (Article 
14).

Telecommunication Development Sector.

    The duties and functions of the three components of the 
Telecommunication Development Sector--the telecommunication 
development conferences, telecommunication development study 
groups, and the Telecommunication Development Bureau and 
Advisory Board--are set forth in Articles 16-18 of the 
Convention. Telecommunication development conferences serve as 
a forum for the study of issues related to telecommunication 
development, fix objectives and strategies aimed at a balance 
in global and regional development of telecommunications and, 
at the world level, establish work programs and guidelines for 
defining telecommunications questions and priorities, provide 
guidance and direction for the sectoral work program, and set 
up study groups, as necessary (Article 16).
    Study groups, which are limited in number and created for 
limited periods of time, have specific terms of reference 
related to specific telecommunication questions of general 
interest to developing countries (Article 17). Matters under 
study are to be kept under continuing review by each of the 
three sectors with the aim of agreeing on work distribution so 
as to avoid duplication and promote inter-sectoral coordination 
(Article 17).
    The Telecommunication Development Bureau organizes and 
coordinates the work of the Sector, providing it with 
administrative and technical support for the sector and working 
with other elected ITU officials to strengthen ``the Union's 
catalytic role in stimulating telecommunications development'' 
(Article 18).
    The Convention also establishes a Telecommunication 
Development Advisory Board, appointed by the Sector Director in 
consultation with the Secretary-General (Article 18). It is to 
be ``composed of persons with a wide and equitable cross-
section of interests and expertise in telecommunication 
development'' and has the task of ``advis[ing] the Director, 
who shall participate in its meetings, on priorities and 
strategies in the Union's telecommunication development 
activities ...[and] inter alia, recommend[ing] steps to foster 
cooperation and coordination with other organization interested 
in telecommunication development'' (Article 18).

Council.

    As amended by the 1994 Kyoto Amendments, the Convention 
provides that the number of Members of the ITU Council is to be 
decided by each Plenipotentiary Conference and may constitute 
no more than 25 percent of the total number of ITU Members 
(Article 4, as amended). As it does now, the Council is to hold 
an annual (``ordinary'') session at the seat of the Union and, 
if needed, may at that time decide to hold an additional 
session (Article 4). Along with its current functions, the 
Council must annually consider the Secretary-General's 
strategic policy and planning report and take appropriate 
action (Article 4). In the interval between Plenipotentiary 
Conferences, the Council supervises the overall management and 
administration of the ITU. Unlike the earlier Convention, the 
1992 Convention sets forth a procedure for the election of 
Council members where a vacant seat cannot be automatically 
filled (Article 2).

General Secretariat.

    The Convention details the specific functions of the 
Secretary-General of the ITU (Article 3). Added to the 
functions set forth in earlier Conventions (including 
preparation of the draft budget), the Secretary-General is 
responsible for the overall management of the Union's 
resources, coordinates the activities of the General 
Secretariat and the three new Sectors, prepares an annual 
strategic planning report for the ITU Council, and undertakes 
additional tasks supporting the work of sectors.

Coordination Committee.

    As did the ``General Regulations'' of earlier Conventions, 
the 1992 Convention elaborates on the tasks assigned to the 
Coordination Committee in the Constitution and sets forth 
general Committee procedures (Article 6). The Convention gives 
the Committee specific responsibility to ensure coordination 
with the United Nations and other international organizations 
with telecommunications-related interests as to ITU 
representation at their meeting and to examine the progress of 
the ITU and assist the Secretary-General in preparing his 
strategy report (Article 6). As now, the Committee is to reach 
conclusions unanimously, and absent a majority support, the 
Chairman may take decisions on urgent matters (Article 6). The 
Convention continues the current practice of convening monthly 
meetings (Article 6).

Budget.

    In contrast to former Conventions, the 1992 Convention 
places the ITU on a biennial, rather than annual, budget cycle 
(Articles 4-5). As in the past, the budget is to be prepared by 
the Secretary-General (in consultation with the Coordinating 
Committee) and reviewed and approved by the ITU Council. The 
budget is to be based on a 4-year budget ceiling determined at 
each Plenipotentiary Conference (Constitution, Article 8). 
While prior Conventions required the Plenipotentiary Conference 
to establish a ``fiscal limit'' for the period between 
conferences, the 1992 Constitution uses the term ``ceiling'' 
and newly requires that the Conference's budget decision be 
based in part on the Council's strategic policy and planning 
recommendations (Constitution, Article 8).
    In making its budget decisions, the Council must take into 
account the views of the Coordinating Committee submitted to 
the Secretary General for incorporation into his annual 
strategic policy and planning report, as well as the 
Secretariat's annual financial operating report (Article 4). 
The Council must also consider a two-year budget forecast for 
the period following the approval of any budget based on the 
actions of the Plenipotentiary Conference and the above-
described views and reports (Article 4).
    Under the 1992 Convention, the Secretary General must 
prepare a consolidated budget, including cost-based budgets for 
each of the three Sectors prepared in accordance with the 
Secretary General's budget guidelines (Article 5). As is the 
current requirement, the Secretary must prepare two budgets: 
one for zero growth of the contributory limit, and the second 
for growth less than or equal to any limit fixed by the 
Plenipotentiary Council after any drawing on the ITU Reserve 
Account (Article 5).
    The United States is assessed 8.274 percent of the ITU 
budget (the equivalent of 30 ``units'' under the ITU assessment 
structure). Under this formula the United States pays about 
$8.5 million per year to the organization. Contributions the 
U.S. and other nations make to development organizations such 
as the United Nations Development Program also are transferred 
to the ITU for development activities. In addition, private 
sector members pay dues to the ITU. A private sector member 
must give a minimum of $35,000 for membership in the ITU. 
Together, all U.S. private sector members pay about 8 percent 
of the ITU budget. Unlike most other U.N. organizations, the 
ITU also assesses interest penalties and revenue generating 
activities to offset budget shortfalls.

Increased participation of private sector groups.

    The increasing number of non-state actors in the 
telecommunications field has led the ITU to allow these 
organizations to play a greater role in ITU activities in order 
to better fulfill the Union's international coordinating 
mission. In the past, recognized private operating agencies 
(RPOAs) and scientific or industrial organizations (SIOs) had 
participated in ITU activities along with national 
telecommunications administrations. In addition, prior 
Conventions allowed certain non-Members to attend ITU 
conferences as observers.
    The 1992 Convention now recognizes an even greater role for 
non-governmental organizations, allowing three specific 
categories of entities to participate in the work of ITU 
sectors. These are: (1) recognized operating agencies, 
scientific or industrial organizations 1 and 
financial or development institutions that are approved by the 
Member concerned; (2) other entities dealing with 
telecommunication matters that are approved by the Member 
concerned; and (3) regional and other international 
telecommunication, standardization, financial or development 
organizations (Article 19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The term ``scientific or industrial organization'' is defined 
as ``[a]ny organization, other than a governmental establishment or 
agency, which is engaged in the study of telecommunication problems or 
in the design or manufacture of equipment intended for 
telecommunication services.'' Convention, Annex (para. 1004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Requests from an entity in the first category approved by 
the Member concerned need only be forwarded to the Secretary 
General; requests from entities in the second category 
submitted by the Member concerned are handled under procedures 
established by the Council and are reviewed for conformity with 
that procedure. Requests from entities in the third category 
are submitted to the Secretary General and acted upon by the 
Council. In addition, agencies that have been invited to 
participate in ITU Plenipotentiary Conferences in the past (the 
United Nations, regional telecommunication organizations, 
intergovernmental organizations operating satellite systems, 
and specialized agencies of the U.N. and the International 
Atomic Energy Agency) may also submit requests to participate 
in the work of sectors, which requests are to be sent to the 
Secretary General. Entities in the three categories listed 
earlier, as well as international organizations representing 
them, may also be invited as observers to Plenipotentiary 
Conferences (Article 23, as amended).
    All organizations authorized to participate in sectoral 
work are referred to as ``members'' of the sector involved. 
While these entities do not have the rights and obligations 
generally pertaining to ITU Members, they must share in 
defraying the expenses of the conferences or sectors in which 
they are involved pursuant to formulas set forth in the 
Convention (Article 33, as amended).
    The Convention's Rules of Procedure allow the press and the 
public, to the extent practicable, to attend ITU conferences in 
accordance with ITU guidelines and the practical arrangements 
made by the Secretary-General; they may not attend other ITU 
meetings, however, unless the meeting in question decides 
otherwise (Article 32, para. 23).
    While neither the Convention nor the Constitution 
specifically provide for Advisory Groups on Radiocommunications 
and Standardization Sectors, the 1992 Plenipotentiary 
Conference adopted a resolution encouraging the establishment 
of such groups which would provide outside advice to the 
sectors. Advisory Groups consist of ``government 
representatives, Study Group chairpersons, Recognized Private 
Operating Agencies (RPOAs), Scientific or Industrial 
Organizations (SFOs), and are chaired by the Sector Director.''
    A Radiocommunication Advisory Group and a 
Telecommunications Standardization Advisory Group have since 
been created. The former is directed to ``review the priorities 
and strategies adopted in the Sector, monitor progress of the 
work of the Study Groups, provide guidance for the work of the 
Study Groups, [and] recommend measures for fostering 
cooperation and coordination with the other ITU Sectors'' and 
provides advice to the Director of the Radiocommunications 
Bureau on these issues. As noted earlier, the Convention 
established a Telecommunications Development Advisory Board, 
which generally carries out the types of activities undertaken 
by the Advisory Groups described above (Article 18).

Amendments.

    As it is now a permanent ITU instrument, the 1992 
Convention contains provisions and procedures for amendments 
(Article 42). Amendments may only be adopted by an ITU 
Plenipotentiary Conference. Proposed amendments, which may be 
initiated by any ITU Member, must be submitted to the ITU 
Secretary-General at least 8 months before the Conference is 
scheduled to begin. Modifications may be submitted at the 
Conference by a Member or its delegation at any time. To be 
adopted, proposed modifications, or the proposed amendments as 
a whole, require a majority vote of accredited delegations that 
have the right to vote.
    This procedure creates a less onerous approval requirement 
than that for the ITU Constitution, which requires a two-third 
vote. Adopted amendments, which are to be contained in a single 
amending instrument, enter into force at a date fixed by the 
Conference between Members having deposited their instruments 
of ratification for the Constitution and Convention and the 
amending instrument before that date (Article 42). Ratification 
after that date take effect on the date the instrument of 
ratification is deposited with the Secretary- General (Article 
42).

                  IV. Entry Into Force and Termination

                          a. entry into force

    The Constitution and Convention entered into force on July 
1, 1994 between Members that deposited their instruments of 
ratification (Article 58), replacing the 1982 ITU Convention. 
For the United States, the Constitution and Convention will 
enter into force upon the date of deposit of the U.S. 
instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General of the 
United Nations (Article 53).

                             b. termination

    Any party, including the United States, may withdraw from 
the treaty by so notifying the Secretary General of the United 
Nations in writing. Upon such notice, withdrawal shall take 
effect one year from the date of receipt of such notification.

                          V. Committee Action

    The Committee on Foreign Relations held a public hearing on 
the proposed treaty on September 17, 1997. The hearing was 
chaired by Senator Rod Grams. The Committee considered the 
proposed treaty on October 8, 1997, and ordered the proposed 
treaty favorably reported with two understandings, two 
declarations, and one proviso by voice vote, with the 
recommendation that the Senate give its advice and consent to 
the ratification of the proposed treaty.

                         VI. Committee Comments

    The United States international telecommunications industry 
has grown during the past several years to make the United 
States the leading provider and consumer of telecommunications 
goods and services. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. trade surplus in 
telecommunications equipment amounted to $3.62 billion--a 4.3 
percent growth over the previous year. In all the United States 
telecommunications industry generated $63.7 billion in 1996 
according to the Telecommunications Industry Association.
    In light of the importance of the global telecommunications 
market to U.S. economic interests the Committee supports the 
continued active participation of the United States in the 
International Telecommunication Union. The Committee favorably 
recommends the Senate's ratification of the ITU Constitution 
and Convention and thereby supports the important restructuring 
of the ITU established by the Constitution and Convention.
    Specifically, the restructured ITU Constitution and 
Convention will enhance the role of the private sector and the 
ability of the organization to react to changing needs of the 
telecommunication industry. The Constitution and Convention 
regularize the scheduled meetings of the radiocommunication 
sector, so that world radio conferences are held every two 
years to consider changes to international radio regulations. 
The new Convention also expands the list of private sector 
entities authorized to participate in the ITU sectors, and 
expands their role in these sectors through advisory groups. 
The Administration testified that the new procedures for rapid 
consideration and adoption of recommended standards under the 
Convention should enable the United States to forward global 
standards for the products and services of U.S. companies in 
about half the time previously required.
    Given the efforts to reform and streamline international 
organizations, the Committee is encouraged by the efforts of 
the ITU to place the budget on a biennial cycle, to require the 
use of strategic planning, and to allow for increased private 
sector participation in the ITU's activities. The Committee 
believes that such a system forces an organization to be both 
more accountable and more responsive to its contributors. Such 
a system creates an incentive for high performance since 
without a continued level of support from the parties, 
organizations that rely on voluntary funding will be unable to 
sustain themselves.
    The resolution of ratification approved by the Committee 
reaffirms, and thereby highlights, the U.S. understanding with 
regard to two important declarations it made to the Final Acts 
of the Constitution and Convention. The first, regarding Cuba, 
affirms U.S. rights to broadcast to Cuba free of jamming or 
other interference, to address interference by Cuba, and to 
meet radio communication requirements in the U.S. base in 
Guantanamo. The second makes clear that Article 44 of the 
Constitution does not grant any sovereign rights over segments 
of the geostationary orbit, nor does any country have 
preferential rights over any such segment.
    The proposed resolution of ratification makes clear the 
Committee's opposition to Article 33(3) of the Constitution, 
which permits the ITU to levy interest on late payment of 
contributions. The declaration requires that the Administration 
seek to amend Article 33(3) of the ITU Convention to eliminate 
the ITU's authority to impose interest payments on ITU members. 
In addition the declaration restates U.S. appropriation law 
with regard to funding of international organizations--that is, 
payments by the United States to the International 
Telecommunication Union are limited to contributions 
appropriated by Congress. This provision does not apply to 
United States payments voluntarily made for a specific purpose, 
such as funding of the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference of the 
ITU in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    The Committee also notes that although the United States 
signed the Constitution and Convention in 1992 and its 
amendments in 1994, the Administration failed to submit these 
documents to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification 
until 1996--two months after the United States lost its right 
to vote under ITU rules. Given the importance of the 
telecommunication industry to the United States, the Committee 
is concerned by the Administration's inexplicable delay in 
submission of this treaty for advice and consent.
    Finally, the Committee notes that the United States will 
host the 1998 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference next fall in 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. This is the first international 
conference to be held in the United States in 50 years. The 
last two such conferences were held in France and Japan--two of 
the most significant competitors to the United States in this 
area. The Committee anticipates that the 1998 Plenipotentiary 
Conference will provide an opportunity for the United States to 
showcase U.S. telecommunications technology and areas for 
future development. Ratification of the Constitution and 
Convention is essential to making the United States a full 
voting member prior to the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference.

                    VII. Resolution of Ratification

    Resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the 
ratification of the Constitution and Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), with Annexes, 
signed at Geneva on December 22, 1992, and Amendments to the 
Constitution and Convention, signed at Kyoto on October 14, 
1994, together with Declarations and Reservations by the United 
States contained in the Final Acts (Treaty Doc. 104-34), 
subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 68, 73 and 82 of 
the 1992 Final Acts; declarations and reservations Nos. 84, 92, 
97, and 98 of the 1994 Final Acts; and the understandings of 
subsection (a), the declarations of subsection (b), and the 
proviso of subsection (c).

    (a) UNDERSTANDINGS.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following two understandings, which shall be 
included in the instrument of ratification, and shall be 
binding on the President:

          (1) BROADCASTS TO CUBA.--The United States of 
        America, noting the Statement (No. 40) entered by the 
        delegation of Cuba during the Plenipotentiary 
        Conference of the International Telecommunication 
        Union, in Kyoto Japan, affirms its rights to broadcast 
        to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or 
        other wrongful interference and reserves its rights to 
        address existing interference and any future 
        interference, by Cuba with United States broadcasting. 
        Furthermore, the United States of America notes that 
        its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an 
        international agreement presently in force; the United 
        States of America reserves the right to meet its radio 
        communication requirements there as heretofore.
          (2) GEOSTATIONARY-SATELLITE ORBITS.--The United 
        States understands that the reference in Article 44 of 
        the Constitution to the ``geographical situation of 
        particular countries'' does not imply a recognition of 
        claim to any preferential rights to the geostationary-
        satellite orbit.

    (b) DECLARATIONS.--The Senate's advice and consent is 
subject to the following two declarations, which shall be 
binding on the President:

          (1) ASSESSED PAYMENTS TO THE UNITED NATIONS 
        INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION.--Payments by the 
        United States to the International Telecommunication 
        Union shall be limited to assessed contributions, 
        appropriated by Congress. This provision does not apply 
        to United States payments voluntarily made for a 
        specific purpose other than the payment of assessed 
        contributions. The United States shall seek to amend 
        Article 33(3) of the ITU Convention to eliminate the 
        ITU's authority to impose interest payments on ITU 
        members.
          (2) TREATY INTERPRETATION.--The Senate affirms the 
        applicability to all treaties of the constitutionally 
        based principles of treaty interpretation set forth in 
        Condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988, and 
        Condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the 
        Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty 
        on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, approved by the 
        Senate on May 14, 1997.

    (c) PROVISO.--The Senate's resolution of ratification is 
subject to the following proviso, which shall be binding on the 
President:

          (1) SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.--Nothing in the 
        Treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other 
        action by the United States of America that is 
        prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as 
        interpreted by the United States.


                            A P P E N D I X

                 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

                      CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION

                          (TREATY DOC. 104-34)



                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________

                           September 17, 1997

                                                                   Page
Fisher, David F., Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate 
  Secretary, ADC Telecommunications, Incorporated, Minneapolis, 
  Minnesota......................................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
Levin, Lon C., Vice President, American Mobile Satellite 
  Corporation and President, American Mobile Radio Corporation, 
  Reston, Virginia...............................................    41
    Prepared statement...........................................    43
McCann, Hon. Vonya, Coordinator for International Communications 
  and Information Policy, U.S. Department of State...............    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    24

                                Appendix

Letter from Barbara Larkin, Department of State, to Chairman 
  Helms..........................................................    53
Responses of Ambassador McCann to Questions asked by Senator 
  Helms..........................................................    53



   INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION 
                          (TREATY DOC 104-34)

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rod Grams 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Grams.
    Senator Grams. Good morning. This hearing will now come to 
order. I just wanted to make a few brief comments this morning 
and then, Ambassador, we will hear your opening remarks as 
well.
    Today, as you know, the committee will consider the 
Constitution and Convention of the International 
Telecommunication Union, or the ITU, with Annexes and the 1994 
Amendments to the Constitution and Convention, as well, 
together with Declarations made by the United States in the 
Final Acts.
    In a few moments we will hear testimony from our 
representatives of the State Department and also from the 
private sector involved in the work of the ITU.
    In our global economy, the telecommunication services 
industry has become one of the fastest growing areas of 
economic activity. Private sector innovation and technological 
developments have enabled the United States to become a leader 
in the international telecommunications arena. The United 
States is one of the leading providers and consumers of 
telecommunication goods and services and with an increasing 
number of countries liberalizing and deregulating the markets, 
business opportunities for U.S. corporations continue to 
increase.
    I strongly believe that it is in the national security, 
economic, and commercial interests of the United States to work 
with other countries in a manner that promotes the rational use 
of telecommunication services, that helps to encourage 
technological advancement and also helps to insure competition 
in the telecommunications industry.
    As the United Nations' specialized agency for 
telecommunications, the ITU is a critical component of our 
effort in fulfilling this responsibility. However, the active 
participation of the United States in the ITU has been 
threatened by our country's failure to, so far, ratify the ITU 
Constitution and Convention that was adopted in Geneva in 1992.
    Now under the ITU Constitution, signatory members who did 
not deposit an instrument of ratification for the Constitution 
and Convention within 2 years of these instruments entering 
into force are not entitled to vote at any ITU conference, 
council session, sectoral meeting or consultation by 
correspondents until an instrument of ratification is 
deposited.
    Although the United States signed these instruments when 
they were first opened for signature, the administration failed 
to submit this treaty document to the Senate for ratification 
until 2 months after the U.S. had lost its right to vote under 
the ITU rules.
    The activities of the ITU are of growing importance to the 
United States' telecommunication industry, and further delay in 
consideration of this treaty jeopardizes billions of dollars in 
business opportunities for U.S. telecommunications companies.
    Now as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Subcommittee on International Operations, I have had the 
opportunity to work to institute reforms within the operation 
of the U.N. I am also encouraged by the proposed restructuring 
of the ITU and the adoption of reforms, such as placing the 
budget on a biennial budget cycle, requiring the use of 
strategic planning and allowing for increased participation of 
private sector and international organizations in the ITU 
activities. These changes were proposed in order to respond to 
the changing telecommunications industry.
    It will also help the ITU to fulfill its purpose as the 
principal global forum for telecommunications standardization, 
for the management and use of the radio spectrum, and for also 
promoting and for offering technical assistance in the field of 
telecommunications to developing countries.
    The United States was one of the 21 member States that 
developed many of these reform proposals and I am confident 
that our interest in maintaining our leading role in the global 
telecommunications arena has been preserved by these 
recommendations.
    The United States has also been granted the great honor of 
hosting the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference next fall in 
Minneapolis. This is the first international conference to be 
held in the United States in 50 years. Its importance cannot be 
underestimated since the most critical issue concerning the 
mission and the purpose of the ITU are determined during the 
conference.
    In recent years, these conferences have been hosted by two 
of the United States' most significant competitors in 
telecommunications technology and development, those being 
France and Japan. The conference will allow the U.S. to 
emphasize its leadership within the telecommunications 
industry. It will also help to showcase American technology to 
dignitaries from over 180 member States and also 363 private 
sector companies and organizations that have expressed an 
interest in telecommunications issues.
    Also, as an honorary co-chair of the conference, I am 
confident that the commitment shown by our Government, by our 
private sector, and by the ITU Host Committee toward the 
conference demonstrates the importance that the United States 
places upon remaining active in transforming this industry.
    So as we approach the 21st Century, the boundaries between 
the United States and other industrialized countries have 
become blurred by the rapidly changing nature of the 
telecommunications industry. It is necessary, I believe, for 
all parties involved in this environment to have a forum to 
discuss the complex policies and strategies that are so vital 
to their telecommunications infrastructure.
    So I look forward to the testimony from this morning's 
witnesses as to whether this treaty package is the appropriate 
vehicle with which we try to achieve these goals.
    With that, I would like now to turn this over to our first 
witness.
    Again, Ambassador, welcome. Thank you very much for your 
time to be here this morning. We look forward to your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF HON. VONYA McCANN, COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL 
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Ambassador McCann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I cannot tell you how pleased I am to be here this morning 
to testify in support of the ratification of the Constitution 
and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, or 
the ITU, and to urge the Senate's advice and consent to 
ratification by the President.
    The treaty under consideration establishes the framework 
for the work of the ITU, the specialized agency for 
telecommunications matters. The ITU is a unique organization, 
dating back from 1965, when European countries saw a need to 
work together to facilitate telegraphic communications across 
their boarders.
    Today, the ITU is involved in every phase of global 
telecommunications. It is the principal forum for 
telecommunications standardization activities, for management 
and use of the radio spectrum, and for promoting and offering 
technical assistance in the field of telecommunications to 
developing countries.
    Its 187 member countries work to maintain international 
cooperation for the improvement and rational use of all types 
of telecommunications services.
    Among United Nations agencies, the ITU is unusual in that, 
although it is an intergovernmental organization, it provides 
for extensive, direct participation by various nongovernmental 
entities, including private companies, in most of its 
activities.
    This feature is particularly vital to U.S. interests in 
view of our complete reliance on the private sector for the 
provision of telecommunications networks and services on both 
national and international levels.
    Approximately 90 U.S. companies have chosen to become 
sector members of the ITU. Those companies, which are world 
leaders in communications technologies and services, have a 
profound influence on ITU activities.
    At the Department of State, my responsibility is to 
coordinate our overall relations with and participation in the 
activities of the ITU. This includes the presentation of U.S. 
proposals to the ITU and its members, development of strategies 
and positions related to conference issues, and the assembly of 
well qualified delegations to carry out the complex and highly 
technical negotiations.
    The Department is assisted in detailed preparations for the 
ITU conferences by the Federal Communications Commission, which 
is responsible for nongovernmental telecommunications, and the 
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, which is responsible for 
governmental telecommunications, and various other U.S. 
Government departments and agencies, including the Department 
of Defense.
    One important advantage of this extensive national effort 
is that it insures that the United States is well prepared for 
the conference negotiations and implementation of their 
results. The national preparatory process provides interest 
groups and members of the public with the opportunity to 
express themselves at each stage of the process, from the 
initial conception of ideas to the eventual adoption of 
national regulations.
    Currently, this national effort is underway as we prepare 
for the ITU's World Radio Conference, or WRC-97, which will be 
held in Geneva from October 27 to November 21. At WRC-97, the 
world's radio experts will gather to decide on international 
frequency spectrum and satellite orbital allocations, which 
will influence radio-based communications services well into 
the next century.
    Hundreds of U.S. Government and private sector 
representatives have been preparing for this conference for 
nearly 2 years. As the world leader in innovative radio and 
satellite based technologies, the United States has a 
significant stake in the outcome of this important conference.
    As you noted, as of July 1, 1996, only those countries 
which have ratified the 1992 Constitution and Convention are 
entitled to vote in the ITU. By becoming a party to this 
treaty, the United States will be able to play a full, active 
and leadership role in WRC-97. It also will convey our 
continuing commitment to and strong support for the mission of 
the ITU. There is uniform support for the U.S. becoming a party 
to this treaty, subject to the reservations described in the 
reports of the Secretary of State.
    I will give only a very brief summary of some of the 
important provisions of this treaty.
    The 1992 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference was convened to 
consider proposals by ITU member countries concerning the 
restructuring of the ITU. The 1992 conference decided to 
recommend that the ITU adopt full texts of a new Constitution 
and Convention, one that could be amended as necessary by 
future plenipotentiary conferences.
    The 1992 Constitution and Convention are intended to enable 
the ITU to enter the 21st Century as an effective international 
telecommunications policy and spectrum allocation organization. 
They restructure the ITU by establishing three sectors--
radiocommunications, telecommunication standardization, and 
telecommunications development--which replace the ITU's 
previous permanent organs.
    Each sector is headed by a director who is elected by the 
member countries at plenipotentiary conferences. As you noted, 
the next conference will be held in the fall of 1998, and 
hosted by the United States in your home State of Minnesota.
    Chapter II of the Constitution covers the radio 
communication sector. It replaces the World Administrative 
Radio Conferences which were convened on an ad hoc basis to 
consider changes to the international radio regulations with 
world radio conferences, WRC's, which now are held every 2 
years.
    Chapter III of the Constitution addresses the 
telecommunication standardization sector. It changes the name 
and mandate of the conferences for this sector to reflect the 
fact that the sector deals with a broad range of rapidly 
evolving telecommunications services over both the public 
switched network and private lines, as well as issues such as 
international numbering plans and international settlement of 
accounts.
    Chapter VI of the Constitution covers the telecommunication 
development sector, which is intended to facilitate and enhance 
telecommunications development. The conference decided that the 
World Telecommunication Development Conference will be held 
every 4 years and that the frequency of regional conferences 
will depend on the availability of resources and need.
    The next World Telecommunication Development Conference 
will be held in Malta next year.
    The convention expands the list of private sector entities 
authorized to participate in the world of the ITU sectors to 
include scientific and technical organizations, financial or 
development institutions, and other entities dealing with 
telecommunications matters. Additionally, to further enhance 
the participation of those entities and to provide them with a 
role in determining the priorities of the study groups in the 
radio and telecommunication standardization sectors, the 
convention establishes advisory groups for the two sectors.
    The 1992 Constitution and Convention also makes significant 
changes to the management of the ITU. Those changes are 
designed to increase its effectiveness and responsiveness.
    For example, new procedures were added to permit rapid 
consideration and adoption of recommended standards. As a 
result, the United States can get the ITU to adopt a global 
standard for a U.S. company's product or service in less than 
half the time than was required previously.
    Other changes to the budget cycle and to ratification and 
the effective dates of amendments were also made.
    In 1994, the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference was convened. 
That conference took place less than 4 months after the entry 
into force of the 1992 Constitution and Convention. At the 1994 
Conference, member States advanced a large number of proposals 
to amend the new Constitution and Convention and even some 
proposals to revert back to the old documents.
    After much deliberation, the Kyoto Conference rejected the 
vast majority of those proposals. Instead, the 1994 Conference 
resulted in only minor changes to the Constitution and 
Convention concerning the functioning of the Plenipotentiary 
Conference, elections, and finances.
    In addition, an amendment to the convention, which was 
strongly supported by the U.S. private sector, permits private 
sector entities to send observers to the plenipotentiary 
conferences and we look forward to their participation in the 
Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
    Mr. Chairman, this completes my summary of this important 
treaty. I have been pleased to present this testimony and to 
discuss with you the significance of the ITU to the United 
States. I urge that the Senate act favorably on this very 
important treaty at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ambassador McCann follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Abassador Vonya McCann
    Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to testify in support of the 
ratification of the constitution and convention of the International 
Telecommunication Union ITU, and to urge the Senate's advice and 
consent to ratification by the President. The treaty under 
consideration is the constitution and convention of the ITU, with 
annexes, signed by the United States at Geneva on December 22, 1992; 
amendments to the constitution and convention signed by the United 
States at Kyoto on October 14, 1994; and U.S. declarations and 
reservations, as contained in the declarations and reservations made by 
participating member countries at the end of the Geneva and Kyoto 
conferences.
    This treaty establishes the framework for the work of the ITU, the 
specialized agency for telecommunications matters. The ITU is a unique 
organization, dating from 1865 when European countries saw the need to 
work together to facilitate telegraphic communications across their 
borders. Today, the ITU is involved in every phase of global 
telecommunications. It is the principal forum for telecommunication 
standardizaton activities, for management and use of the radio 
spectrum, and for promoting and offering technical assistance in the 
field of telecommunications to developing countries. Its 187 member 
countries work to maintain international cooperation for the 
improvement and rational use of all types of telecommunication 
services.
    Among United Nations agencies, the ITU is unusual in that although 
it is an intergovernmental organization, it provides for extensive, 
direct participation by various non-governmental entities -- including 
private companies -- in most of its activities. This feature is 
particularly vital to U.S. interests, in view of our complete reliance 
on the private sector for the provision of public telecommunications 
networks and services on both national and international levels, and 
the reliance of U.S. companies on effective communications to support 
their multinational operations. Approximately 90 U.S. companies have 
chosen to become ``sector member'' or so-calleid, ``Small-M Members'' 
of one or more sectors of the ITU. Those companies, which are world 
leaders in communication technologies and services, have a profound 
influence on ITU activities.
    At the Department of State, my responsibility is to coordinate our 
overall relations with, and participation in, the activities of the 
ITU. This includes the presentation of U.S. proposals to the ITU and 
its member countries, development of strategies and positions relating 
to conference issues, and assembly of well-qualified delegations to 
carry out the complex and highly technical negotiations. The Department 
is assisted in the detailed preparations for ITU conferences by the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for non-
governmental telecommunications; the Department of Commerce's National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is 
responsible for governmental telecommunications; and various other U.S. 
Government Departments and agencies, including the Department of 
Defense.
    One important advantage of this extensive national effort is that 
it ensures that the United States is well prepared for the conference 
negotiations and implementation of their results. The national 
preparatory process provides interest groups and members of the public 
with the opportunity to express themselves at each stage of the 
process, from initial conception of ideas to the eventual adoption of 
national regulations.
    Currently, this national effort is underway as we prepare for the 
ITU's World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-97), which will be held 
in Geneva from October 27 to November 21. At WRC-97, the world's radio 
experts will gather to decide on international frequency spectrum and 
satellite orbital allocations which will influence radio-based 
communications services well into the next century. Hundreds of U.S. 
Government and private sector representatives have been preparing for 
this conference for nearly two years. As the world leader in innovative 
radio and satellite-based technologies, the United States has a 
significant stake in the outcome of this important conference.
    As of July 1, 1996, only those countries which have ratified the 
1992 constitution and convention are entitled to vote in the ITU. By 
becoming a party to this treaty, the United States will be able to play 
a full, active, leadership role in WRC-97. It also will convey our 
continuing commitment to and strong support for the mission of the ITU. 
There is uniform support for the U.S. becoming a party to this treaty, 
subject to the reservations described in the reports of the Secretary 
of State.
    I will give only a very brief summary of some of the provisions of 
this treaty.
    The 1992 ITU plenipotentiary conference was convened to consider 
proposals by ITU member countries concerning the restructuring of the 
ITU. The 1992 conference decided to recommend that ITU members adopt 
full texts of a new constitution and convention, that could be amended 
as necessary, by future plenipotentiary conferences.
    The 1992 constitution and convention is intended to enable the ITU 
to enter the 21st Century as an effective international 
telecommunications policymaking and spectrum allocation organization. 
It restructures the ITU by establishing three sectors -- 
radiocommunication, telecommunication standardization and 
telecommunication development -- which replace the ITU's previous 
permanent organs. Each sector is headed by a director who is elected by 
the member countries at plenipotentiary conferences. The next 
plenipotentiary conference will be held in the Fall of 1998 and hosted 
by the United States in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    Chapter II of the constitution (articles 12-16) covers the 
radiocommunication sector. The constitution replaces world 
administrative radio conferences, which were convened on an ad hoc 
basis to consider changes to the international radio regulations, with 
world radio conferences (WRCs), which now are held every two years. The 
constitution also replaces the five-member, full-time elected 
international frequency registration board, with a nine-member, part-
time elected radio regulations board within the radio sector. The radio 
regulations board approves the rules of procedure used by the director 
and the radio bureau in applying the radio regulations to register 
frequency assignments made by members and considers certain matters 
that cannot be resolved by the bureau through application of the rules 
of procedure.
    The telecommunication standardization sector is addressed in 
chapter III (articles 17-20) of the constitution. The constitution 
changes the name and mandate of the conferences for this sector to 
reflect the fact that the sector deals with a broad range of rapidly 
evolving telecommunications services over both the public switched 
network and private lines, as well as such issues as international 
numbering plans and international settlement of accounts.
    Chapter VI of the constitution (articles 21-24) covers the 
telecommunication development sector, which is intended to facilitate 
and enhance telecommunications development. World and regional 
telecommunication development conferences, established by resolution in 
Nice, will continue to be convened. The world conferences are held 
approximately every four years; the frequency of regional conferences 
depend on availability of resources and need. The next world 
telecommunication development conference will be held in Malta in 
March, 1998.
    The non-governmental entities and organizations authorized to 
participate in the work of the ITU sectors were expanded by article 19 
of the convention to include, inter alia, scientific and technical 
organizations, financial or development institutions and other entities 
dealing with telecommunication matters that are approved by member 
states.
    Additionally, to further enhance the participation of those 
entities and organizations described in article 19(L) of the convention 
and to provide them a role in determining the priorities of the study 
groups in the radiocommunication and telecommunication standardization 
sectors (convention, articles 11 and 14), the 1992 plenipotentiary 
conference established advisory groups for those two sectors. This 
helps to ensure that the ITU is responsive to the needs of member 
countries and to private sector participants in the ITU.
    The 1992 constitution and convention also make significant changes 
to the management of the ITU designed to increase the ITU's 
effectiveness and responsiveness. For example, new procedures were 
added to permit more rapid consideration and adoption of recommended 
standards. As a result, the United States can get the ITU to adopt a 
global standard for a U.S. company's product or service in less than 
half the time required previously. Similarly, the two-year WRC cycle 
serves United States interests by facilitating the early introduction 
of new and innovative radio technologies, for which U.S. companies are 
the world leaders.
    Articles 4 and 5 of the convention establish a two-year budget 
cycle instead of the past one-year cycle and mandate the establishment 
of a strategic plan for the ITU. Those articles instruct the ITU 
Secretariat to prepare an annual strategic policy and planning report 
for the ITU council to consider at its annual 8-day meeting.
    Article 55 of the constitution and article 42 of the convention 
allow amendments to enter into force for countries that have ratified 
or approved the amendments by a date fixed by the adopting 
plenipotentiary conference rather than after two-thirds of the members 
have deposited instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval, or 
accession as had been adopted at the 1989 Plenipotentiary Conference.
    The 1994 Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference was convened less than 
four months after the entry into force of the 1992 constitution and 
convention. At the 1994 conference, member states advanced a number of 
proposals to amend the new constitution and convention. Those proposals 
sought to correct oversights, refine the 1992 changes, further 
restructure the ITU, and, in some instances, revert to earlier 
convention (Nairobi, 1982) provisions.
    After much deliberation, the Kyoto conference rejected the vast 
majority of the proposals to amend the constitution and convention. The 
Kyoto conference resulted in only minor changes to the constitution 
concerning the functions of the Plenipotentiary Conference, elections 
and finances. In addition, an amendment to the convention--strongly 
supported by the U.S. private sector--provides for the ITU's Secretary-
General to invite private sector entities and organizations described 
in article 19(l) to send observers to Plenipotentiary Conferences.
    Mr. Chairman, this completes my summary of this important treaty. I 
have been pleased to present this testimony and to discuss the 
significance of the International Telecommunication Union to the United 
States. I urge that the Senate act favorably on this very important 
treaty at the earliest possible date.

    Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Ambassador McCann. I 
appreciate your testimony.
    We do not have a lot of questions. We do have a few. But I 
also want to remind you and our other witnesses this morning on 
our next panel that if we do not have other Senators here, I 
know many are interested and would like to submit questions in 
writing. So we would hope that you would take a look at that 
and respond as quickly as possible.
    Ambassador McCann. We'd be happy to.
    Senator Grams. The ITU Convention, as you mentioned, 
provides for a less onerous amendment process than that 
required for amending the ITU Constitution itself. The 
Constitution I believe takes a two-thirds vote for any 
amendment while the ITU Convention requires only a majority 
vote to amend the Convention.
    Are you satisfied that it will be able to protect U.S. 
interests adequately in the ITU Convention amendment process? 
If so, why?
    Ambassador McCann. Well, amendments to both the 
Constitution and Convention result from proposals by member 
States. In our U.S. preparatory process, we have the private 
sector fully involved as well as other Government agencies to 
flesh out issues that are of concern to both the Government and 
the private sector.
    The Constitution was conceived of as a more permanent 
document than the Convention, which really implements in 
specific detail some of the aspects of the Convention.
    We at all times will seek to use our vast human resources 
to influence the outcome of changes to the Convention at the 
conference. If we are not successful in doing that, we are 
always able to take reservations which minimize the impact of 
any such changes on the United States.
    As you know, we have the advice and consent process where 
the Senate can advise us on any aspect of those changes that it 
has concerns about.
    Senator Grams. So you are satisfied with that ratio?
    Ambassador McCann. I am satisfied.
    Senator Grams. A third sector dedicated to development 
issues is created under this new ITU Constitution and 
Convention. But what development obligations will the U.S. have 
upon ratification of the Convention and the Constitution?
    Ambassador McCann. Well, we are a participant in all three 
sectors of the ITU and U.S. companies are participants in all 
three sectors of the ITU. Right now, our participation, the 
Government's participation, extends to sending personnel to 
review proposals and the work plan of that sector and to help 
guide the work of that sector toward issues and values that we 
hold dear. Those are issues regarding competition, 
liberalization of the regulatory regimes, privatization and the 
benefits of private investment, especially foreign investment, 
and telecommunications services.
    Senator Grams. The Constitution of the ITU also requires 
member States to pay their annual contributory shares ``in 
advance.''
    The ITU Convention permits the ITU also to assess interest 
for those assessments that are overdue. Does this require the 
U.S. to pay its contributions at the beginning of the calendar 
year or would it be at the beginning of the ITU fiscal year?
    Ambassador McCann. We are obligated to pay our dues at the 
beginning of the calendar year, and if those dues are not paid 
by the acts or provisions under the Convention, interest starts 
to accrue at 3 percent for the first 6 months and thereafter at 
6 percent.
    Under U.S. law, payments may be made down on those interest 
payments, but we have not done so for interest due for calendar 
year 1996 or interest accruing as a result of our failure to 
pay our dues in full as of the beginning of 1997.
    Senator Grams. The State Department, as you know, 
frequently pays its assessments for international organizations 
at the end of the year. Is the United States in compliance with 
the ITU requirement?
    Ambassador McCann. No. We were assessed our dues for 
calendar year 1997. We have paid approximately 81 percent of 
our assessed dues. There is a 19 percent shortfall, and 
interest is current accruing on that shortfall for 1997.
    We did pay our dues in full for 1996, but they were paid 
late, and so, interest was assessed on those late payments and 
that is still outstanding--for 1996.
    Senator Grams. The interest is?
    Ambassador McCann. For 1996. That's correct.
    Senator Grams. What accounts for the shortfall of the 19 
percent and what are the dues, by the way?
    Ambassador McCann. The dues for 1997 were 10 million Swiss 
francs, which is equal to about $8 million, depending on the 
exchange rate. We ended up paying a little over $6 million, or 
about $6.5 million earlier this year. Again, those dues were 
not paid in January, but later on after it became clear to the 
Department how much funds would be available for the payment of 
dues to international organizations.
    As you know, the Department gets an allotment of funds to 
pay its dues and has to make decisions how to spread the money. 
It is not enough to pay all of the dues in full, all of the 
dues that we are assessed in full.
    Senator Grams. Is it because of our calendar year versus a 
regular calendar year? I mean, our fiscal year ends not on 
January 1 but on September 30. Is that a problem with paying 
the dues to these funds?
    Ambassador McCann. Well, only to the extent that we do not 
necessarily know how much money we will have to pay, the dues, 
when they become due and owing at the beginning of the calendar 
year.
    Senator Grams. Does the U.S. or will the U.S. make payments 
or pay the interest on the ITU obligations? The U.N. Reform 
Bill prohibits interest payments. Is that a problem or a 
question?
    Ambassador McCann. It is not clear at this time whether we 
will be able to clear up the arrearages on the interest 
payments. It will depend on what Congress and the 
administration agree to as an overall package.
    Senator Grams. Arrears seem to be a problem in many 
quarters.
    Ambassador McCann. Yes.
    Senator Grams. The administration also recently released a 
report concerning efforts made by the United Nations and 
specialized agencies there to employ a number of Americans 
during 1996. But, according to the report, the level of the 
number of Americans in professional positions within the ITU 
has declined over the last 4 years and also Americans that have 
had very strong qualifications have been passed over for senior 
positions within the ITU itself.
    This is, I believe, a particular concern concerning a 
leading U.S. role in international telecommunications. In your 
opinion, does the lack of American representation among the 
senior professionals in the ITU jeopardize in any way our 
interest in regard to the work of the ITU?
    Ambassador McCann. It is clearly a concern of mine and of 
the State Department in general, a concern which I have 
discussed with the Secretary General of the ITU.
    I will confess that the United States plays such a dominant 
role in the organization as a result of the tremendous 
participation of the U.S. private sector and the skilled and 
expert Government officials, U.S. Government officials, that 
participate in the work of the ITU such that many in the ITU 
feel that we already dominate the organization and that those 
positions should rightfully, or, rather, that there is some 
equity in giving those positions to countries which do not play 
such a dominant role.
    But it is a concern of ours about which I have spoken to 
the Secretary General, and we are trying to take steps to 
correct that situation.
    Senator Grams. So your concerns would be to have more 
Americans in these positions?
    Ambassador McCann. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Senator Grams. What can be done to increase the level? I 
know you've said you have talked to the Secretary General. Are 
there any other methods?
    Ambassador McCann. Actually, I have been talking to members 
of the private sector about putting together some kind of 
training program which would encourage either Government 
officials or industry executives to have a tour at the ITU to 
work in a management position. We have been trying to get a 
regular, steady crop of good candidates over to the ITU, who 
speak multiple languages, which is a requirement. Many U.S. 
executives are making good money, are working in a tremendously 
exciting field, and do not necessarily regard a tour of duty at 
the ITU as something that is going to help them on their career 
path.
    So we are trying to put together a way so that we can 
continually recruit and have a good supply of candidates for 
ITU positions, again, so that this situation does not continue.
    Senator Grams. Last year, the ITU cleared the way for 
companies to have a single toll-free telephone number that can 
be dialed from anywhere in the world beginning in February of 
this year.
    This, I believe, was a very significant development for 
U.S. companies considering that over $100 billion in goods and 
services have been sold over these lines in these types of 
calls every year. This is not to mention that U.S. phone 
companies also take in over $10 billion a year in revenue for 
the service itself.
    How many disputes involving companies bidding for the same 
number have been filed and how have these disputes been 
handled?
    Ambassador McCann. I don't have the precise number of 
disputes before me, but I can certainly get that for you.
    [The following material was subsequently supplied for the 
hearing record by Ambassador McCann.]

    The ITU Secretariat in Geneva advises that more than 
225,000 requests for Universal International FreePhone Numbers 
(UIFNS) were received and processed by the ITU's 
Telecommunication Standardization Bureau. Of that number, 2200 
were regarded as disputed, in that they involved duplicative 
requests. All disputed applications were examined and resolved 
satisfactorily, in accordance with procedures contained in the 
ITU-T Recommendation E-169 (i.e., the international standard) 
that were expressly developed for this situation. No unforeseen 
or unusual problems have been identified yet in the 
registration of international FreePhone Numbers.

    Ambassador McCann. Disputes have been resolved, generally, 
by using first-come/first-serve type philosophies, so that if 
there is competition for a particular number, the company or 
Government that is first to register a request for that number 
is generally favored.
    Senator Grams. Have there been a lot of disputes?
    Ambassador McCann. There have been some, but, again, not 
having the number right before me, I would hesitate to 
characterize it as a lot.
    Senator Grams. Is it your view that the demand for these 
numbers will reach a point where the ITU will have to offer 
even another prefix, like the ``888?''
    Ambassador McCann. Undoubtedly. I mean, it is very popular, 
as you know, in the United States. We have taken steps so that 
there is a small reprieve before more needs to be done. But I 
don't see the demand for these types of numbers dying down.
    Senator Grams. As long as I don't have to go by the 5 
minute rule today, I will go ahead and ask one final question, 
if I may, of you.
    One of the major issues involving the global computer 
network involves disagreement over who assigns new Internet 
addresses. Of course, this is of particular concern to the many 
ISP's in my home State of Minnesota itself.
    Does the ITU have a role to play in this dispute?
    Ambassador McCann. That issue is being investigated as we 
speak. The ITU is preparing the release of a notice of inquiry 
which asks that very question: Does the ITU have a role in 
registering domain names.
    There are members of the U.S. private sector which believe 
that the ITU can play a useful role in the international 
registration of domain names. There are many companies that 
argue that the ITU does not have a role in this type of service 
and should not be engaged.
    The U.S. is in the process of developing its position on 
that, trying to reconcile the competing views of U.S. industry 
as well as U.S. agencies, Government agencies.
    Senator Grams. What do you feel is the role, the 
appropriate role, for the ITU--either the State Department 
position or your feelings?
    Ambassador McCann. I think it is an issue that really needs 
to be looked at carefully. The ITU has such tremendously 
important existing responsibilities that I am hesitant to 
expand, to take an expansive interpretation of its mission 
where it is not specifically warranted.
    So I think we need to take a look at that and see whether 
or not it has the capacity to do that, what kind of effect it 
will have on the finances of the ITU, what financial impact it 
will have, and whether it will take away from the ITU's ability 
to carry out its primary functions.
    Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Ambassador McCann.
    Ambassador McCann. Thank you.
    Senator Grams. I don't believe I have any other questions. 
Give me a second to check, please.
    [Pause]
    Senator Grams. All right. Again, thank you very much. 
Again, I would just remind you that I know other Senators, or 
even I, might have additional questions. I think we will keep 
the record open for about 3 days for those questions to be 
submitted in writing. Then, after that, if we could get a quick 
response, we would appreciate that.
    Ambassador McCann. I commit to you that we will get back to 
you as promptly as we can.
    Senator Grams. Thank you very much.
    Ambassador McCann. Thank you.
    Senator Grams. I would like now to call our second panel: 
Mr. David Fisher, Vice President, General Counsel, and 
Corporate Secretary for ADC Telecommunications, Incorporated, 
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and also Mr. Lon Levin, Vice 
President of American Mobile Satellite Corporation and 
President, American Mobile Radio Corporation out of Reston, 
Virginia.
    Gentlemen, thank you very much also for taking your time to 
be with us here this morning for your testimony.
    Mr. Fisher, we would welcome you again and would go to you 
first for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF DAVID F. FISHER, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL, 
AND CORPORATE SECRETARY, ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, 
                     MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

    Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Senator, and members of the 
committee who may read this testimony later. As I indicated, my 
name is David Fisher. I am a resident of Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, and, as indicated, I serve as Vice President and 
General Counsel of ADC Telecommunications. I am here to share 
with you today my own thoughts regarding the International 
Telecommunication Union and the role it plays in our 
international community.
    Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a copy of my remarks, as 
well, and I will just read excerpts of that if that is 
permissible.
    Senator Grams. Your full statement will be entered into the 
record as if read. Go ahead, sir.
    Mr. Fisher. Thank you.
    As a background, I would just like to describe briefly the 
role of my own company in the telecommunications industry. I do 
not believe it is particularly unique. It may help to 
illustrate the significance of international affairs in this 
sector.
    ADC Telecommunications is an equipment manufacturer based 
in the United States with its home offices in the State of 
Minnesota. It's business is to design, manufacture, and market 
transmission and communications systems for fiber optic and 
copper wireline, coaxial cable, and wireless networks.
    We specifically focus on broadband technology, that is, 
transmitting signals at speeds of T1, that is 1 megabit per 
second or faster.
    Our shares are publicly traded and are reported on the 
NASDAQ. Our revenues currently are approximately $1.1 billion 
annually.
    ADC's international sales have grown significantly in 
recent years, coinciding with a new telecommunications paradigm 
which has swept the globe. Convergence of telephony, 
broadcasting, and computing is now really happening and 
affecting almost everyone in our daily lives.
    Like businesses around the world, ADC is helping to bring 
about fundamental changes through the enabling power of new 
technologies--technologies created and developed here in the 
United States.
    Just within the last few years, ADC has established 
manufacturing facilities in Australia, China, Finland and the 
United Kingdom. It has established new sales offices in 
countries throughout Asia, India, Latin America and Europe, 
including Central and Eastern Europe. Each of these operations 
is fully supported with telecommunications products and 
technologies manufactured by the company here in the States of 
California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon.
    In many ways, ADC personifies the modern globalization of 
the United States telecommunications industry.
    I have been asked to describe the significance of the ITU 
for companies such as ADC and to the telecommunications 
industry as a whole.
    There can be little doubt that telecommunications is one of 
the fastest growing industries in the world today and is a 
global industry in every sense. It is commonplace to 
acknowledge that the world is shrinking and that 
interdependence of nations is growing.
    The ITU in that context has established an ambitious goal 
for itself and it did so at its last governing conference, the 
Kyoto Plenipotentiary of 1994. There the commitment was made to 
establish the ITU as the international focal point for all 
matters relating to telecom in the global information economy 
and society of the 21st Century.
    Historically, the ITU related primarily to national 
governments, which were the major owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks within their respective borders. 
However, this is changing. Convergence, spurred by 
technological change, has opened a worldwide debate concerning 
the appropriate means to meet growing demand for information 
and communication. As a consequence, privatization and 
reorganization of telecommunications networks are accelerating 
around the world.
    These changes have caused the ITU to change its regard for 
private sector organizations, such as ADC, and to redefine its 
coordinating role in the international arena.
    The ITU, in other words, has opened its doors to 
participation by the private sector in ways it had never 
previously.
    At the Kyoto Plenipotentiary, it established a review 
committee which is to recommend how the rights and obligations 
of the private sector ought to grow within the organization, 
and that review should be considered at the next 
plenipotentiary to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota in the 
fall of 1998.
    This is important because, Senator, as you indicated in 
your opening remarks, the United States is indisputably the 
world leader in telecommunications technology, innovation and 
development. At the same time, communications networks have 
become quite literally an essential strategic resource in most 
countries of the world, on a par with labor and capital in 
making a real difference in peoples' lives. The global 
information infrastructure is a necessary part of growth in 
every economic sector. It represents a tremendous 
responsibility for Government as well as for industry.
    The ITU plays a significant role in assuming responsibility 
for global technical standardization, for defining standards 
for interoperability and interconnection of network systems, 
and establishing revenue sharing principles among nations. 
Participants in this industry must comply with standards 
developed by the ITU. In short, without the ITU, ADC and other 
U.S. equipment manufacturers would have a difficult time 
delivering products which could compete in the international 
marketplace.
    Another key role undertaken by the ITU, in addition to this 
coordinating function on equipment and transmission standards, 
is establishing international agreements on the allocation of 
radio spectrum through its World Radio Conferences. Governments 
for years have worked together in an effort to manage radio 
spectrum. Radio signals, of course, do not respect political 
boundaries and, for this reason, Governments have had to work 
together to assure there is minimal interference in signaling. 
Conflicts arise all the time.
    For instance, the United States and Mexico currently differ 
with respect to licensing of the 3.7 gHz spectrum. The United 
States, invoking its own domestic standards, has licensed the 
spectrum for private military use, while Mexico, applying ITU 
standards, has designated the spectrum for private commercial 
use. A common standard would prevent such conflicts between 
Governments and that is a fundamental role of the ITU.
    I am going to just make a few comments, Mr. Chairman, 
regarding the 1998 Plenipotentiary. I have been asked to 
comment on the plenipotentiary conference of the ITU. This is 
going to be hosted by the United States in the fall of 1998 and 
it is to be held in Minneapolis. It will hereafter be regarded 
as the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
    On behalf of ADC and my own home community, I have been 
actively involved in planning for the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary.
    As you know, the ITU is an inter-governmental organization, 
operating under auspices of the United Nations. It represents 
187 member nations, from the developing to the fully 
industrialized, including the United States--hopefully with a 
vote.
    Its plenipotentiary conference is the highest 
decisionmaking body of ITU member nations and is held once 
every 4 years in a different host country. This is the first 
time the plenipotentiary has been held in the United States in 
50 years--in fact, the first time in modern telecommunications 
history that it has been held in the United States.
    The plenipotentiary itself is a government-to-government 
conference at which the various nations of the world, 
represented by elected delegates, meet for a full month to 
consider and decide upon issues of telecommunications 
administration, financing, network systems, services, uniform 
equipment and transmission standards.
    The delegates are telecommunications ministers, high level 
government officials, and industry advisors serving at the 
request of their respective governments.
    The Minneapolis Plenipotentiary is significant, and not 
merely because it is being held in the U.S. In the words used 
by the Department of State in a letter to Congress earlier this 
year, ``Decisions are made at this conference which could 
impact America's global competitiveness in telecommunications. 
Hosting this important conference in the United States 
highlights U.S. leadership in this critical sector and will 
allow U.S. technology to be showcased.''
    The U.S. telecommunications industry supports the 
invitation of the United States to host the ITU plenipotentiary 
conference and we are not taking steps to show our support by 
assisting in that planning. An ITU Host Committee has been 
established, headquartered in Minneapolis with assistance from 
a private sector organization here in Washington and now is 
making efforts to include participation from both Government 
and industry on a wider scale.
    It also is playing a significant role in supporting the 
planning efforts of the Departments of State and Commerce, 
which are officially hosting the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
    For its part, the U.S telecommunications industry already 
has pledged to raise up to $5 million to cover plenipotentiary 
expenses. These are basically host and hospitality expenses. We 
are arranging for volunteers. We are sponsoring hospitality 
activity. We are hosting official receptions and we hope to put 
up a historical exhibit, demonstrating American telephony and 
technology.
    The private sector role clearly is one of ancillary support 
for U.S. Government agencies with respect to the assembly or 
business sections of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary and in 
helping them to assure effectiveness and efficiency.
    Now we have been engaged earlier this spring on funding for 
the U.S. plenipotentiary. I will just make a comment on that, 
Mr. Chairman.
    We had originally thought that approximately $21 million 
would be needed for both the business sections of the 
conference and for host or hospitality activities. Of this 
total, approximately $14 million was to be funded by the U.S. 
Government.
    The State Department and the Commerce Department had the 
full $14 million in their budgets originally, and when it came 
before Congress, that budget was deleted altogether. The State 
Department, I hope with the support, the proper support, of the 
host committee have convinced Congress to reinstate a certain 
portion of those funds--approximately $7.5 million, $3 million 
of which have already been allocated, $4.5 million of which 
will be coming up in this budget cycle. But it is still far 
short of the $14 million originally thought to be necessary for 
those business sections of the plenipotentiary.
    The Department of State has revised now its needed budget. 
We believe that a minimum of $11 million to $12 million is 
required to adequately cover expenses of the plenary portion of 
the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and we believe, frankly, that 
we may have some real challenges trying to raise the additional 
$4 million to $5 million to cover the gap at this point.
    Meanwhile, the ITU Host Committee has been successful in 
securing pledges from private industry of up to $4.5 million to 
fund nonplenary or host committee activities of the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary. We are all determined to work within the 
budget established for the Minneapolis Plenipot and to make 
this conference a true success and a showcase for U.S. 
ingenuity in the field of telecommunications.
    Mr. Chairman, on behalf of ADC Telecommunications and the 
ITU Host Committee, I commend the U.S. Senate today for 
considering the significance of telecommunications in the world 
and the role played in promoting telecommunications throughout 
the world by the ITU.
    Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. David F. Fisher follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of David F. Fisher

                 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION
                CONSTITUTION AND CONVENTION RATIFICATION
    Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee: Good Morning. My name is David 
Fisher. I am a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and serve as Vice 
President and General Counsel of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. I am 
pleased to share with you today my thoughts concerning the 
International Telecommunications Union and the role it plays in our 
industry.
                I. INTRODUCTION: ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    As background, permit me first to describe the role of my own 
company in the telecommunications industry. It is not likely to be 
unique, but may help to illustrate the significance of international 
affairs in this sector.
    ADC Telecommunications is an equipment manufacturer based in the 
United States, with its home offices in the State of Minnesota. Its 
business is to design, manufacture and market transmission and 
communication systems for fiber optic and copper wireline, coaxial 
cable, and wireless networks. ADC's specific focus is on broadband 
technology, transmitting signals at speeds of TI (that is, 1 megabit 
per second) or faster.
    ADC's products are used by telephone companies, broadcast and cable 
television operators, and private network providers through such 
systems as local area networks, or ``LAN'' systems. ADC shares are 
publicly traded, and are reported on the NASDAQ. Its revenues currently 
are approximately $1.1 billion annually. ADC's international sales have 
grown significantly in recent years, coinciding with a new 
telecommunications paradigm which has swept the globe. Convergence of 
telephony, broadcasting and computing is now really happening, and 
affecting almost everyone in their daily lives. Like businesses around 
the World, ADC is helping to bring about fundamental change through the 
enabling power of new technologies -- technologies created and 
developed here in the United States. Just within the last few years, 
ADC has established manufacturing facilities in Australia, China, 
Finland and the United Kingdom. It has established new sales offices in 
countries throughout Asia, India, Latin America, and Europe, including 
Central and Eastern Europe. Each of these operations is fully supported 
by telecommunications products and technologies manufactured by the 
company here, in the States of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, and Oregon. In many ways, ADC personifies the modem 
globalization of the United States telecommunications industry.
                      II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ITU
    I have been asked to describe the significance of the ITU to U.S. 
companies such as ADC, and to the telecommunications industry as a 
whole.
     There can be little doubt that telecommunications is one of the 
fastest growing industries in the World today, and is a global industry 
in every sense. It is commonplace to acknowledge that the World is 
shrinking and that the interdependence of nations is growing.
                        A. ITU'S NEW GOVERNANCE
    The ITU established an ambitious goal for itself at its last 
governing conference, the Kyoto Plenipotentiary of 1994. There the 
commitment was made ``to establish the ITU as the international focal 
point for all matters relating to telecom in the global information 
economy and society of the twenty-first century.''
    Historically, the ITU related primarily to national governments, 
which were the major owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks within their respective borders. However, this is changing. 
Convergence spurred by technological change has opened a worldwide 
debate concerning the appropriate means to meet growing demand for 
information and communication. As a consequence, privatization and 
reorganization of telecommunications networks are accelerating around 
the World. These changes have caused the ITU to change its regard for 
private sector organizations, such as ADC, and to redefine its 
coordinating role in the international arena.
    The ITU has opened its doors to participation by the private sector 
in ways it never had previously. At the Kyoto Plenipotentiary, for 
instance, the ITU established a Review Committee to recommend how the 
rights and obligations of the private sector ought to grow within the 
organization. This report should be ready for presentation to the ITU's 
next Plenipotentiary, to be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the Fall 
of 1998.
    This is important, because today the United States is a net 
exporter of telecommunications equipment, in the midst of a trend which 
is on the rise. There is good reason for this. The United States is the 
indisputable World leader in telecommunications technological 
innovation and development. At the same time, communications networks 
have become quite literally an essential strategic resource in most 
countries of the World, on a par with labor and capital in making a 
real difference in peoples' lives. The global information 
infrastructure is a necessary part of growth in every economic sector. 
It represents a tremendous responsibility for government, as well as 
for industry.
                        B. ITU STANDARDS SETTING
    In this context, the ITU undeniably plays a significant role in 
assuming responsibility for global technical standardization, for 
defining standards for interoperability and interconnection of network 
systems, and establishing revenue sharing principles among nations. 
Participants in this industry must comply with standards developed by 
the ITU. In short, without the ITU ADC and other U.S. equipment 
manufacturers would have a difficult time delivering products which 
could compete in the international marketplace.
    For companies such as ADC, this has not always been the case. 
Throughout much of telecommunications history in the United States, 
domestic equipment suppliers have served the domestic market almost 
exclusively. In effect, until recently we have been occupied or 
``captive'' within the domestic market, meeting demands of universal 
service and government regulation. Indeed, the United States 
telecommunications industry has developed its own standards for 
transmission and equipment manufacture, commonly referred to as the   
law, developed by Bellcore, a telephone company standards setting body. 
Essentially, the   law sets the standard for domestic United States 
telecommunications. These standards are important, for they determine 
the type of equipment, signaling and switching which must be used by 
equipment manufacturers and carriers in order to interconnect with one 
another. They are fundamental to the linkage of our United States 
communications system.
    The rest of the World has gone its own way.
    Outside the United States, the most commonly used, and the most 
influential, set of standards are those established by the ITU, and are 
known as ``A'' law standards. While the difference between   law and A 
law may be subtle in many cases, they can be significant in others. The 
differences are great enough that transmissions from the United States 
to a foreign country today likely will have to pass through transcoders 
for the purpose of converting from the   law standard to an A law 
standard. In other words, United States telecommunications systems are 
not wholly compatible with those in the rest of the World.
    Although in key respects, this dual-standard system may seem to 
favor equipment manufacturers, it is not consistent with the inevitable 
globalization of the United. States telecommunications industry.
                    C. ITU INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
    A second key role undertaken by the ITU, in addition to 
coordinating equipment and transmission standards, is establishing 
international agreements on the allocation of radio spectrum, through 
its World Radiocommunications Conferences. Governments for years have 
worked together in an effort to manage radio spectrum. Radio signals, 
of course, do not respect political boundaries and for this reason 
governments have had to work together to assure there is minimal 
interference in signaling. Conflicts arise all the time. For instance, 
the United States and Mexico currently differ with respect to licensing 
of the 3.7 gHz spectrum. The United States, invoking   law, has 
licensed the spectrum for private military use, while Mexico, applying 
A law, has designated the spectrum for private commercial use. A common 
standard would prevent such conflicts between governments.
                       D. ITU COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
    A third role undertaken by the ITU is to provide methods for the 
cooperation of telecommunications common carriers in providing 
international telecommunications services. This includes matters such 
as the method of handing off telephone calls between international 
carriers, the billing of international calls, and other key aspects of 
cooperation.
                       E. EXCHANGE OF TECHNOLOGY
    Lastly, the ITU provides a vehicle for the global exchange of 
telecommunications technology, through the Telecom Information Exchange 
Services (``TIES''). As the telecommunications industry continues to 
de-regulate around the World, the new technologies are all based on 
global standards. They will be based on ITU standards. The 
organizations, be they public or private, which can influence these 
standards are the organizations most likely to be strongest 
participants in World telecommunications. The United States cannot 
afford to bypass the opportunity to assert its rightful role as the 
World leader in telecommunications by ignoring participation in the ITU 
standards setting bodies.
    If the ITU is supported by all nations, and is functioning as it is 
intended, it will provide a more level playing field for all industry 
participants to compete in a global marketplace, regardless of the 
location of their home office or manufacturing facilities.
                     III. ITU 1998 PLENIPOTENTIARY
    I have been asked to comment on the Plenipotentiary Conference of 
the ITU to be hosted by the United States in the Fall of 1998. This 
conference will be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and will in the 
future be regarded as the ``Minneapolis Plenipotentiary''. On behalf of 
ADC, I have been actively involved in its planning.
                             A. BACKGROUND
    As you know, the ITU is an inter-governmental organization 
operating under auspices of the United Nations. It represents more than 
186 member nations, from the developing to the fully industrialized, 
including the United States. Its Plenipotentiary Conference is the 
highest decision-making body of ITU member nations, and is held once 
every four years in a different host country. This is the first time 
the Plenipotentiary has been held in the United States in fifty years.
    The Plenipotentiary is a government-to-government conference, at 
which the various nations of the World, represented by elected 
delegates, meet for a full-month to consider and decide upon issues of 
telecommunications administration, financing, network systems, 
services, and uniform equipment and transmission standards. The 
delegates are telecommunications ministers, high-level government 
officials, and industry advisers serving at the request of their 
respective Governments.
    The Minneapolis Plenipotentiary is significant, and not merely 
because it is being held in the United States for the first time in 
modem telecommunications history. In the words used by the Department 
of State in a letter to Congress earlier this year, ``[d]ecisions are 
made at this conference which could impact America's global 
competitiveness in telecommunications. Hosting this important 
conference in the United States highlights U.S. leadership in this 
critical sector, and will allow U.S. technology to be showcased.''
    In 1994, the United States Congress and Administration initiated an 
invitation to the ITU to host the Plenipotentiary in 1998, and the 
invitation was accepted. This is an important step. At a time when U.S. 
telecommunications ingenuity is leading the way in technological 
advancement, it is clearly time for us to take our rightful place as a 
trend-setter and decision maker in World telecommunications policy and 
implementation. To date, the United States has not been the leader it 
might be, or the leader indicated by its technological superiority.
                         B. PRIVATE SECTOR ROLE
    The U.S. telecommunications industry supports the invitation of the 
United States to host the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, and is taking 
steps now to show its support by assisting in its planning. An ITU Host 
Committee has been established, headquartered in Minneapolis, and now 
is making efforts to include participation from both Government and 
industry. It also is playing a significant role in supporting the 
panning efforts of the Departments of State and Commerce, which are 
officially hosting the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary.
    For its part, the United States telecommunications industry already 
has pledged to

   raise up to $5 million to cover Plenipotentiary expenses,
   arrange for Volunteers and resources to assure warm 
        hospitality for foreign dignitaries,
   sponsor entertainment and weekend excursions to ``see 
        America'',
   host official U.S. and State receptions,
   advise on conference preparations, and
   host an historical exhibit on American telephony and 
        technology.

    The private sector role clearly is one of ancillary support for 
United States Government agencies with respect to the business sections 
of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and in helping them to ensure its 
effectiveness and efficiency.
                         C. FUNDING AND BUDGET
    When the United States first indicated an interest in hosting the 
1998 Plenipotentiary, it was thought that a total of approximately $21 
minion would be needed for both the business sections of the conference 
and for host or hospitality activities. Of this total, approximately 
$14 million was to funded by the United States Government for such 
expenses as refurbishing the Minneapolis Convention Center to provide 
lighting, audio/data wiring, and furnishings, as well as for 
international transportation and housing for ITU staff and the United 
States delegation, simultaneous translation in the six official 
languages of the ITU, and the equipment necessary to assure proper 
international communications. These funds would have been earmarked to 
meet needs. of the official assembly, or plenary-portions of the 
Plenipotentiary. The private sector was to raise approximately $7.0 
million in separate funding for the hospitality and other logistics of 
the conference. This comprised the total $21 million thought to be 
required.
    For the convenience of the Committee, I have attached a rough 
exhibit to these remarks indicating the expenses anticipated for the 
Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, as well as a rough allocation of funding 
dollars.
    Initial requests for funding for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary 
came before Congress in 1996, in the budgets of the Departments of 
State and Commerce. At that time, funding for the Plenipotentiary was 
deleted from the budget altogether. Following some effort by the 
Department of State, as well as by the ITU Host Committee, Congress now 
has agreed to permit reprogramming for the purpose of restoring $3.0 
million as preliminary funding, and has indicated that another $4.5 
million for the Plenipotentiary plenary session preparations will be 
considered. A total United States funding of $7.5 million therefore is 
anticipated by the ITU Host Committee.
    Meanwhile, the Departments of State and Commerce and the ITU Host 
Committee have cut budget estimates for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary 
significantly, to remain within the anticipated funding. The ITU Host 
Committee, however, believes that a minimum of $16 million to $17 
million is required to adequately cover expenses of the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary, including approximately $11 million to $12 million for 
the plenary portion. This would indicate a shortfall in the anticipated 
funding of approximately $4.6 million.
    The ITU Host Committee has been successful in securing pledges from 
private industry of up to $4.5 million to fund non-plenary, or Host 
Committee, activities of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary. There is a 
serious question whether additional private funding can be secured.
    The ITU Host Committee is determined to work within the budget 
established for the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, and to make this 
conference a true success and a showcase for United States ingenuity in 
the field of telecommunications.
                             IV. CONCLUSION
    On behalf of ADC Telecommunications, Inc., and the ITU Host 
Committee for the 1998 Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, I commend the 
United States Senate today for considering the significance of 
telecommunications in the World, and the role played in promoting 
telecommunications throughout the World by the International 
Telecommunications Union. The ITU has come to recognize, as has the 
telecommunications industry itself, the need to change, to redefine 
itself, in order to meet new technological challenges and demands for 
greater communication and access to information. This can only be 
accomplished across international boundaries, with the assistance, 
guidance and sanction of the World's governments. We urge the United 
States to assume its rightful position as the leader in 
telecommunications technology, and to help shape the standards and 
policies which will guide our future.
                TESTIMONY EXHIBIT -- 1998 FUNDING/BUDGET
U.S. Government: Costs of holding conference away from ITU headquarters 
in Geneva --

   create conference setting -- lighting, audio/data wiring, 
        furnishings (desks, lamps) ($2.5 million)
   international transportation and housing for ITU staff ($2.5 
        million)
   U.S. delegation and Department expenses ($2.5 million)
   credentialing of delegates
   simultaneous translation (six official languages) -- hard-
        wired/infra-red headsets, booths
   computer LAN'S, facsimile's, equipment
   telecommunications links between Minneapolis-Washington-
        Geneva
   newsletters, official mailings and related supplies
   security

City of Minneapolis has pledged:

   lease charges for use of the Convention Center
   $250,000 in transportation costs
   service as hotel booking agent

State of Minnesota has pledged $500,000

Private Sector has pledged ($4.5 million - $5 million):

   up to $5 million to cover non-business Plenipotentiary 
        expenses
   volunteers and resources to assure a warm welcome and 
        comfortable stay for foreign dignitaries
   sponsorship of entertainment and weekend excursions to ``see 
        America''
   hosting official U.S. and State receptions
   advising on the conference preparations
   hosting an historic exhibit on American telephony and 
        technology

Potential funding shortfall currently estimated at $4.5 million.

                                               ITU HOST COMMITTEE                                               
                                        1998 MINNEAPOLIS PLENIPOTENTIARY                                        
                                             BUDGET/FUNDING SUMMARY                                             
                                                   (Millions)                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1. BUDGETS                                                   
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revised Minimum Budget          
                           Source                            Initial -------------------------------------------
                                                              Budget    Cash                             In-Kind
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government............................................    $14.0   $11.33                             $0.62 
ITU Host Committee.........................................    $6.46    $2.78                             $2.23 
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
  Sub-Totals...............................................   $20.56   $14.11                             $2.85 
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
    Totals.................................................   $20.56                    $16.96                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               II. FUNDING                              
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Source                              Current    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Government........................................           $7.50 
  State of Minnesota...................................           $0.50 
  Private Sponsorships.................................           $4.35 
                                                        ----------------
    Total..............................................          $12.35 
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              III. SUMMARY                              
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Operating Budgets (All Requirements)...........        ($16.96) 
Funding Sources........................................          $12.35 
                                                        ----------------
    Budget Surplus or (Deficit)........................         ($4.61) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           The History of ADC
    The story of ADC Telecommunications begins in 1935 the height of 
the great depression -- when a young engineer, Ralph Allison, founded 
Audio Development Company (ADC) in the basement of his south 
Minneapolis home. The company got its start with a new innovation 
called the audiometer, an electronic device designed to test hearing.
    In 1937, Allison was joined by a fellow engineer, Walt Lehnert, and 
together, they diversified the company's product line to include 
amplifiers and transformers for the broadcast industry. In 1942, the 
company designed a sophisticated audio system for the University of 
Minnesota. The resulting jacks, plugs, patch cords and jackfields 
became the cornerstones for ADC's later entry into telecommunications.
    In 1949, ADC sold its audiometer product line. Throughout the post-
war boom years, ADC focused its efforts on transformers and electronic 
equipment for the military. And, in 1961, ADC merged with Magnetic 
Controls Company, a manufacturer of power supplies and magnetic 
amplifiers with strong ties to the U.S. Space Program.
    The resulting company, ADC Magnetic Controls, had a decade of mixed 
success. Although transformer sales boomed during the early 1960's, 
profit margins were poor, and when the volume began to drop off late in 
the decade, the company began a downward spiral. In 1970, Chuck Denny 
joined as President.
    Under Denny's leadership, jack and plug sales grew steadily through 
the 1970's and ADC diversified its product mix with pre-wired 
connectorized jackfields, wired assemblies and test equipment for 
telephone operating companies. By 1974, the company was on solid 
ground. And, by 1976, ADC had become the largest independent supplier 
of test boards in the U.S., and set its sights on becoming the world 
leader in jack and plug sales.
    The deregulation of AT&T, ordered by the federal government in 
1983, created a golden opportunity for ADC. By establishing the seven 
regional Bell operating companies (RBOC's) as independent entities, the 
U.S. market for telecommunications expanded by 90 percent. No longer 
forced to purchase their equipment from the Western Electric Division 
of AT&T, the RBOC's began to look for suppliers like ADC that had a 
reputation for quality and innovation in the marketplace. Over time, 
the RBOC's would become ADC's key customer base.
    Growing success in the telecommunications market and declining 
sales in transformers resulted in the 1984 decision to sell the 
magnetics business. This decision was highlighted when the company 
changed its name from ADC Magnetic Controls to ADC Telecommunications. 
Throughout the 1980's, ADC capitalized on the shift in technology from 
analog to digital, becoming the industry leader in digital signal cross 
connect devices.
    During the 1 990's, ADC has sought and will continue to seek 
alliances and acquisitions. This growth strategy allows ADC to more 
quickly add key technologies; broaden its product offerings; enter 
attractive new markets, and expand/enhance distribution channels.
    As a result of our growing and diversifying business, in 1995, ADC 
developed a more divisionalized approach. Shown below is an overview of 
our current structure.

Broadband Connectivity Group (BCG)

    Broadband Connectivity Group - Designs and manufactures products 
which provide the physical contact points for connecting different 
telecommunications systems components. BCG also designs and 
manufactures products for access to telecommunications system circuits 
for the purpose of installing, testing, monitoring or reconfiguring 
circuits. BCG Minnesota has several locations -- Minneapolis, Shakopee 
and LeSueur.
    AOFR - Manufacturer of fiber optic couplers and components. Based 
in Canberra, Australia. Solitra - Designs, manufacturers and markets 
radio frequency filers and other wireless base station equipment 
components and subsystems. Located in Kempele and Ruukki, Finland and 
Hutchinson, Minnesota.

Broadband Communications Division (BCD)

    BCD - Minnesota - Deliver flexible transmission solutions to 
service providers - voice, video and data transmission.
    BCD - AVS Connecticut - Designs, manufacturers, and markets fiber 
optic video transmission equipment for the telephone, cable television, 
broadcast and government markets.
    ADC Shanghai - 20-year joint venture with Shanghai Posts & 
Telecommunications Equipment. Licensed to manufacture and market ADC 
video systems fiber-optic transmission systems.
    Nanjing ADC Broadband Communications Co. Ltd - markets ADC's 
Homeworx platform to provide telephony and data services throughout the 
country. ADC and Panda are the joint venture holders.

Network Services Division (NSD)

    NSD provides loop access and transport systems to carriers for 
delivery of high-capacity and other high-bandwidth services to business 
end-users. NSD is located in Richardson, Texas.

Wireless Systems Group

    Mobile Systems Division
    Metrica Systems - Software design firm specializing in applications 
based network performance management tools for global wireless and, 
increasingly, wireline networks. Headquartered in London, England.
    Wireless Microsystems Division - Provides RF coverage solutions for 
PCS and cellular networks. Located in Portland, Oregon and Waseca, 
Minnesota.

ITS Corporation

    Manufacturer of television transmission equipment for the broadcast 
and microwave transmission markets, located in McMurray, Pennsylvania.

Enterprise Networking Group (ENG)

    ENG - Kentrox - Manufacturer of public network service access 
equipment for private telecommunications networks, located in Portland, 
Oregon.
    Skyline - Designs and manufactures ISDN/Frame Relay access products 
with routing capabilities. Located in California.

Systems Integration Group (SIG)

    Systems Integration offers a spectrum of services including: 
technical consulting and design services; implementation services, 
reliability services; performance services and training. This segment 
of SIG is primarily located in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
    Da Tel Fibernet, Inc. is an engineering and installation company 
focuses on servicing the telecommunications industry. Located in 
Georgia.
    The Apex Group - Software development and information management 
company located in Columbia, Maryland.

International

    Many of the business units have international components within 
their units. ADC also has international sales offices and manufacturing 
facilities located in various countries, such as: Canada, Mexico, 
Venezuela, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Finalnd, Australia, 
Singapore, Argentina, Malaysia, Korea, India, and China.

Corporate

    This group provides services to ADC as a whole and organizes some 
of the core functions of ADC's daily business - Legal, Facilities, 
Information Services, Business Development, Finance, Treasury, Human 
Resources, Marketing Communications, Customer Service, and Payroll.
    Entering the 1990's, ADC focused on meeting the needs of its 
customers in the public, private and government markets with a broad 
range of network management products and services designed for 
broadcast data and telecommunications networks. With a strong emphasis 
on fiber optic and high speed transmission systems, ADC is poised for 
the future with financial strength, superior resources and a vision 
that will ensure success.
    Entering the 21st century, ADC is helping define the future of 
telecommunications, both notionally and globally. Magnificent changes 
are on the horizon - changes in the way we do everyday things. ADC will 
play a key role in these changes and you have a stake in achieving 
these exciting goals. Our combined efforts and teamwork are critical to 
future successes which should be very exciting!

    Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Levin.

  STATEMENT OF LON C. LEVIN, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MOBILE 
  SATELLITE CORPORATION AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN MOBILE RADIO 
                 CORPORATION, RESTON, VIRGINIA

    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    My name is Lon Levin. I am here in support of ratification 
of the Constitution and Convention of the International 
Telecommunication Union signed at the 1992 Additional 
Plenipotentiary Conference held in Geneva and amended at the 
1994 Plenipotentiary Conference held in Kyoto.
    Ratification of the Constitution and Convention will enable 
the United States to participate fully at the ITU, which I 
believe is in our country's best interest.
    I am President of American Mobile Radio Corporation, one of 
two winning bidders to offer digital audio radio service via 
satellite in the United States. I am also Vice President of the 
parent corporation, American Mobile Satellite Corporation, a 
relatively new satellite company that is today providing a full 
array of two-way voice and data mobile satellite services 
throughout the United States.
    I speak for myself and on behalf of those two companies.
    In my work in the satellite industry for roughly the past 
12 years, I have been active in the private sector's 
involvement with the ITU, helping with the United States 
preparation for ITU conferences and frequently serving as a 
member of the U.S. delegation--positions that I consider to be 
among the highest honors of my professional life.
    I was a member of the U.S. delegation to the 1992 Geneva 
Additional Plenipotentiary Conference, or APP for short, and 
the 1994 Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference, or Kyoto Plenipot.
    I believe that, as a general matter, particularly in the 
timeframe in which I have been involved, the ITU has played a 
very positive role for United States telecommunications 
companies, particularly those that operate in the international 
environment. The ITU provides an international forum for the 
resolution of key global telecommunications issues. For the 
most part, decisions are hammered out by consensus, even though 
there are strong disagreements and lengthy negotiations. Member 
States are comfortable that the ITU protects their sovereign 
rights.
    In recent years, the private sector has been playing an 
increasingly important role. This involvement by the private 
sector in conference preparation and actual service on 
delegations distinguishes the ITU from many other international 
organizations and I believe contributes to its effectiveness.
    For the satellite industry, which is a $23 billion a year 
industry and a U.S. success story, the ITU plays a critical 
role, providing the only international forum for countries to 
agree on frequency allocations and operational procedures that 
permit the launch and operation of regional and global systems.
    All satellites are inherently international due to the size 
of their coverage areas. Thus, regional and international 
consensus on frequency allocations, orbit locations, and 
regulatory provisions are the lifeblood of satellite 
communications.
    The ITU also provides a critical function as an 
international clearinghouse for information on proposed 
spectrum uses. This permits administrations to negotiate with 
new users on behalf of existing spectrum users that are 
potentially affected by the proposed new operations.
    In most cases, this is a highly efficient and cost 
effective way to resolve potential interference problems before 
they occur. The private sector is the direct beneficiary.
    There are risks with any international entity, particularly 
one that operates on a principal of one nation/one vote. There 
are also legitimate concerns regarding the efficiency of any 
international bureaucracy. The United States does not always 
get what it wants.
    But my experience has been that the risks and concerns pale 
in comparison to the benefits derived by the United States and 
its telecommunications industry participating at the ITU.
    All of these general comments apply specifically to the 
Constitution and Convention that is the subject of this 
hearing. The changes made in the 1992 Constitution and 
Convention have resulted in an ITU that is more responsive to 
the rapid changes in telecommunications. Dividing the ITU into 
three sectors--development, radio communication, and 
telecommunication, has effectively separated the work on 
specific issues that concern the developing world, which tends 
to be more political in nature, from the more technical and 
operational matters of the other two sectors.
    This significant innovation is the scheduling of world 
radio communication conferences every 2 years, instead of on an 
ad hoc basis. This provides a routine mechanism for the world 
to deal quickly with radio communication matters. In addition, 
the APP eliminated the highly politicized International 
Frequency Registration Board and replaced it with the more 
spectrum-administration-oriented Radio Regulations Board.
    The 1994 Kyoto Plenipot had its share of initiatives that 
favor U.S. interests. Besides ratifying virtually all of the 
new Constitution and Convention developed at the 1992 
Conference, the Kyoto Plenipot adopted a 5 year strategic plan 
that included virtually all U.S. modifications. It also set an 
ITU budget that is well within acceptable bounds from the U.S. 
perspective.
    I understand that ratification of the ITU Constitution and 
Convention is required for the United States to be permitted to 
vote at the upcoming WRC-97. The U.S. must have a voice at this 
year's conference and must be a leader. There are several 
matters on the conference agenda in which the United States is 
the proponent or has a substantial interest. Not being able to 
vote will certainly put us in an awkward position and a less 
effective position.
    In conclusion, the ITU in general and the final results of 
the Geneva APP and the Kyoto Plenipot in particular should be 
considered successes for the United States, and as we look 
toward the future, we can be confident that those successes 
will continue.
    Thank you and I will take any questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lon C. Levin follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Lon C. Levin

    Good morning. My name is Lon Levin. I am here in support of 
ratification of the Constitution and Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), with annexes, 
signed at Geneva on December 22, 1992, and the amendments to 
the Constitution and Convention signed at Kyoto on October 14, 
1994, together with declarations and reservations by the United 
States as contained in the Final Acts. Ratification of the 
Constitution and Convention will enable the United States to 
participate fully at the ITU, which I believe is in our 
country's best interest.
    I am President of American Mobile Radio Corporation (AMRC), 
one of two winning bidders to offer Digital Audio service via 
satellite in the United States. AMRC plans to launch its 
satellites and begin operations by 2000. I am also Vice 
President of the parent corporation, American Mobile Satellite 
Corporation (AMSC), a relatively new satellite company that is 
today providing a full array of two-way voice and data mobile 
satellite services throughout the United States. I speak for 
myself and on behalf of both companies.
    In my work in the satellite industry for roughly the past 
twelve years, I have been active in the private sector's 
involvement with the ITU, helping with the United States 
preparation for ITU conferences and frequently serving as a 
member of the U.S. delegation--positions that I consider to be 
among the highest honors of my professional life. I was a 
member of the U.S. delegation to the Geneva Additional 
Plenipotentiary Conference (APP) in 1992 and the Kyoto 
Plenipotentiary Conference in 1994. Because my career has been 
in the satellite industry, my focus has been on the 
Radiocommunication Sector of the ITU and the World 
Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC), which review and revise 
the international table of frequency allocations and develop 
technical and operational regulations and recommendations. I 
served in international leadership positions at the ITU's 1992 
World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) and at the 1995 
World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-95). At WARC-92, I was 
the international conference chairperson of the Mobile 
Satellite Service Committee. At WRC-95, I was the international 
conference chairperson of the committee dealing with services 
in spectrum below 1 GHz. Most recently, I have been serving as 
the Vice Chairperson of the Industry Advisory Committee 
preparing for the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference 
(WRC-97) that begins this October in Geneva.
    I believe that, as a general matter and particularly in the 
time frame in which I have been involved, the ITU, with its 185 
member states, has played a very positive role for U.S. 
telecommunications companies that must deal with the inherent 
difficulties of operating in an international environment. The 
ITU describes itself accurately as ``an international 
organization within which governments and the private sector 
coordinate global telecom networks and services.'' The ITU 
provides an international forum, with regular conferences that 
provide a focal point for the resolution of key 
telecommunications issues. For the most part, decisions are 
hammered out by consensus, even though there are strong 
disagreements and lengthy negotiations. Member states are 
comfortable that the ITU protects their sovereign rights.
    In recent years the private sector has been playing an 
increasingly important role. This involvement by the private 
sector in conference preparation and actual service on 
delegations distinguishes the ITU from many other international 
organizations and I believe contributes to its effectiveness.
    For the satellite industry, which is a $23 billion a year 
industry and a U.S. success story, the ITU plays a critical 
role, providing the only international forum for countries to 
agree on frequency allocations and operational procedures that 
permit the launch and operation of regional and global systems. 
Virtually all satellites are inherently international, due to 
the size of their coverage areas. Thus, regional and 
international consensus on frequency allocations, orbit 
locations, and regulatory provisions is the lifeblood of 
satellite communications. Decisions by past ITU conferences 
paved the way for, among others, the development of Direct 
Broadcast satellites, the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) mobile 
satellite systems, Digital Audio Radio Satellites, and the 
newly proposed high-speed data satellites.
    The ITU also provides a critical function as an 
international clearinghouse for information on proposed 
spectrum uses. This permits administrations to negotiate with 
new users on behalf of existing users that are potentially 
affected by the proposed new operations. In most cases, this is 
a highly efficient and cost effective way to resolve potential 
problems before they occur. The private sector is the direct 
beneficiary,
    There are risks with any international entity, particularly 
one that operates on a principle of one nation-one vote. The 
U.S. does not always get what it wants. There are also 
legitimate concerns with the efficiency of any international 
bureaucracy. But my experience has been that those risks and 
concerns in practice pale in comparison to the benefits derived 
by the U.S. and the telecommunications industry.
    All of these general comments apply specifically to the 
Constitution and Convention that is the subject of this 
hearing. The changes made in 1992 to the Constitution and 
Convention have resulted in an ITU that is more responsive to 
the rapid changes in telecommunications. Dividing the ITU into 
three sectors--Development, Radiocommunication, and 
Telecommunication--has effectively separated the work on 
specific issues that concern the developing world from the more 
general technical and operational matters of the other two 
sectors. Another significant innovation is the scheduling of 
World Radiocommunication Conferences every two years, instead 
of on an ad hoc basis. This provides a routine mechanism for 
the world to deal quickly with radiocommunication matters. In 
addition, the new Constitution and Convention replaced the 
highly politicized international Frequency Registration Board 
with a more spectrum- administration-oriented Radio Regulations 
Board.
    Besides ratifying virtually all of the new Convention and 
Constitution developed at the 1992 Conference, the 1994 Kyoto 
Plenipot had its share of initiatives that favor U.S. 
interests. The Kyoto Plenipot adopted a five year strategic 
plan that included all U.S. modifications. It set an ITU budget 
that is well within acceptable bounds from the U.S. 
perspective. And, although a U.S. candidate was not elected to 
head the Radiocommunication Sector, the Plenipot selected 
Robert Jones of Canada, who was clearly qualified and has 
proven to be an excellent administrator.
    The United States was also concerned in Kyoto with an 
effort by other countries to establish a Policy Forum to 
discuss global satellite systems. There was concern that such a 
forum might slow the development of U.S. systems. But, as it 
turned out, the Policy Forum, held a year ago in Geneva, 
provided a useful mechanism for administrations to learn more 
about global systems and to become more comfortable that such 
systems will benefit their citizens while leaving their 
sovereignty intact. This process was facilitated by permitting 
the private sector to send its own delegates as company 
representatives that were separate from national delegations.
    The Kyoto Plenipot also adopted a provision known as 
Resolution 18, dealing with the regulation and administration 
of satellites. Resolution 18 raises legitimate issues and I am 
optimistic that further progress can be made on these issues at 
WRC-97 and the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference.
    I understand that ratification of the ITU Constitution and 
Convention is required for the U.S. delegation to be permitted 
to vote at the upcoming ARC-97. The U.S. must have a voice at 
this year's Conference and must be a leader. There are several 
matters on the Conference agenda, including mobile satellite, 
direct broadcast satellite, and high speed data satellite 
services, regarding which the United States is the proponent or 
has a substantial interest. Not being able to vote will 
certainly put us in an awkward and less effective position.
    In conclusion, the ITU in general and the final results of 
the Geneva APP and the Kyoto Plenipot in particular should be 
considered successes for the United States. And, as we look to 
the future, we can be confident that those successes will 
continue.
    Thank you.

    Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Levin. I just have 
general questions for both of you. So I would appreciate it if 
you would both answer in any detail you can.
    First, the Secretary General of the ITU is required to 
issue a strategic plan indicating changes in the 
telecommunications industry and also containing recommended 
action that is related to the union's future policies and 
strategy.
    In relation to that plan, to what degree was industry's 
involvement in helping to formulate the strategic plan?
    Mr. Fisher?
    Mr. Fisher. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not personally been 
involved in that process. I am probably not the best qualified. 
I know that ADC and other industry representatives have 
certainly been involved in the three sectors of the ITU. We 
have been encouraged, certainly since the Kyoto Plenipotentiary 
to participate fully in the strategic plan. But I'm afraid I 
cannot specify exactly what those strategies are.
    Senator Grams. But do you feel it is important that the 
private sector was involved?
    Mr. Fisher. Clearly, I do. We want to encourage the ITU to 
keep its doors open, as it has thrown them open, frankly, to 
this date to have the private sector more involved in this 
process. As I have said, in the past I think the private sector 
community has been captured by Government regulation and, 
frankly, in the new era of deregulation and increased 
competition, we certainly want a voice. It may sound like a 
cacophony sometimes, but we do want a voice in helping to shape 
those policies worldwide.
    Senator Grams. Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. Just to quickly respond, the private sector, 
because they tend to be vocal and because they tend to believe 
that the ITU is critical to their own successes, makes sure 
that their voice is heard, and the U.S. Government is always 
helpful in making sure that the voice is heard. I am 
comfortable that, at least in the last decade, the Secretary 
General continues to listen to U.S. industry.
    Senator Grams. I just say that because I am reminded that 
about 2 years ago there were some political charges made on 
both sides, or from one side, that said that, somehow, Congress 
invited in industry to help rewrite pollution laws and somehow 
that was to the detriment of the environment and to the benefit 
of some of the industry. I looked at it in just the opposite 
way. If you do not have industry involved to have a voice and 
use their expertise--I mean, I am not a heart surgeon; I would 
not pretend to do surgery, but we are going to be required to 
vote on legislation regarding rules and regulations there. But 
I think it is important. So I also agree with the ITU in 
opening the doors and inviting in industry to give their 
counsel, their expertise, and to help formulate better rules 
and regulations to operate, especially, as you have mentioned, 
in a global type market situation where you need that type of 
input.
    Mr. Levin, you said earlier that, despite maybe some 
concerns, the ITU gives the U.S. some huge benefits. What kind 
of benefits come out of this that the public should know if 
they are wondering about the ITU?
    Mr. Levin. Well, as I mentioned, let's take satellites, 
specifically, with which I am most familiar.
    Satellites are inherently international. Satellites require 
the use of spectrum that spills over borders. In order for a 
satellite the operate, particularly if it is using spectrum 
that is currently occupied by other users, there needs to be 
some way to coordinate the spectrum with the existing users.
    The ITU serves that function as the clearinghouse for 
sharing spectrum.
    Another function the ITU has performed, particularly 
recently, is the use of a policy forum. It is a nonbinding 
effort where the world gets together to discuss world issues 
regarding telecommunications. In the case of the Geneva Policy 
forum last year, it was on satellite regulations--how do we 
have satellites provide service throughout the world?
    The ITU is the ideal place for that kind of discussion and 
it served to be, as I said, the clearinghouse of all those 
ideas. It resulted, I believe, in each country feeling more 
comfortable with these global systems.
    Senator Grams. It provides the forum?
    Mr. Levin. It provides the forum for these ideas.
    Senator Grams. While some present at this hearing may 
disagree, the ITU is probably one of the least known 
international organizations but probably one of the most 
growing in importance. I mean, if we look at the growth of 
technology from 1947, it is a completely different environment 
today. I think this places even more importance on a forum such 
as what the ITU provides.
    By virtue of ratification, the U.S. and members of the 
Union are expected to play a very critical role in the future 
in telecommunications in the arena. What more can be done to 
increase the awareness of the public and the decision makers 
concerning the importance of the ITU to the global economy?
    Maybe I should throw this out. Is it important that the ITU 
be a very highly visible organization or can it do its work in 
a more stealth-type mode?
    Mr. Fisher, I will go to you first.
    Mr. Fisher. Well, unfortunately, for those who are outside 
the field of telecommunications this is not a thing you would 
normally see on TV every evening. I am sure that it is a part 
of its role, as a consequence, that causes that.
    But to the extent that the public is being asked to fund 
and support it, not only with their public support but with 
their public dollars, I think it is important to bring to the 
fore at some point, and perhaps more forcefully, just how 
significant this is in our lives.
    When I say ``our lives,'' I mean beyond our 
telecommunications industry but in the lives of each and 
everyone of us every time we pick up a telephone or turn on the 
television set or our computer. It affects our lives. We are 
using, basically, standards that are organized by standard 
setting bodies like the ITU.
    Certainly having the plenipotentiary in the United States 
for the first time, as I said, in modern telecommunications 
history is going to be a tremendous help in highlighting the 
importance of international community and international 
standard setting for the American public. I think that is true, 
too, for the Kyoto summit, our plenipotentiary 4 years ago, and 
other like summits.
    I think these are one of the ways that we should really 
promote these kinds of activities.
    Senator Grams. Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. To quickly respond, I am of two minds on this 
one.
    First, I think the ITU has been a tremendous benefit to the 
United States, and even though it may not be that well known, 
the fact is it is well known within the telecommunications 
industry and it is working just fine.
    On the other hand--and this is important--it works and it 
works well. I do think it could serve as a model for other 
international organizations. So to the extent that it could be 
appreciated for its efficiency and effectiveness and used as a 
model, I think that could help.
    As Mr. Fisher points out, the fact is now that it is going 
to be in Minneapolis, I am sure the level of interest will 
increase, at least in the United States. But it is an effective 
organization and I think it can be used as a model.
    Senator Grams. The new ITU Constitution provides for more 
regularized consideration of radio communication spectrum 
allocations. The ITU will hold radio communication conferences 
every 2 years in order to amend those regulations regarding 
radio.
    What effect will this regularized process have on new 
technologies? Is it necessary to hold it this often, more 
often, or less often?
    Mr. Levin?
    Mr. Levin. Actually, I am a very big fan of that. Before, 
it used to be on an ad hoc basis. What would happen, having the 
experience of being at the last great ad hoc 1992 WARC, is 
there is a sense of urgency at those ad hoc conferences that 
there is never going to be another one again until the plenipot 
starts scheduling them when the plenipotentiary conference 
comes.
    So as a result, a lot of decisions are made that may not be 
the best decisions or are made with the sense that if we don't 
get it done now, nothing is going to get done for years.
    What has happened, as a result of the routinization of 
these radio conferences, is if they are every year, if 
something does not get done that year, we all know that it can 
get done 2 years following. This is because the process is that 
you set the agenda not only for the one coming up but also for 
the one following it. So there is a sense of continuity.
    Also, there is no longer that sense of urgency which 
results in a better process.
    Also, if a new technology does come about, which, in fact, 
happened at the last conference in 1995, to the benefit of the 
United States where there were these new low Earth orbit global 
systems to provide a high speed data service, the ITU could 
accommodate it. It was flexible enough, one, to push aside 
other work because it can be done in the next 2 years, as well 
as it was flexible to take in the new work that had just popped 
up.
    So, in general, I am a very big fan of this 2 year process.
    Senator Grams. Mr. Fisher?
    Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I would have to share that.
    I am a relative newcomer, to be honest with you, to the 
telecommunications industry. I have been with ADC for about 2 
years. I can tell you the marked distinction of the 
telecommunications industry in my view is the rapidity of 
technological change.
    To be honest with you, I am not even sure that 2 years is 
fast enough to keep up with the changes that are going to 
happen every single day in our industry. If you are a newcomer 
to this, you know that there is an acronym a minute in this 
business. It is because of technological change and very large 
amounts of dollars going into R&D.
    So I certainly support flexibility.
    Senator Grams. I used to be in TV broadcasting and, even 
then, they were making decisions on what equipment to buy 
because by the time they ordered it, got it, and installed it, 
it was obsolete. I mean, new things had come out.
    So this is an industry, as you mentioned, that is moving 
very quickly in that regard.
    The ITU permits the private sector, as we have mentioned, 
to become members of the organization, and the convention under 
consideration would permit a greater role for private sector 
members permitting them to make requests for consideration by 
the ITU.
    In this regard, are you confident that the ITU insures that 
no one industry would be given more favorable access or 
influence in the ITU than another by having this open 
enrollment?
    Mr. Levin?
    Mr. Levin. Let me understand the question.
    Senator Grams. Well, government belongs to those who show 
up. So if those who show up get more influence, then those who 
don't are--what?
    Mr. Levin. Well, as we know, 80 percent of life is just 
showing up.
    Senator Grams. Yes.
    Mr. Levin. I think that those who do spend the effort tend 
to be the more successful. But I would like to think that what 
that invites is others to also make the effort, appreciating 
that the ITU is a place where you can cause change.
    I do think, at least in the United States--and I am going 
to assume it will be that way in the rest of the world that has 
a private sector as well as an effective government part of 
these delegations--there is a balancing out. Our Government 
does tend to balance out interests, even though there are very 
aggressive industry voices, which is fine. Sometimes these 
delegations get rather rough before we even go outside and deal 
with the rest of the world.
    But I think that the balance between these very strong 
industry voices and the effectiveness of our own Government, 
the State Department, the FCC and the NTIA--I think it tends to 
balance itself out.
    Senator Grams. Mr. Fisher, any comment?
    Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, I may be an idealist, but I will 
take the chance.
    Using ADC Telecommunications as an example, we are not an 
Ericcson, an ALCATEL, or a Lucent. We are a billion dollars in 
revenues a year, and while growing, we are not going to have 
the type of resources and capital to be able to pour into these 
conferences that would be necessary to truly be a significant 
voice there.
    But what I can tell you we are doing is we are pouring 
dollars into research and development to provide innovative 
solutions for carriers across the world, NDN solutions that 
will deliver their signals and their broadcasts to wherever 
they want it as fast as they want it to go. If nothing else, we 
are going to speak on the basis of our technological 
achievements, and we expect those achievements to come to the 
fore, even in large conferences, such as the ITU, and to 
influence standard bearing and standard setting in the future.
    Senator Grams. What can be done, or, probably, what more 
can be done to enhance the participation by nonadministrative 
entities and organizations that are seeking their views on 
approaches to the challenges of telecommunications development? 
Should there be more enhancement for more agencies, private 
sector, or whatever, to get involved--in other words, a larger 
table, more input, more voices, more views?
    Mr. Levin. If I could, first, I do think for the most part 
that it is open. I mean, there is an FCC process in which one 
can participate.
    I think the only limitation I can tell seems to be that the 
focus of the activity tends to be in Washington, D.C. And then 
Geneva. It is not spread out as much. As a result, those who 
can afford or who have a presence in Washington tend to be 
slightly more dominant. But I don't think that is a very big 
concern.
    As far as the ITU goes, the ITU is well on its way to open 
its doors. It has to have some location and some central point. 
I'm not sure you can really fix that one.
    Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, if I may, what I have seen is 
some mixed results. I think I agree with Mr. Levin that there 
is a concentration, certainly on national policy making in 
Washington, and on international in Geneva. More and more of 
the State PUC's are coming into the fore with the new 
Telecommunications Act of 1996. It creates a bit of a dichotomy 
for someone like us in the industry.
    It is easy to pay attention to Washington, and trade 
associations and the FCC because it is all one location. But 
now we have 50 States to which we have to pay attention.
    But to that extent, we have greater opportunity to 
influence local administration of telecommunications as well as 
Federal, as well as international. So I think it is opening up 
quite a bit.
    Senator Grams. I just have two quick, brief questions 
dealing with the plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis, Mr. 
Fisher, before we wrap up. We have a vote that is on right now.
    As a member of the ITU Host Committee, you have played a 
very important role in preparation for this 1998 conference in 
Minneapolis. I know that the Host Committee is committed to 
staging a very first rate conference in the Twin Cities.
    From the perspective of your other role as an executive 
with ADC Telecommunications, what issues that may receive 
consideration during the conference are of particular concern 
to your company?
    Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, what is always a concern in the 
plenipotentiary is, of course, as I think you indicated in your 
earlier questions, the opportunity to amend the Constitution 
and Convention. We are going to be watchful of that.
    We want the doors to be further opened to industry 
participation and voice, not control necessarily--we want a 
voice. Certainly, the review report that is to be submitted to 
the plenipotentiary in that regard will be very important to 
us. We think it will highlight, frankly, the industry role in 
international telecommunications and do something that really 
has not been done to date, and that is to spark their interest 
in the ITU.
    While there has been significant participation, in my view, 
by industry in ITU events, we have not always felt that we have 
had a specific voice. Now we would like to push that right to 
the max and I think it will spark greater interest by the 
industry in ITU affairs and, as a consequence, the public.
    Senator Grams. The final question is this.
    You have mentioned provisions for the cost of the 
conference are required of the host country, of any host 
country, to provide this. Congress, as you mentioned, has 
provided $7.5 million for the business sectors of the 
conference, rather than the $14 million in funding that had 
been originally requested and sought by the State Department.
    You are currently in a very aggressive campaign, I think 
you mentioned, to solicit private sector contributions and 
sponsorships. The question, is, in hindsight, do you believe 
that a greater education of the role of the ITU, a higher 
profile, may be what will come out of this conference as far as 
the public goes, to Congress? Would that have resulted, do you 
think, in an increased support and appropriation for the 
plenipot?
    Mr. Fisher. Mr. Chairman, in my own opinion, I think that 
is the case. When we were talking to people earlier this spring 
about funding, we were talking with people who were primarily 
interested in appropriations but who were not particularly 
schooled in telecommunications.
    I honestly believe that the importance of the ITU and the 
plenipotentiary overall to the United States, as a Government 
to Government operation, was not fully appreciated at that 
time.
    Now that is my personal view. I certainly believe that if 
good things come out of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary, as we 
expect, this will certainly raise the consciousness and make 
things much easier in the future to host these types of events.
    Senator Grams. I think a lot of feeling was that this was 
an industry event and not a public event.
    Mr. Fisher. Yes, sir.
    Senator Grams. But in most respects, this really helps to 
set the rules and regulations as to how the public and industry 
are both going to benefit from this. So, in hindsight, again, 
maybe there could have been a different view from the Congress.
    Mr. Fisher. It might have been.
    Mr. Chairman, frankly, if the plenipotentiary is left to 
private industry, it will be a cat fight. I think we really 
need an organizational hand in this that will bring in the 
nations of the world together to make some decisions that 
industry will fully support and that they had a voice in 
setting.
    Senator Grams. Again, I want to thank you all for taking 
your time to be here this morning.
    I just wanted to mention that I have noticed Ambassador 
McCann has been shaking her head in agreement with all of the 
things you have said. It is great when you see Government and 
private industry working together and sharing in common goals.
    Again, just a reminder of the fact that the record will 
remain open for 3 days--that would be fine--for any questions 
that Senators may want to present to any or all of our 
witnesses today. Again, a quick reaction from you would be very 
much appreciated.
    Again, thank you very much for your time here this morning.
    The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the committee adjourned, subject 
to the call of the Chair.]


                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

                 United States Department of State,
                                     Washington, D.C. 20520
                                                 September 24, 1997
The Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: Following the September 17, 1997 hearing at 
which the Honorable Vonya McCann testified, additional questions were 
submitted for the record. Please find enclosed the responses to those 
questions.
    If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate 
to contact us.

      Sincerely,

                                    Barbara Larkin,
                                       Assistant Secretary,
                                               Legislative Affairs.

   Responses of Ambassador McCann to Questions Asked by Senator Helms
    Question. The 1996 letter of transmittal contained in the ITU 
treaty document indicates that the Administration placed several 
reservations in the 1992 Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference. 
The first reservation indicates that the United States reserves the 
right to make additional reservations at the time of the deposit of 
instruments of ratification. The letter of transmittal goes on to say 
that the Department of State and other agencies involved recommend that 
no additional reservations are needed to protect U.S. interests. Does 
the Administration still recommend that no additional reservations are 
needed to protect U.S. interests?
    Answer. Yes, the administration still recommends that no additional 
reservations are needed to protect U.S. interests.
    Question. The first reservation (Number 68) indicates that the 
United States will not be bound by Administrative Regulations adopted 
prior to the date of signature of the Constitution and Convention. 
Which regulations specifically will the United States be bound by 
through ratification of the ITU Constitution and Convention?
    Answer. The first U.S. statement (number 68) establishes that the 
United States will be bound solely by administrative regulations that 
it has expressly consented to through notification to the ITU. 
Administrative regulations that the United States has expressly 
consented to include: The radio regulations, with appendices and final 
protocol, done at Geneva December 6, 1979; entered into force January 
1, 1982; definitively for the United States October 27, 1983; partial 
revision of radio regulations (Geneva 1979) relating to mobile 
services, with annex and final protocol, done at Geneva March 18, 1983; 
entered into force January 15, 1985; for the United States April 6, 
1993); partial revision adopted by the first session of the World 
Administrative Radio Conference on the Use of the Geostationary-
Satellite Orbit and the Planning of Space services utilizing it, signed 
at Geneva September 15, 1985; entered into force October 30, 1986; for 
the United States April 6, 1993; 1987 partial revision of the radio 
regulations (Geneva 1979) relating to mobile services, done at Geneva 
October 17, 1987; entered into force October 3, 1989; for the United 
States April 6, 1993; partial revision of the world administrative 
radio conference on the use of the geostationary-satellite orbit and 
the planning of space services utilizing it, signed at Geneva October 
6, 1988; entered into force March 16, 1990; for the United States April 
6, 1993; and international telecommunication regulations (telephone and 
telegraph) with appendices and final protocol, done at Melbourne 
December 9, 1988; entered into force July 1, 1990; for the United 
States April 6, 1993.
    Question. What is the impact of incorporating declarations made at 
the time of signature of the. Final Acts of the World Administrative 
Radio Conference (Geneva 1979) as contained in the Administration's 
second declaration (Number 73)?
    Answer. Incorporation of declarations made at the time of signature 
of the final acts of the World Administrative Conference (Geneva 1979) 
as contained in the administration's second statement (number 73) 
reiterates the U.S. position that references in article 44 of the 
constitution to the ``geographical situation of particular countries'' 
does not signify a recognition of claims of countries to exercise 
sovereign rights over, or preferential rights to, segments of the 
geostationary orbit.
    Question. Please explain the Administration's rationale for 
including a declaration relating to Article 44 of the Constitution 
clarifying that the United States does not recognize claims to any 
preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite orbit. Are other 
Parties interpreting this Article as granting such rights? If so, how 
will the ITU handle such competing assertions.
    Answer. Article 44 of the constitution is an important provision 
that deals with the rational, efficient and economic use of radio 
frequencies and the geostationary-satellite orbit, as well as equitable 
access to both. In regard to equitable access, article 44 provides that 
countries shall take ``into account the special needs of developing 
countries and the geographical situation of particular countries.'' 
This language has been interpreted by some countries to reflect a right 
to exercise sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary orbit. 
Declarations made by the Republic of Colombia (number 37 of Kyoto 
reaffirming reservation number 48 made at Geneva) and the Republic of 
Kenya (number 72 at Kyoto reaffirming reservation number 53 made at 
Geneva), for example, incorporate by reference statements made by 
several equatorial countries -- the so-called Bogota declaration of 
December 3, 1976 -- regarding such preferential rights. The 
administration's statement with respect to this issue affirms its long-
standing view that countries do not exercise sovereign rights over 
segments of the geostationary orbit and that references to the 
``geographical situation of particular countries'' do not imply U.S. 
recognition of claims to ``any preferential rights'' to that orbit. 
Twenty-six other countries, including Australia, the Federal Republic 
of Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Norway and the 
United Kingdom, share the U.S. view.
    In the event of a dispute concerning claims of preferential rights 
to the geostationary orbit, countries may invoke the dispute resolution 
mechanisms available under article 56 of the constitution and article 
41 of the convention.
    Question. The third declaration broadly asserts the right of the 
United States to take whatever measures it may consider necessary to 
safeguard U.S. interests in response to actions taken bv other 
countries to protect their interests. Is this a standard declaration 
taken by all countries? What actions may trigger the United States to 
assert this right? Does this declaration give the United States 
adequate protections to respond to the actions of other countries or 
parties who take actions harmful to U.S. interests?
    Answer. Many countries have adopted similar declarations reserving 
their right to take such actions as may be considered necessary to 
safeguard their interests in response to reservations by other 
countries that jeopardize such interests. Such declarations have been 
common in ITU treaty conference final acts since at least the early 
1980S, and include, for example, the assertion of the right to take 
whatever actions are necessary to address what are considered to be 
inappropriate broadcasts by one country in the territory of another. 
Actions that jam U.S. broadcasts on appropriate frequencies might 
trigger the United States to take measures necessary to preserve its 
rights. This declaration does not itself establish the type of measures 
the United States might invoke to address a particular declaration that 
adversely affects U.S. interests, but rather puts countries on notice 
that the United States will take appropriate actions to enforce U.S. 
rights if jeopardized by other countries.
    Question. Please clarify the effect of the Administration's third 
reservation (Number 97)
    Answer. The administration's third statement in the final acts of 
the Kyoto conference deals with declaration number 80, which was 
included by a number of delegations unhappy with the decision taken by 
the plenipotentiary conference not to amend article 54 of the 
constitution (article 54 addresses the status and entry into force of 
administrative regulations). The U.S. declaration is intended to make 
clear that the United States did not agree with the interpretative and 
international law statements made in that declaration and that, 
regardless of how the delegations who made the declaration interpret 
the declaration and its effects, the declaration does not affect the 
application to the United States of article 54 of the constitution. A 
number of European nations made a declaration (number 94) similar to 
the U.S. declaration.
    Question. What has been the response of the other Parties regarding 
the U.S. reservation regarding Cuba? Is the Administration satisfied 
that the reservation as drafted adequately protects U.S. policy and 
interests toward Cuba?
    Answer. There have been no specific responses by other parties to 
the U.S. statement regarding Cuba. The administration believes that 
this reservation provides adequate notice to Cuba and others that the 
United States will take whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure 
effective broadcasts to Cuba on appropriate frequencies, and to meet 
the radiocommunication needs arising from the United States' presence 
in Guantanamo. Nothing in this statement would interfere with the 
United States' ability to protect its rights vis-a-vis broadcasts to 
Cuba.

                                
