[Senate Executive Report 110-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                              Exec. Rept.
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                      110-28

======================================================================



 
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL 
                        TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

                                _______
                                

               September 23, 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Dodd, from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

         [To accompany Treaty Docs. 108-5, 109-11, and 110-16]

    The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred 
the amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the 
United States at Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, and contained 
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Minneapolis 1998) (the ``1998 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 108-
5); amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the 
United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, and contained 
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 
2002) (the ``2002 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 109-11); and 
amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), and the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the 
United States at Antalya on November 24, 2006, and contained in 
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006) 
(the ``2006 Amendment'') (Treaty Doc. 110-16), having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon subject to 
declarations and reservations, as indicated in the resolutions 
of advice and consent for each treaty, and recommends the 
Senate give its advice and consent to ratification thereof, as 
set forth in this report and the accompanying resolutions of 
advice and consent.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

  I. Purpose..........................................................2
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Major Provisions.................................................4
 IV. Entry Into Force................................................12
  V. Implementing Legislation........................................12
 VI. Committee Action................................................12
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments...........................12
VIII.Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification................20


                               I. Purpose

    These three sets of amendments to the Constitution and the 
Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (the 
``ITU'') are generally designed to: (1) facilitate further 
private-sector involvement in the organization; (2) improve the 
efficiency, flexibility, and effectiveness of the ITU as a 
functioning organization; and (3) promote greater fiscal 
stability and transparency at the ITU.

                             II. Background

    The International Telecommunication Union (the ``ITU''), 
based in Geneva with a membership of 191 countries, is the 
principal international organization in the area of information 
and communication technologies, providing a forum for global 
cooperation and coordination and the promotion of more 
effective and efficient use of such technologies generally. The 
ITU was founded in 1865. The original treaty was signed by 20 
European countries\1\ approximately twenty years after the 
first public message over a telegraph was sent between 
Washington and Baltimore\2\ and called for common rules for 
European telegraphy. Over the next few decades the periodic 
conferences held by States that were parties to the original 
treaty or the treaties that subsequently superseded the 1865 
treaty along with a Secretariat that provided administrative 
support, became known as the ``International Telegraph Union.'' 
On a parallel track, radio communication technology was 
developing and in 1906, the first Radiotelegraph Conference was 
convened to establish rules governing the international use of 
radio. A Radiotelegraph Convention and Radiotelegraph 
Regulations were adopted at the 1906 conference in Berlin. The 
United States joined the Radiotelegraph Convention in 1912\3\ 
and also became a member of the International Telegraph Union 
that same year.\4\ At a conference in 1932, it was decided to 
combine the International Telegraph Convention and the 
International Radiotelegraph Convention to form the 
International Telecommunication Convention.\5\ The Conference 
further decided that the name of the Union should be changed to 
``International Telecommunication Union'' (the ``ITU'') in 
order to reflect the full scope of the Union's 
responsibilities, which by this time covered all forms of 
wireline and wireless communication. Under an agreement with 
the United Nations, the organization became a UN specialized 
agency on October 15, 1947.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\130 Consolidated Treaty Series 198 (1864-1865) (French) (Clive 
Parry ed., Oceana 1969). The original treaty, the International 
Telegraph Convention, was signed on May 17, 1865 by the following 
countries: France, Austria, The Grand Duchy of Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, 
Denmark, Spain, Greece, Hamburg, Hanover, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Saxe-Hildburghausen, Sweden-Norway, 
Switzerland, Turkey, and Wurttemberg. It appears, however, that it was 
not until 1868, in a new iteration of the 1865 treaty, that the 
International Telegraph Union was founded, which was at the time known 
as the ``Berne Bureau'' because it was located in Berne.  See Leive, 
International Telecommunications and International Law: The Regulation 
of The Radio Spectrum 31-32 (Oceana 1970).
    \2\See From Semaphore to Satellite 28 (International 
Telecommunication Union 1965). The first public message over a 
telegraph was sent between Washington and Baltimore by Samuel Finley 
Breeze Morse (1791-1872), who developed the famous Morse code. Morse 
had obtained $30,000 in 1843 for a telegraph line from Washington to 
Baltimore, which was opened on January 1, 1945. Reportedly, the ``first 
message sent by Morse was the phrase `What hath God wrought'.'' These 
were apparently the same words that President Kennedy used in the first 
telephone conversation over a SYNCOM satellite on August 23, 1963. 
Ibid.
    \3\The United States signed the International Wireless Telegraph 
Convention in 1906 (also known as the International Radiotelegraph 
Convention), and after receiving the advice and consent of the Senate, 
the President ratified that Convention in 1912. See Ex. A, 60-1. The 
International Wireless Telegraph Convention was signed by many of the 
same countries in Europe that had signed the International Telegraph 
Convention of 1865, but also included Great Britain, Brazil, Uruguay, 
Persia, and of course, the United States.
    \4\On July 5, 1912, the United States signed the International 
Radiotelegraph Convention, which was the latest iteration of the 1865 
International Telegraph Convention. This Convention was submitted to 
the Senate by President Taft on January 11, 1913. See Ex. A, 60-3. The 
transmittal notes, among other things, that advances in the development 
of radiotelegraphy had been ``greatly aided as a result of the 
extremely efficient accomplishments of the radio section of the Berne 
International Bureau of the Telegraphic Union.'' Id. at p. 52.
    \5\The International Telecommunication Convention, Ex. B, 73-2, was 
signed by the United States at Madrid on December 9, 1932, approved by 
the Senate on May 1, 1934, and ratified by the President shortly 
thereafter.
    \6\Agreement between the United Nations and the International 
Telecommunication Union, signed on April 26, 1949, 316 U.N.T.S. 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, some 140 years after its creation, the fundamental 
objectives of the ITU remain the same, but the scope of the 
organization's mandate is much broader, commensurate with the 
expansive development of telecommunication technologies over 
the decades. The ITU provides a forum for global 
telecommunication standardization activities; for the 
international allocation, management, and use of spectrum, 
including broadcasting, satellite sound broadcasting, mobile 
satellite services, and space services; and, in the case of 
developing countries, for the promotion and provision of 
technical assistance in the area of telecommunications.
    In 1992, the ITU underwent a major reorganization, which 
was undertaken in response to significant changes and 
developments in the telecommunications area. There are now two 
treaties that provide the legal basis for the organization: the 
ITU Constitution and Convention. The United States is a party 
to both instruments, which contain complementary provisions.\7\ 
The ITU Constitution sets out overarching principles governing 
the ITU's basic structure, purpose, and functions, while the 
Convention provides greater detail regarding the functional and 
procedural implementation of the broad structure set forth in 
the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\The 1992 ITU Constitution and Convention, along with amendments 
to both instruments concluded in 1994, were submitted to the Senate by 
the President on September 13, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 104-34) and approved 
by the Senate on October 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The top policy-making body of the ITU is the 
Plenipotentiary Conference, which meets every four years and 
consists of representatives of States that are party to the ITU 
Constitution and Convention. The executive body of the ITU, the 
ITU Council, meets annually and governs the organization in the 
interim between Plenipotentiary Conferences. The Council is 
composed of Member States elected by the Plenipotentiary 
Conference; the United States currently has a seat on the 
Council. The Council facilitates the implementation of the 
Constitution, the Convention, Administrative Regulations 
(International Telecommunications Regulations and Radio 
Regulations), Plenipotentiary Conference decisions and, where 
appropriate, decisions of other conferences and meetings of the 
Union. The General Secretariat of the ITU, run by the 
Secretary-General, is the administrative arm of the 
organization. The work of the ITU is carried out within three 
ITU sectors:

The Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R)

    The Radiocommunication Sector's primary objective is to 
manage the international radio-frequency spectrum and satellite 
orbits, so as to maximize effective use of these resources 
while minimizing interference in the operation of 
radiocommunication systems. The Sector uses instruments such as 
the Radio Regulations and regional agreements, which are 
updated periodically, to implement its objective.

The Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)

    The Telecommunication Standardization Sector is responsible 
for making recommendations regarding universal standards for 
telecommunications. The World Telecommunication Standardization 
Assembly meets every four years to define the general policy 
for the Sector, establish study groups on that basis, and 
approve the work expected to occur before the next Assembly.

The Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D)

    The Telecommunication Development Sector is responsible for 
generally assisting developing countries in developing 
information and communication technologies, narrowing the 
digital divide, and increasing the information flow to and from 
developing countries.

                         III. Major Provisions

    Detailed summaries of the 1998 Amendment, the 2002 
Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment may be found in the relevant 
Letters of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 
President, which are reprinted in full in Treaty Documents 108-
5, 109-11, and 110-16. As described above in Section I, these 
amendments are generally designed to facilitate further 
private-sector involvement in the ITU, improve the efficiency, 
flexibility, and effectiveness of the ITU's functioning, and 
promote greater fiscal stability and transparency at the ITU. A 
brief description of key provisions of the amendments that 
accomplish these objectives is set forth below.

             A. FACILITATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

    Matching the remarkable developments in technology, private 
sector participation in the field of telecommunications has 
grown markedly over the past several decades. This growth is 
nowhere more apparent than in the increased interest shown by 
the private sector in assisting the ITU and Member States in 
addressing the evolving international telecommunication 
environment. Private entities can participate in the work of a 
particular sector as a Sector Member or as an Associate. In an 
effort to clarify the rights and obligations of these different 
memberships, facilitate private sector participation, and 
distinguish Sector Members from Member States, the 1998 
Amendment amended Article 3 of the Constitution and Article 19 
of the Convention so as to clearly define the roles of private 
sector participants in the work of the ITU. Specifically, 
Sector Members are generally entitled to participate fully in 
the activities of the Sector of which they are members, while 
Associates are admitted by the Assembly or Conference of a 
Sector to participate in the work of a particular study group 
or subgroup of the Sector. In general, Sector Members have 
greater rights and obligations than Associates and pay more for 
their membership.\8\ To date, there are 568 Sector Members and 
153 Associates.\9\ In response to questions from the committee 
regarding the role and importance of Sector Members and 
Associates in the work of the ITU, Senior Deputy U.S. 
Coordinator Richard Beaird responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\For the years 2006-2007, a contributory unit is valued at 63,600 
Swiss Francs for Sector Members, while a contributory unit for 
Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for the ITU 
Radiocommunication Sector and ITU Telecommunication Standardization 
Sector, 3,975 Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development 
Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs for Associates from developing 
countries participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development 
Sector.
    \9\There is a publicly available list of Sector Members on the 
ITU's website at http://itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/
mm.list?_search==SEC&--languageid=1 and Associates at http://
www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/
mm.list?_search=ASSOCIATES&_languageid=1.


          Sector Members have an important role to play in all 
        three ITU Sectors, but their participation relative to 
        that of Member States varies from Sector to Sector. In 
        the [Telecommunication Standardization Sector], since 
        national networks have been privatized, Member States 
        generally no longer engage in technical work (with some 
        exceptions where there are national interests at stake, 
        such as priority of communications in times of national 
        disasters and emergencies, or identity management). 
        Consequently, Sector Members are largely responsible 
        for preparing technical contributions for 
        telecommunications standards. In the 
        [Radiocommunication Sector], both Sector Members and 
        Member States have major stakes in obtaining and 
        protecting radio spectrum. In the [Telecommunication 
        Development Sector], with some notable exceptions, the 
        private sector has historically been much less 
        involved. This may be because the business case for 
        assisting developing countries is much less obvious 
        than the need to obtain spectrum for a new service (in 
        the [Radiocommunication Sector]), or to establish an 
        international standard for telecommunications equipment 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (in the [Telecommunication Standardization Sector]).


        

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
          Associates [also] play an important role in the ITU 
        standards development process. Creation of an Associate 
        category has increased private sector participation in 
        the ITU and brought into the ITU process entities with 
        specialized expertise in particular fields of 
        telecommunications. The private sector has benefited 
        from the Associate category because it has allowed 
        entities that have expertise in a particular 
        telecommunications subject to participate in that part 
        of the work of the ITU that is of interest to them, at 
        a lower rate than they would have to pay as Sector 
        Members.


    The 1998 Amendment amended several other articles of the 
Constitution and Convention in order to further facilitate 
private sector participation in the ITU. For example, Article 
20 of the Convention was amended to provide that a Sector, 
through its Bureau Director, may invite participation in a 
specified matter by organizations that do not generally 
participate in the Sector. Article 3 of the Constitution was 
amended to permit Sector Members to be chairs and vice chairs 
of Sector assemblies and meetings, and World Telecommunication 
Development Conferences. Additionally, Article 19 of the 
Convention was amended to provide that private entities 
applying for Sector Membership could, if their Member State had 
authorized such a process, apply directly to the Secretary 
General to become a Sector Member. In the Letter of Submittal 
from the Secretary of State to the President, which is 
reprinted in full in Treaty Document 108-5, it is noted that 
``for domestic policy reasons [the United States] will require 
that U.S. private sector entities seeking to become Sector 
Members apply for such membership through current procedures, 
which require the direct involvement of the U.S. 
government.''\10\ In response to questions from the committee, 
Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird further explained 
that the ``U.S. has chosen to maintain minimal oversight over 
which U.S. entities are allowed to apply for ITU membership for 
a number of reasons'' including that the United States, ``which 
has more Sector Members than any other country, wants to be 
kept informed about what U.S. entities are participating in the 
ITU.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. VII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2002 Amendment and the 2006 Amendment further 
facilitate private sector involvement in the ITU, particularly 
with respect to private sector participation in meetings. For 
example, the 2002 Amendment amends Article 4 of the Convention 
to allow Sector Members to be represented as observers at 
meetings of the Council, its committees, and its working 
groups, subject to conditions to be established by the Council. 
The 2006 Amendment amends Article 4 of the Convention to 
clarify that Sector Members may attend--and not merely be 
represented at--meetings of the Council, its committees, and 
its working groups, subject to certain conditions. The 2006 
Amendment additionally amends Article 23 of the Convention to 
clarify that observers of specified organizations, agencies, 
and entities may participate in Plenipotentiary Conferences in 
an advisory capacity; amends Article 24 of the Convention to 
clarify that observers of certain organizations and agencies, 
including international organizations, may participate in 
radiocommunication conferences in an advisory capacity; and 
amends Article 25 to clarify that observers from certain 
organizations and agencies may participate in an advisory 
capacity with respect to radiocommunication assemblies, world 
telecommunication standardization assemblies, and 
telecommunication development conferences.
    Although the State Department has indicated that it views 
private sector participation in the ITU's activities as 
``crucial to the future success of the ITU,'' the Department 
has also noted in testimony that ``if changes were made [to] 
the ITU's procedural rules that resulted in Sector Members 
gaining control over the ITU's processes, such changes would be 
a concern because they could prevent Member States from 
exercising their appropriate role as guardians of the public 
interest and national security.'' The Executive Branch has 
assured the committee in testimony that ``[n]o such changes are 
currently envisioned.''

 B. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, FLEXIBILITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ITU

Working Methods

    All three amendments to the ITU Convention attempt to 
improve the working methods of the ITU. Specifically, the 1998 
Amendment amends Article 20 of the Convention to explicitly 
recognize the right of Sector Members to participate in the 
adoption of questions to be studied in ITU study groups in 
accordance with procedures established by the relevant 
conference or assembly. The 1998 Amendment also amends Article 
20 to permit a conference or assembly to adopt certain 
recommendations that are discussed in a study group without the 
formal consultation of Member States, so long as such 
recommendations have no policy or regulatory implications. 
These procedures allow the technical work of the ITU to proceed 
more efficiently. In response to a question from the committee, 
the Administration responded as follows regarding the utility 
of these procedures:


          Pursuant to Article 20 (in particular, paragraph CV 
        246-A and 246-D), Member States have established 
        procedures for both study Questions and Recommendations 
        to be adopted without formal consultation of the Member 
        States where there is no doubt that the Questions and 
        Recommendations involved lack policy or regulatory 
        implications. In the ITU Telecommunication 
        Standardization Sector, Questions may be adopted at 
        Study Group meetings where there is consensus. . . . 
        Recommendations may also be adopted without formal 
        Member State consultation pursuant to the streamlined 
        process set forth in ITU-T Recommendation A.8. Twenty-
        two Questions were adopted during the 2004-2008 period 
        without formal Member State consultation.
          In the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, 
        most Recommendations are highly technical and do not 
        involve regulatory or policy issues, and are therefore 
        approved under the streamlined process, i.e., by the 
        Member States and Sector Members present at the Study 
        Group meeting without further formal consultation of 
        all Member States. In the period from 2004-2008, there 
        were 840 ITU-T Recommendations approved using this 
        process; a list of these can be provided if requested. 
        It is estimated that this constitutes over 90% of the 
        ITU-T's recommendations during this period. However, 
        even in these cases, Member States may call for a 
        formal Member State consultation process where they 
        believe policy or regulatory issues are involved.


    To facilitate the work of the three sectors and provide for 
greater flexibility, the 2002 Amendment amends the Constitution 
by adding a provision that specifically recognizes the 
authority of the Radiocommunication Assembly, the World 
Telecommunication Standardization Assembly, and the World 
Telecommunication Development Conference to establish and adopt 
working methods and procedures for their respective sectors, 
although they must be compatible with the Constitution, 
Convention, and Administrative Regulations.\11\ The 2002 
Amendment also amends Article 4 of the Convention to allow 
Member States that are not members of the Council to 
participate as observers at meetings of the Council, but 
without the right to vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\See Chapter IVA of the Constitution as amended by the 1998 
Amendment, Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 32.  See also Articles 8(1bis), 
13(1bis), and 16(1) of the Convention as amended by the 1998 Amendment, 
Treaty Doc. 109-11 at pp. 54, 58, and 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2006 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to 
clarify that the Secretary-General of the ITU, the Deputy 
Secretary-General, or a representative of the Secretary-General 
may participate in ITU conferences or other ITU meetings in an 
advisory, rather than a ``consultative'' capacity. In response 
to questions from the committee, the Department of State 
indicated that this amendment reflected a concern that the term 
``consultative'' provided the Secretary-General with too strong 
of a role in the decision-making process of the organization 
and thus the term was replaced with ``advisory,'' which is 
intended to indicate ``that the Secretary-General and other ITU 
officials provide advice to the Member States but Member States 
need not consult them.'' Article 16 of the Convention is 
amended by the 2006 Amendment to provide that the world 
telecommunication development conferences may maintain, 
terminate, or establish study groups and allocate to them 
matters to be studied. In addition, the provision in the 
Convention relating to the functions of the Telecommunication 
Development Advisory Group (Article 17A) is amended to state 
that this Group shall act through the Director of the 
Telecommunication Development Bureau, thereby providing more 
direct control by the Director over the activities of the 
Telecommunication Development Advisory Group.

Scheduling of Meetings

    Amendments were made to the Constitution in order to 
provide for greater flexibility in the timing of particular 
meetings. The 1998 Amendment amends Article 13 of the 
Constitution, for example, so as to require that World 
Radiocommunication Conferences and Assemblies be held 
``normally . . . every two to three years''\12\ as opposed to 
``normally . . . every two years.''\34\ The purpose of this 
amendment was to promote flexibility and provide enough time 
between conferences for the necessary work to be done in 
preparation of the agenda. The 2006 Amendment modified these 
provisions yet again, to provide that World Radiocommunication 
Conferences and Assemblies shall be convened every three to 
four years.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 23.
    \13\Treaty Doc. 104-34 at p. 32.
    \14\See Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 4. Note, also, that this reduction 
in the number of World Radiocommunication Conferences and Assemblies 
would appear to have the added benefit of reducing the overall costs 
incurred by the ITU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Functioning of the Radio Regulations Board

    The Radio Regulations Board (the ``RRB'') is a body of the 
ITU that consists of elected members highly qualified in 
radiocommunications who have substantial expertise in issues 
relating to the assignment and use of radio frequencies. The 
duties of the RRB include, among other things, approving rules 
of procedure to be used in the application of the Radio 
Regulations and consideration of radiocommunication matters 
that cannot be resolved through the application of such rules. 
The 1998 Amendment enlarged the RRB from 9 individuals to not 
more than 12 or a number corresponding to six percent of the 
total number of Member States, whichever is greater,\15\ which 
should enable the Board to handle the ever-increasing workload 
more effectively. The 2002 Amendment amends Article 9 of the 
Constitution to expand the field from which qualified 
individuals could be elected to serve on the RRB by removing 
the prohibition against having members of the RRB that are of 
the same nationality as the Secretary-General of the ITU. The 
2002 Amendments also amended Article 14 so as to grant members 
of the RRB, when performing their official duties, functional 
privileges and immunities equivalent to those granted to the 
elected officials of the ITU by each Member State. This 
amendment is intended to ensure that the members of the RRB can 
continue to function independently, without fearing that 
entities that disagree with findings of the RRB may attempt 
legal action against them. The 2002 Amendment additionally 
amends Article 10 of the ITU Convention to authorize the RRB, 
at the request of one or more states, to consider appeals 
against decisions made by the Radiocommunication Bureau 
regarding frequency assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\At present, six percent of the total number of Member States is 
not greater than 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electing Officials of the ITU

    Article 2 of the Convention provides that elected officials 
of the ITU (the Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-
General, and the Directors of the Bureaus) shall be eligible 
for re-election only once.\16\ The 2006 Amendment clarifies 
that this applies only to re-election for the same 
position.\17\ Also, the amendment clarifies that the 
restrictions on re-election for a second term applies 
regardless of whether the terms are consecutive.\18\ The 2006 
Amendment similarly amended Article 3 to clarify that the 
existing restriction on re-election for a second term for 
members of the RRB applies regardless of whether the terms are 
consecutive.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See Treaty Doc. 104-34 at p. 91.
    \17\See Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 8.
    \18\Ibid.
    \19\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         C. PROMOTING GREATER FISCAL STABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

    The ITU operates on a biennial budget that is approved by 
the Council every two years, which must remain within the 
limits set by the Plenipotentiary Conference for two budgetary 
cycles. The expenses of the ITU are largely financed through 
the contributions of Member States and Sector Members. Other 
sources of financing include income from the sale of 
publications and satellite notifications, as well as income 
from interest on late payments. A few years ago, the ITU had 
financial difficulties, but due in part to the amendments 
adopted in 1998, 2002, and 2006, the organization has made 
considerable progress and now its finances are reasonably 
stable. Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird testified 
to the committee that ``the Union is in far better financial 
shape than it was certainly in 2002'' and that in 2007, a 
balanced budget was adopted by the Council for the first time.

Classes of Contributions

    The mechanism for assessing contributions of Member States 
and Sector Members of the ITU is unusual. At a meeting of the 
Council prior to each Plenipotentiary Conference, the Council 
approves a proposed budget or ``draft financial plan'' and 
provisionally sets the value of a ``contributory unit'' for 
Member States and Sector Members on the basis of the proposed 
budget and the total number of contributory units.\20\ The 
units are incorporated into ``classes'' of contributions that 
range from one-sixteenth of a contributory unit to 40 
contributory units, as set forth in Article 33 of the 
Convention. The Secretary-General then informs the Member 
States and the Sector Members of the provisional amount of the 
contributory unit decided upon by the Council and invites 
Member States to announce to the ITU the class of contribution 
they have provisionally chosen. Each Member State and Sector 
Member is free to choose a ``class of contribution'' from the 
scale of contribution units although, in accordance with the 
1998 Amendment, there are some limitations on the ability of a 
Member State to choose a lower contribution class than was 
chosen by that Member State at the last Plenipotentiary 
Conference.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\For the years 2006-2007, the budget of the Union stands at 
339,435,000 Swiss Francs (approximately $308,129,495.20), with a 
contributory unit valued at 318,000 Swiss Francs for Member States and 
63,600 Swiss Francs for Sector Members. In addition, the contributory 
unit for Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for the ITU 
Radiocommunication Sector and ITU Telecommunication Standardization 
Sector, 3,975 Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development 
Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs for Associates from developing 
countries participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development 
Sector.
    \21\See, e.g., Article 28(5), as amended by the 1998 Amendment, 
which states that ``[w]hen choosing its class of contribution, a Member 
State shall not reduce it by more than two classes of contribution and 
the Council shall indicate to it the manner in which the reduction 
shall be gradually implemented over the period between plenipotentiary 
conferences. However, under exceptional circumstances such as natural 
disasters necessitating international aid programmes, the 
Plenipotentiary Conference may authorize a greater reduction in the 
number of contributory units contribution at the class originally 
chosen.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each amendment to the Constitution has consistently moved 
up the date by which Member States must inform the ITU of the 
class of contribution they will make to the organization, in an 
attempt to provide the Plenipotentiary Conference with more 
timely information. The 1998 Amendment amends Article 28 of the 
Constitution to require that Member States announce their final 
decision regarding what class of contribution they intend to 
make to the ITU at the Plenipotentiary Conference, rather than 
during the six-month period following the Plenipotentiary 
Conference provided for in the 1994 Constitution. The 2002 
Amendment clarifies that the Plenipotentiary Conference is to 
set the date by which time Member States shall announce their 
class of contribution within the ``penultimate week'' of the 
Conference. The 2006 Amendment goes one step further and 
requires that the Plenipotentiary Conference set a date for 
Member States to announce their class of contribution at the 
latest on Monday of the final week of the Conference, thereby 
providing more time to incorporate any financial implications 
of the levels chosen into the organization's fiscal planning. 
The 2006 Amendment additionally amended Article 33 to identify 
with more precision the organizations and Sector Members that 
are obliged to share in defraying the expenses of the 
conferences, assemblies, and meetings in which they 
participate.

Encouraging Additional Contributions and Savings on Costs

    In an attempt to encourage Sector Member contributions, the 
1998 Amendment amends Article 33 of the Convention to make 
clear that Sector Members should identify the Sector to which 
their contributions are to be made and provides that Associates 
shall share in defraying the expenses of the Sector and the 
study group and subordinate groups in which they participate, 
as determined by the Council. The 2002 Amendment went further 
by amending Article 28 of the Constitution to provide that 
Sector Members participating in regional conferences convened 
by the ITU to discuss telecommunication matters that are of 
particular interest to the region, must contribute to the costs 
of the regional conference. The 2002 Amendment also amended 
Article 4 of the Convention to provide that the ITU, which had 
been bearing the travel, subsistence, and insurance expenses 
incurred by the representative of every Member State of the 
Council, would only pay such expenses for developing country 
representatives of the Council. In response to committee 
questions on this topic, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard 
Beaird described the savings this amendment has already 
provided for the organization as follows:


          Using today's conversion rate of [the] U.S. Dollar to 
        [the] Swiss Franc (CHF) ($1 US = .97 CHF), the expected 
        savings on travel expenses for the sixteen ITU Member 
        States that are developed countries (at an average cost 
        of $3,931) equals $62,896 per ITU council meeting. The 
        ITU Council meets annually. Hence, the expected savings 
        on daily subsistence allowance expenses for the sixteen 
        ITU Member States that are developed countries (at 
        $491/day over an average of 10 days), equals $78,560 
        per Council session. This results in a total savings of 
        $141,456.


Greater Transparency and More Effective Financial Planning

    To improve transparency and effective financial planning, 
the 2002 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to 
provide that the Secretary-General prepare a four-year rolling 
operational plan ``taking due account of the financial plan as 
approved by the plenipotentiary conference.'' This four-year 
operational plan is to be reviewed by the advisory groups of 
all three sectors and reviewed and approved annually by the 
Council. The 2002 Amendment similarly adds that the Director of 
each sector is required to prepare a rolling four-year 
operational plan annually, ``including financial implications 
of activities to be undertaken by the Bureau in support of the 
Sector as a whole.''\22\ Senior Advisory Groups are required to 
review the operational plans of their respective sectors. The 
Council must also annually approve each Sector's rolling four-
year operational plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\See Article 12, Article 15, and Article 18 of the Convention, 
Treaty Doc. 109-11 at pp. 58, 60, and 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an effort to enhance oversight and increase the 
transparency of the budget of the ITU, the 2006 Amendment 
amends Article 4 of the Convention to require that the Council 
carry out an annual review of income and expenditures in order 
to make adjustments, as appropriate, in accordance with the 
resolutions and decisions of the last Plenipotentiary 
Conference. In addition, Article 5 was amended to provide that, 
in preparing and submitting to the Council a biennial draft 
budget covering ITU expenditures, the Secretary-General shall 
include results-based as well as cost-based budget information.

                          IV. Entry Into Force

    The 1998 Amendment entered into force on January 1, 2000, 
for those states that had notified the Secretary General of the 
ITU of their acceptance of the 1998 Amendment prior to January 
1, 2000,\23\ the 2002 Amendment entered into force on January 
1, 2004, for those states that had notified the Secretary 
General of the ITU of their acceptance of the 2002 Amendment 
prior to January 1, 2004,\24\ and the 2006 Amendment entered 
into force on January 1, 2008, for those states that had 
notified the Secretary General of the ITU of their acceptance 
of the 2006 Amendment prior to January 1, 2008.\25\ Each 
amendment will each enter into force for the United States on 
the date the United States deposits its instrument of 
ratification with the Secretary-General of the ITU for that 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Minneapolis 1998), Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 43.
    \24\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Marrakesh 2002), Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 38.
    \25\See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Antalya 2006), Treaty Doc. 110-16 at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      V. Implementing Legislation

    Existing legislation is sufficient to fully implement the 
1998 Amendment, the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment; no 
additional legislation is required. The 2002 Amendment, for 
example, amends Article 10 of the Convention so as to require 
that States Parties provide certain functional privileges and 
immunities to Members of the Radio Regulations Board equivalent 
to those granted to the elected officials of the ITU by each 
State Party. The United States, as made clear in a declaration 
included in the committee's draft resolution of advice and 
consent, would satisfy this requirement through the 
International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 288 
et seq.

                          VI. Committee Action

    The committee held a public hearing on these treaties on 
July 10, 2008. Testimony was received from Mr. Richard C. 
Beaird, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator for International 
Communications and Information Policy at the Department of 
State. A transcript of this hearing can be found in the annex 
to Executive Report 110-15.
    On September 23, 2008, the committee considered these 
treaties and ordered them favorably reported by voice vote, 
with a quorum present and without objection.

               VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments

    The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the ITU's 
work is important to advancing U.S. economic, national 
security, and scientific interests. For example, the ITU is 
urging regional groups to collaborate and identify the 
necessary spectrum for International Mobile Telecommunications 
(IMT), which will allow use of advanced broadband mobile 
technology on a global basis. The U.S. telecommunications 
industry is also highly dependent upon the ITU for radio 
spectrum management. According to the Telecommunications 
Industry Association (the ``TIA''), the worldwide 
telecommunications market is expected to grow at a 9.2 percent 
compound annual growth rate from 2008 to 2011 and U.S. 
companies expect to take full advantage of this growth.\26\ The 
United States is among the leading providers and consumers of 
telecommunications goods and services. In fact, the U.S. 
telecommunications industry's revenue totaled $1 trillion in 
2007. The ITU's management of radio spectrum is of vital 
importance to U.S. defense, intelligence, and aeronautics 
agencies. The ITU has also been a leader in the development of 
Standards for Emergency Telecommunications and related 
Telecommunications for Disaster Relief, all of which are 
important to national security. Finally, the Radio Regulations 
provide frequency band allocations to support the NASA space 
station, Lunar, and Martian space exploration programs, as well 
as the next generation of unmanned deep space exploratory 
programs. In sum, these three amendments improve and strengthen 
an organization that is important to U.S. interests. 
Accordingly, the committee urges the Senate to act promptly to 
give advice and consent to ratification of the 1998 Amendment, 
the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment, as set forth in 
this report and the accompanying resolution of advice and 
consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\According to the TIA, worldwide telecommunications revenue 
totaled $3.5 trillion in 2007, up 11.2 percent from 2006. See TIA 
Telecommunications Market Review and Forecast at 3 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A. Amendments to the ITU's Governing Instruments

    The treaties before the committee reflect three separate 
sets of amendments made to the ITU's governing instruments in 
an eight-year period. According to information contained in 
answers to questions for the record from the committee to 
Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird, none of these 
sets of amendments has yet been ratified by as many as half of 
the ITU Member States, and to date only eight of 191 Member 
States have ratified the 2006 Amendments.
    The committee is concerned that frequent amendments to the 
ITU's governing documents, and slow and inconsistent 
ratification of such amendments by ITU member states, may 
result in confusion and uncertainty with respect to the rules 
governing the ITU and the participation of member states in its 
activities. This situation also undermines transparency and 
public understanding of the ITU and its work by making it 
difficult to identify the operative rules at any given time on 
issues affected by such amendments. The committee notes that if 
the ITU continues its current practice of amending its 
governing documents as a matter of routine every four years, 
these problems may be compounded further. The committee urges 
the executive branch to review this ITU practice prior to the 
next ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and to engage with other 
ITU member states as appropriate to address this issue.

                 B. Rules of Procedures of Conferences 
                        and Meetings of the ITU

    The 1998 Amendment removes the Rules of Procedure of 
Conferences and Meetings of the ITU from the ITU Convention, 
with the exception of provisions relating to reservations and 
the right to vote, and transfers them to a separate instrument, 
which would not undergo the formal amendment process reserved 
for the Constitution and the Convention.\27\ This separate 
legal instrument entered into force on January 1, 2000, for 
those states that had accepted the 1998 Amendment as of that 
date. The 2002 Amendment transfers further provisions of the 
Convention to the Rules of Procedure, including rules relating 
to invitations to conferences and assemblies, procedures for 
convening or canceling world conferences and assemblies, 
provisions for conferences and assemblies when there is not an 
inviting government, changes in the place or dates of a 
conference or assembly, and time limits and conditions for 
submission of proposals and reports to conferences. In the 
Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 
President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 109-
11, it is noted that ``several Member States argued that [the] 
rules of procedure should be subject to a more flexible 
amendment process than that currently applied to the 
Constitution and Convention.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Prior to 1998, the Rules of Procedure for ITU Conferences and 
other meetings were contained in Article 32 (#340-406; 410-444; 447-
467) of the ITU's 1994 Convention (Treaty Doc. 104-34), which is the 
most recent version of the ITU's Convention approved by the Senate and 
ratified by the United States. These provisions were deleted by the 
1998 Amendment.  See Article 32B of the 1998 Convention, SUP 341-467, 
Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. 90.
    \28\Treaty Doc. 109-11 at p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to 
the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 
108-5, it is noted that the executive branch does not expect to 
submit amendments to the Rules of Procedures to the Senate for 
advice and consent to ratification.\29\ The committee 
recognizes that removing the Rules of Procedure of Conferences 
and Other Meetings of the ITU from the ITU Convention and 
transferring them to a separate document that is not subject to 
the formal amendment procedure provided for in the ITU 
Constitution and Convention makes it possible for the Rules of 
Procedure to be amended more rapidly as the ITU evolves than 
would otherwise be possible. The committee generally supports 
this development and agrees that amendments to the Rules of 
Procedure, which are largely procedural in nature, would not in 
the normal course require the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Nevertheless, if there is any question as to whether an 
amendment to the Rules of Procedure goes beyond what one would 
normally anticipate in such an instrument, the committee 
expects the executive branch to consult with the committee in a 
timely manner in order to determine whether Senate advice and 
consent is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\See Treaty Doc. 108-5 at p. IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             C. Resolutions

    The committee has included in proposed resolutions for the 
three amendments various statements, which are discussed below.

         I. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 1998 AMENDMENT

    The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 1998 
Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which 
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of 
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis on November 6, 
1998, and are intended to be included in the instrument of 
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not 
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.

First and Second Statements (No. 90 (second and third paragraph)):

          (2) The United States of America reiterates and 
        incorporates by reference all reservations and 
        declarations made at world administrative conferences 
        and world radiocommunication conferences prior to 
        signature of these Final Acts.

          (3) The United States of America does not by 
        signature or by any subsequent ratification of the 
        amendments to the Constitution and Convention adopted 
        by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998) 
        consent to be bound by the Administrative Regulations 
        adopted prior to the date of signature of these Final 
        Acts. Nor shall the United States of America be deemed 
        to have consented to be bound by revisions of the 
        Administrative Regulations, whether partial or 
        complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature 
        of these Final Acts, without specific notification to 
        the International Telecommunication Union by the United 
        States of America of its consent to be bound.

    The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all 
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and 
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of 
these Final Acts in November 1998. The second proposed 
statement makes it clear that the United States can only be 
considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an 
ITU conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU 
of its consent to be bound.

Third Statement (No. 101):

          The United States of America refers to declarations 
        made by various Members reserving their right to take 
        such actions as they may consider necessary to 
        safeguard their interests with respect to application 
        of provisions of the Constitution and the Convention of 
        the International Telecommunications Union (Geneva, 
        1992), and any amendments thereto. The United States of 
        America reserves the right to take whatever measures it 
        deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response 
        to such actions.

    This proposed statement is intended, as described in the 
Secretary of State's Letter of Submittal, to reserve ``for the 
United States the freedom to respond to other Member State 
reservations.''

Fourth Statement (No. 102):

          The United States of America, noting Statement 81 
        entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to 
        broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of 
        jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its 
        rights with respect to existing interference and any 
        future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting. 
        Furthermore, the United States of America notes that 
        its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an 
        international agreement presently in force and that the 
        United States of America reserves the right to meet its 
        radiocommunciation requirements there as it has in the 
        past.

    This proposed statement responds to a statement made by 
Cuba, which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United 
States at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This 
response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is 
similar to responses made by the United States at prior ITU 
conferences.

Fifth Statement (No. 111):

          The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the 
        United States and 24 other States], referring to the 
        declaration made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 50), 
        in as much as this and any similar statement refers to 
        the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial 
        countries and to the claims of those countries to 
        exercise sovereign rights over segments of the 
        geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims 
        in question cannot be recognized by this conference.

          Further, the above-mentioned delegations wish to 
        affirm or reaffirm the declaration made by a number of 
        delegations (No. 92) at the Plenipotentiary Conference 
        (Kyoto, 1994) and declarations at conferences referred 
        to therein as if these declarations were here repeated 
        in full.

          The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state 
        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.

    This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia 
concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit.

Final Declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

    This proposed declaration states that the 1998 Amendment is 
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements 
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions 
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court 
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the 
committee has determined that a clear statement in the 
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the 
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 
of Executive Report 110-12.

        II. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2002 AMENDMENT

    The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2002 
Amendment includes six declarations and reservations, which 
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of 
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh on October 18, 
2002, and are intended to be included in the instrument of 
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not 
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.

First and Second Statements (No. 70 (second and third paragraph)):

          (2) The United States of America reiterates and 
        incorporates by reference all reservations and 
        declarations made at world administrative conferences 
        and world radiocommunication conferences prior to 
        signature of these Final Acts.

          (3) The United States does not by signature to or by 
        any subsequent ratification of the amendments to the 
        Constitution and Convention adopted by the 
        Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh, 2002) consent to 
        be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted 
        prior to the date of signature of these Final Acts. Nor 
        shall the United States of America be deemed to have 
        consented to be bound by revisions of the 
        Administrative Regulations, whether partial or 
        complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature 
        of these Final Acts, without specific notification to 
        the International Telecommunication Union of its 
        consent to be bound.

    The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all 
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and 
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of 
these Final Acts in October 2002. The second proposed statement 
makes it clear that the United States can only be considered 
bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an ITU 
conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU of 
its consent to be bound.

Third Statement (No. 71):

          In regard to the privileges and immunities to be 
        extended pursuant to ADD No. 142A of Article 10 of the 
        Convention of the International Telecommunication 
        Union, the United States of America shall provide 
        members of the Radio Regulations Board with functional 
        privileges and immunities that are equivalent to those 
        accorded to officials of international organizations 
        that are designated under the International 
        Organizations Immunities Act, 22 United States Code 288 
        et seq.

    This proposed statement notes the manner in which the 
United States intends to implement the provision that requires 
that Member States, consistent with their respective national 
laws, grant members of the RRB functional privileges and 
immunities that are equivalent to those granted to the elected 
officials of the ITU.

Fourth Statement (No. 79):

          The United States of America, noting Statement 72 
        entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to 
        broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of 
        jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its 
        rights with respect to existing interference and any 
        future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting. 
        Furthermore, the United States of America notes that 
        its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an 
        international agreement presently in force and that the 
        United States of America reserves the right to meet its 
        radiocommunication requirements there as it has in the 
        past.

    This proposed statement responds to a statement made by 
Cuba, which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United 
States at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This 
response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is 
similar to responses made by the United States at prior ITU 
conferences.

Fifth Statement (No. 80):

          The United States of America refers to declarations 
        made by various Member States reserving their right to 
        take such action as they may consider necessary to 
        safeguard their interests with respect to application 
        of provisions of the Constitution and the Convention of 
        the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva, 
        1992), and any amendments thereto. The United States of 
        America reserves the right to take whatever measures it 
        deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response 
        to such actions.

    This proposed statement reserves the right of the United 
States to take such actions as it deems necessary in response 
to actions taken by other Member States that are detrimental to 
U.S. telecommunication interests.

Sixth Statement (No. 101):

          The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the 
        United States and 27 other States], referring to the 
        declaration made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 45), 
        inasmuch as this and any similar statement refers to 
        the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial 
        countries and to the claims of those countries to 
        exercise sovereign rights over segments of the 
        geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims 
        in question cannot be recognized by this conference.

          The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state 
        that the reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to 
        the ``geographical situation of particular countries'' 
        does not imply recognition of claim to any preferential 
        rights to the geostationary-satellite orbit.

    This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia 
concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit.

Final Declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

    This proposed declaration states that the 2002 Amendment is 
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements 
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions 
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court 
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the 
committee has determined that a clear statement in the 
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the 
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 
of Executive Report 110-12.

        III. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2006 AMENDMENT

    The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2006 
Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which 
were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of 
the Plenipotentiary Conference in Antalya on November 24, 2006, 
and are intended to be included in the instrument of 
ratification, along with a final declaration that is not 
intended to be included in the instrument of ratification.

First and Second Statements (No. 70(1) (second and third paragraph)):

          The United States of America reiterates and 
        incorporates by reference all reservations and 
        declarations made at world administrative conferences 
        and world radiocommunication conferences prior to 
        signature of these Final Acts.

          The United States of America does not, by signature 
        to or by any subsequent ratification of the amendments 
        to the Constitution and Convention adopted by the 
        Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 2006), consent to 
        be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted 
        prior to the date of signature of these Final Acts. Nor 
        shall the United States of America be deemed to have 
        consented to be bound by revisions of the 
        Administrative Regulations, whether partial or 
        complete, adopted subsequent to the date of signature 
        of these Final Acts, without specific notification to 
        the International Telecommunication Union of its 
        consent to be bound.

    The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all 
prior statements made at world administrative conferences and 
world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of 
these Final Acts in November 2006. The second proposed 
statement makes it clear that the United States can only be 
considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an 
ITU conference if the United States formally notifies the ITU 
of its consent to be bound.

Third Statement (No. 70(2)):

          The United States of America, recalling the 
        principles of accountability, responsibility and 
        transparency that are fundamental to United Nations 
        reform, notes that it is essential that the 
        International Telecommunication Union, in carrying out 
        the mandates of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
        (Antalya, 2006) adhere to those principles in order to 
        achieve lasting reform.

    This proposed declaration states the view of the United 
States that the ITU, in carrying out the mandates of the 
Plenipotentiary Conference, should adhere to the principles of 
accountability, responsibility, and transparency.

Fourth Statement (No. 104):

          (1) The United States of America refers to 
        declarations made by various Member States reserving 
        their right to take such action as they may consider 
        necessary to safeguard their interests with respect to 
        application of provisions of the Constitution and 
        Convention of the International Telecommunication Union 
        (Geneva, 1992), and any amendments thereto. The United 
        States of America reserves the right to take whatever 
        measures it deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests 
        in response to such actions.

          (2) The United States of America, noting Statement 80 
        entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to 
        broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of 
        jamming or other wrongful interference and reserves its 
        rights with respect to existing interference and any 
        future interference by Cuba with U.S. broadcasting. 
        Furthermore, the United States of America notes that 
        its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an 
        international agreement presently in force and that the 
        United States of America reserves the right to meet its 
        radicommunication requirements there as it has in the 
        past.

    The first paragraph of this proposed statement reserves the 
right of the United States to take such actions as it deems 
necessary in response to actions taken by other Member States 
that are detrimental to U.S. telecommunication interests. The 
second paragraph of this proposed statement responds to a 
statement made by Cuba, which concerns the use of radio 
frequencies by the United States at the U.S. naval base at 
Guantanamo, Cuba. This response, which reserves certain U.S. 
broadcasting rights, is similar to responses made by the United 
States at prior ITU conferences.

Fifth Statement (No. 106):

          The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the 
        United States and eight other States], referring to the 
        declarations made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 58), 
        Mexico (No. 34) and Ecuador (No. 55), inasmuch as these 
        and any similar statements refer to the Bogot  
        Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial countries 
        and to the claims of those countries to exercise 
        sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary-
        satellite orbit, or to any related claims, consider 
        that the claims in question cannot be recognized by 
        this Conference.

          The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state 
        that the reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to 
        the ``geographical situation of particular countries'' 
        does not imply recognition of a claim to any 
        preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite 
        orbit.

    This proposed statement responds to statements by other 
countries concerning the use of the geostationary satellite 
orbit or related claims.

Final Declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

    This proposed declaration states that the 2006 Amendment is 
not self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements 
regarding the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions 
of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court 
decision, Medellin v. Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the 
committee has determined that a clear statement in the 
resolution is warranted. A further discussion of the 
committee's views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 
of Executive Report 110-12.

        VIII. Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification


     1998 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE 
                 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND 
                    DECLARATIONS.

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the 
United States at Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, as contained 
in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference 
(Minneapolis 1998) (the ``1998 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 108-
5), subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 90(second 
paragraph), 90(third paragraph), 101, 102, and 111 of the 1998 
Final Acts and the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

     2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE 
                 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND 
                    DECLARATIONS.

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the 
United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, as contained in 
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 
2002) (the ``2002 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 109-11), subject 
to declarations and reservations Nos. 70(second paragraph), 
70(third paragraph), 71, 79, 80, and 101 of the 2002 Final Acts 
and the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

     2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE 
                 INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

    Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
therein),

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND 
                    DECLARATIONS.

    The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the 
amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the 
International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended 
by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), and the 
Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the 
United States at Antalya on November 24, 2006, as contained in 
the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006) 
(the ``2006 Final Acts'') (Treaty Doc. 110-16), subject to 
declarations and reservations Nos. 70(1)(second paragraph), 
70(1)(third paragraph), 70(2), 104, and 106 of the 2006 Final 
Acts and the declaration of section 2.

SECTION 2. DECLARATION

    The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is 
subject to the following declaration:

          This Treaty is not self-executing.

                                    

      
