WASHINGTON-Under even the most abnormal of normal circumstances, it usually is possible to handicap odds for passage of wireless legislation before Congress adjourns.
But these are not normal times.
An American president is under siege, and the global stage is imploding with financial meltdowns, political unrest, terrorist strikes and natural disasters.
These are electric times. The political atmosphere is charged to the brink, and the laws of physics suggest something has to give.
What, then, can be accomplished on issues near and dear to the wireless industry before lawmakers end the 105th Congress and hit the campaign trail?
There is a slew of issues-some more pressing than others-that await action: antenna siting, E911, digital wiretap, privacy, encryption, excise tax, international satellite reform, identity theft, satellite technology transfer, trade, Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration appropriations, third-generation (3G) issues, Year 2000, the Portals probe and oversight of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
That so much uncertainty and political rancor exists in an era of unparalleled economic prosperity-fueled in part by wireless and other high-tech industries-speaks loudly to the confounding state of affairs that mesmerizes and titillates official Washington as the city is transformed into the tabloid capital of the world.
Wireless issues must compete for attention with 13 appropriations bills and high-priority legislation likely to turn into political pawns in a high-stakes game of chess between President Clinton and Republicans who run Congress.
But neither a budget battle rematch or even midterm election-year posturing will be the political driver this time.
The wild card, with untold potency, is special prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s report to Congress on the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
A lot depends on when the report is delivered and what it says. If it sparks impeachment hearings, all bets are off. Any such scenario will bleed well into the first session of the 106th Congress next year.
Impeachment proceedings are “something that takes months, not weeks, to do it right,” Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“Will we do any or all of that [pending legislation]? We don’t know yet,” Lott told reporters in outlining his fall agenda on another occasion.
Cloning bill
While the rest of the wireless industry’s legislative agenda appears to be subject to a lot of unrelated actions on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, when the 105th Congress adjourns, the wireless industry will be able to point to at least one victory: The passage of an anti-cloning bill. The bill, which received attention in late 1997 and early this year, was signed by President Clinton on April 24. It is now against the law for criminals to clone wireless devices.
CALEA
For the Personal Communications Industry Association, the most important issue in the waning days of the 105th Congress is extending the grandfather date of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This date, currently set at Jan. 1, 1995, precludes most personal communications services companies from being reimbursed for any retrofitting that may be necessary to implement CALEA. PCIA has been joined by the rest of the telecommunications industry in urging Congress to extend the grandfather date to October 2000.
This date would coincide with the telecom industry’s wish for a compliance date that currently is being considered by the FCC. The grandfather date is a statutory date and must be changed by Congress if personal communications services carriers are to receive any reimbursement.
There are two ways this date could get changed.
One is a rider to the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill, but to do so could cause some consternation because there was no mention of CALEA in either version of the bill currently awaiting consideration by a House-Senate appropriations conference committee. Don’t count this out; CALEA amendments have in the past appeared in final versions without prior indication.
The second way would be stand-alone legislation. This seems less likely, according to congressional sources, who say Congress wants to see what the FCC does on the CALEA compliance date and technical standard. The FCC is considering whether the industry-developed standard is deficient. Privacy advocates, most notably the Center for Democracy and Technology, claim the standard goes beyond the scope of CALEA and the Constitution.
The Department of Justice and the FBI strongly believe the industry CALEA standard does not go far enough. Law enforcement has been fighting for nine “punch list” items-additional capabilities-that industry says wander far astray from CALEA.
This congressional attitude is not stopping PCIA. “As long as there are five minutes left on the legislative calendar, we will work for [the grandfather extension] … That’s the prize. We’re pretty focused on it,” said Mark Golden, PCIA senior vice president for industry affairs.
E911
House telecom subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.), having compromised with Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) on privacy, liability and cancer-research funding, is looking for a House vote on legislation designed to bolster wireless E911 development through improved federal-land antenna siting.
The are two big obstacles facing Tauzin and the wireless industry: 11th-hour opposition from cities and states and time.
The ComCare Alliance, a group of public-safety and health-care professionals created and partially funded by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, has been meeting with the National League of Cities and others to assuage concerns about the bill’s perceived impact on local zoning.
Despite the prospect of state grants for E911 upgrades, state and local officials fear the bill represents an encroachment on municipal sovereignty. NLC said the bill went forward without input from state and local leaders, though ComCare head David Aylward maintains those officials were aware of the E911 measure early on and did not raise objections. That is, until now.
Meantime, much-anticipated sponsorship of the bill from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) continues to be elusive.
Pia Pialorsi, a Commerce Committee spokeswoman, said “it is doubtful” McCain will introduce companion E911 legislation this year because of the limited number of legislative days left in the session.
Cross this year off. The bill should be fine in 1999.
Antenna siting
Just when it seemed the Vermont congressional delegation would let antenna siting legislation die a victorious death, having won over constituents by convincing federal regulators and industry lobbyists to back off from federal pre-emption initiatives, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.) have begun pushing an even tougher antenna siting bill.
The new bill, which is expected to be introduced shortly, would require from wireless carriers documented compliance with state and local aviation safety requirements and radio-frequency exposure safety guidelines. In addition, the bill would repeal the pre-emption provision in the 1996 telecom act that bans local zoning boards from denying siting applications for health reasons if wireless licensees adhere to RF guidelines.
The antenna siting bill introduced last year by Leahy, Jeffords and Reps. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) has not moved an iota because it cannot get past two formidable obstacles: McCain and Tauzin.
Prospects look no better for the new Leahy-Jeffords bill. Its best chance: catching a ride on the coattails of a bill on the move.
With Leahy, Sanders
and Shays up for re-election in November, don’t underestimate the lawmakers’ activism on the bill.
A possible, long-shot wild card for the
Tauzin and Leahy-Jeffords bills: the FCC RF standard lawsuit pending before a federal appeals court in New York City. The case has been briefed, and oral argument could be held this fall.
If the 1996 RF standard is struck down, the entire antenna-siting landscape could change in a big way.
FCC, NTIA budgets
Both the House and Senate each have passed Commerce appropriations bills to fund the FCC, NTIA and other agencies. The bills are awaiting action by congressional appropriators. Neither agency’s budget is considered controversial, but the finished bill could hit a major roadblock in the form of a presidential veto due to a long-standing controversy over whether to use sampling in the census for 2000.
The Clinton administration and most Democrats argue that sampling accounts for missed minorities in the decennial count, but Republicans argue the Constitution is very clear that only enumeration-or head count-can be used. The Clinton administration was handed a defeat when an appeals court agreed with Republicans.
House members had a deal that they would let the courts decide, but now the administration is expected to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, so it is unclear whether Democrats in the House and the White House will allow language in the Commerce appropriations bill directing enumeration.
This bill also could be tied up to do a move by the State Department to increase security at embassies around the world, following the bombings of two embassies in Africa last month that killed hundreds, including 12 Americans.
Republicans will to try to capitalize on a weakened White House. Clinton will fight back, and a major budget battle will ensue. This time around, however, Republicans will not go for the bait and shut down the government.
Look for stop-gap funding to keep the FCC and NTIA in business after Sept. 30, or until the food fight ends.
Portals
Hearings are expected to continue in the House Commerce oversight and investigations subcommittee on whether there is a link between Haney, two $1-million payments to Washington lobbyists, and possibly the Clinton-Gore 1996 re-election campaign. The main figure in the controversy, Franklin Haney, spent six hours in front of the subcommittee before Congress recessed last month. His partner, Steven Griggs, also has testified.
The subcommittee now is expected to take testimony from the head of the Clinton-Gore Re-election Committee, Peter Knight, and former Sen. James Sasser (D-Tenn.). Sasser currently is serving as U.S. ambassador to China.
Language currently is included in both Commerce appropriations bills that precludes the FCC from using any funds to move to the Portals. Nevertheless, FCC Chairman William Kennard has told FCC employees pressure from the General Services Administration dictates a Portals move beginning this fall.
Wireless bureau oversight
Despite the summer’s riveting revelation that the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau had 64,000 items outstanding, Congress is not expected to enact legislation this year to change the way the FCC does business.
But watch out, WTB, come early next year; Commerce Chairman McCain will be on the war path with legislation to overhaul the bureau. The likely vehicle: the FCC reauthorization bill.
In the meantime, McCain and the FCC’s Kennard will continue to be pen pals and discuss the bureau’s progress in disposing of the backlog. Despite the rumors, Dan Phythyon, chief of the wireless telecom bureau, insists he’s not going anywhere soon.
Wireless privacy
The House has passed and sent to the Senate the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1998. H.R. 2369, however, is not expected to become law any time soon and it is seen in the Senate as politically motivated. The legislation was introduced in the wake of revelations that a House GOP leadership conference call had been intercepted by a Democratic couple using a scanner.
While the scanning device was legal, the recording and dissemination of the transcript of the telephone conversation to major U.S. daily newspapers did not appear to be legal until a federal judge ruled that freedom of speech in a free society checkmates wireless privacy protection.
Satellite tech transfers
Lately, there has been little noticeable controversy on a satellite technology transfer issue that had the GOP-led Congress up in arms for months. For good reason, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the House select committee on China technology transfers, has been meeting with members behind closed doors. But that could change soon.
Public hearings could begin this month and continue into next year, said Brent Bahler, a spokesman for the select panel.
There is a House bill to cease further launches of satellites from China, but it’s slow-going in the Senate. Luckily for Motorola Inc., a Chinese Long March 2C rocket hurled the last two of Iridium L.L.C.’s 66 satellites into orbit last month and set the state for the global roll-out of the wireless network in the sky.
Getting Iridium off the ground was a group effort by the United States, China and Russia. Now, with the State Department suspending the U.S.-Russian Sea Launch venture, congressional investigators might have to cast a wider net to catch any tech-transfers to Russia.
In the Senate, Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) has continued his technology transfer probe by directing inspector generals at the Commerce Department, State Department, Energy Department, Defense Department and the CIA to conduct interagency reviews of export-licensing processes for dual-use technologies and munitions commodities.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman McCain will take a crack at the issue at a Sept. 17 hearing.
The Justice Department, in the meantime, is looking into whether campaign contributions-like the $632 million Loral Chairman Bernard Schwartz gave to Democrats in the 1996 election cycle that returned President Clinton and Vice President Gore to power and illegal political donations from China-influenced U.S.-Sino policy.
Motorola Inc., for now, appears to be in the clear. For Loral and Hughes Electronics Co., it’s hand-wringing time.
3G
There’s no 3G legislation, but the issue is very much on Capitol Hill’s radar screen this fall. Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) and Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.), both up for re-election, are awaiting U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky’s reply on whether the European Union is short-changing the United States on a future third-generation mobile phone market worth billions of dollar in global trade.
Most recently, Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Kan.) weighed in for multiple global 3G standards and harmonization of competing wireless technologies. While Kerrey’s position is, in fact, contradictory, it illustrates the complex nature of a debate that neither Congress or the Clinton administration has sorted out yet.
Other lawmakers, like Reps. Connie Morella (R-Md.), Philip Crane (R-Ill.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio), are keeping an eye on U.S. 3G policy as well.
Don’t expect any clarity on 3G any time soon.
International satellite reform
The biggest piece of telecom legislation passed this year-international satellite reform-appears destined for defeat in the Senate, insiders say. The bill, which would de-monopolize Intelsat, has been bogged down in the Senate, where hearings were expected to take place last week.
While Inmarsat was an original target of the bill, it now appears any legislation will deal only with Intelsat, congressional sources said.
Trade
The embattled White House suspects the GOP wants to pull a fast one on trade. Senate Majority Leader Lott has vowed to move fast-track trade legislation before adjournment next month. President Clinton earlier this year pushed hard for fast-tra
ck, which limits Congress to up or down votes on trade pacts. The White House let the matter slide when it became apparent the votes were not there. The
y’re still not.
But Republicans want to vote on fast track when an omnibus trade bill, passed by the Senate Finance Committee in July, comes up soon. Why? Some suggest merely to embarrass Clinton. GOP lawmakers know fast-track legislation will not pass in an election year, given the massive downsizing and corporate restructuring CEOs say are necessary to compete globally. Fast track is risky business for lawmakers whose constituents no longer buy the line of job creation through global trade.
Fast-track has a one-way ticket to nowhere.
Identity theft
One bill that has a chance as either a stand-alone bill or as an attachment to something else is the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act. This bill would make it a crime to use someone’s name or social security number (or other identifying numbers) to assume someone’s identity before committing any fraud.
Current law only allows for a criminal case if fraud has been committed, but this law would help those whose identities are stolen and then used to sign up for all types of subscriber services. The bill also would help carriers who unwittingly sign up fake customers and then lose the revenues when the real persons are identified.
Encryption
The encryption debate has been waged since 1996 when the Clinton administration moved jurisdiction of encryption export-control policy from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Encryption products are computer codes that scramble data so it can only be read by the authorized user.
The transfer from State to Commerce resulted in an export-control policy that said American computer companies could not export encryption products with bit strengths over 56 bits with restrictions and 40 bits without restrictions. These bit strengths are considered weak by the computer industry, which has developed products with bit strengths of at least 128 bits.
Throughout the debate, the FBI has advocated controls on the domestic sale of encryption products as a way to gain access to encrypted data. There are currently no domestic controls on encryption.
The jurisdictional move, however, was not enough for a computer industry that wanted all export controls lifted. The computer industry went to Congress, and 249 House members signed onto the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act. The SAFE Act removed the export-control restrictions on encryption products. A similar version in the Senate, the Promotion of Commerce On-line in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act of 1997, has 22 cosponsors.
The SAFE Act has been splintered into five different versions by the five House committees that are considering it. One of those versions would keep in place the current export controls but also include controls on the domestic sale of encryption products unless the FBI is given immediate access to the de-coded messages.
The Pro-CODE bill was replaced by legislation sponsored by Sens. Kerrey and McCain. This legislation, the Secure Public Networks Act, was supported by the Clinton administration, but considered too weak by the computer industry. The bill is awaiting action by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, recently sponsored a “compromise” bill known as the E-PRIVACY (Encryption Protects the Rights of Individuals from Violation and Abuse in Cyberspace) Act. The E-PRIVACY Act has been endorsed by the computer industry and privacy advocates, but is still being opposed by the FBI.
“We’ve seen the E-PRIVACY Act, and like other bills that have been introduced, it fails to provide the legislative assurances that law enforcement needs to effectively carry out its public-safety obligations,” one FBI official said.
Y2K
With fewer than 500 days left to go until the turn of the century, Congress seems intent on passing a Y2K bill this year. It seems likely to congressional observers that a Clinton administration bill to allow for communications between and among companies will go forward. It is hoped that if this legislation is passed, companies will start broadcasting what has worked and what hasn’t worked in trying to cure the millennium bug.
The millennium bug is the result of computer programmers only using two date fields in computer chips. It is feared everything from large mainframes to elevators will not work properly as of Jan. 1, 2000, because computer chips in these devices will read the date as Jan. 1, 1900.
