[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3799-S3802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERREY:
S. 663. A bill to enhance taxpayer value in auctions conducted by the
Federal Communications Commission; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
the reserve price act
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, for most Americans a buck doesn't go very
far. A dollar will not buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, it will not
buy a comic book at the 7-11, it will not buy a package of batteries at
the True Value store, or even a gallon of gas at the Amoco station.
But, at the FCC, a buck will buy a radio license to serve the city of
St. Louis.
On Friday, the FCC completed an auction of radio spectrum which
should cause every American taxpayer to be concerned. This action
yielded less than 1 percent of the amount anticipated. Rather than
raising $1.8 billion as the Congress had expected, the FCC brought in
only $13.6 million.
Perhaps worse of all, several licenses were awarded to bidders for
the incredible sum of $1. That's well below the bargain basement. Mike
Mills of the Washington Post aptly observed that a sign should be put
in front of the FCC auction headquarters advertising ``everything for a
buck.'' One bidder won four licenses at a dollar a piece. Those
licenses combined would allow services to reach 15 million people.
Another bidder won the right to serve St. Louis, one of the largest
cities in America for $1. It is as if we had returned to the days of
license lotteries. That's one heck of a way to stretch a dollar.
Radio spectrum is a national asset. It must be prudently managed. The
taxpayers count on the Federal Communications Commission to allocate
spectrum among and between various uses to assure that the public
interest is served and to assure that those uses do not interfere with
each other.
In 1993, the Congress enacted legislation which revolutionized the
way radio frequencies are allocated. After years of debate, the
Congress took the step to authorized the Federal Communications
Commission to use auctions to allocate licenses for radio spectrum. It
was built on the premise that investors would pay for the right to
offer new wireless communications services.
Prior to 1993, licenses were awarded by lottery or by a comparative
application process. In both cases, license winners would often sell
their licenses soon after acquiring them to others for substantial
sums.
To cut out the middle man and give taxpayers a return from the
valuable rights they were awarding, the Congress ordered the FCC to
conduct auctions to award radio spectrum licenses.
In general, this approach has worked very well. It has proven to be
an efficient means of allocating scarce resources and it has reaped
billions of dollars of deficit reduction for the American taxpayer.
Unfortunately, something went wrong in this last auction. One problem
was that the auction rules did not establish a minimum bid or a reserve
price. That's how some lucky bidders won valuable licenses for a buck.
Mr. President, I offer legislation today which will help ensure that
taxpayers are protected in future FCC auctions. The importance of this
legislation is heightened by the increasing congressional reliance on
spectrum auctions in telecommunications and budget policy. The
President's budget alone relies on $36 billion of revenues from
spectrum auctions.
The Reserve Price Act requires the FCC to set a minimum price for
each unit auctioned. If no one bids the minimum, then what is not sold
will be re-evaluated and placed in the next scheduled auction. With a
reserve price system, taxpayers will be guaranteed that national assets
are not sold for a song.
The Chairman of the FCC reportedly said that the reason for the
disappointing return from Friday's auction was the ``the Congress got
to greedy'' with spectrum revenues. Perhaps, this auction was rushed.
But with reserve prices, even a rushed auction would not have to be a
disastrous auction.
I urge my colleagues to review and support the Reserve Price Act. The
American taxpayer deserves as much.
[[Page S3800]]
I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the Reserve Price Act
and a copy of Mike Mills' Washington Post article entitled ``Latest
License Action Disappoints FCC'' be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S.663
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reserve Price Act''.
SEC. 2. RESERVE PRICE.
In any auction conducted or supervised by the Federal
Communications Commission (hereinafter the Commission) for
any license, permit or right which has value, a reasonable
reserve price shall be set by the Commission for each unit in
the auction. The reserve price shall establish a minimum bid
for the unit to be auctioned. If no bid is received above the
reserve price for a unit, the unit shall be retained. The
Commission shall re-assess the reserve price for that unit
and place the unit in the next scheduled or next appropriate
auction.
____
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 26, 1997]
Latest License Auction Disappoints FCC
total comes up short of expectations in bargain-basement bidding
(By Mike Mills)
They might as well have changed the sign at the FCC Auction
headquarters to ``Everything for a Buck.''
Congress had expected the Federal Communications Commission
to pull in about $1.8 billion in its latest auction of a
slice of the airwaves, this one for companies that want to
offer wireless voice and data services. But when the bidding
stopped yesterday, the FCC found it had raised less than 1
percent of that amount, only $13.6 million.
It was by far the most disappointing yield to date in the
auction program. In other bidding since the program began in
July 1994, winners have pledged about $23 billion to the
Treasury Department, far higher than initial projections.
The FCC blamed yesterday's poor showing on Congress, saying
it didn't give the agency or the industry enough time to
prepare for the latest auction. But the low bids also might
be a sign that the market for airwave licenses is becoming
glutted, some analysts said.
Either way, bargain-basement prices awaited the handful of
communications companies that cared to participate. McLeod
Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, actually bid $1 each for four
licenses in the Midwest covering areas with a 15 million
population--and won. Nobody countered its bid in 29 rounds.
``It was a fortunate opportunity,'' said Bryce Nemitz,
McLeod's vice president of corporate relations. ``There
wasn't any way for us to gauge the true value of those
licenses, so we bid the minimum.'' The company plans to use
the licenses for wireless utility meter reading, he said.
According to FCC Chairman Reed E. Hundt, Congress got too
greedy last summer when it passed a law ordering the FCC to
quickly auction this chunk of frequencies by April 15, and to
make sure the money got to the Treasury by Sept. 30.
The deadline gave the industry little time to prepare,
Hundt said. Equipment makers had no idea what the frequencies
could be used for. Potential bidders had difficulty raising
bidding money in capital markets.
``We were right when we told the industries and Congress
there wasn't enough lead time for this auction,'' Hundt said.
But there were other problems. In February the FCC
announced restrictions that limited users of those
frequencies from offering certain mobile services because
they might interfere with a new satellite-based radio
service. And earlier this week, the FCC also said the new
license owners would have to accept other restrictions to
avoid interference with other services.
Those limitations might have curbed interest in bidding,
but they didn't seem to bother the winners. BellSouth Corp.
was the top bidder, spending $6 million for 22 licenses. It
plans to offer wireless television service using the
licenses.
Other firms aren't sure how they'll use the licenses. ``It
just got rushed to the market so soon that people just didn't
have time to get themselves together,'' said Thomas Sullivan
of TeleCorp, which won a St. Louis license for $1 and two
others for $60,000.
For Congress, the $1.786 billion shortfall won't directly
affect any spending programs. But it will be a factor when
bean-counters next tally up the budget deficit, sources at
the Congressional Budget Office said.
Some analysts suggest the auctions are a sign that the
auction process may be running out of steam. Some bidders who
paid surprisingly huge sums for wireless telephone licenses
earlier last year are now having big troubles raising the
money to pay for them. That spooked investors in a subsequent
auction last year for similar licenses, in which bidding fell
below expectations.
The broadcasting lobby, which has so far successfully
avoided auctions of TV and radio licenses, and the results
make their case for killing the auction program.
``These sub-par receipts confirm what we have been saying
for months,'' said Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National
Association of Broadcasters. ``Spectrum auctions have clearly
reached a point of diminishing returns.''
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Ried):
S. 664. A bill to establish tutoring assistance programs to help
children learn to read well; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
the america reads challenge act
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce President
Clinton's America Reads Challenge Act. Today is the closing day of the
President's summit for America's future. The summit's organizers and
participants have sent a clear call about the importance of
volunteerism and community involvement. The America Reads Challenge Act
responds to that call and will provide volunteer tutors to help all
children read well by the end of the third grade.
Reading is a fundamental skill for learning, but too many children
have trouble learning how to read. If students don't learn to read in
the early elementary school years, it is virtually impossible for them
to keep up later. According to one study, 40 percent of fourth grade
students don't attain the basic level of reading, and 70 percent don't
attain the proficient level.
Research shows that reading skills are developed not only in the home
and in the classroom, but also in communities and libraries. Sustained,
quality reading experiences outside the regular school day and during
the summer can raise reading levels when combined with high quality
instruction. Only 30 minutes a day of reading aloud with an adult can
enable a child to make real gains in reading. Adults also serve as role
models for young children.
The America Reads Challenge Act is intended to help all students
learn to read--and read well--by the end of the third grade. It would
provide Parents as First Teachers challenge grants. Recognizing that
parents are the best first teachers, it supports programs and
activities that help parents increase the reading skills of their
children.
In addition, the act will provide America's Reading Corps grants to
States and communities to help them establish or enhance literacy tutor
programs. Some 25,000 reading specialists and tutor coordinators,
including 11,000 AmeriCorps members, will participate in programs to
mobilize 1 million volunteers to tutor 3 million children.
The America Reads Challenge Act will provide $1.7 billion over the
next 5 years to the Department of Education. It will also authorize the
appropriation of $200 million a year from fiscal year 1998 through
fiscal year 2002 to the Corporation for National Service. The act also
builds on efforts of pre-school and elementary school programs, such as
Head Start and title I, to help improve children's basic skills.
I strongly support President Clinton's America Reads Challenge Act,
and I hope it will receive the broad bipartisan support it deserves.
Every child can learn to read, and every child deserves a chance to
learn how to do it. No child should be left out or left behind.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senators Kennedy
and Murray in cosponsoring this important new initiative.
The goal of this legislation is to launch a campaign to ensure that
every child in our Nation can read independently by the end of the
third grade. I believe that this is a worthwhile goal, which will have
a wide-ranging impact on our Nation.
We need to help our young children learn to read. It's the
responsibility not only of parents but of schools, communities, civic
groups, libraries, and business leaders. Some 40 percent of all
children are now reading below the accepted level on national reading
assessments.
This is a national crisis. Tens of thousands of students cannot read
at the basic level. If students can't read well by the third grade,
their chances for later success fall dramatically. These same students
are likely to drop out of school; they will have problems with
delinquency; and they will have fewer job options.
[[Page S3801]]
I believe that the America Reads initiative will go a long way in
providing much needed resources to parents, schools, and State and
local communities to help our children learn to read.
This bill would establish a corps of 1 million volunteer tutors and
give States additional resources to hire 30,000 reading specialists to
coordinate the corps volunteer tutors who will work with teachers,
principals, and librarians to help children succeed in reading.
I support mobilizing thousands of volunteers, but I also believe that
the training and screening must be adequate, especially when we place
anyone in our Nation's classrooms. These are issues that my colleagues
and I will be addressing.
We also want to help parents. This bill establishes Parents as First
Teachers challenge grants, which invests in success by
supporting effective and proven local efforts that assist parents who
request help to better work with their children.
The President has also called upon colleges and universities across
the country to dedicate half of their new work study funds to support
100,000 college students to serve as reading tutors. Already hundreds
of colleges and universities across the country have pledged to have
their work study students help children learn to read. In my State of
Maryland, Anne Arundel Community College, Bowie State University,
Frostburg State University, and the University of Maryland at College
Park have all committed to the America Reads initiative.
We also want accountability. This legislation will use the
improvements in the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP]
to provide an annual measure of the reading performance of 4th graders
and their progress toward meeting the reading challenge.
Both the Corporation for National Service and the Department of
Education will oversee and manage this program. The Corporation for
National Service has the expertise to pull together the AmeriCorps
volunteers and has the infrastructure in place to help mobilize the
volunteers. The Department of Education has the knowledge and resources
to really make this program accountable.
I support utilizing the resources that we already have in place with
AmeriCorps. I know that thousands of AmeriCorps volunteers across the
country are already in the schools tutoring children. In Maryland,
AmeriCorps volunteers are already in public schools tutoring and
mentoring students.
And, companies too are leading the way with innovative methods of
teaching our children to read. Sylvan Learning Center, which is
headquartered in my State of Maryland, is a company that has been
having great success with its methods to help children learn to read.
Sylvan operates tutoring centers across the country. The centers have
produced measurable results with children. The centers are community-
based facilities. The student to teacher ratio never exceeds 3:1.
Sylvan's approach consists of individualized instruction, variety, a
creative motivational system, and parent and teacher involvement. It is
an approach that works and can be one of the models that we use for the
America Reads Program.
Why does this approach work? Because specialists can tailor a program
to meet an individual student's needs. In many overcrowded classrooms
across our country, it's simply impossible for a teacher in charge of
30 or 40 students to give one student who's having problems extra
attention.
I don't believe that America Reads is a substitute for in-school
instruction nor is it a substitute for parental involvement.
What we're talking about providing is individualized after school,
weekend, and summer reading tutoring for nearly 3 million children a
year from kindergarten through third grade [K-3] who want and need
extra help. This will supplement the learning that is taking place
during classroom hours. What's more important is that this tutoring
will take place at no cost to parents and students.
I know that there has been criticism about having a literacy program
directly aimed at children in K-3. I have to disagree with this
criticism. Schools cannot do it alone. Many public schools simply do
not have the resources to give students the one-on-one attention they
need.
We have to launch a large-scale effort to tackle our Nation's youth
literacy problem. I believe we need to mobilize and train volunteers to
come into the schools to help our children learn to read. I believe we
need to hire reading specialists to help our Nation's children.
Teachers cannot do it alone. And parents need our help.
When 40 percent of our Nation's children cannot read on level by the
third grade, we must ask ourselves as a nation what we're doing wrong
and how we can correct it. This is a widespread problem that crosses
gender, racial, and religious lines.
As the Nation begins to enter the 21st century, we cannot have our
young people--our future--lagging behind in basic skills. This affects
our Nation as a whole. It affects our Nation's productivity. It affects
our work force. When these children become adults, they will not have
the basic skills needed to survive.
Reading is an ongoing activity. And, if we want our children to
succeed, if we want to promote work force readiness, and if we want to
raise academic standards in our schools, then we have to reach our
children in their early stages of development.
I hear from teachers, administrators, and counselors in my State
about the dismal crisis in public schools. Many children come to school
from impoverished backgrounds. Many children come to school either
abused themselves or the witness to domestic abuse in the home. With
all of these obstacles, it's even more difficult for teachers to teach
and for students to learn to read.
That's why I am supporting this bold, new initiative. The idea is to
use the resources that our Nation already has--libraries, volunteers,
students, businesses, and civic organizations--to help our most
precious resource--our youth. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. KERREY:
S. 665. A bill to monitor the progress of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications act progress report act
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the Department of Justice has
approved the merger of the Bell Atlantic and Nynex Corporations. While
this is a matter within the discretion and jurisdiction of the
Department, I rise to express my concern and disappointment with this
decision.
With this merger, two strong potential competitors with two vibrant,
rich markets have combined.
Bell Atlantic/Nynex will control more than 25 percent of all access
lines in the United States and would serve 26 million customers. The
merger is the second largest in U.S. history and the new company will
rank among the 25 largest U.S. companies.
A little more than a year ago, the Congress enacted landmark
legislation to open telecommunications markets to competition, preserve
and advance universal service and spur private investment in
telecommunication infrastructure. Over the last year, the Federal
Communications Commission has worked overtime to implement the new law.
It has been a daunting task.
While the FCC struggles with implementation of the new law, it is
important to remember that a key part of that legislation did not rely
on regulation, it relied on the marketplace. The idea was to unleash
pent up competitive forces among and between telecommunications
companies.
This transaction replaces the urge to compete with the urge to merge.
To unshackle the restraints of the modified final judgment which
controlled the break up of AT&T, the Congress gave regional Bell
operating companies instant access to long-distance markets outside of
their local service regions and access to long-distance markets inside
their regions when they opened their markets to local competition as
measured by the bill's competitive checklist.
In addition to responding to the lure of long-distance markets,
regional Bell operating companies and other local exchange carriers
were expected to covet each other's markets. The attraction of serving
markets like New
[[Page S3802]]
York City, Baltimore, and Washington, DC, with local and long distance
products was to be a key catalyst for breaking down barriers to
competition. Who knows better what is needed to compete for local
exchange customers in a new market better than another local exchange
company?
With this transaction, local competition and long-distance
competition is lost. In addition, potential internet, video and broad-
band competition has disappeared.
The promise of the new law was that competition, not consolidation
would bring new services at lower prices to consumers. Where
competition failed to advance service and restrain prices, universal
service support would assure that telephone rates and services were
comparable in rural and urban areas.
When large telecommunications companies combine, they not only
eliminate the potential of competition with each other in each other's
markets, but they create a market power which may be capable of
resisting competition from others. They also create the possibility of
an unequal bargaining power when they compete with or deal with small,
independent and new carriers.
A strong role for the Department of Justice was my No. 1 cause when
the full Senate considered the Telecommunications Act. I supported
final passage of the law because the conference committee bolstered the
Department's authority as compared to the Senate version of the bill.
The legislation relied on the existing, strong antitrust powers of the
Department of Justice. It also removed the FCC's ability to bypass
Department of Justice antitrust review.
As we measure progress against promise, it is vitally important that
the Congress have sufficient information to assure that those powers
are sufficient to promote competition, affordable prices and universal
service.
Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to monitor the
progress of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill instructs the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, in
consultation with the Federal Communications Commission, the Department
of Justice, other executive branch agencies and State regulatory
utility commissions to issue an annual report to the Congress on
telecommunications services in America.
The report would review available information and consider at a
minimum the level of competition, the provision of universal service in
telecommunications markets, mergers among telecommunications providers
and their effect, employment in the American telecommunications
industry and the affordability of residential rates for
telecommunications services. The report will also make legislative and
policy recommendations to the Congress and the President.
Mr. President, I believe that if properly implemented, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 can deliver on its promises of
competition, affordable rates, universal service, jobs, and investment.
I am not prepared to recommend major change to the 1996 law, but I am
prepared to argue for a higher level of competitive vigilance by this
Congress and the executive branch.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 666. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to
States that do not give full faith and credit to the protective orders
of other States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN OTHER STATES
LEGISLATION
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation that will help ensure that States live up to their
responsibility to give full faith and credit to protective orders
issued in other States.
In the 1994 Crime Act, as part of the Violence Against Women Act,
Congress passed a provision requiring states to enforce the protection
orders issued in sister States.
What this means, Mr. President, is that if a woman has secured a
protective order against her husband in New Jersey, and then goes to
Pennsylvania to stay with her parents and her husband follows her,
Pennsylvania is obligated to enforce the New Jersey protective order.
This is common sense, it will protect the lives and well-being of
countless threatened women, and is the law. However, for some reason
States have been disregarding their legal obligation to enforce these
orders.
Mr. President, it seems that the only way to get the States to live
up to this obligation is to threaten some of their Federal funding.
Accordingly, the bill I am introducing today allows the Attorney
General to withhold 10 percent of all formula Byrne grant crime
fighting funds given to a State if it is failing to enforce out-of-
State protective orders. Although I believe that these funds are an
important crime prevention and crime fighting tool, it has become clear
that there must be some mechanism to ensure that States live up to
their responsibilities to victims of domestic abuse.
Mr. President, violence against women is one of our country's most
heinous and pressing crimes. Every 12 seconds a woman is battered.
About 10 times more women are victimized annually by domestic violence
than are diagnosed with breast cancer. These figures reflect only
reported crimes--the actual incidence rates are even higher.
According to the FBI, domestic violence is the single most common
source of injury among women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto
accidents, muggings, and rape by a stranger combined.
Protective orders are an important device in combating domestic
violence, and protecting women who have already been battered from
further harm. But they are only effective if they are enforced.
So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the bill, and
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 666
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS.
Section 2265 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(d) Formula Grant Reduction for Noncompliance.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning with the second fiscal year
commencing after the date of enactment of this subsection,
and in each fiscal year thereafter, if a State is not in
compliance with subsections (a) and (b), the Attorney General
shall reduce by 10 percent the amount that the State would
otherwise receive for that fiscal year under subpart 1 of
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751 et seq.).
``(2) Redistribution of amounts.--In any fiscal year, the
total amount remaining for distribution under subpart 1 of
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751 et seq.) by operation of
paragraph (1), shall be distributed on a pro rata basis among
States that--
``(A) are eligible to receive a grant under subpart 1 of
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751 et seq.); and
``(B) are in compliance with subsections (a) and (b) of
this section.''.
____________________