WASHINGTON-Major wireless E911 and digital wiretap initiatives on Capitol Hill have taken unexpected turns that may not necessarily doom legislation, but could reshape bills against industry interests.
Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) is negotiating with House telecommunications subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) on E911 legislation to reserve a portion of revenue from federal land antenna-siting fees for cancer research that the Food and Drug Administration would oversee.
The bill is scheduled to be introduced May 12.
In addition to uncertain prospects for congressional passage this year, an E911 bill with cancer-research funding would draw added attention to a controversial health and safety issue that has dogged the wireless industry since claims surfaced several years ago that pocket telephones cause brain cancer.
No lawsuits alleging cellular phone cancer have succeeded to date and Motorola Inc. maintains all of its research has come up negative. Yet some research here and abroad suggests a cellular phone-cancer link might exist.
The Markey effort underscores the disappointment and embarrassment of industry and policy makers with the five-year, $25 million cancer research program that cellular carriers and manufacturers trusted Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. to manage.
The research program, begun in 1993, has not produced any biological findings to date. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, which hired Dr. George Carlo to manage the project, is giving WTR another year in hopes it will have more to show for the millions of dollars invested in the project.
The Food and Drug Administration, which oversee cellular phone radiation safety, has told Markey the federal government is neither conducting nor sponsoring major wireless technology cancer research.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization and major trading partners of the United States are moving forward with cancer research.
Markey, ranking minority member of the House telecom panel, also wants privacy safeguards with respect to the automatic crash notification provision in the E911 bill.
If Tauzin refuses to include Markey’s additions to the bill, according to Markey aide Colin Crowell, the Massachusetts Democrat will offer amendments during the bill’s markups.
Markey’s support is key, though not necessarily critical, for the Tauzin bill. As currently drafted, the E911 bill would help fund upgrades to E911 response centers with revenue from antenna-siting fees paid by wireless carriers to federal agencies.
The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act would also designate 911 as the national emergency telephone number and remove carrier E911 liability in parity with wireline carriers. Rural areas would receive special treatment with regard to E911 system funding.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would oversee the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Fund.
A companion bill is being readied for introduction possibly later this week by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Efforts have been made to get bipartisan support for the bill and to avoid appropriations-related problems that helped kill a similar measure last year that sought use of federal antenna-siting fees to reimburse digital wiretap system modifications.
That challenge and others appear to remain.
Given the convoluted construction of the E911 bill, other committees could assert jurisdiction over the legislation and, thus, hinder its chances.
CALEA bill
On another front, the wireless industry may have lost ground on a digital wiretap bill crafted by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) by rallying around a now-defunct Democratic amendment to a Justice Department authorization bill.
The amendment was similar to a competing digital wiretap bill introduced by Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) recently.
The amendment, which was withdrawn by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) after McCollum reminded her of his own interests in the issue, would have extended the digital wiretap reimbursement eligibility cutoff from Jan. 1, 1995, to Oct. 1, 2000, and pushed out the compliance deadline from this Oct. 25 to Oct. 1, 2000.
Lofgren believes the FBI is attempting to expand its wiretap powers through the implementation of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.
The same view is held by the wireless industry, which through its two major carrier associations, is challenging the FBI on CALEA in court.
Lofgren got a commitment from McCollum to introduce his bill by July. But it may have been a costly victory. Lofgren and the wireless industry may have lost any leverage they had with McCollum by trying to force his hand on CALEA with the back-door approach.
A Lofgren spokesman said the telecom lobbyists were not behind the amendment, but once they found out about it, CTIA and the United States Telephone Association rushed in to offer support.
McCollum has a much higher standing on the House Judiciary Committee than Barr because of McCollum’s chairmanship of the crime subcommittee and his ranking position on the full committee. As such, McCollum’s bill will likely be the main vehicle for CALEA legislation.
