Recently questions have arisen as to where we are and where we are
headed regarding our original H.Res.230, and whether it is appropriate to
continue to ask members to write their representative seeking support for it,
or whether we should be seeking member support for Ross’ amendment that was
included in the House telecom bill.
Members should still support the H.Res.230 language, and contacting
their representative to do so does not hurt one bit.
The board’s original policy, mission and goal that eventually
became H.Res. 230 has not changed, nor has our effort. What has changed is that
for the first time in a very long time we are having real success on Capitol
Hill and we’re continuing to move forward to the next level based on that
success.
The concept of what eventually became H.Res 230 dates back to the 2004
Second Meeting in Document #36 where Sumner wrote a confidential memo to the
board suggesting that we seek Congressional action to delay the implementation
of the BPL rules. It was a long shot at that time because the 108th Congress
was winding down, but we did adopt it as one of our “additional BPL
strategies” at the meeting. That is what ultimately morphed into H.Res.230,
but after the FCC issued their Report & Order on BPL.
The H.Res. draft language was prepared and a meeting was held with
Ross’ staff on February 3, 2005. After some negotiating, Ross agreed to
introduce the proposal. After a period of time Ross’ staff called
Chwat’s office and said the Congressman was having second thoughts about
sponsoring this for us. Chwat telephoned me and we were able to immediately
place some key
Since that time, as everyone knows, it has been difficult to obtain
co-sponsors. When the Telecom Bill came up on the radar screen a couple of
months ago, Chwat recommended we attempt to get H.Res.230 language into the
bill and Dave and I gave him the green light to do so. This was reported to the
board. Getting this language into HR 5252 (the Telecom Bill) is actually closer
to what was envisioned than is H.Res.230. This effort was an additional effort
to which if we were not successful would not impact H.Res.230.
On April 27, in arrl-odv 14022, I reported to the board that we were
successful in having H.Res.230 language placed in the Telecom bill that was
unanimously adopted by the House Commerce Committee. I mentioned at the end
that there is still work to be done. Having the Telecom Bill come from the
committee with our language in it does not guarantee that it will remain in the
final bill. It still has to be voted on by the full House, but it will also
have to be reconciled with the Senate’s telecom bill. That is why it is
now important that we have H.Res.230 language inserted into the Senate’s
bill. The Senate Commerce Committee is working on their version now and that is
why we are working with the 22 Senators that are on that committee, as Dave
reported to the board in arrl-odv 14050.
So where does that leave us with H.Res.230? Again, as Dave pointed out
in arrl-odv-14094, it doesn’t hurt one bit if a member writes a
Congressman seeking support for H.Res.230. In fact, today we are up to 8
co-sponsors. If H.Res.230 were passed it would only offer a “sense”
of the House. What we have been able to do is greatly exceed that in getting
the language into the Telecom Bill that was unanimously adopted by committee because
language in the bill doesn’t just provide a “sense” of the
Congress, it mandates something to be done! We have great momentum going forward.
That same momentum is now moving on the Senate side and we have had a big boost
with the support we recently received from Sen. McCain.
We still have work to do and have not won the war, but for the first
time in a very long time we have now moved a piece of amateur radio legislation
forward.
Here is where we are today and what our future plans are:
We currently have specific focus on the Rules Committee and the Senate
Commerce Committee. We have previously notified Directors who have one or more
of the 22 Senators on the Senate Commerce Committee in their division, just as
we did with the House to concentrate specifically on those members. As things
develop in the Rules Committee, there may be a need to focus on specific
Representatives. If so, we will advise.
73 Joel W5ZN