HOUSE JUDICIARY PANEL DOUBTS SWIFT MOVEMENT ON NEXTWAVE BILL

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. Hollings (D- S.C.) and ranking Republican McCain (Ariz.) said in news conference Thurs. they had no intention of holding hearings on proposed NextWave settlement by year-end. Although each separately has expressed opposition to NextWave agreement, this is first time they have made it emphatically clear that committee will not tackle controversial issue before negotiated Dec. 31 deadline. “There’s not going to be a hearing until next year,” Hollings said. He reiterated that Appropriations Committee ranking Republican Stevens (Alaska) had given him assurances that Stevens wouldn’t attempt to attach NextWave legislation to Dept. of Defense appropriations currently under consideration by the Senate.

McCain said “it would be pointless to have a hearing” on NextWave because all necessary information wasn’t available. Reporters questioned his assertion that relevant data were insufficient, pointing out voluminous documentation generated from related court proceedings and SEC filings. McCain said that information was about companies, but not individual investors who would benefit from deal.

Senate Majority Leader Daschle said in separate briefing he didn’t believe congressional action was necessary to seal NextWave settlement: “It doesn’t take legislation to enact it. It can happen without legislative involvement. If there are those that oppose it, of course, they can offer legislation to stop it. I don’t know whether that will happen or not.”

Rep. Boucher (D-Va.) told Commercial & Administrative Law & Courts, Internet & Intellectual Property subcommittees Thurs. that deal “broadly is in the public interest” and that from standpoint of govt. “it’s clear that the public treasury will be advanced.” Despite his support for agreement, which he said would hasten availability of wireless spectrum for voice, data and Internet traffic, he acknowledged it would be “difficult, at best” for NextWave legislation to move from committee level and be passed by both Houses by Dec. 31.

Courts panel Chmn. Coble (R-N.C.) didn’t take position on settlement itself, but clearly was concerned with constitutional implications of its expedited judicial review clause: “This substantially alters court procedures.” Subcommittee aide later said that although hearing was productive, it was uncertain what steps Coble would take next other than continuing careful review of settlement terms: “There’s a lot of money on the table, and he wants to be careful.” Internet panel Chmn. Barr (R-Ga.) said arrangement, since it challenged court rulings, “raises a possible constitutional question that must be addressed.” He said Congress must decide whether arrangement provides “unjust enrichment” to NextWave.

Reps. Watt (D-N.C.) and Waters (D-Cal.) criticized settlement for deviating from original goal of spectrum auction to enable minorities and small businesses to enter telecom market. Watt said it was highly unlikely House could take action in time frame expected by stakeholders: “How can you expect the wheels of Congress to move in a couple of days?… The first thing we have an obligation to do is understand all the issues… [and] what is in the public interest.”

Watt and Waters also asked why Dept. of Justice (DoJ) wasn’t simultaneously pursuing settlement agreement with Urban Communications, company they said was in situation identical to NextWave’s but wouldn’t be given same treatment. Asst. Attorney Gen. Jay Bybee said NextWave case must be addressed first, and DoJ then would have to decide whether to negotiate settlement with Urban Communications.

Bybee defended NextWave agreement, saying it “offers an opportunity for the govt. to end years of hard-fought litigation on terms that will benefit the American public.” He said “it accomplishes by consensual arrangement what lengthy and contentious litigation has been unable to achieve -- the award of spectrum to telecommunications companies that are most likely to use it promptly and efficiently.” FCC Deputy Gen. Counsel John Rogovin expressed similar satisfaction with settlement, which he said “cannot be implemented without legislation. This legislation is needed to permit the Commission to make payments to NextWave and to take other actions to effect the settlement.”

Attorney Donald Verelli, representing NextWave, said “each party benefits” from compromise agreement and denied company was “gaming the system” as opponents claimed. Bybee counsel Jody Hunt said DoJ “has no information or evidence at all that anybody was gaming the system… the Attorney General would not have submitted legislation if there was such evidence.” Rep. Gekas (R-Pa.) said “he welcomed the fact that the parties have chosen to meet eye to eye.” He said “bringing the matter to Congress for ratification is a good way to do business.”

Eldorado Communications Managing Dir. Stephen Roberts told panel that while NextWave “just didn’t pay,” and still would get billions in return, Eldorado and other bidders had to forfeit half their down payments and return their licenses. Rep. Cannon (R-Utah) said it was important to make spectrum available, but govt. was “caving in to extortion.” He asked Roberts whether Eldorado would sue its attorneys since they didn’t recommend course of action that was benefiting Nextwave: “You missed out on a 200-to-1 return [on investment]… This is a profit that makes the dot-com boom look silly.”