```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E49]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  INTRODUCTION OF THE PROTECTING CONSUMERS THROUGH PROPER FORBEARANCE 
                             PROCEDURES ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 8, 2009

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Protecting 
Consumers Through Proper Forbearance Procedures Act. This legislation, 
which I also introduced during the 110th Congress, is intended to 
correct persistent procedural problems created by two words in the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. I urge all my colleagues to 
join me in supporting this common sense legislation.
  Section 10 of the Communications Act permits a telecommunications 
carrier to file a petition with the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) asking the FCC to forbear from applying certain statutory or 
regulatory requirements to it. In turn, the FCC may grant forbearances 
if it finds that doing so is in the public interest.
  As I have stated in the past, the Congress certainly has the 
prerogative to create a statutory regime that permits a regulatory 
agency to forbear from applying a statutory requirement, so long as the 
agency finds that consumers will continue to be protected and well 
served. What is problematic about this circumstance is that the 
Communications Act states that the carrier's petition will be ``deemed 
granted'' if the FCC does not act within a prescribed timeframe. In 
simpler terms, if the FCC cannot agree on the merits of a petition, it 
is automatically granted.
  We must act to correct this untenable situation for two reasons. 
First, in the case of a petition that is ``deemed granted'' without an 
accompanying written order, it is impossible for the Congress or the 
courts to ascertain the scope of relief granted or the legal rationale 
supporting the FCC's action. This makes it difficult for the Congress 
to conduct proper oversight of the implementation of the Communications 
Act, as well as oversight of the telecommunications industry.
  Second, the ``deemed granted'' language leads to unsound decision-
making at the FCC. When faced with contentious and complicated issues, 
which are often the subject of these petitions, the FCC now routinely 
waits until the last moment to make a decision. At the same time, the 
threat of an automatic grant of forbearance hovers over the 
proceedings. It is unlikely that such a disjointed process results in 
public policy that benefits consumers.
  The Communications Act, as amended by this bill, would still permit 
carriers to seek forbearance, which the FCC may also still grant. 
However, by removing the ``deemed granted'' language from statute, we 
will vastly improve the ability of the Congress and the courts to 
conduct appropriate oversight, better protect consumers, and restore 
transparency to the decision-making process. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.

                          ____________________
```