```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4520-H4523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I introduced on 
behalf of myself, Chairman Tom Bliley, our Republican Members, and 
Democrat cosponsors, the Communications Act of 1995. Hearings are 
planned for Wednesday, May 10, Thursday, May 11, and Friday, May 12.
  Truly, this is a watershed and historic moment for the 
telecommunication industry, our country, and the consuming public.
  This legislation meets several broad objectives:
  First, and foremost, the legislation gives definition and certainty 
as we move into this time of convergence and technological innovation.
  Second, this legislation is much more deregulatory than the 
telecommunications legislation, introduced and passed last year. This 
legislation recognizes that the 1934 act is outdated--a dinosaur--and 
coupled with a hodgepodge of FCC administrative decisions and Federal 
court decisions, the telecommunications industry could be stifled and 
the consumer denied better products and services at lower costs unless 
we pass this historic legislation.
  Third, great attention was paid in creating level playing fields--an 
atmosphere of legislative parity so that the rules are fair to all 
competitors as new lines of business are entered.
  Fourth, it was our goal and objective for our legislation to be 
dynamic so that it evolves with and recognizes new technology and its 
applications.
  Fifth, our legislation is predicated on competition and an 
opportunity model not government, be it Federal or State 
micromanagement.
  I can't stand up here and tell you that the Communications Act of 
1995 is perfect or that it will not change; of course, the legislative 
process itself is dynamic.
  But, I can tell you that there has been much consultation with 
industry leaders, consumer groups, States and cities, with our members 
and between our respective staffs, and it should be recognized that 
this legislation builds on the foundation of the 14 months of 
[[Page H4521]] negotiation between Ed Markey and me last session and 
the 4 months of discussion and negotiation this year.
  In January, we had very constructive meeting with CEO's from 
broadcast, computer, long distance, cable and satellite, telephony and 
wireless industries. The checklist approach in opening the local loop 
originated as a result of these meetings. Rather than a date certain, 
the regional Bell operating companies receive a date certain which is 
uncertain, meaning that if their loop is open, they could begin 
offering long-distance service as early as 18 months after the date of 
enactment. The long-distance companies said they could compromise on 
the involvement of the Justice Department if a certain number of 
requirements were met, meaning that the local loop is really open to 
competition. The checklist requirements which must be met are: 
interconnection and equal access, unbundling, number portability, 
dialing parity, resale, access to conduits and rights of way, 
elimination of franchise limitations, network interoperability, good-
faith negotiation, and facilities-based competitor.
  Our legislation gives pricing flexibility to telephone companies, 
eliminating the rate-of-return concept, and totally eliminating all 
pricing regulation when a telephone company has competition.
  Bell operating companies can enter manufacturing when they have met 
interconnection and equal access requirements with no separate 
subsidiary required.
  Bell operating companies are allowed to provide electronic publishing 
through a separate subsidiary with safeguards and a prohibition against 
cross-subsidies and discrimination against unaffiliated electronic 
publishers. This provision sunsets in the year 2000. The BOC's are not 
allowed to offer alarm monitoring service before July 1, 2000.
  Broadcasters receive the ability to compress their signal under the 
spectrum flexibility language. There is also a streamlining of the 
broadcast license process and an extension of the length of the license 
from 5 to 7 years.
  Direct broadcast satellite services will be exempted from State and 
local taxation laws.
  Congressman Schaefer has composed a package of cable provisions which 
are part of the bipartisan bill. We deregulate the small cable provider 
upon enactment and deregulate the upper tier of larger companies at 
about the time that the telephone company will begin operating a cable 
service.
  Congressman Stearns will offer his bill as an amendment to raise 
broadcast ownership caps quickly and eliminate cross-ownership 
restrictions. VHF-VHF combinations could be restricted if it were 
determined that they would restrict competition or the diversity of 
voices in a local market.
  Congressman Oxley will offer an amendment to remove foreign ownership 
restrictions on domestic telephone and broadcast companies.
  Congressmen Gillmor and Boucher will offer an amendment to remove 
restrictions that prohibit the entry of those companies governed by the 
Public Utility Holding Companies Act into telecommunication services.
  We stand here today with broad and deep bipartisan support; 
telecommunication policy should not be Democrat or Republican.
  We feel that this legislation serves the consumer; that this 
legislation gives the definition and certainty for the industry to move 
forward and to build the information superhighway.
  This will be an evolutionary and dynamic process--but now unleashed, 
our legislation will pass this committee and the House--there will be a 
conference with the Senate and a bill will be presented to the 
President and signed into law, because that's good for the country and 
our consuming public.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic moment. Today we 
introduce the Communications Act of 1995, one of the most sweeping 
reforms of communications law in history. No law can stop the 
advancement of technology, but bad and antiquated laws can stop 
consumers from enjoying the fruits of technological progress. And that 
is what we have today: Americans not able to enjoy the full range of 
technologically feasible telecommunications services because technology 
has outpaced the state of the law.

                            more competition

  The legislation that we are introducing today will bring competition 
to the local telephone and video markets--two traditional monopolies. 
Many companies would like to have the opportunity to compete for local 
telephone service. But the laws and regulations of this land 
effectively prohibit them from competing for business and offering 
innovative services, higher quality services, and lower priced 
services. American consumers want the choices that competition 
provides. The Communications Act of 1995 will give them those choices.
  The bill sets the rules of the road for opening the local exchange to 
competition. It requires the presence of a competitor in the local 
exchange prior to allowing a Bell operating company to apply for entry 
into long distance.
  Current laws restrict firms from entering other telecommunications 
markets as well, and the American consumer ultimately suffers. 
Telephone companies are prohibited by law from offering video services. 
The competition for higher quality and lower priced services that these 
and other firms could bring to the home video market would only benefit 
consumers. The bill will give broadcasters greater freedom to use 
spectrum creatively to offer new services. The bill will ultimately 
lead to more competition for electronic publishing, alarm, and 
telemessaging services.

                            less regulation

  In short, the Communications Act of 1995 will promote competition in 
practically all telecommunications markets. But the mere presence of 
many firms competing in the current American telecommunications would 
not be enough to make consumers as well off as they could be. American 
telecommunications markets today are burdened with excessive 
regulations.
  Firms that offer telecommunications services in the United States 
have artificially high costs because of: First, the high costs of 
complying with regulations, second, the length of licensing procedures, 
and third, the uncertainty of the outcome of licensing procedures. Who 
pays for the high cost of regulation? As always, it is the poor 
American consumer who pays the price. These costs of regulation are 
passed along to telecommunications consumers in the form of high prices 
for services, a lack of responsiveness to new market conditions, and a 
slow rate of innovation.
  The Communications Act of 1995 would harness and substantially reduce 
Federal regulation of telecommunications. The act streamlines licensing 
procedures for broadcasters. The act creates temporary rules that 
promote a transition to competition. After the transition, most of the 
act sunsets. The act requires the Federal Communications Commission to 
forbear from--to stop--regulation. Much of the act would be largely 
administered locally rather than federally. The act would prevent 
States or the Federal Government from requiring costly rate-of-return 
regulation. Once telecommunications markets are competitive, price 
regulation would be banned altogether.

            greater benefits to telecommunications consumers

  American telecommunications consumers will be the beneficiaries of 
the Communications Act of 1995. Less regulation will lead to lower 
costs. More competition will lead to greater innovation, greater choice 
of services, and lower prices. Today we embark on the effort to fulfill 
these promises to the American telecommunications consumer.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today's introduction of a telecommunications 
law rewrite is a landmark compromise that culminates years of work. I'm 
proud to be an original cosponsor of the Communications Act of 1995. 
The bill has already attracted significant support among Democrats, 
thanks to the leadership of subcommittee chairman Jack Fields.
  America is poised to lead the world in communications technology. 
This procompetitive, anti-regulatory legislation will help us make the 
most of the greatest economic opportunity in the history of the world.
  The United States should pursue two basic strategies during this 
transition into the information age: to increase competitiveness among 
U.S. companies to inspire more choices, better programming, and more 
efficient service for U.S. consumers, and to export aggressively so 
U.S. companies will prosper and hire American workers.
  I will offer a free trade amendment to the bill to repeal 
restrictions on foreign investment that date back to World War I. The 
foreign ownership restriction is a telegraph law that has no place in a 
telecommunications age.
  Section 310(b) of the 1934 Communications Act prohibits any foreign 
entity from holding an investment of more than 25 percent in U.S. 
broadcast facilities or common carrier companies. It was passed to 
guard against foreign sabotage when a limited number of information 
sources existed. When U.S. firms seek to sell telecommunications goods 
and services abroad, foreign governments point to U.S. market 
restrictions as justification for theirs. This is a distressing reality 
for U.S. companies seeking to create new jobs here at home.
  [[Page H4522]] Telecommunications is one of the Nation's most dynamic 
export industries, expected to account for one-sixth of the domestic 
economy by the year 2000. The global telecommunications services 
industry alone will generate almost $1 trillion in revenues by the end 
of the decade.
  I look forward to a constructive hearing and markup process on this 
bill, and I believe we will achieve our goal of enacting a modern 
telecommunications statute this year.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, the telecommunications bill we are 
introducing today is one of the most important bills to be considered 
in Congress in many years, and its passage will have a tremendous 
impact in America for decades to come.
  If this legislation is enacted, the law will begin to foster economic 
and technological development, instead of hamper it. The bill will 
provide consumers and businesses new communications services, an 
increase in choices in the marketplace, more competition and better 
prices.
  The bill represents the biggest single deregulation of a major 
industrial sector in American history, involving one-seventh of the 
U.S. economy and affecting virtually every American citizen.
  In addition to the provisions of the main bill, I have introduced a 
measure to allow public utilities to enter the telecommunications 
industry. Right now utility companies have the technological capacity 
to offer cable and telephone services, but they do not have the legal 
capacity. This legislation I am sponsoring with Representative Rick 
Boucher would allow public utilities this entry, further increasing 
competition and reducing prices for consumers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today Commerce Committee Chairman 
Tom Bliley, and Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields, 
introduced the largest telecommunications reform bill ever to go 
through Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this 
historic legislation.
  The Communications Act of 1995 will be the biggest job creation bill 
to pass this Congress. This legislation moves a number of currently 
heavily regulated industries into true market competition with each 
other, thus ensuring consumers real choices as to who to place their 
local telephone, cable television, and electronic data business with. 
The bill, when it becomes law, puts the consumer in the driver seat for 
all of his or her communications needs.
  It is the most comprehensive, promarket and procompetition bill 
introduced for these services in the history of the Congress. The 
current telecommunications laws were passed over half a century ago 
when there were few radios, television existed only in the laboratory, 
and computers had not even been thought of. Today, telecommunications 
services are expanding daily and our laws should be expanded 
accordingly. Congress should quickly move ahead with this reform effort 
to meet the new challenges facing us today.
  I support this deregulatory approach that will promote growth and 
competition in the telecommunications industry. If we can create a fair 
marketplace for telecommunication services, the industry, through 
competition, will create the much-touted information superhighway in a 
less expensive and more efficient fashion.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I'd like to thank Mr. Fields 
and Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Bliley for their commitment to 
this legislation.
  I'm proud that this issue has remained a priority and that we have 
been able to build upon the legislation that passed the House of 
Representatives during the last Congress.
  Once again, I have a special interest in keeping telephone rates in 
rural areas low while protecting small- and medium-sized phone 
companies from unfair competition. I have appreciated Chairman Fields' 
willingness to work with me on this issue throughout the drafting 
process. This bill, as introduced today, offers several protections for 
rural carriers, but I realize that it does not go far enough. Today, I 
pledge my commitment to improving this bill as it moves through the 
Commerce Committee. I have encouraged my colleagues to look at the 
Senate language regarding rural carriers, which exempts carriers who 
have 2 percent or fewer of the access lines nationwide, because I would 
like to see this bill move in that direction. As a start, Mr. Fields 
has assured me that we can amend this bill to exempt carriers that 
provide telephone exchange service to any local exchange carrier study 
area with fewer than 100,000 access lines. I appreciate his willingness 
to work with me and his commitment to protecting and preserving rural 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, for rural America, this bill represents an amazing 
opportunity for advancements in education, among other things. I was 
pleased to see provisions to ensure that educational institutions will 
have access to this growing technology. Additionally, I pledge to work 
toward enhancing this bill to ensure that health care providers will be 
able to tap into resources to expand their infrastructure to provide 
telemedicine, which is essential to rural areas like the First 
Congressional District. This will be vital in delivering services that 
will help up keep up with advances in larger cities while preserving 
the quality of life we enjoy.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce 
Committee to build upon this legislation and bring a bill to the House 
floor that this body can approve with the overwhelming support that we 
saw in passage of H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626 during the last Congress.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give my full support for 
the Communications Act of 1995 which the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and Finance introduced today with bipartisan 
support. I commend Chairman Bliley and Chairman Fields for the 
outstanding work they did on this much-needed legislation.
  I would also like to thank the staffs of both the subcommittee and 
full committee for their efforts in getting this legislation drafted 
and wish to commend them for the open and fair manner in which they 
achieved writing this groundbreaking legislation. This bill provides 
sweeping reforms in the communications industry and gives consumers a 
greater choice of services. This legislation will provide lower prices 
and higher quality. Clearly, the consumers will be the winners.
  The antiquated Communications Act of 1934 needs to be updated to 
ensure that the American telecommunications industries will be able to 
compete in this high-technology information age in which we are living. 
This legislation encourages competition and deregulation, thereby 
opening up future market opportunities for those who wish to compete in 
all telecommunications services. Comprehensive reform of this industry 
is long overdue and I am proud to cosponsor this bill which will 
achieve that goal.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I joined many of my colleagues on the 
Commerce Committee in the introduction of H.R. 1555, the Communications 
Act of 1995. I would like to congratulate the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, Mr. Bliley, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and Finance, Mr. Fields, for their cooperation and 
work in drafting this landmark piece of legislation.
  This legislation closely tracks the legislation overwhelmingly passed 
by the House last year, H.R. 3626. That bill passed by a vote of 423 to 
5, and it is my hope that H.R. 1555 will have the same level of support 
when it goes to the floor.
  The legislation does several important things. It removes the 
artificial barriers to entry that restrict competition in several 
telecommunications markets. Upon the enactment of this bill, telephone 
companies will be permitted to offer cable service. Cable operators 
will be able to offer telephone service. Long distance companies will 
be able to resell local telephone service. And ultimately, the Bell 
operating companies will have the ability to enter the long distance 
market.
  The dismantling of these barriers to entry will result in several 
significant improvements for the American public. Perhaps most 
importantly, services that have traditionally been offered by regulated 
monopolies will become competitive. Cable operators will have to fight 
with telephone companies to attract--and keep--consumers. Telephone 
companies will face a variety of competitors, each seeking new and 
innovative ways to attract subscribers. The long distance industry will 
face the entry of seven large, well-financed competitors.
  The result, for the American public, will be lower prices and greater 
responsiveness to the needs of consumers.
  In addition, we are likely to see the pace of innovation accelerate. 
Markets that heretofore have been responsive to Government edict will 
listen to consumers. Companies will refine their marketing efforts to 
make certain that consumers come first.
  And by allowing competition across the telecommunications landscape, 
competitors are likely to create packages of services that appeal to 
consumers. Consumers can have the option of one-stop shopping, in which 
local and long distance telephone service can be obtained from a single 
vendor. Cable subscribers will be able to obtain a package that also 
includes telephone service. Consumers will be able to obtain greater 
convenience and save money--or, if they choose, they will still be able 
to purchase their service on an a la carte basis from a variety of 
service providers.
  This is a good bill. But like any piece of legislation, it can be 
improved. I am particularly troubled by the provisions that end the 
regulation of cable rates on the day that the Federal Communications 
Commission issues its rules governing the offering of cable service by 
telephone companies. My
 concerns are shared by 
[[Page H4523]] many of the Democratic members of the committee; they 
are shared by the administration; and I think it's likely that we will 
see some amendments to ensure that consumers are not gouged by 
monopolies until a competitive alternative is available.
  But despite my reservations about this provision, I expect that we 
will be able to resolve our differences here in a manner comparable to 
the way we have developed a consensus on the other provisions of this 
bill. In that regard, I would like to commend both Chairman Bliley and 
Chairman Fields for the manner in which they have treated the Democrats 
during the drafting process. This has been a truly bipartisan process, 
and the legislative text that was introduced today reflects the many 
compromises and changes that were made by both sides.
  Telecommunications issues have never been partisan, and have never 
been ideological. The manner in which the majority has treated the 
minority in this case is exemplary, and it is my hope that it will 
serve as a model for the many legislative initiatives we have before 
us. I would like to thank both of these fine legislators, and look 
forward to continuing this bipartisan approach as H.R. 1555 moves 
through the House.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1555 is a good bill, and before it is sent to the 
President for his signature, it will be a better bill. I urge my 
colleagues to join with us in support of this legislation, and enact a 
statute that will enable the telecommunications industries to bring to 
the American people the benefits that the twenty-first century has to 
offer.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Members about the 
introduction of the Commerce Committee's historic legislation to 
reshape our Nation's telecommunications laws.
  I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and commend 
Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, Telecommunications and Finance 
Subcommittee Chairman Fields, and ranking members John Dingell and Ed 
Markey for their efforts to produce a bipartisan bill.
  The Nation cannot wait another year for telecommunications reform. 
The current law of the land for telecommunications is based on a law 
written in the 1800's to govern railroads in America. Now, after 
several decades of extraordinary advances in information technology, 
most of our Nation's telephone system consists of a pair of copper 
wires.
  As the Representative from Silicon Valley in California, I know the 
importance of deregulation to computer and software technology. 
Information technologies are the business of Silicon Valley.
  I believe we can look to the computer and software industries as 
examples of good things to come for the communications industry if 
competition can be established.
  Consider the first digital computer made in 1943 which was 8 feet 
high, 50 feet long, contained 500 miles of wire, and could perform 
about three additions per second. Today, consumers can purchase a 
computer with wafer-thin microprocessors which are capable of hundreds 
of millions of additions per second and fit on your lap.
  Yet today's twisted copper wire telephone network is unsuitable for 
modern computers and software applications which can incorporate voice, 
video, graphic, and data transmissions and send them simultaneously in 
real-time exchanges.
  A technology gap exists between the information technology and 
communications industries and this hurts our international 
competitiveness. This bill can help close the gap, encourage 
competition, and foster increases in high technology exports and jobs.
  A successful telecommunications bill should pass two critical tests. 
First, it should establish a process which brings the greatest 
competition to bear, and second, it should promote technology 
innovation and production in a way that can make a difference in 
peoples' lives.
  This bill is a step forward in meeting these important goals and I'm 
proud to cosponsor it.

                          ____________________
```