[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 PRESSLER'S RURAL TELEPHONE AMENDMENTS

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to 
announce my support for certain amendments to S. 1822, the 
Communications Act of 1994. I have been working with the rural 
telephone coalition on a package of amendments addressing concerns 
regarding the preservation of universal service in a competitive 
environment.
  S. 1822 is designed to stimulate investment in our Nation's 
telecommunications networks by encouraging competition. I support 
competition where it can work. However, competition may not be 
sufficient to bring advanced services to all users. Everyone seems to 
agree that local telephone competition is likely to occur first in 
large metropolitan markets. Many have questioned whether competition 
ever will develop in high-cost rural areas.

  I was pleased to join my distinguished colleagues, Senator Hollings, 
the chairman, Senator Danforth, the ranking member, and a bipartisan 
majority of the Commerce Committee as an original cosponsor of S. 1822. 
However, I am concerned that the bill, as introduced, may not further 
the goals of increasing investment and bringing new services to 
sparsely populated areas. Rural cooperatives and small telephone 
companies have a proven track record of upgrading their networks to 
bring advanced telecommunications services to their customers. Congress 
should ensure they can continue to do so.
  Earlier today, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on the local 
telephone competition and universal service provisions of S. 1822. 
Maintaining universal service in a changing technological and 
competitive environment is probably the most difficult challenge the 
committee faces in crafting this legislation.
  S. 1822 establishes the proper sequence for dealing with these 
issues. Universal service mechanisms must be in place, before the local 
telephone loop is opened to competition. Nonetheless, I believe the 
bill can be improved. Policies designed for metropolitan markets--where 
local competition already has begun--may not be appropriate for small 
markets.
  I have listened to the concerns raised by the telephone cooperatives, 
small telephone companies and small cable systems in my State. They do 
not believe a one-size-fits-all policy for urban and rural areas makes 
sense. I agree. Therefore, I will propose certain amendments to S. 
1822, which are supported by the Rural Telephone Coalition.
  My package of amendments would:
  Ensure universal service remains a dynamic, evolving concept as 
technology changes;
  Establish a Federal-State joint board to implement universal service 
principles set by Congress;
  Ensure reasonably comparable service in rural and urban areas at 
affordable, geographically averaged rates;
  Restrict infrastructure sharing benefits to providers with carrier of 
last resort obligations and limited economies of scale or scope;
  Retain State authority to determine competitive conditions in rural 
areas;
  Exempt rural telephone companies from interconnection, access and 
unbundling obligations until the FCC determines rural markets can 
support local competition;
  Provide more flexible buyout and joint venture provisions for cable 
systems and telephone companies in rural areas.
  I will work with Senator Hollings, Senator Danforth, and other 
members of the committee to incorporate these rural safeguards in the 
bill. I think these amendments will increase support for the Senate's 
approach to local competition and universal service.

                          ____________________