[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 
                                OF 1994

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3636) to promote a national communications infrastructure to 
encourage deployment of advanced communications services through 
competition, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3636

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
     of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

       TITLE I--TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMPETITION

Sec. 101. Policy; definitions.
Sec. 102. Equal access and network functionality and quality.
Sec. 103. Telecommunications services for educational institutions, 
              health care institutions, and libraries.
Sec. 104. Discriminatory interconnection.
Sec. 105. Expedited licensing of new technologies and services.
Sec. 106. New or extended lines.
Sec. 107. Pole attachments.
Sec. 108. Civic participation.
Sec. 109. Competition by small business and minority-owned business 
              concerns.

                TITLE II--COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITIVENESS

Sec. 201. Cable service provided by telephone companies.
Sec. 202. Review of broadcasters' ownership restrictions.
Sec. 203. Review of statutory ownership restriction.
Sec. 204. Broadcaster spectrum flexibility.
Sec. 205. Interactive services and critical interfaces.
Sec. 206. Video programming accessibility.
Sec. 207. Public access.
Sec. 208. Automated ship distress and safety systems.
Sec. 209. Exclusive Federal jurisdiction over direct broadcast 
              satellite service.
Sec. 210. Technical amendments.
Sec. 211. Availability of screening devices to preclude display of 
              encrypted programming.

   TITLE III--PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS.

Sec. 301. Findings.
Sec. 302. Purpose.
Sec. 303. Annual plan submission.
Sec. 304. Sanctions and remedies.
Sec. 305. Definitions.

         TITLE IV--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESOURCES

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.
       TITLE I--TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMPETITION

     SEC. 101. POLICY; DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Policy.--Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (47 U.S.C. 151) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Section 1.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) The purposes described in subsection (a), as they 
     relate to common carrier services, include--
       ``(1) to preserve and enhance universal telecommunications 
     service at just and reasonable rates;
       ``(2) to encourage the continued development and deployment 
     of advanced and reliable capabilities and services in 
     telecommunications networks;
       ``(3) to make available, so far as possible, to all the 
     people of the United States, regardless of location or 
     disability, a switched, broadband telecommunications network 
     capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable 
     high quality voice, data, graphics, and video 
     telecommunications services;
       ``(4) to ensure that the costs of such networks and 
     services are allocated equitably among users and are 
     constrained by competition whenever possible;
       ``(5) to ensure a seamless and open nationwide 
     telecommunications network through joint planning, 
     coordination, and service arrangements between and among 
     carriers; and
       ``(6) to ensure that common carriers' networks function at 
     a high standard of quality in delivering advances in network 
     capabilities and services.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 3 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (r)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``means''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, or (B) service provided through a system of 
     switches, transmission equipment, or other facilities (or 
     combination thereof) by which a subscriber can originate and 
     terminate a telecommunications service within a State but 
     which does not result in the subscriber incurring a telephone 
     toll charge''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(gg) `Information service' means the offering of a 
     capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, 
     processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available 
     information via telecommunications, and includes electronic 
     publishing, but does not include any use of any such 
     capability for the management, control, or operation of a 
     telecommunications system or the management of a 
     telecommunications service.
       ``(hh) `Equal access' means to afford, to any person 
     seeking to provide an information service or a 
     telecommunications service, reasonable and nondiscriminatory 
     access on an unbundled basis--
       ``(1) to databases, signaling systems, poles, ducts, 
     conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by a local 
     exchange carrier, or other facilities, functions, or 
     information (including subscriber numbers) integral to the 
     efficient transmission, routing, or other provision of 
     telephone exchange services or telephone exchange access 
     services;
       ``(2) that is at least equal in type, quality, and price to 
     the access which the carrier affords to itself or to any 
     other person; and
       ``(3) that is sufficient to ensure the full 
     interoperability of the equipment and facilities of the 
     carrier and of the person seeking such access.
       ``(ii) `Open platform service' means a switched, end-to-end 
     digital telecommunications service that is subject to title 
     II of this Act, and that (1) provides subscribers with 
     sufficient network capability to access multimedia 
     information services, (2) is widely available throughout a 
     State, (3) is provided based on industry standards, and (4) 
     is available to all subscribers on a single line basis upon 
     reasonable request.
       ``(jj) `Local exchange carrier' means any person that is 
     engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or 
     telephone exchange access service. Such term does not include 
     a person insofar as such person is engaged in the provision 
     of a commercial mobile service under section 332(c), except 
     to the extent that the Commission finds that such service as 
     provided by such person in a State is a replacement for a 
     substantial portion of the wireline telephone exchange 
     service within such State.
       ``(kk) `Telephone exchange access service' means the 
     offering of telephone exchange services or facilities for the 
     purpose of the origination or termination of interexchange 
     telecommunications services to or from an exchange area.
       ``(ll) `Telecommunications' means the transmission, between 
     or among points specified by the subscriber, of information 
     of the subscriber's choosing, without change in the form or 
     content of the information as sent and received, by means of 
     an electromagnetic transmission medium, including all 
     instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services 
     (including the collection, storage, forwarding, switching, 
     and delivery of such information) essential to such 
     transmission.
       ``(mm) `Telecommunications service' means the offering, on 
     a common carrier basis, of telecommunications facilities, or 
     of telecommunications by means of such facilities. Such term 
     does not include an information service.''.

     SEC. 102. EQUAL ACCESS AND NETWORK FUNCTIONALITY AND QUALITY.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 201 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 201) is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following new subsections:
       ``(c) Equal Access.--
       ``(1) Openness and accessibility obligations.--
       ``(A) Common carrier obligations.--The duty of a common 
     carrier under subsection (a) to furnish communications 
     service includes the duty to interconnect with the facilities 
     and equipment of other providers of telecommunications 
     services and information services in accordance with such 
     regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or 
     desirable in the public interest with respect to the openness 
     and accessibility of common carrier networks.
       ``(B) Additional obligations of local exchange carriers.--
     The duty under subsection (a) of a local exchange carrier 
     includes the duty--
       ``(i) to provide, in accordance with the regulations 
     prescribed under paragraph (2), equal access to and 
     interconnection with the facilities of the carrier's networks 
     to any other carrier or person providing telecommunications 
     services or information services reasonably requesting such 
     equal access and interconnection, so that such networks are 
     fully interoperable with such telecommunications services and 
     information services; and
       ``(ii) to offer unbundled features, functions, and 
     capabilities whenever technically feasible and economically 
     reasonable, in accordance with requirements prescribed by the 
     Commission pursuant to this subsection and other laws.
       ``(2) Equal access and interconnection regulations.--
       ``(A) Regulations required.--Within 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall 
     establish regulations that require reasonable and 
     nondiscriminatory equal access to and interconnection with 
     the facilities of a local exchange carrier's network at any 
     technically feasible and economically reasonable point within 
     the carrier's network on reasonable terms and conditions, to 
     any other carrier or person offering telecommunications 
     services requesting such access. The Commission shall 
     establish such regulations after consultation with the Joint 
     Board established pursuant to subparagraph (D). Such 
     regulations shall provide for actual collocation of equipment 
     necessary for interconnection for telecommunications services 
     at the premises of a local exchange carrier, except that the 
     regulations shall provide for virtual collocation where the 
     local exchange carrier demonstrates that actual collocation 
     is not practical for technical reasons or because of space 
     limitations.
       ``(B) Compensation.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall establish 
     regulations requiring just and reasonable compensation to the 
     exchange carrier providing such equal access and 
     interconnection pursuant to subparagraph (A). Such 
     regulations shall include regulations to require the carrier, 
     to the extent it provides a telecommunications service or an 
     information service, to impute such access and 
     interconnection charges to itself as the Commission 
     determines are reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
       ``(C) Exemptions and modifications.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1) or subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, a rural 
     telephone company shall not be required to provide equal 
     access and interconnection to another local exchange carrier. 
     The Commission shall not apply the requirements of this 
     paragraph or impose requirements pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii) to any rural telephone company, except to the 
     extent that the Commission determines that compliance with 
     such requirements would not be unduly economically 
     burdensome, unfairly competitive, technologically infeasible, 
     or otherwise not in the public interest. The Commission may 
     modify the requirements of this paragraph for any other local 
     exchange carrier that has, in the aggregate nationwide, fewer 
     than 500,000 access lines installed, to the extent that the 
     Commission determines that compliance with such requirements 
     (without such modification) would be unduly economically 
     burdensome, technologically infeasible, or otherwise not in 
     the public interest. The Commission may include, in the 
     regulations prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), modified 
     requirements for any feature, function, or capability that 
     the Commission determines is generally available to competing 
     providers of telecommunications services or information 
     services at the same or better price, terms, and conditions.
       ``(D) Joint board on equal access and interconnection 
     standards.--Within 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Commission shall convene a Federal-State 
     Joint Board under section 410(c) for the purpose of preparing 
     a recommended decision for the Commission with respect to the 
     equal access and interconnection regulations required by this 
     paragraph.
       ``(E) Enforcement of existing regulations.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prohibit the Commission from 
     enforcing regulations prescribed prior to the date of 
     enactment of this subsection in fulfilling the requirements 
     of this subsection, to the extent that such regulations are 
     consistent with the provisions of this subsection.
       ``(F) Definition of rural telephone company.--For the 
     purpose of subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, the term 
     `rural telephone company' means a local exchange carrier 
     operating entity to the extent that such entity--
       ``(i) provides common carrier service to any local exchange 
     carrier study area that does not include either--

       ``(I) any incorporated place of 10,000 inhabitants or more, 
     or any part thereof, based on the most recent available 
     population statistics of the Bureau of the Census; or
       ``(II) any territory, incorporated or unincorporated, 
     included in an urbanized area, as defined by the Bureau of 
     the Census as of August 10, 1993;

       ``(ii) provides telephone exchange service, including 
     telephone exchange access service, to fewer than 50,000 
     access lines; or
       ``(iii) provides telephone exchange service to any local 
     exchange carrier study area with fewer than 100,000 access 
     lines.
       ``(3) Preemption.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--Notwithstanding section 2(b), no State 
     or local government may, after one year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection--
       ``(i) effectively prohibit any person or carrier from 
     providing any interstate or intrastate telecommunications 
     service or information service, or impose any restriction or 
     condition on entry into the business of providing any such 
     service;
       ``(ii) prohibit any carrier or other person providing 
     interstate or intrastate telecommunications services or 
     information services from exercising the access and 
     interconnection rights provided under this subsection; or
       ``(iii) impose any limitation on the exercise of such 
     rights.
       ``(B) Permitted terms and conditions.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be construed to prohibit a State from imposing a 
     term or condition on providers of telecommunications services 
     or information services if such term or condition does not 
     effectively prohibit any person or carrier from providing any 
     interstate or intrastate telecommunications service or 
     information service and is necessary and appropriate to--
       ``(i) protect public safety and welfare;
       ``(ii) ensure the continued quality of intrastate 
     telecommunications;
       ``(iii) ensure that rates for intrastate telecommunications 
     services are just and reasonable; or
       ``(iv) ensure that the provider's business practices are 
     consistent with consumer protection laws and regulations.
       ``(C) Normal construction permits permitted.--Subparagraph 
     (A) shall not be construed to prohibit a local government 
     from requiring a person or carrier to obtain ordinary and 
     usual construction or similar permits for its operations if 
     (i) such permit is required without regard to the nature of 
     the business, and (ii) requiring such permit does not 
     effectively prohibit any person or carrier from providing any 
     interstate or intrastate telecommunications service or 
     information service.
       ``(D) Exception.--In the case of commercial mobile 
     services, the provisions of section 332(c)(3) shall apply in 
     lieu of the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(E) Parity of franchise and other charges.--
     Notwithstanding section 2(b), no local government may, after 
     1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, impose 
     or collect any franchise, license, permit, or right-of-way 
     fee or any assessment, rental, or any other charge or 
     equivalent thereof as a condition for operating in the 
     locality or for obtaining access to, occupying, or crossing 
     public rights-of-way from any provider of telecommunications 
     services that distinguishes between or among providers of 
     telecommunications services, including the local exchange 
     carrier. For purposes of this subsection, a franchise, 
     license, permit, or right-of-way fee or an assessment, 
     rental, or any other charge or equivalent thereof does not 
     include any imposition of general applicability which does 
     not distinguish between or among providers of 
     telecommunications services, or any tax.
       ``(4) Tariffs.--
       ``(A) Generally.--Within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, a local exchange carrier shall 
     prepare and file tariffs in accordance with this Act with 
     respect to the services or elements offered to comply with 
     the equal access and interconnection regulations required 
     under this subsection. The costs that a carrier incurs in 
     providing such services or elements shall be borne solely by 
     the users of the features and functions comprising such 
     services or elements or of the feature or function that uses 
     or includes such services or elements. The Commission shall 
     review such tariffs to ensure that--
       ``(i) the charges for such services or elements are cost-
     based; and
       ``(ii) the terms and conditions contained in such tariffs 
     unbundle any separable services, elements, features, or 
     functions in accordance with paragraph (1)(B)(ii) and any 
     regulations thereunder.
       ``(B) Supporting information.--A local exchange carrier 
     shall submit supporting information with its tariffs for 
     equal access and interconnection that is sufficient to enable 
     the Commission and the public to determine the relationship 
     between the proposed charges and the costs of providing such 
     services or elements. The submission of such information 
     shall be pursuant to regulations adopted by the Commission to 
     ensure that similarly situated carriers provide such 
     information in a uniform fashion.
       ``(5) Pricing flexibility.--
       ``(A) Establishment of criteria.--Within 270 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission, by 
     regulation, shall establish criteria for determining--
       ``(i) whether a telecommunications service or provider of 
     such service has become, or is substantially certain to 
     become, subject to competition, either within a geographic 
     area or within a class or category of service;
       ``(ii) whether such competition will effectively prevent 
     rates for such service that are unjust or unreasonable or 
     that are unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory; and
       ``(iii) appropriate flexible pricing procedures that can be 
     used in lieu of the filing of tariff schedules, or in lieu of 
     other pricing procedures established by the Commission, and 
     that are consistent with the protection of subscribers and 
     the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
       ``(B) Determinations.--The Commission, with respect to 
     rates for interstate or foreign communications, and State 
     commissions, with respect to rates for intrastate 
     communications, shall, upon application--
       ``(i) render determinations in accordance with the criteria 
     established under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) 
     concerning the services or providers that are the subject of 
     such application; and
       ``(ii) upon a proper showing, establish appropriate 
     flexible pricing procedures consistent with the criteria 
     established under clause (iii) of such subparagraph.

     The Commission shall approve or reject any such application 
     within 180 days after the date of its submission.
       ``(C) Exception.--In the case of commercial mobile 
     services, the provisions of section 332(c)(1) shall apply in 
     lieu of the provisions of this paragraph.
       ``(6) Joint board to preserve universal service.--
       ``(A) Establishment; functions.--Within 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall 
     convene a Federal-State Joint Board under section 410(c) for 
     the purpose of recommending actions to the Commission and 
     State commissions for the preservation of universal service. 
     As a part of preparing such recommendations, the Joint Board 
     shall survey providers and users of telephone exchange 
     service and consult with State commissions in order to 
     determine the pecuniary difference between the cost of 
     providing universal service and the prices determined to be 
     appropriate for such service.
       ``(B) Principles.--The Joint Board shall base policies for 
     the preservation of universal service on the following 
     principles:
       ``(i) A plan adopted by the Commission and the States 
     should ensure the continued viability of universal service by 
     maintaining quality services at just and reasonable rates.
       ``(ii) Such plan should define the nature and extent of the 
     services encompassed within carriers' universal service 
     obligations. Such plan should seek to promote access to 
     advanced telecommunications services and capabilities, 
     including open platform service, for all Americans by 
     including access to advanced telecommunications services and 
     capabilities in the definition of universal service while 
     maintaining just and reasonable rates. Such plan should seek 
     to promote reasonably comparable services for the general 
     public in urban and rural areas.
       ``(iii) Such plan should establish specific and predictable 
     mechanisms to provide adequate and sustainable support for 
     universal service.
       ``(iv) All providers of telecommunications services should 
     make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to 
     preservation of universal service.
       ``(v) Such plan should permit residential subscribers to 
     continue to receive only basic voice-grade local telephone 
     service, for a period of not more than 5 years, equivalent to 
     the service generally available to residential subscribers on 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, at just, 
     reasonable, and affordable rates. Determinations concerning 
     the affordability of rates for such services shall take into 
     account the rates generally available to residential 
     subscribers on such date of enactment and the pricing rules 
     established by the States. If the plan would result in any 
     increases in the rates for such services for residential 
     subscribers that are not attributable to changes in consumer 
     prices generally, such plan should include a requirement that 
     a rate increase shall be permitted in any proceeding 
     commenced after March 16, 1994, only upon a showing that such 
     increase is necessary to prevent competitive disadvantages 
     for one or more service providers and is in the public 
     interest. Such plan should provide that any such increase in 
     rates shall be minimized to the greatest extent practical and 
     shall be implemented over a time period of not less than 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this subsection.
       ``(vi) To the extent that a common carrier establishes 
     advanced telecommunications services, such plan should 
     include provisions to promote public access to advanced 
     telecommunications services, other than a video platform, at 
     a preferential rate that will recover only the added costs of 
     providing such service, for public service institutions, both 
     as producers and users of services, as soon as technically 
     feasible and economically reasonable. Such plan shall provide 
     that such preferential rates should only be made available to 
     such institutions for the purpose of providing noncommercial 
     information services or telecommunications services to the 
     general public and not for the internal telecommunications 
     needs or commercial use of such institutions.
       ``(vii) Such plan should determine and establish mechanisms 
     to ensure that rates charged by a provider of interexchange 
     telecommunications services for services in rural areas are 
     maintained at levels no higher than those charged by the same 
     carrier to subscribers in urban areas.
       ``(viii) Such plan should, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, require common carriers serving more than 
     1,800,000 access lines in the aggregate nationwide, to be 
     subject to alternative or price regulation, and not cost-
     based rate-of-return regulation, for services that are 
     subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the States, 
     as applicable, when such carrier's network has been made open 
     to competition as a result of its implementation of the equal 
     access, interconnection, and accessibility provisions of this 
     subsection.
       ``(ix) Such other principles as the Board determines are 
     necessary and appropriate for the protection of the public 
     interest, convenience, and necessity and consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act.
       ``(C) Definition of universal service; access to advanced 
     services.--In defining the nature and extent of the services 
     encompassed within carriers' universal service obligations 
     under subparagraph (B)(ii), the Joint Board shall consider 
     the extent to which--
       ``(i) a telecommunications service has, through the 
     operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to 
     by a substantial majority of residential customers;
       ``(ii) denial of access to such service to any individual 
     would unfairly deny that individual educational and economic 
     opportunities;
       ``(iii) such service has been deployed in the public 
     switched telecommunications network; and
       ``(iv) inclusion of such service within carriers' universal 
     service obligations is otherwise consistent with the public 
     interest, convenience, and necessity.

     The Joint Board may, from time to time, recommend to the 
     Commission modifications in the definition proposed under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Report; commission response.--The Joint Board 
     convened pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall report its 
     recommendations within 270 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection. The Commission shall complete any 
     proceeding to act upon such recommendations within one year 
     after such date of enactment. A State may adopt regulations 
     to implement the Joint Board's recommendations, except that 
     such regulations shall not, after 18 months after such date 
     of enactment, be inconsistent with regulations prescribed by 
     the Commission to implement such recommendations.
       ``(E) Definition of Public Service Institution.--For the 
     purposes of this paragraph, the term `public service 
     institution' means--
       ``(i) an agency or instrumentality of Federal, State, or 
     local government;
       ``(ii) a nonprofit educational institution, health care 
     institution, public library, public museum, or public 
     broadcasting station or entity;
       ``(iii) a charitable organizations that (I) is exempt from 
     Federal income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986; (II) provides public services in 
     conjunction with an agency, instrumentality, institution, or 
     entity described in clause (i) or (ii); and (III) provides 
     information that is useful to the public and that is related 
     to the work of such an agency, instrumentality, institution, 
     or entity.
       ``(7) Cross subsidies prohibition.--The Commission shall--
       ``(A) prescribe regulations to prohibit a common carrier 
     from engaging in any practice that results in the inclusion 
     in rates for telephone exchange service or telephone exchange 
     access service of any operating expenses, costs, depreciation 
     charges, capital investments, or other expenses directly 
     associated with the provision of competing telecommunications 
     services, information services, or video programming services 
     by the common carrier or affiliate; and
       ``(B) ensure such competing telecommunications services, 
     information services or video programming services bear a 
     reasonable share of the joint and common costs of facilities 
     used to provide telephone exchange service or telephone 
     exchange access service and competing telecommunications 
     services, information services, or video programming 
     services.
       ``(8) Resale.--The resale or sharing of telephone exchange 
     service (or unbundled services, elements, features, or 
     functions of telephone exchange service) in conjunction with 
     the furnishing of a telecommunications service or an 
     information service shall not be prohibited nor subject to 
     unreasonable conditions by the carrier, the Commission, or 
     any State.
       ``(9) Telecommunications number portability.--The 
     Commission shall prescribe regulations to ensure that--
       ``(A) telecommunications number portability shall be 
     available, upon request, as soon as technically feasible and 
     economically reasonable; and
       ``(B) an impartial entity shall administer 
     telecommunications numbering and make such numbers available 
     on an equitable basis.

     The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction over those 
     portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to 
     the United States. For the purpose of this paragraph, the 
     term `telecommunications number portability' means the 
     ability of users of telecommunications services to retain 
     existing telecommunications numbers without impairment of 
     quality, reliability, or convenience when switching from one 
     provider of telecommunications services to another.
       ``(10) Review of standards and requirements.--At least once 
     every three years, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) conduct a proceeding in which interested parties 
     shall have an opportunity to comment on whether the standards 
     and requirements established by or under this subsection have 
     opened the networks of carriers to reasonable and 
     nondiscriminatory access by providers of telecommunications 
     services and information services;
       ``(B) review the definition of, and the adequacy of support 
     for, universal service, and evaluate the extent to which 
     universal service has been protected and access to advanced 
     services has been facilitated pursuant to this subsection and 
     the plans and regulations thereunder; and
       ``(C) submit to the Congress a report containing a 
     statement of the Commission's findings pursuant to such 
     proceeding, and including an identification of any defects or 
     delays observed in attaining the objectives of this 
     subsection and a plan for correcting such defects and delays.
       ``(11) Study of rural phone service.--Within 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission 
     shall initiate an inquiry to examine the effects of 
     competition in the provision of telephone exchange access 
     service and telephone exchange service on the availability 
     and rates for telephone exchange access service and telephone 
     exchange service furnished by rural exchange carriers.
       ``(d) Network Functionality and Quality.--
       ``(1) Functionality and reliability obligations.--The duty 
     of a common carrier under subsection (a) to furnish 
     communications service includes the duty to furnish that 
     service in accordance with such regulations of functionality 
     and reliability as the Commission may prescribe as necessary 
     or desirable in the public interest pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Coordinated planning for interoperability and other 
     purposes.--The Commission shall establish--
       ``(A) procedures for the conduct of coordinated network 
     planning by common carriers and other providers of 
     telecommunications services or information services, subject 
     to Commission supervision, for the effective and efficient 
     interconnection and interoperability of public and private 
     networks; and
       ``(B) procedures for Commission oversight of the 
     development by appropriate standards-setting organizations 
     of--
       ``(i) standards for the interconnection and 
     interoperability of such networks;
       ``(ii) standards that promote access to network 
     capabilities and services by individuals with disabilities; 
     and
       ``(iii) standards that promote access to information 
     services by subscribers to telephone exchange service 
     furnished by a rural telephone company (as such term is 
     defined in subsection (c)(2)(F)).
       ``(3) Open platform service.--
       ``(A) Study.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection, the Commission shall initiate an inquiry to 
     consider the regulations and policies necessary to make open 
     platform service available to subscribers at reasonable rates 
     based on the reasonably identifiable costs of providing such 
     service, utilizing existing facilities or new facilities with 
     improved capability or efficiency. The inquiry required under 
     this paragraph shall be completed within 180 days after the 
     date of its initiation.
       ``(B) Regulations.--On the basis of the results of the 
     inquiry required under subparagraph (A), the Commission shall 
     prescribe and make effective such regulations as are 
     necessary to implement the inquiry's conclusions. Such 
     regulations may require a local exchange carrier to file, in 
     the appropriate jurisdiction, tariffs for the origination and 
     termination of open platform service as soon as such service 
     is economically and technically feasible. In establishing any 
     such regulations, the Commission shall take into account the 
     proximate and long-term deployment plans of local exchange 
     carriers.
       ``(C) Temporary waiver.--The Commission shall also 
     establish a procedure to waive temporarily specific 
     provisions of the regulations prescribed under this paragraph 
     if a local exchange carrier demonstrates that compliance with 
     such requirement--
       ``(i) would be economically or technically infeasible, or
       ``(ii) would materially delay the deployment of new 
     facilities with improved capabilities or efficiencies that 
     will be used to meet the requirements of open platform 
     services.

     Such petitions shall be decided by the Commission within 180 
     days after the date of its submission.
       ``(D) Cost allocation.--Any such regulations shall provide 
     for the allocation of all costs of facilities jointly used to 
     provide open platform service and telephone exchange service 
     or telephone exchange access services.
       ``(E) State authority.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
     construed to limit a State's authority to continue to 
     regulate any services subject to State jurisdiction under 
     this Act.
       ``(F) Commission Inquiry.--Within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Commission shall conduct an 
     inquiry concerning the deployment of open platform service 
     and other advanced telecommunications network capabilities, 
     including switched, broadband telecommunications facilities. 
     In conducting such inquiry, the Commission shall seek to 
     develop information concerning--
       ``(i) the availability of such network capabilities to all 
     Americans;
       ``(ii) the availability of such network capabilities to 
     different regions, States, and classes of subscribers;
       ``(iii) the availability of advanced network technology 
     needed to deploy such network capabilities; and
       ``(iv) likely deployment schedules for such network 
     capabilities by region, State, and classes of subscribers.

     The Commission shall submit a report to the Congress on the 
     results of such inquiry within 270 days after the 
     commencement of such inquiry, and annually thereafter for the 
     succeeding 5 years.
       ``(4) Accessibility regulations.--
       ``(A) Regulations.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Commission shall prescribe 
     such regulations as are necessary to ensure that advances in 
     network services deployed by local exchange carriers shall be 
     accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities, 
     including individuals with functional limitations of hearing, 
     vision, movement, manipulation, speech, and interpretation of 
     information, unless the cost of making the services 
     accessible and usable would result in an undue burden or 
     adverse competitive impact. Such regulations shall seek to 
     permit the use of both standard and special equipment, and 
     seek to minimize the need of individuals to acquire 
     additional devices beyond those used by the general public to 
     obtain such access. Throughout the process of developing such 
     regulations, the Commission shall coordinate and consult with 
     representatives of individuals with disabilities and 
     interested equipment and service providers to ensure their 
     concerns and interests are given full consideration in such 
     process.
       ``(B) Compatibility.--Such regulations shall require that 
     whenever an undue burden or adverse competitive impact would 
     result from the requirements in subparagraph (A), the local 
     exchange carrier that deploys the network service shall 
     ensure that the network service in question is compatible 
     with existing peripheral devices or specialized customer 
     premises equipment commonly used by persons with disabilities 
     to achieve access, unless doing so would result in an undue 
     burden or adverse competitive impact.
       ``(C) Undue burden.--The term `undue burden' means 
     significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the 
     activity necessary to comply with the requirements of this 
     paragraph would result in an undue burden, the factors to be 
     considered include the following:
       ``(i) The nature and cost of the activity.
       ``(ii) The impact on the operation of the facility involved 
     in the deployment of the network service.
       ``(iii) The financial resources of the local exchange 
     carrier.
       ``(iv) The type of operations of the local exchange 
     carrier.
       ``(D) Adverse competitive impact.--In determining whether 
     the activity necessary to comply with the requirements of 
     this paragraph would result in adverse competitive impact, 
     the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(i) Whether such activity would raise the cost of the 
     network service in question beyond the level at which there 
     would be sufficient consumer demand by the general population 
     to make the network service profitable.
       ``(ii) Whether such activity would, with respect to the 
     network service in question, put the local exchange carrier 
     at a competitive disadvantage. This factor may be considered 
     so long as competing network service providers are not held 
     to the same obligation with respect to access by persons with 
     disabilities.
       ``(E) Review of standards and requirements.--At least once 
     every 3 years, the Commission shall conduct a proceeding in 
     which interested parties shall have an opportunity to comment 
     on whether the regulations established under this paragraph 
     have ensured that advances in network services by providers 
     of telecommunications services and information services are 
     accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities.
       ``(F) Effective date.--The regulations required by this 
     paragraph shall become effective 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(5) Quality rules.--
       ``(A) Measures or benchmarks required.--The Commission 
     shall designate or otherwise establish network reliability 
     and quality performance measures or benchmarks for common 
     carriers for the purpose of ensuring the continued 
     maintenance and evolution of common carrier facilities and 
     service. Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Commission shall initiate a 
     rulemaking proceeding to establish such performance measures 
     or benchmarks.
       ``(B) Contents of regulations.--Such regulations shall 
     include--
       ``(i) quantitative network reliability and service quality 
     performance measures or benchmarks;
       ``(ii) procedures to monitor and evaluate common carrier 
     efforts to increase network reliability and service quality; 
     and
       ``(iii) procedures to resolve network reliability and 
     service quality complaints.
       ``(C) Coordination and consultation.--Throughout the 
     process of developing network reliability and service quality 
     performance measures or benchmarks, as required by 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Commission shall coordinate 
     and consult with service and equipment providers and users 
     and State regulatory bodies to ensure their concerns and 
     interests are given full consideration in such process.
       ``(6) Rural exemption.--The Commission may modify, or grant 
     exemptions from, the requirements of this subsection in the 
     case of a common carrier providing telecommunications 
     services in a rural area.
       ``(e) Infrastructure Sharing.--
       ``(1) Regulations required.--Within one year after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations that require local exchange carriers to 
     make available to qualifying carriers such public switched 
     telecommunications network technology and information and 
     telecommunications facilities and functions as may be 
     requested by such a qualifying carrier for the purpose of 
     enabling that carrier to provide telecommunications services, 
     or to provide access to information services, in the 
     geographic area in which that carrier has requested and 
     obtained designation as the qualifying carrier.
       ``(2) Qualifying carriers.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `qualifying carrier' means a local exchange carrier 
     that--
       ``(A) lacks economies of scale or scope, as determined in 
     accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission 
     pursuant to this subsection; and
       ``(B) is a common carrier which offers telephone exchange 
     service, telephone exchange access service, and any other 
     service that is within the definition of universal service, 
     to all customers without preference throughout one or more 
     exchange areas in existence on the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(3) Terms and conditions of regulations.--The regulations 
     prescribed by the Commission pursuant to this subsection--
       ``(A) shall not require any local exchange carrier to take 
     any action that is economically unreasonable or that is 
     contrary to the public interest or to provide 
     telecommunications facilities and functions to any qualifying 
     carrier that is not reasonably proximate to such local 
     exchange carrier;
       ``(B) shall permit, but shall not require, the joint 
     ownership or operation of public switched telecommunications 
     network facilities, functions, and services by or among the 
     local exchange carrier and the qualifying carrier;
       ``(C) shall ensure that a local exchange carrier shall not 
     be treated by the Commission or any State commission as a 
     common carrier for hire, or as offering common carrier 
     services, with respect to any technology, information, 
     facilities, or functions made available to a qualifying 
     carrier pursuant to this subsection;
       ``(D) shall ensure that local exchange carriers make such 
     technology, information, facilities, or functions available 
     to qualifying carriers on fair and reasonable terms and 
     conditions that permit such qualifying carriers to fully 
     benefit from the economies of scale and scope of the 
     providing local exchange carrier, as determined in accordance 
     with guidelines prescribed by the Commission in such 
     regulations;
       ``(E) shall establish conditions that promote cooperation 
     between local exchange carriers and qualifying carriers; and
       ``(F) shall not require any local exchange carrier to 
     engage in any infrastructure sharing agreement for any 
     geographic area where such carrier is required to provide 
     services subject to State regulation.
       ``(4) Information concerning deployment of new services and 
     equipment.--Any local exchange carrier that has entered into 
     an agreement with a qualifying carrier under this subsection 
     shall provide to each party to such agreement timely 
     information on the planned deployment of telecommunications 
     services and equipment, including software integral to such 
     telecommunications services and equipment, including 
     upgrades.''.
       (b) Preemption of Franchising Authority Regulation of 
     Telecommunications Services.--
       (1) Telecommunications services.--Section 621(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 541(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) To the extent that a cable operator or affiliate 
     thereof is engaged in the provision of telecommunications 
     services--
       ``(i) such cable operator or affiliate shall not be 
     required to obtain a franchise under this title; and
       ``(ii) the provisions of this title shall not apply to such 
     cable operator or affiliate.
       ``(B) A franchising authority may not impose any 
     requirement that has the purpose or effect of prohibiting, 
     limiting, restricting, or conditioning the provision of a 
     telecommunications service by a cable operator or an 
     affiliate thereof.
       ``(C) A franchising authority may not order a cable 
     operator or affiliate thereof--
       ``(i) to discontinue the provision of a telecommunications 
     service, or
       ``(ii) to discontinue the operation of a cable system, to 
     the extent such cable system is used for the provision of a 
     telecommunications service, by reason of the failure of such 
     cable operator or affiliate thereof to obtain a franchise or 
     franchise renewal under this title with respect to the 
     provision of such telecommunications service.
       ``(D) A franchising authority may not require a cable 
     operator to provide any telecommunications service or 
     facilities as a condition of the initial grant of a franchise 
     or a franchise renewal.''.
       (2) Franchise fees.--Section 622(b) of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 542(b)) is amended by inserting ``to 
     provide cable services'' immediately before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence thereof.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2(b) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.152(b)) is amended by 
     inserting ``201(c) and (d),'' after ``Except as provided in 
     sections''.

     SEC. 103. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR EDUCATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS, HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS, AND 
                   LIBRARIES.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 229. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR EDUCATIONAL 
                   INSTITUTIONS, HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS, AND 
                   LIBRARIES.

       ``(a) Promotion of Delivery of Advanced Services.--In 
     fulfillment of its obligation under section 1 to make 
     available to all the people of the United States a rapid, 
     efficient, nationwide, and worldwide communications service, 
     the Commission shall promote the provision of advanced 
     telecommunications services by wire, wireless, cable, and 
     satellite technologies to--
       ``(1) educational institutions;
       ``(2) health care institutions; and
       ``(3) public libraries.
       ``(b) Annual Survey Required.--The National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration shall 
     conduct a nationwide survey of the availability of advanced 
     telecommunications services to educational institutions, 
     health care institutions, and public libraries. The 
     Administration shall complete the survey and release publicly 
     the results of such survey not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this section. The results of such survey 
     shall include--
       ``(1) the number of educational institutions and 
     classrooms, health care institutions, and public libraries;
       ``(2) the number of educational institutions and 
     classrooms, health care institutions, and public libraries 
     that have access to advanced telecommunications services; and
       ``(3) the nature of the telecommunications facilities 
     through which such educational institutions, health care 
     institutions, and public libraries obtain access to advanced 
     telecommunications services.

     The National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration shall update annually the survey required by 
     this section. The survey required under this subsection shall 
     be prepared in consultation with the Department of Education, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, and such other 
     Federal, State, and local departments, agencies, and 
     authorities that may maintain or have access to information 
     concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications 
     services to educational institutions, health care 
     institutions, and libraries.
       ``(c) Rulemaking Required.--Within one year after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Commission shall issue a 
     notice of proposed rulemaking for the purpose of adopting 
     regulations that--
       ``(1) enhance, to the extent technically feasible and 
     economically reasonable, the availability of advanced 
     telecommunications services to all educational institutions 
     and classrooms, health care institutions, and public 
     libraries by the year 2000;
       ``(2) ensure that appropriate functional requirements or 
     performance standards, or both, including interoperability 
     standards, are established for telecommunications systems or 
     facilities that interconnect educational institutions, health 
     care institutions, and public libraries with the public 
     switched telecommunications network;
       ``(3) define the circumstances under which a carrier may be 
     required to interconnect its telecommunications network with 
     educational institutions, health care institutions, and 
     public libraries;
       ``(4) provide for either the establishment of preferential 
     rates for telecommunications services, including advanced 
     services, that are provided to educational institutions, 
     health care institutions, and public libraries, or the use of 
     alternative mechanisms to enhance the availability of 
     advanced services to these institutions; and
       ``(5) address such other related matters as the Commission 
     may determine.
       ``(d) Feasibility Study.--The Commission shall assess the 
     feasibility of including postsecondary educational 
     institutions in any regulations promulgated under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `educational institutions' means elementary 
     and secondary educational institutions; and
       ``(2) the term `health care institutions' means not-for-
     profit health care institutions, including hospitals and 
     clinics.''.

     SEC. 104. DISCRIMINATORY INTERCONNECTION.

       Section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Expedited Review of Certain Complaints.--The 
     Commission shall issue a final order with respect to any 
     complaint arising from alleged violations of the regulations 
     and orders prescribed pursuant to section 201(c) within 180 
     days after the date such complaint is filed.''.

     SEC. 105. EXPEDITED LICENSING OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 
                   SERVICES.

       Section 7 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 157) 
     is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Licensing of New Technologies.--
       ``(1) Expedited rulemaking.--Within 24 months after making 
     a determination under subsection (b) that a technology or 
     service related to the furnishing of telecommunications 
     services is in the public interest, the Commission shall, 
     with respect to any such service requiring a license or other 
     authorization from the Commission, adopt and make effective 
     regulations for--
       ``(A) the provision of such technology or service; and
       ``(B) the filing of applications for the licenses or 
     authorizations necessary to offer such technology or service 
     to the public, and shall act on any such application within 
     24 months after it is filed.
       ``(2) Review of applications.--Any application filed by a 
     carrier under this subsection for the construction or 
     extension of a line shall also be subject to section 214 and 
     to any necessary approval by the appropriate State 
     commissions.''.

     SEC. 106. NEW OR EXTENDED LINES.

       Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Any application filed under this section for 
     authority to construct or extend a line shall address the 
     means by which such construction or extension will meet the 
     network access needs of individuals with disabilities.''.

     SEC. 107. POLE ATTACHMENTS.

       Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     244) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4), by inserting after ``system'' the 
     following: ``or a provider of telecommunications service'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``cable television 
     services'' and inserting ``the services offered via such 
     attachments'';
       (3) by redesignating subsection (d)(2) as subsection 
     (d)(4); and
       (4) by striking subsection (d)(1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) For purposes of subsection (b) of this section, 
     the Commission shall, no later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the National Communications Competition and 
     Information Infrastructure Act of 1994, prescribe regulations 
     for ensuring that utilities charge just and reasonable and 
     nondiscriminatory rates for pole attachments provided to all 
     providers of telecommunications services, including such 
     attachments used by cable television systems to provide 
     telecommunications services (as defined in section 3(mm) of 
     this Act). Such regulations shall--
       ``(A) recognize that the entire pole, duct, conduit, or 
     right-of-way other than the usable space is of equal benefit 
     to all attachments to the pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-
     way and therefore apportion the cost of the space other than 
     the usable space equally among all such attachments,
       ``(B) recognize that the usable space is of proportional 
     benefit to all entities attached to the pole, duct, conduit, 
     or right-of-way and therefore apportion the cost of the 
     usable space according to the percentage of usable space 
     required for each entity, and
       ``(C) allow for reasonable terms and conditions relating to 
     health, safety, and the provision of reliable utility 
     service.
       ``(2) The final regulations prescribed by the Commission 
     pursuant to subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to a pole attachment used by a cable 
     television system solely to provide cable service as defined 
     in section 602(6) of this Act. The rates for pole attachments 
     used for such purposes shall assure a utility the recovery of 
     not less than the additional costs of providing pole 
     attachments, nor more than an amount determined by 
     multiplying the percentage of the total usable space, or the 
     percentage of the total duct, conduit, or right-of-way 
     capacity, which is occupied by the pole attachment by the sum 
     of the operating expenses and actual capital costs of the 
     utility attributable to the entire pole, duct, conduit, or 
     right-of-way.
       ``(3) For all providers of telecommunications services 
     except members of the exchange carrier association 
     established in 47 C.F.R. 69.601 as of December 31, 1993, upon 
     enactment of this paragraph and until the Commission 
     promulgates its final regulations pursuant to subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1), the rate formula 
     contained in any joint use pole attachment agreement between 
     the electric utility and the largest local exchange carrier 
     having such a joint use agreement in the utility's service 
     area, in effect on January 1, 1994, shall also apply to the 
     pole attachments in the utility's service area, but if no 
     such joint use agreement containing a rate formula exists, 
     then the pole attachment rate shall be the rate applicable 
     under paragraph (2) to cable television systems which solely 
     provide cable service as defined in section 602(6) of this 
     Act. Disputes concerning the applicability of a joint use 
     agreement shall be resolved by the Commission or the States, 
     as appropriate.''.

     SEC. 108. CIVIC PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Policies To Enhance Civic Dialogue.--The Commission, in 
     consultation with the National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration, shall study policies that will 
     enhance civic participation through the national information 
     infrastructure. The study shall request and record public 
     comments on Federal policies that would enhance and expand 
     democratic dialogue through national computer and data 
     networks. The study shall examine, but not be limited to, the 
     social benefits of flat rate pricing for access to computer 
     and data networks, the policies which will determine how 
     access to computer networks will be priced, including the 
     access needs of individuals with disabilities, and the 
     appropriate role of common carriers in the development of 
     national computer and data networks. The Commission shall 
     receive comments in both paper and electronic formats and 
     shall establish an online discussion group accessed through 
     the national information infrastructure to encourage citizen 
     participation in the study.
       (b) Participation in Regulatory Affairs.--The Commission, 
     in consultation with the Office of Consumer Affairs, shall 
     conduct a study of how to encourage citizen participation in 
     regulatory issues and, within 120 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, report to Congress on the results of 
     the study.

     SEC. 109. COMPETITION BY SMALL BUSINESS AND MINORITY-OWNED 
                   BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 230. POLICY AND RULEMAKING TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY OF 
                   OWNERSHIP.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) in furtherance of the purposes of this Act to make 
     available to all people of the United States a rapid and 
     efficient communications service, and for the purposes of 
     promoting a diversity of opinion in the broadcasting service, 
     the Commission has established regulations and policies to 
     promote ownership of broadcasting services by members of 
     minority groups;
       ``(2) these regulations have served to promote more 
     vigorous communications on public issues, to broaden the 
     number and variety of stakeholders in the American economy, 
     and to promote innovation by and creativity by Americans of 
     different cultures and national origins, and thereby have 
     served to build a more cohesive and productive society;
       ``(3) while the Commission has adopted regulations to 
     promote participation by businesses owned by members of 
     minority groups and women, and small businesses, in auctions 
     for certain spectrum-based services which promote diversity 
     of ownership in those services, no other regulations have 
     been established to promote such diversity of participation 
     in the provision of common carrier services or in the 
     provision of other telecommunications and information 
     services;
       ``(4) the goals of competitively priced services, service 
     innovation, employment, and diversity of viewpoint can be 
     advanced by promoting marketplace penetration by small 
     business concerns, business concerns owned by women and 
     members of minority groups, and nonprofit entities; and
       ``(5) it should be the policy of the Commission to promote 
     whenever possible diversity of ownership in the provision of 
     information services and telecommunication services by such 
     concerns and entities.
       ``(b) Rulemaking Required.--Within 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Commission, in consultation 
     with the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration, shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for 
     the purpose of lowering market entry barriers for small 
     business, business concerns owned by women and members of 
     minority groups, and nonprofit entities that are seeking to 
     provide telecommunication services and information services. 
     The proceeding shall seek to provide remedies for, among 
     other things, lack of access to capital and technical and 
     marketing expertise on the part of such concerns and 
     entities. Consistent with the broad policy and finding set 
     forth in subsection (a), the Commission shall adopt such 
     regulations and make such recommendations to Congress as the 
     Commission deems appropriate. Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall 
     complete the proceeding required by this subsection.''.
                TITLE II--COMMUNICATIONS COMPETITIVENESS

     SEC. 201. CABLE SERVICE PROVIDED BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

       (a) General Requirement.--
       (1) Amendment.--Section 613(b) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 533(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Subject to the requirements of part V and the 
     other provisions of this title, any common carrier subject in 
     whole or in part to title II of this Act may, either through 
     its own facilities or through an affiliate owned, operated, 
     or controlled by, or under common control with, the common 
     carrier, provide video programming directly to subscribers in 
     its telephone service area.
       ``(2) Subject to the requirements of part V and the other 
     provisions of this title, any common carrier subject in whole 
     or in part to title II of this Act may provide channels of 
     communications or pole, line, or conduit space, or other 
     rental arrangements, to any entity which is directly or 
     indirectly owned, operated, or controlled by, or under common 
     control with, such common carrier, if such facilities or 
     arrangements are to be used for, or in connection with, the 
     provision of video programming directly to subscribers in its 
     telephone service area.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), an affiliate 
     that--
       ``(A) is, consistent with section 656, owned, operated, or 
     controlled by, or under common control with, a common carrier 
     subject in whole or in part to title II of this Act, and
       ``(B) provides video programming to subscribers in the 
     telephone service area of such carrier, but
       ``(C) does not utilize the local exchange facilities or 
     services of any affiliated common carrier in distributing 
     such programming,

     shall not be subject to the requirements of part V, but shall 
     be subject to the requirements of this part and parts III and 
     IV.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 602 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 531) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6)(B), by inserting ``or use'' after 
     ``the selection'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (18) and (19) as paragraphs 
     (19) and (20) respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (17) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(18) the term `telephone service area' when used in 
     connection with a common carrier subject in whole or in part 
     to title II of this Act means the area within which such 
     carrier provides telephone exchange service as of November 
     20, 1993, but if any common carrier after such date transfers 
     its exchange service facilities to another common carrier, 
     the area to which such facilities provide telephone exchange 
     service shall be treated as part of the telephone service 
     area of the acquiring common carrier and not of the selling 
     common carrier;''.
       (b) Provisions for Regulation of Cable Service Provided by 
     Telephone Companies.--Title VI of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 521 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new part:

  ``PART V--VIDEO PROGRAMMING SERVICES PROVIDED BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES

     ``SEC. 651. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) the term `control' means--
       ``(A) an ownership interest in which an entity has the 
     right to vote more than 50 percent of the outstanding common 
     stock or other ownership interest; or
       ``(B) if no single entity directly or indirectly has the 
     right to vote more than 50 percent of the outstanding common 
     stock or other ownership interest, actual working control, in 
     whatever manner exercised, as defined by the Commission by 
     regulation on the basis of relevant factors and 
     circumstances, which shall include partnership and direct 
     ownership interests, voting stock interests, the interests of 
     officers and directors, and the aggregation of voting 
     interests; and
       ``(2) the term `rural area' means a geographic area that 
     does not include either--
       ``(A) any incorporated or unincorporated place of 10,000 
     inhabitants or more, or any part thereof; or
       ``(B) any territory, incorporated or unincorporated, 
     included in an urbanized area.

     ``SEC. 652. SEPARATE VIDEO PROGRAMMING AFFILIATE.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d) of 
     this section, a common carrier subject to title II of this 
     Act shall not provide video programming directly to 
     subscribers in its telephone service area unless such video 
     programming is provided through a video programming affiliate 
     that is separate from such carrier.
       ``(b) Books and Marketing.--
       ``(1) In general.--A video programming affiliate of a 
     common carrier shall--
       ``(A) maintain books, records, and accounts separate from 
     such carrier which identify all transactions with such 
     carrier;
       ``(B) carry out directly (or through any nonaffiliated 
     person) its own promotion, except that institutional 
     advertising carried out by such carrier shall be permitted so 
     long as each party bears its pro rata share of the costs; and
       ``(C) not own real or personal property in common with such 
     carrier.
       ``(2) Inbound telemarketing and referral.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (1)(B), a common carrier may provide telemarketing 
     or referral services in response to the call of a customer or 
     potential customer related to the provision of video 
     programming by a video programming affiliate of such carrier. 
     If such services are provided to a video programming 
     affiliate, such services shall be made available to any video 
     programmer or cable operator on request, on nondiscriminatory 
     terms, at just and reasonable prices, and subject to 
     regulations of the Commission to ensure that the carrier's 
     method of providing telemarketing or referral and its price 
     structure do not competitively disadvantage any video 
     programmer or cable operator, regardless of size, including 
     those which do not use the carrier's telemarketing services.
       ``(3) Joint telemarketing.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1)(B), a common carrier may petition the Commission for 
     permission to market video programming directly, upon a 
     showing that a cable operator or other entity directly or 
     indirectly provides telecommunications services within the 
     telephone service area of the common carrier, and markets 
     such telecommunications services jointly with video 
     programming services. The common carrier shall specify the 
     geographic region covered by the petition. Any such petition 
     shall be granted or denied within 180 days after the date of 
     its submission.
       ``(c) Business Transactions With Carrier Subject to 
     Regulation.--Any contract, agreement, arrangement, or other 
     manner of conducting business, between a common carrier and 
     its video programming affiliate, providing for--
       ``(1) the sale, exchange, or leasing of property between 
     such affiliate and such carrier,
       ``(2) the furnishing of goods or services between such 
     affiliate and such carrier, or
       ``(3) the transfer to or use by such affiliate for its 
     benefit of any asset or resource of such carrier,

     shall be pursuant to regulation prescribed by the Commission, 
     shall be on a fully compensatory and auditable basis, shall 
     be without cost to the telephone service ratepayers of the 
     carrier, shall be filed with the Commission, and shall be in 
     compliance with regulations established by the Commission 
     that will enable the Commission to assess the compliance of 
     any transaction.
       ``(d) Waiver.--
       ``(1) Criteria for waiver.--The Commission may waive any of 
     the requirements of this section for small telephone 
     companies or telephone companies serving rural areas, if the 
     Commission determines, after notice and comment, that--
       ``(A) such waiver will not affect the ability of the 
     Commission to ensure that all video programming activity is 
     carried out without any support from telephone ratepayers;
       ``(B) the interests of telephone ratepayers and cable 
     subscribers will not be harmed if such waiver is granted;
       ``(C) such waiver will not adversely affect the ability of 
     persons to obtain access to the video platform of such 
     carrier; and
       ``(D) such waiver otherwise is in the public interest.
       ``(2) Deadline for action.--The Commission shall act to 
     approve or disapprove a waiver application within 180 days 
     after the date it is filed.
       ``(3) Continued applicability of section 659.--In the case 
     of a common carrier that obtains a waiver under this 
     subsection, any requirement that section 659 applies to a 
     video programming affiliate shall instead apply to such 
     carrier.

     ``SEC. 653. ESTABLISHMENT OF VIDEO PLATFORM.

       ``(a) Common Carrier Obligations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any common carrier subject to title II 
     of this Act, and that provides video programming directly or 
     indirectly to subscribers in its telephone service area, 
     shall establish a video platform.
       ``(2) Identification of demand for carriage.--Any common 
     carrier subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall, 
     prior to establishing a video platform, submit a notice to 
     the Commission of its intention to establish channel capacity 
     for the provision of video programming to meet the bona fide 
     demand for such capacity. Such notice shall--
       ``(A) be in such form and contain such information as the 
     Commission may require by regulations pursuant to subsection 
     (b);
       ``(B) specify the methods by which any entity seeking to 
     use such channel capacity should submit to such carrier a 
     specification of its channel capacity requirements; and
       ``(C) specify the procedures by which such carrier will 
     determine (in accordance with the Commission's regulations 
     under subsection (b)(1)(B)) whether such request for capacity 
     are bona fide.

     The Commission shall submit any such notice for publication 
     in the Federal Register within 5 working days.
       ``(3) Response to request for carriage.--After receiving 
     and reviewing the requests for capacity submitted pursuant to 
     such notice, such common carrier shall, subject to approval 
     of a certificate under section 214, establish channel 
     capacity that is sufficient to provide carriage for--
       ``(A) all bona fide requests submitted pursuant to such 
     notice,
       ``(B) any additional channels required pursuant to section 
     659, and
       ``(C) any additional channels required by the Commission's 
     regulations under subsection (b)(1)(C).
       ``(4) Responses to changes in demand for capacity.--Any 
     common carrier that establishes a video platform under this 
     section shall--
       ``(A) immediately notify the Commission and each video 
     programming provider of any delay in or denial of channel 
     capacity or service, and the reasons therefor;
       ``(B) continue to receive and grant, to the extent of 
     available capacity, carriage in response to bona fide 
     requests for carriage from existing or additional video 
     programming providers;
       ``(C) if at any time the number of channels required for 
     bona fide requests for carriage may reasonably be expected 
     soon to exceed the existing capacity of such video platform, 
     immediately notify the Commission of such expectation and of 
     the manner and date by which such carrier will provide 
     sufficient capacity to meet such excess demand; and
       ``(D) construct, subject to approval of a certificate under 
     section 214, such additional capacity as may be necessary to 
     meet such excess demand.
       ``(5) Dispute resolution.--The Commission shall have the 
     authority to resolve disputes under this section and the 
     regulations prescribed thereunder. Any such dispute shall be 
     resolved within 180 days after notice of such dispute is 
     submitted to the Commission. At that time or subsequently in 
     a separate damages proceeding, the Commission may award 
     damages sustained in consequence of any violation of this 
     section to any person denied carriage, or require carriage, 
     or both. Any aggrieved party may seek any other remedy 
     available under this Act.
       ``(b) Commission Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations that--
       ``(A) consistent with the requirements of section 659, 
     prohibit a common carrier from discriminating among video 
     programming providers with regard to carriage on its video 
     platform, and ensure that the rates, terms, and conditions 
     for such carriage are just, reasonable, and 
     nondiscriminatory;
       ``(B) prescribe definitions and criteria for the purposes 
     of determining whether a request shall be considered a bona 
     fide request for purposes of this section;
       ``(C) establish a requirement that video platforms contain 
     a suitable margin of unused channel capacity to meet 
     reasonable growth in bona fide demand for such capacity;
       ``(D) extend to video platforms the Commission's 
     regulations concerning network nonduplication (47 C.F.R. 
     76.92 et seq.) and syndicated exclusivity (47 C.F.R. 76.151 
     et seq.);
       ``(E) require the video platform to provide service, 
     transmission, interconnection, and interoperability for 
     unaffiliated or independent video programming providers that 
     is equivalent to that provided to the common carrier's video 
     programming affiliate;
       ``(F)(i) prohibit a common carrier from discriminating 
     among video programming providers with regard to material or 
     information provided by the common carrier to subscribers for 
     the purposes of selecting programming on the video platform, 
     or in the way such material or information is presented to 
     subscribers;
       ``(ii) require a common carrier to ensure that video 
     programming providers or copyright holders (or both) are able 
     suitably and uniquely to identify their programming services 
     to subscribers; and
       ``(iii) if such identification is transmitted as part of 
     the programming signal, require the carrier to transmit such 
     identification without change or alteration; and
       ``(G) prohibit a common carrier from excluding areas from 
     its video platform service area on the basis of the 
     ethnicity, race, or income of the residents of that area, and 
     provide for public comments on the adequacy of the proposed 
     service area on the basis of the standards set forth under 
     this subparagraph.
       ``(2) Extension of regulations to other high capacity 
     systems.--The Commission shall extend the requirements of the 
     regulations prescribed pursuant to this section, in lieu of 
     the requirements of section 612, to any cable operator of a 
     cable system that has installed a switched, broadband video 
     programming delivery system, except that the Commission shall 
     not extend the requirements of the regulations prescribed 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(D) or any other requirement 
     that the Commission determines is clearly inappropriate.
       ``(c) Commission Inquiry.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     study of whether it is in the public interest to extend the 
     requirements of subsection (a) to any other cable operators 
     in lieu of the requirements of section 612. The Commission 
     shall submit to the Congress a report on the results of such 
     study not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this section.

     ``SEC. 654. EQUAL ACCESS COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) Certification Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--A common carrier subject to title II of 
     this Act shall not provide video programming directly to 
     subscribers in its telephone service area unless such carrier 
     has certified to the Commission that such carrier is in 
     compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     section 201(c) of this Act, and regulations prescribed 
     pursuant to such paragraphs.
       ``(2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a common 
     carrier subject to title II of this Act may provide video 
     programming directly to subscribers in its telephone service 
     area during any period prior to the date the Commission first 
     prescribes final regulations pursuant to paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of section 201(c) of this Act if such carrier has 
     certified to the Commission that such carrier is in 
     compliance with State laws and regulations concerning equal 
     access, interconnection, and unbundling that are 
     substantially similar to and fully consistent with the 
     requirements of such paragraphs or if there is no statutory 
     prohibition against such carrier providing video programming 
     directly to subscribers in its telephone service area on the 
     date of enactment of this section. A common carrier that is 
     permitted to provide video programming under this paragraph 
     prior to the effective date of such regulations shall not be 
     exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1) after the 
     effective date of such final regulations.
       ``(b) Certification and Application Approval.--A common 
     carrier that submits a certification under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) of subsection (a) shall be eligible to provide video 
     programming to subscribers in accordance with the 
     requirements of this part, subject to the approval of any 
     necessary application under section 214 for authority to 
     establish a video platform. An application under section 214 
     may be filed simultaneously with the filing of such 
     certification or at any time after the date of enactment of 
     this section, and the Commission shall act to approve (with 
     or without modification) or reject such application within 
     180 days after the date of its submission. If the Commission 
     acts to approve such an application prior to the filing of 
     such certification, such approval shall not be effective 
     until such certification is filed.

     ``SEC. 655. PROHIBITION OF CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION.

       ``(a) Cross Subsidies Prohibition.--The Commission shall--
       ``(1) prescribe regulations to prohibit a common carrier 
     from engaging in any practice that results in the inclusion 
     in rates for telephone exchange service or telephone exchange 
     access service of any operating expenses, costs, depreciation 
     charges, capital investments, or other expenses directly 
     associated with the provision of competing video programming 
     services by the common carrier or affiliate; and
       ``(2) ensure such competing video programming services bear 
     a reasonable share of the joint and common costs of 
     facilities used to provide telephone exchange service or 
     telephone exchange access service and competing video 
     programming services.
       ``(b) Cable Operator Prohibitions.--The Commission shall 
     prescribe regulations to prohibit a cable operator from 
     engaging in any practice that results in improper cross-
     subsidization between its regulated cable operations and its 
     provision of telecommunications service, either directly or 
     through an affiliate.

     ``SEC. 656. PROHIBITION ON BUYOUTS.

       ``(a) General Prohibition.--No common carrier that provides 
     telephone exchange service, and no entity owned by or under 
     common ownership or control with such carrier, may purchase 
     or otherwise obtain control over any cable system that is 
     located within its telephone service area and is owned by an 
     unaffiliated person.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), a common 
     carrier may--
       ``(1) obtain a controlling interest in, or form a joint 
     venture or other partnership with, a cable system that serves 
     a rural area;
       ``(2) obtain, in addition to any interest, joint venture, 
     or partnership obtained or formed pursuant to paragraph (1), 
     a controlling interest in, or form a joint venture or other 
     partnership with, any cable system or systems if--
       ``(A) such systems in the aggregate serve less than 10 
     percent of the households in the telephone service area of 
     such carrier; and
       ``(B) no such system serves a franchise area with more than 
     35,000 inhabitants, except that a common carrier may obtain 
     such interest or form such joint venture or other partnership 
     with a cable system that serves a franchise area with more 
     than 35,000 but not more than 50,000 inhabitants if such 
     system is not affiliated (as such term is defined in section 
     602) with any other system whose franchise area is contiguous 
     to the franchise area of the acquired system;
       ``(3) obtain, with the concurrence of the cable operator on 
     the rates, terms, and conditions, the use of that part of the 
     transmission facilities of such a cable system extending from 
     the last multi-user terminal to the premises of the end user, 
     if such use is reasonably limited in scope and duration, as 
     determined by the Commission; or
       ``(4) obtain a controlling interest in, or form a joint 
     venture or other partnership with, or provide financing to, a 
     cable system (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as 
     `the subject cable system'), if--
       ``(A) the subject cable system operates in a television 
     market that is not in the top 25 markets, and that has more 
     than 1 cable system operator, and the subject cable system is 
     not the largest cable system in such television market;
       ``(B) the subject cable system and the largest cable system 
     in such television market held on March 1, 1994, cable 
     television franchises from the largest municipality in the 
     television market and the boundaries of such franchises were 
     identical on such date;
       ``(C) the subject cable system is not owned by or under 
     common ownership or control of any one of the 50 largest 
     cable system operators as existed on March 1, 1994; and
       ``(D) the largest system in the television market is owned 
     by or under common ownership or control of any one of the 10 
     largest cable system operators as existed on March 1, 1994.
       ``(c) Waiver.--
       ``(1) Criteria for waiver.--The Commission may waive the 
     restrictions in subsection (a) of this section only upon a 
     showing by the applicant that--
       ``(A) because of the nature of the market served by the 
     cable system concerned--
       ``(i) the incumbent cable operator would be subjected to 
     undue economic distress by the enforcement of such 
     subsection; or
       ``(ii) the cable system would not be economically viable if 
     such subsection were enforced; and
       ``(B) the local franchising authority approves of such 
     waiver.
       ``(2) Deadline for action.--The Commission shall act to 
     approve or disapprove a waiver application within 180 days 
     after the date it is filed.

     ``SEC. 657. PENALTIES.

       ``If the Commission finds that any common carrier has 
     knowingly violated any provision of this part, the Commission 
     shall assess such fines and penalties as it deems appropriate 
     pursuant to this Act.

     ``SEC. 658. CONSUMER PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Joint Board Required.--Within 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this part, the Commission shall convene a 
     Federal-State Joint Board under the provisions of section 
     410(c) for the purpose of recommending a decision concerning 
     the practices, classifications, and regulations as may be 
     necessary to ensure proper jurisdictional separation and 
     allocation of the costs of establishing and providing a video 
     platform. The Board shall issue its recommendations to the 
     Commission within 270 days after the date of enactment of 
     this part.
       ``(b) Commission Regulations Required.--The Commission, 
     with respect to interstate switched access service, and the 
     States, with respect to telephone exchange service and 
     intrastate interexchange service, shall establish such 
     regulations as may be necessary to implement section 655 
     within one year after the date of the enactment of this part.
       ``(c) No Effect on Carrier Regulation Authority.--Nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to limit or supersede the 
     authority of any State or the Commission with respect to the 
     allocation of costs associated with intrastate or interstate 
     communication services.

     ``SEC. 659. APPLICABILITY OF FRANCHISE AND OTHER 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Any provision that applies to a cable 
     operator under--
       ``(1) sections 613, 616, 617, 628, 631, 632, and 634 of 
     this title, shall apply,
       ``(2) sections 611, 612, 614, and 615 of this title, and 
     section 325 of title III, shall apply in accordance with the 
     regulations prescribed under subsection (b), and
       ``(3) parts III and IV (other than sections 628, 631, 632, 
     and 634) of this title shall not apply,

     to any video programming affiliate established by a common 
     carrier in accordance with the requirements of this part.
       ``(b) Implementation of Requirements.--
       ``(1) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations to ensure that a video programming affiliate of a 
     common carrier shall provide (A) capacity, services, 
     facilities, and equipment for public, educational, and 
     governmental use, (B) capacity for commercial use, (C) 
     carriage of commercial and non-commercial broadcast 
     television stations, and (D) an opportunity for commercial 
     broadcast stations to choose between mandatory carriage and 
     reimbursement for retransmission of the signal of such 
     station. In prescribing such regulations, the Commission 
     shall, to the extent possible, impose obligations that are no 
     greater or lesser than the obligations contained in the 
     provisions described in subsection (a)(2) of this section. 
     Such regulations shall also require that, if a common carrier 
     establishes a video platform but does not provide or ceases 
     to provide video programming through a video programming 
     affiliate, such carrier shall comply with the regulations 
     prescribed under this paragraph and with the provisions 
     described in subsection (a)(1) in the operation of its video 
     platform.
       ``(2) Fees.--A video programming affiliate of any common 
     carrier that establishes a video platform under this part, 
     and any multichannel video programming distributor offering a 
     competing service using such video platform (as determined in 
     accordance with regulations of the Commission), shall be 
     subject to the payment of fees imposed by a local franchising 
     authority, in lieu of the fees required under section 622. 
     The rate at which such fees are imposed shall not exceed the 
     rate at which franchise fees are imposed on any cable 
     operator transmitting video programming in the same service 
     area.

     ``SEC. 660. RURAL AREA EXEMPTION.

       ``The provisions of sections 652, 653, 654, and 656 shall 
     not apply to video programming provided in a rural area by a 
     common carrier that provides telephone exchange service in 
     the same area.''.

     SEC. 202. REVIEW OF BROADCASTERS' OWNERSHIP RESTRICTIONS.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Commission shall, after a notice and comment proceeding, 
     prescribe regulations to modify, maintain, or remove the 
     ownership regulations on radio and television broadcasters as 
     necessary to ensure that broadcasters are able to compete 
     fairly with other information providers while protecting the 
     goals of diversity and localism.

     SEC. 203. REVIEW OF STATUTORY OWNERSHIP RESTRICTION.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Commission shall review the ownership restriction in 
     section 613(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 553(a)(1)) and report to Congress whether or not such 
     restriction continues to serve the public interest.

     SEC. 204. BROADCASTER SPECTRUM FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) Regulations Required.--If the Commission determines to 
     issue additional licenses for advanced television services, 
     and initially limits the eligibility for such licenses to 
     persons that, as of the date of such issuance, are licensed 
     to operate a television broadcast station or hold a permit to 
     construct such a station (or both), the Commission shall 
     adopt regulations that allow such licensees or permittees to 
     offer such ancillary or supplementary services on designated 
     frequencies as may be consistent with the public interest, 
     convenience, and necessity.
       (b) Contents of Regulations.--In prescribing the 
     regulations required by subsection (a), the Commission 
     shall--
       (1) only permit such licensee or permittee to offer 
     ancillary or supplementary services if the use of a 
     designated frequency for such services is indivisible from 
     the use of such designated frequency for the provision of 
     advanced television services;
       (2) limit the broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary 
     services on designated frequencies so as to avoid derogation 
     of any advanced television services, including high 
     definition television broadcasts, that the Commission may 
     require using such frequencies;
       (3) treat any such ancillary or supplementary services for 
     which the licensee or permittee solicits and receives 
     compensation in return for transmitting commercial 
     advertising as broadcast services for the purposes of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 and the Children's Television Act 
     of 1990 (47 U.S.C. 303a), and the Commission's regulations 
     thereunder, including regulations promulgated pursuant to 
     section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315);
       (4) apply to any other ancillary or supplementary service 
     such of the Commission's regulations as are applicable to the 
     offering of analogous services by any other person;
       (5) adopt such technical and other requirements as may be 
     necessary or appropriate to assure the quality of the signal 
     used to provide advanced television services, including 
     regulations that stipulate the minimum number of hours per 
     day that such signal must be transmitted; and
       (6) prescribe such other regulations as may be necessary 
     for the protection of the public interest, convenience, and 
     necessity.
       (c) Recovery of License.--
       (1) Conditions required.--If the Commission limits the 
     eligibility for licenses to provide advanced television 
     services in the manner described in subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall, as a condition of such license, require 
     that, upon a determination by the Commission pursuant to the 
     regulations prescribed under paragraph (2), either the 
     additional license or the original license held by the 
     licensee be surrendered to the Commission in accordance with 
     such regulations for reallocation or reassignment (or both) 
     pursuant to Commission regulation.
       (2) Regulations.--The Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations establishing criteria for rendering 
     determinations concerning license surrender pursuant to 
     license conditions required by paragraph (1). Such 
     regulations shall--
       (A) require such determinations to be based on whether the 
     substantial majority of the public have obtained television 
     receivers that are capable of receiving advanced television 
     services; and
       (B) not require the cessation of the broadcasting if such 
     cessation would render the television receivers of a 
     substantial portion of the public useless, or otherwise cause 
     undue burdens on the owners of such television receivers.
       (d) Fees Required.--
       (1) Services to which fees apply.--If the regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) permit a licensee to 
     offer ancillary or supplementary services on a designated 
     frequency--
       (A) for which the payment of a subscription fee is required 
     in order to receive such services, or
       (B) for which the licensee directly or indirectly receives 
     compensation from a third party in return for transmitting 
     material furnished by such third party (other than commercial 
     advertisements used to support broadcasting for which a 
     subscription fee is not required),

     the Commission shall establish by regulation a program to 
     assess and collect an annual fee or royalty payment.
       (2) Criteria for regulations.--The regulations required by 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) be designed (i) to recover for the public a portion of 
     the value of the public spectrum resource made available for 
     such commercial use, and (ii) to avoid unjust enrichment 
     through the method employed to permit such uses of that 
     resource;
       (B) recover for the public an amount that is, to maximum 
     extent feasible, equal (over the term of the license) to the 
     amount that would have been recovered had such services been 
     licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 309(j) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) and the 
     Commission's regulations thereunder; and
       (C) be adjusted by the Commission from time to time in 
     order to continue to comply with the requirements of this 
     paragraph.
       (3) Treatment of revenues.--
       (A) General rule.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     all proceeds obtained pursuant to the regulations required by 
     this subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury in 
     accordance with chapter 33 of title 31, United States Code.
       (B) Retention of revenues.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), the salaries and expenses account of the Commission 
     shall retain as an offsetting collection such sums as may be 
     necessary from such proceeds for the costs of developing and 
     implementing the program required by this section and 
     regulating and supervising advanced television services. Such 
     offsetting collections shall be available for obligation 
     subject to the terms and conditions of the receiving 
     appropriations account, and shall be deposited in such 
     accounts on a quarterly basis.
       (4) Report.--Within 5 years after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, the Commission shall report to the Congress 
     on the implementation of the program required by this 
     subsection, and shall annually thereafter advise the Congress 
     on the amounts collected pursuant to such program.
       (e) Evaluation Required.--Within 10 years after the date 
     the Commission first issues additional licenses for advanced 
     television services, the Commission shall conduct an 
     evaluation of the advanced television services program. Such 
     evaluation shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the willingness of consumers to 
     purchase the television receivers necessary to receive 
     broadcasts of advanced television services;
       (2) an assessment of alternative uses, including public 
     safety use, of the frequencies used for such broadcasts; and
       (3) the extent to which the Commission has been or will be 
     able to reduce the amount of spectrum assigned to licensees 
     in order to issue additional licenses for the provision of 
     advanced television services.
       (f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Advanced television services.--The term ``advanced 
     television services'' means television services provided 
     using digital or other advanced technology to enhance audio 
     quality and video resolution, as further defined in the 
     opinion, report, and order of the Commission entitled 
     ``Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the 
     Existing Television Broadcast Service'', MM Docket 87-268, 
     adopted September 17, 1992, and successor proceedings.
       (2) Designated frequencies.--The term ``designated 
     frequency'' means each of the frequencies designated by the 
     Commission for licenses for advanced television services.
       (3) High definition television.--The term ``high definition 
     television'' refers to systems that offer approximately twice 
     the vertical and horizontal resolution of receivers generally 
     available on the date of enactment of this section, as 
     further defined in the proceedings described in paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection.

     SEC. 205. INTERACTIVE SERVICES AND CRITICAL INTERFACES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the convergence of communications, computing, and video 
     technologies will permit improvements in interoperability 
     between and among those technologies;
       (2) in the public switched telecommunications network, open 
     protocols and technical requirements for connection between 
     the network and the consumer, and the availability of 
     unbundled customer equipment through retailers and other 
     third party vendors, have served to broaden consumer choice, 
     lower prices, and spur competition and innovation in the 
     customer equipment industry;
       (3) set-top boxes and other interactive communications 
     devices could similarly serve as a critical gateway between 
     American homes and businesses and advanced telecommunications 
     and video programming networks;
       (4) American consumers have benefited from the ability to 
     own or rent customer premises equipment obtained from 
     retailers and other vendors and the ability to access the 
     network with portable, compatible equipment;
       (5) in order to promote diversity, competition, and 
     technological innovation among suppliers of equipment and 
     services, it may be necessary to make certain critical 
     interfaces with such networks open and accessible to a broad 
     range of equipment manufacturers and information providers;
       (6) the identification of critical interfaces with such 
     networks and the assessment of their openness must be 
     accomplished with due recognition that open and accessible 
     systems may include standards that involve both 
     nonproprietary and proprietary technologies;
       (7) such identification and assessment must also be 
     accomplished with due recognition of the need for owners and 
     distributors of video programming and information services to 
     ensure system and signal security and to prevent theft of 
     service;
       (8) whenever possible, standards in dynamic industries such 
     as interactive systems are best set by the marketplace or by 
     private sector standard-setting bodies; and
       (9) the role of the Commission in this regard is--
       (A) to identify, in consultation with industry groups, 
     consumer interests, and independent experts, critical 
     interfaces with such networks (i) to ensure that end users 
     can connect information devices to such networks, and (ii) to 
     ensure that information service providers are able to 
     transmit information to end users, and
       (B) as necessary, to take steps to ensure these networks 
     and services are accessible to a broad range of equipment 
     manufactures, information providers, and program suppliers.
       (b) Inquiry Required.--Within 6 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence an 
     inquiry--
       (1) to examine the impact of the convergence of 
     technologies on cable, telephone, satellite, and wireless and 
     other communications technologies likely to offer interactive 
     communications services;
       (2) to ascertain the importance of maintaining open and 
     accessible systems in interactive communications services;
       (3) to examine the costs and benefits of maintaining 
     varying levels of interoperability between and among 
     interactive communications services;
       (4) to examine the costs and benefits of establishing open 
     interfaces (A) between the network provider and the set-top 
     box or other interactive communications devices used in the 
     home or office, and (B) between network providers and 
     information service providers, and to determine how best to 
     establish such interfaces;
       (5) to determine methods by which converter boxes or other 
     interactive communications devices may be sold through 
     retailers and other third party vendors and to determine the 
     vendors' responsibilities for ensuring that their devices are 
     interoperable with interactive networks;
       (6) to assess how the security of cable, satellite, and 
     other interactive systems or their services can continue to 
     be ensured with the establishment of an interface between the 
     network and a converter box or other interactive 
     communications device, including those manufactured and 
     distributed at retail by entities independent of network 
     providers and information service providers, and to determine 
     the responsibilities of such independent entities for 
     assuring network security and for conforming to signal 
     interference standards;
       (7) to ascertain the conditions necessary to ensure that 
     any critical interface is available to information and 
     content providers and others who seek to design, build, and 
     distribute interoperable devices for these networks so as to 
     ensure network access and fair competition for independent 
     information providers and consumers;
       (8) to assess the impact of the deployment of digital 
     technologies on individuals with disabilities, with 
     particular emphasis on any regulatory, policy, or design 
     barriers which would limit functionally equivalent access by 
     such individuals;
       (9) to assess current regulation of telephone, cable, 
     satellite, and other communications delivery systems to 
     ascertain how best to ensure interoperability between those 
     systems;
       (10) to assess the adequacy of current regulation of 
     telephone, cable, satellite, and other communications 
     delivery systems with respect to bundling of equipment and 
     services and to identify any changes in unbundling 
     regulations necessary to assure effective competition and 
     encourage technological innovation, consistent with the 
     finding in subsection (a)(6) and the objectives of paragraph 
     (6) of this subsection, in the market for converter boxes or 
     interactive communications devices and for other customer 
     premises equipment;
       (11) to solicit comment on any changes in the Commission's 
     regulations that are necessary to ensure that diversity, 
     competition, and technological innovation are promoted in 
     communications services and equipment; and
       (12) to prepare recommendations to the Congress for any 
     legislative changes required.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Within 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the results of the inquiry required by 
     subsection (b). Within 6 months after the date of submission 
     of such report, the Commission shall prescribe such changes 
     in its regulations as the Commission determines are necessary 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(10).
       (d) Preservation of Existing Authority.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as limiting, superseding, or 
     otherwise modifying the existing authority and 
     responsibilities of the Commission or National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology.

     SEC. 206. VIDEO PROGRAMMING ACCESSIBILITY.

       (a) Inquiry Required.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall complete an inquiry to ascertain the level 
     at which video programming is closed captioned. Such inquiry 
     shall examine the extent to which existing or previously 
     published programming is closed captioned, the size of the 
     video programming provider or programming owner providing 
     closed captioning, the size of the market served, the 
     relative audience shares achieved, or any other related 
     factors. The Commission shall submit to the Congress a report 
     on the results of such inquiry.
       (b) Contents of Regulations.--Within 18 months after the 
     date of enactment, the Commission shall prescribe such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this section. Such 
     regulations shall ensure that--
       (1) video programming first published or exhibited after 
     the effective date of such regulations is fully accessible 
     through the provision of closed captions, except as provided 
     in subsection (d); and
       (2) video programming providers or owners maximize the 
     accessibility of video programming first published or 
     exhibited prior to the effective date of such regulations 
     through the provision of closed captions, except as provided 
     in subsection (d).
       (c) Contents of Regulations.--Such regulations shall 
     include an appropriate schedule of deadlines for the 
     provision of closed captioning of video programming.
       (d) Exemptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)--
       (1) the Commission may exempt by regulation programs, 
     classes of programs, or services for which the Commission has 
     determined that the provision of close captioning would be 
     economically burdensome to the provider or owner of such 
     programming;
       (2) a provider of video programming or the owner of any 
     program carried by the provider shall not be obligated to 
     supply closed captions if such action would be inconsistent 
     with contracts in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except that nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to relieve a video programming provider of its obligations to 
     provide services required by Federal law; and
       (3) a provider of video programming or program owner may 
     petition the Commission for an exemption from the 
     requirements of this section, and the Commission may grant 
     such petition upon a showing that the requirements contained 
     in this section would result in an undue burden.
       (e) Undue Burden.--The term `undue burden' means 
     significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether the 
     closed captions necessary to comply with the requirements of 
     this paragraph would result in an undue economic burden, the 
     factors to be considered include--
       (1) the nature and cost of the closed captions for the 
     programming;
       (2) the impact on the operation of the provider or program 
     owner;
       (3) the financial resources of the provider or program 
     owner; and
       (4) the type of operations of the provider or program 
     owner.
       (f) Additional Proceeding on Video Descriptions Required.--
     Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall commence an inquiry to examine the use of 
     video descriptions on video programming in order to ensure 
     the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual 
     impairments, and report to Congress on its findings. The 
     Commission's report shall assess appropriate methods and 
     schedules for phasing video descriptions into the 
     marketplace, technical and quality standards for video 
     descriptions, a definition of programming for which video 
     descriptions would apply, and other technical and legal 
     issues that the Commission deems appropriate. Following the 
     completion of such inquiry, the Commission may adopt 
     regulation it deems necessary to promote the accessibility of 
     video programming to persons with visual impairments.
       (g) Model Program.--The National Telecommunications and 
     Information Administration shall establish and oversee, and 
     (to the extent of available funds) provide financial support 
     for, marketplace tests of video descriptions on commercial 
     and noncommercial video programming services.
       (h) Video Description.--For purposes of this section, 
     ``video description'' means the insertion of audio narrated 
     descriptions of a television program's key visual elements 
     into natural pauses between the program's dialogue.

     SEC. 207. PUBLIC ACCESS.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe 
     regulations to reserve appropriate capacity for the public at 
     preferential rates on cable systems and video platforms.

     SEC. 208. AUTOMATED SHIP DISTRESS AND SAFETY SYSTEMS.

       Notwithstanding any provision of the Communications Act of 
     1934, a ship documented under the laws of the United States 
     operating in accordance with the Global Maritime Distress and 
     Safety System provisions of the Safety of Life at Sea 
     Convention shall not be required to be equipped with a radio 
     station operated by one or more radio officers or operators.

     SEC. 209. EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER DIRECT 
                   BROADCAST SATELLITE SERVICE.

       Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     303) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(v) Have exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of 
     the direct broadcast satellite service.''.

     SEC. 210. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Retransmission.--Section 325(b)(2)(D) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 325(b)(2)(D)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(D) retransmission by a cable operator or other 
     multichannel video programming distributor of the signal of a 
     superstation if (i) the customers served by the cable 
     operator or other multichannel video programming distributor 
     reside outside the originating station's television market, 
     as defined by the Commission for purposes of section 
     614(h)(1)(C); (ii) such signal was obtained from a satellite 
     carrier or terrestrial microwave common carrier; and (iii) 
     and the origination station was a superstation on May 1, 
     1991.
       (b) Market Determinations.--Section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i)) is 
     amended by striking out ``in the manner provided in section 
     73.3555(d)(3)(i) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     in effect on May 1, 1991,'' and inserting ``by the Commission 
     by regulation or order using, where available, commercial 
     publications which delineate television markets based on 
     viewing patterns,''.

     SEC. 211. AVAILABILITY OF SCREENING DEVICES TO PRECLUDE 
                   DISPLAY OF ENCRYPTED PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Customer Notice.--Section 624(d)(2)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 544(d)(2)(A)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Upon beginning service to any new subscriber and not less 
     frequently than once each calendar year for current 
     subscribers, the cable operator shall inform subscribers of 
     the right to request and obtain such device.''.
       (b) Signal Leakage.--Section 624(d)(2) of such Act is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) The Commission shall prescribe regulations to 
     require, to the extent technically feasible, the transmission 
     of programming described in subparagraph (A) by means of 
     encrypted signals that permit subscribers to effectively and 
     entirely prevent the display of both the audio and video 
     portions of such programming with or without the use of a 
     device described in subparagraph (A).''.
    TITLE III--PROCUREMENT PRACTICES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS

     SEC. 301. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is in the public interest for business enterprises 
     owned by minorities and women to participate in procurement 
     contracts of all providers of telecommunications services.
       (2) The opportunity for full participation in our free 
     enterprise system by business enterprises that are owned by 
     minorities and women is essential if this Nation is to attain 
     social and economic equality for those businesses and improve 
     the functioning of the national economy.
       (3) It is in this Nation's interest to expeditiously 
     improve the economically disadvantaged position of business 
     enterprises that are owned by minorities and women.
       (4) The position of these businesses can be improved 
     through the development by the providers of 
     telecommunications services of substantial long-range and 
     annual goals, which are supported by training and technical 
     assistance, for the purchase, to the maximum practicable 
     extent, of technology, equipment, supplies, services, 
     material and construction from minority business enterprises.
       (5) Procurement policies which include participation of 
     business enterprises that are owned by minorities and women 
     also benefit the communication industry and its consumers by 
     encouraging the expansion of the numbers of suppliers for 
     procurement, thereby encouraging competition among suppliers 
     and promoting economic efficiency in the process.

     SEC. 302. PURPOSE.

       The purposes of this title are--
       (1) to encourage and foster greater economic opportunity 
     for business enterprises that are owned by minorities and 
     women;
       (2) to promote competition among suppliers to providers of 
     telecommunications services and their affiliates to enhance 
     economic efficiency in the procurement of telephone 
     corporation contracts and contracts of their State 
     commission-regulated subsidiaries and affiliates;
       (3) to clarify and expand a program for the procurement by 
     State and federally-regulated telephone companies of 
     technology, equipment, supplies, services, materials and 
     construction work from business enterprises that are owned by 
     minorities and women; and
       (4) to ensure that a fair proportion of the total 
     purchases, contracts, and subcontracts for supplies, 
     commodities, technology, property, and services offered by 
     the providers of telecommunications services and their 
     affiliates are awarded to minority and women business 
     enterprises.

     SEC. 303. ANNUAL PLAN SUBMISSION.

       (a) Annual Plans Required.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall require each provider 
     of telecommunications services to submit annually a detailed 
     and verifiable plan for increasing its procurement from 
     business enterprises that are owned by minorities or women in 
     all categories of procurement in which minorities are under 
     represented.
       (2) Contents of plans.--The annual plans required by 
     paragraph (1) shall include (but not be limited to) short- 
     and long-term progressive goals and timetables, technical 
     assistance, and training and shall, in addition to goals for 
     direct contracting opportunities, include methods for 
     encouraging both prime contractors and grantees to engage 
     business enterprises that are owned by minorities and women 
     in subcontracts in all categories in which minorities are 
     under represented.
       (3) Implementation report.--Each provider of 
     telecommunications services shall furnish an annual report to 
     the Commission regarding the implementation of programs 
     established pursuant to this title in such form as the 
     Commission shall require, and at such time as the Commission 
     shall annually designate.
       (4) Report to congress.--The Commission shall provide an 
     annual report to Congress, beginning in January 1995, on the 
     progress of activities undertaken by each provider of 
     telecommunications services regarding the implementation of 
     activities pursuant to this title to develop business 
     enterprises that are owned by minorities or women. The report 
     shall evaluate the accomplishments under this title and shall 
     recommend a program for enhancing the policy declared in this 
     title, together with such recommendations for legislation as 
     it deems necessary or desirable to further that policy.
       (b) Regulations and Criteria for Determining Eligibility of 
     Minority Business Enterprises for Procurement Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall establish regulations 
     for implementing programs pursuant to this title that will 
     govern providers of telecommunications services and their 
     affiliates.
       (2) Verifying criteria.--The Commission shall develop and 
     publish regulations setting forth criteria for verifying and 
     determining the eligibility of business enterprises that are 
     owned by minorities or women for procurement contracts.
       (3) Outreach.--The Commission's regulations shall require 
     each provider of telecommunications services and its 
     affiliates to develop and to implement an outreach program to 
     inform and recruit business enterprises that are owned by 
     minorities or women to apply for procurement contracts under 
     this title.
       (4) Enforcement.--The Commission shall establish and 
     promulgate such regulations necessary to enforce the 
     provisions of this title.
       (c) Waiver Authority.--The requirements of this section may 
     be waived, in whole or in part, by the Commission with 
     respect to a particular contract or subcontract in accordance 
     with guidelines set forth in regulations which the Commission 
     shall prescribe when it determines that the application of 
     such regulations prove to result in undue hardship or 
     unreasonable expense to a provider of telecommunications 
     services.

     SEC. 304. SANCTIONS AND REMEDIES.

       (a) False Representation of Businesses; Sanctions.--
       (1) In general.--Any person or corporation, through its 
     directors, officers, or agent, which falsely represents the 
     business as a business enterprise that are owned by 
     minorities or women in the procurement or attempt to procure 
     contracts from telephone operating companies and their 
     affiliates pursuant to this article, shall be punished by a 
     fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for a period 
     not to exceed 5 years of its directors, officers, or agents 
     responsible for the false statements, or by both fine and 
     imprisonment.
       (2) Holding companies.--Any provider of telecommunications 
     services which falsely represents its annual report to the 
     Commission or its implementation of its programs pursuant to 
     this section shall be subject to a fine of $100,000 and be 
     subject to a penalty of up to 5 years restriction from 
     participation in lines of business activities provided for in 
     this title.
       (b) Independent Cause of Action, Remedies, and Attorney 
     Fees.--
       (1) Discrimination prohibited.--No otherwise qualified 
     business enterprise that are owned by minorities or women 
     shall solely, by reason of its racial, ethnic, or gender 
     composition be excluded from the participation in, be denied 
     the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in 
     procuring contracts from telephone utilities.
       (2) Civil actions authorized.--Whenever a qualified 
     business enterprise that is owned by minorities or women has 
     reasonable cause to believe that a provider of 
     telecommunications services or its affiliate is engaged in a 
     pattern or practice of resistance to the full compliance of 
     any provision of this title, the business enterprise may 
     bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the 
     United States against the provider of telecommunications 
     services or its affiliate requesting such monetary or 
     injunctive relief, or both, as deemed necessary to ensure the 
     full benefits of this title.
       (3) Attorneys' fees and costs.--In any action or proceeding 
     to enforce or charge of a violation of a provision of this 
     title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing 
     party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

     SEC. 305. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purpose of this title, the following definitions 
     apply:
       (1) The term ``business enterprise owned by minorities or 
     women'' means--
       (A) a business enterprise that is at least 51 percent owned 
     by a person or persons who are minority persons or women; or
       (B) in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 
     percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more persons 
     who are minority persons or women, and whose management and 
     daily business operations are controlled by one or more of 
     those persons.
       (2) The term ``minority person'' means persons who are 
     Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian 
     Americans, and Pacific Americans.
       (3) The term ``control'' means exercising the power to make 
     financial and policy decisions.
       (4) The term ``operate'' means the active involvement in 
     the day-to-day management of the business and not merely 
     being officers or directors.
       (5) The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (6) The term ``telecommunications service'' has the meaning 
     provided in section 3(mm) of the Communications Act of 1934 
     (as added by this Act).
         TITLE IV--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESOURCES

     SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any other sums authorized 
     by law, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Federal Communications Commission such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act.
       (b) Effect on Fees.--For purposes of section 9(b)(2) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 159(b)(2)), additional 
     amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     construed to be changes in the amounts appropriated for the 
     performance of activities described in section 9(a) of such 
     Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MARKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to bring before the House a 
bill that represents what I believe to be the Nation's roadmap for the 
information superhighway.
  The purpose of this bill is to help consumers by promoting a national 
communications and information infrastructure. This legislation seeks 
to accomplish that goal by encouraging the deployment of advanced 
communications services and technologies through competition, by 
safeguarding ratepayers and competitors from potential anticompetitive 
abuses, and by preserving and enhancing universal service.
  This bill has three key components. First, the bill will preserve and 
enhance the goal of providing to all Americans high-quality phone 
service at just and reasonable rates. This goal of universal service is 
one of the proudest achievements of our Nation during the 20th century, 
and this legislation will ensure it endures beyond the year 2000.
  Second, the legislation will promote and accelerate competition to 
the cable television industry by permitting telephone companies to 
compete in offering video programming. Specifically, the bill would 
rescind the statutory ban on telephone company ownership and delivery 
of video programming. Telephone companies would be permitted, through a 
separate subsidiary, to provide video programming to their subscribers 
so long as they establish an open system to permit others to use their 
video platforms. But they must enter the business the old fashion way: 
by building a new system and not just buying up an existing system.
  Third, the legislation will promote competition in the local 
telephone market. This market is one of the last monopoly markets in 
the entire telecommunications universe. We all have witnessed how the 
long-distance market and the telecommunications equipment market has 
benefited tremendously from competition. Just 10 years ago, you had one 
choice in long distance--AT&T--and one choice for a phone--black rotary 
dial. Through Federal policies, hundreds of equipment makers and long 
distance companies now exist, proving rigorous competition. We can see 
those same benefits in the local telephone market, and they benefit 
consumers by giving them more choice at lower prices.
  The bill before the House reflects a handful of changes that have 
been made to the bill to reflect a number of minor issues that have 
been raised. At this time I ask unanimous consent that a joint 
statement explaining these changes appear in the Record after my 
remarks.
  In conclusion, this legislation has benefited tremendously from the 
close working relationship among all the members of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. We have succeeded, I believe, in crafting a bill 
that addresses many of the tough issues and strikes a fair balance on a 
number of difficult issues.
  I strongly urge all Members to support this bill.


                     joint explanation of h.r. 3636

  The bill considered by the House today contains several changes that 
address issues brought to the attention of the Members since the bill 
was reported out of committee. We want to take this opportunity to 
explain those changes.
  Section 201(c)(3)(B) also has been altered to make certain that 
States can adopt provisions relating to the public safety and welfare 
and for other reasons enumerated in clauses (i)-(iv), if such term or 
conditions does not effectively prohibit any person or carrier from 
providing a telecommunications service. This language clarifies that 
States can establish terms and conditions, consistent with subparagraph 
(A), so long as such term and condition does not amount to an effective 
prohibition. This standard was borrowed from subparagraph (A), and is 
consistent with the overarching goal of enabling States to impose 
necessary and appropriate terms and conditions so long as they do not 
amount to an effective prohibition on entry into the telecommunications 
business.
  Section 201(c)(3)(C) has been added to make clear that the language 
preempting State and local entry barriers shall not be construed to 
prohibit a local government from requiring a carrier or other person to 
obtain ordinary and usual construction or similar permits for its 
operations. This provision is intended to make certain that local 
governments have authority to oversee street closings and excavations 
and related activity as may be necessary in the ordinary course of 
constructing telecommunications facilities.
  Subparagraph (C) also makes clear that this language does not give 
local governments the power to use construction and other permits to 
impose conditions that effectively prohibit any person or carrier from 
providing any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service or 
information service. This should be treated as the same standard as set 
forth in subparagraph (A) and (B).
  Section 201(d)(3)(F) contains a broader directive to the Commission 
to study how open platform service and other advanced network 
capabilities, including broadband telecommunications facilities, have 
been deployed. Thus, the Commission will seek information concerning 
how open platform service and other similar advanced network 
capabilities have been deployed throughout the country, consistent with 
the information enumerated in clauses (i)-(iv).
  Section 201(e)(3) was amended to direct the Commission to establish 
regulations on infrastructure sharing between large local exchange 
carriers [LEC] and ``qualifying carriers'' so that a large LEC would 
not be required to share its facilities with a qualifying carrier that 
is not reasonably proximate to the large telephone company. This 
limiting principle was added so that a large LEC would not face 
requests, or demands, for infrastructure sharing from qualifying 
carriers across the country, but only from carriers that were 
``reasonably proximate'' to the large LEC. Without this limiting 
principle, there was a legitimate concern that this open-ended 
requirement could have acted as a disincentive to large LEC's to deploy 
advanced capabilities.

  Section 108 has been amended to direct the Commission to receive 
comments in electronic formats and to establish an online method of 
conducting some of its business. This requirement helps the Commission 
stay current with the burgeoning telecommunications industry. In 
addition, this section now contains references to the ``national 
information infrastructure,'' which is a broader term than 
``Internet,'' which was in the committee bill.
  Section 109 contains additional congressional findings recognizing 
rules the Commission has adopted to promote participation by minority 
groups and women, and small businesses. This language should not be 
construed to confer any approval or disapproval on regulations the 
Commission has adopted with respect to promoting minority participation 
in communications services.
  In title II, section 210(a) clarifies that the obligation not to 
retransmit the signal of a broadcasting station without consent of the 
originating station does not extend to retransmission of superstation 
signals by microwave common carrier. Section 210(a) also restricts the 
exemption in section 325(b)(2)(D) to retransmission of superstation 
signals to customers outside of the originating station's television 
market.
  Section 210(b) eliminates the existing statutory basis for 
determining television markets, as used in this title, and instead 
grants the Commission authority to choose an appropriate definition 
based on commercial publications. The Commission is directed to 
determine television markets by regulation or order to give interested 
parties appropriate notice and opportunity to comment.
  Section 653 has been amended to make clear that any common carrier 
subject to title II of the Communications Act of 1934, and that 
provides video programming directly or indirectly to its subscribers, 
shall establish a video platform and otherwise comply with the 
requirements contained in section 653. This change clarifies that all 
common carriers that seek to provide video programming to their 
subscribers, directly or indirectly, must adhere to the important 
safeguards that have been built into this section.
  Section 656(b)(4) has been narrowly expanded to permit joint 
ventures, or purchases, of cable systems in unique circumstances. The 
intent behind this amendment is to promote implementation of 
facilities-based competition in the delivery of video programming in a 
narrow class of circumstances where such a goal may be impeded by the 
general provisions of section 656. The test set forth in paragraph (4) 
requires that the ``subject cable system'' operates in a television 
market that is not in the top 25 markets, and that the market is 
characterized by at least 2 systems, where the largest cable system in 
the market is owned or controlled or under common ownership of any of 
the top 10 largest multiple system operators [MSO's]. In addition, 
paragraph (4) requires that the ``subject cable system'' is not owned 
or controlled by any of the 50 largest MSOs. Finally, the language in 
subparagraph (B) describes the situation where the largest cable system 
and the subject cable system both held franchises, as of March 1, 1994, 
from the largest municipality in the television market, and that each 
franchisee could offer cable service in the entirety of the franchise 
area of the other cable system. In that sense, each had a nonexclusive 
franchise from the largest municipality.

  In light of these narrow and exceptional circumstances, it is my view 
that the two-wire goal actually would be advanced by permitting a 
telephone company to invest in the subject cable company.
  Section 654(a)(2) has been clarified to make certain that all local 
exchange carriers must comply with the certification requirement 
contained in section 654(a)(1), regardless of whether they were 
permitted provide video programming by virtue of State laws and 
regulations on interconnection and equal access that were substantially 
similar to the requirements of section 201(c), or by virtue of a court 
holding that the cable/telco prohibition was not applicable to a 
particular carrier. Thus, all carriers must certify compliance with 
section 201(c) after the effective date of the regulations promulgated 
pursuant to such section.


the national communications competition and information infrastructure 
                              act of 1994

  Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to offer to 
my colleagues in the full U.S. House of Representatives H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
of 1994. This legislation represents a comprehensive reform package 
that will facilitate the most extensive legislative overhaul in the 
telecommunications industry since passage of the Communications Act of 
1934. This bill, in combination with H.R. 3626, the Antitrust Reform 
Act of 1993, will serve as the blueprint for the development of the 
information superhighway, and will encourage the deployment of advanced 
digital communications to homes and businesses throughout the Nation.
  In presenting this legislation today, I am joined by a bipartisan 
majority of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, the 
subcommittee of origin for H.R. 3636. I am also pleased to acknowledge 
the endorsement of Vice President Gore and representatives of the 
Clinton administration.
  I offer this legislation to my colleagues on the floor today with one 
goal in mind: to benefit consumers by facilitating competition between 
and among the cable and telephone industries in the delivery of video 
services. H.R. 3636 will fulfill this goal by establishing the 
guidelines that will allow telephone companies to offer multichannel 
video programming in competition with traditional cable companies. It 
will create competition in the local telephone exchange by requiring 
telephone companies to offer interconnection and equal access to their 
networks. And, most important, H.R. 3636 embraces the fundamental 
philosophy of universal service embodied in our communications policy 
which is to ensure that all Americans have access to basic telephone 
service at affordable rates. Together, these principles will promote 
and accelerate advances in, and access to, new and improved 
telecommunications capabilities.

  In the short term, the advent of competition between these billion-
dollar industries will translate into fast-paced job growth within the 
communications, electronics, and programming fields. Traditional cable 
companies, recognizing the potential competitive threat, will speed up 
their efforts to increase bandwidth by converting their systems to a 
digital-based fiber network, thereby increasing their channel capacity 
and facilitating their emergence into the realm of interactive 
communications. Expanded channel capacity will stimulate demand for the 
creation of new programming, initially in the form of traditional cable 
programming and new cable channels, and, eventually, in the form of 
interactive video services.
  The anticipation surrounding the enormous lucrative potential for the 
development of these new, interactive services--ranging from 
interactive videogame channels to at-home banking availability--has 
fueled the drive toward passage of this bill. Already, the demand for 
channel capacity has outpaced the availability of channel program 
offerings. This demand, in fact, has led to a proliferation of 
announcements of cable channels and new video services planned for 
future deployment: an interactive TV-game-show channel; pay-per-view 
movie channels where the consumer may choose from an on-screen display 
of options; or the SegaChannel, providing interactive videogames for 
at-home play. In the long term, we can expect that the convergence of 
these behemoth communications industries will spawn the development of 
entire new industries.
  As we vote today on H.R. 3636, we are endowed with an abundance of 
information on the consequences and implications of a decision to 
support the convergence of the cable and telephone industries in 
today's marketplace. This extensive record of knowledge has been 
gathered by my subcommittee through a total of 11 hearings throughout 
the 103d Congress. In February of this year, the subcommittee held 
seven hearings on the issue of H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626, the Antitrust 
and Communications Reform Act of 1994. We heard testimony from more 
than 50 witnesses, representing such diverse fields as set-top box 
manufacturers, Federal- and State-level government agencies, the small 
cable industry, regional and rural telephone companies, the 
Communications Workers of America, academics, and members from the 
public interest arena.
  I strongly believe that this legislation crafted out of these 
hearings represents a balanced and pragmatic response to these 
competing voices. While H.R. 3636 may not resolve each conflicting 
concern of all affected industries, there is no debating the fact that 
every American and every industry engaged in the business of 
communications stands to benefit from this bill. Let me explain how 
competition between these industries will evolve.
  In passing legislation to promote competition between the cable and 
telephone industries, we are establishing a blueprint which will 
facilitate the development of a vast communications infrastructure, 
often referred to as the information superhighway. As part of this 
effort to promote competition to communications monopolies, information 
providers will be granted the right to compete with the local telephone 
company and to use its facilities. Such competitors, be they in the 
form of cable companies, independent phone companies, or others, will 
be allowed equal access to, and interconnection with, the facilities of 
the local phone company so that consumers are assured of the seamless 
transmission of telephone calls between carriers and between 
jurisdictions. Title I of the bill requires local telephone companies 
to provide nondiscriminatory access to their facilities and 
interconnection to their networks. It also directs the FCC to prescribe 
rules that will compensate local exchange carriers for interconnection 
and equal access, exempting rural telephone companies from these 
interconnection requirements. We include language which targets those 
telephone companies which serve low density areas and ensures that toll 
rates for rural customers remains comparable for urban customers.
  This section gives the Commission the necessary powers to implement 
this legislation, which the Commission apparently lacks under current 
law.

  On June 10, 1994, in Bell Atlantic v. FCC, the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals severely curtailed the FCC's attempts to pave a procompetition 
and proconsumer information superhighway. The Court of Appeals struck 
down an FCC order compelling local telephone companies to open up their 
facilities to--or physically collocate with--other providers of 
telecommunications and information services.
  The court suggested that an FCC order mandating physical collocation 
may amount to a taking. The fifth amendment dictates that no property 
shall be taken by the Government without the payment of reasonable and 
just compensation. Since compensation for takings are generally drawn 
from the Treasury coffers, which is the sole province of the 
legislature, any congressionally unauthorized draw upon that resource 
is deemed invalid. The Bell Atlantic court pointed out that the 
Communications Act of 1934 does not grant the FCC explicit power to 
order taking of property, which, of course, requires compensation. 
Therefore, the physical collocation regulatory scheme required to spur 
competition and limit costs is not available to the FCC under its 
current Congressional grant of authority.
  This lack of FCC authority has been anticipated by the committee in 
HR 3636. In language which predates the Bell Atlantic holding, the bill 
explicitly empowers the FCC to direct these carriers to allow other 
information providers to physically interconnect with their facilities. 
Such interconnection will provide consumers with a far more diverse 
range of telecommunications services and will spur competition to 
ensure that the costs of these services are reasonable. The bill also 
directs the FCC to establish regulations requiring just and reasonable 
compensation to the local telephone company providing these 
interconnection services.
  The Bell Atlantic case highlights the necessity of this legislation 
and the immediacy of the problem. Without the congressional grants of 
authority which H.R. 3636 endows, the FCC lacks the tools needed to 
pave a high quality and affordable information superhighway.
  H.R. 3636 creates a national communications policy whereby all States 
face the same regulatory regime in the provision of local 
telecommunications service. This is facilitated by prohibiting States 
or local governments from imposing regulations that would be contrary 
to the creation of competition in the local telephone loop. H.R. 3636 
does, however, respect the States' important role in the oversight of 
intrastate telecommunications policy by allowing them to impose terms 
or conditions necessary to protect consumer protection laws, public 
safety concerns, and equitable rates.
  H.R. 3636 also directs the FCC to develop rules to establish a 
Federal-State Joint Board to preserve and enhance universal service at 
just and reasonable rates. The goal of universal service has been at 
the core of communications policy since the passage of the 
Communications Act of 1934, and refers to the availability and 
accessibility of basic telephone service at reasonable rates, for all 
Americans. H.R. 3636 recognizes the concern that some consumers may 
want to simply subscribe to the same plain old telephone service or a 
comparable service to which they subscribe now. It is our intent to 
avoid advocating a particular or extravagant service; therefore, the 
bill directs the Board to examine varying services, the extent to which 
various telecommunications services are subscribed by customers, and to 
locate areas where denial of such services unfairly affects educational 
and economic opportunities of those customers.
  The bill also directs the Joint Board to examine a number of issues 
as they formulate a plan to preserve and enhance universal service. Of 
course, the considerations outlined in paragraph (6) are not binding on 
the Commission or the States, since they have the ultimate 
decisionmaking authority. Instead, as part of the normal Federal-State 
Joint Board process, there will be recommendations that the Federal and 
State regulators can either accept or reject in whole or in part.
  One of the issues the Joint Board will address is the issue of 
alternative or price regulations. It is worth noting that a majority of 
States choose some form of rate of return regulation for its citizens. 
In addition, by distinguishing alternative and price regulation from 
cost-based rate of return regulation, the committee recognizes that 
alternative regulation encompasses a variety of regulatory schemes, 
including pricing flexibility, incentive regulation and sharing of 
excess profits, all of which allow regulated telephone companies to 
price services and not return on costs.
  The bill also directs the Commission to establish pricing flexibility 
regulations, which can serve as a transition from a regulated market to 
a competitive market, and can be used in proportion with the level of 
competition that exists in a particular market. The bill requires that 
these pricing flexibility regulations only can be used when a telephone 
company faces competition, and, most importantly, other forms of 
regulations are not needed to protect consumers. Thus, if the local 
exchange carrier faces sufficient competition so as to enable the 
Commission to conclude that competition will protect consumers from 
unjust or unreasonable rates, then the Commission may adopt a flexible 
pricing procedure.
  H.R. 3636 directs the FCC to conduct a study on open platform 
service, taking into account existing facilities as well as new 
facilities with improved capacity. It is important to note that it is 
our intent to remain technologically neutral in our efforts to promote 
the deployment of advanced technologies and services.
  Section 103 of H.R. 3636 contains provisions to survey the Nation's 
elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, public libraries, and 
health care institutions and report on the availability of advanced 
telecommunications services to these institutions.
  The bill also empowers the FCC to define the circumstances under 
which a carrier may be required to interconnect its telecommunications 
network with educational institutions, health care institutions, and 
public libraries. Moreover, it directs the Commission to provide for 
the establishment of preferential rates for telecommunications 
services, including advanced services, provided to such institutions or 
the use of alternative mechanisms to enhance the availability of 
advanced services to these institutions.
  I believe that there is perhaps no more important societal benefit to 
upgrading our Nation's information infrastructure than uplifting the 
hopes, dreams, and aspirations of millions of schoolchildren through 
increased access to information in America's elementary and secondary 
schools.
  Getting phone jacks and/or cable links into every classroom won't be 
a quick fix for educational restructuring, but it is the sine qua non 
for allowing children to move beyond the physical barriers of the 
classroom to a host of potentially rich resources, mentors, and friends 
that can be accessed remotely. In my view, technology in the classroom 
is not meant to be a substitute for good teachers, but rather, it 
allows a teacher to shift from presenting talk to chalk to facilitating 
learning and encouraging a child's exploration of ideas by utilizing 
modern, information age tools.
  I feel strongly that it is important to get these needed learning 
links established to schools because it can help mitigate against what 
I see is a widening gap between information-halves and have-nots. I 
believe that telecommunications technology can become a great equalizer 
in American education. Though a child may not have access to 
information age appliances in the home, may not have parents who 
subscribe to cable or own a computer, the school can help give them the 
tools they will need to compete for jobs in a knowledge-based economy. 
For this reason, I believe it is vitally important that we maximize the 
benefits that this legislation can bring to young children at school. I 
also want to include in the record at the end of my statement a letter 
from the Committee on Education and Labor reporting this section.
  In addition, title I of H.R. 3636 addresses local authority over the 
rights-of-way, including language which asserts the right of city and 
local governments to maintain their rights-of-way. The municipalities 
stand to benefit greatly from the promotion of a communications 
infrastructure, and I believe that it is our responsibility to ensure 
that city and local governments are positioned to take advantage of the 
benefits. We include express language within this to ensure that a 
municipalities inherent authority to regulate their public rights-of-
way is fully preserved within this legislation.
  The bill also contains section 107 which amends the Pole Attachment 
Act. Under that amendment, a cable operator that did not offer 
telecommunications services would still be entitled to a pole 
attachment rate under the ``just and reasonable'' standard set forth 
under existing law. A cable operator that offered telecommunications 
services as well as cable service would be required to pay a pole 
attachment rate as established under the standard added to the Pole 
Attachment Act by the amendment.
  Thus, this section does not require a cable operator to pay twice for 
a single pole attachment, if the operator is providing cable and 
telecommunications services. Moreover, a cable operator would only be 
required to pay for a single attachment--albeit under the new standard 
rather than the one set forth under current law--if the operator offers 
cable and telecommunications services through a single wire, or if the 
operator incorporates two wires at a single attachment, or if the 
operator overlashes a second wire for telecommunications services on 
the operator's existing cable plant. All of these are examples of a 
single pole attachment. If the operator can provide cable and 
telecommunications services using a single pole attachment, the 
operator would only be required to pay for a single attachment.

  In fostering the goal of universal service, H.R. 3636 includes 
specific language designed to encourage the deployment of 
communications capabilities to underserved areas and populations. Title 
I of the legislation includes provisions which direct the FCC to 
examine the accessibility of telecommunications services in rural 
areas, and grants the Commission the ability to modify any of the open 
platform obligations if they prove economically or technically 
infeasible. Furthermore, the Commission is directed to promulgate 
regulations expressly designed to promote access to the network for 
disabled persons, small business and minority business interests, as 
well.
  Title II of H.R. 3636 is designed to promote competition to the cable 
television industry by permitting telephone companies to compete in the 
provision of video programming and services. Under current law, 
telephone companies are prohibited from offering cable service within 
their telephone service area. This restriction, established in 1970 
Commission regulations and codified under the 1984 Cable Act, stems 
from the tradition of favoring policies which encourage a wide variety 
of ownership of media sources. We credit these ownership restrictions, 
in part, for facilitating the deployment of two wires to each home, an 
outcome which will help to promote more effective competition between 
and among telephone and cable companies.
  When these initial restrictions were adopted in the 1970's, cable 
television was a nascent industry. The establishment and implementation 
of ownership rules was a necessary step to protect against encroaching 
telephone companies who, at the time, controlled the only wire to the 
home. Since that time, the cable industry has flourished, able to now 
claim 65 percent national penetration.
  In a recent court challenge to the FCC's video dial-tone proceeding, 
a Federal district court in Virginia overturned the statutory cross-
ownership provision in the 1984 Cable Act, a decision currently under 
appeal. A district court in Seattle, WA reached a similar result. 
Without legislation, therefore, the entrenched regional and local 
telephone networks may be allowed to deliver cable service before 
proper protections are put in place to ensure that the information 
superhighway develops in an open, competitive environment for the 
benefit of consumers as well as for a diversity of producers of 
programming and services. This is an important point, and must be 
considered as we debate passage of this legislation.
  Title II establishes the guidelines through which telephone companies 
may engage in the business of video delivery. To advance the goal of 
unrestricted competition, H.R. 3636 allows telephone companies to offer 
multichannel video programming through a separate affiliate, and on a 
common carrier basis. The separate affiliate must construct a video 
platform capable of meeting all bona fide channel capacity and carriage 
demands of video programmers, and must include a suitable margin of 
unused channel capacity to accommodate a reasonable growth in demand. 
We include language which requires the affiliate to petition for 
approval with the FCC, thereby granting them the authority to require 
carriage and award damages in the event of a violation of these 
requirements.
  In order to protect against media concentration, and to promote a 
more fully competitive marketplace, H.R. 3636 prohibits telephone 
companies from buying cable systems within their telephone service 
territory. We include limited exceptions to foster the expansion of 
competition within rural and underpopulated areas, and with small 
markets.
  Any affiliate interested in offering programming on its video 
platform must also adhere to the same public interest and general 
franchise obligations mandated under the Cable Act of 1992. These rules 
oblige all competitors interested in providing video services to comply 
with all consumer protection provisions, program access requirements, 
rules governing the carriage of public, educational and governmental 
channels, and equal employment opportunity requirements.
  This section also clarifies the right of a local government to 
collect fees from the video programming affiliate of a common carrier, 
or any other competitor wishing to offer multichannel video 
programming. Currently, franchise authorities only receive franchise 
fees from cable operators, a right granted to them in the Cable Act of 
1984. If a telephone company or any other provider of video delivery 
chooses to compete with a cable operator in the delivery of video 
service, H.R. 3636 ensures that the telephone company and others will 
pay the exact same level of fees as cable operators.

  This also applies to a telephone company's obligations to provide 
public, educational and governmental [PEG] access channels. H.R. 3636 
requires telephone companies to meet the exact same level of PEG access 
as the local cable operator and as a cable operator's PEG obligations 
may increase in the course of franchise or other negotiations, a local 
telephone company's obligations should increase correspondingly.
  This section also maps out the process through which a common carrier 
may obtain approval by the FCC to deliver video services. We include 
language which requires the FCC to ensure that video platforms comply 
with equal access and interconnection standards. The FCC is also 
instructed to ensure that restricts a common carrier from including, 
within the basic telephone rate, any expenses associated with the 
provision of video programming; and which prohibit cable operators from 
including in the cost of cable service any expenses associated with the 
provision of telephone service. We do not intend, in any way, for 
telephone ratepayers or cable subscribers to subsidize the independent 
business endeavors of their telephone or cable company.
  H.R. 3636 also contains several provisions affecting television 
broadcasters that are designed to help broadcasters to compete more 
fully in developing the information superhighway. This includes a 
review of the ownership restrictions promulgated by the Commission over 
the years. While such a review is warranted, H.R. 3636 does not direct 
the Commission to undertake wholesale elimination of these rules which 
have done so much to ensure diversity and localism in our broadcast 
media. And while broadcasters should be able to compete fairly with 
other information providers H.R. 3636 does not adopt the relatively 
high concentrations of ownership in the cable television or the 
telephone industries as a standard for the Commission's review of these 
rules.
  One of the areas of the bill that represents a significant new 
addition to communications policy is the section dealing with 
broadcaster spectrum flexibility. Above all, H.R. 3636 is careful to 
leave the Commission a great deal of room in which to determine many as 
yet unresolved issues. It does not preclude the Commission's previous 
efforts at developing standards for high definition television services 
that will represent a major improvement in the quality of television 
service, nor do we even mandate the current proposed allocation of 
spectrum. If the Commission chooses to proceed, however, we have set a 
series of important conditions on the allocation of new spectrum. For 
example, the terms ancillary and supplementary necessarily imply that 
such services are connected with and dependent on the main channel 
signal and should not predominate over this primary use of the 
spectrum. The bill also requires that ancillary and supplementary uses 
of broadcasters' spectrum be indivisible from its use for advanced 
television services. Thus, ancillary and supplementary uses must be 
transmitted in direct conjunction with the licensee's main channel 
signal and not offered on spectrum that is distinct or separated from 
the spectrum used for the main signal.
  An essential component of the competitive endeavor of H.R. 3636 is to 
provide consumers with more choice. I believe that it is important to 
ensure that in the same way consumers will be provided with a variety 
of options between telecommunications providers and cable operators, 
they deserve to be offered a variety of standardized communications 
equipment, as well. I want to be sure that, similar to the equipment 
compatibility requirements of the Cable Act of 1992 which mandated 
standardized cable equipment, all consumers can benefit from a wide 
array of choices and suppliers at reasonable, market-driven cost. H.R. 
3636 requires the FCC to commence an inquiry to examine the importance 
of open and accessible systems in interactive communications. This 
section, often referred to as the set-top box provision, instructs the 
commission to prescribe changes in its unbundling regulations to ensure 
that interactive communications devices are available from third party 
vendors and retail outlets. As my colleagues are aware, the set-top box 
could soon become the gateway through most, if not all, information 
enters the American home.
  Most technological innovations in the area of information and 
telecommunications services have been developed without considering the 
needs of individuals with disabilities. The consequence has been that 
many of these innovations have been useless for individuals with 
disabilities. Indeed, the general failure to consider access for the 
disabled during the initial stages of telecommunications product and 
service development has actually led to a reduction in access for 
persons with disabilities.

  The national information infrastructure promises to bring 
information, health care, banking, shopping, and other services within 
easy reach at home or in the office through information services and 
products. In keeping with the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act's goal of fully integrating people with disabilities into the 
mainstream of society, the current legislation is designed to ensure 
access for the disabled as new telecommunications technologies and 
services are developed. Our legislation will ensure that advances in 
network services deployed by local exchange carriers and advances in 
telecommunications equipment will be accessible to people with 
disabilities where it would not result in an undue economic burden or 
an adverse competitive impact.
  In addition, H.R. 3636 directs the FCC to undertake inquiries for the 
provision of both closed captioning and video description services, and 
further directs the Commission to establish a schedule for the 
provision of closed captioning. The legislation aims to provide 
disabled Americans with access to advanced communications networks and 
the opportunities for independence, productivity, and integration that 
will result from these new services and products.
  Section 206 directs the Commission to establish a schedule or 
timetable for the implementation of closed captioning. It requires that 
new programming be made accessible through captioning and previously 
produced programming be made accessible to the maximum extent possible. 
The legislation also provides for exemptions from captioning 
requirements based on several factors. While much of prime time 
broadcast programming is now captioned, reports to the committee from 
the National Center for Law and Deafness indicate that less than 10 
percent of basic cable programming is captioned. This section would 
require that all video programming be captioned where economically 
feasible.
  During subcommittee consideration, questions were raised regarding 
the constitutionality of this section. I have attached a review of this 
issue from the Georgetown University Law Center which clearly finds 
that the section is constitutionally sound. I concur with the analysis 
which finds that the requirement is an incidental restriction subject 
to review under the standard set forth in United States versus O'Brien.
  In directing the Commission to establish a schedule for the provision 
of closed captioning, the committee intends that programming be made 
accessible to the 24 million Americans who are hearing impaired where 
it would not be unduly burdensome to the provider of the programming. 
The committee does not intend that programming not be aired due to the 
requirement for captioning. However, the committee has stated its clear 
goal that access for the disabled be considered and pursued at the 
outset of the development of new products and services.
  This provision is consistent with the first amendment because it is 
content neutral, and it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling 
governmental interest. That interest is to make communications 
available, as far as possible, to all the people of the United States.
  As more information essential to functioning in society moves onto 
advanced communications networks, it is critical that all citizens have 
access to this information. Many new services and products will be 
available over communications networks in video form, including health 
care services, library resources, educational information, financial 
and governmental data. Access to vital governmental information carried 
on these networks is critical to an informed electorate. Much of this 
information is necessary to full participation in work, school, and all 
aspects of life. As this information begins to be provided in video 
form, it is the goal of the committee that the 24 million Americans who 
are hearing impaired have full access to these products and services.
  H.R. 3636 strives to ensure that public broadcasters are also 
guaranteed a strong position in the development of the information 
superhighway. Public broadcasters, in my opinion, should be heralded as 
a preeminent example of innovative and responsible news media, 
fulfilling a critical role by providing quality programming and 
important community service to all facets of American society. They 
have been in the forefront of numerous technological innovations and 
have spearheaded a variety of educational projects that have benefited 
all Americans. In this tradition, I strongly believe that public 
broadcasters will continue to play a crucial role in the development of 
the national communications infrastructure. The language we have 
included in the legislation recognizes the limited resources available 
to this community, and requires the FCC to prescribe regulations to 
reserve appropriate capacity for the public at preferential rates on 
the video platform.

  Title III of this bill is designed to encourage economic 
opportunities for business enterprises owned by minorities and women. 
It requires each telecommunications provider interested in offering 
video services to submit to the FCC a plan which outlines procurement 
proposals from businesses owned by women and minorities.
  Title IV authorizes appropriations for the FCC to fulfill its 
obligations under the National Communications Competition and 
Information Infrastructure Act of 1994.
  In closing, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my fellow 
colleagues, Jack Fields, and Representatives Boucher, Oxley, Ralph 
Hall, Rick Lehman, Joe Barton, and other colleagues who helped craft a 
solid piece of legislation. This bill has become a model of consensus 
politics, and I thank each one of you for your contributions. I would 
also like to thank the staff on the subcommittee, Gerry Waldron, David 
Moulton, David Zesiger, Colin Crowell, Mark Horan, Kristan Van Hook, 
Karen Colannino, Steven Popeo, and Winnie Loeffler of my staff, Mike 
Regan and Cathy Reid, Gail Giblin, and Christy Strawman of Jack Fields' 
office who, together, worked many hard hours to develop the legislation 
we will vote on today.
  I urge you to support this H.R. 3636 and I yield back the balance of 
my time.


                             Georgetown University Law Center,

                                     Washington, DC, June 8, 1994.
     Hon. Edward J. Markey,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Markey: As you know, Section 206 of 
     H.R. 3636, The National Communications Competition and 
     Information Infrastructure Act of 1994, requires the Federal 
     Communications Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine 
     the extent to which video programming is closed captioned and 
     to ascertain other information relevant to closed captioning. 
     Sec. 206(a). It then directs the FCC to adopt regulations to 
     ensure that video programming produced after the effective 
     date is fully accessible through closed captioning and to 
     maximize access to video programming produced prior to the 
     effective date. Sec. 206(b). The statute also provides for 
     exemptions to the captioning requirement where the provision 
     of captioning would be unduly burdensome to the provider or 
     owner of the programming. Sec. 206(d).
       The constitutionality of these provisions has been 
     questioned by the Media Institute. See Letter of The Media 
     Institute to Rep. Moorhead, March 11, 1994 (``Media Institute 
     Letter''); The ACLU has also raised some concerns about these 
     provisions. See Letter of ACLU to Rep. Richardson, March 15, 
     1994 (``ACLU Letter''). The ACLU acknowledges that the closed 
     captioning requirement is merely an `'incidental 
     restriction'' subject to intermediate review under United 
     States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). It believes that the 
     outcome of such review is unclear. ACLU Letter at 4-5. The 
     Media Institute, however, asserts that Section 206 is 
     content-based, and thus would be subject to strict scrutiny. 
     Media Institute Letter at 3. Both the ACLU and Media 
     Institute letters express concern that the statute invests 
     unconstitutionally broad discretion with the FCC. Id. at 5; 
     ACLU Letter at 5.
       We have carefully studied these contentions and concluded 
     that the closed captioning requirement itself is 
     constitutional and that the statute gives constitutionally 
     adequate guidance to the FCC for its implementation.
       Let us observe at the outset, that if Section 206 were to 
     be challenged on First Amendment grounds, the challengers 
     would face two threshold obstacles. First, the canons of 
     statutory construction direct that a statute must be 
     construed, if fairly possible, to avoid the conclusion that 
     it is unconstitutional. See Rust v. Sullivan, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 
     1771 (1991) and cases cited therein. Second, a facial 
     challenge is ``the most difficult challenge to mount 
     successfully since the challenger must establish that no set 
     of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.'' 
     Id. at 1767, quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 
     745 (1987). We do not believe that such a showing could be 
     made here.
       Were someone to challenge Section 206 as violating the 
     First Amendment, the courts would undoubtedly find that 
     Section 206 is a content-neutral regulation subject to 
     intermediate scrutiny under the O'Brien test. Section 206 
     makes no distinctions on the basis of content. Indeed, the 
     only distinction made is between programming produced before 
     and after the effective date of the statute. Moreover, the 
     criteria for exemptions involve economic factors, not 
     content. Additionally, closed captioning does not require the 
     creation of new and different content; it merely requires 
     that the already produced verbal content be put in a form 
     accessible to persons with impaired hearing.
       Nor, should Section 206 be subject to strict scrutiny 
     because it ``forces'' speech. Relying on cases such as Wooley 
     v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977), Miami Herald Pub. Co. 
     v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), and Pacific Gas & Electric 
     Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1, 9 (1986) (PG&E), 
     the Media Institute and ACLU argue that Section 206 requires 
     unconstitutional forced speech. Media Institute Letter at 1-
     3; ACLU Letter at 2-3. However, these cases involved 
     situations which imposed burdens on speech, in contrast to 
     Section 206.
       In Wooley v. Maynard, the Court found that a state may not 
     constitutionally compel an individual to display the slogan 
     ``Live Free or Die'' on his license plate if he found it 
     morally objectionable. 430 U.S. at 714-15. In Miami Herald, 
     the Court struck down a right of reply statute that required 
     newspapers that criticized a political candidate to publish a 
     reply. 418 U.S. at 256-58. In PG&E, the Court found it 
     unconstitutional to force a utility company to include in its 
     billing envelopes the speech of a group with whom the company 
     disagrees. 475 U.S. at 9-16.
       What each of these cases have in common is that they 
     involved a regulation that compelled a speaker to make 
     utterances with which he or she disagreed. Section 206, 
     however, does not require anyone to say something that he or 
     she disagrees with. It merely requires video programmers to 
     make the speech they freely chose to make available for 
     public distribution accessible to persons with impaired 
     hearing.
       Nor, does Riley v. Nat'l Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 
     781, 797 (1988) provide any support for ACLU's position. In 
     Riley, the Court found it unconstitutional to require 
     professional fundraisers to disclose the percentage of 
     charitable contributions actually turned over to charity 
     because such ``compelled disclosure will almost certainly 
     hamper the legitimate efforts of professional fundraisers to 
     raise money for the charities they represent'' and 
     discriminates against small charities which must usually rely 
     on professional fundraisers. Id. at 799. Here, unlike in 
     Riley, however, where the provision of captioning would be 
     unduly burdensome, an exemption is available.
       Thus, Section 206 is clearly content neutral and should be 
     evaluated under the O'Brien test. Under this test, content 
     neutral regulations will be upheld if they are ``narrowly 
     tailored'' to serve an ``important or substantial 
     governmental interest.'' 391 U.S. at 377.
       Here, closed captioning furthers the government's long 
     standing interest as expressed in the FCC's universal service 
     obligation: to make communications ``available, so far as 
     possible, to all the people of the United States.'' 
     Communications Act of 1934, Sec. 1, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151. 
     Congress has furthered this interest by passing numerous 
     pieces of legislation designed to increase the access of 
     persons with impaired hearing to communications. See, e.g., 
     Telecommunications for the Disabled Act of 1982, P.L. 97-410, 
     codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 610, as amended (1988) (insuring 
     reasonable access to telephone service by persons with 
     impaired hearing); Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, P.L 
     100-394, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 610 (1988) (finding that 
     hearing impaired persons should have equal access to the 
     national telecommunications network to the fullest extent 
     possible and requiring the FCC to enact rules to require that 
     telephones manufactured or imported after August 1989 be 
     hearing aid compatible); Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 2215, et seq. (requiring telephone 
     companies to provide relay services to enable individuals who 
     use TDDs to communicate with anyone, at any time, over the 
     telephone); Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, 47 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 303(u), 330(b) (1991) (requiring all 
     television sets with screens 13 inches or larger which are 
     manufactured or imported after July 1, 1993 to be capable 
     of displaying closed captioned television programs).
       In the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, Congress 
     specifically found that ``closed captioned television 
     transmissions have made it possible for thousands of deaf and 
     hearing-impaired people to gain access to the television 
     medium, thus significantly improving the quality of their 
     lives'' and that ``closed-captioned television will provide 
     access to information, entertainment and a greater 
     understanding of our Nation and the world to over 24,000,000 
     people in the United States who are deaf or hearing impaired. 
     P.L. Law 101-431, Sec. Sec. 2(2) & 2(3). Now that more 
     television sets are able to display closed-captioned 
     programming, requiring video programming to be closed-
     captioned will likewise further these important government 
     interests.
       Closed captioning benefits not just people who are deaf or 
     hard of hearing, but also children learning to read, persons 
     for whom English is a second language, and adults who are 
     illiterate or remedial readers. See H.R. Rep. No. 767, 101st 
     Cong., 2d Sess. 5-6; S. Rep. 398, 101st Sess., 2d Sess. 1-2. 
     It is estimated that nearly 100 million Americans can benefit 
     from television captioning. Thus, there can be no question 
     that Section 206 furthers a substantial governmental purpose.
       Furthermore, Section 206 is narrowly tailored to achieve 
     those government purposes. To be narrowly tailored, the 
     regulation need not be the least restrictive; the government 
     need only show that its interest would be achieved less 
     effectively absent the regulation. Ward v. Rock Against 
     Racism, 491 U.S. at 799-800 (1989). Here, it is clear that 
     the governmental purpose of making programming accessible 
     would not be achieved without the requirements of Section 
     206. While some types of video programming are already 
     captioned (approximately 75 percent of television network 
     programming is closed captioned), the vast majority of video 
     programming (especially programming available on basic cable 
     channels) is not and is unlikely to be captioned in the 
     foreseeable future absent the proposed legislation. Moreover, 
     exemptions are available to provide relief where closed 
     captioning will be unnecessarily burdensome.
       Nor is Section 206 constitutionally suspect because it 
     gives the FCC overly broad discretion to grant exemptions. 
     Media Institute Letter at 5; ACLU Letter at 5. Citing 
     Lakewood v, Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 
     (1988), the Media Institute claims that the Section 206 would 
     vest unbridled discretion with the FCC, permitting it to 
     exempt from Section 206's captioning requirement ``the 
     programming it favors and to deny exemptions to programming 
     it disfavors.'' Media Institute Letter at 5.
       This reasoning is surely backwards. First, it erroneously 
     assumes the FCC is entitled to exercise its discretion in an 
     unconstitutional way. Second, it makes the unfounded 
     assumption that the FCC actually favors certain programming. 
     Third, even if we were to accept this peculiar notion, would 
     not the FCC want that favored programming to receive wider 
     distribution, i.e., to require captioning, rather than the 
     other way around?
       But fortunately, Section 206 does not give unbridled 
     discretion to the FCC. Indeed, unlike the statute in 
     Lakewood, which contained no explicit limits on the mayor's 
     discretion to grant or deny permits for news racks, Section 
     206 provides explicit criteria for the FCC to use in 
     considering exemptions. First, the FCC may by regulation 
     exempt ``programs, classes of programs or services'' if it 
     finds that closed captioning would be ``economically 
     burdensome to the provider or owner of such programming.'' 
     Sec. 206(d)(1) (emphasis added). Second, a video programming 
     provider or owner may petition the Commission for an 
     exemption, and the Commission may grant it upon a showing 
     that adhering to closed captioning requirements would result 
     in an ``undue burden.'' Sec. 206(d)(3). ``Undue burden'' is 
     defined as ``significant difficulty or expense.'' 
     Sec. 206(d). In determining whether compliance would entail 
     undue burden, the FCC is directed to consider specific 
     factors: the nature and cost of the closed captions for the 
     programming; the impact on the operation of the provider or 
     program owner; the financial resources of the provider or 
     program owner; and the type of operations of the provider or 
     program owner.
       Section 206's definition of ``undue burden'' is patterned 
     after use of this term in the Americans With Disabilities Act 
     (``ADA''). See, e.g., ADA Sec. 301(b)(2)(A)(iii). ``Undue 
     burden'' in the ADA, in turn, was patterned after the term 
     ``undue hardship,'' as that term has been used in the 
     implementation of the Rehabilitation Act since 1973. S. Rep. 
     No. 116, 101st Cong, 1st Sess. at 63 & 35-36. Agency 
     interpretations of both of these terms--``undue burden'' and 
     ``undue hardship''--have consistently relied on economic 
     criteria, allowing waivers only after consideration of the 
     cost to an applicant of a particular accommodation and the 
     relative resources of the applicant. Id. at 36. Moreover, 
     Department of Justice regulations implementing the ADA also 
     define ``undue burden'' to mean ``significant difficulty 
     or expense.'' 28 C.F.R. Sec. 36.104. The regulations list 
     five factors to be considered in determining whether an 
     action would result in ``undue burden.'' These factors 
     closely track the factors listed in Section 206(d). Thus, 
     the term ``undue burden'' in Section 206 brings with it a 
     long history of being a well-defined, content-neutral 
     standard for granting exemptions from captioning and other 
     requirements.
       By no stretch of the imagination can one conclude that 
     Section 206 leaves the FCC free to grant waivers on the basis 
     of whether or not it favors particular programming. Rather it 
     limits the relevant factors for FCC consideration to the 
     costs of providing access and the ability of the affected 
     entity to afford those costs. It clearly meets the 
     requirement established in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 
     U.S. 104, 108 (1972), that laws affecting free speech provide 
     explicit standards for those who apply them.
       The ACLU understands that undue burden is ``defined largely 
     on the basis of its financial or other impact on the service 
     provider.'' ACLU Letter at 5. Specifically, it expresses the 
     concern that ``a smaller provider might be exempted for 
     programming that is intended to reach a wider audience than a 
     larger, more well-heeled provider who has made a conscious 
     effort to reach a specific, more narrow audience.'' Id. It 
     suggests that discrimination between speakers merely on the 
     basis of financial ability is constitutionally suspect 
     because it ``favors certain classes of speakers over 
     others.'' Id. citing Home Box Office v. FCC, 657 F.2d 9, 48 
     (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 829 (1977) 
     (``HBO'').
       ACLU's reasoning, however, is both legally and factually 
     flawed. Whether the intended audience is broad or narrow is 
     irrelevant--in either case, it will contain viewers who would 
     benefit from closed captioning. While the size of the 
     provider may be relevant to its ability to pay for the cost 
     of captioning, there is no reason to assume that content 
     provided by smaller providers is somehow distinct from 
     content provider by wealthier providers. In HBO, the D.C. 
     Circuit suggested that regulations favoring certain classes 
     of speakers were constitutionally suspect only where the 
     Government's intent was to curtail expression. 567 F.2d at 
     47-48. Here, there is no constitutional problem because there 
     is no basis to believe that financial resources is somehow 
     being utilized as a proxy for certain types of expression 
     that the government wishes to curtail. Rather, the 
     government's purpose is merely to make as much programming as 
     possible available to as large an audience as possible. And 
     as the Supreme Court has observed ``a regulation that serves 
     purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed 
     neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some 
     speakers or messages but not others.'' Ward v. Rock 
     Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 791.
       ACLU next expresses concern that the FCC might exempt news 
     programming from the captioning requirement because there 
     would be no time to incorporate closed captioning into 
     breaking news stories. In fact, this assumption is wrong. The 
     ACLU is apparently unfamiliar with ``real time captioning'' 
     in which captions are simultaneously created and transmitted, 
     using stenotypists and specialized computer software. Real 
     time captioning is already being used by all national news 
     programs and almost 200 local news programs.
       Finally, the fact that Section 206 vests some discretion in 
     the FCC does not make the provision unconstitutional. In 
     responding to a similar challenge in Ward, the Supreme Court 
     observed: ``While these standards are undoubtedly flexible, 
     and the officials implementing them will exercise 
     considerable discretion, perfect clarity and precise guidance 
     have never been required even of regulations that restrict 
     expressive activity.'' 491 U.S. at 794. It is appropriate for 
     Congress to assume that the FCC will implement Section 206 in 
     a constitutional manner. It is a long-standing and well-
     accepted practice of Congress to leave the applications of 
     such standards to administrative agencies. Indeed, Congress 
     has routinely delegated to the FCC the responsibility to 
     adopt implementing regulations and to grant exemptions with 
     much more potential to influence content than Section 206. 
     See, e.g., Communications Act of 1934, a amended, 
     Sec. 315(a), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 315(a) (FCC to determine which 
     programs are bona fide news programs exempt from equal 
     opportunities for political candidates); Id. Sec. 223(b)(3) 
     (directing FCC to prescribe procedures by regulation for 
     restricting access to indecent communications that will 
     constitute a defense to prosecution for violation of law 
     prohibiting indecent communications by telephone); Id. 
     Sec. 532(c)(4)(B) (directing the FCC to establish rules for 
     determining the maximum rates, terms and conditions under 
     which unaffiliated programmers can lease channels on cable 
     systems).
       In the unlikely event that the FCC were to interpret or 
     apply Section 206 in an unconstitutional manner, judicial 
     review would be available at that time. However, even if the 
     agency's interpretation or application of a provision were 
     found to be unconstitutional, this would not necessarily mean 
     that the statute itself was unconstitutional. See Rust v. 
     Sullivan, 111 S. Ct. at 1771.
       In sum, the concerns that Section 206 violates the First 
     Amendment are unfounded. The requirement that the FCC adopt 
     regulations to require closed captioning is a content-neutral 
     regulation narrowly tailored to serve a substantial 
     government interest. It would easily pass scrutiny under the 
     O'Brien test, and given the substantial nature of the 
     governmental interest and lack of alternative means, would 
     even likely survive strict scrutiny. Moreover, Section 206 is 
     not vague, and provides adequate standards to believe that 
     the FCC will implement it in a constitutional manner.
       We appreciate the opportunity of providing this analysis to 
     you and hope that it will be helpful.
           Sincerely,
     Angela J. Campbell,
       Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law 
     Center.
     Steven H. Shiffrin,
       Professor of Law, Cornell University.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1994.
     Representative John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce expects to mark up H.R. 3636, the National 
     Communications and Information Infrastructure Act of 1993, 
     this week. We are pleased that section 103 of the bill 
     proposes to provide preferential telephone rates to 
     elementary and secondary schools as well as to public 
     libraries as a part of the overhauling of our national 
     telecommunications policy. If enacted, these provisions could 
     make access to the national superhighway affordable for all 
     students and users of public libraries, regardless of a 
     community's wealth or geographic location. All too often 
     schools and libraries, the fundamental underpinnings of our 
     communities, are left on the sidelines of the technological 
     revolution. The bill helps to correct this problem. The 
     preferential rate provisions of H.R. 3636 could complement 
     several technology-related programs incorporated into H.R. 6, 
     a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act, which is presently pending before the House.
       We laud your efforts, and that of Chairman Markey, on 
     behalf of schools and libraries. We would urge, however, that 
     you also consider extending the preferential rates to 
     ``libraries which the public may access'', rather than the 
     more narrowly framed wording of the bill, ``public 
     libraries'', and to educational institutions at all levels. 
     We are concerned, for example, that there are many 
     postsecondary education institutions, including two-year 
     community colleges and many others which will simply not be 
     able to afford full participation in the network, unless 
     basic telephone rates are sufficiently low. At the very 
     least, we would urge that there be a feasibility study by the 
     Federal Communications Commission to expand preferential 
     rates for these other categories.
       We would appreciate inclusion of this letter in your 
     Committee's report on H.R. 3636, to recognize the Education 
     and Labor's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 3636.
           Sincerely,
     William D. Ford,
       Chairman.
     William F. Goodling,
       Ranking Republican.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3636, the National Communications Competition and Information 
Infrastructure Act of 1993. This legislation, like its companion 
measure H.R. 3626, which we have just considered, is more than just a 
telecommunications reform bill, it is legislation that will impact the 
future of this country--it will foster economic growth, create new jobs 
in a high tech industry, and spur greater U.S. competitiveness in the 
global telecommunications market.
  Unquestionably the rapid changes in the telecommunications world will 
revolutionize the way all Americans live their lives. What we are doing 
today is simply saying that there should be a road map--some national 
principles--that guide the manner in which that revolution occurs.
  Presently we have no single guiding light on telecommunications 
policy. We have a patchwork of court decisions, consent decrees, a 60-
year-old Federal statute based on railroad laws, and similar State 
utility laws that, taken in toto, dampens incentives and opportunities 
for U.S. telecommunications companies to build the information 
superhighway. Today we begin the process of setting policy on course 
toward building that highway to the future.
  What we recognize today is that all telecommunications are 
converging, the traditional bright lines that separated telephone 
companies from cable companies from broadcast companies no longer exist 
or make any sense. Recognizing this fact, Congress passed legislation 
last year to reform the world of wireless communications, to treat 
mobile, paging and other wireless services in the same manner when they 
are providing similar services. Today we are engaged in a similar 
process for the wired world: telephone companies providing cable and 
cable and others providing local telephone service.
  H.R. 3636 recognizes that the traditional monopolies of cable and 
local telephone service make no sense any longer. This infrastructure 
bill will tear down the legal and regulatory barriers that have 
perpetuated those monopolies and allow competition to flourish. Healthy 
competition in these markets is the best guarantor we can have that the 
telecommunications products and services of the future will be brought 
as swiftly and fairly priced to all Americans as possible.
  There has been a significant amount of discussion throughout this 
process about creating the proverbial level playing field for all 
industry participants, and we have endeavored to ensure that the field 
is level. But as Members of Congress, our first duty is to create a 
level playing field for our constituents, the American public. As we 
enter the information age, our first responsibility is to ensure that 
all Americans--regardless of their demographics, regardless of their 
economic status, and regardless of their racial or ethnic make-up, have 
equal access to the information age. The overarching, and most 
important, objective of this bill is to ensure that this level playing 
field exists.
  Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 3636. I want to comment my good friend the subcommittee chairman, 
Mr. Markey, for his leadership and vision in bringing us to this 
historic day. I might add, we have had 40 meetings in negotiating this 
legislation. I want to thank Messers. Boucher and Oxley for their 
invaluable contributions to this effort as well as the many other 
committee members who contributed to producing this critically 
important legislation. Finally, I want to thank the full committee 
chairman and ranking member, Messrs. Dingell and Moorhead, for their 
hard work and persistence in bringing this measure before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], chairman of the subcommittee. As he has 
mentioned, we have had 2 years of meetings. He told me just a moment 
ago that we have had 40 personal meetings. I appreciate the fact that 
this piece of legislation has been handled in a bipartisan way and that 
we have had this level of discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman for his leadership and 
his vision in this important matter. It brings us to this historic day. 
I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for their invaluable contributions to 
this effort, as well as many of our other subcommittee members, in 
producing what I think is a critical and a bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Dingell], the chairman, for the atmosphere he has provided on 
working on this, again in a bipartisan manner. When people criticize 
Congress, they cannot criticize the efforts of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, particularly on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] for his leadership in again 
providing us with the atmosphere in which to negotiate a very delicate 
balance with a number of competing interests, and I hold this out to my 
colleagues as one of the best pieces of legislation that will come 
before this House this year, and thus far in my career, a piece of 
legislation that all of us should be proud of and support.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Markey], chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Fields], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, 
the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], and a 
large number of other Members who have worked very hard.
  Mr. Speaker, complaint was made that this legislation and the prior 
legislation, H.R. 3626, are going through too fast. The hard fact is 
that we are getting this legislation through in something like 80 
minutes after about 30 years of hard work in getting it in order. The 
effort to present this legislation to the floor has been bipartisan in 
its entirety.
  The members of the full committee, the subcommittee, and of the 
leadership of both of those institutions deserve great credit for the 
hard work, for the effective, capable, dedicated, and decent way in 
which this legislation has been assembled.
  Mr. Speaker, the country deserves to know of the work of these 
wonderful men and women, and also deserves to have the opportunity to 
express the thanks that they properly should feel for milestone 
legislation which is going to restructure the entirety of American 
telecommunications for the benefit of all the people. This is a day 
which we should celebrate, and I commend my colleagues. I thank them 
for the hard work which they have done.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Moorhead], our ranking minority member.
  (Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
of 1994. This legislation is an important step in bringing a 60-year-
old communications statute--the Communications Act of 1934--into the 
21st century.
  H.R. 3636 provides the statutory framework for the provision of new 
and advanced telecommunications services to the American people. In 
short, it lays the groundwork for the much talked-about information 
superhighway.
  The bill accomplishes this goal by promoting competition and 
deregulating where appropriate. First, H.R. 3636 opens up local 
exchange telephone service to competition.
  By opening up the local loop, H.R. 3636 brings an end to monopolies 
in the local telephone market. Consistent with this action, the bill 
also declares an end to monopoly regulation by mandating the abolition 
of rate-of-return regulation for local telephone service.
  H.R. 3636 also achieves competition in the video marketplace by 
permitting telephone companies to provide video programming within 
their service areas. The bill also encourages the development of a 
vibrant video programming market in other ways. For example, the bill 
gives broadcasters the flexibility to use their assigned spectrum in a 
variety of ways.
  Finally, the bill encourages access to the information superhighway 
to all program providers on reasonable terms and conditions. The bill 
also seeks to promote the provision of advanced telecommunications 
services to all Americans seeking such services.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of the kind of legislation the 
American people expect us to pass. From the very start, the complicated 
issues underlying this bill were addressed in a bipartisan and orderly 
manner. The subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, under the 
leadership of Chairman Markey and Congressman Fields held seven 
hearings, receiving testimony from over 50 witnesses. The subcommittee 
and full committee examined over 200 amendments.
  Through bipartisan cooperation, this bill was reported unanimously 
out of the energy and commerce committee on a 44-to-0 vote. This vote 
reflects the hard work put in by Chairman Dingell, Chairman Markey, 
Congressmen Fields, Oxley, Boucher, and others in drafting the bill and 
perfecting it during the committee process.
  Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting H.R. 3636.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Boucher].
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of these bills we will 
enact the largest reform in telecommunications law and policy in the 
60-year history of the 1934 Communications Act.
  One of our goals is to bring competition to industries that are now 
monopolies.
  Telephone companies will be free to offer cable TV inside their 
telephone service territories.
  Cable companies and others will be granted the right to offer local 
telephone service, bringing to consumers the same choices in local 
telephone services that they have today with long distance.
  The Brooks-Dingell measure will make noncompetitive the markets for 
more long distance and the manufacture of equipment.
  This new competition will produce tangible benefits:
  Consumers of Cable TV and telephone services will receive the benefit 
of better prices set by a competitive market.
  The ration will receive the benefit of a vastly improved network, as 
telephone and cable companies deploy fiber optic lines, other broadband 
technology and more capable switches to facilities the simultaneous 
offering of voice, television and data over the same lines.
  And this is the means by which we will obtain deployment in the 
nation of the world's most modern network. The rational information 
infrastucture will be deployed not through the expenditure of 
government funds but by giving private companies the business reasons 
to put new networks in place.
  The legislation we will pass today provides those business reasons. 
It brings down the barriers that have preserved monolopies and 
inhibited competition.
  The result will be an avalanche of new business investment, as 
communications companies install new networking technology to bring 
entertainment, information, and new business opportunities to homes and 
offices throughout the Nation.

  Another of our goals is to preserve the concept of universal service, 
the structure of which is threatened as competition comes to local 
telephone service. By imposing a proportionate universal since funding 
responsibility on all local telephone competitors, we sustain for the 
future a proud American tradition in which 96% of our citizens have 
local telephone service.
  A third important goal is to create a fair and level arena for all 
communications companies. We are freeing television stations to offer 
voice and data as well as TV services. We encourage wireless technology 
as a full participant in the provision of multimedia services, and we 
create a fair pale attachment rate equally applicable to all 
competitors.
  I have been honored to work with the members of the 
Telecommunications subcommittee in creating these reforms. I 
particularly want to commend the gentleman from Mars, [Mr. Markey] for 
his leadership, guidance, and persistence. It is not easy to create a 
broad consensus involving issues of this complexity, but he has 
presided over a highly constructive process that has achieved that 
goal.

  I also want to commend my friends Jack Fields and Mike Oxley for 
their excellent work. The superb bi-partisan cooperation which they 
have provided is yet another reason that the Energy and Commerce 
Committee is so successful in crafting for reaching reforms that come 
to the floor without controversy.
  For 3 years, Mr. Oxley and I have worked to remove the barriers to 
competition in the cable TV industry, and as we pass the bill which 
accomplishes that result, I thank him for his splendid cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor these constructive reforms and 
to urge their passage by the House.
  They will create millions of jobs, stimulate billions of dollars of 
investment, and bring to the United States the world's finest 
communications network.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, section 107 of H.R. 3636 amends the Pole 
Amendment Act (47 U.S.C. 224). This amendment is intended to ensure 
that all attachments bear an equitable share of the costs of a pole or 
conduit. In its current form, however, the formula mandated by section 
107 requires more than a proportionate share of the costs from those 
who are not owners or co-owners of the poles and conduits. I would like 
the agreement of the ranking minority member of the Telecommunications 
Subcommittee and the gentleman from Virginia to work with me to fashion 
an amendment that reflects this distinction.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOUCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to work with the 
chairman. As currently written, the pole attachment language of H.R. 
3636 could triple or quintuple the pole attachment fees paid by cable 
operators when they begin to offer telecommunications services. Such a 
result is not only inequitable, it will discourage operators from 
constructing and operating telecommunications facilities. I am 
confident we can devise a means of preventing this outcome while 
ensuring that the owners of poles and conduits are adequately 
compensated for use of their facilities.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas that I am pleased to join 
with them in revisiting the pole attachment provisions. While I am 
reserving judgment as to the substance of the matter, I will be pleased 
to work with them in crafting some modification of the current 
provisions.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], a member who has worked very hard on this 
particular piece of legislation.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
National Communications Competition and Infrastructure Act of 1994. As 
Members know, this legislation will accelerate the construction of the 
information superhighway. It will promote competition in local 
telephone by allowing cable companies to provide telephone service, and 
will promote competition in the cable industry by enabling telephone 
companies to offer video services. I want to praise Chairman Markey, 
Congressman Fields, and every member of our Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance for the long hours of 
work they put into crafting this legislation.
  What makes this significant legislation possible is the clear 
consensus which has emerged in favor of competition, deregulation, and 
entrepreneurialism. The approach that this measure takes 
toward the development of the telecommunications supersystem is one 
that I have endorsed for years. By lifting market-entry prohibitions 
and reducing government regulation we will ensure that 
American consumers are served with the most advanced telecommunications 
system in the world. Equally important, I am confident that by 
providing competition in the video service industry, this measure will 
give consumers the cable rate relief that the 1992 cable act did not.

  I would like to add that while advancing private competition and 
deregulation are traditionally Republican themes, I was joined in my 
early efforts to promote this approach by a clear-thinking Demoract, 
the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Boucher].
  Mr. Speaker, what this measure seeks to do is end the virtual 
monopolies that exist in the video programming and the local telephone 
markets. It is revolutionary legislation, and I urge all my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar].
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
of 1994.
  This bill, and its companion, H.R. 3626, represents the critical push 
we need to bring jobs, innovative technology, and services to Oklahoma 
and the Nation well into the next century. The growth and 
implementation of the national superhighway bodes well for the citizens 
of my State, where we expect to gain a healthy share of the 3.6 million 
newly created high-skill, high-wage jobs, a broad selection of 
consumer, telemedicine, and educational services for rural areas, and 
the ability to export Oklahoma-made goods to world markets in the 
future.
  The National Communications Competition and Information 
Infrastructure Act builds upon principles that I have promoted since we 
began hearings on the bill. These essential elements include a 
commitment to universal service for all Americans, whether rural or 
urban, development of networks that are open and reliable, proper cost 
allocation between consumers and competitors, and effective FCC 
enforcement.
  The importance of giving all Americans access to the information 
highway, and the host of educational, health, economic, and quality of 
life benefits it will provide, cannot be understated. As a nation, and 
a government, we must not bestow the benefits of the information 
highways on some, and deny others, just because they live in out of the 
way places or in poor urban neighborhoods. Our work on this issue must 
be done with great care and compassion, for real social disruption 
could result if we do our job poorly.
  In listening to the debate over how to provide and upgrade universal 
service in a rapidly changing telecommunications environment, I 
developed three core principles for evaluating the proposals before us. 
First, to echo title I of the 1934 communications act, all the people 
of the United States must get service at a reasonable charge. Second, 
the quality of the service must be available to all on equal basis, 
regardless of geographic location or economic station. And third, the 
service must be provided in a prompt fashion to all citizens--no area 
of the country should be left off the information highway for any 
length of time.
  The bill before us today is a good starting point for addressing the 
principles I have raised. On several key issues, however, such as the 
definition and the funding of universal service, the bill gives basic 
authority for these decisions to a Federal-State Joint Board. I have 
some concerns about delegating such broad authority for such essential 
issues to this Board, and I will be looking forward to overseeing the 
progress in these areas.
  Along these lines, I am pleased to note that the bill contains 
specific provisions to ensure rural areas are not left behind as the 
private sector moves forward to deploy new technology to consumers. As 
drafted, the exemptions allow the Commission to apply initially equal 
access and interconnection requirements specifically to rural providers 
only when they would not be unduly burdensome and economically 
unfeasible. We recognize in this legislation something that rural 
telephone and cable consumers in Oklahoma have known for a long time: 
that new entrants to a market often face tremendous obstacles if they 
must compete against an entrenched service provider. The goal of this 
rural package is to encourage competition in these markets so that 
residents get new services quickly and at lower prices.
  It is important to remember that the future cost of our national 
infrastructure should not be borne by rate payers who remain captive to 
regulated industries. People who want only a Chevy should not have to 
pay the cost of a Cadillac. Certainly, consumers with new demands for 
upscale, integrated services expect to bear the proper and equitable 
cost of such services if they select them. Moreover, providers that use 
the telecommunications network to reach their consumers should pay for 
all the direct costs such services incur, as well as a reasonable share 
of the joint and common costs of the network. The bottom line is this: 
as technology advances, we are clearly going to encounter a declining 
cost industry, and the appropriate savings from these efficiencies 
should be reflected in a consumer's phone bill.
  We ensure this goal by providing specific language in the legislation 
prohibiting cross subsidization between a common carrier's telephone 
exchange service and a common carrier's other nonregulated activities 
and investments. Cross subsidization occurs when a telephone company 
uses revenues derived from captive ratepayers to subsidize the 
company's nonregulated business ventures. The effect of this practice 
is twofold: the cost of service to ratepayers increases and the 
telephone company's nonregulated business ventures receive a 
comparative competitive advantage over their rivals in those 
businesses.
  However, it is difficult for regulators to properly enforce these 
cross-subsidy prohibitions without making sure a rigorous cost 
allocation scheme is in place. Unless, and until, the costs incurred by 
the telephone company are properly allocated between the regulated 
entity and the nonregulated entity any cross subsidization regulation 
cannot be effectively enforced. My amendment, offered and adopted in 
full committee, puts real teeth into the original cross-subsidy 
prohibition by including cost allocation language that empowers the FCC 
to audit telephone exchange providers to make sure that consumers are 
fairly charged for the services they receive.
  Enforcement of any regulatory structure rests on the ability of the 
agency in charge to get the job done. That is why I also offered, and 
the full committee adopted, an amendment to ensure that the FCC can use 
its authority given under the 1993 budget act to collect fees from the 
industry it regulates and target them to augment the FCC's sorely 
understaffed auditing, rulemaking, and legislative review functions. 
The estimated cost for the FCC's implementation of H.R. 3636 is $44 
million in 1995, and up to $30 million each year thereafter. This 
amendment will enable the Commission to get a head start on defraying 
its administrative costs upon enactment, so that taxpayers aren't 
solely responsible for bearing these expenses.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that a locked door without a 
key cannot be opened and the opportunities inside cannot be enjoyed. 
Universal service, proper cost allocation, and effective enforcement 
are the keys to the information highway for all Americans. I look 
forward to reaching these goals as we move forward on final passage of 
the legislation in this Congress.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and 
especially want to thank the committee for their protections for the 
deaf and the hard of hearing section that is included in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626, 
legislation which will establish new telecommunications policy for our 
Nation and help move our Nation forward into the 21st century. 
Congressmen Dingell, Brooks, Fish, Moorhead, and Fields are to be 
commended for their efforts to forge compromise legislation which will 
increase competition within the telecommunications industry and which 
will bring new goods and services to consumers across our country.
  These bills contain necessary policy reforms that are required to 
bring our Nation's telecommunications policy up to date with both the 
changing technologies and the changing marketplace. Both the 
technologies and the marketplace have completely bypassed existing 
telecommunications policy to the detriment of our Nation's economy and 
to our constituents.
  In addition, I note with particular interest the support of the 
disabled community for these measures. I commend the authors of this 
legislation for requiring that Bell Company manufactured equipment and 
advances in network services be accessible to people with disabilities 
as outlined in section 229 of H.R. 3626. Title IV of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act has made the voice telephone accessible to people who 
are deaf or hard of hearing through the establishment of telephone 
relay services. And H.R. 3636 assures that individuals who are deaf 
will enjoy more complete access to cable programming, as much more of 
it would be captioned. Gallaudet University's Mark Goldfarb and Dr. 
Margaret Pfanstiehl of Metropolitan Washington Bar testified that these 
access provisions are long overdue.
  I agree and urge my colleague to support provisions that, like those 
in H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636, provide deaf and blind Americans the equal 
access they deserve.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
of 1994, I rise in support of this legislation. In a nutshell, this 
legislation has two major objectives: First, to open up the local 
telephone loop within 1 year to enable new entrants to compete for 
local exchange service with the incumbent telephone companies and, 
second, to permit cable and telephone companies to compete in each 
other's business.
  This bill reflects not only good public policy, but also the 
commendable efforts of our colleagues Chairman Markey and ranking 
Republican member, Mr. Fields, to achieve what has been appropriately 
described by some as the ``impossible dream.''
  As the legislative process proceeds, we need to remain vigilant to 
ensure that all industries will be able to fully compete with each 
other as quickly as possible and with the fewest regulatory 
constraints. Where regulation occurs, it should be equivalent 
regulation so that every player is required to be regulated in a 
similar manner as they strive to gain market share from the other. We 
should guarantee that asymmetrical treatment of new entrants in the 
marketplace is eliminated.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that America is standing on the brink 
of a new information age. At stake today is whether our constituents--
individual consumers--are allowed to enjoy the fundamental benefits of 
enhanced choice and access. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 3636.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3636, 
the National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure 
Act of 1994. This comprehensive piece of legislation has been a long 
time in the making and it is rewarding to see it come to floor with 
such bipartisan support. I congratulate our colleagues on both sides of 
the isle for keeping their focus on the merits of this legislation. We 
are on the verge of entirely new industries and ways of communicating. 
H.R. 3636 points us in the right direction.
  I am proud to have played a part in the evolution on this monumental 
legislation. The process that has brought this bill to the floor has 
been receptive to many important concerns. From universal service to 
public access, H.R. 3636 addresses the abundance of concerns relative 
to delivering telecommunications services. I am particularly pleased 
that H.R. 3636 addresses specific concerns with regard to rural areas, 
minorities, information redlining, programming access, and public, 
educational, and governmental access.
  Rural issues are of great concern to me and I was pleased to support 
provisions to ensure universal service and infrastructure sharing for 
rural telephone companies. A progressive universal service plan is 
necessary to ensure that all Americans have access to the information 
superhighway and I am hopeful that all New Mexicans and Americans will 
soon be the beneficiaries of competition in the local telephone market. 
The costs associated with upgrading telecommunications systems to offer 
enhanced services is prohibitive for many smaller telephone companies 
and cooperatives. I am pleased to have supported an infrastructure 
sharing provision which will allow smaller entities to access the 
services of larger telephone exchanges.
  I was pleased to include provisions regarding equal employment 
opportunities and information redlining. Minorities are seriously 
lacking as participants in the telecommunications industry. Today H.R. 
3636 has language that would hold telephone companies that provide 
cable services to the same EEO standard as cable operators must now 
abide by. I think this is a small but important step toward equalizing 
the telecommunications playing field. As new telecommunications systems 
are built, an issue which will of continuing concern will be access, 
for all Americans, to new services. H.R. 3636 addresses my concerns 
regarding information redlining. The ability of providers of new 
services to discriminate against specific geographic areas on the basis 
of race or economic status is too great. I am pleased that the 
committee took a progressive step and made explicit that the FCC must 
take into account the demographic makeup of the proposed area to 
receive new services.
  Cable television plays an important and growing part of the 
information superhighway. It is imperative that the legislation provide 
for a competitive marketplace for small cable operators. Small cable 
operators provide services to small populations in remote areas which 
larger operators have no commercial interest in serving. I am pleased 
that this legislation contains several, important provisions to provide 
for a competitive marketplace for small cable operators. For example, 
the legislation would be preempt State and local barriers for new 
telecommunications services, prohibiting local government entities from 
over-regulating cable's provision of telecommunications services. H.R. 
3636 also allows for joint ventures, mergers, and acquisitions to occur 
in areas with populations of less than 10,000, or when a cable system 
serves less than 10 percent of the households in a telephone company's 
service area. While such provisions are a step in the right 
direction, I hope that additional issues will be addressed in the 
legislative process. For instance, franchise requirements for providers 
of cable services must be balanced so that everyone plays by the same 
rules. Additionally, interconnection and access requirements must be 
ensured so that small cable operators have fair and equal access to the 
information highway.

  Lastly, I am pleased that H.R. 3636 addresses public, educational, 
and governmental concerns. If the information superhighway is going to 
serve our democracy then it is critical that these institutions have 
access to reach all Americans.
  Again, I support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act.
  When my constituents in Colorado need a telephone line, there is only 
one company they can call to provide that service. When my constituents 
want cable service, again, there is only one company to provide it.
  The consumer choice of all Americans is limited in the 
telecommunications market today. But that choice is not limited by 
technology. It is limited by outdated laws and regulations that were 
designed over the last 60 years.
  For instance, in most States, it is illegal for anyone to provide an 
alternative to the phone company.
  H.R. 3636 clears the way for competition--and thus more choice, lower 
prices, and better service--in all segments of the telecommunications 
marketplace.
  By sweeping away the laws that prevent competition in both the local 
telephone and cable market, H.R. 3636 paves the way for the next 
generation of advanced telecommunications networks. This is truly a 
revolutionary bill and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Before I finish, Mr. Speaker, let me also briefly address one aspect 
of H.R. 3636, the Dingell-Brooks legislation to lift the MFJ 
restrictions, which was just debated.
  While I supported this legislation in committee and here on the 
floor, I strongly believe that the so-called domestic content provision 
of this legislation needs to be stricken from the bill at some point in 
the legislative process. I know keeping jobs in America is an emotional 
issue, but violating our free-trade agreements is not only bad policy 
and bad economics, it is also bad for American workers in the long run.
  These bills show the great work that we on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee can and will do.
  Again, please support H.R. 3636, the Markey-Fields bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Slattery].
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend, as other 
speakers have here today, the tremendous work that the chairman, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], has done on this 
legislation, and the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Dingell], and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Fields]; all of you have done tremendous work on this, and you 
deserve all the kudos you are receiving here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both of the bills that we 
are debating here today. These bills are truly essential to the 
construction of the Nation's information superhighway, this is landmark 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that H.R. 3626 would allow the 
regional Bell operating companies to get involved in manufacturing 
telephone equipment in this country. I introduced legislation 4 years 
ago, and it has taken us a long time to get to this day. I am pleased 
we are here. I think this legislation will create good paying jobs in 
this country.
  I am also pleased that H.R. 3626 includes an amendment I offered to 
help thousands of community newspapers across the country have a better 
chance to get on board the information superhighway. The National 
Newspaper Association believes this legislation is critically important 
to the future of many small-town community newspapers. It is important 
because it guarantees them fair access and fair rates when accessing 
the information highway.
  This legislation gives them nothing less than a license to their 
future. Without it, they could be ignored or actually driven off the 
information superhighway. These newspapers often provide the social, 
political, and economic ties that bind communities together. Many are 
going through tough times. They face competition and disappearing ad 
revenue. Now, at least, they can face the electronic future with 
confidence that if this bill becomes law they can compete for their 
fair share.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition, in keeping with the spirit of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act mandate to bring about the complete integration 
of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of our society, 
H.R. 3636 and H.R. 3626 would ensure that advances in network services 
deployed by local exchange carriers are available to all our citizens.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
  Mr. McMILLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636. Along with 
H.R. 3626. This legislation lifts the restrictions that have long 
blocked a diverse competitive telecommunications industry. Not only 
will the competition reduce prices, enhance quality, and offer broader 
choices for the American consumer, it will create the incentives for 
industry to finance and build the information highway of the future.
  That is the purpose of H.R. 3636: ``to make available a switched, 
broadband communications network.'' And I commend Chairman Markey for 
including an amendment that directs the FCC to collect information on 
the rate at which this network is deployed. This will allow 
policymakers to make sure that the intent of Congress is being 
achieved.
  Toward this goal, I do have a concern with the antibuyout provision 
in H.R. 3636 which will slow down the creation or a competitive 
marketplace and the construction of broadband network. By prohibiting 
telephone company acquisitions of cable companies in their respective 
territories, this bill will deter the natural convergence of voice and 
video technology and thereby slow the creation of a multimedia, 
interactive system that could potentially bring a host of combined 
services to the public. If H.R. 3636 adequately ensures that all 
program providers will have access to a telephone company's video 
platform, do we really need an antibuyout provision to guaranty 
competition--a provision that may, in fact, impede progress. I hope 
this can be worked out in conference.
  Overall, however, I strongly support H.R. 3636 as a full step toward 
the completion of the information superhighway and the creation of its 
competive marketplace.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Swift].
  (Mr. SWIFT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. SWIFT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to say that Ed Markey and 
Jack Fields are my friends, because today anyone who is a friend of 
these two gentleman is going to bask in the reflected glory of this 
magnificent accomplishment, bringing this very progressive piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  The time has come to update the 1934 Communications Act to recognize 
new realities and technology and competition, and this bill does that.
  I am pleased that the bill has incorporated an amendment to the 
public access provision that tightens the definition of eligible 
nonprofit institutions.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and his 
staff for their help in crafting this amendment.
  As author of this provision, I did not intend to place unreasonable 
economic or technical burdens on carriers providing advanced 
telecommunications services, but I do expect that such carriers will 
make all necessary good-faith efforts needed to implement the goals of 
this provision.
  Again, I commend this legislation to all of my colleagues. It is an 
outstanding piece of work.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Paxon].
  (Mr. PAXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636. Two years ago 
Congress took what I consider a step backwards by enacting the Cable 
Act, which through overregulation led to consumer confusion, increased 
paperwork burdens, and higher rates in some instances.
  Fortunately, Congress has learned from its mistake and is now 
pursuing a policy of competition rather than regulation. Only by 
increasing competition in the local telephone lop and the cable 
industry will Americans see the private creation of an information 
superhighway. Competition will also provide consumers and business with 
new and innovative services and technology at a reasonable cost.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3636, which 
will move the telecommunications industry from its regulated past into 
the competitive 21st century.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn].
  (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chair and ranking Republican on 
both the full committee and the subcommittee for this outstanding 
legislation, H.R. 3636, and urge its strong support. I think it is a 
splendid accomplishment. It is seldom we have that much bipartisanship, 
and this committee has set a good example.
  A number of us sent a letter to the chairman of the full committee 
expressing the concerns of local government. Mr. Markey's very fine 
reply where he reaffirmed the ``local governments' rights to impose 
fees identical to the cable operator's fees on a telephone company's 
provision of video programming,'' was reassuring, my views on this 
legislation reflect a number of local governments such as the city of 
Los Angeles, Downey, Long Beach, and Signal Hill which are part of my 
congressional district.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3626, the Antitrust Reform Act, and H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act, 
represent the most sweeping telecommunications reform since the breakup 
of AT&T. What the House does today is to construct the structural 
framework for the revolutionary changes which have already begun 
changing the telecommunications field. The framework we erect today 
will provide for a level playing field so that competition can occur in 
a manner that benefits the everyday consumer while bringing new 
technologies into that same person's home. But passage of these bills 
does not mean that all pertinent issues have been resolved. Today's 
votes represent a means to move the process forward, so that we may 
send these bills to the President before the legislative session comes 
to a conclusion.
  The issue in question, which is contained in H.R. 3636, primarily 
revolves around the treatment of municipal franchising authority and 
the new, possibly restrictive definition of cable services in the bill. 
In particular, I am concerned that the language of the amendments of 
Messrs. Fields and Schaefer that were accepted by the committee may 
have the unintended, and unfortunate, result of depriving our Nation's 
municipalities of badly needed revenue that they need to carry out the 
vital governmental duties they perform.
  For instance, section 102(b)(2) of H.R. 3636 amends the franchise fee 
provision of the Cable Act to limit the revenue base on which franchise 
fees may be based to only those revenues an operator derives from 
providing cable services. According to current law, a franchising 
authority is entitled to 5 percent of all revenues derived from 
operations of a cable system. Because the term ``cable service'' is 
already defined in the Cable Act for purposes completely unrelated to 
its use in H.R. 3636, my concern is that section 102(b)(2) could be 
construed as restricting cable franchise fees only to the revenues a 
cable operator receives from subscribers. That is a far narrower 
revenue base than the Cable Act currently allows, and would deprive 
municipalities of the many nonsubscriber revenues a cable operator 
earns, such as advertising and home shopping revenues. Many 
municipalities across the Nation are currently receiving, and relying 
on, franchise fees paid by operators that include such nonsubscriber 
revenues. I certainly hope that it is not the intent of this 
legislation to deprive our municipalities of funds they are currently 
receiving. This issue is particularly important, since nonsubscriber 
revenues are the fastest growing form of cable operator revenues.

  I am also concerned that the language in section 102(b)(1) may be 
construed as preventing municipalities from securing the full benefits 
for the public of any new services that cable operators may provide. 
Many communities have negotiated franchises with cable operators under 
which the cable operator furnishes institutional networks for use by 
schools and local governments. These are valuable resources for our 
schools, our children, and our local governments. I certainly hope that 
it is not the intent of this legislation to forbid or preempt these 
arrangements.
  The parity of franchise and other changes provision in section 102(a) 
also raises similar concerns. The drafters of this provision seem not 
to be aware that pursuant to applicable State law, many municipalities 
have issued franchises to telecommunications providers to use their 
local rights-of-way, and municipalities rely on revenue from those 
providers in their budgets. Once again, I hope it is not the purpose of 
this provision to deprive our already financially strapped 
municipalities of further revenues. There is an important question as 
to whether or not it is proper for the Federal Government to require 
local municipalities to allow private companies to use their valuable 
public rights-of-way for free.
  In conclusion, these issues need adequate debate and consideration. I 
look to the product of the House-Senate conference for improvements and 
clarity on these issues. Finally, I am providing for the Record two 
documents. The first is a letter to Chairman Dingell signed by myself 
and a number of my California colleagues. It raises a number of these 
issues. The second is the response to that letter by Chairman Markey.


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: City and county governments in 
     California have successfully franchised cable television 
     according to the provisions of the Cable Act for many years. 
     We are concerned that H.R. 3636 does not contain a similar 
     franchise requirement for telephone companies wishing to 
     offer cable services and urge that you include such a 
     provision as an amendment to H.R. 3636 when it comes before 
     the full House for consideration.
       The public rights-of-way, owned by local governments on 
     behalf of local taxpayers, are worth billions of dollars and 
     should be controlled by the city and county governments which 
     build, own and maintain them. As the Cable Act requires, the 
     best way to do this is to subject a provider of cable service 
     to the franchise requirement. The telephone companies 
     (telcos) which want to offer cable need to be covered by a 
     franchising process at the local government level. Local 
     governments want nothing more and nothing less than what they 
     currently have in their relationship with the cable 
     companies.
       We also urge that H.R. 3636 be amended to remove provisions 
     that restrict the right of local government to control local 
     rights-of-ways and to collect appropriate compensation for 
     the use of such rights-of-way. In particular, we are 
     concerned with the provisions that: (a) strip local 
     governments of the right to ensure telecommunication 
     providers use public rights-of-way in a safe and reasonable 
     manner and pay appropriate compensation for that use; and (b) 
     limit the right of local governments to impose cable 
     franchise fees on the provision of telecommunication services 
     over a cable system, and to ensure that provision of such 
     services are consistent with the public interest.
       Local governments in California are eager for competition 
     to traditional cable operators and the development of new 
     telecommunication services, but want to be able to control 
     the rights-of-way and ensure that competition is done on a 
     level playing field. City and county officials and the 
     members of the California delegation want to see the 
     information superhighway built. Local governments should 
     receive reasonable compensation for the use of public assets, 
     should be able to ensure that transportation is not 
     disrupted, and guarantee that the needs of the entire 
     community are served by the new information superhighway. It 
     is important that the new information superhighway fits the 
     needs of the local community which it serves rather than 
     simply the desires of the telephone, cable and 
     telecommunications industries.
       Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Pete Stark, M.G. Martinez, Ronald V. Dellums, Stephen 
           Horn, Lynn Woolsey, Nancy Pelosi, Don Edwards, George 
           Miller, Tom Lantos, Dan Hamburg, Julian C. Dixon.
                                  ____

         Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on 
           Telecommunications and Finance,
                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 1994.
     Hon. Stephen Horn,
     1023 Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Steve: As sponsor of H.R. 3636, and as Chairman of the 
     Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee, I would like to 
     take this opportunity to address the concerns you and several 
     colleagues raised in a letter to Chairman John Dingell dated 
     June 23, 1994. The letter addressed the role H.R. 3636 
     accords the cities in regulating telecommunications services.
       The letter raised three major concerns with the provisions 
     of H.R. 3636 that affect local governments' jurisdiction. The 
     first was a concern that H.R. 3636 would ``strip local 
     governments of the right to ensure telecommunication 
     providers use public rights-of-way in a safe and reasonable 
     manner * * *.'' While this may well have been a concern with 
     earlier drafts of H.R. 3636, the version of H.R. 3636 that 
     will be voted on by the full House this week includes express 
     language that reaffirms cities' jurisdiction over all 
     activity that affects their rights-of-way. Authority over 
     public rights-of-way is crucial to local governments and is 
     effectively preserved in the bill.
       The second concern raised in your letter was with the 
     bill's ``limit[ation of] the right of local governments to 
     impose cable franchise fees on the provision of 
     telecommunication services over a cable system * * *.'' This 
     is a question that has caused some confusion in recent 
     months. First, H.R. 3636 actually affirms local governments' 
     rights to impose fees identical to the cable operator's fees 
     on a telephone company's provision of video programming. 
     Local governments do not currently have this authority and 
     some have complained that telephone companies have refused to 
     pay such a fee. Requiring that telephone companies pay 
     equivalent fees puts them on precisely the same footing as 
     cable companies in their future competition for cable 
     subscribers.
       H.R. 3636 does not, however, require cable companies to pay 
     franchise fees on telephone services. Cities have never had 
     the power to impose such fees on telephone companies. For the 
     past 60 years, states and the federal government have 
     traditionally been the primary regulators of telephone 
     service. H.R. 3636 ensures this will continue to be the case, 
     both for telephone companies and cable companies. If this 
     were not so, as you seem to recommend, telephone companies 
     would have an inherent, governmentally-mandated advantage 
     over cable companies that wish to compete for their 
     telephone customers.
       Finally, you state your concern that H.R. 3636 does not 
     give local governments a franchise over telephone companies' 
     provision of cable service. The reason H.R. 3636 does not do 
     this is because of the fundamental difference between the 
     architecture of telephone networks and cable networks. Cable 
     systems grew up as a local service within discreet 
     communities. They typically do not extend beyond municipal 
     boundaries nor do they typically interconnect with other 
     systems within a state or region. In contrast, telephone 
     systems have developed into state-wide or regional networks. 
     To require telephone companies to restructure their networks 
     in order to respond to each community's requirements would 
     effectively Balkanize today's regional networks, raising 
     costs to consumers and delaying the arrival of new, advanced 
     services.
       Instead of imposing a franchise, H.R. 3636 imposes a wide 
     range of requirements on telephone companies that closely 
     track requirements that are currently imposed on cable 
     companies. For example, H.R. 3636 assures local governments 
     of: (1) the functional equivalent of a franchise fee (up to 
     5% of video revenues); (2) public, educational and 
     governmental access channels similar to those available on 
     cable systems; (3) authority to enact consumer protection and 
     customer service requirements; (4) oversight authority over 
     the ownership of local video programming networks in certain 
     situations; and, (5) authority to enact local privacy laws 
     consistent with federal law. In this way, local governments 
     will continue to have significant influence over telephone 
     companies, provision of video without forcing them to 
     restructure their networks.
       It is important to point out that H.R. 3636 contains 
     important safeguards and authorities for local governments 
     that they do not currently enjoy. The Subcommittee office has 
     been contacted by cities who have requested exactly these 
     kinds of powers to help them in their dealings with powerful 
     telephone and cable companies. If H.R. 3636 is not passed 
     this year, cities will have little protection for the 
     foreseeable future from telecommunications providers who have 
     no statutory obligations vis-a-vis local governments.
       Even though the provisions of the legislation do not 
     coincide perfectly with some of the recommendations of local 
     governments, H.R. 3636 represents a balanced, comprehensive 
     telecommunications policy framework that should meet local 
     governments' needs for the foreseeable future. As the 44-0 
     vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee indicates, there is 
     a broad consensus in the approach this legislation takes. 
     Passage of H.R. 3636 will be a vital and important step 
     toward accelerating the development of the national 
     information infrastructure and considerably increasing 
     franchise fees available to local governments, while ensuring 
     a competitive telecommunications marketplace that will 
     benefit all Americans. Please feel free to contact me with 
     any further concerns or questions about this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely
                                                 Edward J. Markey,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Derrick].
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3626. One thing which directly 
affects new investment and jobs creation is the perception of fairness. 
Companies don't invest, they don't create new jobs with a future when 
they are not sure the Government will treat them fairly. So, one thing 
we in Congress always need to do is stress the fact that we are all 
committed to fairness, and we also expect regulatory agencies such as 
the Federal Communications Commission to be fair, too.
  That is important because there are some unanswered questions 
presented by this bill. For instance, it is not clear that telephone 
companies competing with cable TV will have the same flexibility the 
cable companies now enjoy. It is also not clear that if the cable 
companies chose to go into the telephone business, they will bear the 
same universal service obligations which we have placed on the phone 
companies.
  Key provisions of H.R. 3636 could be construed as justification for 
tilting the playing field. And, the problem with that isn't just 
fairness--rather, it is also the potential negative effect that could 
have on future jobs creation and investment.
  I want review each and every such provision of H.R. 3636, but, I do 
think it is important for Congress to make clear to the regulators as 
well as the investment community that it wants regulation to be fair 
and evenhanded here.
  We do not want to have the sort of situation develop where cable 
companies have a great deal of pricing flexibility, but phone companies 
trying to compete with them do not. We want both to face basically the 
same regulatory options.
  In short, we want both the perception and the reality of fairness, 
because that's key to new investment and jobs creation, and delivering 
the competition American consumer want and expect.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen].
  Mr. QUILLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636, and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote for it. The bill that was just discussed prior to 
H.R. 3636, that is, H.R. 3626, I support that and urge my colleagues to 
vote for it. I congratulate the chairmen and the ranking members of 
both committees for bringing this much-needed legislation to the floor 
of the House. Our information highway system will be greatly improved 
as a result of the passage of these measures.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Chairman Markey, I first would like to commend you, along with the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Fields] and the 
Telecommunications and Finance staff for the hard work and long hours 
you have all spent crafting this legislation and moving it 
expeditiously to the floor today. Your earnest efforts have resulted in 
a bill that, while not flawless, certainly will help pave the roads of 
the information superhighway with increased competition and assist in 
promoting greater economic opportunities for more Americans as we head 
into the 21st century.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill before us contains 
interoperability language that I supported and Mr. Markey agreed to 
include in his en bloc at the full committee markup of this 
legislation. This language will provide many new manufacturers, who do 
not provide subscription services, with the ability to offer 
telecommunications equipment or hardware to consumers, expanding 
consumer choice, and enhancing competition.
  In reflecting on the momentous changes occurring virtually every day 
in the telecommunications arena, I find it absolutely astounding that a 
little over 100 years ago, in my city of Chicago, the first multiple 
telephone switchboard in the Nation was being installed. Just as we in 
Congress look forward to the day in the near future when all homes, 
businesses, schools, and hospitals are linked by networks that will 
provide groundbreaking services such as telemedicine as a matter of 
course, so too were the community leaders of Chicago in 1879 
anticipating the tremendous benefits that eventually came from the 
expanded deployment of telephone service throughout their region of the 
country.
  Yet in looking forward to the opportunities presented by emerging 
technologies, we cannot disregard the lessons of the past and the 
hurdles we still face in ensuring that everyone in America plays a part 
in the communications revolution now underway. I refer to the well-
documented fact that minority and women-owned small businesses continue 
to be extremely underrepresented in the telecommunications industry.
  The statistics speak for themselves. The cellular telephone industry, 
which generates in excess of $10 billion a year, has a mere 11 minority 
firms offering services in its market. Overall, barely 1 percent of all 
telecommunications companies are minority-owned. Of women-owned firms 
in the United States, only 1.9 percent are involved in the 
communications field.
  The two amendments which I offered and were adopted by the full 
committee will go a long way toward leading to the diversity of 
ownership in the telecommunications marketplace. The first amendment 
will require a rulemaking on the part of the Federal Communications 
Commission, after consultation with the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, on ways to surmount barriers to market 
access, such as undercapitalization, that continue to constrain small 
businesses, minority, women-owned, and nonprofit organizations in their 
attempts to take part in all telecommunications industries. Again, 
underlying this amendment is the obvious fact that diversity of 
ownership remains a key to the competitiveness of the U.S. 
telecommunications marketplace.
  My second adopted amendment which is intended to increase the 
availability of venture capital and research and development funding 
for both new and existing small, women, and minority-owned companies 
will require all telecommunications providers to annually submit to the 
FCC their clear and detailed company policies for increasing 
procurement from business enterprises that are owned by minorities and 
women in all categories of procurement in which these entities are 
underrepresented. The FCC would then report to the Congress on the 
progress of these activities and recommend legislative solutions as 
needed.
  As an aside, I am hopeful that when the FCC adopts its final 
licensing rules tomorrow for small business, minority, and women-owned 
firms to participate in auctions of broadband radio spectrum for a new 
generation of wireless technologies, known as personal communications 
services or PCS, it understands that this Member of Congress is 
watching closely to see that the goal of diversity of ownership in PCS 
is sufficiently advanced.
  Hopefully, however, with several of the targeted provisions included 
in this bill, we can begin to eradicate the inequities present in the 
telecommunications arena and ensure that minorities and women are 
drivers, not simply passengers, in the superhighway fast lane. Too 
often in the past, these groups have been left standing on the 
shoulder, only to watch the big guys and gals motor down the road past 
them.
  While my measures do not completely solve the long-standing problems 
that confront so many forgotten entities and enterprises in our 
communities, their inclusion in H.R. 3636 ensures that minorities and 
women will have a strong role in the fantastic industries of the future 
as both users and providers of services. Because of this, we all stand 
to benefit.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3636.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, as mayors across this country have indicated, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, they are concerned 
about this legislation and what it is going to open up, whether the 
local cable franchises can survive. They also have a stream of income 
from franchise fees and they have certain controls over programming 
that is required of the cable franchises.
  My concern is that the newcomer, the telephone companies, would have 
those same controls. I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas these 
statements and inquire how he would address the concerns of the mayors 
across this country.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would agree this legislation does not prejudice the 
cities to assess franchise-like fees on telephone companies when they 
offer cable service. Additionally, cities clearly retain control over 
the streets, should they adequately let cable, telephone and other 
providers lay their networks in the ground. Further, telephone 
companies would, under this bill, comply with the peg requirements, 
broadcast of public education and local Government programming.
  Mr. SHAW. In other words, there is clearly a level playing field and 
that there is no undue advantage given to telephone companies under 
this legislation.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Yes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Ms. Lambert].
  (Ms. LAMBERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LAMBERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I rise today 
in strong support of H.R. 3636, the National Communications Competition 
and Information Infrastructure Act of 1994.
  As a freshman and recognizing the many years of work that have gone 
into a piece of legislation like this on an issue like this, I am 
certainly pleased and I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to 
allow me to take a role and to play a small part on behalf of rural 
communities and rural America.
  I join my colleagues in thanking the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Chairman Markey, of the subcommittee as well as Chairman Dingell of the 
full committee, for all of their efforts on behalf of everyone in this 
Nation, making sure that rural communities are recognized in equal 
opportunity, as well as in fairness. A special thanks for their support 
in adding amendments to keep telephone rates in rural areas low and 
protect small and medium-size phone companies from unfair competition.
  It was important to note, especially from the chairman of the 
subcommittee, that it was equally as important to him that service in 
Turkey Scratch, AR, was just as important as in Boston, MA.
  So, my thanks to the chairman for his willingness to allow us to help 
in forming this bill and for rural America and a special thanks from 
those in Arkansas and all of rural America. This bill represents an 
amazing opportunity for advancements in education and in telemedicine, 
among other things.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has the right to close the debate.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Neal].
  (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to 
express my support for H.R. 3636, the National Communications 
Competition and Infrastructure Act of 1994 and for H.R. 3626, the 
Antitrust and Communications Reform Act of 1994. I have been closely 
involved with cable television issues for almost 20 years as a city 
council or, mayor, and now Congressman. It is clear at this point that 
major decisions need to be made to ensure that America continues to be 
the world leader in communications technology and service. These two 
bills will move Federal policy forward as we seek to create the best 
possible climate for our emerging communications future. I have long 
felt that we must always consider the consumer as we set cable 
television policy. H.R. 3636 is a solid consumer bills. If signed into 
law as currently written, this bill would: create positive competition 
for each cable household. While many cable subscribers are satisfied 
with their service, there are a great many areas, including my home 
city of Springfield, MA, where consumers have been greatly upset and 
confused by high rates and ever-shifting channels. The Cable Act of 
1984 was designed to allow the cable television industry to grow and 
establish itself across the country. That has happened, but at a cost. 
The cable market monopolies have, unfortunately, led to high prices and 
poor service in some areas. The Markey-Fields bill encourages true 
competition by allowing telephone companies and others into the market. 
I believe the end result will be greater service selection and lower 
prices for the consumer, and hasten the arrival of the much-heralded 
``information superhighway.'' The information technology sector of the 
economy is posed to take off. H.R. 3636 will put into effect policies 
that will encourage the logical development of these new technologies 
and systems, and protect the role of local authorities as they seek to 
provide their citizens with the best possible cable television and 
telephone service.
  Clearly these provisions are designed to foster the kind of 
competition that will benefit the consumer and America's position in 
the worldwide communications market. We have been a leader in this 
market; H.R. 3636 will help us remain a leader.
  As for H.R. 3626, I believe this bill will also be a boost for the 
American consumer. The 1982 court case that created our current 
telephone system is out of date. This bill eases restrictions on true 
competition in the long-distance service sector. This bill is strongly 
supported by many disabled activists, educators, rural Americans, small 
business leaders and minority groups because of the opportunities that 
will open up if this measure is approved. It also will promote the 
development of new equipment and technologies as we build the 
information superhighway.
  Both of these bills are the result of long and careful consideration. 
It is important that these steps be taken now, before we have a crisis 
in this flagship industry. I salute Chairmen Markey, Brooks, and 
Dingell, as well as Congressman Fields on crafting language that is 
logical, fair, and realistic. They are seeking to craft the future of 
communications as we head into a new century. I urge my colleagues to 
support both of these important measures.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that this is the 
most sweeping change since 1934, and I do not want my colleagues to 
lose sight of that because we are coming up on suspension today. There 
will be more telecommunication development and deployment in the next 5 
years than there has been this century, and I would like to think much 
of that is enhanced and speeded because of this legislation.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment our chairman. I do not 
believe we would be here today in this fashion without the leadership 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. I also want to 
compliment the staff on both sides of the aisle who labored diligently 
to bring us to this point today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our future leader and our current minority 
whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Georgia for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Fields] for yielding this time to me.
  Let me say first of all that I think in this Congress this is one of 
the best days for the legislative process, and I think that people 
should realize that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and his 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks] and his ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Fish], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and 
his ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], as a team 
developed two bills which are right here, H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636, 
which are both landmarks in terms of the future of American jobs and 
the future of American technology, and they are also, I think, a 
tremendous case study in a good legislative process that is genuinely 
bipartisan. Here are very sophisticated, very complex and very 
technical issues in which Members of both parties subordinated their 
partisanship to the effort to understand what the marketplace and the 
technology made possible and to try to truly craft historic 
legislation. I think it is fair to say that this is, in the case of 
H.R. 3636, a dramatic break from 60 years. This is the new benchmark, 
and it was done the right way. It was done by constant consultation, by 
staffs working together and by dealing with some very difficult issues 
by very persistent negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the result of these two bills taken together, 
and they will be joined together and go to, hopefully, the other body, 
and we will produce by the end of this session, I hope, a landmark 
legislation that will truly create an opportunity for more jobs in 
America. The result is going to open up the marketplace so that more 
entrepreneurs can try out more new ideas to create more products, to 
build more jobs in America by delivering better services at lower costs 
to more people.
  Now that is a remarkable accomplishment, and in the time that I have 
been in this Congress I do not know of many occasions where we have had 
as much bipartisanship, as much sophistication and as serious an effort 
to deal with very complex issues, and I simply want to commend both 
committees and the Members who worked on them, and I ask all of my 
colleagues to join in voting ``yes'' this afternoon on this historic 
opportunity.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, a year and a half ago I sat up in the second 
last row, May 1993, and began a conversation with the gentleman from 
Texas about how we could fashion a piece of legislation that would be 
good telecommunications policy, good social policy, and good economic 
policy, and, beginning with that first conversation up in that back row 
of the Chamber, we proceeded not only speaking to ourselves, Mr. 
Speaker, but to other Members here in the Chamber and to hundreds of 
other interested parties across this country.
  The legislation which we bring out here today is one which is going 
to open up enormous economic and technological opportunity for our 
country, not only to the well-known giants, the telephone companies and 
the cable companies, but in many ways, more importantly, to the 
software industry and computer industry of this country using the open 
architecture, set top box protections, which we build into this 
legislation so the fiberoptic networks which are going to be designed 
to the interactivity which is going to be constructed, to all of these 
technologies across this country, from the innermost neighborhoods of 
our country to the most distant, rural parts of this country, each and 
every American will be given access to these exciting technologies. It 
will be the most important part of the economy of this country in the 
world over the next generation.
  With this legislation accompanying the Brooks-Dingell legislation, 
Mr. Speaker, we are going to lead this world and have an opportunity to 
capture a disproportionate share of the economic benefits. But at the 
same time we ensure that all Americans, poor, rich, rural and urban, 
all benefit from it, and we do it ensuring that the economic and social 
policies of our country continue to capture these technological 
advances.
  I want to congratulate again my good friend, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Fields]. I want to congratulate my counsel, Gerard Waldron, with 
Colin Crowell, with David Moulton, Mark Horan who worked with Winnie 
Loeffler, with Kristan Van Hook, with Steve Popeo, with all the rest of 
our staff, Mike Balmoris, with David Zesiger, with Mike Regan and with 
Cathy Reid on the minority side, and I want to, as well, thank Sara 
Morris who is back and watching this right now. It would not have been 
possible without her. David Leach and Johnnie Roski did the same work 
on the other piece of legislation. They are to be congratulated.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the many tough 
and complex issues being addressed in the area of telecommunications 
policy through H.R. 3636, the National Communications Competition and 
Information Infrastructure Act. There are several competing interests 
at play in this formula for emerging telecommunications policy. And I 
admire the efforts of Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Ed 
Markey and Congressman Jack Fields for their work in weaving together a 
consensus that serves the public interest.
  Six years ago in Idaho the legislature, of which I was Senator pro 
tem at the time, took a bold approach communications laws. There were 
doomsday predictions about how rates would skyrocket and competition 
would be choked off. But by adopting a more relaxed regulatory 
framework, Idaho created an environment conducive to the Information 
Age. And consumers have reaped benefits from it.
  Basic telephone remain unchanged. Long-distance prices have been 
reduced several times. Numerous new products and services have been 
introduced. Competition is flourishing. And the State's communications 
infrastructure is leading edge. That was not accomplished by increased 
regulation but by relaxed regulation. In Idaho, we opened markets, 
provided pricing flexibility for competitive and optional services, and 
rate stability for essential services where competition has yet to take 
hold. Again, the results have exceeded expectations.
  Today, I rise in support of H.R. 3636. We have taken a different path 
in this bill, however. With this legislation we have directed the 
Federal Communications Commission to make decisions on 
telecommunications competition issues. And what standard have we 
directed the Commission to use in making those competitive decisions? 
Not the public interest standard embodied in the 1934 Communications 
Act. Not a market standard--which would seem to properly focus on 
consumers.
  Rather, at least in the area of interconnection, we stand ready to 
direct the FCC to abandon the public interest standard they have used 
for 60 years and replace it with a standard of technical feasibility. 
H.R. 3636 requires local telephone companies to connect competitors to 
their networks at any point technically feasible and economically 
reasonable. If our objective is competition, interconnection ought to 
be restricted to essential facilities. We should not legislate a 
standard that allows new communications entrants to piecepart the 
public network at their whim.
  This legislation requires a telephone company to interconnect and 
unbundle its facilities and prices virtually anytime and anywhere 
another company requests it. There is no mechanism in the legislation 
to insure the telephone company is kept whole, nothing that requires 
the company requesting the unbundling to withstand the economically 
reasonable cost. In fact, there's a strong likelihood that local 
telephone companies will attempt to recover some of their costs by 
raising local telephone rates. That is not in the consumers' interest.
  Mr. Speaker, by abandoning the public interest standard, we are 
likely inviting protracted litigation and sharp price increases. I 
supported H.R. 3636 in committee and do so on the floor. But I hope 
that if the legislation goes to conference, we take another look at 
these overly regulatory issues, refocus on the public interest, and 
show faith in the marketplace.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, hardly a day passes that we are not exposed 
to a multitude of new reports about the information superhighway. While 
we are all aware of the critical necessity of ensuring the development 
of an advanced communications infrastructure in the United States, it 
is not always clear how we will achieve that goal.
  Our colleagues, Mr. Markey and Mr. Fields, have provided us a 
blueprint for advancing the Nation's communications highway. Their 
bill, the National Communications Competition and Infrastructure Act of 
1993, will spur the development of the information infrastructure by 
letting cable companies provide basic telephone service, and by 
permitting local telephone companies to offer video programming within 
their service regions--both of which are prohibited under current law. 
This competition will be essential to the widespread deployment of 
advanced communications services throughout the Nation.
  What will that mean to our citizens? Nothing short of a dramatic 
improvement in the quality of their lives. Full cooperation in the 
communications industry will mean that a wider variety of services will 
be available in the marketplace. Senior citizens will be able to take 
advantage of a broad array of shopping services from their own homes. 
Students throughout the country will have access to educational 
resources from libraries and schools throughout the world. Health care 
providers will be able to examine patients at remote locations. And 
that's just the start.
  Furthermore, intense competition within the communications industry 
will drive down the cost of new services, ensuring their affordability 
to all citizens. As we have witnessed, limited competition has resulted 
in sustained high costs for all but the very basic telecommunications 
services. U.S. consumers deserve better than that.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the goals of H.R. 3636 and applaud 
Mr. Markey, Mr. Fields and others who have worked so hard to develop 
this well-balanced legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
3636.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend 
Congressman Markey, chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, 
and the ranking member, Mr. Fields.
  This is a good bill. It is not perfect, but if it were perfect, it 
would not pass.
  Mr. Markey, Mr. Fields, and their staffs are to be praised for their 
efforts.
  They worked diligently with all interested parties to craft a bill 
that attempts to promote competition in the marketplace.
  They know that competition will lead to establishment of an 
information infrastructure much more quickly than the Federal 
Government throwing dollars towards this effort.
  The information highway will be a great accomplishment, allowing 
constituents in rural areas like mine to electronically communicate 
with libraries, hospitals, and museums--and even Members of Congress.
  It will allow for video competition, where we get movies over the 
phone line. One day, we may be dialing up for all services we generally 
go out for--groceries, clothes, and more.
  I don't know anybody who is against the basic objective of this 
bill--more competition, more choices, and more new services.
  But I am concerned that some of the provisions in this bill could be 
construed to frustrate that goal.
  Take all the new regulatory safeguards the bill contemplates.
  Everyone agrees we need safeguards. We want to make sure there's fair 
competition.
  But what if the Federal Communications Commission decides that all 
these safeguards have to be firmly in place before we can have any 
competition?
  This could literally take years. And, all that time, the American 
public would be sitting there--waiting for the competition that 
Congress has promised.
  I intend to vote for H.R. 3636 because it looks like the best package 
we can pass at the present time.
  However, I also want to emphasize that I am doing so only because I 
have been assured that the FCC won't regulate to stymie competition.
  The new chairman of the FCC, Reed Hundt, says that he's firmly 
committed to full competition.
  Two years ago, we all voted to re-regulate cable TV.
  We were told that re-regulation would result in lower cable TV rates 
and more choices.
  Two years after the event, we are still waiting.
  I don't want to be waiting for another 2 or so years before we get 
video competition.
  We need that now.
  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636, the 
National Communications Competition and Information Infrastructure Act 
of 1993. Today, it is time that competition in the cable industry is 
opened so that private as well as public industries can take part in 
the technological revolution that is changing the way the world does 
business. Passage of H.R. 3636 will trigger growth in the economy, 
which will allow the United States to remain in the forefront of 
technology and economic development.
  H.R. 3636 will bring about a quicker and more efficient means of 
implementing universal service, which will provide resources and 
information to all Americans. By eliminating the restrictions in cable 
and local telephone industries, both private and public businesses will 
have the opportunity to provide services, resulting in more jobs for 
Americans and better quality of phone and video services, all at lower 
prices.
  In addition, this legislation can provide unsurpassed benefits to the 
elderly and disabled by giving them easy access to resources and 
information. H.R. 3636 is good for the economy, good for society, and 
good for America's future. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, America faces new 
challenges in education. Growth in technology, competing world markets, 
and the changing perspective of the youth have created a need for an 
innovative way to thinking and acting in the educational arena.
  This is why I give my support for H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636. By 
eliminating the restrictions in the local telephone market, we can 
increase competition, increase technology, and provide students with 
the educational edge needed for success.
  Inner-city, as well as rural students, increasingly find themselves 
isolated from a wide range of educational opportunities. H.R. 3626 and 
H.R. 3636 will change outdated policies to allow expanded access to 
global information, allowing everyone from the elementary student who 
lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood, to the university professor 
working on a cure for cancer, to have access to learning tools such as 
expanded databases, and electronic distance learning. This will in turn 
improve the quality of life, not only for them, but for all Americans. 
Yes, I support improving education in America. I support H.R. 3626 and 
H.R. 3636.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 3636, but do so with a caveat that I hope that we in this Chamber 
will keep in mind for the future. Much of what we do in this bill is 
done in uncharted waters. The information age is new, and we in the 
Congress are just beginning to legislate in this area, so I offer a 
basic point.
  H.R. 3636 is, to say no more about it, a complicated piece of 
legislation. To some degree, this is to be expected, but I must say 
that much in H.R. 3636 concerns me. The bill, in essence, allows the 
phone companies into the cable television business provided they build 
a super cable system and then throws in an array of regulations for 
good measure.
  For my part, I would have favored a far less regulatory approach, but 
this bill is a first step--a fair compromise--and for that reason I 
will support it.
  That said, I hope that we in this body, in the future, are careful 
not to overburden the phone companies with restrictions. The cable 
industry is an extremely tough business, and we must see to it that all 
who wish to participate in it do so on an even playing field.

  Fortunately, H.R. 3636 does give the Federal Communications 
Commission some flexibility in this regard. It is my hope that it will 
be this discretion with an understanding of the peculiarities of the 
cable industry, and that they, and all those involved in the regulation 
of cable, will see to it that competition and choice are emphasized.
  H.R. 3636 is a first step and on the whole a reasonable one. Now, Mr. 
Speaker, let us be certain that what issues forth from this step is not 
heavy handed regulation, but the beginnings of a new and dynamic 
marketplace.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Mr. Markey and Mr. Fields 
for sponsoring H.R. 3636, one of the most proconsumer and proeconomy 
bills to come before the 103d Congress.
  The Markey-Fields bill, which provides for full competition among 
telecommunications and cable service providers, would serve as a 
catalyst in the development of the U.S. communications industry, a 
cornerstone to long-term economic growth and development. Although 
competition has become a reality in many areas of the communications 
industry, the time has come to lift restrictions that prevent local 
telephone companies and cable companies from contributing fully to the 
advancement of the Nation's information infrastructure.
  But, more importantly, we have the responsibility of adopting laws 
that will enable all consumers to obtain a full range of communications 
services from the providers of their choice, at competitive prices. We 
in Congress have learned hard lessons that strict industry regulation 
has not brought about the deployment of new communications services, 
nor driven down the costs of those services. Clearly, the most viable 
means of achieving those goals is to adopt policies that will enable 
competition to flourish within the communications industry. H.R. 3636 
strikes the right balance in achieving competition and in preserving 
the major tenet of U.S. communications policy--universal service.
  Mr. Markey and Mr. Fields have crafted a bill that will serve our 
Nation well. I applaud their efforts and urge my colleagues to adopt 
H.R. 3636.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking a positive step 
toward opening the information superhighway by passing H.R. 3626 and 
H.R. 3636. These bills will increase competition in the U.S. 
telecommunications industry, making us more competitive in the world 
market, and will stimulate economic growth, creating new jobs for 
Americans.
  The WEFA Group, a respected econometric forecasting agency, and the 
Economic Policy Institute, a well-known think tank, examined the impact 
of increased competition on the U.S. telecommunications industry. Both 
concluded such a change in policy would result in millions of new jobs.
  WEFA found that a fully competitive telecommunications environment 
will create 3.6 million new jobs by the year 2003. These jobs will be 
spread throughout the U.S. economy and in every State in the Union. EPI 
found these jobs will be filled by blue-collar, noncollege-educated 
workers, a segment of our economy that has been particularly hard hit 
by layoffs and the loss of more traditional employment.
  A number of Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to 
make this legislation a reality, and I commend them for their efforts. 
After lagging behind our international competitors, H.R. 3626 and H.R. 
3636 will help the United States recapture and maintain its lead in 
high technology development and marketing.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3636 and 
H.R. 3626, telecommunications legislation which will dramatically 
improve our Nation's telecommunications policy, setting the stage for 
our Nation's entry into the information age.
  These measures are a compromise, and I congratulate the members of 
the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary Committees for their excellent 
work. They have ended years of deadlock between industries seeking to 
protect their own interests. These bills represent an opportunity to 
unleash the creative, competitive spirits of telecommunications 
industries, while providing important protections for consumers and 
rural areas such as universal access and rural exemptions for rural 
companies.
  Most importantly, these bills will serve as a catalyst in the 
development of the U.S. communications industry, a cornerstone to long-
term economic growth and development. I share the view of many in 
Maine, including the Maine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, that 
Maine's quality of life when combined with a state-of-the-art 
telecommunications infrastructure will be an excellent job-creating, 
job-attracting tool. A study by the independent econometric forecasting 
firm, the WEFA Group, indicated that full competition in the 
telecommunications industry would create 3.6 million new jobs in the 
United States over the next 10 years in a variety of industries in 
every State in the Union. In my home State of Maine, the WEFA study 
estimates that over 16,000 new jobs would be created in the next 10 
years.
  Congress has the responsibility of adopting laws that will enable all 
consumers to obtain a full range of communications services from the 
providers of their choice, at competitive prices. The most viable means 
of achieving these goals is to adopt policies, such as those embodied 
by these two bills, that will enable competition to flourish within the 
communications industry, while preserving universal service.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3636 and H.R. 
3626.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636 and H.R. 
3626, and I commend particularly Mr. Dingell, Mr. Brooks, and Mr. 
Markey for their leadership in fashioning a new vision for America's 
vital telecommunications industry.
  These bills--the most significant communications legislation in 60 
years--will inject new competition into the Nation's long-distance and 
local telephone industries. As such, they promise to unleash new 
technologies that will revolutionize the American lifestyle.
  For the past decade, the Nation's telecommunications policies have 
been determined largely in Federal courts. The 1982 Consent Decree, 
known as the modified final judgment [MFJ], divested AT&T of its local 
Bell operating companies and allowed some competition in long-distance 
telephone service. The resulting competition lowered prices and 
accelerated private investment in new long-distance technology
  Under the MFJ, however, significant impediments to competition 
remain. The MFJ bars the Bell operating companies from providing long-
distance service. Local telephone service remains heavily regulated. 
And the MFJ has prevented Bells from manufacturing equipment, 
forfeiting jobs to foreign manufacturers.
  While some of these restrictions made sense in the early 1980's, 
subsequent developments have brought massive change to the 
telecommunications industry, creating new possibilities for healthy and 
beneficial competition. Companies that barely existed in early 1980's 
are now billion-dollar enterprises. Local Bell companies face focused--
albeit not widespread--competition in many services.
  The House legislation is intended to invigorate competition, 
fostering private investment in the development of a new 
telecommunications infrastructure.
  H.R. 3636 allows the Bell operating companies to provide interstate 
long-distance service immediately and to begin the manufacture of 
equipment within 1 year, provided that their entry poses no significant 
possibility of lessened competition in the markets they seek to enter. 
Bell entry into intrastate long-distance markets remains subject to 
State public service commission approval, with the Justice Department 
given 90 days to review State decisions.
  H.R. 3626 likewise opens up the market for local telephone services. 
It requires the Bell companies to offer use of their local networks to 
any competitors--such as cable companies. It also allows the Bells to 
offer cable services. Both bills contain mechanisms to assure 
continuation of universal service and retain sensible regulation where 
competition is unlikely to develop.
  These changes portend the creation of new American jobs, perhaps more 
than 40,000 in Missouri alone. Moreover, the exploitation of digital 
technology and the creation of the information superhighway is expected 
to revolutionize opportunities for learning, delivering health care, 
conducting business, and providing government service. Under this 
legislation, consumers should expect to see a multitude of changes 
within several years: a choice of cable TV services from multiple 
operators, with more programming and improved prices; new choices in 
both local and long-distance telephone service; the ability to monitor 
the sick at home so they do not have to spend so much time in 
hospitals; expanded research and educational opportunities at schools 
and colleges across the State; greater opportunities for people to work 
at home, thereby reducing traffic congestion and increasing leisure 
time; expanded access to shopping and entertainment.
  We know from experience that new technologies promise profound and 
positive change to those who embrace them. While preserving safeguards 
needed to maintain universal coverage and fair pricing, this 
legislation makes tremendous strides to realize the possibilities 
inherent in new technologies. We are on the verge of another 
technological revolution.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, America faces new 
challenges in education. Growth in technology, competing world markets, 
and the changing perspective of the youth have created a need for an 
innovative way of thinking and acting in the educational arena.
  This is why I give my support for H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636. By 
eliminating the restrictions in the local telephone market, we can 
increase competition, increase technology, and provide students with 
the educational edge needed for success.
  Inner-city, as well as rural students, increasingly find themselves 
isolated from a wide range of educational opportunities. H.R. 3626 and 
H.R. 3636 will change outdated policies to allow expanded access to 
global information, allowing everyone from the elementary student who 
lives in a disadvantaged neighborhood, to the university professor 
working on a cure for cancer, to all have access to learning tools such 
as expanded databases, and electronic distance learning. This will in 
turn improve the quality of life, not only for them, but for all 
Americans. Yes, I support improving education in America. I support 
H.R. 3626 and H.R. 3636.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a great deal of thanks to 
Chairman Dingell, Chairman Brooks, and Chairman Markey for their 
tireless efforts to bring telecommunications reform legislation to 
fruition this year. Many thought that this day would never come, and it 
is a tribute to your skill and dedication that it has.
  Both of the bills that we will vote on today represent a step forward 
toward achieving what we all want--an information superhighway that 
benefits both consumer and business alike. I support H.R. 3636, and 
commend the changes made at the subcommittee and committee level. I 
have some reservations about H.R. 3626. As I said during the hearing 
process, forging this deal was a herculean achievement. That 
achievement should not, however, overshadow the real and important 
concerns of those who were not even invited to the negotiating table.
  The Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOC's] were restricted from 
entering long-distance, manufacturing, and information services because 
they had the local monopoly strength to squelch competition from 
smaller businesses. The decision to keep the RBOC's out of long 
distance, as long as they are monopolies, has been a success to this 
point. Little more than a decade ago, only the smallest handful of 
long-distance callers had a choice of carriers. Today, virtually every 
consumer in the Nation has a choice of at least three full-service 
long-distance companies. Since the breakup of the Bell system monopoly, 
average long-distance rates have dropped dramatically.
  Prices have dropped, both residential and business users can take 
advantage of significant discounts offered by long-distance companies. 
The competitive marketplace has spurred an increase in the value of 
service, and technological improvements worth billions.
  Competition is the force that drives our economy, and I could not be 
a stronger supporter of that concept across the board. In order for 
true, healthy, constructive competition to operate, however, we must 
assure the so-called level playing field. I am all for allowing the 
RBOC's and cable companies to compete in a fair arena. If what we do 
here today is to the detriment of consumers, then we have defeated the 
ultimate purpose.
  With regard to H.R. 3626, I support the general thrust of this bill. 
Assertion of congressional authority in this area is long overdue. I 
had hoped, however, that we could have agreed on an amendment that 
would have applied the same entry test to the RBOC's in intrastate long 
distance that we apply to the interstate market.
  Again, let me commend Chairmen Dingell, Brooks, and Markey for their 
tremendous hard work to get this legislation to the floor. There is 
wide support for telecommunications reform this year, both in 
Government and the private sector. I hope that these bills will receive 
the support of the full House.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3636 for the economic 
advantages it will bring to the new information age and the competition 
it will help to usher in in telecommunications. I also support this 
legislation for the social advantages the bill will provide by ensuring 
that people with disabilities have access to new technologies.
  By allowing telephone companies to provide video programming, 
services such as narrator-spoken descriptions of on-screen action can 
assist the blind, while complete captioned programming can serve the 
deaf. For bedridden and elderly individuals the development of new 
services and the opening of the telecommunications network has the 
potential of greatly enhancing their lives, by both removing isolation 
and maintaining their independence.
  H.R. 3636 will also expand the quality and lower the cost of 
education. An open telecommunications market will result in the 
development of new services, better products, and greater efficiency by 
connecting students to teachers and both to worldwide information.
  The creation of new jobs in these services and industries is another 
advantage of H.R. 3636. Not only will these benefits be seen here at 
home, but they should enable us to increase our competitiveness in 
international markets as well. For these reasons I support and will 
cast my vote for H.R. 3636.
  Ms. SCHENK: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of both H.R. 3626 
and H.R. 3636. Chairman Dingell, Chairman Markey and Chairman Brooks 
deserve our thanks and praise for their hard work, their vision, and 
their leadership in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, others will describe the many benefits of this 
legislative package. I'd like to focus on just one--its potential to 
stimulate economic growth and job creation.
  Mr. Speaker, the telecommunications and information industries will 
be the engines of economic growth into the next century. In San Diego 
County, for example, telecommunications employment grew by 22 percent 
last year.
  This growth has occurred despite a patchwork system of inflexible 
regulations that reflect the realities of yesterday, not the vibrant 
industries of today.
  These bills break down the artifical barriers that stifle competition 
between phone companies and cable operators. They will stimulate 
private investment by enacting a uniform system of federal regulation. 
And, according to a recently released report by the President's Council 
of Economic Advisers, these bipartisan bills will help the private 
sector create more than 500,000 new jobs over the next 2\1/2\ years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass these bills and help create 
the next generation of high-wage jobs.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3636, a forward-
looking bill that will advance the development of the information 
highway. I wish to congratulate Chairman Markey and the ranking member 
[Mr. Fields] and their staffs for their patience in developing a bill 
that has bipartisan and inter-industry support on a most difficult and 
complicated issue.
  H.R. 3636 will open the telephone network at the local level to full 
competition, and will permit the local exchange companies to provide 
video services. In this environment, competition will flourish for both 
telephone and cable services, where we have seen only limited 
competition in the past. As more people are connected to the 
information highway, more entrepreneurial endeavors will develop 
steadily increasing service options.
  These entrepreneurial companies will create jobs in a robust new 
industry fueled by the passage of H.R. 3636. I urge all my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, a little discussed or debated and not well-
understood provision in H.R. 3636, the National Communications 
Competition and Infrastructure Investment Act, could have a mega-
billion-dollar impact on the price of telephone service. Language in 
the bill states that the resale of local telephone service shall ``not 
be prohibited or subject to unreasonable conditions.''
  Although it sounds rather innocent, that provision is a direct 
broadside at the affordability of telephone service. By conservative 
estimates, the historic system of telephone pricing has resulted in a 
$20 billion subsidy of carrier services. Permitting unlimited resale 
could virtually wipe out that subsidy. I am concerned that the $20 
billion could not be recovered without a hefty increase in residential 
rates.
  Resale is a practice whereby a third-party buys bulk services from 
the local telephone company and resells them to customers. By buying in 
bulk, the third-party achieves certain savings, enabling that company 
to undercut the local telephone company in selling primarily to 
business customers.
  Within limits, some States permit the practice today. Third-parties 
can resell within the same class of service, but can't buy residence 
lines and sell them to business customers, or purchase business lines 
and sell them to interexchange carriers. The FCC permits resale in the 
interstate jurisdiction, but bars long distance carriers from using 
business service to connect the local and long distance network. 
Instead, the FCC requires the carriers to buy access service.
  Depending on how unreasonable conditions is defined, H.R. 3636 could 
remove those limits and place billions of dollars of subsidies at risk. 
I can think of no reason why a business customer would pay $35 per 
month for a telephone line if a third-party will sell that customer a 
line for $30. Without limits on resale, that is not only possible, but 
likely.
  Because of this concern, I urge conferees to clarify this matter to 
help ensure that subsidies are protected and the price of telephone 
service remains affordable.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3636, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________