[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E668]]
      TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRADE AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT ACT OF 1997

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, April 15, 1997

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Telecommunications 
Trade and Foreign Investment Act of 1997. I am pleased to introduce 
this legislation today along with Commerce Committee ranking Democrat 
John Dingell, and committee members Ron Klink and Tom Sawyer.
  The international trade agreement reached in Geneva last February on 
telecommunications basic services has provided an excellent opportunity 
for the telecommunications industry and policymakers to assess the 
progress this country has made in breaking open new telecommunications 
markets worldwide. Without question, there are significant new 
opportunities in the recent telecommunications deal for American 
companies. When U.S. companies make new inroads into foreign markets, 
that's good for American workers and the strength of our economy. Yet, 
we also know that in the agreement there are notable underachievers, 
most notably Canada, Mexico, and Japan--three of our largest trading 
partners
  As a Democrat who has voted in favor of both NAFTA and GATT, I 
subscribe to the view that America's future economic health is 
inseparable from the global economy. I believe that this Nation ought 
to compete for high end, information-based jobs across the planet. 
These are telecommunications, computer, software, and electronic 
commerce jobs. For this reason it is imperative that foreign high-tech 
markets be opened up for competition from the United States. The 
Communications Act of 1934 clearly did not contemplate a world where 
there would be trade agreements allowing foreign ownership of common 
carriers throughout the world.
  The administration expects the Federal Communications Commission 
[FCC] to consummate this deal administratively by modifying its 
regulations to encompass the new multilateral trade pact. I am 
particularly concerned, however, about the administration's current 
interpretation of the FCC's authority because it implicates foreign 
ownership of U.S. television and radio stations. Section 310(b) of the 
Communications Act treats foreign ownership issues for both 
broadcasting and common carrier licenses the same way.
  Congress certainly did not envision that the Communications Act could 
be read in a way that would wind up allowing 100 percent foreign 
ownership of U.S. television and radio stations. The administration's 
current reading of the statute would allow such an outcome. I 
appreciate the fact that the administration has stated that it has no 
intention of unraveling the prohibitions on foreign ownership of 
broadcast licenses. I believe it would serve a useful purpose to ensure 
that this cannot be done legally and that the law should be 
appropriately modified to treat broadcasting as separate and distinct 
from common carrier issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today will cap foreign 
investment in broadcast licenses at 25 percent. This proposed 
legislation will not allow any future FCC to unilaterally limit, by 
rule, the scope and applicability of possibly determinative public 
interest criteria and thereby grant waivers for 100 percent foreign 
ownership of U.S. television and radio stations.
  The legislation I am introducing today will also serve to update and 
amplify the statutory language with respect to common carrier foreign 
investment by making it clear that where America has a trade 
commitment, the FCC is directed to show deference to the President on 
such matters for applicants from countries that are part of the trade 
deal. This provision is a WTO-friendly provision and is intended to 
dovetail with the process that the FCC, as an independent agency, has 
indicated it will use to implement this multilateral trade pact.
  In the last session of Congress, Mr. Speaker, the House was 
successful in legislating in this area of communications law. I look 
forward to working with Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, 
committee ranking Democrat John Dingell, Telecommunications 
Subcommittee Chairman Tauzin, my good friend Congressman Mike Oxley, 
who has long advocated updating our telecommunications foreign 
investment laws, as well as my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--
on the Commerce Committee and in the House, in fashioning common sense 
legislation that will modernize and clarify the foreign investment 
provisions of the Communications Act.

                          ____________________