[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20593-20597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3850) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote 
deployment of advanced services and foster the development of 
competition for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the Nation 
by relieving unnecessary burdens on the Nation's two percent local 
exchange telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3850

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Independent 
     Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted to 
     foster the rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications 
     and information technologies and services to all Americans by 
     promoting competition and reducing regulation in 
     telecommunications markets nationwide.
       (2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically 
     recognized the unique abilities and circumstances of local 
     exchange carriers with fewer than two percent of the Nation's

[[Page 20594]]

     subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide.
       (3) Given the markets two percent carriers typically serve, 
     such carriers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the 
     deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives 
     for the benefit of consumers in less densely populated 
     regions of the Nation.
       (4) Existing regulations are typically tailored to the 
     circumstances of larger carriers and therefore often impose 
     disproportionate burdens on two percent carriers, impeding 
     such carriers' deployment of advanced telecommunications 
     services and competitive initiatives to consumers in less 
     densely populated regions of the Nation.
       (5) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers 
     will enable such carriers to devote additional resources to 
     the deployment of advanced services and to competitive 
     initiatives to benefit consumers in less densely populated 
     regions of the Nation.
       (6) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers 
     will increase such carriers' ability to respond to 
     marketplace conditions, allowing them to accelerate 
     deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives 
     to benefit consumers in less densely populated regions of the 
     Nation.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to accelerate the deployment of advanced services and 
     the development of competition in the telecommunications 
     industry for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the 
     Nation, consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
     by reducing regulatory burdens on local exchange carriers 
     with fewer than two percent of the Nation's subscriber lines 
     installed in the aggregate nationwide;
       (2) to improve such carriers' flexibility to undertake such 
     initiatives; and
       (3) to allow such carriers to redirect resources from 
     paying the costs of such regulatory burdens to increasing 
     investment in such initiatives.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

       Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (51) and (52) as paragraphs 
     (52) and (53), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (50) the following:
       ``(51) Two percent carrier.--The term `two percent carrier' 
     means an incumbent local exchange carrier within the meaning 
     of section 251(h) that has fewer than two percent of the 
     Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate 
     nationwide.''.

     SEC. 4. REGULATORY RELIEF FOR TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.

       Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof a new part IV as follows:

         ``PART IV--PROVISIONS CONCERNING TWO PERCENT CARRIERS

     ``SEC. 281. REDUCED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO PERCENT 
                   CARRIERS.

       ``(a) Commission To Take Into Account Differences.--In 
     adopting rules that apply to incumbent local exchange 
     carriers (within the meaning of section 251(h)), the 
     Commission shall separately evaluate the burden that any 
     proposed regulatory, compliance, or reporting requirements 
     would have on two percent carriers.
       ``(b) Effect of Reconsideration or Waiver.--If the 
     Commission adopts a rule that applies to incumbent local 
     exchange carriers and fails to separately evaluate the burden 
     that any proposed regulatory, compliance, or reporting 
     requirement would have on two percent carriers, the 
     Commission shall not enforce the rule against two percent 
     carriers unless and until the Commission performs such 
     separate evaluation.
       ``(c) Additional Review Not Required.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to require the Commission to 
     conduct a separate evaluation under subsection (a) if the 
     rules adopted do not apply to two percent carriers, or such 
     carriers are exempted from such rules.
       ``(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit any size-based differentiation among 
     carriers mandated by this Act, chapter 6 of title 5, United 
     States Code, the Commission's rules, or any other provision 
     of law.
       ``(e) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any rule adopted on or after the date 
     of enactment of this section.

     ``SEC. 282. LIMITATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Limitation.--The Commission shall not require a two 
     percent carrier--
       ``(1) to file cost allocation manuals or to have such 
     manuals audited, but a two percent carrier that qualifies as 
     a class A carrier shall annually certify to the Commission 
     that the two percent carrier's cost allocation complies with 
     the rules of the Commission; or
       ``(2) to file Automated Reporting and Management 
     Information Systems (ARMIS) reports.
       ``(b) Preservation of Authority.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (a), nothing in this Act limits the authority of 
     the Commission to obtain access to information under sections 
     211, 213, 215, 218, and 220 with respect to two percent 
     carriers.

     ``SEC. 283. INTEGRATED OPERATION OF TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.

       ``The Commission shall not require any two percent carrier 
     to establish or maintain a separate affiliate to provide any 
     common carrier or noncommon carrier services, including local 
     and interexchange services, commercial mobile radio services, 
     advanced services (within the meaning of section 706 of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996), paging, Internet, 
     information services or other enhanced services, or other 
     services. The Commission shall not require any two percent 
     carrier and its affiliates to maintain separate officers, 
     directors, or other personnel, network facilities, buildings, 
     research and development departments, books of account, 
     financing, marketing, provisioning, or other operations.

     ``SEC. 284. PARTICIPATION IN TARIFF POOLS AND PRICE CAP 
                   REGULATION.

       ``(a) NECA Pool.--The participation or withdrawal from 
     participation by a two percent carrier of one or more study 
     areas in the common line tariff administered and filed by the 
     National Exchange Carrier Association or any successor tariff 
     or administrator shall not obligate such carrier to 
     participate or withdraw from participation in such tariff for 
     any other study area.
       ``(b) Price Cap Regulation.--A two percent carrier may 
     elect to be regulated by the Commission under price cap rate 
     regulation, or elect to withdraw from such regulation, for 
     one or more of its study areas at any time. The Commission 
     shall not require a carrier making an election under this 
     paragraph with respect to any study area or areas to make the 
     same election for any other study area.

     ``SEC. 285. DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES BY 
                   TWO PERCENT COMPANIES.

       ``The Commission shall permit two percent carriers to 
     introduce new interstate telecommunications services by 
     filing a tariff on one day's notice showing the charges, 
     classifications, regulations and practices therefor, without 
     obtaining a waiver, or make any other showing before the 
     Commission in advance of the tariff filing. The Commission 
     shall not have authority to approve or disapprove the rate 
     structure for such services shown in such tariff.

     ``SEC. 286. ENTRY OF COMPETING CARRIER.

       ``(a) Pricing Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any two percent carrier shall be 
     permitted to deaverage its interstate switched or special 
     access rates, file tariffs on one day's notice, and file 
     contract-based tariffs for interstate switched or special 
     access services immediately upon certifying to the Commission 
     that a telecommunications carrier unaffiliated with such 
     carrier is engaged in facilities-based entry within such 
     carrier's service area.
       ``(b) Pricing Deregulation.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, upon receipt by the Commission of a 
     certification by a two percent carrier that a local exchange 
     carrier that is not a two percent carrier is engaged in 
     facilities-based entry within the two percent carrier's 
     service area, the Commission shall regulate such two percent 
     carrier as non-dominant, and therefore shall not require the 
     tariffing of the interstate service offerings of such two 
     percent carrier.
       ``(c) Participation in Exchange Carrier Association 
     Tariff.--A two percent carrier that meets the requirements of 
     subsection (a) or (b) of this section with respect to one or 
     more study areas shall be permitted to participate in the 
     common line tariff administered and filed by the National 
     Exchange Carrier Association or any successor tariff or 
     administrator, by electing to include one or more of its 
     study areas in such tariff.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Facilities-based entry.--The term `facilities-based 
     entry' means, within the service area of a two percent 
     carrier--
       ``(A) the provision or procurement of local telephone 
     exchange switching capability; and
       ``(B) the provision of local exchange service to at least 
     one unaffiliated customer.
       ``(2) Contract-based tariff.--The term `contract-based 
     tariff' shall mean a tariff based on a service contract 
     entered into between a two percent carrier and one or more 
     customers of such carrier. Such tariff shall include--
       ``(A) the term of the contract, including any renewal 
     options;
       ``(B) a brief description of each of the services provided 
     under the contract;
       ``(C) minimum volume commitments for each service, if any;
       ``(D) the contract price for each service or services at 
     the volume levels committed to by the customer or customers;
       ``(E) a brief description of any volume discounts built 
     into the contract rate structure; and
       ``(F) a general description of any other classifications, 
     practices, and regulations affecting the contract rate.
       ``(3) Service area.--The term `service area' has the same 
     meaning as in section 214(e)(5).

     ``SEC. 287. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Commission Authority.--Nothing in this part shall be 
     construed to restrict the

[[Page 20595]]

     authority of the Commission under sections 201 through 205 
     and 208.
       ``(b) Rural Telephone Company Rights.--Nothing in this part 
     shall be construed to diminish the rights of rural telephone 
     companies otherwise accorded by this Act, or the rules, 
     policies, procedures, guidelines, and standards of the 
     Commission as of the date of enactment of this section.''.

     SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON MERGER REVIEW

       (a) Amendment.--Section 310 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 310) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Deadline for Making Public Interest Determination.--
       ``(1) Time limit.--In connection with any merger between 
     two percent carriers, or the acquisition, directly or 
     indirectly, by a two percent carrier or its affiliate of the 
     securities or assets of another two percent carrier or its 
     affiliate, the Commission shall make any determination 
     required by subsection (d) of this section or section 214 not 
     later than 60 days after the date an application with respect 
     to such merger is submitted to the Commission.
       ``(2) Approval absent action.--If the Commission does not 
     approve or deny an application as described in paragraph (1) 
     by the end of the period specified, the application shall be 
     deemed approved on the day after the end of such period. Any 
     such application deemed approved under this subsection shall 
     be deemed approved without conditions.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any application that is submitted to 
     the Commission on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     Applications pending with the Commission on the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be subject to the requirements of 
     this section as if they had been filed with the Commission on 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. TIME LIMITS FOR ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR 
                   RECONSIDERATION OR WAIVER.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 405 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 405) is amended by adding to the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Expedited Action Required.--
       ``(1) Time limit.--Within 90 days after receiving from a 
     two percent carrier a petition for reconsideration filed 
     under this section or a petition for waiver of a rule, 
     policy, or other Commission requirement, the Commission shall 
     issue an order granting or denying such petition. If the 
     Commission fails to act on a petition for waiver subject to 
     the requirements of this section within this 90-day period, 
     the relief sought in such petition shall be deemed granted. 
     If the Commission fails to act on a petition for 
     reconsideration subject to the requirements of this section 
     within this 90 day period, the Commission's enforcement of 
     any rule the reconsideration of which was specifically sought 
     by the petitioning party shall be stayed with respect to that 
     party until the Commission issues an order granting or 
     denying such petition.
       ``(2) Finality of action.--Any order issued under paragraph 
     (1), or any grant of a petition for waiver that is deemed to 
     occur as a result of the Commission's failure to act under 
     paragraph (1), shall be a final order and may be appealed.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply with respect to any petition for reconsideration or 
     petition for waiver that is submitted to the Commission on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act. Pending petitions 
     for reconsideration or petitions for waiver shall be subject 
     to the requirements of this section as if they had been filed 
     on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3850, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I introduced H.R. 3850 to lessen the burdens on small 
and mid-size telephone companies and to allow them to shift more of 
their resources to deploying advanced telecommunications services to 
consumers in all areas of the country.
  Small and mid-size companies are truly that. While the more than 
1,200 small and mid-size companies serve less than 10 percent of the 
Nation's lines, they cover a much larger percentage of rural markets 
and are located in or near most major markets in the country.
  Some of these telephone companies are mom and pop operations, 
typically serving rural areas of the country where most other carriers 
fear to tread, in high cost places where it is much less profitable 
than in more populated areas.
  In 1996, Congress passed historic legislation in the form of the 
Telecommunications Act.
  Section 706 of the act sent a clear message to the American people 
and to the Federal Communications Commission that the deployment of new 
telecommunications services in rural areas around the country must 
happen quickly and without delay.
  Unfortunately, the FCC has not made it any easier for small telephone 
companies to deploy advanced services in rural areas. In some cases, 
they have actually made it more difficult. The reason is that the FCC, 
more often than not, uses a one-size-fits-all model in regulating 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.
  This type of model may be fine for the big companies that have the 
ability to hire legions of attorneys and staff to interpret and ensure 
compliance with Federal rules. However, I for one would rather see the 
small and mid-size companies use their resources to deploy new services 
and make investment in their telecommunications infrastructure.
  Two examples of these burdensome FCC requirements are CAM and ARMIS 
reports. These reports separately cost about $500,000 to compile and 
would equate to a small telephone company installing a DSLAM or other 
facilities to provide high-speed Internet services to customers in 
rural areas.
  Just to give my colleagues an example of how burdensome these reports 
are, the commission's instructions for filing the reports are over 900 
pages long. More often than not, the FCC, according to their own 
testimony, does not refer to these reports and, in some cases, simply 
ignores the data filed by the mid-size companies.
  Let me be very clear, because this is very important. The bill does 
nothing to restrict the commission's authority to request this or any 
other data that it sees fit.
  I want to be fair. The FCC should be commended for their efforts to 
bring some of these reporting requirements down to a reasonable level. 
They have made advances in their area. In fact, during our hearing on 
this legislation, the FCC told the Committee on Telecommunications, 
Trade and Consumer Protection that it may be issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking on the reporting requirements for 2 percent 
companies sometime this fall.
  The problem, though, is that the agency's time frame on issuing these 
proposed rules has changed like the Wyoming winds. It is time that 
those obligations are met, and this legislation would solidify what the 
FCC has already promised to do for a long time.
  In addition, I want everyone to know that we have bent over backwards 
to accommodate many of the initial concerns that some Members had with 
this legislation and have incorporated a majority of their helpful 
suggestions. And for their suggestions, I am very grateful because I 
think that the legislation has been improved.
  Some of the changes that were adopted during the Committee on 
Commerce's consideration of the bill took into account several 
technical provisions that will continue to allow the FCC to do its job 
but in a way that still ensures that small and mid-size companies are 
treated differently than the huge companies.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record what this 
legislation does and what it does not do. Number one, the bill does not 
re-open the 1996 act. It does not fully deregulate 2 percent carriers. 
It does not impact regulations dealing with large local carriers. It 
would, however, be the first freestanding legislation that would 
modernize regulations of 2 percent carriers. It would accelerate 
competition in many small to mid-size markets, accelerate the 
deployment of new advanced telecommunications services in rural areas, 
and benefit consumers by allowing 2 percent carriers to redirect their 
resources to network investment and to new services.

[[Page 20596]]

  Madam Speaker, this legislation is critical for rural areas across 
the country where these small telephone companies operate. Without this 
bill, these 2 percent companies will continue to be burdened with this 
one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that has kept them from providing 
rural areas with what they need most, and that is a piece of the new 
economy based on telecommunications.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank very sincerely the members of the 
Committee on Commerce, the staff, and my own staff for their help in 
moving this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this important piece 
of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of legislation of which I am an original 
cosponsor, H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer 
Enhancement Act. It is this type of legislation that represents what 
can be accomplished by working with Members on both sides of the aisle 
to find consensus. Working together with my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), we were able to craft this bipartisan bill 
which I believe is a practical step that we can take this year to 
address the growing digital divide in our Nation's rural areas.
  H.R. 3850 provides targeted regulatory relief to small and midsized 
independent telephone companies that serve fewer than 2 percent of the 
Nation's phone lines. Allowing such companies to devote more resources 
to deploying high speed data services to their customers, these 
carriers are uniquely positioned to play a large role in the 
development of advanced services to consumers in rural and small 
communities. Unfortunately, they are wasting resources complying with 
one-size-fits-all regulations originally intended for the larger 
carriers.
  H.R. 3850 would eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements, make it 
easier for small and midsized companies to introduce new advanced 
services and give them the flexibility to lower prices in response to 
competition from larger companies. Finally, it would ensure that FCC 
take into account the burden on smaller businesses when it implements 
Federal Rules in the future.
  Instead of spending money on complying with useless regulations, this 
bill will allow companies to devote more of their resources to rolling 
out new advanced services to rural communities.
  H.R. 3850 is a common sense step we can take to close the digital 
divide in rural areas, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, one of the purposes, and the 
primary purpose, was to deregulate the issue of telecommunications in 
this country, but we have not deregulated the regulators. I commend the 
gentlewoman for bringing this bill because it attempts to take one 
further step in the direction of dealing with the monopolistic system 
that we have now said the barriers must be removed from.
  As long as regulations are in place with a one-size-fits-all 
approach, these smaller providers, in this case those with 2 percent or 
less of the providing capacity in this country, are faced with 
regulations that really make their operations sometimes prohibitive. I 
commend the gentlewoman for offering this bill to remove these 
regulatory restraints because many of these small 2 percent or less of 
the carrier providers are located in States like hers and in rural 
areas of a State like mine. They are the ones who need to devote their 
funding and their resources to an infrastructure development, because 
without that they cannot be competitive with the bigger competitors in 
the marketplace.
  So I support this legislation, and I again thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my 
colleagues from the Committee on Commerce in support of the Independent 
Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act.
  Along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), I am an original cosponsor 
of the bill that was introduced by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin) last year. This bipartisan bill, which was approved in committee 
on a voice vote, would relax some of the FCC's one-size-fits-all 
regulations for our Nation's small and midsized local telephone 
companies; those with less than 2 percent of the Nation's phone lines.
  These companies serve communities across the country and are poised 
to offer broadband and other advanced services to customers who are 
often outside the scope of the larger companies. This bill will reduce 
paperwork for the smaller companies, increase their pricing 
flexibility, and allow them to bundle services on one bill all without 
reopening the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
  In my State of Wisconsin, 81 of 83 companies providing local phone 
service are classified as 2 percent companies. By freeing these 
companies from portions of a regulatory system designed with much 
larger companies in mind, we will be taking an important first step 
toward bridging the digital divide by allowing for increasing 
investment in Internet facilities in rural and suburban areas. I urge 
all Members to support this common sense legislation.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and just close by saying that I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the 
Committee on Commerce staff, both the majority and the minority, and 
the original cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for their work on this bill.
  Also, I wish to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) and his staff, who have been very cooperative and have 
helped us make changes to the legislation that make it better 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and will just quickly conclude by saying that I concur with the 
accolades of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), and would also 
again thank her for her initiative in this area.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I want to start off by thanking Mrs. 
Cubin, Mr. Gordon, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, and Chairman Bliley 
for being responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised 
about the underlying bill.
  The bill being offered today contains many helpful clarifications and 
changes embodied in it that were in response to concerns I have raised 
about the measure. I believe that in its current form it will clarify 
the ability of the Commission to protect consumers and safeguard 
competitive gains in many of its provisions.
  I would like to focus my remarks on a couple of areas that I suggest 
need additional refinement and that I hope can be dealt with prior to 
sending this bill to the President.
  The first has to do with the pricing flexibility and pricing 
deregulation provision of the bill. The substitute will continue to 
allow pricing deregulation upon the advent of facilities-based 
competition in a given service area. The facilities-based competitor 
however is only required to have at least one--I repeat, one sole 
customer. Hopefully they will have more but the point is that 
competition may arrive, but may not be robust or effective in 
constraining prices.
  This concern, I suggest, is heightened in those areas where a company 
may still be

[[Page 20597]]

subject to rate-of-return regulation rather than price cap regulation. 
Regardless of what level of competition triggers pricing flexibility we 
must be cognizant of the serious repercussions that may result in 
situations where a carrier remains rate of return regulated.
  In other words, consumers in those areas that are not subject to 
effective competition and receive service from a rate-of-return company 
run the risk of price increases. There's no guarantee that prices may 
go up but there is certainly a risk.
  The FCC testimony with respect to this legislation highlighted this 
risk. The FCC testimony the Telecommunications Subcommittee was given 
is as follows:

       [A] grant of pricing flexibility to rate-of-return carriers 
     without the implementation of protections comparable to those 
     adopted by the FCC with regard to price cap carriers could be 
     particularly problematic. Rate-of-return regulation would 
     allow such carriers to raise rates on other customers 
     sufficiently to maintain the authorized level of return while 
     they lower prices for contract customers.

  This pricing deregulation is not going to affect directly any 
consumer in my congressional district, but I would suggest to the rural 
members of the House that they may want to take another look at this 
pricing deregulation and refine it further because I believe--and the 
FCC clearly believes--that it runs the risk of allowing unnecessary and 
unjustified price hikes.
  The second issue I want to highlight is the merger review section. 
This section states that any review involving a so-called 2 percent 
carrier must be approved or denied by the condition within 60 days. I 
understand that the companies do not want merger reviews to drag on for 
years, but I would suggest that 60 days is too short and unrealistic.
  While I believe the Commission is itself streamlining its process, if 
the majority is insistent on having a merger review ``shot clock'' I 
would suggest giving the Commission a greater period of time. In 
addition, at our merger review hearing Commissioner Powell made what I 
thought was a reasonable suggestion. He noted that often companies will 
amend their initial applications, often late in a review and after 
public comment. He suggested some flexibility for the FCC to extend the 
review.
  I would suggest, therefore, something that would allow a one-time 
extension if a majority of the Commission voted to extend the review--
of if the filing company itself requested an extension. I think this is 
a more reasonable way to proceed because in my view 60 days is frankly 
too short a time and does not sufficiently protect the public interest.
  I hope we can continue our dialogue about these issues and others and 
make additional changes as we proceed on this bill in the future. Thank 
you.
  Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3850, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________