[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 1549-1550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



INTRODUCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARBARA CUBIN

                               of wyoming

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 7, 2001

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of introducing the 
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2001.
  As many will recall, last year I introduced H.R. 3850, the 
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000, to 
lessen the burdens on small and mid-sized telephone companies and allow 
them to shift more of their resources to deploying advanced 
telecommunication 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% 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 less profitable than 
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 (FCC) 
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've actually made it more difficult. The reason is that the FCC 
more often than not uses a one size fits all model in regulating all 
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). This type of model may be 
fine for the big companies than have the ability to hire legions of 
attorneys and staff to interpret and ensure compliance with the 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 phone company installing a DSLAM or other facilities 
to provide high speed Internet access to customers in rural areas.
  Just to give you an example of how burdensome these reports are, the 
Commission's instructions for filling them out are over 900 pages long. 
More often than not, the FCC does not refer to--and in some cases 
simply ignores--the data filed by mid-size companies.
  Let me be very clear, however, that the bill does nothing to restrict 
the Commission's authority to request this or any other data at any 
time.
  I want to be fair--the FCC should be commended for their efforts to 
bring some of these

[[Page 1550]]

reporting requirements down to a reasonable level. In fact, during our 
hearing on this legislation, the FCC told the Telecommunications 
Subcommittee that it may be issuing a notice of proposed rule-making 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's time those 
obligations are met and this legislation would solidify what the FCC 
has promised to do for a long time.
  In addition, I want everyone to know that I 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.
  Some of the changes that were adopted during the Commerce Committee'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.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record what this legislation 
does and what it does not do.
  The bill does not reopen the 1996 Act; it does not fully deregulate 
two percent carriers; and it does not impact regulations dealing with 
large local carriers. It would, however, be the first free-standing 
legislation that would modernize regulations of two percent carriers; 
it would accelerate competition in many small to mid-size markets; 
accelerate the deployment of new, advanced telecommunication services; 
and benefit consumers by allowing two percent carriers to redirect 
resources to network investment and new services.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical for rural areas across the 
country where these small telephone companies operate.
  Without this bill, these two 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--a share 
of the new economy.
  I want to remind members of the House that H.R. 3850 passed with 
wide-spread support during the 106th Congress. Unfortunately, the 
Senate wasn't able to bring up the bill due to time constraints, but I 
am confident that we will continue to garner support for this common 
sense regulatory initiative.
  In closing I want to thank the original cosponsors of the bill: Reps. 
Bart Gordon, Chip Pickering, and Tom Barrett. The cosponsors and I 
acknowledged that there may be room for improvement and welcome 
refinements. As I acknowledged earlier, last year I was very receptive 
to concerns that individual members and industry representatives 
brought to my attention. My office has always had an open door policy 
and that will never change. We look forward to working with incumbent 
and competitive interests so that in the end the ultimate goal will be 
realized: improved access to advanced telecommunications and common 
sense regulatory changes that lessen the burdens on small and mid-size 
telecommunications providers.
  We collectively acknowledge the new leadership at the Federal 
Communications Commission and look forward to their thoughtful 
suggestions as well as their own internal changes that will hopefully 
improve the regulatory environment that these small and mid-size 
companies operate under.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee 
for their help in moving this bill last year and ask my colleagues to 
once again unanimously support this very important piece of 
legislation.

                          ____________________