PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 26, 2000
Universal Service Sufficiency Act of 2000 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to remove, on the date of enactment of this Act, the interim cap on total nationwide loop cost expense adjustments (interim cap) contained in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Prohibits the FCC from enforcing or reimposing such cap after such date.Prohibits the FCC from: (1) enforcing individual caps imposed on carriers by orders of the FCC entered in connection with prior requests for study area waivers; or (2) imposing any new cap that would limit the per loop support calculated under current FCC regulations.Requires the FCC to calculate: (1) that portion of the high cost support mechanism attributable to loops having costs in excess of 115 percent of the nationwide average; and (2) the nationwide average unseparated loop cost, taking into account the elimination of the interim cap pursuant to this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Deal, Nathan [R-GA-9] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5294 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5294 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5294 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5294 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.