[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 127 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8269-H8279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1555, COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1995
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 207 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 207
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1555) to promote competition and reduce
regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality
services for American telecommunications consumers and
encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the
bill for failure to comply with section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed ninety
minutes equally divided among and controlled by the chairmen
and ranking minority members of the Committee on Commerce and
the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of
rule XXI and section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 are waived. Before consideration of any other
amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment
printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. If that amendment is
adopted, the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule. No further amendment
shall be in order except those printed in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment printed in
part 2 of the report may be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the
report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against amendments printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules are waived. The chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during
further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment. The chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by
electronic device without intervening business, provided that
the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any
series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 1555, it shall be in order to
take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 652 and to consider
the Senate bill in the House. All points of order against the
Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It
shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting
clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 1555 as passed by the House. All points of
order against that motion are waived. If the motion is
adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it
shall be in order to move that the House insist on its
amendments to S. 652 and request a conference with the Senate
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
House Resolution 207 is a modified closed rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995, and
allowing 90 minutes of general debate to be equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary
Committees. The rule waives section 302(f) of the Budget Act against
consideration of the bill. The rule also makes in order as an original
bill for
[[Page H8270]]
the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Commerce and provides that the
amendment be considered as read. House Resolution 207 also waives
clause 5(a) of rule XXI--prohibiting appropriation in an authorization
bill--and section 302(f) of the Budget Act--against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
House Resolution 207 provides first for the consideration of the
amendment printed in Part 1 of the Rules Committee report. This
amendment, which will be offered by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley,
is debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an
opponent, and provides that the amendment be considered as read. The
manager's amendment shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand
for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the
whole.
After general debate and the consideration of the manger's amendment,
the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute
rule. House Resolution 207 makes in order only the amendments printed
in part 2 of the Rules Committee report in the order specified, by the
Members designated in the report, debatable for the time specified in
the report to be equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of
the amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the
report, and provides that these amendments shall not be subject to
division of the question in the House or Committee of the Whole nor
subject to amendment unless otherwise specified in the report.
This rule allows the chair to postpone votes in the Committee of the
Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if those votes follow a 15-minute
vote. Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions, as in the right of the minority.
Following final passage of H.R. 1555, the rule provides for the
immediate consideration of S. 652 and waives all points of order
against the bill. The rule allows for a motion to strike all after the
enacting clause of S. 652 and insert H.R. 1555 as passed by the House
and waives all points of order against that motion. Finally, it is in
order for the House to insist on its amendments to S. 652 and request a
conference with the Senate.
I would also ask for unanimous consent to add any extraneous
materials for inclusion in the Congressional Record.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1555 is a complex piece of legislation, and the
final product that passes the House has been designed to ensure that
the United States maintains the lead on the information superhighway as
we move into the 21st century. The House has worked to create a
balanced bill which equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the
telecommunications industry. The complexity and balance of this
legislation requires a structured rule, because it is conceivable that
a simply constructed amendment would attract enough votes, on the face
of it, to upset the balance of the bill.
Let me take this opportunity to commend the diligent work of Chairman
Bliley, Chairman Fields, and Chairman Hyde, and also recognize ranking
minority members John Dingell and John Conyers, for their service in
guiding this fair balanced legislation to the House floor.
The overriding goal of telecommunication reform legislation must be
to encourage the competition that will produce innovative technologies
for every American household and provide benefits to the American
consumer in the form of lower prices and enhanced services. The House
Telecommunications bill will promote competition in the market for
local telephone service by requiring local telephone companies to offer
competitors access to parts of their networks, drive competition in the
multichannel video market by empowering telephone companies to provide
video programming, and maintain and encourage the competitiveness of
over the air broadcast stations. The American people will be amazed by
the wide array of technological changes that will soon be available in
their homes.
The massive barriers to competition and the restrictions that were
necessary less than a decade ago to protect segments of the U.S.
economy have served their purpose. We have achieved great advances and
lead the
world in telecommunications services. However, productive societies
strengthen and nourish the spirit of innovation and competition, and I
believe that H.R. 1555 will provide customers with more choices in new
products and result in tremendous benefits to all consumers.
In order to achieve further balance and deregulation in H.R. 1555,
the rule will allow the House an opportunity to debate a manager's
amendment to be offered by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley. This
amendment represents a compromise that will accelerate the transition
to a fully competitive telecommunications marketplace. This amendment
is not a part of the base text, it will be debated thoroughly, and it
will be judged by a vote on the floor of the House.
Following the consideration of the manager's amendment, the rule
allows for the consideration of a number of divisive amendments that
focus on cable television price controls, re-regulating cable broadcast
ownership, and provisions for regulation of violence and gratuitous
sexual images on local television that may be constrained by
technology.
The Rules Committee has made seven amendments in order in part 2 of
the Rules report, including five minority amendments, a bipartisan
amendment, and one majority amendment. A number of the amendments
offered to the Rules Committee were duplicative, some were withdrawn
and some were incorporated into the manager's amendment. In addition,
some amendments have already been included in the Senate bill, and it
is important to note that there will be room for negotiation in
conference.
The rule makes in order an amendment--to be debated for 20 minutes--
offered by Representatives Cox and Wyden which would ensure that online
service providers who take steps to clean up the Internet are not
subject to additional liability for being Good Samaritans. The rule
also makes in order an amendment--to be debated for 10 minutes--offered
by Representative Stupak which involves local governments and charges
for public rights of way.
The rule also allows for an amendment offered by the ranking minority
member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, which would enhance the
role of the Justice Department with regard to the Bell Companies
applying for authorization to enter currently prohibited lines of
business. The chairmen of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees have
worked diligently to reconcile this issue, and it was decided that the
Department of Justice should receive a consultative role. Nonetheless,
the rule permits Members the opportunity to vote on this measure.
We have also been extremely responsive to the requests of the ranking
minority member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Finance, Mr. Markey, by allowing all three of the amendments he
requested. Mr. Markey has a different, more regulatory view of the
future of the telecommunications industry, and he has been afforded
every opportunity to revise the bill by offering three rather
controversial amendments. The first amendment--to be debated for 30
minutes--would amend the bill by changing the standard for unreasonable
rates and imposing rate controls on the cable industry. While the goal
of this legislation is to reduce regulations, the rule will reverse the
deregulatory cable provisions in H.R. 1555.
The second amendment--to be considered for 30 minutes--would retain
the current broadcast cable ownership rule and scale back the audience
reach cap in H.R. 1555 from 50 to 35 percent. While I believe that this
amendment would selectively weaken the broadcast deregulation
provisions in the bill, this is an issue that concerns many Members of
this House and deserves a full and open debate.
There will be a substantive debate over provisions for regulating
certain violent and sexual images on television through technological
constraints. While there is evidence that the increasing amount of
violent and sexual content on television has an adverse
[[Page H8271]]
impact on our society and especially children, the House has two
options to consider in this debate. Mr. Markey has been granted the
opportunity to offer an amendment requiring the establishment of a
television rating code and the manufacture of certain televisions,
which many fear will require a government-controlled rating system. The
House will also have the opportunity to vote for a substitute offered
by Representative Coburn that utilizes a private industry approach that
does not impose strict, Washington-based mandates which raise difficult
first amendment questions.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation will be remembered as
the most deregulatory legislation in history. The goal of this
legislation is to create wide open competition between the various
telecommunications industries, and this legislation in its final form
will undoubtedly encourage a new era of opportunity for every company
involved in the telecommunications industry and many companies
heretofore unheard of.
Those nations that have achieved the most impressive growth in the
past have not been those with rigid government controls, nor those that
are the most affluent in natural resources. The most extraordinary
development has come in those nations that have put their trust in the
power and potential of the marketplace. This bill states that
government authority and mandates are not beneficial to economic
development, and it will help assure this Nation's prosperity well into
the 21st century.
The resolution that was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee
is a fair rule that will allow for thorough consideration on a number
of amendments. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
proceed with consideration of the merits of this extraordinarily
important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following information for the Record:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of August 2, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 41 72
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 14 24
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 2 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 57 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of August 2, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/13/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: voice vote (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1159........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act A: voice vote (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... A: 414-4 (5/10/95)
H. Res. 144 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 535............ Fish Hatchery--Arkansas.. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 145 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 584............ Fish Hatchery--Iowa...... A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 146 (5/11/ O................... H.R. 614............ Fish Hatchery--Minnesota. A: voice vote (5/15/
95). 95)
H. Res. 149 (5/16/ MC.................. H. Con. Res. 67..... Budget Resolution FY 1996 PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
95). 168 (5/17/95)
H. Res. 155 (5/22/ MO.................. H.R. 1561........... American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
95). Interests Act. 95)
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95) MC.................. H.R. 1530........... Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
1996. 183 (6/13/95)
H. Res. 167 (6/15/ O................... H.R. 1817........... MilCon Appropriations FY PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
95). 1996. 155 (6/16/95)
H. Res. 169 (6/19/ MC.................. H.R. 1854........... Leg. Branch Approps. FY PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
95). 1996. 191 (6/20/95)
H. Res. 170 (6/20/ O................... H.R. 1868........... For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
95). 1996. 175 (6/22/95)
H. Res. 171 (6/22/ O................... H.R. 1905........... Energy & Water Approps. A: voice vote (7/12/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 173 (6/27/ C................... H.J. Res. 79........ Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
95). Amendment. 152 (6/28/95)
H. Res. 176 (6/28/ MC.................. H.R. 1944........... Emer. Supp. Approps...... PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
95). 192 (6/29/95)
H. Res. 185 (7/11/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
95). 238 (7/12/95)
H. Res. 187 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1977........... Interior Approps. FY 1996 PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
95). #2. 195 (7/13/95)
H. Res. 188 (7/12/ O................... H.R. 1976........... Agriculture Approps. FY PQ: 242-185 A:
95). 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 190 (7/17/ O................... H.R. 2020........... Treasury/Postal Approps. PQ: 232-192 A:
95). FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95)
H. Res. 193 (7/19/ C................... H.J. Res. 96........ Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/20/
95). China. 95)
H. Res. 194 (7/19/ O................... H.R. 2002........... Transportation Approps. PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 197 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 70............. Exports of Alaskan Crude A: voice vote (7/24/
95). Oil. 95)
H. Res. 198 (7/21/ O................... H.R. 2076........... Commerce, State Approps. A: voice vote (7/25/
95). FY 1996. 95)
H. Res. 201 (7/25/ O................... H.R. 2099........... VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996.. A: 230-189 (7/25/
95). 95)
H. Res. 204 (7/28/ MC.................. S. 21............... Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/1/
95). Embargo on Bosnia. 95)
H. Res. 205 (7/28/ O................... H.R. 2126........... Defense Approps. FY 1996. A: 409-1 (7/31/95)
95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95) MC.................. H.R. 1555........... Communications Act of ...................
1995.
[[Page H8272]]
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95) O................... H.R. 2127........... Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 233-104 (8/2/95)
1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2245
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose this modified closed rule for the
consideration of this landmark deregulatory telecommunications
legislation for several reasons.
First, there is no legitimate need--there is no compelling reaon--for
us to consider H.R. 1555, during one of the busiest weeks we have
experienced this year. There is absolutely no urgency at all attached
to the passage of this bill before we adjourn.
Quite simply, we ought not to be debating this rule and this bill
tonight. There are many more good reasons to put this legislation over
until our return in September than there are for taking it up now.
Debating landmark legislation, which completely rewrites our existing
communications laws, in the dead of night, squeezed carefully between
major appropriations bills that should have first priority, is
outrageous on its face.
We feel strongly that a bill with the enormous economic, political,
and cultural consequences for the Nation as does H.R. 1555, should
receive far more time for consideration than this bill will be allowed.
Second, there is not enough time allowed to properly consider the
several very major amendments that have been made in order. For
example, we shall have only 30 minutes to consider the Markey-Shays
amendment to increase cable consumer protection in H.R. 1555, an
amendment which seeks to guard consumers against unfair monopolistic
pricing.
The sponsors of the amendment testified that H.R. 1555, as written,
completely unravels the protections that cable consumers currently
enjoy, and that their amendment is needed to ensure that competition
exists before all regulation is eliminated. This is a very substantive
amendment, dealing with an industry that affects the great majority of
Americans. It certainly deserves more time for serious debate then we
are giving it tonight.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most troubling part of the bill is its
treatment of media ownership, and its promotion of mergers and
concentration of power. The bill would remove all limits on the number
of radio stations a single company could own, and would raise the
ceiling on the number of television households a single broadcaster is
allowed to serve.
It would also remove longstanding restrictions that have prevented
television broadcasters from owning radio stations, newspapers, and
cable systems in the same market.
Thus Mr. Markey's amendment limiting the number of television
stations that one media company could reach to 35 percent of the
Nation's households, and prohibiting a broadcaster from owning a cable
system in a market where it owns a television station, is especially
important--and, since it could lead to a single person or a single
company's owning an enormous number of television stations or media
outlets in the country, this is an issue too that deserves far more
than the 30 minutes the rule allows for it to be discussed and debated.
As the New York Times editorialized today, the bill ``would for the
first time allow a single company to buy a community's newspaper, cable
service, television station and, in rural areas, its telephone company.
It threatens to hand over to one company control of the community's
source of news and entertainment.''
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we also oppose the rule because it does not
allow Members to address all the major questions that should be
involved in this debate. This rule limits to 6, the number of
amendments that may be offered.
We fully understand and respect the need to structure the rule for
this enormously complex and technical bill; but we do believe that, in
limiting the time devoted to this bill, the majority incorrectly
prevented the consideration of significant amendments that address
legitimate questions.
When the Rules Committee met late yesterday on this rule, we sought
to make those amendments in order. I would add that we did not seek to
make every one of the 30 to 40 amendments submitted in order--as I have
already mentioned, we understand the need to structure this rule.
But the committee defeated, by a bipartisan vote of 5 to 6, our
request to make in order the amendment submitted by Mr. Moran that
prohibits the FCC from undertaking the rulemaking that could preempt
local governments from regulating the construction of cellular towers.
The Members of the House should have the opportunity to vote on this
amendment--and Mr. Moran deserves to have the opportunity to offer it.
The amendment addresses the very important concerns of localities who
believe this issue is properly within the jurisdiction of local zoning
laws. It is endorsed by the National Association of Counties, the
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the
American Planning Association. Many local jurisdictions have contacted
us this week in favor of this amendment,
and we feel the committee made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, by not allowing
it to be discussed on the floor.
We attempted unsuccessfully to make in order the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], eliminating the ban on joint
marketing of long distance service and Bell operating company-supplied
local exchange service. Mr. Hall deserves time to explain his amendment
and let the Members decide for themselves whose interests are best
served by his amendment.
The majority also denied making in order the Orton-Morella affordable
access amendment, which adds affordability to the requirement for
preserving access for elementary and secondary students to the
information highway.
The amendment is strongly supported by education agencies and
organizations, and we feel that the sponsors deserved the chance to
present their arguments for the amendment to the House. We should not
have acquiesced to the arguments of industry representatives that these
affordable access requirements should not be debated because the
implications are not known. That is why we have debates--so that both
sides can explain their position. Unfortunately, in these cases, we
were able to hear only one side.
So, Mr. Speaker, we believe our Members have legitimate amendments
that should have been made in order by this rule, and we regret the
decision to shut them out of this important debate.
With respect to the amendments that were made in order, Mr. Speaker,
we are very disturbed that the commitment to ensure a vote on Mr.
Markey's V-chip amendment was not properly honored. While his amendment
is in order, the Coburn substitute, which is much weaker, will be voted
on first; if it is adopted, Mr. Markey is denied the right to have an
up or down vote on his very important amendment.
Members should be allowed a clean vote on the Markey amendment, which
is by far the stronger of the two. Whether or not parents are given the
ability to block violent television shows so their young children
cannot watch them is an important issue, and we should not allow the
vote to be represented as something it is not. The rule is very unfair
in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1555 is a very complex piece of legislation; very
few Members understand the implications of this bill, and I would
suggest that we might very well come to regret its consideration in
this hurried and inadequate manner.
[[Page H8273]]
We all know that changes need to be made in our 60 year old
communications law. But we should be concerned about the process under
which this bill is being brought to the floor tonight. Not only has a
manager's amendment been developed out of the public's eye, but it was
done after the committee with jurisdiction overwhelmingly reported
quite a different bill.
We should all be concerned about the process under which a bill with
huge economic consequences and implications for consumers and business
interests is being rushed through the House. The testimony of over 40
Members before the Rules Committee demonstrates the complexities
involved in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we hope that the final version of this bill does balance
the introduction of competitive markets, with measures designed to
protect consumers. We have heard from all sides involved, and every
industry has valid points to make. I do hope, however, that we do not
lose sight of the consumer in this process, and of the need to protect
the people from potential monopoly abuses.
Mr. Speaker, we oppose the rule--not only because it is restrictive,
but because it does not go far enough in ensuring that enough time is
given to this important debate, and because it does not protect the
right of Members to offer amendments pertaining to all of the major
issues of this very complicated piece of legislation.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson] I really am surprised at his testimony here.
As my colleague knows, first of all we have 8-\1/2\ hours allocated for
this piece of legislation. We extended that for another hour to take
into consideration the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], our good
friend, because he is a ranking Member, and he was entitled to his
major amendment.
Mr. BEILENSON. Of course he was.
Mr. SOLOMON. Now we expanded it for 1 hour. That meant we were
spending 9\1/2\ hours on this bill. It puts us here until 2:30 in the
morning today, and many of us will stay here while many of our
colleagues leave, and we will finish that part of the bill.
Now, if we had made in order all of those amendments that the
gentleman just read off, we would be 19 hours. I figured out the time,
19 hours.
Now the gentleman knows we are going to be here until 6 o'clock in
the morning tomorrow night and into Friday, and my colleague and other
Members have asked me from the gentleman's side of the aisle to tighten
things down, let us take care of the major amendments. We negotiated
with the majority, we negotiated with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], we negotiated with the gentleman's Democratic leadership.
Everyone was happy, and all of a sudden we come on this floor here now
and nobody is happy.
{time} 2400
Let us stick to our points. If we make a deal upstairs in the Rules
Committee, let us live by it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time
is remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson] has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will have a different view
than my good friend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Beilenson]. I rise in
support of this rule. It makes in order the key amendments that the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and others have asked for.
Mr. Speaker, I also would have liked to have seen more debate on
these amendments, but, on balanced, I think it is a fair rule and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
If we are going to make technology work for our economy and for our
country, and especially for our families, our laws have to keep pace
with the changing times, and I believe the bill before us today will
help bring this country into the 21st century. From the beginning, Mr.
Speaker, telecommunication reform has been about one thing, it has been
about competition.
We all know the more competition we have will lead to better
products, better prices, better services and the better use of
technology for everybody. Above all, competition helps create more jobs
and better jobs for our economy. Studies show that this bill will help
create 3.4 million additional jobs over the next 10 years and lay the
groundwork for technology that will help to create millions more.
Let us be honest, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill before us
today. There are lots of improvements that can be made, and I want to
suggest a couple of them to you tonight.
First, we have an important amendment on the V-chip. Studies tell us
that by the time the average child finishes elementary school he or she
will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on the
television. Most parents do all they can to keep their kids away from
violent programming, but in this age of two-job parents and 200 channel
televisions, parents need some help. Fortunately, we do have technology
today that will help. The V-chip is a small computer chip that, for
about 17 cents, can be inserted into a TV set and it allows the parents
to block out violent programming.
This V-chip, Mr. Speaker, is based on some very simple principles:
That parents raise children, not government, not advertisers, and not
network executives, and parents should be the ones to choose what kinds
of shows come into their homes.
Second, I believe we should do all we can to keep our airwaves from
falling into the hands of the wealthy and the powerful. Current law
limits the number of television stations, one per person or media
company can reach, to 25 percent of the Nation's households. That rule
was established to promote the free exchange of diverse views and
ideas. The bill before us today, however, would literally allow one
person, in any given area, to own two television stations, unlimited
number of radio stations, the local newspaper and local cable systems.
Instead of the 25 percent limit under this bill, Rupert Murdock could
literally own media outlets that reach to over half of America's
households, Mr. Speaker. In other words, this bill allows Mr. Murdock
to control what 50 percent of American households read, hear, and see,
and that is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will offer
an amendment to set that limit to 35 percent, and, frankly, I don't
think this amendment goes far enough. I believe we need to address
broader issues, such as who controls our networks, who controls our
newspapers, and who controls our radios.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would have liked
to have seen a tougher amendment, but I urge my colleagues to support
the Markey amendment on concentration, and, Mr. Speaker, this bill has
been around a long time. It has been a long time in coming, and I urge
my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Rules Committee.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. Linder] and congratulate him for his fine work on an extremely
complex rule that took a lot of work to get done, and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon] as well, and I am delighted there is
support on both sides of the aisle, for it deserves it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule also, and I will use my time
to indulge in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
the honorable chairman of the Committee on Commerce, because two points
have come up in discussion today regarding local government authority
which I think can be clarified and need to be clarified.
Chairman Bliley was Mayor Bliley of Richmond, and this gentleman was
mayor of a much smaller town, but they were both local governments and
[[Page H8274]]
there was a great concern among some of our local governments about
some issues here, particularly two, as I have said. I want to address
the issue of zoning.
Mr. Speaker, as to the cellular industry expanding into the next
century, there will be a need for an estimated 100,000 new transmission
poles to be constructed throughout the country, I am told. I want to
make sure that nothing in H.R. 1555 preempts the ability of local
officials to determine the placement and construction of these new
towers. Land use has always been, and I believe should continue to be,
in the domain of the authorities in the areas directly affected.
I must say I appreciate that communities cannot prohibit access to
the new facilities, and I agree they should not be allowed to, but it
is important that cities and counties be able to enforce their zoning
and building codes. That is the first point.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the bill does not
restrict the ability of local governments to derive revenues for the
use of public rights-of-way so long as the fees are set in a
nondiscriminatory way.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to commend the gentleman and his colleagues and the chairman of the
Committee on Rules for this rule. I wholeheartedly support it.
Let me say this, I was president of the Virginia Municipal League as
well as being Mayor of Richmond, and I was on the board of directors of
the National League of Cities. When legislation came to this body in a
previous Congress for a taking of Mansassas Battlefield, I voted
against it because the supervisors of Prince William County had made
that decision. I have resisted attempts by people to get me involved in
the Civil War preservation of Brandywine Station in Culpeper County for
the same reasons.
Nothing is in this bill that prevents a locality, and I will do
everything in conference to make sure this is absolutely clear,
prevents a local subdivision from determining where a cellular pole
should be located, but we do want to make sure that this technology is
available across the country, that we do not allow a community to say
we are not going to have any cellular pole in our locality. That is
wrong. Nor are we going to say they can delay these people forever. But
the location will be determined by the local governing body.
The second point you raise, about the charges for right-of-way, the
councils, the supervisors and the mayor can make any charge they want
provided they do not charge the cable company one fee and they charge a
telephone company a lower fee for the same right-of-way. They should
not discriminate, and that is all we say. Charge what you will, but
make it equitable between the parties. Do not discriminate in favor of
one or the other.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for
that very clear explanation.
Mr. BLILEY. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentlewoman
from Maryland has raised a point with me about access for schools to
this new technology. Let me assure the gentlewoman that I know there is
a provision on this in the Senate bill, and I will work with her and
work with the other body to see that it is preserved and the intent of
what she would have offered had she been able to is carried out in the
final legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from a number of my local constituents, and
I know the chairman is very strongly supportive of the rights of
localities and strongly supportive of decentralized government. We have
had some conversations about the process here, and I wonder if I may
get a clarification.
Is my understanding correct that the gentleman is committed in the
conference process to offer new language that will make it crystal
clear that localities will have the authority to determine where these
poles are placed in their community so long as they do not exclude the
placement of poles altogether, do not unnecessarily delay the process
for that purpose, do not favor one competitor over another and do not
attempt to regulate on the basis of radio frequency emissions which is
clearly a Federal issue? Is that an accurate statement of your
intention?
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. BLILEY. That is indeed, and I will certainly work to that end.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you and I look forward to working with the
chairman.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if this bill really deserves a full and
open debate, as the gentleman from Georgia has suggested, then why are
we taking it up at midnight?
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that affects the telephone in every house
and every workplace in this country. It is a bill that affects every
television viewer in this country and a wide array of other
telecommunications services, and when does this Congress consider it?
At midnight, after a full day of debate on an appropriations bill.
Regardless of your view on this bill, and I think it has some merit,
regardless of your view on the substance of the bill, this sorry
procedure ought to be voted down along with this rule. What an
incredible testament to this new Republican leadership that they could
take a bill of this vital important to the people of America and not
take it up until midnight.
You can roll the votes. That just means there will not be anybody
here listening to the debate. You can roll them all night long, as you
plan to do. The real question is whether you will roll the American
consumer.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Barton].
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of the
rule. I think this is a good rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to my colleagues that if this were a
software package that would be version 5 or 6. We have been working on
this issue for the last 5 years in the Congress. We had a bill pass the
House; we never went to conference with the Senate last year.
There is one amendment that has been made in order, a bipartisan
amendment, the Stupak-Barton amendment, that deals directly with local
access, local control of rights-of-way for the cities that is very
bipartisan in nature, and I would urge support of that amendment if we
can reach agreement on it, which we are still working on that.
So this is a good rule, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for
making Stupak-Barton in order, and I would urge Members to vote for the
rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the ranking member of the
committee.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 2315
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I urge my
colleagues to vote for it. H.R. 1555 is a complex bill. It deals with a
complex industry. It comprises a substantial portion of the American
economy.
There are a lot of controversies in this legislation, and it should
not be dealt with cavalierly. It is a matter of some regret to me we
are proceeding late at night and that we have not had more time for
this. But, nonetheless, the bill that would be put on the floor by the
rule resolves many important questions, and it pulls out of a
courtroom, where one judge, a couple of law clerks, a gaggle of Justice
Department lawyers, and several hotel floors of AT&T lawyers, have been
making the entirety of telecommunications policy for the United States
since the breakup.
The breakup of AT&T was initiated by its president, Mr. Charley
Brown, and it was done because he had gotten tired of having MCI sue
him instead of
[[Page H8275]]
competing with him because of antitrust violations by AT&T. The
crafting of that agreement led to a situation where the entirety of the
telecommunications
policies of the United States were dealt with in a closed courtroom,
where no other party could participate.
This legislation resolves that question. Now, does it do so
perfectly? Probably not. But I will remind my colleagues that this bill
will resolve a conflict between the very rich and the very wealthy, and
that fairness under those circumstances is impossible to achieve.
I will discuss later how there is competition in the long distance
services of the United States and how the rates of AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint fly in perfect formation. They fly like the formation of the
nuts and bolts in an aircraft, all tied together by invisible forces,
which has led to a situation where they all make money and nobody gets
into that because of the behavior of Judge Green and his law clerks and
a gaggle of Justice Department lawyers and three floors of AT&T
lawyers, who have been foreclosing the participation of any other
person in or outside of the telecommunications industry.
The bill, is it perfect? No. But it is far better than the situation
we have, and it is a good enough bill. I would urge my colleagues to
vote for it.
The rule, is it what I would have written? Of course not. But it does
get the House to the business of addressing an important national
question, and that is the question of what will be our
telecommunications policy, and will it be decided by the Congress, and
will it be decided by the regulatory system, or will it be decided in a
court of star chamber, in which no other citizen can participate.
I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Paxon].
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1555,
the Communications Act of 1995.
The last time Congress considered communications legislation, the
year was 1934. Radio was still in its infancy and commercial television
broadcasting was still years away.
In those six decades dizzying changes in technology and markets have
made our Nation's current telecommunications statutes totally outdated.
Over the last decade as Congress has debated telecommunications
reform legislation, the private sector hasn't waited--instead they have
moved aggressively, for example implementing a completely new,
alternative phone system--cellular service--and they are now on the
verge of creating yet another form of wireless communication.
Because of these rapid innovations in the marketplace, it is
impossible and counterproductive for Congress to control micro manage
the Nation's telecommunications future.
Instead, H.R. 1555 seeks to break down restrictive barriers, repeal
outdated regulations and provide a fair and level playing field for all
competitors.
As the Commerce Committee worked on drafting this legislation, we
were of the opinion that competition is better than regulation. In
areas where regulations are necessary, such as the transition rules
while opening the local phone loop, regulations must be fair,
reasonable, flexible, and sunset as quickly as possible.
In earlier decades it was perhaps logical for the Federal Government
to establish communications monopolies to serve the Nation. However,
we've now reached a stage in communications in which regulation is not
only inefficient, but is actually a hindrance to the innovation and
expansion which benefits the consumer.
For example--for the first time our policy is to move toward
competition in local phone service and in cable television. We will
also witness greatly expanded competition in long distance and in radio
and television broadcasting.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to speak about the
process that produced this important legislation.
H.R. 1555 is the result of many months of hard work by all members,
both Democrat and Republican, of the Commerce Committee and innumerable
hours by committee and personal staff.
This bill does not favor one company or one industry at the expense
of another. Chairman Bliley, subcommittee Chairman Fields and Ranking
Member Dingell worked hard to produce legislation providing a fair and
level playing field that will allow all companies to compete in a
myriad of communication services.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support the
manager's amendment, and support final passage of H.R. 1555.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I will share with
my colleagues two good reasons to vote against this rule: You know, 90
percent of America's parents have been asking us to give them greater
control over what their children are seeing on television, the sex and
the violence and the profanity. Enough is enough they say. They look to
us to give them some relief.
More than 50 colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, cosponsored
legislation to use the technology that exists today to empower parents
to control what their children are viewing on television. Pennies is
all it would cost to add it to every new television set.
We have worked on this for months, and now, at the last minute, we
have an amendment that was put together by the broadcast industry,
which really is a sham, whose only objective is to kill the V-chip
amendment. This rule makes it in order that if this amendment wins, and
all it does is to encourage the broadcast industry to address this
problem, if that amendment wins, we do not even get a vote on ours.
The second reason is a real sleeper in this bill, and that is with
regard to the siting of these control towers. There are about 20,000 of
them around the country now. There are going to be about 100,000. Our
amendment said on private property, if you try to site a commercial
tower, then the people that own that property have a right to go to
their local zoning board.
Of course they have the right. Imagine if somebody tries to put a 150
foot tower on your property, and you object, and they tell you, ``Well,
the Congress gave us the authority to put it on. It is a Federal law.
It supersedes local zoning authority.'' That is the last thing we want
to be doing.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from Indiana is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill has a great
deal of merit and a lot of hard work has gone into it, and I think the
rule, with a few exceptions, is a pretty good rule. But when I appeared
before the Committee on Rules a couple of days ago, I specifically
asked the chairman of the committee if we were going to get a
freestanding up or down vote on this amendment.
I think there might have been a misunderstanding. I would not accuse
the chairman of the committee of misleading anybody. But there
definitely was a commitment, in my opinion, that we would have a
straight, clear vote on the V chip amendment.
The problem is that we now have, as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Moran] said, a perfecting amendment which will gut our ability to have
an up or down vote on whether or not parents in this country will be
able to block out sexually explicit programs and violent programs that
they do not want their kids to see.
This legislation that we are trying to get passed would be very, very
helpful to parents who are working. There are going to be 2 to 3
hundred channels in most homes in the not too distant future. The only
technology we have now will block out one or two or three programs, and
parents are not going to take the time to go through and specifically
block out program after program. But the technology we are talking
about will allow them to block out whole categories of violence and
sexually explicit programs. The amendment
[[Page H8276]]
that is going to be offered as a preferential amendment to mine would
stop that and just create a study commission.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, I had an amendment
offered on the V chip that was not made in order. I am supporting the
rule. I hope those Members who had their amendment made in order would
have the courtesy to support the rule.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the reason I
am not supporting the rule is simply because I was told we would have a
straight up or down vote.
Let me just get to the crux of the problem. The American people, 90
percent of the families, as has been said, want the ability to protect
their kids against violence and sexually explicit material. We have a
way to do it, and we are not being given an up or down vote on that
issue.
Now, we hope that the amendment that is going to supposedly perfect
mine, which does not do anything, will be defeated. I urge my
colleagues to defeat it so we can get a straight up or down vote on
that, because I am confident that Republicans and Democrats alike, if
given the chance, will give the American people what they want, and
that is the ability to protect their kids against violence and sexually
explicit programs. To do otherwise, I think is a sin.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1555.
This vital legislation makes long-overdue changes to current
communications laws by eliminating the legal barriers that prevent true
competition.
I am particularly pleased that H.R. 1555 will break down barriers to
telecommunications for people with disabilities by requiring that
carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment make their
network services and equipment accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities. The time is past for all persons to have access to
telecommunications services.
H.R. 1555 assigns to the FCC the regulatory functions of ensuring
that the Bell companies have complied with all of the conditions that
we have imposed on their entry into long distance. This bill requires
the Bell companies to interconnect with their competitors and to
provide to them the features, functions, and capabilities of the Bell
companies' networks that the new entrants need to compete. It also
contains other checks and balances to ensure that competition in local
and long distance grows.
The Justice Department still has the role that was granted to it
under the Sherman and Clayton Acts and other antitrust laws. Their role
is to enforce the antitrust laws and ensure that all companies comply
with the requirements of the bill.
The Department of Justice enforces the antitrust laws of this
country. It is a role that they have performed well. The Department of
Justice is not and should not be a regulating agency: it is an
enforcement agency.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to open our telecommunications market to true
competition. This legislation is long overdue. I encourage my
colleagues to support H.R. 1555.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden].
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition with the
process which was used for this important legislation. This bill will
impact the life of every American--whether they talk on the telephone,
listen to the radio, watch television, or send a fax. Even more
significantly, it will impact technologies that have not yet been
imagined and will be developed in the next century.
So how does the House of Representatives deal with this bill? By
debating it into the dark of night under a rule which allows for almost
no amendments. This process is seriously flawed.
The primary goal of this bill is supposed to be to increase
competition through deregulation. Unfortunately, the bill as amended by
the manager's amendment, falls short of this goal. For example, the
bill does not require that there be any real, substantial competition
in the local telephone loop prior to Bell entry into the long-distance
business.
Several amendments were proposed to the Rules Committee to improve
the bill and ensure that local competition will develop. None were made
in order.
One such amendment, to ensure that 10 percent of local residential
and commercial customers have access to a viable competitor prior to
Bell entry into long distance, was rejected. In my State of
Pennsylvania, which has 5.3 million local access lines, this means that
a Bell company could provide long-distance service to State residents
once a competitor could provide service to just 530,000 access lines.
Now why is it so important to have local competition before allowing
the local telephone monopoly into long distance? Without real
competition in the local loop prior to entry into long distance, a
company can control long-distance service provider access to their
long-distance customers because all long-distance calls must traverse
the local loop to reach telephone customers. In short, the Bell system
can use its monopoly control over the local loop into monopoly control
over the long-distance business. This bill does not prevent the Bells
from extending their monopoly and denying the benefits of competition
to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no
on this bill in order to protect telephone consumers.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to be the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the rules governing debate of H.R. 1555 are bad enough--
we have 90 minutes to debate the most substantial changes to our
communications laws in over 60 years. What concerns me the most,
however, are provisions in H.R. 1555 which would be the single biggest
assault on American consumers and diversity of opinion that I've
witnessed as long as I have lived.
H.R. 1555 completely repeals limits on mass media ownership, and the
result will be a dangerous combination of media power. Under the bill,
a single company can own a network station, a cable station, unlimited
numbers of radio stations, and a daily newspaper, all in the same town.
We have heard that lifting ownership limits will promote competition.
Personally, I can't think of a worse way to go about it. Once we lift
the limits, a handful of network executives will dictate what programs
the local affiliates in our districts should carry. If you have a
complaint about losing local programming, don't bother changing the
channel--the media group will own that station, too, If you want to
write a letter to the newspaper, feel free, but know that the media
group probably is the editorial board.
If any of my colleagues have
kept up with the news recently, media companies are already lining
up to buy each other out, all in anticipation of the broadcast
ownership bonanza. You don't have to take my word for it, just look in
today's New York Times and read about Walt Disney's buy-out of ABC, or
the Westinghouse takeover bid for CBS. I will warn my colleagues: these
companies are counting on us to remove ownership limits so they can
squeeze out smaller competitors.
I don't think that many of my colleagues realize this, but the FCC is
reviewing ownership limits and making changes right now to ensure
competition and local diversity. Blowing the lid off all restrictions
doesn't make sense; we should let the FCC continue to do its job.
Mr. Speaker, with unrealistic time limits, this rule continues the
tradition of the Republican-led 104th Congress: careless legislating
and minimal debate. The new leadership cares more about corporate
giveaways than consumers, and that is why I will vote against this
rule. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley], a member of the committee.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 2330
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the folks who support
the Markey amendment which was made in order, the gentlewoman from New
York
[[Page H8277]]
was talking about the concentration of media, she has an opportunity to
support the Markey amendment. But we cannot do that unless the rule
passes. Then the Members, the V chip that they had their amendment made
in order stand here in the well of the House and complain about the
rule. When I had my amendment offered to the Committee on Rules, it was
rejected. So instead, the bunch of ingrates standing here complaining
about the rule who had had their amendment in order, and here I stand,
I got stiffed by the Committee on Rules and I am supporting the rule.
What is wrong with this picture?
I give up. I am here to support the rule and simply say that it is
time that we break the chains of the modified final judgment and take
once and for all the responsibility for telecommunications legislation
back to the duly elected Representatives of the people and take it away
from an unelected, unresponsive Federal court.
Let us give back, let us give us the opportunity
to make those kinds of decisions for the consumer. This is the most
far-reaching, procompetitive, deregulatory piece of telecommunications
legislation in over 60 years.
This is a product that has not just come out of the woodwork. It is a
product that has been worked on for at least 5 years. Members of our
committee, members of the Committee on the Judiciary, Members who have
been here a while have worked on this issue. I find it incredible that
we would even consider not passing a rule that would get us one step
closer to what we want in telecommunications in the modern marketplace.
We have an opportunity here to pass the most far-reaching job-
creating bill that any of us can imagine, a 3.5 million jobs bill. In
10 years that will catch us up with technology and take an antiquated
1934 statute and bring it up to the 21st century.
I have a particular provision that I was proud to work on dealing
with the foreign ownership restrictions. They are incredibly
antiquated. They restrict the ability of American companies to raise
capital and to compete in the worldwide market. This bill breaks those
barriers. I am proud to support the rule and proud to support the bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in opposition to this rule.
Once again, the Republican leadership has crafted a closed rule. Call
it what they may, but where I come from there is nothing open about
limiting both the time for debate and the amendments to be considered.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will affect the lives of nearly every
American and is far too important to be subjected to a closed rule.
H.R. 1555 would make it possible for one entity to own all the radio
stations, newspapers, 2 TV stations, and even the local cable and
telephone companies in the same media market. So the same bill which
seeks to end local telephone monopolies would allow a handful of media
magnates to drive smaller competitors from the market and put an end to
broadcast diversity. But an amendment to maintain current law regarding
broadcast ownership was not made in order.
And what about the hypocrisy of the Republican leadership? For months
they have been telling us that State and local governments are better
equipped to make decisions affecting local residents, but this bill
preempts local zoning authority with regard to the placement of antenna
towers. Yet, an amendment to restore local authority was not ruled in
order. I find it hard to believe that the Republican leadership is
willing to rely on our State governments to solve this Nation's welfare
crisis but does not trust local authorities to regulate the placement
of cellular telephone antennas.
I would like to urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Atlanta for
yielding time to me.
Believe it or not, I know it is 11:34 p.m. But over the next couple
of hours, because of the fact that the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations wanted us today to proceed with
consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we are going to
embark on what I am convinced is one of the most exciting debates that
we have possibly addressed in this Congress. It is a debate which is
going to lead us towards the millennium and in fact lay the groundwork
for dramatically improving the opportunity for consumers in this
country to benefit in the area of telecommunications.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to be done on a very, very fair, under a
very, very fair and balanced rule. This rule will in fact allow for the
consideration of a wide range of issues, contrary to some of the
statements that have been made by those who are opposing the rule.
It will allow us to get into debates on the V chip issue, on
broadcasting, on cable, on Internet, a wide range of items, including
that very important item which was just addressed earlier, the issue of
local control.
We also had a very healthy exchange between two former mayors, which
is going to ensure that not only here but in the conference we will see
the issue of local control addressed.
This is being done in a bipartisan way. I congratulate the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and those on the other side
of the aisle who have been involved in this issue. It is being
addressed with the support of the leadership on both sides.
I believe that as we move toward the millennium, we are going with
this legislation to greatly enhance the opportunity for the U.S.
consumer.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], to the contrary, there is not going to be any
debate tonight whatsoever. The reason is because once we vote on this
rule, everybody in this room is going to go home except for five or six
people, because there are not going to be any more votes until sometime
tomorrow.
So the debate that takes place tonight will not be a debate. I would
suggest all you Americans that are going to plan to participate, call
home and tell them to start the home movies because you are going to be
the only one to see yourself talking. There is not going to be anybody
to talk to. There is not a single person who believes it is right to
take up this bill at midnight and talk to ourselves for the next 3 or 4
hours.
General debate and debate on the amendments will take place in a
total vacuum. It is not right. It is not necessary. Nobody on that side
will stand up and defend this process, and nobody on this side will
stand up and defend this process. It is an outrage. I am disappointed
that the Democratic ranking member of the full committee, that the
chairman of the full committee and chairman of the subcommittee have
such a low regard for the jurisdictional area of this committee that
they would go along with this process. I urge Members to vote no on
this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the
subcommittee which produced the bill.
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is a good, balanced rule. This
rule should be supported.
It gives us an opportunity to ask one question. That is: With our
telecommunications policy, do we move into the 21st century or do we
crawl back into the 1930s? Some of us have lived with that question for
2\1/2\ years, day in and day out. It is time to move forward. We know
the issues of the debate. It is time to move forward on this important
issue that affects a sixth of our Nation's economy.
I want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson], the leadership
[[Page H8278]]
on our side, the leadership on the other side for allowing us to move
forward.
This is a complex issue. If we had our preferences, we would do this
at an earlier time. We would have more time to debate this. We do not.
It is important to move forward.
I also want to pay special recognition to some Members who, like me,
have spent a great deal of time on this issue. My friend, the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman, my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], my friend in the back of the Chamber, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], who has spent as much time
and more on this particular issue. And we will have our differences
during this debate. We do disagree on the V chip. We do not want to see
the government get into content regulation. But we will debate that
issue.
We do not want to see the government continue a policy of restricting
growth when it is no longer necessary with direct broadcast satellite,
the growth of cable, the spectrum flexibility, the ability of
broadcasters to compress, and so forth. We will have that debate, a
good debate on that particular issue.
Of course, we disagree on the government continuing to regulate
cable. But those are debates that we have.
I want to recognize his leadership and others as we move forward on
this legislation.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is not legislation.
This is three card monte.
First we started with the appropriations bill on Labor-HHS, now we
are going to slip in a telecommunications bill. But just when we get a
focus on that, they will switch to the defense bill. This is an
absolute degradation of the legislative process.
We also have the problem that we are now going to have the debate
first and then the votes. I think they ought to try it other way
around. Why do they not have the votes first and then the debate? They
have obviously decided that the two are totally unrelated. They have
totally degraded the legislative process. They have borrowed their
sense of procedure from the red queen. Verdict first; debate
afterwards.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], subcommittee ranking member.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation.
The gentleman from Texas has already pointed out that it affects one-
sixth to one-seventh of the American economy. We should not be debating
a bill that affects one-sixth to one-seventh of the American economy at
midnight in the United States Congress. We should not be doing this.
We cannot have a good debate on cable. We cannot have a good debate
on long distance. We cannot have a good debate on the V chip. We cannot
have a good debate on privacy. We cannot have a good debate on the
Internet. We cannot have a good debate on any of these issues which
profoundly affect the satellite, the cable, the telephone, the
computer, the software, the educational future of our country.
This bill will make most of the rest of the legislation which we are
going to deal with on the floor of this body a footnote in history.
This is the bill. We are taking it up at midnight. We are going to tell
all the Members, after they vote on the rule, that they should go home,
that there will not be any votes.
America is sound asleep. This is not the way to be treating one-sixth
to one-seventh of the American economy. The Members should be here.
Their staffs should be in their offices. The American people should be
listening.
We are talking about issues that are so profound that if they are not
heard we will have lost the great opportunity to have had the debate,
to have had the educational experience which the Congress can provide
to the country.
Now, some Members say, well, who cares, really, it is just a battle
between AT&T on the one hand and the Bell companies on the other? Who
really cares, is kind of the attitude that some Members have about it.
Well, my colleagues, this is more than how many gigabits one company
might be able to provide or how many extra thousand cubic feet of fiber
optic that one or another company might provide. This is about how we
transmit the ideas in our society. Whether or not we give parents the
right to be able to block out the violence and the explicit sexual
content that comes through their television set goes to how our
children's minds are formed. Whether or not consumers are going to have
one cable company or two cable companies in their community 1\1/2\
years from now goes to the question of whether or not they are going to
have a monopoly or a real choice in the marketplace.
Whether or not we are going to have a single company able to purchase
the only newspaper in town, two television stations, every radio
station and the cable system in every community in America is more
profound than any other issue we are going to be debating on the floor
this week, this month or this year.
This rule should be voted down. We should take up this bill in the
light of day with every issue given the time it needs to be debated.
{time} 2345
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, arguably, the most important thing about
telecommunications reform is not in this bill, and that is affordable
access to the Internet for the Nation's schools. Myself and the
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] offered such an amendment in the
Committee on the Judiciary. We were asked to withdraw it in the hopes
that it would be worked on in this bill. The gentlewoman from Maryland
[Mrs. Morella] and I went to the Committee on Rules for her amendment,
and it is still not being considered.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the chairman, the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] what our posture would be, if I may, in a
colloquy, with the Senate version of the language that does ensure
Internet access for schools that is affordable.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, as I told the gentlewoman from Maryland
earlier, it is my intention to work with her and anyone else to see
that this provision, or as near as we can, is included in the final
version when we come out of conference.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to vote on a rule for a very important bill.
I would like to address a couple of points. First let me thank Chairman
Bliley and Chairman, Fields. We have worked on this for a long time. I
would like to especially thank the ranking member [Mr. Dingell] who has
given us some sage advice and a great deal of help. I am a little bit
surprised at the compliant that we are not debating for a long enough
time. We started with a 6 hour rule and we wind up with nine and a half
hours, and that apparently is not enough. I am surprised at my friend
from Indiana who says he cannot vote for this rule because he made his
amendment in order, he wanted a closed rule on his amendment. All he
has to do to have an up or down vote on his amendment is to have a
substitute. It seems to me, if you have enough votes, you can defeat
the substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I am most startled by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] who made it very clear to us that he could not support
this rule unless he got all three amendments in order. And we believed
the gentleman, and we thought they were substantive enough to debate,
and we made all three in order, and now he is complaining because we
are debating this at night.
Mr. Speaker, I was on this floor today on Labor-HHS and there were
fewer people in this Chamber during this day on Labor-HHS
appropriations than there are here tonight. You know as well as I that
typically there are fewer people in this Chamber during the day than at
night. These are specious arguments. The rule is a balanced rule. I
urge you to support it.
[[Page H8279]]
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment that
the rule on this bill does not include an amendment that I introduced
to provide affordable access to advanced telecommunication technologies
for schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities.
In title I, section 246(b)(5) of this bill, the committee expresses
its intent that students in our public schools should have access to
advanced telecommunications technologies as one of the fundamental
principles of universal service. This is an important and historic
commitment. However, the bill does not address the issue of
affordability of such access, nor does it include provisions addressing
libraries and rural health care facilities. This was the amendment I
introduced with Congressmen Orton and Ney and Congresswoman Lofgren.
The bill, I understand, refers to ``reasonable'' rates. Reasonable
rates by what standards? ``Affordable'' would have ensured that all
schools, nationwide, would have access to the information superhighway.
I want to clarify that my amendment would not have imposed a
financial burden on telecom providers. In the bill, universal service
is being redefined by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] based
on recommendations by this joint board. In my amendment, schools and
libraries would pay ``affordable'' rates as defined by a joint Federal-
State universal service board.
Most schools simply cannot afford advanced telecommunications
services. At present, less than 3 percent of classrooms in the United
States have access to the Internet. This will not change unless we make
access for schools affordable.
The Senate has wisely added provisions to ensure access at a discount
price for schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. I am
pleased the Commerce Committee chairman has stated his agreement to
working with me to include this provision in conference. In a Nation
rich in information, we can no longer rely on the skills of the
industrial age. All of our students must be guaranteed access to a high
quality of education regardless of where they live or how much money
they make. We must ensure that the emerging telecommunications
revolution does not leave our critical public institutions behind.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255,
nayes 156, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 616]
YEAS--255
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Clinger
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Heineman
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wyden
Wynn
Zeliff
NAYS--156
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burton
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gunderson
Hancock
Harman
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Latham
Levin
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moran
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Thomas
Thornton
Torres
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--23
Andrews
Bateman
Callahan
Chrysler
Dicks
Hall (OH)
Martinez
McDade
Moakley
Montgomery
Moorhead
Reynolds
Rose
Sabo
Shuster
Studds
Thurman
Volkmer
Williams
Wilson
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 0005
Mr. CUNNINGHAM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________