[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.
  

                          ____________________