[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 121 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H8682-H8686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2000
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3850) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote
deployment of advanced services and foster the development of
competition for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the Nation
by relieving unnecessary burdens on the Nation's two percent local
exchange telecommunications carriers, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3850
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Independent
Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000''.
[[Page H8683]]
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted to
foster the rapid deployment of advanced telecommunications
and information technologies and services to all Americans by
promoting competition and reducing regulation in
telecommunications markets nationwide.
(2) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 specifically
recognized the unique abilities and circumstances of local
exchange carriers with fewer than two percent of the Nation's
subscriber lines installed in the aggregate nationwide.
(3) Given the markets two percent carriers typically serve,
such carriers are uniquely positioned to accelerate the
deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives
for the benefit of consumers in less densely populated
regions of the Nation.
(4) Existing regulations are typically tailored to the
circumstances of larger carriers and therefore often impose
disproportionate burdens on two percent carriers, impeding
such carriers' deployment of advanced telecommunications
services and competitive initiatives to consumers in less
densely populated regions of the Nation.
(5) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers
will enable such carriers to devote additional resources to
the deployment of advanced services and to competitive
initiatives to benefit consumers in less densely populated
regions of the Nation.
(6) Reducing regulatory burdens on two percent carriers
will increase such carriers' ability to respond to
marketplace conditions, allowing them to accelerate
deployment of advanced services and competitive initiatives
to benefit consumers in less densely populated regions of the
Nation.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to accelerate the deployment of advanced services and
the development of competition in the telecommunications
industry for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the
Nation, consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
by reducing regulatory burdens on local exchange carriers
with fewer than two percent of the Nation's subscriber lines
installed in the aggregate nationwide;
(2) to improve such carriers' flexibility to undertake such
initiatives; and
(3) to allow such carriers to redirect resources from
paying the costs of such regulatory burdens to increasing
investment in such initiatives.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (51) and (52) as paragraphs
(52) and (53), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (50) the following:
``(51) Two percent carrier.--The term `two percent carrier'
means an incumbent local exchange carrier within the meaning
of section 251(h) that has fewer than two percent of the
Nation's subscriber lines installed in the aggregate
nationwide.''.
SEC. 4. REGULATORY RELIEF FOR TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by
adding at the end thereof a new part IV as follows:
``PART IV--PROVISIONS CONCERNING TWO PERCENT CARRIERS
``SEC. 281. REDUCED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO PERCENT
CARRIERS.
``(a) Commission To Take Into Account Differences.--In
adopting rules that apply to incumbent local exchange
carriers (within the meaning of section 251(h)), the
Commission shall separately evaluate the burden that any
proposed regulatory, compliance, or reporting requirements
would have on two percent carriers.
``(b) Effect of Reconsideration or Waiver.--If the
Commission adopts a rule that applies to incumbent local
exchange carriers and fails to separately evaluate the burden
that any proposed regulatory, compliance, or reporting
requirement would have on two percent carriers, the
Commission shall not enforce the rule against two percent
carriers unless and until the Commission performs such
separate evaluation.
``(c) Additional Review Not Required.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to require the Commission to
conduct a separate evaluation under subsection (a) if the
rules adopted do not apply to two percent carriers, or such
carriers are exempted from such rules.
``(d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit any size-based differentiation among
carriers mandated by this Act, chapter 6 of title 5, United
States Code, the Commission's rules, or any other provision
of law.
``(e) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to any rule adopted on or after the date
of enactment of this section.
``SEC. 282. LIMITATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Limitation.--The Commission shall not require a two
percent carrier--
``(1) to file cost allocation manuals or to have such
manuals audited, but a two percent carrier that qualifies as
a class A carrier shall annually certify to the Commission
that the two percent carrier's cost allocation complies with
the rules of the Commission; or
``(2) to file Automated Reporting and Management
Information Systems (ARMIS) reports.
``(b) Preservation of Authority.--Except as provided in
subsection (a), nothing in this Act limits the authority of
the Commission to obtain access to information under sections
211, 213, 215, 218, and 220 with respect to two percent
carriers.
``SEC. 283. INTEGRATED OPERATION OF TWO PERCENT CARRIERS.
``The Commission shall not require any two percent carrier
to establish or maintain a separate affiliate to provide any
common carrier or noncommon carrier services, including local
and interexchange services, commercial mobile radio services,
advanced services (within the meaning of section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996), paging, Internet,
information services or other enhanced services, or other
services. The Commission shall not require any two percent
carrier and its affiliates to maintain separate officers,
directors, or other personnel, network facilities, buildings,
research and development departments, books of account,
financing, marketing, provisioning, or other operations.
``SEC. 284. PARTICIPATION IN TARIFF POOLS AND PRICE CAP
REGULATION.
``(a) NECA Pool.--The participation or withdrawal from
participation by a two percent carrier of one or more study
areas in the common line tariff administered and filed by the
National Exchange Carrier Association or any successor tariff
or administrator shall not obligate such carrier to
participate or withdraw from participation in such tariff for
any other study area.
``(b) Price Cap Regulation.--A two percent carrier may
elect to be regulated by the Commission under price cap rate
regulation, or elect to withdraw from such regulation, for
one or more of its study areas at any time. The Commission
shall not require a carrier making an election under this
paragraph with respect to any study area or areas to make the
same election for any other study area.
``SEC. 285. DEPLOYMENT OF NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES BY
TWO PERCENT COMPANIES.
``The Commission shall permit two percent carriers to
introduce new interstate telecommunications services by
filing a tariff on one day's notice showing the charges,
classifications, regulations and practices therefor, without
obtaining a waiver, or make any other showing before the
Commission in advance of the tariff filing. The Commission
shall not have authority to approve or disapprove the rate
structure for such services shown in such tariff.
``SEC. 286. ENTRY OF COMPETING CARRIER.
``(a) Pricing Flexibility.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, any two percent carrier shall be
permitted to deaverage its interstate switched or special
access rates, file tariffs on one day's notice, and file
contract-based tariffs for interstate switched or special
access services immediately upon certifying to the Commission
that a telecommunications carrier unaffiliated with such
carrier is engaged in facilities-based entry within such
carrier's service area.
``(b) Pricing Deregulation.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, upon receipt by the Commission of a
certification by a two percent carrier that a local exchange
carrier that is not a two percent carrier is engaged in
facilities-based entry within the two percent carrier's
service area, the Commission shall regulate such two percent
carrier as non-dominant, and therefore shall not require the
tariffing of the interstate service offerings of such two
percent carrier.
``(c) Participation in Exchange Carrier Association
Tariff.--A two percent carrier that meets the requirements of
subsection (a) or (b) of this section with respect to one or
more study areas shall be permitted to participate in the
common line tariff administered and filed by the National
Exchange Carrier Association or any successor tariff or
administrator, by electing to include one or more of its
study areas in such tariff.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Facilities-based entry.--The term `facilities-based
entry' means, within the service area of a two percent
carrier--
``(A) the provision or procurement of local telephone
exchange switching capability; and
``(B) the provision of local exchange service to at least
one unaffiliated customer.
``(2) Contract-based tariff.--The term `contract-based
tariff' shall mean a tariff based on a service contract
entered into between a two percent carrier and one or more
customers of such carrier. Such tariff shall include--
``(A) the term of the contract, including any renewal
options;
``(B) a brief description of each of the services provided
under the contract;
``(C) minimum volume commitments for each service, if any;
``(D) the contract price for each service or services at
the volume levels committed to by the customer or customers;
``(E) a brief description of any volume discounts built
into the contract rate structure; and
``(F) a general description of any other classifications,
practices, and regulations affecting the contract rate.
``(3) Service area.--The term `service area' has the same
meaning as in section 214(e)(5).
[[Page H8684]]
``SEC. 287. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
``(a) Commission Authority.--Nothing in this part shall be
construed to restrict the authority of the Commission under
sections 201 through 205 and 208.
``(b) Rural Telephone Company Rights.--Nothing in this part
shall be construed to diminish the rights of rural telephone
companies otherwise accorded by this Act, or the rules,
policies, procedures, guidelines, and standards of the
Commission as of the date of enactment of this section.''.
SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON MERGER REVIEW
(a) Amendment.--Section 310 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 310) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(f) Deadline for Making Public Interest Determination.--
``(1) Time limit.--In connection with any merger between
two percent carriers, or the acquisition, directly or
indirectly, by a two percent carrier or its affiliate of the
securities or assets of another two percent carrier or its
affiliate, the Commission shall make any determination
required by subsection (d) of this section or section 214 not
later than 60 days after the date an application with respect
to such merger is submitted to the Commission.
``(2) Approval absent action.--If the Commission does not
approve or deny an application as described in paragraph (1)
by the end of the period specified, the application shall be
deemed approved on the day after the end of such period. Any
such application deemed approved under this subsection shall
be deemed approved without conditions.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to any application that is submitted to
the Commission on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Applications pending with the Commission on the date of
enactment of this Act shall be subject to the requirements of
this section as if they had been filed with the Commission on
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. TIME LIMITS FOR ACTION ON PETITIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION OR WAIVER.
(a) Amendment.--Section 405 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 405) is amended by adding to the end the
following:
``(c) Expedited Action Required.--
``(1) Time limit.--Within 90 days after receiving from a
two percent carrier a petition for reconsideration filed
under this section or a petition for waiver of a rule,
policy, or other Commission requirement, the Commission shall
issue an order granting or denying such petition. If the
Commission fails to act on a petition for waiver subject to
the requirements of this section within this 90-day period,
the relief sought in such petition shall be deemed granted.
If the Commission fails to act on a petition for
reconsideration subject to the requirements of this section
within this 90 day period, the Commission's enforcement of
any rule the reconsideration of which was specifically sought
by the petitioning party shall be stayed with respect to that
party until the Commission issues an order granting or
denying such petition.
``(2) Finality of action.--Any order issued under paragraph
(1), or any grant of a petition for waiver that is deemed to
occur as a result of the Commission's failure to act under
paragraph (1), shall be a final order and may be appealed.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to any petition for reconsideration or
petition for waiver that is submitted to the Commission on or
after the date of enactment of this Act. Pending petitions
for reconsideration or petitions for waiver shall be subject
to the requirements of this section as if they had been filed
on the date of enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
General Leave
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3850, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I introduced H.R. 3850 to lessen the burdens on small
and mid-size telephone companies and to allow them to shift more of
their resources to deploying advanced telecommunications services to
consumers in all areas of the country.
Small and mid-size companies are truly that. While the more than
1,200 small and mid-size companies serve less than 10 percent of the
Nation's lines, they cover a much larger percentage of rural markets
and are located in or near most major markets in the country.
Some of these telephone companies are mom and pop operations,
typically serving rural areas of the country where most other carriers
fear to tread, in high cost places where it is much less profitable
than in more populated areas.
In 1996, Congress passed historic legislation in the form of the
Telecommunications Act.
Section 706 of the act sent a clear message to the American people
and to the Federal Communications Commission that the deployment of new
telecommunications services in rural areas around the country must
happen quickly and without delay.
Unfortunately, the FCC has not made it any easier for small telephone
companies to deploy advanced services in rural areas. In some cases,
they have actually made it more difficult. The reason is that the FCC,
more often than not, uses a one-size-fits-all model in regulating
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.
This type of model may be fine for the big companies that have the
ability to hire legions of attorneys and staff to interpret and ensure
compliance with Federal rules. However, I for one would rather see the
small and mid-size companies use their resources to deploy new services
and make investment in their telecommunications infrastructure.
Two examples of these burdensome FCC requirements are CAM and ARMIS
reports. These reports separately cost about $500,000 to compile and
would equate to a small telephone company installing a DSLAM or other
facilities to provide high-speed Internet services to customers in
rural areas.
Just to give my colleagues an example of how burdensome these reports
are, the commission's instructions for filing the reports are over 900
pages long. More often than not, the FCC, according to their own
testimony, does not refer to these reports and, in some cases, simply
ignores the data filed by the mid-size companies.
Let me be very clear, because this is very important. The bill does
nothing to restrict the commission's authority to request this or any
other data that it sees fit.
I want to be fair. The FCC should be commended for their efforts to
bring some of these reporting requirements down to a reasonable level.
They have made advances in their area. In fact, during our hearing on
this legislation, the FCC told the Committee on Telecommunications,
Trade and Consumer Protection that it may be issuing a notice of
proposed rulemaking on the reporting requirements for 2 percent
companies sometime this fall.
The problem, though, is that the agency's time frame on issuing these
proposed rules has changed like the Wyoming winds. It is time that
those obligations are met, and this legislation would solidify what the
FCC has already promised to do for a long time.
In addition, I want everyone to know that we have bent over backwards
to accommodate many of the initial concerns that some Members had with
this legislation and have incorporated a majority of their helpful
suggestions. And for their suggestions, I am very grateful because I
think that the legislation has been improved.
Some of the changes that were adopted during the Committee on
Commerce's consideration of the bill took into account several
technical provisions that will continue to allow the FCC to do its job
but in a way that still ensures that small and mid-size companies are
treated differently than the huge companies.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I want to state for the record what this
legislation does and what it does not do. Number one, the bill does not
re-open the 1996 act. It does not fully deregulate 2 percent carriers.
It does not impact regulations dealing with large local carriers. It
would, however, be the first freestanding legislation that would
modernize regulations of 2 percent carriers. It would accelerate
competition in many small to mid-size markets, accelerate the
deployment of new advanced telecommunications services in rural areas,
and benefit consumers by allowing 2 percent carriers to redirect their
resources to network investment and to new services.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is critical for rural areas across
the country where these small telephone companies operate. Without this
bill, these 2 percent companies will continue to be burdened with this
one-size-fits-all regulatory approach that has kept them from providing
rural areas with what they need most, and that is a piece of
[[Page H8685]]
the new economy based on telecommunications.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank very sincerely the members of the
Committee on Commerce, the staff, and my own staff for their help in
moving this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this important piece
of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of legislation of which I am an original
cosponsor, H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications Consumer
Enhancement Act. It is this type of legislation that represents what
can be accomplished by working with Members on both sides of the aisle
to find consensus. Working together with my colleague, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), we were able to craft this bipartisan bill
which I believe is a practical step that we can take this year to
address the growing digital divide in our Nation's rural areas.
H.R. 3850 provides targeted regulatory relief to small and midsized
independent telephone companies that serve fewer than 2 percent of the
Nation's phone lines. Allowing such companies to devote more resources
to deploying high speed data services to their customers, these
carriers are uniquely positioned to play a large role in the
development of advanced services to consumers in rural and small
communities. Unfortunately, they are wasting resources complying with
one-size-fits-all regulations originally intended for the larger
carriers.
H.R. 3850 would eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements, make it
easier for small and midsized companies to introduce new advanced
services and give them the flexibility to lower prices in response to
competition from larger companies. Finally, it would ensure that FCC
take into account the burden on smaller businesses when it implements
Federal Rules in the future.
Instead of spending money on complying with useless regulations, this
bill will allow companies to devote more of their resources to rolling
out new advanced services to rural communities.
H.R. 3850 is a common sense step we can take to close the digital
divide in rural areas, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Deal).
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, one of the purposes, and the
primary purpose, was to deregulate the issue of telecommunications in
this country, but we have not deregulated the regulators. I commend the
gentlewoman for bringing this bill because it attempts to take one
further step in the direction of dealing with the monopolistic system
that we have now said the barriers must be removed from.
As long as regulations are in place with a one-size-fits-all
approach, these smaller providers, in this case those with 2 percent or
less of the providing capacity in this country, are faced with
regulations that really make their operations sometimes prohibitive. I
commend the gentlewoman for offering this bill to remove these
regulatory restraints because many of these small 2 percent or less of
the carrier providers are located in States like hers and in rural
areas of a State like mine. They are the ones who need to devote their
funding and their resources to an infrastructure development, because
without that they cannot be competitive with the bigger competitors in
the marketplace.
So I support this legislation, and I again thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my
colleagues from the Committee on Commerce in support of the Independent
Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act.
Along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), I am an original cosponsor
of the bill that was introduced by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs.
Cubin) last year. This bipartisan bill, which was approved in committee
on a voice vote, would relax some of the FCC's one-size-fits-all
regulations for our Nation's small and midsized local telephone
companies; those with less than 2 percent of the Nation's phone lines.
These companies serve communities across the country and are poised
to offer broadband and other advanced services to customers who are
often outside the scope of the larger companies. This bill will reduce
paperwork for the smaller companies, increase their pricing
flexibility, and allow them to bundle services on one bill all without
reopening the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
In my State of Wisconsin, 81 of 83 companies providing local phone
service are classified as 2 percent companies. By freeing these
companies from portions of a regulatory system designed with much
larger companies in mind, we will be taking an important first step
toward bridging the digital divide by allowing for increasing
investment in Internet facilities in rural and suburban areas. I urge
all Members to support this common sense legislation.
Mrs. CUBIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and just close by saying that I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the
Committee on Commerce staff, both the majority and the minority, and
the original cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), and the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) for their work on this bill.
Also, I wish to extend my thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey) and his staff, who have been very cooperative and have
helped us make changes to the legislation that make it better
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and will just quickly conclude by saying that I concur with the
accolades of the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), and would also
again thank her for her initiative in this area.
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I want to start off by thanking Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Gordon, Chairman Tauzin, Mr. Dingell, and Chairman Bliley
for being responsive to many of the concerns that have been raised
about the underlying bill.
The bill being offered today contains many helpful clarifications and
changes embodied in it that were in response to concerns I have raised
about the measure. I believe that in its current form it will clarify
the ability of the Commission to protect consumers and safeguard
competitive gains in many of its provisions.
I would like to focus my remarks on a couple of areas that I suggest
need additional refinement and that I hope can be dealt with prior to
sending this bill to the President.
The first has to do with the pricing flexibility and pricing
deregulation provision of the bill. The substitute will continue to
allow pricing deregulation upon the advent of facilities-based
competition in a given service area. The facilities-based competitor
however is only required to have at least one--I repeat, one sole
customer. Hopefully they will have more but the point is that
competition may arrive, but may not be robust or effective in
constraining prices.
This concern, I suggest, is heightened in those areas where a company
may still be subject to rate-of-return regulation rather than price cap
regulation. Regardless of what level of competition triggers pricing
flexibility we must be cognizant of the serious repercussions that may
result in situations where a carrier remains rate of return regulated.
In other words, consumers in those areas that are not subject to
effective competition and receive service from a rate-of-return company
run the risk of price increases. There's no guarantee that prices may
go up but there is certainly a risk.
The FCC testimony with respect to this legislation highlighted this
risk. The FCC testimony the Telecommunications Subcommittee was given
is as follows:
[A] grant of pricing flexibility to rate-of-return carriers
without the implementation
[[Page H8686]]
of protections comparable to those adopted by the FCC with
regard to price cap carriers could be particularly
problematic. Rate-of-return regulation would allow such
carriers to raise rates on other customers sufficiently to
maintain the authorized level of return while they lower
prices for contract customers.
This pricing deregulation is not going to affect directly any
consumer in my congressional district, but I would suggest to the rural
members of the House that they may want to take another look at this
pricing deregulation and refine it further because I believe--and the
FCC clearly believes--that it runs the risk of allowing unnecessary and
unjustified price hikes.
The second issue I want to highlight is the merger review section.
This section states that any review involving a so-called 2 percent
carrier must be approved or denied by the condition within 60 days. I
understand that the companies do not want merger reviews to drag on for
years, but I would suggest that 60 days is too short and unrealistic.
While I believe the Commission is itself streamlining its process, if
the majority is insistent on having a merger review ``shot clock'' I
would suggest giving the Commission a greater period of time. In
addition, at our merger review hearing Commissioner Powell made what I
thought was a reasonable suggestion. He noted that often companies will
amend their initial applications, often late in a review and after
public comment. He suggested some flexibility for the FCC to extend the
review.
I would suggest, therefore, something that would allow a one-time
extension if a majority of the Commission voted to extend the review--
of if the filing company itself requested an extension. I think this is
a more reasonable way to proceed because in my view 60 days is frankly
too short a time and does not sufficiently protect the public interest.
I hope we can continue our dialogue about these issues and others and
make additional changes as we proceed on this bill in the future. Thank
you.
Mr. GORDON. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Morella). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3850, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________