[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H568-H574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
         INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2001

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 350 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 350

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1542) to deregulate the Internet and high 
     speed data services, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
     in order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour and 
     20 minutes, with one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee on the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered 
     as read. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
     be in order except those printed in part B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules. Each further amendment may be offered 
     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 such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 350 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband 
Deployment Act of 2001.
  H. Res. 350 provides for 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, 
with 1 hour of that time equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  H. Res. 350 waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
the resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  H. Res. 350 provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered 
as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be 
considered as read. It also provides that no further amendment to the 
bill, as amended, shall be in order except those amendments printed in 
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
  H. Res. 350 provides that the amendments printed in part B of the 
report may be offered 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 a 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 in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  H. Res. 350 waives all points of order against amendments printed in 
part B of the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to approve this resolution so that we 
can move on to a vigorous debate on the underlying bill, the Tauzin-
Dingell broadband measure.
  When the House of Representatives was writing the 1996 
Telecommunications Act a number of years ago, I played a role in 
helping to restore a sense of balance to that bill with respect to its 
treatment of the various segments of the telecommunications industry as 
it moved from the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
to the full Committee on Commerce, to the floor, on to the other body, 
and eventually into public law. I did so because I believed key to 
enacting such a monumental, deregulatory telecommunications measure was 
to take a balanced approach.
  I am somewhat dismayed with the current form of H.R. 1542, as I fear 
that it moves the telecommunications market away from the progress we 
have started to make under the 1996 act, and puts us instead on a road 
towards large, unregulated monopolies dominating the telecommunications 
industry.
  This rule provides for two different amendments to section 4 of the 
bill, which has been at the center of the debate on this proposal from 
the beginning.
  With respect to the upcoming debate regarding the Buyer-Towns and 
Cannon-Conyers amendments, I will support the Cannon-Conyers proposal, 
which seeks to address some of the telecommunications industry's 
concerns with the current version of the Tauzin-Dingell bill, and in 
doing so will bring some sense of balance, in my judgment, to this 
proposal. In closing, I am going to vote for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule, and to support the 
underlying bill because it will help close the digital divide and 
increase people's access to high-speed Internet service.
  I want to take a moment to put this issue in perspective. I may be 
dating myself a little, but the transition to broadband today reminds 
me of the transition to color television more than 40 years ago. When I 
was growing up in Fort Worth, just one family in my neighborhood had a 
color television. Everyone else had black and white sets. So when we 
wanted to watch football games in color, all of the neighborhood kids 
would pack into that one lucky family's house.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the current situation with broadband. Today, 
many homes and businesses in communities across the country have no 
more access to high-speed Internet service than they did 3 years ago 
when this bipartisan bill was first being debated in Congress. So 
needless to say, I am very pleased that the House will finally vote on 
H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell broadband bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it will expand access 
to high-speed Internet connections and increase competition for 
broadband services. Our current telecommunications law was passed only 
5 years ago, but it is already outdated for the rapidly-evolving 
Internet markets.
  Tauzin-Dingell will permit Bell operating companies to operate high-
speed data networks, the backbone of the Internet, throughout the 
country. It will also require those companies to upgrade all of their 
systems, in every community, for high-speed Internet within 5 years.
  Under current law, different rules for different broadband platforms 
have stifled innovation and saddled consumers

[[Page H569]]

with higher prices and fewer choices. Companies that offer high-speed 
Internet access over cable lines or satellites are allowed to compete 
free from regulation. But local phone companies that provide DSL 
service, which also offer high-speed Internet, are regulated like an 
old-fashioned telephone service.
  This disparity in regulation restricts access to high-speed Internet 
in many parts of the country. Presently, only a fraction of households 
have access to broadband services, and rural areas and inner cities are 
particularly underserved today. This bipartisan bill will help bring 
broadband to these underserved communities by utilizing phone lines 
that already run into nearly every home.
  Mr. Speaker, current law also drives up the cost people pay for high-
speed Internet. Right now 64 percent of those households that have 
high-speed Internet access use cable modem service. Tauzin-Dingell 
would provide these consumers with another alternative by lifting the 
regulations on the major providers of DSL service.
  Let me give a couple of examples of how that affects families and 
small businesses. Many children use the Internet to do their homework, 
and if they cannot get high-speed service, kids have to spend the 
entire evening on the computer waiting for the information they need to 
complete their lessons.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill could also bring broader benefits 
to our economy. Unleashing competition in broadband service will lower 
prices for those using broadband services, and will bring high-speed 
Internet to consumers and small businesses without access today, 
allowing them to be more productive and more likely to invest in new 
equipment and technologies.
  By passing the Tauzin-Dingell bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are 
bringing high-speed Internet a step closer to all of our constituents. 
The greatest benefit of the Internet is choice. Consumers today can get 
the news and information they want, when they want it. Tauzin-Dingell 
will help preserve the free and open nature of the Web by giving 
consumers greater access to broadband connections and more choices in 
high-speed Internet providers.
  Mr. Speaker, some Members have reservations about the way the Conyers 
amendment is treated under the rule. They feel Conyers should be 
entitled to a straight up or down vote rather than being subjected to a 
substitute by Buyer and Towns. They will be given ample time during the 
debate on the rule to express their concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the sponsor of the Tauzin-Dingell bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I suppose everyone in America has heard the 
term Tauzin-Dingell to describe this bill, but I want to describe the 
full and complete name of the bill. The bill is correctly entitled the 
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, why is that important? Because that is essentially what 
the bill does. It ensures that the Internet remains free. Free of what? 
Free of government regulation both at the State and Federal level and 
makes sure that the Internet in fact is as free as Americans and people 
around the world hoped it would be.
  Secondly, it is about broadband deployment, and I want to associate 
myself with the fine description of the gentleman from Texas of how 
this bill delivers access to citizens in the poorest parts of America 
who will wait forever for broadband services unless we turn lose the 
creativity of these companies.
  Let me try to put it in lay terms as I would explain to my buddies at 
a hunting camp in Louisiana what broadband really is. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) said it right. Broadband is a system that 
delivers the Internet. It is about the Internet. It is not about the 
old world of telephone compensation where the government separates so 
Americans have to pay more every time you make a distant call.
  Mr. Speaker, it is about the Internet where distance is irrelevant, 
where Americans can share data and information with anyone in the 
world. It is about a distant irrelevant, incredibly important new 
communication system for our country and the world. And broadband is 
not the Internet our daddies drove. It is the new Internet. It is not 
the Internet where we had to dial up and wait patiently to get some 
information. It is a new, high-speed, hot, ready to go, rich-with-
information system that is going to make the Internet the engine that 
is going to drive the American economy into the future.
  This bill is about jobs. It is about creating 1.2 million new jobs to 
replace the 300,000 jobs lost in the telecommunications industry. It is 
the biggest consumer bill we will see this Congress because it gives 
consumers across America, some of them the first chance to get 
broadband, where we are only 10 percent connected in this country, and 
some of them a chance to get a competitive system so they can choose 
between broadband suppliers. Members know the difference there. Members 
know what happens with one store in town: there are high prices, bad 
products, bad service, and bad attitudes. When the second store comes 
to town, consumers get better prices, better service, better products 
and better attitudes.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is about bringing the second store to town, to 
make sure that the dominant cable broadband supplier has a real 
competitor at home so consumers can make a choice. It is about making 
sure that the Internet is free from the bureaucrats who might regulate 
it to death the way they almost did the telephone industry. This is a 
bill about protecting the Internet and its freedom, developing its 
capabilities for our country, and creating new jobs. I commend the 
Committee on Rules for finally bring it to the floor for a vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill for the reasons 
that were just enunciated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). At a time when our economy 
is suffering and thousands of people are out of work, this is just the 
kind of measure that will help spark the new economy and new growth.

                              {time}  1115

  Today, fewer than 8 percent of Americans have access to broadband. In 
my home State of Michigan, many small businesses are without the high-
speed Internet service that they need. This bill will help them do 
their business more efficiently and will help them prosper.
  I might say, also, that our State, the State of Michigan, ranks among 
the lowest for access to broadband in homes and schools. Outdated 
government regulations have prevented those in rural areas, and even in 
the metropolitan Detroit area, from receiving high-speed Internet 
service. Meanwhile, decreasing investment in the telecommunications 
industry has put over a quarter of a million people out of work. The 
telecom industry has suffered over 10 percent of the layoffs that the 
Nation has experienced this past year.
  Today we have an opportunity to reverse this downturn in our 
technological sector and provide hope for thousands of workers who rely 
on its growth for a steady paycheck. By creating more vibrant 
competition between cable and telephone companies in the rollout of 
broadband, it is estimated that this bill could boost our economy by as 
much as $500 billion per year and create over 1 million jobs in the 
technology sector. Accelerating broadband deployment in Michigan could 
boost our State's economy by over hundreds of billions of dollars over 
the next 10 years and almost 500,000 jobs.
  I like those numbers. Those numbers mean good jobs and creating and 
diversifying the economy in the State of Michigan.
  I want to vote for a bill that will provide jobs for working people. 
The Communications Workers of America have highly endorsed this bill, 
as have the AFL-CIO, because they know these are good jobs and many of 
them are good union jobs. I want to give more families the economic 
security that they

[[Page H570]]

need, and I want to take action to boost our economic growth to ensure 
a better future for the people of Michigan.
  I urge my colleagues, vote for this rule, vote for this bill, give 
our economy the jump start that it has needed and put our workers back 
to work.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I have to reluctantly rise in opposition to 
this rule presented by my leadership.
  Chairman Tauzin and I have a legitimate difference on policy grounds 
as to what the effect of this bill will be. We have had it for a long 
time, and I respect his views. He has been straight with me about what 
those views are, and we have been unable to bridge that policy gap. We 
differ on whether this bill will create jobs, whether it will bring 
competition, whether it will be good for rural areas; and this bill is 
strongly opposed by 90 percent of the public utility commissioners, by 
the rural utilities, by the long distance companies, by the competitive 
carriers and by the rural telephone companies.
  There is a very important difference of opinion. Those organizations 
and the people I represent deserve a vote, a straight up or down vote, 
on the important public policy matters before us. I do not believe that 
this rule gives it to them.
  The rule is very clever, but it is not fair. It is not fair to 
submerge a very important policy issue in a nest of amendments to 
amendments. That is not right. I do not believe this bill will bring 
competition. I do not believe it will build rural jobs. I do not 
believe it will give more choice to the people that I represent.
  I had offered in the committee an amendment that I think would make 
this bill supportable, but that amendment is not going to be heard on 
its merits in an up or down vote, and it deserves that. For that 
reason, I will oppose my leadership and I will vote against this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I also have very strong concerns 
about the underlying bill because this body is once again beating the 
drum to remove what nominal protection our constituents might have in 
the face of powerful monopolies. I do not know about your region of the 
country, but where I am from, every time Congress dismantles a 
regulatory scheme and hands it over to the private monopolies, my 
constituents take it on the chin. Airfares, cable rates, utilities, you 
name it, all have skyrocketed in recent years after Congress or 
legislatures decided that unregulated monopolies, rather than 
ratepayers, know best.
  This bill poses a real threat to what meager competition we have been 
able to squeeze out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As my 
colleagues know, that act opened, or was supposed to, local markets to 
competition by requiring the four monopolistic, multi-billion-dollar 
Bell operating companies to lease elements of their local 
telecommunications network to competitors on a cost-plus-profit basis. 
Competitors simply would not have had the ability to compete against 
the Bells' sheer financial power without that, but it never happened. 
Their infrastructure continues to dominate telecommunications today. I 
have no doubt that passage of this legislation could put over a hundred 
small companies out of business.
  Yesterday, I met with employees of PaeTec Communications in my 
district of Rochester, New York. The energy, the creativity and, most 
importantly, the competition that these smaller companies provide are 
all that stand between our constituents and the unregulated monopolies. 
Tauzin-Dingell would be a lethal blow to scores of these small 
telecommunications companies who are still scratching to make inroads 
into the markets.
  Of major concern to me, moreover, is Congress' willingness to 
undercut government bodies from doing their job to protect consumers. 
Take a look at section 4(a) of the bill. It says, ``Neither the 
Commission, nor any State, shall have authority to regulate the rates, 
charges, terms, or conditions for, or entry into the provision of, any 
high-speed data service, Internet access service.''
  So no one, not you, not me, not local ratepayers, not State 
legislatures, not Governors, not the FCC, not the DOJ, has any 
authority to step in and prevent abuses.
  My colleagues, this is an extraordinary hand-off of power and should 
give us long pause.
  I hope that this rule will go down and, should it pass, please vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time in my life in 
opposition to a Republican rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure that it was one of the name sponsors of 
the bill before us, and the Dean of the House, who once said words to 
the effect of, ``If you control the substance but I control the 
process, I'll beat you every time.'' If I am not quoting or attributing 
it correctly, I apologize, but whoever said that, that is what is being 
borne out today.
  The rule before us has one simple purpose. It is designed to prevent 
a vote on any amendment not supported by the Bell monopolies. Granted, 
if one looks at the amendment list, they will see an amendment from me 
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but another hostile 
amendment is made in order as a second-degree amendment in an attempt 
to prevent a vote on ours. An elegant gag rule is still a gag rule, and 
that is exactly what this is.
  In a way, this rule is sort of a microcosm for the larger debate at 
hand. The Tauzin-Dingell bill and especially the Buyer-Towns amendment 
are designed to appear to give competitors fair access to monopoly 
facilities. It is only upon closer examination that one realizes that 
they are designed to shut competitors out. Similarly, this rule is 
designed to appear to give pro-competition Members a chance to offer an 
amendment, when in truth it does just the opposite.
  Supporters of this rule argue that it is necessary to do this to 
avoid a situation where two contradictory amendments to section 4 of 
the bill are adopted. This is simply not true. The two amendments speak 
to different issues in section 4 and would be complementary if adopted.
  So why is such a tortured rule necessary? The sponsors of this bill 
know that the vast majority of Members of this body are uncomfortable 
with the Tauzin-Dingell bill. Few Members understand it completely, but 
they have a sense that they may be giving away the store to the Bell 
monopolies. Given a chance, most Members would probably support some 
effort to preserve the investments people have made in competitive 
networks to avoid a complete remonopolization of America's 
telecommunications system.
  So, sensing concerns about the substance, the bill's supporters have 
decided to rig the process. They have come up with a fig leaf of an 
amendment that essentially restates Chairman Tauzin's position as of 
December, which in turn reflects a proposal put forward by a Verizon 
executive last fall. They stack that amendment on top of my amendment 
to prevent a vote and thus give Members no outlet for concerns about 
the monopoly effect of the underlying bill. This is a disservice to the 
legislative process, to the Members of this body, and ultimately to the 
consumers of telecommunications services, our constituents.
  Those who support a fair and open discussion of the significant 
issues at hand should oppose this rule; and, should it pass, those who 
support a fair and open telecommunications marketplace should vote down 
Buyer-Towns and support Cannon-Conyers.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the 
reasons that my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), has 
outlined, that if Buyer comes up first and prevails, Conyers-Cannon 
never sees the light of day. So that is why a lot of people are joining 
in a bipartisan way to vote down the rule, because we want to just get 
the vote out. That is all we are asking for is a vote.
  So the Bells, I will not say the Bells wired the Committee on Rules, 
because

[[Page H571]]

they do not do such a good job anyway, but this is not the way to 
proceed.
  There are a number of myths going on here. Number one, that there are 
between 1.3 million new jobs to be created under Tauzin-Dingell or 1.5 
million as another leader states. New jobs, 1.5 million new jobs. By 
eliminating the CLECs, you will now get new jobs created. Not true. Not 
only will there be zero jobs created, we will lose jobs.
  Number two, the Tauzin-Dingell bill will speed up rural deployment of 
the high-speed Internet. Great. Except the experts say no, just the 
opposite.
  Number three, and I only wish my dear colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), were here on the floor, but I am 
going to do this, anyway. Ask anybody in Detroit how great Ameritech's 
service is, and they will tell you, nine out of ten, that they keep 
raising the rates, the service is lousy, the CWA workers are picketing 
as I speak. It is all over television and the newspapers, I say to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton). The relations are horrible. And 
now people are telling us about how we love the Bells in Detroit. 
Wrong, big-time, very much in error.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing with a bill that barely 
passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce, was voted out negatively 
in the Committee on the Judiciary. Now we ask for a simple vote on an 
amendment, and the Committee on Rules gives us, yes, if you can defeat 
another amendment before that, and if you do not, Conyers-Cannon, you 
do not even bring yours up, and they walk around saying, ``We got you 
an amendment in the Committee on Rules report.'' Thanks, Rules 
Committee, for all you have done to help further fair debate here.
  So here we are dealing with the Bells, who want to repeal the 1996 
portion, the most important part of the act. I hope that we will vote 
the rule down and vote the Conyers amendment up and, if necessary, the 
whole bill down.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the committee.
  Mr. UPTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my friend from Michigan that the CWA 
is in support of the legislation and I suspect the rule as well. I 
think that this is a fair rule.
  I want to just go back in history for a moment and talk a little bit 
about this issue. This issue in the previous Congress I think had more 
than half the Congress as a cosponsor of the legislation; and, in fact, 
it is an improved bill from where we were a couple of years ago.
  Let me also remind those folks in the Chamber and that are listening 
today as well that back in 1996 we lifted the regulations on cable; 
and, when that happened, the cable industry invested across the country 
some $50 billion to improve their systems, whether they be in Michigan 
or anyplace else in the country. The American public is pleased that 
that has happened in terms of the number of channels that are 
available, a whole host of things, as we look at what has happened with 
broadband, what is also called high-speed Internet access, that is 
available now.
  This is a good rule. I commend the Committee on Rules. I also commend 
the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order which says that 
the FCC, which complained bitterly over the last number of years that 
the fines were not high enough as they tried to impose some of the 
rules and regulations that were out there, that we wanted to do more 
than just a cost-of-business operation, and by allowing the Upton 
amendment as part of this legislation, I suspect that it will pass with 
a very strong margin, if not unanimous. We, in fact, strengthen this 
legislation; and I think that that is very important.

                              {time}  1130

  But as we look at the line-sharing amendment, the biggest amendments 
I would suspect that will be on the House floor this afternoon offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), this is an important 
improvement to the bill, because it in fact does allow the CLECs to 
have access to the ability to bring high-speed Internet access to the 
last mile in a much better fashion in fact than came out of committee; 
and I think it is an improvement to the bill, and I welcome the series 
of amendments that the Committee on Rules provided, and I thank them 
for their leadership and guidance as we see this legislation move to 
the floor.
  The vote on the rule is important. It provides us legislation to get 
to the floor, obviously; and we then debate the amendments in the order 
prescribed. I urge my colleagues to support not only the rule, but the 
Buyer amendment, the Upton amendment, and, obviously, final passage 
when we get there later this afternoon.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what I would like everyone to do is to think 
of the rule which we are debating as a metaphor, a metaphor for the way 
that the Bell companies view all competitors and competitors' ability 
to be able to reach the consumer.
  The Committee on Rules has structured a rule that allows for all the 
votes the Bell companies want on their amendments, but it is going to 
wall out all the competitors, all the consumer groups, all the public 
utility commissioners from having a straight up or down vote on what 
they think is the important formula that would be put in place in order 
to protect consumers and competitors in the country.
  A metaphor, because that is exactly what the substance of their bill 
does. It wants to wall out the competitors, wall out their ability to 
be able to reach consumers, wall out this pressure, this paranoia, that 
was induced in the Bells finally that they had to start moving on this 
new technology because they had other people out there. That is where 
this whole revolution came from, from the paranoia in the four 
companies.
  So you have four companies, and, by the way, all of us only have one 
of them in our district, one, and then you have hundreds of other 
companies, Internet service providers, competitive local exchange 
companies, all out there. We call it the NASDAQ, if you are wondering 
why you never heard of it before 1997. It is all these companies that 
got created because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
  So, this is a terrible rule. It does not allow anybody who is on the 
other side of the issue to get a straight up or down vote for consumers 
and for competitors. It is deliberately structured that way. It is a 
metaphor for how the monopoly sees all this issue. Not only do they 
have every American home wired, they have got the Committee on Rules 
wired. They are going to wall everybody else out. You cannot get in. 
And then there is this kind of pretend, oh, we will be fair, though. We 
will be fair. Where is the evidence we are not fair?
  Well, of course, all the competitors are going to be posthumously 
vindicated, maybe someday in a court suit that is finally rendered, 5 
years from now in bankruptcy court they will win something, but they 
will be out of existence, which is the dream of the Bells.
  Now, I love these people that work for the Bells, they are good 
people, but that is an old way of looking at the world. They should be 
able to compete. They should be glad their competitors are there, 
because they have been forced to deploy tens of billions of dollars of 
new DSL technology.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule. It will only take an hour to send it back 
up to the Committee on Rules, 1 hour. Then they will put our amendment 
in place so that all the competitors and consumers have a shot at it. 
One hour is all this it is going to take, and make it fair.
  Everyone here has listened to Dingell-Tauzin, Dingell-Tauzin, for a 
year and a half; and the day of reckoning arrives, and the Bells do not 
want us to vote on the other side of the issue. So everyone here has 
already taken all the contributions from everybody on both sides. Now 
it is time to learn what the issue is, and the Committee on Rules has 
made it impossible to have a real debate.
  Vote ``no'' on this very unfair rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to 
this bill.

[[Page H572]]

  In 1996, the big phone companies came to Congress and they asked to 
be deregulated. They promised that if we did so, they would provide 
better service and more competition. My constituents know that what has 
happened to telecom services since 1996 has not been good. We are not 
better off. We cannot read our phone bill, cable rates have 
skyrocketed, and neither Congress nor the administration seems to care.
  Phone service is not better than it was in 1996. Michigan residents 
experienced a nightmare of waiting 30 to 45 days or more for service, 
and it took action by our State legislature to remedy that problem.
  Competition is not better than it was in 1996. The big companies do 
not let competitors in. They would rather pay the fines. It is just a 
cost of doing business for them.
  Now the phone companies come to Congress and say that if we will 
relieve them of their responsibilities under the 1996 act, they will 
improve Internet service and increase competition. In fact, passage of 
this bill will push other providers out of business, reducing choices 
and raising costs for the consumer.
  This is not about what is good for the consumer; it is about what is 
good for big phone companies. The Baby Bells have broken their promise 
to comply with the 1996 law. That act was a compromise. It offered all 
parties opportunities and obligations. The big phone companies want the 
opportunities, but they want to be able to avoid their obligations.
  The Federal Communications Commission has tried to make the big phone 
companies comply with the law. The Michigan Public Service Commission 
has tried to make the big phone companies comply with the law. No one 
has been able to make the big phone companies comply with the law. And 
now these same companies want a chance to do to the Internet what they 
have done to phone service. They say that if they get this new law, 
things will be better for Internet users. I do not think so.
  I think H.R. 1542 is bad for consumers, bad for Internet service, bad 
for competition, and newspapers have editorialized against it all over 
the country. This bill is bad for my constituents. This is a bad rule 
to protect a terrible bill. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), a member of our leadership.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, despite my deep respect for 
the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I have to rise 
today to voice my continued opposition to H.R. 1542, the Internet 
Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act, and my opposition to allow 
efforts such as the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), which claimed to resolve the concerns put 
forward over the past year by myself and other Members regarding the 
anticompetitive impact of the legislation. Both H.R. 1542 and the 
Buyer-Towns amendment kill competition, plain and simple. A vote for 
either of them is a vote against the competitive environment that we 
set out to create when we passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996.
  Litigation brought competition to the long distance market, and 
similarly the 1996 act marked our recognition that innovation 
stimulated by competition was critical to bringing advanced 
technologies and services to the local market and, therefore, to 
consumers. Remember that DSL broadband technology has been available to 
Bell companies since the mid-1980s. It is only with the passage of the 
1996 act and the resulting threat of competition that we actually saw 
DSL being deployed.
  The act prescribed this recipe for local telecom competition through 
a carefully crafted dynamic that gives competitors access to the local 
network, an infrastructure built by nearly a century of guaranteed 
monopolistic profits; and in return the act deregulated the regional 
Bell companies by allowing them to compete in the long distance market 
from which they had been barred under the 1984 antitrust settlement 
with AT&T.
  The strategy was simple and should remain so: offer the Bell 
companies an incentive to open their local monopolies so that 
conditions for market competition in the local loop will flourish and 
prices will drop. That incentive is deregulation. At this time, the 
incumbent carriers possess monopolistic control over 90 percent of 
their markets nationwide. Clearly, competition in the local markets 
targeted by the 1996 act has not yet arrived.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1542 and the Buyer-Towns amendment each 
accomplish the same objective. They irrevocably defeat the purpose of 
the 1996 act by destroying the efforts made since then to bring 
competition to the local telecommunications market. With little 
competition in the space that brings wire digital services into homes 
and businesses, there will be no competitors or forced markets to push 
the widespread and competitive provision of broadband markets.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to retain competition, ensure that 
competitors have a chance to compete under the same rules that have 
promoted competition for the last 6 years.
  Let us be clear: the Buyer-Towns amendment destroys that framework. 
The Cannon-Conyers amendment, on the other hand, keeps that competition 
alive. Vote ``no'' on Buyer-Towns, and ``yes'' on the Cannon-Conyers 
amendment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas, and 
the dean of our delegation, for allowing me time to speak on the rule.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-
Dingell bill. I support the rule even though my colleague and I, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), were denied an amendment that 
we had on the bill that would have provided additional reporting 
requirements, because one of the concerns we have is that there are 
people in this business who want to cherry pick and not serve the 
underserved areas like I represent and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez) represents. I understand the rules process, and my 
amendment was not made in order; but I still strongly support the rule 
and the bill.
  I have been to the work sites and seen the competition that is there 
now, and I also see the rules that our local phone companies have that 
they cannot compete with. America needs more competition in the 
broadband marketplace to challenge the dominant cable companies.
  H.R. 1542 provides this regulatory relief. It allows for our local 
phone companies to increase the investment and also to make it more 
affordable for our own constituents to be able to get this service. 
This bill will speed the broadband deployment in traditionally 
underserved areas similar to the area I am honored to represent. That 
is why we need to pass it today.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support the rule and the underlying bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to support both of them.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we are 
about to debate today has been a long time in coming. As I read my 
letters of support and opposition, there are many people who, on both 
sides of the issue, ultimately hope that we will have a very positive 
compromise for what is a good premise in the Tauzin-Dingell bill, and 
that is for access to DSL for all Americans. I applaud that, and I 
applaud the framework that will help us reach that goal. Additionally, 
I might add that I am pleased to see the number of amendments that were 
made in order.
  But I would raise a question of when we begin to talk about changing 
the face of America with respect to DSL, we should enhance the 
opportunity for discussion and debate, and we should always respond to 
the needs of competition.
  My amendment that had to do with making sure a study would be 
rendered by the FCC should have been made in order to determine, Mr. 
Speaker, the fact of whether or not this language in this bill is 
working.
  In addition, as I close, simply, Mr. Speaker, it would be important 
for us

[[Page H573]]

to have an assessment of whether or not urban and rural communities, 
inner-city communities, libraries, schools, African Americans and 
Hispanic-serving institutions were also being connected to the DSL.
  I hope as we debate this on the floor of the House these issues will 
be addressed, and I hope ultimately we will have the answer of broader 
and expanded competition as we move this legislation forward.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I stand here to support the rule. 
Obviously, I serve on the Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications. But I say to my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has waited many, many months. This passed out of 
our subcommittee. It was controversial. There is one particular 
amendment that could have killed the bill. But it finally came out of 
our committee, and I think the time is now that we should bring it on 
the House floor and have a full debate.
  If it turns out this bill is defeated, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) will move on. But if the bill is passed, the Senate, under 
Mr. Hollings, is going to have to look at this bill carefully. Right 
now he is not doing that. But we cannot have this debate in America if 
we do not pass the rule. So I urge my colleagues to pass the rule.
  A lot of people have talked about the economy. This is a big-box 
economy. The NASDAQ has dropped dramatically, and part of it has been 
because the potential for broadband has not been met. If this in some 
small way moves the economy forward by giving high-speed Internet 
access service to Americans, then so be it. Right now cable has it. 
Perhaps we need competition for cable, and this would do it.
  So the lack of availability of high-speed connection has, I think, in 
fact slowed the growth in this economy and shunted off development. We 
can see a lot of new things happen if we can get broadband jump 
started, and I think Tauzin-Dingell is moving in that direction. 
However, there are several amendments that are going to be proposed, 
one in particular, the Buyer-Towns amendment, which I think is a good 
compromise.
  So I think we have an opportunity to amend this bill, and in the end 
I think my colleagues will realize it promotes competition, it promotes 
choice and innovation.

                              {time}  1145

  That is why I support the rule and I look forward to the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has been in this place for more 
than 2 weeks and knows the phone number of the Parliamentarian could 
easily have found out that the rule before us is an eminently fair 
rule. Indeed, it is a conventional rule. It is one which allows the 
proponents of Cannon-Conyers to offer their amendment. It allows those 
who do not quite agree to it to offer a different amendment as a 
substitute. And under the normal Rules of the House of Representatives, 
I will tell my good friends and colleagues who are on the other side it 
then allows the first vote on the substitute so that the amendment 
offered by Cannon-Conyers, which, by the way, is very similar to one 
rejected by the Committee on the Judiciary, can then be first 
perfected.
  To my good friends who support Cannon-Conyers, I will simply observe, 
if you win, you will get your vote; if the House wants you to have a 
chance to prevail, you will, and you will then have a chance to offer 
your amendment. You will, in any event, be able to offer your amendment 
and have it considered by the House and debated.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the normal process under which the House 
considers legislation.
  So I would urge my colleagues to recognize that this is a fair rule. 
It is a conventional, traditional rule, one of the kind which has 
always been offered and which is viewed in the 200 and more year 
history of this institution as a fair and proper way in which the 
business of the House of Representatives should be conducted.
  Now a word about the legislation. The legislation is very simple. 
There has been a great deal of whining and complaining by a group of 
monopolists, would-be monopolists and parasites who do not want the 
legislation. The reason they do not want the legislation is it lets 
everybody compete in, guess what, Internet and broadband. It requires 
the broadband to be made available to the entire country within 5 
years. The United States is now behind the whole world, the industrial 
world, in making broadband service available to our people. The 
investment in it is being strangled. This bill permits everybody to get 
in and to invest and compete.
  The House, in 1996, made the judgment that we were going to encourage 
the widest use of telecommunications and access to the information 
super highway, the intellectual highway, by allowing the fullest 
possible competition. We do not affect local net and long-distance for 
voice competition. We affect here only the Internet. This is opposed, 
as we might expect, by AT&T, which just wants to continue its ancient 
and special privilege. But it is supported by the AFL-CIO, the CWA, and 
others who want to see to it that we get the service that we need for 
our people in this area.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Reluctantly, I rise to oppose this rule. I am disappointed in it. 
This is a piece of legislation about which there is legitimate 
disagreement. Some believe it will enhance competition, and their 
belief is genuine and sincere, but others believe it will not. Many of 
us believe that it will indeed hamper competition and that we will have 
a further strengthening of the existing Bell monopolies. But that 
really is not the issue that is fundamental to the rule.
  The issue that is fundamental to the rule and the reason I oppose it, 
and I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to vote 
against this rule, is that it is fundamentally unfair. With this rule 
what happens, which is sad and which is unfair, is that we deny the 
opponents of this legislation a fair up-or-down vote.
  Now, it is true that often legislation is brought to the floor and 
that those who want to improve it are allowed to offer a manager's 
amendment to improve it. But in this instance that is not what is 
happening. Instead, what is happening is that the improving amendment 
is being offered as a second-degree amendment. That is a perfectly good 
structure in one sense in that it will allow people to vote on that 
second degree amendment, but it is not the norm, and it is not what 
will allow people to have a chance to vote up or down on an amendment 
that would call for true competition in the form of line-sharing. It is 
sad to me, it is disappointing to me, that the opponents of this bill 
do not get a fair chance to voice their view.
  Now, also under this rule I will note that at least two-thirds of the 
time is being given to advocates of the time, while it appears less 
than 10 minutes, maybe at best 10 minutes, will be given to those who 
oppose the bill. I believe that is another defect in this rule which we 
ought to be concerned about.
  For those who are concerned about competition, for those who favor 
markets, for those who oppose monopolies, and for those who support 
fairness, I urge my colleagues, please follow this debate and please 
vote against the Buyer amendment. Though its authors believe it will 
allow competition, it will not, in fact, do so. Vote for the Cannon 
amendment, and vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule 
and appreciate the consideration the Rules Committee has given the 
Judiciary Committee. This Rule recognizes the Judiciary Committee's 
important and historic role with regard to telecommunications policy, 
particularly as it relates to issues involving competition, by 
providing 20 minutes of general debate equally divided between myself 
and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Upon adoption of this rule, two amendments negotiated between myself 
and Chairman

[[Page H574]]

Tauzin will be incorporated into this legislation. These amendments, 
which will significantly improve the bill, are the result of spirited 
negotiations that the Speaker requested we undertake. Although the 
negotiations were at times difficult, both sides worked in good faith 
to reach a final compromise which helped pave the way for today's floor 
consideration.
  The first amendment provides that, not less than 30 days before 
offering interLATA high speed data service or Internet backbone service 
in an in region State, a Bell operating company shall submit to the 
Attorney General a statement expressing the intention to commence 
providing such service, providing a description of the service to be 
offered, and identifying the geographic region in which the service 
will be offered. This statement shall not be made public except as may 
be relevant to any administrative or judicial proceeding.
  This amendment is important because of the long and checkered 
antitrust history of the telecommunications market. H.R. 1542 would 
eliminate the need to go through a regulatory process in deploying 
broadband, as the RBOCs will continue to be required to do for 
telephone services, and this amendment mandates that the antitrust 
enforcers at the Department of Justice will get 30 days notice before 
such service is offered.
  The second amendment provides that the savings clause found in 
section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall be 
interpreted to mean that the antitrust laws are not repealed by, not 
precluded by, not diminished by, and not incompatible with the 
Communications Act of 1934, this Act, or any law amended by either such 
Act. This amendment, a version of which was adopted by the Judiciary 
Committee, is a response to concerns raised about any conflicting, 
confusing, or contradictory language found in the Seventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals opinion in Goldwasser v. Ameritech Corp., 222 F. 3d 390 (7th 
Cir. 2000). In Goldwasser, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
construed the savings clause found in section 601(b)(1) (47 U.S.C. 
Sec. 152 note) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. No. 104-104, 
110 Stat. 56).
  Mr. Speaker, many Members have labored on these issues and I 
appreciate their work, particularly the efforts of Chairman Tauzin. I 
support the rule and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINDER. 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 282, 
nays 142, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               YEAS--282

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pence
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--142

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Baldacci
     Cubin
     Gilman
     Hayes
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Traficant
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. CARSON of Indiana changed her 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.

                          ____________________