[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.
____________________