[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H574-H597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the 
following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: 
Rollcall vote 41, on approving the Journal, I would have voted ``yea.'' 
Rollcall vote 42, on providing consideration of H.R. 1542, I would have 
voted ``yea.''

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
350 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1542.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) to assume the chair temporarily.

[[Page H575]]

                              {time}  1215


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1542) to deregulate the Internet and high speed data services, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood (Chairman pro tempore) in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 30 minutes. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the Tauzin-Dingell bill, I think 
it is important to recognize that once the House gets through with its 
business today perhaps Americans can start enjoying Coca-Cola and Pepsi 
commercials again instead of these massive commercials advertising for 
or against Tauzin-Dingell. It is also important to say what Tauzin-
Dingell is as opposed to what it is not.
  What it is is an effort that my good friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, the former chairman of the committee and I have 
worked on for years, a bill we filed in 1999 because we saw in advance 
of what has occurred the collapse of so much of the high tech industry 
if we did not free broadband from the grip of bureaucratic regulation 
and if we did not create an incentive for there to be real competition 
in the marketplace, so we filed the Internet Freedom and Broadband 
Deployment Act. That is the real title. Internet Freedom and Broadband 
Deployment, that is what it is all about.
  Now, there are two worlds out there. There are two worlds out there 
in communications. There is the old world of communications, the old 
voice telephone world that is still heavily regulated by government at 
all levels, local, State and Federal levels. That is an old world that 
is regulated in price and terms and conditions in a way that separates 
the way we talk to one another on the basis of distance, long distance 
and local.
  There is a new world, the future of communications that is 
characterized by the Internet which does not care how far we live from 
one another. It does not care how tightly we are packed into 
communities or how sparsely we live in rural communities of America. It 
is the Internet world. It is the satellite world. It is the world of 
cable-delivered systems where distance is irrelevant, where we pay a 
single rate and then we can communicate, and we are not caught in this 
old world recollection of distance. On the Internet it does not matter 
whether I live in Tokyo or Seattle or Jack Bay, Louisiana. I can 
communicate with anybody in the world.
  But even the Internet is part of the old world now. Today we talk 
about a new world of Internet communications called broadband.
  As I said earlier, when I tried to explain this to my buddies at the 
hunting camp, I like to use this analogy: When you think about the old 
Internet it is like going to the refrigerator to get a cold beer and 
finding out the refrigerator is turned off, and you have to turn it on, 
and you have to put your beer in and wait for it to get cold, and then 
sometime later you finally get it and enjoy it. That is the old 
Internet, the old dial-up service.
  The new broadband Internet we are talking about has systems that are 
so fast, so rich, always on, always ready, it is like going to that 
refrigerator, and it is always on, and when you open the door you have 
the bierskeller in there. There are so many varieties of rich, 
wonderful choices for you.
  In the real world we talk about choices on entertainment, 
information, education, and all sorts of things like long distance 
tele-medicine, all made possible when we finally connect America to the 
big broadband Internet systems that have been built in this system in 
this country but do not have on or off ramps for Americans to get on 
and off.
  After all these years, only 10 percent of Americans are connected to 
these systems. These are the lowest denominator systems. If I am in 
high speed and you are at low speed and we are connected, I am at your 
speed. Until we get more Americans connected with broadband, until we 
get real competition in those systems, America is handicapped and the 
high tech economy is in neutral.

  This bill is about jobs. It is about creating 1.2 million jobs by 
turning loose the investments in broadband deployment, by making sure 
that every company that can deliver a line to a house can offer 
broadband services.
  It is about consumers. It is about ensuring that consumers who live 
in the country, consumers who live in the inner cities of this country 
who might wait forever for broadband services get it on a lot quicker. 
It says there must be deployment within the 5-year period to every part 
of this country, every community. It says we will have competition in 
that deployment.
  I was on the floor of this House in 1992, a long time ago, to make 
sure that cable television had a real competitor. And this House joined 
with me and the Senate joined with me, and eventually we had to 
override a veto to make sure that satellite television had a chance to 
compete against cable television.
  Today, we make the same fight for consumers. We make the same fight 
to make sure everybody has a chance to get broadband Internet services, 
and we want to make sure that they have competition and choice in that 
marketplace. That is what the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment 
Act is all about.
  It is good for consumers. It is great for jobs. It is great for this 
economy. It sends the right message. It sends the Internet, high speed, 
rich, fast, fully deployed broadband Internet is going to be available 
to Americans without the heavy hand of government regulating it in 
terms, prices and conditions. It means that we will have choice and 
competition in that marketplace and that all Americans will enjoy the 
benefits instead of just a few of this amazing revolution in 
communication.
  This is about the future. There are people who rise on the floor and 
will talk to you about the past and how we ought to employ all the 
rules and regulations of the past to this new communications structure. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I will ask you to think 
about the future and how we can build a future where every American has 
access to these new systems and we can be rich in education and 
information and entertainment and commerce again. We can put America 
back to work and get this economy going and give Americans real choice 
in high speed broadband Internet services.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a principal co-sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am the supporter of the Tauzin-Dingell 
measure, and I rise this morning to describe why its passage is in the 
public interest. I will take this time to make three points.
  First, passage of this measure will stimulate the deployment of 
broadband services by telephone companies. The 1996 Telecommunications 
Act contains an unbundling requirement that enables competitors to 
lease at highly favorable rates only a portion of a telephone company's 
network and then to

[[Page H576]]

combine that leased element with the telephone company's own equipment 
in order to offer a complete service.
  Now this provision is good policy if the goal is to promote 
competition in the offering of traditional voice telephone service, and 
I would note that many of the cities in the United States have as many 
as one-half of the lines serving businesses in the hands of the 
competitors to the local telephone companies. But the unbundling 
requirement is terrible policy if the goal is to encourage the 
telephone company to offer high speed Internet access service to a 
larger number of homes and businesses.
  The rate at which the network must be leased to competitors is below 
the cost of building and maintaining the network in the first instance 
for the telephone company. The lines and the other equipment necessary 
to provide these high speed services are costly, and that cost cannot 
be recovered by the telephone company under the dramatically reduced 
rate that is available for the lease of these facilities.
  Congress always intended this regulation to apply to local telephone 
service. It was not intended to be applied to high speed Internet 
access. But the Federal Communications Commission has applied it to 
these advanced telephone services nonetheless, and that is the problem 
that we are trying to resolve.
  The result of this action by the FCC is that the deployment of DSL by 
telephone companies severely lags the deployment of cable modem service 
which is completely unregulated. Of the 20 percent of American Internet 
users who have high speed access two-thirds are using cable modem 
service, and the DSL service offered by telephone companies has less 
than one-third of the market.
  The Tauzin-Dingell measure is needed to remove the unbundling 
requirement from advanced services to create a closer parity of 
regulation between DSL and cable and to encourage the broad deployment 
of DSL by telephone companies.
  The second point I would make is that this is a jobs bill. The head 
of our Nation's leading technology companies have said that a revival 
of the technology sector of our economy hinges on one pivotal 
development, and that is the mass and rapid deployment of broadband 
services. The Tauzin-Dingell bill will lead to that deployment. It will 
result in hundreds of billions of dollars in business investment. It 
will create more than one million new jobs.
  Third, all of our regulations now in place will remain for local 
telephone service. This bill does not affect traditional voice 
telephony.

                              {time}  1230

  Unbundled network elements, forward-looking cost pricing, and terms-
of-service regulation will remain for local telephone service. That is 
totally unaffected by this bill.
  The bill only affects the provision of high-speed Internet services. 
This market is competitive and telephone companies are the second 
entrants with only one-third of total customers. The dominant market 
participant, the cable industry, has no regulation and enjoys two-
thirds of the share of this market.
  This regulatory disparity is unfair. It poorly serves the public 
interest because it dampens the deployment of broadband services.
  I urge support for the Tauzin-Dingell bill. That will create more 
even-handed regulation and lift the restraints of current law on 
broadband deployment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support final passage of H.R. 1542, the Internet 
Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. While I did not support this 
legislation in the Committee on the Judiciary, I am persuaded that 
sufficient changes will be made to the bill today that merits 
supporting the bill and moving the process forward.
  I believe two changes negotiated between the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) and myself significantly improve the bill. There is 
general agreement that rapid deployment of broadband could dramatically 
improve communications, electronic commerce, and more easily deliver 
digital goods to consumers. However, there is disagreement over how 
broadband should be deployed. The Committee on the Judiciary had 
several days of hearings on these complex and difficult issues.
  As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which has 
jurisdiction over unlawful restraints of trade, I am cognizant of 
antitrust problems which gave rise to our modern telecommunications 
policy. After the 1984 breakup of AT&T, competition in the long 
distance market flourished. As a result, rates decreased and service 
improved.
  However, when local telephone competition failed to materialize, 
Congress in 1996 attempted to open up the local markets by offering the 
regional Bell operating companies, RBOCs for short, a basic trade. They 
were to open their local exchanges to competitors for interconnection; 
and in return, they were to be allowed entry into the long distance 
market.
  Since 1996, there has been major consolidation in the industry as the 
RBOCs have merged with one another. Furthermore, the RBOCs have not had 
a stellar record regarding compliance with the 1996 act. Hence, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) will offer an amendment increasing penalties for violation of 
the Communications Act of 1934, which I urge the committee to adopt. 
Consolidation and a history of anticompetitive market restraints should 
give one pause.
  Many would argue with considerable justification that there has been 
not enough progress in the local markets and that the RBOCs should not 
be rewarded by giving them the unregulated green light to the lucrative 
data market. On the other hand, we should continuously review public 
policy to determine whether regulatory regimes are meeting the public 
interests.
  We must also remain vigilant to make sure that the RBOCs do not use 
their market dominance to undermine competition because competition is 
the only way to ensure the most efficient delivery of the highest-
quality and lowest-price goods and services.
  Notwithstanding the changes that will be made today, including two 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, incorporated 
into the bill by the rule, I remain concerned about competition in the 
broadband and telecommunications market as a whole and will continue to 
review these issues to search for ways to ensure that the benefits of 
competition, lower prices, more choices and better service, are 
available to the consumer.
  No bill is perfect; and after much deliberation, debate, and 
consideration, I believe on the whole that final passage of this 
legislation should be supported. Many Members have labored on this 
legislation, and I want to specifically thank the members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary on both sides of the aisle for their hard 
work. The committee performed quickly and thoughtfully under 
unreasonably tight time constraints last June, and all Members should 
be proud of their accomplishments.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and his staff for working an agreement in the language contained in 
section 9 of the bill which preserves the powers of the Justice 
Department to review antitrust considerations.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the balance of my time be yielded to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed to yield such 
portions of that time to other Members as he desires.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for the excellent work I 
think we put in together with our staffs to ensure, in fact, that the 
antitrust laws will fully apply to all operations of the Bell companies 
as they currently conduct their business and telephone service and in 
their new businesses in broadband. He and I are equally committed to 
watch carefully the performance of these companies and others to make 
sure that consumers have the benefits of competition and not the 
penalties of monopoly unregulated service.

[[Page H577]]

  We are going to work together, and I thank him again for working with 
our subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1542, and 
as chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, 
I would say that today, in fact, is the defining moment in our Nation's 
telecommunications policy.
  Yes, the issues are complex, but there certainly is much at stake. 
The choice in this debate could not be simpler or clearer. Today's 
regulation of broadband is based on yesterday's technology. So we can 
either seize the moment and move forward, or we can stay stuck in the 
outmoded regulatory rut and watch other countries take our jobs and 
industry away.
  Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with the head of the 
Southwestern Michigan Realtors Association, and it was no surprise to 
learn that the number one question on the minds of prospective home 
buyers in Michigan these days is not about property taxes and local 
schools but, rather, whether there is broadband access available in the 
neighborhoods. These folks are willing to commute, in fact, more than 
30 minutes, even across State lines, just to live in communities which 
have broadband.
  Small businesses in the area are reporting similar competitive 
disadvantages as well. I compare broadband access to the interstate 
highway system which was built through southwest Michigan back in the 
late 1950s and 1960s; and as I crisscross my district, I can see the 
population and the economic growth which has occurred in these towns 
that have access to interstate highways.
  Those communities which do not have access have remained in a virtual 
time capsule, great little towns, but they virtually stood still 
throughout the past number of decades. That is what I fear will happen 
if we do not move soon, as soon as possible in fact, to get these 
communities connected to the high-speed Internet access highway.
  That is why we need to provide deregulatory parity for broadband, 
regardless of the platform by which it is delivered, whether it be 
telephone lines, cable, wireless, satellite; and by doing that we can 
undo the enormous regulatory shackles which stand in the way of 
telephone companies providing DSL.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his leadership and everyone that I have 
worked with on this issue for now, I think, at least 3 years.
  I stand in opposition to the bill and have from the very beginning, 
and I would like to very quickly go through my top 10 reasons.
  I think it is bad for the economy. Why? Because it is going to throw 
people out of work. The proponents say it is going to create jobs. In 
fact, it is going to shut down the CLECs in this country who are the 
children that were born out of the telecom act. So it is not going to 
do what the promise of the bill says. It is going to lose jobs, no net 
gains.
  I think it is bad for consumers, and consumer organizations across 
the board oppose the bill. Why? Because it further enlarges the 
monopoly that the Bells are right now. If someone has a monopoly in 
their DNA, this is the bill for them.
  It is bad for small business because I think the prices without the 
CLECs, without the CLECs who are competing right now, small business is 
going to end up paying more. That really is a tax on high-speed access 
for small businesses.
  It is bad for broadband because it stifles innovation. When we think 
of innovation, and the district that I come from is all about that, we 
do not think of the local Bells as being the fathers or mothers of 
innovation.
  It is bad for rural areas and the bill promises to get DSL to the 
rural areas. It does not, and it will not. The homes that are located 3 
miles from a Bell central office would still be dependent upon other 
broadband providers.
  It is bad for the States, and 31 State PUCs oppose it. Why? Because 
the bill takes away the ability from our constituents to protect 
consumers and oversee quality of service. In California alone the Bells 
have been fined $350 million for bad service. Under this bill they 
would not be able to do it.
  Lastly, the e-rate. If my colleagues voted for the e-rate, it is in 
trouble. Our schools, our law libraries, it is bad law. The Bells do 
not need any legislation to offer high-speed Internet services.
  I compliment the proponents of the bill for their advertising of it 
because they say it is jobs, it is the economy, it is competition, it 
is going to take high-speed Internet access to all communities right 
away. That is great advertising, but my colleagues have to read the 
print in the bill, and the Bells do not need this in order to bring the 
competition and the high-speed Internet access that it says only the 
Bell can do.
  This enlarges a monopoly that will lumber on, and my colleagues and I 
are going to have to answer to our constituents on the accountability 
issue. No PUC, no FCC. I do not think that kind of deregulation in 
terms of accountability is where we should go.
  I think to be about the future we have to get rid of the past. This 
reeks of the past and does not speak well to the future.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the dean of the House, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tauzin-Dingell bill. 
Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, this is a tale of two 
cities, the cable and telephone industry. Ten years ago, these two 
industries had little to do with each other; but today, they are, 
thanks to technology, they are providing the exact same product, high-
speed Internet access.
  One would think thus that when the government imposed regulations it 
would do so in the same manner, but that is the crux of this tale of 
two industries. One, the cable industry, provides these services 
unfettered by regulation, the way it should be, and I support this. The 
other, the telephone industry, is heavily regulated.
  We have a responsibility to ensure fairness in our regulations. 
Luckily, there will be great benefits realized as a result of this 
legislation. It is estimated that $100 billion will be spent upgrading 
the telephone networks. There is an enormous amount of labor involved 
in this task; and as a result, the AFL-CIO and the Communication 
Workers of America have endorsed this legislation.
  Small businesses will also benefit. The cost of a T-1 line can be as 
much as $1,500 per month. For a small business that is simply not an 
option, but a DSL line is about $50 per month. Certainly that is 
affordable for most small businesses, and that will allow them to 
finally join the e-commerce revolution.
  There will also be enormous benefits to bridging the digital divide. 
Our modern society is dependent upon information. The Internet is the 
greatest source of information ever created.
  Again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill. It will bridge the digital 
divide and allow this kind of service to be for all Americans.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased and honored to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of 
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
for bringing up this legislation, this very important piece of 
legislation.
  This is a good bill. We should not hold hostage data deployment to 
the voice fight, and that is what this is all about, long distance 
versus local; and that fight which should not be involved in this. This 
is an issue about data, and this is an issue about deploying data in 
rural America; and if we want to create jobs in deployment of data, not 
just in the data deployments but the small businesses in rural America 
that want to be able to market their goods in this world economy 
through broadband, this is how we do it.

[[Page H578]]

  Without this bill, we will not have broadband deployment in rural 
America, and we will not have the job-creation activity, and we will 
see the people continue to offer broadband in urban America and not in 
the places that we need job growth.

                              {time}  1245

  The other issue is that we have seen what has happened in the voices 
with the FEC and the lawsuits, the CARA lawsuits, the rulemaking, and 
that just stops the deployment of any type of service. And here people 
want to return to that. They want to bring more regulation into this 
new, exciting world of high-speed Internet services.
  So I am just excited that we have now got this bill on the floor. I 
think it is going to help create new jobs in rural America. I want to 
thank the chairman and the ranking member for their foresight, and let 
us get this done.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  We have really changed our country, and the rest of the world has 
been following us over the last 20 years. We had one phone company. 
One. And they had 1.2 million employees. But we decided that it was 
stultifying innovation. Technology, prices, service, everything was 
tied to that one company. So our country broke up AT&T. Out of it came 
Sprint, MCI, Lucent, and dozens, scores of companies, because it 
created a competitive environment.
  That is what the 1996 Telecommunications Act sought to do for the 
local market as well, to break it up; to say to the local bells, those 
four companies in the United States, each of us has one who is a 
monopoly in our hometown, ``If you give up your local monopoly, we will 
let you into long distance with MCI, with Sprint, with AT&T. That was 
the deal.
  This amendment today breaks that deal and sends the American public 
back to the past, where the choices would be limited rather than 
unlimited.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and also for his leadership along with that of our committee 
chairman. I rise in strong support of this measure.
  We often talk about American ingenuity, American innovation. Well, it 
is here. The only problem is it is handicapped, handicapped and 
handcuffed by outdated regulation that prevents the deployment of 
broadband, and deployment of broadband is clearly the wave of the 
future.
  Small businesses in particular will need deployment of high-speed 
Internet service. They will need it for large bids. They will need it 
for large-volume orders. They will need it to put pictures up that 
people can get in a quick and rapid manner so that they can sell their 
products. That is why we need to deploy broadband now.
  We also need more competition with the cable companies. Everyone 
talks about cable rates and talks about competition. Well, we can have 
competition if we pass this bill. Broadband will provide that 
competition.
  Third, we talk about the digital divide, the fact that we have two 
communities, some that have it and others that do not. This committee 
did a good job on a bipartisan basis by guaranteeing a 5-year build-out 
to ensure that urban as well as rural communities, poor communities as 
well as wealthier communities would have access to broadband Internet 
under this bill. I think that is a tremendous idea, and I think it 
argues well for this bill.
  We cannot afford to have businesses leave poor communities because 
they do not have broadband. We cannot afford to have students in poorer 
communities disadvantaged because they do not have broadband when their 
wealthier colleagues do.
  This is a good and balanced bill, and I hope my colleagues will adopt 
it. I urge strong adoption of the broadband access bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who is a member of our 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for their 
leadership on this important issue.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 1542. This is a bill whose time has 
come. It provides for less Federal and State regulation of broadband 
services and Internet access service. It also removes the disparity 
that now exists between cable, modem service and DSL.
  The bill also addresses the restrictions caused by the LATA lines 
drawn by Judge Greene in 1984. And I might add that was a long time 
before commercial Internet or retail broadband service was available.
  Finally, this bill will help rural America, an area that I represent, 
because it will expedite broadband deployment in rural America. I think 
that will be a tremendous boost to help in economic development in 
rural America, which is vitally needed at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Would the chairman announce how much time is available to 
all of us in the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon) has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important 
telecommunications bill to come to the floor of this House not just in 
this Congress but in many, many years. If it passes and becomes law, it 
will determine the way the telecommunications industry develops in 
America for untold years to come. Yet we are provided with essentially 
2 hours, or less than 2 hours to debate the bill in its essence on the 
floor here today. The opposition is given, what, 15 minutes to provide 
alternative points of view. This is scandalous.
  The people are not being served here. There ought to be opportunities 
to debate this bill in its full content and in detail. Why is that? 
Because the bill, as it is currently written, makes some terrible 
mistakes.
  The premise of the bill is that if monopoly situations are provided 
to monopolistic companies and get rid of all regulation at the Federal 
and State level that somehow we will have a fair and open process and a 
level playing field and that somehow consumers will get the benefit. 
History shows us different.
  This bill will cause prices to rise, and it will ensure that vast 
areas of the country continue to not get service. Particularly rural 
areas like upstate New York will not get the service that they need.
  The bill alleges to create jobs. Well, the CLECs in New York, for 
example, now employ about 100,000 people. Those jobs are in danger of 
being lost and almost certainly would be lost if this bill were to 
become law.
  This bill is not in the interest of the general public, not in the 
interest of consumers. We could do a good bill; and if we were doing a 
good bill, we would do many things. For example, we would ensure that 
every school in every State across this country is hooked up to 
broadband services, and those services would be required to be provided 
by the companies that are given this money-making opportunity contained 
in this bill.
  It is a big mistake. We could do an awful lot better.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support of 
this bill.
  Coming out of the telecommunications industry, coming out of the 
high-tech industry and being a user of these products, I recognize full 
well how stalled broadband deployment is. There is no question on 
either side of this issue but that broadband deployment has fallen 
behind our competitors. We have fallen behind Korea. We have fallen 
behind nations that we

[[Page H579]]

never thought we would be second to in the role of high-speed Internet.
  This bill seeks to and does in fact, as it is to be amended, allow 
for the best of both worlds. It allows for universal access both to the 
incumbent utilities and those who would like to become exchanges.
  But it also says, wisely, that there has to be an opportunity for a 
return for those who will invest hundreds of billions of dollars. This 
bill does it and does it extremely well.
  I believe if those on both sides of this issue recognize and think 
about the fact that this is not going to be an industry which is 
stalled and is suddenly going to restart itself, but that to restart it 
is going to take action from this body, then this bill, passed in the 
House and hopefully passed in the Senate, is going to lead to a 
restarting of broadband, which more than anything else I can name will 
restart the growth of America's economy, something that is sorely 
needed.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership and the leadership of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as well.
  As a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, I frequently 
discuss the importance of redundancy in our information infrastructure. 
Redundancy is essential to a strong national defense. Because if our 
information only has one path to travel, times of emergency can make it 
difficult for information to travel at all.
  Redundancy in our system is essential to ensuring confidence in our 
information infrastructure during times of emergency and to plan for 
information technology growth in the future. Tauzin-Dingell will use 
both the carrot and the stick in encouraging telephone companies to 
expand our high-speed data transmission infrastructure, thus making our 
country less vulnerable to a communications shutdown in times of 
emergency.
  When there are two high-speed networks capable of handling the 
broadband needs of the country, both cable and telephone, one could be 
pressed into service if the other is disabled. The bill we vote on 
today requires the phone companies to equip all their local offices 
with high-speed data transmission within 5 years. Without this 
legislation, neither the incentive nor the requirement will be there 
for the Bell companies to expand their networks.
  Nineteen percent of our country has no high-speed data service at 
all, and 48 percent have only one network in place. That leaves two-
thirds of the country without a redundant high-speed data network. Mr. 
Chairman, this leaves our country vulnerable and exposed to an 
information shutdown during a national crisis.
  Tauzin-Dingell will not cost taxpayers one penny but will create over 
a million new jobs, give millions of Americans access to high-speed 
Internet and, most importantly, will strengthen America's information 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in yielding me this time and for his leadership in trying to focus on 
the positive legacy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  The Act required that the Bell companies enter the long-distance 
Internet market by opening their local markets to competition, and this 
has simply not occurred. That is why today's legislation that would 
deregulate broadband services is opposed by consumer protection groups 
and 31 State public utility commissions, including the PUC in my State 
of Oregon.
  They are concerned in part that this deregulation could severely hurt 
consumer service. It would limit consumer revenues over complaints with 
telecommunication services, especially in those instances where 
consumers are unable to be provided relief for poor service or high 
rates.
  Talk to the people back home. I have got an earful.
  Additionally, as somebody who has been deeply, deeply impressed with 
the impact of the e-rate, I am concerned that it puts at risk those 
important investments for our schools and our libraries.

                              {time}  1300

  But most ironic for me is the allegation somehow that we are going to 
be extending these services to the rural areas, bringing broadband to 
them. Well, point in fact that this legislation would in fact require 
all of the central offices to be upgraded within 5 years; it does not 
require that the DSL upgrades be extended from those offices. Homes 
that are located further away would still continue to be dependent on 
satellite, cable or wireless broadband. Making matters worse, most of 
the Baby Bells do not even serve the rural areas that ostensibly are 
going to be served under the enactment of this bill. I strongly urge 
rejection of the proposal.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself to correct the 
record.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill does require that all persons and all 
communities be served within 5 years, even outside of the 3-mile limit 
from the central office, and requires other technologies to be used, if 
necessary, to do that. There is a 5-year build-out to everyone in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, this bill will provide a major boost to 
the U.S. economy, particularly to the telecommunications and high-tech 
sectors. This is a bill that promises to create more than a million new 
jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic activity if it 
does become law, and our Nation needs this legislation.
  As a Member from rural America, I have a particular interest in this 
bill because Tauzin-Dingell will ensure that the high-speed access 
reaches underserved areas by requiring local phone companies to provide 
access throughout the country. This will guarantee that small towns and 
rural areas, all but ignored today, have access to true information-age 
opportunities.
  And as a business owner, I know that competition empowers consumers 
by forcing companies to provide better products and better services at 
cheaper rates. By removing the unfair regulatory barriers that 
discourage phone companies from investing in broadband, this bill will 
ensure real competition in the marketplace.
  At present, we have no competition in the high-speed data market. 
What is worse, we have no coherent national policy to encourage the 
deployment of high-speed Internet services. Instead, we have a 
regulatory regime that applies a massive set of bureaucratic rules 
designed for old telephone voice service to the brave new world of the 
Internet. These rules discourage investment by the very companies most 
able to lead the way in bringing high-speed Internet service to every 
American in this country.
  H.R. 1542 replaces these anticompetitive rules with a sound 
regulatory framework that encourages investment and enables competition 
in the marketplace. And it is for those reasons that I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 1542.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the importance of this debate can only be understood by 
looking at history. If the monopolies had their way, we would still 
have one phone company. We would have one company providing cellular 
phone service. We would have one company providing Internet service. 
That was their vision in 1980, 1982, 1984. But our country decided that 
our great opportunity was to unleash the technological and 
entrepreneurial skills of our country. We believed that hundreds of 
companies could compete in this telecommunications sector, that it did 
not have to just be a story about one company.
  We can look at analogies. We had one long distance phone company. In 
all of our families when we were younger, it was a big day when someone 
was on the

[[Page H580]]

phone calling grandma because somebody would be yelling in the 
background, ``Remember, that call is long distance. Hurry up and 
finish,'' because those calls were so expensive.
  The Bells said it was impossible to have low-cost long distance, but 
once MCI and Sprint and dozens of other companies got in, we reached a 
point where it became so inexpensive to make long-distance calls that 
now everyone thinks it is normal just to call to another State.
  In cell phones, we had a situation where there were only two 
companies in the cell phone business, and they were both analog. Only 
at the point at which the third, fourth, fifth and sixth company got in 
and went digital did the telephone companies, who had the original 
license, decide they were going to go digital, too. This is not ancient 
history, this is 1984, 1985. We are not deep into this revolution. The 
Bells invented these technologies, but they had not deployed them 
because they did not have any competition.
  The essence of what we tried to do in 1996 and in each of those 
earlier big moments was to induce massive paranoia in the incumbent 
company so they had to move faster than they would have otherwise. In 
this digital, Darwinian world, that is the key to American success. It 
is not a story tied to one company whose picture is always on the 
cover, one company whose picture is always on the cover of Fortune or 
Forbes. It is the story of a country that is on the cover, number one 
looking over its shoulder at numbers two, three, and four in the world 
because we have so many companies we do not know all of their names.
  That is where we are in cell phones today in terms of the multiple 
choices which Americans have. That is where we are in long distance. 
The revolution that we are talking about here today is a revolution of 
Internet service providers. There are hundreds of them out there. It is 
a revolution of smaller competitive local exchange companies. There are 
dozens of them out there. That is the revolution. The Bells invented 
DSL. Had they deployed it before the 1996 Act? No, they had not. It was 
still sitting in their laboratories.
  Once the other companies were out and moving, did they start to 
deploy? Members better believe that they started to deploy. Scores of 
companies were created. And all of the other companies ultimately were 
the key to the Bells finally beginning to move. This is a story that we 
are seeing over and over and over again. A vision of one company, or a 
vision of so many companies we cannot know their names. Something that 
was called the NASDAQ. That is what happened after 1996.
  So I ask each Member to please understand how central this is to a 
vision of where the children in the country today are going to be 
working 5 and 10 years from now. It is getting the skill sets to work 
in these competitive companies, and not just to get a job with Ma Bell. 
That is not a vision for the future; it is a vision looking in a 
rearview mirror.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I represent 
a fairly urban district in Nebraska; but once I step out of that 
district, it is very rural. And I stand here sticking up for our rural 
America which has, I feel, been grossly neglected in providing these 
types of services.
  The FCC recognized the potential impact of broadband on rural America 
when it noted ``a lack of broadband infrastructure could limit the 
potential of these rural communities to attract and retain businesses 
and jobs, especially businesses that are dependent on electronic 
commerce.'' We have seen this in Nebraska where they look for new 
employees, and they will go into a rural community, but they need to 
transfer the data. What we need to do, and what this bill does, is it 
breaks down a barrier for DSL which is going to be the leading market 
for broadband in rural communities. It eliminates the disincentive of 
the companies to offer this type of service. For the sake of our rural 
communities, I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. It 
is true that the future of telecommunications is full of uncertainty as 
we attempt to anticipate the interplay of new technologies and market 
conditions and consumer preferences with the old. Our job is to work to 
make sure that the industry competes fairly in all sectors and across 
the geographic vastness of this American society.
  This bill accomplishes that goal. Central to my support of this 
legislation is the build-out requirement that will take a major step 
toward bridging the digital divide. Currently, only about half of U.S. 
residents have access to broadband and just 8 percent actually 
subscribe to this service, most of them living in wealthier urban 
areas. The build-out provision, which the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rush) and I coauthored in committee, will ensure that underserved 
areas, such as inner cities or small towns in rural America, can access 
high-speed Internet services.
  The provision requires local phone companies to upgrade their 
facilities, speeding the availability of broadband to 100 percent of 
their central offices, and clearly our intent is by whatever technology 
available at the time, to all of their customers, reaching schools and 
businesses and residents throughout their service areas.
  In my home State of Ohio, this would guarantee high-speed access to 
2.4 million homes and businesses that cannot purchase this service, 
even if they wish to do so. I urge passage of this legislation so that 
we can make real progress without regard to the technology available at 
the time toward bridging the digital divide and bring high-speed 
Internet access to schools, businesses and residents through the 
country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership 
on this critical issue, as well as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell). As the third sponsor of this important bill after the 
gentleman from Michigan, I believe this legislation is long overdue.
  Back in 1999 I introduced, along with the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher), legislation similar to H.R. 1542 that would have 
provided long-overdue regulatory parity for the Internet by lifting 
some of the discriminatory burdens on the incumbent telephone companies 
as they seek to provide broadband Internet services.
  We introduced this legislation because we believed then, and still 
believe now, that the government should not be in the position of 
picking winners or losers. There is no clearer example of the need to 
reexamine the unintended effects of laws enacted by Congress than to 
look at the inter-LATA restrictions and unbundling requirements placed 
on the phone companies in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. These 
requirements, intended to encourage competition in voice telephony, 
have been wrongly applied to the delivery of broadband Internet 
services by the incumbent telephone providers.
  This is especially true in rural areas like many parts of my 
district. The arrival of broadband Internet to rural areas is like the 
arrival of the railroad in the 19th century. If it ran through a town, 
that town was connected with the new economy; that town thrived. If it 
missed a town, that town was a ghost town. Support this legislation; do 
not turn rural America into a ghost town.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1542. The digital 
transition has stalled with the collapse of the Internet bubble. Cable 
companies now control 70 percent of the consumer broadband connections 
in our country. Meanwhile, DSL and the digital subscriber line service 
offered by local telephone companies lags far behind, and is hindered 
by the outdated analog phone regulations.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Chairman, I want to show my colleagues, because I know they have

[[Page H581]]

seen it in our publications here on the Hill, an ad that is only 
partially true. This ad shows four cute little pigs, each one 
representing supposedly a Bell operating company. Below all the little 
pigs is a number representing the percentage increase that they say of 
DSL subscribers for the different Bell operating companies last year.
  Reading this ad, one would wrongly assume that DSL service offered by 
local phone companies is the number one way consumers get broadband 
access. However, this ad is only partially true. They have had some 
success in signing up folks, but they still only have a third of the 
market. So cable still has 70 percent of it.
  My colleagues on the floor today and those watching C-SPAN, what is 
this ad for? Who is coming by our offices in opposition to the bill? We 
are pointing out the big regional Bell companies are so bad, but it is 
AT&T, MCI and Sprint who are opposing this bill, so we have the battle 
of the elephants.
  No matter what everyone has told us about broadband, cable is the 
dominant delivery platform in this country. That is why we need to make 
sure this bill passes so we can have real competition in DSL.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill as I expect it 
to be amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill as I expect it to be amended will create new 
job opportunities and is a step towards ensuring that all Americans 
have access to broadband.
  The New Millennium Research Council study found that building a 
nationwide broadband network would create 1.2 million jobs. In 
addition, it would ensure competition between cable and telephone 
companies, which will not only spur job growth, but also encourage the 
innovation of new Internet services and products.
  We must focus on encouraging economic growth, both to help working 
Americans and to help the high tech sector.
  U.S. businesses waste $11 billion annually because employees access 
the Web through slow dialup modems. Increasing broadband access will 
significantly increase efficiency and productivity in the workplace. 
This is especially important to the high tech sector, which drives our 
economy. Increasing its capabilities will benefit the entire country.
  Only 9% of U.S. households currently have broadband Internet access. 
This bill will ensure that more Americans are able to use this 
technology.
  Broadband holds the key to the newest technologies. Once broadband is 
widely available, we will have access to innovative multimedia, video 
and interactive services that today's Internet simply can't support.
  As Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates put it, the lack of broadband 
deployment is ``the one thing holding us back.''
  This bill also ensures that rural communities will not be left 
behind. We must close the digital divide with broadband, and not 
relegate rural communities to the wrong side of an ever-widening 
information gap. Everyone should have the opportunity to access the 
most advanced technology.
  The United States has been a consistent leader in developing 
technology. If we want to maintain this leadership role, we must 
encourage the deployment of technology that benefits all of us. 
Technology is the key to our future.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I 
also thank him for his diligent leadership on this very complex issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. There are many 
parallels between what happened in the cellular industry and what is 
happening in the high-speed data marketplace. The slow rollout of 
cellular service in the 1980s was related to continuing regulation of 
the service. That regulatory phase cost consumers and the economy 
billions of dollars. Significant deregulation since then, however, has 
increased subscribership and lowered consumer costs.
  Wireless growth was actually very slow at first. By the end of 1988, 
there were approximately 2 million cellular subscribers in the entire 
United States. The FCC made an effort to significantly deregulate 
cellular service in 1988. This first of two significant deregulatory 
events in the cellular industry helped make wireless telecommunications 
the ubiquitous service it is today.
  In December, 1988, the average monthly cellular bill was $98.02 for 
the 2 million plus subscribers. Within 4 years of the FCC's 
deregulatory effort, cellular subscribership reached 11 million, while 
the subscriber's average monthly bill dropped by nearly 30 percent.
  Congress undertook the second major deregulatory effort in 1993 and 
to a great extent deregulated the cellular telephone industry. From 
1993 to 1998, wireless telephone subscribership rose from 16 million to 
69 million, while the average monthly bill has dropped by nearly 50 
percent.
  Adoption of H.R. 1542 will permit telephone companies to provide DSL 
technologies at a more rapid pace, with the same results deregulation 
of the cellular industry produced, more consumers accessing the 
technology for lower costs.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, high-speed Internet access is as important 
to our constituents and our Nation's economy in the 21st century as 
access to electricity or telephone service was to our forebearers in 
the 20th century. My district is geographically diverse, one-third 
urban, one-third suburban, one-third rural. Some have high-speed 
Internet access but most do not. I want all of my constituents to have 
broadband access no matter where they live.
  The question before this House is, what can we do to facilitate high-
speed Internet access?
  Over the past couple of years, I have considered that question very 
carefully. Last year, I participated in a technology roundtable 
discussion in Dodgeville, in Iowa County, Wisconsin. It was sponsored 
by the local Chamber of Commerce and included local business leaders, 
educators, students, public health professionals and local government 
officials.
  Lands' End Corporation, headquartered in Dodgeville, the county's 
largest employer, told of their need for high-speed Internet services 
for their website. In the mail order clothing business, the Internet 
has become a critical tool. But they had to base their website in the 
city of Madison rather than in their headquarters in Dodgeville.
  I also have a constituent who lives in a farmhouse six miles north of 
Dodgeville who makes specialty cheeses that he wishes to market over 
the Internet. He needs high-speed data capacity to expand his business. 
The service will help the library, the public health nurse and the 
local lumber company. I am convinced that Tauzin-Dingell is the best 
way to achieve broadband deployment to all of my constituents.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers)
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman 
for what I think is well-intended work on what he seeks to do and his 
graciousness for allowing those in the dissent to stand here today. He 
does a great job for our Congress here.
  I have been down this road before. I have been told the same things 
just a few years ago as a State legislator, that this was going to have 
competition, this was going to bring technology changes, this was going 
to bring jobs to the great State of Michigan. I voted that day what I 
thought was the right direction, because they came in, companies like 
SBC Ameritech, sat there and said, ``Trust us. We're going to do the 
right thing.'' What I found was exactly the opposite of that, Mr. 
Chairman, a vote I wish I could take back today and a vote I will 
rectify today by proudly voting ``no.''
  This was an 800-pound gorilla that we made a 1,600-pound gorilla. 
What we got when we empowered this group that was a monopoly and we 
turned it into a deregulated monopoly is that this was the same 
company, SBC Ameritech, that sued its own ratepayers in the State of 
Michigan to keep a line tax on its consumers. This is the same company 
that, for weeks on end,

[[Page H582]]

there was a website there called fix-my-phone-now-dot-com where 
thousands and thousands of people typed in examples of how Ameritech 
and this company who was supposed to allow deregulation and competition 
to provide better service were abusing customers in our State.
  We had one elderly woman right before I left who had a husband that 
was ill, 7 weeks, no phone service, 7 weeks, could not get an answer 
from SBC Ameritech. At one point, unfortunately, the wrong thing 
happened. Her elderly husband took ill. She had to walk almost a mile, 
at her age, in the middle of the night to try to find somebody with a 
phone that worked to get care for her husband.
  This is a life-and death issue. This is empowering the same companies 
like SBC Ameritech that have been abusing customers in Michigan for 
years to become bigger and uglier and less concerned. They control now 
something like 85 percent of the market. That is not competition. That 
is abuse. There is one guy on the block that controls all the service 
trucks and when he does not feel like getting there, guess what, he 
does not come. We saw the fact that he took money, millions and 
millions of dollars paid by phone users in our great State, to go 
compete in other States around the country. Good for Ameritech, bad for 
Michigan consumers.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, every consumer group out there says this 
is a bad bill. We talk about CLECs and line sharing and technology and 
broadband and all this great stuff, and it sounds really wonderful, and 
the economy is going to come to a screeching halt if the Federal 
Government does not step in and save the day. I could not disagree 
more. The free market will get it there, but if we stand up for these 
monsters, if we stand up and empower them and say the same thing you 
have done before, you will do again, we will regret it here in Congress 
as we did in our State legislature.
  I urge the rejection of the Tauzin-Dingell bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I thank my friend for yielding me this time and stand 
here as the rookie member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with 
some trepidation because I am opposing a bill supported by my chairman 
and ranking member. Nonetheless, I believe the bill before us 
effectively unravels the careful balance Congress struck with the 
enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and in doing so fails to 
promote consumer access to high-speed Internet services.
  The 1996 Telecom Act was the product of extensive debate on the House 
floor and the adoption of carefully crafted amendments. I was there, 
and Congress distinguished itself. Today, we are being asked to 
overturn several critical components of that carefully crafted 
agreement; and, if we do, I fear that we will only retard achieving the 
goal of promoting broadband access.
  What is preventing broadband access is not the lack of broadband 
services. Satellite broadband is universally available. About half of 
all households that have a telephone could have broadband and about 70 
percent of all cable subscribers could sign up for broadband if they 
wanted it. Consumers do not subscribe because they do not see the high-
value content that they are willing to pay for. Content is not 
available in large part because the producers and owners of that 
content and the manufacturers of the products used to watch and 
transmit that content have not come to agreement about how best to 
protect its intellectual property value. Building that demand for 
broadband should be our focus, not reducing competition.
  The bill before us eliminates competition by removing the requirement 
enacted in the 1996 Act that Bell operating companies open their 
facilities to CLECs and other providers. This is not the way to build 
access to broadband. It is reinstating monopoly conditions, not 
promoting competition.
  I urge support for Cannon-Conyers and, absent its passage, defeat for 
H.R. 1542.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on the facade behind me, there is 
a quote from Daniel Webster that begins, ``Let us develop the resources 
of our land.'' That is what we are about today. I was a cosponsor of 
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was on the conference committee 
where we worked out the final details with the Senate.
  In 1996, the Internet was in its infancy and we did not explicitly 
say in that Act how to legislate on broadband. So today we are on the 
floor to perfect the Telco Act of 1996.
  The issue is complex, but you can boil it down to several somewhat 
simplistic elements.
  Number one, everybody who wants to provide broadband through the Bell 
operating companies today has the right to do that. The question is 
what the reimbursement is to the regional Bell operating companies. The 
way the FCC has interpreted the current Act, they have to do it at a 
below-market rate. So, obviously, the regional Bell operating companies 
do not want to do it very much. This bill, if it passes, lets the Bells 
build out the broadband network but lets them charge a market rate to 
provide access. I think that is a good thing. I think that provides 
more competition.
  The second issue is the Internet providers, the long distance 
providers, the AT&Ts and MCIs and Sprints, would rather that the 
regional Bell operating companies do not get additional flexibility, so 
they oppose the bill.
  Again, if we pass the bill, we are going to have more competition 
sooner; and if the bill passes as we expect it to be amended, 
competitors will have access to their copper loop, competitors will 
have line sharing access, competitors will have voice access, and the 
cable companies will not be regulated any more than they are today.
  I urge passage for the bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1542. H.R. 1542 
presents an opportunity to take a major step toward bringing affordable 
high-speed Internet service to all Americans, toward reviving the high-
tech industry, and toward constructing multiple broadband networks to 
assure communications in times of national crisis.

                              {time}  1330

  I support Tauzin-Dingell because it represents the kind of economic 
stimulus package that America's workers truly need. A recent report 
issued by Robert Crandall and Charles Jackson indicates that 
accelerated deployment of broadband Internet service would infuse $500 
billion a year into the American economy. The New Millennium Research 
Council finds that building a nationwide broadband network will 
contribute to the creation of 1.2 million new and permanent jobs in 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for Congress to seize this opportunity to 
revive our Nation's economy through business investment without cost to 
the government.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair inform all of us how much 
time remains on all sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 1 
minute remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman my understanding is that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) also has another 10 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard).
  (Mr. HILLIARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to educate those on the other side 
and rise in support of the bill.

[[Page H583]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom 
and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This legislation is extremely 
important to smaller communities that have, as yet, not shared in the 
high-speed Internet access being deployed in larger metropolitan areas.
  H.R. 1542 will accelerate deployment of high-speed Internet 
connections. The current regulatory bottleneck created by over-
regulation is stifling the growth and vast potential of the Internet. 
The bill provides for local telecommunications companies to accelerate 
deployment of broadband networks and services to consumers. In the 
spirit of the Internet, once networks are deployed, innovative 
companies will develop and offer new services on a more universal 
basis.
  H.R. 1542 will significantly improve the economies of deploying high-
speed services in rural communities. Today, many of the very companies 
that serve rural America are denied the incentives necessary to bring 
advanced services to these areas. A recent NTIA study showed that the 
digital divide is most severe for African-Americans living in rural 
areas. Only 24.4 percent of African-Americans living in rural areas 
have dial-up Internet access. This legislation will allow companies to 
develop viable business plans that will help bridge the digital divide 
with broadband Internet access.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1542, the Internet 
Freedom and Broadband Development Act of 2001.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair, did I 
hear you to say the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) had an 
additional 10 minutes not being used at this time, because we are 
trying to allocate time between proponents and opponents as equally as 
possible.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) from the 
Committee on the Judiciary does have 10 minutes of debate time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) present to 
use that time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) present in the Chamber.
  Mr. TAUZIN. What happens to the time if the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) does not appear to use it?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. If the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not on the floor to control 
time, what happens?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time will remain available until all 
other debate time has expired.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. What is it 
the Chair is telling us then? If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) is not here and we conclude the debate, what happens?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not 
present at the conclusion of debate, that time will be considered 
yielded back.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if I can make a further parliamentary 
inquiry, the normal procedure for us to debate general debate on a bill 
is that time is used equally by proponents and opponents. If one of the 
opponents is saving 10 minutes to be used after debate is all finished, 
that disrupts the normal procedure of the House. I would inquire as to 
why this is being allowed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is informed that recognition for general 
debate proceded out of sequence because part of the Committee on the 
Judiciary's allotted time has already been used by the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair would call on the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to use this time as we are using 
our time so that this debate can be balanced as we go forward. My 
concern is that if an opponent who has time in his pocket waits until 
the very end of the debate and then uses it all, then it very much 
unbalances this debate. That is not normal procedure for this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) does have the 
right to close general debate; and when that begins, that will conclude 
debate.
  Mr. TAUZIN. The Chair has satisfied the gentleman in his request. I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), there was a piece of erroneous information which was 
given to the gentleman, which was that the Committee on the Judiciary's 
portion of this debate would take place subsequent to the conclusion of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce portion. As a result, he went back 
to his office. I am reliably informed he is on his way back over here 
in order to claim that time.
  This is not something that is being done in any way to undermine the 
normal procedural order out here, but rather just a piece of 
information which was given to him personally; and he is on the way 
back over here because he does want to participate in this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the gentleman does arrive, he will be recognized.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, we certainly accept that explanation and 
understand it.
  Mr. Chairman, while we are awaiting the arrival of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to another 
great Member, 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. Chairman, I would say to the chairman 
and the ranking member, competition is enormously important. Competing 
interests on competition and access are important.
  Mr. Chairman, I think today that this debate will focus on and 
emphasize the fact that we can have access, which is so key, and 
competition. I believe that the next generation Internet, broadband 
Internet, offers even more potential distance learning and telemedicine 
applications that will help the elderly and those unable to travel.
  Just a few minutes ago I was in a hearing on NASA, and one of the 
strong suits on supporting NASA and space is the ability to treat, if 
you will, diseases and the research that comes about through space 
travel. This broadband extension will create access to those who do not 
have the ability to access expertise, research health care that they 
could not get.
  The two amendments, the Upton-Green amendment and the Buyer-Towns 
amendment, will reinforce the responsibility of the FCC to ensure 
competition by increasing penalties, making sure that those who are 
subject to deregulation do what they are supposed to do to serve the 
American people.
  This is a step forward. Let us not let happen to us what happened 
with the superconductivity lab, where we lost the ability to do that 
research and it went to Europe. Let us be in the forefront of the 
access to broadband and make a difference for Americans and ensure that 
rural and urban areas can be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may say to the distinguished gentleman, as the 
gentleman well knows, I had an amendment that talked about the idea of 
making sure the digital divide would be closed. I would ask, and I see 
my ranking member standing, that is my concern, having met with 40 of 
my community, that we are able to close the digital divide and make 
sure that inner-city neighborhoods, Hispanics and African Americans are 
having access.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is yes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Yes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will 
work on that matter together. I thank both gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we must view this important legislation 
before us, H.R. 1542, in light of the creation and progress of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was designed to increase 
competition, quality and affordability of service universally, and the 
elimination of the digital divide.
  During the passage of this Act, which passed with overwhelming 
majorities in both

[[Page H584]]

the House and the Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton, 
I served on the Conference Committee and had particular insight into 
the problems and potential solutions that plagued the deployment of 
service to all sectors of the American population.
  Having had such a significant role in the process, I am clear that 
the primary purpose of the Act was to promote competition and reduce 
the regulatory burden in order to lower prices and increase quality 
services for all Americans. It was intended that this would encourage 
the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies, in such a 
way that increased access for all Americans in order to eliminate the 
digital divide which in terms of barriers to jobs, education, and 
trade.
  At that time, it was evident that the telecommunications landscape 
was rapidly changing, and the manner and speed of such development 
could not be precisely ascertained. On the horizon was the merging of 
telecommunications, video, and computers into one medium originally 
intended to only carry voice or analog transmissions.
  Today, five years later the Internet and telecommunications 
technology have come a long way in fulfilling the promise of improving 
the lives of all Americans. However, despite the positive effects of 
the Act and other legislative efforts to eliminate these problems, the 
digital divide remains pervasive throughout this nation.
  I believe that the bill before us, H.R. 1542, while not perfect, 
addresses many issues confronting us in the new information age. I 
believe that appropriate and targeted deregulation of broadband 
services is necessary at this juncture in order to stimulate greatly 
needed and increased investment in high-speed Internet services 
throughout the Nation.
  Such measures are necessary in order to level the regulatory playing 
field with cable, which essentially dominates the market, in order to 
stimulate competition to the benefit of all Americans. The result 
should be affordable broadband access to more customers, while also 
helping to stimulate the economy and eliminate the digital divide.
  I was moved by several letters to Congress last week. Cynthia Jones, 
from Houston wrote ``Dear Rep. Jackson Lee . . . Access to high-speed 
Internet connections is crucial to consumers and communities in today's 
economy . . . I strongly urge you to support (H.R. 1542).''
  In another letter, The Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications 
Partnership which represents 40 million Hispanic Americans on public 
policy issues effecting technology and Internet issues wrote ``H.R. 
1542 establishes national policy that will set equitable rules and 
regulations for all broadband/high-speed Internet service providers. 
This, in turn, will create an economic and regulatory environment that 
will ensure Latino inclusion in a society that increasingly depends on 
high-speed communication for education, commerce, telecommunicating, 
and service delivery.''
  In another letter the AFL-CIO wrote ``H.R. 1542 would . . . stimulate 
build-out (into rural and urban underserved areas) by telephone 
companies . . . creating jobs and driving innovation in internet 
services.''
  Finally, the Communications Workers of America who wrote ``H.R. 1542 
is necessary to ensure continued vibrant competition between cable and 
telephone companies as they build out their high-speed data networks. 
Competition to build out their high-speed data networks. Competition to 
build multiple broadband networks will spur job growth as well as 
development of new and lower-priced Internet services for consumers.''
  It is clear that because this bill allows the Bells to carry Internet 
traffic across current LATA long distance boundaries, the costs the 
Bells currently must pay to other communications companies to transmit 
data traffic will necessarily be eliminated, resulting in greater 
competition and cost savings for all Internet providers and their 
customers.
  In my state of Texas and in Houston, which I represent, this 1996 Act 
has had a profound impact on the quality and level of service provided 
to the residents and businesses. The local service provider, 
Southwestern Bell, has had a long and distinguished history of 
outstanding telecommunication service to both the private and business 
sector. I have found them to be responsive and proactive in bringing 
together private and public interest in the pursuit of high standards 
and corporate good will, and I thank them for their good work.
  The importance of such services and broadband technologies furthers 
our goals of increasing the quality of life and bringing people 
together through such applications as distance learning education, 
medical information links, on-line health clinics, home security, 
teleconferencing, and greater effectiveness and accountability for our 
law enforcement professionals.
  Broadband is, in the truest sense, the future of telecommunications, 
advancing our needs through such media as cable, digital subscriber 
line (DSL), satellite, fixed wireless, and others.
  Currently, many offices and business have access to these 
technologies. But the great challenge for this industry and for 
Congress is to insure that all Americans have the same level of access, 
and the same quality and affordable service, particularly, to our rural 
and undeserved areas, which have been traditionally left behind in this 
revolution.
  It is for these areas of the general population that this legislation 
before us today has potentially sweeping ramifications in the way we 
deploy and service broadband to Americans in every community and home 
in this Nation.
  The need to secure and promote competition is a crucial component in 
this evolution, particularly in the crucial sector of the American 
economy which has been left behind the broadband superhighway.
  However, because of the depth and impact of the bill before us, I 
believe that we should utilize the full resources and insight of all of 
the Members of this House in order to arrive at the most comprehensive 
and inclusive piece of legislation that effectively serves the needs of 
all Americans.
  Specifically, the need for increased attention to the serious problem 
of the digital divide is imperative. To this end, on February 21, 2002 
I met with forty members of the Americans for Technology Leadership to 
address this important issue.
  I have been working on this issue for the past several years by 
working with Members of Congress to try to persuade the High-tech 
industry to hire, recruit and retain more minority Americans. This 
meeting was a continuation of that progress.
  The digital divide must be approached on many different levels. Data 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the hiring of African 
Americans in high technology has improved only slightly during the past 
decade. The growing workforce of our country and the strength and 
growth of the High-tech industry must make it a priority to train our 
own workers, before hiring highly specialized foreign workers.
  While I am an advocate of the H-1b program which brings foreign 
workers to the United States, I also support efforts to continually 
train and update the skills of incumbent American workers, and to 
promote such employees where possible.
  High-tech employers should take constructive steps to recruit 
qualified American workers who are members of under represented 
minority groups, recruit at historically black colleges and 
universities, and advertise jobs reaching out to older and disabled 
Americans.
  It is also important that high-tech companies provide equal 
employment opportunities to United States workers in rural communities. 
With the leadership of CBC Members from rural districts, I advocated 
last year the proposition that those living in rural communities will 
have the opportunity to secure positions in the rapidly expanding job 
market.
  I am pro-labor and pro-business as I come from a city that has over 
1000 companies that specialize in information technology. This should 
be a non-partisan issue. Estimates show that African Americans make up 
11 percent of information technology workers, and that Latinos make up 
another 7 percent. Those numbers show that our communities have a share 
of jobs that positively reflects our share of the work force.
  In a statement issued written by Hugh Price, the President of the 
National Urban League, he states that, ``In the State of Black America 
2000, the League showed that African American college attendance was 
now increasing at a faster rate than whites. The National Science 
Foundation has found that African American college students are nearly 
twice as likely as white students to major in computer science. So, it 
is very important that the current, and future, diversity of the 
information technology work force be maintained, and protected.
  While the digital divide appears to be shrinking, much more work is 
needed. According to ``A Nation Online'', only one in four of America's 
poorest households were online in 2001 compared with eight in ten homes 
earning over $75,000 per year. Even more striking is the fact that this 
gap expanded dramatically between 1997 and 2001.
  More women and minorities in the United States are using the 
Internet. About 23 percent of African Americans and 36 percent of 
Latinos in the U.S. use the Internet, and those numbers will reach 40 
percent and 43 percent respectively by next year, according to recent 
statistics.
  One hundred thousand tech jobs in Texas and half a million jobs in 
the United States are unfilled, reports Terry Hiner, a former teacher 
who now works for Girlstart.
  Texans deserve this type of access to the Internet through the 
technology that best meets their needs. Until now, low population 
density and expansive geographic distances have made it difficult to 
provide certain types of services in certain areas. As thousands of

[[Page H585]]

workers from Texas know first-hand, the technology and 
telecommunications industries have suffered massive slowdowns over the 
past year, which has dragged down the U.S. economy.
  These sectors have served as a driving force in our economy for 
years, and the collapse has harmed millions of workers and investors. 
In addition to thousands of layoffs--more than 292,000 
telecommunications workers this year alone have announced spending and 
investment cuts in the billions of dollars.
  The Administration has abandoned the fight to bridge the digital 
divide. In its FY 2003 budget, the White House cut over $100 million in 
public investments previously available for community technology grants 
and IT training programs--programs that offer real payoffs to rural 
communities, the working poor, minorities and children.
  To fully address the important issue of the digital divide, and to 
ensure that the competitive aspects of this bill are fully addressed, I 
would have hoped for the opportunity for all amendments to be fully 
discussed and debated.
  I believe that more amendments allow for a greater and more robust 
debate and examination of potential solutions to the broadband problems 
that American faces. That's why I support the amendment offered by 
Congressman Towns and Buyer which seeks a compromise on the important 
issue of ``line sharing'', allowing the CLECs access to the RBOCs 
copper wire and fiber lines, and empowers the FCC to set ``fair and 
reasonable'' prices for such usage. In return, however, it requires the 
CLECs to build their own ``remote terminals'' as opposed to using those 
of the Bells.
  Additionally, Congressman Upton's amendment which provides for 
greater enforcement and penalties in the event that the Bells violate 
the provisions of the 1996 Act helps us in considering whether 
competition is alive and well. This amendment was offered in 
Subcommittee, then withdrawn. In pertinent part, it gives the FCC cease 
and desist authority and provides for forfeiture penalties for failure 
to comply with the 1996 Act.
  Similarly, Congressman Conyers' amendment ambitiously seeks to 
ensure, above all else, that this bill complies with both the letter 
and the spirit of the 1996 Telecommunications Act I terms of 
competition and access for all Americans.
  Finally, the amendment that I offered, which was not taken up, 
recognized that legislation, which leaps ahead of adequate study and 
reflection, could easily undermine the current course we are on in 
developing our workforce and bridges the digital divide. To this end, 
my amendment mandated, in pertinent part, that the FCC conducts a study 
of the impact of the amendment made in this section on: (A) the 
deployment of high speed data services to urban and rural undeserved 
areas; (B) the rates for telephone data services; (C) the number and 
quality of the choices available to consumers in selecting providers of 
telephone and data services; and (D) growth and the level of 
competition in telephone and data services. It also requires the FCC to 
report to Congress within one year after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
  Also, it included a Sense of Congress that nothing in the bill should 
impact negatively on the closing of the digital divide in rural and 
underserved communities, and particularly schools, libraries, and 
historically Black and Hispanic schools and institutions of learning.
  It is my greatest hope that we may consider these amendments so that 
we may strike the right balance in reducing the regulatory burden while 
eliminating the digital divide in this country for all Americans.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Today, fewer 
than 10 percent of U.S. households have broadband Internet access; and 
in urban and rural areas, broadband Internet access is practically 
nonexistent.
  During debate on this bill in committee, the industry proponents of 
the bill argued that if given regulatory relief, they would deploy 
broadband services in underserved areas. So in an effort to hold them 
true to their word, I, along with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer), offered the Rush-Sawyer amendment that requires the Bell 
operating companies to offer high-speed Internet to urban, poor and 
urban areas within 5 years through DSL or other alternative technology.
  The rationale for this amendment was simple: to ensure that 
previously overlooked and underserved communities have access to 
quality connections such as broadband and that they are no longer left 
on the fringes of the digital revolution.
  Today opponents of this bill will argue that giving the Bells' 
regulatory relief will undermine local competition in the voice market. 
Let us not be fooled. This bill is only about one thing and one thing 
only: urban poor and rural areas within 5 years having to have 
alternative Internet technology.
  Mr. Chairman, no competition equals no access and no choices, and no 
choices equal higher prices. Therefore, it is a no-win situation for 
the consumer. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell bill. A vote for H.R. 1542 is a 
voice for more competition and more choices, lower prices and 
guaranteed access.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  (Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 1542--the Internet 
Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act.
  This plan is hugely important for my home State of West Virginia and 
the rest of rural America.
  We've heard a lot of talk about the digital divide--the GAP in access 
information technology between rich and poor. But the digital divide 
also exists between urban and rural America, and that's just as 
critical.
  Today, about 1 out of every 4 Americans lives in a community with 
less than 10,000 people. But for every 100 of these small towns, only 5 
have access to broadband or high speed internet.
  The lack of broadband access limits the economic potential of rural 
communities, hindering their ability to attract businesses and retain 
jobs--especially in today's economy where e-commerce plays such a huge 
role.
  Just as a lack of sufficient traditional infrastructures such as 
roads and sewer systems can deter businesses from operating in rural 
areas, so too does the lack of technological infrastructures like 
broadband.
  Unless we act now to fix this inequity, the absence of an efficient 
information superhighway will continue to be a barrier to economic 
development in rural areas. This bill, H.R. 1542 will help break down 
many of these barriers.
  But the potential benefits of broadband deployment to rural America 
aren't just economic. They are also educational.
  With broadband capabilities, rural schools would be able to connect 
their students to new learning opportunities across the country--and 
even around the world.
  In my home State of West Virginia, there are many schools that are 
severely handicapped from offering the maximum amount of access and 
training on the internet because of the lack of broadband access.
  Teachers and students from Braxton Middle School have told me of how 
broadband technology is something they desperately need but do not have 
access to.
  Mr. Chairman, these students of Braxton County, as well as many 
others in rural America, will someday be a part of our Nation's 
workforce. But we will fail to properly prepare and educate them to 
become the workers of the 21st century if we do not give them the 
necessary tools--and that includes high speed internet access.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill holds tremendous promise for the development 
of my home State of West Virginia and the rest of rural America.
  I urge my colleagues, whether from an urban areas or a rural 
location, to support H.R. 1542 and close the digital divide.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of 
the House.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me time. Let me thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the 
gentleman from Michigan for bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I am about to suggest that I very likely might be that 
Member of the House who has studied on this legislation more than any 
Member not on this committee or perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary. 
I have studied on this legislation from the point of view of seeking 
that super-mighty application that will get the whole world to sign up 
for a big old fat pipe called broadband, whether it be cable, DSL, or 
whatever.
  I have studied to the point where I have gone out in the marketplace 
and sought my alternatives between wireless cable and DSL; made a 
decision; purchased my DSL; brought my DSL home; installed it myself; 
and had that

[[Page H586]]

marvelous magic moment when it actually went. And what an exciting day 
that was to start shipping Hank Williams over the Internet, just like I 
owned every one of those songs.
  So it is exciting, and it fits right in to an overriding belief that 
I have: we, Mr. Chairman, you and I, we are living over what very 
likely is the most exciting and the most fascinating economic 
revolution ever certainly in our lifetime. We have seen the 
agricultural revolution. Historians have told us about that. Even the 
industrial revolution is history to everybody here except the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who was there at the industrial 
revolution.
  But for us to be here in the middle of the electronic revolution, 
what an exciting time in our history, to see this great electronic 
driving engine. And there is a sense that we need to take the 
technology one step further in terms of the lines over which we 
traverse with this electronics, and that is really what this bill is 
all about.
  We did telecommunications as it affects voice. Now we are looking at 
these new innovations in data transmission that we had not even 
anticipated, even as late as 1997.
  I think the chairman of the committee has worked well with everybody 
who has been involved. I have watched the process, I have encouraged 
the process, I have participated in the process. We have tried to look 
for the well-being of the RBOCs, the long-line carriers. We have tried 
to be fair. The chairman has listened to every argument, conceded every 
point he could.
  We have, many of us, and let me bring myself clearly here on this 
point, we created the limb on which an awful lot of people that we call 
CLECs crawled out on in 1997. There is some criticism that maybe some 
of these CLECs do not have the best business plan in the world, but 
what plan they have is the plan they made in accommodation to the law 
that we built. So we have a responsibility for the CLECs.
  I have watched the chairman of this committee work hard to deal with 
the CLECs. Hopefully, we have found an accommodation to those CLECs 
that is, in fact, as it were, economically viable; and there are those 
out there, and perhaps we will see that work here.
  If indeed as we move forward with this legislation there is still 
additional innovation that can be done that preserves the instrumental 
purposes of this bill, to build the broadband into every household into 
America and get America back online and the economy growing and the job 
creation that follows that makes further accommodation to CLECs, I am 
confident that everybody in this body will work toward that end.
  So, Mr. Chairman, let me say again, I want to thank everybody for the 
hard work that has gone into this bill, the sincere work that has gone 
into this bill. This is a big deal. We are privileged to be part of it.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill and to look 
forward to the opportunity of moving this legislative process even 
further through the line, to the ultimate conclusion of me having every 
one of my grandchildren on a big old fat broadband sending pictures to 
his grandpa on a daily basis wherever they live in America, urban, 
rural or wherever. That is, in the end, what will make this economy 
boom and make us all more well served and entertained by the wonders of 
this electronic revolution.

                              {time}  1345

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 1 minute; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), 3 minutes; the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), 3 minutes. 
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 10 minutes and will now 
be recognized.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here to merely continue the 
discussion about some misunderstandings that seem to be the basis for 
advancing this very important legislation called Tauzin-Dingell.
  The first is that the Tauzin-Dingell bill will speed up rural 
deployment of high-speed Internet. Yet, we have letters and comments 
from the Nebraska Public Service Commission, the Florida Public Service 
Commission, the State of Iowa Utilities Board, the Tennessee Regulatory 
Authority, the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission, the Montana 
Public Service Commission, the South Dakota Public Utilities 
Commission, and the Washington State Utilities and Transportation 
Commission which all say that to eliminate the line-sharing 
requirements in H.R. 1542 would, in effect, decrease the rate of 
deployment of competitive broadband services to resident consumers.
  Now, are the Bells a monopoly? Were the Bells a monopoly? 
Interesting. They are getting larger and larger, even as a result of 
the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and they are growing. Many of them 
have doubled their broadband subscribers: Verizon up 122 percent, Quest 
up 74 percent, Bell South up 188 percent; and the largest one of them 
all, SBC, which includes Ameritech, the most complained-of service in 
the State of Michigan, as at least half the delegation will attest, 
which includes Southwest Bell, Pactel, and Ameritech, well, they are 
only up 70 percent.
  So the question is, why are we granting them an exemption from the 
requirement that was the heart of the Telecommunications Act of 1996? 
Well, it is because once you get bigger and larger and can influence 
more and more people, they figured out that why not eliminate sections 
251 and 271, which require the local monopoly facilities to be open to 
competitors. So what the bill on the floor does is give the local Bell 
monopolies a license to exclude.
  Now, if that were not bad enough, we have an amendment, a modest 
amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), 
which would correct that, but it is subject to a parliamentary process 
which my colleagues will find very interesting. The process is called 
king of the Hill without a vote. King of the Hill without a vote. That 
is, if one can get through Buyer-Towns, then we do not need to consider 
Cannon-Conyers.
  Then it is pointed out, that is the historical rules. What is the 
complaint about? We granted you an amendment. We forgot to tell you 
that you would also have to defeat another amendment which was drummed 
up to present this very same challenge.
  So I urge Members to, first of all, join with me in a close and 
critical examination of Buyer-Towns, and then we can move on to what I 
consider to be the heart of the discussion this day: the Cannon-Conyers 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) still has the 
largest amount of time remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. I do not choose to yield at this point, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to congratulate the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for his work to correct the flawed Goldwasser antitrust 
decision. This horrible decision has been used by the Bell monopolies 
to shield themselves from over 100 years of antitrust law so that they 
can continue to act as monopolists, plain and simple.
  The inclusion of the Goldwasser position is a coup for the 
telecommunications community and reaffirms this body's decision back in 
1934 and again in 1996 that the antitrust laws do, in fact, apply to 
the Bell monopolies. Hopefully now, the Bells will be held accountable 
for their anticompetitive behavior that the Bells are so famous for. I 
do not know how the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) was 
able to negotiate such a huge concession, one that will allow the 
Department of Justice to crack down on all three Bell monopolies, but I 
congratulate him for that.
  Unfortunately, while I acknowledge the success of the gentleman's 
work and his attempt to improve this bill, I remain convinced the 
Tauzin-Dingell bill is fatally flawed, and I oppose it strenuously.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is touted by its supporters as a deregulation 
bill, and it does do exactly that. Tauzin-Dingell deregulates a 
monopoly that

[[Page H587]]

has the advantages of incumbency, advantages paid for by government-
imposed monopoly dollars. This is what we fought with the 1996 Act when 
we imposed unbundling requirements on the Bell monopolies.
  Make no mistake that, if this bill passes, competition will be 
stomped out, and we will see unregulated remonopolization of the 
telecommunications industry. Not only will we be undoing the work of 
this body in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, we will be taking the 
telecom industry back to the pre-1984 AT&T divestiture days.
  Through the course of this debate, we will hear the supporters of 
this bill say the Bells need this in order to roll out DSL service. Let 
me assure my colleagues that DSL service is being rolled out now across 
America at an amazing rate, and it is being done without this bill. 
This chart explains that.
  In 2001, BellSouth increased its coverage from 45 percent to 70 
percent of the households in the markets that BellSouth serves, nearly 
tripling the DSL customer base. BellSouth has the fastest growth of any 
DSL or cable provider.
  During the same period, as we can see from the chart, SBC became the 
industry's largest DSL provider, with 1,333,000 subscribers.
  Last year, Verizon also saw significant growth with an increase of 
over 122 percent, going from 454,000 customers to 1.2 million, with 
total revenues in excess of $7 billion.
  The roll-out of DSL is hardly stifled by the current regulatory 
structure. What the Bells are really after is the ability to freeze out 
the competition and increase their monopoly power and free themselves 
from the consumer protections put in place by State PUCs and the FCC.
  I assure my colleagues that this bill is not going to speed the roll-
out of high-speed Internet service across the country. Rather, it will 
allow the Bell monopolies to have total control of the 
telecommunications industry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me the time.
  Competition, not remonopolization, is what is needed to ensure the 
roll-out of DSL at a price that is reasonable for consumers. The 
competitive industry is already deploying broadband, and competition is 
driving down the cost to residential consumers.
  As the second chart shows, the Bell monopolies had no interest in 
rolling out affordable high-speed access until they were forced by the 
competition. The Bells had DSL technology as far back as 1990, but 
instead of implementing it into their networks, they chose the more 
expensive T-1 technology. It was not until after passage of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act requiring interconnection that the DSL 
competitors, such as Covad, did DSL begin to roll out, forcing the 
monopolies to respond in kind.
  Today, DSL deployment is still being driven by competition. 
Unfortunately, the mere existence of this bill has a chilling effect on 
the telecom industry where it matters most, and that is Wall Street. It 
freezes out competition to the Bells. It will undermine consumer 
protections provided by State governments, and it will bring the level 
of customer service that the Bells are known for to the entire 
telecommunications industry, something I do not think we want.
  With campaign finance so fresh in our memory, I urge this body to put 
the hopes and desires of most Americans who believe in the promise of a 
free and competitive marketplace ahead of the domination of the Bell 
monopolies. America is and should remain a meritocracy where 
competition and entrepreneurship matter most. Please vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 1542.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unusual in Michigan that we find the alliance of 
bipartisan that has grown around opposition to this measure. I do not 
believe anyone here has quoted Governor John Engler recently. I do not 
think I ever have. But now is an appropriate time, as his career comes 
to an end due to term limits.
  Here is what he said in the Wall Street Journal: ``We had a vision 
that we would have major players competing for our business, that there 
would be at least two choices for all of us,'' said Michigan Governor 
John Engler. ``That has not happened, and that is great frustration to 
me.''
  That echoes the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) 
on the floor just a little bit earlier.
  No, Rogers is not for Tauzin-Dingell. Rogers is opposed to this. He 
is very courageous in the committee to take this stand, but he is being 
clear and honest about it. Because, I say to my colleagues, not only 
was the Committee on Rules wired, but the Committee on Commerce itself 
was wired. Well, why? So was the Committee on the Judiciary, someone 
said.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1542, which was turned down in the Committee on 
the Judiciary, negatively reported, would eliminate any meaningful 
opportunity for competitive carriers to gain access to use an 
incumbent's local loops to provide their own high-speed data.
  Now, while the bill's sponsors say that it preserved the FCC's 
current line-sharing rules, in fact, it preserves only the illusion of 
line-sharing. We have been wired twice, I say to my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 3 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 1 minute; and 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining. 
The time of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) has expired.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close 
so that the other gentlemen may use up their time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DINGELL. Am I correct to assume that the friends of the bill have 
the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has the right 
to close general debate.
  Mr. DINGELL. And I gather that the friends of the bill would also 
have that right, whereas the opponents of the bill would not, am I 
correct? I happen to be a friend of the bill, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) happens to be a friend of the bill. My dear 
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), is a strong opponent 
of the legislation, as is my dear friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  So I would like to hear their comments, and since I have only one 
more request for time I would like to hear that one last, because it 
might convince me.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. Once again I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) that the manager of the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) has the right to close general debate.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a friend of telecommunications competition. I know 
telecommunications competition. This bill is not a friend of 
telecommunications competition. In fact, what has happened since 1997, 
after the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed, was that broadband 
deployment went across the country at such a rapid pace that now 
somewhere between, depending upon how we look at it, 70 to 80 percent 
of all Americans now have access to broadband.
  That did not happen by accident. It happened because we had a 
vigorous competitive telecommunications policy. That is why the Bells 
do not like it. But it has ensured that upwards of $60 billion of 
investment that otherwise would not have been made was put out into the 
marketplace.
  We do not want to change that. The bill in 1996 was a paranoia-
inducement act. This bill is meant to be a sedative, a calming 
influence, so the Bells do not have to feel that paranoia any longer. 
If we do that, we will be looking at the future through a rearview 
mirror.

[[Page H588]]

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) from the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  The best way we know to lower prices and improve customer service in 
any market is to increase competition. This bill does exactly the 
opposite. It would make it easier for the big-money phone companies to 
squeeze their competitors and to force the remaining CLECs, competitive 
local exchange carriers, into bankruptcy.
  It would raise prices for competitors and decrease incentives for 
local monopolies to open their markets to competition. Less 
competition, higher prices and worse customer service will be the 
result.
  This bill turns the Telecom Act of 1996 on its head. It would allow 
the local Bell monopolies to have access to all long distance data 
markets, whether or not they face competition in the local level. The 
Tauzin-Dingell bill says, we do not care if the Bells have a monopoly 
at the local level, we are going to allow them to offer long distance 
data services. We all realize soon there will be no distinction between 
data and voice, since both data and voice can be reduced to the zeros 
and ones. Data is voice, for all practical purposes.
  Tauzin-Dingell says the Bells do not have to open their networks for 
competition. If they modify existing lines, they do not have to provide 
open access to their networks at prices that allow for competition. The 
Bells are essentially seeking the ability to price their competitors 
out of business and extend their local monopolies.
  We need to stand up to the Bell companies and say no. We believe 
competition is the best way to improve customer service and lower 
prices to consumers. We support true competition and ought to oppose 
anticompetitive legislation like Tauzin-Dingell.
  One other point. We support more competition in the cable markets, as 
well. I am concerned that that local cable monopoly is raising prices 
and limiting the choice of consumers.
  From what I understand, Tauzin-Dingell does not even address the core 
business of cable companies, which is to provide multichannel viewing 
services. If this bill passes, no one is saying consumers will have 
more choice in the TV viewing market. They are only promising choice 
for the broadband markets. The problem is there already is choice in 
the broadband.
  This bill is not about cable companies; it is about local telephone 
companies themselves. We should not support one monopoly simply because 
another exists in another market. I urge everyone to oppose this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate with a 
great deal of interest. Everybody is for competition. The bill says 
there will be unlimited competition in the area of broadband Internet, 
and guess what, it does. My friends on the other side say, but they do 
not want the competition to occur.
  Now, there is a very interesting situation. The way it works now is 
that the Bells cannot go into broadband because they have too many 
inhibitions and too much restraint on their investment, so they do not 
go in.
  The United States now has only 8 percent, whereas Korea has better 
than 36 percent of their homes wired for Superfund and broadband. 
Imagine how important that then is.
  Now, having said that, if we want to get investment, look at what the 
president of AT&T, one of the principal opponents of this legislation, 
says: nobody is going to invest if they do not get exemption from 
excessive regulation, which precludes their investment and does not 
allow them to get a return.
  What does the bill do? The bill does a series of things. First, it 
requires every part of the country to be served within 5 years. Second 
of all, it eliminates all constraints on competition. It does not hurt 
the CLECs, which by and large are noninvesting parasites which happen 
to get a huge benefit from the services that are provided by the Baby 
Bells. They get these services at a significant deduction in cost. They 
continue to get that. But on new investment, however, they will not get 
anything other than fair treatment.
  Now, AT&T wants just an unfair advantage. The people at the CLECs 
want, again, an unfair advantage because they want to see to it that 
any investment that comes on the part of the Baby Bells will be given 
to them at low cost.
  We are going to allow them to keep what they are getting now, but we 
are not going to permit them to get this kind of a sweetheart deal and 
to deny American users of the information net an opportunity to get the 
kind of services that they really want. That is what is at stake, and 
that is why the ferocious expenditure of money on lobbying against this 
particular piece of legislation.
  Now, if Members want to get service for the American people, if they 
want the Internet to be readily available, allow competition to reign. 
I was one of the authors and supporters of the original 1996 act. 
Allowing competition to take place was our purpose. I would observe to 
Members that the only way they are going to get it is to mandate it.
  The States will continue to have their authority to address voice 
service, the FCC will continue to be able to address voice service, but 
we are going to do what everybody says has to be done to get Internet 
service to everybody, and that is, we are going to get regulation out 
and competition in. Quality will appear for the American public in 
terms of service; and competition will give us competitive prices, 
which will benefit the American public. That is what this is all about.
  If Members want to take care of the American people, if they want 
competition, if they want services, that is the way to get it.
  One curious story has been going around, how Tauzin-Dingell would 
adversely affect competition and how it would adversely impact e-net. 
The simple fact of the matter is that the e-rate will not be affected 
in even the slightest fashion by Tauzin-Dingell.
  I would urge my colleagues to therefore support Tauzin-Dingell and 
oppose the amendments which will be offered by my good friends, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cannon), which are in effect a crippling poison bill which will force 
continuance of regulation on that industry forevermore, and give us 50 
different competitive sets of regulations that nobody can meet.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, to clear a matter for the record, I want to be clear 
that the manager's amendment provides that the saving clause found in 
section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 shall be 
interpreted to mean neither the antitrust laws nor the application of 
those laws by the courts are repealed by, precluded by, diminished by, 
or incompatible with the Communications Act of 1934, this act, or any 
law amended by neither such act.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen some pretty charts today. I remember when 
the networks were really getting the election wrong last year, when 
they got the Presidential election so messed up with all their 
predictions. Tim Russert came with a little chart, a little chartboard, 
and he said, Here it is, the election will be settled in Florida. He 
was so right.
  I watched all these pretty charts, and I have drawn my own while we 
were talking. This is the state of broadband in America. This is what 
broadband looks like. Ninety percent of America is unserved, 
unconnected, and 90 percent of America denied the benefits of this 
incredible new technology.
  Guess who lives in that 90 percent? The Members guessed it, people 
who live in the rural parts of America, people who live in the 
underserved parts of America, the people who live in the minority 
centers of our cities in America, the people who are going to be the 
last ones cable reaches out to with broadband if cable is the only 
provider on the ground.
  Look at the state of broadband in America. Only 10 percent of 
Americans

[[Page H589]]

are connected, and two-thirds of that, 70 percent, about, is connected 
by cable. No wonder, no wonder AT&T cable is the biggest opponent of 
this bill.
  There is a quote in a Wall Street Journal article last week: `` 
`Global Crossing built the highway,' '' the high-speed network, ``says 
Jeffrey Eisenach of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, but the FCC 
destroyed the incentives for the Bells to build the on ramps.''
  They were talking about the Tauzin-Dingell bill getting rid of these 
phony regulations that have stopped the building of the on and off 
ramps to the rest of America. No wonder that bill ``. . . is hung up, 
thanks to its opposition from AT&T and the other cable operators.''
  This is the same fight we fought in 1992, the same fight when we came 
to this floor with a dream, a dream that instead of regulating the 
cable companies, we could create competition for them in video.
  We stood on the floor of this House in 1992 and on the Senate floor 
and passed a bill saying there would be an alternative, there would be 
a theater in the sky, satellite television, and 20 million Americans 
now have the benefit of satellite direct broadcast television, 500 
beautiful channels of television to compete with cable; not just a 
second choice, I will remind the Members, but a second store to keep 
cable honest.
  This bill is about keeping cable honest, about creating a competitor 
to broadband, about building the on and off ramps for the 90 percent of 
America that is left out, about making sure that the Internet is free 
of regulation. No wonder the regulators oppose this bill. They would 
love to regulate the Internet, just like the taxing authorities would 
love to tax the Internet.
  Keep the Internet free, free broadband deployment, connect America, 
give us all a chance to enjoy this amazing technology. That is what 
Tauzin-Dingell does, and that is why we need to pass the bill.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have all witnessed the amazing growth of 
the Internet as it has become embedded in the U.S. economy in what 
seems like just a few short years. Businesses, schools, and home users 
are demanding faster, more dependable service. It is important for our 
economy and international competitiveness that the best quality 
Internet service be made available to the widest audience as soon as 
possible.
  By reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, Congress can promote the 
kind of competition that will increase the availability and 
affordability of high-speed Internet access.
  For all of the advantages of advanced communications, however, there 
is a dark side. Terrorists and criminals can use the Internet and cell 
phones to communicate confidentially. Our law enforcement has been 
scrambling to keep up with the advanced technologies that the bad guys 
are using.
  CALEA--The Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act--was 
passed in 1994 to make sure that the FBI and local police have the 
technical ability to conduct legal electronic surveillance to protect 
our society. It has disturbed me that full compliance with CALEA has 
been painfully slow in coming.
  The original version of H.R. 1542 could have further clouded the 
compliance issue by calling the Federal Communications Commission's 
ability to implement CALEA into question. I was prepared to offer an 
amendment making it clear that the bill would not jeopardize CALEA. The 
Buyer-Towns amendment does address this concern.
  I believe that, in light of the events of September 11, it is 
imperative that CALEA be revisited. The compensation system has been a 
long-standing source of contention. Delivery and interface methods 
would benefit from greater specification. It should be clarified that 
CALEA applied to new telecommunications technologies. I want to 
encourage the telecommunications industry, the FBI, and interested 
parties to resolve these issues and am prepared to advocate needed 
legislative changes.
  The spread of broadband, as envisioned by H.R. 1542, will do much 
good for our society. But like previous technologies, we also need to 
make sure that our society is equipped to thwart those who would use it 
for the wrong purposes.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Internet Freedom 
and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001, and I commend Chairman Tauzin and 
Ranking Member Dingell for their hard work in crafting the legislation 
before us today.
  Make no mistake about it. This legislation will create real 
competition among Internet Service Providers and guarantee more choices 
and lower prices for the American people. In my state of Kansas, high 
speed internet access is currently available to about 1.3 million 
consumers. This bill will guarantee high speed access to an additional 
830,0009 Kansans. Equally important, it will expand access to an 
additional 20,000 Kansas businesses, 500 schools, and 200 hospitals and 
libraries.
  Like many of my colleagues, I represent a district with a large rural 
population. This legislation will bring high-speed internet access to 
small towns and rural communities currently unable to receive it. No 
community will be left behind.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a choice today. Congress can vote for providing 
consumers with greater access to internet services, greater choices 
among providers, and lower costs. OR we can let companies, rather than 
competition, determine the access and price for these services and 
leave millions of Americans behind.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for competition and choice. Vote for the 
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons to 
support H.R. 1542 and many reasons that it will benefit my state of 
Connecticut. However, among the most compelling are how it will help 
education, especially education for women who work in the home. These 
important benefits were discussed in a June, 2001 letter from the U.S. 
Distance Learning Association.
  The USDLA firmly believes that universal access to broadband 
technology in our schools, our homes, and at work is critical to the 
realization of enhanced distance learning services. According to a 
recent study released by the Web-based Education Commission ``the 
promise of widely available, high quality web-based education is made 
possible by technological and communications trends that could lead to 
important educational applications over the next two to three years.''
  H.R. 1542 can help us realize this promise by increasing the 
competition and choice of broadband service providers and by 
eliminating market disincentives to investments in the broadband 
deployment. By accomplishing this, we will be able to sustain the 
growth and prosperity of distance learning programs which are 
developing at a rapid pace.
  Not only would H.R. 1542 enhance distance learning opportunities for 
students, it would also set the stage for improved telemedicine and job 
training services. These two broadband applications cannot be under 
estimated in today's social and economic climate which increasingly 
depends on access to broadband technology.
  Mr. Chairman, bringing high speed broadband communications into 
millions of new homes will open windows of opportunity now closed to 
many women, among them stay-at-home moms, the disabled, and seniors, 
who wish for educational opportunities but who have few choices today. 
As this exciting technology spreads, costs will go down and the 
availability of these services will increase, bringing with them the 
promise of distance learning for all who choose it.
  This bill is also a boost to small businesses across the country. In 
my Congressional District, DSL is currently available to 17,500 
businesses--and 130,000 in Connecticut. The passage of Tauzin-Dingell 
will guarantee its availability to 7,000 more businesses, more than 100 
schools and dozens of libraries. In the 6th District of Connecticut it 
will add high speed Internet access to 2,526 businesses with 18,867 
employees, 231 doctors offices, 3 hospitals, 50 schools and 17 
libraries. It has the strong support of local chambers of commerce, 
including the Northwest Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, which 
represents the most rural parts of my district.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1542 will rationalize the regulation of broadband, 
not end it. The benefits that this technology promises for Americans 
who desire more educational opportunities, and for businesses which 
want to grow is unprecedented. I rise in strong support of this 
legislation.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1542, 
which would free the monopoly Bell Operating Companies to offer high-
speed data service in their regions.
  There is a very simple principle at stake today. Deregulation is good 
when it results in more marketplace competition. Deregulating a 
monopoly, however, destroys competition, impedes innovation, and hurts 
residential and business consumes. What's good for a monopoly is only 
good for the monopoly.
  H.R. 1542 would eviscerate key requirements of the 1996 
Telecommunications Act and very quickly eliminate the fledging 
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), which only came into being 
after enactment--and due to the promise--of the Act.
  H.R. 1542 would also prohibit any federal or state regulation of 
rates and service quality for high-speed data services and leave 
consumers completely unprotected from monopoly abuses. More than fifty 
percent of the information carried on telephone wires today is high-

[[Page H590]]

speed data traffic, and that percentage is growing daily.
  In addition, with the convergence of voice, data, and video 
technology, information in the future will be carried on the same 
networks that now carry high-speed data traffic. As a technical matter, 
regulators will be unable to distinguish between voice and data 
traffic. As a result, under H.R. 1542, the Bell Operating Companies 
could escape all consumer protection and service quality regulation.
  The proponents of H.R. 1542 have told us that the battle for Internet 
data service is really a fight between the giant cable companies and 
the giant local telephone companies. I couldn't disagree more with this 
assessment. Our nation will thrive if companies are allowed to operate 
under marketplace conditions that encourage the greatest number of 
technologies and providers for consumers. Unfortunately, H.R. 1542 
draws the blueprint for duopoly control of the networks, and that would 
be a terrible outcome for consumers everywhere.
  Competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), Internet service 
providers (ISPs), consumer groups, and state public utilities 
commissions all strongly oppose H.R. 1542. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this legislation. I also urge members to vote for the Conyers/
Cannon amendment, which is the only amendment that will be offered on 
the floor that effectively addresses the bill's most serious 
shortcomings.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1542, the 
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. This bill 
continues the ill-conceived approach of deregulating the Telecom 
industry and promotes the ``competition'' advanced by the 1996 
Telecommunications Act. I voted against the 1996 Act and I am voting 
against this bill.
  Chairman Tauzin has indicated that there are two ways to promote 
broadband development: deregulation of the industry or re-regulation of 
the industry. As California learned all too painfully in the energy 
arena, de-regulation doesn't work. By removing regulations put in place 
by federal, state, and local governments, we remove vital consumer 
protections and open markets to monopolies and price gouging.
  Aside from my preference for further regulation as a means to promote 
telecommunications competition, there are several things in this bill 
that damage our already weak regulations.
  Many of my colleagues who represent rural areas think this bill will 
ensure that their constituents have access to broadband services. This 
is simply not the case. Within five years, broadband data service must 
be available for anyone, with some exemptions. The consumer must live 
within three miles of a Bell office, so those farmers who have to drive 
three or more miles to visit their nearest neighbor will have to drive 
even further to get broadband internet access. Furthermore, if there is 
no other company providing broadband Internet access, the Bells don't 
have to deploy to those areas either.
  Under this bill, the Bells no longer have to unbundle their services 
for local phone competitors. This means that a local company who wants 
to compete against a baby Bell must buy all of the services the Bell 
company provides to a customer, even if the customer doesn't want the 
service and the local company doesn't intend to provide the service. 
Under the 1996 Telecom Act, this was not allowed. With the kind of 
prices I'm now charged for local phone service, I can't imagine what 
the Bells will charge for broadband service. This part of H.R. 1542 
creates a market force to keep all competitors out of the broadband 
market place.
  Finally, H.R. 1542 repeals any state or local regulations that 
protect consumers from abuses by broadband service providers. This 
includes regulations for: anti-spam, anti-slamming (stealing other 
companies customers), privacy and obscenity protections, and disability 
access rules that may have been enacted either by the state, or local 
government agencies.
  In 1996, the Congress bought into the belief that deregulation of the 
local telecom industry would promote competition. Five years later, I 
still haven't seen any competition in the local phone market. It's time 
that we take the same approach to local telecommunications competition 
that we did not the long distance market: use the strong hand of the 
government to force these robber barons to give consumers a choice.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1542, The 
Internet Freedom Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. As a cosponsor of 
this bill, I believe we must act to ensure that more consumers have 
access to broadband services. Today, many consumers and small 
businesses do not have access to the high-speed Internet services 
because these services are prohibitively expensive or simply not 
available in their area. Getting companies to invest in providing this 
critical last mile of connection of broadband services is necessary to 
ensure that all Americans can get the information that the Internet 
provides.
  Under the current telecommunications law, the regional Bell operating 
companies (RBOCs) are prohibited from carrying long distance Internet 
data beyond their current local service area without first meeting 
specific requirements by both the state public utility agencies and the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This process for approval is 
cumbersome and take many months to complete. As a result, very few 
states have authorized these RBOCs to provide these long distance 
services to their customers. The state of Texas is one of the few 
states in the nation where the RBOCs can offer long distance services 
within their local area. However, there are many consumers in other 
states who do not have competitive broadband services in their 
neighborhoods. H.R. 1542 would correct this inequity by permitting 
RBOCs to offer broadband data services in their service areas without 
first opening up their local market to competition. This measure also 
includes a safeguard which prohibits the RBOCs from bundling or 
offering long distance voice services with their broadband data or 
Internal backbone services, unless the local exchange carriers (LECs) 
have opened their local markets to competition as prescribed in the 
1986 Telecommunication law.
  This deregulatory legislation will ensure that LECs can compete 
directly with cable companies to offer Internet services to their 
customers. I believe that it is important to note that cable companies 
do not currently have any restrictions on their ability to offer 
broadband services to consumers. Yet, the LECs are currently required 
to get authorization from both their public utility agency as well as 
the FCC before they can offer their services. I believe that these 
obstacles to deployment of broadband services must be removed. As a 
result of this bill, consumers will have more choices and more 
competition for these services which should, in turn, lead to lower 
prices and better accessability to broadband services.
  Broadband services offer great promise to consumers. With access to 
broadband services, consumers will be able to quickly connect to the 
Internet and look up information or find a needed service. A recent 
Congressional Research Service report found that there are an estimated 
6.2 million cable broadband subscribers and 3.8 million Digital 
Subscriber Line (DSL) subscribers nationwide. Yet, many consumers do 
not currently subscribe to broadband services, because it may not be 
available in their underserved area or because it is too expensive.
  I also urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by 
Representative Fred Upton and Representative Gene Green. This amendment 
would increase the penalties paid by phone companies for violating 
requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from $120,000 to $1 
million per day with the cap rising from $1.2 million to $10 million. 
For repeat offenders, the penalties would be doubled up to a maximum of 
$20 million. In addition, this amendment extends the statute of 
limitations so the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can bring 
enforcement cases against phone companies for up to two years. I 
believe that all of these enforcement penalties will help the FCC to 
ensure that these phone companies are complying with the law.
  I also urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by 
Representative Stephen Buyer and Representative Edolphus Towns. This 
amendment would ensure that other competitors could access their 
broadband infrastructure. Under this bill, the RBOCs would be required 
to transmit competitors' broadband services based upon ``just and 
reasonable'' rates with the terms and conditions to be set by the FCC. 
I believe that requiring the FCC to set these rates will help to ensure 
that competitors can use these high-speed data transmission lines. This 
amendment also helps to ensure that competitors can directly connect 
with the RBOCs network by placing their remote terminals on Bell 
property or near Bell property. In addition, all current contracts as 
of May 24, 2001 would be valid until the contracts expire. This 
amendment also ensures that the FCC has the authority to enforce 
certain consumer protection laws with respect to Bell broadband 
services.
  I believe that this deregulatory bill is necessary to spur the 
investment in broadband services so consumers will have more choices 
and better options. I urge my colleagues to support this pro-
competitive legislation.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1542, the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband legislation. I am simply not 
confident that this bill provides adequate protection to consumers. I 
have watched, over the years, while as a nation, we have boldly made 
our way down the road of deregulation. We deregulated the Savings and 
Loan Industry and watched them implode under the weight of their own 
largess. We saw the same with both the Airlines Industry and the former 
AT&T and Bell behemoths. In all of those

[[Page H591]]

cases the consumer paid the price through increased fees, tax subsidies 
and decreased services.
  Now, given the choice to either regulate cable and satellite or 
deregulate the Baby Bells, who we know to have a history of bad 
behavior, we are urged to deregulate the bad actors. In my eyes, the 
underlying legislation before the House represents a choice to 
deregulate the bad actors.
  Without amendment, the underlying bill would limit State and Federal 
regulation of the pipeline we know as the Internet to an antitrust suit 
against the Bell Companies. This Mr. and Mrs. America is no choice. 
This bill gives consumers, who are my constituents and the people that 
I care about most, no protection if prices are unjustly increased and 
no protection for failing service quality.
  Internet Service Providers oppose the measure because it would 
subject them to the unrestrained will of the Baby Bells.
  Small Innovative Telecommunications Companies oppose the measure 
because it will force them out of the market.
  Thirty-one Public Utility Commissions, including Michigan's oppose 
this bill.
  The National Governors Association opposes this bill.
  The National League of Cities opposes Tauzin-Dingell.
  The Council of State Governments opposes Tauzin-Dingell.
  Most Consumers Groups oppose this bill because it will lead to price 
increases and inept service.
  Mr. Chairman, as you can see there is strong opposition to this 
measure. Again, I am not confident that any amendment can fix this bill 
and protect the consumers of Michigan's 15th district. So I will oppose 
this measure on final passage.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1542, the 
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act. I believe it will harm 
competition within the telecommunications industry and reduce oversight 
of this growing and important sector of our economy, resulting in less 
service and choice for all Americans.
  Broadband internet access is rapidly becoming a necessity for 
individuals and communities trying to keep up with trends in education 
and economic development. The internet is a tremendous resource for 
information, communication, and commerce. Understandably, individuals 
living in communities without access to broadband are frustrated by 
their inability to take full advantage of all the internet has to 
offer.
  H.R. 1542 is the Bell Companies' proposed solution to the so-called 
``digital divide.'' They claim onerous regulations established by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 have prevented them from deploying 
broadband to underserved communities. Actually, the 1996 Act merely 
required the Bell Companies to meet a 14 point competitive checklist 
before offering long-distance service in their home markets. The 
promise of lucrative long-distance markets was to serve as an incentive 
for the Bell Companies to open their markets to competitors.
  By exempting Bell Companies who wish to offer broadband services from 
competitive requirements, H.R. 1542 essentially guts all of the 
competitive elements of the 1996 Act. Bell Companies will no longer 
have to guarantee network access to upstart telecommunications 
companies who have provided consumers with alternatives. Additionally, 
the bill will make it impossible for the FCC and states to regulate 
costs and customer service standards, which could send prices 
skyrocketing and leave consumers with no recourse for substandard 
service. Given our recent experiences with deregulation of essential 
consumer services, it seems foolish to believe that further 
deregulation of the telecommunications industry is the answer for rural 
America.
  Over the past few years, the Bell Companies have developed a 
shockingly poor record of customer service. In order to spur 
competition, the 1996 Act requires the Bell Companies to allow 
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) access to their lines when 
consumers choose to do business with CLECs rather than a Bell. The 
Bells frequently refuse to comply with these requests in a timely 
manner. Since 1996, Bell Companies have paid over $2 billion in fines. 
They clearly believe it is to their advantage to pay penalties for 
violations of the 1996 Act rather than open their markets. Instead of 
taking steps to aggressively enforce the 1996 Act, Congress has 
proposed a bill that would eliminate the FCC's and states' ability to 
regulate costs and protect consumers.
  There is no reason to believe that passing H.R. 1542 will speed 
broadband deployment to rural America. The fact is, the Bell Companies 
have chosen not to provide even basic services in many of the rural 
communities they claim will be helped by H.R. 1542. Since they are 
only required to upgrade infrastructure for communities they already 
serve, many rural consumers are left out entirely. Another problem is 
that the broadband service requirement only applies to consumers that 
live within three miles of a Bell Company central station. Those living 
outside of a three mile radius are given no guarantees of broadband 
access at all. Again, rural America is being left out.

  As for being shut out of the broadband market, the numbers speak 
otherwise. BellSouth tripled its DSL customer base in 2001. SBC, 
Verizon, and Qwest have similarly built and maintained a network of 
broadband customers. A large majority of Americans already have access 
to broadband, but very few have chosen to subscribe because of the 
cost. The FCC has concluded that broadband is being deployed in a 
reasonable and timely manner. HR 1542 is not about offering broadband 
services. It is about eliminating competition and oversight in the 
telecommunications industry for the Bell Companies.
  The list of organizations opposing HR 1542 grows longer every day. 
The Public Utility Commissions of 31 states, AARP, the Gray Panthers, 
Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Tax 
Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National Retail 
Federation have all opposed the bill. HR 1542 will not speed the 
delivery of broadband to rural America but it will undermine consumer 
rights nationwide. Americans deserve better.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous 
consent that my following statement be placed in the Record as read on 
the rule for H.R. 1542.
  I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom 
and Broadband Deployment Act.
  There were 30 amendments offered to the Rules Committee by those 
looking to improve the bill to ensure competition and increase the 
availability of broadband. This rule does not give a voice to the 
concerns my colleagues and I have with this bill to address open 
access, state authority, and a multitude of other issues.
  No matter what your opinion is on H.R. 1542, this bill deserves a 
fair process. By using the second degree amendment procedure, the rule 
could prevent those of us wishing to offer a substantive revision to 
the bill from doing so. The Cannon-Conyers amendment is critical to 
ensuring that a monopoly does not take over the DSL marketplace, 
resulting in high prices and poor service.
  The Cannon-Conyers amendment contains a line sharing provision 
similar to one that failed on a 27-27 tie during the Committee mark up. 
At the very least, this controversial condition deserves the 
opportunity for debate by the entire House.
  The Buyer-Towns amendment is not an acceptable substitute for Cannon-
Conyers. This amendment is not a real compromise because it does not 
guarantee wholesale pricing for leased lines, nor does it guarantee 
that competitors have access to the existing Bell network.
  Language that ensures fair competition must be inserted into this 
bill. Even with the current competitive market, I have been told 
stories of how local Bell companies often postpone the installation of 
local service if the customer chooses a competitor's long distance 
service. If H.R. 1542 becomes law, these types of practices will be 
allowed to flourish at the expense of consumers.
  On September 11, we learned the necessity of having more than one 
phone company in a community, as competitors kept the lines of 
communication open between New York, Washington, DC, and the rest of 
the world.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule. It is not in 
the best interest for the people.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband Deployment Act, which proposes 
major changes to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill would 
allow the former regional Bell telephone companies (RBOC's) to provide 
high speed, broadband Internet access without having to allow 
reasonable access to their networks to competing providers willing to 
pay for access.
  The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been instrumental in 
introducing competition among providers of high-speed, broadband 
technologies like digital subscriber lines (DSL). These competitive 
developments have increased access to the Internet and its wealth of 
information while lowering prices for retailers and consumers alike. On 
the assumption that this competition was developing, many States, 
including Florida, my home, have repealed regulation of many aspects of 
the telecommunication industry. In 1995, as a State Representative, I 
strongly supported this deregulation based on my belief, then and now, 
that competition and choice was a far superior form of protection for 
consumers than the old system of regulation and monopoly service. 
However, many consumers still remain at an economic disadvantage 
because the RBOC's do not offer DSL service at all or offer it at an 
affordable rate, and potentially competing providers do not have 
reasonable access to the RBOC networks.

[[Page H592]]

  H.R. 1542 would remove significant incentives for the RBOC's to open 
their markets to local competition by allowing them to provide 
broadband services without having to first demonstrate that their local 
telephone markets have been opened to competition. The further effect 
of this bill, should it become law, would be to constrain the ability 
of State and local governments to take steps to reasonably protect 
consumers' access to telecommunication service through competition or 
regulation.
  I believe that this bill would stifle any hope for free and open 
competition and if it were to become law, consumers would see less 
competitive choice when it comes to their Internet access. H.R. 1542 is 
bad for consumers and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues 
to vote no.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration I 
have decided that I cannot support this bill.
  The stated goal of the bill is to promote growth and development in 
high-speed (broadband) data services offered by regional Bell operating 
companies such as SBC, Verizon, BellSouth, and Qwest. The bill seeks to 
achieve this by relaxing requirements placed on the Bells in the 1996 
Telecommunications Act.
  What we need is competition to drive prices down and give consumers 
more choices. However, I am not convinced the bill would achieve these 
goals, and am concerned that it might have the opposite effect.
  I do believe the bill is well intentioned and is intended to respond 
to a real need. I agree with the bill's sponsors that the expansion and 
use of broadband services is vital to our economic growth. But 
Colorado's consumer groups, state and local government officials, small 
telecommunications firms, and residents in rural and underserved areas 
in Colorado tell me that they think this bill will consolidate the Bell 
companies' monopoly and result in increased prices for consumers. I 
give great weight to the views of those Coloradans.
  Today in Colorado small telecommunications companies are working hard 
to play by rules that Congress passed in a bipartisan fashion in 1996. 
And our regional Bell company, Qwest, is doing the same thing because 
it has hopes to enter the long distance market soon. In short, in 
Colorado the current system seems to be working, and I am not prepared 
to vote to attempt to fix something that I am not convinced is broken.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today's bill contains language that 
eliminates important provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that 
were intended to open telecommunications markets to competition. The 
legislation allows Bell telephone companies to enter the long-distance 
Internet data market without first opening their local markets to 
competition. It also deregulates high-speed Internet services known as 
broadband and is opposed by consumer protection groups and 31 State 
Public Utility Commissions, including our own commission in Oregon.
  I am concerned that this deregulation could severely hurt consumers 
by limiting remedies for people with complaints about their 
telecommunications services, especially in situations where consumers 
have been provided poor service or unusually high rates. In Oregon, for 
example, citizens can currently take their DSL or broadband Internet 
complaints to the Oregon Public Utility Commission. However, the PUC 
lacks authority to do anything about these complaints. This legislation 
would exacerbate the problem by further undercutting the authority of 
the State to address DSL complaints or declining service quality issues 
and by removing existing protections for customer service.
  This bill will also increase rates for consumers because without the 
benefits of a truly competitive telecommunications sector, consumers 
and small businesses will have fewer choices and will pay higher prices 
for telecommunications service. Unregulated telephone monopolies, such 
as those created by this bill, cannot be expected to lower prices or 
innovate. In fact, as competitive DSL providers began to struggle 
financially last year, the Bell monopolies raised their DSL prices by 
20 to 30 percent. There are also concerns that because this bill 
threatens state oversight of voice services that it could potentially 
raise local phone rates. The best way to promote lower prices and 
greater access is by ensuring a robustly competitive market.
  Furthermore, this bill will not bring broadband to rural areas, as 
the proponents of this bill have argued. While today's bill requires 
some broadband expansion, it contains substantial loopholes and lacks 
real meaning for rural and underserved areas. Rural homes would 
continue to be dependent upon cable, satellite or wireless broadband--
as they are now. Making matters worse, the Bells do not even serve many 
of the rural areas they ostensibly claim the bill will help.
  Additionally, contrary to some arguments, it appears the deployment 
of broadband has been severely hindered by the Bell companies 
themselves. The Bells failed to deploy high-speed technology such as 
DSL for nearly a decade and it was not until competition was injected 
into the marketplace after enactment of the 1996 law that the Bells 
offered DSL, and then just in limited markets at high prices. I urge my 
colleagues to promote competition, protect consumers and vote against 
this bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition 
to H.R. 1542. This legislation extends the power of the Bell monopolies 
which the Telecommunications Act of 1996 sought to curb. I am 
particularly concerned about the negative effects this legislation will 
have on small businesses in my district if the bill passes. In the past 
couple of years, a number of Competitive Local Exchange Carriers have 
begun to provide high-speed data access in my district. If Tauzin-
Dingle passes, these small carriers will be priced out of the market 
and hundreds of small businesses will lost a competitive choice in 
their data provider. This bill does nothing to lower data service 
rates, and it is bad policy. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
final passage of H.R. 1542. Services will not be cheaper for consumers.
  Presently it cost me $20 more per month in Texas than I pay in 
Virginia for the same services.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tauzin-Dingell 
Internet Broadband Deployment Act.
  Rural communities were the last to get paved roads, the last to get 
electricity, the last to get voice telephone service, and the last to 
get cable television. Right now the information superhighway is 
bypassing rural America, leaving it behind in the new economy. Rural 
Americans do not want to be the last to experience the economic, 
education, and cultural benefits of Internet broadband technology.
  Mr. Chairman, Tauzin-Dingell will directly benefit the citizens of my 
district. Passage of this bill will guarantee high-speed access to 
almost 90,000 people and over 5,000 businesses in the third 
Congressional district of Wisconsin alone.
  The ability of educational institutions, especially in rural areas, 
to explore all the possibilities the Internet offers depends largely on 
the availability of broadband technology. With high speed access to the 
internet, schools will have the ability to supplement classroom 
teaching in ways currently not available, and to bring cyber-classrooms 
to everyone, regardless of their physical location.
  The Internet is just beginning to deliver on the Promise of education 
on demand. This will be a powerful tool to education not only those 
traditional students who would like flexibility in their class choices, 
but it also has the power to offer the highest caliber education to 
anyone with high speed access to the Internet. Rural students shouldn't 
have to wait any longer for the tools to succeed in the digital age.
  Tauzin-Dingell will also bring broadband access to over 60 doctor 
offices and clinics as well as three additional hospitals in my 
district. With broadband, rural Americans will be able to have a 
medical specialist diagnose their illness over the Internet, Instead of 
having to drive long distances to a faraway hospital. Rural hospitals 
could become virtual teaching hospitals with the deployment of 
broadband technology.
  It's time for Congress to bring broadband Internet access to all 
Americans. Support Tauzin-Dingell.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in 
support of H.R. 1542 because it will set forth for the first time a 
national policy that promotes the deployment of broadband technology to 
all Americans. The passage of H.R. 1542 will create a technology-
neutral regulatory policy that will encourage all companies to invest 
in the deployment of the ``last mile'' broadband facilities that will 
provide the average American with access to high-speed Internet 
services. This deployment of ``last mile'' broadband facilities is 
critical to future economic growth in the United States.
  Not only will H.R. 1542 provide a much needed lift to the American 
economy as a whole, but it will for the first time, provide a genuine 
promise to Americans living in underserved communities, both in our 
inner cities and in rural areas, that they will not be left behind as 
we move to the next generation of the Internet. High-speed data 
services have the capability to enfranchise and empower millions of 
Americans. H.R. 1542 has express build-out provisions that require the 
large telephone companies to upgrade all of their central offices to 
provide high-speed Internet capability within 5 years.
  This is the kind of legislation Congress should be producing. It is 
bipartisan. It is carefully crafted. It lifts all Americans.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1542.
  Mr. Chairman, I also would like to ask unanimous consent to insert an 
article into the Record written by Mr. Stephen Moore in The Investors 
Business Daily.

        Got Stimulus? Broadband Bill Would Beef Up Frail Economy

       With Congress stalemated on a tax-cut economic stimulus 
     plan and the White House

[[Page H593]]

     considering approval of a dreadful protectionist steel bill, 
     the jittery financial markets are seeking any positive signs 
     that Washington will take productive action to help jump-
     start economic growth. No industry needs more intelligent 
     help than the embattled telecommunications sector, where 
     profits and investment spending have vaporized.
       That's why a vote in Congress this week on deregulation of 
     the broadband infrastructure carries such heavy significance 
     for the economy as a whole, and this industry in particular. 
     If approved, the Tauzin-Dingell bill has the potential over 
     the next decade to bring high-speed Web service to nearly 
     every U.S. home.
       Broadband service is the Mach 4-speed Internet technology 
     that will bring to Americans the next generation of Web 
     services. It could transform the Web from a device for 
     exchanging e-mail and checking stock quotes into a tool that 
     will link all businesses in an e-commerce Web, let users 
     quickly download video or music on demand and give rise to 
     products and applications we can only dream of today.
       Economist Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institution, and 
     a top deregulation scholar, calculates that if we can 
     accelerate broadband deployment, the value to the U.S. 
     economy could reach $500 billion a year. That's more than the 
     entire economies of most nations.
       Very few actions that Congress could take--short of 
     scrapping the income tax for a consumption tax or privatizing 
     Social Security--could deliver those size benefits to workers 
     and consumers. Broadband deregulation would seem to be a no-
     brainer. But this issue has become the mother of all 
     political brawls, pitting AT&T against the Baby Bells, 
     including Verizon and BellSouth. Both sides have spent tens 
     of millions on lobbying and fatuous TV ads. The truth is, 
     there's no angel in this fight.
       The good news is that if Congress shows some common sense, 
     there can be clear-cut winners here--American consumers and 
     businesses, tens of millions of whom lack broadband access 
     simply because of a regulatory regime that prevents access to 
     the infrastructure. Almost eight of 10 homes and businesses 
     still use clunky dial-up technology to access the Web. 
     Broadband technology is more than a decade old, and still is 
     a rarity in most areas. This makes no sense. It's as if we're 
     still watching black-and-white TV. A hallmark of the U.S. era 
     of high-tech innovation has been to spread the technological 
     breakthroughs to the great middle class in short order.
       Why the still-lingering digital divide between the 
     information haves and have-nots? Because outdated government 
     regulation is stifling the private-sector investment needed 
     to build the network.
       Technology analyst George Gilder argues that today's 
     regulation ``privatizes the risk and socializes the 
     benefit.'' Here's how it works: When a phone company risks 
     its own money to wire homes and businesses to broadband, the 
     federal government forces it to open its network to 
     competitors at money-losing, government-set rates. This 
     prevents the original investors from capturing the full value 
     of the risk-taking expenditure.
       A predictable result has been the collapse in telecom 
     investment over the past 18 months. In 2001, telecom 
     investment contracted by $75 billion, a 15 percent decline. 
     That's one of the biggest reasons the industry shed over 
     317,000 jobs last year--the largest job loss for any industry 
     ever recorded in a single year. By some estimates, it will 
     cost telecom companies some $200 billion of added broadband 
     investment to lay down the cables to bring this technology 
     into most homes and businesses. How can this investment be 
     accelerated? One answer is for Congress to let businesses 
     write off their mega-investments the year they're made. It 
     also must create a fair-minded regulatory structure that 
     allows those firms that make the investments to reap 
     financial rewards. This means eliminating free-riding 
     competitor access without fair payment.
       Tauzin-Dingell may be the best chance to close the digital 
     divide and ensure that the U.S. maintains its commanding 
     competitive edge in global communications into the future. It 
     might also be the only chance Congress has this year to pass 
     a genuine economic stimulus bill.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 1542 and urge my colleagues to support the Cannon-Conyers 
amendment which ensures fair competition and consumer protection.
  Proponents who have visited with me have claimed that the Bell's 
hands, including Qwest, are tied when it comes to the deployment of 
broadband to rural and urban places. That's not necessarily true in my 
state or my rural district.
  In fact, currently, Qwest Communications is not precluded from 
offering broadband services to its customers. The N.M. State Public 
Regulation Commission in 2001 approved an Alternative Form of 
Regulation agreement, which requires Qwest to provide high-speed data 
services to both urban and rural areas.
  H.R. 1542 as written will not improve access to services in New 
Mexico and could possibly hurt the Bell Operating Companies' incentive 
to open their markets to competition as required in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  Without this needed amendment--H.R. 1542 will reward the bad behavior 
of these telephone companies who have done very little to encourage the 
development of competition or the deployment of broadband. We shouldn't 
reward them now with the passage of H.R. 1542 without the safeguards of 
Cannon-Conyers.
  Preserving a competitive marketplace is the best way to spur 
affordable broadband deployment in urban, suburban, and rural 
communities like the ones I represent. Competition, wherever it has 
occurred, in the telecommunication and other industry markets, has 
virtually always brought about better service, greater investment, more 
options, and lower prices for consumers.
  Support the Cannon-Conyers Amendment which will preserve competition, 
protect state authority, and safeguard consumers.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, it seems like the rural areas always come 
last. I guess I should be used to it by now, after all, many of my 
constituents in northern Michigan can't get mail service to their 
doorsteps, our veterans have to travel on average 6 hours to get 
specialized healthcare from a VA center, and it required a federal law 
merely to get electricity to many portions of my district.
  I am therefore not surprised that rural areas are the last to get 
broadband as well. But let me be clear--this bill will do nothing to 
bring broadband to rural America. In fact, quite the opposite, H.R. 
1542 will make it even more difficult for my constituents and for rural 
citizens across America to get broadband.
  H.R. 1542 claims to require broadband deployment to rural areas by 
laying out a 5 year timetable, with a schedule of 20 percent, 40 
percent, and 70 percent buildout in the first 3 years. In fact, this 
will allow the Bells to sit on their current deployment for years.
  BellSouth told investors that as of year-end 2001, it already 
provides broadband access to 70 percent of its market; Verizon said it 
deploys DSL to central offices serving 79 percent of the company's 
access lines; and SBC said that it can provide high-speed service to 
more than 60 percent of its customers.
  The Bells will get the benefits of monopoly and deregulation without 
any responsibilities to deploy for years. And once the requirements for 
them to deploy do finally take effect, the Bells will be wholly 
unregulated in the amounts they can charge, or they can in fact evade 
all requirements to deploy to rural areas by selling off their rural 
exchanges.
  I would like to point my colleagues to a study done last July by the 
Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) of H.R. 1542. This nonpartisan 
report found that the 5 year deployment schedule in H.R. 1542 is 
insufficient, noting that:
  ``. . . this provision does not guarantee service to regions beyond 
three miles of a central office and could still leave substantial 
portions of the rural market without broadband capabilities.''
  Furthermore, RUPRI found that rural subscribers are frequently served 
by remote terminals, and that in locking competitors out of the Bell's 
remote terminals, H.R. 1542 reduces competition for customers served by 
remote terminals. Lastly, the study notes that H.R. 1542 does nothing 
to affect the affordability of broadband.
  Let me put it simply: if you don't live within 3 miles of a central 
office, under this bill the Bells are not going to have to deploy to 
you for years, competitors are going to be shut out from getting to 
you, and when, if ever, the Bells do decide to deploy to you, they can 
charge whatever they want. In short, broadband will be either 
physically unavailable to rural customers, or economically unavailable 
to them. This bill will not bring broadband to rural America and I urge 
my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill for many reasons, but 
here I will list the four reasons:
  1. H.R. 1542 improves Access for Rural Customers (I represent a 
district in rural South Georgia) this aspect of the bill is most 
important to my constituents.
  This bill will provide unprecedented service to rural communities. It 
contains a deployment schedule that requires the Bells to offer high-
speed data service throughout their region and not only select 
lucrative areas, like their competitors do today. Specifically it:
  Requires the Bells to build out their central offices with 
multiplexing equipment and upgrade each upgradeable loop (less than 
three miles) when requested by a customer; or
  Requires the Bells to serve each customer (regardless of 
upgradeability or loop length) with alternative technology.
  Taken together, this means that 100 percent of the Bell's customers 
must be offered high-speed data service by the end of five years. 
Without passage of H.R. 1542, these areas will have to wait a long time 
before they are served, if ever, because these geographic areas make 
the least business sense for companies to penetrate.
  2. The bill provides Consumers with Lower Prices, More Choices.

[[Page H594]]

  The rules for competing high-speed Internet companies are stifling 
competition. As a consequence, cable companies which are unfettered by 
regulations, have about 70 percent of residential high-speed Internet 
connections. Fair competition for all high-speed Internet services will 
mean lower costs, more choices and more access for consumers. This bill 
would provide that kind of fair competition.
  3. It restores Fairness to the Marketplace.
  Companies that offer high-speed Internet access over cable lines, 
wireless connections or satellite links are allowed to develop new 
services and compete without regulation. Disparities in regulation hurt 
competition. A level playing field would guarantee competition and 
encourage expansion of new networks.
  4. Boosts the Economy--this is another aspect of the bill that is 
crucially important to our nation specifically at this time.
  The bill allows local phone companies to provide affordable high-
speed Internet access. This will benefit consumers by providing more 
consumers and small businesses with high speed Internet access. In 
addition, because more services will be deployed to more homes, 
equipment manufacturers and vendors will also likely enjoy growth in 
their business as well. This all amounts to lower prices, more choices, 
more jobs, and economic growth.
  I close, Mr. Chairman in encouraging my colleagues to vote for this 
bill, and help our economy and our rural constituents.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a few minutes to 
address a couple of issues that are critical to this debate. The 
district I represent, the Denver metro area, has become one of the 
latest telecommunications hubs in the country, and I want to talk about 
the sort of competition that exists back home, which is due in large 
part to the Telecom Act of '96.
  We have an enormous number of telecommunications companies out in 
Colorado, from cable companies, those who provide DSL, satellite 
companies, a vast array of Competitive Local Exchange Company's 
(CLECs). So we have a pretty good representation of the sort of 
services that are available, and we also have some of the problems that 
exist across the country, like a lack of services in the more rural 
areas of the state, and a dearth of competition for local phone 
service.
  Clearly the goal of any telecommunications legislation should be to 
accelerate the deployment of broadband services to all consumers. As 
policymakers, we are charged with doing our part to facilitate the most 
competitive marketplaces that in turn provide the best services and 
prices available.
  We need to do so in a way that is technology and industry neutral. I 
deeply fear that this bill will not only not accomplish this, but will 
actually benefit certain sectors of the industry and seriously harm 
others. This bill will result in the sluggish development and 
deployment of future advanced technologies.
  For example, the CLECs in my district, which have been heavily hit by 
the recent bumps in the economy, would be in serious trouble if this 
bill passed. This is not only because of the policy changes mandated by 
this bill, the details of which we will undoubtedly discuss ad nauseum 
in the next couple of hours, but also because the capital that has 
allowed these companies to build up their networks will simply 
disappear.
  I do not think this bill is necessary, and I will use the example of 
Qwest, located in my district to illustrate this. Qwest is currently in 
the process of getting back into long distance service after its merge 
with US West. It will file its first state application this summer and 
then file for its remaining thirteen states so it can obtain long 
distance authority for its entire region before the end of the year. I 
am quite optimistic that they will be successful in complying with the 
checklist, whether or not this bill passes, and move on to provide my 
constituents, along with the rest of consumers in their region, great 
service.

  The most diverse array of technologies and services is what will best 
serve consumers, and I do not think H.R. 1542 will facilitate 
competition or an even-handed promotion of wide-ranging technologies 
that exist or are currently developing.
  Why now are we now poised to undercut legislation that has brought 
the marketplace so far along over the past few years? This is not to 
say that everything has worked out exactly as envisioned, but the '96 
Act accomplished some very important goals, and the fact is that things 
are still shaking out.
  I have grave concerns that enactment of H.R. 1542 may adversely 
impact competition for local telephone service. As currently drafted, 
the legislation puts at risk the line-sharing requirements that allow 
competitors into the local exchange market. Absent these requirements 
it is unlikely that a truly competitive marketplace will continue to 
develop. Rather we would likely see market consolidation and the 
attendant increased rates.
  In my final analysis of this issue, I have concluded there is nothing 
in the 1996 Act that prohibits the RBOCs from providing broadband 
services to the customers that they now serve. In fact, they are doing 
so today, competing with other providers and satisfying customers the 
needs of consumers for high-speed Internet access.
  The bottom line is that competition is the best incentive for 
broadband deployment. DSL and other technologies have been around for 
years. The local exchanges really only began stepping up their roll-
outs and lowering their prices in response to the emerging competition 
from the CLECs, cable companies, wireless and satellite providers.
  It cannot be said enough, and indeed, I don't think it has been said 
enough that we are obligated to pass, or not pass, a legislation that 
will most benefit consumers. Not bills that will only help certain 
companies, or particular technologies, but that will, as I said before, 
create the most diverse and competitive marketplace for our 
constituents.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in support 
of H.R. 1542--the Tauzin-Dingell Broadband Deployment Act. If you 
believe in competition vote for this bill. As Members of Congress, we 
have the responsibility and opportunity to bring increased choices for 
our constituents.
  H.R. 1542 promotes fair competition for high-speed internet services 
which will mean lower prices, more choices and greater access for 
consumers. Fair competition will bring high-speed internet services to 
communities that cannot get them--inner cities, small towns and rural 
areas.
  In order to ensure real competition, all companies that provide high-
speed access to the internet should face the same rules and 
regulations. Cable, wireless, satellite and companies that all provide 
competing high-speed internet services should all be governed by the 
same rules. When all companies must compete under the same rules, 
consumers will benefit--from increased choices, lower prices and a 
stronger economy.
  Meanwhile, this bill represents an opportunity to not only help our 
sagging economy but also to cure an ill that continues to plague our 
country--the digital divide. The Internet, probably nothing in recent 
memory has done so much so quickly to change the way we work, learn and 
live. Think about it: It took 38 years for the radio to get to 50 
million American homes . . . and 12 years for TV. The WEB got there in 
four. And with it have come education, entertainment and economic 
opportunities like never before.
  And today, with the help of a new generation of communications 
technologies, what used to be the ``world wide wait'' is rapidly 
becoming a new, wide-open window onto the world. H.R. 1542 will move 
along that progress more quickly and help so many who have no access or 
limited access to the kind of internet services they should expect and 
deserve.
  That is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Cannon-
Conyers amendment, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, and vote 
``yes'' on final passage. A ``yes'' vote for Tauzin-Dingell is a vote 
for consumers, choice and competition.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of House 
Report 107-361 is adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended pursuant to House Resolution 340, is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1542

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Freedom and 
     Broadband Deployment Act of 2001''.

      SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Internet access services are inherently interstate and 
     international in nature, and should therefore not be subject 
     to regulation by the States.
       (2) The imposition of regulations by the Federal 
     Communications Commission and the States has impeded the 
     rapid delivery of high speed Internet access services and 
     Internet backbone services to the public, thereby reducing 
     consumer choice and welfare.
       (3) The Telecommunications Act of 1996 represented a 
     careful balance between the need to open up local 
     telecommunications markets to competition and the need to 
     increase competition in the provision of interLATA voice 
     telecommunications services.
       (4) In enacting the prohibition on Bell operating company 
     provision of interLATA services, Congress recognized that 
     certain telecommunications services have characteristics that 
     render them incompatible with the prohibition on Bell 
     operating company

[[Page H595]]

     provision of interLATA services, and exempted such services 
     from the interLATA prohibition.
       (5) High speed data services and Internet backbone services 
     constitute unique markets that are likewise incompatible with 
     the prohibition on Bell operating company provision of 
     interLATA services.
       (6) Since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996, the Federal Communications Commission has construed the 
     prohibition on Bell operating company provision of interLATA 
     services in a manner that has impeded the development of 
     advanced telecommunications services, thereby limiting 
     consumer choice and welfare.
       (7) Internet users should have choice among competing 
     Internet service providers.
       (8) Internet service providers should have the right to 
     interconnect with high speed data networks in order to 
     provide service to Internet users.
       (b) Purposes.--It is therefore the purpose of this Act to 
     provide market incentives for the rapid delivery of advanced 
     telecommunications services--
       (1) by deregulating high speed data services, Internet 
     backbone services, and Internet access services;
       (2) by clarifying that the prohibition on Bell operating 
     company provision of interLATA services does not extend to 
     the provision of high speed data services and Internet 
     backbone services;
       (3) by ensuring that consumers can choose among competing 
     Internet service providers; and
       (4) by ensuring that Internet service providers can 
     interconnect with competitive high speed data networks in 
     order to provide Internet access service to the public.

      SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 3 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (20) as paragraph (21);
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (21) through (52) as 
     paragraphs (26) through (57), respectively;
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(20) High speed data service.--The term `high speed data 
     service' means any service that consists of or includes the 
     offering of a capability to transmit, using a packet-switched 
     or successor technology, information at a rate that is 
     generally not less than 384 kilobits per second in at least 
     one direction. Such term does not include special access 
     service offered through dedicated transport links between a 
     customer's premises and an interexchange carrier's switch or 
     point of presence.'';
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(22) Internet.--The term `Internet' means collectively 
     the myriad of computer and telecommunications facilities, 
     including equipment and operating software, which comprise 
     the interconnected world-wide network of networks that employ 
     the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, or any 
     predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol, to 
     communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
       ``(23) Internet access service.--The term `Internet access 
     service' means a service that combines computer processing, 
     information storage, protocol conversion, and routing with 
     transmission to enable users to access Internet content and 
     services.
       ``(24) Internet backbone.--The term `Internet backbone' 
     means a network that carries Internet traffic over high-
     capacity long-haul transmission facilities and that is 
     interconnected with other such networks via private peering 
     relationships.
       ``(25) Internet backbone service.--The term `Internet 
     backbone service' means any interLATA service that consists 
     of or includes the transmission by means of an Internet 
     backbone of any packets, and shall include related local 
     connectivity.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 230(f)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (4) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (3), respectively.
       (2) Section 223(h)(2) of such Act (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``230(f)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``230(f)(1)''.

      SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO REGULATE HIGH SPEED DATA 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Part I of title II of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 232. PROVISION OF HIGH SPEED DATA SERVICES.

       ``(a) Freedom From Regulation.--Except to the extent that 
     high speed data service, Internet backbone service, and 
     Internet access service are expressly referred to in this 
     Act, 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 backbone service, or Internet 
     access service, or to regulate any network element to the 
     extent it is used in the provision of any such service; nor 
     shall the Commission impose or require the collection of any 
     fees, taxes, charges, or tariffs upon such service.
       ``(b) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or affect the authority of any State to 
     regulate circuit-switched telephone exchange services, nor 
     affect the rights of cable franchise authorities to establish 
     requirements that are otherwise consistent with this Act.
       ``(c) Continued Enforcement of ESP Exemption, Universal 
     Service Rules Permitted.--Nothing in this section shall 
     affect the ability of the Commission to retain or modify--
       ``(1) the exemption from interstate access charges for 
     enhanced service providers under Part 69 of the Commission's 
     regulations, and the requirements of the MTS/WATS Market 
     Structure Order (97 FCC 2d 682, 715 (1983)); or
       ``(2) rules issued pursuant to section 254.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 251 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251) is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Exemption.--
       ``(1) Access to network elements for high speed data 
     service.--
       ``(A) Limitation.--Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D) of this paragraph, neither the Commission nor any State 
     shall require an incumbent local exchange carrier to provide 
     unbundled access to any network element for the provision of 
     any high speed data service.
       ``(B) Preservation of regulations and line sharing order.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Commission shall, to 
     the extent consistent with subsections (c)(3) and (d)(2), 
     require the provision of unbundled access to those network 
     elements described in section 51.319 of the Commission's 
     regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.319), as--
       ``(i) in effect on January 1, 1999; and
       ``(ii) subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), as modified by 
     the Commission's Line Sharing Order.
       ``(C) Exceptions to preservation of line sharing order.--
       ``(i) Unbundled access to remote terminal not required.--An 
     incumbent local exchange carrier shall not be required to 
     provide unbundled access to the high frequency portion of the 
     loop at a remote terminal.
       ``(ii) Charges for access to high frequency portion.--The 
     Commission and the States shall permit an incumbent local 
     exchange carrier to charge requesting carriers for the high 
     frequency portion of a loop an amount equal to which such 
     incumbent local exchange carrier imputes to its own high 
     speed data service.
       ``(D) Limitations on reinterpretation of line sharing 
     order.--Neither the Commission nor any State Commission shall 
     construe, interpret, or reinterpret the Commission's Line 
     Sharing Order in such manner as would expand an incumbent 
     local exchange carrier's obligation to provide access to any 
     network element for the purpose of line sharing.
       ``(E) Authority to reduce elements subject to 
     requirement.--This paragraph shall not prohibit the 
     Commission from modifying the regulation referred to in 
     subparagraph (B) to reduce the number of network elements 
     subject to the unbundling requirement, or to forbear from 
     enforcing any portion of that regulation in accordance with 
     the Commission's authority under section 706 of the 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996, notwithstanding any 
     limitation on that authority in section 10 of this Act.
       ``(F) Prohibition on discriminatory subsidies.--Any network 
     element used in the provision of high speed data service that 
     is not subject to the requirements of subsection (c) shall 
     not be entitled to any subsidy, including any subsidy 
     pursuant to section 254, that is not provided on a 
     nondiscriminatory basis to all providers of high speed data 
     service and Internet access service. This prohibition on 
     discriminatory subsidies shall not be interpreted to 
     authorize or require the extension of any subsidy to any 
     provider of high speed data service or Internet access 
     service.
       ``(2) Resale.--For a period of three years after the 
     enactment of this subsection, an incumbent local exchange 
     carrier that provides high speed data service shall have a 
     duty to offer for resale any such service at wholesale rates 
     in accordance with subsection (c)(4). After such three-year 
     period, such carrier shall offer such services for resale 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the `Commission's Line Sharing Order' means the Third 
     Report and Order in CC Docket No. 98-147 and the Fourth 
     Report and Order in CC Docket 96-98 (FCC 99-355), as adopted 
     November 18, 1999, and without regard to any clarification or 
     interpretation in the further notice of proposed rulemaking 
     in such Dockets adopted January 19, 2001 (FCC 01-26); and
       ``(B) the term `remote terminal' means an accessible 
     terminal located outside of the central office to which 
     analog signals are carried from customer premises, in which 
     such signals are converted to digital, and from which such 
     signals are carried, generally over fiber, to the central 
     office.''.
       (c) Preservation of Existing Interconnection Agreements.--
     Nothing in the amendments made by this section--
       (1) shall be construed to permit or require the abrogation 
     or modification of any interconnection agreement in effect on 
     the date of enactment of this section during the term of such 
     agreement, except that this paragraph shall not apply to any 
     interconnection agreement beyond the expiration date of the 
     existing current term contained in such agreement on the date 
     of enactment of this section, without regard to any extension 
     or renewal of such agreement; or

[[Page H596]]

       (2) affects the implementation of any change of law 
     provision in any such agreement.

     SEC. 5. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

       Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
     amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 233. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to ensure 
     that Internet users have freedom of choice of Internet 
     service provider.
       ``(b) Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.--
     Each incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to 
     provide--
       ``(1) Internet users with the ability to subscribe to and 
     have access to any Internet service provider that 
     interconnects with such carrier's high speed data service;
       ``(2) any Internet service provider with the right to 
     acquire the facilities and services necessary to interconnect 
     with such carrier's high speed data service for the provision 
     of Internet access service;
       ``(3) any Internet service provider with the ability to 
     collocate equipment in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 251, to the extent necessary to achieve the 
     objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection; and
       ``(4) any provider of high speed data services, Internet 
     backbone service, or Internet access service with special 
     access for the provision of Internet access service within a 
     period no longer than the period in which such incumbent 
     local exchange carrier provides special access to itself or 
     any affiliate for the provision of such service.
       ``(c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       ``(1) Internet service provider.--The term `Internet 
     service provider' means any provider of Internet access 
     service.
       ``(2) Incumbent local exchange carrier.--The term 
     `incumbent local exchange carrier' has the same meaning as 
     provided in section 251(h).
       ``(3) Special access service.--The term `special access 
     service' means the provision of dedicated transport links 
     between a customer's premises and the switch or point of 
     presence of a high speed data service provider, Internet 
     backbone service provider, or Internet service provider.''.

     SEC. 6. INCIDENTAL INTERLATA PROVISION OF HIGH SPEED DATA AND 
                   INTERNET BACKBONE SERVICES.

       (a) Incidental InterLATA Service Permitted.--Section 271(g) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 271(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(7) of high speed data service or Internet backbone 
     service.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Provision of Voice Telephone Services.--
     Section 271 of such Act is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Prohibition on Provision of Voice Telephone 
     Services.--Until the date on which a Bell operating company 
     is authorized to offer interLATA services originating in an 
     in-region State in accordance with the provisions of this 
     section, such Bell operating company offering any high speed 
     data service or Internet backbone service pursuant to the 
     provisions of paragraph (7) of subsection (g) may not, in 
     such in-region State provide interLATA voice 
     telecommunications service, regardless of whether there is a 
     charge for such service, by means of the high speed data 
     service or Internet backbone service provided by such 
     company.''.
       (c) Notice to Attorney General.--Section 271 of such Act is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(l) Notice to Attorney General.--
       ``(1) Statement required.--Not less than 30 days before 
     commencing to offer any interLATA high speed data service or 
     Internet backbone service originating in an in-region State 
     pursuant to paragraph (7) of subsection (g), a Bell operating 
     company shall submit to the Attorney General a statement that
       ``(A) expresses the intention to commence providing such 
     service in such State;
       ``(B) provides a description of the service to be offered; 
     and
       ``(C) identifies the geographic region within the State in 
     which the service will be offered, if the service is not 
     going to be offered Statewide.
       ``(2) Additional contents prohibited.--The Attorney General 
     may not require a statement under this subsection to contain 
     any additional information other than that specified in 
     subparagraph (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Confidential treatment of statements.--A statement 
     submitted to the Attorney General under this subsection shall 
     be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and no such statement may be made public, 
     except as may be relevant to any administrative or judicial 
     action or proceeding.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 272(a)(2)(B)(i) of such Act is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(i) incidental interLATA services described in paragraphs 
     (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), and (7) of section 271(g);''.
       (2) Section 272(a)(2)(C) of such Act is repealed.

     SEC. 7. DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND SERVICES.

       Part III of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is 
     amended by inserting after section 276 (47 U.S.C. 276) the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 277. DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND SERVICES.

       ``(a) Deployment Required.--Each Bell operating company and 
     its affiliates shall deploy high speed data services in each 
     State in which such company or affiliate is an incumbent 
     local exchange carrier (as such term is defined in section 
     251(h)) in accordance with the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Deployment Requirements.--
       ``(1) Mileposts for deployment.--A Bell operating company 
     or its affiliate shall deploy high speed data services by 
     attaining high speed data capability in its central offices 
     in each State to which subsection (a) applies. Such company 
     or affiliate shall attain such capability in accordance with 
     the following schedule:
       ``(A) Within one year after the date of enactment of this 
     section, such company or affiliate shall attain high speed 
     data capability in not less than 20 percent of such central 
     offices in such State.
       ``(B) Within 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, such company or affiliate shall attain high speed 
     data capability in not less than 40 percent of such central 
     offices in such State.
       ``(C) Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, such company or affiliate shall attain high speed 
     data capability in not less than 70 percent of such central 
     offices in such State.
       ``(D) Within 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, such company or affiliate shall attain high speed 
     data capability in not less than 100 percent of such central 
     offices in such State.
       ``(2) High speed data capability.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), a central office shall be considered to have 
     attained high speed capability if--
       ``(A)(i) such central office is equipped with high speed 
     data multiplexing capability; and
       ``(ii) each upgradeable customer loop that originates or 
     terminates in such central office is upgraded promptly upon 
     receipt of a customer request for such upgrading, as 
     necessary to permit transmission of high speed data service 
     (including any conditioning of the loop);
       ``(B) each customer served by such central office (without 
     regard to the upgradeability or length of the customer's 
     loop) is able to obtain the provision of high speed data 
     service from such Bell operating company or its affiliate by 
     means of an alternative technology that does not involve the 
     use of the customer's loop; or
       ``(C) each such customer is able to obtain the provision of 
     high speed data service by one or the other of the means 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(3) Upgradeable loops.--For purposes of paragraph (2), a 
     customer loop is upgradeable if--
       ``(A) such loop is less than 15,000 feet in length (from 
     the central office to the customer's premises along the 
     line); and
       ``(B) such loop can, with or without conditioning, transmit 
     high speed data services without such transmission on such 
     loop causing significant degradation of voice service.
       ``(c) Availability of Remedies.--
       ``(1) Forfeiture penalties.--A Bell operating company or 
     its affiliate that fails to comply with this section shall be 
     subject to the penalties provided in section 503(b)(2). In 
     determining whether to impose a forfeiture penalty, and in 
     determining the amount of any forfeiture penalty under 
     section 503(b)(2)(D), the Commission shall take into 
     consideration the extent to which the requirements of this 
     section are technically infeasible.
       ``(2) Jurisdiction.--The Commission shall have exclusive 
     jurisdiction to enforce the requirements of this section, 
     except that any State commission may file a complaint with 
     the Commission seeking the imposition of penalties as 
     provided in paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Annual Report on Deployment.--
       ``(1) Analysis required.--The Commission shall include in 
     each of its annual reports submitted no more than 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this section an analysis of 
     the deployment of high speed data service to underserved 
     areas. Such report shall include--
       ``(A) a statistical analysis of the extent to which high 
     speed data service has been deployed to central offices and 
     customer loops, or is available using different technologies, 
     as compared with the extent of such deployment and 
     availability prior to such date and in prior reports under 
     this subsection;
       ``(B) a breakdown of the delivery of high speed data 
     service by type of technology and class or category of 
     provider;
       ``(C) an identification of impediments to such deployment 
     and availability, and developments in overcoming such 
     impediments during the intervening period between such 
     reports; and
       ``(D) recommendations of the Commission, after consultation 
     with the National Telecommunications and Information 
     Administration, for further extending such deployment and 
     availability and overcoming such impediments.
       ``(2) Definition of underserved area.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `underserved areas' means areas 
     that--
       ``(A) are high cost areas that are eligible for services 
     under subpart D of part 54 of the

[[Page H597]]

     Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 54.301 et seq.); or
       ``(B) are within or comprised of any census tract--
       ``(i) the poverty level of which is at least 30 percent 
     (based on the most recent census data); or
       ``(ii) the median family income of which does not exceed--

       ``(I) in the case of a census tract located in a 
     metropolitan statistical area, 70 percent of the greater of 
     the metropolitan area median family income or the statewide 
     median family income; and
       ``(II) in the case of a census tract located in a 
     nonmetropolitan statistical area, 70 percent of the 
     nonmetropolitan statewide median family income.

       ``(3) Designation of census tracts.--The Commission shall, 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, designate and publish those census tracts 
     meeting the criteria described in paragraph (2)(B).''.

     SEC. 8. COMMISSION AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE JUST AND 
                   REASONABLE CHARGES.

       The Federal Communications Commission may impose penalties 
     under section 503 of the Communications Act of 1934 not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 for any violation of provisions contained 
     in, or amended by, section 5, 6, or 7 (or any combination 
     thereof) of this Act. Each distinct violation shall be a 
     separate offense, and in the case of a continuing violation, 
     each day shall be deemed a separate offense, except that the 
     amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed 
     a total of $10,000,000 for any single act or failure to act 
     described in section 5, 6, or 7 (or any combination thereof) 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 9. CLARIFICATION OF CONTINUING OPERATION OF ANTITRUST 
                   LAWS.

       Section 601(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-104; 110 Stat. 143) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Continuing operation of the antitrust laws.--
     Paragraph (1) shall be interpreted to mean that the antitrust 
     laws are--
       ``(A) not repealed by,
       ``(B) not precluded by,
       ``(C) not diminished by, and
       ``(D) not incompatible with,

     the Communications Act of 1934, this Act, or any law amended 
     by either such Act.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be 
in order except those printed in part B of the report. Each 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, 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question.
  The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Weldon of Florida) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________