[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H597-H601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2001
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in part B of House Report 107-361.
Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Upton
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part B Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Upton:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 9. COMMON CARRIER ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Cease and Desist Authority.--Section 501 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting ``(a) Fines
and Imprisonment.--Any person'';
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Cease and Desist Orders.-- If, after a hearing, the
Commission determines that any common carrier is engaged in
an act, matter, or thing prohibited by this Act, or is
failing to perform any act, matter, or thing required by this
Act, the Commission may order such common carrier to cease or
desist from such action or inaction.''.
(b) Forfeiture Penalties.--Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``exceed $100,000'' and inserting ``exceed
$1,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``of $1,000,000'' and inserting ``of
$10,000,000'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``subparagraph (A) or
(B)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A), (B), or (C)'';
(3) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) of paragraph
(2) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively;
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2)
the following new subparagraph:
``(C) If a common carrier has violated a cease and desist
order or has previously been assessed a forfeiture penalty
for a violation of a provision of this Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission, and if the
Commission or an administrative law judge determines that
such common carrier has willfully violated the same
provision, rule, regulation, that this repeated violation has
caused harm to competition, and that such common carrier has
been assessed a forfeiture penalty under this subsection for
such previous violation, the Commission may assess a
forfeiture penalty not to exceed $2,000,000 for each
violation or each day of continuing violation; except that
the amount of such forfeiture penalty shall not exceed
$20,000,000.''; and
(5) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ``1 year'' and
inserting ``2 years''.
(c) Evaluation of Impact.--
(1) Evaluation required.--Within one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
shall conduct an evaluation of the impact of the increased
remedies available under the amendments made by this section
on improving compliance with the requirements of the
Communications Act of 1934, and with the rules, regulations,
and orders of the Commission thereunder. Such evaluation
shall include--
(A) an assessment of the number of enforcement proceedings
commenced before and after such date of enactment;
(B) an analysis of any changes in the number, type,
seriousness, or repetition of violations; and
(C) an analysis of such other factors as the Commission
considers appropriate to evaluate such impact.
(2) Report.--Within one year after such date of enactment,
the Commission shall submit a report on the evaluation to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 350, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes
of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for his use and for
him to yield that time to other Members as he sees fit.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, I am very pleased to offer this
commonsense, bipartisan enforcement amendment with my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
When I became chairman last year, one of the first things I did was
to invite the then new chairman of the FCC, Chairman Powell, to appear
before the subcommittee to present his vision for that agency. The
thing that struck me most was his message that the FCC's current
enforcement authority was in fact too weak, and that the FCC's current
fines were viewed by many as simply the cost of doing business for many
companies.
{time} 1415
And I heard that from many competitive carriers as well.
In a letter to Congress last year, Chairman Powell specifically wrote
that, among other things, Congress should consider increasing the cap
on fines to at least $10 million in order to enhance their deterrent
effect. The current cap, of course, is at $1.2 million.
Responding to Chairman Powell's recommendation, we are, in fact,
offering this bipartisan amendment which will substantially increase
the FCC's fines for phone companies which violate the
telecommunications law by elevating the current cap from $1.2 million
to $10 million and increasing the amount up to which the FCC can impose
per violation or each day of a continuing violation from $120,000 to $1
million. We did exactly what Chairman Powell requested.
In addition, for repeat offenders the amendment doubles the increased
fines up to $2 million per violation or each day of a continuing
violation capped at $20 million.
[[Page H598]]
The amendment also doubles from 1 to 2 years the statute of
limitations for the FCC to bring enforcement actions against phone
companies, which will give the FCC a better opportunity to thoroughly
investigate an alleged violation and bring charges. Chairman Powell
also asked for this.
We also give the FCC clear, statutory cease and desist authority to
use against phone companies which violate any of the telecommunications
laws.
Finally, we direct the FCC to study the impact of the enhanced fines
under the bill and report back to us, the Congress, one year after
enactment.
The amendment applies to all common carriers. For example, it would
affect not only a Bell company's violation of the Telecommunications
Act but also a long distance company's slamming as well.
It is important to note that these substantially increased fines
would not be the only enforcement mechanisms facing the Bell companies.
For example, there is also the existing Section 208 complaint process
at which the FCC through which a Bell company could be liable for
damages. Moreover, some Bell companies must also pay if they fail to
meet performance goals established by the FCC in their merger
agreements, that was part of the Rush amendment that we accepted in the
committee, not to mention the literally millions of State PUC-enforced
performance measures penalties which get assessed as well.
We hope you will support our efforts to greatly enhance the FCC's
enforcement authority as we seek to accelerate the deployment of
broadband high-speed Internet access to underserved areas in our
country through the passage of the underlying bill, H.R. 1542.
I want to thank in particular the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella),
obviously, as well as my co-sponsor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green), for their good work on this issue throughout the process. I
would urge the passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, has anyone claimed time in opposition to
the amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not see any Member rising in opposition.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, as a supporter I would like to claim that
time in opposition that we might use it to discuss the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) claims the
time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield half of this time to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) now has 15 minutes
of debate time to control.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for making sure about the
time, because I did not hear anyone claim any time in opposition
either.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Upton-Green amendment,
and it is an important addition to the Tauzin-Dingell bill. It will
give the FCC more teeth to stop bad behavior if America's phone
companies are actually doing that.
During the earlier debate we heard some of the horror stories, but
this would actually raise the fees so it is no longer just the cost of
the doing business. It actually has penalties in it.
Phones companies, if they slam and cram new phone charges to our
constituents, will now face stiffer fines if our amendment is adopted.
Bell companies who may be acting in a manner that hurts competition
will now face stiffer financial penalties from the FCC.
Working with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton),
our amendment increases the FCC's forfeiture penalty tenfold.
Currently, the FCC can only fine a company a total of $1.2 million per
violation. Under the Upton-Green amendment, the FCC will now be able to
fine companies up to $10 million per violation.
In addition, the amendment increases the fines the FCC can impose on
continuing violations. Our amendment ups the FCC continuing violation
to a cap of $20 million.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell in a letter to Congress last year asked
for this increase. We agree it is justified and reasonable.
Other provisions in the amendment double the statute of limitations
for imposing a fine from 1 to 2 years, provides new cease and desist
authority to the FCC as well.
Taken as a whole, I believe our amendment is not only a reasonable
step but a consumer-oriented step towards better protecting our
American consumers.
Phone companies may realize that their efforts to illegally boost
profits on the backs of our constituents will no longer be tolerated. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair miscalculated to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green) earlier about his total debate time, so the Chair will now
review the amount of time remaining for each of the three Members
controlling debate time.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has 6\1/2\ minutes, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 10 minutes, and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green) has 18 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the vice chairman
of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment being
offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and
of course my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). I am an
original co-sponsor of this legislation which strengthens the FCC's
enforcement ability.
As Congress and the FCC ensure the deregulatory progression of
telecommunication sectors, proper enforcement mechanisms serve as
necessary tools in protecting competition. Winners and losers should be
picked by consumers and the marketplace, rather than outdated
regulatory schemes. However, it is equally important to note that,
absent regulation, meaningful enforcement must serve as one of key
principals ensuring that competition and consumers are not harmed.
Mr. Chairman, I have met with industry representatives who tell me
the FCC's current cap of $1 million in penalties is insufficient to
deter violation and oftentimes such fines are calculated into the cost
of doing business. Furthermore, FCC Chairman Powell testified before
the Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding the Commission's ability
to deter violations through enforcement mechanisms. In fact, he
testified, ``The enforcement tools made available to us are inadequate
with billion dollar industries. Our fines are trivial. They are the
cost of doing business for many of these companies.'' As a matter of
fact, they just make it part of doing business.
During this committee's consideration of H.R. 1542, the Broadband
Deregulation Bill, the committee accepted one of my amendments creating
specific and severe penalties totalling up to $10 million for failure
to comply with the specific legislation. Furthermore, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I offered an amendment enhancing the FCC
enforcement authority under Title 5 of the Communications Act. While
that amendment was not germane to H.R. 1542, many provisions of that
legislation are now present in the amendment we are considering today.
Mr. Chairman, let me state that this amendment bill is not intended
to favor ILECs, CLECs or IXCs over one another. The provisions in this
bill are intended to equally apply to all common carriers. The FCC and
State PUCs have existing laws on the books intended to ensure
competitive competition thrives. This legislation will make certain the
commission has a big bat, enough to enforce those laws and regulations.
With this legislation, we empower the FCC with enforcement powers,
thus
[[Page H599]]
ensuring common carriers will think twice about failing to comply with
this Nation's telecommunications laws.
This amendment is centered upon Chairman Powell's recommendation
enhancing the Commission's enforcement authority on common carriers.
Specifically, this bill, as mentioned, enhances forfeiture penalties up
to $1 million for each violation for each day of a continuing series of
violations and up to $10 million for any continuing violation, and
those fines are increased up to $20 million if a company violates a
cease and desist order or is a repeat offender.
Furthermore, as recommended by Chairman Powell, this legislation
increases the statute of limitation for forfeiture against common
carriers from one year to two.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings up to date the tools the
FCC will have at its disposal to punish and deter bad behavior. The
last time the law was changed was in 1989. Furthermore, this amendment
ensures that fines and penalties by the FCC are more than just mere
calculations as a line item on balance sheets for violating companies.
So I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
Big Apple, New York (Mr. Fossella), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment as
well.
I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and, of
course, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin).
I think the issue in the overall arching legislation comes down to
where do we go from here and what is the role of government in
deploying broadband across the entire United States; and rather than
start here in Washington or in Congress, let us start back in my home
town of Staten Island.
We got a call recently from a gentleman who said he does not have
access to cable television but would like a DSL line in his home. We
called the local Bell, and there is no plans whatsoever to deploy that
to his home. So the issue then becomes what to do. Well, nothing as far
as he is concerned, unless this legislation were to pass.
We cannot compel the local Bell to deploy broadband. We cannot compel
the local cable operator to deploy broadband. What we can do and what I
think what this legislation will do will encourage the deployment of
broadband and then ultimately mandate it after 5 years. So that
gentleman, not unlike more than 90 percent of the people across
America, will now have a choice.
Now if I were to visualize it, there is a highway. There is a ramp
that goes on that highway. That highway is the broadband, that highway
is access, that highway is just innovation, that highway is access for
small business to communicate with other small business or family
members to communicate with other family members, not just across
Staten Island but across the world. But that access is limited to less
than 10 percent of the American people and, by the way, most of whom
are affluent.
What we have not done and, unless this legislation is passed, we will
not encourage or actually mandate the construction of new ramps to
allow more Americans, indeed all Americans, access to this wonderful
thing we call the highway of broadband. Now, we can sit here and we can
whistle Dixie or we can sing until the cows come home and say we hope
for those ramps to be built, but unless this were to be passed that
would not happen.
Let us remove the obstacles. Let us encourage the private sector and
let competition reign and let the deployment of broadband take hold
across the country. Let those ramps be built.
At the same time, what the amendment seeks to do is say and to
stipulate to those Bells, for example, that if you violate any of these
telecommunications laws you will be penalized and penalized severely.
Is that not what it is all about? So it brings it back home for that
gentleman that called and said, when am I going to get it?
Unless this bill is passed with this amendment, he may never get it.
But if this bill is passed, then we will see broadband being deployed
across the United States and America retain its rightful place as the
leader in telecommunications and information technology and leave it up
to the private sector to make those calls. Right now, that is the case.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel), a current member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green)
for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I strongly support
the underlying bill, but we can always make improvements to
legislation. Again, this is an example of the proponents of the bill
trying to be fair with the legislation, trying to have balanced
legislation. That may not be legislation that everyone agrees with 100
percent, but on balance it is good and it is fair and that is what this
amendment is trying to do.
Last year we not only installed a new President but a new Chair of
the FCC. Michael Powell immediately impressed me when he said violators
of telecommunications law, that he wanted the authority to hit them
hard and hit them fast. We have that opportunity with this amendment to
do just that.
Why should we? The fact is that with any regulation when a fine is
imposed it should be that it acts as a deterrent. But the present fines
for violation of telecommunications law are low enough that paying them
has been described as simply the cost of doing business.
{time} 1430
This amendment changes that. This amendment will increase the fines
by a factor of ten. A $120,000-per-day fine is increased to $1 million
per day. The $1.2 million cap for a violation is raised to $10 million
for a violation. And for repeat offenders, the new higher limits are
double.
This will also expand the time in which the FCC has to bring an
enforcement action against a violator from 1 to 2 years. Often we on
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet have been told
that 1 year is just insufficient time for the FCC to properly
investigate a potential violation. Again, this is an attempt to make
this legislation balanced. It is why all my colleagues should support
the underlying Tauzin-Dingell bill, and I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a distinguished member of the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the Upton enforcement amendment.
This amendment will significantly strengthen the FCC's enforcement of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because of this amendment, the FCC
will finally be given an enhanced enforcement opportunity, which is
critical, which is critical to the ability to mandate compliance to the
Tauzin-Dingell bill.
In a recent letter to Congress, FCC Chairman Powell noted that the
FCC is limited in levying fines for any single violation to $1.2
million. And due to the vast resources of many of the Nation's phone
companies, this amount is insufficient to punish or deter violators.
This amendment would address these concerns and raise the single-
violation penalty ten times its current level, capping the penalty at
$10 million.
This reminds me of a recent city I went to and a parking ticket was
$10, but it cost $20 to park in a parking lot. Where is the incentive?
And during the hearings held by Chairman Upton we learned from several
of these companies that there is a disincentive to complying with the
current FCC regulations. So I thank the gentleman for introducing this
amendment to strengthen these fines and provide the proper incentive to
comply.
Another part of this that I think is just as important as the
monetary fine is the fact that they can issue orders to cease and
desist their conduct of not
[[Page H600]]
complying. This is an extremely important facet of this that we have
not heard much discussion about. The FCC needs the ability to not only
identify the conduct but order them to stop and apply meaningful fines.
By increasing the penalties that the FCC can levy, the more phone
companies will comply with the act and will provide services to areas
they should be providing now and do not.
I thank Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Upton for bringing this to the
floor. I am in support of it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla)
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the
Upton amendment and the Tauzin-Dingell bill, which is long overdue.
Imagine for a moment running a company, a good company, a high-tech
telecom company in this country that has been operating with handcuffs
on for a long time, watching employees walk out the door to the tune of
about 250,000 employees over the last year because we have been in an
economic downturn. Now we are on the upturn again, and this will give
it a tremendous boost. But imagine running a company with handcuffs on,
where you cannot open the doors to more business, to have more people
take advantage of the high-tech opportunities that many of us have had
an opportunity to take advantage of so far. That is what we are talking
about.
This bill takes off the handcuffs; and instead of having between 8
and 10 percent of the American people and businesses having access to
broadband accounts, this will open up the floodgates and allow these
great companies, and again let me read a couple of them to see who
could be against Disney, who could be against Yahoo and Cisco and
Packard and Compaq and Texas Instruments and AOL and Dell and Motorola
and Microsoft and Intel and Hewlett Packard, and all of these good
companies that have been a large part of our economic boom over the
last 10 to 15 years who are suddenly finding themselves with the
handcuffs on.
We need to take them off so that we can get these people back to
work. And again not only do this for this country but to show the world
the tremendous economic power that we have within our own borders to
create more jobs for good Americans out there that are just waiting for
opportunity.
Those who oppose us are simply saying, no, status quo, let us keep
the handcuffs on and try to make it work under the current
circumstances. That is absurd. Let us get these handcuffs off American
businesses and strongly support this broadband bill. It is long
overdue. We should have voted on this a year ago.
I am glad this day has finally come, and I look forward to great
success here this day at the end of this debate, and I look for others
in this great city here in Washington to follow this lead that we are
involved in here today.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton) is ready to close, and I do not have any more speakers. I guess
the amendment is so popular everybody is just going to let it happen,
and I am glad to say this makes a good bill even better.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that one of the complaints about the
bill as we originated it is that it took away one of the carrots that
would encourage the local Bells to open up their local markets. What
the gentlemen are doing with this amendment is making sure there is a
stick there too; that the FCC can hammer the Bells any time they fail
to open up their market, as required by the 1996 act.
This is a great amendment, and I commend both gentlemen for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
intend to close at this point as well.
I want to say from the outset that this bill not only in this
Congress but in the last Congress as well was known to be a very strong
bipartisan bill, Republicans and Democrats working together to
unshackle the regulations off a new technology that is so important for
our country.
The Tauzin-Dingell bill does that. It was bipartisan in every way, as
we have seen in the debate today. And as the new chairman of the
subcommittee, my door was open to virtually every group. The concern I
heard from virtually every group was that the FCC did not have the
right authority to enforce the law. I welcomed the participation of
virtually every member of the subcommittee to see this amendment
through, both in committee, subcommittee, as well as today on the
floor.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has been a tremendous help not
only on this issue but so many others as we have worked in a bipartisan
fashion in our committee. I commend my chairman, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and I would urge all my colleagues to support
the Upton-Green amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding because
it is important as we are about to adopt this amendment to understand
that it does not just give the FCC the power to punish a Bell for not
opening up its local market, for not complying with the law, section
251, which is mandated but unenforced today.
It does more than say we are going to fine you and penalize you if
you fail to do that. It contains authority that Mr. Powell and the FCC
requested of our committee to order any Bell company to cease and
desist and to enforce that order in court if any Bell company conducts
itself in a fashion that is anticompetitive.
So what this amendment does and what makes it so very important to
the bill is that it says while the Bells are allowed to get out and
deploy the new broadband systems, they cannot forget their obligation
to open up the local telephone markets to as much competition as we can
get.
In short, this is a total competition bill, competition for telephone
in the local market and enhanced competition in the Internet broadband
market. This amendment completes the package in a big way.
Again, I commend it to all the Members' attention. Hopefully, it will
be adopted unanimously. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I urge adoption of the
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this amendment which helps ensure competition by increasing the
penalties and fines the FCC may apply against phone companies which
violate the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Such violations, when unchecked, can have sever anticompetitive
effects, and may thwart the expansion of this important technology
across all strata in the population, expressed as the digital divide.
Specifically, the amendment increases maximum fines per violation
from $120,000 to $1 million per day, and caps continuing violations
rising from $1.2 million to $10 million. It also doubles the penalty
for repeat offenders per violation to $2 million per day, with a cap of
$20 million for continuing violations.
The amendment also doubles from 1 year to 3 years the statute of
limitations for the FCC to bring enforcement actions against phone
companies, it give the FCC statutory ``cease and desist'' authority
against companies that violate the rules. Finally, it directs the FCC
to study the impact of these enhanced penalties and report its findings
to Congress.
The amendment goes a long way towards monitoring and enforcing the
delicate balance that exists in this industry. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered
[[Page H601]]
by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.
Part B Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Upton
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Proceedings will now resume on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by
voice vote.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 7, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 43]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--7
Baker
Hefley
Jones (NC)
Otter
Paul
Simpson
Skeen
NOT VOTING--6
Baldacci
Cubin
Gilman
Rivers
Sherwood
Traficant
{time} 1518
Messrs. Hefley, Otter, Baker and Skeen changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. McInnis and Mr. Evans changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
1542) to deregulate the Internet and high speed data services, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________