[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.

                          ____________________