Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H602-H608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1530
INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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 further
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1542.

{time} 1531

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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Upton) had been disposed of.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed in Part B of
House Report 107-361.
Is there any Member in the Chamber wishing to offer that amendment?

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Who may offer that amendment under the rule?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) or his
designee.
Mr. TAUZIN. No one else can offer that amendment but the gentleman
from Utah?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is correct:
The gentleman from Utah or his designee.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BUYER. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and I had an
amendment to the Conyers-Cannon amendment. If these two gentlemen or
their designee do not offer that amendment, then I have no opportunity
to do that, other than we defeat the previous question, and then I have
an opportunity to make an amendment on the motion to recommit. Would
that be correct?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is not able to address the
Committee questions that may arise in the House.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to offer the
amendment?
If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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, pursuant to House Resolution 350, he reported the bill,
as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House with a further
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill in its present form, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Markey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1542 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:

Amendment to H.R. 1542, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Markey

Strike section 4 and insert the following:

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, the Commission shall have no 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.--
``(1) State authority.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or affect the authority of any State, nor
affect the rights of cable franchise authorities to establish
requirements that are otherwise consistent with this Act.
``(2) Existing rules and competition preserved.--
Notwithstanding the limitations on Commission and State
authority contained in the Internet Freedom and Broadband
Deployment Act of 2001 (including the amendments made by such
Act), in order to preserve and promote fair competition,
innovation, economic investment, and consumer choice, no
provision of such Act or amendments shall restrict or affect
in any way the application and enforcement of the Federal and
State rules in effect on the date of enactment of such Act
relating to the rates, charges, terms, and conditions for the
purchasing or leasing of telecommunications services and
network elements by competitive telecommunications carriers.
``(3) Additional commission authority preserved.--
Notwithstanding the limitations on Commission authority
contained in the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment
Act of 2001 (including the amendments made by such Act), such
Act and amendments shall not restrict or affect in any way--
``(A) the authority of the Commission to adopt regulations
to prohibit unsolicited commercial e-mail messages;
``(B) the authority of the Commission to regulate changes
in subscriber carrier selections or the imposition of charges
on telephone bills for unauthorized services; or
``(C) the authority of the Commission--

[[Page H603]]

``(i) with respect to customer proprietary network
information, as provided in section 222;
``(ii) with respect to rules and procedures adopted
pursuant to section 223 to restrict the provision of
pornography to minors and unconsenting adults; or
``(iii) with respect to access by persons with
disabilities, as provided in section 255.
``(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, the Commission shall not 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
(2) affects the implementation of any change of law
provision in any such agreement.
Page 12, beginning on line 23, strike ``Internet access''
and insert ``such''.

Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts, is this the Cannon
amendment?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Yes.
Mr. BUYER. This is the Cannon amendment that the gentleman is
offering on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, while we were in the Committee of the Whole I asked a
question of the Chairman which he said he could not answer. At that
time, under the rule an amendment was designated. Neither the author
nor a designee offered that amendment. Therefore, the Buyer-Towns
amendment could not be offered.
The Conyers-Cannon amendment is now being considered in the
recommittal motion, so the only opportunity that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Towns) and I now have procedurally would be to defeat the
previous question, and then in the motion to recommit we make an
amendment to the recommittal motion. Would that be in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would be in order.
Mr. BUYER. It would be in order. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) in support of his motion to recommit for 5
minutes.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this. So that
there can be a clarification for the Members as to the procedural
process that the House finds itself in at this point in time, I have
made a motion to recommit forthwith the bill which we are now
considering. It is my understanding that that means that the bill
actually does not go back to the committee but just goes to the desk
here and is immediately then inserted into the bill forthwith and that
there is absolutely no delay in the procedure at that point and we move
forward with that new substance added to the bill, is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a motion to recommit is adopted in a form
ordering a report forthwith, the gentleman is correct that the proposed
amendment would immediately be before the House.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we also clarify
the effects of that kind of a decision if we do allow the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to recommit this bill with the Canyon-
Conyers amendment added to it. If we allow that to happen without
voting against the previous question, without giving the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) a
chance to amend that motion to recommit, it is tantamount to adopting
the Conyers amendment on the bill without ever having a chance to vote
on Buyer-Towns. Therefore, is it not correct that for Buyer-Towns to
have an opportunity to be voted upon that the Members will have to vote
against the previous question on the motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The first portion of the gentleman's
observation is not a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H604]]

The second portion, however, is. If the previous question were not
ordered on the Markey motion to recommit, the Member who, in the
perception of the Chair, led the opposition to the motion for the
previous question would have an opportunity to offer an amendment to
the motion to recommit.
Mr. TAUZIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. May I claim
the time in opposition to the motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The reason we are making this recommittal motion is so that we can
have one clear vote on the competition and consumer position on all of
these issues. We were not going to have a vote out here on the floor on
those issues. The Bell companies do not want a clear vote on the
hundreds of other companies out there competing with the four of them.
So this recommittal motion is the Conyers-Cannon amendment that we were
not going to be allowed to have a vote on, that gives every one of us
that clear chance to decide which side of this fence we are on,
monopoly or competition. And I think everyone should understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for the purpose
of a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. MARKEY. I do not.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the yielding of time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) may yield to others and remain on his feet, which he is doing.
The gentleman has yielded to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
We might ask ourselves, why are Cannon and Conyers together on an
amendment? Sort of an odd couple, if one follows this body.
Let me point out that we have looked very carefully at this. It is
exceedingly important to the future of the deployment of the Internet
to have competition. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of
obfuscation on this issue, but, in fact, without this amendment, if the
bill becomes law, we will snuff out competition in America in the area
that is going to give us the technological needed for the next century.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. This is not a debate
between Democrats and Republicans. It is between competition and
monopoly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Watts).
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has created one of those rare moments
where traditional coalitions and party affiliations are nearly
irrelevant as Members of the House debate the issue of competition in
the field of telecommunications.
I agree with my colleagues on deregulating the industry and giving
consumers more options and lower prices, but what I disagree with some
of my friends on today are the anticompetitive measures that I believe
are given and special privileges for certain companies in this bill.
As a former State public utility commissioner, I am extremely
troubled by Congress telling States what they can and cannot do on
competition, pricing and the regulation of broadband facilities and
networks. This is why 31 State public utility commissions are opposed
to this bill before us unamended.
Restricting competitive local exchange carriers' access to incumbent
networks endangers, I believe, the future of competition. There are
countless small businesses that have invested billions of dollars and
have created thousands of jobs. Let us not change the rules at the half
time of the game. Let us not limit the lion's share into outmoded
copper facilities, let us not tie one hand behind a company's back by
taking away access to high-tech fiber lines, and let us not tell
States, sorry, but we are taking away your authority on yet another
issue.
Instead, I urge my colleagues to think of the small business people
in their districts employing constituents and giving consumers options.
The motion to recommit will fix this bill so small businesses get a
voice, States keep their rights and ordinary, average Americans are
given fair choices and fair prices as we keep heading down the
information superhighway. Vote for the motion to recommit and vote for
competition and consumers.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield my final minute to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

{time} 1545

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member for their tenacity, their advocacy,
their philosophy, and their approach, as it comes to telecommunications
broadband and the questions before us. But we simply want one clean
vote: Do we stand with competition, or do we go back to the old
fragmented, segmented, monopolistic ways of what we tried to reform in
1996?
For those of us who want multiple choices, not just one or two but
many choices, the free market enterprise of competition, innovation,
lower prices, then we need to vote for the Conyers amendment; and we
need to vote for the Cannon amendment. We need that clean chance.
If we believe in States' rights to help advocate competition and
deployment, if Members want to maintain the regulation against child
pornography and obscenity on the Internet, then Members need to vote
for Cannon and Conyers.
This is our one chance in this debate to have one simple vote. We
believe that it is the right vote. I ask for Members' support on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments before this House,
both of which provide access for these competitive telephone lines to
the new fiber and the new systems the Bell companies would deploy under
this bill. The only difference is that the Cannon-Conyers amendment
would put on those conditions all the rules and regulations that
currently stifle the delivery of those services.
Every high-tech representative in this town, all the associations
that represent companies from Lucent to Motorola, and the two largest
associations of all the high-tech companies of America, over a thousand
of them, have written us letters urging us to defeat Cannon and
Conyers, because what it does, it guarantees that broadband will not be
deployed to people in this country without all those rules and
regulations of the telephone industry regulating the Internet. That is
why they want that amendment defeated.
The Buyer-Towns amendment, on the other hand, gives those competitive
telephone companies full access to those facilities of the Bell at fair
rates set by the FCC, not by the Bell companies.
There are two proposals before us. I am going to ask Members in a
minute to defeat the previous question to give the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) a
chance to offer their proposal. If we defeat that previous question and
motion, they will have a chance to offer their motion. Then they can
vote Buyer and Towns up or down. If Members vote for that, that will be
on the motion to recommit, and we will conclude our business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the
author of the bill.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very obvious way of trying to usurp the role
of the Committee on Rules. What is the purpose of the Committee on
Rules if we are going to try and usurp them in this fashion?
Let me be candid by saying that this is not what the Bell companies
or the competitors prefer. However, I strongly believe that our
amendment represents a middle ground. The Buyer-Towns is a good
compromise. Our amendment does the right thing to ensure that

[[Page H605]]

broadband is deployed in a competitive environment, and this is what
this is all about.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer), the principal author of this amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
To those who have walked into this body and were going to support the
Buyer-Towns amendment to the Conyers-Cannon amendment, let me share
what I believe is about to happen and what I believe Members should do.
If they support the Buyer-Towns amendment, vote no on the previous
question; vote no on the previous question, vote yes when I have the
opportunity to amend the recommit after the previous question is
defeated. So they will vote yes on the Buyer-Towns amendment to the
recommital, vote yes on the amended motion to recommit, and vote yes on
final passage.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to this. All Members who
walked into this room this morning and voted yes on the rule should
vote against the motion on the previous question, because that
preserves the rule and does not allow these parties to undermine the
rule that Members voted for.
Vote no on the previous question and then yes on Buyer-Towns, yes on
the amended motion to recommit, and yes on final passage.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of the amendment by
Congressmen Cannon and Conyers which was taken up as a motion to
recommit, and I oppose the Buyer/Towns amendment to the motion.
During the Energy & Commerce Committee's mark-up of this bill,
Congresswoman Wilson and I introduced a bipartisan amendment addressing
the issue of ``line sharing''--a concept pioneered in my home state of
Minnesota. This amendment represented the most contentious issue of the
markup, failing to pass on a 27 to 27 tie vote, and this issue remains
the most controversial matter with regard to the bill.
The first part of the Cannon/Conyers amendment is basically the
amendment that Representative Wilson and I introduced at the Energy &
Commerce Committee. All our amendment does is preserve existing law.
The landmark 1996 Telecommunications Act deliberately forced the
Regional Bell Operating Companies to open their networks to
competition. The Cannon/Conyers Amendment is consistent with this and
would simply preserve all existing FCC orders that allow small
competitive telecommunications companies to lease elements of the Bells
network on a cost-plus-reasonable-profit basis. It does no more than
this.
Supporters of the Buyer/Towns Amendment claim that they have fixed
the line sharing problem but their amendment will allow a competitor to
have access only to copper loops, not to the fiber, remote terminals
and other crucial network elements indispensable to competition in both
the voice and high-speed data markets. It is vital that existing law
and regulation be preserved, because a competitor's access to these
fiber and remote terminal networks is the only way to preserve
effective and meaningful competition.
It's important to note that competitors do not have access to these
networks for free--they must pay for an element's cost and a reasonable
profit. The Cannon/Conyers amendment preserves this cost-plus-
reasonable-profit pricing mechanism. On the other hand, the Buyer/Towns
amendment even changes this pricing mandate and will actually raise
rates while giving much more limited access--all to the detriment of
competition.
I urge support for the true line sharing amendment--the Cannon/
Conyers amendment. And I urge a ``no'' vote on the Buyer/Towns
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the motion to
recommit has expired.
The question is on ordering the previous question on the motion to
recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 256, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 44]

AYES--173

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baird
Barrett
Bartlett
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goode
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Sununu
Thompson (CA)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)

NOES--256

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pence
Petri
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Baldacci
Cubin
Evans
Gilman
Traficant

{time} 1614

Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. NORTHUP, and Messrs.

[[Page H606]]

CULBERSON, TANCREDO, BOOZMAN and HERGER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no''.
Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. KINGSTON and Ms. CARSON of Indiana changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the previous question was not ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Buyer to the Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr.
Markey

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Buyer to the motion to recommit
offered by Mr. Markey:
In lieu of the amendment proposed on the motion, insert the
following:
Page 6, beginning on line 9, strike ``, or to regulate any
network element to the extent it is used in the provision of
any such service''.
Page 7, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 2
on page 9 and insert the following:
``(j) Guaranteed Access to Consumers for CLECs.--
``(1) Access rules.--
``(A) Preservation of rules guaranteeing clec access to
incumbent carrier facilities.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (E), the Commission is not required to repeal or
modify the regulations in effect on May 24, 2001, that enable
a requesting carrier to use the facilities of an incumbent
local exchange carrier to provide high speed data services.
``(B) Transport services available to clecs.--
``(i) Offering required.--If an incumbent local exchange
carrier provides high-speed data services over a fiber local
loop or fiber feeder subloop, that carrier shall offer, over
such loop or subloop for delivery at the incumbent local
exchange carrier's serving central office, a high speed data
service that is provided by such carrier utilizing an
industry-standard protocol.
``(ii) Transmission options.--Such service shall enable a
requesting carrier to transmit information over an incumbent
local exchange carrier's facilities between that incumbent
local exchange carrier's serving central office and (I) a
customer's premises served by that serving central office;
(II) a remote terminal supplied by the requesting carrier; or
(III) a high frequency portion of the copper subloop obtained
by such requesting carrier pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (c)(3).
``(iii) Rates, terms, and conditions.--Such high speed data
service shall be offered on rates, terms, and conditions that
are just and reasonable in accordance with section 201(b).
For such purposes, such high speed data service shall be
deemed a nondominant service.
``(iv) Serving central office definition.--For the purpose
of this subparagraph, the term `serving central office' means
the centralized location where the incumbent local exchange
carrier has elected to provide access to the high speed data
service required by this subparagraph.
``(C) Space adjacent to an incumbent's remote terminal.--
Subparagraph (E)(iii) does not relieve an incumbent carrier
of any obligation under regulations in effect on May 24,
2001, to provide space adjacent to its remote terminal to a
requesting carrier so that the requesting carrier may
construct its own remote terminal.
``(D) Clec access to incumbent carrier rights-of-way.--Any
incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to afford
access to its poles, conduits, and rights-of-way in
accordance with subsection (b)(4) for provision of high speed
data service.
``(E) Scope.--Notwithstanding any provision of law, neither
the Commission nor any State shall--
``(i) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide unbundled access in accordance with subsection (c)(3)
to any packet switching network element;
``(ii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide, for the provision of high speed data service, access
on an unbundled basis in accordance with subsection (c)(3) to
any fiber local loop or fiber feeder subloop; or
``(iii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide for collocation in accordance with subsection (c)(6)
in a remote terminal, or to construct or make available space
in a remote terminal.
``(F) Reinterpretation.--Consistent with subparagraph (E),
neither the Commission nor any State shall construe,
interpret, or apply this section in such a manner as to
expand an incumbent local exchange carrier's obligation, as
in effect on May 24, 2001, to provide access in accordance
with subsection (c)(3) to any network element for the
provision of high speed data service, or to provide
collocation in accordance with subsection (c)(6) for the
provision of high speed data service.
Page 9, lines 3 and 15, redesignate subparagraphs (E) and
(F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively.
Page 10, beginning on line 11, strike paragraph (3) through
page 11, line 3, and insert the following:
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `fiber feeder subloop' means the entirely
fiber optic cable portion of the local loop between the
feeder/distribution interface (or its equivalent) and a
distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an incumbent local
exchange carrier central office, including all features,
functions, and capabilities of such portion of the local
loop;
``(B) the term `fiber local loop' means an entirely fiber
optic cable transmission facility, including all features,
functions, and capabilities of such transmission facility,
between a distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an
incumbent local exchange carrier central office and the loop
demarcation point at an end-user customer premise;
``(C) the term `packet switching network element'--
``(i) means a network element that performs, or offers the
capability to perform--

``(I) the basic packet switching function of routing or
forwarding packets, frames, cells, or other data units based
on address or other routing information contained in the
packets, frames, cells, or other data units, including the
functions that are performed by digital subscriber line
access multiplexers; or
``(II) any successor to the functions described in clause
(i);

``(ii) includes such element on a stand-alone basis, or as
a part of a combination with one or more other network
elements; and
``(iii) does not include elements of the signaling system 7
network transmitting signaling information between switching
points;
``(D) the term `remote terminal' means a controlled
environment hut, controlled environment vault, cabinet, or
other structure at a remote location between the central
office and a customer's premises; and
``(E) the term `signaling system 7 network' means the
network that uses signaling links to transmit routing
messages between switches and between switches and call
related data bases.''.
Page 7, line 3, strike the close quotation marks and the
following period, and after such line insert the following:
``(d) Additional Commission Authority Preserved.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), such subsection shall not
restrict or affect in any way the authority of the
Commission--
``(1) to adopt regulations to prohibit unsolicited
commercial e-mail messages;
``(2) to regulate changes in subscriber carrier selections
or the imposition of charges on telephone bills for
unauthorized services; or
``(3) with respect to--
``(A) customer proprietary network information, as provided
in section 222;
``(B) with respect to rules and procedures adopted pursuant
to section 223 to restrict the provision of pornography to
minors and unconsenting adults; or
``(C) with respect to access by persons with disabilities,
as provided in section 255.''.
Page 6, line 12, insert before the period the following:
``that is not imposed or required on the date of enactment of
this section''.

Mr. BUYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment to the motion to recommit be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. BUYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Buyer-Towns amendment to the motion to recommit be considered
as read and printed in the Record.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the Buyer-Towns amendment to the motion to
recommit, is it a debatable or a nondebatable amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment is not debatable.
Mr. BUYER. It is not. So the Members have to stay here during the
reading of this amendment?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment is not debatable.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, with the House vote denying the minority the
right for a motion to recommit, has that happened in the last 10 years,
the last decade in the House of Representatives?

[[Page H607]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot presume to place the
pending proceedings in historical context.
Mr. ROEMER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. ROEMER. Has the minority in the House of Representatives been
denied the sacred right of a motion to recommit in the last 20 years?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would give the gentleman the same
response, and that is that the Chair cannot presume to place the
pending proceedings in historical context.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to
H.R. 1542.
Last year, I voted to report H.R. 1542 out of Committee. I felt that
America needed to formulate a national broadband policy and that the
Tauzin-Dingell Bill was an excellent first step in doing so.
I also supported a line-sharing amendment during Committee
deliberations because I felt that it was critical to provide access and
reasonable pricing for the competitive industry. Over the past three
years, line sharing has been the most contentious issue in the
broadband debate. The amendment that Mr. Buyer and I offer today
represents a true compromise on this issue.
Our amendment ensures that the competitive industry will have access
to all copper and fiber networks owned by the Bell Companies. They will
also have FCC-regulated pricing, which will prohibit the Bell Companies
from pricing the CLECs out of the market. In addition to these
provisions, this amendment also safeguards important laws such as the
anti-slamming provisions and it protects the E-Rate program.
Let me be candid by saying, this is not what the Bell Companies or
the competitors preferred; however I strongly believe that our
amendment represents the middle ground that has been sorely missing in
this debate over high-speed data deployment.
I will tell you Mr. Speaker that it is my belief that our amendment
does the right thing to ensure that broadband is deployed in a
competitive environment. I am pleased that the AARP and the
Communications Workers of America have endorsed our proposal to strike
a balance that is fair to consumers and is equitable for providers.
I urge each of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Buyer-Towns
Amendment and forge a true compromise on the issue of line sharing.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
amendment.
I disagree with opponents of this amendment who argue that it would
give the RBOCs a competitive advantage over smaller competitors. This
amendment, a substitute amendment to the Cannon/Conyers amendment,
requires RBOCs to utilize a competitor's broadband service over their
network, but it does not require that they share their lines or
facilities.
Although, under the bill, RBOCs would no longer be required to
provide to competitors, at ``wholesale rates,'' the use of RBOC DSL
switching and routing equipment, fiber optic lines, or remote
terminals, it does require RBOCs to transmit a competitor's broadband
service over their fiber lines and equipment at ``just and reasonable''
rates, terms and conditions set by the FCC. It also preserves the
authority of the FCC to enforce consumer protection laws, and
establishes a new framework under which RBOCs that use fiber lines to
provide broadband services must also carry the broadband services of
competitors.
Additionally, it eliminates the requirement that RBOCs permit
competitors to directly connect with or be provided space in a RBOC
remote terminal, but gives competitors access to RBOCs' rights-of-way
so that competitors may place their own remote terminals on RBOC
property near the RBOC equipment.
Importantly, this amendment guarantees that CLECs have access to
customers served by RBOC company high-speed networks under FCC-
regulated rates, terms, and conditions. It also preserves rules
governing CLECs access to RBOC facilities, including a rule that
permits CLECs to line-share on RBOC copper facilities; maintains rules
governing law enforcement, pornography, slamming/cramming, privacy,
access by persons with disabilities.
This amendment goes a long way towards increasing competition,
access, and fairness in this important sector. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the amendment to the motion to recommit and on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) to the motion to recommit
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment to the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit,
as amended.
The motion to recommit, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on
the motion to recommit and on behalf of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, I report the bill, H.R. 1542, back to the House with an
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment:
Page 6, beginning on line 9, strike ``, or to regulate any
network element to the extent it is used in the provision of
any such service''.
Page 7, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 2
on page 9 and insert the following:
``(j) Guaranteed Access to Consumers for CLECs.--
``(1) Access rules.--
``(A) Preservation of rules guaranteeing clec access to
incumbent carrier facilities.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (E), the Commission is not required to repeal or
modify the regulations in effect on May 24, 2001, that enable
a requesting carrier to use the facilities of an incumbent
local exchange carrier to provide high speed data services.
``(B) Transport services available to clecs.--
``(i) Offering required.--If an incumbent local exchange
carrier provides high-speed data services over a fiber local
loop or fiber feeder subloop, that carrier shall offer, over
such loop or subloop for delivery at the incumbent local
exchange carrier's serving central office, a high speed data
service that is provided by such carrier utilizing an
industry-standard protocol.
``(ii) Transmission options.--Such service shall enable a
requesting carrier to transmit information over an incumbent
local exchange carrier's facilities between that incumbent
local exchange carrier's serving central office and (I) a
customer's premises served by that serving central office;
(II) a remote terminal supplied by the requesting carrier; or
(III) a high frequency portion of the copper subloop obtained
by such requesting carrier pursuant to the provisions of
subsection (c)(3).
``(iii) Rates, terms, and conditions.--Such high speed data
service shall be offered on rates, terms, and conditions that
are just and reasonable in accordance with section 201(b).
For such purposes, such high speed data service shall be
deemed a nondominant service.
``(iv) Serving central office definition.--For the purpose
of this subparagraph, the term `serving central office' means
the centralized location where the incumbent local exchange
carrier has elected to provide access to the high speed data
service required by this subparagraph.
``(C) Space adjacent to an incumbent's remote terminal.--
Subparagraph (E)(iii) does not relieve an incumbent carrier
of any obligation under regulations in effect on May 24,
2001, to provide space adjacent to its remote terminal to a
requesting carrier so that the requesting carrier may
construct its own remote terminal.
``(D) CLEC access to incumbent carrier rights-of-way.--Any
incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to afford
access to its poles, conduits, and rights-of-way in
accordance with subsection (b)(4) for provision of high speed
data service.
``(E) Scope.--Notwithstanding any provision of law, neither
the Commission nor any State shall--
``(i) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide unbundled access in accordance with subsection (c)(3)
to any packet switching network element;
``(ii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide, for the provision of high speed data service, access
on an unbundled basis in accordance with subsection (c)(3) to
any fiber local loop or fiber feeder subloop; or
``(iii) require an incumbent local exchange carrier to
provide for collocation in accordance with subsection (c)(6)
in a remote terminal, or to construct or make available space
in a remote terminal.
``(F) Reinterpretation.--Consistent with subparagraph (E),
neither the Commission nor any State shall construe,
interpret, or apply this section in such a manner as to
expand an incumbent local exchange carrier's obligation, as
in effect on May 24, 2001, to provide access in accordance
with subsection (c)(3) to any network element for the
provision of high speed data service, or to provide
collocation in accordance with subsection (c)(6) for the
provision of high speed data service.
Page 9, lines 3 and 15, redesignate subparagraphs (E) and
(F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively.
Page 10, beginning on line 11, strike paragraph (3) through
page 11, line 3, and insert the following:
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--

[[Page H608]]

``(A) the term `fiber feeder subloop' means the entirely
fiber optic cable portion of the local loop between the
feeder/distribution interface (or its equivalent) and a
distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an incumbent local
exchange carrier central office, including all features,
functions, and capabilities of such portion of the local
loop;
``(B) the term `fiber local loop' means an entirely fiber
optic cable transmission facility, including all features,
functions, and capabilities of such transmission facility,
between a distribution frame (or its equivalent) in an
incumbent local exchange carrier central office and the loop
demarcation point at an end-user customer premise;
``(C) the term `packet switching network element'--
``(i) means a network element that performs, or offers the
capability to perform--

Mr. TAUZIN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 273,
noes 157, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 45]

AYES--273

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pence
Petri
Phelps
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wynn

NOES--157

Abercrombie
Andrews
Baird
Barrett
Bartlett
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Frank
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Goode
Goss
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keller
Kilpatrick
Kingston
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Latham
Leach
Lee
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Mica
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Shadegg
Shays
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Baldacci
Cubin
Gilman
Traficant

{time} 1654

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________