[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--

       ``(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. 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.

                          ____________________