[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7907-7912]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             INTERNET ACCESS CHARGE PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1291) to prohibit the imposition of access charges on 
Internet service providers, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1291

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Access Charge 
     Prohibition Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CHARGES ON PROVIDERS OF INTERNET 
                   ACCESS SERVICE.

       Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(l) Prohibition of Charges on Internet Service 
     Providers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(4) or (d) 
     or any other provision of this title, the Commission shall 
     not impose on any provider of Internet access service (as 
     such term is defined in section 231(e)) any contribution for 
     the support of universal service that is based on a measure 
     of the time that telecommunications services are used in the 
     provision of such Internet access service.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall preclude the Commission from imposing access charges on 
     the providers of Internet telephone services, irrespective of 
     the type of customer premises equipment used in connection 
     with such services.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).


                             General Leave

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 1291.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes in support of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Internet 
Access Charge Protection Act of 2000, and I urge my colleagues today to 
show their support for this important pro-consumer legislation.
  A number of Members have made this floor vote possible, and I would 
like to begin by noting their contributions. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) is the author of this most important legislation. 
He has identified the significance of this issue and has worked hard 
with the committee to ensure that the bill is balanced and represents a 
continued contribution to the public interest.
  Let me also commend the leadership of the House, who showed an early 
and critical interest in bringing this legislation to the floor today. 
Finally, as always, let me note the work of the bipartisan leadership 
of our Committee on Commerce, its chairman, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Bliley) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), both of whom always contribute to the 
bipartisan spirit by which we bring legislation important to the Nation 
on telecommunication matters to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill represents the best interests of this body. No 
matter how complex an issue is and no matter how controversial it may 
be, this institution can find a way to craft a balanced bill which 
serves the interests of consumers and of the technologies.
  Over the years, the Committee on Commerce has labored hard to provide 
for universal access to the Nation's telephone network. While 
competition and innovation have been the hallmark of telecommunications 
policy, so too

[[Page 7908]]

has universal service. We have balanced these goals over the decades, 
and we will do so again today with this legislation that is before us.
  More to the point, H.R. 1291 will preclude the Federal Communications 
Commission from imposing permanent charges on Internet service 
providers when those charges are intended for the support of universal 
service. At the same time, it is important to note that this bill will 
permit the Committee on Commerce and the FCC to continue to consider 
the implications of the growth of Internet telephony, particularly its 
long-term implications on consumer access to the telephone network.
  This is a critical issue, and yet we know so little about what it 
means for those who depend upon affordable access to telecommunications 
service. The FCC, for example, has advised Congress that it is too 
early to tell what the future holds for universal service as more voice 
traffic migrates to Internet telephony. At the same time, the FCC 
warned that it does not want to stifle the growth of Web-based 
applications such as Internet telephony.
  The FCC, in other words, has told us the record on this matter is not 
yet complete, nor is Congress prepared with a well-developed record in 
this area either. That is why the legislation makes it clear that 
Congress is not predetermining the issue of access charges and Internet 
telephony.
  Let me make it clear to my colleagues, this bill leaves this 
important debate for another day. It is neutral on this point. It 
decides it neither way and leaves it for a future debate, leaves it for 
Congress and the FCC to settle at a future time. But this House can 
today and should address the central issue of permanent charges on 
Internet data access, and it should do so today.
  The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce has recommended to us 
that access to the Internet should remain tax free and unregulated. 
Today's monthly Internet access services are affordable and charged on 
a flat rate basis. As a result, the Internet is available to children 
to surf the Worldwide Web for information, reports and learning. It is 
available for e-commerce businesses to grow and expand without the 
burden of permanent charges. This bill ensures that that affordable 
access is continued on into the future. H.R. 1291 will help ensure that 
this affordable access is the rule, not the exception.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291. The bill is intended to 
make sure that the individual who logs on to the Internet will not be 
charged by the minute for the privilege of doing so. That is a worthy 
goal. I would observe, however, that the situation before us is still 
somewhat Kafkaesque and does indeed participate of the rather wry humor 
of that kind of story.
  I would note that one of the things that has triggered our interest 
in this matter has been a story that has been going around on the 
Internet about a Congressman by the name of Schnell who has a piece of 
legislation which says that people will be charged by the minute for 
the privilege of using Internet. I would note that Mr. Schnell is 
entirely fictitious, and I am curious why we are responding to an 
imaginary piece of legislation which is sponsored by a fictitious 
Congressman who does not exist?
  I would note that many Congressional offices have been bombarded with 
an insidious e-mail campaign over the past year denouncing the 
fictitious legislation introduced by Mr. Schnell, who does not exist, 
which would accomplish precisely the opposite result of the bill we 
consider today.
  I only hope that the passage of H.R. 1291 will finally extinguish 
this cybermyth for once and all. I am not convinced, however, that 
mounting a massive legislative counterattack on a fictitious bill 
introduced by a make-believe Congressman is the best use of the time of 
this House, particularly when the subject of that bogus bill, if it 
were actually introduced, is so contrary to the public interest, that 
it would have zero chance of success in this legislative body.
  My puzzlement extends further to the speed with which the leadership 
has rushed this legislation to the floor. What we are considering today 
is a fabricated solution to an imaginary problem, yet the leadership 
seems to believe that this virtual bill is so important that the 
Committee on Commerce was asked to dispense with the regular order and 
bypass subcommittee consideration.
  I find it quite amazing that a phantom Congressman by the name of 
Schnell has more success in jumpstarting the legislative process than 
those of us here by actual election of the people. I only regret that 
Congressman Schnell is not a conferee on some of the more important 
legislation currently languishing in the conferences between the House 
and the Senate.
  Certainly our constituents should know that the Congress has no 
intention of installing a meter on their use of the Internet and that 
this legislation will alleviate their concern in that regard, even 
though it is prompted by the existence, as I have said, of a fictitious 
bill sponsored by a nonexistent Congressman.

                              {time}  1030

  However, I am disappointed that the majority refuses to seize an 
opportunity here to address a greater and a more genuine threat to 
consumer pocketbooks; that is, the very real possibility that new 
services such as Internet telephony may evade the responsibility of 
contributing to support the Universal Service Fund, a fund that ensures 
that all Americans have access to affordable telephone service.
  These services will continue to migrate from traditional networks to 
the Internet and unless we act, the Universal Service Fund will be left 
to wither on the vine. That spells significant trouble for local phone 
rates for all consumers, but particularly for those who live in rural 
areas and the working poor or those who live in big cities.
  I would observe these are the same Americans who are stuck on the 
wrong side of the digital divide and are least able to take advantage 
of high-tech alternatives. Unfortunately, in our haste to get this 
legislation to the floor that solves, as I have mentioned, an imaginary 
problem, we squandered the opportunity to address one that is all too 
real, and that is the prices which Americans will pay for local 
telephone service if today's disparate regulatory treatment is 
permitted to continue.
  Whether a service is offered by the Internet or through a traditional 
telephone network, the attendant obligations to support the universal 
service should be the same. I hope the majority will address this 
serious inequity with due haste so that the American people can be duly 
protected against the sharp rise in the price for one of their most 
essential communications needs, and that is plain, old-fashioned 
telephone service.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Congressman Schnell may indeed be 
a bogus Congressman but the issue is not bogus. There are real lawyers 
litigating in the courts on this issue today, and real debate before 
the FCC.
  This bill puts an end to the debate and protects the Internet from 
per minute charges for all of those who have affordable access today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a real Congressman, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a dear friend and the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, we have all received thousands and thousands 
of e-mails from our constituents who have been outraged about erroneous 
reports that Congress was soon going to consider Congressman Schnell's 
bill H.B. 602P, which purportedly would impose a surcharge on literally 
every e-mail sent by an individual. Yes, yes, that rumor is false but 
around the same time another e-mail campaign suggested that the FCC was 
in fact going to impose a per minute access fee on Internet use, and 
again our constituents flooded our offices with e-mails to express 
their outrage.

[[Page 7909]]

  It is undisputed that the FCC's unelected bureaucrats currently do 
have the power to authorize permitted access charges on Internet use, 
their claims that they have no intention of doing so disregarded. As we 
all know, the road to hell was paved with good intentions, and one need 
look no further than the e-rate tax to know how the FCC's unelected 
bureaucrats have recently used their authority to increase the 
Government's take by a billion dollars through an increase on every 
American's long distance charges.
  The question is this: Should we trust the unelected bureaucrats at 
the FCC to keep their hands out of the pockets of Internet users, or 
should Congress pull the plug once and for all?
  Our constituents have e-mailed us. They have talked to us through 
letters to the editor. They have come to our town meetings and they 
have said that they want us to pull the plug once and for all. That is 
why we need to pass this legislation this morning.
  H.R. 1291 will prevent a stop-watch from being placed on the Internet 
so that our constituents are not charged by the minute when they surf 
the Web or when they e-mail their friends, families, customers or even 
us, Members of Congress, for that matter.
  Our constituents are already paying for the phone service and a 
monthly fee usually to their Internet service provider as well. 
Clearly, if our constituents were charged by the minute when they 
surfed the Web or e-mailed, this would drastically increase the cost 
and dramatically inhibit their use of the Internet, perhaps as much as 
$400 over the course of the year.
  This would disproportionately impact folks who communicate by e-mail, 
particularly families with children in the military overseas, or 
children who are in college far away from home, brothers and sisters, 
families who are scattered across our Nation, even around the globe, 
and seniors on fixed incomes who have begun to communicate by e-mail to 
their grandkids.
  We cannot let this happen and this bill would prevent it. I am 
pleased that 141 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have 
cosponsored this legislation.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) for all their efforts to ensure that this bill is on the floor 
today. I introduced it almost a year and a half ago and I am pleased to 
say we hope to pass it this morning.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Internet 
Access Charge Prohibition Act. Last week, this Congress voted 
overwhelmingly to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes by 5 years. 
This was an important first step in our efforts to address the 
recommendations of the Electronic Commerce Advisory Commission Report, 
the Gilmore Commission report.
  Today we are taking another important step in advancing the 
Commission's recommendations to prevent the Federal Government from 
imposing charges on Internet access. An important component of the 
eContract2000 unveiled last week was to expand digital opportunities 
for all Americans. The Internet provides new and exciting opportunities 
for all Americans to communicate, learn and to be entertained. It is 
the engine of our economic growth, but it is also a force for freedom 
and opportunity. Banning taxes and fees on Internet access helps ensure 
that this opportunity is available at the lower cost to more consumers. 
One of the main reasons that the Internet has grown so quickly has been 
the relative lack of taxes and regulations. In our eContract, we 
promise to stick to the principle that freedom, not government 
intervention, is the answer to maintaining and expanding that growth. 
This bill is part of that promise.
  Mr. Speaker, some may be disappointed that this bill does not address 
other related telecommunications issues, which are more complex and 
very controversial. As with any bill, the fact that Congress has not 
addressed an issue today does not mean that it will not address it in 
the future. There is a time and place for Congress to address those 
questions more thoroughly and with more reasoned thought. Silence by 
Congress on these other complex and controversial issues should not be 
interpreted as anything other than that they are complex and 
controversial issues.
  H.R. 1291 is intended as a simple, straightforward bill designed to 
ban access charges on the Internet. Please join me today in voting to 
keep the Internet free of excessive taxes, fees and regulations so that 
we can provide more digital opportunities for more Americans.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here on the House floor today 
debating a bill that flew through the Committee on Commerce, skipping a 
subcommittee markup in order to address some Internet access charge 
issues. Now many Members have received letters about a bill that would 
impose a modem tax, a per-minute-fee on e-mail or consumers' general 
Internet use. This fictitious bill sponsored by the equally fictitious 
Representative Schnell purports to impose new fees on Internet use.
  The proposal here on the floor, which is styled as a remedy to any 
chance that the FCC might some day permit access charges to be imposed 
on Internet service providers, is also a work of fiction. This is not a 
bill that we should send on to President Clinton. This is a bill that 
should be sent over to the Federal Trade Commission for false 
advertising.
  This bill does not prohibit per minute access charges on Internet 
service providers. Let me repeat that thought. This bill does not 
prohibit per minute access charges on Internet service providers. This 
bill only prohibits access charges that are for universal service to 
help poor people, to help rural Americans. That is the only thing that 
it prohibits.
  The only thing that this bill prohibits is for charges to be assessed 
that ensures that inner-city residents who cannot afford phone service 
are given access to it; that ensures that rural Americans who have 
always been given subsidies through the universal service charge are 
prohibited from looking at this as a source of revenues in order to 
help those rural Americans, in order to help those inner-city Americans 
be given access to phone service.
  This bill only prohibits access charges that help those people. 
Representative Schnell, this fictitious Congressman to whom we are 
responding right now, his idea, his vision of not helping those poor 
people is alive and well in this bill on the floor here today. Under 
this bill, access charges would be permitted as long as they do not go 
to universal service. In other words, access charges levied by local 
phone companies to recoup their costs or for profit for themselves are 
fully permitted under this bill.
  So this is a great moment here for the Congress? We are going to 
prohibit anything from being done for poor people or rural Americans 
for their phone service, but we are going to make sure and protect the 
phone companies so that they can make more profits. I think this is an 
emergency bill of the highest and most important, paramount interest if 
that is why we are out here, just to help phone companies and to make 
sure that poor people cannot be helped.
  Since today there is a roaring debate about whether and, if so, how 
much of today's access charges actually support universal service, the 
prohibition contained in the bill actually prohibits very little. Any 
Internet companies that think that today's bill codifies the Internet 
access charge exemption are quite mistaken. We are not. Phone companies 
can still tip them upside down under this bill.

[[Page 7910]]

  In addition, the second part of the bill that gives the FCC a big 
legislative wink to look at access charges on Internet telephone 
providers is also something that is very questionable.
  I offered an amendment in the committee to prohibit the FCC from 
authorizing per minute charges on Internet telephone calls. It would 
have allowed a flat rate fee for universal service so that all 
competitors contributed to universal service but would have banned per 
minute charges for Internet telephone service. I believe we need to 
safeguard the flat rate nature of the Internet for consumers. At the 
full committee markup, I was told that prohibiting per minute charges 
on Internet telephone calls was premature, premature. Why on earth 
would we ever want to permit the FCC from allowing per minute charges 
or per minute fees on the Internet for anything? When would this be a 
good idea? The only people who want per minute charges on Internet 
telephone calls are those who do not want to compete in the marketplace 
against flat rate telephone calls, and that is why this bill is out 
here on the floor.
  Moreover, creating a glaring savings clause in the bill for per 
minute charges on Internet telephone calls ignores the fact that 
assessing per minute charges would pose a huge privacy issue. Who is 
going to monitor someone's Internet usage to see whether their bits are 
e-mail bits, which are Web surfing bits and which are telephone calls? 
Is the FCC going to be checking out every one of our phone bills to see 
which one of us is using it for which?
  I think we can codify the existing Internet access exemption, but 
this bill only does part of it. Moreover, I think that we can codify 
the existing Internet charge access exemption, but this bill only does 
part of it.

                              {time}  1045

  Moreover, I think we need to move quickly to prohibit per minute 
charges for Internet telephone calls, which this bill specifically 
fails to do. That failure is very, very troubling for the future of the 
Internet's flat rate pricing structure, and one that every high-tech 
company and Internet consumer should take notice of. This is not a good 
bill. This heads in just the opposite direction of where we should be 
heading with the Internet, the flat rate system we have had for the 
last 13 years. A no vote is justified.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would like to join other Members in support of the bill offered by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), as it was originally 
introduced.
  Avoiding per-minute charges for Internet access service, as we have 
since 1987, remains a worthwhile objective. How we treat Internet 
telephony will dictate the extent to which millions of Americans choose 
an affordable, yet innovative, alternative to traditional telephone 
services today.
  This is why I share the view of others that the SEC should not rush 
in and impose access charge regimes on providers of Internet telephone 
services. Access charges were designed in the wake of the break-up of 
AT&T to require long distance providers a means to compensate the local 
telephone monopoly.
  The FCC should carefully study the issue and reform today's current 
access charge regime before it rushes in to impose old regulations on 
new Internet applications.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1291, and 
congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for 
his leadership. I believe Congress is well-intentioned today by not 
allowing the FCC the ability to impose per minute charges on Internet 
access services.
  I want to say so long to Congressman Snell and his 602-P legislation. 
I am sure everyone has received hundreds if not thousands of e-mails, 
like we have in our office, concerning this fictitious Member of 
Congress and this fictitious legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, in our markup my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), our ranking member, said sometimes this Congress does 
better by sponsoring fictitious bills by fictitious Members than they 
do real life legislation. H.R. 1291 is real life legislation, but I 
agree with the gentleman, oftentimes. Hopefully the voters would not 
have elected Congressman Schnell, anyway, if he had introduced such a 
bill.
  We all know that per minute access would devastate the Internet. The 
explosive growth in data traffic has clearly demonstrated that per 
minute access charges would quickly drive consumers off the Internet. I 
do not believe that the intention of anyone here is to do that. We need 
to expand the Internet and continue its growth, and allow people to 
expand the ability that it provides.
  Because access fees were originally designed for voice traffic, there 
was little concern about adding a few cents per minute to fund the 
maintenance of the telecommunications infrastructure. Unfortunately, 
the length of consumers' calls differs from the amount of time 
consumers may be online, and access charges were designed for the 
typical 5-minute phone call. They were not intended for the 45 minutes 
average that our constituents spend online on the Internet.
  I do have some concern, and I know we tried to address it in the 
committee, about the impact this would have on the solvency of the 
universal service fund. We do not know what telephone service will look 
like 5 years from now, but hopefully this Congress will be responsive 
and will pass this bill today.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we have here a bill which has merit, limited. We have a 
bill which is directed at solving a problem which really does not 
exist. We have need to address the major problem of the universal 
service fund, which may very well be drying up under this, which will 
result in significant cost increases to inner city dwellers and to 
residents of rural areas.
  It is a shame that we are not addressing the more important questions 
that we need to address, rather than to respond in this hasty fashion 
to a problem which really does not exist.
  The first application for this kind of relief had begun very shortly 
after the FCC made Internet charges no longer possible back in the 
1980s. They have had many applications for this kind of thing since and 
have never once accorded any reality to those charges, so I think it 
would be better that we address real problems rather than fictitious 
ones.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first point out that there is no contribution to 
universal service right now in any access charge assessed against 
Internet users for data services. This is not occurring. The FCC has an 
exemption on the books right now that prevents such access charges for 
universal service. Universal service is not threatened by this bill 
today, and no one should feel otherwise.
  Secondly, there is no Member of the House who has proposed to make 
access charges for data services on the Internet support universal 
service. The only person who suggested that is this artificial bogus 
Congressman, Congressman Schnell, that is the subject of some e-mail 
conversation on the web.
  Third, if there was an opportunity to create a digital divide here, 
it would be in the case if Congressman Schnell or some litigator in the 
Eighth Circuit or some litigator at the FCC ever succeeded in changing 
the FCC's exemption.
  If ever these litigators succeeded in assessing per minute charges 
for data use of the Internet, indeed, we would be

[[Page 7911]]

helping to create a digital divide. It is the absence of per minute 
charges on the Internet that is making the Internet affordable to poor 
people, to children, to struggling new-coming businesses on the web; to 
the growth, in fact, of the electronic commerce in America and across 
the world.
  It is the absence of per minute charges that is helping us to make 
sure that a digital divide does not happen when it comes to access to 
the Internet for children, libraries, hospitals, schools, for people in 
general in this country.
  Today we codify that rule. In this bill we say never shall the FCC 
assess per minute charges for access to the Internet for data services. 
That is a good thing. We ought to put this to rest. This bill does it. 
I commend my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for doing 
so.
  We leave to a future debate the question of telephone service, where 
indeed universal service is critically important. We leave that debate 
open. We make no judgment. We are neutral on that point.
  This is a good bill. It deserves the support of the House. I urge its 
final passage.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, the bill considered by the House today 
should put to rest any undue concern on the part of the American people 
that Congress intends to tax their Internet access. By keeping Internet 
service unregulated and unburdened by taxation, we have allowed 
millions of Americans to access these services and, in turn, created a 
boom in electronic commerce that has transformed the way we live and do 
business today in this country.
  H.R. 1291 reaffirms the decision made more than a decade ago that 
access fees should not be imposed on Internet service providers. This 
has allowed consumers in droves to access the Internet on an affordable 
flat-rate basis, rather than a per-minute basis. It's simple economics: 
the less you tax supply, the more consumer demand you create.
  I recognize that parts of this bill might create the mistaken 
impression that Congress is encouraging Federal regulators to impose 
access fees on Internet telephone services. I want to make clear that 
this bill is no way meant to encourage the FCC to apply existing access 
charges to providers of Internet telephone services. Rather than pile 
on additional charges for Internet users, we ought to first figure out 
how to reform telephone access charges as Congress instructed the FCC 
to do in 1996. The last thing we want to do is impose charges that will 
discourage consumers from embracing the Internet and the innovative 
services that will revolutionize the way we live and work.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1291, the Internet 
Access Charge Prohibition Act. This legislation will ensure that 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are not required to pay access 
charges to connect to the Internet. As a result, consumers will 
continue to have lower prices for their Internet access.
  In this Information Age, the number of consumers who use the Internet 
daily for their work and education continues to grow. This legislation 
will ensure that Internet access remains reasonable and accessible for 
all Americans.
  In 1983, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established 
rules which require long distance companies to pay ``access charges'' 
to local telephone companies for connecting a long-distance call to 
local telephone networks. These access charges are paid to both 
networks where the call originates and where the call ends. In 
addition, part of these access charges help to pay for the Universal 
Service Fund which subsidizes the cost of telephone services to rural 
and high-cost areas and low-cost individuals. In addition, this 
Universal Service Fund helps to provide low-cost Internet connections 
for schools and libraries. The current average access charge is 2.4 
cents-per-minute which is paid by consumers.
  The FCC however, does not permit local telephone companies to impose 
these access charges to ISPs because they classify these ISPs as 
``enhanced service providers.'' Recently, the FCC reviewed this matter 
again and determined that ISPs should continue to be exempt from these 
access charges. In May 1997, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth 
Circuit upheld this FCC decision and this decision remains in effect 
today.
  Regrettably, there is a persistent rumor on the Internet that these 
fees are going to be imposed on all electronic mail (E-mail) messages. 
In my congressional district, I have heard from many constituents that 
they are concerned about the burden that these fees would impose upon 
them. This legislation, H.R.. 1291, would prohibit the FCC from 
imposing any per-minute access fees on ISPs if such fees are going to 
be dedicated to the federal Universal Service Fund activities. This 
legislation will permanently protect consumers who use the Internet 
daily. I am pleased that Congress has acted to provide this common-
sense consumer protection to all Internet users.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 1291.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join other 
Members in applauding the intention of Mr. Upton's bill as introduced. 
Avoiding per-minute charges for Internet access services is a very 
worthy goal. The use of per-minute access charges for the Internet has 
plagued the development of the Internet is no many other countries. We 
should do what is needed to continue a flat-rate charging mechanism.
  However, H.R. 1291 also includes a ``Rule of Construction'' that I 
find a little troubling. The provision says that nothing in the bill 
precludes the FCC from imposing access charges on Internet telephone 
providers. This refers to the charges long-distance telephone companies 
must pay to local telephone companies for connecting a long-distance 
call to local telephone networks--both where the call originates and 
where it terminates.
  I don't believe that this provision is intended to encourage the FCC 
to rush in and impose today's access charge regime on providers of 
Internet telephone services. Nor do I think the FCC has plans to impose 
any access charges at the present time.
  Still, given the wording of this provision, I think it's important to 
emphasize that an imposition of old-style access charges on Internet 
telephony would be short-sighted. Access charges are based on a 
distinction between local and long-distance that the Internet is 
rendering irrelevant. The FCC should carefully study the issue and 
reform today's current access charge regime before it rushes in to 
impose old regulation on new Internet applications.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1291, the Internet 
Access Charge Prohibition Act of 2000, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this bill.
  The Committee on Commerce last week reported H.R. 1291, a bill that 
was introduced by my friend and colleague from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
  His bill, H.R. 1291, will help to ensure consumers continue to have 
affordable access to the Internet. More to the point, his bill will 
block the FCC's ability to impose per-minute charges on consumers' 
Internet access services, when those charges are intended for support 
of universal service.
  In doing so, this bill will help preserve the flat-rate pricing 
structure Americans enjoy today for their Internet services. Flat-rate 
pricing, as opposed to per-minute charging, is one of the reasons the 
Internet has flourished in this country, and why Internet usage is so 
high here, compared to other countries.
  Preserving that flat-rate pricing scheme is a commendable goal, and I 
think Mr. Upton for his efforts in that regard. The Report of the 
Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, chaired by my good friend, 
the governor of Virginia, Mr. Gilmore, recommended that Congress 
deregulate Internet access services. That is the intention of H.R. 
1291.
  I note that some have raised concerns that the bill could be used to 
impose per-minute access charges on provides of Internet telephony. 
That is not the intention, nor the effect, of the bill.
  The FCC is not encouraged by this bill to extend today's access 
charge regime on providers of Internet telephony. That regime was 
devised in a very different time, for a very different situation. 
access charges were designed in the early 1980's to compensate the 
local telephone companies for the use of their local loop facilities. 
These charges are predicated on a traditional distinction between local 
and long-distance services that the Internet is making irrelevant.
  Choice telephone service is merely one type of application over the 
Internet. Internet voice should no more be subject to per-minute access 
charges than Internet access services. If we want to avoid per-minute 
charges on the Internet, we should avoid such charges for all Internet 
applications.
  In the meantime, the House should begin the process now of ensuring 
that consumers can continue to have affordable, flat-rate prices for 
access to the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support the bill before 
us today.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion

[[Page 7912]]

offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1291, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof), the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________