[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10453-10466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 850 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 850

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband 
     networks and services. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding 
     clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the

[[Page 10454]]

     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1115


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. 
Res. 850. Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1, states: ``All points 
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.''
  The rule makes in order H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, 
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, which contains a large unfunded 
mandate on State and local governments in violation of section 425 of 
the Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that 
the Committee on Rules may not waive section 425; and, therefore, this 
rule violates section 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In accordance with section 426(b)(2) 
of the Act, the gentlewoman has met the threshold burden to identify 
the specific language in the resolution on which the point of order is 
predicated.
  Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Baldwin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
each will control 10 minutes of debate on the question of 
consideration.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate the Chair 
will put the question of consideration, to wit: Will the House now 
consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in January of 1995 in the first few weeks after the 
Republicans took control of this House for the first time in 40 years, 
they passed a bill they proudly called the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.
  The goals of this bill, they argued at the time, were honesty and 
accountability. It would force the Congress to publicly acknowledge 
when it passed legislation that imposed large, unreimbursed 
uncompensated costs known as unfunded mandates on State and local 
governments.
  As our former colleague and current director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Rob Portman, said during the debate back in 
1995, ``No significant unfunded mandate can now go through Congress 
without Members having to vote up or down in the public view.''
  But here we are 11 years later and the tables have turned. My 
Republican colleagues are bringing to the floor a bill that imposes 
hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded mandates on communities 
across this country whose local public, educational, and government 
accessible channels, known as PEG access channels, as well as 
institutional networks known as I-Nets, over which our police, fire and 
emergency communications often travel, will be gutted by the 
legislation we are considering today creating a national cable 
franchise system.
  As provided under the rule, H.R. 5252, the Communications 
Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act, also known as the COPE 
Act, would limit available support for PEG access channels to a maximum 
of 1 percent of an operator's gross revenue, less than what many 
communities receive today. This legislation's one-size-fits-all 
approach fails to keep communities financially whole.
  Local cable franchises are long-term contracts signed between a cable 
operator and a community, and some go as long as 15 years. Yet this 
bill allows cable operators to walk away from those signed and sealed 
contracts, causing the city to lose long-term revenue it expected to 
get under those contracts.
  Many communities have made the decision in their local franchises to 
require more than 1 percent worth of PEG and I-Net support more than 
would be available under COPE. In those communities that make robust 
use of these resources, enactment of this bill may result in the loss 
of up to 67 percent of their budgets for these important and crucial 
services.
  Indeed, according to the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate 
for the bill, by prohibiting local franchising authorities from 
charging cable providers more than 1 percent of their gross revenues to 
provide PEG programming, enacting COPE would lead to a loss in State 
and local revenues estimated to be between $150 million and $450 
million by 2011. Even with projected offsets from other provisions of 
the bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the net cost 
of this mandate would likely fall between $100 million and $350 million 
per year by 2011.
  Because of CBO's conclusion that the annual cost of this mandate over 
the next 5 years will exceed $64 million, which triggers the unfunded 
mandate law that Republicans so proudly backed in 1995, I am raising 
this point of order against the rule.
  The fact is that the rule waives all points of order against this 
bill. The Budget Act specifically says that the Committee on Rules 
cannot waive points of order against unfunded mandates, yet the 
Republican leadership ignores this. So in the spirit of the debate in 
1995, I am raising this point of order that will force us all in the 
public view to vote up or down this unfunded mandate.
  During these really challenging economic times with very tight local 
and State budgets, how many States and localities can afford this? 
Local programming and police and fire communications traffic supported 
by I-Nets should not be allowed to be diminished through the passage of 
this bill. Yet because of this unfunded mandate, the city of Madison in 
my own congressional district will see losses in the tens of thousands 
of dollars per year, while larger franchises such as that in Montgomery 
County, Maryland, will suffer almost $2 million in losses.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record a chart compiled by the 
Alliance for Community Media detailing how 45 local franchising 
authorities in 13 States will lose huge percentages of their annual PEG 
funding under the COPE Act.
  During the committee markup of H.R. 5252, and subsequently at the 
Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment that would have remedied 
this problem. In addition to the option of a PEG fee based on 1 percent 
of the cable operator's gross revenue, my amendment allowed the 
franchising authority to continue requiring cable operators with a 
national franchise to pay a fee equivalent to the value on a per 
subscriber, per month basis of all PEG support currently provided by an 
incumbent cable operator in a franchise area pursuant to that 
incumbent's existing franchise agreement.
  This hold-harmless approach would have ensured the current level of 
PEG funding that was in no way diminished by the transition from local 
to national franchise systems.
  Under my amendment, the new national cable franchisee will not pay a 
single cent more than what the current incumbent cable providers are 
already paying. More importantly, my amendment would have eliminated 
this unfunded mandate that will cost local communities hundreds of 
millions of dollars. Unfortunately, my amendment was not allowed to 
come to the floor for a vote under this restrictive rule.
  Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes, the diverse and vibrant 
offerings of public access channels on cable television will face 
enormous challenges.
  I want to talk a little about the importance of PEG access channels 
as communities' resources. There are over 3,000 PEG access centers 
across the

[[Page 10455]]

country today representing 3,000 channels, 250,000 organizations and 
1.2 million volunteers.
  According to a survey of the National Association of 
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, 73 percent of communities 
with PEG capacity receive financial support from the cable operator 
under terms of the local franchise over and above the franchise fee. 
Whether it is in the form of an annual fee, a one-time grant, or use of 
a building or equipment, or a per subscriber fee, such resources are 
used to support the needs of local PEG communities in their production 
of local programming. These resources are used by schools for distance 
education, by our locally elected officials to improve governmental 
services and enhance democratic discourse, and by our communities as 
the last source of free speech over the medium of television.
  My congressional district in Wisconsin has one of the most diverse, 
enriching, and vibrant public access communities in the Nation. For 
over 30 years, Madison City Channel has helped connect Madison 
residents with their local government in much the same way C-SPAN 
allows our constituents to follow our actions here in Congress. Madison 
City Channel has provided that window into the workings of county and 
city governments, the levels of government that most directly impact 
the lives of our constituents on a daily basis.
  In addition, the school district operates two channels that feature a 
variety of school board meetings and forums, as well as interviews with 
school board members and administrators and sporting events. The 
channel also features student music events, math and science fairs, and 
news programming.
  PEG channels from the city of Whitewater in my district feature not 
just local election coverage, meetings of the city council and school 
board, but also programming produced by the local United Way, the 
Historical Society, and five local churches, among others.
  Overall, the 80-plus PEG access channels in Wisconsin perform 
invaluable services on a daily basis commercial free, with the sole 
basis of informing and educating our citizens.
  Diversity of programming and coverage are found in communities across 
the country. I want to note that in addition to coverage of government 
and educational affairs, different communities adopt various genres of 
programming to reflect their local interests. For example, religious 
programming represents 20 to 40 percent of programming in most public 
access centers, according to a survey of the National Association of 
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. And ``Army Newswatch'' is the 
most-syndicated program on PEG channels, with carriage on over 300 PEG 
channels nationwide. I know that many Members of Congress host their 
own public access shows on PEG channels to reach out and connect with 
their constituents.
  Preserving PEG funding is about preserving the local flavor and 
diversity of community voices. It is about transparency and 
accountability in our local government, and it is about strengthening 
the sense of shared neighborhoods and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, the House can either choose to consider this rule in 
spite of COPE's unfunded mandate; or it can send this rule back to 
committee, make my amendment in order, and eliminate the unfunded 
mandate upon which this point of order is predicated.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit these charts for the 
Record during the debate on the Point of Order that I raised against H. 
Res. 850 providing for the consideration of H.R. 5252, the 
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. The 
charts are compiled by the Alliance for Community Media detailing how 
49 local franchising authorities in 13 States will lose huge 
percentages of their annual PEG funding under the COPE Act.

                                 ANNUAL PEG SUPPORT FUNDING FROM CABLE COMPANIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Current PEG annual
                               funding\1\ (excluding
                                 state law-mandated    PEG annual funding under HR  Potential PEG annual funding
        Franchise area            franchise fee of       5252 and SB 2686 (1% of      loss under HR 5252 and SB
                                 $1.20/sub/year to           gross revenues)                    2686
                                  State and LFA)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts:
    Barnstable, Yarmouth,      $1,714,482                                 $369,774              $1,344,708 (78%)
     Chatham, Dennis, Harwich.  ($1,663,982 [4.5% of
                                gross revenues] plus
                                allocation of
                                $505,000 in initial
                                grants).
    Cambridge................  $1,215,148 ($965,148                        193,030               1,022,118 (84%)
                                in 2005, plus
                                $150,000/yr. grant,
                                plus allocation of
                                $1,000,000 capital
                                grant).
    Newton...................  $974,502 ($833,502                          208,375                 766,127 (79%)
                                [4% of gross
                                revenues], plus
                                $80,000/year in
                                other grants, plus
                                allocation of
                                $610,000 in initial
                                grants).
    Worcester................  $985,000 ($900,000                          300,000                 685,000 (70%)
                                [3% of gross
                                revenues] plus
                                allocation of
                                $850,000 in initial
                                grants).
    Billerica................  $594,721 ($539,721                          107,944                 486,777 (82%)
                                [5% of gross
                                revenues] plus
                                $55,OOO/year in
                                capital grants).
    New Bedford..............  $591,098 (3% of gross                       197,033                 394,065 (67%)
                                revenues).
    Malden...................  $457,500 ($400,000 in                        96,970                 360,530 (79%)
                                2005 plus allocation
                                of $575,000 initial
                                capital grant).
    Plymouth-Kingston........  $443,050 ($410,000                          136,667                 306,383 (69%)
                                [3% of gross
                                revenues] plus
                                allocation of
                                $330,500 in initial
                                grants).
    Norwood..................  $335,000 ($305,000                           61,000                 274,000 (82%)
                                [5% of gross
                                revenues] plus
                                allocation of
                                $300,000 in initial
                                grants).
    Fall River...............  $385,000 (2% of gross                       192,500                 192,500 (50%)
                                revenues).
    Holliston................  $131,998 ($106,998                           21,400                 110,598 (84%)
                                [5% of gross
                                revenues] plus
                                $25,000/year in
                                other grants).
    Carver...................  $82,300 ($74,000 [3%                         24,667                  57,633 (70%)
                                of gross revenues]
                                plus allocation of
                                $83,000 in initial
                                grants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                                 Current PEG annual    PEG annual funding under HR
        Franchise area           funding (excluding      5252 and SB 2686 (1% of       PEG annual funding loss
                                  franchise fees)*           gross revenues)          under HR 5252 and SB 2686
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota:
    St. Paul.................  $1,437,000 ($761,000                        361,000               1,076,000 (75%)
                                for operations,
                                $676,000 for
                                equipment).
    Arden Hills, Falcon        $1,046,023 ($951,629                        218,022                 828,001 (79%)
     Heights, Lauderdale,       operating grant,
     Little Canada, Mounds      $94,394 equipment
     View, New Brighton,        grant).
     North Oaks, Roseville,
     Shoreview, St. Anthony.
    Birchwood, Dellwood,       $811,000 ($771,000                          222,000                 589,000 (73%)
     Grant, Lake Elmo,          for operations,
     Mahtomedi, Maplewood,      $40,000 for
     North Saint Paul,          equipment).
     Oakdale, Vadnais
     Heights, White Bear
     Lake, White Bear
     Township, Willernie.
    Blaine, Centerville,       $591,190 (for                               139,188                 452,002 (76%)
     Circle Pines, Ham Lake,    operations and
     Lexington, Lino Lakes,     equipment).
     Spring Lake Park.
    Eagan, Burnsville........  $647,982 (for                               225,237                 422,745 (65%)
                                operations and
                                equipment).
    Andover, Anoka, Champlin,  $357,000 ($311,000                          125,506                 231,494 (65%)
     Ramsey.                    for operations,
                                $46,000 for
                                equipment).
    Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn  $716,266 (for                               500,000                 216,266 (30%)
     Park, Crystal, Golden      operations and
     Valley, Maple Grove, New   equipment).
     Hope, Osseo, Plymouth,
     Robbinsdale.
    Inver Grove Heights,       $293,000 ($235,000                          135,000                 158,000 (54%)
     Lilydale, Mendota,         for operations,
     Mendota Heights, South     $58,000 for
     St. Paul, Sunfish Lake,    equipment).
     West St. Paul.
    Cities of Stillwater, Oak  $109,000 (for                                38,300                  70,700 (65%)
     Park Heights, Bayport,     operations and
     and the Townships of       equipment).
     Baytown and Stillwater.
Maryland:
    Montgomery County........  $3,703,519                                1,787,200               1,916,319 (52%)
                                ($2,013,993 for PEG
                                operations plus
                                $236,100 for PEG
                                capital plus
                                $1,453,426 for I-Net
                                operations).
Washington, DC:
    Washington, DC...........  $2,160,000...........                     1,080,000               1,080,000 (50%)
Oregon:
    Portland.................  $3,000,000 (3% of                         1,000,000               2,000,000 (67%)
                                gross revenues).
    Multnomah County.........  $561,000 (3% of gross                       187,000                 374,000 (67%)
                                revenues).
    Salem....................  $400,000 (1.5% of                           265,000                 135,000 (34%)
                                gross revenues).
    McMinnville..............  $73,297 ($1.00 per                           43,215                  30,082 (41%)
                                subscriber per
                                month).

[[Page 10456]]

 
Virginia:
    Fairfax County...........  $4,500,000 (3% of                         1,500,000               3,000,000 (67%)
                                gross revenues).
    Arlington County.........  $1,439,000 ($855,OOO/                       591,500                 847,500 (59%)
                                year; plus $584,000
                                in 2005--1% of gross
                                revenues).
Arizona:
    Tucson...................  $1,500,000 ($1.35 per                       700,000                 800,000 (53%)
                                subscriber per
                                month).
Michigan:
    Bloomfield Township......  $313,243 (3% of gross                        97,910                 215,333 (69%)
                                revenues plus
                                $33,500 annual
                                grant).
California:
    Santa Maria & Lompoc.....  $464,000 ($395,000 in                       142,200                 321,800 (69%)
                                2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $69,000/year, from
                                $828,000 initial
                                grant).
    Glendale.................  $613,333 ($600,000 in                       300,000                 313,333 (51%)
                                2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $13,333/year, from
                                $200,000 initial
                                grant).
    Ventura..................  $350,292 ($263,625 in                       146,050                 204,242 (58%)
                                2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $86,667/year from
                                $1,040,000 in Yrs. 1-
                                3 grants).
    Gilroy, Hollister, San     $259,471 ($189,471 in                        63,157                 196,314 (76%)
     Juan Bautista.             2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $70,000/year, from
                                $700,000 initial
                                grant).
    Monterey.................  $231,622 ($151,622 in                        68,571                 163,051 (70%)
                                2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $80,000/year, from
                                $800,000 initial
                                grant).
    Palo Alto, East Palo       $304,295 (88 cents                          163,902                 140,393 (46%)
     Alto, Menlo Park,          per subscriber per
     Atherton.                  month).
    Humboldt County, Eureka,   $293,750 ($200,000/                         180,000                 113,750 (39%)
     Arcata, Fortuna,           year; plus
     Ferndale, Blue Lake, Rio   allocation of
     Dell.                      $93,750/year, from
                                $750,000 in Yrs. 1-2
                                grants).
    Oceanside................  $487,333 ($214,000 in                       389,538                  97,795 (20%)
                                2005; plus
                                allocation of
                                $273,333/year from
                                $4,100,000 in Yrs. 1-
                                3 grants).
    Santa Rosa...............  $316,667 ($150,000/                         260,000                  56,667 (18%)
                                year; plus
                                allocation of
                                $166,667/year, from
                                $2,500,000 in other
                                grants during
                                franchise term).
    Monrovia.................  $83,000 ($46,000 plus                        37,000                  46,000 (55%)
                                1% of gross
                                revenues).
    Lawndale.................  $60,000 (2% of gross                         30,000                  30,000 (50%)
                                revenues).
Ohio:
    Cincinnati...............  $756,000 ($0.96 per                         497,956                 258,044 (34%)
                                subscriber per
                                month).
    Forest Park, Greenhills,   $161,665 ($1.06 per                         118,682                  42,983 (27%)
     Springfield Township.      subscriber per
                                month).
Wisconsin:
    West Allis...............  $200,000 (annual                            104,400                  95,600 (48%)
                                grant).
    River Falls..............  $44,500 ($1.32 per                           15,790                  28,710 (65%)
                                subscriber per
                                month).
    Madison..................  $388,000 ($0.60 per                         360,000                   28,000 (7%)
                                subscriber per
                                month).
Illinois:
    Urbana...................  $162,536 (2% of gross                        81,268                  81,268 (50%)
                                revenues).
Kansas:
    Salina...................  $135,000 (70 cents                           95,549                 39,451 (29%)
                                per subscriber per
                                month).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Massachusetts State law currently provides that any funding above the state mandated fees be spent on
  communications operations including PEG, I-Net and others. This chart anticipates state law changing to allow
  franchise fees to be used for other purposes.
*In addition to the annual PEG support funding described in this chart, other PEG and in-kind services resources
  are often provided by cable companies that serve these communities, including connections for program
  origination from multiple locations, free cable modem service, promotional assistance (e.g., ad avails,
  program listings on TV Guide channel, annual bill-stuffers), Institutional Networks, etc.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not whether we should 
eliminate any mandates, but whether we should consider this bill at 
all.
  The one thing that is clear is that we need national video 
competition. Prices will fall and consumers will benefit.
  The opponents of this legislation would have you believe that the 
current locality-by-locality method of video franchise helps consumers. 
The track record is just the opposite. Consumers benefit when there are 
low barriers to entry for competition.
  The distinguished proponent of this point of order wants to keep 
those barriers in place. If you vote against this question, you are 
voting not to proceed with consideration of the rule and of the bill. 
That means you are voting to deprive the American consumer of video 
competition, lower prices, and new services.
  Americans who are demanding this competition for these services. We 
need to move forward with this bill and with this rule so that we can 
debate the best ways to deliver what our constituents are asking for. I 
encourage my colleagues to oppose this maneuver and vote ``yes'' on the 
question of consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, next week the President of the 
United States is expected to sign in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden 
a bill that increases fines for utterances of an obscene nature over 
the public airwaves. That is Chairman Upton's bill, and I am a sponsor 
and strong supporter of it.

                              {time}  1130

  If C-SPAN were over the public airways and not cable, I would 
probably be the first victim fined, the first violator of that bill 
because of my reaction, not to the gentlewoman's point of order, which 
is within the rules of the House, but because of the underlying premise 
that the Congressional Budget Office has propounded that there is an 
unfunded mandate in this bill. The thing that I can say that is 
printable is that is hogwash.
  Now, we went down to the dictionary that is always here in the House 
of Representatives and looked up the word ``mandate.'' The number one 
definition, a command to act in a particular way on a public issue. 
That is the number one definition for mandate in that dictionary: a 
command to act in a particular way on a public issue.
  Now, if the bill before us had told the cities that they had to 
provide cable service themselves to every citizen in their community 
and not compensated for it with Federal dollars, that would be a 
mandate.
  If the bill had said that every Member of Congress in the House and 
the Senate had to be provided an office with a television studio by the 
cities, that would be a mandate; and it would be unfunded. It is not in 
this bill.
  What is the Congressional Budget Office definition of an unfunded 
mandate? It is an Alice in Wonderland definition. It is a reverse 
definition. Here is what the bill actually does: it says every city 
that is currently collecting fees gets to continue to collect those 
fees, or it can negotiate a better deal if they want to. It says that 
every new entrant that wants to get the so-called national franchise, 
if they let the city know that they want to provide video services to 
that city, they have to pay that city up to 5 percent, plus an 
additional 1 percent for all of these PEG channels, public education 
and governmental channels, that the gentlewoman from Wisconsin was just 
talking about. It says these new entrants have to pay that.
  There are studies out that says because of this provision that these 
new entrants are going to have to pay the cities additional revenue; 
that the cities, in total, may get up to 40 percent or more of 
additional revenues, more money not less money. That is not an unfunded 
mandate. That is what we in Texas call found money. Oh, here's another 
$150,000 for next year, or two million or whatever it is.
  The bill before us allows the cities to charge an additional 1 
percent. I didn't want to do that. I was opposed to that. But Mr. Upton 
and some of my friends on the Democratic side that were negotiating on 
the bill thought that was a fair thing to do. And so it is in the bill. 
If there is one thing that I am sure of, it is that there is no 
unfunded mandate in this bill.

[[Page 10457]]

  Now, I will tell you how energized I am about this. I am going to go 
out and draft me a CBO reform bill and I am going to introduce it and I 
am going to get the committee of jurisdiction, which I think is the 
Budget Committee, to try to hold a hearing on it or move it or do 
something about it. I am tired of a CBO that looks like an Alice in 
Wonderland operation.
  If there really were an unfunded mandate in this bill, I would oppose 
it. But there is not. And so I strongly, I respect the rights of the 
minority to use every parliamentary procedure they have, and the CBO 
did issue a report that does say there is an unfunded mandate. That is 
a true statement. But what the CBO calls an unfunded mandate is 
absolute hogwash.
  So I oppose this point of order, and hope that we will sustain the 
underlying rule and move forward on the base bill and have an honest 
debate on the merits of the bill later this afternoon and tomorrow.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, just to correct the 
record, I was not a big supporter of this 6 percent from the beginning. 
And I can point the finger at others. I was not the instigator of this. 
However, it is part of the bill. And, in fact, a study was put out 
that, according to the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic 
Public Policy Studies, indicates that competition and the rise in the 
number of cable providers will cause total cable industry revenues to 
go up such that the 5 percent franchise fee, along with the 1 percent 
increase for the PEG channels, will see revenues increase by as much as 
30 percent.
  Now, I might note, where does that 30 percent come from? It comes 
from us, the consumers. It is passed along. So the cities are going to 
actually increase revenue. They are going to still maintain the control 
of the right-of-way, as they should.
  I don't know where the CBO came up with this study. I know that I am 
told that they conferred with our staff. They obviously didn't listen 
very well.
  I look forward to cosponsoring the legislation along with Chairman 
Barton. I think that this does need to be addressed.
  CBO, I think, in addition, made another major mistake on the 
transition to digital bill that the President signed into law earlier 
this year when they calculated that the sale of the spectrum, the 
analog spectrum, would bring in only $10 billion when, in fact, we saw 
some private studies that it might be as much as $20 billion.
  So, again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to support the 
Rules Committee and deny this motion.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we had 
this opportunity. I think it is appropriate for the minority to use the 
rights available to it. It is part of the democratic process, very 
proud of that, zealously need to defend that.
  At the same time, it is important for the facts to come out, and 
Chairman Barton has explained how this bill provides the cities with an 
option to get another percent, to charge a fee of another percent that 
they can't charge under current law. That sounds to me like more funds 
than less. And yet it is called an unfunded mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to Chairman Barton.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me just recapitulate. Under 
current law, if you are a satellite provider, you don't have to pay any 
franchise fee, any at all. Now, if you are a landlocked cable provider, 
you do have to pay some of these fees. They can be up to 5 percent, and 
they can charge some in-kind contribution for these pay channels. That 
is current law.
  Under the pending bill, if it were to become law, you get the 
existing franchise fees that are paid by the incumbent cable provider, 
plus the city can charge a 1 percent fee to the incumbent plus these 
new entrants are going to be automatically assessed up to 5 percent 
plus an additional 1 percent unless the city makes a different deal. 
Okay?
  Cities are going to have more money, more revenue sources. And the 
independent studies that have already come out say that, in most cases, 
city and local revenues are expected to grow as much as 30 percent. And 
I think they may be even higher than that.
  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not an unfunded mandate. That is not an 
unfunded mandate. So I strongly oppose this point of order and hope 
that we sustain the base rule and move forward to debate the underlying 
bill.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts may state 
his inquiry.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, under the rules, is it the Congressional 
Budget Office that determines whether or not an item is an unfunded 
mandate or not?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Section 424 of the Congressional Budget Act 
does provide for estimates by the Congressional Budget Office of 
unfunded mandates.
  Mr. MARKEY. And in this instance, has the CBO not determined that 
there is an unfunded mandate that could be upwards of 500 million to 
1.5 billion on cities and towns over the next 5 years?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The issue of the estimate may be addressed 
in debate. The point of order was made against the resolution for 
waiving any point of order under the Congressional Budget Act, as 
provided by section 426 of such Act.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, is there anything left with the Contract 
With America? Is that an appropriate parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  All time having expired, pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the question is: Will the House now 
consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 254, 
nays 166, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               YEAS--254

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon

[[Page 10458]]


     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--166

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Andrews
     Bono
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gibbons
     Hyde
     Johnson (IL)
     Manzullo
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Reyes
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1206

  Mr. SPRATT, Mr. WATT and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WYNN, BOYD, MELANCON, INSLEE, RUSH, RUPPERSBERGER and Mrs. 
KELLY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed one vote on June 8, 
2006. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 850 
(Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5252, to promote the 
deployment of broadband networks and services).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion 
to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, for virtually every telecommunications service, 
consumers have a choice over which service they can obtain. They can 
comparison shop and get the deal they feel is best for their family 
based on service and on price.
  The reason that consumers can choose the best telecommunications deal 
for their family is because most telecommunications services are part 
of a competitive business. However, unfortunately, this is not true for 
video services. The lack of competition for cable television service 
means poorer service, higher prices, and less innovation for new 
products and services.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we allow competition for video services. The 
Federal Communications Commission has found that less than 2 percent of 
markets have face-to-face cable television competition. In the other 98 
percent of markets where there is no face-to-face competition, cable 
rates have increased approximately 85 percent since 1995.
  When there is competition, cable rates drop. According to the General 
Accounting Office, cable competition leads to a 15 percent decrease in 
costs for consumers. Bringing competition to long distance and wireless 
services has brought lower costs for consumers. For example, since 
1995, the cost for long distance telephone service has fallen 
approximately 50 percent. The cost of wireless minutes has fallen 
approximately 77 percent.
  This act, the COPE Act, removes barriers to entry for new competitors 
in the video services market by establishing clear Federal standards to 
replace the outdated local franchise approval process. There are over 
34,000 local franchise authorities. Negotiating just one local 
franchise can take years.
  Now, imagine, Mr. Speaker, negotiating 34,000 such agreements. One 
company official testified that, for example, if AT&T signed a 
franchise agreement every day, it would take more than 7 years to 
complete its deployment plan. Signing all of these agreements is 
prohibitively expensive to companies interested in offering video 
service.
  This system impedes entry by new competitors, and consumers end up 
paying the price. Even though companies will be able to get a national 
or a State franchise instead of negotiating with each of the local 
authorities, the local authorities will still retain many of their 
rights under the current system. The local franchise authorities, for 
example, will still have the right to manage their rights-of-way.
  They will receive a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of gross 
revenues. In addition to the franchise fee, they can receive an 
additional 1 percent for public, educational and governmental, so 
called PEG, channels and institutional networks.
  This bill includes stringent antidiscrimination provisions. A cable 
operator will not be able to deny access to its cable service to any 
group of potential residential cable service subscribers in a franchise 
area because of the income of that group.
  Any complaint filed by a local authority with the FCC must be 
completed in 60 days. If the FCC finds discriminatory practices against 
a group, the FCC must ensure that the cable operator extends access to 
that group within a reasonable period of time. The FCC may also order 
that the cable operator pay penalties of up to $500,000 per day, per 
violation to the franchise authority.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, to improving cable competition, this 
legislation also provides the FCC with explicit authority to enforce 
its broadband policy statement. The statement has four principles that 
the FCC can enforce with regard to net neutrality.
  Those are that consumers are entitled to, first, access to lawful 
Internet content of their choice; two, run applications and services of 
their choice subject to the needs of law enforcement; three, connect 
their choice of

[[Page 10459]]

legal devices that do not harm the network; and, four, competition 
among network providers, application and service providers, and content 
providers. Consumers are entitled to that as well.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced by Chairman Barton and 
reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a bipartisan vote 
of 42-12. Most impressive. This is good legislation that will bring 
competition to cable television finally in this country and lower the 
price of video services to consumers.
  I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton and 
Representative Rush for their hard work and their leadership on this 
very important issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our democratic system of government promises that the 
will of the people it serves will be heard. But it does more than that. 
It also promises that the right to debate will not be trampled 
underfoot by the might of simple majorities.
  In so doing, it seeks to protect the needs of all of its citizens, 
rather than simply those of the biggest, the richest, and the most 
well-connected groups in our society. For all of these reasons, the 
rule and the bill that we have before us today is onerous on two 
separate, but connected, levels.
  It should not be a handful of people in the back room that decides 
what ideas this democracy is allowed to consider. And yet while eight 
Democrat amendments were made in order last night in the Rules 
Committee, almost 20 were not.
  Among those silenced were crucial corrections to this legislation 
that would protect the needs of American consumers and citizens against 
the unchecked ambitions of some of our Nation's largest and most well-
connected companies, companies I might add that were perfectly willing 
to hand over all of our records to the government.
  Now, perhaps this makes sense, considering that what we have left is 
a bill that without amendment will radically undermine the technology 
that has been proven to embody the democratic ideals of our Nation in a 
way that few inventions ever have.

                              {time}  1215

  I am, of course, talking about the Internet. That is what my Democrat 
colleagues and I are talking about when we speak of an America that is 
for sale: Assaults on democracy here in the House that ripple out and 
hurt Americans everywhere.
  Consider some of the amendments the bill turned down yesterday, the 
Rules Committee turned down yesterday. Representatives Doyle and 
Dingell gave us an amendment that would give local officials and mayors 
some power over where and how telecommunications companies could build 
their infrastructure in their towns and cities. This bill will take 
that power away from them. But the majority did not allow us to debate 
the amendment today.
  Another amendment sought to require telecommunications companies to 
provide high speed Internet access not just to the well-off 
neighborhoods, but to all the neighborhoods in our cities and towns so 
that all our families would have access to the power and knowledge that 
comes with information and that amendment was rejected by the majority.
  Another amendment would have taken an aggressive stance against red 
lining, the practice of denying service or offering inferior service to 
consumers because of their race, national origin, religion or gender. 
That amendment was turned away by the Republican majority.
  Mr. Speaker, these were amendments written for the benefit of all 
Americans. They were designed not to unfairly impinge on the ability of 
telecommunication companies to do business, but rather to ensure the 
business done served the public good and the needs of all of us. But 
when we examine what was put into the bill before us, it makes sense 
that a handful of folks in the leadership decided for all of us that 
the amendments would be left out.
  The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 
2006 as it stands today will do much more to limit online opportunities 
than it will enhance the experiences of users or promote the Democratic 
digital flow of ideas. It is a bill written by and for a limited number 
of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also, they can make 
even more money and the American people will pay the price.
  It is indeed true that corporations like Verizon and AT&T have 
invested a great deal in the high technology and infrastructure 
empowering our Nation's economy, but they are being compensated richly 
for their efforts by ordinary consumers who pay to access their 
systems. Verizon, for example, is one of the largest corporations in 
America with annual revenues in excess of $75 billion a year.
  Because the information superhighway these companies help build has 
remained open to all and free of arbitrary tolls, it has been home to 
an unlimited profusion of new and novel companies. It is the basis of 
the greatest exchange of ideas, opinions and information in human 
history. It has become instrumental to our global economy and to our 
international political system, and it has allowed a free market to 
truly flourish.
  Today anyone with an idea or business concept can share it with 
literally billions of others. Open telecommunication systems have 
broken down walls and made old barriers obsolete. But my colleagues and 
I are not exaggerating when we say that all of that is threatened by 
this bill. It permits major telecom corporations to serve those who can 
pay them the most better than those who cannot pay. The Internet has 
traditionally been a true marketplace for ideas and commerce with small 
and large vendors competing on equal footing, a true community bazaar 
for the 21st century.
  This bill, if not amended, will bulldoze the dynamic Main Street 
style marketplace that is our Internet today and will replace it with a 
one-size fits all Wal-Mart superdome. We have all seen the effects that 
type of development has had on local communities all over America. Why 
on earth would we help the Republicans do the same thing to the 
Internet as well? Why should Americans accept the destruction of the 
very concept that makes the Internet what it is today?
  The truth is under this law, independent online media outlets and 
small Internet businesses will not be able to compete anymore. And 
Internet users will eventually have no choice but to use the services 
of an ever-dwindling number of online organizations. Innovation of all 
kinds will be stifled and the ultimate leveler of the playing field 
will have been forever tilted in favor of the already rich and already 
powerful. And all of this will have been done simply so the wealthy can 
make more money.
  The solution to this unacceptable outcome, Mr. Speaker, is known as 
net neutrality; and my colleagues, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo 
and Mr. Inslee have offered an amendment to enshrine that concept in 
this legislation.
  I should say, Mr. Speaker, that while the rule we are debating here 
today will fortunately allow us to debate the amendment, it does not 
make in order another fine net neutrality proposal that Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers developed in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Net neutrality is being portrayed by some as an attempt at excessive 
regulation, but the opposite is the truth. But what we are doing here 
today will have long lasting repercussions, Mr. Speaker. I pray we do 
it right.
  Net neutrality proposals like the one proposed in the Markey, 
Boucher, Eshoo, and Inslee amendment are the only way for us to keep 
the Internet open for all.
  These reforms we are proposing won't prevent telecommunications 
companies from building their networks and earning tremendous profits. 
. . . They just won't provide giant companies with a government 
sanctioned stranglehold on the Internet marketplace.

[[Page 10460]]

  What they will do instead is ensure that networks will be worth 
building--that the infinitely diverse universe of information, ideas, 
and entertainment that currently flows into homes around the world will 
be protected and perpetuated.
  Ultimately, this issue is about the freedom of the marketplace, and 
understanding the value of competition.
  The Republican leadership, who talk so much about benefits of 
competition and the value of free-markets have abandoned these core 
principles on this bill, in order to carry water for the biggest and 
richest telecommunications companies in the world.
  And when my friends on the other side of the aisle rejected important 
amendments to this bill designed to defend ordinary consumers and 
citizens against some of the largest companies around, they were 
rigging the game to ensure their own victory.
  In the process, I worry that this House leadership is headed toward 
selling out the needs of tens of millions of Americans yet again.
  But they have a chance to change my mind here today, and the minds of 
millions and millions of Americans who want an Internet not controlled 
by a handful of mega-corporations.
  They have a chance to stand up for the market place of ideas that the 
Internet has become . . . to embrace true competition instead of 
trampling it under the foot of big business.
  They have a chance to ensure that the Internet will truly belong to 
all Americans and that anyone who chooses may have a voice online. And 
that that voice won't be filtered by a few privileged super companies 
who have greased the skids in Congress.
  America deserves better than this, Mr. Speaker.
  And I know that quietly many of my Republican colleagues out there 
today agree with me on this issue.
  I just hope they are brave enough to stand with us.
  I urge everyone in this House to vote ``yes'' on the Markey, Boucher, 
Eshoo, and Inslee amendment.
  Without it, this legislation is little more than an unjustifiable 
attack on a technology with the rarest of potentials--to better the 
lives of everyone it touches.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have fashioned a very fair rule, very fair. Mr. 
Markey's amendment, he has worked long and hard on it, was in order on 
net neutrality, a very important issue. We look forward to considering 
it. My distinguished friend, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
his problem was that amendment was not germane.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to Ms. Slaughter that as Mr. Diaz-Balart has 
mentioned, the bill in question passed 42 to 12 in committee. Only 
rarely do you see a bill pass with only 20 percent in opposition to the 
bill. And during this extensive markup, there were plenty of amendments 
that were offered, many of them were defeated. And a lot of these 
amendments, particularly the Markey amendment, are going to be offered 
today. So the main concern that you have is a vote on net neutrality, 
and we are going to have that today. So I really think what you are 
complaining about is not of concern to members in general.
  The current requirement for new entrants into competitive cable 
service as has been pointed out are overly burdensome and serve as a 
barrier to entry. Because of the tireless work of Chairman Barton and 
also Mr. Upton, we have this bill before us, the Communication 
Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act, or we call COPE. So the 
requirement to negotiate local franchise fees as well as obligations of 
local franchising authorities, what they impose are delaying such entry 
and blocking the consumer benefits that such entry would provide.
  More competition would lead to lower prices, better service and 
greater innovation, and all of these benefits are positive for our 
constituents. The COPE Act creates a national framework for the 
regulation of cable services while striking the proper balance by 
preserving local government enforcement of local rights of way 
regulation and national consumer protection rules are in the bill.
  The bill also preserves local franchise fees and provides additional 
financial support for and carriage of educational, public and 
governmental programming. It is all there. In addition, the COPE Act 
also includes stricter net neutrality enforcement provisions. These 
folks against the bill will say there is nothing in the bill for 
compliance of net neutrality but they are wrong. In the bill it 
establishes penalties of up to half a million dollars for broadband 
providers that block lawful content. Mr. Speaker, the FCC would have 
explicit power to go after companies that violate the network 
neutrality issues for the first time in this bill.
  The FCC now has the ability to enforce their broadband policy 
statements and the principles included therein. Under this Act, the FCC 
can act swiftly to punish those who simply violate these principles.
  So free and open Internet is crucial to formulating an effective 
policy. We must not lose site of the fact that if the network providers 
really do act badly in the future, Congress can and I hope will, step 
in and legislate through tough rules. But for now the strict, strong 
enforcement provisions that are in this bill are a tough deterrent to 
anyone who would act to change the free and open nature of the 
Internet.
  I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time 
and her leadership on this important issue about openness and freedom 
on the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, House Democrats met with leaders around the 
country to create our innovation agenda, a commitment to 
competitiveness to keep America number one. One young technology leader 
told us, If you think you have seen it all on the Internet and 
broadband, you ain't seen nothing yet.
  The objective of this legislation, to create more competition in the 
broadband marketplace, is a laudable one. But a key goal of the 
telecommunications policy must be that everyone in America, from the 
most rural areas to the most urban, is never more than a key stroke or 
a mouse click away from the jobs and opportunity that broadband can 
create and support. Bridging the digital divide with inclusiveness must 
be a central value of our broadband efforts, yet today absent from this 
bill is that spirit of inclusiveness.
  Why are we not able to debate amendments that ensure that access is 
built out to the entire community and not limited by race or religion? 
Why are we not able to debate amendments to protect our local 
governments and enforce our local laws?
  In fact, on the previous vote on consideration of the resolution that 
Ms. Baldwin put forward on unfunded mandates, it was reported by the 
CBO that this bill could cost local governments about $350 million in 
unfunded mandates.
  It is interesting to me that the Republicans who have had not having 
unfunded mandates as a principle of their Contract with America, 100 
percent of the Republicans voted for an unfunded mandate for localities 
in our country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one 
Republican supported the principle of no unfunded mandates. What are 
the Republicans afraid of?
  Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by 
this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  One issue that we do have a chance to vote on today is the Markey 
amendment on net neutrality. Mr. Markey has offered an amendment that 
will continue the innovative tradition of the Internet by enacting net 
neutrality protections that ensure all consumers are able to access any 
content they wish with the same broadband speed and performance. The 
imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would 
unduly burden Web-based small businesses and start-ups. They would 
hamper communications by noncommercial users, those using religious

[[Page 10461]]

speech, promoting civic involvement and exercising first amendment 
freedoms.
  That is why organizations across the political spectrum support net 
neutrality, from the Gun Owners of America to Common Cause, from the 
Christian Coalition to the Service Employees International Union. 
America's most innovative companies like Google and eBay and YouTube 
and Yahoo also favor the Markey amendment.
  Without Net neutrality, the current experience that the Internet 
users enjoy today is in jeopardy. Without the Markey amendment, 
telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll 
lanes on the information superhighways. This strikes at the heart of 
the freedom and quality of the Internet.
  Today we can vote to retain the openness and innovation of the 
Internet. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the future, in favor 
of the Markey amendment, and against the restrictiveness of this rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and to 
support the bill, H.R. 5252, the COPE Act as we have called it. And I 
want to take a moment and thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton for 
their excellent work on this bill. I also want to thank Congressman 
Wynn who has worked with me on video choice and franchising and on 
these issues. It has been a bipartisan bill and it has been a 1-year 
debate, and I thank him for his leadership and his participation on 
this issue.

                              {time}  1230

  I think it is important to note that this bill came out of committee 
on a strong bipartisan vote, 42-12, and there is a reason that that 
happened. The reason for that is our constituents know that when we 
pass this bill that they are going to see greater access to broadband. 
They are going to have that coming into their communities, and they are 
going to have greater access. This is good for them, it is good for 
their communities, and it is good for economic development in those 
areas.
  Our constituents believe that they have the right, that they should 
have the opportunity, that they should have the access to something 
more than one single cable provider, one set of rabbit ears or a 
satellite; and I agree with them. Government regulation has created the 
artificial marketplace that exists today, and it is a market that does 
mean higher prices for our consumers.
  There is another point that has been mentioned a couple of times. 
Some of these so-called D.C.-based groups that lobby for our cities I 
think have had a little bit of a problem understanding the bill or 
reading the bill. So I would like to clarify a couple of things there.
  New entrants into the video service market would be responsible for 
the same franchise fees that the incumbent operators pay, and our 
cities would be receiving those same fees from the new entrants, as 
well as those incumbent companies. Many times, if you have got an 
incumbent company, you add one to it that gives you two companies. So 
you know there is some opportunity there.
  New entrants would also provide the same government and education 
channels. We call those PEG channels. They are going to be included. 
Cities also maintain control over their rights-of-way.
  Now, we know that competition works. We have seen it work in Keller, 
Texas, and Herndon, Virginia, and in other areas where we have brought 
in new entrants into the video service market. We know that speeds up 
broadband. We are 16th worldwide in broadband deployment. So let us 
speed that up.
  Another thing on net neutrality. That is a nice fuzzy sounding name, 
but if we were to see the amendment being offered today, we would have 
a net not so neutral and have a Secretary of Internet Access that would 
be overseeing how we approach that issue. So I would encourage a ``no'' 
vote on that amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the 
committee.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York. This is a bad rule. It gags the House. It does not give 
enough time. It denies opportunity for Members to offer worthwhile and 
important amendments. It is going to lead to enactment of bad 
legislation. I would be ashamed to support or present a rule of this 
character.
  This body is supposed to debate matters. We are supposed to be able 
to offer amendments. We are supposed to be able to represent our 
constituents, and we are supposed to be able to see to it that the 
public interest is broadly served by the legislation we pass after fair 
consideration. None of that is present, and I say to this body on this 
rule, shame. Reject the rule.
  I support consumers having choices for video and broadband. This bill 
will do more harm than good, and our constituents and communities 
deserve to know the truth about it, but they also deserve to have a 
fair bill.
  Democrats on the committee offered real solutions to prevent harm to 
consumers. We came close to a deal. At one point, we had a handshake 
deal which would have served everybody, but the telephone companies got 
on the leadership here, and you know what has happened. We are not able 
to even consider an amendment which will take care of the cities.
  This is going to affront the cities. It is going to leave many 
consumers of these kinds of services with less service, worse service, 
higher cost and inability to participate fully in the business of 
moving information and information technology at all.
  First, the bill would leave consumers paying higher cable prices for 
worse service. Some may even lose their only provider of cable service 
altogether. This is a bill which is supported not by consumers, but by 
the special interests and by those who will be the beneficiaries of a 
national system of charter.
  Second, the legislation does nothing to stop cable operators and 
incoming cable operators from offering inferior service to groups of 
people based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. 
Representatives Solis, Baldwin, Waxman, Watson and Wu sought to prevent 
this by offering a strong antidiscrimination amendment. This amendment 
has been blocked. Why?
  The bill removes the authority of the cities and townships to manage 
their own property, and it is going to clog the FCC with business which 
they will simply disregard because it will be inconvenient. Cities will 
be hurt, our constituents will be hurt, and the constituents of the 
cities will be hurt. Representative Doyle and I offered amendments to 
keep the locals in charge, with courts hearing appeals rather than a 
Federal bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Republican majority has again 
blocked that amendment.
  These three issues deserved open debate, they are important, as did 
others offered by Democratic colleagues, or amendments that might wish 
to be offered by Members on the floor. This is a complex, technically 
difficult piece of legislation. It is one in which the future of this 
country is going to be very much affected, and it is a piece of 
legislation which is going to relate to how people are treated fairly.
  None of that is permitted by the rule. The legislation is a bad bill. 
We could have made it a good bill had my Republican colleagues been 
cooperative and had the special interests not gotten on them.
  If you look at this legislation and how it is going to work, you will 
find that this legislation is going to benefit the special interests, 
particularly the cable and the telephone industry. You will find that 
it will do nothing for the ordinary citizens. It is a shameful bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  We are very proud of this bill. We were very proud of the rule that 
brings it forth. Three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments 
have

[[Page 10462]]

been made in order by the rule that we bring this legislation to the 
floor with than Republican amendments, three times.
  In addition, the cities were heard repeatedly. I have a list here, 
Mr. Speaker, of concern after concern after concern of the cities that 
were dealt with by the legislation, are dealt with by the legislation. 
It is good legislation for the consumers.
  Finally, there is going to be competition in this country for cable 
television, something the consumers have been demanding for many, many 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht), my distinguished friend and colleague.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to just comment on a couple of things.
  First of all, I rise in support of this rule. Now, there are people 
on both sides who may say that this rule is not perfect and the bill is 
not perfect, and they probably would be correct; but I think 
considering what we can get done this year, this is a very good rule, 
and this is a very good bill.
  I want to call particular attention to an amendment that was made in 
order that will be offered by me, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Peterson, and a group 
from the Congressional Rural Caucus. It deals with the issue that many 
Members of Congress, and I suspect many of our constituents, do not 
completely understand. It is a new technology called voice over 
Internet protocol. Why is that important? Well, it is a technology that 
is growing by leaps and bounds, and it has to ride on the 
telecommunications system, the interstate highway, if you will; and the 
interstate system is only as good as its weakest link. Everyone wants 
to serve the suburbs and most companies want to serve the cities, but 
when you get out into the distant parts of rural America, it becomes 
more and more difficult to serve those areas.
  One of the ways that we have tried to level that playing field is 
with what is called a universal service fund, and the base bill says 
nothing about the universal service fund and the obligation that 
providers of voice over Internet protocol have to participate in the 
universal service fund.
  So the amendment that we are going to be offering, and I hope Members 
will consider supporting the amendment, will simply say that nothing in 
this act shall be construed to exempt the VoIP service provider from 
requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission or a 
State commission on all VoIP service providers, among others, to 
participate in the universal service fund.
  This is a very important amendment. In many respects, it is innocuous 
but it is important, especially in rural America; but if you think 
about it, it is important for everyone because the chain is only as 
strong as its weakest link.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA global world, global economy, you need an 
ongoing plan as to who is going to gain access to telecommunications 
technology, Information Age technology.
  Well, the Republicans have constructed a defeatist policy. Knowing 
that 50 percent of the children in America will be minorities by the 
year 2020 in our country, they have refused Congresswoman Solis, 
Congresswoman Watson, representing the Hispanic and the Black Caucus, 
to come out here to make an amendment that would require the telephone 
companies to build out on the poor side of town, because we know they 
are going to the wealthy side of town, and they want this decision to 
be made at the Federal Government level.
  Every mayor in the past has made this decision because they negotiate 
the contract with the cable company, but the Republicans say we are not 
even going to have a debate on that issue on the House floor.
  On net neutrality, 20 minutes, 10 minutes for either side. Net 
neutrality, an issue which is going to fundamentally change the nature 
of the Internet forever. On the naming of post offices, the Republicans 
give 40 minutes of debate. On changing the Internet for the rest of 
eternity, 20 minutes, evenly divided.
  It is so disrespectful of the importance of these issues that it 
almost defies description, but it is a reflection of the telephone 
company agenda, and the Republicans have decided to take that agenda 
100 percent.
  Now, what did the telephone companies have to do with inventing the 
Internet? Nothing. The browser? Nothing. The World Wide Web? Nothing. 
What have they had to do with the Internet from the beginning of time? 
Nothing.
  But what the Republican Party has done is side in this bill, in a gag 
rule that does not allow us to debate the important issues, with the 
telephone company against every entrepreneurial company in America, the 
future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessen of Netscape and Google. 
They are going to have to pay a broadband tax to the telephone company 
to gain access. It will be their highway. That is what they say.
  Well, that runs fundamentally contrary to the agenda which we need to 
have for the future of America as the entrepreneurial 
telecommunications Information Age giant in a modern world. This is our 
strength, and it also completely ignores the role that these 50 percent 
of minority children are going to have in terms of access to it.
  No requirement to build out into the poor parts of town. Now, what 
kind of plan is that for America? It is a defeatist attitude, and the 
Republicans have just basically put in this bill the tech agenda for 
America in a rearview mirror. It is a sad commentary.
  Now, Congresswoman Solis wants to have an amendment out here so we 
would debate red-lining to make sure the telephone companies just do 
not go to the good parts of town. They are going to my part of town. 
They are going to anybody's part of town that has money in their pocket 
over $100,000 a year. Sure, that is great. Members of Congress, they 
are going to be fine. But what about the people in the neighborhoods 
that people drive around? Are they going to get access to it? Not under 
their bill, and by the way, not a debate to be had on the House floor.
  It is so disrespectful. It is so defeatist. It is so lacking in 
vision as to what our country needs for entrepreneurs and for minority 
children, and I beg the Members to vote ``no'' on this rule, to open it 
up. Forty minutes on the naming of a post office, 20 minutes on the 
future of the Internet. Vote ``no'' on this Republican rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  That, Mr. Speaker, after having made his amendment in order. Mr. 
Speaker, there were a number of misstatements that were just made; and 
first of all, I want to reiterate that this is an extremely fair rule 
that we have brought forth the underlying legislation with. There are 
three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments has Republican 
amendments, including the amendment of the gentleman that just spoke.

                              {time}  1245

  What I am going to do now is yield 4 minutes to one of the prime 
authors of this legislation to hopefully clarify a number of the 
misstatements, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only as a Member, but also as the 
Chairman of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee, and I 
first want to thank Chairman Dreier and Mr. Diaz-Balart for their work 
in crafting what I think is a fair rule in the debate we have today and 
perhaps tomorrow.
  From the start, this has been, I think, a very fair and open process. 
And I must note that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill, H.R. 5252, 
has been fair and open from the very start. In fact, I would note that 
when you look at the number of cosponsors, and this bill was filed 
after we completed the markup in full committee, H.R. 5252, and after 
we completed the markup, not beforehand but after, 15 Democrats from 
the Energy and Commerce

[[Page 10463]]

Committee cosponsored the legislation. That perhaps is one of the 
reasons why it passed in subcommittee 27-4, overwhelming; and 42-12 
before the full committee.
  The process has been open. We have had lots of hearings, lots of 
discussions. We have had lots of viewpoints, lots of panels. We have 
heard from just about anyone with any interest at all in this 
legislation as it has moved through this process. We looked at a number 
of staff drafts, many of them with Member input. Some Members might 
want to decline to have Members' input, but in any case we had lots of 
debate and lots of issues that we looked at, starts and stops, and at 
the end of the day I think that the process, most Members would say, 
was very fair.
  What was the intent of what we were trying to do? It is called 
deregulatory parity; that is that we are going to treat all of the 
providers of these services equally, whether they be a cable provider, 
whether it be telephone or voice provider, or whether they have 
broadband or high speed Internet access. All of those can provide these 
services. All of us consumers want those services in our homes and in 
our businesses, and yet under existing law it is not parity. It really 
is weighted towards one side and against the others. So the bottom line 
was we wanted it to be fair, and I think we achieved that result with 
this legislation.
  What does it mean for the consumers? Well, for the consumers that 
have these services, it is probably going to mean about a $30 to $40 
reduction per month. That comes out to about $400 per year that they 
will save with the enactment of this legislation.
  Now, I hear a lot about the cities. We wanted to protect the cities. 
Let me tell you that the rights-of-way are protected. They are going to 
be able to govern whether the streets are torn up or where the wires 
are going to be strung. All of that the cities retain those rights. 
Look at the language in the bill. It is there.
  The revenue stream, very important as well to the cities. Remember, 
that is us consumers that pay. Some would call it a hidden tax, but it 
is there. The revenue stream is protected. In fact, there are some 
studies that came out, we debated this a little earlier, perhaps a 30 
percent increase to the cities revenues because you have got more 
providers coming into town and you are going to have more people that 
perhaps just have over-the-air and don't pay into that at all who are 
going to want these new services and it is going to be very beneficial. 
And we have the same standard, the same standard for accumulating those 
revenues that there is today.
  So the bottom line is this: This was a bipartisan bill. We worked 
hard to see it that way, and the proof is in the pudding. That is why a 
27-4 vote in subcommittee, overwhelming, and then a 42-12 vote in the 
full committee brings this bill to the House floor.
  Now, earlier this morning, I had a chance to talk to Chairman Stevens 
on the other side of the Capitol. They are looking forward to moving 
legislation. I hope it is fairly close to ours. A markup yet this month 
and on the floor as early as next month, so that we can get a bill to 
conference, work together, and get this bill to the President.
  I am proud to say that the Barton-Rush-Upton-Pickering bill is 
gaining a lot of steam, a lot of momentum. This rule vote is very 
important. I would urge all my colleagues to support the rule, a fair 
rule. Let us get it done to get the consumers some money in their 
pockets.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. We appreciate your getting to us, Mr. Speaker, and I 
yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  My colleagues, this debate today and this rule on the bill is a 
debate about the past or a pathway to the future. This bill, I can't 
believe it, that in the 21st century we are going to divide up the 
country on access to the haves and the have-nots.
  All we have to do is to look at the history of cable, of the cable 
industry in our country. They invested billions and billions of dollars 
to build out everywhere, and the American people won, as did the cable 
industry. And I applaud that. So what does this bill do? It says, under 
the new rules, you build out, but you don't have to build out 
everywhere. You don't have to build out everywhere. We know what will 
happen as a result of that.
  And you know what is in the bill? If you live in a neighborhood where 
you are not going to have access to this, guess what you can do, Mr. 
and Mrs. America? You, on your own, can go to the FCC. Is that a joke 
or what? Although, it is more than a joke, it is an insult, and it is 
not the way to go.
  Ever since I have come to the Congress, I have worked to expand and 
protect the Internet. So where are we going with this bill? The big 
telcos are coming in and saying, we have a better idea. On the 
information superhighway, we are going to have a toll road and we are 
going to charge and charge mightily on that.
  Well, you know what, Members of Congress? We all have cable in our 
districts. We all have telephone companies in our districts. But you 
know what, there are tens of millions of Internet users. So what this 
bill represents, unfortunately, is the reverse gear.
  That is not what America is about. America is the best idea that was 
ever born, and the Internet has been the imprimatur for hands off, for 
democratizing information; that everyone gets to use it, small 
businesses, entrepreneurs, individuals, families, teachers, schools, 
whomever you are, wherever you are, whatever color you are, and 
regardless of how much money you have. This bill will damage that.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. This bill should not see 
daylight. We can do better than this.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are strong 
antidiscrimination provisions in this legislation. And a prime author 
of this legislation, who has worked very diligently, precisely on this 
issue, as well as others, and the gentleman who I had the privilege of 
coming to Congress with, a classmate, Mr. Rush of Illinois. I yield him 
4 minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I 
am in kind of a difficult situation here. I am a minority, I am a 
Democrat, I was raised in the civil rights movement, I live next door 
to a public housing residence in the City of Chicago, and I am a 
supporter of this rule.
  Why am I a supporter of this rule? I am a supporter of this rule 
because my constituents want to get much-needed relief from the 
escalating and high cost of cable television. I am amused and I am 
bemused by the comments of some of my colleagues from the party that I 
am a member of because they are talking about build out. They are 
talking about video services in my community, the community that I 
represent, that I haven't left, that I have been a part of.
  Well, let me tell you about that community. That community has the 
highest viewership of cable television than any other demographic group 
in America. We pay more for video services, for high premium packages 
than any other group in America. And why is that? Because only on cable 
do we see people who look like us, speak like us, and who understand 
us. That is why we pay more for cable.
  Let me just tell you, Mr. Speaker, we don't need build out, we need 
build up in my community; build up by allowing minority entrepreneurs 
to get access to the telecommunication industry. And that is what this 
bill would do, and that is what this rule will provide for. We need 
build up and not build out. This legislation represents a huge step in 
lowering prices and creating more choices for cable services, not only 
to my hard-pressed constituents, but to the entire Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a good rule. Of course, 
there were amendments in the committee that were voted down. I voted 
against a lot of them, because the intention of those amendments was to 
gut the bill. And I cannot go back to my community, because I came here 
to represent my community. I came here to represent

[[Page 10464]]

my community, no philosophy, no party, my community, and that is what I 
am going to do. I am going to represent my community, and my community 
wants this bill. They want lower cable prices, they want more access, 
and they want more diversity and content on the video platform. That is 
what this bill does.
  I urge my colleagues, those who can think for the little people in 
America, not the elite, but for the little people in America, I urge 
you to vote for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5252, the 
Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, a 
bill that I jointly and proudly sponsored with my Colleague Congressman 
Barton. This legislation represents a huge step in bringing lower 
prices and more choices for cable services, not only to my hard pressed 
constituents, but to the entire Nation. Specifically, this bill would 
provide equitable competition amongst a variety of video service 
providers. Video service providers can compete in price, quality and 
quantity, and consumers can finally decide which service provider they 
prefer. Specifically, this bill would create a nationwide approval 
process for pay-TV services. By streamlining the archaic franchise 
system, companies will be able to offer new TV services in many areas 
while protecting local interests. It would prohibit discrimination on 
the basis of income and give the FCC the power to impose stiff fines up 
to 500,000 a day or revoke a provider's franchise area if there is 
willful or repeated violation of discrimination. The bill also 
preserves net neutrality by allowing the FCC explicit power to go after 
companies that violate network neutrality principles and lastly and 
more importantly H.R. 5252 creates new jobs when video entrants make 
new investments in advance network.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a fair rule it allows for meaningful 
amendments by my Democratic colleagues. I respectfully urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. While H.R. 
5252, the COPE Act, which I think is a cop-out act, contains a 
provision that purports to prevent red lining, it is weak and it will 
prove to be ineffective. It does not fully ensure that all communities, 
communities of color, regardless of race, income, or national origin 
will have the benefits of enhanced cable competition.
  Last night, in Rules Committee, I offered two amendments, with 
several of my colleagues, including Ranking Member Dingell and 
Congressman Markey, which would have strengthened the weak 
antidiscrimination provisions in this bill. These amendments would 
establish incremental market-based service requirements for cable 
providers so that they build out their cable services to their entire 
franchise area, not skipping over poor communities like mine in east 
Los Angeles and in the San Gabriel Valley.
  We are tired of what goes on, the red lining. The proposed build out 
that they talk about that is going to be provided in this bill is 
false. It is not there. In fact, the Bells did not want to see any 
language put in to that effect.
  So I have to be very straight on this. In my community, yes, we want 
diversity, yes, we want to see more minority ownership, yes, we want to 
see more faces portrayed like mine in different aspects of the whole 
industry, but it is not going to happen overnight, and it is not going 
to happen with this bill.
  In fact, the amendments we provided were strongly supported by over 
30 consumer and civil rights advocacy organizations, including the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National League of Cities, 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, 
and the Consumers Union. Despite this strong support, neither of these 
amendments were accepted by the Rules Committee that I proposed.
  The Rules Committee also didn't accept the Doyle-Dingell cities 
amendment to protect and preserve the ability of our communities to 
oversee the enforcements of cable franchises. We are going to lose 
money, folks.
  The rule reported by the committee fails to address the serious 
concerns raised by so many. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee 
made in order three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments as 
Republican amendments. This is an extremely fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gillmor).
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton for the hard 
work they did on this bill.
  This bill is pro-consumer and -business legislation. It represents a 
giant leap forward in our efforts to reform the Nation's 
telecommunications laws. Bringing our laws up to date with current 
technologies will remove many of the current bureaucratic barriers that 
prevent consumers from having access to the latest television and 
broadband technologies.
  Furthermore, this bill will have a significant impact on rural areas 
such as mine by making more services available. This legislation 
represents months of hard work, and for consumers it means two things: 
it means more choices and lower prices, pure and simple.
  Capitalizing on this opportunity now will ensure that Americans enter 
the Digital Age as soon as possible.
  Much has been said about net neutrality, and there is a Markey 
amendment in order which is called ``net neutrality.'' That is a catchy 
phrase, but it is not descriptive. What it is is government regulation 
of the Internet. Now you can call a pig a chicken, but it doesn't make 
it a chicken. It is still a pig. You can call an amendment ``net 
neutrality'' when it is government regulation, and it is still 
government regulation. That is an amendment that is a solution in 
search of a problem. I would urge Members to vote against that 
amendment, to vote for this rule, and vote for the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for 
H.R. 5252, the COPE Act. ``COPE'' is the perfect name for this act 
because we will be coping for the results of this act for decades to 
come.
  My constituents have been coping with high cable prices for years 
now, and because this rule omits several key amendments, many may be 
forced to cope with these high bills, inferior service, or lack of 
access for a long time.
  My colleagues and I offered amendments we think will truly strengthen 
the bill. We offered an amendment that would prevent telecom companies 
from picking and choosing the parts of communities they wish to 
service. It would have required gradual market-based build-out to all 
areas so all constituents will eventually be served in exchange for 
access to public rights-of-way. Unfortunately, because this amendment 
was blocked, oversight would be left to Washington, D.C.
  The FCC's oversight of local rights-of-way does in no way serve our 
cities, nor our constituents. They deserve a local court of appeal that 
knows the community and therefore can make sound judgments that benefit 
all of our constituents.
  Our other amendment strengthens the antidiscrimination language 
necessary to ensure that people of all races, colors, religions, 
national origins, or sex have a court of law to turn to in the event 
they receive inferior access or no access to important telecom 
services.
  This necessary safeguard protects all people, particularly those who 
have historically been denied access to services others take for 
granted. Because this amendment was blocked, telecom companies can 
redline entire neighborhoods, leaving minorities and others behind.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It does not offer an 
alternative to a weak telecommunications bill that only protects fair 
services for a few and not all.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are very

[[Page 10465]]

proud of the rule and we are very proud of the underlying legislation, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, my 
friend and colleague, for giving me this time to discuss this rule and 
the bill that it controls.
  I hope that the majority of the people in this House will vote 
against this rule. This House of Representatives is supposed to provide 
the American people with a free, open and fair discussion of the most 
critical issues that affect them and this democratic Republic.
  This rule does just the opposite. This rule closes down the debate on 
one of the most important issues before the American public and before 
this Congress, and that is the free and open, fair dissemination and 
discussion of information.
  What this legislation does is it curtails the free, open and fair 
discussion of information, even more so than we have currently, and the 
situation that we have currently is bad enough. A large part of that 
badness comes out of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which the 
Republican Party pushed through this House of Representatives back 
then.
  Remarkably, there were 16 of us who voted against that bill. A lot 
more wish they had voted against it today, and those people who vote 
for this rule and vote for this bill, at some point in the future they 
will regret having done so because what this rule does is close down 
debate on a bill which closes down discussion of important issues 
before the American public.
  Let me just give you a quote from the Supreme Court. Almost 60 years 
ago the Supreme Court declared: ``The widest possible dissemination of 
information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the 
welfare of the public. A free press is a condition of a free society.''
  What do we have today? Today we have five companies that own the 
broadcast networks. They own 90 percent of the top 50 cable networks. 
They produce three-quarters of all prime-time programming, and they 
control 70 percent of the prime-time television market.
  These same companies that own the Nation's most popular newspapers 
and networks also own 85 percent of the top 20 Internet news sites, and 
you are going to close down the Internet even more with this 
legislation.
  One-third of America's independent TV stations have vanished. There 
has been a 34 percent decline in the number of radio station owners 
since the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed.
  I want to say this to my dear friend from Chicago for whom I have the 
greatest affection and affiliation: there has also been a severe 
decline in the number of minority-owned broadcast stations since the 
end of the 1990s. Minorities now own little more than 1.5 percent of 
U.S. television stations, and they own 4 percent of the Nation's AM and 
FM radio stations.
  This bill now closes down the process even more. It closes down the 
last free, open element of communication not controlled by big 
corporations in America. It closes down the Internet. It is going to 
make the Internet less available to Americans. It is going to make 
communication through the Internet less available to Americans. And it 
is going to further stifle debate on the most important issues 
confronting our country just in the same way that this Republican rule 
stifles debate on this very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are again very proud of the rule that we have brought 
this legislation forth under. A colleague on my side of the aisle asked 
me why is it you are making three times as many Democrat or bipartisan 
amendments in order as Republican amendments, and my rely was we want 
to be as fair as possible. That is what we are doing today.
  We are very proud of the process and the rule. We are very proud of 
the underlying legislation. It is extremely pro-consumer and is going 
to bring relief to consumers, to our constituents throughout the 
country.
  It is finally going to bring competition to the cable television 
process in this country. So it is very important legislation. It has 
been made possible by hard work and study and perseverance by numerous 
Members.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to today's 
rule for the COPE Act which blocked many important amendments, 
including an amendment that was of great concern to the people all of 
us represent in this body. Each of us comes from cities or towns, many 
of us were elected to this body from county councils. Some of us were 
mayors. I have gotten a lot of calls from the cities I represent, and I 
know my friends on both sides of the aisle have too, but the leadership 
stands in the way of debating the amendment that answers their calls.
  This rule hangs up on cities and towns. This rule should be voted 
down. With the Doyle-Dingell cities amendment ruled out of order, 
leadership has told our cities, told our towns, told our mayors, told 
our councilmen that leadership does not care about their concerns. Even 
though TV revenues are a large part of municipal budgets, even though 
their citizens rely on public, educational, and government channels for 
information, even though local governments have a lot to say, the 
leadership has told local governments they are shut out of this debate. 
This rule should be voted down.
  There has been little debate about the COPE Act and what it does to 
rights-of-way. Proponents say it protects city streets. In reality, it 
only goes halfway. It allows cities to manage their rights-of-way which 
include streets, sidewalks and other public property; but that is 
exactly what America's cities and towns do today. But the COPE Act 
sends any dispute about those rights-of-way to the FCC. That is such a 
fundamental change. The COPE Act is so far from how it works today, and 
our body needs to debate it. This rule should be voted down.
  If a city like Pittsburgh has an ordinance that prohibits blocking 
rush-hour traffic on a major road, who is best to determine whether 
that ordinance is legal under the COPE Act? Is it somebody from the 
Pittsburgh area, or is it a bureaucrat in Washington at the FCC?
  Mr. Speaker, the COPE Act sends these disputes to the FCC. Why? We 
will never know. The leadership is afraid of a debate. They are afraid 
the voices of cities and towns might actually win this amendment. Our 
body should debate this change of policy. This rule should be voted 
down.
  Today, local governments also enforce the franchise agreements they 
have signed with cable operators. These franchises include a wide range 
of other matters. But guess what, the COPE Act takes all other local 
disputes that used to be resolved locally and it detours them to the 
FCC. This rule should be voted down.
  The Doyle-Dingell cities amendment would have saved taxpayers money 
by allowing local governments to handle these local problems first. It 
tapped into the infrastructure local governments already have in place 
to handle these complaints. This rule should be voted down.
  I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
expressed interest in the Doyle-Dingell amendment. I am sad that their 
interest in solving problems in a bipartisan manner might have killed 
its chances from being considered.
  Mr. Speaker, the Doyle-Dingell amendment was supported by the 
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, and others. Without our amendment, the COPE 
Act will create real problems for America's cities. Why should Congress 
detour disputes about how a city manages its roads away from the local 
area?

[[Page 10466]]

  Since when does the FCC care about the Pittsburgh public access 
channel? How fast will the FCC respond to Pittsburgh's institutional 
network, the I-Net that a city relies on.

                              {time}  1315

  Why should the FCC be the final arbiter over America's streets?
  Why is Congress telling America's local governments that they have to 
hire a Washington attorney to defend their roads?
  We will never know. We are not allowed to debate this bill. This rule 
should be voted down.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think we have 
heard a good debate. I think the key, first with regard to the process, 
the rule. Obviously every piece of legislation is brought forth for 
consideration by rule that sets the terms of the debate, how many 
amendments can be made in order, how long they be can be debated, et 
cetera.
  As I said before, a colleague of mine on my side of the aisle said, 
why have we made under this rule three times as many Democrat or 
bipartisan amendments than Republican amendments? I said, because we 
want to be fair. It is an important issue; want to make sure that 
everybody gets a chance, that the key issues, the key issues have a 
chance to move forward in a fair way. So we are being exceptionally 
fair. It is an exceptionally important issue.
  There is finally going to be competition for cable television in this 
country. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I have constituents 
through the years complain about their lack of choice with regard to 
cable, the fact that rates continue to rise. There is no competition. 
There is no alternatives for consumers with regard to cable television.
  Finally, there is going to be, because of this legislation. So it is 
an important piece of legislation. That is why we wanted to be as fair 
as possible with regard to the terms of debate. That is why we made 
three times as many amendments, Democrat or bipartisan amendments in 
order than Republican amendments.
  We have still heard complaints. Obviously it is a free country. But 
Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the rule, proud of the process, of the 
hard work that has been put into this legislation, starting with 
Chairman Barton, Mr. Rush of Illinois, Mr. Upton, so many others, Mr. 
Pickering, who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation, and we 
bring it forth in a very fair process with a very fair rule.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, as the telecommunications industry takes 
leaps and bounds in pushing the innovation envelope, it is almost 
impossible for the Federal Government to keep pace. In fact, it is 
often times a detriment for the Government to preemptively legislate on 
an issue before we can either define it or grasp its impact. What we 
can do is to remove barriers to entry that currently exist, paving the 
way for new entrants to offer services benefiting this Nation.
  The legislation before us here today is a step in the direction of 
more choice and lower costs for American consumers. A national cable 
franchise will streamline the current process and allow faster entry 
into the marketplace for non-traditional cable providers providing real 
choice for all of our constituents.
  In my home State of Indiana, legislation was enacted earlier this 
year, streamlining the process by which cable providers could offer 
service. Already, investment is coming to the heartland--millions of 
dollars is being plugged into our economy by companies laying fiber, 
offering different services, leading to more jobs in Indiana. Let's 
also talk about the smaller companies in my district, and across 
Indiana, who now are free from barriers to entry so they can begin to 
offer cable services to compete with larger companies.
  Who is the winner in the end? Our constituents, our economy, our 
innovators. I thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton for their 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________