Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically bring the general debate for H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, to the floor of the House of Representatives. The process in getting the bill to this stage has been long, has been fruitful, and, in my opinion, it has been fair. It has involved more than a year of hearings, as well as staff and Member-level negotiations. That process has clearly borne, I think, positive fruit.

We come to the House today with a bill that has received overwhelming bipartisan support in both the subcommittee and the full committee. The bill passed the subcommittee by a margin of 27-4, with all Republicans voting for it and two-thirds of the Democrat minority party voting for it. In the full committee it was reported by a margin of 42-12, again all Republicans voting for it and a majority of the Democrats voting for it.

The primary focus of this legislation is to create a streamlined cable franchising process in order to increase the number of facilities-based providers for video, voice, and data services everywhere in our great Nation.

Today, there are thousands of local franchising authorities. Each may impose disparate restriction on the provision of cable service in its specific franchising area. The requirement to negotiate such local franchises and the patchwork of obligations that local franchising authorities impose are hindering the deployment of advanced broadband networks that will bring increasingly innovative and competitive services to all of our constituents.

The United States does not even rank in the top 10 of the nations of the world in broadband deployment. This bill should change that statistic.

H.R. 5252 seeks to address this concern and strike the right balance between national standards and local oversight. It would allow the negotiation of local franchises, but make available an alternative national franchise process.

Moreover, the national franchise preserves local franchise fees, municipal control over their rights-of-way, and support for their Public Education and Governmental channels that so many of our Members are strongly in favor of.

The bill also seeks to strike the right balance between ensuring the public Internet remains an open, vibrant marketplace, and ensuring Congress does not hand the FCC a blank check to regulate Internet services, an action that I believe would have a chilling effect on broadband deployment, especially broadband innovation. We need the FCC to stop the cheats without killing honest creativity. We don't need anybody to be the first Secretary of the Internet.

Finally, the bill addresses rules for voiceover Internet protocol services, or VoIP services, to ensure that the Internet voice services become a vibrant competitor to what we call plain old telephone service.

I want to thank Congressman Rush for his cosponsorship, Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Upton for his cosponsorship, Vice Chairman Chip Pickering of Mississippi for his leadership, and all the members of the committee and the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle who have cosponsored this bipartisan legislation with me.

I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to a vigorous debate on the amendments that have been made in order by the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a strong supporter of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the full committee and the distinguished Chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Mr. Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

I would like to yield 10 minutes to my Democrat sponsor, Mr. Rush, to control in the general debate in the Committee of the Whole. Is that possible, or how might I do that?

So I can't do it.

Mr. Chairman, in that case, I yield 2 minutes on behalf of Mr. Rush to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Oxley, for his leadership and his statement that he just made. It is greatly appreciated and it I think enlightens the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Rush of Illinois, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

(Ms. BEAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to a gentleman from Mississippi who doesn't have a degree from Harvard Business School, but he does have a degree from Ole Miss, Chip Pickering, the vice chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), our subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), my distinguished primary cosponsor on the Democrat side.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have continued to listen to the constructive comments from Members on both sides of the aisle as well as the comments of the cities and the affected stakeholders in this issue as the bill has moved from committee to discussion under the Rules Committee, and now to the floor

of the House of Representatives. We have tried to incorporate many of those constructive comments into the manager's amendment that is now before the House.

The amendment would do the following: It would clarify what constitutes a franchise area. This was a concern of Mr. Dingell in the full committee markup.

It would clarify that a person or group seeking authority to provide service under a national franchise must agree to comply with all requirements the FCC Commission would promulgate pursuant to the consumer protection and customer services provisions in the bill.

Further, it clarifies that pursuant to a colloquy that I had with Mr. Boucher at the full committee markup, the manager's amendment would clarify that anyone with a national franchise shall be subject to all the cable operator provisions of title 6 of the Communications Act, except for those ones specifically in the pending bill.

It would also clarify that nothing in the legislation that affects existing pole attachment law. This was another concern of Mr. Boucher and others at full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I urge a yes vote on the Barton manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from Houston for her leadership on this issue. I am somewhat unclear what her intentions are in terms of moving towards a vote. I will pledge to her to continue to work with her, if she were to withdraw the amendment, to reach a mutually acceptable resolution as we go to conference with the other body, but I am going to follow her yield or her wishes on the pending amendment.

If she calls it for a vote, I will vote yes on the amendment. If she wishes to withdraw it, I will work with her as we move forward in the normal channels of the legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a good amendment. I am very supportive and urge a ``yes'' vote on the Wynn amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I rise in opposition to the amendment; but I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me say about the gentlewoman from Dallas, I support her amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it adds to the bill, increasing the penalty by 50 percent from $500,000 to $750,000. It does increase the penalty for discrimination; and for that reason, I will be happy to support the amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with a member of the committee, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Congressman Murphy, current law allows local authorities to assess a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of a cable operator's gross revenue for the use of the public right-of-way for cable service. The Act before us would allow the localities to assess the exact same fee on holders of a national franchise.

In other words, localities may continue to collect the same rent for the use of the rights-of-way for cable service. The Act before us also preserves the locality's physical management of their right-of-way. Section 630(f) explicitly states that nothing in the Act affects the authority of the localities to manage their rights-of-way on a competitively neutral, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis.

Would you repeat the question?

For a specific period of time, the answer to that is yes.

I would always yield to my friend from Pittsburgh, a member of the committee, and the new manager of the Democrat baseball team, who is so overworking his team that they are complaining to me about how hard they are having to work, yes.

Reclaiming my time, nothing in the pending bill will change current law with regard to how the cities control their local rights-of-way, the physical access to that right-of-way. They would have access through the local court system, and I would assume, if they wished to, they could also go to the Federal Court system or the FCC. But they can certainly continue to use the remedies available under current law.

They have the option under the pending bill, if the gentleman were so kind to vote for it on final passage, and I know he is thinking about that, we would expand the potential remedies. They would have every remedy under existing law, plus they could also go to the Federal courts and to the FCC.

So far you have not tricked me, so I will continue to yield.

They have the option. They have the option. They have an expanded list of remedies that they currently don't have.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate, I rise to claim the time in opposition, but I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do support the Rush amendment. I think it is an addition to the base bill, and it continues to show the excellent leadership that Mr. Rush is providing on this issue, and I would urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to support the amendment.

At this point in time, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for raising this issue. We agree that as a matter of both public policy and public safety, American citizens should have access to basic 911 service.

I understand your perspective on this concern, as a former law enforcement officer who had to respond to 911 calls himself for many years. I will work in conference to address your concerns.

I can add that Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, just to name two members of the committee, share your concerns and are working on this issue.

I have no other requests for time, urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify some things with the author of the amendment. Does your amendment deal specifically with the complaint adjudication process with regards to antitrust laws and the jurisdiction of the courts to hear such cases?

With that understanding, I am going to change from opposition to support and encourage you for offering the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I believe I probably still have 4 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, I was opposed at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I respect Mr. Conyers. He is a good man. He is in serious opposition. I have 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. I would be happy to yield those 4\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, Mr. Conyers.

Mr. Chairman, if I do, I will be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California. I want there to be a full debate on this.

How much time do I still have?

I would like to yield Ms. Lofgren 2\1/2\ minutes if she so wishes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the subcommittee and full committee, the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman of the full committee hailing from the great Alamo City, birthplace of Texas democracy, Mr. Gonzalez.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the pride of New Providence, New Jersey, a member of the full committee, Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the pride of the entire State of Nebraska, Mr. Lee Terry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to another member of the distinguished Energy and Commerce Committee who hails from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

He is the pride of the entire State of Texas.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

MR. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great degree of respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts as he rose in defense of his amendment. And I agree that, if a consumer goes into that dealership and you could find a dealership that was selling a Ferrari alongside with a Ford Taurus, that the consumer has the right to choose which vehicle to purchase and he has the right to take that vehicle out on the highway and he has the right, subject to the laws of the State, to drive it as fast as he or she wishes. That is what the underlying base bill does.

We are debating a term of ``net neutrality'' that didn't exist 9 months ago. We are debating a term that, as Mr. Ferguson pointed out in his remarks, there wasn't even agreement among the experts exactly what it was when we had a hearing on this before the full committee. But we understand, just as Mr. Markey supports, we understand that, whatever net neutrality is, we want to preserve the open access nature of the Internet, number one.

Number two, we also want to bring the United States out of the undeveloped nations, so to speak, in terms of broadband deployment.

Now, the underlying purpose of this bill is to get the private entrepreneurs of this country to put the billions and billions and billions of dollars that are necessary to get the broadband deployment into the homes hopefully of every American home in this country, and then use that to unleash the creative entrepreneurship of our creative community to develop new services and new ways of providing those services so that all Americans can have access to some of these new services that are promised if we actually make this bill a reality.

What Mr. Markey's amendment really does, if we were to adopt it, is say you can't charge for any of that; you can't differentially price between the Taurus and the Ferrari, you have to charge everybody the same. And, if you do that, you are not going to get the deployment.

Now, the base bill says we are not sure what net neutrality is, but we agree it should be preserved, and we want the FCC to preserve it. And, we explicitly give the FCC the authority to punish a transgression once it is identified on a case-by-case basis and to do it within 90 days.

Now, if you really want to unleash the creative energy, if you really want this to be a jobs bill, if you really want the United States to go from twelfth in broadband deployment into hopefully number one, vote against Mr. Markey and for the underlying bill. That is real net neutrality.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutknecht amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object strenuously to this amendment. I do want to make a couple of points. I think the universal service fund needs, at a minimum, to be significantly reformed. I do not think, as we hopefully deploy more technologies and more innovative ways of using those technologies, that we should saddle these new emerging technologies with attacks that, while well-intentioned, was originated in the 1920s and is in need of serious reform. So I do oppose the amendment, respectfully, but I understand those that support it, and am very respectful of the gentleman who offered it, because he has worked with us diligently on it.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Tennessee at this point in time.

I wish to acknowledge the important role that you have played in the process of developing this legislation. I also would like to commend you on your support for rural America, and would add that, if this bill becomes law, small rural telephone companies are going to benefit and enter the video business in communities like your community in your congressional district of McMinnville, Tennessee.

In response to the specific inquiry, you are correct, under the legislation if the telephone company identifies a portion of a cable franchise area that it intends to serve with video, there is no build- out obligation nor would there be a redlining violation as long as the telephone company did not refuse to serve a group of potential residential subscribers in that area because of the income of that group.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This is a historic bill. Without question, the Republican majority is not respecting the importance of the issue.

Tonight, we will have a debate on net neutrality that will last 20 minutes, 10 minutes on either side. That is, without question, a disgrace. We debate week after week out here on the House floor, namings of post offices that each get 40 minutes. Here we are talking about an engine of economic growth which has transformed our economy and the global economy over the last 15 years. And it has done so with provisions which guaranteed nondiscrimination to the smallest players being able to enter with their ideas and communicate across our country and across the globe.

What the Republicans are doing tonight is they are refusing to have a debate on who is going to be benefited

from it. That is, will the telephone companies be responsible for building-out across all communities? Their bill says you don't have to, and they won't allow us an amendment out here on the floor so that we can have that debate.

Will there be redlining? We believe there should not be. The Republicans refuse to allow Hilda Solis's amendment out here on the floor so we can have a full debate on it.

Will there be a bill that passes tonight which is defeatist in terms of entrepreneurs and equal access, democratization of access to opportunity because of access to this new technology in every part of the community? Or will it be a bill that has a future orientation, looking ahead over the next century as to who Americans are going to be, what the nature of our economy is going to be in terms of these entrepreneurs playing this change agent role? Or will we have this bill that has been put together behind closed doors with the most powerful three or four companies in America, the telephone companies who had nothing to do with the construction of the Internet?

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

Mr. Chairman, let me explain one of the real problems with this bill. In testimony before the Commerce Committee on this legislation, I asked the head of the national cable industry what they would do once this bill passed, and the answer was quite revealing. They said that after this bill passes, since the telephone companies are going to go into the wealthy side of town in order to deploy their new broadband systems, that under the legislation they no longer had any responsibility to serve the whole community. They had no responsibility to continue to upgrade on the other side of the town, which the cable industry is already serving, because every mayor always extracted that from every cable company as they came into town.

So we are going to wind up with a perverse situation where the cable industry on the poor side of town is able

to raise rates because the telephone companies won't promise to go there and actually compete against the cable company. And the Republicans oppose even having a debate on the House floor in order to accomplish that, and so we wind up with a situation where the wealthy people are going to have two competitors and have lower rates, and the poor people are going to have only one company that is saying they are going to raise rates because there will be no competition. It is a perverse result for cable subscribers in America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, so again we hear the argument that this is going to lower cable rates. And it will lower cable rates, I don't deny that, on the good side of town, which is where they are going with their Harvard Business School 3-by-5 card, ``go to the wealthy side of town and offer them a package of broadband services to compete against the cable companies.'' Rates are going down.

But the problem is on the other side of town, once this bill passes, once the telephone company comes into town, the cable company is no longer bound by the agreement that it made with the city. So the cable industry, and they testified to this in the committee, they can then raise rates on the parts of town that the telephone company is not going to go to and provide cable service.

So you are going to wind up with this incredible situation where we, that is, Congressmen in our parts of town, we are going to have lower cable rates. But people on the other side of town, and you don't have to be a summa cum laude, you from Harvard Business School, to understand this, the people on the other side of town are not going to get this service, because obviously the Republicans are protecting AT&T and Verizon by prohibiting us having this discussion here on the floor.

They won't even let the discussion take place, because they know that is what is going to happen, that the other side of town isn't going to get this service, because AT&T doesn't want us to have to mandate that if they are going into the town, they just can't cherry-pick the good parts of town. They are going to have to do everybody. And if they don't do everybody, what do you think is going to happen when there is no competition? Rates are going up in that part of town, because that part of the town will be a monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, here is the really perverse part of this. The telephone company is going to come into town, and they are going to start offering lower rates on the good part of town, as they are delivering the service.

The people on the other side of town, the poorer part of town, are going to say, hey, do we get the lower rates too in town? Because under the cable-negotiated agreement with the city, everyone got the same rate in town.

Well, the telephone company will not offer that same lower rate to the other part of the town, only to the people on the good part of town, which is where they are going. So we said to the majority, the Republicans, well, let's make sure everyone in town gets that lower rate, because now we know what the rate should be for that community, because they are offering it to the good side of town.

The Republicans say, oh, no, we are not going to give the lower rate to the poor side of town where the telephone company is not going to, because they are not going there. And the cable industry says, fine, we are going to raise rates on that side of town because the telephone company is telling us we are not going there.

So we are going to have again this crazy situation where they are going to the homes, and we are going to wind up with this perverse result where they are going to the good side of town, they are going to the good communities. They are going to have lower cable rates because they are going to have competition. And the telephone companies have told us over and over and over again they are not going to the other side of town.

They are not going to the poorer communities, and we object to any amendment by Democrats on the floor that will make us do the poor part of town, that will make us go to the other side of town. We are going to fight it and we are going to ask the Republicans to not even allow for a debate on the House floor that will help the people on the poor side of town get the lower rates.

That is what this bill at its heart is all about tonight, the ability of the telephone companies to cherry-pick the wealthiest families in America to have competing cable service.

Could I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is a failure. It fails the challenge to ensure that this broadband technology will be deployed in every neighborhood in America. The Bell Companies oppose it, and the Republicans are not going to allow us to even have that debate here on the House floor.

Why is it important? Because in a post-GATT, post-NAFTA world, we have to make sure that every family and every child in every family has access to this high tech skillset which can only come from access to this broadband technology. The telephone companies do not want the responsibility to build out into the poor side of the town, the Republicans have not built that responsibility into the bill, and they have prohibited the Democrats from making that amendment. And their bill also fails the Internet. It fails the nondiscriminatory history of the Internet which has required, which has made possible for entrepreneurs and individuals on a nondiscriminatory basis, to use the Internet.

We want to have a debate on net neutrality. All the Republicans are willing to give to the proponents of the Net neutrality, the central constitutional protection built into the Internet for the last 20 years, is 10 minutes. That is a disgrace. The whole way we are making this bill is really a tribute to the Republican control of Congress and their lack of willingness to have full and open debate on the most important post-GATT, post-NAFTA issues we could debate, the access to a 21st century skillset and the ability for entrepreneurs to use the information superhighway to create the new jobs. I urge a ``no'' vote on final passage on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might add that I am not in opposition to the manager's amendment except to the extent to which the manager's amendment does not include language on nondiscrimination. Language which would ensure that all parts of a community receive the lower cable rates, not just the good parts of town where the telephone companies are going to deploy.

There is no provision in here that deals in a meaningful way with net neutrality to ensure that the Internet as we know it is preserved, protected for the future, that entrepreneurs know that they can have access to it without having to pay a discriminatory entry fee, that the telephone companies cannot tip these entrepreneurs upside down and shake money out of their pockets. That is the problem that I have with the manager's amendment. It is not that I object to what is in it. It is really what is not in it, what should have been included, what would have led to this bill being characterized as a bill which was balanced.

By the way, the bill which we had agreed upon on a handshake deal, Democrats and Republicans, was a balanced bill. It did include protections for the Internet. It did include protections for rate payers. But all of that, obviously, was objected to by the Bell companies.

Let me just make this point once again. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the creation of the Internet. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the development of the World Wide Web. The Bell companies had nothing to do with the browser in its development. In fact, AT&T was asked if they wanted to build the Internet, the packet switch network in 1966. They turned the contract down when the government went to them. And so a company named BB&N, Bolt, Betranick and Newman got the contract. It was a very small company, not AT&T.

They have had nothing to do with the development of the Internet, but now at this late date, they want to come in and to create these bottleneck control points that allow them to extract Internet taxes, Internet fees from companies and individuals who have been using the Internet for a generation.

It is this absence of nondiscriminatory language in the manager's amendment and in the bill to which I object, and I think as time goes on and, obviously, the majority has been unwilling to have this debate in the full light of day. We will be finishing this some time around midnight. And the key amendments, of course, were not even put in order for us to debate, with the exception of net neutrality which we will have 10 minutes to the proponents of net neutrality to make their case. You can barely explain the concept in 10 minutes, much less have a full debate on what the implications of it are. But that is all part of the plan by the telephone companies and the Republican majority not to have a full debate on it.

But the consequences for our country are going to be dramatic in the long run. It has taken a long time to get to this point where America has been the leader in the Internet. And tonight monopolies have arrived, finally, belatedly, as they have come to understand this technology. But a little bit of history is important to understand.

They never purchased their first foot of fiber optic until the government broke up AT&T in 1984. They never deployed their first broadband technology until 1997 after we passed the Telecommunications Act. It has always taken the government to ensure that AT&T, these telephone companies, do, in fact, innovate, such as the word can be used, when you are describing a telephone company.

The real storyline over the last 20 years has been hundreds of thousands of smaller companies using the Internet, innovating on the Internet, creating jobs and revolutionizing not only our own country's ability to communicate and create jobs, but the rest of the world's as well.

So I do not object to the manager's amendment for what is in it but rather for what is not in it. And, unfortunately, the same thing can be said for amendments which are not going to be debated here tonight because of the Republican recalcitrance, their unwillingness to have a full blown debate on perhaps the central growth issue that we will have before the Congress on this session.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for raising this very important issue, and really, since the beginning of my career on the Telecommunications Subcommittee, working with Mickey Leland from your district, adding in language that ensured a larger percentage of minority participation in legislation, it is without question a high goal.

What I think we all want to be sure of here is that in communities it does not take resources away from municipalities that might have gone to those very same communities, but I think we can work together in order to accomplish that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the full commerce committee, the gentleman from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself the balance of the time.

This debate is a travesty. We are allowed 10 minutes to explain this fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. It is pretty much a joke.

If two consumers go into a car dealership and one wants to buy a Ferrari and another decides to buy a Ford Taurus, that is their choice. The Ferrari is expensive and has all sorts of bells and whistles. But once those two customers drive the Ferrari and the Taurus off the lot, the car dealership shouldn't be allowed to tell them where they can and cannot drive. We don't have certain roads or destinations just for Ferraris or just for Taurus drivers, and the auto dealership certainly shouldn't be permitted to put up new toll booths to extract fees on those highways. That limits freedom. That is what the Republicans and the Bell companies are doing tonight.

If you like the way the Internet is today, vote for the Markey amendment. If you don't want new broadband taxes, fees imposed upon the Internet, vote for the Markey amendment. If you agree with the National Religious Broadcasters, with the Gun Owners Association, Common Cause, the Christian Coalition, and the ACLU, you vote for the Markey amendment tonight. Because if you don't, there is going to be a fundamental change in the whole history of the Internet. You can't put together a coalition like that unless something fundamental is happening in America. It goes to voices, all of these organizations who feel it is going to be limited, and choices, the choices that consumers are going to have and the choices that entrepreneurs are going to have in getting onto this information highway without having to pay special fee or tax to the telephone companies or cable companies. Vote ``aye'' for the Markey amendment. Preserve network neutrality, preserve the Internet as we know it today. There is nothing wrong with it, and you won't hear a word from the Republicans or from the telephone companies making a case that there is anything wrong.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose, granting a nationwide cable television franchise to provide competition.

Today, cable television is a series of local monopolies. Only 2 percent of the United States has competition, companies that those local franchises are aggressively marketing, Voice Over IP, telephone service, broadband, and giving them a triple play of video, broadband and voice services at a flat monthly rate.

In Houston, that monthly rate is about $100 and you can get digital cable, high speed Internet and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company. To compete with the cable's triple-play monopoly, telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry the high-definition cable television service and faster broadband.

The FCC has found that cable television rates drop 40 percent after competition. And that doesn't even factor in the consumer benefits from the triple play, so to speak, that you add, also the cost savings from telephone Internet and high speed cable service, definition service.

As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple-play competition.

The purpose of the bill is great, and I have had a number of concerns about the district I represent that is not a wealthy area. These concerns have been addressed.

For example, franchise areas are defined as they are today that would prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking areas out of existing franchises. This means that the bill's redlining provisions, drafted by my colleague from Illinois, Bobby Rush, would stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to serve. I would have preferred Mr. Dingell's

approach, but again we don't have that opportunity, and it didn't pass in committee even though I voted for it.

However, I still strongly support the legislation because we have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in my area. As a result, I am confident that the build- out will increase in all areas of Houston, and they are not just going to go to the high-income areas; they will come to my low-wealth and my middle class area.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to place my full statement into the Record, and I would hope that this would be a compromise bill. I am sorry that our leadership and the committee didn't work it. But some day, hopefully, it will be the Barton-Dingell bill again.

Mr. Chairman, the COPE Act is a complex piece of legislation with a simple purpose: granting nationwide cable television franchises to provide competition.

Today cable television is a series of local monopolies--only 2 percent of the U.S. has competition.

Companies with these local franchises are aggressively marketing VOIP telephone service and broadband, giving them a ``triple play'' of video, broadband, and voice services at a flat monthly rate.

In Houston, for $100 a month, you can get digital cable, high speed Internet, and unlimited telephone calls from the cable company.

To compete with cable's triple play monopoly, telephone companies need to spend billions to upgrade their networks to carry high- definition cable television service and faster broadband.

The Federal Communications Commission has found that cable television rats drop 40 percent after competition and that doesn't even factor in the consumer benefits of the triple play.

As a result, we should support granting national franchises for cable television service to spur competition. If we stick with local franchises, then there will be much less cable and triple play competition.

The purpose of the bill is great, but I did have a number of concerns about this legislation and its effects on the middle-class folks in my district. These concerns have been addressed.

For example, franchise areas in the bill were defined as they are today, which would prevent telephone companies from cherry-picking areas out of existing franchise areas.

This means that the bill's anti-redlining provisions, drafted by Congressman Bobby Rush, will stop companies from picking and choosing the areas they want to offer service.

I would have preferred the approach by Mr. Dingell, which would have set reasonable, flexible guidelines for companies to build out their networks and offer new services.

I wish we could have considered Mr. Dingell's amendment today, and I am disappropriated that the Rules Committee rejected it.

They did a disservice to one of the most knowledgeable, respected Members in the history of Congress.

However, I can still strongly support this legislation because we have had several discussions with our local telecom company about their plans for competition in the Houston area.

As a result of those conversations, I am confident that buildout is going to increase in all areas of Houston and that they are not going to discriminate against our middle class and low wealth areas.

To all members who are concerned about the impact of this legislation on your district, I encourage you to contact your incumbent telecom company and meet with their local staff responsible for deployment, not just the DC staff. I think you will be happy with what you hear.

Cities are also concerned with their interests in franchising, but many of these concerns have been addressed. Cities will not lose any revenue as a result of this bill. The COPE Act allows 5 percent franchise fees and 1 percent public access fees.

Cities will also not lose any right-of-way control and to make sure, I included an amendment in Committee to require companies to certify in writing that they will obey local right of way rules.

I do regret that the usual bi-partisan telecom process between the leadership of our Committee has temporarily broken down.

Today is not the end of the road, so I hope this can still become a Barton-Dingell bill or a Dingell-Barton bill before all is said and done.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am also the pride of the whole State of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I will include my full statement in the Record, and I will paraphrase it.

The Internet is made of numerous interconnected, privately owned networks. It has become the amazing resource it is today without the law on network Internet neutrality.

The FCC, in 2005, released four network neutrality principles and they are in this language. H.R. 5252 enacts these network principles into the law, sending a strong anti- or nondiscrimination message to the telecommunications industry.

As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment will use these four principles in their rhetoric, but their amendment adds a much different network neutrality principle. The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how much bandwidth they are using.

The Markey amendment means higher praises for the consumers, those of us who pay monthly, while large Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the Internet that is the most need for investment.

Supporters claim the Internet companies pay for their network. The problem is, with television and video, it requires more bandwidth. They have got to make that investment. Are we going to put it on our constituents individually, or are the people who are making the money going to pay for it?

The Internet is made of numerous interconnected privately-owned networks, and it became the amazing resource it is today without any law on Internet network neutrality.

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission released four network neutrality principles:

(1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;

(2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice;

(3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of safe, legal devices; and

(4) consumers are entitled to competition among network, application, service, and content providers.

Some people say we need to pass the Markey amendment to prevent blocking of websites or anticompetitive behavior. This is not the case.

The (COPE) Act, H.R. 5252, enacts these net neutrality principles into law, sending a strong non-discrimination message to the telecommunications industry.

As we listen to the debate, the supporters of the Markey amendment will use these four FCC principles for their rhetoric, but their amendment adds a much different network neutrality principle.

The Markey amendment bans residential Internet providers from charging large Internet content providers for maintenance or upgrades based on how much bandwidth they are using.

The Markey amendment means higher prices for consumers while large Internet content providers get a free ride over the portion of the Internet that is in most need of investment.

Supporters claim that if Internet companies pay their way on the network we will hurt entrepreneurs.

Any website that takes up a lot of bandwidth already has always paid more to Internet backbone providers if they are putting a lot of content on the Internet and generating a lot of traffic.

Now many of these companies are complaining about paying local Internet network owners for the use of their networks.

The issue for the future is when websites offer high-bandwidth services like high-definition movies, television, and video games from websites, all over the Internet.

These applications require guaranteed high quality service, something that's not usually available on the Internet today.

To upgrade the ``last mile'' of broadband to accommodate these new services while keeping consumer prices low, telephone and cable companies may need to offer premium service to large Internet content companies.

The Markey amendment bans this commercial arrangement and sends the whole bill to the consumers.

Congress should ensure that no Internet service is blocked or degraded by cable or telephone companies, and the COPE Act does just that.

This point is so important we should repeat it: the underlying text of the COPE Act puts network neutrality into law for the first time. No anticompetitive discrimination is allowed.

The Markey amendment goes much further, and regulates the price of Internet traffic between large network operators and large Internet content providers.

A good definition of wisdom is not how much you know, but if you know what you don't know.

Most of us do not fully understand how the Internet works on a detailed basis or the financial arrangements that build our networks.

The Internet has thrived without Congressional intervention on prices and commercial arrangements, and it will do so in the future. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr. Chairman, it seems like old times debating a telecommunications bill. It has been a while since I had that opportunity, and I see some familiar faces on both sides. I first want to congratulate my good friend from Michigan for his concerted efforts on this legislation as well as Chairman Barton and other members who have worked on this legislation.

This is a good solid follow-up of the 1996 Act. It recognizes market forces, it gets government out of picking winners and losers. I chair the Financial Service Committee now, and there have been some arguments about whether the net neutrality issue that the gentleman from Massachusetts will be offering will be a boon for the financial services industry. I am here to say that the financial services industry understands competition, they understand choice, they understand how markets work, and the folks that are represented in that financial services community will benefit by this legislation without the Markey amendment, and that is what is important to keep in mind.

This has been a great effort. I congratulate again all those who have put this bill on the floor today.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.

I've been a believer in the power of competition in telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from government regulation to market competition has totally changed the telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner. There are more products, services, and choices than ever before.

I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know what to do with.

Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters.

I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level.

Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have more broadband subscribers than the United States.

There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can unleash private capital on this national need.

Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local governments before offering video service. With some 33,000 municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly, serving as a barrier to market access.

H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the door for more choices, better services and lower bills.

I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the guise of ``fairness,'' would just defeat the purpose of the bill.

The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon enough.

Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier,'' the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not taxing and regulating it to death.

But in the name of something called ``net neutrality,'' some would have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements on the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that in order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered in the last decade.

Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual problem.

We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable, satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right, there are none in the world who are better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.

I've been a believer in the power of competition in telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from government regulation to market competition has totally changed the telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner. There are more products, services, and choices than ever before.

I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know what to do with!

Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters.

I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level.

Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have more broadband subscribers than the United States.

There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can unleash private capital on this national need.

Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local governments before offering video service. With some 33,000 municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly, serving as a barrier to market access.

H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the door for more choices, better services and lower bills.

I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the guise of ``fairness'', would just defeat the purpose of the bill.

The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon enough.

Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier'', the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not taxing and regulating it to death.

But in the name of something called ``net neutrality'', some would have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements

on the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that in order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered in the last decade.

Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual problem.

We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable, satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right, there are none in the world who are better.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman for his leadership, the subcommittee chairman for his leadership, as well as Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee who worked with me on the Video Choice Act which was somewhat of a precursor to this bill.

I want to say, first of all, that this bill is not about net neutrality. The Google crowd, the Internet crowd does not care about cable rates. But this bill is about cable rates. And what we know today is that cable rates are too high in America. We know that consumers are paying as much as 80 percent increases over the last years in cable rates, and so that is what this bill seeks to address. It addresses it by trying to create more competition. And there is no disagreement that if we had more competition in video services we would have lower cable bills.

Now, there are new companies, telephone companies and other companies, that want to come into the market. But under current law, they have to negotiate hundreds of thousands of individual agreements with local governments. That is why we don't have more competition.

This bill creates a national franchise and says we can bring in new entrants to provide competitive services and lower prices. What happens with this? Well, we do protect the local communities because they still receive franchise fees from new entrants. We protect their rights to control their rights-of-way.

We also have antidiscrimination to protect against redlining. We have language that says that if you discriminate, you can and will be punished and penalized. So I think this is a very good bill that addresses the fundamental issue, which is cable rates.

Let me turn for a moment to net neutrality. Understand, there is only finite space within the network. Everybody can't travel at top speed at the same time, so there has to be some differentiation. And ultimately, the issue is who will pay. Will the consumer pay, or will the content providers pay? That is the Google and the Internet and the innovators that they talk about. Those innovators, those people would rather have the consumer pay if there has to be a differentiation, if you want ultra-high speeds, if you want excessive amounts of the bandwidth.

I believe net neutrality is not a relevant issue here. I believe that we have a solid bill that addresses the fundamental concern, which is reducing cable rates. We have an opportunity to do something very good for the American people, and I think we ought to do it and pass the COPE bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I wanted to compliment her on her amendment because it focuses on a very important area and that is the diversity of technology providers, focusing on women-owned business, minority businesses and small businesses that want to compete as providers of technology, and the thrust of this bill is providing more competition. She recognizes it is providing an opportunity to help these small businesses compete.

There has been a lot of talk about build-out in neglected communities. One aspect of the bill that has not been considered is the fact that there are a lot of competitors who may go into other communities, underserved communities, who may be enthusiastic about the opportunities she is trying to provide.

So I wanted to indicate that she is on the right track with her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the issues that came up as we began to develop this bill was consumer protection and the role of the local franchising authority in protecting the interests of local consumers.

The bill says that we will have a national franchise, and it also provides that under the national franchise the FCC will promulgate specific standards for consumer protection, dealing with issues such as billing disputes, discontinuation of service, loss of service, service quality, changes in channel line-up, other service features, the availability of parental controls.

The amendment that I have today basically says that, number one, an individual that has a complaint may file a complaint with the FCC or with the local franchising authority. It says that the FCC or the local franchising authority must render a decision in 90 days of the filing of a complaint. That is to address the concern that the complaint process, the consumer protection process, is too time consuming and imposes burdens on the franchisee.

Second, the amendment provides that the local franchising authority, the cities, the counties, the States, may initiate on their own a complaint proceeding and file that complaint with the FCC regarding a violation of the rules promulgated by the FCC. They may issue an order requiring that the franchisee comply with the FCC's consumer protection rules. This order will stand and may be enforced by the FCC unless it is successfully appealed.

This basically adds to the consumer protections already in the bill and enables both the individual and the local community to bring an action to enforce the rules that are set forth by the FCC to protect the consumer.

In addition, the amendment provides for an annual report, because one of the things that we wanted to see was what was going on out there once we had this new field of competition and new providers of video services. So we will have a study that will come back to our committee and our companion committee in the Senate telling us about the number of complaints the FCC has received, the trend in these complaints, the timeliness of the response to these complaints. We believe this type of information will be very useful in determining whether we need stronger rules and regulations on consumer protection.

In sum, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment that protects the consumers and involves the local communities, and I urge its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me begin by thanking the gentleman for his kind words with respect to my amendment, and I also want to thank him for his leadership, along with that of our ranking member on other issues of great concern.

I would only point out that he has acknowledged that having the FCC promulgate and allow local enforcement of this rule is a good idea. I thank you for that comment, and that is what this amendment attempts to do.

Are there other things that might be desirable? I would certainly concur with him that there are, but I would certainly appreciate support for the amendment because, as he has pointed out, it addresses at least part of the issue that local communities have expressed concern about.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.