Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5252) to promote the deployment of broadband networks and services.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 850 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

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.

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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

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. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, we are very proud of the rule and we are very proud of the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

We appreciate your getting to us, Mr. Speaker, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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 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.

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.