Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

In the brief time that I have, I briefly want to say a couple of things. One, this bill is important for a lot of structural reasons, and if we think about the fact that we have, in Congress, not done such a great job, dating back to the 1970s, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) pointed out earlier. This is a huge and significant step.

So for those out there who say we still need to do more, or we have some disagreements and we need to get it right, I would say this. I think this bill strikes a perfect balance at this particular time, and I have every bit of confidence that the new chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence will be able to get us to exact point that we all can agree on and where we all want to be.

Some would argue let us centralize it more; some would argue let us give it more power. Others on the other side say it is another bit of bureaucracy and we do not need it at all. I will say this simply. Deciding to establish a national intelligence director and establishing a National Counterterrorism Center will end the buck-passing that has occurred all too often around here.

I think it is a bold and significant stroke. I think it is the right balance at this point, and I also would point out for first responders that in this bill, this Congress takes its first steps forward to making those fundings risk-based. I salute the chairman for that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today in support of this legislation, in support of the effort here to honor one of the really great citizens of this Nation and certainly of our area. When my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. McNulty) asked me to cosponsor this bill and to come and speak on it, I was truly touched and honored by the opportunity. This is probably one of the more important things that I will do in my tenure here, because, Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant John Finn, while not from my district, from a district adjacent to my district, certainly touched, saved, and protected the lives of many of my constituents; and his passing was a deep, deep tragedy felt by all of the people of my district and I think indeed all of the people of this Nation. That is why this is such an appropriate response by this body, and I am proud to be part of it.

John Finn was a model citizen, a loving father, a doting husband, and a wonderful human being. He was, frankly, the person we would want all our children to be. He was the kind of person we would want to recognize as a great American.

I remember in the area, we had a memorial service shortly after his passing and his family, his wife, Maura McNulty-Finn, handled that process and the loss of John Finn in the community with such grace and such dignity and really won the respect of the entire community, and his daughters, Clara and Molly, two beautiful little girls, really touched the heartstrings of all of the people who recognized the loss that they were realizing and will realize for the rest of their lives.

John Finn was an officer of the law who took his job incredibly seriously, winning numerous awards for saving lives and constantly upholding his duties to those he swore to protect. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Finn, like far too many of our Nation's police officers, was killed in the line of duty. He was cut down in the prime of his life while doing his job, a job he did far better than most. He was killed because he made a choice on the night of December 23, yes, December 23, 2 days before Christmas of last year. Instead of backing down and living to fight another day, he chose to face danger head-on when he walked into that convenience store and into a hail of bullets. On that night, trying to stop a robbery, he joined the company of untold American heroes who gave the ultimate sacrifice so others may be saved. Lieutenant Finn died protecting others and upholding a code he chose to live by. He chose to live his life to the end with honor and bravery, and that is something our constituents and our government will never be able to repay.

We can, however, show our appreciation and honor his memory by naming the Lieutenant John F. Finn Post Office Building. We owe it to his family and his loved ones. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, when I attended Lieutenant Finn's funeral service, I was moved by the thousands from the area and from other States who filled an arena in Albany to pay their last respects to such a fine man. Today we are giving something back. I am really privileged to be part of it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in general support. I really want to acknowledge the very difficult and great work by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, and as a member of this subcommittee, as a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this is a tough, tough, tough piece of work to put together, and I rise to acknowledge that. Everybody knows where I come from. I come from the State that absorbed one of the greatest hits in the history of this country. So there are real challenges here that have real life consequences.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is one who has gotten that, and I wanted to recognize and I think he in this bill has attempted to bring and indeed has brought as balanced an approach as we could expect in this process, and as he said, this is an evolving process, and we may have some honest disagreements among friends, but we are united on the general principles. This bill does do an awful lot of accomplishing some of the things that we need.

I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the chairman as well. I want to thank him for participating in that, and I want to address a significant issue related to the Department of Homeland Security. That is the geospatial management issue which is a critical tool in providing homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman's work, the committee's work and the administration in providing due attention to geospatial technologies.

Satellite imagery, aerial photography and other geospatial technologies provide data to quickly visualize activity patterns, map location and provide information to conduct analyses to help prevent or lessen the impact from an emergency situation.

Mr. Chairman, there is no single office in DHS responsible for geospatial management and, therefore, no corresponding budget. In the present structure, the geospatial information officer does not have the authority to compel DHS directorates to cooperate.

Geospatial coordination will help end duplication of geospatial activities.

A geospatial management office needs to be created and codified within DHS under the Chief Information Officer.

I am pleased to see report language stating clear and concise policy direction is needed for geospatial information and technology efforts.

Under the gentleman from Kentucky's (Chairman Rogers) leadership, this committee supports the Department's request of $5 million to create a Department-wide geographic information system capability under the direction of the Chief Information Officer.

I would like to personally thank the gentleman for that and many other efforts in this bill and for the last several years and for his support and assistance.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers). As this process continues, I hope a geospatial information office is created, with a corresponding budget, at DHS.

Would the gentleman agree to work with me during conference to strengthen report language to direct the Secretary to create the Office of Geospatial Management within the CIO's office to oversee the geospatial activities?

I thank the chairman for all of his work, and let me just say, this is a tough, tough bit of work we have to do, an important debate, and we have one of the best at the helm, leading us in it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to as well applaud and acknowledge the work of the subcommittee chairman on this funding for the SAFER Act. It is something that we worked together with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and others through the subcommittee process, through the full committee markup. It is an important piece, an important effort. The $50 million is going to go a long way to maintain and preserve some essential services in some of the key and critical areas. And it was not an easy thing to do, and I think it is important. I am strongly in support of this.

Last year Congress enacted a new authorization as part of fiscal year 2004 DOD, an authorization bill known as the SAFER Act. It provided funds to hire up to 75,000 new firefighters. These are people critically needed in important places.

When I spoke earlier, Mr. Chairman, I talked about how balanced this was, how tough this bill was, how there were some really tough decisions in it, and this is a chairman who worked hard to find the right balances and find the right equities, and here is an instance where he did that, and I want to applaud him for that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to introduce two amendments tonight that I think go to the core of what is our fundamentally greatest challenge as it relates to protecting the homeland, and that is to provide a proper structure within which the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Government can properly and appropriately respond to the threats and risks that are presented out there unbiased, focused on the idea that the resources we have have to be directed to the places that are of greatest threat and at greatest risk.

The first amendment that I attempted to offer would have changed the formula, a formula that is pre-September 11, a formula that provides funding to jurisdictions regardless of the risk and the threat that it faces. I will quote one of my colleagues, one of the great members of the committee.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) said this bill, this funding proposition is not about cost sharing with local and State governments because we cannot meet all of those needs. I agree with him. We cannot meet all of those needs.

But this is about meeting the legitimate, precise and efficient needs of this Nation to protect its citizens. Our enemies, al Qaeda, the terrorist network, have something in common with us: They have finite resources, as do we. But one of the advantages that they have had is they are specifically targeted and are targeting their efforts to maximize the impact on the American people and the threat they present to us.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment in which we will transfer back to the President's budget number $446 million to the high threat fund that was established in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental.

The reason we need to do that is because we are actually slipping over the last couple of years in terms of the funds that we are sending out to meet the needs in the communities that are our greatest threat.

I will point to a couple of things. The national average per capita is $7.59; and, yet, jurisdictions like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois all are below $6, all in the $5 range in terms of what funding they are receiving through the formulation.

Now, we cannot vote on that particular part of activity in this amendment, but we can do something about it to give the Department itself the kind of flexibility and the Secretary the kind of flexibility he would need over the 2005 budget cycle to best protect the people of this Nation, and the Department is asking us to do this.

I will point to the statement of administration policy just released earlier today, and I will quote from it: ``The administration believes that the programs funded through the Department of Homeland Security should be better targeted toward terrorism preparedness. The bill does not provide the request to double funding for the risk-based Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, program, but instead provides funding above the requested level for the basic State and local formula grant program.''

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the next couple of years, certainly in the next year. I think we ought to give Tom Ridge and the Department what they need, what they have requested, what they need in the coming year in order to best ensure that this Nation is indeed protected. The net result of what we have established here in Congress over the last 3 years is a reduction.

For example, I know the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) was on the floor earlier and talked about the needs of New York City. Let me say that New York City spends a billion dollars a year on security in counterterrorism intelligence; and, yes, they have received some money, $300 million to New York State, I think, in 2003; but do you know what they received last year, Mr. Chairman? $50 million, a 70 percent reduction from the year before.

When James Comey came from the U.S. Attorney's office to talk about Jose Padilla the other day, it did not seem to me there was a 73 percent reduction in New York City. It seemed to me they are in the bull's eye, as are other jurisdictions; and we need to make sure that the Secretary and the Department have the appropriate tools to do their job.

The President has asked us to do this. It is enacted in the President's budget. You can look on page 147 of that budget. You can read their statement. Secretary Ridge to the 9/11 commission and repeatedly to the Senate and to the House has asked for that kind of flexibility. We ought to be giving him that kind of flexibility. This Congress ought not to be micromanaging the Department of Homeland Security. I think most of us agree on that, but we ought to be providing them the proper tools and resources with which they can do their job. That is what this amendment proposes. It gives them what they have asked for in their budget, and I ask my fellow Members to support that.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman reminded me of two important points that I do not think have been stressed here, and I very briefly want to state them.

One, it has been a misnomer by a number of Members who have come to the floor today pointing out that there is critical infrastructure throughout this Nation that needs to have security dollars addressed and directed towards it. This fund, the UASI fund, the high-threat fund includes all critical infrastructure.

Point number two is that this is not about any region. This is not about New York. This is about the whole Nation. As my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), said earlier, this is about one family, not 50.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Sweeney

Amendment No. 15: In title III, under the heading ``Office

for State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness_State and local programs'', after the second

dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''.

In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and

local programs'', before the semicolon at the end of

paragraph (1) insert ``: Provided further, That the amount of

any grant to a State in excess of any statutorily required

minimum amount shall be made on the basis of an assessment of

the risk of terrorism with respect to threat, vulnerability,

and consequences''.

In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and

local programs'', after the fourth dollar amount insert

``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Sweeney

Amendment No. 16: In title III, under the heading ``Office

for State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness_State and local programs'', before the semicolon

at the end of paragraph (1) insert ``: Provided further, That

the amount of any grant to a State in excess of any

statutorily required minimum amount shall be made on the

basis of an assessment of the risk of terrorism with respect

to threat, vulnerability, and consequences''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004. While I wholeheartedly understand the need for a national energy policy, I cannot in good conscience, support this legislation.

I am a proponent of tax incentives to spur growth, both in our economy, and in different sectors of our Nation's energy industries. The promotion of renewable forms of energy is a responsible move in many ways. It diversifies our energy supply, which curbs demand and lessens our dependence on foreign oil. Moreover, these renewable forms of energy are environmentally friendly, reducing emissions which prevent pollution, such as acid rain, from contaminating our lakes and forests. However, I feel there is much room for improvement in this bill. Certainly, more steps must be taken to control our Nation's gasoline prices and prevent massive blackouts, such as the blackout last year in the Midwest and Northeast.

Clearly, the most pressing concern I have with this legislation is the MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) liability waiver. In one town in my district alone, Hyde Park, New York, there are nearly 100 homes with water contaminated by MTBE. Some of these homeowners are considering filing liability lawsuits against the MTBE manufactures, and some have already reached settlements with these manufactures for cleanup. However, the retroactivity provision of this bill will negate their arguments made in these claims. Furthermore, there are over 14,000 MTBE sites awaiting cleanup throughout New York State. This will, undoubtedly, transfer the liability from the

manufacturers to the taxpayer. Why should we adopt such a dangerous policy in a time when we call for fiscal responsibility? I stand in clear opposition of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Congress will consider the aforementioned points on this legislation and we draft an energy bill that is both responsible and effective.

Offered By: Mr. Sweeney

Amendment No. 3: In title III, under the heading ``Office

for State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness_State and local programs'', after the second

dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''

In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and

local programs'', after the fourth dollar amount insert

``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Sweeney

Amendment No. 4: In title III, under the heading ``Office

for State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness_State and local programs'', before the semicolon

at the end of paragraph (1) insert ``: Provided further, That

the amount of any grant to a State shall be made on the basis

of an assessment of the risk of terrorism with respect to

threat, vulnerability, and consequences''.

Offered By: Mr. Sweeney

Amendment No. 5: In title III, under the heading ``Office

for State and Local Government Coordination and

Preparedness_State and local programs'', after the second

dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $450,000,000)''.

In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and

local programs'', before the semicolon at the end of

paragraph (1) insert ``: Provided further, That the amount of

any grant to a State in excess of the minimum amount under

section 1014(c)(3) of such Act shall be made on the basis of

an assessment of the risk of terrorism with respect to

threat, vulnerability, and consequences''.

In title III, under the heading ``Office for State and

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness_State and

local programs'', after the fourth dollar amount insert

``(increased by $450,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on this Memorial Day and remember our fallen heroes, I would like to offer special recognition for four incredibly brave men from my district who sacrificed their lives fighting the war on terror.

On September 10, 2003, Staff Sgt. Joseph E. Robsky, Jr. of the 759th Ordnance Company was killed when an improvised explosive device he was called on to neutralize detonated. Staff Sgt. Robsky was 31 years old.

On September 15, 2003, 31 year old Staff Sgt. Kevin Kimmerly of North Creek, New York was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack on the streets of Baghdad.

On April 8 of this year, a rocket-propelled grenade killed Army Spc. Isaac Michael Nieves as insurgents in Bani Saad, Iraq, ambushed his patrol. Spc. Nieves, from Sidney, New York, was 20 years old.

And on April 11, Easter Sunday of this year, 21 year old Pfc. Nathan P. Brown of South Glens Falls, New York was ambushed while on patrol with his unit in Samarra, Iraq. Nathan Brown served in the Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry, 1st Armored Division out of Glens Falls, New York.

Each of these remarkable young men left behind family and friends they loved and cared for. They were cut down in the prime of life by those who hate the very freedoms these soldiers, these Americans, these heroes, were trying to protect.

What makes their sacrifice even more special is the fact that not only were they fighting against the terrorists who have declared war on America, but that they were also fighting for millions of Iraqi citizens who yearn for the freedoms that so many of us take for granted.

With each passing day in the war on terror I think about these heroes and the ultimate sacrifice they made so our mission can be victorious. It is because of men like Joe Robsky, Kevin Kimmerly, Isaac Michael Nieves, Nathan Brown, and the hundreds of other Americans who lost their lives that we must succeed in our mission. I refuse to tarnish their memories by fighting this war in vain.

This Memorial Day, and all others afterward, will have extra significance for me. Casting a vote to send our troops into harm's way is the most difficult thing I have done since coming to Congress. While I remain convinced of the justness of our cause, I now have an even greater appreciation for our men and women fighting the war on terror thousands of miles away from their homes and families.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to honor the memories of the 20th District's bravest soldiers. I will spend my Memorial Day praying for their families, for the successful completion of their mission and for the safe return of all our troops. God bless them all, and God bless America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

This is a big day for me personally because this is a piece of legislation that represents an agreement on a piece of legislation that I first introduced 4 years ago, and I want to talk a little about the personal aspects of this and how I got involved in the whole anabolic steroid precursor and designer steroid issue.

My son, who I love and who I am lucky enough to get to spend some time with, and I work out fairly regularly together, Mr. Speaker. And, fortunately, about 5 years ago, at one of our workouts, my son was talking to me about some of his friends and his colleagues and some of their training habits. It was also 5 years ago almost immediately after the Mark McGwire record-setting home run streak in Major League Baseball. My son said that he and his friends had all been talking about how they could get better, how they could get bigger, stronger, faster, hit the ball better; and one of the ideas they had, by virtue of some of the advertising and some of the stories they heard about Mark McGwire, was to use a substance called andro.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), no greater a symbol of the American sports movement than Coach Tom Osborne at Nebraska, mentioned in his remarks andro and its effects, and the record was pretty clear that after Mark McGwire hit his home runs, performing under legal rules established at that time, the use of andro quadrupled, with teenagers making up a large portion of that population. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, one out of every 40 high school students admitted to using andro in the past year, and something in the range of 3 to 4 percent of junior high school students had talked about and were using anabolic steroids.

Now, 20 years ago, we addressed the issue of anabolic steroids and established very clearly the health risks that were attendant to it. But what we find now is this almost insidious effort to market products meant simply to skirt the law, simply to subvert the testing processes that exist and targeting a very vulnerable part of our population, young athletes, people who cared about their fitness, and marketing these products in order to take advantage of that circumstance.

So this legislation coming forward today represents Congress' response to that, an appropriate response that will effectively make it illegal to sell over the counter now, with that presumption of sales over the counter, that a product is safe and does what it says it does. It will make it illegal to sell those products over the counter at the GNCs, at the Wal-Marts, or any of the other places. And what it effectively does is protect our kids, which is, obviously, a very important part.

Now, make no mistake about it, keeping our children safe is far more important than restoring the integrity to the sports world, Mr. Speaker; but with the Anabolic Steroid Control Act we accomplish both of those things. In athletics today, the lines of fair play have been blurred by the prevalence of steroid precursors and designer steroids; and athletes have become more creative in turning those substances, such as andro, into their muscle-building cousins.

Now, I want to respond a little to one of the prior speakers, and this was the gentlewoman who preceded me most immediately, and that was the issue of DHEA and whether we have DHEA mentioned in the list of products specifically mentioned here. As someone 4 years ago that introduced legislation that was very broad and said that any precursor or any designer steroid ought to be outlawed, I came to recognize that that legislation, under the instruction of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, probably would not have survived judicial scrutiny.

What we have in this legislation is the perfect balance to make sure that the legislation we pass forward will have the effect we choose it to have, and that is making sure that manufacturers are putting on the shelves products that do what they say and are safe, and, secondly, outlawing those that are not. So whether DHEA is mentioned in this legislation or not, or any other product that is devised, and there will be others the manufacturing community will come forward with, whether they are made illegal or not does not really matter here, Mr. Speaker.

The burden of proof is now shifted to them. The effective tools that we need in order to protect our kids, to protect athletes, and protect the next generation, and to protect the integrity of sports are here. That is why the FDA, the DEA, the United States Olympic Committee, the NFL, the NCAA, all of those groups, the U.S. Anti-Doping Association, CASPER, and all of those groups have come out in support of this legislation. They recognize that this long fight, begun 20 years ago in this body, is coming to the right conclusion, a conclusion that protects the American people.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the hard work and efforts of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). He committed with me 4 years ago to pass this legislation, and we have gotten that done. I also want to recognize the great work of the Committee on the Judiciary and its chairman, who gave us not only an opportunity to be heard but carried this legislation, through the ranking member; and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble); and his ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for their subcommittee work on all this. This is a strong bipartisan effort that is for the good of the American people.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out that all major sport entities of any credibility in this Nation have endorsed this legislation. It is time for Major League Baseball, and most specifically the Major League Baseball Players Association, to end the foot-dragging and to go forward and ban in their own sport these substances that threaten the integrity of their sport. And do it not just because the integrity of their sport is threatened, but do it as well because it is good for America, good for American athletes, and good for the next generation.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support Chairman Duncan Hunter and the House Armed Services Committee efforts to provide our troops with the equipment necessary to successfully accomplish their missions in the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom, more specifically.

Specifically, the FY05 Defense Authorization bill funds procurement initiatives near-and-dear to my heart, to include full funding for the Up Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled

Vehicle, providing the ability to purchase over 6,000 up armored Humvees, and funding for ballistic armor for other Humvees and trucks, as well as Interceptor Body Armor funding.

Mr. Chairman, this is of particular concern to me since recently I approached the Chairman after several U.S. Army National Guard soldiers from my District in Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 108th Light Infantry were killed and wounded on Easter Sunday during an attack in Samarra, Iraq.

Private First Class Nathan Brown was killed in action after being struck by a rooftop fired RPG while riding in a 5-ton truck.

Armored and up armored vehicles and body armor equipment are not just necessary but required, and it is Congress' job to provide these resources to troops in combat.

The Pentagon must know it is Congress' intent to provide all the tools needed to successfully complete their missions in Iraq and around the world. The message Congress is sending to the bureaucracy that supports our military and the field commanders in theater is the same. Our collective expectation is for the Department of Defense to put this equipment to the best use immediately, in order to allow the men and women on the ground sacrificing their lives to fully succeed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, I would like to take this time to honor an extraordinary organization. The Vascular Birthmark Foundation is dedicated to changing the lives of those children who were born with vascular birthmarks or tumors, such as hemangiomas and port wine stains.

Vascular birthmarks occur in approximately 40,000 children born annually. One in 10 children is born with a vascular birthmark; and of these children, one in 100 is born with a birthmark that will require the attention of a medical specialist.

Such a birthmark can have a huge impact on the life of the child and his or her family. Fortunately, the Vascular Birthmark Foundation exists to lend support and help to those affected.

The New York-based Vascular Birthmark Foundation promotes public awareness of vascular birthmarks, provides educational resources, funds research projects, and helps families and individuals receive the information and support they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing May 15, 2004, the National Vascular Birthmark Foundation Awareness Day.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, because this bill is coming to the floor as a conference report, I am unable to offer a very important amendment. My amendment would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to complete and issue its rulemaking in CC Docket 02-33 within 60 days of passage of this bill. This is proceeding pending at the FCC to determine whether broadband facilities provided by telephone companies should be regulated as telephone services under Title II of the Communications Act or as information services under Title I of the Communications Act.

The FCC adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February 14, 2002. Comments were filed on May 3, 2002 and reply comments on July 1, 2002. The FCC, however, has been sitting on its hands for the last 16 months.

This is the same agency that, once it voted on its triennial review report and order spent another six months before actually releasing the text of the order. The FCC has not ruled on the petitions for reconsideration pending on the triennial review. My amendment will also require the FCC to rule on these petitions for reconsideration within 60 days of passage of this bill. Unfortunately, the FCC's Nero seems to be fiddling again while the telecommunications industry's Rome is burning.

The Industry is in state of regulatory stasis concerning broadband. Companies do not know what the broadband rules will be, so they cannot make sound decisions as to when, where, and even whether to deploy broadband. This is an industry that has lost more than 500,000 jobs during its current economic slide.

This inaction is inexcusable. The delay is further harming an industry already seriously wounded. There is little doubt that ubiquitous deployment of broadband will boost the U.S. economy, and particularly the moribund telecommunications sector. A recently updated study by Robert Crandall, Charles Jackson, and Hal Singer states that ``the cumulative increase in capital expenditures associated with the ubiquitous adoption of current generation (broadband) technologies will result in the cumulative increase in gross domestic product (GDP) of $179.7 billion (over nineteen years) and will sustain an additional 61,000 jobs per year.'' Yet, the FCC continues to ignore the negative economic impact its indecision has on the industry.

All my amendment does is require the FCC to complete something it should have done over a year ago. We've given the FCC enough time. The American people are waiting and the U.S. Congress has had enough of the FCC's paralysis.