John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not on the floor to control time, what happens?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest. Everybody is for competition. The bill says there will be unlimited competition in the area of broadband Internet, and guess what, it does. My friends on the other side say, but they do not want the competition to occur. Now, there is a very interesting situation. The way it works now is that the Bells cannot go into broadband because they have too many inhibitions and too much restraint on their investment, so they do not go in. The United States now has only 8 percent, whereas Korea has better than 36 percent of their homes wired for Superfund and broadband. Imagine how important that then is. Now, having said that, if we want to get investment, look at what the president of AT&T, one of the principal opponents of this legislation, says: nobody is going to invest if they do not get exemption from excessive regulation, which precludes their investment and does not allow them to get a return. What does the bill do? The bill does a series of things. First, it requires every part of the country to be served within 5 years. Second of all, it eliminates all constraints on competition. It does not hurt the CLECs, which by and large are noninvesting parasites which happen to get a huge benefit from the services that are provided by the Baby Bells. They get these services at a significant deduction in cost. They continue to get that. But on new investment, however, they will not get anything other than fair treatment. Now, AT&T wants just an unfair advantage. The people at the CLECs want, again, an unfair advantage because they want to see to it that any investment that comes on the part of the Baby Bells will be given to them at low cost. We are going to allow them to keep what they are getting now, but we are not going to permit them to get this kind of a sweetheart deal and to deny American users of the information net an opportunity to get the kind of services that they really want. That is what is at stake, and that is why the ferocious expenditure of money on lobbying against this particular piece of legislation. Now, if Members want to get service for the American people, if they want the Internet to be readily available, allow competition to reign. I was one of the authors and supporters of the original 1996 act. Allowing competition to take place was our purpose. I would observe to Members that the only way they are going to get it is to mandate it. The States will continue to have their authority to address voice service, the FCC will continue to be able to address voice service, but we are going to do what everybody says has to be done to get Internet service to everybody, and that is, we are going to get regulation out and competition in. Quality will appear for the American public in terms of service; and competition will give us competitive prices, which will benefit the American public. That is what this is all about. If Members want to take care of the American people, if they want competition, if they want services, that is the way to get it. One curious story has been going around, how Tauzin-Dingell would adversely affect competition and how it would adversely impact e-net. The simple fact of the matter is that the e-rate will not be affected in even the slightest fashion by Tauzin-Dingell. I would urge my colleagues to therefore support Tauzin-Dingell and oppose the amendments which will be offered by my good friends, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), which are in effect a crippling poison bill which will force continuance of regulation on that industry forevermore, and give us 50 different competitive sets of regulations that nobody can meet.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for purposes of control.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a principal co-sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. And I gather that the friends of the bill would also have that right, whereas the opponents of the bill would not, am I correct? I happen to be a friend of the bill, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) happens to be a friend of the bill. My dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), is a strong opponent of the legislation, as is my dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). So I would like to hear their comments, and since I have only one more request for time I would like to hear that one last, because it might convince me.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. What is it the Chair is telling us then? If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is not here and we conclude the debate, what happens?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard). (Mr. HILLIARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Am I correct to assume that the friends of the bill have the right to close?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has been in this place for more than 2 weeks and knows the phone number of the Parliamentarian could easily have found out that the rule before us is an eminently fair rule. Indeed, it is a conventional rule. It is one which allows the proponents of Cannon-Conyers to offer their amendment. It allows those who do not quite agree to it to offer a different amendment as a substitute. And under the normal Rules of the House of Representatives, I will tell my good friends and colleagues who are on the other side it then allows the first vote on the substitute so that the amendment offered by Cannon-Conyers, which, by the way, is very similar to one rejected by the Committee on the Judiciary, can then be first perfected. To my good friends who support Cannon-Conyers, I will simply observe, if you win, you will get your vote; if the House wants you to have a chance to prevail, you will, and you will then have a chance to offer your amendment. You will, in any event, be able to offer your amendment and have it considered by the House and debated. Mr. Speaker, this is the normal process under which the House considers legislation. So I would urge my colleagues to recognize that this is a fair rule. It is a conventional, traditional rule, one of the kind which has always been offered and which is viewed in the 200 and more year history of this institution as a fair and proper way in which the business of the House of Representatives should be conducted. Now a word about the legislation. The legislation is very simple. There has been a great deal of whining and complaining by a group of monopolists, would-be monopolists and parasites who do not want the legislation. The reason they do not want the legislation is it lets everybody compete in, guess what, Internet and broadband. It requires the broadband to be made available to the entire country within 5 years. The United States is now behind the whole world, the industrial world, in making broadband service available to our people. The investment in it is being strangled. This bill permits everybody to get in and to invest and compete. The House, in 1996, made the judgment that we were going to encourage the widest use of telecommunications and access to the information super highway, the intellectual highway, by allowing the fullest possible competition. We do not affect local net and long-distance for voice competition. We affect here only the Internet. This is opposed, as we might expect, by AT&T, which just wants to continue its ancient and special privilege. But it is supported by the AFL-CIO, the CWA, and others who want to see to it that we get the service that we need for our people in this area.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, yet again, we are involved in a most curious proceeding. The Republican majority is bringing forth, for a third time, an economic stimulus bill that cannot be passed in the Senate and is being brought up only for partisan reasons. Many of my colleagues in the Republican leadership talk about the obstructionism in the Senate. I say this exercise is the height of obstructionism. The House Republican leadership seems intent on doing things ``my way or the highway.'' And each time they pass the same old bill, they keep millions of unemployed Americans from getting the help they need. In fact, by their delay, more than 11,000 workers each day exhaust their unemployment benefits and therefore would immediately benefit from the Senate's unemployment extension. But the Republican leadership will not allow a vote on any other bill than their own. We can't even vote for the stimulus amendment on unemployment assistance that passed the Senate by voice vote. That is neither bipartisan nor responsible. In fact, at no time have my Republican colleagues reached out to me or other Democrats to work on an economic stimulus bill. At the one and only meeting we had on the stimulus health pieces in which the Republican leadership allowed Members to show up, we were told that they had to ``just say no'' to anything we had to discuss. That too is neither bipartisan nor responsible. So, here I am again, for the third time, telling you why this is a bad bill. The Republican leadership bill is supposed to provide immediate stimulus. So why do many of the tax provisions cost billions after 2002, in years when the economy is expected to be in recovery and stimulus is no longer needed? And why does this bill provide no meaningful immediate help for the millions of Americans without work and without health insurance coverage? For example, why can't we truly held laid-off workers continue COBRA coverage? The Republicans promise assistance for workers to continue coverage under COBRA. But, the 60 percent tax credit is inadequate to allow families to afford coverage; millions of workers would not even be eligible because of restrictive definitions; and the Republican leadership program sets the stage for complete gutting of the employer- sponsored insurance--something Republicans have long tried to do. This tax credit is even more meaningless for workers who don't quality for COBRA, as they tend to be working in lower paying jobs and would find it even more difficult to afford coverage, particularly in the indivdual market where in most instances there are no protections on cost or availability of coverage. Also, why can't we help laid-off workers who are not eligible for COBRA coverage? Presented with an option of building on a program, Medicaid, that already provides guaranteed, affordable health insurance coverage for nearly 44 million Americans and a program that currently does not provides health insurance to anyone, Republicans chose the program that has no experience providing coverage. Worse yet, they don't even guarantee any of the money would be used for health care. And, in attempt to counter some of our arguments, they provide funding to state high-risk pools, presumably to give people a place to spend their ``meaningless'' tax credits. Unfortunately, they are a day late and a dollar short: $40 million won't even cover 50% of these pools' costs for the two years it is available. Had we had a chance to offer a substitute, the Democrats would have offered something that truly helps laid-off workers. The Democratic proposal would reach 5.1 million Americans. The Democratic proposal would provide additional financial assistance to states to help them meet the increases in Medicaid enrollment as a result of the economic downturn. As millions join the ranks of the uninsured, we need to ensure states preserve, not limit, eligibility for coverage. The Democratic proposal would shore up health care providers as well. Providers are being hard hit by the economic downturn. The Democratic proposal would prevent physicians from taking a 5.4 percent reduction in their Medicare payments this coming year. It also includes bipartisan legislation to reduce regulatory obstacles in the Medicare program for providers. Both of these proposals should make it easier for providers to weather the economic downturn and continue providing quality care to seniors. But the Republican leadership has barred votes on any alternative proposals today. What are they afraid of? We want to put choices before the American public--they do not. We want to help displaced workers and shore up the health system to weather the economic downturn--they do not. We want to provide targeted, responsible stimulus--they do not. This Republican process is an outrage, serving only to obstruct help for unemployed Americans.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to assert my strong support for the Shays-Meehan substitute and to urge my colleagues to do likewise and to vote down all poison pills and crippling amendments.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, shame on us. This is an outrage. Current law says that Members of Congress get the lowest unit rate now on radio and television. This amendment says we get the lowest unit rate on the basis of being preemptable. That makes the other users of the broadcast spectrum subsidize us. The mom-and-pop stores, the drugstores, the automobile dealers, are all going to be paying our costs for our political ads, as will the local political candidates. We are literally putting our hands in the pockets of the local folks to get ourselves a special benefit. I do not have the arrogance to vote for a proposal of this kind, or to say this is in the public interest. This is nothing more or less than dipping into the pockets of the home folks to get Members a subsidy for the campaign. What is the change that it makes? It changes the law so that now, if passed, the bill would give special treatment to us above and beyond these other persons. This is unfair. I urge Members to adopt the amendment which will be approved by the Senate. Read BNA's publication this morning.