Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. FROST. 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.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the class action bill, it will take up the Putting Americans First Act, which will provide meaningful health care relief for unemployed workers. My amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully debate and offer amendments to this critical bill. Mr. Speaker, this week marked the 6th-month anniversary of the tragic events of September 11. Our economy was already in decline before the event, and became even more troubled following that date. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more are expected to join the ranks of the unemployed in the future. Job loss is not only the loss of a paycheck. It usually means the loss of health insurance, as well. These people need relief immediately, and they will get it from this bill. It is time for the House to do its work and pass legislation to help these people. Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the class action bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to get on with this much-needed legislation to provide health care assistance for those Americans who have lost their jobs and their health insurance. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this worker-relief bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. My colleagues on the other side want to say no, no, no, no, this is not about Enron. Explain that to the thousands of Enron employees who lost their life savings in their 401(k)s and who would like to bring a civil fraud action against executives at Enron in State court in Harris County, Houston, Texas. Explain that to them, please, if this is not about Enron. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, again, as I mentioned earlier, I find this all somewhat puzzling. My friends on the other side rail against these State judges. They think these State judges are out of control. In my State of Texas, we elect our State judges. In our largest county, Harris County, they are all Republicans. In our second largest county, Dallas County, they are all Republicans. In Tarrant County, where Fort Worth is located, they are all Republicans. Every member of our State supreme court, who is also elected, is a Republican. I do not understand what the Members on the other side have to fear from State judges, these out-of-control State judges. I guess they are distrustful of some members of their own party. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule, and to support the underlying bill because it will help close the digital divide and increase people's access to high-speed Internet service. I want to take a moment to put this issue in perspective. I may be dating myself a little, but the transition to broadband today reminds me of the transition to color television more than 40 years ago. When I was growing up in Fort Worth, just one family in my neighborhood had a color television. Everyone else had black and white sets. So when we wanted to watch football games in color, all of the neighborhood kids would pack into that one lucky family's house. Mr. Speaker, that is the current situation with broadband. Today, many homes and businesses in communities across the country have no more access to high-speed Internet service than they did 3 years ago when this bipartisan bill was first being debated in Congress. So needless to say, I am very pleased that the House will finally vote on H.R. 1542, the Tauzin-Dingell broadband bill today. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because it will expand access to high-speed Internet connections and increase competition for broadband services. Our current telecommunications law was passed only 5 years ago, but it is already outdated for the rapidly-evolving Internet markets. Tauzin-Dingell will permit Bell operating companies to operate high- speed data networks, the backbone of the Internet, throughout the country. It will also require those companies to upgrade all of their systems, in every community, for high-speed Internet within 5 years. Under current law, different rules for different broadband platforms have stifled innovation and saddled consumers with higher prices and fewer choices. Companies that offer high-speed Internet access over cable lines or satellites are allowed to compete free from regulation. But local phone companies that provide DSL service, which also offer high-speed Internet, are regulated like an old-fashioned telephone service. This disparity in regulation restricts access to high-speed Internet in many parts of the country. Presently, only a fraction of households have access to broadband services, and rural areas and inner cities are particularly underserved today. This bipartisan bill will help bring broadband to these underserved communities by utilizing phone lines that already run into nearly every home. Mr. Speaker, current law also drives up the cost people pay for high- speed Internet. Right now 64 percent of those households that have high-speed Internet access use cable modem service. Tauzin-Dingell would provide these consumers with another alternative by lifting the regulations on the major providers of DSL service. Let me give a couple of examples of how that affects families and small businesses. Many children use the Internet to do their homework, and if they cannot get high-speed service, kids have to spend the entire evening on the computer waiting for the information they need to complete their lessons. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill could also bring broader benefits to our economy. Unleashing competition in broadband service will lower prices for those using broadband services, and will bring high-speed Internet to consumers and small businesses without access today, allowing them to be more productive and more likely to invest in new equipment and technologies. By passing the Tauzin-Dingell bill today, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing high-speed Internet a step closer to all of our constituents. The greatest benefit of the Internet is choice. Consumers today can get the news and information they want, when they want it. Tauzin-Dingell will help preserve the free and open nature of the Web by giving consumers greater access to broadband connections and more choices in high-speed Internet providers. Mr. Speaker, some Members have reservations about the way the Conyers amendment is treated under the rule. They feel Conyers should be entitled to a straight up or down vote rather than being subjected to a substitute by Buyer and Towns. They will be given ample time during the debate on the rule to express their concerns. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. That is very peculiar logic on the other side. The Senate has sent us a 13-week extension. If the other side does not want the 13-week extension, let us have a vote as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has asked on the 13-week extension, and they can vote no. Let them vote no, but they do not have the courage to do that. Instead they are denying us a vote on the 13-week extension in the guise of we have got something much better. Well, something much better is not going to happen, and we can argue about whether it is better, but if they do not want the 13 weeks today, then let us have a vote on that, and let them vote no against the 13 weeks extension. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)