Tim Holden

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of H.R. 2564, a bill to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 450 North Centre Street in Pottsville, PA, as the Peter J. McCloskey Postal Facility. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah], ranking member, and all 21 members of the Pennsylvania delegation for cosponsoring this legislation and bringing it to the floor today. Madam Speaker, Pete McCloskey has dedicated his entire life to serving his country, his Government, and helping people. He was born in New Castle Township, PA, on September 20, 1920, and graduated from Cass Township High School in 1938. In February 1941, Pete married Catherine ``Kitty'' Mahoney. They are the proud parents of Ethel McCloskey Joyce and have four grandchildren: Patrick, Peter, Lalor and Kaeti. In 1942, Pete joined the U.S. Army Air Corps serving with distinction as an aerial gunner instructor in the European Theater. Upon discharge from the Army, he worked for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and was later appointed by Pennsylvania Auditor General as the supervisor for the Bureau of School Audits, where he served until 1967. In 1968, he was appointed postmaster of the Post Office in Pottsville, PA. In his 23 years as postmaster of Pottsville, he earned the respect of the hundreds of employees he supervised, approximately 30 of whom moved on to become postmasters in their own right. During his tenure as postmaster, and prior to that and since that, Pete not only earned the respect of his coworkers and his employees but of the entire community of Pottsville and of Schuykill County, PA. Whether that be involved with civic organizations such as the Elks or the Rotary or the Lion's or the Knights of Columbus or with his church, Saint Patrick's. After retirement from the Postal Service, Pete continues to be active in the community. He has served on the Pottsville Housing Authority Board of Directors. And the thing that most impresses me about Pete McCloskey is that he never looks to help himself; he is always there to help others with their problems. Madam Speaker, I wish I could count the number of times that Pete has come to see me or other political leaders or other businesspeople in the community to say I have so-and-so who is in need of a job. They have a difficult situation right now and they need employment. Can you help them? Or the number of times he would bring a widow to my office and say, can you help with the black lung benefits? Or another constituent of mine who had trouble with the Social Security Administration or with the Veterans Administration. It is Pete who acts as an intermediary to try to bring those people to get help. He does that through my congressional office, with the county commissioners, with our State representatives throughout Schuykill County and, in particular, the city of Pottsville. Madam Speaker, here is a man who has dedicated his life to serving his community and, as was mentioned by the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], he is a retired worker from the Postal Service. I think it is proper and fitting that we rename the Pottsville Post Office for Peter J. McCloskey. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this to the floor.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug] which seeks to rescind an additional $292 million from the clean coal technology program. I recognize that these are tough budgetary times. Therefore, we must prioritize, and I believe that one of our priorities should be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Coal is the largest domestic source of energy produced in the United States. Current estimates demonstrate a 250-to-300-year coal resource base in the United States. We have more coal than the rest of the world has recoverable oil. Think about that, more coal than the rest of the world has in recoverable oil. Therefore, it is important that we invest in the research and development that will allow Americans to continue benefiting from this abundant, secure, and affordable fuel source without compromising the environment. I am proud to represent an area in Pennsylvania that sits on the largest anthracite coal deposit in the country. Anthracite is considered the cleanest burning solid fuel on the commercial market today. With continued research of anthracite coal, the potential of the United States becoming energy self-sufficient in an environmentally friendly manner is enhanced. The clean coal technology program is important for several reasons: cleaning up the environment by burning waste coal. In my home County of Schuylkill alone there is an excess of 1 billion, with a B, billion, tons of waste coal that has accumulated over the years. Reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and air toxics. Developing cleaner, more efficient power systems. Sponsoring promising technologies that are too risky for private industry to undertake alone. Providing a model for future government-industry technology partnerships. And providing tremendous job opportunities in this country, not in the Middle East. Coal research and development will provide huge benefits for the Nation and pay for itself many times over through taxes flowing back to the Treasury from expanded economic activity. Let us not curtail the research that will help us achieve energy self-sufficiency in this country. This amendment presents a clear choice between investing in the future or just giving up and remaining dependent on foreign oil. I urge a ``no'' vote on my friend's amendment.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Mica. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during my earlier statement, I am aware there are still some groups with concerns about certain provisions of this bill. Though we expect to pass this bill in the House today, I would like the gentleman's commitment to continue working with me, our colleagues in the Senate, and all interested parties to address these concerns and further improve the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In following up to my prior inquiry, Mr. Speaker, I want to have a commitment from the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] that I received privately, off the record, that we would continue to work with interested parties who have some concerns about the bill and do our best to address those concerns as we move forward with the process.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who was the subcommittee ranking member in the last Congress and worked very hard on this legislation.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 240, the Veterans' Employment Opportunity Act. I would first like to congratulate the Civil Service Subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], for his leadership and bipartisan efforts on behalf of America's veterans to strengthen the veterans preference policies and programs. The spirit of cooperation on both sides of the aisle has been critical in bringing forward this important legislation. Last year Chairman Mica and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member, did a great job working on this issue, a great deal of work on this issue. H.R. 240 continues our efforts to strengthen veterans preference. It builds on the progress made by last year's bill by improving the ability of veterans to compete during the Federal hiring process, providing adequate protection for preference eligibles and reductions in force, extending veterans preference to all branches of the Federal Government and providing veterans preference for service in Bosnia, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The bill also makes knowing violations of veterans preference laws a prohibited personnel practice. Finally, it makes improvements in the system for investigating and redressing violations whenever they occur. Testimony in previous Civil Service Subcommittee hearings has revealed that veterans preference in the Federal work force is often ignored or circumvented and that its continued viability in the workplace is threatened on several fronts. This legislation addresses these problems by making it more difficult for agencies to place preference eligibles in single-position competitive levels. Under this bill, preference eligibles cannot be placed in such a competitive level if by reason of their education, training or experience, a reasonable person could conclude that they would be able to successfully perform another job at the same grade and in the same competitive level within 150 days. In such cases, the preference eligible is to be placed in another competitive level for which he or she qualifies. We have always agreed that our veterans deserve special consideration in employment decisions because of their special contributions to our country, and this bill continues that tradition. Our veterans answered their call to duty and were always there for our country in times of need. This legislation honors our obligation to our veterans, who make up 28 percent of the Federal Government employees, and protects their rights in the Federal work force. H.R. 240 is a good bipartisan framework for strengthening veterans preference. I know that some concerns remain about specific provisions of the bill, and I look forward to working with the chairman and all interested parties to address these concerns. With the leadership of the Civil Service Subcommittee in the House and the cooperation of the Senate, we have an opportunity with H.R. 240 to pass an effective bill which will give our veterans help in obtaining and retaining civilian employment within the Federal Government based upon their military service. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] who is the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a constituent of mine, Thomas L. Lewis. Mr. Lewis is retiring this week after nearly 41 years as an employee of American Home Foods and as a leader in the United Food and Commercial Workers, local 38 in Milton, PA. Thomas Lewis began his career at American Home Foods on September 24, 1956, and was initiated into the local 38 leadership as a union steward. He became the secretary-treasurer of the union local in 1965. In 1970 Mr. Lewis began to serve as chief committee person, first shift, and continued in that position as well as secretary-treasurer until 1985 when he was elected to serve as president of the local 38 for the term beginning 1986. He was re-elected to serve as president for three consecutive terms. Thomas Lewis has also served on the Pennsylvania AFL/CIO legislative and political committees as well as its fan committee, safety committee, and its job committee. He also served as the Pennsylvania AFL/CIO vice president. Mr. Lewis has also served as the vice president of the Central Labor Council and has been an active participant in contract negotiations for American Home Foods and has also been instrumental in IUD coordinated bargaining for health and welfare benefits for AFH union members. When Thomas Lewis became a union member, the union was known as the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. They later merged with the Retail Clerks and changed the name of the union to what we now know as the United Food and Commercial Workers. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Lewis is a fine example for all Americans because of his hard work and commitment. I would like to congratulate him on all his accomplishments and wish him great success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret, that I rise today to ask my colleagues to vote in opposition to the Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act. First, I want to commend Mr. Mica and Mr. Moran for their hard work on this bill. Their efforts have been critical in getting the bill this far. Nevertheless, I am afraid that I cannot support this bill because there are still changes which need to be made. I understand the late hour requires that this bill be considered on the Suspension Calendar, but I cannot support it without amendment. When the bill was considered in subcommittee and full committee, we agreed to continue to work to remedy the concerns about the performance evaluation sections. Unfortunately, those concerns have not been addressed, and the performance evaluation section remains. This bill is correctable, and I am confident that these problems can be addressed in the future. For today, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I hope we can work in the future to pass civil service reform.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me for a moment in memory of Kyle and Amy Miller of Tamaqua, PA. Kyle and Amy were among the passengers on the TWA Flight 800 which crashed on route from New York to Paris last Wednesday night. They were on their way to Paris to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. Their loss, and the loss of all of the passengers and crew on the plane, was a horrible tragedy. Kyle and Amy symbolized the American spirit and were outstanding members of their community. Kyle was a small businessman and owned part of his family hardware and plumbing businesses. Amy worked at the hardware store and was a member of the Tamaqua Area School Board. Her work in local education programs was outstanding and she was the top vote-getter in both the primary and general election. Both Amy and Kyle were well liked and well respected in the community. I would like to offer my condolences to their families. Amy and Kyle were very special young people and they will be missed greatly.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to cosponsor the bill I will introduce today, the Social Security Benefits Fairness Act of 1996. Under current law, no Social Security benefits are paid for the month of death. When a person dies, their family is not entitled to the benefits and must send back the Social Security check--even if they lived for most of the month. This happens to many families in my district. For example, Mrs. Phyllis Strunk's husband, Royden, died on May 31, 1996, at 7:04 p.m., living the entire month and incurring normal living expenses. His wife was told she would not receive her husband's benefits for May because he did not live 4 hours and 56 minutes longer. According to his family, Mr. Strunk ``lived a quiet life after [serving in] the war--he obeyed the law, paid his taxes, voted, gave to those less fortunate than he, and rarely had an extra dollar after his families needs were met. In many ways, the country [he] had honored and fought for cheated him in life, and now, it has repaid his loyalty by also cheating him in death.'' This law is cruel and affects people adversely when they are already saddened and distraught by the death of a family member. I have heard from tearful and outraged widows and widowers, daughters, and sons who have already suffered a great loss--they want to know why they have to send the money back when it is needed to pay utilities, rent, and other bills left by the death of a loved one. People can not control when they die, but, unfortunately, their bills and expenses remain. Why punish those who pay their taxes, serve our country, and are law- abiding citizens? We should be going after the people who evade our tax system and the convicted felons who continue to receive Social Security benefits while in prison--not those people who contribute to society. This law is unfair and absurd. That is why I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Fairness Act of 1996. My bill will return fairness to the Social Security System. The bill would amend the Social Security Act, allowing benefits to be paid for the month of death. A surviving spouse or family estate would receive one-half of a month's benefits if a person dies within the first 15 days of a month and full benefits if a person dies after the 15th. Making this fair and fundamental change will ensure that a surviving spouse or family will have the Social Security check to cover the expenses for the last month of life. Please join me in this effort and cosponsor the Social Security Benefits Fairness Act of 1996.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to cosponsor a bill I am introducing today, the Social Security Benefits Fairness Act of 1996. Under current law, no Social Security benefits are paid for the month of a death. When a person dies, their family is not entitled to the benefits and must send back the Social Security check, even if they lived to the end of the month. This happened to a family in my district. Phyllis Strunk's husband, Royden, died on May 31, 1996, at 7:04 p.m. almost living the entire month and incurring living expenses. His wife was told she would not receive her husband's benefits for May because he did not live 4 hours and 56 minutes longer. This is unfair and absurd. My bill will put fairness and security back into Social Security. Under my bill, if a person dies before the 15th day of a month, the family will receive \1/2\ of the month's benefits. If a person dies after the 15th, the family would receive the entire amount of the benefits. It is simple and fair. Please join me in this effort and cosponsor the Social Security Benefits Fairness Act of 1996.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, we are far too dependent in this country on foreign oil. What we need to be doing is investing in our own natural resources. I represent the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania. We have between 300 and 500 years of coal reserves left. We should be spending our Federal dollars investing in alternative uses of anthracite coal and not be so dependent on foreign oil. Scientists already are able to convert anthracite coal into diesel fuel. We are not able to do that cost efficiently yet. We need to invest in our own natural resources. Anthracite coal is a prime example where I believe this Congress should be spending money. Anthracite coal is low in sulfur, and high in Btu, and meets all of EPA's requirements as far as emissions go. So I say to my colleagues, defeat this amendment. Let us invest in our own natural resources.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay my respects to two servicemen from my district who were recently killed in military training accidents. Two brave men, Marine Capt. David Holley, and Army CWO Walter Fox, were involved in aircraft crashes. Both of these men grew up in my district, Captain Holley in Pottsville and Chief Fox in Barnesville. Both had outstanding military records and gave their lives in service to this country. Captain Holley was a member of the 533d Marine All-weather Attack Fighter Squadron and is presumed dead after his F-18 went down over the Atlantic Ocean. His father, Dave Holley, and mother Darly are good friends of mine. Captain Holley was an outstanding young man, and his loss is a true tragedy. Chief Warrant Officer Fox was a member of the 160th Special Operations Air Regiment and was killed when his MH-47E Chinook helicopter crashed in Kentucky last week. He was a veteran of Operation Desert Storm and had a distinguished service record. On behalf of the people of the Sixth District of Pennsylvania, I want to honor both Captain Holley and Chief Fox and let their families know that our thoughts and best wishes are with them. Chief Warrant Officer Fox and Captain Holley were great Americans, and their lives and sacrifices will not be forgotten.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 furthers the vital local telecommunications competition goal by prohibiting States and local governments from erecting barriers to new entrants providing service. This is an excellent provision, but, because it is a general mandate, there may be creative attempts to get around it. At the very least, such attempts to skirt the law would result in lengthy litigation, which would slow investment and competition. It is for that reason that I would like to spell out in more detail the types of requirements that State and local governments should not be able to impose: A State or local government should not be able to require that any provider: Demonstrate that its provision of service would not harm the competitive position of any current or future providers of service, would be beneficial to consumers, or would not affect universal service; Show that its provision of service would not harm the network of any provider, other than agreeing to abide by uniform technical requirements; Agree to provide service in, or build out, all or any parts of a franchise territory; Show financial capabilities not relevant to the service to be provided and not required of other providers; Limit its offering of service until another provider obtains regulatory relief, that is, withhold offering a service until the incumbent provider receives pricing flexibility. I hope this list proves useful to State and local governments in their efforts to implement this new law and to the FCC in its oversight of this provision.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, the time has come in this Chamber for action. Senator Dole summed it up absolutely correct when he said in the other Chamber, ``Enough is enough,'' as he guided a continuing resolution through the other Chamber that opened up the Federal Government. We need to do the same thing in this Chamber. I have thousands of Federal employees in my district, in the Social Security Administration, in the Veterans' Administration, at Federal prisons, at Minersville, Lewisburg, and Allenwood who are either on a furlough, or who are being forced to work extra hours, an extra shift, and not being paid. It is not right to use Federal employees as pawns in this game in this whole budget debate. So I say to my colleagues, let us pass a continuing resolution and let us continue this debate on balancing the budget. I say to my colleagues on the other side, I want to work with you. I want to work with you in balancing the budget in 7 years using CBO numbers, and we can do that. The framework for doing that is already in place. We need to continue the dialog and have a give-and-take process. If you look at the coalition budget that was offered in this House, it balanced the budget in 7 years and had no tax cuts. I say to you that is a framework. We can work with that and we can balance the budget. You look at the budget that passed this House and we had $245 billion in tax breaks in that. To me, that is personally unacceptable; it is too large. But I am willing to go halfway and meet my friend on the other side in moving toward balancing the budget.

Mr. HOLDEN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. HOLDEN. I do not know if the President will accept that budget, but I can tell you that I will accept it, and there are numerous Members on our side of the aisle who have already voted for it and many more who will vote for it when it comes up again. When you look at the differences in the budget, the budget that passed the House that the gentleman voted for had a $245 billion tax break in it. If you would reduce that, say, down to $110 or $100 billion, still giving a tax break to working families, and put that $100 or $110 billion in savings into the Medicare system where we would only be having, say, $150 or $170 billion in the slowing of growth of the Medicare Program, that is something that is acceptable to me. I look at my district where I have 95,000 Medicare recipients and thousands more waiting to go into the Medicare Program; and I look at the hospitals in my district, and right now they are only receiving $1 for every $1 of services they are providing for Medicare patients. Under the proposed budget that the gentleman voted for, that would go down to 88 cents.

Mr. HOLDEN. Well, I would say to the gentleman, if we can put a budget on this floor that I believe in, I would vote for it and I would vote to override a veto if it was. I cannot speak for the entire Democratic membership, but I believe that this process that is going on now where people are saying, it is going to be my way or no way at all, is not healthy for the gentleman or me or the American people. We need to get this process going, and there are points of contention that I believe can be ironed out. Medicaid is one of the contentions that I have, the Medicaid system. I am not exactly thrilled with block-granting Medicaid, and the reason for that is Pennsylvania has the second highest senior citizen population in the country, next to Florida. Under the proposed budget that passed the House, Pennsylvania would lose $9 billion over 7 years in the Medicaid Program. Forty-five percent of all Medicaid expenditures in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are for the senior citizens and nursing homes. So to lose $9 billion, half of that which goes to seniors and nursing homes would put a terrible burden on the Commonwealth. I am not saying that would vote for a program that block-granted Medicaid, but we would have to make sure it was fair and that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in my case, would be treated fairly. I am sure the gentleman would feel the same about Georgia. If I could just sum up and thank the gentleman for the dialog and say that I believe that we can pass a balanced budget, but there are those who will not give in on the tax cut that might have to be left behind, and there are those who do not really have the priority of balancing the budget that may need to be left behind, but we can drive a budget down the middle, and that is what the American people want us to do.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin. Last Saturday was truly a sad day, because not only did Israel lose a fine Prime Minister, but the world lost a great leader. He began as a soldier fighting for his nation's freedom, and died as a soldier for peace. The life of Yitzhak Rabin is the story of Israel. He was born in Jerusalem in 1922 and fought for Israel's independence. He worked his way through the ranks of the Israel Defense Forces, becoming Chief of Staff and the architect of the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War in 1967. He was first elected Prime Minister in 1974, and was again elected in 1992. In a time when great leadership was needed, Yitzhak Rabin always stepped forward to serve his nation. He will be remembered as one of the greatest leaders of our century and as a man with the fortitude to lay down arms and embrace his enemy in the name of peace. I had the great pleasure to meet Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem in May of this year and it was an experience that I will never forget. I still have a picture in my mind of him sitting in a conference room talking to us. He was a man of great courage and vision. He had the foresight and bravery to fight for peace, to lead his country into a peace with people who had previously been bitter enemies. I also had the privilege to be present on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, when Prime Minister Rabin and Yasir Arafat signed a historic peace accord that has opened a new chapter of peace in the Middle East. It was the personal courage and leadership of Mr. Rabin that made the accord possible. Now the fight for peace continues, despite the loss of one of its finest soldiers. The peace process must go on despite this tragic loss. The voices and acts of extremists cannot be allowed to stand in the way of progress. The greatest tribute which can be done for Yitzhak Rabin is continuing the peace process. He will not be forgotten, and his achievements will be memorialized in the future by the sight of Israelis and Arabs living together in peace.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich Medicare plan will have a devastating effect on health care for citizens in Pennsylvania. I spent the summer talking to my hospital administrators and they tell me that currently they are reimbursed $1.01 for every dollar of services they provide to a Medicare patient. Under the Gingrich plan they will be reimbursed $.88 for every dollar of services they provide. There are two choices that our hospitals are going to be left with: Cost shift on to employers and working families who are paying premiums, or reduce services for senior citizens. This plan is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, the American people cannot be fooled. The American people know that the Medicare trustees have called for $90 billion to make the system solvent to the year 2006. The Democratic plan does that. And the American people also know that the Republican plan only puts in $90 billion to make the plan solvent to 2006, and the rest of the money is being used for a tax break and to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. That is wrong.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to our World War II veterans as we commemorate the 50th anniversary of World War II. We stand here today because of the sacrifices and efforts of those people who fought and gave their lives for freedom. Countless soldiers, sailors, and airmen, gave their lives at places like Midway, Normandy, Anzio, Bastogne, and Okinawa, so that we could enjoy the blessings of liberty. There were many heroes worthy of our recognition and praise. I am proud that one of those heroes is from my district, and is here with us today. It is my great pleasure that Capt. Jim Burt of Wyomissing, PA, is here with us. Captain Burt is an Army veteran and a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Captain Burt risked his life in heavy fighting near the city of Aachen in Germany. Despite being wounded early in the fighting, Captain Burt led his troops for more than 8 days until victory was won. I would like to thank Captain Burt, and all of the men and women who fought and gave their lives to preserve our freedom. [[Page E 1921]] You answered the call of duty, and we thank you for all that you have done for our great country. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring these fine men and women.

Mr. HOLDEN

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition with the process which was used for this important legislation. This bill will impact the life of every American--whether they talk on the telephone, listen to the radio, watch television, or send a fax. Even more significantly, it will impact technologies that have not yet been imagined and will be developed in the next century. So how does the House of Representatives deal with this bill? By debating it into the dark of night under a rule which allows for almost no amendments. This process is seriously flawed. The primary goal of this bill is supposed to be to increase competition through deregulation. Unfortunately, the bill as amended by the manager's amendment, falls short of this goal. For example, the bill does not require that there be any real, substantial competition in the local telephone loop prior to Bell entry into the long-distance business. Several amendments were proposed to the Rules Committee to improve the bill and ensure that local competition will develop. None were made in order. One such amendment, to ensure that 10 percent of local residential and commercial customers have access to a viable competitor prior to Bell entry into long distance, was rejected. In my State of Pennsylvania, which has 5.3 million local access lines, this means that a Bell company could provide long-distance service to State residents once a competitor could provide service to just 530,000 access lines. Now why is it so important to have local competition before allowing the local telephone monopoly into long distance? Without real competition in the local loop prior to entry into long distance, a company can control long-distance service provider access to their long-distance customers because all long-distance calls must traverse the local loop to reach telephone customers. In short, the Bell system can use its monopoly control over the local loop into monopoly control over the long-distance business. This bill does not prevent the Bells from extending their monopoly and denying the benefits of competition to our constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and no on this bill in order to protect telephone consumers.