Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 08, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time and her leadership on this important issue about openness and freedom on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, last year, House Democrats met with leaders around the country to create our innovation agenda, a commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one. One young technology leader told us, If you think you have seen it all on the Internet and broadband, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The objective of this legislation, to create more competition in the broadband marketplace, is a laudable one. But a key goal of the telecommunications policy must be that everyone in America, from the most rural areas to the most urban, is never more than a key stroke or a mouse click away from the jobs and opportunity that broadband can create and support. Bridging the digital divide with inclusiveness must be a central value of our broadband efforts, yet today absent from this bill is that spirit of inclusiveness.

Why are we not able to debate amendments that ensure that access is built out to the entire community and not limited by race or religion? Why are we not able to debate amendments to protect our local governments and enforce our local laws?

In fact, on the previous vote on consideration of the resolution that Ms. Baldwin put forward on unfunded mandates, it was reported by the CBO that this bill could cost local governments about $350 million in unfunded mandates.

It is interesting to me that the Republicans who have had not having unfunded mandates as a principle of their Contract with America, 100 percent of the Republicans voted for an unfunded mandate for localities in our country to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one Republican supported the principle of no unfunded mandates. What are the Republicans afraid of?

Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voices silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

One issue that we do have a chance to vote on today is the Markey amendment on net neutrality. Mr. Markey has offered an amendment that will continue the innovative tradition of the Internet by enacting net neutrality protections that ensure all consumers are able to access any content they wish with the same broadband speed and performance. The imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden Web-based small businesses and start-ups. They would hamper communications by noncommercial users, those using religious speech, promoting civic involvement and exercising first amendment freedoms.

That is why organizations across the political spectrum support net neutrality, from the Gun Owners of America to Common Cause, from the Christian Coalition to the Service Employees International Union. America's most innovative companies like Google and eBay and YouTube and Yahoo also favor the Markey amendment.

Without Net neutrality, the current experience that the Internet users enjoy today is in jeopardy. Without the Markey amendment, telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighways. This strikes at the heart of the freedom and quality of the Internet.

Today we can vote to retain the openness and innovation of the Internet. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the future, in favor of the Markey amendment, and against the restrictiveness of this rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/