[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2303-H2312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 37, DISAPPROVING FCC INTERNET
AND BROADBAND REGULATIONS
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 200
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 37) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Federal Communications Commission with respect to
regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the joint
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a resolution that
comes under the Congressional Review Act, an act passed by a Republican
Congress and President Clinton that gives the Congress the opportunity
to look at the regulatory burdens imposed by the executive branch and,
in a simple up-or-down vote, say do we want this regulation on the
books or do we not.
[[Page H2304]]
Today that regulation is the net neutrality regulation the FCC has
promulgated. H.J. Res. 37, the underlying bill that this rule allows us
to consider, disapproves of the December 21 FCC rule concerning net
neutrality on the basis that Congress did not authorize the FCC to
regulate in this area. According to a D.C. Circuit Court decision in
April of last year, the FCC failed to demonstrate that it had the
authority to regulate Internet network management. Until such time as
the FCC is given that authority by this Congress, we must reject any
rules that it promulgates in this area.
Now, we will hear a lot today in the underlying resolution about the
effective compromise that was crafted by the FCC. We will hear a lot
about the light touch that was used by the FCC to wade into this area.
{time} 1230
But, Mr. Speaker, if you don't have the authority to do it, you don't
have the authority to do it. It is Congress' responsibility to delegate
that authority. If folks like the underlying rule proposed by the FCC,
they are welcome to bring that back as a congressional resolution.
This bill today is about congressional prerogative: Will we or will
we not stand up to an executive branch that does not have the authority
to regulate? We have done a sad job in this Congress in years past, Mr.
Speaker, of providing that oversight responsibility. Republicans had
the responsibility of providing oversight to the Bush administration,
and we didn't always live up to that measure. Democrats had the
responsibility to provide oversight to the Obama administration, and
they haven't always lived up to that example.
We have the opportunity today to begin that step forward. Until
Congress acts to delegate that responsibility, the Internet should
continue as the Internet has grown and always continued as an area free
of government interference, as an opportunity for entrepreneurs and
investors and students and the elderly to be out there using the
Internet as they see fit, free from the hand of government regulation.
I would also like to comment briefly on the nature of this rule. It
is a closed rule. I came to this Congress to advocate in favor of an
open process, Mr. Speaker, but it needs to be understood that the
Congressional Review Act is a closed process by nature. What my
constituents said to me is, Rob, if you are doing something
complicated, I want you to open up the House floor and have as many
amendments and as much discussion as you can because that is the right
way to do things. But, what I would really prefer is you bring one bill
with one idea and have an up-or-down vote for all the world to see.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the call that we have responded to
today: a simple bill, one page long that says the FCC does not have the
delegated congressional authority to act in this area; and as such,
their regulations shall be null and void.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a simple bill, one page long.
Nevertheless, it is a terrible bill, one page long, and I would like to
tell you why.
Today with our economy only beginning to recover, I believe that this
rule and the underlying bill will imperil one of the greatest sources
of job creation and innovation in America: the Internet. Now over the
past 15 years, the Internet has created more than 3 million jobs,
according to a study by Hamilton Consultants. More than 600,000
Americans have part- or full-time businesses on eBay alone. And on
average, new Internet firms have 3 million jobs.
Yet, the majority brings to the floor legislation that will harm the
open Internet. I can speak to this with some degree of authority.
Before I came to Congress, I created over 300 jobs myself through
founding several Internet-related companies, including ProFlowers.com
and BlueMountain.com. My first Internet company was an Internet service
provider on the other end of this equation, so I have good experience
from both the e-commerce side, as well as the access side which I bring
to this debate. I have long supported open access to the Internet and
continue to support net neutrality.
Let me bring this close to home. When I was starting a flower
company, ProFlowers.com, back in the late 1990s, we offered a supply-
chain solution. We brought fresher flowers to people at a better price
by disintermediating the supply chain and allowing consumers to buy
flowers directly from growers. Now, we were up against several legacy
companies, companies like FTD and 1-800-FLOWERS, that had a different
distribution model that we believed and argued in the marketplace was a
less efficient distribution model.
Now, had there not been a de facto net neutrality at that point, it
would be very difficult for a new company to break in, because you
would have had the incumbent leaders in the marketplace buying the
access through the broadband connections, much as companies will pay
slotting fees to get into grocery stores, some book publishers pay fees
to be out on the open table. The big difference is that we have robust
competition between grocery stores, robust competition between
booksellers.
With regard to broadband access, over 70 percent of the residents of
this country live in areas with only one or two broadband providers.
All of the dynamism--and I have not heard this disputed even by the
chairman of the subcommittee who testified before us yesterday--really,
the dynamism and the job growth from the Internet comes from the
content and applications side. Now, if there aren't legitimate economic
considerations on the bandwidth side, clearly those who are providing
both wireless and wire bandwidth need to have a return on investment
calculus, but it is that very same dynamism around the content-driven
Internet that drives the usage that then leads people to pay more for
higher speed access to the Internet.
Now, the FCC has done an exemplary job with these rules, and they
have actually received buy-in from all of the major players with regard
to this matter: content providers, content aggregators, search engines.
And, yes, even on the broadband access side, most of the major
broadband providers have supported these regulations as well. So they
have done an excellent job.
I realize that what they first put out there, many people were
concerned with. And they then did their job, as they were told to by
congressional statute, specifically, which authorized them to do this.
They listened to all parties, and they revised their net neutrality
regulations so they are something that I think we can all be proud of
as Americans, and we can all be proud of as users of the Internet.
Now, just to be clear how they hit their mark, because I know
yesterday the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that he thought
that some of the broadband providers were coerced into supporting the
protocol standards before the FCC. I don't know enough to dispute that
or not. But what I will tell you is that I have impartial third-party
testimony that I think is very compelling from investment bankers who
follow this sector. And the way the investment banking sector works is
they have analysts who really cover different stocks, cover different
sectors, and they inform people about the impact of market regulations
on that sector.
What I have from the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch analysts, it
says: ``The agreement''--the FCC's net neutrality provisions--``is
consistent with our view that the net neutrality regulatory overhang
has been eliminated from telecom and cable stocks.''
Now, let me elaborate. What that means, ``net neutrality regulatory
overhang,'' is there was fear among the analysts covering the telecom
and cable sectors that the Obama administration would do something
overarching with regard to net neutrality. There was fear based on some
of the initial rules proposed. However, the FCC did their job and that
fear has been eliminated. There is now no market overhang on companies
in this sector, and they are no longer concerned that the regulations
are overarching.
Let me go to the Goldman Sachs analyst from December of last year:
The rules stuck largely to what was expected and will be viewed as a
light touch.
Let me go to Raymond James: We are glad that the staff is making this
[[Page H2305]]
innocuous by simply placing official rules around what is already being
done by the industry under a no-regulation scenario.
So again, all these rules do is essentially preserve the status quo.
Why is that important? Absent this, there would be a major shift in
power on the Internet to the broadband providers from the content
providers. The Internet historically--again, a wonderful innovation for
mankind--allows anybody with a great idea to link up a server in their
garage, and their product, their service, their content is available to
everybody across the world, the very same as a major corporation that
spends $100 million launching a Web site, and they compete in the
marketplace of ideas.
Now, some people ask: Has there ever been an instance where a
provider has used tiered access or censored anything? And there are a
number of instances. An example, in 2005, Madison River Communications
blocked voiceover IP on its DSL network. That was eventually settled
with the FCC.
In 2006, Cingular blocked PayPal after contracting with another
online payment service. This is a perfect example of why we need
competition on the provider side. The consumers would have access to
presumably a less-efficient payment service that they would not select
given their own prerogative because it is locked in through some sort
of slotting fee or other arrangement, sometimes vertical integration
itself under the same capital structure, as an access provider.
So this rule is actually critical to continue to operate a free and
open Internet. That is why the FCC moved forward, with explicit
permission from Congress in the form of their statutory authority, with
rules to address this issue. Their open process included input and got
vast buy-in from all major parties, including Internet service
providers.
Now, there are many on the left that wish that the rule went further.
And, yes, there might be some in business that prefer that there were
no rules at all. The vast majority of the business community
strongly supports the consensus rules that the FCC came out with.
Of those commenting on the proposed rule before the FCC, well over 90
percent supported the Commission's effort, and over 130 organizations
support the proposed rule and oppose this legislation, including groups
like the American Library Association, the Free Press, League of Latin
American Citizens, Communications Workers of America, and the vast
majority of Internet-related companies.
I also want to emphasize that there has been a number of faith-based
groups that have weighed in. One of the largest is the Conference of
Catholic Bishops, representing millions of American Catholics, who
weighed in in a letter opposing this legislation before us today: ``The
Internet is open to any speaker, commercial or noncommercial, whether
or not the speech is connected financially to the company providing
Internet access or whether it is popular or prophetic.'' The letter
goes on to state how the Catholics have used the Internet as an
outreach tool.
Now, there is legitimate fear here from two perspectives:
One, among the nonprofit and religious community in general, is that
their content would receive a lower tier because they are not
necessarily able to pay the same type of slotting fees or access that a
for-profit commercial provider would do. So your Web page from Nike
might load faster than your Web page from the Catholic Church because,
if there was tiered access, who would be more likely to pay for the
speed of the access.
The other fear, also legitimate, is of political or religious
censorship of the Internet.
{time} 1240
You could have a provider who would say, You know what? I like Obama,
so I'm going to block access to tea party sites or slow them down
through our broadband access.
Now, again, in a market with complete dynamism and where there was a
lot of competition and where every American could choose broadband
providers, that would be less problematic. But what we have is a
situation where over 70 percent of Americans only have one or two
choices for broadband access. There has historically been broad support
from both sides of the aisle for the ``no blocking'' rule, which simply
states that broadband providers cannot block lawful content. It is the
equivalent of telling the Postal Service they can deliver or not
deliver your mail based on whether they agree or disagree with the
content. The carriers--the Internet, itself--is one cohesive entity,
and what a wonderful entity for mankind, the fact that you can plug in
and have access to a wide breadth of information on the Internet.
I also want to refute the argument that there is no nor should there
be any government regulation of the Internet. I, actually, have several
pages listed here of government regulation of the Internet, including
things like regulating child pornography, including, of course, the
complex set of protocols around intellectual property and intellectual
property enforcement to ensure that the Internet is not used as a
medium to steal or to illegally profit from the creative works of
others. We go on and on with regard to e-commerce, advertising, privacy
laws--a number of laws designed to protect our privacy, to protect us
from abuse, and to protect us from security breaches with regard to
viruses.
This is another dimension. This is to protect us from the Internet
being broken apart by a series of tiered pipelines rather than one
cohesive Internet. The absence of any net neutrality regime would
empower selective parts of corporate America to censor the Internet in
the same way that Communist China censors the Internet. If you search
for Tiananmen and you're in Mainland China, you will get pictures of
happy people. You will not get pictures of their crackdown on the pro-
democracy demonstrators.
We risk the same potential here. The broadband actors play a critical
role, and I want to make sure their concerns are balanced and that they
will get their return on investment. We actually have a quote from the
AT&T executive, who did appear before the committee, who said that they
can use the 10- to 15-year time frame to justify a return on
investments with regard to broadband infrastructure. Even Comcast has
called the new rules a workable balance between the needs of the
marketplace and the certainty that carefully crafted and limited rules
can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.
I would further argue that a free and open Internet is in the
interest of the broadband providers, themselves. So not only is it not
necessarily the case that they only agreed to these under duress, I
think many of the forward-looking broadband providers realize that what
drives Internet access and what drives consumers to want a faster,
better connection is that very vibrancy in the information marketplace
that net neutrality helps preserve.
So the real question is: Why are we here? Why are we here debating
something that was thoughtful, that has buy-in from all sides of the
debate?
I really had a tough time figuring it out even through our committee
examination of this yesterday. But I think that we're here because of a
knee-jerk reaction of the opposition that might have been initially
opposed to some of the more overarching rules that were initially
proposed before the FCC, but we've come a long way since then. This
feared takeover of the Internet didn't occur. Overarching rules didn't
occur. Most of the broadband providers now support the direction of the
FCC. Yet, under the legislation that we will consider today, the open
Internet rule and the repeal of it will provide more uncertainty to
investors. They will again not know what's going to occur. The
investment bankers will, once again, say there was uncertainty and
overhang, hurting the valuation of the very broadband stocks that the
majority is claiming to do this for the benefit of. Market analyses
have found that the new open Internet rule removed the regulatory
overhang--it's a light touch--which throws a monkey wrench into the
market mechanisms at a critical time for our recovery and job creation.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Department
of Communications,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2011.
Dear Senators and Members of the House of Representatives:
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (``USCCB'')
is committed to the concept that
[[Page H2306]]
the Internet continue as it has developed, that is, as an
open Internet. The Internet is an indispensable medium for
Catholics-- and others with principled values--to convey
views on matters of public concern and religious teachings.
USCCB is concerned that Congress is contemplating eliminating
the Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate
how the companies controlling the infrastructure connecting
people to the Internet will offer those connections. Without
the FCC, the public has no effective recourse against those
companies' interference with accessibility to content, and
there will be uncertainty about how and whether those
companies can block, speed up or slow down Internet content.
Since public interest, noncommercial (including religious)
programming is a low priority for broadcasters and cable
companies, the Internet is one of the few mediums available
to churches and religious groups to communicate their
messages and the values fundamental to the fabric of our
communities.
Without protections to prohibit Internet providers from
tampering with content delivery on the Internet, the
fundamental attributes of the Internet, in which users have
unfettered access to content and capacity to provide content
to others, are jeopardized. Those protections have particular
importance for individuals and organizations committed to
religious principles who must rely on the Internet to convey
information on matters of faith and on the services they
provide to the public. The Internet was constructed as a
unique medium without the editorial control functions of
broadcast television, radio or cable television. The Internet
is open to any speaker, commercial or noncommercial, whether
or not the speech is connected financially to the company
providing Internet access or whether it is popular or
prophetic. These characteristics make the Internet critical
to noncommercial religious speakers. Just as importantly, the
Internet is increasingly the preferred method for the
disenfranchised and vulnerable--the poor that the Church
professes a fundamental preference toward--to access
services, including educational and vocational opportunities
to improve their lives and their children's lives. It is
immoral for for-profit organizations to banish these
individuals and the institutions who serve them to a second-
class status on the Internet.
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has warned against the
``distortion that occur[s] when the media industry becomes
self-serving or solely profit-driven, losing the sense of
accountability to the common good. . . . As a public service,
social communication requires a spirit of cooperation and co-
responsibility with vigorous accountability of the use of
public resources and the performance of roles of public trust
. . ., including recourse to regulatory standards and other
measures or structures designed to affect this goal.''
(Message of the Holy Father Benedict XVI for the 40th World
Communications Day, The Media: A Network for Communication,
Communion and Cooperation, Jan. 24, 2006).
Lastly, Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, ``Believers who
bear witness to their most profound convictions greatly help
prevent the web from becoming an instrument which . . .
allows those who are powerful to monopolize the opinions of
others.'' (Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the
45th World Communications Day, January 24, 2011).
USCCB urges Congress not to use the Congressional Review
Act to overturn the FCC's open Internet rules.
Sincerely,
Helen Osman,
Secretary of Communications.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to a
gentlelady from the committee of jurisdiction, the gentlelady from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague across the aisle is
having a tough time figuring this out, I think we can probably help
with that explanation.
First of all, if you like the Internet that you have, we are saying
we want you to keep it. Mr. Speaker, there has been no market failure.
Over 80 percent of all Americans are pleased with the Internet service
that they have. What they do not want to see is the Obama
administration step in in front of these Internet service providers and
say, We the government are here to change your Internet. We are here to
take control of your Internet.
That is exactly what net neutrality would do.
Net neutrality is the Federal Government stepping in and saying,
We're going to come first. We're going to assign priority and value to
content. It basically is the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.
As I said, there has been no market failure, and there is no need for
this government overreach. So many are saying, Why do this? It's one of
those issues of power and control, of government wanting to dictate
what speed you will have, how often you will be on, the type of
Internet service that you will have, being able to control them.
What the FCC did after Congress left town, mind you, during Christmas
week, was to step in and bring uncertainty to the marketplace. What
they did was to say, We are going to put ourselves, the government, in
control of the Internet. It is the first time ever this has happened.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Also, in their net neutrality order, if you read
paragraph 84, what it does is to bring an incredible amount of
uncertainty to the innovative community and to the creative economy
that our jobs growth is going to be based on, because what it says to
these innovators is, Look, if you want to innovate a new application, a
new attachment, a new usage for a Web-based service or for the
Internet, you'd better come apply to the FCC first because, if you
don't, we can step in and require you to come make application to us.
Now, if you want to talk about a chilling effect--a chilling effect--
on all of our high-tech innovation, on health care innovation with our
telemedicine concepts, with our health IT concepts, I would encourage
individuals to look at paragraph 84, which is found in the net
neutrality order that was brought forward on a 3-2 vote by the Obama
administration. It will do more to squelch jobs growth and to pull back
innovation than any other action in this administration.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's hard to know where to begin in refuting the arguments of my good
friend from Tennessee.
There were several comparisons that I view as simply out of hand. One
of them that was given was that this is somehow some sort of Fairness
Doctrine for the Internet, that this is somehow some sort of government
involvement with the Internet. Quite the contrary is true.
I want to be clear. I was an original cosponsor last session of the
bill that proactively would have prevented the administration from
moving forward with the Fairness Doctrine. I oppose the Fairness
Doctrine. I believe in a dynamic marketplace of ideas. The FCC's
rulemaking around net neutrality moved forward and fostered that very
dynamic marketplace of ideas that the Fairness Doctrine is contrary to.
If we do not have some sort of net neutrality regime in place, there
will be a selective censorship of the Internet, and we risk the
Internet deteriorating into a series of tiered structures, whether they
are tiered economically or ideologically. The great human
accomplishment that is the one common Internet will simply cease to
exist as such. It is, in fact, the proponents of net neutrality and the
regulatory regime proposed by the FCC after receiving input from all
stakeholders that will preserve the Internet as it is.
I would agree with my friend from Tennessee's argument. She said 80
percent of people are happy with their access. I hope it's even higher.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Any time you allow the Federal Government to step in to a process
where they have not been involved in a process--and we did this not
once but twice. We did it not once but twice.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I would like to engage in a colloquy
with the gentlelady.
With regards to the Postal Service, would the gentlelady oppose an
effort to say that the Postal Service can, perhaps, decide which mail
to deliver, maybe based on which political candidates their unions
support? Would the gentlelady say that that would be okay for the
Postal Service to do that?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman knows that that is not relevant to the
discussion that we are having here.
Mr. POLIS. Is the gentlelady going to answer?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. What we are talking about is that the application of
this is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet.
[[Page H2307]]
{time} 1250
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, the Fairness Doctrine is something
that I oppose, I will always oppose, and it is completely consistent.
The Fairness Doctrine is consistent with the approach that the
gentlelady is approaching with regard to the Internet. By having net
neutrality in place, we prevent any type of fairness doctrine or
selective allowance of certain content to consumers of the Internet.
The whole net neutrality regulatory structure is to ensure that
everybody has access to putting content on the Internet in the same
way, and that that content will not be discriminated against based on
its ideology, based on economic considerations.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. We all know that anytime you give the government the
ability to assign priority and value to content, you have inserted them
into the decision-making process. They would precede the responsibility
of the Internet service providers. And the gentleman knows there has
been no market failure.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, the absence of a net neutrality regime
would be the government deliberately conveying value as gatekeepers to
the broadband providers and allowing them to decide, based on religious
or ideological or economic--or whatever criteria that they want--what
kind of Internet they intend to serve up to their users.
I would like to add that, under the legislation we consider today,
that this open Internet rule will add the very certainty to investors
and companies that we need and predictability in our marketplace that
allows companies to continue to grow and invest in job growth.
It strikes a balance, and it solves a real issue. Some on the other
side will say, oh, this could be an issue in the future, but it hasn't
arisen. Well, the rules that we are talking about do enshrine in place
the very Internet, the dynamism, the fruitful discussion between
different ideologies that the gentlelady from Tennessee said that she
aspires to preserve. And we have already reached a point where ISPs
have blocked, as a matter of fact, voice-over-IP services. And they
have blocked peer-to-peer traffic, they have blocked PayPal in favor of
other financial transaction companies that might have economic
relationships with them.
I believe strongly in Internet, in Internet as an achievement for
mankind, in Internet that net neutrality will help preserve for our
generation and the next.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another
gentleman from the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule to block the FCC
from regulating the Internet.
I thought the exchange between the gentleman from Colorado and the
good lady from Tennessee was very telling because right now the
marketplace controls the Internet. It is free--I call it wild, wild--in
its applications.
Now, what the government is trying to do now, in the words of Ed
Markey during our hearing on this, was, ``We need to regulate the
Internet to keep it unregulated.'' I don't get that, but it is kind of
the thought from the left side of the aisle that you have to regulate
it in order to prevent anything that they may disagree with.
So what we have here is an instance where now the freedoms of the
Internet and the marketplace that are driving it now have to be under a
regulatory scheme decided by a group of appointees of the President;
not to be free, it has to be built in relation to their image. Listen
to his words, it's going to be built on their image.
The analogy of Communist China regulating the content can't happen
today. They talk about blocking, that these ISPs will stop us from
going to our Web sites. There have been a handful of those situations;
and every time, the public marketplace chastises them openly. There
were a few times the FCC even called up and said, hey, you can't do
that under the principles that were adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. TERRY. And so those were resolved by, yes, a little bit of
involvement, but the marketplace.
Now the comparison to Communist China here from the gentleman is
appropriate when you look at how this measure was implemented. The
President campaigned on net neutrality. Congress would not authorize it
because Congress as a whole bipartisanly disagreed with net neutrality,
giving a regulatory bureaucratic agency control over the Internet
versus free market.
So since Congress wouldn't pass it, sua sponte they just rose up and
said we don't have the authority--well, they didn't say they don't have
the authority, but Congress never gave them the authority to regulate
the Internet, so they're just assuming that they're going to take that
power away from the people and the marketplace and do it themselves.
That is where the analogy to Communist China is appropriate.
Mr. POLIS. I would argue that, in Communist China, the residents
there do not have access to the Internet. What they have access to is
an Internet minus, and Internet minus are sites that their government
deems inappropriate. We risk going down that same route if we don't
enshrine, in rule or in law, net neutrality provisions that ensure that
there is an open and free Internet and that American citizens have
access to the Internet in its entirety, not with being sensitive
because of economic or religious reasons.
One of the simple components of this rule is the no-blocking rule.
This states very specifically, a broadband provider cannot block lawful
content. A provider cannot say, I don't like Catholics; I'm not going
to allow Catholic content through our broadband. A provider cannot say
on my Internet we are blocking access to Tiananmen because I have
business deals in China. We need to ensure that the Internet, as one
entity, is available to all Americans who buy access.
And again, the broadband providers themselves, out of their own
economic self-interests, endorse this concept because they truly
understand, with the fiduciary responsibility of their own
shareholders, that the very dynamism that leads to the increase in
popularity of the Internet relies on it being an open and free
Internet. And without these protections that are afforded by the FCC's
open Internet rules, the abuses that have already occurred are just a
small sign of far worse things that will come.
In expressing support for killing the open Internet rule with this
bill, a witness for the majority brought to Capitol Hill said that ISPs
should be allowed to block lawful content and said, ``It is appropriate
because you block the source of the problem. If the person that is
violating your acceptable use policy is Netflix, you block Netflix.''
In effect, you would empower broadband providers to bully around
content providers--be it Netflix, be it Yahoo--and say, you know what?
I don't like the fact that you are renting this movie; I don't like the
fact that you are linking to this news. That's the direction that
Communist China has gone, and that is the direction that America and
the global Internet will go if we fail to preserve the net neutrality
regime that is before us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee for his
good work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues I would like to address as
chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
First of all, when it comes to the notion that the FCC--or let me
back up--these carriers that give us the Internet might somehow
regulate religious speech, it's interesting to note that the FCC, in
its own order, threatens and pulls out specifically a threat to
religious content. Paragraph 47, footnote 148, which I'm sure the
gentleman from Colorado must know about, says that a religious
organization would be prohibited from creating a specialized Internet-
accessed service.
Now, there is an Internet provider out there called Koshernet that
wanted
[[Page H2308]]
to have a special service for those religious subscribers who happen to
agree, if they don't want to be exposed to things on the Internet that
they are bound to regarding their religion. So the issue that the FCC
points out is that, oh, we're not going to allow that to happen under
these rules. So you can't have a separate Internet provider that is
just set up for its own subscribers that just wants to have a filter on
the Internet, if you will, for those who want to subscribe to that
because of their religious beliefs. So already you see a government
getting involved at the head end.
Now, we've seen in Egypt where the government is involved and had a
kill switch and just turned it off when opponents of the government got
engaged. We've heard a lot about China, and we all know the various
back doors to the Internet there that they tried to put in to regulate
speech, to control access to content and all of that.
{time} 1300
That's the government doing that.
We know this country for many years operated under the Fairness
Doctrine. That was the government trying to regulate political speech
on the broadcast airwaves. It wasn't until President Reagan's FCC after
a couple of court decisions basically said that trips right up against
the First Amendment that President Reagan's FCC repealed the Fairness
Doctrine. Congress tried a couple of times to put it back in place.
What we should be about is a free and open Internet.
And that's what we've had, and that's what allowed this incredible
explosion of technology and innovation to take place. And it has not
taken place because the government picked winners and losers on the
Internet because the engineers and scientists and technicians and
innovators and entrepreneurs did that on the existing Internet.
Now, along comes the government, the Federal Communications
Commission, on a 3-to-2 partisan middle-of-the-night sort of decision,
if you will, right over the holidays to say, We're going to seize
control and regulate the Internet. Now, that's not been done before,
although they tried in the Comcast BitTorrent case where they tried to
regulate the Internet once before. But the court here in Washington,
D.C. said they lacked the authority. They had not proven--they had
failed to demonstrate that they had the authority.
And so the court struck them down pretty clearly in part because they
relied on a statement of policy, and the court said a statement of
policy does not constitute statutorily mandated responsibilities.
Previously, the FCC rule, by the way, that section 706 did not
constitute an independent grant of authority and has not overruled that
prior decision. Now, that's important, because section 706 is part of
the foundation upon which they think they have this authority, even
though in a prior case they've said that didn't grant them an
independent grant of authority.
Regulating otherwise unregulated information services is not
reasonably ancillary to the section 257 obligation to issue reports on
barriers to the provision of information services.
There are a number of issues here that bring us to the rule that we
have today on the Congressional Review Act that would repeal the rule
that the FCC put in place at the end of the year and notified us on.
Now, why are we using the Congressional Review Act? It is a very
specific, very narrow, very targeted bipartisan-created process.
The current leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, was an advocate and
supporter of the congressional review process because it allows
Congress to step in when an agency has overstepped its bounds on a
major rule and say, No, you don't have the authority, or, We disagree
with the rule, and so we chose this CRA process to overturn this rule
that a partisan group of unelected officials chose to enact exceeding
their authority.
Now Congress, whether you're for net neutrality regulation under
title I or title XX or no title at all, you should not stand idly by
when an agency exceeds its statutory authority.
I think, ultimately, this will be thrown out in court, once it's ripe
for a court to review, as the court has slapped down the FCC in the
past.
The long and the short of it, though, is that, in relying on section
706, they may have inadvertently opened the door for State regulation
of the Internet, because section 706 says that the FCC and State
commissions shall have certain authorities and goes on to explain that
in the first title of that act.
I don't think any of us here wants that door to be opened, but the
FCC, in its naked grab for power it does not have, chose to base part
of their decision on section 706.
Now, I heard, as I was coming over here, a recitation of my comments
last night in the Rules Committee by my friend and colleague from
Colorado that all of the major companies support this, or virtually
all, and, gee whiz, they did this voluntarily at the FCC. Well, come
on. None of them will publicly admit to the fact that the FCC had,
holding over their head, a title II proceeding that would have treated
the Internet as a common carrier, as simple telephone service with a
highly regulated environment.
And it's one of those Hobson's choices: either go with us with title
I, which is ``light regulation'' but opens the door to government
regulation for the first time of the Internet, or we may come after you
on title II. Now, to back up that argument, I would point out that
there's an open proceeding at the moment on title II. They have never
closed their title II proceeding.
So these companies have a lot of other issues before the FCC, like
mergers--has anybody ever heard of those?--and other things. They are
their regulator.
I was regulated by the FCC for 22 years as a license holder in
broadcast stations. The last thing you're going to do is poke your
regulator. And when your regulator has you by your license or by your
next merger, you're probably going to acquiesce to the lesser of two
evils, which is what happened here.
So, Mr. Speaker, and to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, I
would encourage you to support this rule. It's narrow. It's defined.
It's closed for a reason, because the parliamentarians and others have
told us basically there's no real way to amend this and carry out its
lawful action. And so in a rare instance, this makes sense to have a
closed rule.
Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from Oregon mentioned KosherNet and other
sites that might want to provide proprietary content. I want to be
clear that this rulemaking and rulemaking process has nothing to do
with proprietary networks. It refers to the Internet.
I hold several patents with regard to Internet technologies. In
those, as is common among Internet patents, we describe the Internet as
an open-ended gateway network. To the extent that there are thriving
proprietary networks, be they religiously affiliated or commercial, the
FCC is not talking about those with regard to this matter.
Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point? Because I don't
believe that was the case.
Mr. POLIS. I will be happy to enter into a colloquy with you on your
time.
An article from yesterday's StarTribune says, ``Court rejects suit
over Net-neutrality rules.'' This happened yesterday. A Federal appeals
court rejected a lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS to challenge the
Federal Government's communications rules, the FCC's communications
rules.
Now, what I want to point out is, like many newspaper sites, this was
a decision between me and the newspaper site, an economic decision
about how I would get access. Now, some newspapers want to charge for
access, others don't. I was happy the Minneapolis StarTribune allowed
me access because I wasn't about to pay.
How do they pay for it? They have a couple ads in here. Apparently,
Bill Maher is going to be at Mystic Lake Hotel and Casino, coming up. I
won't be there, but maybe most of the folks who read the Minneapolis
StarTribune would consider that.
And then there's something called License to Thrill, also at Mystic
Lake Casino and Hotel. Now, I assume they found that many of the
viewers of the Minneapolis StarTribune might be interested in Mystic
Lake. And again, it was their decision, the Minneapolis StarTribune's
decision, Do we sell for access?
By the way, The New York Times, I think, is starting to charge for
access. I'm going to have to decide whether
[[Page H2309]]
I'm going to have to try to just make do with their free portion or
somehow loop in an online subscription. I do pay for The Wall Street
Journal online. It's worth every penny. It's a good publication. But
it's hard to strike that balance.
What you are doing--what this body is considering by not having a
net-neutrality regime in place is to add another party to this contract
between me and the StarTribune. And you know what? It is not good
enough, Jared Polis and the StarTribune, that they're letting you
access and you have to pay. There's also the provider. And you know
what? You could have the provider say, You know what? We're not going
to serve up these ads. We're going to serve up our own ads. You know
what? We're not going give you access to the StarTribune unless you buy
our newspaper plus service for an extra $14.95 a month.
You're changing the value chain in a way that is unprecedented and
conveying enormous value because you're putting them in charge of the
whole Internet of the providers and the bandwidth and the pipelines.
Yes, they are important to have and, yes, they need to have a return on
investment and, yes, they support the FCC rules as a fair way to do
that. Yes, given their druthers, would they rather have a reach and
control of the Internet? Sure. They'd rather control all the ad space
on every newspaper and every other Web site. But they know that's a
reach. There's no serious market valuation that's given by investors or
investment analysts to that reach scenario that would threaten and kill
the very Internet itself by interspersing a third party on my private
agreement with the Minneapolis StarTribune. That's why we need to have
a free and open Internet for all to ensure that there's not another
party that comes in and steals the intellectual property and the usage
of others and conveys it to their own advantage. And that's exactly
what the very reasonable FCC rules put into rule.
[From StarTribune.com, Apr. 4, 2011]
Court Rejects Suit Over Net-Neutrality Rules
A federal appeals court on Monday rejected as ``premature''
a lawsuit by Verizon and MetroPCS challenging the Federal
Communications Commission's pending rules aimed at keeping
Internet service providers from blocking access to certain
websites or applications. The decision, by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit, is a first-
round victory for the FCC and its chairman, Julius
Genachowski. But the real battle over the agency's attempt to
regulate broadband providers has barely begun. Several
broadband companies, and some consumer advocacy and public
interest groups, are likely to return to court this year to
challenge aspects of the rules. Edward McFadden, a Verizon
spokesman, said Monday that the company intended to refile
its lawsuit this year. The House will take up a joint
resolution condemning the new Internet access rules this
week.
Texas Instruments to buy rival for $6.5B
Texas Instruments Inc. said Monday that it has agreed to
buy competitor National Semiconductor Corp. for $6.5 billion.
The all-cash deal, if it goes through, will give Dallas-based
Texas Instruments a larger stake in the field of analog
semiconductors--devices that are used to convert real- world
signals, such as temperature readings or voice recordings,
into digital signals.
Google bids $900M for Nortel's patents
Google Inc. said it was willing to pay $900 million for
patents held by Nortel Networks Corp., the bankrupt
communications technology company. The Internet search giant
couched its bid as a pre-emptive strike to defend against
patent litigation. Analysts say Mountain View, Calif.-based
Google is wrestling with a major increase in patent
litigation from so-called patent trolls and competitors. A
major patent portfolio such as the one from Nortel would give
Google ammunition in these lawsuits. In the last 12 months,
Google has been hit with 39 patent lawsuits involving its
Android mobile phone operating software.
Pfizer to sell Capsugel unit to KKR
Pfizer Inc., the world's biggest drugmaker, agreed to sell
its Capsugel manufacturing unit to KKR & Co. for $2.38
billion in an effort to focus on its higher-profit business
developing new medicines. The New York-based company lowered
its yearly revenue forecast after backing out Capsugel, a
unit that makes wholesale pill casings and had $750 million
in sales last year. Pfizer said it will use proceeds from the
deal to expand a planned $5 billion share repurchase.
Japan's crisis will push up some commodities
Copper, iron ore and beef are likely to benefit from rising
demand in Japan as the country recovers from a record
earthquake and tsunami that triggered a nuclear crisis.
Rebuilding may drive demand for steelmaking materials and
metals used in construction, said Ben Westmore, a commodities
economist at National Australia Bank in Melbourne. Demand for
imported beef and dairy products may increase because of
damage to local protein supply, Rabobank Australia analyst
Wayne Gordon said.
Goldman CEO's compensation nearly doubles
Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein's $19
million compensation for 2010, almost double the prior year,
ended two years in which the firm's top executives gave up
cash bonuses. Blankfein's pay included $5.4 million in cash,
$12.6 million in restricted stock, a $600,000 salary and
about $464,000 in other benefits, a proxy statement from the
New York-based firm showed. Blankfein's $9.8 million pay for
2009 included $9 million in restricted stock plus salary and
other compensation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I just want to point out that back on KosherNet, the
Federal Communications basically singled that out and said, no, you
can't, as an Internet service provider, have that kind of separate
system. You can't filter out even if you want to. And I think that's
different.
As for the court decisions the gentleman referenced, I don't
necessarily know where he's going on that. But I understand the court
said the time is not right yet for the appeal by Verizon and MetroPCS
on the Internet rules, not right because the Federal Communications
Commission has not put these rules into the Federal register because
they haven't completed some of their due diligence, apparently, on the
effects on business.
{time} 1310
So that will still be ripe to litigate later on. The other point I
want to make is understand that while these rules promulgated, I
believe, outside the authority of the FCC apply to the Internet service
provider, the pipes if you will, they do not apply to the content
providers on the other end. So in other words, once you get on the
freeway, as we know the Internet, you want to get out into the
neighborhoods eventually. And so a lot of people go to a particular
search site let's say, a search engine, and that search engine is
making enormous decisions about where you end up on the Internet.
Those search engines and other providers like that, they are not
under these rules at all. And I would suggest I am not eager to have
them under these rules. But I find it fascinating that they can block,
they can tackle, they can hide, they can change their algorithms.
So you know, by the time you search for something, you may get moved
from number one in your category to No. 71 because they make some
decision in their algorithm. So there is a lot going on out there.
But I would say this: Most Americans have access to broadband, most
of us are on the Internet, and we are a very powerful community when
somebody misbehaves. And generally, the Internet has been successful
because misbehavers have been punished by the consumers in an open and
free marketplace effectively and quickly and much better than through a
government regulatory regime.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to say in
this theme of folks with the best of intentions ending up with the
tremendous burdens on small business, I have just been informed and
would like to inform this body that the Senate has passed H.R. 4, the
House's repeal of the burdensome 1099 regulation requirements in
ObamaCare, by a vote of 87-12. The bill is now on its way to the
President for his signature.
This represents a huge win for American small businesses, a huge win
for the abolition of burdensome government regulation, and the first
official partial repeal of ObamaCare that will go to the President's
desk and become law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First with regard to the 1099 closing, I think again we can applaud
this as a step forward for small business. Many of us wish that there
could have been a different way of paying for it, and I did support it
twice in the last session of Congress. While there are major winners,
and small businesses are, and we
[[Page H2310]]
needed to close the 1099 loophole, and I am glad we did, the losers
under this are American families making about $80,000, $85,000 a year,
who will be stuck with a large Republican tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to net neutrality, it is indeed a brave new
world that we face on the Internet. And I have been an Internet user
since the early 1990s. As I mentioned, my first company was an Internet
service provider. So I have experience on that front. It is the very
dynamism of the Internet itself that brings its value to humanity and
to Americans. That is why it is important to protect under net
neutrality and open Internet provisions.
Another critical provision that has generally had support from across
the aisle in prior sessions has been a transparency requirement that
would require broadband providers to inform consumers about how or
whether they are tiering access. Part of the issue has been we only
find out about these things after the fact, after a very technical
analysis, and accusations are made and have to be discovered. We would
like to know. And one of the reasons I oppose this rule is Ms. Matsui
offered an amendment that would have increased consumer confidence and
led to greater investment in broadband infrastructure by supporting a
simple transparency requirement with regard to this matter.
Net neutrality keeps the Internet free and open. It is that simple.
Just as the postal service can't discriminate in delivering legal
content, so too the Internet should not discriminate in delivering
legal content. Proprietary networks can work their will. And the
gentleman from Oregon mentioned Koshernet or people, users, that might
only want certain access on their machines. They are empowered to do
that under open Internet regulations.
They can have programs on their local machine that can say, you know
what--many parents do this--they want to have parental controls or
block certain sites. They can only have certain sites that are
accessible and block down all other sites. Many people, they are
empowered to do this not by their provider, no. They are empowered to
do this by choosing the software and the service that they use to be
able to restrict the Internet for themselves or for a minor that lives
in their home.
These decisions should not be made by large multinational
corporations deciding which Internet you have your own access to.
Seventy percent of American families only choose between one or two
broadband providers. For them to have access to the Internet, not the
Internet minus like they have in China, not the Internet minus that too
many Americans could face if we don't encode open Internet regulations
into rule or law, if we want to retain that access we need to make sure
that the value of the Internet and the dynamism that is created by the
content and application providers have unfettered access to consumers
in America and across the world.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to a thoughtful member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Let me just bring to the attention of this side of the
aisle that some of the issues you are talking about, transparency,
moves into privacy. We hope in the near future we do have a privacy
bill, but I think some of the things you are concerned about impacted
with the privacy, and not necessarily in this debate dealing with House
Joint Resolution 37.
As a former ranking member of the Telecommunications Technology
Subcommittee, both the ranking member, Joe Barton, and I have sent
three letters to FCC Chairman Genachowski expressing simply our strong
opposition to his plan to regulate the Internet. In fact, I have
introduced legislation the past two Congresses to try to prevent the
implementation of the net neutrality rules, and other Members have
supported us. So there is a long record here, I would say to my
colleague on that side of the aisle, of our side trying to prevent
Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC, from regulating the Internet.
In fact, he went so far as to step out and try to do it. There was a
Comcast case. In an April of 2010 decision, the court found that the
FCC failed to demonstrate it had ancillary authority under title I. So
under title I, the courts ruled they did not have the authority to
regulate Internet network management.
So I think the courts themselves have corroborated what Mr. Walden
has indicated. So, you know, what you are arguing is against a court
case that actually occurred. And as far as the technicality that
Verizon was involved with, they are going to continue their suit. They
feel they have a strong argument, and as Mr. Walden pointed out, it was
just by a technicality. They are going to continue to go forward.
I will also mention a little bit what the chairman, Mr. Walden, has
indicated dealing with the 706 rule. The FCC claims it has authority to
enact this under the 706 rule of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I was
one of the conferees on that act. And they are using this as a way to
advance telecommunications capability, saying they have the authority.
But they can't rely on 706 because as the agency has previously
acknowledged, acknowledged themselves, section 706 is not an
independent source of authority, because 706 talks of removing barriers
to infrastructure investment, but the rules themselves will erect
barriers to investment.
So the FCC's claim simply stretches the authority under these
provisions. So I think between the Comcast case and the interpretation
of 706, they don't have any authority do this. In a larger sense, what
we are talking about is when the FCC moves out and starts to regulate
the Internet, that creates uncertainty in the economy, uncertainty into
people who are investing vast sums of money for fiber optics so that
they can spread broadband. And heaven knows we don't need in this
economy this uncertainty.
So I think the FCC was unwise just from a standpoint of the economy
to strike this uncertainty. The Internet, as has been pointed out,
exists. It has been open and thriving for all these years because of a
deregulatory approach. If we step in and let the FCC start to regulate
the Internet under title I, then it's going to create this uncertainty,
and that's in fact why Verizon is moving forward.
As others have pointed out, a lot of people are fearful of the FCC.
That's why they won't say anything. As many of us know, lots of times
when you are in a situation where you have an empowering authority up
there that can regulate you, you don't want to get those people upset
with you. So you are very delicate in how you move. So the people are
saying basically that, oh, we are not going to say anything; but
silently they are telling us, certainly they are telling us on this
side that they cannot see any reason for the FCC to start to regulate.
{time} 1320
There is no crisis warranting them to do this. The example used with
his newspaper in Minneapolis is not a crisis. So the FCC hangs its
adoption of network neutrality rules based upon speculation and future
harm.
I urge the passage of this rule.
Mr. POLIS. The net-neutrality rules are consistent with the D.C.
circuit ruling in Comcast v. FCC and, in fact, that advances the
congressional mandates. The rule fulfills the FCC's mandate from
Congress and their mandate to encourage broadband deployment by
supporting innovation and investment among their other duties.
And, in fact, last year Congress had a chance to advance legislation
in the area around protecting Internet freedom, and that legislation
was supported by many public interest organizations, high-tech
companies and, yes, many broadband carriers. That would have put in
statute a set of net neutrality rules and that would have definitively,
through statute, removed the threat of title II classification.
Unfortunately, that legislation was blocked by Republicans in the
House.
So, again, I think when Mr. Walden mentioned that there were some
folks on the broadband side that might have been coerced into
supporting something, fearing that there would be a threat of title II
reclassification, it was the activities of Republicans that
specifically prevented the removal of that title II reclassification
threat. And,
[[Page H2311]]
again, I would like to point to remarks by many investment bankers that
it has not been seen as any serious regulatory overhang with regard to
the valuation of stocks in that area because there is no effort to move
forward with title II regulation.
Obviously, with regard to this matter, if it's creating, somehow,
this much controversy around what should be noncontroversial rules
enshrined into place the current free and open Internet policies that
have seldom been violated, but we fear might be violated more in the
future, if that's provoking this kind of discussion, even though all
the major stakeholders discuss it, you can imagine what type of
discussion would ensue if there was a serious effort to reclassify
under title II.
Mr. Stearns also mentioned that maybe the committee will begin work
on what type of statutes we might have. Certainly, specifically, I am
curious. I asked Mr. Walden as well yesterday if the committee would
consider no-blocking rules, would the committee consider transparency
requirements, do they think that they, in fact, could do a better job
than the FCC and that this body, with its vast knowledge of the
Internet and DNS architecture, would do a better job than the FCC.
I think, you know, one of the clear things that I would like to see
and I think this body would like to see, and why I oppose this rule, is
if we are talking about repealing the FCC's rules, what is the work
product of this body? What is the replace? It's repeal and replace.
I think there has been some acknowledgment. In fact, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) mentioned that the committee might work on
some of these areas. What is that proposed body of work? Why are we not
looking at repeal and replace and what we are replacing it with. Is it
going to be similar to former Chairman Waxman's net neutrality bill of
last year? Are there substantial changes that have--buy-in across the
aisle?
Can we do better? Frankly, I'm skeptical. But if the gentleman would
like to advance the work product of his committee and come forward with
a clear decision between what we would be replacing it with, I would be
certainly open to seeing if, in fact, the work product of the committee
is better than the work product of the FCC with regard to this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Internet has been of immense value to mankind, to
America, to me personally and to all of us personally. It's contributed
to our culture, our economic advancement, to the flow of free ideas.
We should not trade the freedom of the Internet, the freedom of the
Internet has been an open, superhighway for a toll road controlled by
and for Internet service providers alone. There is a balance to be
struck, and the process of finding that balance is under way by
thoughtful people in an open and inclusive process.
Today's action by the Republicans short circuits that process and
imposes simplistic, highly ideological solutions on what is actually a
complex issue that has shared ideals for preserving a free Internet,
free of government involvement. We can find bipartisan consensus.
The FCC order came close to striking that correct balance, far closer
than the status quo. That's why it's supported by Internet service
providers themselves, consumers groups, the high-tech community,
content providers, and faith-based organizations.
We must keep the Internet free by allowing the FCC to move forward
with the open Internet role, and we should be debating this on an H.R.
bill under an open rule. I encourage my colleagues to support the open
Internet by opposing the previous question and this rule.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is a promo out these days for a new television show that's
coming on. It's about the CIA and chronicles the fellow's first day at
the job at the CIA. He walks in and he looks around and he can't
believe the disarray that he sees there. And his senior adviser there
steps up and he says, son, have you ever walked into a post office and
said, my gosh, I have stepped into the future?
And the answer is, no, the government is not the location where
innovation thrives.
To hear this conversation today about how we need government
regulation to protect the Internet, Mr. Speaker, we need to protect the
Internet from government regulation, and that's why we are here today
with this underlying resolution.
This FCC proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. To
quote my friend from Colorado, as he was quoting the investment banks,
these official rules are around what is already being done in the
private sector. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Mr. Speaker, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using
authority that the FCC does not have. It's interesting being down here
today, as my colleague from Colorado talks about all the big businesses
that have bought in and all the investment banks that bought in.
I have to say I don't give two hoots that big business and investment
banks have bought in. If the authority does not exist to do it, then it
should not be done. Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, we hear from this
administration about how they can help, how they can help to solve
problems, problems that exist and apparently now problems that don't
exist.
If the authority does not exist, they cannot be allowed to regulate
in this area, and that's why the subcommittee has brought this forward.
So we have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority
that doesn't exist, and where does this lead us?
I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, from the FCC order dated December
21 of last year: Finally, we decline to apply our rules directly to
coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities that acquire
their Internet service from a broadband provider.
Although broadband providers that offer such services are subject to
these rules, we note that addressing traffic is a legitimate network
management purpose for these premise operators.
Authority that does not exist and the FCC says, in its benevolence,
in its benevolence, that at this time it chooses, it chooses, Mr.
Speaker, not to regulate the way that coffee shops, bookstores, and
airlines provide Internet service to their customers.
Folks, this is the camel's nose under the tent. That is why we have
to be vigilant. It doesn't matter if we like the underlying rule. It
doesn't matter if the authority does not exist, Mr. Speaker.
We are obligated as one of three branches of government, we are
obligated to step in where regulatory authority exceeds its bounds.
Now, as we have said, the courts have already looked at this decision
and decided, as we have, that the FCC does not have authority to act in
this area, solution to a problem that doesn't exist, using authority
that it doesn't have that starts to pave the way to regulate coffee
shops, airlines and bookstores.
Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule for a simple bill. We have talked
so much about 2,000-page bills with lots of hidden consequences. We
have talked broadband section 1099 of the health care act now being
repealed and passed now by the Senate and going on to the President's
desk. I want to read to you this bill in its entirety if you will
permit me the time:
``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the
rules submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to
the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry
practices, and such rule shall have no force or effect.''
{time} 1330
That's it. That's it, eight lines, ``no force or effect.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support from my colleagues for this rule
that will then bring to the floor H.J. Res. 37 and allow, in its
brevity, its complete and total consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H2312]]
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 175, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 226]
YEAS--241
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--175
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Cleaver
Cooper
Courtney
Engel
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Giffords
Hinchey
Holden
Kind
Lipinski
Meeks
Sanchez, Loretta
Schwartz
Van Hollen
Young (FL)
1355
Ms. TSONGAS, Ms. WOOLSEY, Messrs. CONYERS and GUTIERREZ changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LaTOURETTE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 226, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________