[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2552-H2565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          DISAPPROVING FCC INTERNET AND BROADBAND REGULATIONS

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 200, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 3 of rule XVI, I demand 
the question of consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the joint resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 174, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               YEAS--238

     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
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     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
     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
     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
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     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 (IN)

                               NAYS--174

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     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)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Becerra
     Brady (TX)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Green, Gene
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Meeks
     Moore
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Stark
     Waters
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1339

  Mr. WATT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 250, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 250, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I was detained and missed rollcall vote 250. 
Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the joint 
resolution shall be considered as read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 37

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications 
     Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open 
     Internet and broadband industry practices (Report and Order 
     FCC 10-201, adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2010), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

                              {time}  1340


                             General Leave

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in a representative democracy, Federal agencies may 
impose regulations only to the extent authorized by the United States 
Congress, the

[[Page H2553]]

elected representatives of the American people. I introduced H.J. Res. 
37, which enjoys bipartisan support, because Congress has not 
authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the 
Internet.
  H.J. Res. 37 is a resolution of disapproval filed pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. It would prevent the agency from imposing the 
same or substantially similar rules through reclassification of 
broadband under title II of the Communications Act or through any other 
claimed source of direct or ancillary authority. If not challenged, the 
FCC's power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate 
communication service on barely more than a whim and without any 
additional input from Congress.
  The FCC's claim that it can regulate the Internet under section 706 
of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is not credible. The FCC has 
previously held that section 706 is not an independent grant of 
authority and the language of the section tells the FCC to remove 
barriers to investment, not create them. The FCC's reliance on section 
706 could open the Internet to regulation by all 50 States.
  Also flawed is the FCC's claim it can regulate the Internet under 
titles II, III and VI of the Communications Act because broadband has 
indirect impact on traditional services. Section 230 of the 
Communications Act makes clear that it is the policy of the United 
States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that 
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer 
services unfettered by Federal or State regulation. This regulation by 
``bank shot'' is nothing more than a weak attempt to do an end-run 
around the D.C. Circuit Court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case 
that the FCC failed to show it had authority to regulate Internet 
network management.
  The Internet is open and innovative thanks to the government's hands-
off approach, as Democrat FCC Chairman William Kennard has explained, 
and I quote: ``The fertile fields of innovation across the 
communications sector and around the country are blooming because from 
the get-go we have taken a deregulatory, competitive approach to our 
communications structure, especially the Internet.'' There is no crisis 
warranting government intervention. The FCC even admits in its own 
order that it did not conduct a market power analysis.

  Dr. David J. Farber, the grandfather of the Internet, says the FCC's 
``order will sweep broadband ISPs, and potentially the entire Internet, 
into the big tent of regulation. What does this mean? Consumer needs 
take second place, and a previously innovative and vibrant industry 
becomes a creature of government rulemaking.'' From the grandfather of 
the Internet.
  The order picks winners and losers and will threaten small providers 
that do not have the resources to send teams of lawyers to camp out at 
the FCC. How carriers manage their networks should be determined by 
engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers in the marketplace, not by as 
few as three unelected commissioners at the FCC.
  My colleagues claim large broadband providers support the order--you 
will hear that today--but they only did so under the threat of being 
regulated like an old-fashioned telephone company under title II of the 
Communications Act. They are still concerned, and they say network 
neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.
  AT&T's CEO has said, ``Regulation creates uncertainty.'' ``I would be 
lying if I said I was totally pleased with it,'' and, ``I'd like to 
have had no regulation, to be candid, but that wasn't going to 
happen.''
  The CEO of a large cable association has said that ``there could 
certainly be an adverse economic impact by chilling the willingness to 
deploy these new services.'' The CEO of a large wireless association 
has said that some uncertainty over FCC implementation remains and 
``increased regulation tends to depress rather than accelerate 
investment.''
  Now opponents of H.J. Res. 37 will also criticize the Congressional 
Review Act process, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the 
authors of the CRA, has said the disapproval process is--and I quote 
the Majority Leader of the Senate--``a reasonable, sensible approach to 
regulatory reform.''
  You see, the CRA was dually enacted by Congress and signed into law 
by President Clinton. And despite their recent criticism, even my 
colleagues themselves have co-sponsored disapproval resolutions in the 
past, including Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, and 
Mr. Dingell. They cosponsored H.J. Res. 72 in 2003. And Mr. Waxman, Ms. 
Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Baldwin co-sponsored H.J. 
Res. 79 in 2008. Both, by the way, were resolutions disapproving of FCC 
rules.
  So my colleagues complain that amendments are not in order, but that 
is because the language of the Congressional Review Act itself dictates 
the specific language of the disapproval resolutions, and to allow 
amendments would frustrate Congress' very intent in providing a 
straight up-or-down vote on whether to disapprove just these types of 
overreaching agency rules.
  My colleagues say that instead of considering this resolution we 
should be debating comprehensive legislation to authorize the FCC to 
regulate the Internet. Then why did they refuse our repeated requests 
last Congress to hold hearings on whether such intervention is 
warranted? Why did they wait until November before proposing their own 
legislation--so close to the end of the last Congress there was no time 
for reasoned debate? And why did they single out only certain segments 
of industry for regulation and refuse to require a market power 
analysis? It is all too convenient that they wait until after the rules 
have been adopted and are vulnerable to legislative and judicial 
reversal before engaging.
  A vote against this resolution is simply a vote that will allow the 
FCC to adopt substantially similar rules under title II when the FCC 
loses in court, something even network neutrality advocates like Free 
Press say is likely. Indeed, the FCC still has a proceeding open to do 
just that.
  So for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. 
Res. 37.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Today, we are considering H.J. Res. 37, a resolution to invalidate 
the FCC's open Internet rules. We are debating this bill under the 
shadow of a shutdown of the Federal Government. The Republicans are 
holding the economic recovery and millions of jobs hostage to their 
extreme demands on the budget and their ideological demands on social 
and regulatory issues. And at such a moment of grave threat to our 
economic health, what are we doing on the floor today? The Republican 
leadership insists on bringing to the floor a bill that will end the 
Internet as we know it and threaten the jobs, investment, and 
prosperity the Internet has brought to America. This is an outrageous 
sense of priorities and policies.
  This legislation is a bad bill. This bill would give big phone and 
cable companies control over what Web sites Americans can visit, what 
applications they can run, and what devices they can use.

                              {time}  1350

  The Internet may be the greatest engine in our economy today. 
American Internet companies lead the world in innovation. They have 
created over a million jobs.
  There is one overriding reason the Internet has fostered such 
innovation and economic growth: It is open. A kid with a brilliant idea 
can launch his or her own company out of their family garage.
  The FCC order protects the openness and vitality of the Internet. The 
resolution we are debating today would end it. The Republican 
proponents of the resolution will say the exact opposite. They will say 
they are trying to protect freedom of the Internet by stopping 
government regulation.
  How are the American people to know who is right? Well, the answer is 
easy. Just ask Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, eBay, and the other 
companies in the Open Internet Coalition that depend on the openness 
and vitality of the Internet.
  They ask the FCC to act because ``baseline rules are critical to 
ensuring the Internet remains a key engine of economic growth.'' And 
they oppose this resolution because it would hurt consumers and 
innovation.
  They understand that in most parts of the country companies like 
Verizon,

[[Page H2554]]

AT&T, and Comcast have a virtual monopoly over access to the Internet. 
The phone and cable companies are the gatekeepers to the information 
highway. Without regulations, they could choke off innovation by 
charging for the right to communicate with their customers.
  Consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, religious groups, and 
labor unions have exactly the same view. The committee has heard from 
150 organizations urging Congress to keep the Internet open and defeat 
this bill. Even the companies that might benefit the most from this 
legislation do not support the resolution. In fact, AT&T and the cable 
industry support the FCC's orders because it provides greater certainty 
for investment.
  This bill is partisan. It is anti-innovation. And it threatens to 
transform the open Internet into a series of walled gardens controlled 
by the phone and cable companies. This is a bill that is not going 
anywhere. We shouldn't be wasting our time on this legislation when 
there's a threat that our whole government is going to be closed down 
because of the partisan and extreme views of the Republican majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), and I ask unanimous consent that she be allowed 
to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one point. This is not 
partisan legislation. We have two Democrats as co-sponsors of the 
legislation, and I anticipate it will actually have a bipartisan vote, 
as it has had in the past.
  I now yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. I want to thank the chair of the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications for yielding this time and for his leadership on the 
legislation.
  Once again, we're here to put the brakes on runaway bureaucracy. The 
FCC has overstepped its authority and is attempting to seize control of 
one of the Nation's greatest technological success stories. If there is 
one segment of our economy that continues to fire on all cylinders in 
the current economic environment, it is the information technology 
sector and the Internet.
  The FCC's ``2010 National Broadband Plan'' reports that 95 percent of 
the country has access to broadband and two-thirds subscribe. The 
number of users has skyrocketed to 200 million from 8 million 10 years 
ago. That translates into real investment and real jobs.
  In 2009, the communication sector invested close to $90 billion. In 
the U.S., it directly employed approximately 1.5 million people. All 
the success stories that we are hearing, from Apple to Zipcar, not only 
have occurred in the absence of government intervention but because of 
the absence of government intervention.
  From technological advancements to creative business models, the 
Internet has remained a thriving, competitive, and innovative 
marketplace because the government has kept its hand off. Despite this 
economic and innovation success story, the FCC has decided to 
fundamentally change the technology landscape by adopting rules 
regulating the Internet. Like the late Democratic FCC commissioner, a 
good guy from Michigan, Jim Quello, said: ``If it ain't broke, don't 
break it.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the Internet is not broken, and this 
bill will ensure that the FCC does not break it.
  George Will said: ``Most Americans think that the government doesn't 
work real well and the Internet does.'' Why in the world are we then 
putting the government in charge of the Internet?
  Some of my colleagues criticize the use of the CRA. Let me remind 
these critics that they themselves have cosponsored disapproval 
resolutions to overturn previous FCC rulemaking. Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, 
Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Dingell cosponsored H.J. Res. 72 in 
2003. Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Baldwin 
cosponsored H.J. Res. 79 in 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
helped create the disapproval process in the CRA to give Congress a 
straight up-or-down vote on just this kind of regulatory overreach.
  That's why this statute itself provides the language of disapproval 
resolutions and which is why there are no amendments.
  President Obama has said that his priority is to focus on jobs. He's 
also said that his administration will avoid onerous and unnecessary 
regulations that stifle investment and innovation. On January 18, the 
President issued an executive order calling on agencies to base 
regulations on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify 
their costs.
  While the executive order does not apply to independent agencies, the 
President urged such agencies to follow it, and FCC Chairman 
Genachowski said that he agrees with the executive order's principles. 
Yet the FCC admitted in its network neutrality order that it conducted 
that no market power analysis.
  The Internet is not broken. The market has not failed. Imposing these 
rules will cause more harm than good by chilling the very investment 
and innovation that we need to ensure that the Internet keeps pace with 
the growing demands being placed on it. It will only hurt our economy.
  Ultimately, it's a question of authority. The FCC lacks both legal 
and policy justifications for its action. The agency keeps changing its 
story about where it gets the power to issue the rules, each time 
teetering from one weak explanation to another based on the most recent 
legal or political impediment that its facing. None are consistent with 
its own precedent and all are an end-run around the D.C. circuit's 
decision in the Comcast case that the FCC has failed to show its 
authority in this space.
  So, Mr. Speaker, if we allow the FCC to seize control of the 
Internet, it's going to reduce innovation and investment. Fewer jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution 37 which, if 
enacted, would overturn the FCC's open Internet rules, not closed 
Internet rules.
  The first thing that I want to say today is that at 2 p.m. today, 
which is the time right now, we are moving ever closer to the shutdown 
of our government. I think that this is a very sad day, a day when the 
rest of the world that always looks to the United States of America to 
be the best example for what we do, how we do it, what we say, and how 
we comport ourselves, that there is failure within a few hours, a total 
collapse of leadership.
  So while this is taking place, that is the toxic cloud that really 
hangs over the House.
  I'm going to use 4 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
  This resolution isn't about acting in the interest of American 
innovation, American jobs, American competition or American consumers. 
Quite simply, this is an ideological assault on a government agency and 
their ability to provide basic consumer protections.

                              {time}  1400

  If this were about innovation, jobs, competition for consumers, the 
majority wouldn't really be offering it, because it disables a free and 
open Internet, which has brought about greater consumer choice and has 
ushered in some of the most successful businesses of the past two 
decades in America, from Google and Facebook to Amazon and EBay. I know 
because so many of them--and I'm so proud of this--are constituent 
companies of my distinguished congressional district. These companies 
and thousands of others like them offer access to news, shopping, 
video, music, and social networking, and have resulted in more than 3 
million new American jobs over the past 15 years. If the majority 
understood this, they wouldn't be standing in the way of it.
  In fact, consumers have lined up against what the majority has 
brought to the floor today. Some of the largest broadband providers in 
the Nation--AT&T, Comcast and others--have lined up against it. Small 
businesses have lined up against it. Medium-sized businesses that are 
in the Internet business

[[Page H2555]]

have lined up against it. More than 150 organizations, including public 
interest organizations, civil rights groups, unions, and education 
advocates have lined up against it. The United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops has lined up against it. The United Church of Christ 
and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have lined up against it. 
The Computer and Communications Industry Association has lined up 
against it. TechNet is against it. These groups overwhelmingly agree 
that the CRA is not the answer.
  The chairman said earlier that there are many Members on this side 
who have enacted--used--the CRA on other pieces of legislation. Yes, we 
have. We thought it was appropriate to. We're not opposed to the CRA, 
but we are in terms of using it on this.
  I really think, at the end of the day, this is ideological. I think, 
in the Republican DNA, there is total opposition to any Federal agency 
that is charged with carrying out the protection of consumers and those 
things that the Congress believes are the best for the American people. 
So, with all of these businesses and all of these organizations, I 
think, with all due respect, that you have a very, very weak case.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALDEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Madam Speaker, when I came to Congress in 1985, there was no such 
thing as a cell phone. I remember my first mobile phone was a box 
phone. It cost about two bucks a minute to use, as I recall. We did 
have personal computers, but they were big and bulky and very slow. I 
still had a typewriter in my office, and I had constituents who still 
used telephones that actually had the dial, you know, the mechanical 
dial. That was in 1985. Today, we have over 2 billion users of the 
Internet. I have two BlackBerries. I have a laptop. I have a personal 
computer in my home. In fact, in my home in Arlington, Texas, we have 
two. The Internet has revolutionized telecommunications.
  Yet, in December of 2010, the FCC adopted a rule giving themselves 
the right to regulate the Internet. It gave them the right to regulate 
how fixed and mobile broadband providers disclose their network 
management practices and performance characteristics; to regulate how 
fixed and mobile broadband carriers provide access to content, 
applications, services, and devices; to determine whether the way fixed 
broadband providers are carrying network traffic is unreasonably 
discriminatory; to regulate how fixed and mobile broadband carriers 
charge for the carriage of traffic; and to determine whether fixed and 
mobile broadband providers' network management techniques are 
reasonable.
  This is the regulation of the Internet.
  Mr. Walden's bill is pretty straightforward. It's one paragraph. You 
can read it. It doesn't take much time. It just simply says that the 
Federal Communications Commission cannot regulate the Internet.
  We have had the most successful business practice in the last 100 
years, and we are trying to give the FCC the ability to regulate it? 
Give me a break. This isn't Republican DNA. This is plain common sense. 
Vote for the Walden bill, to not give the FCC the authority to regulate 
the Internet.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  In 2 days, the Republicans have proven that they always side with the 
biggest behemoth companies. Yesterday, they said it was okay for the 
biggest oil and coal and chemical companies to pollute the atmosphere. 
Today, they are saying that it's okay for the biggest communications 
companies to totally control the entire blogosphere. They want to spoil 
Mother Earth and Google Earth all in a 24-hour period. They want to 
allow the domination of the World Wide Web and the pollution of the 
whole wide world all in 24 hours.
  Let me give you a little history here, ladies and gentlemen. We had 
no competition in the Internet, in the wireless world.
  In 1993, there were two companies--analog, 50 cents a minute. No one 
had cell phones in their companies. ``We'' had to move over the 200 
megahertz. ``We'' had to say there was a third, fourth, fifth, and 
sixth company so that there would be competition and then block the 
first two companies that were not innovating. Why were they not 
innovating? Because there was no Darwinian paranoia inducing 
competition to force them to move. Then in 1996, when the whole country 
was analog, we had to pass another bill to move them to digital, to 
move them to broadband, because the behemoths had yet to deploy 
broadband to one home in the United States.
  No competition. No innovation. No benefits to consumers. The biggest 
companies that the Republicans support were happy with the way things 
were going because they could charge whatever they wanted to, provide 
whatever services they wanted to, ignore competition, and ignore 
consumers simultaneously.
  That's what this debate is all about. We had to ensure that those 
behemoths--the oligopolies, the monopolies--were taken from the 
clutches of the Republicans and put out into the world where they had 
to compete.
  So what do we have here today? Another Republican congressional 
resolution, which says let's go back to that era where the biggest 
companies, the monopolies, defy the one lesson that Adam Smith taught 
us, which is that monopolies and oligopolies are incapable of enjoying 
anything but the respect of those who are already in the wealthy class 
while ignoring those who are in the consumer class. That's their 
history. That's the number one lesson of Adam Smith, that we must 
beware of oligopolies.
  Here, what we have on our hands is an effort to shut down the one 
job-creating engine that has driven our economy over the last 15 years, 
since we opened up the competition, and they want to shut it down. 
Ladies and gentlemen, 50 percent of the growth of our economy in the 
1990s was in this sector. It's because we had competition. They want to 
shut it down here today.
  Vote ``no'' on the Republican resolution, which ends this era of the 
open Internet and which allows every innovator in their garages and at 
home to dream big--that they could create new jobs in our economy.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Obviously, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, walked in a 
little late because we just heard that all those big companies he 
railed against are opposed to this resolution we have before us. So if 
anybody is doing the bidding of those companies, it must be the 
Democrats, who have rattled off as part of their argument all those 
very companies that he just railed against who are opposed to us.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Communications 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. TERRY. There are really three major points to bring up here. One 
is Congress did not give the FCC authorization to regulate the 
Internet. There is no authorization. Mr. Markey had a bill. It didn't 
get enough support even in a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass. 
There was not support for a net neutrality bill in the Senate. So the 
President, who made campaign promises to some of his biggest supporters 
from California, had to do it through the FCC. These back-end ways of 
legislating have to stop. That's what we're doing here today.
  The second point is the robust nature of the Internet. I love the 
argument that as it's been deregulated somehow it's been stifled from 
innovation. Like we haven't seen the Facebooks and the Googles, which 
are in favor of net neutrality, come to being. My goodness, it was the 
robust Internet that allowed these great experiments like Netflix to 
come up. Now they're so big that they want help through government 
agencies for advantages in the marketplace.
  We hear a lot about blocking, that it's about blocking content. There 
has been about a half a dozen instances, Madam Speaker, where Internet 
providers did block, in some way altered the people's, their customers' 
ability to go to a Web site. All instances were resolved by their 
customers' pressure and

[[Page H2556]]

some encouragement by the FCC. So the fact that these instances were 
resolved, and everyone knows there should be no blocking, why are we 
here except for the real reason: to give the FCC power over business 
plans.
  Mr. Markey just mentioned it. The gentlelady from California 
mentioned it. It's about tiering. If you walk into McDonald's, you pay 
more for a large Coke than a small Coke. But yet under the FCC's plan, 
they want one size fits all, one price, which is the Netflix and 
Google's request.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield 4 minutes to a highly valued member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition 
to this resolution. If enacted, it will strip the Federal 
Communications Commission of its authority to police the most egregious 
conduct of broadband providers, and it would permit those providers to 
block consumers' access to lawful Web sites of their choice.
  The FCC's open Internet rule makes two simple promises: To consumers, 
that we can visit any legal Web site and use any online service on any 
device we want; to innovators, that they don't have to ask permission 
from the government or get shaken down by Internet access providers 
when they come up with a new Web site, device, or service. That's it. 
That isn't regulating the Internet. No one's proposing to regulate 
Internet content. But Internet access providers have always lived with 
basic rules of the road. No blocking was chief among them.
  Those basic rules of the road are what turned the Internet into the 
economic engine that it is today. But in our hearings on this bill, we 
learned that some broadband providers want the right to block what you 
can see. I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want to live in a 
country where it's legal to block Web sites like it is in Iran, China, 
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and in other oppressive regimes.
  Why can't we have a regulation that protects your constituents' 
Internet freedom? What's the harm in ensuring that no one can block 
your constituents' ability to access the Web sites they want to visit?
  I offered an amendment to this bill that simply tried to ensure that 
if this resolution of disapproval that we are considering today is 
enacted into law, broadband providers would not be able to block or 
interfere with consumers' access to lawful Web sites. But the way this 
resolution is written, we are not allowed to offer perfecting 
amendments.
  You know, we used to be able to debate net neutrality in a 
levelheaded way. The no blocking principle was broadly accepted since 
it was included in the FCC's 2005 Internet Policy Statement, then 
controlled by Republicans. That principle has garnered support from 
both Democratic and Republican FCC Commissioners. Chairman Michael 
Powell stated at the time that consumers have come to be able to expect 
to go where they want on high-speed connections. And this was also part 
of the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 
authored by Chairman Barton at that time. Most of my Republican 
colleagues who were there voted in favor of the bill.
  To close, this resolution gives the green light to broadband 
providers to block anything, even legal content on the Internet, just 
like they do in Iran. I think consumers should have the choice to go 
where they want to go and to do what they want to do on the Internet. 
That's why my colleagues should oppose this legislation.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, the last time I checked, it's like the 
Government of Iran controls their Internet. That's what we are trying 
to avoid here is government control of the Internet.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's a shame the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is not here. I appreciate always when he speaks his 
exclamatory speeches, high emotionality. His idiosyncrasies that he 
brings to the House floor are obviously humorous. But I think he and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania miss a very blatant fact: The FCC has 
never had the authority to regulate the Internet. In fact, the Comcast 
decision, the D.C. Circuit Court in 2010 indicated clearly the Court 
found that the FCC failed to demonstrate it had authority under Title 
I.
  Not even Title II, but under Title I, Mr. Markey, they had no 
authority.
  So if the D.C. court ruled that way, you would think that you would 
respect that. So they had no jurisdiction to regulate the Internet in 
any form. And as a result of what the FCC did in December, a major 
telephone communication company intended to sue. They stopped their 
suit because of a technicality, but they are going to move forward with 
it because they also believe the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction to 
regulate the Internet.
  So I am a little puzzled why you folks have come down here. I think 
all of you on the Democrats' side should realize there are over 60 
Democrats on your side that signed a letter to the FCC in the last 
Congress saying they didn't want the FCC to regulate the Internet. So 
why don't you talk to me about your own colleagues, 60 of them, that 
agree with Mr. Walden and our republican Telecommunications 
Subcommittee on this issue.
  So I really think it's a little puzzling why we are down here talking 
about it, and you are getting to the point where you are saying the FCC 
is having their authority taken away. They never had it. And the 
majority, a lot of your Members also agree with us that, frankly, the 
FCC should not regulate the Internet.
  And this argument has been going on for over 3 years. It's nothing 
surprising. Mr. Markey acts like we are bringing this legislation to 
the floor all of a sudden. We have been working on this when Mr. Barton 
was ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and I was the 
ranking Republican on the subcommittee on Telecommunications. I sent 
letters, Barton sent letters, and almost everybody on the Republican 
Telecommunications subcommittee also did it. So this is nothing new. 
And I think, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey, as you continue to try to 
exploit the idea that we are bringing fresh new legislation down here 
to control the FCC, you are wrong.
  I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37. This measure will overturn 
the FCC's dangerous Internet regulations. These rules will, for the 
first time, give government a substantive role in how the Internet will 
be operated and managed, how broadband services will be priced and 
structured, and potentially how broadband networks will be financed.
  Over the past 18 months, as the former Ranking Member of this 
Communications Subcommittee, I joined with former full committee 
Ranking Member Joe Barton in sending 3 letters to FCC Chairman 
Genachowski expressing strong opposition to his plan to regulate the 
Internet. I have introduced legislation in the past two Congresses to 
try to prevent the implementation of net neutrality rules, as have 
other members. So as we can see, there is a long record fighting 
Internet regulation.
  It is not appropriate for the unelected FCC to make a decision with 
such potential long-term consequences without explicit direction from 
Congress. The FCC's actions will lead to uncertainty and will drive 
investment out of the broadband sector.
  Aside from the harm these rules will cause, whether or not the FCC 
even has the authority to enforce these rules is not clear. The FCC 
claims it has authority to enact the rules under Section 706 of the 
1996 Telecommunications Act relating to the promotion of advanced 
telecommunications capability. However, the FCC cannot rely on Section 
706 because, as the agency has previously acknowledged, Section 706 is 
not an independent source of authority, because Section 706 talks of 
removing barriers to infrastructure investment but the rules will erect 
barriers to investment. The FCC's claims stretch the authority under 
those provisions too far.
  Just look at the DC Circuit's April 2010 decision in the Comcast 
case. The court found that the FCC failed to demonstrate it had 
ancillary authority under Title I to regulate Internet network 
management. As a result of these rules, more lawsuits will be filed, 
which will only lead to more uncertainty.
  One of the few bright spots in our economy is in the technology 
sector. Yet, for some reason, the FCC has decided to overstep its 
bounds and institute unnecessary regulations. Only in Washington, can a 
regulatory agency issue rules to solve a problem that does not exist. 
It simply does not make sense.
  The FCC talks about this in terms of open Internet and net 
neutrality. In actuality, it is net

[[Page H2557]]

regulation that will freeze investment, chill innovation, and harm job 
creation.
  The Internet that exists today is open and thriving, because of the 
deregulatory approach we have taken over the past two decades. 
Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse 
thanks to our historical hands-off approach to the Internet. We must 
maintain that course if the Internet is to continue to flourish, 
especially in the face of demands for more sophisticated content, 
services, and applications.
  There is no crisis warranting the FCC's recent departure from that 
policy. The FCC hangs its adoption of network neutrality rules 
regulating the Internet on speculation of future harm.
  I urge passage this legislation to stop the FCC from regulating the 
Internet.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, could I just get a time check for each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Ellmers). The gentleman from Oregon has 
12 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. ESHOO. I would just like to add to the debate that the number of 
Democrats that signed the letter that Mr. Stearns just referenced, that 
was in opposition to operating under Title II. The FCC listened, and 
they went and placed this set of rules under Title I.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 
another very distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, ahead of a looming potential government shutdown, it is 
ironic that we are considering this resolution today that would move 
towards shutting down a free and open Internet. On the CR, my 
Republican colleagues are overreaching and have unfortunately 
demonstrated an unwillingness to negotiate in good faith with 
congressional Democrats and the President. The resolution before us is 
an example of the flawed process.
  Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, resolutions of 
disapproval are not open to amendment even for the most basic consumer 
protections. During the Energy and Commerce Committee debate, I offered 
an amendment that would preserve the transparency rule adopted by the 
FCC as part of the open Internet order, requiring broadband providers 
to make available their network management practices so that consumers 
and innovators can make informed choices.

                              {time}  1420

  I offered the same amendment to the Rules Committee in hopes that the 
majority would make it in order and debate its merits.
  The transparency rule is the most basic of consumer protections, and 
it is also the least controversial aspect of the rule supported by 
broadband providers, high-tech companies and consumers groups, 
including all six witnesses during a committee hearing on this. Yet 
this resolution will remove this widely accepted practice to protect 
consumers and innovators as well.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how the FCC will be able to address 
consumer protection issues with respect to broadband providers if this 
resolution is enacted. We need to consider these unintended 
consequences. This resolution is a blunt instrument that risks the 
future of competition, innovation, and an open Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, the FCC's open Internet order brings certainty and 
clarity to a debate that has consumed this industry for years. It 
allows Internet service and content providers to focus on what they do 
best, innovate and create jobs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think there is some confusion about 
House Joint Resolution 37 and what it does.
  My colleagues seem to think this would impact the FCC's statutory 
authority, and I want to call their attention to the actual wording of 
the resolution. It's eight little bitty lines. If you start on line 3 
and you begin to read, it says the Congress disapproves the rule 
submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the 
matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry 
practices.
  Now, what this does is to say we disapprove it. If you want to get to 
the statutory authority, I want to invite you to join us in that 
discussion. You are going to have that opportunity. It is called House 
Resolution 96, and it is coming to a committee near you very, very 
soon, and we look forward to forever prohibiting the overreach of the 
Federal Communications Commission.
  Let's also be clear on another point that has been misstated. There 
have never been telephone rules that regulated the Internet. It didn't 
happen. They were not there. So we need to be certain that those who 
are listening to us, Mr. Speaker, realize that never had the Federal 
Communications Commission, never had the Federal Government regulated 
the Internet until December 21, when the Federal Communications 
Commission met after we had adjourned the 111th Congress and decided to 
go where they had no statutory authority to go. They enacted, they 
brought the heavy arm of government in and put it on the Internet after 
these Internet service providers spend about $60 billion a year on 
spectrum, on maintaining this network.
  I would also remind my colleagues that when the ACLU decided they 
were going to go in here and show there was a need, they couldn't even 
find enough examples.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. There has never been an example of a market failure.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my esteemed colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to 
overturn the FCC's open Internet rules.
  The public wants us to focus on job creation. And yet here we are 
debating this resolution that would do the exact opposite. It doesn't 
create jobs, not one. Instead, it injects uncertainty into our 
recovering economy. It stifles innovation in our fastest-growing 
industries.
  The FCC open Internet rules ensure Americans can fully utilize all of 
the benefits the Internet provides, creating good-paying, head of 
household jobs along the way. But the resolution before us today 
jeopardizes all of that. Like a government shutdown, this resolution 
will hurt the economy, and I can't support that.
  Now the public has made it clear: They expect us to cut spending in 
our CR, and we will. A deal is very close at hand, but Republicans are 
holding it up at the eleventh hour. Why? Well, apparently, it's not 
about the money. Instead, the holdups are the extraneous non-budgetary 
issues Republicans are trying to force into this funding bill, like 
cutting funding for women's health and letting polluters dirty our air.
  Mr. Speaker, even Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who is nobody's idea 
of a pushover, has urged his party to drop the policy riders in order 
to avoid a shutdown. They should listen, Mr. Speaker.
  Democrats have gone 70 percent of the way to Republicans' demands. 
That's a long way to go in terms of trying to reach a compromise, but 
Republicans are demanding that they either get 100 percent of what they 
want or they will shut down the government.
  Democrats do not want to shut down the government. We know it would 
put our economy at risk right when we have been making progress over 
the last few months.
  Mr. Speaker, the innocent victims that are shut down are the American 
people, and I share their outrage.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WALDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WALDEN. Is the gentlewoman addressing the bill before us? Is this 
germane to the bill before us? I question the relevance to the issue 
before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker would remind Members to confine 
their remarks to the joint resolution.
  The gentlewoman may continue.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is just more 
of

[[Page H2558]]

the same. It will hobble our efforts to create countless jobs and boost 
our economy. This resolution shutting down the FCC's effort is not the 
way forward, and neither is shutting down the government.
  I urge the Republican leadership to stop playing these dangerous 
games.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 37, which prevents 
the Federal Government from coming in and regulating the Internet. If 
you look at what's happening in Washington right now, I think there is 
no clearer sign how broken this town is.
  President Obama couldn't even pass a budget last year, and his party 
controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, which is why we 
stand here today facing a potential government shutdown. But yet the 
President is going to come along and say now he wants the government to 
run the Internet, to have regulations on the Internet.
  You know, my colleagues on the other side talk about all these 
innovations. And I love all the innovations that have happened over the 
last few decades. The irony of that is all these great innovations have 
all happened without this government regulation that the FCC is now 
proposing. They act as if we're trying to take away the things that 
have allowed the innovation.
  In fact, it's the innovations that have happened because the 
government hadn't figured out how to come in and regulate it in a way 
where they would be picking winners and losers. And yet the FCC is 
proposing a plan that picks winners and losers. And they rattled off a 
big list of some big companies who have done well for themselves and 
now want to be those winners that the government would protect.
  What you don't hear about is what about those small startup 
companies, that small company that is working out of a garage right now 
in California that's going to be the next big idea. But if the 
government picks winners and losers, we all know who usually are the 
losers: It's those small startup companies that might never be that 
great idea of innovation.
  We have got to be able to protect the next Harvard student who is 
right now studying at Harvard but may be getting ready to drop out and 
be the next billionaire who created another great idea. And all those 
great ideas, again, happen without this government regulation the FCC 
is proposing, which is why we need to block them from doing it.
  Then you can just go look at the innovations. In 2000 less than 5 
percent of homes had broadband Internet access. Today more than 70 
percent do, and it's growing because of over $500 billion of private 
investment, because of this innovation in the job creation that's going 
with it.
  Let's protect those jobs. Let's protect the Internet's ability to 
continue regulating without the heavyhanded government picking winners 
and losers.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the 
State of Washington (Mr. Inslee).

                              {time}  1430

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is investigating the source of the 
microphone malfunction.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that instead of 
being here seeking a bipartisan consensus to avoid a government 
shutdown, we again are brought to this floor in an effort to engage in 
this ideological effort to, in fact, shut down government.
  Yesterday, my Republican friends wanted to shut down the ability of 
Uncle Sam to protect the freedom of Americans to breathe clean air. 
Today, they are attempting to shut down the ability of Uncle Sam to 
protect the freedom of Americans to get access to the Internet. 
Tomorrow, they are attempting to shut down the government so they won't 
be allowed to protect the freedom of women to get health.
  We should not be shutting down Americans' access to an open Internet. 
We should be opening up Americans' access and Uncle Sam's ability to 
guarantee Americans access to the Internet.
  Now here's what is at stake. Our access to freeways--and freeways are 
great, just like the Internet is great, but it is not so great if 
powerful economic forces can shut down the on-ramps to the freeway. And 
it's not so great if they can shut down or create a two-tiered system 
so that if you go to your Internet service provider's favorite 
warehouse store you get a deal to get access to the freeway; but if you 
want to go to their competitors, you have got to pay extra and you get 
slower service to get there. This is what is at stake.
  And what the Republicans want to do with this resolution is shut down 
government's ability to prevent these powerful economic forces from 
making a second tier, a substitute, a secondary access if you don't go 
to their favorite situation.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, America has been great because it invented free 
speech and it has been great because it has invented an open Internet. 
But both of those freedoms are in jeopardy today because powerful 
economic interests that are becoming larger and larger in consolidating 
these Internet entities have the ability now to start choking off 
consumers' access to the Internet. And for those who want to say, oh, 
it's not a problem, we cannot wait until this horse is out of the barn, 
it will be too late.
  And, by the way, this is not just a consumers' issue; it is a 
business development issue. It is small businesses who today want to 
create these small businesses that want to have people get access to 
their businesses. And they don't have the powerful clout to sign these 
big, mega-million dollar deals with Internet service providers to give 
them a leg up.
  Mr. Speaker, reject this issue to shut down government's ability to 
provide freedom of the Internet. Preserve open Internet and reject this 
bill.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask that Members suspend use 
of that microphone until we determine the problem.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I think this points up two things. When you 
have government-run microphones on the Internet, you're going to have a 
problem. And, second, we are for open and free microphones; so they are 
welcome to use our podium as well.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that 
I come before this government-regulated microphone, but I do come in 
strong support of this resolution. I would like to commend the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Mr. Walden, for 
his leadership to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from 
implementing regulations on the Internet.
  As a member of the subcommittee, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.J. 
Res. 37 because I believe that it is absolutely necessary that we 
invoke the Congressional Review Act to nullify the implementation of 
net neutrality because it will negatively impact our economy. It is 
time that we rein in the FCC under its current leadership and ensure 
the continued growth of the Internet without the handcuffs of net 
neutrality.
  Mr. Speaker, the sole reason the Internet has been able to grow 
unfettered is due to the absence of unnecessary regulations, and I fear 
that the FCC's so-called open Internet order will stifle innovation and 
investment, and it will prevent continued job creation within the 
broadband industry.
  Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen to act without quantifiable 
statistics about the need for such regulation. In fact, in the FCC's 
order, the commission admitted that it conducted no--and I repeat no--
market analysis on the demonstration of any actual problem rather than 
mere speculation.
  In our subcommittee hearing with all five FCC commissioners on 
February 16, Commissioner McDowell testified that this order is not 
necessary, it will cause more harm for the industry than it will 
prevent, and that the FCC does not have the authority to move forward 
on this order.
  He is not alone in this analysis. Former FCC Chairman William 
Kennard, who was appointed by President Clinton, said back in 1999 that 
the ``deregulatory, competitive approach''

[[Page H2559]]

has led to the innovation in the Internet that now benefits our 
country, as my colleagues have pointed out.
  Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why we are here today. I am reminded 
of the famous line in William Shakespeare's ``The Tempest.'' He wrote: 
``What's past is prologue.'' Our policy of deregulation of the Internet 
has yielded tremendous benefits and growth, and I strongly believe that 
the FCC's order will undermine that growth over the past 15 years.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say that this charge about 
the FCC failing to conduct an adequate market power and cost-benefit 
analysis has been stated and restated ad nauseam. The FCC fully 
reviewed the competitiveness of broadband Internet access markets and 
analyzed the cost benefit of adopting open Internet rules.
  Secondly, the Republican witness that came before the committee very 
comfortably spoke about blocking Netflix. So if anyone questions 
whether consumers are at stake here and what could happen, they should 
just look to that record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.
  I just want to comment on my friend from Georgia's scholarly, even 
erudite, mention of the quote from Shakespeare and ``The Tempest'' 
because I too was thinking of ``The Tempest'' perhaps in a different 
line, not necessarily related to these proceedings; but you just 
sparked this memory of the line from ``The Tempest'' that says, ``Hell 
is empty, and all the devils are here.''
  Now H.J. Res. 37 undercuts the authority and the mandate of the FCC 
during an era of increasing consolidation in the telecommunications 
industry. The FCC order gives the wired and wireless broadband industry 
too much leeway to exercise ``reasonable'' management of the Internet. 
The FCC order should explicitly forbid such practices as ``paid 
prioritization,'' a technique where ISPs funnel users to one type of 
content over another simply because that site or service moves faster 
instead of a mere pledge to monitor broadband developments.
  The FCC ought to be sending the strongest possible message to 
Internet service providers that the physical infrastructure and 
foundation of the Internet from which they reap immense profit was 
created by the American taxpayer.
  Instead of telling the FCC that there should be no net neutrality 
rules, we should be sending the FCC back to the drawing board with a 
message that the FCC should be more vigilant in protecting net 
neutrality, not less. Keep the Internet open and keep government open; 
otherwise, we may have succeeded in communicating that the opposite of 
progress is Congress.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this is a big shocker. I am 
new here, me and about 86 new people on my side. I watched last year as 
I was running for office to represent the 11th District of Illinois. I 
watched as this House failed to produce a budget, which is why we are 
where we are today. But I also watched as this body, the Democrat-
controlled body, attempted to implement net neutrality through the 
legislative process but failed to garner enough votes. They didn't, and 
that's fine. That's good. Everybody has a right to do that. This is the 
people's House.
  But what happens if you are unable to do that through a legislative 
process? Well, why not call a regulatory agency in to do it by fiat. 
Ladies and gentlemen, the FCC and a whole host of other regulatory 
agencies have acted outside the will of the people. It is high time 
that the regulatory agencies do what their job is, which is to 
regulate, not to legislate.
  We were sent here in November to stand up and say the will of the 
people will be respected in the House of Representatives and the will 
of the people will be respected by the Federal Government.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it strikes me, and I have one major question, 
and that is: Why are we considering H.J. Res. 37 when we are on the 
verge of shutting down the House of Representatives?
  I hope and I think a deal is very close at hand, but Republicans are 
holding it at the 11th hour over divisive social policy that should not 
be a part of this debate. Republicans should not hold the government 
hostage using controversial social policy as ransom. Republicans are 
especially focusing on divisive changes to women's health policy.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WALDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WALDEN. What is the relevance?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is reminded to 
confine his remarks to the subject matter of the joint resolution.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, I think the relevance is: Why are we here working on 
this piece of legislation at this time when we are on the verge of a 
crisis of shutting down the government?
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. I would be happy to answer.
  I am not part of that negotiating team. And I don't think you are, 
and I don't think Ms. Eshoo is or Mr. Waxman. And so those who are 
negotiating are negotiating, and we're taking care of this business.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time. I reclaim my time.
  This is an important day. And what we are saying on our side is we 
want to enact a clean continuing resolution at some point today so we 
can take care of our troops and so we can move forward with the process 
and protect ourselves. And I hope we can do it in the context of an 
agreement between the President, between the leader of the other body 
and the Speaker of the House. If that is done, then this will be a good 
day. But taking up H.J. Res. 37 to kind of do as a filler, to me, it 
doesn't make any sense.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this issue.
  To the gentleman from Washington, I would tell him yesterday this 
House voted to cut government spending and keep the government open. 
Today this House will vote to cut government regulations and keep the 
Internet open. That's what this is all about.
  Let me add that, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who said all the 
FCC is doing is making two simple promises, here they are: 200 pages, 
single spaced, small print, to make two simple promises to keep the 
Internet open.
  Well, guess what. The Internet is open now and we have laws to 
protect keeping the Internet open now, and they are called antitrust 
laws. If they need to be modified, they should come forward with those 
proposals. But the Internet is open today.
  And to my friends in the technology community, and they are my 
friends, some of whom think this is a great thing the FCC is doing, I 
would say to them, be careful what you ask for because these 200 pages 
are just the beginning. There will be thousands of pages more as they 
illegally try to blast their way into regulating the most valuable 
invention in the history of the world. That is what is going on here.
  And to the gentlewoman from California who says there is a market 
power analysis, I refer to page 12 of the very FCC regulations, which 
says: ``We are not performing a market power analysis in this 
proceeding.''
  This issue is very, very important. The Internet is based upon free 
enterprise. It is based upon individual initiative and creativity. It 
is not based upon government regulation, and government regulation will 
stifle it and ultimately snuff it out. If you want proof of that, go 
look at government-

[[Page H2560]]

regulated Internets in other countries around the world like China and 
Iran. That is not what this country is about. We are about protecting 
the greatest job creator we have ever made in this country.
  Support this resolution. Oppose the naysayers.
  I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 37. Many Internet content 
providers are concerned, as am I, about proposals to create different 
classes of content on the Internet or to discriminate against 
legitimate content or services online.
  Unfortunately, I believe that the FCC has gone too far in its recent 
action and urge a yes vote on H.J. Res. 37, which would eliminate 
uncertainty created in the marketplace by the FCC's power-grab.
  I believe in free market principles and the fact that Government 
involvement often stifles innovation. I also believe that our Nation's 
antitrust laws have served as important guidelines to ensure that 
markets remain competitive and that these antitrust laws must remain 
applicable to ensure that Internet access providers do not discriminate 
against or block access to certain Web sites, services, or content. In 
fact, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, 
and the Internet, which I chair, recently held a hearing to discuss the 
impact of antitrust laws on net neutrality. I urge passage of this 
resolution.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just in a calm voice respond 
to my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte. And he is a good friend.
  This is not necessary. If there were a case to be made, other than 
those that have come to the floor today, it would have been made in 
testimony by the people that are the very stakeholders in all of these 
businesses. And that's why I started out today by saying I don't 
believe the Republicans have a case, a leg to stand on, because all of 
the companies--small, medium, and large--even the largest broadband 
providers in the country, consumer advocates, religious organizations, 
it is the broadest and deepest coalition I have seen in recent history 
of the committee, they are all opposed to what you are doing.
  So you are having a wonderful conversation with yourselves, but, most 
frankly, it is not doing anything for anyone else. This is about 
protecting consumers, and there have been cases, case after case at the 
FCC where abuses were committed in terms of blocking, and many other 
things. So this side is for protecting and understands what an open and 
free Internet is.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I was astounded by the comment of our friend on the 
Republican side of the aisle who is not on our committee. He said that 
the antitrust laws will protect us. Well, if you have a cable company 
or a phone company to choose, you are going to choose one or the other. 
Let's say the cable company has its own list of special programs that 
they want people to purchase. Well, they could easily stop Netflix. 
They could easily stop competitive programming. That is not an 
antitrust violation; that is a business opportunity. And what these 
rules propose to do is to not give anybody a business opportunity to 
deny the consumer the ability to access anything on the Web, which is 
the case today.
  These rules that we see the FCC doing are being put into place to 
make sure that somebody does not take advantage of the power they have 
in the market. We do that all the time. We regulate the securities 
agencies with the SEC because we don't want them to run amuck. I wish 
the SEC had acted to stop the economy from going over the cliff 
practically.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. We need to defeat this Republican proposal because it is 
not based on anything but an ideological point of view that government 
can do nothing right and business can do nothing wrong; and they, 
therefore, favor the big businesses.
  I say do not vote for this Republican proposal. It is not something 
that any constituency wants. It would confuse the situation. It would 
make life uncertain for all of the players, stakeholders and others, 
and it would deny consumers the freedom they now have.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that there's confusion on 
their side of the aisle, because at one end they have a Speaker that 
says we're doing the bidding of the big oligarchies, these big 
companies, and on the other hand that all those companies oppose what 
we're doing. I'm trying to figure out just which side they're on. We're 
for an open Internet that is vibrant as it is today because it's not 
regulated by the government.
  I would now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I think we should boil it down to what 
this debate is all about. The supporters of this resolution, including 
myself, believe that the Internet has been, frankly, rather efficient 
and innovative and creative--clearly more efficient and innovative and 
creative than the Federal Government bureaucracy.
  The administration, however, believes that the Federal bureaucracy 
can do a much better job running the Internet. Therefore, they are 
proceeding to regulate the Internet.
  Here is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. If you believe that the Federal 
Government bureaucracy should regulate, i.e., should run the Internet 
because they can do better, then please vote against this. However, if 
you believe that the Internet does a pretty good job and that the 
Federal bureaucrats' hands should be again kept out of the Internet, 
then you would vote ``yes'' for the resolution. It is, frankly, just 
that simple.
  Ms. ESHOO. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  The microphone in the well on the Democratic side is shut down; so I 
will use the microphone on the Republican side.
  And I will say to the Republicans that we already have rules that 
govern the Internet that have passed through this Congress. They deal 
with education; they deal with privacy; they deal with intellectual 
property; they deal with global Internet governance; they deal with 
network security; they deal with pornography; they deal with taxation 
of items on the Internet; they deal with protections to the deaf and 
blind on the Internet. We do have rules on the Internet, so don't 
pretend for a second that we don't.
  Let me give you, though, another lesson from Adam Smith in the Wealth 
of Nations. Here is what he said:
  ``The Member of Parliament who supports every proposal for 
strengthening the monopoly is sure to acquire not only the reputation 
of understanding trade but great popularity and influence with an order 
of men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance.
  ``If he opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has the 
authority to be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged 
probity nor the greatest rank nor the greatest public services can 
protect him from the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal 
insults, nor sometimes from real danger arising from the insolent 
outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists.''
  Adam Smith warned us of monopolies, of oligopolies as the greatest 
threat to capitalism. That is what we are debating today, to ensure 
that the Internet is open, not just to the monopolists but to every 
entrepreneur, the tens of thousands of them out there who have been 
creating the wealth, creating the opportunities, creating the jobs, 
creating the open communication that has revolutionized our world.
  In Iran it is legal to shut down the Internet. In China it is legal 
to shut down the Internet. Let us make sure in the United States it is 
not legal to shut down the Internet.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 
1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN. First of all, I think it's very interesting that the last 
speaker pointed out that in Iran and in China they can shut down the 
Internet. That's because the government controls the Internet. That's 
what Republicans are trying to stop from happening here, in part 
because we think

[[Page H2561]]

it's wrong, in part because we know that the FCC does not have the 
legal authority to take this action. That's why we're doing that.
  But beyond that, it's a bad economic decision, because we had a 
Harvard MBA testify before our committee, ``Over time, the order 
represents a direct transfer of wealth from broadband access providers 
to those whose content rides over the network. That means that it 
provides those who ride the network with a strategically vital 
financial weapon to use against broadband providers who in many cases 
are their competitors.''
  You see, this is picking winners and losers. The Democrats do not 
want to extend the net neutrality rules to the search engines and 
others who ride on the network. They don't want to do that. They want 
to pick a winner and a loser. They're the ones who are siding with the 
big companies in this case. We're the ones on the Republican side who 
are siding with keeping the Internet open and free as it is today, that 
has allowed it to flourish and grow, that has allowed incredible 
technology and innovation to take place. We want it open and unfettered 
from government regulation in terms of the management of the Internet.
  Further, we do not believe that the FCC has the legal authority to 
regulate in this area. When they have attempted this before, the D.C. 
Circuit Court has said, you did not prove, FCC, that you had legal 
authority and struck them down. And if they are able to get authority 
using section 706, they may well have opened the door to every State 
regulator in the country regulating the Internet. That's bad for 
innovation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 
37--legislation introduced by the House majority that would bar the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from enforcing the new rules on 
net neutrality that protect consumer freedom on the Internet.
  Last year, the FCC produced a commonsense set of rules that would bar 
Internet service providers from slowing or blocking consumer access to 
the Internet. The rules strike a sensible balance between ensuring 
consumer access to the Internet and the need for Internet service 
providers to pursue innovative and equitable business models.
  Today, the House Republican majority brought H.J. Res. 37 to the 
floor. This reckless legislation would strip away the FCC's ability to 
ensure a fair online marketplace and protect consumers. Moreover, it is 
being introduced at a time when large corporations are already 
restricting Americans' Internet freedom.
  Under H.J. Res. 37, consumers would not have a right to know if their 
Internet connection is as fast as advertised, or how their Internet 
provider is charging them for certain services. This legislation is a 
threat to the open Internet: without proper enforcement of net 
neutrality rules, competition would be limited, innovation would be 
hindered, and open access to information would be restricted.
  As individuals and businesses increasingly rely on access to high 
speed Internet, they also rely on federal authorities to develop and 
enforce essential consumer protections. This radical proposal by House 
Republicans would demolish the Federal government's ability to carry 
out these protections and ensure a free and open Internet for our 
constituents. If the Republican majority gets their way and this bill 
becomes the law of the land, consumer choice would be sacrificed in 
favor of even more power for a handful of corporations.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 37.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37, a 
resolution of disapproval regarding the Federal Communication 
Commission's recent Internet and broadband industry practices ruling.
  It is very telling that as we count down the hours till a likely 
government shut down, the majority party decides to focus their energy 
on net neutrality principles, rather than the American people.
  I was elected into Congress to represent my constituents, including 
the 3,600 Federal employees in Wisconsin's fourth congressional 
district.
  The same constituents who want answers to the very simple questions, 
``Will I get paid?'' and ``Can I make my mortgage payment?''
  A Government shutdown is not free of consequence. Let me take a 
minute to explain how serious this is to our country.
  Some estimate that a week-long shut down could cost America's economy 
$8 billion. This would be a crushing blow to our economy as we have 
been seeing job growth, with more than 200,000 jobs added just last 
month.
  Beyond that, many services will be delayed or stopped all together, 
including:
  Tax refunds that families have budgeted for will be delayed;
  Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces will still be fighting 
for us, but will be paid late;
  Environmental reviews underway for new construction projects that 
create jobs will be stopped;
  Federal Housing Administration would stop approving loans, 
threatening the housing market;
  The Small Business Administration will stop giving loans to qualified 
small businesses that are ready to expand and create jobs;
  Enrollments in programs like Social Security will be slowed;
  Our national parks and museums will close affecting families who have 
saved up for vacation and the communities that rely on a strong tourism 
economy; and
  800,000 Federal workers may be furloughed, which could ultimately 
cost the government about $175 million a day in back wages.
  Now the question is--what are we doing right now to prevent it?
  The answer is: Nothing. The majority has deemed it necessary for the 
American people to debate whether or not to disapprove of the FCC's net 
neutrality rule.
  The bill funding the government will expire tonight at midnight. 
Democrats have been working with Republicans and have met them more 
than halfway on the cuts they proposed in their 6-month continuing 
resolution. Yet, Republicans are refusing to compromise--not on the 
spending cuts--but on what are known as ``policy riders.'' The bottom 
line is that this debate isn't about numbers anymore, it's about 
ideology.
  Republicans are willing to shut down the government over debates we 
have been having for years over family planning services like birth 
control.
  House Speaker John Boehner has acknowledged that House Republicans 
need to compromise when he said they are clearly ``one-half of one-
third of the government.'' Yet, he is beholden to the fringe of his 
caucus.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to put the ideological partisanship 
aside and work together for the sake of my district and the American 
people.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering 
today--H.J. Res. 37--is one of the most regressive I have seen, even in 
a very regressive environment.
  H.J. Res. 37 not only stifles innovation but is anti-small business, 
anti-consumer and, because it brings uncertainty back into the 
telecommunications marketplace, is also anti-investment and anti-job 
creation. All of the industry leaders, as well as consumer groups and 
those for whom an open Internet provides opportunities to start a 
business and grow, support the FCC rule.
  The principles embodied therein have guided the Commission for years 
now and this resolution, if passed, would set this industry back 
decades with no benefit whatsoever and without the possibility of 
rectifying the damage it would do.
  The FCC has adopted a framework that will preserve the open Internet 
and create certainty in an industry that changes every day. Ironically, 
it is the Republicans who are creating uncertainty by preventing the 
FCC from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
  Using the Congressional Review Act to oppose the FCC's Open Internet 
Rule is bad politics and sets a bad precedent.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 37.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, in support of consumer choice, innovation 
and economic growth, and a free and open Internet, I oppose the repeal 
of net neutrality rules.
  In the wake of extraordinary movements for reform and human rights in 
the Middle East--organized online, on Facebook and Twitter--the United 
States must take heed of one of the fundamental facts of our time: that 
an open Internet is a critical building block of free, prosperous, 
democratic societies in the 21st century.
  Out of this conviction, many of us have fought for net neutrality 
rules--because neither government nor telecommunications firms should 
be in charge of our free speech; because the Internet strengthens our 
democracy, stimulates investment, and bolsters our economy.
  As a coalition of small businesses wrote in opposition to today's 
resolution: ``the open Internet increases opportunities for businesses 
large and small to compete and grow . . . An open Internet allows us to 
reach our customers at any place and at any time . . . An open Internet 
is an engine for economic growth, innovation, and job creation.'' To 
put it another way: an open Internet enhances consumer choice, supports 
entrepreneurship, and ensures competition in our economy.
  Among those leading the charge are: Ranking Member Henry Waxman, 
Energy and Commerce Committee; Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, the top 
Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications

[[Page H2562]]

and Technology; Congressman Ed Markey, Congressman Mike Doyle, and 
Congresswoman Doris Matsui of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Late last year--after hearing from public interest groups, civil 
rights organizations, religious leaders, small businesses, unions, and 
education advocates--the Federal Communications Commission issued long-
overdue rules for open access to websites and online services.
  These standards were a step in the right direction; but they did not 
go far enough. Standing alone, the rules are not sufficiently clear, 
consistent, or firm to effectively protect consumers and innovative 
freedom. But that's not reason to eliminate them; it's reason to 
strengthen them.
  However, the resolution before us today takes us in the wrong 
direction. It will revoke basic consumer protections of transparency 
and choice online; eliminate competition and shut off outlets of 
innovation. And it betrays the democratic values resting at the core of 
our history, our success, and our country's prosperity.
  We live in an era when the Internet has the potential to transform 
lives for the better--through job creation and economic development; as 
a venue to communicate, speak out, and exercise our fundamental right 
to free expression. Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree 
that we must tap into this potential for the benefit of all Americans. 
We must work together to maintain and expand an Internet where 
innovation can flourish, where consumer choice is protected, where the 
democratic spirit of our nation remains strong.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.J. Res. 37, a 
resolution disapproving of the recent FCC net neutrality rule.
  The FCC's net neutrality rule is designed to ensure that the Internet 
remains affordable and accessible to all Americans. This goal is 
critical for Americans to engage the world and for the Internet to 
continue to be the engine of economic growth, job creation and 
innovation we have known it to be. To continue fulfilling this vital 
role in our society and economy, the Internet must be unencumbered and 
free from arbitrary or commercially driven disruptions. The FCC rule is 
tailored to achieve that objective.
  Mr. Speaker, the FCC's net neutrality rule is the product of years of 
careful analysis, deliberation and review. The question of whether the 
FCC has the authority to issue the rule will ultimately be decided by 
the courts. We should not be considering such a serious matter under 
the expedited procedures and closed rule before us today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the previous question is ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                           motion to recommit

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. HOYER. I am in its present form.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves to recommit the joint resolution, H. J. 
     Res. 37, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Page 2, after line 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 2.  That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
     (Public Law 111-242) is further amended by striking the date 
     specified in section 106(3) and inserting ``April 15, 2011''.

  Mr. HOYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Oregon for the time. I understand that he could have 
precluded that, and I appreciate the fact that he gave me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we've heard on the floor about all the Americans who 
would suffer the very real effects of a government shutdown. Those 
effects might include slowed economic growth, which means, of course, 
fewer jobs; a weakened housing market; delayed pay for our military 
families; delayed benefits for our veterans; unanswered Social Security 
applications; proceedings and more. Republicans are holding these 
government services hostage. Let me repeat that. The Republicans are 
holding those services hostage. And it turns out that their ransom 
demand is the passage of divisive social policy, because Mr. and Mrs. 
America know, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker, that we have got an 
agreement on numbers. We've got an agreement on how much to cut, a 
compromise. Henry Clay said, ``To compromise is to govern.'' We cannot 
govern if we do not come to agreement. But we haven't come to agreement 
now.
  Democrats have proven more than willing to compromise. We've met 
Republicans more than halfway, only to find out that Republicans cannot 
stand up to the most extreme in their party who demand that we have an 
agreement on a social policy totally unrelated to the deficit. But 
we're still hopeful that Members of both of our parties can put their 
responsibility to the American people first, come to a compromise, and 
keep the government open for the people it serves.
  To give that work the time it needs, I urge my colleagues for a 
clean, 1-week spending bill, a bridge to keep the government 
functioning into next week. That is what this motion will do. It's very 
simple. It will keep our defense structure intact, make sure that our 
people on the front line, in harm's way, get paid; make sure that every 
other government official that is serving the American people stays on 
the job to do just that.
  It is free of divisive social policy. It contains no partisan 
measures. It will ensure that our troops are taken care of and paid on 
time. And unlike the partisan, divisive, 1-week extension passed by the 
Republicans, it can and will become law. Those Members who understand 
that we must compromise in order to govern I think will support this 1-
week bridge and support this motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that I had the privilege of being on 
television with your whip, the majority whip, a friend of mine. His 
assertion was that, well, we had voted for some of these policies when 
George Bush was President. I didn't agree with those policies, but I 
allowed them to stay in the bill. Why? Because I knew that I had to 
compromise. I knew that the American public had elected a Republican 
President who disagreed with me. And I knew as well that I needed to 
keep the government running because I had a responsibility to the 
American public to do so. I had a responsibility to the servicemembers 
to do so. And so, yes, I compromised. That is all this resolution is 
asking of all of you.
  You have a President of our country. Is he a Democrat? He is. But he 
is elected by the people of the United States, and he disagrees with 
your provision, just as George Bush agreed with it. But when we were in 
charge, we did not shut down the government because of that 
disagreement; we understood that the American public expected us to 
compromise and come to an agreement. This motion to recommit, if 
passed, will allow you to do that and keep government open.
  We have now been debating for almost 2 hours, under the rule and 
during the course of this debate, an amendment that will make no 
difference to the American public tomorrow. This motion to recommit 
will make all the difference to America tomorrow. It is the difference 
between keeping the government open and shutting it down in just a 
little less than 9 hours from now.
  I ask each of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, conservative 
and liberal, east, west, north, and south: Support this motion to 
recommit. It is the responsible, effective way to do what so many of 
you have said you want to do, and that is to keep this government 
functioning for the American people, continue to give it stability.
  And I might add that you criticized us for creating uncertainty. I 
think

[[Page H2563]]

that was an apt criticism, my colleagues on the Republican side, that 
certainty is important in our economy. Nothing will create more 
uncertainty than defeating this motion to recommit.
  I urge its adoption.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Oregon claims the time in opposition to the motion 
and is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN. To my dear friend and colleague from Maryland, I'm 
actually surprised he has the time to come to the floor given the 
status of negotiations, I'm sure they're taking place as we speak, but 
we appreciate him coming to the floor.
  Let me make a couple of points. First of all, the continuing 
resolution they put forward in this context is more of the status quo 
spending that just keeps government growing. We're saying no; we are to 
do better than that for the American people. We need to reduce wasteful 
Washington spending. We need to create jobs in the private sector.
  We came here to cut back on the deficit and not put an ever-
increasing, intolerable, unsustainable--frankly, immoral--budget 
deficit and debt on the next generation, our kids and our grandkids. We 
did not come here to do that. We came here to cut spending.
  Mr. HOYER. Could my friend yield just so I can correct, because I 
will tell my dear friend----
  Mr. WALDEN. I have not yielded.
  Mr. HOYER. Could you yield just so I can correct the statement? 
Because it does cut the $51 billion we've already agreed to. And I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that.
  The point here, though, is this: We would not be here today if the 
Democrats in the last Congress had bothered to take up a budget and 
pass it or even vote on it. That is the first time since the 1974 
Budget Act was put into law that I believe the House didn't consider a 
budget. It's not that the House and Senate have always agreed on a 
budget, but at least they've always voted on a budget. And the 
Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi and my friend from Maryland, could not 
bring or did not bring a budget to the House floor for even 
consideration in the House.
  Now I was in small business for 22 years, I've served on various 
boards, and if you failed to bring a budget and pass a budget at a city 
council, a county commission, a corporation, you would be tossed out. 
But in the Congress--well, I guess they did get tossed out in November, 
but they didn't do a budget. And then, you didn't fund the government 
through the fiscal year we're in today. You only funded it into March, 
and then it was left on our doorstep when we took the majority. That's 
not the first time that's happened, and it has happened over time, but 
we came in and said, okay, we won, we assume the responsibility to 
govern. And we passed a continuing resolution to fund the government 
through the rest of this fiscal year--it would have funded our troops 
and everything else--and cut $61 billion in spending. And that still 
resides in that august body across the Capitol where they can't seem to 
act.
  When that didn't work, we came back with another continuing 
resolution, cut $2 billion a week. That resolution was passed in this 
House--I think with bipartisan support--went to the Senate, was passed 
there, signed by the President. We continue to negotiate because we're 
not here to shut down the government. We're here to cut the government 
spending and get back toward a balanced budget and create jobs in the 
private sector.
  When they couldn't get a deal, we passed another continuing 
resolution. We cut more--another $2 billion a week, we're up to 10 now. 
That passed this House, it went over to the Senate, it became law.
  And then when we could get nothing else back from the Senate, 
yesterday we brought forward a resolution to make sure our men and 
women in uniform, who are fighting for our freedom across this globe, 
and their families here at home, would get paid through the end of this 
fiscal year. And we also cut spending. We cut the spending we cut in 
the first resolution--that's still residing in the Senate where they 
can't act--and we sent that over to the Senate where it sits. Now the 
first thing we hear from the President is, I'm going to veto it. And 
the Senate says, oh, we can't take that up. Well, why not? We passed it 
here, and we did so in a bipartisan way. And it's over there.
  Republicans have acted responsibly to the will of the American 
people. We have said time and again we will govern, and we will govern 
responsibly. There is no blank check here anymore. And we're going to 
follow the rules.


                             point of order

  Mr. WALDEN. That is why I am insisting on my reservation of a point 
of order because we are not going to violate the House rules. The 
motion is not in order because it violates clause 7--as I'm sure the 
gentleman from Maryland knows--of rule XVI of the Rules of the House. 
It is not germane to the resolution before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Allen West, a newly elected 
Republican from Florida, said, ``I'm disgusted at the perception that 
leaders in my own party are now using the men and women in uniform to 
pass a short-term budget bill.'' That was a newly elected Republican, a 
former member of the Armed Forces of the United States. My point being 
this, Mr. Speaker: This resolution speaks directly to keeping the 
government of the United States operating for the next 7 days, keeping 
our men and women in the Armed Forces paid for that week, making sure 
that every other necessary service for government is available to the 
American people for the next 7 days. And it is the only vehicle that 
now appears to be viable to accomplish that objective. And as a result, 
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is not only in order; it is imperative that 
we pass this motion to recommit. And I would urge the Speaker to find 
it in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Oregon makes a point of order that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit propose an amendment 
not germane to the joint resolution. Clause 7 of rule XVI, the 
germaneness rule, provides that no proposition on a subject different 
from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of 
amendment.
  House Joint Resolution 37 addresses a rule submitted by the Federal 
Communications Commission. The instructions contained in the motion to 
recommit address continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2011, a 
different subject matter.
  Accordingly, the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not 
germane. The point of order is sustained and the motion is not in 
order.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on passage of the joint resolution, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal; and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 181, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 251]

                               AYES--235

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner

[[Page H2564]]


     Bono Mack
     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
     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
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     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 (IN)

                               NOES--181

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Becerra
     Berkley
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Costa
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Lummis
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Waters
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1533

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 179, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 252]

                               AYES--240

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     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
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berman
     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)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe

[[Page H2565]]


     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berkley
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Meeks
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Waters
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1541

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________