[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1645-H1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2666, NO RATE REGULATION OF
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 672
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2666) to prohibit the Federal Communications
Commission from regulating the rates charged for broadband
Internet access service. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 672 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband
Internet Access Act.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
majority and the minority of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Committee on Rules made in order three amendments that were
submitted to the committee, all three of which were submitted by the
minority.
Finally, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to
recommit, a final opportunity to amend the legislation should the
minority choose to exercise that option.
[[Page H1646]]
H.R. 2666, the No Rate Regulation of Broadband Internet Access Act,
was introduced by Mr. Kinzinger, a member of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, to address the issue of an out-of-control
independent agency, the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC.
The bill is targeted and does one thing only. It prohibits the
Federal Communications Commission from regulating the rates charged for
broadband Internet access.
In February of 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted on a
party-line vote to adopt rules that reclassify broadband Internet
access as a title II telecommunications service, reversing their
previously stated position that they would not reclassify the Internet
under title II, and, in fact, afterwards, the President himself
interjected into the debate and demanded that the Commission reconsider
and that they do so.
The rules prevent blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of
the Internet. This reclassification poses a serious risk for the
regulation of rates charged by providers for the delivery of Internet
service, a move that has never before been taken by the government.
Under the Federal Communications Commission's unprecedented use of a
100-year-old statute to regulate the Internet under its net neutrality
rule, the Commission gave itself the authority to regulate the rates
that Internet service providers charge to consumers for service.
In response to this power grab by the Commission, the Energy and
Commerce Committee held oversight hearings. That resulted in the
drafting and passage of the legislation before the House this week,
which is intended to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from
using reclassification of broadband Internet service to engage in rate
regulation, whether that be directly through tariffing or indirectly
through enforcement actions.
Rate regulation--or even the threat of rate regulation--out of the
Federal Communications Commission creates massive uncertainty for
Internet service providers. Because of this, Internet service providers
could slow or stop altogether the investment and will be less likely to
offer specialized or unique pricing offers to their consumers.
As the Federal Communications Commission consolidates more and more
power to regulate the Internet--and make no mistake, the Federal
Communications Commission is very eager to regulate the Internet--
providers will have fewer and fewer avenues for providing consumer
service plans and packages.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Tom Wheeler,
and President Obama have both stated that net neutrality rules would
not result in the FCC regulating rates.
Yet, less than a year after the rules were adopted in March of 2016
during an Energy and Commerce hearing, Chairman Wheeler admitted that
the FCC should and will have the authority to regulate broadband rates
under these new rules.
Like all government agencies, the Federal Communications Commission
can't help itself. It sees an unregulated space--the Internet--and it
just can't allow it to go on without government control.
Under net neutrality, the Federal Government will have the ability to
control the Internet. Let me say that again. Under net neutrality, the
Federal Government will have the ability to control the Internet.
Even if this current Federal Communications Commission chooses not to
regulate the rates charged, the Commission's net neutrality rules
permit future FCC commissioners to do exactly that.
These rules from the Federal Communications Commission have the
potential to cost well north of 43,000 jobs, according to a recent
study commissioned by the United States Telecom Association. The bill
before us this week will take a step toward protecting the Internet
industry from those job losses.
I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and support the
underlying legislation to protect consumers from an out-of-control
Federal bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have just days before the legally mandated budget
deadline. Yet, instead of debating your budget, Mr. Speaker, my budget,
Mr. Speaker, anybody's budget, Mr. Speaker, we are debating whether to
codify existing FCC policy.
There is limited time to provide a budget for our country. Households
across our country have budgets, and businesses have budgets. Unless
there is an announced change to the schedule in bringing Congress to
work on Friday and Saturday and Rules Committee convening today or
tomorrow, it seems like Congress will miss the deadline for the budget
and perhaps never produce a budget.
Now, folks on the other side will say that there have been years
Democrats didn't produce a budget, and that is true. But Republicans
ran to take over this body, saying: We are going to do better. We are
going to produce a budget. Republicans have had the chance, and there
is not even a vote on the budget.
I am going to offer later in this debate a motion to defeat the
previous question. If that passes, Mr. Speaker, I will be able to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up the budget resolution.
I hope it does. I hope there are enough Democrats and Republicans in
this Chamber who are outraged by the failure of the Republican
leadership to allow the Republican and Democratic Members of this body
to present and vote on their budgets.
{time} 1230
We have historically had a very open process around budgets. There is
usually five or six budgets that come before the House and we try to
get to one that passes. There have been years where I think they have a
king of the hill process and whichever one gets the most votes can
become the budget.
But it looks like, rather than any of those debates or give Members
who have thoughtfully been preparing the budgets from the Republican
Study Group or from the progressive Democratic coalition the chance to
present their budgets, along with the Republican and Democratic members
of the Budget Committee, I think the Republicans are saying: we don't
want to have those tough decisions about where to cut or where to tax;
we would rather just pretend like our country is in good fiscal order
and spend the day discussing codifying FCC policy rather than
discussing what the American people sent us here to do--how to balance
the budget, restore fiscal stability, and pass a budget.
There is another missed opportunity here today. When talking about
broadband--if that is what we are going to talk about--in districts
like mine in Colorado, we have communities that simply don't have
reasonable access to the Internet. I talk to constituents in Evergreen
and Conifer in Grand County every day, rapidly growing communities,
where people only have access to speeds that were more relevant to the
20th century rather than the 21st century. I remember I visited a
school in Grand County where the district has an initiative to provide
every child with a Chromebook computer and the computer science teacher
there didn't even have high-speed access from his own home.
Access to broadband is essential for our economy, particularly our
rural economy like those in my district. It is essential for the
education of our kids, for a vibrant private sector, for civil society,
and democracy. While the FCC and the Department of Commerce have some
tools in place, there is not nearly the tools they need or the
resources to make our Nation competitive coast to coast by making sure
that every American has access to broadband.
Bills that try to codify regulations certainly have their place. I
would argue it is probably not when we are 48 hours from reaching a
budget deadline. But I want to make sure that even if we are going to
spend time discussing codifying FCC policy, that we have the more
important discussion about how we can make sure that broadband access
is available to our rural communities, such as the ones that I
represent.
Democrats and Republicans largely agree on some of the goals of this
bill.
[[Page H1647]]
In fact, I think there is a missed opportunity to have worked on a
bipartisan version that likely could have passed on suspension. There
are a number of amendments under consideration, and it is my hope that
some of the consumer protection issues can be addressed through that.
But I think the big picture here, Mr. Speaker, is we are just 2 days
away from Congress' own deadline for passing a budget with no budget in
sight. If we can defeat the previous question, we can immediately move
to consider the budget. I call upon my Republican and Democratic
colleagues to do that. As we look at broadband, which I am hopeful that
we can do after this deadline passes--I am happy to revisit this bill
if my motion to defeat the previous question passes and we move into
the budget debate--I will be happy to resume this debate next week. I
haven't seen any particular reason that we have to try to cram in
codifying FCC regulations around broadband in the 48 hours before our
own budget deadline expires.
So let's get back to talking about the budget. It is never easy. The
Republicans have certainly talked about how they wanted the country to
have a budget. Well, the country is not going to have a budget unless
Congress gets to work debating it and passing it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise to oppose the rule on this legislation, not necessarily
because this is a bad bill--I do think it is a vague solution in search
of a nonexistent problem--but I oppose the rule for another reason, and
that is because I thought that since we were going to bring this bill
to the floor anyway, even though it is unnecessary, even though
Chairman Wheeler of the FCC has said that the FCC does not intend to
regulate rates on broadband, I thought maybe I would at least try to
accomplish something productive and offer an amendment to solve a real
problem that the American people are seeing in front of them every day
right now. That is the problem of television ads, political ads, that
do not truly identify their source.
Under section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC requires
broadcasters to put on the ad the true identity of the people running
the ad. This makes a lot of sense. The idea is that when you see
somebody trying to influence your vote or to influence your attitude
about a particular public issue, that you should understand who is
actually trying to influence you.
But because of dramatic changes in the way campaign laws are
implemented and because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision,
what has happened is that we now have ads run by organizations like
Americans for Kittens and Puppies, and that doesn't do the American
voter, the American consumer, any good. They don't understand who is
actually paying.
What my amendment would have done, had it been made in order by the
Rules Committee, it would have basically restated the law that exists
and say the FCC should regulate these ads by requiring the true
identity. Right now they are relying on a 1979 staff interpretation of
true identity. They are saying we need to put the sponsor of the ad on
the ad, but the sponsor of the ad, again, is a nebulous, vague, title
organization that nobody knows who they are.
What we would like to do is say you have to put on the ad who is
really paying for it. So instead, for instance, if you had an ad in
support of sugared soft drinks and it was being paid for by Coca-Cola,
under this interpretation you could put the ad agency that actually put
the ad on the air and nobody would know that Coca-Cola was actually
paying for it.
The people, again, are seeing this every day on their television
screens right now. These laws and interpretations have resulted in
endless sums of anonymous money coming into the system trying to
influence the outcomes of our elections. That is not what Congress
intended. Despite having the authority to do it, the FCC has refused to
take action to close this loophole.
My amendment would have restated the original Congressional intent
and would send a message to the FCC that it is time to act. This
amendment would have been germane, it would have been within the rules
of the body, and, most importantly, it would have been supported by the
vast majority of Americans: Republicans, Democrats, and Independents
who want us to reform our campaign finance system so that it is on the
up and up, so people understand who is trying to influence them and
also to end the influence of big money in politics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. YARMUTH. I wish that the Rules Committee had made that amendment
in order, but they didn't, so I will oppose the rule and urge my
colleagues to do so.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from
Colorado how many additional speakers he has?
Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. In which case, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the Republican budget resolution and
allow for consideration of alternative budget proposals under a similar
process to that which we have used every year in recent history. It is
truly time for the Republicans to stop the partisan game and finally
consider a budget before this Friday's legally mandated deadline.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans get it. Households have to balance
their budget, businesses have to balance their budget. Not talking
about it and putting your head in the sand is only a recipe for
increased debt and increased liability for future generations of
Americans.
The fact that we are spending $400 billion or $500 billion more than
we are taking in--of course we might not know about that for the next
year until after the fact if we don't have a budget--the fact that we
have enormous unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security
doesn't go away just because Republicans ignore the topic and refuse to
have a debate on balancing our budget.
I am proud to sponsor a balanced budget amendment. I think that by
working together, Democrats and Republicans can restore fiscal
responsibility to our Nation.
How can we do it?
Well, I will tell you how we can't do it. We can't do it by 48 hours
from the deadline to pass a budget by discussing obscure bills to
codify FCC regulations with our valuable floor time.
It starts with an honest discussion. It starts with Democrats and
Republicans offering their budgets. I have been proud in the past to
support bipartisan budgets that have come to this body. I have
supported and opposed some of the Democratic budgets that my colleagues
have offered, but we have to have that discussion on the floor. The
work doesn't do itself and the problem doesn't go away when Republicans
choose to ignore it.
I wish our budget deficit was as easy to solve as simply ignoring it.
Wouldn't that be convenient if we could simply ignore the budget
deficit and it would go away? Wouldn't it be convenient if we could
just ignore the national debt and it would go away? Wouldn't it be
convenient if we could ignore the damage to agencies that an
indiscriminate sequester has caused and it would simply go away?
I like that line of thinking, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, it is
completely unrealistic. The American people realize it is completely
unrealistic. That is why when America looks to Congress and says: we
have these discussions in our households about our budget, and
businesses have these discussions. Why can't you, Mr. Speaker?
[[Page H1648]]
Why can't you? That is the reason the Congressional approval rating is
so low.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, back in the late 1990s, in the middle of what was called
the dot-com boom, my predecessor, the then-majority leader of the House
of Representatives, Richard Armey, came and spoke to the Dallas Chamber
of Commerce. The purpose of his discussion that day was to talk about
the dot-com boom that the economy was experiencing.
He confessed that the Internet was the gosh darnedest thing, no one
had ever seen anything like it, but he cautioned us. As business
leaders that day, he cautioned us. He said: Look, when the government
doesn't understand something, the first thing it will want to do is
regulate it, the next thing it will want to do is tax it, and you have
then effectively killed it.
Mr. Speaker, it wasn't an accident that I used in the opening
statement the language that under the proposed rules from the FCC, the
Federal Government will have the ability to control the Internet. That
is a significant and important fact. If you allow the Federal
Government to control the Internet, you have effectively damaged the
promise of the Internet to the point where it will no longer function
for its citizens the way it was intended to function: as a free and
open process.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. Today's rule provides for
consideration of a bill to rein in the Federal Government that is all
too eager to regulate every aspect of our lives.
H.R. 2666 will protect the Internet from government regulation and
allow it to continue to thrive without interference.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Kinzinger for his work on this
legislation, and I want to thank the committee for the work that they
did in getting this legislation to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 672 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 125) establishing the
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2018 through 2026. The first reading of the concurrent
resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. General debate shall not exceed four hours, with
three hours of general debate confined to the congressional
budget equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and
one hour of general debate on the subject of economic goals
and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative
Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York
or their respective designees. After general debate the
concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be
considered as read. No amendment shall be in order except
amendments in the nature of a substitute. Each such amendment
shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. All points of order against such amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 7 of rule XVI
(germaneness). If more than one such amendment is adopted,
then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative
votes shall be considered as finally adopted. In the case of
a tie for the greater number of affirmative votes, then only
the last amendment to receive that number of affirmative
votes shall be considered as finally adopted. After the
conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for
amendment and a final period of general debate, which shall
not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Budget, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent
resolution to the House with such amendment as may have been
finally adopted. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto
to adoption without intervening motion except amendments
offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget pursuant
to section 305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
to achieve mathematical consistency. The concurrent
resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question of its adoption.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of
January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________